Madeleine Brown's version of events has been shown to be shaky at best
Shown to be shaky at best-- where? I'd like to see that material too.
I still believe her. I've known plenty of people with good knowledge of history who couldn't remember dates, and whose memories sometimes combined events. The wrong date and placing an absent person at the scene do not, in my book, destroy the credibility of the assertions.
I now believe that assassination is a frequent political tool in America. I thought for years that Castro ordered the death of JFK until I saw the video (possibly now on YouTube) of the film interview with Lyndon Johnson's mistress. I now believe Kennedy was killed by the Rockefellers and Lyndon Johnson. There is much more in the interview, which everyone should see. For some reason it is not being talked about-- probably because years of crackpot "conspiracy theorists" have made even supportable theories about conspiracy suspect.
What Lyndon's mistress has to say is jaw-dropping and highly credible. Of course, for interested parties to deny or combat it would be to promote it, so that's not happening.
This interview gives a picture of American politics I never believed until I heard this straightforward, plain-talking woman. Political murder CAN happen and DOES happen-- often-- in the US. Now I am deeply questioning the official stories about Vince Foster, JFK, and now Mike Connell. Does anyone believe Karl Rove would not stoop to murder? The movie Bush's Brain makes it clear his ruining of opponents caused one or more suicides, yet in threatening to prosecute Connell's wife (for illegal lobbying !!!!!!!!!) (and as much as admitting he can give or withhold presidential pardons) he shows his tactics haven't changed a bit. I now believe Scooter Libby was persuaded to "take the fall" by threats of being ruined and by promises of a pardon if he bit the bullet.
We, the American people, have to wonder about the inadequacies of our political system (or the easy-to-abuse mighty power of the Presidency) that allow these corruptions to happen. I believe that Rove and Cheney are despicable murderers. This "accident" with Connell just proves it. This is what happens when you aren't a good boy like Scooter Libby.
America, we need to look at the issue of political murder and the frequency of its use for advantage.
Anyone want to guess how much better Microsoft would be with, say, Ballmer gone?
Well, I think I can say for sure that if Ballmer left there'd almost certainly be more seats on the Board. But I kind of doubt he'd ever wind up losing the title of Chairman.
Agree. The existing laws we have will work fine, too. If the victim would not have suicided without defendant's act, and the jury thinks defendant had reason to forsee the suicide by reason of a knowledge of the victim's susceptibility, then the defendant can be found liable in the jury's discretion. (IAAL)
Any turd-i-ness that Vista retains is strictly due to it being Windows.
I don't believe a Windows that runs like a dog even if you blow $1,000 on new hardware and that has been designed to allow Microsoft to de-escalate your privileges when it pleases them (turn on full DRM or apply other, stealth "updates") describes XP nearly as well as it describes Vista.
Ballmer should be on his hands and knees begging Allchin to come back. Even promise him a chair on the board, if he can find one.
I assume all you guys that run AdBlock realise that ads keep these websites free. I'm happy to absorb a few ads in the interests of getting free content.
Sure, we guys who run AdBlock realize ads keep some sites free. Let them keep their ads. We'll keep control over our browsing experience. Seems fair to me.
For as long as the wealthy are doing well, the people who think this way also think that, ideally, we should hope that the rich get richer. Since the wealthy are so smart and have such great judgment when it comes to financial matters, they're best equipped to manage money. Society will be most benefited by having as much money as possible concentrated in the hands of the greatest financial geniuses.
This is a perfect paradigm for Wall Street, whose assurance in what it did was topped only by its ignorance of what it was wise to do. The public was so sure of Wall Street's greater wisdom that it made two cardinal mistakes: Allowing the big investment banks to go public so that they could invest risking other people's money; and suffering the deregulation of an industry on which its entire fiscal stability was based. After Enron, did no one look for similar risks in the principal investment banks? Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Shearson Lehman, Goldman Sachs, Salomon Brothers and the like, as we knew them, may have gone belly up, but their destructive legacy will not soon be forgotten.
"...There's nothing to be gained down that path other than possibly to expand the wallets of a few companies."
That's precisely the reason the government would back it. Governments have created corporations and have conducted wars for exactly that reason.
I completely agree. Consider the role of the zaibatsu (Japanese conglomerates) in pressuring Hiro Hito into WWII. Or more recently, American special interests in pressuring Dubya (via Cheney) into Iraq.
.
- Call you credit company and ask to do a chargeback. Provide the DC number as proof the item was returned.
- Get money refunded to your card.
Easy.
Not as easy as that, and not because companies treat chargebacks as fraudulent orders (how THEY choose to treat it does not define what it is-- if they sued you they'd probably lose). (Yes, IAAL.) The real problem is that credit cards pander to the merchant. The MERCHANT is their real customer, not you-- they can screw you 'til doomsday and your "cardmember agreement" holds you still for them. Many credit cards will REFUSE to charge back a merchant without extravagant demonstrations you've tried to negotiate with unreachable telephone personnel-- and in some cases, only if the merchant agrees to accept the chargeback. They may have the RIGHT to charge back a merchant if you dispute, but they sure don't have the inclination.
The bottom line, and I have seen this over and over in my practice, is that credit card companies put OUTRAGEOUS terms in all of that fine print, terms that will essentially bend you over and spread your cheeks if they want you that way. You thought you'd cancelled the card? BZZZZT ! They have the right to uncancel it and start siphoning your wallet again if a charge comes through after the closure date. You forgot to stop a recurring charge? BZZZZT! Late fees, penalty fees, interest et cetera, even after you told them not to disburse any more money for you. I had a client who accepted a card and never paid the ten dollar initiation fee. It went on the card, but since she never used it she never looked at the letters that arrived. A year later, with penalties and interest, she owed two thousand dollars, her limit, and it began to climb higher on overlimit fees.
Oh, and you want to sue the bastards? Check and see if all of that fine print has arbitration clauses, limitations on class actions, or restrictive venue requirements.
As Homey D. Clown would say, lissen up, chilluns. There is REAL money in usury-- always has been, and that is what credit cards are. And we know in America, real money is above the law (because it bought it and lowered it).
Back to the point, the parent's suggestion of trying a chargeback is quaint and charming. By and by, Citi and MBNA and the like don't play dat.
TFA just refers to "remote searches" without defining them. This kind of vagueness should not prompt overly-specific conclusions like the hypothetical outlawing of firewalls or the imminent passage of laws to make you leave a back door open for John Law.
I hate to say it, but this looks like typical wild/. hysteria, particularized into untenable conclusions asserted as fact, from a much more general article implying nothing of the kind.
The principal kind of case in which this survives is the "Menendez" kind of case, where victims justify actions by evidence of decedent's conduct. There is some suggestion that the doctrine survives in "use of deadly force to protect property" cases. The classic "he needed killin'" defense, where you go out and lynch someone who is a general danger to the population and say "well Judge, someone had to do it" is gone. The thinking now is that we are well-enough policed that you aren't the proper person to arrogate judge-and-jury function.
But the girl also confronted her mother shortly after the "World would be better off without you" comment. In fact, according to several news sources, she got into an argument with her mother right before she went to kill herself. How can it even be guaranteed that the cause of her death was the comment by Drew and not in fact by a combination of side-effects from anti-depressents and just a shitty day in general?
Actually, there is an answer to your question. It is the concept of "Without Which Not" causation. The jury should be asked to consider would the suicide have happened without Lori Drew's conduct. If not, and if the suicide should have been forseeable to Ms. Drew, she's liable.
IAAL and I can tell you any case that intentionally and unreasonably pushed a susceptible person to suicide would be punished, at least if the defendant had reason to know of the weakness or susceptibility.
It's not about doing it online or whether it was done under a real name. It's about what was done and how culpable and causative the conduct was.
I know some countries have laws against inducement to suicide, I'd have to ask an attorney whether any US states do.
You could ask the DA in the Lori Drew case-- (s)he knew what the possible charges were.
Seems to me that justice would have been better served here if someone had just beaten the crap out of Lori Drew, and gotten acquitted for it due to extenuating circumstances.
I have to agree with you on that one. Though harm to a parent is never as severe as harm to the parent's child.
Slashdot Mirror
Madeleine Brown's version of events has been shown to be shaky at best
Shown to be shaky at best-- where? I'd like to see that material too.
I still believe her. I've known plenty of people with good knowledge of history who couldn't remember dates, and whose memories sometimes combined events. The wrong date and placing an absent person at the scene do not, in my book, destroy the credibility of the assertions.
I now believe that assassination is a frequent political tool in America. I thought for years that Castro ordered the death of JFK until I saw the video (possibly now on YouTube) of the film interview with Lyndon Johnson's mistress. I now believe Kennedy was killed by the Rockefellers and Lyndon Johnson. There is much more in the interview, which everyone should see. For some reason it is not being talked about-- probably because years of crackpot "conspiracy theorists" have made even supportable theories about conspiracy suspect.
What Lyndon's mistress has to say is jaw-dropping and highly credible. Of course, for interested parties to deny or combat it would be to promote it, so that's not happening.
This interview gives a picture of American politics I never believed until I heard this straightforward, plain-talking woman. Political murder CAN happen and DOES happen-- often-- in the US. Now I am deeply questioning the official stories about Vince Foster, JFK, and now Mike Connell. Does anyone believe Karl Rove would not stoop to murder? The movie Bush's Brain makes it clear his ruining of opponents caused one or more suicides, yet in threatening to prosecute Connell's wife (for illegal lobbying !!!!!!!!!) (and as much as admitting he can give or withhold presidential pardons) he shows his tactics haven't changed a bit. I now believe Scooter Libby was persuaded to "take the fall" by threats of being ruined and by promises of a pardon if he bit the bullet.
We, the American people, have to wonder about the inadequacies of our political system (or the easy-to-abuse mighty power of the Presidency) that allow these corruptions to happen. I believe that Rove and Cheney are despicable murderers. This "accident" with Connell just proves it. This is what happens when you aren't a good boy like Scooter Libby.
America, we need to look at the issue of political murder and the frequency of its use for advantage.
Five words: James Bond Revolving Number Plates.
Anyone want to guess how much better Microsoft would be with, say, Ballmer gone?
Well, I think I can say for sure that if Ballmer left there'd almost certainly be more seats on the Board. But I kind of doubt he'd ever wind up losing the title of Chairman.
Well *I* have a Commodore VIC-20. You can do things on it you can't do on any other computer!!
The beauty of the jury system is that some members of the jury might view matters exactly as you do.
Agree. The existing laws we have will work fine, too. If the victim would not have suicided without defendant's act, and the jury thinks defendant had reason to forsee the suicide by reason of a knowledge of the victim's susceptibility, then the defendant can be found liable in the jury's discretion. (IAAL)
Your sig contains a link which logs out anyone who clicks it. Slashdot will let you be a jackass, but you don't have to oblige, do you?
Your joke is puerile stuff.
Vista is brought down on its knees even when copying big files around.
I have to wonder whether this is because it is checking you aren't copying anything M$ thinks you shouldn't.
Any turd-i-ness that Vista retains is strictly due to it being Windows.
I don't believe a Windows that runs like a dog even if you blow $1,000 on new hardware and that has been designed to allow Microsoft to de-escalate your privileges when it pleases them (turn on full DRM or apply other, stealth "updates") describes XP nearly as well as it describes Vista.
Ballmer should be on his hands and knees begging Allchin to come back. Even promise him a chair on the board, if he can find one.
I assume all you guys that run AdBlock realise that ads keep these websites free. I'm happy to absorb a few ads in the interests of getting free content.
Sure, we guys who run AdBlock realize ads keep some sites free. Let them keep their ads. We'll keep control over our browsing experience. Seems fair to me.
This is from the Google Chrome site:
Use Cases
The following lists some types of extensions that we'd like to eventually support:
* Bookmarking/navigation tools: Delicious Toolbar, Stumbleupon, web-based history, new tab page clipboard accelerators
* Content enhancements: Skype extension (clickable phone numbers), RealPlayer extension (save video), Autolink (generic microformat data - addresses, phone numbers, etc.)
* Content filtering: Adblock, Flashblock, Privacy control, Parental control
* Download helpers: video helpers, download accelerators, DownThemAll, FlashGot
* Features: ForecastFox, FoxyTunes, Web Of Trust, GooglePreview, BugMeNot
This list is non-exhaustive, and we expect it to grow as the community expresses interest in further extension types.
For as long as the wealthy are doing well, the people who think this way also think that, ideally, we should hope that the rich get richer. Since the wealthy are so smart and have such great judgment when it comes to financial matters, they're best equipped to manage money. Society will be most benefited by having as much money as possible concentrated in the hands of the greatest financial geniuses.
This is a perfect paradigm for Wall Street, whose assurance in what it did was topped only by its ignorance of what it was wise to do. The public was so sure of Wall Street's greater wisdom that it made two cardinal mistakes: Allowing the big investment banks to go public so that they could invest risking other people's money; and suffering the deregulation of an industry on which its entire fiscal stability was based. After Enron, did no one look for similar risks in the principal investment banks? Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Shearson Lehman, Goldman Sachs, Salomon Brothers and the like, as we knew them, may have gone belly up, but their destructive legacy will not soon be forgotten.
"...There's nothing to be gained down that path other than possibly to expand the wallets of a few companies."
That's precisely the reason the government would back it. Governments have created corporations and have conducted wars for exactly that reason.
I completely agree. Consider the role of the zaibatsu (Japanese conglomerates) in pressuring Hiro Hito into WWII. Or more recently, American special interests in pressuring Dubya (via Cheney) into Iraq.
However if I was Channel 93 News, it would be a different story.
Yes, you would say "Callista Flockhart is a slut, and three of our reporters were in a four-way with her...
Libel can also be other forms of mass dissemination like on TV. It's spoken, but MAN does it get around.
Oh, no you're not. 4000 songs would put you way over the average settlement.
. - Call you credit company and ask to do a chargeback. Provide the DC number as proof the item was returned. - Get money refunded to your card.
Easy.
Not as easy as that, and not because companies treat chargebacks as fraudulent orders (how THEY choose to treat it does not define what it is-- if they sued you they'd probably lose). (Yes, IAAL.) The real problem is that credit cards pander to the merchant. The MERCHANT is their real customer, not you-- they can screw you 'til doomsday and your "cardmember agreement" holds you still for them. Many credit cards will REFUSE to charge back a merchant without extravagant demonstrations you've tried to negotiate with unreachable telephone personnel-- and in some cases, only if the merchant agrees to accept the chargeback. They may have the RIGHT to charge back a merchant if you dispute, but they sure don't have the inclination.
The bottom line, and I have seen this over and over in my practice, is that credit card companies put OUTRAGEOUS terms in all of that fine print, terms that will essentially bend you over and spread your cheeks if they want you that way. You thought you'd cancelled the card? BZZZZT ! They have the right to uncancel it and start siphoning your wallet again if a charge comes through after the closure date. You forgot to stop a recurring charge? BZZZZT! Late fees, penalty fees, interest et cetera, even after you told them not to disburse any more money for you. I had a client who accepted a card and never paid the ten dollar initiation fee. It went on the card, but since she never used it she never looked at the letters that arrived. A year later, with penalties and interest, she owed two thousand dollars, her limit, and it began to climb higher on overlimit fees.
Oh, and you want to sue the bastards? Check and see if all of that fine print has arbitration clauses, limitations on class actions, or restrictive venue requirements.
As Homey D. Clown would say, lissen up, chilluns. There is REAL money in usury-- always has been, and that is what credit cards are. And we know in America, real money is above the law (because it bought it and lowered it).
Back to the point, the parent's suggestion of trying a chargeback is quaint and charming. By and by, Citi and MBNA and the like don't play dat.
When do you think anyone in their right mind will ok that procedure?
You agreed as part of the Vista EULA.
Of course, it probably doesn't help MS that Vista isn't exactly setting the world on fire.
Put it in charge of fire control systems and it may.
TFA just refers to "remote searches" without defining them. This kind of vagueness should not prompt overly-specific conclusions like the hypothetical outlawing of firewalls or the imminent passage of laws to make you leave a back door open for John Law. I hate to say it, but this looks like typical wild /. hysteria, particularized into untenable conclusions asserted as fact, from a much more general article implying nothing of the kind.
The principal kind of case in which this survives is the "Menendez" kind of case, where victims justify actions by evidence of decedent's conduct. There is some suggestion that the doctrine survives in "use of deadly force to protect property" cases. The classic "he needed killin'" defense, where you go out and lynch someone who is a general danger to the population and say "well Judge, someone had to do it" is gone. The thinking now is that we are well-enough policed that you aren't the proper person to arrogate judge-and-jury function.
But the girl also confronted her mother shortly after the "World would be better off without you" comment. In fact, according to several news sources, she got into an argument with her mother right before she went to kill herself. How can it even be guaranteed that the cause of her death was the comment by Drew and not in fact by a combination of side-effects from anti-depressents and just a shitty day in general?
Actually, there is an answer to your question. It is the concept of "Without Which Not" causation. The jury should be asked to consider would the suicide have happened without Lori Drew's conduct. If not, and if the suicide should have been forseeable to Ms. Drew, she's liable.
IAAL and I can tell you any case that intentionally and unreasonably pushed a susceptible person to suicide would be punished, at least if the defendant had reason to know of the weakness or susceptibility.
It's not about doing it online or whether it was done under a real name. It's about what was done and how culpable and causative the conduct was.
I know some countries have laws against inducement to suicide, I'd have to ask an attorney whether any US states do.
You could ask the DA in the Lori Drew case-- (s)he knew what the possible charges were.
Seems to me that justice would have been better served here if someone had just beaten the crap out of Lori Drew, and gotten acquitted for it due to extenuating circumstances.
I have to agree with you on that one. Though harm to a parent is never as severe as harm to the parent's child.