Things & Stuff
Get Over It
2007-05-03 - 10:05 a.m.
Got a message from Charlie last night. He's free today for a visit to the Park.
I had left a message on his voicemail on Tuesday, and I thought he was out of town for awhile. Nope, he's still in the area. So instead of loafing around here, I get to go to the Park with one of my best friends.
Back here, I mentioned what the nickel-metal-hydride batteries did when they overheated. I promised a picture. Well, here it is:
The one on the left is what they look like when we get them. The one on the right is AFTER the overheating.
As I said, the new Li-ION battery charger ports shut off when the battery is fully charged. So the newer batteries shouldn't do this.
Oh, it should be mentioned - the arrangement we have with this company says that they will fix anything that breaks, including the batteries. If a battery bursts like this, they will replace it at no charge...and they do it FAST.
Brin talked about this yesterday - an attorney in Washington, DC, is suing a dry cleaners for a lost pair of pants. He wants $67 million.
That's not a typo. Sixty. Seven. MILLION. Dollars. For. A. Lost. Pair. Of. Pants.
And they were described as "gray trousers with what [the plaintiff] described in court papers as blue and red stripes on them".
According to the article she linked to, here's how it breaks down:
He believes he is entitled to $1,500 for each violation, each day during which the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign and another sign promising "Same Day Service" was up in the store -- more than 1,200 days.
And he's multiplying each violation by three because he's suing Jin and Soo Chung and their son.
He also wants $500,000 in emotional damages and $542,500 in legal fees, even though he is representing himself in court.
He wants $15,000 for 10 years' worth of weekend car rentals as well.
If there's any justice, this attorney will be chastised by the court for this frivolity, his suit dismissed (without the trousers), and he'll be ordered to pay the court costs of the defendants for the last two years that this has wafted its way through the system. The plaintiff tried to expand this into a class-action suit, but evidently dragged his feet:
"The Court has significant concerns that the plaintiff is acting in bad faith and with an intent to delay the proceedings," the judge wrote in court papers. "Indeed, it is difficult to draw any other conclusion, given the plaintiff's lengthy delay in seeking to expand the scope of the case, the breathtaking magnitude of the expansion he seeks, his failure to present any evidence in support of the thousands of claims he says he wishes to add, and his misrepresentation concerning the scope of his first amended complaint."
Ya think he just might have dragged it out to get more money? Nah. He's a lawyer in Washington, DC.
Well, I have a few things to do before I head to the Park.
Be seeing you.
0 comments so far