| Tuesday,
November 30, 2004 The silly season
stays with us?
Subject: Death by lava lamp.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/30/lava.lamp.death.ap/index.html
-- Roland Dobbins
=========================
Subject: Florida Three Strikes law
While some predict dire results, the three strike rule
seems to only impact fewer than a dozen doctors. The medical industry needs
to make up its mind on how it wants to be regulated. Patients die when
doctors are too busy with their golf game to provide the care they are
charging for. This can remain a civil issue, but the doctors don't want to
be sued. The only other choice is to make malpractice a criminal offense and
start locking them up. That may be a solution but who takes care of the
patient that had the wrong leg cut off:
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_172958.html
--- Al Lipscomb
Anyone can sue anyone: there is a difference
between between being able to bring suit and being able to threaten
licenses. We will see, but I predict that thousands of doctors will now
quickly get two lawsuits, both dismissed out of hand, so that the threat of
a third hangs over their heads. I know I would not care to practice medicine
in Florida now.
Now from the defense:
Subject: Kill all the lawyers
Sir,
To address some of the topics your other readers have
raised, I'd add my two cents. Mind you, as a lawyer I am unoffended by the
commentary for a variety of reasons. A, my entire time as an attorney has
been spent on active duty with the Army; B, I am by inclination a criminal
lawyer; C, I don't like civilian lawyers as a rule. (I should amend C from
civilian to non-governmental. I am currently detailed to the Department of
Justice, and I find them similarly inoffensive). I like my practice because
I have no financial incentive to take any particular case.
However, "tort reform" engenders such extreme
arguments. Yes, there are many abuses, and there are logical reforms that
can address those. However, the most frequent "cures" are really just a huge
bonus for corporate America and may only fix the problem as a secondary
result. Should Ford really have a cap on damages for the Pinto debacle?
After all, wouldn't that make their calculation that x number of dead
customers was cheaper than y dollars to fix the known problem? To put any
fixed cap on a lawsuit is to invite every business (or individual, in some
cases) to simply do the math and roll the dice with other people's welfare.
The better solutions (too bad that Edwards proposal won't see any play now)
more directly address the practioners who abuse the system. The three
strikes rule however, (three failed judgments in a malpractice suit, say)
would simply force attorneys to only take the sure winners. Sometimes the
cases that need to be taken aren't sure winners, and sometimes they are
known losers.
I know prosecutors who have that philosophy, as they
see a high conviction rate as a sign of success. Me, I see success in taking
the cases to court that should go there. There are very few sexual assault
cases that fall into the category of easy wins, and for that reason you'll
see jurisdictions with few such prosecutions. Is it because there are no
such assaults? No. It's because those cases are hard. Do we want someone who
was injured through malpractice to be unable to get relief because the case
is difficult? I don't think that's the right result.
There exist sanctions in current law for frivolous
lawsuits. Frivolous is NOT the same as simply a lost case. Those sanctions
should be given teeth, and (here's the hard part) some definable standards.
Oh, and next time someone mentions the McDonald's hot
coffee lawsuit as an example of a frivilous one, they need to actually look
at that one. The woman did not walk away from that rich, and I'm sure she'd
rather have her seven days of hospitalization back, and would probably not
chosen the necessary skin grafts to her groin, thighs and buttocks in
exchange for $640,000. In that case, McDonalds' expert, Dr. Knaff told the
jury that hot-coffee burns were statistically insignificant when compared to
the billion cups of coffee McDonald's sells annually. To date, McDonalds had
settled 700 prior incidents of severe burns from their coffee (which was 20
degrees hotter than any other restaurants). Oh, and Shriner's Burn Institute
in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its
members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages
above 130 degrees Fahrenheit - McDonalds served their coffee at 180 degrees.
So, keep in mind that the horror stories are not all
on the side of law suit abuse, and that the ones you know aren't what they
seem. This is a serious problem, with serious consequences to knee jerk
"fixes".
bryan
To address your points not necessarily in order:
the McDonald's coffee case depends entirely on one's view of the role of
government and individual responsibility. She did what she did. Who should
accept responsibility and who should pay? Why is McDonald's liable when she
did a damn fool thing like put a cup of hot coffee (and if she didn't know
McDonald's served hotter coffee than other driveins, it was not McDonald's
fault, as they certainly advertised it) -- to put a cup of hot coffee
between one's legs and then drive is not an intelligent thing to do. Now:
who should pay for her stupidity? McDonald's? The general public? Her church
and friends as charity? What she would have chosen is irrelevant. No one
from McDonald's came out and put a cup of hot coffee between her legs. If
you don't want hot coffee buy it elsewhere; if you do want hot coffee don't
put it between your legs. McDonald's was a deep pocket. Incidentally, I am
unaware of how much of the award she got and how much the lawyers got; do
you know?
I thoroughly agree that 'reforms' ought not work to
the point where only the easy cases are ever tried. On the other hand, we
are nowhere near there now, and the Florida law invites lawyers to sue
doctors until they get their two strikes after which they are very
vulnerable. In California we have an attorney racket: they threaten suits
against any small business in the name of protecting the public, and they
are unashamed to say they have no real basis for the suit: if you pay
anywhere between $1,000 and $4,000 the case will go away; and it will cost
more than that to defend it. They were successful against Vietnamese owned
manicure and nail polishing shops, until at a meeting of the shop owners (in
Las Vegas, not in California) the owners invested something like $200 each
to be paid to a Vietnamese street gang to make the lawsuits of a particular
law firm go away. The suits went away. I am not entirely sure that was an
optimum outcome.
As you note, tort reform is not always easy, and
the devil is in the details.
We ALWAYS roll the dice in some ways: every high
steel project, skyscraper or bridge, has a "budget" for death. It is simply
nearly certain that some people will be killed. In the Pinto case you can
argue that there was a matter of informed consent: people weren't told that
there was a small chance of being killed in a particular way, and if they
bought a different vehicle for more money that wouldn't happen (but other
things might). At some point you have to decide just who done what to whom
and who will pay for it; and what are the consequences of trying to protect
everyone from the consequences of their decisions and actions? And what we
do in this coming anarcho-tyranny is tell people they are on their own in
certain criminal situations, but compensate by playing games with the civil
law: often to the point that domestic manufacturers are simply driven out of
business. Try to buy an American made home use stepladder; and of course we
put warning labels on lawn mowers telling people not to put their hands
under the mower when the motor is running. I find it interesting to
speculate on just how many people can read that warning yet were so
uninformed that they were given useful information by it?
I taught both pre-law and Constitutional Law for
years, and you and I are not in total disagreement. No wrong without a
remedy is still a good principle, and justice delayed is justice denied is
another I respect. Alas, we now have remedies without wrongs, and the
defense against that is interminable delay.
I would be interested in your views on just what
details might be put into tort reform? It is my understanding that
California has at least managed to halt some of the spiral of increasing
malpractice premiums driving the physicians from the state; surely that
meets your approval? These are largely matters for the states, but do we
even have models for ensuring justice through the legal system? California's
attempt to allow civil lawyers to "protect the public" resulted in the
extortions I described above, and the remedy of threatened gang activity
directed at the attorneys. Is that a good result?
The matter is complex, but also important.
Subject: Lawsuits in Florida
Many doctors have lawsuits brought against them, but
the issue in the Florida amendment is that it requires three findings of
guilt in the courtroom, out of court settlements don't count. The biggest
danger in this situation is that doctors will be more inclined to settle
cases rather than risk a "strike" against them. This is important to
consider. The counter to that may be the cost to go to trail if there is not
a clear chance of winning as the victim's lawyer would have to finance the
case out of his own pocket. Juries may also be less likely to find against a
doctor if they fear it may put him out of practice, we will see.
In the case of the McDonald's' coffee case and Stella,
that case was a lot more complex than most people care about. Until I read
the entire story it does seem like a rather stupid situation. But Stella was
not driving and what she asked for initially was rather modest. The jury
slammed McDonald's after their handling of this and other burn victims. A
quick search of the Internet may bring some interesting facts to light on
the issue. In the end nobody knows what the case ended up being settled for
as the amount was secret and went to charity. In any case it is not one of
the shining examples for our legal system.
The current system is still very broken and I have to
agree that there is way too much abuse. One problem is that the attorney's
fees are hidden in most lawsuits. If the fees were exposed, and the jury
able to decide what was to be paid, the system might be fixable.
--- Al Lipscomb
It was my understanding that the Florida law
counted a settled case as a strike; if not, it changes the situation,
although the precise effect is not clear.
With regard to the hot coffee, the
trial lawyer association summary
of facts does not state she wasn't driving, and I always thought she
was. It is the case that she originally asked for relatively modest sums,
and it certainly would have been to everyone's advantage had that been paid.
I wasn't privy to the decision process on either side. All I know is that
the incident makes American law either ludicrous or makes it clear that you
can act like a damned fool and still extract money from the system. Ms.
Stella simply had no business putting a cup of hot coffee between her legs.
What in the world good could come of doing a thing like that? Why is anyone
else responsible for it?
The jury made it clear it was a sympathy award
compounded by McDonald's "indifference" and "callousness" and that in itself
is a fairly dangerous idea: corporate thoughtcrime will now be punished? The
fact that their coffee was hotter than other stands served coffee was a
selling point: their customers liked it that way. Ah well. So much for rule
of law.
And now for another word from the defense:
Subject: McDonalds, Lawsuits, et.al
Her total award was $640,000 ($160k for actual, $480k
for punitive). Her actual damages were reduced by 20% for her own
negligence. Regarding her negligence, she was a passenger in a car, and
ordered the coffee through the drive in window, getting cream and sugar.
While the car was still (not moving), she removed the lid to add the cream
and sugar when it spilled. It's not as if McDonalds was unaware someone was
going to be adding such things in a car. The basis of their culpability was
solely that the coffee temperature was unsafe, and it was easily proven that
they knew that in advance.
I applaud any move to intelligently reform tort
abuses. I use the McDonalds case soley because it has two sides, though most
only know one side - - "old woman burned herself with coffee because she
didn't know coffee was hot!!" Doctors should be safe to practice medicine
without a bunch of greedy jerks abusing the courts, just as Ford should be
able to make cars, but be liable when they screw up.
It's important to punish those who bring frivolous
lawsuits (a separate consideration: do you punish the lawyer, the plaintiff
or both? Does the plaintiff even know if the case was frivolous? Sometimes,
probably, but not always.) A flat cap is a simplistic solution that causes
many problems, but does have an attractive side. Clearly it would lift the
burden on larger corporations and hospitals, but it would have zero impact
on the extortion schemes you noted in California. Much of the abuse is in
the $5k-10k range, I'd think, and caps don't help that. Nor would it
necessarily help a general practitioner who is probably more likely to be
hit by a sequence of $10k-100k suits rather than a 10 million dollar suit.
Long way to say I don't have the answers, just that I
know there isn't a simple fix. I'm going to have to look at how other
countries have approached this, something I haven't done in depth.
===
Crap...Sorry I didn't answer your followup question at
all. Normally the split would be 50/50 after it went to trial (25-40% to the
lawyer if settled). The usual crap spewed about that high a split is that
the lawyer incurs the risks. Humbug. Mostly the client pays for expenses
up-front, so all the lawyer is out is time. I don't view that as a risk.
Setting a lower percentage for attorney's fees is not a bad idea, but tough
to get past the ABA's lobby, almost as powerful as the NRA.
===
bryan
Not having read the transcript of the case I can
only go by the summaries posted by trial lawyers in defense of their art and
I have not yet found one that states she wasn't driving.
As to what is or is not a frivolous lawsuit, I have
no exact remedy but I suggest a board that doesn't contain a majority of
lawyers (including judges) might be an appropriate mechanism: if the
non-lawyer members of the board roll about the floor laughing while the
lawyer members argue the merits of the suit, I think we have a prima-fascia
case.
Me, when I put cream and sugar in hot coffee I make
damned sure the car is stationary, or I do it on the floor of the car, not
with the now open cup squeezed between my thighs.
The solution to the extortion schemes is either to
repeal the law that allows any attorney to "act for the people" but keep the
proceeds of the action, or to hire more gang members to eliminate the
problem at the source. In my present mood I would prefer Bloods and Crips
and Warriors to some of the arrogant lawyers; but that is probably due to a
foul mood and a temporary dyspepsia.
Most countries have some penalty for filing a suit
and losing: loser pays court costs and attorney fees for winner. Of course
that will very much discourage law suits from some people who probably ought
to sue, and discourage attorneys from taking questionable cases. I have no
answer to that one either. Clearly there needs to be some means of allowing
the poorest at least some access to the legal system -- dispossessed renters
come to mind because I know of a couple of such cases in which I encouraged
a neighbor lawyer to take the case even though not much would come of it,
simply for justice -- but at the same time going to the extent of allowing
random lawyers to sue "in the public interest" when they have no client and
to keep the proceeds they get seems a bit much.
Would that the NRA were more powerful (with regards
to firearms legislation, not necessarily in naming political officeholders);
but that is another discussion.
I have since been sent convincing evidence that she
was not driving. More below.
=========================
Subject: The internet is broken,
but David Cheriton may know how to fix it. One man's quest to save the world
Wide Web
Jerry
If David Cheriton is right, then the saviour of the
Internet may turn out to be an architecture based upon the much maligned
Network Address Translation (NAT) protocol. Many others see 128 bit IPv6 as
the way forward, but Cheriton thinks that a network of NAT machines, able to
route data packets with hierarchical addresses, might not just make IPv6
irrelevant but as a bonus defeat spam and block attacks on servers.
http://businessnetwork.smh.com.au/articles/2004/11/25/1263.html
"The smart conference suite at Stanford University in
California was packed with the cream of the computing community to hear
David Cheriton explain how the wired world on which we rely is on the brink
of collapse. The internet, he insists, is broken."
"The internet was created when no one dreamed users
would be anything but benevolent. So it was designed without thought of
defeating spam or defending servers from attack."
"Controversially, he claims NAT might do a better job
of securing the net against attack than IPv6's encryption features."
Best wishes
Paul Dove
Visit
http://www.bupa.com or call 0800 00 10 10 and find out what BUPA
can do for you.
BUPA, the health and care people
BUPA House 15-19 Bloomsbury Way London WC1A 2BA
Internet communications are not secure and therefore
BUPA does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message.
Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily represent those of BUPA.
========
Subject: Neither IPv6 nor NAT
have anything to do with security. Cheriton's proposal
is not NAT, it's much more involved than that:
http://www-dsg.stanford.edu/triad/
The reporter who wrote the story is completely
ignorant of the actual problem as well as of the posited solution - typical.
----------- Roland Dobbins
==========
Subject: Front end estimating,
continued
Ran across this:
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/59027.html
It's rather long to cut and paste, but if you want to
follow up on that discussion it provides some good information.
Jim Woosley
I never before heard of Front End Estimation
although I guess we old slide rule engineers did that a lot for most of our
lives. But if someone asked me what was 1088 - 499, I would simply use a
calculator to say 589; and I certainly wouldn't consider 600 as the "wrong"
answer with 700 as "correct." The whole exercise strikes me as silly, since
there was nothing stated in the problem as to the accuracy of the numbers.
If I knew that the measurements were accurate to only one significant figure
I would have a different answer from the one I'd have if told it was
two-digit accuracy. But I guess it's important to teach this crap to kids
now that we no longer teach them to do actual subtraction (let's see, 1088
minus 500 is 588 so the answer must be 589 is at least as the "front end
estimation" they ask for. Yeeps.
======================
Subject: Fallujah Napalmed (?)
Jerry
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=14920109&
method=full&siteid=106694&headline=fallujah-napalmed-name_page.html
British news sites are reporting that US troops have
used napalm in Fallujah.
<header> FALLUJAH NAPALMED Nov 28 2004
US uses banned weapon ..but was Tony Blair told?
By Paul Gilfeather Political Editor
US troops are secretly using outlawed napalm gas to
wipe out remaining insurgents in and around Fallujah.
This is also tied to an Al-Jazerra new item, which
IMHO sounds like it may have been exaggerated to make the US look bad.
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east
_full_story.asp?service_id=5875#
<header> U.S. uses napalm gas in Fallujah – Witnesses
11/28/2004 9:00:00 PM GMT The U.S. military is secretly using banned napalm
gas and other outlawed weapons against civilians in the Iraqi city of
Fallujah, eyewitnesses reported.
Both items are datelined 11-28, so I don't know which
came first since the British report is not time stamped.
The evidence cited on the Al-Jazerra article (appears
to be "eyewitness" accounts in which a speaker who is not familiar with
artillery was influenced by the reporter to say that it looked like napalm,
when many US weapons which do not contain napalm would also satisfy these
descriptions (e.g. any fragmenting weapon, weapons with submunitions, etc.).
Comments? Have you heard this from other sources?
Jim Woosley
I have heard nothing. I can say that in Korea we'd
have been very happy to have napalm, but I never saw any used. We did use
white phosphorus as an anti-personnel weapon in direct fire mode when we
were out of canister. But scattered submunition are better than canister.
================
And now the end of civilization:
the Mother of Parliaments, the fountain of civilized democratic government,
has fallen, and there will be no longer anything to look up to. America
becomes the fountain of freedom? God help us.
..but we feel safer already
The policeman found my penknife. 'You're going
down, mate,' he said By Nicky Samengo-Turner (Filed: 28/11/2004)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/
opinion/2004/11/28/do2802.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/11/28/ixop.html
On Wednesday November 3, I was driving along
the Embankment in Londonwhen a policeman flagged me down. It was 11.30 in
the morning, and I was in reasonable time for a meeting with lawyers due to
start at midday.
The constable was accompanied by another
policeman and a group of three men in what looked a little like traffic
wardens' uniforms. These, I later discovered, were Mr Blunkett's new
militia, the police community support officers (PCSOs). Their task,
according to Sir John Stevens, is to "perform the vital role of security
patrols in central London, deterring criminals and providing intelligence to
police officers".
"We are conducting random stop and search under
current anti-terrorist legislation," began the constable, addressing me
through my open side window. "Would you mind if we searched your vehicle?
We're training these new community support officers."
Although a little worried about being late for
my meeting, I agreed to the search. I unlocked the doors and they went
through my car and its contents: my overnight bag, my washbag and glove box.
Next, they gestured towards my briefcase. As I lifted the lid I pointed out
to them a Victorinox Swiss multi-tool, contained in a small webbing case,
and a small collapsible baton, contained in another piece of webbing.
It is perfectly legal to buy both of these
items. The penknife I carry because I find it useful for many small everyday
tasks - cutting through packaging, opening bottles. The baton I bought to
keep at home for security reasons. I live in a rural part of Suffolk that,
although relatively crime-free, is policed very sparsely. I often hear
people outside the house at night and I feel more comfortable with the baton
inside the front door. A week or so before, I had discovered my young
daughters playing with it and had locked it in my briefcase for safekeeping.
The community support officers reacted
immediately. They behaved as if they had never seen a penknife before,
pulling out the bottle-opener, the corkscrew, the thing that gets stones out
of horses' hooves. "This device has a locking blade," said the constable. My
goodwill towards the police began to give way to alarm. I reached for my
mobile to call the lawyers and explain that I was going to be late but the
constable stopped me. "Turn that phone off," he said. "You're about to be
arrested for possessing offensive weapons and carrying a bladed instrument
in public. You'll be allowed one call when we get you to Charing Cross
police station."
I asked the constable whether this was, in his
opinion, a valuable use of police time and resources. This was when the
policemen and the PCSOs started to become hostile. "You've committed an
offence, mate, and you'd better get used to the fact that you're going down
for six months," said one policeman.
"Do you realise, sir," said another, "that
behind us is the Ministry of Defence, a key target for potential
terrorists?"
"But why did you stop me in the first place: do
I seriously look like a potential terrorist?" I asked.
"We stop one in every 25 cars on a random
basis, and, let me tell you, sir, criminals and terrorists come in many
different guises," he replied.
"Shouldn't you be concentrating on men of Arab
extraction?" This seemed to me to be a sensible question, relevant to the
current state of the world.
The policeman said: "That is a racist comment,
sir." Then the van appeared. I was locked in the back and ferried to Charing
Cross. Upon arrival, I was subjected to the as-seen-on-TV rigmarole of being
booked in by the desk sergeant. Most of the questions focused on my racial
origin and HIV status. My belt and personal effects were removed, and after
a telephone call to my lawyer I was "banged up".
By this time it was about 12.20 and I spent the
next three hours dozing on a bench. At about 4.30pm, my solicitor had
arrived and it was time for an "interview under caution". First, I had to be
fingerprinted. The policeman who had flagged me down reappeared, and began
the business of "processing" me. The man's lack of competence was comical.
He had problems applying my fingers to the fingerprint-scanning machine, and
with each failed attempt became angrier and angrier. Tired and fed up, I
gave in to the temptation to needle him. "Having problems with your new
toy?" I asked. "Shut the f*** up, you a***hole," he replied.
He was no better at operating the tape recorder
used for my interview. Much fumbling of cassettes was followed by screeching
noises. During the interview itself, I found him inarticulate, incompetent
and only tenuously in control of his temper.
After the interview, I was re-introduced to my
cell. I understood from my solicitor that the same policeman would speak to
the Crown Prosecution Service, and a decision would be made about whether to
charge me. I was also told that if the policeman had wanted to, he could
have let me off with a caution.
In my cell, I thought a bit about the way I had
been treated. For the police to be behaving like this at a time when we are
all concerned about terrorism and street crime, and when resources are
stretched and manpower is limited, seemed extraordinary. It was also, I
decided, in direct contrast to the qualities of professionalism, endurance
and discipline that are the hallmark of Britain's Armed Forces.
I have experience of two training
establishments, the old Guards' Depot at Pirbright and the Royal Military
Academy at Sandhurst: both successful in creating tough but professional men
who are in control of their actions and able to make sensible decisions
under pressure. Whether in Belfast, Bosnia or Basra, lieutenants and second
lieutenants as young as 19 and 20 provide the linchpin between senior
officers and the rank and file.
This, I suspect, is the problem with the police
- they have no proper training and no officer corps. The old adage goes
"There is no such thing as bad soldiers, only bad officers". The scruffy,
overweight, badly turned-out, ill-mannered policemen I encountered at
Charing Cross police station were desperately in need of decent leadership.
So I was not surprised when I was brought back
before the desk sergeant and told that the CPS had decided to charge me with
possessing an offensive weapon and carrying a bladed instrument in public. I
was bailed to appear at Bow Street magistrates' court and informed that I
was free to leave.
As I was about to pass through the door to
freedom, I am ashamed to say that I snapped. The knowledge that we could
have avoided the whole drawn-out, expensive and upsetting procedure was too
much for me. I turned to the policeman and said: "You really are a prize
wanker." At this point, in full view of my solicitor, he lost it. He grabbed
my lapels and pushed me against the wall. My solicitor yelled: "You have
just assaulted my client!"
Four other police officers rushed into the
corridor, accompanied by the desk sergeant. "Right, re-arrest him: public
order, breach of the peace," shouted the sergeant at me. "You'll be spending
the night here." My solicitor said that she wanted the assault entered in
the daybook, and that we would be bringing an action. So they let me go.
In the aftermath of my experience, I started
some purely anecdotal research on the type of behaviour and attitude
displayed by the police towards me. In speaking to friends, acquaintances,
tradesmen, cab drivers and people in the pub, I rapidly came to realise that
a quite staggering number of ordinary, law-abiding people had endured
similar experiences.
The new security measures announced in
Parliament last week are surely justified only in a society at war, and they
might be acceptable if we were truly a nation under siege. But that is not
how it feels to most of us. We have a terrorist threat to London and
elsewhere, but that does not amount to a war, any more than the IRA bombing
campaigns of the Seventies did, and yet we are enacting measures more
repressive than in the Blitz.
Once I had been sprung from the police station,
I walked back to the Embankment, where my car had been left since the
arrest. It was, by this time, 6.45pm and, sure enough, there on my
windscreen was a Metropolitan Police parking ticket. One further thing - I
have just found out from my solicitor that the copy of the interview tape
sent to us by the police is entirely blank.
This is an edited version of an article that
appears in this week's Spectator http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=5308.
The case against Nicky Samengo-Turner is to be heard on Wednesday.
God help us all.
And yet another revolutionary
event: Intel going down?
Subject: IBM, Moore's Law and the POWER 5 chip
<snip>….Bernie Meyerson's (IBM) message was simply this: "Moore's Law is no
longer guaranteed."…<snip>
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/26/ibm_power5_moores_law/
Tracy Walters
Revolutions indeed
=================
Subject: Words fail me.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041130/D86MC5NO0.html
-- Roland Dobbins
Indeed. Nasty little horror story...
I have been asked, seriously, what is wrong with
doing this? The answer is more complex than one might suppose.
In the old Roman system, the paterfamilias had the
power to kill his children until they were adults, and often after that:
Claudius tells the story of a close relative walled into a room to starve
because of her adulteries. That's one way to organize a society. Moving away
from that arbitrary and absolute power turns out to be tricky. On the one
hand you have children who are clearly doomed to be vegetables, and have to
be kept alive with expensive machinery and techniques; it is unfair to
burden their parents or society with maintaining life in such cases. Those
cases sort themselves out, though, since without the expensive techniques
the children will die. What, though, of intermediate cases? Downs Syndrome,
formerly "Mongoloid idiots", who generally will never have the intelligence
of a normal 8 year old. At one time such children had a short life
expectancy, but now they can live fairly normal lives well into their
twenties: do they deserve to live? Or an infant death sentence?
I needn't labor the situation with cases, because
you can all make up your own. We prosecute the mothers of newborns who
abandon their babies in trash cans (in California there are "safe haven"
laws: mothers of newborns can bring the children in and abandon them with no
questions asked). The laws exist to protect the innocent and helpless, and
there are few creature more innocent or helpless than a human baby --
except, perhaps, a human baby with birth defects. Should the law not protect
those? If not, who gets to decide? Whose job is it to determine who is
human, who has a reasonable prospect of "a life of human quality" or
whatever criterion is used to decide who lives and who dies?
And if the State empowers agents to decide whose
expected quality of life is too low to allow them to live when they are
infants, why stop there?
===============
Subject: Bush Protests
I think you will like this one...
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/119862/1/.html
Brice Yokem
Heh. Thanks.
g
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Tuesday |
