Slashdot Mirror

I would think that the use of electricity usage data should play out the same way, but who knows!

I knows!
Granting warrants for excessive electricity use is routine in the USA.

Here's one from 2004: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0330044pot1.html
Here's one from 2009: http://hamptonroads.com/node/510056

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bartman_incident
http://baseball.wikia.com/wiki/Steve_Bartman
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=bartman
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/cubfan1.html
http://www.tampabay.com/sports/baseball/rays/article998054.ece

Osama Bin Laden is safer walking down the streets of New York City than Steve Bartman is walking down the streets of Chicago.

Here's what Samantha Gailey's testimony says:

  That, a couple years before, she'd taken part of a Qaalude and that the pill Polanski had was a Rorer 714, broken into 3 pieces.

  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib2.html
  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib3.html

According to the scant info I can find, a Rorer 714 is a 300mg pill not 500mg as you claim and she only took part of one.

She admitted to having taking Qaaludes once before, and having being drunk before although this was the first time she taken alcohol and Qaaludes together.
He took severe advantage of her and I wonder what he was thinking since there were people who knew he was photograhing her.

The link below, a transcript of his plea hearing, says that he admitted to knowing she was 13, although it also says that, before answering,
he consulted twice with his lawyer.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea10.html

However, looking at a picture that is supposed to be one of Samantha in 1977, I can't see how he could think she was 17 so he must have known.

Samantha's lawyer urged the judge to accept the plea: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea17.html

France rejected the US request for an extradition back then but the States could also have requested he be tried in France. Apparently, this request was never made.

Roman is clearly and fault and he's never denied this but this would never have dragged on if the deal, with which he was complying, had been honored. Also, he's never been accused by anyone else so, pedophile or not, he's not a serial rapist and he was cleared by psychiatric evaluation ( hardly foolproof, I know ) of being a pathological sex offender.

So, if his (sole) victim has not only forgiven him but has been campaiging for 12 years to let the matter drop, what is the problem?
 

Here's what Samantha Gailey's testimony says:

  That, a couple years before, she'd taken part of a Qaalude and that the pill Polanski had was a Rorer 714, broken into 3 pieces.

  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib2.html
  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib3.html

According to the scant info I can find, a Rorer 714 is a 300mg pill not 500mg as you claim and she only took part of one.

She admitted to having taking Qaaludes once before, and having being drunk before although this was the first time she taken alcohol and Qaaludes together.
He took severe advantage of her and I wonder what he was thinking since there were people who knew he was photograhing her.

The link below, a transcript of his plea hearing, says that he admitted to knowing she was 13, although it also says that, before answering,
he consulted twice with his lawyer.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea10.html

However, looking at a picture that is supposed to be one of Samantha in 1977, I can't see how he could think she was 17 so he must have known.

Samantha's lawyer urged the judge to accept the plea: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea17.html

France rejected the US request for an extradition back then but the States could also have requested he be tried in France. Apparently, this request was never made.

Roman is clearly and fault and he's never denied this but this would never have dragged on if the deal, with which he was complying, had been honored. Also, he's never been accused by anyone else so, pedophile or not, he's not a serial rapist and he was cleared by psychiatric evaluation ( hardly foolproof, I know ) of being a pathological sex offender.

So, if his (sole) victim has not only forgiven him but has been campaiging for 12 years to let the matter drop, what is the problem?
 

Here's what Samantha Gailey's testimony says:

  That, a couple years before, she'd taken part of a Qaalude and that the pill Polanski had was a Rorer 714, broken into 3 pieces.

  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib2.html
  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib3.html

According to the scant info I can find, a Rorer 714 is a 300mg pill not 500mg as you claim and she only took part of one.

She admitted to having taking Qaaludes once before, and having being drunk before although this was the first time she taken alcohol and Qaaludes together.
He took severe advantage of her and I wonder what he was thinking since there were people who knew he was photograhing her.

The link below, a transcript of his plea hearing, says that he admitted to knowing she was 13, although it also says that, before answering,
he consulted twice with his lawyer.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea10.html

However, looking at a picture that is supposed to be one of Samantha in 1977, I can't see how he could think she was 17 so he must have known.

Samantha's lawyer urged the judge to accept the plea: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea17.html

France rejected the US request for an extradition back then but the States could also have requested he be tried in France. Apparently, this request was never made.

Roman is clearly and fault and he's never denied this but this would never have dragged on if the deal, with which he was complying, had been honored. Also, he's never been accused by anyone else so, pedophile or not, he's not a serial rapist and he was cleared by psychiatric evaluation ( hardly foolproof, I know ) of being a pathological sex offender.

So, if his (sole) victim has not only forgiven him but has been campaiging for 12 years to let the matter drop, what is the problem?
 

Here's what Samantha Gailey's testimony says:

  That, a couple years before, she'd taken part of a Qaalude and that the pill Polanski had was a Rorer 714, broken into 3 pieces.

  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib2.html
  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib3.html

According to the scant info I can find, a Rorer 714 is a 300mg pill not 500mg as you claim and she only took part of one.

She admitted to having taking Qaaludes once before, and having being drunk before although this was the first time she taken alcohol and Qaaludes together.
He took severe advantage of her and I wonder what he was thinking since there were people who knew he was photograhing her.

The link below, a transcript of his plea hearing, says that he admitted to knowing she was 13, although it also says that, before answering,
he consulted twice with his lawyer.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea10.html

However, looking at a picture that is supposed to be one of Samantha in 1977, I can't see how he could think she was 17 so he must have known.

Samantha's lawyer urged the judge to accept the plea: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea17.html

France rejected the US request for an extradition back then but the States could also have requested he be tried in France. Apparently, this request was never made.

Roman is clearly and fault and he's never denied this but this would never have dragged on if the deal, with which he was complying, had been honored. Also, he's never been accused by anyone else so, pedophile or not, he's not a serial rapist and he was cleared by psychiatric evaluation ( hardly foolproof, I know ) of being a pathological sex offender.

So, if his (sole) victim has not only forgiven him but has been campaiging for 12 years to let the matter drop, what is the problem?
 

I think most of the hijackers had entered the US legally, too.

They all had. In fact, the American immigration authorities issued student visas to the hijackers AFTER 9/11!

Eric Slye: Jury service is a complete waste of time. I would rather count the wrinkles on my dog's balls.

The correct spelling is O'falafel.

Actually, my first conclusion was the same as yours. Until I read the police report, that is.

You did read the report, right?

Anyone who'se been on the internet long enough will recall an argument or two where people got so mad at each other that they start threatening to sue or call the authorities. This is generally kind of funny - because you can sort of picture the look on the face of the cop or lawyer when you call them - "Someone has wilfully tarnished my good name by posting scurrilous insults about me on the Internets! How soon can they be clapped in irons?"

To say this exchange happens once per second in this country is probably dramatically understating it. There are days when it may happen once per second on Slashdot alone. The plain fact is, even as a civil matter, we as a society can very rarely be bothered to go through the difficult process of handling an internet libel, slander or even harassment case.

Yes, you have some theoretical recourse if someone google bombs your name with hate sites that accuse you of being an embezzling pedophile terrorist and feature your photo and home address prominently. For better or worse, even coping with such an extreme example is beyond the means of 99% of Americans - because of time and expense just for a start.

My first reaction to Ms. Cohen's plight is, how on earth is she so lucky and/or special as to be able to face her insulter in court? At least there is a vaguely plausible theory - that she has already been a crime victim and has convinced cops and courts that there may be an ongoing pattern of harassment/violence by an individual. But she is astoundingly privileged among internet insult victims.

And how lucky is she? One apparently needs to go the extremes of Pranket in order to get law enforcement to stir. In other words, 6 or 7 figures of property damage, or things like (no exaggeration, unfortunately) using social engineering to convince fast food employees to strip naked and pee all over each other).

This is the tip of a very large iceberg. Just check out any random Encyclopedia Dramatica page. Seriously. No, really.

This was more than social engineering. You should listen to the guy fighting with the couple and insisting when the man refused:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0803091pranknet1.html

Go down the panel on the right side of the page, there are recordings of the calls in Flash. It's funny, but it's sad and scary.

I don't think we're disagreeing - my main point is that verifying authority should be more commonplace than it currently is in our society.

Basically the tips listed here:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0729091ocsheriffbull2.html

That be common practice for everyone, and policy at every company. At least half of the companies I've worked for had similar policies in place. Enforcement, however, is notoriously spotty.

One company "reminded" everyone (for the first time) after a potential client tested them. The client was able to gain access to the building just by walking in behind another employee. Needless to say, that security-conscious client was a lost sale.

There is nothing inherently benign about lying to gain access to a building or to information. Depending on the building and the information, it can be extremely serious!

Seems like one of the Pranknet guys (Markle) was jailed for two years for raping a five-year-old. He "warned the girl that he would kill her parents if she did not comply with him".

Nixon had a pretty good speech, too. It's still around, and certainly worth reading. Would you like to know more?.

According to this: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0625091jackson1.html he masturbated the young man to climax.

One, beef and grains are not the only foods in existence. It's not a binary choice. And two, almost any health professional would tell you that a high-carb diet is preferable to a high cholesterol diet in terms of health consequences. There's a reason that the medical community was so against the Atkins diet. Atkins himself had had a heart attack, congestive heart failure, and hypertension late in his life (which he adimantly insisted had nothing to do with his high-fat diet -- really!), and it may ultimately have contributed to his death (although the primary cause appears to have been head injury). He was 6' and 258lbs at his time of death. Again, his family insists he gained 60 pounds during the coma after he fell. No, really. And even if that was the case, he'd still be "overweight" when he was injured.

It's weird. I could swear that someone testified that removing Internet Explorer from Windows was "impossible".

There must be some geographical factor I haven't considered.

-Peter

Now the police report does indicate that they were both probably drinking.. but one wonders if perhaps his meeting with this lady was not entirely happenstance.

She does bear a passing resemblance to Jenna Elfman.

The Coloring Book.

Read it and then tell me it's in bad taste. I think they did a really good job.

I was speaking with my girlfriend and we're in agreement. Children, especially children that are at the age where coloring books are a learning aid really don't need to be exposed to the details of 9/11.

Oh yeah. Telling kids "You might think you made the disaster happen, but you didn't," is absolutely not the message we need to be telling our children. They are a failure, and because they didn't pick up their toys from the couch 3,000 people died, and if they don't eat their green beans, another 3,000 are going to die.

You've missed the point of the coloring book. Read through it. The purpose isn't to teach kids about 9/11, like you seem to assume, it's to help kids get through a traumatic experience. These are kids who had their house burned down or something, and even if they don't understand exactly what happened, they are going to feel the emotional impact of it. The book is just a way to help them deal with it.

Here's a copy of the coloring book: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/pdf/femacoloringbook.pdf

NASA mission w. asian-american"

Where's Hiu?
Watt!
What?
Yes.
No, I asked, where's Hiu?
Watt!
What?
Exactly!
Where?
Watt!
What?
Now you've got it!
Just tell me what's with Hiu
No, you've got it backwards.
Who?
That's what I said.
Where?
Watt!
What?
I'm glad we cleared that up.
Let me guess ... you trained with that crazy Depends-toting Lisa Maire Nowak?

And I might point out that looking at a jpeg of an act of, say, rape is not itself rape. But it seems to be treated as if it were. Viewing sites like the Smoking Gun and Rotten should be equivalent to murder by the same theory.

This smoking gun page contains a fairly good set of descriptions of the kinds of things that are out there: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0210093foxnews1.html

Here is the link to the start of the report notes if people want to read it. A fun read. The next buttons to flip pages aren't apparent on the side.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0217092samsung1.html

Government broadband YOU.

Obama bailout will soon tank.

Keep spending U.S. $ on your stupid foreign fiascos.

Yours In Socialism,
Kilgore Trout.

I've seen higher http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/washley1.html

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1202081minn1.html After I saw this story, I decided to get me one of these. The best part is that it doesn't look like a gun. Grandkids will love it!

According to the complaint filed by the SEC, they are not seeking any jail time.

They are seeking judgement:
a. enjoining Cuban from engaging in future violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities law.
b. ordering Cuban to disgorge, with prejudgement interest, the losses avoided as a result of the actions described
c. ordering Cuban to pay a civil money penalty to pursuaint to Section 21A.... blah blah

But.. no jail time. Martha Stewart received jail time because she was convicted of obstruction of justice / lying to investigators. Not that I don't think jail time is warranted personally..

Ok, I didn't find that but I did find his other law suit,
George Steinbrenner made me Surrender my Mind, in which
he says that he committed wire fraud with Steinbrenner's sons, and used the proceeds to finance A-Rod's contract purchase,
and:
Steinbrenner loves him, and calles him cake boy, sweet cheeks, and Jonny Choo Choo,
made him eat a banana in front of the 1998 Yankees, and I quote the rest:
"In a letter shaped as a heart, Steinbrenner wants me to replace Derick jeter at shortstop when I come home"
"Steinbrenner wrote me and wants me to be his fabio and eat "I can't believe its not Butter" without a knife in front of him."
"George Steinbrenner has been bribing and blackmailing me telling me he will pay for my federal appeal, in return, I have to catwalk
and chippendales dance in the Yankees lockerroom before each game."

I haven't even gotten to the lawsuit against Isaah Thomas yet, but there is clearly a grudge against New York sports teams.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0919082mattress1.html

This guy shoots an 11 year old girl and a jury gives him $300k because he slept on a dirty mattress? He should be sleeping at the bottom of the Hudson River! What the fuck is wrong with America?

P.S. - Metallica pussed out after 1995. Now, whenever I think of Metallica, I think of a foul-smelling, cheesy snatch.

I did find it humorous that they used his mug shot for his photo on his membership(?) card for the shoe store.

Somebody got busted surfing for some porn, so they came up with this USB key story. Have you seen the Crazy Bitches they have up there ? I'd bring some porn too.

Welcome to US of A: Where illegally copying a game gets you jail time while driving intoxicated gets you community service.
The land of free, where anyone with enough money never needs to goto jail for any crime.

You can thank our president for that.

Wouldn't work on this guy.

"how the fuck do you "accidentally" spend 1000 goddamn dollars?"

Probably the same way this guy "accidentally" spent $241,000 in one night at a strip club. Well in his defense, he did also have 3 guests along, so really it was only about $52,500 per person.

So, to you, stacking the Supreme Court with anti-abortion zealots

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/14/AR2005111400720.html

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2008/05/sekulow_recalls.html

and going after porn with a vengeance by increasing Justice Department prosecutions and devoting FBI resources to porn DURING A TIME OF TERRORISM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/bushs-war-on-porn-perve_b_7704.html

and viciously pushing to remove porn's sources of funding

http://www.forbes.com/2003/05/01/cz_sl_0501porn.html

and levying huge fines on outspoken media opponents for talking about innocuous things

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0408043fcc1.html

or for showing a tit

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/01/entertainment/main626925.shtml

or using swear words

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article390108.ece

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080616/epps

isn't doing much to push the religious agenda?

How much more does it take to convince you that Bush, especially during the time he had no Congressional opposition, was actively doing things to help the religious zealots? Are you sure that YOU haven't been living on Mars the last seven years?

he's still in office and defending things like torture

take a look at this book review

Are you talking about this book?

The street was clearly marked private, and it was in use by a single residence.

Wrong. There are four houses on that street, and there was no signage visible when the story originally broke. If there was, they'd have no problem including a photo in their complaint, but they didn't. I wonder why. If the sign wasn't in the streetview data, how would you expect the driver (being located directly under the camera) to see it? Note that TSG also links to an Allegheny county website that has a photo (and footprint diagram) of their house.

I think privacy is a good thing, but I think our society has gotten ridiculously litigious. People want to stick it to the companies, but that rarely works (like a lotto), and the only ones who consistently get rich are the lawyers.

Why does Google respect the privacy of people on the street but doesn't respect the privacy of marked private property? I was rather dismayed at Google's lawyer effectively saying that because technology like satellites exist and have photographed private property, and because people with legitimate business with the owners of private property may be expected to be allowed to enter on to private property, that by extension the ground level databasing of a persons private property is an assumed privilege.

It's 1567 Oakridge Ln, Pittsburgh, PA 15237, but depending on whether you're using Google Maps or Live Search Maps you'll get different houses, so I'm not positively sure which one it is. I think the imagery both of them use is old, anyway... you can't see the pool in either of them. MapQuest and Yahoo both point out the same house as Google Maps, but the imagery they use is different from each other and different from both Google and Live Search...

Overall, comparing the layout to the pictures from Street View I think the property is the one at 40.575888,-80.079721 (where Live Search indicated) and Yahoo maps seems to have the best view of it (there's even a smidge of blue approximately where the pool should be... it's a bit hard to see, but the picture was taken in the wintertime, so the pool might have been empty or covered, plus a couple of big evergreens were casting a dark shade on it). Notice that it looks a lot better in Yahoo's pictures than it did in the ones Google Street View took... it must have still been under construction. I can understand how they'd have been less-than-flattered if they ever intended to sell the property.

TFA wasn't clear, so it's not really a good source anyway. If you're still curious, these are better:
  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0404081google1.html
  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0730081google1.html

TFA wasn't clear, so it's not really a good source anyway. If you're still curious, these are better:
  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0404081google1.html
  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0730081google1.html

The internet is a public place, no different than a park. If you go into my backyard and take pictures of the underwear hanging on my clothesline and post them on trees in the park, you have violated my privacy, just as Google did posting pictures of these folks' PRIVATE property on the PUBLIC internet.

Yep... I especially like the part where Google said "the view of a home from the driveway that can be seen by any visitor, delivery person or telephone repairman is not private". This shouldn't be news, but yeah, it IS private. If you had people driving up your driveway to look at your house, you'd call the cops, and those people would go away. All the people Google mentioned have a valid reason to be there: unlike Google's employees or the people who are using Google Street View.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0730081google1.html

This was much more informative than TFA and it also includes scanned images of Google's preliminary statement.

So there are two homes that have been trespassed in Pennsylvania?
The Smoking Gun show this home of April 7 and this home of July 30 (article dates shown).

So there are two homes that have been trespassed in Pennsylvania?
The Smoking Gun show this home of April 7 and this home of July 30 (article dates shown).