What, I may ask, could you expect an independent party to do? with it? Only Samsung is truly qualified to determine if the fault was in the design of their entire product line as it was with the vulnerable Note 7's, or if this was a one-off occurrence... or if the person sabotaged his own device and was simply claiming it had exploded.
I'm not saying third parties shouldn't be involved here... someone needs to keep Samsung honest in all of this. Ultimately, however, it is Samsung that is going to have to examine the phone because anything that anyone else does will not be founded on the necessary expert knowledge that only Samsung will have about their product to make a deterministic evaluation.
Why not the moon?
Oh sure, we've been there before... but seriously, if the goal is to build a self-sustaining permanent habitat as soon as possible, then why not build one on the moon first?
I'm not saying that we shouldn't go to Mars eventually, but I think talking about it before we've even started to seriously talk about colonizing the lunar surface, let alone doing it, is really putting the cart before the horse.
At the very least, the moon is less than a hundredth as far. Why do the people who propose this always refuse to even try to walk before they want to run?
The system that exists will inevitably cause some dodgy claims to be put forward.
It's not that it *causes* them to be put forward, its that it permits them... without regard for anything that one might expect or hope for with regards to a fair verdict.
Loser pays only allows for the possibility for legitimate claims to be dropped when one has very little confidence in the court system to deliver a fair verdict, and in such circumstances one ought to have equally little incentive to be using the court system in the first place to resolve a dispute. I'm not saying that people can't be unconfident in the court system to be fair... only that such people are only at best using the court system like a casino, and gambling on justice. That's not what the court system is for, and such usage *should* be discouraged, because such usage is, itself, a kind of frivolous lawsuit based on personal beliefs of what is right, rather that on what is objectively lawful.
Exactly. Loser pays all system basically means you DO NOT sue a big company regardless of how solid you think your claim is.
Assuming that they believe that the intrinsic merits of their own case are stronger than those of their opponent... the only reason that would be true is if one did not believe that the court system was capable of seeing this fact simply because of the amount of money that their opponent might be spend on lawyers. This can happen, of course, but if one does not have any confidence in the court to render a fair and just verdict, then why would one try and use the court system at all unless they were actually hoping to use the court system to render what they believe may be an unjust one?
I would love to be rid of flash forever, but there remains a small but distinct subset of websites for which I do not have any legal alternative for the content they provide that insist upon sticking with it... until hell freezes over as far as I can tell.
If you insist on bringing a camera around people who don't think that's reasonable, it's not going to end well.
Only because people believe themselves to be more important to other people than they actually are... the hypothetical wetware situation illustrates that perfectly, where it is clear that even it were possible to upload everything that person sees with their own eyes into a computer, people would not immediately take offense to other people being around them... the problem isn't really recording, the problem is when other people are paying attention to matters that are none of their business. There is no reason to presume that a person who is simply recording their surroundings is paying attention to anyone in particular that might get offended by being recorded unless the person has done something else to indicate that they are so interested.
So the only reason to get upset about happening to be in a recording that someone else is making is believing yourself to be more important to that person than you probably are.
Which is, of course, not a remotely rational reason for doing something.
Of course, people aren't reknown for always being particularly rational, but that's no excuse to not even strive to behave like the rational creatures we are capable of being. We are, presumably, more evolved intellectually than that, and people who are incapable of showing self-control in such conditions are only showing themselves to be not that far removed from creatures that we would ordinarily put in cages.... in zoos. What, may I ask, is the point of so-called human rights if a person is incapable of acting like, you know, a human?