Maybe genealogists should host a site where people can put up death notices. I mean, if the end benefit is to genealogists, then maybe the genealogists should pay for it. :)
Honestly, I don't see what the point of a death notice is to the dead person, or their relatives. If you know me well enough to care that I'm dead, you probably already know that I'm dead. If not, then why should I spend one red cent to tell you?
When my grandmother died, her nursing home put up a lovely obit with a full color photo album on the internet, for FREE. That's what we referred to. It's so much easier to pass on a link than it is to go purchase a paper, the right paper, and try and preserve that.
I don't even think that she had a newspaper obituary. So it really doesn't matter what they're charging. They're obsolete even if free.
My husband and I have recently been watching Spartacus, which is being moved to Netflix streaming show by show, as opposed to season by season. It rocks! (The streaming, not the show. The show is mediocre.)
Also, hacking is a problem because you are accessing things without authorization. How you get there isn't important. It's the action that's important.
Like theft. If doesn't matter if you stuffed a can of beans under your shirt; it doesn't matter if they forgot their purse at your house and you stole money from it; it doesn't matter if you were only able to steal the car because the keys were in the ignition. It's still all theft. How you accomplished your action doesn't matter. Only your action does.
It doesn't make it fuzzy. It makes it clear. She's not his guardian, so she doesn't have the right to discipline him, much less in this manner. It doesn't look like she has court-ordered visitation, so she doesn't even have the legal right to communicate with him against his wishes, much less access his online accounts and harass him.
If she were his guardian, it would be an entirely different story.
Okay, forget that this woman gave birth to him. That doesn't matter, because she isn't his guardian. This is a woman who broke the law in an attempt to discipline a child that isn't hers. Wow. That is batshit crazy.
I would be very alarmed if relatives of my children posted harassing comments to their on-line accounts, and would be happy to utilize the law to protect my children from unauthorized account access resulting in harassment from those relatives. Or strangers, for that matter.
I know that alot of parents are going to be rooting for the birth mother here, but she doesn't really have a moral leg to stand on. If she was informed of or noticed disturbing behavior, she needed to report it to his guardian or speak to him personally. She has no more right to discipline him, have a conversation with him, or to harrass him than a stranger. And a stranger who did this would be prosecuted, which is what is happening to her. Yay. End of story.
I'm sorry; I didn't realize that the video was shot by a Reuters employee. I don't recall seeing that anywhere. Also, I don't recall Reuters breaking this story. A few blurbs about an unsuccessful FOIA request and that's about it... I also didn't realize that the deaths and injuries of all of the other people, including two children, were unimportant.
So... Actually, I don't understand what you're saying at all. In what was is Reuters responsible for this story? Did they shoot the video, break the encryption, or what? Am I missing something?
I agree that jurors shouldn't be able to pop open their netbook and start googling keywords about the trial before them. Anything that's done needs to be documented and verified before it goes back to the jury. I disagree that juries should just shut up and accept what they're told, no matter how many glaring holes that they spot.
I also disagree that everything should rest on the attorneys. Attorneys are not perfect, and they can miss things just like everyone else. If a jury can ask a few questions and the information helps the jury make their decision, I'm all for it.
Right now, the prosecutor tries hard to make sure that the jury has information that leads them to a guilty verdict. The defendant's attorney tries hard to make sure that the jury has any and all information that might help them reach a more favorable verdict. In the middle of those two, there is more than enough room for facts to slip through, as we all know.
If asking for additional research helps the jury reach a just verdict, then everyone should be in favor of it. That's the point, you know. Making sure that juries have all of the legally-obtained information they need to make their decision.
It is pretty funny, especially since it's happening to people who are such asshats that they're not only still yucking it up, but they're not even bothering to hide the evidence by making their info private.
If you're that dumb, possible you should lose your license forever... :P
Yes, the common law system that the US uses is much older than two centuries, but the rights of American jurors are different than the rights of jurors in the system that our courts originated from. Therefore, the practices of our jurors cannot be more than two centuries old, and are probably less, since it took a bit to work the system out to where we are now.
Quit being an asshat, Ima. People will be more willing to listen to you if you stick to making legitimate points, instead of just trying to score them.
That's not what I said at all. You're welcome to debate this issue all you want, but don't put words in my mouth. You have no idea what I want, or what I think, because you don't know me and haven't read anything that I've written about this subject.
Further, American juries and English juries have different rights and responsibilities. If you're even a half-assed attorney, you know that. Don't pretend it isn't true just because you think it might make your opinion look a little weaker.
And last, but certainly not least, juries sit trials without asking questions frequently. It's possible that you have a well-educated pool of jurors where you're at, or that your court makes sure that jurors understand their rights as jurors, but that certainly doesn't make it true everyone, or anywhere but where you are.
Yes, the common law system that the US uses is much older than two centuries, but the rights of American jurors are different than the rights of the system that our courts originated from. Therefore, the practices of our jurors cannot be more than two centuries old, and are probably less, since it took a bit to work the system out to where we are now.
Quit being an asshat, Ima. People will be more willing to listen to you if you stick to making legitimate points, instead of just trying to score them.
I seriously doubt it. There have been much bigger asshats on here than TAM over the last few years, and none of them were blocked.
Also, Mike's job isn't creating new articles, or even creating articles at all (this is a blog, and blogs have posts, lol). He's an analyst, not a writer.
On the post: Newspapers' Revenue Plan: If Lots Of People Used To Give Us A Little, We'll Now Get A Few People To Give Us A Lot!
Re: Death Notices
Honestly, I don't see what the point of a death notice is to the dead person, or their relatives. If you know me well enough to care that I'm dead, you probably already know that I'm dead. If not, then why should I spend one red cent to tell you?
On the post: Newspapers' Revenue Plan: If Lots Of People Used To Give Us A Little, We'll Now Get A Few People To Give Us A Lot!
I don't even think that she had a newspaper obituary. So it really doesn't matter what they're charging. They're obsolete even if free.
On the post: Should Managers Care That Employees Are On Facebook And YouTube While At Work?
Re:
Source, much?
On the post: The Number of People Giving Up TV for the Web Is Slowly Gaining Pace
On the post: Son Gets Mom Charged With Harassment Over Facebook Account Hijacking
Re:
Like theft. If doesn't matter if you stuffed a can of beans under your shirt; it doesn't matter if they forgot their purse at your house and you stole money from it; it doesn't matter if you were only able to steal the car because the keys were in the ignition. It's still all theft. How you accomplished your action doesn't matter. Only your action does.
On the post: Son Gets Mom Charged With Harassment Over Facebook Account Hijacking
Re:
So... Kids who cooperated in complaints of abuse or neglect are brats? God, those brats! How dare you want your mom to be charged for beating you!
On the post: Son Gets Mom Charged With Harassment Over Facebook Account Hijacking
Re: Re: Minor infraction
If she were his guardian, it would be an entirely different story.
On the post: Son Gets Mom Charged With Harassment Over Facebook Account Hijacking
Crazy Lady...
I would be very alarmed if relatives of my children posted harassing comments to their on-line accounts, and would be happy to utilize the law to protect my children from unauthorized account access resulting in harassment from those relatives. Or strangers, for that matter.
I know that alot of parents are going to be rooting for the birth mother here, but she doesn't really have a moral leg to stand on. If she was informed of or noticed disturbing behavior, she needed to report it to his guardian or speak to him personally. She has no more right to discipline him, have a conversation with him, or to harrass him than a stranger. And a stranger who did this would be prosecuted, which is what is happening to her. Yay. End of story.
On the post: Son Gets Mom Charged With Harassment Over Facebook Account Hijacking
Corrections
First, this boy did not sue his mother. He filed a complaint with the police, and the DA has charged this woman, Denise New, with harassment.
Second, Arkadelphia is in Arkansas, not Oklahoma.
These facts are laid out in the story that you linked to, by the way. :)
See: http://www.katv.com/news/stories/0410/723100.html
And: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=157&sid=10298488
On the post: But How Could Wikileaks Break A Story Without Traditional Newspaper Backing?
Re: Whose reporters died in the video????
So... Actually, I don't understand what you're saying at all. In what was is Reuters responsible for this story? Did they shoot the video, break the encryption, or what? Am I missing something?
On the post: Judge: Gene Patents Are Invalid
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
I also disagree that everything should rest on the attorneys. Attorneys are not perfect, and they can miss things just like everyone else. If a jury can ask a few questions and the information helps the jury make their decision, I'm all for it.
Right now, the prosecutor tries hard to make sure that the jury has information that leads them to a guilty verdict. The defendant's attorney tries hard to make sure that the jury has any and all information that might help them reach a more favorable verdict. In the middle of those two, there is more than enough room for facts to slip through, as we all know.
If asking for additional research helps the jury reach a just verdict, then everyone should be in favor of it. That's the point, you know. Making sure that juries have all of the legally-obtained information they need to make their decision.
Anyway...
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: This will be moot anyway
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: He had to look?
If you're that dumb, possible you should lose your license forever... :P
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Quit being an asshat, Ima. People will be more willing to listen to you if you stick to making legitimate points, instead of just trying to score them.
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Further, American juries and English juries have different rights and responsibilities. If you're even a half-assed attorney, you know that. Don't pretend it isn't true just because you think it might make your opinion look a little weaker.
And last, but certainly not least, juries sit trials without asking questions frequently. It's possible that you have a well-educated pool of jurors where you're at, or that your court makes sure that jurors understand their rights as jurors, but that certainly doesn't make it true everyone, or anywhere but where you are.
Yes, the common law system that the US uses is much older than two centuries, but the rights of American jurors are different than the rights of the system that our courts originated from. Therefore, the practices of our jurors cannot be more than two centuries old, and are probably less, since it took a bit to work the system out to where we are now.
Quit being an asshat, Ima. People will be more willing to listen to you if you stick to making legitimate points, instead of just trying to score them.
On the post: Are Anonymous Comments Evil?
Re: What's up with TAM
Also, Mike's job isn't creating new articles, or even creating articles at all (this is a blog, and blogs have posts, lol). He's an analyst, not a writer.
On the post: Judges Allowed To Use Google To 'Confirm Intuition' In Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because in Englad, the jury can ask questions, ask for additional investigation, evidence, etc.
Which is SO much better, in my humble opinion.
On the post: Are Anonymous Comments Evil?
Re: to those who are lazy
Next >>