Class Action Lawsuit over Apple MB and MBP Displays?

[SmokyD]

Matticus,

Thanks for the link you provided, but it does not represent the panels that Toshiba uses in the laptops I provided links to. The resolutions and sizes don't match, and there isn't a 17 inch panel on the list. Nice try though.

The Toshiba web site for the actual laptops states the number of colors the display can produce, and since Toshiba makes their own displays, their statements about specifications are the most valid. They are not invalid just because you say they are.

Your link also doesn't address the Acer or Fujitsu screens which also state they are 24-bit.

Also, for everyone reading this who confuses 'support for 16.7 million colors' vs 'displays 16.7 million colors', pay close attention:

"Support" means what the video card can do, not what the screen can do. And ALL video cards on the market, for at least the last 7 or 8 years, can handle 24-bit color. Goodness! I can't think of the last video card that could only do 16-bit color, but it was probably in the 1990s sometime.

*ALL* laptop screen specifications are talking about the screen itself, not the ability of the video card to output 24-bit color. When you read specifications that discuss 'support', it is probably in reference to the color and resolution it can support on an *external* monitor.

So don't confuse the issue. All the links I provided to the Fujitsu, Acer, and Toshiba laptops all talk about what the screen itself can do. The information about video support is usually found not in the specs for the screen, but in a separate category for 'video'. It is usually here where you will find how much the video card can pump out. These days just about any card can support an external monitor at 1920x1200 resolution at 16.7 million colors. The MBP, with the ATI x1600 card can support a 30" cinema display (at 2560x1600 pixels) at 16.7 million colors. This has nothing to do with the LCD screen on the laptop.

Calboy, your quote from Matticus is way off base, and your support of the point is wrong because his facts are wrong. He said (as you quoted):

As with the Toshibas and Acers, you're mistaking support for 16.7 million colors for the ability to display 16.7 million colors. All you've demonstrated is that the way computer makers market these products isn't clear to you or to others. This is just like TVs with "1080p support" that don't have 1080 vertical lines. They support the input fully.

What a ridiculous statement! This is strictly about the ability of the screen that comes with the laptop to display 16.7 million colors itself. Full Stop. There is no confusion. It is Apple that is making the confusing claim by saying about the MBP:

15 (17) -inch (diagonal) TFT display, support for millions of colors; optional glossy widescreen display

which means either:

1. The video card can support millions of colors (an obvious fact), but the screen can't, which is mischievously misleading.

or

2. The screen displays millions of colors, which is factually wrong.

Either way, Apple is being sneaky.

And Matticus' comparing it to 1080p support with insufficient TVs is also a false analogy. It sounds nice, but is wrong again. As I said, all laptops have video cards that can display 16.7 million colors, and the only question is whether the screens can. The laptops I've linked to make it clear that they are talking about the screen's physical ability to display all these colors. They are using screens whose sub-pixels use 256 different voltages to differentiate the brightness of each color (either Red, Green, or Blue) within the pixel.

In other words, they are 8-bit (2^8=256). Such panels exist, and Apple used to use them. Now Matticus is claiming (wrongly and oddly) that suddenly all such panels have disappeared from the market and he supports his point by linking to a manufacturer's page that doesn't even list the same panels that are in the laptops I linked to.

And all the while he claims that he's doing all this in good faith.

Good grief, more like it.

 

[PDE]

You're confusing anecdotal evidence. Even if you bought a macbook from every country on the planet, your selection would be limited. The only thing you've proved is that you have bad luck when it comes to macbooks, that the problem is not in just one country, and that you perceive each of the screens to be bad. If we had a good, objective measure of "bad" then we would be able to ask more people about their purchases, and determine if the screen is really that bad.



Again, your perception of "bad" is driving this idea. If the screens are not what you expected, then demand your money back and buy a different brand. You don't have to buy an Apple laptop, there are other choices. If you want OSX that badly, then like I said before, write to Apple and tell them their screens are terrible. If enough people do this, and boycott the product, a change will occur.

You're so right. It is MY perception of bad. And a few friends of mine too. Bad is relative and so is people's perception of 'grain' - though I feel confident that anybody who saw the MBP 15 next to a normal Sony display, or next to the 17MBP even, would immediately see that there is something quite different. Whether people think that a screen that looks like it has a layer of dust on it when viewing solid colors is nice or not is of course subjective too. Given the information and choice, however, I'd bet ya that the majority of people would go for the sharp, grainless display over the fuzzy grainy one.

Anyway, as for the battery thing. Are you trying to say that advertising 'up to six hours' and not stating that 6 hours can only be achieved if you turn off wifi, dim the screen to 1/4, turn off bluetooth, stop working on the computer and don't use any applications is acceptable advertising? I honestly cannot understand how anybody can defend such practices. My only suggestion is to be honest. For example by saying that battery time varies depending on usage and then give a few scenarios, starting with the very worse one, and then a best case scenario. I'm asking for specifics so that I can assess how it will apply to me. I don't think ANYBODY has every gotten 6 hours out of a macbook pro while using it.

Anyway, I'm out of this thread.









Learn how to discern what words mean. "Up to" does not mean that such a thing will happen every time. If the right conditions are met, then it will. If the description had been "Average use gives 6 hours" then that would be false advertising. You wouldn't sue your professor because you got a C+ when the max grade is an A+ would you? If you didn't do the work to get an A+, then you can't expect an A+. Did the professor commit false advertising when he wrote on the syllabus that an A+ was possible? NO. If you make all your decisions based on advertising, then you are a fool. Outside research is your responsibility, not Apple's.



If the lawsuit is really about false advertising, then it should have included all manufacturers. It isn't right to say that only Apple should be named if many others are doing it. If this is seeking class-action status, then other computer buyers who have been dissapointed by their screens not being able to display 16 million colors should be included in the suit.[/QUOTE]

 

[CalBoy]

Anyway, as for the battery thing. Are you trying to say that advertising 'up to six hours' and not stating that 6 hours can only be achieved if you turn off wifi, dim the screen to 1/4, turn off bluetooth, stop working on the computer and don't use any applications is acceptable advertising? I honestly cannot understand how anybody can defend such practices. My only suggestion is to be honest. For example by saying that battery time varies depending on usage and then give a few scenarios, starting with the very worse one, and then a best case scenario. I'm asking for specifics so that I can assess how it will apply to me. I don't think ANYBODY has every gotten 6 hours out of a macbook pro while using it.

As a company trying to sell a product, Apple is going to try to make their product seem as good as possible. When you write your personal job evaluation at work, do you say "I'm a good worker, when I've had enough sleep"? No, you write that you are a good worker. You're trying to sell yourself, and your employer is the one who has to go into your file and see how much of a "good" worker you are. You might prefer honesty, but it just doesn't sound as appealing. That's how advertising works, that's the way it has worked since its inception.

 

[iW00t]

As a company trying to sell a product, Apple is going to try to make their product seem as good as possible. When you write your personal job evaluation at work, do you say "I'm a good worker, when I've had enough sleep"? No, you write that you are a good worker. You're trying to sell yourself, and your employer is the one who has to go into your file and see how much of a "good" worker you are. You might prefer honesty, but it just doesn't sound as appealing. That's how advertising works, that's the way it has worked since its inception.

In such an example, then you should not try to claim high moral ground when you've had a baby and started suffering from sleep deprivation... on the other hand had you been honest your boss would have nothing to say if they still choose to hire you.

See the difference?

 

[PDE]

As a company trying to sell a product, Apple is going to try to make their product seem as good as possible. When you write your personal job evaluation at work, do you say "I'm a good worker, when I've had enough sleep"? No, you write that you are a good worker. You're trying to sell yourself, and your employer is the one who has to go into your file and see how much of a "good" worker you are. You might prefer honesty, but it just doesn't sound as appealing. That's how advertising works, that's the way it has worked since its inception.[/Q

thank you for explaining. I had no idea.

 

[CalBoy]

In such an example, then you should not try to claim high moral ground when you've had a baby and started suffering from sleep deprivation... on the other hand had you been honest your boss would have nothing to say if they still choose to hire you.

See the difference?

What do you mean by moral ground? If your boss chooses not to contact past employers, and then hires you, he doesn't have the right to complain that you misled him about your work ethic. If you do work better when you've had sleep, that doesn't disqualify you from saying "I"m a good worker." You're trying to make yourself more appealing to your employer, so you can list your maximum abilities, there's nothing wrong with that. Again, the responsibility to see how your average work compares to your maximum is the employers, not yours.

 

[PDE]

What do you mean by moral ground? If your boss chooses not to contact past employers, and then hires you, he doesn't have the right to complain that you misled him about your work ethic. If you do work better when you've had sleep, that doesn't disqualify you from saying "I"m a good worker." You're trying to make yourself more appealing to your employer, so you can list your maximum abilities, there's nothing wrong with that. Again, the responsibility to see how your average work compares to your maximum is the employers, not yours.

This is why the world is so ****ed up...

 

[CalBoy]

This is why the world is so ****ed up...

Just that one quality of life, or the fact that we are selfish by nature? It may not be the ideal way to do things, but it is the one that has worked the best so far. Capitalism is based on this premise, and until it goes away (I don't see that happening any time soon), it's going to stay this way.

 

[Rend It]

Why is everyone still arguing about this mess?!

The only defect worth complaining about is the uneven backlighting in the MBPs. The graininess and such has been shown to disappear when using Windows on the MBPs (read the lawsuit pdf file).

Most likely, Apple will investigate why their graphic drivers suck, and issue a software/firmware update. As for the backlighting...well, maybe they'll start replacing MBP LCDs with the new LED ones.

 

[PDE]

Why is everyone still arguing about this mess?!

The only defect worth complaining about is the uneven backlighting in the MBPs. The graininess and such has been shown to disappear when using Windows on the MBPs (read the lawsuit pdf file).

Most likely, Apple will investigate why their graphic drivers suck, and issue a software/firmware update. As for the backlighting...well, maybe they'll start replacing MBP LCDs with the new LED ones.

The graininess does not disappear under windows. If you move a white window you will see the grain stay still, indicating that it's really the antireflective layer that is causing the problem.

As for capitalism working well: what can I say? U.S. style capitalism is hardly a model for the world to emulate...

 

[CalBoy]

The graininess does not disappear under windows. If you move a white window you will see the grain stay still, indicating that it's really the antireflective layer that is causing the problem.

Does the display still look bad if it's a glossy screen? If not, then maybe Apple is using a bad coating, rather than bad screens.

As for capitalism working well: what can I say? U.S. style capitalism is hardly a model for the world to emulate...

Yet, the world seems eager to emulate it. Capitalism may not be perfect, but it has been able to produce the highest quality of life that has ever been known to exist at any time or place in history. Just a guess, but I think that that's why more of the world wants to emulate American economics.

 

[PDE]

Does the display still look bad if it's a glossy screen? If not, then maybe Apple is using a bad coating, rather than bad screens.

The glossy ones also have the grain, but it looks a little better. Compared to the macbooks and MBP 17s it's still grainy though.

Yet, the world seems eager to emulate it. Capitalism may not be perfect, but it has been able to produce the highest quality of life that has ever been known to exist at any time or place in history.

Come one, where have you been? The U.S. consistently rates poorly among developed countries in terms of social and economic mobility, health care access, education, gender equality, maternity leave benefits, incarceration rates, crime rates , infant mortality rates - just to name a few.

 

[Rend It]

The graininess does not disappear under windows. If you move a white window you will see the grain stay still, indicating that it's really the antireflective layer that is causing the problem.

See this thread.

Of note:

Some of the Mac users using bootcamp have noticed an issue with grain and noise appearing on their displays when loading into Windows XP, and this is due to the way XP dithers to cover all the colors and such. This issue was believed to be only in the XP side of Macs, but it's been plaguing Macs on the OS X side as well. The common ties between the PC laptops and our MBPs are the x1600 GPU, and the possibility of the same faulty LCD Panels. Here's the interesting thing; after much research in the pc community, they've narrowed it down to the GPU rather than the display itself.

The problem is that, if these displays are 6-bit (and most agree they are), then the "sparkly" or "grainy" effect will be a dynamic one because the graphics card is dithering/interpolating the colors in real time. This explains why the effect bothers some people and not others, much like the "whine" that generated so much controversy in the 1st gen MBPs: some people will be visually/aurally sensitive to it, while others will simply be oblivious. Furthermore, the effect will be hard to capture in a screen shot.

Now, since the graphics card only needs to interpolate when connected to a 6-bit display, you should never expect to see the same effect when you connect a CRT or larger 8-bit LCD to the MBP. This, naturally, leads people to the erroneous conclusion that the display is at fault. Now, on the PC side of things, the new VGA BIOS seems to have made the problem go away. However, in the Mac world, we rely exclusively on Apple for drivers and updates. And so, MBP owners must wait with bated breath...either for progress in this lawsuit, or for Apple to come up with a solution.

-RendIt

 

[matticus008]

The Toshiba web site for the actual laptops states the number of colors the display can produce, and since Toshiba makes their own displays, their statements about specifications are the most valid. They are not invalid just because you say they are.

Those displays do not produce 16.77 million colors. They simply do not. The product advertising support for them is misleading you. If you really refuse to believe that, I invite you to email them directly and ask for the panel manufacturer and model number and report back with that information. If that is what it will take to convince you that, like the 100+ other notebook panels I've provided specifications to, it produces 262,144 colors, then so be it.

For what it's worth, Toshiba's consumer electronics corporation does NOT manufacture their own displays. Toshiba's parent company is a co-investor in TMD Displays, which are distributed to buyers under the Matsushita (Panasonic) brand name.

Your link also doesn't address the Acer or Fujitsu screens which also state they are 24-bit.

No, it states they support a 24-bit color mode. It does not say that the products contain 24-bit panels. If you want to sue them for false advertising, hire a lawyer. In the mean time, reality remains the same. Samsung, Matsushita, LG-Phillips, Chi Mei, AUO all max out at 262,144 colors. Because you somehow remain unconvinced even without a single panel manufacturer claim, let me ask you this:

How do you support an Apple false advertising claim (where products are not advertised to support 16.77 million colors [8-bit]), but you can accept at face value a Toshiba marketing page making an even more egregious claim?

*ALL* laptop screen specifications are talking about the screen itself, not the ability of the video card to output 24-bit color.

No one is saying anything different. Support for an input does not equal ability to output. Again, take television sets that "support" 1080p content by downsampling.

So don't confuse the issue. All the links I provided to the Fujitsu, Acer, and Toshiba laptops all talk about what the screen itself can do.

No, they don't. Do you honestly think that if Toshiba offered 8-bit panels in their notebooks, contrary to everyone else's abilities, that they wouldn't be shouting it from the rooftops? Their notebooks are 18-bit panels like Lenovo, Dell, Acer, HP, Apple, and everyone else.

your support of the point is wrong because his facts are wrong

They're really not. Your bogus specifications summaries notwithstanding, none of those notebooks has an 8-bit panel in it.

As I said, all laptops have video cards that can display 16.7 million colors, and the only question is whether the screens can.

Why are you talking about video cards? No one else is. Panel support for a 24-bit input does not follow that the panel has 24bpp depth.

I'm not sure where it is you're pulling this "there are 8-bit notebook panels and Apple used to use them" nonsense from, but it's certainly not from reality. They're all 6-bit panels, and you have yet to demonstrate otherwise.

If a pixel is switching between two 128-shade RGB color combinations, that is visibly and inherently inferior to a pixel that is showing a constant 256-shade RGB color combination.

Absolutely. And that is inherently inferior to a pixel that can switch between two 256-shade colors, or one that can display 512 color values. But once you cross the line of what does not exist in the appropriate form factor with our current technology, it doesn't matter. 18-bit is all that can be expected today, even on professional notebooks.

Interlaced TVs are inferior to progressive scan TVs fundamentally, but for over sixty years, it was the best we could get. Progressive scan came back once the technology improved to make it feasible at the bandwidths and resolutions we needed to achieve.

To those of you saying that "supporting millions of colors" is technically not the same as "displaying millions of colors," I ask you if you'd be making the same argument if the displays were 4-bits-per-sub-pixel but accepted a 24-bit color image and dithered it?

No, because 4-bit color would be 4096, and there is no way to achieve even just one million colors, let alone millions, even with dithering. So it's not exactly the same.

In a laptop screen on a "professional" device that advertises support for millions of colors, but doesn't mention anywhere on their site that "support" is purely academic, this is not acceptable.

I agree that it would be ideal if computer manufacturers specified this information in a better manner. But that's not the question. Anyone actually affected by this information should already know it--certainly anyone claiming a professional financial loss knows that any notebook they might choose to buy will have a 6bpp panel.

Anyone who cares enough about color reproduction would also be able to find this information in just a few minutes of background research, which is something that needs to be done any time you're making an investment in something expensive. Anandtech, Wikipedia, About.com, Tomshardware, PC Magazine, and countless other sites have discussed the differences at length between 6- and 8-bit LCDs.

Most "average joe" consumers don't care enough to learn about what a response time actually is, and why most "6ms" panels aren't really, or why choosing the smallest dot pitch will clean up the picture, or what the difference in quality between TN and S-IPS is. It simply isn't necessary for spec sheets to go to that level of precision.

Put another way: if you did enough research to learn that the LCD could only "really" do 262,144 colors, you did enough to learn that everyone else does the same and has done so for as long as there have been "16 bit" LCDs. The complaint is in laches; waiting until now is opportunistic--6-bit panels are no late-breaking secret. The very reason that "millions of colors," "16 million colors," and "16.2M colors" exist is specifically to avoid potential false advertising claims (successfully, I might add). The manufacturers themselves want to keep the distinction so that they can justify the higher price on their superior 8bpp desktop panels over the cheaper 6bpp desktop and notebook units.

There is a much better case against those marketing "16.7M" panels in advertising, and that harmful practice is far more confusing than "millions of colors" as our friend SmokyD has colorfully illustrated for all of us. His ongoing confusion is a testament to the importance of clear specifications.

His militant dedication to misleading advertising from other manufacturers while deriding Apple for less confusing advertising is in turn a testament to the absurdity of this thread.

 

[AidenShaw]

...say hey there is an 80 GB Hard Drive in the thing and advertise it, oh but wait when you get it home its 72 GB!! Right they figured 80 GB out based on saying that 1000 MB = 1 GB which is not true. We all know this...

Well, for the last couple of centuries learned people around the world have known that 1K=1000, 1M=1,000,000, 1G=1,000,000,000 and 1T=1,000,000,000,000. (http://www.physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/history.html)

It's only been the last few decades that a few people have decided that 1K=1024, 1M=1,048,576, 1G=1,073,741,824 and 1T=1,099,511,627,776 - and that a few computer operating systems have been misusing K/M/G/T in the same fashion.

The international standards bodies are trying to fix this.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/11/08/i_say_petabyte_you_say/

One mebibyte (1 MiB) is 2^20, or 1,048,576 bytes
One megabyte (1 MB) is 10^6, or a round million bytes
One gibibyte (1 GiB) is 2^30, or 1,073,741,824 bytes
One gigabyte (1 GB) is 10^9 or a round billion (thousand million - that battle's over, we guess) bytes.​

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html

So, if you insist on saying that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (http://www.nist.gov/), as well as Le Système international d'unités (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI) is wrong about this - I'm OK with that.
____________

By the way, my 750 GB Seagate Free Agent Pro drive is 750,153,761,280 bytes (750.154 GB). It's also 698.635 GiB. Both numbers are correct, and there's no notion of misleading advertising here.

Is it Seagate's fault that the operating system is misusing the international definition of what a "GB" actually is? No.

Have you ever noticed that your GigaBit Ethernet is 1,000,000,000 bits per second? That your 2.0 GHz CPU has an effective clock rate of 2,000,000,000 Hz? (subject to the accuracy of the quartz oscillator, of course) Storage and communications and the chip people use the correct decimal interpretation of "G".

 

[The Monkey]

Pages 7 through 13 are details of the "Technical specifications" breakout and are not components of the legal claim. In particular, the specifications referenced at s. 19 et seq. are for the ability to display "millions of colors." As for 16-17, the wording fails to present evidence that supports your conclusion. You reference s. 44 and s. 46--but the "defect at issue" is described at s. 45--displays not capable of presenting "millions of colors." Section 46 is contingent upon said violation in section 45 under the theory that customers paid for a panel that can display "millions of colors" where it can in fact display 262,144 colors per the complaint.

Do remember that this is a Complaint, not a patent application. The individually numbered paragraphs are referred to as just that: paragraphs, not sections. All of the paragraphs are part of each legal claim, as you will note that they are incorporated by reference.

 

[iW00t]

Blah blah blah

The whole argument is simply this:

1) Walk into any PC showroom
2) Set down your MBP
3) Look at the screens on other PC laptops in the price range
4) Do you see grain on them to the same degree as the MBP? Or vignetting? Or uneven backlighting?

Case closed.

People have every right to sue for whatever reasons they want. You guys should really go get lives, especially matticus, you do not even own the laptop in question, what the hell is there to argue about? Defending Apple's name? That's ridiculous.

 

[matticus008]

Case closed.

Your case, maybe, but not this complaint, which in case you've forgotten is the topic at hand.

People have every right to sue for whatever reasons they want.

Certainly, and these people have exercised that right, but have squandered the effort on a claim that won't stick.

I don't give a crap about Apple's name. The information being presented here is false, and the angriest of respondents, yourself included, lack a basic appreciation for what this complaint is alleging and for how both the legal system and LCD technology work.

Until those basic facts are cleared up and the discussion is allowed to move on, there will be a response to be made. I have a vested interest in accurate information about legal proceedings and technology. Whether or not I own one of these particular machines is no more relevant than whether I personally find the displays of acceptable quality.

There are questions of fact and law related to this story, and that's what this topic is about. If you want to bitch about uneven backlighting or dead pixels or anything else, take it to a thread where it's relevant to the discussion. If you want to discuss the topic at hand, bring something of substance to the discussion.

The individually numbered paragraphs are referred to as just that: paragraphs, not sections. All of the paragraphs are part of each legal claim, as you will note that they are incorporated by reference.

The legal claims begin with claim number 1 at s. 37--the background information and SoF do not constitute a legal claim and are not at this point of time established as facts.

The use of "section" or "paragraph" is dependent upon structure, preference, and on when and where you attended law school. In particular, traditionally, sections are numbered and paragraphs are lettered. The reason, of course for this, is that "paragraph 3" is an inaccurate representation for a numbered constituent "3" that contains subordinating paragraphs (e.g. "paragraph 3(c)" but not "paragraph 3")--but again this is variable geographically and by personal preference and hardly relevant to anything discussed here.

 

[CalBoy]

Come one, where have you been? The U.S. consistently rates poorly among developed countries in terms of social and economic mobility, health care access, education, gender equality, maternity leave benefits, incarceration rates, crime rates , infant mortality rates - just to name a few.

That's doesn't say anything about capitalism, it just says that as people, we can't have a perfect society. As for economic mobility, that has been slow in recent years, but the US always goes through crests and troughs.

Before claiming that life is infinitely better in Europe, know that certain EU countries (like France) have unemployment rates that are consistantly higher than they are in the US. Remember the riots that happened two years ago? They were fed by high unemployment rates for France's young adults, and by a lack of opportunities in many communities.

Say what you will about inequality in the US (it's there yes, but it's also present in many other 1st world nations), but as a US citizen, you will have more choices and more freedoms (and economic freedoms are important too by the way).

 

[PDE]

That's doesn't say anything about capitalism, it just says that as people, we can't have a perfect society. As for economic mobility, that has been slow in recent years, but the US always goes through crests and troughs.

It says a lot about what happens when you allow capitalism to be the primary determining factor in a society.

Before claiming that life is infinitely better in Europe, know that certain EU countries (like France) have unemployment rates that are consistantly higher than they are in the US. Remember the riots that happened two years ago? They were fed by high unemployment rates for France's young adults, and by a lack of opportunities in many communities.

Unemployment rates are just one side of the story. In the U.S. people are consistently employed, but also consistently underpaid with much less economic and health security than any EU country. many people have to have multiple jobs to make ends meet, if they can at all. So sure, employment is higher, but at what cost? Who suffers from poverty wages? Those who are already at the bottom. Equal opportunity here is only equal for some people, often those who are already privileged. Why choose France as your example? Why not Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway - or even the U.K.?

Say what you will about inequality in the US (it's there yes, but it's also present in many other 1st world nations), but as a US citizen, you will have more choices and more freedoms (and economic freedoms are important too by the way).

Spoken, no doubt, from a white, educated and privileged perspective. Structural inequality is generally much worse here than in Western European countries. Of course all countries have inequality, but some are much worse than others and the U.S., by all measurements, does not do well in this department.

It's intriguing how people like you, and there are so many of them, think that your privilege is somehow representative of the country as a whole, and how the myth of the American dream lives on despite most research showing that if you were born into poverty, your chances of moving up the economic ladder are very slim - much slimmer than if you were born into poverty in most EU countries, including the U.K.. The self-indulgent navel-gazing, self- congratulatory tendencies of U.S. mass media and education seems to have been successful, as people pat each other on the back and praise the accomplishments of this country - not to mention the underlying system that has led to this inequality - rather than deal constructively with the immense problems that it faces.


I can accept that inequality, poverty, lack of public healthcare and any of the other problems faced by huge portions of the U.S. population is something that cannot be easily resolved. What I can't accept is privileged arrogance and a total lack of critical thinking and self-awareness.

I have two passports - one EU and one US - and if I ever had to choose I wouldn't think for a second which one I'd give up. Especially with Bush in the White House.

 

[The Monkey]

Y
The legal claims begin with claim number 1 at s. 37--the background information and SoF do not constitute a legal claim and are not at this point of time established as facts.

The use of "section" or "paragraph" is dependent upon structure, preference, and on when and where you attended law school. In particular, traditionally, sections are numbered and paragraphs are lettered. The reason, of course for this, is that "paragraph 3" is an inaccurate representation for a numbered constituent "3" that contains subordinating paragraphs (e.g. "paragraph 3(c)" but not "paragraph 3")--but again this is variable geographically and by personal preference and hardly relevant to anything discussed here.

Did you go to law school?

 

[CalBoy]

Spoken, no doubt, from a white, educated and privileged perspective. Structural inequality is generally much worse here than in Western European countries. Of course all countries have inequality, but some are much worse than others and the U.S., by all measurements, does not do well in this department.

Actually, I'm not white, and neither of my parents went to college. Their determination and ability to plan helped them succeed in life, and while not everyone can come ahead in the same way, I don't want to put people on the Dole. I'd much rather have outside forces help poor Americans rise up. It isn't, in my opinion, efficient to have the government get involved in everything. Ever been do a DMV? Now imagine your doctor's office like that. That's what I fear will happen with government-run health care.

It's intriguing how people like you, and there are so many of them, think that your privilege is somehow representative of the country as a whole, and how the myth of the American dream lives on despite most research showing that if you were born into poverty, your chances of moving up the economic ladder are very slim - much slimmer than if you were born into poverty in most EU countries, including the U.K.. The self-indulgent navel-gazing, self- congratulatory tendencies of U.S. mass media and education seems to have been successful, as people pat each other on the back and praise the accomplishments of this country - not to mention the underlying system that has led to this inequality - rather than deal constructively with the immense problems that it faces.

By no means do I believe this. I know that there are people who struggle, and they do need help. I just don't think that it's the government's responsibility to solve all of our problems. By no means will I defend the US for what it's done in a lot of cases (including Iraq), but in truth, the United States has never shown much interest in the welfare of its citizens. Except for perhaps FDR and LBJ, most Presidents and Congresses have been friendlier to corporate citizens than to human citizens. Again, we can debate whether or not this is the best way to go, but Americans as a people are more innovative, and are always seeking a way to make life even better. Perhaps this arises from general dissatisfaction, I don't know. All I know is that while America has its share of problems, its people's positive attributes will be able to help America solve those problems.

I can accept that inequality, poverty, lack of public healthcare and any of the other problems faced by huge portions of the U.S. population is something that cannot be easily resolved. What I can't accept is privileged arrogance and a total lack of critical thinking and self-awareness.

If you identify that the problem can't be easily solved, then why do you accuse me of not thinking critically? Just because I have an opinion that differs from yours does not mean that I lack critical thinking skills. We all have different philosophies, and with the same set of facts, we can put forth two entirely different points of view. There's nothing wrong with that, in fact, it's necessary for our continual development.

I have two passports - one EU and one US - and if I ever had to choose I wouldn't think for a second which one I'd give up. Especially with Bush in the White House.

I'm not a fan of Bush, so if you were trying to get me mad, you failed. Again, your opinion is your opinion. I would not give up my passport because I feel that America is the right place for me. In America, I'm free to exercise a greater right of choice, which includes economic freedom. I know that I can make good choices with my freedoms, so I wouldn't want to go to a nation that will tax more than half of my income, and then redistribute it to others. Under such a system, I would feel less of an incentive to get an education, work hard, innovate, and in general, be a productive member of society. In America, I'm free to be the best person I can be, and enjoy the fruits of my labor. I don't think that's terribly wrong of me.

 

[PDE]

Actually, I'm not white, and neither of my parents went to college. Their determination and ability to plan helped them succeed in life, and while not everyone can come ahead in the same way, I don't want to put people on the Dole. I'd much rather have outside forces help poor Americans rise up. It isn't, in my opinion, efficient to have the government get involved in everything. Ever been do a DMV? Now imagine your doctor's office like that. That's what I fear will happen with government-run health care.

Fair enough, my mistake. Yes, I have been to the DMV and the USPS and other government agencies. And my experience is overwhelmingly negative. In fact, I'm amazed that these agencies continue to function in a country so keen on good customer service. On the other hand, I've also experienced incredibly efficient, fast and professional government agencies and state-run companies in Scandinavia - ones that would put many U.S. private companies to shame. That includes public health care. My experience with healthcare here has also been quite negative compared to at least the Scandinavian countries. The U.K. is a different story altogether in terms of healthcare and I don't have much positive to say about it. The point is though, that U.S. healthcare as it is today is quite an embarrassment, both in terms of how much money is spent on, the overall quality of service and access to healthcare. The common argument that if you have comprehensive public healthcare patients will have to wait longer is ridiculous. There is no evidence that that is a inevitable rule. What about all the people now, some 45 million, who don't have insurance? Even if waiting times would be longer, and I don't think they have to be, wouldn't it be better that those 45 million have health care and wait a few more days, than none at all? When I have needed healthcare here, I've waited longer than I normally would in Europe - just anecdotal of course. Take a look at any international study of health care and all the myths of so-called socialised health care will be dispelled.

By no means do I believe this. I know that there are people who struggle, and they do need help. I just don't think that it's the government's responsibility to solve all of our problems. By no means will I defend the US for what it's done in a lot of cases (including Iraq), but in truth, the United States has never shown much interest in the welfare of its citizens. Except for perhaps FDR and LBJ, most Presidents and Congresses have been friendlier to corporate citizens than to human citizens. Again, we can debate whether or not this is the best way to go, but Americans as a people are more innovative, and are always seeking a way to make life even better. Perhaps this arises from general dissatisfaction, I don't know. All I know is that while America has its share of problems, its people's positive attributes will be able to help America solve those problems.

I do think that much of what is positive in the U.S. is a consequence of dissatisfaction and pressure to survive. In terms of innovation, obviously America is very innovative. But so are many Asian and European countries. I just received the Economist World in Figures booklet with statistics from all over the world. In terms of R&D as percentage of GDP, the U.S. ranks 7 and in terms of patents it ranks second after Japan. If you look at patents per 100,000 people, the U.S. is in 15th place. Not that these figures tell the whole story, just that innovation is not only tied to a U.S. style capitalist economy.



care. [/QUOTE]

If you identify that the problem can't be easily solved, then why do you accuse me of not thinking critically? Just because I have an opinion that differs from yours does not mean that I lack critical thinking skills. We all have different philosophies, and with the same set of facts, we can put forth two entirely different points of view. There's nothing wrong with that, in fact, it's necessary for our continual development.

I was referring to what appeared to be a lack of self-awareness and critical view on the U.S. You're obviously critical about other places, just not your own country. Your most recent comments are more critical, but not the previous ones. Nothing wrong with points of view, as long as they are based on something beyond what 'we think'. I'm fine with discussion as long as it is self-reflective as well.

I'm not a fan of Bush, so if you were trying to get me mad, you failed. Again, your opinion is your opinion. I would not give up my passport because I feel that America is the right place for me. In America, I'm free to exercise a greater right of choice, which includes economic freedom. I know that I can make good choices with my freedoms, so I wouldn't want to go to a nation that will tax more than half of my income, and then redistribute it to others. Under such a system, I would feel less of an incentive to get an education, work hard, innovate, and in general, be a productive member of society. In America, I'm free to be the best person I can be, and enjoy the fruits of my labor. I don't think that's terribly wrong of me.

I didn't try to provoke you. I was merely expressing my feeling that right now is one of the worst times to be in the U.S. because of Bush. That's my firm belief based on what I have seen happen over the past years.

Most people in Sweden, the country often used as a tax horror example, do not pay 50% income tax. In fact, most people don't pay more than 35-40% in income tax. There is a progressive tax scale that taxes more the more you make, but there are caps on that too. The services, such as a great health care system, good education through university, wonderful roads, excellent public transportation and, above all, the feeling of security and knowledge that should something happen to you (sickness, accidents, unemployment etc) you will not immediately be on the street , is worth a lot and definitely the few percent more Swedes pay vis-a-vis U.S. taxpayers. Maybe you're right about what would happen if the U.S. government had more control - obviously very little is getting done with taxpayers' money here. When I pay taxes in the U.S. it feels like throwing money away so I understand the concern. There are problems with a Scandinavian model too and there are many people who, like you, want more money in their pocket and don't want to feel that they're paying for others.

It's wonderful that you can enjoy the fruits of your labor and that you feel motivated. Everybody should have that opportunity! My parents were poor when I grew up, but I had all the privileges that only people of upper-middle class and upper class would enjoy in the U.S.. To me, I feel much happier knowing that I live in a society where people can afford to fail, make mistakes, get sick/injured and where those who are weaker get support indirectly from those who are strong. The awareness that misfortune can happen to anybody at any time, even those with considerable personal and economic resources, is an important part of self-reflection and of developing a feeling of human solidarity.


I think we've moved away from the topic.... : )

 

[netdog]

I am expecting a class action suit of over the MacBook Pro delays.

 

[CalBoy]

I think we've moved away from the topic.... : )

We sure have, but at least we're discussing a topic that needs to be discussed. I know what you're saying about how America doesn't always compare well...in fact, in many cases, it has some 3rd world attributes (education, Gini ratio, etc) but I just don't like government intervention, esspecially in the US. Government here has, as you said earlier, proven to be wasteful and pathetic. That's why I'd prefer to solve America's woes without government intervention; I just feel that it would only make it worse.

And by the way, I am very critical of the US in many ways...I just haven't shown it here There are a lot of things that bug me about American society, but ultimately I prefer to change those things in other ways. And I chose France because it highlighted my example (I'm practicing for lawschool, how am I doing? )

At least you care about the world around you, and for that, I say you deserve a great deal of credit and respect. I may disagree with you in certain areas, but I highly value your opinion.