This measure did not pass thanks to opposition from the 13 Labour MEPs who voted AGAINST their fellow social democrats.

I got this:

[ Af:2 At:23 Sp:0] What scared you as a kid?
al - spiders
[ Af:2 At:23 Sp:0] Big animals are scary. Tiny ones are not, except to some girls.
al - well i'm not a girl, and i'm scared of spiders
[ Af:2 At:23 Sp:0] You aren't?
al - no, are you?
[ Af:2 At:23 Sp:0] You think change is not possible?
al - you had a sex change?
[ Af:2 At:23 Sp:0] It's what French teens do.
al - are you French?
[ Af:2 At:23 Sp:0] I am French.
al - well I guess you would know then!

Uh, perhaps the time spent in the course gives you some skills to make your own video game which you can use to impress people. It's not like you're just paying for a note from your teacher after 4 years of doing nothing.

Its the lawyers doing all the work here, how much money do you expect for doing nothing but signing your name, you don't even have to show up in court.

Last time I checked, the payouts for those lawsuits were supposed to be compensatory for something the defendant company did wrong. The payouts are not payment for services rendered. In other words, if the court decides in the consumers' favor, then everyone who signs their name was "injured" by the defendant and deserves part of the settlement, and the lawyers should be thankful that they're getting a cut of it. Not the other way around as you seem to think it is.

To address OP's concern, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 changed things so the court can make sure the lawyers' payout is reasonable and proportional to the award given to plaintiffs. e.g. If the lawyers negotiate a purely coupon payment for the plaintiffs, they can be required to take part or all of their payment in coupons.

Well, how about a shorter example: form/from. There's no altering the scrambling rules that can exclude that pair form ambiguity. And there's nothing wrong with the previous sentence either.

He certainly was right, but I don't see how that obviates his crime.

If the' big bad gubment' were to try and 'take my guns away' for example, the Constitution implies I'd have a right to resist that effort with force. I imagine they'd shoot and kill me over that incident. It would have been the right thing to do, to die for that cause, but I'd still be dead and no harm would come to the government over it.

So once/if he understood and communicated the risks the decision was no longer his to make. He made it anyway, hence the crime.

Yes, even with the passage of this law we're still not as bad as a third world country. Therefore the law must be ok.