Neo-luddite, huh? That's a new one to me, but hey, whatever...
If you can not understand the difference between a "My Humps" ringtone and a silent vibrate, then I can't help you. If you aren't distracted by it, then kudos to you -- you are unique. I do think, however, that most people ARE distracted by ringtones going off in the middle of meetings. Like I said before, its not the fact that you are being notified that is the problem. It is the method of notification.
So, luddite-basher, anything that makes excessive noise in a silent environment is going to be noticed. Talk all you want about generational differences but I think you missed the point.
Ok, I can see I should have responded to this post. Honestly, I didn't think anyone would be gullible enough to actually think there is merit to it.
1) My post was NOT previously written by Oscar Wilde
2) No citation was provided to check it
3) Mods are idiots for marking me flamebait (for Yogi Berra comment, which was true) while giving this a +4 (for being not-true)
And no, I am not at all worried about the Karma. Just responding to the post.
That's fine, except for the fact that "silent ringer" has been on cell phones FOR OVER 10 YEARS. The ringer is what pisses people off, not that you are receiving notifications. The fact that you are in a meeting and you couldn't figure out how to make those notifications non-intrusive is what gets me angry. To me, it says you don't care...
I could understand if its been 1-2 years since cell phones first came out but fuck people....find the button already and put your ringer on silent! This isn't rocket science. We aren't launching missles. All we need is you to put your phaser on stun, Jim.
Ok, I think I've made my point. I will be quiet now and go back to my hole.
you could at least attribute your quote
on
Is Email 'Bankrupt'?
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
It is well known fact that Wal-mart consistently asks manufacturer's to create product lines specifically for Wal-mart. Usually, these lines are of lesser quality (due to price) than the manufacturer's original lines. Think re-badged or OEM product sold primarily on price alone. Over time, the brand dilutes and eventually, many manufacturer's find themselves in a worse position than if they had never done business with Wal-mart in the first place.
Snapper mowers said no. That's just one example of many.
I wonder how bad Wal-mart bent Dell over on this one?
Reminds me of sitting on a flight from LA to Chicago. I was reading a magazine and inside the mag, was a letter from the CEO of that airline asking us to donate awards miles to help children fly to hospitals for treatment. It was a nicely written letter and it sounded like a noble cause but as I was reading this, all I could think was.....why couldn't the kid fly in the empty seat next to me?
(attibute: David Cross)
But, if it does, the person who sold it to you has effectively "lost" that appreciation. Its called opportunity cost (aka: money left on the table). Yea, you lose that. So what? Presumably, you sold your IBM because you had a better investment (even if it's just cash) so what's the problem? Aside from you confusing the futures market (and valuation) with the equities market (and valuation), you might have a point. But you totally miss the point of WHY a person sells an investment. Both parties can create wealth independently of each other...
People have vastly different beliefs about the efficiency of our markets, but I believe that any sort of "wealth creation" would have already been price into the asset that you are purchasing.
And you would be right. The stock market is the most efficient "pricer" of value in the world. Changes in underlying value (ie: news, earnings, etc) are almost immediately priced into the stock. When you buy a stock, you aren't buying what is already known. You are buying the future of that company.
Methinks you need to read a little bit more about investments. By your post, I can only conclude that you don't have any idea what you are talking about.
one of only two to ever be dropped....on real, living, people.
Plenty of bombs were dropped. Just ask the Bimini Islands. In fact, we (Truman) blew one up specifically to show the Japanese what we were capable of. And they still wouldn't surrender.
I say this because your post reads as if this bombs were some kind of grand surprise we had in our back pockets. It wasn't a surprise, rather, it was developed as a deterrent. Since the Japanese were unmoved by the demonstration of power, they did not take the threat seriously or chose not to respond. That was a major mistake.
Well, I'd rather be a jerk and protect myself (and educate others) than be a fool and get ripped off. I can't say whether you are a fool or not (I highly doubt it) but until this post, the description of events you described pointed toward you being the fool who didn't understand how this works.
Now that you've explained the situation, I think I get it. You bought something at 0% APR for a fixed time length (12 months?). As it came time to have the full amount paid off (to avoid the 29%), you didn't have it paid off. And I bet, worst of all, the 29% was retroactive (like most 0% APR until X date offers). Dell didn't send you the final bill until it was due and you missed the cutoff so Dell hit you with a pile of interest fees.
Again, this practice has been around for umpteen years and there have been countless stories about this situation over those years. In every case, the debtor (Dell, in this case) comes out winning. Why? Because the terms were clear upfront and it was a 100% voluntary transaction. Since the middle ages, nobody has forced anyone into debt without the other person being a willing partner in the agreement.
If Dell, truly, did screw you and play games with you, then you have recourse if you can prove that. Lending money (for any purpose) in this country is tightly regulated. There are clear resolution procedures for anyone who thinks they were wronged. Since I doubt you have pursued those, I think deep down, you probably know the deal and have just chalked it up to experience. If not, and Dell really did screw you, then why have you not pursued the options you have available?
In sum, I apologize for being rude. However, I am especially sensitive to this subject. Too many people blame their financial situation on other "big bad credit companies" instead of looking in the mirror (again, not saying you specifically -- just in general).
The new paradigm in the US is instant gratification without considering the total cost (principal + interest) of the purchase.
"Hey, it has a low monthly payment! That's good enough for me. I'll take it". (nevermind the fact that you are required to pay $480,227 as the final balloon payment).
Unfortunately, this is the norm here and the very reason we average $8,000 in credit card debt for each American family in this country. That is an astounding number and I could even argue it forms a type of slavery.
1. Want an item
2. Buy item on credit
3. Work so you can pay off the debt
4. Now you are a "paycheck bitch" who MUST work until the debt is paid.
Contrast that with someone who saves up to buy the item outright. They buy the item and that's it. No requirement to pay off the debt. No requirement to do anything, really, except enjoy the purchase you made and feel good that you made a sacrifice to get something you really wanted.
Credit, in all forms, is the easy way out and the most expensive way to buy a product (sans the TRUE 0% financing on GM Cars and trucks, for example.)
Yes! Agreed. How could I forget the printing press? In fact, there are a lot of parallels between the two...
So, books, electricity, and the internet/computer revolution. I am sure fire is in there too but the point is made: these things don't come up very often and I really do believe the "information society" is one of those mankind-changing things.
Dude, if you did not know - while filling out the credit application - that you would be charged a 29.9% APR, then that's your fault. I won't back down from that statement. If, however, Dell did not disclose this (and you asked), then you have a criminal case against them and that is called fraud.
Somehow, I doubt the latter is true but if it is, I recant what I said. You never mentioned fraud or any kind of criminal investigation so I can only assume you entered into an agreement that you did not fully take the time to understand. By law, any debtor has to disclose shit like this. APR's, fees, billing cycle, etc. It all has to be disclosed before you sign the agreement. Sorry if you missed that part but it was probably there....
Look, don't take it personally. The dress-down you got would have been given to anyone who said the same thing. Just realize that there are lots of people on the other side who DO understand this stuff and they will be more than happy to provide that legal 'service' at 29%, regardless of whether you read the agreement or not. And in 100 out of 100 times, they will become wealthier and you will become poorer. Your tone implies that you can remain ignorant and the world should still take care of you. While a nice ideal, it is a long way from reality. You must protect yourself - and that means doing your homework before you enter into agreements with anyone or anything.
In simplest terms, "a fool and his money are easily parted". The lesson there is: don't be a fool. And anyone who enters into any kind of financing at 29% APR is a fool, unless they are buying something that appreciates at 30% or better. And Dell computers most certainly do not do that.
Absolutely. However, I think the gap is MUCH larger than we think it is. I am certain all of us have had that, "are you really serious?" moment when talking to someone over 50 and the gap between the generations is particularly large when it comes to computers and technology.
Every younger generation thinks the older generation is clueless. I understand that. I just think in this case, the gap between the two is much much larger than for previous generations. Perhaps those who had electricity vs those who didn't might be comparable but it is not the same as the baby-boomers vs. depression era folks.
Don't forget how big of a change computers and the "information society" is to the world as a whole. Nothing like this has ever been seen or experienced by mankind before. It is truly revolutionary. We are the first generation to "get it".
No, the rules do not change. And the rules are "there are no rules". They have zero liability here. In good faith, they thought the story was true.
Unless it is shown that a hedge fund or some other entity both made-up and profited from the story, it is what it is. A fake story and nothing more. Yes, the credibility of Engadget will be hurt but there isn't any legal implication whatsoever unless it was a true stock scam.
If you are actually dumb enough to trade on information like this, then you deserve what you get. "Bad" information is everywhere. That's why the smarter ones of us don't take everything we hear as the final word. As an example, don't you ever wonder how the "Microsoft is buying Yahoo" story got started? It's much much more subtle than this story and THAT is the proper way to do a stock scam. In that case, nobody can point to the originator of the story and it just seems plausible enough to actually be true. Meanwhile, as we idiots on/. debate the details of the story, several hedge funds trade out of Yahoo at a very nice profit.
Of course, nobody can prove the story is a pump and dump so nothing happens and the world goes on. However, I don't think the Apple/Engadget deal is the same thing.
Look, you may not like the 29.9% rate --- but it is 100% legal and 100% voluntary. The rates that credit cards (of all kinds) charge you are very very high and you certainly have the right NOT to use them. If you didn't read the fine print, that is 100% your problem. Not Dell's.
My question to you is this: why in the fuck are you buying a depreciating consumer item when you do not have the money to afford it?
I really, truly, do not understand some people's financial decisions. Leasing cars, paying ridiculously high APR's....and then wondering why, after all these years of hard work, they are poor.
Software is obsolete in 5-10 years.
No.
There are many examples of non-obsolete 20 year old software running in many many places. Financial software, for example.
(ps: I mostly agree with the premise of your post, however)
Really? To me, it shows a serious and fundamental misunderstanding of "the digital world" as well as human nature.
These people actually think a global network (and it's participants) care about what they are doing. Most of the world does not. Therefore, any reasonable and logical person would conclude its a bad strategy because it depends on 100% success, which is unobtainable in a global environment. Anything less than 100% suppression, for them, is a failure.
Surely, anyone who knows anything knows the Internet is global, right? So why pursue legal strategies when you have no way of enforcing them globally? There is zero logic in that.
I did the same thing. I have a media server that houses all the "kids" shows so I can save the discs.
Really, it was quite easy to setup (and should be!!)
I run Meedio on the front-end media PC and Win 2003 server on the backend for storage. Works like a charm! In fact, it works so well, I can't believe I didn't do it 5 years ago. It is FAR superior to moving DVD's around and risk scratches or who knows what else.
Their goal with DRM has nothing to do with John-Q-Customer.
It is about locking you to certain companies for your "media" needs. Be it music, movies, TV, or whatever else comes along. It's about controlling the distribution mechanisms in an environment where that is almost impossible (the digital environment).
Don't you get it? They don't want "information to be free". At all. They want as much money from you as you can stand and in order to do that, they have to control distribution. This is why Apple has, and will continue to have, a large chunk of the online music business. Because they (tightly) control their distribution via DRM.
You know, as I was reading this, I can't help but wonder if the "divided we stand" strategy is much better for open source, in general. We all know a legal storm can come at anytime and from any direction - even without evidence or cause. As they say, "money talks" and the SCO case illustrates that.
If all of the open source advocates (ESR, RS, BP, etc) frequently worked *together*, they would present a pretty easy legal target for more SCO's out there. By staying fractured, open source is better able to withstand legal assaults like SCO's.
And, from what I see, that's exactly how it is today. I only point this out because I think a lot of people miss this. It's a nice little side benefit of being a movement instead of a product/company.
I think it is banned, at least in the context of criminal law. I can't remember the legal term but there is a legal concept in the US that "new" laws can not punish you for past behavior that WAS legal.
It's where the term "grandfathered in" came from back in the slave days. Once slavery was abolished, slave owners could not be prosecuted for violations in the past (that were legal when they were committed).
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can, and will, be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to legal representation and if you can not afford legal representation, an attorney will be provided for you."
Seems pretty clear cut to me.
And I know, at least in Okla, this is true. Many of my friends do pro-bono work for the indigent that are accused of crimes. I suspect it is the same everywhere and I don't think I understand what you are saying when you claim that "nothing is free in the US legal system". If you, truly, can not pay for an attorney, then you have one assigned to you from the public defenders office. This is SOP for any criminal court in the land.
Now, civil trials are a whole different matter. There is no such right to representation in civil cases so perhaps that is what you are speaking of.
Slashdot Mirror
Texas does not specifically state that it can secede from the Union but it can certainly read that way.
Take a look at some people who are very serious about seceding.
This is a long-running "joke" in Texas but very few actually take it seriously. After all, Texas ALREADY runs the country. Not for long though...
Neo-luddite, huh? That's a new one to me, but hey, whatever...
If you can not understand the difference between a "My Humps" ringtone and a silent vibrate, then I can't help you. If you aren't distracted by it, then kudos to you -- you are unique. I do think, however, that most people ARE distracted by ringtones going off in the middle of meetings. Like I said before, its not the fact that you are being notified that is the problem. It is the method of notification.
So, luddite-basher, anything that makes excessive noise in a silent environment is going to be noticed. Talk all you want about generational differences but I think you missed the point.
Ok, I can see I should have responded to this post. Honestly, I didn't think anyone would be gullible enough to actually think there is merit to it.
1) My post was NOT previously written by Oscar Wilde
2) No citation was provided to check it
3) Mods are idiots for marking me flamebait (for Yogi Berra comment, which was true) while giving this a +4 (for being not-true)
And no, I am not at all worried about the Karma. Just responding to the post.
That's fine, except for the fact that "silent ringer" has been on cell phones FOR OVER 10 YEARS. The ringer is what pisses people off, not that you are receiving notifications. The fact that you are in a meeting and you couldn't figure out how to make those notifications non-intrusive is what gets me angry. To me, it says you don't care...
I could understand if its been 1-2 years since cell phones first came out but fuck people....find the button already and put your ringer on silent! This isn't rocket science. We aren't launching missles. All we need is you to put your phaser on stun, Jim.
Ok, I think I've made my point. I will be quiet now and go back to my hole.
That quote was from Yogi Berra.
You should attribute if you "borrow" ideas. Otherwise, it looks like you are trying to make it your own.
Wal-mart = crap.
It is well known fact that Wal-mart consistently asks manufacturer's to create product lines specifically for Wal-mart. Usually, these lines are of lesser quality (due to price) than the manufacturer's original lines. Think re-badged or OEM product sold primarily on price alone. Over time, the brand dilutes and eventually, many manufacturer's find themselves in a worse position than if they had never done business with Wal-mart in the first place.
Snapper mowers said no. That's just one example of many.
I wonder how bad Wal-mart bent Dell over on this one?
You are dead right.
Reminds me of sitting on a flight from LA to Chicago. I was reading a magazine and inside the mag, was a letter from the CEO of that airline asking us to donate awards miles to help children fly to hospitals for treatment. It was a nicely written letter and it sounded like a noble cause but as I was reading this, all I could think was.....why couldn't the kid fly in the empty seat next to me?
(attibute: David Cross)
But, if it does, the person who sold it to you has effectively "lost" that appreciation.
Its called opportunity cost (aka: money left on the table). Yea, you lose that. So what? Presumably, you sold your IBM because you had a better investment (even if it's just cash) so what's the problem? Aside from you confusing the futures market (and valuation) with the equities market (and valuation), you might have a point. But you totally miss the point of WHY a person sells an investment. Both parties can create wealth independently of each other...
People have vastly different beliefs about the efficiency of our markets, but I believe that any sort of "wealth creation" would have already been price into the asset that you are purchasing.
And you would be right. The stock market is the most efficient "pricer" of value in the world. Changes in underlying value (ie: news, earnings, etc) are almost immediately priced into the stock. When you buy a stock, you aren't buying what is already known. You are buying the future of that company.
Methinks you need to read a little bit more about investments. By your post, I can only conclude that you don't have any idea what you are talking about.
one of only two to ever be dropped....on real, living, people.
Plenty of bombs were dropped. Just ask the Bimini Islands. In fact, we (Truman) blew one up specifically to show the Japanese what we were capable of. And they still wouldn't surrender.
I say this because your post reads as if this bombs were some kind of grand surprise we had in our back pockets. It wasn't a surprise, rather, it was developed as a deterrent. Since the Japanese were unmoved by the demonstration of power, they did not take the threat seriously or chose not to respond. That was a major mistake.
Well, I'd rather be a jerk and protect myself (and educate others) than be a fool and get ripped off. I can't say whether you are a fool or not (I highly doubt it) but until this post, the description of events you described pointed toward you being the fool who didn't understand how this works.
Now that you've explained the situation, I think I get it. You bought something at 0% APR for a fixed time length (12 months?). As it came time to have the full amount paid off (to avoid the 29%), you didn't have it paid off. And I bet, worst of all, the 29% was retroactive (like most 0% APR until X date offers). Dell didn't send you the final bill until it was due and you missed the cutoff so Dell hit you with a pile of interest fees.
Again, this practice has been around for umpteen years and there have been countless stories about this situation over those years. In every case, the debtor (Dell, in this case) comes out winning. Why? Because the terms were clear upfront and it was a 100% voluntary transaction. Since the middle ages, nobody has forced anyone into debt without the other person being a willing partner in the agreement.
If Dell, truly, did screw you and play games with you, then you have recourse if you can prove that. Lending money (for any purpose) in this country is tightly regulated. There are clear resolution procedures for anyone who thinks they were wronged. Since I doubt you have pursued those, I think deep down, you probably know the deal and have just chalked it up to experience. If not, and Dell really did screw you, then why have you not pursued the options you have available?
In sum, I apologize for being rude. However, I am especially sensitive to this subject. Too many people blame their financial situation on other "big bad credit companies" instead of looking in the mirror (again, not saying you specifically -- just in general).
The new paradigm in the US is instant gratification without considering the total cost (principal + interest) of the purchase.
"Hey, it has a low monthly payment! That's good enough for me. I'll take it". (nevermind the fact that you are required to pay $480,227 as the final balloon payment).
Unfortunately, this is the norm here and the very reason we average $8,000 in credit card debt for each American family in this country. That is an astounding number and I could even argue it forms a type of slavery.
1. Want an item
2. Buy item on credit
3. Work so you can pay off the debt
4. Now you are a "paycheck bitch" who MUST work until the debt is paid.
Contrast that with someone who saves up to buy the item outright. They buy the item and that's it. No requirement to pay off the debt. No requirement to do anything, really, except enjoy the purchase you made and feel good that you made a sacrifice to get something you really wanted.
Credit, in all forms, is the easy way out and the most expensive way to buy a product (sans the TRUE 0% financing on GM Cars and trucks, for example.)
Yes! Agreed. How could I forget the printing press? In fact, there are a lot of parallels between the two...
So, books, electricity, and the internet/computer revolution. I am sure fire is in there too but the point is made: these things don't come up very often and I really do believe the "information society" is one of those mankind-changing things.
Dude, if you did not know - while filling out the credit application - that you would be charged a 29.9% APR, then that's your fault. I won't back down from that statement. If, however, Dell did not disclose this (and you asked), then you have a criminal case against them and that is called fraud.
Somehow, I doubt the latter is true but if it is, I recant what I said. You never mentioned fraud or any kind of criminal investigation so I can only assume you entered into an agreement that you did not fully take the time to understand. By law, any debtor has to disclose shit like this. APR's, fees, billing cycle, etc. It all has to be disclosed before you sign the agreement. Sorry if you missed that part but it was probably there....
Look, don't take it personally. The dress-down you got would have been given to anyone who said the same thing. Just realize that there are lots of people on the other side who DO understand this stuff and they will be more than happy to provide that legal 'service' at 29%, regardless of whether you read the agreement or not. And in 100 out of 100 times, they will become wealthier and you will become poorer. Your tone implies that you can remain ignorant and the world should still take care of you. While a nice ideal, it is a long way from reality. You must protect yourself - and that means doing your homework before you enter into agreements with anyone or anything.
In simplest terms, "a fool and his money are easily parted". The lesson there is: don't be a fool. And anyone who enters into any kind of financing at 29% APR is a fool, unless they are buying something that appreciates at 30% or better. And Dell computers most certainly do not do that.
Absolutely. However, I think the gap is MUCH larger than we think it is. I am certain all of us have had that, "are you really serious?" moment when talking to someone over 50 and the gap between the generations is particularly large when it comes to computers and technology.
Every younger generation thinks the older generation is clueless. I understand that. I just think in this case, the gap between the two is much much larger than for previous generations. Perhaps those who had electricity vs those who didn't might be comparable but it is not the same as the baby-boomers vs. depression era folks.
Don't forget how big of a change computers and the "information society" is to the world as a whole. Nothing like this has ever been seen or experienced by mankind before. It is truly revolutionary. We are the first generation to "get it".
No, the rules do not change. And the rules are "there are no rules". They have zero liability here. In good faith, they thought the story was true.
/. debate the details of the story, several hedge funds trade out of Yahoo at a very nice profit.
Unless it is shown that a hedge fund or some other entity both made-up and profited from the story, it is what it is. A fake story and nothing more. Yes, the credibility of Engadget will be hurt but there isn't any legal implication whatsoever unless it was a true stock scam.
If you are actually dumb enough to trade on information like this, then you deserve what you get. "Bad" information is everywhere. That's why the smarter ones of us don't take everything we hear as the final word. As an example, don't you ever wonder how the "Microsoft is buying Yahoo" story got started? It's much much more subtle than this story and THAT is the proper way to do a stock scam. In that case, nobody can point to the originator of the story and it just seems plausible enough to actually be true. Meanwhile, as we idiots on
Of course, nobody can prove the story is a pump and dump so nothing happens and the world goes on. However, I don't think the Apple/Engadget deal is the same thing.
Look, you may not like the 29.9% rate --- but it is 100% legal and 100% voluntary. The rates that credit cards (of all kinds) charge you are very very high and you certainly have the right NOT to use them. If you didn't read the fine print, that is 100% your problem. Not Dell's.
My question to you is this: why in the fuck are you buying a depreciating consumer item when you do not have the money to afford it?
I really, truly, do not understand some people's financial decisions. Leasing cars, paying ridiculously high APR's....and then wondering why, after all these years of hard work, they are poor.
Software is obsolete in 5-10 years.
No.
There are many examples of non-obsolete 20 year old software running in many many places. Financial software, for example.
(ps: I mostly agree with the premise of your post, however)
Ok, for those not in the know (including the parent), the *real* star of that scene was Joe Pesci....not Fred Gwynne.
Yes, I remember the judge (Fred). But Vinnie (Pesci) WAS the scene. I just can't believe you'd explain it and use Fred as the reference.
there is a logic to what they are doing.
Really? To me, it shows a serious and fundamental misunderstanding of "the digital world" as well as human nature.
These people actually think a global network (and it's participants) care about what they are doing. Most of the world does not. Therefore, any reasonable and logical person would conclude its a bad strategy because it depends on 100% success, which is unobtainable in a global environment. Anything less than 100% suppression, for them, is a failure.
Surely, anyone who knows anything knows the Internet is global, right? So why pursue legal strategies when you have no way of enforcing them globally? There is zero logic in that.
I did the same thing. I have a media server that houses all the "kids" shows so I can save the discs.
Really, it was quite easy to setup (and should be!!)
I run Meedio on the front-end media PC and Win 2003 server on the backend for storage. Works like a charm! In fact, it works so well, I can't believe I didn't do it 5 years ago. It is FAR superior to moving DVD's around and risk scratches or who knows what else.
Their goal with DRM has nothing to do with John-Q-Customer.
It is about locking you to certain companies for your "media" needs. Be it music, movies, TV, or whatever else comes along. It's about controlling the distribution mechanisms in an environment where that is almost impossible (the digital environment).
Don't you get it? They don't want "information to be free". At all. They want as much money from you as you can stand and in order to do that, they have to control distribution. This is why Apple has, and will continue to have, a large chunk of the online music business. Because they (tightly) control their distribution via DRM.
You know, as I was reading this, I can't help but wonder if the "divided we stand" strategy is much better for open source, in general. We all know a legal storm can come at anytime and from any direction - even without evidence or cause. As they say, "money talks" and the SCO case illustrates that.
If all of the open source advocates (ESR, RS, BP, etc) frequently worked *together*, they would present a pretty easy legal target for more SCO's out there. By staying fractured, open source is better able to withstand legal assaults like SCO's.
And, from what I see, that's exactly how it is today. I only point this out because I think a lot of people miss this. It's a nice little side benefit of being a movement instead of a product/company.
I think it is banned, at least in the context of criminal law. I can't remember the legal term but there is a legal concept in the US that "new" laws can not punish you for past behavior that WAS legal.
It's where the term "grandfathered in" came from back in the slave days. Once slavery was abolished, slave owners could not be prosecuted for violations in the past (that were legal when they were committed).
Can someone help fill in the rest?
Fuck him.
Yes, he's a person and a human being. But that does not account for his deeds while he was living.
Fuck him and the horse he rode in on. I hope he rots in hell. (and yes, I know this is mean-spirited, but hey Jack - tit for tat)
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can, and will, be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to legal representation and if you can not afford legal representation, an attorney will be provided for you."
Seems pretty clear cut to me.
And I know, at least in Okla, this is true. Many of my friends do pro-bono work for the indigent that are accused of crimes. I suspect it is the same everywhere and I don't think I understand what you are saying when you claim that "nothing is free in the US legal system". If you, truly, can not pay for an attorney, then you have one assigned to you from the public defenders office. This is SOP for any criminal court in the land.
Now, civil trials are a whole different matter. There is no such right to representation in civil cases so perhaps that is what you are speaking of.
I just bought a B/W laser printer for $80. It has ethernet on it so it integrates nicely. It's a Brother 2070N.
I say this because I, too, just made the switch to laser and I am rather ashamed it took me so long. For color, however, I still use an inkjet.