Interesting Facts and Trivia about Frank Abagnale
on
Catch Me If You Can
·
· Score: 1
Abagnale's book "Catch Me If You Can!" was originally published in 1980. The book is being reprinted in advance of a Hollywood movie about Abagnale and his exploits which is currently in production.
After Abagnale was (finally) caught, he spent some time in a French prison and was eventually released. He nows runs a consulting company which offers instruction to bank tellers and other employees of financial institutions on how to spot (and avoid) bad checks and other common swindles. (That's right, Frank Abagnale has gone legit!)
Among his many television appearances during the 1970's, probably his most famous was with Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show. Carson had never met Abagnale and did not know who he was. Abagnale had been scheduled on that night's program for a very brief appearance. The Pointer Sisters were hot at that time and were scheduled to do a 2-song gig at the end of the program. (Abagnale was scheduled right before the Pointer Sisters.)
Johnny Carson is something of an amatuer magician and knows a little about sleight-of-hand and card tricks - he is not easily fooled. Abagnale very smoothly pulled off his infamous "20/30" trick on Carson and Johnny lit up like a kid in a candy store. (The "20/30" swindle is where you start off with a $20.00 bill and ask your "mark"
if he/she can give you change. After a series of exchanges Abagnale walks off with $30.00.) Carson was flabbergasted that he had been hoodwinked. During a commercial break, the producers told Mr. Carson, "Johnny, Mr. Abagnale has to go. We've got to get the Pointer Sisters on!" to which Carson replied, "Tell the Pointer Sisters to come back another time!"
Frank Abagnale is a hopeless romantic. His one great weakness in life is his fondness for women. In fact, his desire to share the company of women (especially beautiful women) is what motivated much of his "criminal" career. The book is full of amusing stories about his encounters with the fairer sex. Probably the most hilarious, (of which I will not give away the details here), DID NOT involve an "expensive Miami prostitute/callgirl" as reported by an earlier poster. The truth is even better. The lady in question was actually a very well known (and nationally famous) cover girl and model. What happened between her and Abagnale can best be described as "Greed and Excessive Vanity Does Not Pay!"
Don't curl up in bed with this book on a week night. You'll still be turning the pages in the morning when it's time for work!
"It's also important to note that many voters who made a mistake were forced to submit their ballot once punched. The poll workers did not allow them to destroy their ballot and get a new one."
IANAL, (and not intimately familiar with the terms and provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act), but there have been numerous reports of voters in Palm Beach who, (upon close inspection of their ballot prior to submitting it), began to suspect that they may have voted incorrectly and requested a new ballot. If, in fact, their request for a new ballot was denied and the ballot was voted against their will by an election official, (and all this can be proved); a violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act may have occurred. If this is determined to be the case, a federal judge MAY have the authority to order a new election. (I don't know for certain if this is possible as I am not a lawyer.) However, if this turns out to be the case, could the judge order a state-wide (or only a Palm Beach county wide) election? Regardless of the legalities, if a judge orders a new election anywhere in Florida, (and the ruling stands), this is going to get nasty. Unfortunately, it may have already passed that point anyway: One side or the other is going to come out of this bitter.
This [former] Intel engineer's comment has "the ring of truth" to it. Years ago I recall the observation/comment of my Engineering Economics professor: "Engineering Economics is the art of doing with one dollar what any fool can do with two!" Part of the problem might be that large company managements, under pressure from shareholders, (especially institutional shareholders), want the engineers to go even further and do for fifty cents what any fool can do with two dollars. I remember another professor from college and his comment: "The higher [up] engineers go in management, the more out-of-touch they get with [technical] reality."
This is NOT the first time for Ford either. You won't read about this in Lee Iacocca's autobiography, but it's in the trial record. In the early 1970's, around the time of the Arab oil embargo and the [oil] price shock, subcompact cars were popular with consumers mainly due to their relative fuel economy. However, the "Big Three" car manufacturers HATED these small cars due to their (relatively low) profit margins. (Henry Ford II is reputed to have derisively muttered: "Small cars, small profits!") However, GM, Ford, and Chrysler were forced to manufacture these loathsome "small cars" because consumers were flocking to Toyota's and Honda's. Ford designed and marketed a subcompact vehicle called the Ford "Pinto". The Ford Pinto turned out to have a little problem: The gas tank, located in the rear of the vehicle right underneath the back seat passengers, had a tendency to rupture and ignite when the vehicle was impacted from the rear - often with fatal consequences to the passengers. (These gas tank explosions occurred even with very low speed impacts.) I can't remember how many people died, (or survived but were disfigured for life), before an irrefutable fact was established in the many civil suits against Ford that resulted from the Pinto. First, not only did the senior Ford executives, (including Mr. Ford II and Mr. Iacocca), know that the gas tanks were unsafe; but they made a (very conscious) decision NOT TO RECALL the cars and install a very inexpensive component that their engineers had told them would make the gas tanks MUCH SAFER and MUCH LESS PRONE to explosion from a rear impact. So what did Ford do? They asked their engineers to give them a cost estimate on how much a recall would cost. Then they asked their lawyers the following question: How many lawsuits do you estimate we'll get each year due to exploding gas tanks and what will the average cost (per lawsuit) be? So the [Ford] lawyers and statisticians came back with their figure. As revealed at trial, the executives decided that "fighting the lawsuits" was less costly to Ford and Ford's shareholders. There was no recall and the unsafe gas tanks were never fixed. Do any of you have a loved one who was killed by an exploding gas tank in a Ford Pinto?
Maybe a corporate "death penalty" is excessive punishment and hurts the innocent along with the guilty. However, I've often wondered: "What is the difference between a cold, calculated case of first degree murder and the decision those Ford executives made to keep the Pinto on the road?
In the current situation involving Ford and Firestone, there is still much to be revealed. In due course, certain facts may come to light about the design of Ford Explorers. These are the kind of facts which Mr. Nasser may not be so eager to reveal. Right now, he prefers to portray his company - and himself - as the "great victims" of these callous Firestone folks. Don't be too surprised, when all this goes to trial, if we (once again) find history repeating.
Re:It's still a democracy.....use it!
on
Lawsuits Suck
·
· Score: 1
Do you REALLY UNDERSTAND what your CALL TO ACTION entails? If geeks were to (somehow) magically organize, "put on suits" and "fight the lawyers" on their own terms; then you better get ready to drain your wallet.
It is a FACT that lawyers, (as well as many other well organized "professionals"), learned a long time ago that paying off politicians, (excuse me, "Contributing to the political process"), is simply part of the cost of doing business. Just about every major interest group in the country, (i.e. AARP, NRA, AMA, RIAA, MPAA, NMA, ABA - there are at least a thousand other acronyms representing this group or that group...), organize their members and collect "voluntary" (or not so voluntary) dues. This money is then used to influence (read "persuade") the lawmakers - or get them to at least consider the group's point of view. (It is no accident that a very substantial percentage - about one-third - of ALL politicians are lawyers.) Even if a miracle happened and geeks somehow managed to form some kind of ASSOCIATION, what are the chances that there would EVER be agreement (and a "united front") against things like UCITA and the DMCA that are being (very aggressively) sought by the lawyers and corporate interests? How much money are you personally willing to pay (in yearly membership dues) to oppose all these erosions to our cherished freedoms? FACT: "Freedom" costs money. How much are you willing to pay?
An old Chinese proverb states: "Choose your enemy carefully, for he is the one you are most likely to become." Engineers in general (and geeks in particular) have always been adverse to heavy political involvement. You can't do engineering work, (or any kind of work that requires heavy and prolonged concentration), and also do politics. They're BOTH full time jobs. Unless geeks (en masse) are willing to put up [at least] $50 to $100 per year in order to hire lobbyists, (and also consent to having your thinking decided for you by your association's leadership); then you shouldn't be too surprised that lawyers (who do play this game) will continue to rule the world.
Where is Pammy? Oh "Yes!", she was definitely a geek's dream-come-true: California blonde, a little ditzy, and (wildly) in love with an unrepentant Nerd. I used to go straight to your Info World column just to see what was up with Pammy. (My favorite was the time you took her to an Oakland A's baseball game and attempted to explain the finer points of our national pasttime. However, "Pammy" was preoccupied with Jose Canseco's butt. That was hilarious!) Try to let Pammy's fans down gently when you tell what really happened to her (for those who don't already know...)
Before we come to all these (possibly premature) conclusions, (and "I believe this" or "I don't believe that,") type statements; let's wait until the actual report is released. If all this "leaked information" is, in fact, substantially true; then it is certainly unfortunate and regrettable. Suggesting that someone in NASA's mid-level management hierarchy [may have] made a "criminal" decision is a bit severe - especially when the report has not yet been released. As to speculation regarding whether or not high-level NASA managers would deliberately mislead (or deceive) people about a [known-in-advance] impending failure; I remember a comment made years ago by a young engineer who worked for a NASA contractor. He stated: "The higher up [in management] that engineers go, the more out-of-touch they get with [technical] reality." I would modify this (slightly) and say that high-level NASA managers understand a different kind of reality: The incessant budget-cutting drumbeat of elected politicians who control the funding spigot. Many politicians are very ambivalent (and in some cases downright hostile) to NASA. When you watch NASA budget hearings on CSPAN, at least one Congressman (or Senator) will point out that NASA's budget is in competition with other budget and spending priorities. What these politicians are really saying (to NASA brass) is: "My constituents want this money spent on THEM, and NOT on some piece of space junk out on Mars." So, whenever there is a costly failure such as this, it reinforces a conviction among these folks that "The money's being wasted, so why continue giving it to NASA?" It was different in NASA's glory days (the 1960's) when Congress and the President gave NASA a blank check. Those days are [probably] gone forever.
That is interesting. I read somewhere, (can't recall exactly where), that over the last 10,000 (or 100,000) years average brain size has actually been decreasing. If true, does that mean that we humans are slowly but surely evolving into idiots?
Very cogent observation by "ucblockhead." It IS NOT just a matter of getting the right hardware together. For years I have followed the efforts of AI researchers to get a machine to play chess in an "intelligent" human-like manner. The best machines are now pretty good, but for decades they were laughable. (How many of you know that a famous AI researcher - Herbert Simon - predicted in 1957 that "... a digital computer will be the world chess champion within ten years - unless the rules are changed." Close, he was only off by thirty years!) Most of the attempts at programming chess "intelligence," (with few exceptions), have been implementations of the "brute force" method - nothing more than very fast number crunching. Fast number crunching IS NOT thinking! I have thought a great deal about just exactly what "intelligence" and "thinking" really is; just exactly what it is that goes on between our ears. I don't know if thinking (and wisdom) will ever be duplicated by a machine; but I strongly agree that these two (very human) characteristics may take centuries (if ever) to duplicate. Good thinking is more than mere number crunching.
Effectively lobbying politicians [against UCITA] may work (but only temporarily) IMHO. The economic incentives to Microsoft, AOL, Adobe, et al for getting UCITA passed are simply too compelling. (I suspect what these companies really want from UCITA is the ability to charge an annual licensing fee. If you don't pay the extortion, they'll [legally] reach into your machine and disable the software.) If Gates & Crew get UCITA passed in all 50 states in essentially its present form, and they do start demanding an annual licensing fee; this will add [at least] another $100 billion to Bill's net worth. (Not to mention keeping his shareholders eternally happy.) In short, I have a feeling these companies will never give up on UCITA. Like the 10-headed monster, they'll just keep coming back. The courts may intervene and clip their wings some, but the most effective way to fight UCITA (I believe) is a form of guerilla [economic] warfare: Simply stop buying their products. Also, make it clear to their resellers, (especially ones you do business with), that you will not buy from them - or continue to buy from them - if they choose to support UCITA. As an example, I have bought [at least] 50-100 books from Amazon.Com in the past 2 years. (I must be a "good customer," as they usually send me a free coffee mug - or some other trinket - around Christmas time.) I sent an email to Jeff "I Really Care About My Customers" Bezos stating my opposition to UCITA and asking him what Amazon.Com's position is on UCITA. I also hinted (not too subtly) that if I discover Amazon.Com supports UCITA, that will cause me to reevaluate my entire business relationship with Amazon.Com. A very nice lady from "feedback@Amazon.Com" informed me that my inquiry had been "forwarded to Mr. Bezos's office." That was three weeks ago. In the interim, I have suspended all my book buying from Amazon until I hear from Mr. Bezos. Some of you will surely think that this is tilting at windmills, but Bill Gates is like a mule when it comes to money: The only way to get his attention (and modify his behaviour) is to smack him between the eyeballs with an [economic] 2-by-4.
Slashdot Mirror
Abagnale's book "Catch Me If You Can!" was originally published in 1980. The book is being reprinted in advance of a Hollywood movie about Abagnale and his exploits which is currently in production. After Abagnale was (finally) caught, he spent some time in a French prison and was eventually released. He nows runs a consulting company which offers instruction to bank tellers and other employees of financial institutions on how to spot (and avoid) bad checks and other common swindles. (That's right, Frank Abagnale has gone legit!) Among his many television appearances during the 1970's, probably his most famous was with Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show. Carson had never met Abagnale and did not know who he was. Abagnale had been scheduled on that night's program for a very brief appearance. The Pointer Sisters were hot at that time and were scheduled to do a 2-song gig at the end of the program. (Abagnale was scheduled right before the Pointer Sisters.) Johnny Carson is something of an amatuer magician and knows a little about sleight-of-hand and card tricks - he is not easily fooled. Abagnale very smoothly pulled off his infamous "20/30" trick on Carson and Johnny lit up like a kid in a candy store. (The "20/30" swindle is where you start off with a $20.00 bill and ask your "mark" if he/she can give you change. After a series of exchanges Abagnale walks off with $30.00.) Carson was flabbergasted that he had been hoodwinked. During a commercial break, the producers told Mr. Carson, "Johnny, Mr. Abagnale has to go. We've got to get the Pointer Sisters on!" to which Carson replied, "Tell the Pointer Sisters to come back another time!" Frank Abagnale is a hopeless romantic. His one great weakness in life is his fondness for women. In fact, his desire to share the company of women (especially beautiful women) is what motivated much of his "criminal" career. The book is full of amusing stories about his encounters with the fairer sex. Probably the most hilarious, (of which I will not give away the details here), DID NOT involve an "expensive Miami prostitute/callgirl" as reported by an earlier poster. The truth is even better. The lady in question was actually a very well known (and nationally famous) cover girl and model. What happened between her and Abagnale can best be described as "Greed and Excessive Vanity Does Not Pay!" Don't curl up in bed with this book on a week night. You'll still be turning the pages in the morning when it's time for work!
"It's also important to note that many voters who made a mistake were forced to submit their ballot once punched. The poll workers did not allow them to destroy their ballot and get a new one." IANAL, (and not intimately familiar with the terms and provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act), but there have been numerous reports of voters in Palm Beach who, (upon close inspection of their ballot prior to submitting it), began to suspect that they may have voted incorrectly and requested a new ballot. If, in fact, their request for a new ballot was denied and the ballot was voted against their will by an election official, (and all this can be proved); a violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act may have occurred. If this is determined to be the case, a federal judge MAY have the authority to order a new election. (I don't know for certain if this is possible as I am not a lawyer.) However, if this turns out to be the case, could the judge order a state-wide (or only a Palm Beach county wide) election? Regardless of the legalities, if a judge orders a new election anywhere in Florida, (and the ruling stands), this is going to get nasty. Unfortunately, it may have already passed that point anyway: One side or the other is going to come out of this bitter.
This [former] Intel engineer's comment has "the ring of truth" to it. Years ago I recall the observation/comment of my Engineering Economics professor: "Engineering Economics is the art of doing with one dollar what any fool can do with two!" Part of the problem might be that large company managements, under pressure from shareholders, (especially institutional shareholders), want the engineers to go even further and do for fifty cents what any fool can do with two dollars. I remember another professor from college and his comment: "The higher [up] engineers go in management, the more out-of-touch they get with [technical] reality."
This is NOT the first time for Ford either. You won't read about this in Lee Iacocca's autobiography, but it's in the trial record. In the early 1970's, around the time of the Arab oil embargo and the [oil] price shock, subcompact cars were popular with consumers mainly due to their relative fuel economy. However, the "Big Three" car manufacturers HATED these small cars due to their (relatively low) profit margins. (Henry Ford II is reputed to have derisively muttered: "Small cars, small profits!") However, GM, Ford, and Chrysler were forced to manufacture these loathsome "small cars" because consumers were flocking to Toyota's and Honda's. Ford designed and marketed a subcompact vehicle called the Ford "Pinto". The Ford Pinto turned out to have a little problem: The gas tank, located in the rear of the vehicle right underneath the back seat passengers, had a tendency to rupture and ignite when the vehicle was impacted from the rear - often with fatal consequences to the passengers. (These gas tank explosions occurred even with very low speed impacts.) I can't remember how many people died, (or survived but were disfigured for life), before an irrefutable fact was established in the many civil suits against Ford that resulted from the Pinto. First, not only did the senior Ford executives, (including Mr. Ford II and Mr. Iacocca), know that the gas tanks were unsafe; but they made a (very conscious) decision NOT TO RECALL the cars and install a very inexpensive component that their engineers had told them would make the gas tanks MUCH SAFER and MUCH LESS PRONE to explosion from a rear impact. So what did Ford do? They asked their engineers to give them a cost estimate on how much a recall would cost. Then they asked their lawyers the following question: How many lawsuits do you estimate we'll get each year due to exploding gas tanks and what will the average cost (per lawsuit) be? So the [Ford] lawyers and statisticians came back with their figure. As revealed at trial, the executives decided that "fighting the lawsuits" was less costly to Ford and Ford's shareholders. There was no recall and the unsafe gas tanks were never fixed. Do any of you have a loved one who was killed by an exploding gas tank in a Ford Pinto? Maybe a corporate "death penalty" is excessive punishment and hurts the innocent along with the guilty. However, I've often wondered: "What is the difference between a cold, calculated case of first degree murder and the decision those Ford executives made to keep the Pinto on the road? In the current situation involving Ford and Firestone, there is still much to be revealed. In due course, certain facts may come to light about the design of Ford Explorers. These are the kind of facts which Mr. Nasser may not be so eager to reveal. Right now, he prefers to portray his company - and himself - as the "great victims" of these callous Firestone folks. Don't be too surprised, when all this goes to trial, if we (once again) find history repeating.
Do you REALLY UNDERSTAND what your CALL TO ACTION entails? If geeks were to (somehow) magically organize, "put on suits" and "fight the lawyers" on their own terms; then you better get ready to drain your wallet. It is a FACT that lawyers, (as well as many other well organized "professionals"), learned a long time ago that paying off politicians, (excuse me, "Contributing to the political process"), is simply part of the cost of doing business. Just about every major interest group in the country, (i.e. AARP, NRA, AMA, RIAA, MPAA, NMA, ABA - there are at least a thousand other acronyms representing this group or that group ...), organize their members and collect "voluntary" (or not so voluntary) dues. This money is then used to influence (read "persuade") the lawmakers - or get them to at least consider the group's point of view. (It is no accident that a very substantial percentage - about one-third - of ALL politicians are lawyers.) Even if a miracle happened and geeks somehow managed to form some kind of ASSOCIATION, what are the chances that there would EVER be agreement (and a "united front") against things like UCITA and the DMCA that are being (very aggressively) sought by the lawyers and corporate interests? How much money are you personally willing to pay (in yearly membership dues) to oppose all these erosions to our cherished freedoms? FACT: "Freedom" costs money. How much are you willing to pay?
An old Chinese proverb states: "Choose your enemy carefully, for he is the one you are most likely to become." Engineers in general (and geeks in particular) have always been adverse to heavy political involvement. You can't do engineering work, (or any kind of work that requires heavy and prolonged concentration), and also do politics. They're BOTH full time jobs. Unless geeks (en masse) are willing to put up [at least] $50 to $100 per year in order to hire lobbyists, (and also consent to having your thinking decided for you by your association's leadership); then you shouldn't be too surprised that lawyers (who do play this game) will continue to rule the world.
Where is Pammy? Oh "Yes!", she was definitely a geek's dream-come-true: California blonde, a little ditzy, and (wildly) in love with an unrepentant Nerd. I used to go straight to your Info World column just to see what was up with Pammy. (My favorite was the time you took her to an Oakland A's baseball game and attempted to explain the finer points of our national pasttime. However, "Pammy" was preoccupied with Jose Canseco's butt. That was hilarious!) Try to let Pammy's fans down gently when you tell what really happened to her (for those who don't already know ...)
Before we come to all these (possibly premature) conclusions, (and "I believe this" or "I don't believe that,") type statements; let's wait until the actual report is released. If all this "leaked information" is, in fact, substantially true; then it is certainly unfortunate and regrettable. Suggesting that someone in NASA's mid-level management hierarchy [may have] made a "criminal" decision is a bit severe - especially when the report has not yet been released. As to speculation regarding whether or not high-level NASA managers would deliberately mislead (or deceive) people about a [known-in-advance] impending failure; I remember a comment made years ago by a young engineer who worked for a NASA contractor. He stated: "The higher up [in management] that engineers go, the more out-of-touch they get with [technical] reality." I would modify this (slightly) and say that high-level NASA managers understand a different kind of reality: The incessant budget-cutting drumbeat of elected politicians who control the funding spigot. Many politicians are very ambivalent (and in some cases downright hostile) to NASA. When you watch NASA budget hearings on CSPAN, at least one Congressman (or Senator) will point out that NASA's budget is in competition with other budget and spending priorities. What these politicians are really saying (to NASA brass) is: "My constituents want this money spent on THEM, and NOT on some piece of space junk out on Mars." So, whenever there is a costly failure such as this, it reinforces a conviction among these folks that "The money's being wasted, so why continue giving it to NASA?" It was different in NASA's glory days (the 1960's) when Congress and the President gave NASA a blank check. Those days are [probably] gone forever.
That is interesting. I read somewhere, (can't recall exactly where), that over the last 10,000 (or 100,000) years average brain size has actually been decreasing. If true, does that mean that we humans are slowly but surely evolving into idiots?
Very cogent observation by "ucblockhead." It IS NOT just a matter of getting the right hardware together. For years I have followed the efforts of AI researchers to get a machine to play chess in an "intelligent" human-like manner. The best machines are now pretty good, but for decades they were laughable. (How many of you know that a famous AI researcher - Herbert Simon - predicted in 1957 that "... a digital computer will be the world chess champion within ten years - unless the rules are changed." Close, he was only off by thirty years!) Most of the attempts at programming chess "intelligence," (with few exceptions), have been implementations of the "brute force" method - nothing more than very fast number crunching. Fast number crunching IS NOT thinking! I have thought a great deal about just exactly what "intelligence" and "thinking" really is; just exactly what it is that goes on between our ears. I don't know if thinking (and wisdom) will ever be duplicated by a machine; but I strongly agree that these two (very human) characteristics may take centuries (if ever) to duplicate. Good thinking is more than mere number crunching.
Effectively lobbying politicians [against UCITA] may work (but only temporarily) IMHO. The economic incentives to Microsoft, AOL, Adobe, et al for getting UCITA passed are simply too compelling. (I suspect what these companies really want from UCITA is the ability to charge an annual licensing fee. If you don't pay the extortion, they'll [legally] reach into your machine and disable the software.) If Gates & Crew get UCITA passed in all 50 states in essentially its present form, and they do start demanding an annual licensing fee; this will add [at least] another $100 billion to Bill's net worth. (Not to mention keeping his shareholders eternally happy.) In short, I have a feeling these companies will never give up on UCITA. Like the 10-headed monster, they'll just keep coming back. The courts may intervene and clip their wings some, but the most effective way to fight UCITA (I believe) is a form of guerilla [economic] warfare: Simply stop buying their products. Also, make it clear to their resellers, (especially ones you do business with), that you will not buy from them - or continue to buy from them - if they choose to support UCITA. As an example, I have bought [at least] 50-100 books from Amazon.Com in the past 2 years. (I must be a "good customer," as they usually send me a free coffee mug - or some other trinket - around Christmas time.) I sent an email to Jeff "I Really Care About My Customers" Bezos stating my opposition to UCITA and asking him what Amazon.Com's position is on UCITA. I also hinted (not too subtly) that if I discover Amazon.Com supports UCITA, that will cause me to reevaluate my entire business relationship with Amazon.Com. A very nice lady from "feedback@Amazon.Com" informed me that my inquiry had been "forwarded to Mr. Bezos's office." That was three weeks ago. In the interim, I have suspended all my book buying from Amazon until I hear from Mr. Bezos. Some of you will surely think that this is tilting at windmills, but Bill Gates is like a mule when it comes to money: The only way to get his attention (and modify his behaviour) is to smack him between the eyeballs with an [economic] 2-by-4.