FTA:
He said that the ultimate goal for exoplanet researchers was to find habitable Earth-like and Mars-like planets. (emphasis added)
While we all crack wise about the bizarro planet of our science fiction dreams, it bears pointing out that the point of the program is ostensibly to find other inhabitable planets--that is, potential sites for future human expansion, rather than other inhabited planets. The difference between the two is not insignificant, and is a nod to the somewhat conservative view that while it may prove impossible to find another planet like the Earth where life has evolved concurrently with our own, it is nevertheless very realistic to search for another planet like the Earth where life could thrive.
I've witnessed the confusing litany of name changes and double switches that has occurred with Windows Mobile. It's gone from Windows CE to The OS Formerly Known as Windows CE, to Windows Pocket PC: Pocket Edition for Pockets to, I think, encompass any device with a touch screen that now runs Windows Mobile 5/6. And would I be correct to assume that still excludes "smartphones?"
If your Mac can run MS-Windows binaries you may be vulnerable to some Windows viruses. Could you (or somebody of equal knowledge/proficiency) please elaborate on what is meant by this? Do you mean WINE, do you mean Parallels...do you mean both? I was under the impression that most viruses failed under WINE for lack of superuser rights. Have I been living a horrible lie?
Re:Other Media of Related Interest
on
Donkey Kong and Me
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I saw "King of Kong" and rank it among my most favorite films.
However, I would object to the notion that competitive arcade gaming is an "industry" at all. Some of the movie's best moments were when it laid bare what competitive gaming really is--a self-regulated collection of sycophants, plagued by the childishness of its most famous poster boy.
Your assessment of the film's accessibility to nerds and non-nerds alike is completely accurate. If any Slashdot readers have a friend or girlfriend (although that might be stretching things in the latter case;) who may not share your interest in gaming, this is the perfect film reaching across the non-nerd isle. I cannot recommend it enough.
That's a good point. But we need to just admit that both Democratic candidates will complain about whatever archaic rules disadvantage them, regardless of history and regardless of the extent to which it disenfranchises voters.
For example, when we get closer to the convention, who do you think will be trying to get the good people from Florida seated in the name of "letting them have their say" (and not *cough* because she has a huge following in Florida? *cough*). And as a counterpoint to that, what senator out of Illinois do you think will suddenly become a stickler for the rules that would exclude the Florida delegates who would hurt his chances?
The arguments for and against the (often absurd) voting rules are whitewash for political motivations, on the part of Obama and Clinton alike. Citing pretext is just a part of the political engine, and both candidates are just as guilty of doing it.
Posting without the Karma bonus simply to explain to Captain Hastypost how he needs to brush up on the reading skills. Seriously, don't mind me:
Congratulations you're making excuses for people who went to vote for the Texas caucus. No, I was making excuses for the people who COULD NOT vote in the Texas caucus, and were therefore disenfranchised. And was Texas Caucus one of the candidates? I don't remember seeing that person on the ballot.
If the people that were going to vote for the primary caucus didn't expect a high turnout on such a close race I have little sympathy for them. Again, you demonstrate very little understanding of the situation. The job of manning the polling stations does not fall on the people who were going to vote in the primary caucus. It's not their "fault" that the polling locations were overwhelmed.
* If you were die-hard supporters of Clinton you should have stayed. If you read the first sentence of my post, you'll notice that I identified myself as somebody who voted in the primary election and the caucus. That means I did stay, and that I did vote in the caucus. It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about.
* If you were upset at the lateness of the cuacus why not have the time for the caucus change or the staffing of the caucus (One of the voting locations made news on CNN because of this Thank you so much for once again blaming the voters themselves for creating the problem (what with their "showing up to vote" and all), and then reaffirming that yes, it was in fact a problem because you saw a little blurb on CNN.
Stand up and fight for your voting rights. We have no room for crybabies. Oh, my apologies. You're just a troll.
Rest assured, Obama is still a media darling, and you should not interpret this effort by the media to downplay any caucus win in Texas as the media "turning" on him. I don't think you understand how little the Texas caucus matters in the first place. The primary election is the Big Deal, because it accounts for 2/3rds of the allocated delegates. The caucus gets the other 1/3rd allotment.
So the roving "strike teams" of Obama caucus-goers were essentially neutralized by a Texas system that downplays the caucus itself, leaving Obama with his pants down and a telling primary loss.
It is my understanding that Obama has been winning caucus states in the past, particularly in the states where you're supposed to stick around and defend your choice. My theory: No rational person wants to waste their time arguing with an 18 year-old in an Operation Ivy T-shirt over who did or did not co-sponsor an education bill.;)
I am a Texas resident who voted in both the primary and caucus, and so I naturally had a stake in closely following the primary results. At no time did Obama ever lead when the primary results came in, nor is he the leader in some ubiquitous Texas "popular vote." Hillary won that as well. Texas was a victory for Hillary in every sense of the word.
We are still awaiting the returns on the caucus, but that only accounts for a mere 1/3rd of the delegates awarded to each candidate, and the early returns indicate that whatever meager advantage that Obama may have in caucus votes will be all but swallowed up by Hillary's more impressive win in the primary election. Really we're talking about hundreds of extra Obama caucus votes vs. Hillary's hundreds of thousands of extra primary votes.
Now for some light editorializing: The reason we're still waiting on caucus results in many counties is because Texas had roughly double the expected turnout. The antiquated system we have in place requires that everyone in a precinct vote in the primary election before the caucus can be held. And the inability of many precincts to deal with the added influx of voters made it so that, in many cases, caucus voting could not start until 11 pm that evening.
Obama will likely fare slightly better in the caucus in Texas, only because the core of the Democrat party--the baby boomers who constitute the majority of Hillary supporters--had families to get back to and jobs they had to get up for the next morning. Hillary supporters simply didn't have the ability to "two-step" all the way into the early morning hours, while it apparently is far easier for the young, first time voters who make up Obama's base to spend literally six hours of their time at their local middle school or fire station.
If you think it's silly to have both a primary election followed by a caucus that runs into the late hours, then you've just joined the ranks of many Texans who think it's ridiculous as well. Not only is it hard for people to get a handle on the vote once / vote again thing, but it does tend to disenfranchise hard-working Democrats who can't be out all night caucusing. A 19 year-old UT student and Obama supporter who would just be out all night anyway? Welcome to the party. A 46 year-old mother of two and Hillary supporter who has to prepare for a shift working at the hospital? Congratulations, you effectively have no say in the caucus. So that's why there is a slight disconnect between the primary and caucus results.
Since irrational Obama supporters apparently run the internets, I fully expect this post to be modded "Troll" or something, because it doesn't contain the requisite amount of Obama bias and instead offers a firsthand account of what went down in Texas last night, and posits a reasonable theory for the disparity between primary and caucus votes. How scandalous. Do your candidate of choice proud, and suppress any relatively objective post you see.
Most people familiar with their favorite couple who moved on up, to the East Side, and finally found their piece of the pie, aren't aware that the sitcom actually started as a spin-off of All in the Family, on which Family Guy is itself heavily based. Even the piano playing sequence at the beginning of Family Guy is a callback to the opening sequence of All in the Family.
When I read that some geeks had found a way to get plants to "twitter" them, I feared the worst. Thankfully, "Twitter" is apparently just a universal instant messaging service.
While I'm sure we all applaud your efforts at whitelisting an innocuous site, it begs the question of how much demand there really was to visit "http://www.littlebigshots.com.au" in the first place?*
I raise this question not to criticize this particular site for not being more popular or well-known, but strictly to point out that it really is the "littlebigshots.com"s of the world that are most likely to be hurt by filters in a practically irreparable way that is also difficult to quantify: How many people, worldwide, tried to access the site before it will be whitelisted by this particular filter provider?
Picture this: Somebody Google searches "children's festival," clicks on the aforementioned site, but it appears to be down. Or even worse, a warning message appears warning the user that they've just attempted to access sexually explicit material. "Well!" our hapless Google searcher says to themselves, "This is certainly not the family-friendly activity I had in mind!" and the search continues.
The site has lost potential revenue because of the spam filter, sure. But even worse, now "littlebigshots" resonates in the mind of our Google searcher as just another porn site. It is nothing short of libel by proxy.
So you can restore access to the site all you want (and again, it's a kind and responsible thing for you to do), but it doesn't fix the residual image problem that a miscategorized site may still have to cope with. This is a relatively new issue, and what I've been waiting for is the first case that's exactly on-point with this type of situation, to help sort out what kinds of rights and remedies a miscategorized plaintiff may have. So far, no good. I guess we'll just have to keep waiting.
*(I'm not linking to it again because I'm sure they don't enjoy the unsolicited./ web traffic.)
It still doesn't seem like a huge deal, but on the other hand if you read what the Opera guy actually wrote, it also doesn't seem like a huge deal. "Screeches" seems a bit excessive. Agreed, but if minor quibbles between software groups weren't overplayed and sensationalized, then what exactly would we be reading on Slashdot? Plus, you must be new here, because what business do you have reading the article anyway? You're supposed to just read the inaccurate summary and then "wing it."
Anyways, here, the use of the word "screeches" is not descriptive of the communication that took place, it just means that somebody needs to have their Roget's confiscated. I'm inclined not to think that Santambrogio's ":(" sad faces on his blog aren't exactly the same as "screeching" at somebody.
What I'm hoping is that a helpful Slashdot reader who actually patches security holes in widely-used software on the clock can opine as to the practicality of having a one day turnaround. Otherwise, the rest of us are just guessing about what is and isn't reasonable.
So, is having one day to evaluate and fix a security hole reasonable? And also, is having the source code open and available to others advantageous at all in meeting so short of a deadline?
I was about to post an apology for trying to dress you down while I was tired and had had too much to drink, but then I came here and read your rebuttal, filled with ad hominem attacks, insane arguments, and layman posturing. So now I don't know what to think.
First, I appreciate the time and energy you've put into quoting and decrying each and every thing I wrote, but I'm afraid I'm unwilling to extend you that same courtesy. Frankly, you are not worth the time it takes to do it. So just use your imagination as far as what part of your reply I'm responding to:
- This article that you've repeatedly accused me of not reading is actually the exact thing that I did read. But you know--you got me--I didn't thoroughly read this woman's crappy blog. But in fairness, I probably don't read your crappy blog either. Nobody does. So if there were juicy little tidbits of information buried deep within her blog that would have changed my mind about her case, then I guess I'll just never know. Because I'm damn sure not going to click on three links for her sake instead of the main one. Not unless I'm on the clock.
- Plaintiff's counsel being the plaintiff doesn't matter in the least. It just means that she's a pro se. The court doesn't care one way or the other, except in criminal cases, where the court cares whether defendant has waived the right to counsel or not. Otherwise, the sky's the limit as far as trying to represent yourself in court. While some judges extend pro se's a slight bit of leniency, this is usually overshadowed by their propensity to screw things up in the worst way. I'm actually glad that you pointed it out, though, because it means that plaintiff is about 1000% more likely to mess up the pleading requirements (not even 1st base) and lose her case outright. Summary judgment ring a bell? If you were actually an attorney, you would have just told me that she was a pro se. To which my reply would have been "OK." It's the term that attorneys use instead of person-who-is-representing-themselves-because-you-see-there-is-no-counsel. Nice try, though. But it's not your fault. You just didn't know to Google for the Latin words any lawyer knows that would have helped throw me off your trail.
- You have not actually litigated a case anywhere before. You don't have to fess up to it. I already know. At best, you're a 1L law student, but I doubt even that. My guess is that you're playing semantics with me, and are trying to count some epic, small claims battles as a pro se yourself that nobody cares about. Also, lawyers are not so quick to play the condescending "Don't you understand!?!" card so frequently with other people, least of all one of their own. We're a tight-knit group that believes in Karmic retribution in the same lifetime, and are completely unafraid to screw you over in whatever professional capacity is available to us. But that's any profession. Probably, dentists are the same way.
- Courts are not sympathetic to plaintiffs who waste time while attempting to retrieve a chattel, and then turn around and sue defendant for the time wasted. I won't go into any more detail than this. You can probably figure out the reasoning behind the holdings.
- I absolutely knew what you were trying to intimate by saying made "complete." It's just that nobody uses that phrasing. I thought I made that clear in my post. Hmm, guess not. I don't know if it's a regional thing, or something you heard on television, but we say "made whole." Every attorney I've ever known says it. There are even doctrines in many states that use exactly that phrasing. That's probably where we got it from. This and your clumsy application of the "proximate cause" concept were my first clues that you had no idea what you were talking about. That and of course, your reply--which is filled with gems in and of itself--helped give that impression as well. I guess I shouldn't emphasize the irony behind your calling me a "moron" right after expounding upon the Doctrine of Being 'Complete,' according
Christ, man. You've got the little Slashdot lawyer hat on, and have spent way too much time quoting and reciting the law of...no district at all. I applaud the effort.
However, the fact is, this duplicitous woman won't make it past summary judgment and should also be sanctioned. That's absolutely factual. What's that, you say? How dare I not side with the poor little downtrodden woman? Well, I laid out in another post how her case will meet the same fate as the judge with the multi-mullion dollar dry cleaning mentioned in the article. For those who don't keep up with these things, we're looking at a judgment of ZERO dollars and she will get to pay Best Buy's legal fees. In fact, I explained, if I were counsel for Best Buy, I would push to sanction her, her lawyer, and her lawyer's firm as well.
I won't go into the specifics and rationale again, though, because we're fast-approaching the point at which somebody should just pay me for my time. Furthermore, that earlier post got modded "Flamebait" because 14 year-olds who hate their parents and win the Slashdot mod point lottery don't really cotton to actual lawyers, with all their "statutes" and buzzkilling "rules"--just the less prickly and more fakey variants who put on the big boy pants and Google a few statutes. So instead of laying out that prior post verbatim, let me suck up to Slashdot readers at this late hour, sip some Kool-Aid*, and pretend, pretend, pretend along with you. Let us forgo all knowledge of civil procedure and join you on your journey. I will try, at least:
RTFA - the laptop was stolen from Worst Buy, most probably by an employee, as it was in a "secure area". As such, they are liable for the contents - it has nothing to do with any warranty or protection plan.
Yes, there is an incredibly boring rule we inherited from the English in the year of god-knows-when that relates to a duty of care when you entrust your property to another in this fashion. There was clearly a breach of that duty. But as a nod to the elaborate game of connect-the-dots plaintiff's counsel has tried to play to create a juicer damages claim for what was on the laptop: Those laws don't apply to bits and bytes. At all. Next please.
Worst Buys' sloppy procedures and/or dishonest employee(s) are the proximate cause. They're liable.
Uh oh! Somebody's seen at least one courtroom drama on television and possibly even two. The "proximate cause" of what exactly? The loss? Yes, and? She's already been compensated for the laptop, thinking it clever to give away the gift certificate as well. That's not how that works at all, and she's in for quite a surprise at trial. I feel like this is leading up to something. Extra points for calling them "Worst Buy," too. That's almost as clever as "Micro$oft." OK and then...
She's entitled to be made "complete" - and that involves compensating her for the laptop, its contents, and her lost time while they lied to her about it being stolen.
We say made "whole." Your way sounds pretty dumb, ours sounds a little more mysterious. You're also not right at all. Plaintiff is "entitled" to compensation for the laptop alone. It ends there. Yes, seriously. P doesn't receive damages for the oh-so-precious data, nor is P compensated as a matter of law for the time unreasonably wasted trying to retrieve her property using the least effective means available. If you want an amplified response, and a full explanation as to why, I'll need a PayPal payment. You see, I am a deposed Nigerian Prince...
They originally offered her $750.00. Not even the price of the stolen laptop. And that's only after months of jerking her around.
This is just you re-telling her story. Damnit! I thought for sure you'd go down some elaborate, winding road of on-the-spot legal judgments. But alright. To cast doubt on how this person handled the situation:
Most reasonable people don't mess around with phone calls and friendly reminders for this l
You're trying to go all "forest" while having nothing to say about this particular, unrepresentative tree. This woman is the farthest thing from a "crusader against corporations," although to her credit, she knows that that's exactly the angle she needs to have to snooker the Slashdot crowd and try to engender support.
None of that changes the fact that: Filing suit to advertise and create a forum for your cause is extremely unlawful, and people who do it are rightfully punished. Why do you think we don't frequently see "Colgate vs. Gingivitis" and other assorted bullshit? It's because the courtroom really is Serious Business, and you check that kind of thing at the door under fear of pecuniary liability.
Plus, it doesn't matter how many courtroom dramas you've seen, BSing a judge and pleading grandiose "My voice must be heard!" nonsense is a great way to lose your case and owe the court a bucket of money, under the aforementioned sanction rules. I realize this is Slashdot, so people don't like to hear about how the little guy really is in the wrong in any particular case, but I assure you that's what's happened here.
I want to get my hands on that pleading, and I want to know exactly which attorney and firm took her case, if any.
Fair enough, but forgive me for not being so easily swayed by her attempts to refuse their offer in preparation for litigation. How kind of her.
Also, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to take plaintiff's admission that she is attempting to use the court system as a forum rather than as a way of becoming whole, except to point out that the court should sanction her, her counsel, and the firm that counsel belongs to for filing a frivolous lawsuit and falsely representing that there is a cause of action before the court.
I realize that there was a lot of inconvenient back-and-forth between the plaintiff and defendant, and so what? When you file suit, you raise the stakes while expressly promising that you are not yanking everyone's chain. When you publicly tell people that you deliberately broke that promise and are using the suit to simply advertise your cause, then you deserve to be punished under Rule 11 (or similar State rule) by the same court you thought you would "put one over on." The court system is not a playground or a forum for plaintiff to use to "get the word out" on Best Buy.
[quote]Campbell said that she doesn't really expect to get $54 million, but chose the amount to attract attention to her case.[/quote]
When I saw the total in the summary, I immediately thought "What's the big deal, she's trying to get punatives." Then read the article and saw that it wasn't even that. As usual, if you read just a few more paragraphs beyond what is quoted in Slashdot's article summary, the whole story is skewed much differently differently.
However, there is still room for debate on the issue of whether she was treated fairly. FTA, "Best Buy spokeswoman Nissa French said in an e-mail that Campbell "was offered and collected $1,110.35" as well as "a $500 gift card for her inconvenience." The reasonable market value of the laptop that was stolen (in all likelihood by a Best Buy employee!) + $500 in merchandise? That seems like a reasonable way to try to dispose of any claim--especially since Ms. Campbell already accepted these items.
The "identity theft" argument is incredibly specious. Unless she has done something foolish that would contribute to the insecurity of the machine (credit card numbers as a text file on the laptop hard drive) or failed to backup any important data--itself a cardinal sin--then how is Raelyn Campbell's situation any different from anyone else's who has had a computer stolen from them? You know, except for the crazy, welcome-to-the-land-of-summary-judgment lawsuit that she's filed after accepting fair compensation for her loss?
If they don't throw us crumbs like this every once in while, then we lowly commoners might get uppity and demand they put an end to their unfair admissions practices or something.
But what about those of us who are too lazy to even click on an ad, but still want this "experience" of which you speak!?
If only there were some way of putting the ads on the screen without even having to click on them. Perhaps the ads could even be in separate browser windows that are created and filled with ad content automatically--"popping up," if you will, onto the screen? That way, the user can take full advantage of valuable money-saving opportunities without having to complete the arduous task of clicking a mouse button!
Slashdot Mirror
While we all crack wise about the bizarro planet of our science fiction dreams, it bears pointing out that the point of the program is ostensibly to find other inhabitable planets--that is, potential sites for future human expansion, rather than other inhabited planets. The difference between the two is not insignificant, and is a nod to the somewhat conservative view that while it may prove impossible to find another planet like the Earth where life has evolved concurrently with our own, it is nevertheless very realistic to search for another planet like the Earth where life could thrive.
I've witnessed the confusing litany of name changes and double switches that has occurred with Windows Mobile. It's gone from Windows CE to The OS Formerly Known as Windows CE, to Windows Pocket PC: Pocket Edition for Pockets to, I think, encompass any device with a touch screen that now runs Windows Mobile 5/6. And would I be correct to assume that still excludes "smartphones?"
I saw "King of Kong" and rank it among my most favorite films.
;) who may not share your interest in gaming, this is the perfect film reaching across the non-nerd isle. I cannot recommend it enough.
However, I would object to the notion that competitive arcade gaming is an "industry" at all. Some of the movie's best moments were when it laid bare what competitive gaming really is--a self-regulated collection of sycophants, plagued by the childishness of its most famous poster boy.
Your assessment of the film's accessibility to nerds and non-nerds alike is completely accurate. If any Slashdot readers have a friend or girlfriend (although that might be stretching things in the latter case
That's a good point. But we need to just admit that both Democratic candidates will complain about whatever archaic rules disadvantage them, regardless of history and regardless of the extent to which it disenfranchises voters.
For example, when we get closer to the convention, who do you think will be trying to get the good people from Florida seated in the name of "letting them have their say" (and not *cough* because she has a huge following in Florida? *cough*). And as a counterpoint to that, what senator out of Illinois do you think will suddenly become a stickler for the rules that would exclude the Florida delegates who would hurt his chances?
The arguments for and against the (often absurd) voting rules are whitewash for political motivations, on the part of Obama and Clinton alike. Citing pretext is just a part of the political engine, and both candidates are just as guilty of doing it.
Rest assured, Obama is still a media darling, and you should not interpret this effort by the media to downplay any caucus win in Texas as the media "turning" on him. I don't think you understand how little the Texas caucus matters in the first place. The primary election is the Big Deal, because it accounts for 2/3rds of the allocated delegates. The caucus gets the other 1/3rd allotment.
;)
So the roving "strike teams" of Obama caucus-goers were essentially neutralized by a Texas system that downplays the caucus itself, leaving Obama with his pants down and a telling primary loss.
It is my understanding that Obama has been winning caucus states in the past, particularly in the states where you're supposed to stick around and defend your choice. My theory: No rational person wants to waste their time arguing with an 18 year-old in an Operation Ivy T-shirt over who did or did not co-sponsor an education bill.
I am a Texas resident who voted in both the primary and caucus, and so I naturally had a stake in closely following the primary results. At no time did Obama ever lead when the primary results came in, nor is he the leader in some ubiquitous Texas "popular vote." Hillary won that as well. Texas was a victory for Hillary in every sense of the word.
We are still awaiting the returns on the caucus, but that only accounts for a mere 1/3rd of the delegates awarded to each candidate, and the early returns indicate that whatever meager advantage that Obama may have in caucus votes will be all but swallowed up by Hillary's more impressive win in the primary election. Really we're talking about hundreds of extra Obama caucus votes vs. Hillary's hundreds of thousands of extra primary votes.
Now for some light editorializing: The reason we're still waiting on caucus results in many counties is because Texas had roughly double the expected turnout. The antiquated system we have in place requires that everyone in a precinct vote in the primary election before the caucus can be held. And the inability of many precincts to deal with the added influx of voters made it so that, in many cases, caucus voting could not start until 11 pm that evening.
Obama will likely fare slightly better in the caucus in Texas, only because the core of the Democrat party--the baby boomers who constitute the majority of Hillary supporters--had families to get back to and jobs they had to get up for the next morning. Hillary supporters simply didn't have the ability to "two-step" all the way into the early morning hours, while it apparently is far easier for the young, first time voters who make up Obama's base to spend literally six hours of their time at their local middle school or fire station.
If you think it's silly to have both a primary election followed by a caucus that runs into the late hours, then you've just joined the ranks of many Texans who think it's ridiculous as well. Not only is it hard for people to get a handle on the vote once / vote again thing, but it does tend to disenfranchise hard-working Democrats who can't be out all night caucusing. A 19 year-old UT student and Obama supporter who would just be out all night anyway? Welcome to the party. A 46 year-old mother of two and Hillary supporter who has to prepare for a shift working at the hospital? Congratulations, you effectively have no say in the caucus. So that's why there is a slight disconnect between the primary and caucus results.
Since irrational Obama supporters apparently run the internets, I fully expect this post to be modded "Troll" or something, because it doesn't contain the requisite amount of Obama bias and instead offers a firsthand account of what went down in Texas last night, and posits a reasonable theory for the disparity between primary and caucus votes. How scandalous. Do your candidate of choice proud, and suppress any relatively objective post you see.
Most people familiar with their favorite couple who moved on up, to the East Side, and finally found their piece of the pie, aren't aware that the sitcom actually started as a spin-off of All in the Family, on which Family Guy is itself heavily based. Even the piano playing sequence at the beginning of Family Guy is a callback to the opening sequence of All in the Family.
Probably 12, since we're apparently going for petty oneupmanship with the number of cores we slap on a piece of silicon these days.
:)
It makes we wonder why Intel just doesn't go "You know what? 100 cores, bitches. You heard us," kind of like these guys.
When I read that some geeks had found a way to get plants to "twitter" them, I feared the worst. Thankfully, "Twitter" is apparently just a universal instant messaging service.
It looks as though Father Time will finally accomplish what exploding cigars, poison pills, and even a skin disease-causing fungus could not.
While I'm sure we all applaud your efforts at whitelisting an innocuous site, it begs the question of how much demand there really was to visit "http://www.littlebigshots.com.au" in the first place?*
./ web traffic.)
I raise this question not to criticize this particular site for not being more popular or well-known, but strictly to point out that it really is the "littlebigshots.com"s of the world that are most likely to be hurt by filters in a practically irreparable way that is also difficult to quantify: How many people, worldwide, tried to access the site before it will be whitelisted by this particular filter provider?
Picture this: Somebody Google searches "children's festival," clicks on the aforementioned site, but it appears to be down. Or even worse, a warning message appears warning the user that they've just attempted to access sexually explicit material. "Well!" our hapless Google searcher says to themselves, "This is certainly not the family-friendly activity I had in mind!" and the search continues.
The site has lost potential revenue because of the spam filter, sure. But even worse, now "littlebigshots" resonates in the mind of our Google searcher as just another porn site. It is nothing short of libel by proxy.
So you can restore access to the site all you want (and again, it's a kind and responsible thing for you to do), but it doesn't fix the residual image problem that a miscategorized site may still have to cope with. This is a relatively new issue, and what I've been waiting for is the first case that's exactly on-point with this type of situation, to help sort out what kinds of rights and remedies a miscategorized plaintiff may have. So far, no good. I guess we'll just have to keep waiting.
*(I'm not linking to it again because I'm sure they don't enjoy the unsolicited
Anyways, here, the use of the word "screeches" is not descriptive of the communication that took place, it just means that somebody needs to have their Roget's confiscated. I'm inclined not to think that Santambrogio's ":(" sad faces on his blog aren't exactly the same as "screeching" at somebody.
What I'm hoping is that a helpful Slashdot reader who actually patches security holes in widely-used software on the clock can opine as to the practicality of having a one day turnaround. Otherwise, the rest of us are just guessing about what is and isn't reasonable.
So, is having one day to evaluate and fix a security hole reasonable? And also, is having the source code open and available to others advantageous at all in meeting so short of a deadline?
Santambrogio goes on to attack Mozilla's handling of the issue, arguing that it places Opera users at unnecessary risk.
;)
In other words, it puts nobody at risk.
I was about to post an apology for trying to dress you down while I was tired and had had too much to drink, but then I came here and read your rebuttal, filled with ad hominem attacks, insane arguments, and layman posturing. So now I don't know what to think.
First, I appreciate the time and energy you've put into quoting and decrying each and every thing I wrote, but I'm afraid I'm unwilling to extend you that same courtesy. Frankly, you are not worth the time it takes to do it. So just use your imagination as far as what part of your reply I'm responding to:
- This article that you've repeatedly accused me of not reading is actually the exact thing that I did read. But you know--you got me--I didn't thoroughly read this woman's crappy blog. But in fairness, I probably don't read your crappy blog either. Nobody does. So if there were juicy little tidbits of information buried deep within her blog that would have changed my mind about her case, then I guess I'll just never know. Because I'm damn sure not going to click on three links for her sake instead of the main one. Not unless I'm on the clock.
- Plaintiff's counsel being the plaintiff doesn't matter in the least. It just means that she's a pro se. The court doesn't care one way or the other, except in criminal cases, where the court cares whether defendant has waived the right to counsel or not. Otherwise, the sky's the limit as far as trying to represent yourself in court. While some judges extend pro se's a slight bit of leniency, this is usually overshadowed by their propensity to screw things up in the worst way. I'm actually glad that you pointed it out, though, because it means that plaintiff is about 1000% more likely to mess up the pleading requirements (not even 1st base) and lose her case outright. Summary judgment ring a bell? If you were actually an attorney, you would have just told me that she was a pro se. To which my reply would have been "OK." It's the term that attorneys use instead of person-who-is-representing-themselves-because-you-see-there-is-no-counsel. Nice try, though. But it's not your fault. You just didn't know to Google for the Latin words any lawyer knows that would have helped throw me off your trail.
- You have not actually litigated a case anywhere before. You don't have to fess up to it. I already know. At best, you're a 1L law student, but I doubt even that. My guess is that you're playing semantics with me, and are trying to count some epic, small claims battles as a pro se yourself that nobody cares about. Also, lawyers are not so quick to play the condescending "Don't you understand!?!" card so frequently with other people, least of all one of their own. We're a tight-knit group that believes in Karmic retribution in the same lifetime, and are completely unafraid to screw you over in whatever professional capacity is available to us. But that's any profession. Probably, dentists are the same way.
- Courts are not sympathetic to plaintiffs who waste time while attempting to retrieve a chattel, and then turn around and sue defendant for the time wasted. I won't go into any more detail than this. You can probably figure out the reasoning behind the holdings.
- I absolutely knew what you were trying to intimate by saying made "complete." It's just that nobody uses that phrasing. I thought I made that clear in my post. Hmm, guess not. I don't know if it's a regional thing, or something you heard on television, but we say "made whole." Every attorney I've ever known says it. There are even doctrines in many states that use exactly that phrasing. That's probably where we got it from. This and your clumsy application of the "proximate cause" concept were my first clues that you had no idea what you were talking about. That and of course, your reply--which is filled with gems in and of itself--helped give that impression as well. I guess I shouldn't emphasize the irony behind your calling me a "moron" right after expounding upon the Doctrine of Being 'Complete,' according
Is there a reason why the summary doesn't link to the full interview?
However, the fact is, this duplicitous woman won't make it past summary judgment and should also be sanctioned. That's absolutely factual. What's that, you say? How dare I not side with the poor little downtrodden woman? Well, I laid out in another post how her case will meet the same fate as the judge with the multi-mullion dollar dry cleaning mentioned in the article. For those who don't keep up with these things, we're looking at a judgment of ZERO dollars and she will get to pay Best Buy's legal fees. In fact, I explained, if I were counsel for Best Buy, I would push to sanction her, her lawyer, and her lawyer's firm as well.
I won't go into the specifics and rationale again, though, because we're fast-approaching the point at which somebody should just pay me for my time. Furthermore, that earlier post got modded "Flamebait" because 14 year-olds who hate their parents and win the Slashdot mod point lottery don't really cotton to actual lawyers, with all their "statutes" and buzzkilling "rules"--just the less prickly and more fakey variants who put on the big boy pants and Google a few statutes. So instead of laying out that prior post verbatim, let me suck up to Slashdot readers at this late hour, sip some Kool-Aid*, and pretend, pretend, pretend along with you. Let us forgo all knowledge of civil procedure and join you on your journey. I will try, at least:
RTFA - the laptop was stolen from Worst Buy, most probably by an employee, as it was in a "secure area". As such, they are liable for the contents - it has nothing to do with any warranty or protection plan.
Yes, there is an incredibly boring rule we inherited from the English in the year of god-knows-when that relates to a duty of care when you entrust your property to another in this fashion. There was clearly a breach of that duty. But as a nod to the elaborate game of connect-the-dots plaintiff's counsel has tried to play to create a juicer damages claim for what was on the laptop: Those laws don't apply to bits and bytes. At all. Next please.
Worst Buys' sloppy procedures and/or dishonest employee(s) are the proximate cause. They're liable.
Uh oh! Somebody's seen at least one courtroom drama on television and possibly even two. The "proximate cause" of what exactly? The loss? Yes, and? She's already been compensated for the laptop, thinking it clever to give away the gift certificate as well. That's not how that works at all, and she's in for quite a surprise at trial. I feel like this is leading up to something. Extra points for calling them "Worst Buy," too. That's almost as clever as "Micro$oft." OK and then...
She's entitled to be made "complete" - and that involves compensating her for the laptop, its contents, and her lost time while they lied to her about it being stolen.
We say made "whole." Your way sounds pretty dumb, ours sounds a little more mysterious. You're also not right at all. Plaintiff is "entitled" to compensation for the laptop alone. It ends there. Yes, seriously. P doesn't receive damages for the oh-so-precious data, nor is P compensated as a matter of law for the time unreasonably wasted trying to retrieve her property using the least effective means available. If you want an amplified response, and a full explanation as to why, I'll need a PayPal payment. You see, I am a deposed Nigerian Prince...
They originally offered her $750.00. Not even the price of the stolen laptop. And that's only after months of jerking her around.
This is just you re-telling her story. Damnit! I thought for sure you'd go down some elaborate, winding road of on-the-spot legal judgments. But alright. To cast doubt on how this person handled the situation:
Most reasonable people don't mess around with phone calls and friendly reminders for this l
You're trying to go all "forest" while having nothing to say about this particular, unrepresentative tree. This woman is the farthest thing from a "crusader against corporations," although to her credit, she knows that that's exactly the angle she needs to have to snooker the Slashdot crowd and try to engender support.
None of that changes the fact that: Filing suit to advertise and create a forum for your cause is extremely unlawful, and people who do it are rightfully punished. Why do you think we don't frequently see "Colgate vs. Gingivitis" and other assorted bullshit? It's because the courtroom really is Serious Business, and you check that kind of thing at the door under fear of pecuniary liability.
Plus, it doesn't matter how many courtroom dramas you've seen, BSing a judge and pleading grandiose "My voice must be heard!" nonsense is a great way to lose your case and owe the court a bucket of money, under the aforementioned sanction rules. I realize this is Slashdot, so people don't like to hear about how the little guy really is in the wrong in any particular case, but I assure you that's what's happened here.
I want to get my hands on that pleading, and I want to know exactly which attorney and firm took her case, if any.
Fair enough, but forgive me for not being so easily swayed by her attempts to refuse their offer in preparation for litigation. How kind of her.
Also, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to take plaintiff's admission that she is attempting to use the court system as a forum rather than as a way of becoming whole, except to point out that the court should sanction her, her counsel, and the firm that counsel belongs to for filing a frivolous lawsuit and falsely representing that there is a cause of action before the court.
I realize that there was a lot of inconvenient back-and-forth between the plaintiff and defendant, and so what? When you file suit, you raise the stakes while expressly promising that you are not yanking everyone's chain. When you publicly tell people that you deliberately broke that promise and are using the suit to simply advertise your cause, then you deserve to be punished under Rule 11 (or similar State rule) by the same court you thought you would "put one over on." The court system is not a playground or a forum for plaintiff to use to "get the word out" on Best Buy.
That's what vainglorious blogs are for.
[quote]Campbell said that she doesn't really expect to get $54 million, but chose the amount to attract attention to her case.[/quote]
When I saw the total in the summary, I immediately thought "What's the big deal, she's trying to get punatives." Then read the article and saw that it wasn't even that. As usual, if you read just a few more paragraphs beyond what is quoted in Slashdot's article summary, the whole story is skewed much differently differently.
However, there is still room for debate on the issue of whether she was treated fairly. FTA, "Best Buy spokeswoman Nissa French said in an e-mail that Campbell "was offered and collected $1,110.35" as well as "a $500 gift card for her inconvenience." The reasonable market value of the laptop that was stolen (in all likelihood by a Best Buy employee!) + $500 in merchandise? That seems like a reasonable way to try to dispose of any claim--especially since Ms. Campbell already accepted these items.
The "identity theft" argument is incredibly specious. Unless she has done something foolish that would contribute to the insecurity of the machine (credit card numbers as a text file on the laptop hard drive) or failed to backup any important data--itself a cardinal sin--then how is Raelyn Campbell's situation any different from anyone else's who has had a computer stolen from them? You know, except for the crazy, welcome-to-the-land-of-summary-judgment lawsuit that she's filed after accepting fair compensation for her loss?
But on a more serious note, I just want to cosign as another "Me too!" who can't wait for the release of this game! :)
If they don't throw us crumbs like this every once in while, then we lowly commoners might get uppity and demand they put an end to their unfair admissions practices or something.
But what about those of us who are too lazy to even click on an ad, but still want this "experience" of which you speak!?
If only there were some way of putting the ads on the screen without even having to click on them. Perhaps the ads could even be in separate browser windows that are created and filled with ad content automatically--"popping up," if you will, onto the screen? That way, the user can take full advantage of valuable money-saving opportunities without having to complete the arduous task of clicking a mouse button!
Dare to dream, dare to dream.