We have a civilian government, but the country is at war, and the President is exercising his powers, granted by the Constitution and Law, to prosecute the war
Unfortunately you have expressed a popular opinion which is incorrect. We are not at "war" - according to Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution we are not at war unless Congress declares such a state to exist. There is no legal basis to declare ourselves "at war" until a formal declaration has been made, and Congress - while they have hinted at it - has made no such declaration. George II may repeatedly make the claim, but it just ain't so.
The Congress & the Courts still operate.
Um, no, they don't. Not in this case. The laws are quite clear when it comes to searches without a warrant, and so long as the Constitution stands you can't do it. The secret court that was established to rubber stamp wiretap orders was bad enough, but George II has ignored even that token of restraint.
George II is operating without any semblance of the checks and balances that were established as the defining feature of our government. His claim that 'if not for me we would have had several more attacks, I'm a hero' doesn't hold water and is downright scary. Would he lie about preventing attacks to justify his actions? Absolutely. The business of the government must be conducted in the public eye unless extreme circumstances dictate otherwise.
We know that George II advocates arresting people and refusing to tell them why they were arrested or allowing them access to a lawyer. We know that George II has authorized the secret relocation of unidentified individuals to third party nations to conduct extralegal interrogations, and have valid cause to reasonably suspect that torture (or something just short of torture) is used with presidential approval, even on people who are ultimately guilty of no crime. We know that George II believes that any and all government activity should be conducted in secret. And we are given nothing more than the somewhat less than comforting words of "remember last tuesday when nothing happened? You need to thank me for that. I, the person who ordered the secret service to look the other way when my daughters were forging documents which are vital to this nation's security. I, the person who is allowing infants to be placed on this nation's no-fly list without any reasonable hope of ever being cleared. You must trust me. Every time nothing happens, it proves that I did my job."
Among other things, more people have sympathy for the IRA than for Hez: people who are pro-hezbollah and/or anti-jew don't call the fundraisers members of a terrorist organization either - they too would be "sympathisers" and "* patriots"
George W Bush doesn't care about an actual, ratified amendment to the Constitution of the United States - the very document he swore an oath to defend. What could possibly lead you to believe that he would be restrained by posse comitatus which is "only" a law?
George I ignored the law (P.L. 102-88). Clinton ignored this same law. It is probably that George II is actively ignoring this law. George II can reasonably be expected to ignore any and all laws to further what he believes to be the correct course of action.
(Along the same lines, if Sen McCain actually expects George II to refrain from torturing captives just because he signed a law prohibiting it then McCain is an idiot.)
George II appointed an attorney general who believes that "the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is" - it is safe to believe that George II holds the same viewpoint. George II does not believe in rule of codified law.
Ken Mehlman and Jo Ann Davidson should be ashamed.
Given Bush's willingness to issue executive orders without publishing them (the ID requirement for airline travel, for example), how would anybody know if martial law was declared in secret?
Hezbollah has always been, and is limited to the Lebanese territory
Hezbollah is known to be active in North Carolina (since when was the United States mainland considered part of Lebanese territory?):
In 2001, the FBI's Charlotte office arrested leaders of what they identified as a Hezbollah cell that smuggled cigarettes and used the profits to provide cash and military supplies to Lebanon. The men were later convicted.
I understand that you may be locked into a contract for wireless service, but that aside: do you intend to continue your service with them? If so, why?
Fraud is a criminal matter, and if eBay truly is, through willful negligence, allowing fraud to occur with their full knowledge, their executives can and WILL be held legally responsible by a court of appropriate jurisdiction.
Never gonna happen.
These aren't new problems - this issue has been facing eBay for years and nothing has ever been done. This is unlikely to change. Attorneys general are elected: no attorney general is ever elected without the assistance of corporate contributions so they are all extremely hesitant to bite the hand that funds them. Even if they don't receive the funds directly for their own specific campaigns their party receives all kinds of soft money contributions, and if they go against the party funders then they get pulled from the tickets.
know if quite a few instances where transactions have been reversed after the seller has shipped the item.
Paypal's fault, Paypal should pay - and the executives who created and enforce the policy that enable such fraud should either be dismissed or held personally accountable. It isn't fair to make the company pay for the mistakes of the bosses - they made the errors, and they should pay.
99.9999999% of all issues will be resolved overnight if you hold them accountable.
I use AT&T's Universal MasterCard - there is a desktop utility that will create a one-time, amount-specific, custom expiration date credit card number with unique CV number. If I am buying a widget for $19.95 from Gary's Widgets and Wombats then I create a virtual credit card number unique to that transaction valid for $19.95 and the next 14 days only. American Express and (some) Visa cards have similar features.
Disposable credit card numbers are the way to go, if possible.
Like all corporations eBay execs are afforded 100% immunity from personal liability regardless of how many people they harm through inaction. They get massive compensation packages regardless of the number of laws they break "in the name of the company".
Want to fix it? Eliminate immunity protections. If a corporation breaks the law or facilitates fraud and the executives of said corporation knowingly ignored the problem or authorized the illegal actions then said executives should be personally held to the fire.
If buyers can use paypal to change thier mind about a purchase, why can't they use it to get their money back in the case of legitimate fraud?
A better question is: why do you continue to use PayPal? I've had a deep-seated distrust of them ever since the account-freezing issues. Apparently not too many other people cared about the lack of accountability and customer service.
If you like their business practices then by all means continue to use them. Personally, if PayPal (IMHO illegally) denied me a $900 payment I would never even consider using them again. But that's just me.
As a geoscientist who has benefited immensely from using various datasets provided by NASA researchers and spacecraft, I have to completely disagree with you and assume you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about
I hold that it would have been a far greater benefit to mankind to spend the money spent on the Mars Rover programs on, say, a bloodless, stripless glucose tester for diabetics, sonoluminescent equipment for oncology clinics or EM shielding for the nation's power grid.
I continue to hold that Exxon or Shell could have produced better satellites for less money than NASA has.
(which is made doubly obvious by your statement about them spending money with almost no accountability).
GAO's analysis of available reported data related to NASA passenger aircraft services during fiscal years 2003 and 2004 showed NASA reported costs were nearly $25 million compared with estimated commercial airline coach transportation costs of about $5 million. Further, this relative cost comparison, based on available NASA reported costs, did not take into account all applicable types of costs associated with its passenger aircraft services, including, for example, depreciation associated with the estimated $14 million NASA paid in 2001 to acquire several aircraft used for passenger transportation. Consequently, NASA's passenger air transportation services are much more costly than indicated by available data.... GAO's analysis of NASA passenger aircraft flights for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 showed that an estimated 86 percent--about seven out of every eight flights--were taken to support routine business operations specifically prohibited by federal policy regarding aircraft ownership, including routine site visits, meetings, speeches, and conferences. Further, agencywide oversight and management of its passenger aircraft services was not effective.
If the GAO says that NASA is recklessly spending without sufficient restraint, accountability or oversight, who are you to claim otherwise? When you can identify a single individual ever disciplined for violating federal laws regarding spending then try to convince me that people at NASA are held accountable for their mistakes.
without government and NASA there would be no such missions of exploration
So where is the return on these missions of exploration? How is my life any better - or even different - because we now know that there are dust devils on Mars powerful enough to blow dust off of solar panels but not (yet) powerful enough to flip over a rover? How is anybody in this country better off now that we have lots of pretty pictures of distant specs of light?
NASA has been a great sport about lying to the public about the nature of various missions - every time the military or the NRO wanted to put a secret satellite they'd schlepp it up on the (supposedly) civilian craft, for example.
Finally, where do you get the idiotic notion that there is no oversight or accountability?
Number of managers who were fired for overruling the engineers on launching a shuttle when it was too cold?
Number of managers who were fired for ordering an unsafe but "environmentally friendly" foam to be used on the shuttle without adaquate testing?
In its final report, published on Tuesday, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) said that while mechanically the orbiter was lost because of a breach in the heat shield, management blunders and organisational errors at the space agency were as much to blame. - how many people were truly held accountable and fired?
April 8, 2005. The Washington Post reports "there is one manager at NASA for every two engineers. Such a ratio seems unwieldy and top-heavy for an organization devoted to developing innovative and bold technologies for the exploration of space." How does this lend to any efficient return? Even if you accept the argument that NASA does produce something of value my tax dollars are still paying far too much for people who can order shuttles to their doom over the objections of the engineers who actually should be calling the shots. They've had decades to correct this, have demonstrated that they have no desire to correct this, and in all probability won't correct it.
NASA has spent gobs and gobs of money on private jets for executives, lush and well-appointed office suites and all sorts of perks. They have consistently overspent and underperformed - all to bring us to the point of an incomplete space station, a pride ride for an aging ex-Senator, and a call for help to the Soviets who apparently have the only reliable shuttle on the planet.
I don't care if we visit other planets. I really don't. The ISS is a monument to spending money without rhyme or reason - and seems to be doing little more than affording lots of experience in damage control, emergency management and spin.
Finally, where do you get the idiotic notion that there is no oversight or accountability?
Pretty much every media outlet in the country, for one. Public documents for another. The debris fields of two shuttles is another source. I trust Dr. Feynman's assessment of the NASA culture as accurate - there's another source. if Exxon saw profit in petroexploration from space and there was no NASA you can bet your bottom dollar (and leave mine out of it) that they'd have birds up in orbit looking for liquid dinosaurs on time, on budget, and without claiming exemption to various environmental laws.
Have you ever been involved in a mission?
Have you ever been employed by a real organization that requires a legitimate and tangible return on dollars spent? If GM blew up a shuttle after a manager told everybody to ignore the engineers not only would people be fired, but criminal charges and any number of workplace safety violations would be filed - not to mention the lawsuits. When NASA does it everybody gets to go to Washington and testify before non-technical congress critters that just because the engineers said the laws of physics work this way and a manager ignored them
Exactly what happens when people are allowed to spend other people's money with essentially zero accountability. Personally I'd like to see NASA eliminated as a public entity - there just isn't enough ROI. Fund it through voluntary contributions and commercial ventures. Period.
Akin IMO to holding the beer companies liable for a drunk driver, or a firearm manufacturer liable for the mis-use of it's product.
Incorrect analogy. A better comparison would be a company that continues to sell tickets to a theme park with rides known to be dangerous or a tollbooth that continues to collect tolls for a washed out bridge and waving cars through.
Want a better example? Let's say you are running an online web phone directory and include a listing for a sex hotline with the instructions "call 415-555-1212 and the second we answer start talking dirty. The most obscene call of the day wins a free session". Let's say the phone number is typo'ed in the book and people are being directed to call 451-555-1212 which is a christian daycare center who is innundated with obscene call after obscene call. Accidents happen. If you are told of the error and you correct it, all is well. If you are told of the error and refuse to address the issue then you should be held responsible.
Trustingly accept a fraudulently listing on your price comparison site, accidents happen. Knowingly retain a fraudulent listing and you should forfeit all protections and accept full liability.
Some booze company was/is doing that at the clubs and bars: hire some totally hot babe to whisper sweet nothings into the ear of some half-drunk schlunk and get him to buy her a martini with wombat brand vodka or anteater margaritias or whatever it was they were doing.
A single law holding the engines financially liable for any losses incurred by a customer steered by their sites after fraud has been reported will cure the problem if not overnight as soon as the first lawsuit is successful.
they recently sent a SMS to all people wich a cellphone within a certain range to investigatigate a crime which happened at a gasstation
Can you imagine the SMSpam if the cops broadcast requests for information for every crime in New York? And if they don't do it for all crimes, then how long until people start accusing them of racism/favoritism/elitism because they SMspammed for this crime but not for that one?
SONY and Hesse seem to be laughing at everone whose computer was infected.
Not even in a fantasy world. Nobody there is laughing over this: with 100% of my being I believe that this was not done with actual malice, so accusing them of laughing over the situation isn't accurate, fair, realistic, plausible, or rational. By making such accusations you diminish the legitimacy of any demands that somebody be fired over this.
The problem is that, like most major corporations, the shots are called by MBAs and similar business types. People who have no real skills other than pushing numbers around, blowing smoke, and sucking up to investors and the board. Most (not all!!!!!) denziens of the corporate stratosphere have never founded their own business, have never worked with their own hands or ever produced anything tangible or of value. Most music execs have never seriously played an instrument: they chap their lips on butts, not horns. I wouldn't be shocked if many of them couldn't carry a tune in a bucket and find themselves banned from karaoke bars. Throw into the mix a healthy number of people promoted to fill affirmative action quotas, promotions on the grounds of sex (the genitals or the activity or both), friends of mucks, offspring of mucks and other people who are there for no rational reason whatsoever, and you have an environment where talent and ability mean virtually nothing.
Unpaid copies of song tracks neatly shows up in the - column. Loss of goodwill, unfortunately, doesn't. Any activity that appears - on paper - to attack something in the - column and is certified as the lawyers as being unlikely to provoke a successful lawsuit - will be embraced warmly.
Understanding that they were wrong is not enough. (Though I doubt that they actually grasp this concept... Sony's executive and official remarks along the lines that since most people don't know what a rootkit is therefore they shouldn't care about one fairly accurately indicate the corporate culture over there. They aren't sorry that they did wrong, they are sorry that they had to listen to their customers and non-customers alike whining about the situation.)
I want somebody fired over this. The president would be great, but handing a sacrificial pink slip to a VP would suffice. Such a great and monumental screwup - including the intentional introduction of inadvertant (no, not a contradiction) security holes onto the computers of the people who are paying their salaries is, IMNSHO, criminal, but fat chance of charges ever being pressed. I'm sure the execs would fire their assistants for putting Splenda (tm) in the morning coffee instead of Equal or printing out the day's email in 11.5 New Roman instead of 12 Times, but when it comes to something that actually matters not a demotion or even a negative review in the executive's employment file. In fact, I'll wager the screwup who gave the green light to this whole project still gets a fat six figure bonus for "great" performance.
If Sony wants my money again they they have to can an exec and have security escort him from the building. If all sony music fans followed suit then a message would be sent loud and clear that this abuse of the customers will not be tolerated and execs throughout the industry would understand that what they do may actually have ~gasp~ consequences.
When I was laid off from one major company (outsourced to provide support at another major company) the boss-type person was amazed that I actually stuck it through until the last day, continuing to work as if nothing had happened. It was unfathomable to the powers that be that they could announce a layoff and have the person continue to show up day after day: the very thought that somebody would treat them better than they treated him made their little heads explode.
TFA mentioned one of the most critical flaws with the system. Your post mentioned another.
From TFA: A federal judge may reinstate the injunction he granted against RIM for violating NTP's patents even though the Patent Office, which is reexamining the patents, has issued preliminary findings that all five are invalid.
Even though the patent office itself has declared that the patents may not pass muster some appointed-for-life judge is prepared to make a ruling worthing hundreds of millions to billions of dollars based more on the arguments of lawyers rather than the actual facts or the law.
From your comments: POPA, the examiner's union. That says it all. Government employees shouldn't be allowed to unionize - unions cost taxpayers excessive quantities of money and further eliminate any semblance of personal responsibility or honest accountability on the part of people who are pretty much guaranteed jobs for life with little risk of accounting for their screwups.
(Since I've already mentioned unions and undoubtedly ticked off lots of people I think it only fair to point out that I am not opposed to unions in general - in a free market I think people should be allowed to organize themselves into the Teamsters, the UAW, the CAW or pretty much any other group they want to. I object only to AFSCME, SEIU, POPA and similar unions that actively declare that public service jobs serve the public only as an afterthought. At the very least I want them to engage in competitive bidding every other year just to make sure that the taxpayers - who either pay those union salaries, meekly go to jail or are killed resisting - are getting an honest product and their money's worth.)
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately you have expressed a popular opinion which is incorrect. We are not at "war" - according to Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution we are not at war unless Congress declares such a state to exist. There is no legal basis to declare ourselves "at war" until a formal declaration has been made, and Congress - while they have hinted at it - has made no such declaration. George II may repeatedly make the claim, but it just ain't so.
Um, no, they don't. Not in this case. The laws are quite clear when it comes to searches without a warrant, and so long as the Constitution stands you can't do it. The secret court that was established to rubber stamp wiretap orders was bad enough, but George II has ignored even that token of restraint.
George II is operating without any semblance of the checks and balances that were established as the defining feature of our government. His claim that 'if not for me we would have had several more attacks, I'm a hero' doesn't hold water and is downright scary. Would he lie about preventing attacks to justify his actions? Absolutely. The business of the government must be conducted in the public eye unless extreme circumstances dictate otherwise.
We know that George II advocates arresting people and refusing to tell them why they were arrested or allowing them access to a lawyer. We know that George II has authorized the secret relocation of unidentified individuals to third party nations to conduct extralegal interrogations, and have valid cause to reasonably suspect that torture (or something just short of torture) is used with presidential approval, even on people who are ultimately guilty of no crime. We know that George II believes that any and all government activity should be conducted in secret. And we are given nothing more than the somewhat less than comforting words of "remember last tuesday when nothing happened? You need to thank me for that. I, the person who ordered the secret service to look the other way when my daughters were forging documents which are vital to this nation's security. I, the person who is allowing infants to be placed on this nation's no-fly list without any reasonable hope of ever being cleared. You must trust me. Every time nothing happens, it proves that I did my job."
Among other things, more people have sympathy for the IRA than for Hez: people who are pro-hezbollah and/or anti-jew don't call the fundraisers members of a terrorist organization either - they too would be "sympathisers" and "* patriots"
George I ignored the law (P.L. 102-88). Clinton ignored this same law. It is probably that George II is actively ignoring this law. George II can reasonably be expected to ignore any and all laws to further what he believes to be the correct course of action.
(Along the same lines, if Sen McCain actually expects George II to refrain from torturing captives just because he signed a law prohibiting it then McCain is an idiot.)
George II appointed an attorney general who believes that "the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is" - it is safe to believe that George II holds the same viewpoint. George II does not believe in rule of codified law.
Ken Mehlman and Jo Ann Davidson should be ashamed.
Given Bush's willingness to issue executive orders without publishing them (the ID requirement for airline travel, for example), how would anybody know if martial law was declared in secret?
What prevents Bush from declaring Homeland Security (which includes the very military Coast Guard) an extension of the armed forces?
Translation: the government is not currently acting as a civilian government.
Hezbollah is known to be active in North Carolina (since when was the United States mainland considered part of Lebanese territory?):
I understand that you may be locked into a contract for wireless service, but that aside: do you intend to continue your service with them? If so, why?
Never gonna happen.
These aren't new problems - this issue has been facing eBay for years and nothing has ever been done. This is unlikely to change. Attorneys general are elected: no attorney general is ever elected without the assistance of corporate contributions so they are all extremely hesitant to bite the hand that funds them. Even if they don't receive the funds directly for their own specific campaigns their party receives all kinds of soft money contributions, and if they go against the party funders then they get pulled from the tickets.
Paypal's fault, Paypal should pay - and the executives who created and enforce the policy that enable such fraud should either be dismissed or held personally accountable. It isn't fair to make the company pay for the mistakes of the bosses - they made the errors, and they should pay.
99.9999999% of all issues will be resolved overnight if you hold them accountable.
I use AT&T's Universal MasterCard - there is a desktop utility that will create a one-time, amount-specific, custom expiration date credit card number with unique CV number. If I am buying a widget for $19.95 from Gary's Widgets and Wombats then I create a virtual credit card number unique to that transaction valid for $19.95 and the next 14 days only. American Express and (some) Visa cards have similar features.
Disposable credit card numbers are the way to go, if possible.
Want to fix it? Eliminate immunity protections. If a corporation breaks the law or facilitates fraud and the executives of said corporation knowingly ignored the problem or authorized the illegal actions then said executives should be personally held to the fire.
A better question is: why do you continue to use PayPal? I've had a deep-seated distrust of them ever since the account-freezing issues. Apparently not too many other people cared about the lack of accountability and customer service.
If you like their business practices then by all means continue to use them. Personally, if PayPal (IMHO illegally) denied me a $900 payment I would never even consider using them again. But that's just me.
I hold that it would have been a far greater benefit to mankind to spend the money spent on the Mars Rover programs on, say, a bloodless, stripless glucose tester for diabetics, sonoluminescent equipment for oncology clinics or EM shielding for the nation's power grid.
I continue to hold that Exxon or Shell could have produced better satellites for less money than NASA has.
GAO's analysis of available reported data related to NASA passenger aircraft services during fiscal years 2003 and 2004 showed NASA reported costs were nearly $25 million compared with estimated commercial airline coach transportation costs of about $5 million. Further, this relative cost comparison, based on available NASA reported costs, did not take into account all applicable types of costs associated with its passenger aircraft services, including, for example, depreciation associated with the estimated $14 million NASA paid in 2001 to acquire several aircraft used for passenger transportation. Consequently, NASA's passenger air transportation services are much more costly than indicated by available data. ... GAO's analysis of NASA passenger aircraft flights for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 showed that an estimated 86 percent--about seven out of every eight flights--were taken to support routine business operations specifically prohibited by federal policy regarding aircraft ownership, including routine site visits, meetings, speeches, and conferences. Further, agencywide oversight and management of its passenger aircraft services was not effective.
If the GAO says that NASA is recklessly spending without sufficient restraint, accountability or oversight, who are you to claim otherwise? When you can identify a single individual ever disciplined for violating federal laws regarding spending then try to convince me that people at NASA are held accountable for their mistakes.
So where is the return on these missions of exploration? How is my life any better - or even different - because we now know that there are dust devils on Mars powerful enough to blow dust off of solar panels but not (yet) powerful enough to flip over a rover? How is anybody in this country better off now that we have lots of pretty pictures of distant specs of light?
NASA has been a great sport about lying to the public about the nature of various missions - every time the military or the NRO wanted to put a secret satellite they'd schlepp it up on the (supposedly) civilian craft, for example.
Number of managers who were fired for overruling the engineers on launching a shuttle when it was too cold?
Number of managers who were fired for ordering an unsafe but "environmentally friendly" foam to be used on the shuttle without adaquate testing?
In its final report, published on Tuesday, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) said that while mechanically the orbiter was lost because of a breach in the heat shield, management blunders and organisational errors at the space agency were as much to blame. - how many people were truly held accountable and fired?
April 8, 2005. The Washington Post reports "there is one manager at NASA for every two engineers. Such a ratio seems unwieldy and top-heavy for an organization devoted to developing innovative and bold technologies for the exploration of space." How does this lend to any efficient return? Even if you accept the argument that NASA does produce something of value my tax dollars are still paying far too much for people who can order shuttles to their doom over the objections of the engineers who actually should be calling the shots. They've had decades to correct this, have demonstrated that they have no desire to correct this, and in all probability won't correct it.
NASA has spent gobs and gobs of money on private jets for executives, lush and well-appointed office suites and all sorts of perks. They have consistently overspent and underperformed - all to bring us to the point of an incomplete space station, a pride ride for an aging ex-Senator, and a call for help to the Soviets who apparently have the only reliable shuttle on the planet.
I don't care if we visit other planets. I really don't. The ISS is a monument to spending money without rhyme or reason - and seems to be doing little more than affording lots of experience in damage control, emergency management and spin.
Pretty much every media outlet in the country, for one. Public documents for another. The debris fields of two shuttles is another source. I trust Dr. Feynman's assessment of the NASA culture as accurate - there's another source. if Exxon saw profit in petroexploration from space and there was no NASA you can bet your bottom dollar (and leave mine out of it) that they'd have birds up in orbit looking for liquid dinosaurs on time, on budget, and without claiming exemption to various environmental laws.
Have you ever been employed by a real organization that requires a legitimate and tangible return on dollars spent? If GM blew up a shuttle after a manager told everybody to ignore the engineers not only would people be fired, but criminal charges and any number of workplace safety violations would be filed - not to mention the lawsuits. When NASA does it everybody gets to go to Washington and testify before non-technical congress critters that just because the engineers said the laws of physics work this way and a manager ignored them
Exactly what happens when people are allowed to spend other people's money with essentially zero accountability. Personally I'd like to see NASA eliminated as a public entity - there just isn't enough ROI. Fund it through voluntary contributions and commercial ventures. Period.
Incorrect analogy. A better comparison would be a company that continues to sell tickets to a theme park with rides known to be dangerous or a tollbooth that continues to collect tolls for a washed out bridge and waving cars through.
Want a better example? Let's say you are running an online web phone directory and include a listing for a sex hotline with the instructions "call 415-555-1212 and the second we answer start talking dirty. The most obscene call of the day wins a free session". Let's say the phone number is typo'ed in the book and people are being directed to call 451-555-1212 which is a christian daycare center who is innundated with obscene call after obscene call. Accidents happen. If you are told of the error and you correct it, all is well. If you are told of the error and refuse to address the issue then you should be held responsible.
Trustingly accept a fraudulently listing on your price comparison site, accidents happen. Knowingly retain a fraudulent listing and you should forfeit all protections and accept full liability.
Some booze company was/is doing that at the clubs and bars: hire some totally hot babe to whisper sweet nothings into the ear of some half-drunk schlunk and get him to buy her a martini with wombat brand vodka or anteater margaritias or whatever it was they were doing.
A single law holding the engines financially liable for any losses incurred by a customer steered by their sites after fraud has been reported will cure the problem if not overnight as soon as the first lawsuit is successful.
Especially considering that the Detroit Lions defensive squads can't track a football over a fraction of that distance.
Sorry.... sorry....
Can you imagine the SMSpam if the cops broadcast requests for information for every crime in New York? And if they don't do it for all crimes, then how long until people start accusing them of racism/favoritism/elitism because they SMspammed for this crime but not for that one?
Not even in a fantasy world. Nobody there is laughing over this: with 100% of my being I believe that this was not done with actual malice, so accusing them of laughing over the situation isn't accurate, fair, realistic, plausible, or rational. By making such accusations you diminish the legitimacy of any demands that somebody be fired over this.
The problem is that, like most major corporations, the shots are called by MBAs and similar business types. People who have no real skills other than pushing numbers around, blowing smoke, and sucking up to investors and the board. Most (not all!!!!!) denziens of the corporate stratosphere have never founded their own business, have never worked with their own hands or ever produced anything tangible or of value. Most music execs have never seriously played an instrument: they chap their lips on butts, not horns. I wouldn't be shocked if many of them couldn't carry a tune in a bucket and find themselves banned from karaoke bars. Throw into the mix a healthy number of people promoted to fill affirmative action quotas, promotions on the grounds of sex (the genitals or the activity or both), friends of mucks, offspring of mucks and other people who are there for no rational reason whatsoever, and you have an environment where talent and ability mean virtually nothing.
Unpaid copies of song tracks neatly shows up in the - column. Loss of goodwill, unfortunately, doesn't. Any activity that appears - on paper - to attack something in the - column and is certified as the lawyers as being unlikely to provoke a successful lawsuit - will be embraced warmly.
Saying they're sorry is not enough.
Being sorry is not enough.
Understanding that they were wrong is not enough. (Though I doubt that they actually grasp this concept... Sony's executive and official remarks along the lines that since most people don't know what a rootkit is therefore they shouldn't care about one fairly accurately indicate the corporate culture over there. They aren't sorry that they did wrong, they are sorry that they had to listen to their customers and non-customers alike whining about the situation.)
I want somebody fired over this. The president would be great, but handing a sacrificial pink slip to a VP would suffice. Such a great and monumental screwup - including the intentional introduction of inadvertant (no, not a contradiction) security holes onto the computers of the people who are paying their salaries is, IMNSHO, criminal, but fat chance of charges ever being pressed. I'm sure the execs would fire their assistants for putting Splenda (tm) in the morning coffee instead of Equal or printing out the day's email in 11.5 New Roman instead of 12 Times, but when it comes to something that actually matters not a demotion or even a negative review in the executive's employment file. In fact, I'll wager the screwup who gave the green light to this whole project still gets a fat six figure bonus for "great" performance.
If Sony wants my money again they they have to can an exec and have security escort him from the building. If all sony music fans followed suit then a message would be sent loud and clear that this abuse of the customers will not be tolerated and execs throughout the industry would understand that what they do may actually have ~gasp~ consequences.
When I was laid off from one major company (outsourced to provide support at another major company) the boss-type person was amazed that I actually stuck it through until the last day, continuing to work as if nothing had happened. It was unfathomable to the powers that be that they could announce a layoff and have the person continue to show up day after day: the very thought that somebody would treat them better than they treated him made their little heads explode.
From TFA: A federal judge may reinstate the injunction he granted against RIM for violating NTP's patents even though the Patent Office, which is reexamining the patents, has issued preliminary findings that all five are invalid.
Even though the patent office itself has declared that the patents may not pass muster some appointed-for-life judge is prepared to make a ruling worthing hundreds of millions to billions of dollars based more on the arguments of lawyers rather than the actual facts or the law.
From your comments: POPA, the examiner's union. That says it all. Government employees shouldn't be allowed to unionize - unions cost taxpayers excessive quantities of money and further eliminate any semblance of personal responsibility or honest accountability on the part of people who are pretty much guaranteed jobs for life with little risk of accounting for their screwups.
(Since I've already mentioned unions and undoubtedly ticked off lots of people I think it only fair to point out that I am not opposed to unions in general - in a free market I think people should be allowed to organize themselves into the Teamsters, the UAW, the CAW or pretty much any other group they want to. I object only to AFSCME, SEIU, POPA and similar unions that actively declare that public service jobs serve the public only as an afterthought. At the very least I want them to engage in competitive bidding every other year just to make sure that the taxpayers - who either pay those union salaries, meekly go to jail or are killed resisting - are getting an honest product and their money's worth.)