Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Woman Avoids $70,000 Online Gambling Debt

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the how-to-cut-your-losses dept.

ShawnD writes "A California woman has gotten out of a $70,000 on line gambling debt by claiming that the 'loan' from Visa was illegal (California apparently frowns on loaning money for gambling). The judge agreed. See this article at ZDNN."

197 comments

  1. Re:Several thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In order to become a merchant and accept visa cards, you must declare what it is your business is, chiefly. You are given much leeway within this business to work with, they don't hassle you, but you do have to let them know what business you are in. They don't just hand it over. Also, as the previous poster said (Just for emphasis), realize that this is not a judgement FOR this woman, but merely a judgement saying that Visa is not entitled to this money, as they loaned it out illegally. Do you loan a junkie on the street (no offence to any junkies... been there) $5000 so he can buy drugs, and then expect to get it back? A court would PROBABLY tell you that you KNEW it would be used for illegal purposes, and any common sense would have told you that you were throwing this money away, and probably woulnd't be allowed to collect it. And if you think about it, it makes good sense.

  2. Re:The credit card company will still have revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Flawed logic. IF they screwed up, they don't FORGIVE the debt, the REVERSE it. Otherwise, the are out $70,000 on the books. FORGIVING a debt is simply making the statement that you will never collect it, period. They have written it off. IN this case, it certainly WOULD be income. (heck, it went in, it never went back out).

  3. Re:The credit card company will still have revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She just has to prove that "She spent VISAs money, not hers", or the casino's.

    Not quite, sweetey. Those who convert (stealing, for those of you educated in gov't schools) their employer's assets to their own use are often not prosecuted, mostly due to fear of bad publicity on the part of the employer.

    Howsomeever, you are referred to the IRS, who checks your tax returns. Thieves who declared their ill gotten gains are free at this point. If you didn't, you go to jail for tax fraud. Al Capone was jailed in this way.

    If there's justice, she'll have to put this one on her return.

  4. Re:Ha ha! Only in California (aka, the left coast) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SO?! Many things are dangerous, if you are reckless.

    Coffee is hot and knives are sharp. Atleast they should be.

    When I drink coffee, I first check how hot it is, then if it's too hot I wait a bit (NOT holding the cup between my legs).

    Who says coffee has to be so cold that you can drink the whole cup instantly without getting burns?

    And finally... It's pretty dumb to hold HOT coffee cup between your legs.

    Consumers have a choice, if you don't like McDonalds coffee, DON'T BUY IT! It is ridiculous that the courts, juries see that it's their duty to award reckless idiots, who misuse products and harm themselves.

  5. Re:Simply amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I assure you, she has not learned her lesson. If she gets away with this she's going to try it again. The mis/use of credit cards is a very addictive habit that can be especially hard to break.

  6. Hot Coffee! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This lady could use a lap full.

  7. Or possibly Canada (nt) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt==no text

  8. Didn't offshore casino have a Visa merchant acct? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm assuming that the offshore casino had a valid Visa merchant account. How else could they make charges to a Visa card then? And assuming this was legal, which it probably is, then it was the WOMAN who broke the law when she gambled over the 'net. I see no reason why Visa should get stuck with the bill. This is like my ISP getting the blame if I h4x0r3d some site or downloaded w4r3z.

  9. offtopic, but more interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is the link I noticed adjacent to the gambling article.

    Microsoft Sues Four California Companies For Software Piracy, refferring to the companies as "organized criminals".

    California Governor Gray Davis instructs state to correct licensing issues, at the request of Microsoft and Adobe.

  10. Re: limit of less than $500? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How'd you do that? My CC started at $500, but has crept up to about $2500 over the last couple of years.. Well, crept is maybe the wrong term.. I asked for an increased credit limit so I could buy some plane tickets (which I was reimbursed for by the university), and voila the limit went up.. It hasn't come back down.. By the way, I only make ~$15000 a year as a grad student, so $2500 is a pretty sizeable percentage of my income.. If you're making $50,000+ the CC companies should be sending you all kinds of "Gold Card" or "Platnum Card" propaganda... If you want some, I've got it all over the place, I'll send you some... :-)

  11. Re:who's at fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds as if the credit card companies will be filtering requests from known gambling sites. If they didn't think that something like this was gonna happen sometime then this is a cheap lesson for the credit card companies.

  12. Yep, this is just like Feds fining big tobacco. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    That's the problem. She's abandoned her responsibility and now the credit card company is left to spread it out among the rest of the consumers.

    Yep. It's the same with the feds fining the big tobacco companies billions of dollars. The fine means nothing to the company. They just hike the price of cigarettes, which already hooked users will pay. The fine does not hurt the company at all. And when the fine is paid up, prices do not go back down and now feds have successfully helped big tobacco into a higher profit margin. Way to go feds. Punish the addicted tobacco user who can't stop while (wrongfully) thinking you're just targeting evil tobacco corporate management.

  13. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you mean, Canada is failing miserably? In what way? You may not open an online Casino in Canada any more than you can open a physical one. Period. You may not (as a canadian business) operate a server offshore and provide gambling services to Canadians. (Note: It's the 'provide gambling service on canadian soil' ) that is illegal.

  14. Visa doesn't approve anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Member bansk,m, and the techncolgoy compnaies that process the bank's cusotmer transactions do! VISA is not much more than a forum to agree some common rules, and advertise like crazy. The settlement is about protecting Visa's name - not the bank, casino, or anyone else Lyal

  15. Is the woman not an accessory to crime, then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Well, firstly, I think it's wrong to call anyone a "thief", in this case. (Except maybe for the woman herself, who took $70,000 of Visa's money and spent it on her own enjoyment and now doesn't have to pay it back.)

    Something odder, though, is: no ruling? Isn't the "no moneylending for gambling" a criminal law? How then could the judge decide to let them settle out of court?

    But my real question is this: If the loan is void because lending for the purposes of gambling is illegal, is not the woman an accessory to the crime? She sought a loan from Visa, knowing full well that it was going to be used for gambling. Even if she didn't know that lending for gambling was illegal, she might still be open to charges, ignorance of the law not being an excuse in most jurisdictions... On the other hand, it may well not be illegal for the debtor, if the law was written to "protect" gamblers who might go into debt, even if the gambler has enticed the lender into unknowingly making an illegal loan. Seems like entrapment to me, but then I'm not the judge, am I?

    IANAL, FWIW. If I have any of the facts wrong, I apologize in advance.

    1. Re:Is the woman not an accessory to crime, then? by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      In the UK, there is a debit card run by the Visa network, branded as 'Visa / Delta'. There is also Switch which I believe is run by Mastercard. Bookmakers accept Delta and Switch but not ordinary Visa / Mastercard, presumably for just this reason. They must have some way of checking, when somebody makes a bet over the phone, whether the card number they give is a Visa / Delta debit card or just plain Visa credit card.

      Maybe there is a similar 'product' in America - if not, it's going to be needed pretty soon, unless casinos in California don't mind not being allowed to accept plastic.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    2. Re:Is the woman not an accessory to crime, then? by MindStalker · · Score: 2

      Much of the law has to do with the fact that someone can't loan money with the knowledge of the fact that it is going to be used for gambling. You might try to make the instantanius argument that Visa had no way of knowning what the money would be used for, and such and such. But that would be a blatent untruth. Visa, or any other credit card company has the right to dissapprove of any merchant from using its service. So if Visa had stopped and considered the law, it should either not allow merchants which offer gambling to accept their credit cards. Or make very specific deals with such merchants as to only accept cards from certain states. This was an oversight on visa part, and it is the one to blame. NOT that I don't think the lady should be SMACKED around a bit :) but on a purly legal status, its still Visa's problem. Though if Visa is smart it will refuse to pay the Online Casino, which is something that by contact Visa usually has the right to do. And in all honesty I'm not about to feel sorry for the Casino for loosing its money :)

  16. Mastercard and Visa don't issue cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Banks do! The banks just happen to be members of a club for branding, advertsing, and scheme specific transaction protocols that's it!

  17. EAT IT YOU FUCKING GEEKS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SUX LINUX SU

    1. Re:EAT IT YOU FUCKING GEEKS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone remember when we used to have creative trolls here on /.?
      I don't, but I'm a young'un.

    2. Re:EAT IT YOU FUCKING GEEKS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a creative troll I found on a newsgroup:

      Did you know the word gullible isn't in any dictionary?

  18. Re:Really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about "I nominate this comment for deletion"
    Then you have to have some other moderators that vote for it to be deleted?

    Maybe a "Void" area where deleted comments get sent to? Hmm.. maybe too complex. Especially if you have one for each story.

  19. Re:American idiocy in work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, in a way, it *IS* Visa's fault. They should *NOT* have loaned her the money. Whether you like to think so or not, a visa *IS* a loan, and there should be some sort of risk associated with their extending credit to you. Otherwise, what are they doing? They should *NOT* have lent her the money if she was not able to pay it back. that is what a little thing called CREDIT limit's are for. Rest assured, this womans credit rating is TOAST, probably for the rest of her life.

  20. Re:Ha ha! Only in California (aka, the left coast) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    like spilling coffee on ones self? (gee,.. I spilt coffee on my self, lets sue micyd's :)

  21. Re:who's at fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or the doctors office for STD's :)

  22. Re:Give me a break. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where do you get this weird idea that the organization kills its debtors? What good does that do? A dead guy can't pay me. Furthermore, it's one thing to kill within the organization and another to take out civilians. The cops care a lot more about a murder when the victim is not a known criminal.

    However, I'm glad that the movies have scared schmucks like you into thinking that a debt owed to one of us is some kind of a death sentence. It makes it much easier to collect.

  23. Re:who's at fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    VISA is clearly at fault. A credit card transaction represents 2 contracts - a contract between the merchant and the credit provider, and a contract between the credit provider and the card holder. All merchants must have merchant accounts with Visa (or a bank authorised to provide Visa merchant accounts, which boils down to the same thing). VISA simply should not provide merchant accounts for merchants who engage in illegal activities. On another thread, I believe that credit providers are complicit in the case of credit fraud - they batch process transactions that were never authorised by signature (e.g. internet porn purchases). If the credit card doesn't exist, never mind. If it does exist, it gets charged to that number, even though there is an extremely high probability that the card number was generated. Credit companies have been knowingly involved in questionable activities for years. Hopefully cases like this will make them clean up thier act. Kim (kdmason@cs.adelaide.edu.au)

  24. Re:Law-types do read Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Believe it or not, many lawyers and law students >DO read and comment on Slashdot... uhhhh... sure. I guess that why there are so many half-assed, lame-brained posts anytime any topic having to do with law is discussed on slashdot.

  25. Totally Fascist Brainless Slashdot Comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (Summary: rightists and leftists both wrong.
    The whole idea of stoping "illegal" victimless commerce on the net requires the erasure of privacy!)

    The vast majority of comments are defending the idea of a gambling loan being illegal in her state. All based on the idea that gambling is
    bad and "people needed to be protected from
    themselves" I find this idea so fucking SICKENING. It's typical of stupid christian idealogy on the right, and do-gooder collectivism on the left.

    Sure, gambling is a tax on stupidity for some
    people. Yet, other people are rational and
    understand it is not an investment, but
    entertainment, similar to racking up debt by
    buying too many video games, too much online
    service addiction (remember the dayz in the US
    when browsing porn online meant $6/hr access
    fees!), or simply being addicted to alcohol
    or porn. There are a whole panorama of
    economic activities that people get addicted to and cause harm to themselves. Should we
    make it all illegal? What if this woman bought
    $70,000 worth of shoes (Imelda Marcos style) or $70,000 worth of Books. Shopping in itself
    is a form of addiction. If someone in 1989
    ran up a $70,000 compuserve for an addiction to
    open source GPL coding or porn browsing, should
    we also let it go without any punishment? And how do you tell an addiction from an investment?

    The fact of the matter is, much evil can be inflicted on society in the name of "protecting people from themselves"

    Gambling is a personal choice. It is a victimless crime in the libertarian sense, if you even want to call it a crime. This women should be
    forced to pay off some percentage of the loan
    or declare bankruptcy.

    But let's not even talk about gambling specifically. Let's talk about the idea of enforcing laws on the internet that are in essense unenforcable. Slashdot users never
    fail to always blame the corporation or
    expect them to pick up the tab. It's like
    a bunch of kids who always expect daddy to
    pick up the bill when they've been bad.

    You are sooooo sure that VISA can stop this simply by looking at the payer's location and the payee's destination, but the fact of the matter is, money can be laundered quite easily through a number of mechanisms. What's to stop services that convert credit into cash or another form of credit? And furthermore, such detection requires
    that consumers much always divulge their geographic location and perhaps more, eliminating privacy.

    VISA will no more be able to stop or detect
    internet gambling than will Microsoft be able
    to stop piracy or RIAA stop MP3.

    And as for the arguments that VISA was stupid and "the law must be upheld" whatever the technicality. Do you believe getting sued for violating export encryption laws because someone downloaded your program to a foreign country is also a great thing? That somehow, if someone gets busted by the feds for distributing PGP from an FTP server "they should have known better and verified that they were in the US, or that cryptography is legal in their country?"

    The internet should be based on privacy and anonymity. In theory, the Casino shouldn't even be able to figure out where I live!

    I view offshore commerce as a great thing. It hammers home the ridiculousless of illegalizing victimless crimes, and trying to police the internet in an inherently borderless cyberworld without a government.

    This women ran up a debt and then got out of paying it on a legal technicality. I hope it takes atleast $70,000 worth of legal bills or other costs to her to pay her lawyers and rebuild her credit history. Let the punishment fit the stupid behavior.

    1. Re:Totally Fascist Brainless Slashdot Comments by epine · · Score: 1


      The reasoning here lacks depth.

      Even the investment industry is regulated as to what kinds of investments one is able to make "on margin". Gambling on margin is the worst of all.

      I see no reason at all why gambling and credit need to be linked. The whole concept of credit is that it enables a deferred return to the person obtaining the credit. A sane society requires a balance between risk and reward.

      People who extend credit by throwing money into a burning house ought not be relying on the instruments of society to extract it again.

      One has to bear in mind that what we are calling "gambling" here is not symmetric: only one party is gambling in any real sense; the other party is reaping highly predictable profits.

      However, when the casino extends credit to the unworthy the situation does in fact become pleasingly symmetric. Fair enough. But let's not waste the resources of the court defending the stupidity of the casino.

  26. Really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When did all this stuff start? Yesterday?
    There should be a delete comment option for something this stupid.

    Someone is probably laughing very hard right now "Oh yeah! I told them! Linux really Sux!"

    The weird things people do....

    1. Re:Really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moderation Totals:Flamebait=1, Troll=5, Total=6, yet score 0

      Either this is a prank by the makers of slashdot, or this troll has found a way to bypass moderation

    2. Re:Really... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Either this is a prank by the makers of slashdot, or this troll has found a way to bypass moderation

      The comment is _long_ therefore is considered to be one point upper.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    3. Re:Really... by thopkins · · Score: 1

      It was marked up because its a long post.

    4. Re:Really... by rlkoppenhaver · · Score: 1

      But if Person X had the ability to delete this comment, then Person X also has the ability to delete a comment along the lines of

      Well, I have to disagree with Person X on this issue...

      I wouldn't trust myself with this kind of power, much less Person X. Which is why we can't have a delete comment option. This "Linux Sux" sort of thing is the unfortunate downside of Freedom of Speech.

    5. Re:Really... by daviddennis · · Score: 2

      What's kind odd is that the comment got a score 0:Troll. So someone actually moderated it up (otherwise it would have been score -1: Troll). In theory, MetaModeration is supposed to make up for that, but obviously it's far from foolproof.

      D

      ----

  27. Re:california by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree. California has the most skewed judicial system I've ever heard of. Remember the burglar who sued the homeowner for shooting him in the leg, in the homeowners house (and won)? That happened in California. Not to worry though, California should be underwater after the great earthquake of 1/1/2000..... =+)

  28. Did anyone read the article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It amazes me that Rob would post things verbatim and not check them out. A judge hasn't agreed to anything yet in this case. ShawnD just made that up. Or didn't read the article very well. Rob just passed it along without checking it either. It's pretty easy to do; just read the one page article. I notice a lot of people jump on various things without really understanding what is going on. Notice how many comments on this subject talk about the nonexistant judge. -- David A. Gilman "Do not board the elevator with the robot"

  29. Re:Did anyone read the article? (oops) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oops. There should've been an email address in there - dgilman@ix.netcom.com (to bored to log in)

  30. At last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A sane comment!

  31. Re:Who has jurisdiction in cyberspace?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Well, for sales tax purposes, Texas considers web surfers to have traveled through cyberspace to Texas where a web purchases then happens. They are thus charged local Texas sales tax.

    If the Texas gov't believes this, then they must believe that Texas gamblers travel through cyberspave to the Bahamas/Caymans/whatever to gamble. Therefore it must be legal for Texans to gamble in internet casinos, right?

    Of course gov't will probably want n sets of rules all set up so they can always have it their way. This should prove interesting and amusing to watch.

  32. Re:The law is the law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The woman's motives are very relevant. If she solicited a loan she knew her creditor could not legally collect upon, IMHO that's blatant fraud. Though there's probably some technicality such that it won't be treated that way.

  33. Re:Simply amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You have to deny reality very powerfully to invest $70k in an effort to show otherwise.

    Only if you have to repay it. If a loophole lets you bet somebody else's money and collect any winnings but not suffer from any losses, and you don't have any qualms about stealing from them, you'd be crazy not to.

  34. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    190 Fahrenheit? Skin grafts?! That isn't food, that's a weapon! If I wanted to injure myself that severely at any of McDonald's competitors, I'd have to walk in and sit on an open broiler.

  35. Re:Give me a break. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just a second: Do you have any sympathy for an ILLEGAL online operation? I don't. Fuck them. Fuck that stupid woman too. In Las Vegas, you'd be killed though. The mob runs that. If it turns out the mob is running this online "service" she's going to be dead as well. That's capitalism folks!

  36. Ha ha! Only in California (aka, the left coast)! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Rack up $70,000 in debt gambling illegally over the 'net? Stick the credit card company with the bill!

    Criminals committing murder with guns? Sue the gunmakers!

    People getting killed becase they voluntarily put themselves in danger inside unsafe little plastic cars? Blame the big SUV drivers and raise the latters insurance rates!

    California has become a paradise for bass ackwards law. And stuff like this happening more and more is why I finally said "fuck it" and left California. Hell, I fully expect to see transients suing big companies for "creating monetary inequity" among the people. Fucking pinko crats in Sacremento. And they're hypocrites too. e.g., Ms. gun-ban-supporter Diane Feinstein who herself has a CCW (concealed weapons) permit and packs heat while trying to take the same right away from others. CA should have its statehood revoked and revert to a territory administered by D.C. until they can get their act together.

  37. Re:An E-comerce precident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if a judge was retarded enough to think you were actually convinced that the Dell e-commerce site was a game of tetris (the first tetris game played entirely through "submit" buttons), Visa would not end up footing the bill. The Xeons would just be returned to Dell. Of course, that's a stupid example anyway, so forget it.

  38. Re:Digital Cash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The rules are changing. Some vendors have started charging penalties or raising ratees for sins like disuse and "significant increases in total debt". Read the fine print. Be careful out there.

  39. Re:a 70k limit on her card? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    on each card (Visa and MasterCard)

    For those of you following along, I felt the need to point out: it's not unusual to have more than one of each of these flavors of credit card (usually from different banks, until they buy each other out), plus there's always AmEx and Discover.

  40. Re:Another case of legal racketeering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As has already been pointed out upthread, the woman burned by McDonald's "hot coffee" spent a week in the hospital and needed skin grafts. She wasn't the first to be injured, and only sued because big M refused to pay the medical bills or even fix their equipment.

  41. Re:who's at fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Outlawing loans for gambling seems like a good thing to me. It's not a sound investment at all, and at best can serve to get gambling addicts in even more trouble than they would be if they only gambled away stuff they actually own.

    And ofcourse, it is the customer who should have his head examined. She has spoiled online gambling for the people who are not addicted, but simply enjoy gambling, as I imagine creditcard companies will scrap their contracts with online gambling sites

  42. Seems obvious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whether you look at Visa or the Merchant. A Casino will generally not extend you credit unless they have a firm believe that you are good for it. Visa is supposed to do the same (as does anyone giving a loan. Loan sharks do too.. they just have a higher respect for what can make someone pay up ;) The Casino relied on Visa to take care of the Debt. If their contract with Visa says otherwise, then that is their oversight. I really have to wonder how this woman can get $70,000 in credit on her card, and I can't even get one with a $500 limit, even though I make $50,000+ a year. That burns me up. I do believe, also, that a Casino that lost their winnings did not exactly LOSE money. If this happened all the time, of course they would be out money, but for isolated incidents, the casino can absorb the loss effortlessly. It will hardly affect their statistical winnings.

  43. Re:An E-comerce precident by C.Lee · · Score: 0

    >The precident that this case sets can potentialy be very damaging to >the (still very young) ecomerce segment of our economy. What it says > is: It's not payed for till it's payed for. It's not sold until it's > sold. It's not a deal unless the check is in hand.

    This pretty much has always been the case especially when buying something via mail-order. Why should ecomerce get cut a special deal?

  44. Re:Good by C.Lee · · Score: 0

    >Why should VISA prohibit their merchant account holders from charging >money for gambling because its illegal in a couple of US states and >countries?

    Because of the fact is that it is illegal in a couple of US states and countries. If VISA and other credit card companies want to avoid some serious legal problems of their own, they had better operate within the established laws of these places.

  45. Re:Several thoughts... by C.Lee · · Score: 0

    >How is Visa to know what the card is being used for? All they can >possibly know is what merchant is charging the card and for how much

    If the the charge to the card is coming from an Online Gambling site, Visa has a pretty good idea what's going on.

  46. Wow... by binarybits · · Score: 0

    The basis of capitalism is the protection of individual rights. In a capitalist system, the woman would be required to pay her debt. When mobsters go around killing people, that not Capitalism. It's called gang rule. Notice that in less capitalist nations like Russia, there is a lot more mob violence.

  47. The bill by quux26 · · Score: 0

    Visa isn't getting stuck with the bill. The casinos are.

    My .02
    Quux26

    --

    My .02
    Quux26
    www.crashspace.net
  48. Broken HTML (offtopic) by babbage · · Score: 0

    An tag was left out & the whole front page is italicized now -- you might wanna fix that Rob...







    --
    DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
  49. The italics... by Deitheres · · Score: 0

    I kind of like 'em. Kind of reminds me of the whole V8 marketing campaign... they could revamp it; "Have you had your /. today?" Plus, it kind of goes along with the name. You know, slashdot... hehehe get it? slash... OK, well whatever. :-)

    Deitheres

    ps - Rob, before I posted this I forgot to close my tags too, so don't feel all that bad :-)


    --
    Child: Mommy, where do .sig files go when they die?
    Mother: HELL! Straight to hell!
    I've never been the same since.

    --
    Just like driving a car:
    (D) to go forward
    (R) to go backward

  50. American idiocy in work. by ringworm · · Score: 0

    This article is yet another example of american stupidity. This ruling comes as no surprise to me. The woman is stupid enough to waste 70k on gambling, she deserves to have to pay it off. That will teach her a lesson. But, the stupid judges feel that visa was to blame for allowing her to take out 70k? Visa is not to blame. Bad genes and lack of common sense are. This woman is the mandatory abortion poster child.

    1. Re:American idiocy in work. by Foogle · · Score: 1
      No, the judge probably thinks she's to blame. Fortunately our legal system does not operate on how a judge feels. That would be idiotic. This judge was doing his job and following legal definitions. Actually Visa really is to blame, or at least their lawyers are. They did not look into the possible ramifications of lending money to gamblers in California. Their oversite == Their fault. The woman exploited them (and got away with it), so she can't be too stupid. Having said that, I think she should probably be euthanized :)

      -----------

      "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  51. Yeah, but what happens later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No one ever gets out of a gambling debt for that kind of coin. Some night, somewhere, she will be sleeping with the fishes.

    1. Re:Yeah, but what happens later by toriver · · Score: 1

      If I read it right, Visa and Mastercard already have paid: It's the card companies who take the loss - the gambling orgs have their pay.

  52. Re:Off topic! (was Re:Gotta love it.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You are absolutely correct. I am appalled when privileged white people - such as O J Simpson - are able to get away with murdering defenseless minorities - i.e. Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. Another example of this would be Michael Jackson (another evil white man!) apparently using his profound wealth to derail an investigation of pedophilia against him. It is this kind of lopsided justice that makes me ashamed to be an American!

  53. california by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    california has a totally different judicial system than the rest of the country

  54. Re:No, the judge did his job, and yet didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't see how you figure that the judge is incompetent. He made a pretty obvious interpretation of California law. Obviously, his ruling might be seen as a license to 'charge it,' but realize this: The law was originally written to protect idiots from being allowed to get themselves in deep shit. If he had ruled the other way, he would have basically been contradicting the original intent of the law in the first place.

    Now, the judge has upheld the spirit and intent of the original law, and placed the responsibility on the money thieves.

    And finally, to top it all off, there was no ruling! It was a *settlement.* The card company knew it would lose, and didn't want to see how bad the ruling might be for them.

  55. Gotta love it. by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 1
    Stupid people getting away with murder -- only in America.

    - A.P.
    --


    "One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
  56. Re:The credit card company will still have revenge by jpatters · · Score: 1

    From the article:
    Under the settlement, Visa USA agreed to forgive the debt, and will collect the money instead from the gambling sites.

    That seems to imply that Visa will not technically be forgiving the debt, but instead are going reverse the charge and will simply not pay the gambling sites.

    Then again, this may be perfectly equivalent, but I am not a lawyer.

    --
    "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
  57. Re:who's at fault? by C.Lee · · Score: 1

    >VISA can't regulate what customers do with their cards. So it should >be the customer who is at fault.

    If there are laws making Online Gambling illegal from within the US, isn't VISA and other credit card companies in fact taking part in a criminal act by allowing their cards to be used to pay online gambling debt, therefore voiding the transaction?

  58. Good by vlax · · Score: 1

    It may not be possible to restricy gambling on the 'Net with laws. Canada is trying to and failing miserably. But, using the credit card companies to limit access is really a very creative solution. After all, Visa and Mastercad have the legal power to limit the activities of their merchants. Getting a merchant account means signing a contract, which can perfecty easily forbid the use of the card for gambling. It's really quite inspired.

    1. Re:Good by AdamT · · Score: 1

      Why can't transaction filtering work? The credit card companies already have to be (more or less) aware of all the relevent laws in order to do normal business. If the casino was a bricks and mortar establishment in California I'm sure VISA wouldn't be able to plead ignorance there. (Ignorance not generally being a defence anyway.)
      All the transactions are electronic so how hard can it be to red flag certain customer/merchant match ups based on location and catagory. You can be sure they do this already for marketing and customer profiling. That said I don't think it's really likely. It would be much easier for VISA to put the onus (sp?) on the customers - illegal use would be against the cards conditions of use. Lieing about what you were using it for would be defrauding the company and you'd be stuffed.

      --
      ... with eskimo chains i tatto my brain all the way...
    2. Re:Good by warlock · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... no, it's not as simple as that.

      Why should VISA prohibit their merchant account holders from charging money for gambling because its illegal in a couple of US states and countries?

      Or are you suggesting that they filter transactions? In which case, what consitutes an illegal loan... if the cardholder's address is in a state where its illegal (ie CA) or if the cardholder is accessing the internet from a state where its illegal?

      How on earth would a system like that be practical?

      Besides, its not only loaning for gambling, chances are there are loads of other similar laws in other countries, restricting merchants or filtering transactions cannot possibly work.

      In the end of the day the cardholder should be responsible for whatever he does with his account, or he should not be using it at all.
      I guess its VISA's fault for not putting a suitable disclaimer somewhere.

      Perhaps they thought they could win the case but decided to settle because their lawyers have better things to do - who knows.

      -W (who is not a lawyer)

    3. Re:Good by Sehnsucht · · Score: 1

      "Should" in the sense that it's morally correct, is a sticky situation.

      However since they are interested in money, if they decide that the backlash from gambling is too great, they might do it anyways to save themselves some money.

  59. More power to her..... by Ken+Broadfoot · · Score: 1

    Most comments on this issue are about how "dumb and stupid" she is. This is an addiction like heroin or crack. She got into trouble and found a way out.

    THIS TIME.

    Thats all fine and good with me as I don't like online casinos and, for that matter, I don't like monopoly financial organizations.

    What she does need to do now, though, is get some psychiatric help for her gambling addiction.

    Stop calling her "stupid" because in fact she ( or her lawyer anyway ) is very very smart.

    Thats my two cents.

    Ken Broadfoot
    "As I was cleaning my guns, the voices told me to behave"

    --
    Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
  60. Re:who's at fault? by Johann · · Score: 1

    The rationale for prohibiting the use of loans (e.g., a credit card such as Visa) for gambling is to protect compulsive gamblers from themselves. This law is an example of "the common good". In this case, society is better off by not letting gamblers borrow many than by the situation in the story.

    The web sites should know better. I think what this woman did is detestable, but it is legal. This is the difference between something that is legal and something that is moral. Unfortunately, the U.S. legal system is not always a question of morality (c.f. O.J. Simpson...)

    --

    --
    "You're gonna need a bigger boat." - Chief Brody
  61. Re:The credit card company will still have revenge by rew · · Score: 1

    The woman who got the $70,000 forgiven now owes about half that amount to the IRS,
    plus late penalties, fees, and interest.

    It depends on how you look at it. If she can prove that she never spent the money in the first place, she doesn't have to pay income tax on it.

    She just has to prove that "She spent VISAs money, not hers", or the casino's.

    Suppose someone at Mastercard misreads a salesslip and charges MY creditcard $70000. Mastercard charges me. After two months they figure things out and cancel my debt, do I suddenly have $70000 in extra income? Nah!

    Suppose she'd gone and bought a Ferrari for $70000. If now she has that Ferrari, then it is pretty clear that she has had that amount or the Ferrari as income. Since in reality she now has nothing, she can claim not having had any income.

    Roger.

  62. This points out something: by Apuleius · · Score: 1

    the government can regulate e-commerce by ignoring it. Cheat somebody on Ebay? Get arrested for wire-fraud.

    Gain gambling debts? Yawn. We Feds can't be bothered. Tough luck for the online casino owner. Gambling's sleazy anbyway. Win some money gambling and then see the online casino refuse to pay? Tough luck, dummy. Gambling's sleazy anyway.

    1. Re:This points out something: by William+Wallace · · Score: 1

      I take it you think gambling is sleazy?

      -WW

  63. glad that they settled. by AdamT · · Score: 1

    At least with VISA deciding not to contest this in court we don't run the risk of a dangerous precident being set. It could really be quite damaging for online commerce in general if she won her case. I wonder what sort of dollar value online merchants are worth to VISA; how big do they have to get hit before they begin to think it's not a good risk. Specifically, does the online gambling organisation still have their VISA merchants account?
    Personally I think the law is fair enough. It seems to be in the same vain as it being illegal to sell alchole to someone who is already intoxicated. But in a bar the customer and the trader are under the same laws - not easy to make sure you're compliant when you don't know what laws might apply - especially if you're a third party (VISA) and you get to add another level of abstraction.
    More questions than answers here - I imagine we'll be seeing more issues like this in the near future. It'll be interesting to see what the courts say when they do get to rule on the matter.
    AdamT.

    --
    ... with eskimo chains i tatto my brain all the way...
  64. Another case of legal racketeering... by JohnL · · Score: 1
    Well, don't forget AntiOnline, or the current lawsuits against gun manufacturers, or even the classic "Mcdonald's-hot-coffee-in-the-lap".

    I think that it's just too profitable to sue nowadays--in most cases the victim of a lawsuit just gives in, rather than face a possible multi-million dollar judgement against them. It works out to be cheaper that way.

    It's the exact moral equivalent of a protection racket: buy your "fire insurance" for $100 a week, or your store mysteriously burns down. Oh, and don't bother with the cops, or you might fall down some stairs. Settle out of court, or we'll tie you up in litigation for years, and you'll probalby lose in front of some soft-headed jury, anyhow.

    What can be done about it? Heck, I dunno. Maybe I can scrape up some cash and sue someone...

    --

    --------------------
    Earth first? Oooh, and I was thinking of paying the rent.

  65. Re:Jurisdictional mazes. by EJB · · Score: 1

    The loan was authorized by Visa. She probably got her Visa card in California, so the agreement under which Visa lent her the money at the moment that the casino charged her card was signed in California.

    So it's California law.

    EjB

  66. Law-types do read Slashdot by troyboy · · Score: 1

    Believe it or not, many lawyers and law students DO read and comment on Slashdot...

  67. Re:Off topic! (was Re:Gotta love it.) by KyleCordes · · Score: 1

    Actually, it's probably even more slanted than the study data indicates, because bright, rich criminals are probably also better at not getting caught in the first place (and therefore not being data points).

  68. Re:Didn't offshore casino have a Visa merchant acc by KyleCordes · · Score: 1

    I suspect that the Visa and/or the merchant bank will pass the charge on to the gambling operator.

    Merchant accounts usually have terms roughly like this:

    "No matter what, in any case, if anything goes wrong, you the merchant will absorb the loss."

  69. Re: Hot vs. scalding by binarybits · · Score: 1

    OK, you might be right that 190 is excessively hot. But I don't think it changes the point all that much. If you are right that drinking the coffee in the first few minutes would give you third degree burns, then one of two things must be true:

    1- Customers are going to get pissed and start buying coffee elsewhere, or

    2- Most McDonalds's don't keep thier coffee that hot and so this was a fluke.

    In the former case, the market will take care of this on its own, since McDonalds will realize that they are losing customers and lower the temperature. If you're right about the dangers of that amount of heat, I'd say its unlikely that all restaurants make it that hot. In the latter case, it's the fault of a single stupid manager, and McDonalds is hardly responsible. I can certainly sympathize with the woman, but I still don't see that it is the fault of McDonalds as a company. A handfull of people out of 1 billion cups sold *is* statistically insignificant. And obviously most of those people didn't mind the high temperature.

  70. Re:Um, no by binarybits · · Score: 1

    Actually, the basis of Capitalism is the accumulation of capital.

    All industrial societies accumulate capital. That's what causes economic growth.

    Given that there's really only a certain amount of capital at any given time, that means that you're going to miss out on your capital while someone else gets it instead.

    No there isn't. Yes, there is a certain amount of capital at any one time, but wealth is not a static quantity, and it doesn't grow on trees. The reason we have capital is that people work to produce it. The people who produce it should keep it.

    Capitalism is directly responsible for the ridiculous divide between the rich and the poor, and the major unemployment problem the USA has.

    Hmmm... Seems to me that the unemployment levels in the US are among the lowest in the world. We have had unemployment levels below 5% for most of the last five years. Many European countries (with less capitalist economies) have had consistent unemployment in the double digits. I'm not sure what unemployment problem you are referring to.

    But in any event, the unemployment problem we do have is due primarily to minimum wage laws, liscencing restrictions, high taxes, frivolous lawsuits, and other government measures that make it increasingly expensive (or in some cases illegal) to hire unskilled workers. Many workers simply don't have the skills to justify paying them minimum wages, and even if some employer is willing to hire him, they have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes.

    Also, the welfare system doesn't do any good. It's not suprising that when you subsidize unemployment, you get more unemployed people. Subsidies cause more of everything else in an economy, so it should be obvious that paying people not to work will cause them not to work. Welfare reform helped, but there are still many states with extremely generous welfare benefits.

    As for the "divide between the rich and the poor," I find it amazing that people focus so much on the relative prosperity of different groups rather than the overall stadard of living in those groups. It may be that the rich are getting richer, but the poor are getting richer as well. I don't think it's all that terrible that the rich are getting richer faster. Life is not a race for money. The standard of living today is drastically better for everyone today than it was for people in any social class a hundred years ago, and even the lower rungs of the economic ladder are doing as well today as the wealthy were in decades past.
    The rising tide has lifted all boats.

    And the amazing thing is that the USA thinks that this is a GoodThing(TM)

    Yes, freedom and prosperity are good things.

  71. Re:Simply amazing by binarybits · · Score: 1

    I blame the CC company for settling. And not it specifically, but corporations in general. If you wonder why everyone and their brother is suing, the answer is simple -- because it works. As long as court will cost the corporation more than you are asking they'll settle. Principle is not a word in their vocabulary without a bottom line to back it up.

    Settling looks like a bad move until you look at the stupid people that sit on American juries. The same people who gave us judgements against breast implants, tobacco companys and McDonalds' famous coffee incident are quite likely to let the woman off the hook and set a dangerous precedent in the process. The problem is not that companies settle. The problem is that if they don't settle, they will get screwed. In that atmosphere, then principle or not, they have to settle because fighting does no good if you lose.

  72. Actually... by binarybits · · Score: 1

    I had heard most of these details, and I still think the lawsuit is ridiculous. It's not like it's a suprise that coffee is hot. I strongly suspect that if you did a study of the average coffee burns per cup served for other restaurant chains and for home coffee makers, you would find that McDonalds is in line with other sources of coffee, and that most fast-food coffee is . Coffee is hot, and it would seem to be common sense that you should not spill it on yourself. And I hardly think that printing a warning on the cup saying "warning: contents are hot. Do not spill on self" would make much difference. The reason this sort of thing happens is because people are careless. They are not going to be less careless because the cup says they shouldn't be.

    What happened was a simple accident. It is neither the woman's fault nor McDonalds's. The result of making simple accidents the target of lawsuits, (and when you sell a billion of *anything,* you're going to have some complaints) is to make corporations the all-purpose scapegoat for peoples' woes. There was nothing particularly dangerous about that cup of coffee. The customer knew exactly what was in it, and she willingly took that risk.

    The result of this lawsuit is likely that McDonalds reduced the temperature of its coffee. Despite your scornful remark, I suspect that most customers *do* "like it hot." Coffee isn't very good when it is cold, and often coffee sits in the cup for several minutes on the trip into work or whereever it gets consumed. The lawsuit made it much more difficult to get coffee at the temperature they like it. One woman's carelessness led to the inconveniencing of 999,999,9999 other customers.

    So the McDonalds case is not an example of corporate hype. The lawsuit was in fact ridiculous. Regardless of what the results to the woman were, making McDonalds responsible for accidents that happen with its product is an abdication of individual responsibility. Corporations should be liable when they directly cause harm to their customers, not when they sell an ordinary product that everyone knows can do damage if used carelessly.

    1. Re:Actually... by copito · · Score: 2

      McDonald's kept coffee extra hot because it was convenient to them. They could pour cups beforehand and not have them get cold while sitting around. No other fast food place had coffee that hot, despite the fact that they presumably have the same customers. So, McDonalds had coffee too hot, had been warned about it many times so in this case it was issued a stiff punative judgement to get them to change their behavior, which they did.

      I don't find McDonalds coffee to be too cold now, others may disagree but I doubt it's 999,999,999 out of a million as you suggest. The coffee tastes like shit, but that's a different story.

      That's not to say I don't agree that frivilous lawsuits or at least the fear of frivilous lawsuits is invconvenient for companies and consumers. After all, if a few people hadn't gone and died from bad Jack In the Box beef, I could still get a decent medium rare burger. C'est la vie.
      --

      --
      "L'IT c'est moi!"
  73. Digital Cash by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

    IMHO, I don't really like the idea of Visa giving out loans for gambling. They should never have signed contracts with the offshore gambling houses. I don't really want my credit card company to be a loan shark.

    I think this is a perfect argument for digital cash. She shouldn't have been able to spend anything but real money. If she borrowed the money from Visa, well, then she's defrauding Visa.

    --
    Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
    1. Re:Digital Cash by Sehnsucht · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, having a credit card could save you in the event that some emergency came along and you didn't have enough in the bank.

      Of course, some (at least my) banks have "Overdraft Insurance" or something like that for debit cards, so for instance, with my bank, I can withdraw up to $100 over what I have in my checking account. They'll slap $25 on me for it plus however much I overdrew, but the transaction will go through, potentially saving my ass for the time being. A Credit Card has is more useful for emergency situations, in that you can slap a lot more deniro on one of them w/o paying right away. You still have to pay, plus interest, but once again, it could save you.

      I think that while the credit card companies may not be exactly operating in their user's interests (more in their investor's intrests), they can still be useful. They get next to nothing for instance if you never put anything on the cards or at least pay up before it rolls over into next month (thus increasing their revenue from interest).

      I myself just have a VISA checking card, from my bank.. I hope I never have to use that overdraft protection, but its there, which is good :)

    2. Re:Digital Cash by Trebonius · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling Visa didn't realise what such a business venture would do to them. Such a large company would have a lot of trouble keeping track of state laws, etc. I agree that credit cards shouldn't be used for gambling, nor should credit card companies promote this... But I don't like credit cards anyway.

      They scare me.
      People who can't spend responsibly tend to be the people they target most when trying to gain new debtors. As a college student, I will sometimes get 3 calls in a night from people trying (and putting a LOT of pressure on) to sell me on a credit card. College students are famous for going crazy on credit cards. The machines in Vegas for getting cash from a credit card is just another example.
      It's a dirty business.

  74. Non-disclosure by Dionysus · · Score: 1

    My understanding is that VISA agreed to send out a non-disclosure to all their customers, and all website dealing with gambling has to have the same text.

    --
    Je ne parle pas francais.
  75. Re:slashing content by Dionysus · · Score: 1

    Hmmm... care to explain how Judge Ito let a murderer free? Last time I checked, the American justice system was based on the jury system, and it was the JURY that gave the innocent verdict.

    --
    Je ne parle pas francais.
  76. Re:What would happen if she actually won anything? by warlock · · Score: 1

    I agree with most of your points, but I still believe that its nearly impossible for them to comply with all laws.

    For example in some countries it is illegal to get more than one loan for a particular purpose (this is done to protect borrowers from running up debts they can't afford I guess).

    Basically it means that if you go to bank A and get a loan to buy a new car, and then go to bank B to get a second loan (since its a more expensive car than your bankmanager thinks you can afford :), bank B would be violating law if they loaned you the money. Same thing in principle to VISA violating law by loaning you money for gambling in my book.

    This is usually worked around by forcing you to sign a decleration that you haven't got another loan for that purpose, so if you made the bank break the law you're responsible.

    I believe this is the way to go - transfer responsibility/liability to the customer, but then again that's just me.

    -W

  77. This was a good ruling by mathematician · · Score: 1

    I have no sympathy for the woman who lost the $70,000 in debt. But I think that the ruling is a very good ruling, because it spikes the gambling industry, an industry that I see as largely parasitic.

    Also, it is good that loan companies will be discouraged from giving loans for the purpose of gambling, because a loan company has a responsibility to make sure that they are making a responsible loan, and a loan for the purpose of gambling can never be responsible, since it clearly is not a good investment.

    Also, in some cases, it really is the case that the gambler should not be held responsible for their debts, for example, if the gambler suffers from altheismers disease, or is in some other way mentally impaired. For they will lose a lot of money, and in many cases it will be their loving relatives who will have to pick up the tab for their debts.

  78. Re:What would happen if she actually won anything? by NMerriam · · Score: 1

    But it's not impossible for VISA to police this. They approve the transaction automatically through their computer system rather than be inefficient and do it over the phone like it used to be done. if they want to be more efficient, then they have to pay the price for letting more bad approvals happen.

    Since the approvals are done automatically through a computer, why can't the computer have certain vendors (like gun stores, gambling outfits, etc) automatically check against the purchaser's locality and thus the governing laws (much like they currently do for sales taxes or shipping charges).

    We can all agree she's pretty spineless to not take responsibility for her actions, BUT, VISA similarly has to take responsibility for making illegal loans. they can't put everything to run automatically on a computer and then plead "we didn't know it happened!"

    --
    Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
  79. Re:An E-comerce precident by NMerriam · · Score: 1


    VISA and MC have always had to accept that a certain amount of their charges would be written off, and they've always had to deal with holding the bag when illegal things occur through their streamlined channels. they've consciously made the decision that they'd rather lose a little money to bad transactions than be less efficient by checking each one.

    For example, if a bank sends a VISA card to a 12-year old and the kid goes around buying stuff, VISA is gonna get stuck paying the bill because they "approved" the charges when they were made, and only later discovered that they had screwed up in the issuing process. Why should it be different if they're "approving" charges for things that aren't legal?

    --
    Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
  80. Re:What would happen if she actually won anything? by NMerriam · · Score: 1

    And you're correct that there's a lot of weird stuff like that. there's only so much shifting of legal responsibility VISA can do, though. You can't sign away your rights, as many people are fond of pointing out, so the most they could do is try to intimidate customers with the contract they signed.

    But ultimately this isn't the big deal everyone makes it out to be -- these are exactly the costs that plague any money-lending group (no more online than in the real world). you know some percentage of your loans are going to be bad or default or whatever, but the increase in efficiency offered by automatic processing usually more than makes up the difference...

    --
    Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
  81. Re:Um, no by Overt+Coward · · Score: 1
    Actually, capitalism's basis is the creation of capital, not the accumulation thereof. It's a subtle but important distinction. Capitalism is the only econmic model that does not address distribution of wealth. (There is a logical consequence of how the wealth is distributed, of course, but it is not part of the model per se.)

    As another poster pointed out, it's not a zero-sum game. There is typically less of a divide between rich and poor in capitalistic systems because of the ability for upward mobility. Non-capitalist systems usually result in a system with very few elites with a wide gap between them and the "common man" -- capitalist systems tend to have a much more dynamic distribution of wealth.


    --

  82. Um, no by LordBhaal · · Score: 1

    Actually, the basis of Capitalism is the accumulation of capital. That's why it's called Capitalism. Given that there's really only a certain amount of capital at any given time, that means that you're going to miss out on your capital while someone else gets it instead. Capitalism is directly responsible for the ridiculous divide between the rich and the poor, and the major unemployment problem the USA has.

    And the amazing thing is that the USA thinks that this is a GoodThing(TM)

    Damn I'm glad I'm leaving in 1w5d

  83. Future difficulty in getting credit cards? by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

    I wonder how difficult this woman will find obtaining credit cards in future? I can't imagine Visa and Mastercard rushing to give her a new card!

    The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  84. Even so, her credit history will look pretty bad by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

    And the banks will presumably check that.

    The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  85. Re:McDonalds-case (punitive damages BS) by ChadN · · Score: 1

    Punitive damages should NOT be awarded to the plaintiff or their lawyer. They should go directly into the social security pot (where politicians will have some trouble stealing from). They are PUNISHMENTS, and should not be given as an incentive to the lawyers to pursue bad cases. Make that one change, and I swear that these cases will plummet.

    If I had a hot (and I mean HOT) cup of coffee, I'd keep it far FAR away from my gentitalia. The woman made a bad mistake. But serving such hot coffee to people in their cars, is just asking for trouble.

    --
    "It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
  86. $70,000 in debt by clancey · · Score: 1

    The worst thing about all of this, is that people have stopped thinking that they are responsible for their own actions and, consequently, blame others for their stupid mistakes. And here, and many other examples, the court concurs. It's no wonder so many need the government to look out for them.

    --
    clancey
  87. Re:Ha ha! Only in California (aka, the left coast) by clancey · · Score: 1

    That's the problem. She's abandoned her responsibility and now the credit card company is left to spread it out among the rest of the consumers.

    --
    clancey
  88. Re:Ha ha! Only in California (aka, the left coast) by clancey · · Score: 1

    and yet, as hot as the coffee was, the woman stick the styrofoam cup between her own legs and tries to drive off.

    --
    clancey
  89. Re:slashing content by Runna^Muck · · Score: 1

    A) It was coffee
    B) by definition, coffee is hot
    C) she spilled it, not McDonald's
    D) it wasn't McDonald's fault she was clumsy.
    E) maybe the temperature WAS too hot. If someone had sued because they had burned their tongue I would have a better time with it. Still think you ought to know it's fucking coffee for god's sake, and it's gonna be hot!
    F) no i didn't read all the court briefs, and no I don't look to Leno to do my thinking for me. I think it was a bullshit lawsuit just on the face of it.

  90. Re:slashing content by Runna^Muck · · Score: 1

    When you're in charge of Slashdot, you get to pick what is and isn't relevant. Just what exactly is your perception of a "proper" Slashdot story? Considering you didn't start Slashdot, you don't run Slashdot, you don't do anything except read it and post responses, you have no right to question anything they feel is appropriate. If they are wrong, the number of hits starts to go down. That simple.
    Personally I feel CdrTaco, Hemos, Roblimo et.al. do a good job. Occasionally there is a story I'm not interested in, so I don't read it. I don't however, question their judgement in posting it.
    Excuse the rant, but your comment struck me the wrong way.
    Now for MY response to the story. Reminds me a little of the lady who sued McDonald's because she spilled a cup of coffee in her lap and burned herself. And she won!! Just another example of people not taking responsibility for themselves and the judicial system letting them do it. Almost makes me want to go to law school just so I can be a judge and throw these kinds of cases out of court. You think Judge Judy can go off on someone, you ain't seen nothin'!

  91. Read the rest of this comment? lol by Runna^Muck · · Score: 1

    Let me guess it says............

  92. Re:yet another dumb lawsuit by Runna^Muck · · Score: 1

    I think it's more a case of a smart lawyer seeing the possibilities. On the one hand I definitely agree with you. It is a stupid lawsuit, brought by a totally irresponsible woman, guided by a shrewd lawyer.
    Unfortunately, if it's illegal to offer loans for gambling, and VISA is an option at a gambling site, it's VISA's fault. Legally.
    This woman got lucky, she's an idiot, but she got lucky. Chances are she'll get herself in hot water again and won't be so lucky next time. And if there is a God, she won't have credit for the rest of her life.

  93. Re:The credit card company will still have revenge by Runna^Muck · · Score: 1
    After 3-5 years of non-payment, the credit card company will forgive the debt owed to them by their delinquent customer

    Actually in my experience, (don't ask) the credit card company sells the debt to a collector, who then sells it to another who then...etc, etc. After 8 yrs I still got companies calling me about a debt from 1991. (and no, I'm not proud of it)

  94. Call it a Win-Win situation by quux26 · · Score: 1

    It's a foregone conclusion on the actual money. But maybe there is a silver lining.

    This judge's decision needs to be seriously looked at. If it's found that she's within the bounds of law, fine - adjust the law. If not, adjust HER.

    Another /.er noted that Visa can hardly know what their cardholders are using their services for. I'm hard-pressed to understand how this judgement was rendered, but until I get more than a ZDNet article (they thought Jesux was legit), I can't really scream at the judge in good conscience, can I??

    My .02
    Quux26

    --

    My .02
    Quux26
    www.crashspace.net
  95. Re:Simply amazing by quux26 · · Score: 1


    You have to deny reality very powerfully to invest $70k in an effort to show otherwise.


    You ever heard of organized religion?

    My .02
    Quux26

    --

    My .02
    Quux26
    www.crashspace.net
  96. who's at fault? by davidw1 · · Score: 1

    VISA can't regulate what customers do with their cards. So it should be the customer who is at fault.

    1. Re:who's at fault? by Foogle · · Score: 1
      Well yes and no - A credit card is actually a form of loan. And of course, a bank (which a credit card company is) does have the ability to regulate who they loan money to and what the money will be used for. So, if the uses are illegal, the loan itself is questionable. That said, this woman still got away with murder.

      -----------

      "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

    2. Re:who's at fault? by NMerriam · · Score: 2

      Of course VISA can regulate the use of the card -- they're the ones loaning you money. it's their money, and if they decide one day that you won't be able to charge anything at Sears, then you better have another card in your pocket if you want to buy something at Sears.

      And if you want to buy something that's illegal, VISA better have a check in the system to not authorize the purchase, since they know they won't be able to collect. this is not new, or specific to E-commerce, it's long-standing law that contracts in which one party is engaging in illegal activity have no binding. That's why a hooker can't take a john to court if he doesn't pay (but you'll probably visit the ER sometime soon)...

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
  97. Re:What would happen if she actually won anything? by grahamwest · · Score: 1

    Firstly, I work for WMS Industries, which is a supplier of casino gaming equipment. I do pinball now, but I did some gaming stuff in the past.

    Secondly, this is my PERSONAL opinion. I am a programmer, NOT a spokesman. Got it?

    This isn't the main point of my post, but you use the term 'gambling establishment' and I'd like to clarify this matter. Offshore Internet casinos have nothing whatsoever to do with the state-legal, regulated 'gambling establishment'. There is an enormous quantity of federal and state legislation covering that entity and it's almost all designed to protect gamblers. There's a reason that the Offshore casinos are illegal to do business with.

    As for this specific case, well, Visa lent this woman money (and it is definitely a loan, funds advanced against future payment with interest) by authorising a transaction with XYZ corporation offshore (Cayman islands most likely) for an unspecified purpose.

    It's later brought to their attention that the purpose in question is illegal gambling. Now they have a problem. If this woman were in Florida they would actually have been party to a crime, for reference. Since they don't want to see California enact a similar law, they do what they did.

    I'm personally undecided whether I think such laws are a good thing or a bad thing. It's an instance of the general case of how much society should use legal force to protect its members from situations where they may be hidden, disadvantageous, circumstances.

    --
    Graham
  98. spent 70K Visa loan on gambling ... by Porky+Pig · · Score: 1

    The problem is that this 70K Visa paid will be
    passed to other Visa cardholders in forms of
    interest and monthly fees. (unless you believe
    Visa just gives away 70K like this)

    It seems like this is mostly law-abiding
    citizens who get screwed.

    --
    Grunt. Oink, oink.
  99. a 70k limit on her card? by thal · · Score: 1

    i've never used online gambling, but exactly how did she get 70k into debt only using her credit card? i know that some relatively wealthy people have 70k limits and it's not that unheard of, but most people don't have nearly that much. my parents are pretty upper-middle class and they "only" have a 10k limit.

    does the gambling company simply ask for your credit card number, let you do your gambling and then at the at the end of the month they charge you for your losses (or, less likely, give you credit for your winnings?). if she doesn't even have 70k worth of _credit_, it is partially the casino's fault for letting her get that far in debt without checking her card.

    i've never used online gambling, so i don't know how it works. but if this monthly statement approach is how they do it, it's simply a bad idea. a much better idea would be to buy "chips" with the credit (though probably better with "real" money). of course, you can always get cash advances on credit cards, so only allowing "real" cash won't work completely (though it would stop the completely on-a-whim things).

    even if she did have a 70k limit, she probably shouldn't've had one. i'm not saying it's not her fault, but this ruling is a stiff warning to the credit card companies and the casino companies to be more careful about who they give credit to. credit card companies live on people who can't afford the credit they give them. if everyone could, they would pay their monthly statements in full, never pay any interest, never give any money to the credit card companies. obviously, this is not so.

    no, i'm not delighted about the ruling and i don't agree with it, but it's not necessarily all bad.

    1. Re:a 70k limit on her card? by thal · · Score: 1

      If she doesn't have the money to pay off a $70K debt, then she never would have been given a credit limit high enough to charge $70K on two cards.

      well, never say never. i'm a college student with a $1500 credit limit. i don't even make that much money with my on campus job in 3 months. if i maxed out my credit card (which of course i wouldn't), my parents would have to bail me out. perhaps that's just what the credit card companies are thinking, but my parents are not cosingers on my card or anything like that.

      this is my first credit card, as well.

      as far as i know, they didn't do any background check on the information i put in. they didn't even ask for enough information to verify that i do work and make X amount of money or pay X amount of money for my housing, unless they have some inside connection with social security numbers.

      it just seems to me that credit card companies are a bit too willing to raise limits and give out credit cards _sometimes_, because they know they can charge 20% interest or whatever and it's really better for them if the customers don't pay on time.

      Credit card companies get a percentage of your purchase. If you charge $100 at a store with your Visa card, Visa get $4 and the store gets $96 (4% used to be the number, I don't know if this is still accurate).

      yes, i had forgotten about that, but this number is quickly dwarfed by monthly interest of usually at least 1% for someone who only pays the minimum necessary payment.

      i'd be willing to bet they make more money off of interest than off of those automatic charges, but of course i could be wrong. according to this link the average household has $7,000 in credit card debt and pay $1,000 in interest and fees. of course, this i don't know how reliable this source is as i just found it in a quick search, but it sounds about right to me.

      it's just hard to feel sorry for a huge credit card company losing a mere 70k or an online casino losing out on 70k they charged for someone to click a few buttons.

    2. Re:a 70k limit on her card? by Coward,+Anonymous · · Score: 1

      i've never used online gambling, but exactly how did she get 70k into debt only using her credit card?

      It's possible that she had a $35K limit on each card (Visa and MasterCard), but she could also have paid her monthly bills and then one day decided that the $70K she paid over the last year or so should be returned.

      does the gambling company simply ask for your credit card number, let you do your gambling and then at the at the end of the month they charge you for your losses

      No, the casinos ask for a credit card number and ask you how much you want to charge, they charge your credit card and put it into your casino account.

      even if she did have a 70k limit, she probably shouldn't've had one.

      I disagree. She may well be rich and quite capable of paying off the money but for some other reason, such as pride or immaturity, decided not to. Credit card companies have no way of knowing how immature someone is when they issue a card to them. If she doesn't have the money to pay off a $70K debt, then she never would have been given a credit limit high enough to charge $70K on two cards.

      credit card companies live on people who can't afford the credit they give them. if everyone could, they would pay their monthly statements in full, never pay any interest, never give any money to the credit card companies

      Credit card companies get a percentage of your purchase. If you charge $100 at a store with your Visa card, Visa get $4 and the store gets $96 (4% used to be the number, I don't know if this is still accurate).

  100. Re:Oh get a life. by Foogle · · Score: 1
    Um, that's not even close to a good metaphor. Visa broke the law by lending money for gambling. You'd be breaking the law by shooting people. Since, by illegally buying the gun, you'd be breaking the law, you would also be in default of a loan, leaving Visa blameless for your actions. However, in this woman's case, she didn't break the law by spending the money, since the gambling was legal. Visa broke the law, because lending money for gambling is illegal.

    -----------

    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  101. Re:The law is the law. by e-gold · · Score: 1

    Ok, I agree. Let's imagine an online way around this silliness...
    www.e-gold.com -- we don' need (or want) no steenking loans.
    Back to basics for the gambling industry, which is slowly (and
    evidently sometimes painfully) getting/buying a clue.
    JMR

    --
    Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
  102. Is it over? by eey0re · · Score: 1

    Could she be tried for fraudulent use of a credit card? :o)

  103. Yes, this is totally ridiculous. by Juln · · Score: 1

    Y Online casinos are a bad idea anyway - I believe that gambling is pretty lame and this proliferation of casinos on native american reservations is bad enough. Allowing people to gamble through their home is even worse.
    I can't believe this lady was allowed to do this, adn the jusge is, as you say, incompetent , and in my opinion, should be smacked for being so retarded.

    She sure wouldn't be complaing about Visa 'loaning' her money if she won!

    --
    Juln
  104. Re:No, the judge did his job, and yet didn't. by Juln · · Score: 1

    Becasue I don't consider credit card charges a loan.

    --
    Juln
  105. Re:Even so, her credit history will look pretty ba by Steve+B · · Score: 1
    All they have to do is put the simple facts of the case in the credit file (successfully sued to invalidate $70,000 gambling debt), and no credit-card company will touch her with a 10-parsec pole. Truth is an absolute defense to a charge of defamation under US law.

    I have an image of Alfred E. Neuman captioned "What -- Me Worry?" right next to this bimbo captioned "What -- Me Responsible?"
    /.

    --
    /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
  106. Re:Several thoughts... by Steve+B · · Score: 1
    If the the charge to the card is coming from an Online Gambling site, Visa has a pretty good idea what's going on.

    Would they know what kind of site it is? Given that gambling is commonly considered to be a vice, I expect that some gambling sites put the charges under innocuous names just as some pr0n sites do.
    /.

    --
    /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
  107. Re:Oh get a life. by The_Jazzman · · Score: 1

    I stand corrected. Me being thick and it being the middle of the night in England have left be being slack ;)

  108. Several thoughts... by kaphka · · Score: 1

    First of all, I don't think it's fair to look at this as a judgement in favor of the (grossly irresponsible) woman, rather than as a judgement against Visa. The money was only returned to her because Visa wasn't entitled to it, since they offered the loan illegally.

    And it was a loan. I can't think of any definition of "loan" that doesn't fit credit cards. I mean, credit cards, guys?!? You can't argue that Visa had no way of knowing that their loan was going towards gambling, either. They have a record of the transaction, they know this woman's address, and they are subject to the laws of California. So if it is in fact illegal to offer a loan for gambling in California, then Visa is legally responsible. I don't think they have a leg to stand on.

    That's one thing I'm not clear about, though... The article says only that the courts "frown on" loans for gambling. That's awfully vague. Is there a law on the books, or not?

    I'm certainly not defending this law. I think it's absurd, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a /. reader who'd say otherwise. But absurd laws are still laws, and Visa definitely violated this one.

    --

    MSK

    1. Re:Several thoughts... by kaphka · · Score: 1
      How is Visa to know what the card is being used for? All they can possibly know is what merchant is charging the card and for how much
      Good point. I don't think the credit card companies get itemized bills, although I may be wrong.

      But the law requires that businesses use reasonable common sense. If K-Mart suddenly got caught selling cocaine, they couldn't get off the hook by claiming that they thought they were selling convenient, individually wrapped flour packets. Likewise, although Visa may not have known that the $70,000 that they paid out to a gambling website was to be used for gambling, common sense should have told them that she wasn't buying a t-shirt.
      --

      MSK

    2. Re:Several thoughts... by Coward,+Anonymous · · Score: 1

      They have a record of the transaction, they know this woman's address, and they are subject to the laws of California

      If someone goes to Vegas and uses their Visa card at a cash machine, should Visa refuse the transaction because gambling is illegal in the home state of the person? Gambling is legal in Vegas and the person isn't breaking any laws. Being a citizen of California does not make it illegal for you to gamble if you are in a place where gambling is legal. Visa had no way of knowing where this person was when she was gambling online; should Visa automatically assume that everyone using their Visa card is attempting to use it for illegal purchases? Should Visa refuse transactions from Service Merchandise because the person might be purchasing a butcher knife which will be used to kill someone?

    3. Re:Several thoughts... by Coward,+Anonymous · · Score: 1

      Visa may not have known that the $70,000 that they paid out to a gambling website was to be used for gambling, common sense should have told them that she wasn't buying a t-shirt.

      She could have been buying 10,000 t-shirts. Maybe online casinos should start selling t-shirts so the credit card companies can claim the loan was for t-shirts.

    4. Re:Several thoughts... by Millennium · · Score: 2

      How is Visa to know what the card is being used for? All they can possibly know is what merchant is charging the card and for how much (well, that's all they can possibly know while still maintaining some semblance of legality, at any rate). Last I checked, they bear no respobsibility for what you do with the card. As a matter of fact, since this woman used her "loan" for an illegal purpose of which Visa wasn't aware, you might be able to say she committed fraud.

      Sure, credit cards are a form of loans. However, Visa did not lend her the money so she could gamble with it. They did not know what was going on, so I don't think they should be held liable for this in the least. This idiotic woman should have to pay every last cent of that gambling debt. She chose to play, after all, and it's no one's fault but her own that she messed up.

  109. Re:The credit card company will still have revenge by DaveHowe · · Score: 1

    After 3-5 years of non-payment, the credit card company will forgive the debt owed to them by their delinquent customer. The customer at this point usually thinks that they are off the hook, scott free.
    BUT, an unpaid loan turns into *tada* INCOME! This income becomes TAXABLE! So, once the debt is forgiven, the credit card company turns in their customer to the IRS, and the customer suddenly finds themselves with a tiger on their tail. A much bigger tiger than a credit card company.
    I'm not sure if this is applies to this case - The debt hasn't been "forgiven", the original transaction has been found to be illegal and therefore didn't happen - legally, VISA should have turned down the application for credit, and are therefore responsible for their "mistake". I doubt they will let this stop them blacklisting her, though - but $70K is probably worth that to her, especially as she would have been black-listed for the debt anyhow.
    --

    --
    -=DaveHowe=-
  110. Re:What would happen if she actually won anything? by DaveHowe · · Score: 1
    I mean, VISA loans her money for gambling, she looses, she sues, VISA doesn't charge her (duh).
    Suppose she won. Could the 'gambling establishment' refuse to give her the winnings on the grounds that she used an illegal loan?
    Unless I am very much mistaken, then this means ALL online gambling by credit card from california is invalid - possibly from this moment on (for convenience's sake) but possibly also rectroactively - in which case, ALL transactions (both wins and loses) would need backing out, an accounting nightmare.

    Still trying to get my head around this ridiculous judging.
    I suspect it is more an attempt to "send a message" to the online casino businesses than genuine compassion for this woman - many government organisations (and not just in the states) don't like the idea of a casino, used by their citizens, that they can't regulate, licence and get their cut from :+)

    Now I'm not a lawyer, but when you apply for a loan, you usually are asked to specify the reason - if you put "Gambling" then the bank should refuse it if its illegal... if you however put "general expenditure" and go about gambling, why on earth would the bank be held liable for that?
    They shouldn't, and wouldn't - but then the USER would be guilty of making a false declaration to the bank. To be honest, I am surprised the agreement she signed for the card in the first place didn't constrain her not to use the card to purchase goods or services illegally.

    Besides VISA accounts are not really loans, they're more like a general expenditure overdrafts.
    VISA had knowledge of where the money was going, but stop and think for a while: VISA is international, there are god knows how many weird or even contradicting laws, hence its not only ridiculous, its impossible for them to filter transactions.
    It's far from impossible - certain goods and services (drugs, gambling, alcohol, animals) could be flagged for the vendors, and yet another section of checkboxes (with these fields) added to the initial form, stating that you declare purchase of these goods is legal for you. This would add one byte per client record, and a trivial bitwise AND check. I can't see the fact that a company being international in scope exempting them from the laws in each country they have a branch office - it should be the job of the lawyers FOR each country's office to keep at least the Declarations on the straight and narrow

    Oh well. I guess they could just add another disclaimer in their next version of the contract. Yet another proof that the US legal system needs a healthy dose of common sense.
    Not sure about that - the credit card company was clearly in the wrong, although they didn't know it at the time - they obviously overlooked a law in a single state, but - what are their lawyers for, if not to keep current on each state's new laws? there can't be THAT many each year that relate directly to credit or credit cards.
    --

    --
    -=DaveHowe=-
  111. Re:Give me a break. by DaveHowe · · Score: 1
    This event is a showcase of the general malaise of this country. If you blew 70 grand in VEGAS you would get no forgiveness. However, some crackpot blows the same amount ONLINE and is immediately forgiven by an equally incompetent judge. Calling the credit card a "loan" doesnt quite work.
    not to sure about the reasoning on this one - if you blew $70K in Vegas, you would be sitting in a big hotel, having gone to the trouble of travelling there; you would have gone and exchanged your cash for chips (and you would have had to obtain that money in advance, as I doubt casinos would give most people much credit); you would have sat at a table, putting piles of chips onto a board (or whatever) and watched them pulled away from it as you lost. This is all physical, understandable, and there.
    Ok, now we cut to online gambling. A user sits and plays what is in effect a video game - just like they have been playing since they were kids. they click buttons, they toggle lights, and when they click the right or wrong button, numbers appear on the screen (do they casinos even display a running total of how far ahead or behind you are? or just how much you have won or lost on the current throw?). Problem is, rather than saying "out of lives, insert coin" it says "out of credit card, insert a further $70K! I imagine suddenly realising she had spent more than she could earn in a year came as a bit of a shock....

    This event sets a rather unfortunate precident for the future, meaning that I wouldnt want to get into the online casino business any time soon.
    Not too sure about that one - you would need a lot of money to set up (online servers, automatic VISA, Mastercard, American Express and so forth validation are all expensive) and would have to make a fair profit in the first year or so - but I am not sure the casino will be expected to eat all the loss on this one - normally, if a given transaction turns out to be fraudulent on the buyers part, the CC company has to eat the loss - provided the transaction was verified with them. They may end up splitting the loss between them in this case, if only to avoid the Casino insisting on re-verifying every transaction they have ever made in the light of this ruling.
    --

    --
    -=DaveHowe=-
  112. Re:Vegas can be a vide game too by DaveHowe · · Score: 1
    Obviously haven't been in Vegas recently. :-)
    Nope, I am in the UK - Vagas is a little far for me :+)

    Most people gamble with coins, not chips, and they gamble at slot machines, not tables. Slot machines can be the traditional one-armed bandit.
    Hmm. well, they may not be casino-issued chips, but they are still effectively chips - if you took $1K to a casino, would it be a big bag of coins, or would it be notes / ecash and you change it there?
    But don't forget the computer poker machines. These are mostly very low-tech, but there are some great touch-screen video-poker games with sophisticated graphics. I don't usually enjoy gambling, but I play them for the pretty graphics and the sound effects, no joke.
    I'll take your word for that - I don't actually visit Vegas that often :+)
    so, you presumably feed in coinage, and press buttons, like a glorified fruit-machine?
    --

    --
    -=DaveHowe=-
  113. If VISA broke the law, so did she. by jcr · · Score: 1

    I'm appalled that the judge didn't just say: "Okay, Lady: You don't have to pay the money to VISA, but you were gambling illegally, and you've just confessed. Bailiff, take her away."

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  114. both losers. by BLiP2 · · Score: 1

    IMHO the woman dn the casino are both complete losers. Online (and RL) gambling companies are just sleazy, quasi-legal companies that intentionally try to addict people to a behavior that severly damages them financially. The woman is an idiot for runing up so much debt and then using a loophole to not accept responsibility for her actions. If I were VISA, I'd just say "to hell with both of you" and make it part of the card contract that one may not use their card for gambling of any kind, and cancel all merchant accounts with these OL casino companies. Would solve both problems in one swoop.

    --
    Vote Technocratic! Government by killer robots!
  115. Who has jurisdiction in cyberspace?? by GFD · · Score: 1

    This is part of an ongoing evolution of trying to nail down who has legal (and by extension, taxation) jurisdiction in cyberspace. This is an interesting issue. Suppose a Canadian gambling company has a server farm (possibly third party) in Bermuda and has clients in California. Who do you sue? Who is performing an illegal act?

    It seems so far that the courts are looking more at the client and not the providers. In this case visa was seen by the courts to be giving gambling loans to the client which were illegal in California.

    Likewise for things like child pornography (although the providers are also highly illegal). The simple reason is that clients are easier to target and nail down as far as a legal jurisdiction.

    1. Re:Who has jurisdiction in cyberspace?? by FooGoo · · Score: 1

      Hey! I think I know that Canadian company...

      --
      People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
  116. Re:The law is the law. by Johan+Veenstra · · Score: 1

    Ok, you just made clear that the loan was illegal (or in the words of the court, frowned upon). And therefore sticking to bill to visa is logical.

    Suppose someone gets payed to break into a house. In the process of breaking in that someone kills the owner of the house.

    Following your reasoning, the one who ordered the break-in, should go to jail for murder, and the one that murdered gets away with breaking and entering.

    What I'm saying is, the court could fine visa for loaning the woman an illegal loan. The woman should pay the $70.000, just because she was the one spending the money.

    As someone else pointed out, what would have happened if she'd won $1.000.000. Would visa have received the $1.000.000 as well, because the loan was illegal, and therefore she was gambling with visa's money.

  117. slashing content by joq · · Score: 1

    Now heres a post to be moderated as flamebait.
    Can someone please explain to me what exactly is the relevance to this story and slashdot? If it's not another hack.this.box.from.this.company.com slashdot looks to be leaning into an oblivious state of idleness on the "High Tech GeeK" sites on my list of sites. Now my response to the story:
    Thanks to a swindiling, schemey woman, and legal loopholes abroad, decent, hardworking citizens will have to dish out more to insurance companies to cover fraudulent abuse by some pansy, lazy ass trailer trash chick. A decent solution would've been to have her do community service to pay off her debt and have her learn a lesson. sighWell I guess when Judge Ito and the Colorado District Attorney's office have anything to do with it criminals get away with murder kill -9 sarcasm

    --

    Want Root?
    1. Re:slashing content by Crimson+Dude · · Score: 1
      Well, considering she received 2nd and 3rd degree burns from a cup of coffee, I would definitely have to say that something is wrong with the situation. After all, do you expect people to drink something that burns flesh like that? For quite a long time their policies regarding such things as the exceedingly hot temperature of the coffee, and that was a bit of a wakeup call. However, even after the amount was reduced on appeal (but the judgement remained in favor of her), her lawyer got almost all of the money, so it's not like she benefitted from being burned -- he did.

      BTW, do you fully understand the circumstances of the case, or do you just hear what dumbass joke someone like Leno has to say about it? What was she to do? Hand this thing to her small granddaughter who was sitting next to her while she was putting her purse away? I saw the pictures of what it did to this woman, and anyone would have thrown the book at McD's if that happened to the girl. Or would you blame her stupidity for burning herself too?

  118. Re:What would happen if she actually won anything? by cdlu · · Score: 1

    To me it sounds like this is just one more person trying to cash in on the recent law-suite (sp?) lottery raging across the US for the past few years. She won her gamble in the court room, where she lost it on the web.

    But how on earth did she get a $70,000 line of credit to waste in the first place, anyway?

    --
    OFTC: By the community, for the community
  119. Re:The credit card company will still have revenge by epine · · Score: 1


    Totally flawed. She can't pay tax on something she has never received. And what has she received?

    At best you could argue that she has received $70,000 in the form of pleasure on taking risks. It sure sounds dumb. But you could argue this based on a commodity market for gambling as a form of entertainment.

    However, if she engaged in this activity knowing that her debts were not legally enforceable she has in fact not taken any risk at all. It then becomes difficult to argue that she has received $70,000 in pleasure from a risk she never took.

    And she hasn't received any nbet cash gain either. So there's not much here to pay taxes on and I don't see that the IRS has anything to do with it.

  120. Visa is not in the wrong by rcromwell2 · · Score: 1


    I find this concept stupid. Credit cards are not like bank loans where each transaction has to be approved and you have to state the reason for the loan.

    Let me ask you this: Do you want VISA/Credit Bureaus/FINCEN/Big Government to know EXACTLY what you are doing at all times with your money?

    Finally, if this women had gotten out of this by using a debit card (on some other stupid technicality) instead of a credit card, would you defend VISA?

    Let's face it folks. Credit cards are used primarily online for convenience, because trying to buy something with cash or check sucks.

    If online casinos start accepting Digicash, First Virtual, or any other debit scheme, I think you guys would still be defending this women and attacking the casino. The fact that she got off on a technicality is irrelevent. If she had sold her house to get the the $70,000, you'd still be defending her.


    If someone wants to spend all their money on drugs, prostitution, or gambling, let them.

    I think the application of "local laws" to the internet is just dumb. Whether its gambling laws, obsenity laws, anti-nazism laws, French language police, it's all bunk.

    It's amazing that geeks subscribe to the same dumb politics promulgated in the non-net world.

  121. "loan" by Datafage · · Score: 1
    Credit from a credit card IS a loan, it is money given in advance to be payed back at interest. That is loan, both legally and by the dictionary.

    -----------------------

    --

    Nicotine free Amish .sig.

  122. What is the fuss all about? by aUser · · Score: 1

    It's been in Napoleon's code for over 200 years by now, that debts from gambling are void. It doesn't matter if these debts have been run up over the internet or in any other way. Debts from gambling are void, and so are debts from prostitution, ransom, and any other illegal act. Gambling itself may not be illegal, or legal within regulations, but the debts incurred will still be void.

    Visa and Mastercard should know this. If they still try to collect the cash, I feel that they should be slapped with severe punitive damages.

  123. Nothing New by jhunsake · · Score: 1

    There is nothing new here. From the 1980's this has come up many times. There were many cases on the East Coast for those that used there VISA's for cash advances in Atlantic City. Since the credit card agreements were in states that had laws which prohibit loaning money for gambling, the card users could legally not be held responsible for the charge. There is much case law on this if you really want to investigate it (and perhaps learn how to cheat your bank).

  124. Re:The credit card company will still have revenge by Spunk · · Score: 1

    And beyond that, what do you think her credit rating will look like? A little asterisk with a note attached to it reading "don't lend money to this woman. Ever!" perhaps?
    --

  125. Re:Ha ha! Only in California (aka, the left coast) by richj · · Score: 1

    Rack up $70,000 in debt gambling illegally over the 'net? Stick the credit card company with the bill!

    Anyone who thinks the credit card company is going to be left holding the bag has got another thing coming.

    She's probably complaining how high the interest rate is on her legitimate bills.

  126. Vegas can be a vide game too by mapletree · · Score: 1
    Obviously haven't been in Vegas recently. :-)
    Most people gamble with coins, not chips, and they gamble at slot machines, not tables. Slot machines can be the traditional one-armed bandit. But don't forget the computer poker machines. These are mostly very low-tech, but there are some great touch-screen video-poker games with sophisticated graphics. I don't usually emjoy gambling, but I play them for the pretty graphics and the sound effects, no joke.


    Ob rant - I live in California, and they have a state lottery. There's no ban on gambling, just a state-run monopoly.

    not too sure about the reasoning on this one - if you blew $70K in Vegas, you would be sitting in a big hotel, having gone to the trouble of travelling there; you would have gone and exchanged your cash for chips (and you would have had to obtain that money in advance, as I doubt casinos would give most people much credit); you would have sat at a table, putting piles of chips onto a board (or whatever) and watched them pulled away from it as you lost. This is all physical, understandable, and there.
    Ok, now we cut to online gambling. A user sits and plays what is in effect a video game - just like they have been playing since they were kids. they click buttons, they toggle lights, and when they click the right or wrong button, numbers appear on the screen

  127. Re:Settlement not a ruling by pf+kro · · Score: 1

    think about it:
    if you are a large multinational credit card company, why in the world would
    you want bad publicity from "some California girl" who could possibly win in
    the courtroom, and in turn cause customers to lose their faith in the company?
    that's the main, if not only, reason there are settlements in the business world
    anyway, to prevent bad publicity.
    --

    --
    steve

    C-x i ~/.sig
  128. Gambling Debt by KimmBadd · · Score: 1

    I win a lot more than I lose when gambling online. I just want to thank that irresponsible, overindulgent, want to be scammer, that has absolutely no willpower or intelligence, for giving the government a VERY VERY good reason to make online gambling illegal. THANKS STUPID BITCH!

    --
    I have a big bag full of two cents and I'm coming your way.
  129. yet another dumb lawsuit by paxx · · Score: 1
    This is the kind of thing that causes those neat little warning labels to be placed on various products, such as the one on lawnmowers that says "Do not place hands under mower while in operation," or the one on Dr. Pepper bottles that says "Warning: contents may explode upon opening. Point away from self and others when opening."

    This type of lawsuit just goes to show how dumb people can really be, both the people that commit the act and then sue for it, and the people that award the money to the "victim." It's a waste of taxpayers' money, plain and simple.

  130. Re:Ha ha! Only in California (aka, the left coast) by hipworld · · Score: 1

    this woman turned out to be more clever at getting around the law.

    Not quite - it's just another successful attempt to avoid responsibility for one's own actions - something that is happening way too often these days.

  131. Re:The credit card company will still have revenge by aclute · · Score: 1

    Because in the IRS's eyes the debt was forgiven (and not a mistake), it is perceived as income because it is an expense she did not pay. That 70 grand, it's taxable just like if her employeer had given her a check for $70,000. It's called "Forgiveness of Inedebtedness", and she will get a 1099 from the credit card company, guarantee it because that's the only way the VISA can write it off. She can look forward to paying Appx $30,000 of that in taxes.

  132. Re:Why Visa should have known better! by Molander · · Score: 1

    Question: If you gamble online where is the act of gambling occuring? Where the client is located or where the server is located? In this case it was an offshore casino so why do they not argue that the gamling occured offshore where using a VISA card is leagal? Do anybody have an answer? /Thomas

    --
    -Sig-
  133. Re:Give me a break. by gargle · · Score: 1

    ". This event sets a rather unfortunate precident for the future, meaning that I wouldnt want to get into the online casino business any time soon. " This is sort of like the idea since online gambling is illegal.

  134. Re:No, the judge did his job, and yet didn't. by Brian+W. · · Score: 1

    NOT A LOAN????

    Can you expound upon this, please?

  135. Re:Jurisdictional mazes. by FooGoo · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter where the loan took place...she sued Visa so the lawsuit takes place in her state. As far as where the loan was actually processed that is a fuzzier issue. My personal opinion would be it was processed on her PC even though it was authorized at a remote location.

    --
    People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
  136. Just amazed by else...if · · Score: 1

    First of all, notice that this was not the decision of a court. It was a settlement; there was no involvement of governmental agencies. The problem is that the case even went that far; it's astonishing to me that someone has the nerve to claim that her credit card company should regulate what she can buy. I'll bet that she would have been the first one to complain if Visa had refused her the loan in the first place ("It's none of your business what it's for! Loan me the money, and I'll commit to paying it back!")

  137. Off Topic by rlkoppenhaver · · Score: 1

    But the aim of the American legal system isn't to convict every murderer, it is to convict only those whose guilt can be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By it's very nature, this system leads to guilty people getting away with it sometimes.

    In conclusion:
    It happens.
    The alternative is worse.
    Deal with it.

  138. Off topic! (was Re:Gotta love it.) by Zalgon+26+McGee · · Score: 1
    Stupid people getting away with murder -- only in America.

    Actually, in the US, people with below average IQs are more likely to be sentenced to death for capital crimes. Every study ever done of the death penalty (as it is currently enforced in the US) shows that you're more likely to be sentenced to death if:

    - You're not white and you murdered a white.

    - You have a below-average IQ

    - You are from a lower-end socio-economic group.

    Let's face it - white senators don't even get charged with manslaughter when their actions lead to the drowning deaths of young women...

    --

    ---

    Book(n): Utensil used to pass time while waiting for the TV repairman

  139. Re:The law is the law. by [iB] · · Score: 1

    While IANAL, I would have to question whether a purchase on a credit card is actually a LOAN per se... Credit cards are more like overdraft protection at a bank, except that you never have a balance. If she had written a CHECK for $70,000, and, assuming she could get that much overdraft protection (not likely, but this is a hypothetical situation :) would you fault the bank for giving her loan?

    No, your fundamental economics here are flawed.
    When viewing credit cards, the key word you should be looking at is Credit. Credit cards offer someone monitary credit from a larger body (usually a bank) which has money to lend on an interest rate, and what do we call money lent on an interest rate? A Loan. This is also interesting because you need Credit to get a Loan. Credit in its simplist term is defined by putting trust in something or someone, and is used in economics today as a way to guage peoples ability to pay off debts, such as loans or credit cards. When you use a credit card you receive money from a lender which you must pay back later, usually at an interest rate (negotiable, every one is different, etc.), which is really just a high tech form of a loan.

    -- iCEBaLM

  140. Re:What would happen if she actually won anything? by sente17 · · Score: 1

    I don't know if this is possible, but I hope that VISA blackballs this woman, making it impossible for her to obtain credit anywahere, again. I actually think there should be some limitations on internet gambling if an individual can lose 70K . In Vegas, they will do a credit check and make sure you are not in too deep. This would be easy for an on-line establishment to do, but I bet none of them do it. 70K is a very cheap price to pay for the casinos to learn that they must have some limitations on their credit extension, even if it is by fiat through VISA. I hope this will lead to intelligent debate on internet casinos. Rufus

  141. Re:An E-comerce precident by case_igl · · Score: 1
    The precident that this case sets can potentialy be very damaging to the (still very young) ecomerce segment of our economy. What it says is: It's not payed for till it's payed for. It's not sold until it's sold. It's not a deal unless the check is in hand.

    This is right on the money! My company has multiple levels of membership to our Web site. Most of our users pay for their access online via credit card.

    It is not uncommon for someone to use our service for months, cancel their account, and then call their credit card company and dispute the charge on their bill. Credit card companies are fighting for customers now so they try to keep them happy---which also means giving them refunds with almost no questions asked.

    Unfortunately for relatively new Internet companies, obtaining a merchant account is a difficult thing to do for this very reason. It is worse for us to fight with Visa/MC over billing disputes and have that flagged on our merchant account than it is to take the loss. It also takes a lot of time and effort to successfully win a dispute - they make it tough: forms, written documentation required, etc. In the end you spend $50 in staff time for a $20 membership.

    Too bad for us that the scum of the net are starting to catch on to the fact that you can get away with not paying for services that you use. Something really does need to be done.

  142. It's the online casinos that take the loss by QDerf · · Score: 1

    I think that you misread that part of the article: "Under the settlement, Visa USA agreed to forgive the debt, and will collect the money instead from the gambling sites."

  143. Re:Ha ha! Only in California (aka, the left coast) by Curieus · · Score: 1

    umm, When i make coffee, i use boiling water. If it is hot, i wait till it has the correct temperature (which varies according to the outside temperature and mood :-) ) If any joint sells me coffee at "drinking temperature" it usually means tepid. It also means that the customers have no choice about the temperature at which one drinks. If the coffee is served hot, you do have a choice, however freedom of choice requires a certain amount of responsibility. And if you are not up to even such responsibility....... Hey how's that, changing the temperature of coffee to a "free choice" issue :-)

  144. Ob-McDonalds-case-reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2


    The McDonald's case is interesting.

    The coffee, maintained at a scalding 180F-190F because the customers supposedly "like it hot", caused severe third-degree burns. She spent seven days in the hospital and was treated with skin grafts.

    Initially she only wanted payment for her medical bills but McDonald's refused to even negotiate with her. Consequently she contacted an attorney who had settled another coffee burn case with McDonald's. In the course of the trial company documents revealed that "in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third-degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000."

    Despite knowledge of the hazard, company officials refused to warn its customers. "There are more serious dangers in restaurants." And given the 1 billion cups of coffee sold annually, McDonald's considered the number of burn complaints to be "statistically insignificant".

    After hearing such testimony a jury found McDonald's liable and awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages. The jurors deducted $40,000 for contributory negligence. Also, given McDonald's conduct, the jury awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, which was equal to 2 days of coffee sales.

    Later the judge reduced the punitive award to $480,000. While awaiting appeal the two parties settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

    The #1 sickening thing about the whole McDonald's coffee hype is how it distracts from the facts. I suppose you just glibly believed whatever it was the mass media told you about that McDonald's case didn't you?

  145. Lawyer: This is basic, ancient, law by hawk · · Score: 2

    Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I'm probably not licensed in your jurisdiction. This isn't legal advice, anyway. If you need legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

    The only thing surprising about this is that it took so long to happen. In fact, this was my initial reaction to the use of Visa for these places.

    Using a Visa or MC for *anything* creates a loan. It is also a contract. Courts have refused to enforce contracts that violate public policy for as far back as the Common Law records cases. You also can't sell yourself into slavery, nor consent to be murdered.

    Nothing prevents the transaction if everyone agrees to it. But when a party enters the courtroom, they are asking the court/government to enforce the contract.

    Gambling contracts are a particular type that courts commonly refuse to enforce. California's constitution specifically prohibits the legislature from legalizing gambling of the type seen in Nevada casinos. The public policy is explicit.

    When a Nevada casino issues a loan, it is aware that it can't enforce the loan in California. For that matter, it couldn't even be enforced in Nevada until the late 1980's.

  146. Jurisdictional mazes. by BluBrick · · Score: 2

    First off, IANAL nor a resident or citizen of the USA.

    OK, we know this woman lives in California. Now, for argument's sake let's say that this offshore casino is located in "Fictitia".


    Where & when did this "loan" take place, and whose laws should govern the transaction(s)?

    Did the loan occur in California, or in Fictitia?

    Did the loan occur when she opened her Visa account, or when she opened her gambling account?

    Was it even one single loan, or was there one loan for every transaction?


    It could have made an interesting test case if they had not settled.

    --
    Ahh - My eye!
    The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
  147. Re:What would happen if she actually won anything? by rew · · Score: 2

    Suppose she won. Could the 'gambling establishment' refuse to give her the winnings on
    the grounds that she used an illegal loan?

    The way to WIN on gambling $70.000 is by doing at most a few bets. If you place 7000 $10 bets, the chances are pretty slim(*) that you will "win".

    (*) slim as in happens once in the lifetime of the universe if someone tries the experiment every second.

    Here in the netherlands, the odds on some bets are acutally fair. Betting red/black on the roulette table gives you a 50/50 bet. Betting a number gives you 1/37 chance * 36 payback, so you lose
    on every bet. The red/black rules are such that you get exactly 1/2 * 2 return.

    The reason the casino can still make a profit is that people have credit limits. Either in "money in wallet" or on their credit card. That means that you can bet until you're broke. There is a 100% chance that you can "bet till you're broke". If you start with $100 there is a 50/50 chance that you'll end up with $200 before going broke. Many, MANY gamblers will continue "because they are on a winning streak". That means that the stakes for the casino just doubled for the casino ("Yeah right"), but the person still has a good chance of going home broke.

    If you really want to make money against the casino, you should go to the casino with $100 in your pocket and leave (or at least stop betting) when you're $10 ahead. There is about a 90/10 chance that you'll leave the casino with more money than you started out with. But the 10% chance is that you'll have lost $100, and the 90% chance is that you'd have won $10.

    Roger.

  148. Re:The credit card company will still have revenge by PD · · Score: 2

    Visa will chargeback the gambling sites, and they will also 1099 the delinquent woman.

    Visa doesn't want to lose any money if they can't help it, and their ongoing business relationship with the gambling houses allows them to chargeback the full amount. If the gambling houses don't like it, then they don't have to accept VISA, now do they?

    No matter where Visa gets its money from, the woman received $70,000 of income that she spent how she pleased. She owes taxes on it.

    I'm not a lawyer either, but I have consulted for credit card companies, and that's how I know.


    --
    If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
  149. LINK: The Register's take on this case (funny) by warlock · · Score: 2

    The Register has a funny story on this case.

    Well, I laughed ;)

    -W

  150. Re:What would happen if she actually won anything? by Dredd13 · · Score: 2
    VISA is international, there are god knows how many weird or even contradicting laws, hence its not only ridiculous, its impossible for them to filter transactions.

    So if Citibank is International (it is), they are no longer required to know and obey the banking laws in the places they do business?

    That is the "price" of being a large international company -- you have a team of lawyers, in-house and on-retainer, whose job it is to know the various laws that affect the way you do business in the many places.

    Now, what happened is that credit cards companies have to differentiate between "purchases" (for goods and services) and "cash advances" (for anything else). The rules between the two are widely different in the way the card companies are allowed to behave.

    In many states, such as California, you may not use a credit card for gambling purposes.

    Now, some will say "she did a cash advance", but that's not what happened. A cash advance is like going to an ATM machine, you surrender your card, someone draws cash against your card and hands it back to you. (In fact, the most common place for credit card cash advances IS the ATM machine, with local banks being a close second). Most credit card authorization agreements strictly forbid the merchant from performing cash advances (hence you can use your ATM card to do "$20 over" at the grocery store and get change, but they won't let you do that with your Visa card because that would be a cash advance).

    Her contention appears to be: This wasn't a cash advance, because no cash entered my hands, and it couldn't have been a charge, because credit card charges for gambling are illegal in California.

    Is the law dumb? Yes. You should be able to spend your money or ruin your credit rating on whatever you want to. This is still (supposedly) a free country.

    Did Visa violate the law? Absolutely, as is MasterCard probably. Most of them don't bother to do the kind of fine-tuning they need to on their card acceptance routines.

    Now, if she had WON, the casino could have turned the tables and said "You fraudulently used a credit card to obtain funds" and reneged (legally) on paying her winnings.

    ObDisclaimer: I am not a lawyer

  151. Re:Ha ha! Only in California (aka, the left coast) by NMerriam · · Score: 2

    In all likelyhood, VISA will simply charge-back the gambling group. if the gambling group wants to keep their ability to process VISA cards in the future they'll live with it (and operating e-commerce means taking credit cards or going out of business, so I suspect they'd like to keep the account).

    That's how it works, and why VISA and MC are generally able to write off things like this without a big hassle. i've gotten charge-backs for all sorts of things, from malicious retailers who deliberately tried to screw me to people who just send the wrong item. One call to your credit card company will usually have the merchant screaming "uncle".

    the net result of this will not be a "chilling effect on the growing online economy" but the gambling group taking more care to ensure they're dealing with legal gamblers -- just remember that at the end of the day, the house ALWAYS wins :)...

    --
    Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
  152. Re:The law is the law. by Surak · · Score: 2

    A law is a law; judges exist to uphold the law. The theory this country's legal system is that it is run by laws, not judges, as much as possible.

    I agree with spirit of your post. Too many times the law is overlooked by judges and juries around the country. Judges and juries tend to make decisions by how the feel about it, and not sticking to the law. A perfect example is Roe V. Wade, but lets not go there shall we? :)

    So let's look at this. If it's not legal in California to give loans for gambling, then if you loan someone for gambling, IT'S ILLEGAL.

    I'm not sure that the article said that it was illegal, only that courts in California "frown upon" loans given out for the purpose of gambling.

    And despite the way people VIEW credit cards, any purchase you make on a credit card IS A LOAN.

    While IANAL, I would have to question whether a purchase on a credit card is actually a LOAN per se... Credit cards are more like overdraft protection at a bank, except that you never have a balance. If she had written a CHECK for $70,000, and, assuming she could get that much overdraft protection (not likely, but this is a hypothetical situation :) would you fault the bank for giving her loan?

    The fact that the transaction was automatically by a computer does NOT make it legal in any way

    Agreed. But for a law to be effective, it has to be enforceable. For instance, the CDA, which made it illegal to allow minors to view "harmful" material on the Internet, was struck down and one of the reasons was that the law was not enforceable (besides the fact that it was too broadly worded). How would you expect the credit card company to police itself against "making a loan" to Californian online gamblers? Should they simply not do business with online casinos? What about the people in other states where loans to pay for gambling aren't illegal? Sounds like this judge is looking for a good way to effectively end online gambling.

    Personally, I would say that the California law, or at least this ruling, is unconstitutional, perhaps in violation of the first amendment. You could make the case that online gambling is a form of expression and that supressing that expression is censorship -- hence in violation of the first admendment.

    So which law do you think the judge has a higher obligation to uphold? The law about not making loans to gamblers or the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America? I think the answer is pretty clear.



    --
    My journal has hot /. gossip.
  153. This ruling has a precedent by sirwired · · Score: 2

    It has long been the policy of the State of California to not enforce gambling debts. Even if this woman had traveled to Vegas, and blown her credit card while in Nevada, her bank would be prevented from attempting to collect while she was a resident of California.

    The precedent for this is Hamilton v. Abadijian which states "The owner of a gambling house who honors a check for the purpose of providing a prospective customer with funds with which to gamble and who then participates in the transaction thus promoted cannot recover on the check." While this doesn't mention credit cards, it is naturally extensible to them. If you went to a Vegas casino, you can be damned sure they won't take a credit card or a check if you are from Calif.

    The grounds for such a ruling is that it is against the laws of California to allow gambling, and therefore debt incurred while gambling is uncollectable within California. The contract to pay said debt enables an anction which is illegal, and contracts to carry out an illegal action are unenforcable. It should be noted that it would also be perfectly legal for the online gambling house to refuse to send any winnings to California since the contract is unenforcable, no matter who owes what to whom.

    The judge had no choice but to make this decision, as the law is fairly simple and straightforward. While not every state has laws against gambling (or they might have special laws stating that out-of-state gambling debts are legal), there is not a state in the US that will enforce contracts for conduct that is illegal within its borders.

    The moral of the story: The online casino should have done its homework, and looked up this woman's address first.

  154. Re:Even so, her credit history will look pretty ba by coyote-san · · Score: 2

    And what, exactly, do you expect to the credit report to state?

    Remember, Visa *settled*. The matter is closed, and they can't report that the woman didn't pay a lawful debt. (Note the key word "lawful.") They can't list the debt as unpaid during the time the charges were challenged.

    Could they still manage to put a barb in the credit bureau report? Sure... and it would seem to be a slam dumk for slander because the case has already be brought before a court and Visa settled.

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
  155. Re:Ha ha! Only in California (aka, the left coast) by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2
    Who says coffee has to be so cold that you can drink the whole cup instantly without getting burns?
    Who says french fries have to edible at the time of purchase and can't be coated with a volatile poison that's going to evaporate in a few minutes?

    When you sell a prepared food product, the implied warranty is that it is fit for immediate human consumption. For hot beverages, that may not imply "that you can drink the whole cup instantly", but it does imply that it won't give you third degree burns!

    (A friend of mine is currently involved in a lawsuit after she was poisoned by coffee containing toxic cleaning chemicals. I suppose your response is that she should have had it checked by a toxicologist before drinking it - who says coffee can't contain poison? Consumers have a choice, after all...)

    And finally... It's pretty dumb to hold HOT coffee cup between your legs.
    Which is probably why the jury reduced the award for contributory negligence on the part of the burn victim.
    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  156. Re:Ha ha! Only in California (aka, the left coast) by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2
    Rack up $70,000 in debt gambling illegally over the 'net? Stick the credit card company with the bill!
    Visa's not stuck with the bill - according to the article, they're going to collect from the casinos.

    I'd have to say this is a case of "there is no honor amoung con men" - casinos though they could cleverly get around the law by going online and offshore, and this woman turned out to be more clever at getting around the law.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  157. An E-comerce precident by Money__ · · Score: 2
    The precident that this case sets can potentialy be very damaging to the (still very young) ecomerce segment of our economy. What it says is: It's not payed for till it's payed for. It's not sold until it's sold. It's not a deal unless the check is in hand.

    Visa, in this case, is wrongfully left holding the (70k) bag for this user. If I worked in risk managment at Visa, I would be very hesitant about offering services to on-line companies that could potentionaly open the comapany up to such exposure.

    If I was a user, and unknowingly charged a 6 pack of Linux Xeon servers from Dell.com and mayed the argument that "I thought those little pull down menus were a tetris game!" Would a simprethetic judge leave Visa holding my bill for my new . . . .wait for it . . Beowolf cluster? :)

  158. Re:hahaha by CharlieHedlin · · Score: 2

    Remember this is a California Law against the gambling loan, so it wouldn't apply in Vegas.

    On a side note, in Texas it is illeagal to sell the state's lottery tickets on a credit card, but debit cards are OK since they aren't a loan.

    You also need to keep in mind that the ATM's are giving cash advances, with all the extra fees etc, and cash is then cash.

    This probally wouldn't be an isolated case (although in TX the courts are probally more conservative than in CA).

  159. Why Visa should have known better! by breser · · Score: 3
    Credit cards can be used in some jurisdictions to charge money used in gambling. In some you can't. However, how the credit card companies deal with these charges is what is important here. Charges for gambling are counted as cash advances against the account NOT as a regular charge.

    This is accounted for via SIC codes (Standardized Industrial Classification). Each merchant account has one associated with it. Unless the merchant lied about what they were selling the SIC code would have clearly indicated it was for gambling.

    So since they had the knowledge of that it was gambling, were already doing special processing on the charge, and had the individuals address, Visa should have blocked the charge!

    While I don't think this woman should have sued Visa, I can see how she could manage to get them to settle.

    P.S. IANAL but work within the ecommerce industry so I'm familiar with how the credit card system is setup

  160. The law is the law. by timster · · Score: 3

    It's really unfair to bash the judgement here. A law is a law; judges exist to uphold the law. The theory behind this country's legal system is that it is run by laws, not judges, as much as possible.
    So let's look at this. If it's not legal in California to give loans for gambling, then if you loan someone money for gambling, IT'S ILLEGAL. Wow. And despite the way people VIEW credit cards, any purchase you make on a credit card IS A LOAN. That's the reality, even if most people don't THINK about it that way. And since it's clear to the credit card company that the money is going to a casino, it's obvious that they're LOANing the woman money TO GAMBLE WITH. The fact that the transaction was automatically handled by a computer does NOT make it legal in any way. It isn't about what the company could do, or whether it was intentional. If you break the law and don't know about it, you've still broken the law. That's why large companies hire lawyers.
    IANAL of course (lawyers on Slashdot? don't make me laugh) but this decision seems completely reasonable to me. The woman's motives are irrelevant. "Common sense" means the opinion of a large majority of people, and is also irrelevant. If you don't like this decision, direct your wrath at the LAW. If you live in California, write letters to your politicians. Sitting around whining about how stupid the "system" is, when all the system has done is uphold the law, is just pointless.

    --
    I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
  161. Re: Hot vs. scalding by coyote-san · · Score: 3

    Go to your nearest burn unit and ask them if they would call "190F" liquids "hot".

    *NEVER* make the mistake of thinking that the "temperature" shown by a thermometer has any direct correlation with the potential damage to human tissue. A child or elderly person can be scalded with water not much above 120F, and even a healthy adult can be scalded by water over 140F.

    190F will scald anyone. 190F is *boiling water* in these parts. (Well, in the mountains to the west; in Denver water boils at around 200F). Anyone who quickly drank that coffee would require medical attention for severe burns in their mouth and throat ... and at least they could vomit it out. The woman involved in the suit had the hot liquid dumped onto clothing which held it against her skin.

    (Before you comment that anyone dumb enough to drink something that hot deserves what they get, what about people who have lost most feeling in their hands? *You* might be able to feel the heat through the cup, but many people will feel nothing or only mild warmth.)

    I could understand that one particularly dumb manager didn't understand the consequences of keeping his coffee around 20F hotter than everyone else, but the plantiff's lawyers showed that McDonald's knew it was causing injury *and* refused to accept responsibility for those injuries.

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
  162. Re:Ha ha! Only in California (aka, the left coast) by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3
    Oh, not the damn McDonalds coffee lawsuit again. Look, the woman recieived third degree burns, and required skin grafts. They had previous complaints - hundreds of them - that their coffee was dangerously hot. They sold a product that was unfit for human consumption; it would have seriously burned your mouth if you tried to drink it at the temperature offered. And the woman orginally only tried to recover medical costs, but McDonald's wouldn't even negotiate.

    There are plenty of bogus personal injury lawsuits out there. (I was hit by one myself after a fender bender a few years back, and despite the utter lack of any real case on the plaintif's part my insurance company decided it was cheaper to settle than go to court.) But the McDonalds coffee lawsuit wasn't one of them.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  163. Simply amazing by jflynn · · Score: 3

    Clearly gambling is a mental disease in cases like this. Can anyone really fail to understand that casinos, electronic or otherwise, are not in the business of giving away money to the persistent? You have to deny reality very powerfully to invest $70k in an effort to show otherwise.

    Letting this woman off without at least mandatory therapy is no service to her or to society. I hope she gets help.

    I blame the CC company for settling. And not it specifically, but corporations in general. If you wonder why everyone and their brother is suing, the answer is simple -- because it works. As long as court will cost the corporation more than you are asking they'll settle. Principle is not a word in their vocabulary without a bottom line to back it up.

    I'm amazed they didn't require non-disclosure in the settlement, that's usually part of the deal. Especially when problems are found in a product that might cause a recall if generally known. Here I expect a lot of copycats trying the same trick, so I wonder if they will continue to settle further cases?

    Apparently they are putting the responsibility to check origin of customers on the offshore gambling sites. This seems equivalent to telling them to close their doors. Certainly the credit card companies are more likely to know where the customer lives and what credit law is like there.

  164. hahaha by G27+Radio · · Score: 3

    I spent several years working in casinos in Atlantic City. The credit card companies have machines similar to ATM's that allow you to obtain cash from your credit card within ten feet of the casino floor. I suppose they're not there specifically for gambling purposes though :)

    numb

  165. Settlement not a ruling by Dionysus · · Score: 4

    The judge didn't rule that VISA and MasterCard was at fault and that she was right. The Creditcard campanies settled with her. Settlements happen outside of the courtroom.

    In other words, VISA AND MASTERCARD DECIDED NOT TO FIGHT HER!!

    --
    Je ne parle pas francais.
  166. Give me a break. by SaxMaster · · Score: 4

    This event is a showcase of the general malaise of this country. If you blew 70 grand in VEGAS you would get no forgiveness. However, some crackpot blows the same amount ONLINE and is immediately forgiven by an equally incompetent judge. Calling the credit card a "loan" doesnt quite work. This event sets a rather unfortunate precident for the future, meaning that I wouldnt want to get into the online casino business any time soon.

    --
    "Dancing is the vertical expression of a horizontal desire" --Robert Frost
  167. The credit card company will still have revenge by PD · · Score: 5


    After 3-5 years of non-payment, the credit card company will forgive the debt owed to them by their delinquent customer. The customer at this point usually thinks that they are off the hook, scott free.

    BUT, an unpaid loan turns into *tada* INCOME! This income becomes TAXABLE! So, once the debt is forgiven, the credit card company turns in their customer to the IRS, and the customer suddenly finds themselves with a tiger on their tail. A much bigger tiger than a credit card company.

    The woman who got the $70,000 forgiven now owes about half that amount to the IRS, plus late penalties, fees, and interest.

    I'm really surprised that the article didn't mention that, but maybe not too many people know about it.

    --
    If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
  168. What would happen if she actually won anything? by warlock · · Score: 5

    I mean, VISA loans her money for gambling, she looses, she sues, VISA doesn't charge her (duh).

    Suppose she won. Could the 'gambling establishment' refuse to give her the winnings on the grounds that she used an illegal loan?

    Still trying to get my head around this ridiculous judging.

    Now I'm not a lawyer, but when you apply for a loan, you usually are asked to specify the reason - if you put "Gambling" then the bank should refuse it if its illegal... if you however put "general expenditure" and go about gambling, why on earth would the bank be held liable for that? Besides VISA accounts are not really loans, they're more like a general expenditure overdrafts.

    VISA had knowledge of where the money was going, but stop and think for a while: VISA is international, there are god knows how many weird or even contradicting laws, hence its not only ridiculous, its impossible for them to filter transactions.

    Oh well. I guess they could just add another disclaimer in their next version of the contract. Yet another proof that the US legal system needs a healthy dose of common sense.

    -W