1494: “Insurance”

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby Whizbang » Wed Mar 04, 2015 4:20 pm UTC

speising wrote:
Jackpot777 wrote:
sirono wrote:I do wonder what "hack" he thought up :D


Seeing as it's fire insurance, I was wondering if it's the cigar arson story.

A cigar smoker bought several hundred expensive stogies and had them insured against fire.

After he'd smoked them all, he filed a claim, pointing out that the cigars had been destroyed by fire. The company refused to pay, and the man sued. A judge ruled that because the insurance company had agreed to insure against fire, it was legally responsible. So the company paid the claim.

And when the man accepted the money, the company had him arrested for arson.

I'm sceptical. I'd assume every fire insurance contains clauses about self inflicted fires.


They do now.

User avatar
sevenperforce
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:01 am UTC

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby sevenperforce » Wed Mar 04, 2015 4:31 pm UTC

speising wrote:
Jackpot777 wrote:
sirono wrote:I do wonder what "hack" he thought up :D


Seeing as it's fire insurance, I was wondering if it's the cigar arson story.

A cigar smoker bought several hundred expensive stogies and had them insured against fire.

After he'd smoked them all, he filed a claim, pointing out that the cigars had been destroyed by fire. The company refused to pay, and the man sued. A judge ruled that because the insurance company had agreed to insure against fire, it was legally responsible. So the company paid the claim.

And when the man accepted the money, the company had him arrested for arson.

I'm sceptical. I'd assume every fire insurance contains clauses about self inflicted fires.

This could work (albeit once) if he bought a large number of expensive cigars, insured them against fire, and then charged other people a reduced-but-still-significant fee to smoke a cigar on his property. There are plenty of smoke shops where you can purchase a cigar and smoke it on the premises; in this instance, he would need to structure the transaction such that he retained ownership of the cigars but merely sold the right to smoke them.

Then, once all the cigars had been smoked, he could file a claim for destruction by fire, and since he was not the one who actually destroyed them (rather, numerous other people did) nor did he ever actually sell them to anyone, it would work, and he could recoup double (both the monies from his customers and the insurance check) on his initial investment. Not that any court in the world would allow him to do so, because it's still obvious insurance fraud.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2993
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby orthogon » Wed Mar 04, 2015 4:38 pm UTC

The version I heard said they were destroyed "in a series of small fires", which I find funnier, for some reason. I guess it's the understatement in the word "small".
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

ViperFUD
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:10 pm UTC

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby ViperFUD » Wed Mar 04, 2015 4:44 pm UTC

sfmans wrote:
mccdyl001 wrote:Come to think of it, the system really is incredibly lax. How the heck does it work so well??


The same way whole other swathes of society usually works so well, from (random examples) motorway driving to behaviour at large crowd events. In the majority of cases the vast majority of people behave in an approximately societal manner; driving down a motorway the wrong way whilst on the phone and eating a burger, or shouting fire in a crowded theatre '4 da LOLZ', are transgressive actions that occur occasionally by Audi drivers and morons (and the Venn diagram of the two) but not on a sufficiently high basis that the majority of society avoids using motorways or theatres.

Similarly, most people just want to pick up their bag and get to the hotel or home, rather than think about stealing luggage on the off chance that there is something valuable hidden amongst the dirty laundry. There'll be the odd incidence of transgression, but not sufficiently high that demand escalates that Something Must Be Done to prevent it.

[edited for a couple of minor typos]


+1 for Audi drivers being morons. I always say this ... I don't know if, as part of an Audi purchase agreement, you have to sign a contract that says you will drive like an asshole, but I have found that if someone is weaving in an out of thick traffic at [+25] mph - and going onto the shoulder to pass - they are likely driving an Audi.

Ok, I lied a little bit: they are ALWAYS driving an Audi.

pixeldigger
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 12:45 pm UTC

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby pixeldigger » Wed Mar 04, 2015 5:00 pm UTC

kasmeneo wrote:
Showsni wrote:Add some brightly coloured ribbons or something to your bag; makes it easier to spot, and less likely to be stolen (which bag will a thief pick up, the plain one or the distinctive beribboned one?).

I wonder why people buy indistinguishable black or dark blue bags in the first place. If you go for bright colored and/or patterned bags, you can spot them from across the hall.

I sit and watch all these garish brightly colored bags go by, some with ribbons, some with glitter paint, and then grab my plain black bag that is obviously mine.

Polixenes
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:35 pm UTC

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby Polixenes » Wed Mar 04, 2015 5:04 pm UTC

sevenperforce wrote:
speising wrote:
Jackpot777 wrote:
sirono wrote:I do wonder what "hack" he thought up :D


This could work (albeit once) if he bought a large number of expensive cigars, insured them against fire, and then charged other people a reduced-but-still-significant fee to smoke a cigar on his property. There are plenty of smoke shops where you can purchase a cigar and smoke it on the premises; in this instance, he would need to structure the transaction such that he retained ownership of the cigars but merely sold the right to smoke them.

Then, once all the cigars had been smoked, he could file a claim for destruction by fire, and since he was not the one who actually destroyed them (rather, numerous other people did) nor did he ever actually sell them to anyone, it would work, and he could recoup double (both the monies from his customers and the insurance check) on his initial investment. Not that any court in the world would allow him to do so, because it's still obvious insurance fraud.


I agree with your conclusion. I imagine a fire insurance policy would require the property owner to take reasonable care to safeguard the property against fire. If so (or even absent the requirement I suppose) then the insurance company would contest a claim under any circumstances where the policyholder deliberately created a situation where the risk of fire damage was so thoroughly exacerbated.

User avatar
sevenperforce
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:01 am UTC

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby sevenperforce » Wed Mar 04, 2015 5:20 pm UTC

Polixenes wrote:I imagine a fire insurance policy would require the property owner to take reasonable care to safeguard the property against fire.

Not exactly -- insurance policies typically include protection for stupid. "I put water on to boil while I left to take my dog for a walk, but forgot about the plastic jug of cooking oil sitting right next to the burner" will still be covered. They want you to take reasonable care, of course (and will raise your premiums if they have reason to believe you aren't taking reasonable care), but policies don't usually exclude payment for acts of stupid.

If so (or even absent the requirement I suppose) then the insurance company would contest a claim under any circumstances where the policyholder deliberately created a situation where the risk of fire damage was so thoroughly exacerbated.

In this case, the property owner is not only exacerbating the risk of fire damage, but is assuring it outright. It would probably be treated the same as contracted arson. If I pay someone to burn down my house for the insurance money, then I'm an accessory to arson and I'm guilty of insurance fraud. In this case, the arsonists customers are paying for the privilege of committing arson smoking the cigars, but the cigar shop owner would still be considered an accessory to arson which would neatly bar recovery on the claim and might well open him up to criminal prosecution in additional to civil damages.

speising
Posts: 2283
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby speising » Wed Mar 04, 2015 5:23 pm UTC

as the snopes page, which i finally managed to read, says, burning your own stuff isn't arson. thus, letting someone pay you for the right to burn your stuff isn't accessory to arson.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2993
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby orthogon » Wed Mar 04, 2015 5:31 pm UTC

speising wrote:as the snopes page, which i finally managed to read, says, burning your own stuff isn't arson. thus, letting someone pay you for the right to burn your stuff isn't accessory to arson.

Snopes is brilliant, but it's nothing like as densely cross-linked as tvtropes. This is both an advantage and a disadvantage: it means it's possible to go there, check for the veracity of some claim or other, then carry on your business. But it's far inferior as a time sink.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Bounty
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby Bounty » Wed Mar 04, 2015 5:41 pm UTC

So who want's to ask the WhatIF question:

What are the odds that if I stole a random bag off the Airport conveyor belt, the clothing inside would actually fit me?
EDIT:
Also, how many bags, on average, would I have to take to be reasonably sure of getting clothes that fit me?

User avatar
JohnTheWysard
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:38 am UTC

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby JohnTheWysard » Wed Mar 04, 2015 5:45 pm UTC

"I hear Johnson's barn burned down yesterday."
"Oh, that's too bad; do they know how the fire started?"
"They say it was friction."
"Friction1? What kind of friction?"
"The mortgage rubbing up against the insurance policy..."

User avatar
sevenperforce
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:01 am UTC

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby sevenperforce » Wed Mar 04, 2015 5:49 pm UTC

speising wrote:as the snopes page, which i finally managed to read, says, burning your own stuff isn't arson. thus, letting someone pay you for the right to burn your stuff isn't accessory to arson.

If I pay someone to burn my house down with the intent to claim insurance money, I'm pretty sure I would be charged either with insurance fraud or as an accessory to arson. Just because the money would flow the opposite way in this case wouldn't change that.

speising
Posts: 2283
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby speising » Wed Mar 04, 2015 5:56 pm UTC

sevenperforce wrote:
speising wrote:as the snopes page, which i finally managed to read, says, burning your own stuff isn't arson. thus, letting someone pay you for the right to burn your stuff isn't accessory to arson.

If I pay someone to burn my house down with the intent to claim insurance money, I'm pretty sure I would be charged either with insurance fraud or as an accessory to arson. Just because the money would flow the opposite way in this case wouldn't change that.

yes, that's basically what i said, except that it reduces to the first option.

User avatar
squall_line
Posts: 169
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:36 am UTC

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby squall_line » Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:37 pm UTC

speising wrote:as the snopes page, which i finally managed to read, says, burning your own stuff isn't arson. thus, letting someone pay you for the right to burn your stuff isn't accessory to arson.


Technically, the Snopes page says, "Furthermore, destroying your own property isn't arson, as long as the act isn't intended to defraud anyone." The act of filing the insurance claim is the intent to defraud, regardless of who did the burning.

In any case, IANAL, but I also wouldn't rely on Snopes for legal advice, either. To wit, Iowa Code 712, which defines arson in the State of Iowa, also includes the following provision (emphasis mine):
Provided, that where a person who owns said property which the defendant intends to destroy or damage, or which the defendant knowingly endangers, consented to the defendant's acts, and where no insurer has been exposed fraudulently to any risk, and where the act was done in such a way as not to unreasonably endanger the life or property of any other person the act shall not be arson.


The first part of that statement agrees with Snopes, inasmuch as it's not arson if the owner of the property consents to the burning (you burning your own stuff would satisfy this) and there's no intent to defraud, but the clause that I bolded is what usually gets people in trouble. If you burn your house down and your neighbor's house burns as a result, it could be considered arson.

Most cities (and counties) have ordinances that regulate (if not ban) the burning of leaves, that regulate the location of fire pits and barbecue grills, and that prescribe conditions in which controlled burns are permitted. The burning of one's own house would run afoul of the vast majority of these ordinances. Most municipalities also require permits for controlled burns, if they even allow them. Some fire departments will use abandoned properties as training grounds for their personnel, but if it's in a densely-packed neighborhood or in an area with dense vegetation, it's not really possible to do.

In fact, because of the fact that burning a house creates quite a bit of smoke and heat, a local fire department would likely be called to the scene, at which point the local authorities will determine if you acted with disregard for the lives or property of others, especially if you didn't call them first (hell hath no fury like a local official scorned). More to the point, if you lived out in the country and decided to burn down your barn because, well, you're out in the country and it's your barn, the VFD showed up, and one of them was injured while fighting the fire, you could be charged with arson. You may still be charged with violating some local air pollution control measure, too, for that matter, it just depends on where you live, what you did, and who you know.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1415
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby mathmannix » Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:40 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:The version I heard said they were destroyed "in a series of small fires", which I find funnier, for some reason. I guess it's the understatement in the word "small".

Yes, this is in the Brad Paisley song version (which is linked to in the snopes page).
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1596
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:55 pm UTC

sirono wrote:I do wonder what "hack" he thought up :D
A list of things Mr. Monroe is no longer allowed to do with his fire insurance policy.
  1. Deliberately cause the fire.
  2. Cause a fire to be more likely, without taking actions which necessarily cause fire.
  3. Fail to make efforts to stop fire (Like not calling the fire department).
  4. Claim objects that were destroyed by the time of the insurance claim, but not by the fire specifically.
  5. Claim objects that never existed.
  6. Produce proof of purchases that exceed the cost of purchase.
  7. Concentrate depreciated assets (big different between nominal and real value) in area of highest fire risk.
But I didn't realize you had to be a "computer programmer" to figure that one out…
Cueball is looking at insurance as an arbitrary system that's rules may permit unexpected benefits/results, much like things programmers often have to deal with.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

puppysized
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:08 pm UTC

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby puppysized » Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:12 pm UTC

another life hack:
Movie theaters (at least the ones that I go to) don't seem to actually check whether or not you have your ticket...
Like, you just walk in. Buy a ticket. Walk into a hall, watch a movie, walk out. Never do anything with your ticket. You could even theoretically go in early afternoon, then just hang out in the bathroom in between and watch movies all day. Always wanted to try that...

User avatar
Sprocket
Seymour
Posts: 5949
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:04 pm UTC
Location: impaled on Beck's boney hips.
Contact:

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby Sprocket » Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:13 pm UTC

I'm so bored by people using the word "hack."
If everytime you use something for a purpose other than it was intended, every tree house made from pilfered construction site scraps, and every coffee can that someone uses to hold their spare change is a "hack", and that's ridiculous.
Just like everyone who knits or does carpentry out of their own artistry is not a fucking "maker". You're a knitter and a carpenter. And that's cool.

I am not a maker, because I just take classes. And once in awhile I start a project, and I never finnish any of them. If there is a "starter" movement, I want no part of it. Ron Swanson, 2016.
"She’s a free spirit, a wind-rider, she’s at one with nature, and walks with the kodama eidolons”
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Zohar wrote: Down with the hipster binary! It's a SPECTRUM!

MrT2
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:02 am UTC

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby MrT2 » Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:17 pm UTC

keithl wrote:Still, people steal the damnedest things. Last year, somebody "stole" a 1400 square foot log cabin near Chiloquin, Oregon and sold it a mile down the road. Oregon - we do things differently here.

Ok, that's a bit more impressive than the thieves in England, who last year stole a 6ft garden shed... and left all the contents behind! While searching for that news article, oddly I found a more recent shed theft in Wales...

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 916
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby da Doctah » Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:20 pm UTC

Brits do weird things. Nine years ago, someone left a piano on top of Ben Nevis.

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4873
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby HES » Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:41 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:Nine years ago, someone left a piano on top of Ben Nevis.

Not quite, it was found (and removed) nine years ago, it had been there a few decades.

Sounds like a great idea though, leaving pianos in hard-to-reach places.
He/Him/His Image

User avatar
ShuRugal
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:19 am UTC

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby ShuRugal » Thu Mar 05, 2015 12:19 am UTC

BlitzGirl wrote:A few years ago, my family flew to California for vacation. At baggage claim, we thought we saw somebody take my brother's bag off the carousel, but figured it must have been a bag just like it (because it was black and there are a kajillion black luggage pieces). We waited through the whole baggage delivery and of course the bag never appeared. Had to go to the bag claim department and be told that they would get it to us if/when it showed up.

A day later the bag was delivered to our hotel, contents intact. There wasn't any explanation provided, but I still suspect that the person we saw did pick up my brother's luggage by accident, and was kind enough to return it to the baggage claim when they realized what had happened. (This is why it is good to check that it's really your bag that you pull off the carousel, because nobody else is checking. At least not at domestic U.S. bag claims.)


I have a very similar story that ends with me tapping the other fella on the shoulder and saying "excuse me sir, but i believe you have my bag."

When at the baggage claim, always stand where you can see each bag as it enters the carousel, even if this means standing several people back from the belt itself. It is better to be thought rude for saying "that's my bag, coming through" and pushing your way to your bag than it is to risk someone else nicking it.

Kit.
Posts: 1091
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby Kit. » Thu Mar 05, 2015 1:34 pm UTC

Sprocket wrote:All I could figure. But I didn't realize you had to be a "computer programmer" to figure that one out…

Actually, no one said that Cueball was a "computer programmer". He could be a tester.

---
QA Engineer: I heard a funny joke about us:
QA Engineer walks into a bar.
Orders a beer.
Orders 0 beers.
Orders 999999999 beers.
Orders a lizard.
Orders -1 beers.
Orders a sfdeljknesv.

Senior QA Engineer: What, no SQL injection?

(based on this)

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2993
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby orthogon » Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:41 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:
Orders -1 beers.


;-) "Negative beer drinking" is sadly all too common on a Saturday night. It's what Computer Science students do whilst the Theologians are speaking to God on the great white telephone.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
neremanth
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:24 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby neremanth » Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:42 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:Another example is luggage on trains: it's probably ok to leave your bag on the shelf when you go to the buffet car, because a thief isn't going to know whose bag it is or who else they are travelling with. (This could be worked around by extensive observation, or a good cover story and acting skills: "oh, sorry I have a bag just like that! I forgot I didn't bring it this time").

Even if you observed the passengers carefully and worked out that some bag on the overhead rack belonged to someone travelling by themself, you probably wouldn't want to risk taking it while they were away from their seat unless you were coming up to a station. You don't want them to notice it's gone while you're still stuck on the same train with them... (Though possibly the good cover story might work in that case). And unless you're sitting right next to the person the bag belongs to, or one row in front or behind, other passengers are also probably going to wonder why you would have put something of yours in that place on the rack (assuming there's room above your own seat). They might not go so far as to challenge you, but they would probably remember you when the person the bag belonged to came back and discovered it missing (which of course might not help very much if by that point you've already got off the train and disappeared into the city).

I think you might have more success with the racks by the door for large cases. Get up when the train's approaching a station in good enough time that you'll be near the front of the people waiting to get off, grab whichever picks your fancy, and take it off the train with you. If the owner isn't getting off at that stop too, they very probably won't notice as they won't even be able to see their case unless they're in one of the seats right next to the racks (if they are sitting next to the racks, it's cover story time again).

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2993
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby orthogon » Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:08 pm UTC

neremanth wrote:I think you might have more success with the racks by the door for large cases. Get up when the train's approaching a station in good enough time that you'll be near the front of the people waiting to get off, grab whichever picks your fancy, and take it off the train with you. If the owner isn't getting off at that stop too, they very probably won't notice as they won't even be able to see their case unless they're in one of the seats right next to the racks (if they are sitting next to the racks, it's cover story time again).

This is one reason why I'm incensed that train companies seem to be hell-bent on reducing the size of the overhead shelf, forcing everyone to squeeze their stuff into the racks. Virgin Pendolini are the worst: anything bigger than a small briefcase and you're stuffed. Then again, their fares make it clear that people with only a briefcase, i.e. business travellers, are the only customers they're interested in. </rant>
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
neremanth
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:24 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby neremanth » Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:27 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:This is one reason why I'm incensed that train companies seem to be hell-bent on reducing the size of the overhead shelf, forcing everyone to squeeze their stuff into the racks. Virgin Pendolini are the worst: anything bigger than a small briefcase and you're stuffed. Then again, their fares make it clear that people with only a briefcase, i.e. business travellers, are the only customers they're interested in. </rant>

I approve of this rant. The Pendolinos and the extremely similar Voyagers are the least pleasant to travel in on so many counts, and unfortunately both feature often in my longer distance trips since I'm in Edinburgh. The East Coast, on the other hand, which I also get to use often, I think are the pleasantest (though they don't score all that highly on space around your seat for luggage either). Now that Virgin have taken over that franchise I'm a bit worried about what we're going to get when it's time to replace the rolling stock...

Don't even get me started on how high the fares are.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2993
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby orthogon » Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:40 pm UTC

neremanth wrote:The Pendolinos and the extremely similar Voyagers are the least pleasant to travel in on so many counts, [...]

Since we've started, I may as well enumerate some of the others: the tilting inducing travel sickness; the smell of the chemical toilets pervading the whole carriage; and the stupid "Virgin bleep" ("bedoop bedoop bedoop") that goes off every 20 minutes or so for no reason. The first two make me queasy for obvious reasons, but I swear I have developed a Pavlovian response to the bleep and that the sound of it would induce nausea even in the absence of the other stimuli. And the prices: well they make me sick too.

Yeah, the East-Coast franchise ought to have stayed in public hands, but I'm probably a ludicrous pinko commie for saying so.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
neremanth
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:24 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby neremanth » Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:46 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:Since we've started, I may as well enumerate some of the others: the tilting inducing travel sickness; the smell of the chemical toilets pervading the whole carriage; and the stupid "Virgin bleep" ("bedoop bedoop bedoop") that goes off every 20 minutes or so for no reason.

I'd add to that that the seats are uncomfortable and the way the walls slope in towards the top makes the space feel much more cramped (compare the Intercity 125s), and for the Pendolinos (though not the Voyagers) there are some 'window' seats that have not even a tiny sliver of window, just a wall all the way along. I kind of really like to be able to see out, even if it's only through a strip of window about 5cm wide.

orthogon wrote:Yeah, the East-Coast franchise ought to have stayed in public hands, but I'm probably a ludicrous pinko commie for saying so.

Well, if you are then that makes two of us.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1756
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby Quercus » Thu Mar 05, 2015 7:05 pm UTC

Huh, I've never minded the Pendelinos or the Voyagers (I regularly get the London-Holyhead voyager service to visit family). But then I still have a young persons railcard, which makes the fares bearable and I don't get travelsick.

I think I also have very low standards for these things - as long as I have a book to read and music to listen to you could stick me in a luggage rack and I wouldn't mind too much. The thing that does bother me is the elbow-flailing, pushing and screaming scrum once the platform gets announced at Euston station. I've literally seen someone get elbowed in the face before. Londoners piss me off sometimes.

Muswell
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 2:33 pm UTC

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby Muswell » Thu Mar 05, 2015 11:00 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:Brits do weird things. Nine years ago, someone left a piano on top of Ben Nevis.


What's weird about that? Sounds like it's just a variant on the good old "take a Mini to pieces and put it together again on the roof of your nearest cathedral".

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9997
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby addams » Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:19 am UTC

BlitzGirl wrote:A few years ago, my family flew to California for vacation. At baggage claim, we thought we saw somebody take my brother's bag off the carousel, but figured it must have been a bag just like it (because it was black and there are a kajillion black luggage pieces). We waited through the whole baggage delivery and of course the bag never appeared. Had to go to the bag claim department and be told that they would get it to us if/when it showed up.

A day later the bag was delivered to our hotel, contents intact. There wasn't any explanation provided, but I still suspect that the person we saw did pick up my brother's luggage by accident, and was kind enough to return it to the baggage claim when they realized what had happened. (This is why it is good to check that it's really your bag that you pull off the carousel, because nobody else is checking. At least not at domestic U.S. bag claims.)

Another person and I got Far.

We were walking out of the AirPort,
each with the other's bag. Black Bags.

I needed something in the outside pocket.
The thing I needed was not there!

I started Yelling, "This is Not My Bag!"
That man wanted his bag back as much as I wanted mine.

Marking your bag might help.

In my experience, by the time we have gathered at Baggage Claim,
We are too drained and traumatized to bother with theft.

How many any people don't bother with Baggage Claim?

They simply walk out of the Airport;
Change their name and forget the last ten years ever happened?

Digital will not allow people to do that.
Once upon a Time not all that long ago, people did that.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

SuicideJunkie
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby SuicideJunkie » Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:41 pm UTC

addams wrote:How many any people don't bother with Baggage Claim?

They simply walk out of the Airport;
Change their name and forget the last ten years ever happened?

Digital will not allow people to do that.
Once upon a Time not all that long ago, people did that.

That's mostly how I travel.
But it is enabled by Digital stuff.

A small carryon bag for clothes, and my trusty laptop.
What more do you need?

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1756
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby Quercus » Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:27 pm UTC

SuicideJunkie wrote:A small carryon bag for clothes, and my trusty laptop.
What more do you need?


Let's see, personally, hiking gear, my DSLR, tripod and lenses, possibly a wetsuit and snorkelling gear depending on where I am going (that's not just for specific trips - I try to work in something involving getting out into nature and doing fun stuff there on every trip lasting over a week).

What you need depends on what you do :)

Kit.
Posts: 1091
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby Kit. » Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:19 pm UTC

More than 100ml of a good quality(*) sunscreen alone could be a problem.

*) Water-in-oil emulsion, please.

Hafting
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:23 am UTC

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby Hafting » Sat Mar 07, 2015 12:08 pm UTC

Möbius sheepshank wrote:The catch might be that the real owner of the bag is probably standing around somewhere nearby.


Which is why the pro bag thief hang around, letting the bags circulate 3-4 times first. The owners eager to get their bag has got theirs, anything left is forgotten or belonging to someone who is sick or something. If caugth, there is also the perfect excuse "damn, I have exactly the same suitcase!"

The real reason this don't happen, is that nobody wants a suitcase full of wrong-size used clothes, maybe a random book or umbrella. The people with access are usually people who can afford to fly, they don't need to steal to get clothes. The cameras & computers are in the cabin luggage. Those rare cases who check in valuable luggage will be at the carousel before bags start coming out anyway.

And finally, the vast majority are honest. They don't steal stuff even under perfectly risk-free circumstances. Perhaps they keep a large bill they find on the floor instead of delivering it to lost&found, but that's it!

rmsgrey
Posts: 3462
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby rmsgrey » Sat Mar 07, 2015 3:21 pm UTC

Hafting wrote:And finally, the vast majority are honest. They don't steal stuff even under perfectly risk-free circumstances. Perhaps they keep a large bill they find on the floor instead of delivering it to lost&found, but that's it!


Actually, small bills and coins are more likely to be kept - someone who's lost pocket change is unlikely to bother trying to find it even if they notice it's missing; someone who's lost a day's wages is more likely to go looking for it.

Nate
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:13 am UTC

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby Nate » Sun Mar 08, 2015 3:08 am UTC

puppysized wrote:another life hack:
Movie theaters (at least the ones that I go to) don't seem to actually check whether or not you have your ticket...
Like, you just walk in. Buy a ticket. Walk into a hall, watch a movie, walk out. Never do anything with your ticket. You could even theoretically go in early afternoon, then just hang out in the bathroom in between and watch movies all day. Always wanted to try that...

this actually works at most movie theaters, there have been a few days where I'll wake up early, go to the movie theater, and just walk from one movie to the next until I'm tired of watching movies. I don't really see where you're going with hanging out in the bathroom.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3462
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby rmsgrey » Sun Mar 08, 2015 3:40 am UTC

Nate wrote:
puppysized wrote:another life hack:
Movie theaters (at least the ones that I go to) don't seem to actually check whether or not you have your ticket...
Like, you just walk in. Buy a ticket. Walk into a hall, watch a movie, walk out. Never do anything with your ticket. You could even theoretically go in early afternoon, then just hang out in the bathroom in between and watch movies all day. Always wanted to try that...

this actually works at most movie theaters, there have been a few days where I'll wake up early, go to the movie theater, and just walk from one movie to the next until I'm tired of watching movies. I don't really see where you're going with hanging out in the bathroom.


Ones I go to tend to have a boundary between the front of house and the screens, where your ticket is checked - once you're in, though, there's no obvious checking (staff might notice or might not) - the one I go to most frequently, there's also assigned seating, so it's, in principle, more obvious if someone's trying it on, but people don't stick to their assigned seats unless the screen's packed... from the cinema's perspective, it's more important that people pay to get in in the first place - the number of people who watch multiple movies back to back is going to be fairly small, and the marginal cost for the cinema of having an extra person or two in a mostly empty screen is pretty low...

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6568
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1494: “Insurance”

Postby ucim » Sun Mar 08, 2015 3:43 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:and the marginal cost for the cinema of having an extra person or two in a mostly empty screen is pretty low...
Cost? These people are going to get hungry, and guess what's right in the main lobby! I'll bet that concessions are a big profit point, and actual ticket sales not so much.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests