Think twice before getting the 21mm Ultron

I had a near miss with a Nikkor lens that landed on me...

Bedding_a_Horny_Lens_fpllk.jpg


I suspect something similar with the voigtlander....
 
Never underestimate the nefariousness of an American lawyer, and the stupidity of the jury. In Pennsylvania a teaching hospital lost a medical liability case. The plaintiff was a self proclaimed "psychic" who claimed that she lost her ability to predict the future after the hospital did a CT scan of her head while investigating her headaches.

For her loss of future revenue, she won several million dollars in damages.
 
Too many lawyers in the USA. They need to make a living so they file frivolous law suits .

A few years back a lady bought carry out coffee and placed it between her legs in the car resulting in a burn. She sued the coffee vendor because the coffee was too hot.

We need to clean up a lot of things here, but that is not at the top of the list.
 
Well sort of -- but more than a few years ago (1992), but Stella Liebeck's burns were severe requiring skin grafts.

Yep - and the photos out there online make most squirm. That's one of the cases I teach my students. Despite her wounds and treatment all she was (basically) asking for was her medical costs. It would have been much cheaper to pay them but that would have meant admitting liability.
 
Never underestimate the nefariousness of an American lawyer, and the stupidity of the jury. In Pennsylvania a teaching hospital lost a medical liability case. The plaintiff was a self proclaimed "psychic" who claimed that she lost her ability to predict the future after the hospital did a CT scan of her head while investigating her headaches.

For her loss of future revenue, she won several million dollars in damages.

That is a most perplexing case and verdict. It would be interesting to read the case proceedings, see the evidence presented, the medical reason for the CT scan, etc.... Wow.
 
That is a most perplexing case and verdict. It would be interesting to read the case proceedings, see the evidence presented, the medical reason for the CT scan, etc.... Wow.

Here is a link with newspaper report of this case:

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1986-03-29/news/8601190230_1_joel-lieberman-cat-scan-judith-haimes

She had an allergic reaction to CT contrast with a prolonged reaction. Seems the jury was instructed by the judge to ignore the "psychic powers" aspect. If she was not given a consent form to sign prior to the CT, or was not pre-medicated for her history of CT contrast allergy, it is a real case regardless of "psychic powers". We are not told details in the newspaper account. An interesting read.
 
I am sure that warning has to do with looking through your wide angle viewfinder while walking around to find the perfect composition.

Objects are closer than they appear!

PS ask me how I know this.
 
The bigger danger is from pedestrians walking and texting! I have seen them walk into light posts, parking meters, bicyclists -or just stepping out in the street in front of cars. I fervently hope that Darwin's law prevails and stupidity has its own consequences. I don't want to run over a texting pedestrian, but I am damned if I am going to risk being rear ended because somebody behaves like an idiot!
The Ultron 21f1.8 story was simply the need for Cosina to avoid frivolous law suits from customers and lawyers looking for a quick buck.
Never underestimate the the stupidity of the general public!
 
In the US you don't have to win the lawsuit. Lawyers can file lawsuits and the plaintiff has to spend a fortune to hire lawyers to fight it. At some point the plaintiff just pays to settle the lawsuit. More like blackmail. The disclaimers are like some medieval talisman to ward off evil spirits. They do about as much good also.

But then you have people that believe all kinds of nonsense. For example everything, and I mean everything, is known to cause cancer in the state of California. So don't ever go to California or you'll get cancer for sure.
 
And by plaintiff you mean, of course, defendant.

In the US you don't have to win the lawsuit. Lawyers can file lawsuits and the plaintiff has to spend a fortune to hire lawyers to fight it. At some point the plaintiff just pays to settle the lawsuit. More like blackmail. The disclaimers are like some medieval talisman to ward off evil spirits. They do about as much good also.

But then you have people that believe all kinds of nonsense. For example everything, and I mean everything, is known to cause cancer in the state of California. So don't ever go to California or you'll get cancer for sure.
 
Yep - and the photos out there online make most squirm. That's one of the cases I teach my students. Despite her wounds and treatment all she was (basically) asking for was her medical costs. It would have been much cheaper to pay them but that would have meant admitting liability.

Exactly. It always amazes me the people who rail against these case know virtually nothing of the facts of the cases. They read a newspaper headline and maybe a paragraph or two in some incomplete account and boy, the righteous indignation flows.

In this particular case, I believe the defendant had been cited multiple times previously for faulty equipment and/or procedures which resulted in coffee far hotter than regulations permitted. There was no excuse.
 
Back
Top Bottom