text:
Go on, take the Facebook password, but if anyone touches my Linked In password, there will be trouble,
And by violating TOS - the accounts shall be killed and erased. Problem solved.
What was the reason behind the court-authorized hacking in the Gallion case?
So I can "hack" my buddy's game account by asking him for the account/password? Wow, this social engineering is getting pretty ingenious. I bet the judge humps corpses in those eff pee ess games too.
I wonder if Judge Shluger is aware that his order violates Facebook's TOS
Why the hell would he care?
Since one party just has to inform Facebook to (probably) get both accounts shut down, locking away any 'evidence', as long as it's done quick enough.
Sorry but TOS does not trump a court order. If one or both of the accounts were shut down the court could order them restored and made accessible again.
Of course. It's just that ordering an exchange of passwords is completely unacceptable. All you need to do is issue a subpoena on Facebook for the relevant information. I constantly remind my users to never ever divulge their passwords, not even to me, as conveniant as that might be sometimes. Frankly, I wouldn't want to log in to someone else's Facebook account, just for fear of accidental settings changes and things like that.
Well, he is only ordering the couple to brake the TOS, he isn't giving any order to Facebook itself. So now the wife can give the password to the husband, then call Facebook that she has broken the TOS and request her account to be removed. Then just wait for this thing to be over with and create a new account.
And the court could issue another order to Facebook to restore the account and keep it up until the case is over. Things do not disappear instantly from the internet; there are always backups.
And the court will follow up with an order compelling facebook to make the data available to the court, oh, and they don't actually give a fuck about your account, thats just an excuse to use as an option to turn people off as needed.
Its cute how you think you're going to out smart the legal system because of some silly ToS. You do realize the law tramps anything in Facebook's retarded ToS, right?
oh, I don't know. Perhaps because each of the parties agreed to a contract with Facebook, and he's ordering them to break that contract - when Facebook isn't even a party to the case.
In this case it's no big deal at all. But a judicial order that involves deliberately breaking two contracts that were agreed with an uninvolved third party is not exactly what you'd expect to see. Maybe that's normal in divorce courts, no experience there.
Why is it that every would-be lawyer who's watched 3 or more episodes of Law & Order thinks that his legal insights about contract law are brilliant and worth sharing?
I bet the lawyers for both parties haven't even considered this line of reasoning, and wouldn't have used it on appeal if you hadn't brought it up here. I bet they didn't even use it when arguing about this order in front of the judge in the first place!
It's a good thing Slashdot has so many bar-qualified lawyers willing to do some monday
The judge might not care that it's Facebook's TOS, he should care however, that he's asking for the worse possible way to get what he wants.
Having the court order facebook to give both parties the information for both accounts is the right, "least abusable" way to go about this.
Ordering people to give over a password to someone they despise, when the only POINT of the password is that it's not known to anyone else is ludicrous.
Thinking that the only damage they can do is limited to the pranks he ordered them not to do is criminally misinformed.
The law in many countries state "ignorance of the law is no defense".
It should have a matching "no judge may be ignorant of the nature of the things he orders about.
Having the court order facebook to give both parties the information for both accounts is the right, "least abusable" way to go about this.
There are two other ways he could have gone about it - it's possible to create Facebook applications with read-only access. It's also possible to export your data from Facebook.
Also, if I were a friend of only one of these people and I used Facebook's privacy controls to share things with my friends only, this judge would be forcing my friend to violate my privac
I wonder if Judge Shluger is aware that his order violates Facebook's TOS
Why the hell would he care?
Gee, I don't know...how about the fact that he's a judge and SHOULD know if what he's handing down as a court order violates anything...the fact that he's presiding over one of the most common events that take place in courtrooms today...the fact that actions like this will set precedent in damn near every single future court case involving two people who are divorcing who happen to have Facebook accounts(that would be just about EVERYONE)...dunno, those seem like pretty damn good reasons to me.
He's treadin
Gee, I don't know...how about the fact that he's a judge and SHOULD know if what he's handing down as a court order violates anything
Its cute how you think a ToS is something someone somewhere cares about. Its not law, its not even a binding contract. The judge doesn't care about the Facebook ToS because he overrides it.
Companies don't get to override the law, no contract (in America) part can be held binding if it is against the law. Look up how slavery was outlawed as written into law.
the fact that actions like this will set precedent
Setting precedent requires you to be the first to do it. He isn't. Not even close. This is just a continuation of typical divorce proceedings and Facebook is just one more thing in the loop. Judges have been ordering divorcing couples to share info for thousands(?) of years, Facebook's silly little ToS doesn't override common sense, practicality, or most importantly in this case, the law.
He's treading on thin ice with this one. What's next, swapping bank account info?
Already pretty much standard practice in a divorce case so both sides lawyers can figure out which one is paying for everything. Who owes how much child support or alimony. Which by the way, that information in most cases is legally obtainable by the other one because you are married. You shouldn't have gotten married to someone you didn't plan on sharing everything with. You're legally bound to do so at this point, just like they are also legally bound for certain mistakes you make.
And if the two laymen involved in a divorce case are basically being tasked to "snoop" on the other and find out every bit of information, then what the hell is anyone paying a highly educated divorce attorney for...
The divorce attorney is acting on behalf of the people getting divorced. The judge doesn't ever tell the lawyer to do anything, he tells the litigants to do shit, and the lawyers do it on their behalf. If you want the lawyer to do the snooping, then you can pay him to do so.
If you didn't want to end up with your soon to be ex-wife/husband having access to your Facebook account during the divorce then you might want to consider who you marry, not expect the courts to protect you. When you got married you agreed that BY LAW for MANY PURPOSES that there is no YOU, only US, and this is one of the consequences of your choice. Don't get married if the risk is something you're not willing to take. Its not the courts job to fix your bad life choices.
I'm fairly certain you have absolutely no idea what so ever about anything related to divorce or legal proceedings in general. Its really scary how little you know about how your country works.
What's next, swapping bank account info?
Court-ordered swapping of bank account info in divorce cases isn't "next," it's previous - as in it's been a pretty standard order in contested divorce cases for years.
Well, I will probably looking at a divorce in a year's time or so, and if I was ordered to turn over my facebook password my very first action would be to delete my profile.
Then you would potentially face penalties for spoilation of evidence in which case you could potentially face imprisonment and a jury would be permitted to "assume the worst." Good job. (Note: I am NOT a lawyer and I am NOT offering legal advice)
Spoilation alert!
Prediction: You will have one helluva hard time in your divorce. Just sayin'.
but imprisoning me over deleting my facebook account seems to be... harsh.)
Despite the fact that they were once lawyers, judges have emerged from their Armani cocoons as something vaguely resembling a human. Humans can be petty.
If you deleted your account before the order was given, you'd probably get away with it. But if the judge ordered you to give the password, and you went home and deleted your account and then said, "HA, sorry, here's my password, I DELETED MY ACCOUNT SUCKERS," you'd piss off the judge, probably end up in contempt of court, and surely would be on the losing end of any further ruling the judge makes.
If you think giving up your facebook password is bad, just imagine how much more painful giving up the legal m
You've already told us you're going to delete it to avoid court issues. Thats all thats needed. You told us you were going to break the law, and you've been told doing so now would be clearly illegal and indicative of you trying to avoid evidence being brought into court
You aren't being imprisoned because you deleted your Facebook account, it really blows me away that you think thats what its about.
You would be imprisoned for intentionally destroying evidence and the proof that you intentionally destroyed evidence is this discussion you're having now about how to do it and get by with it. Judges don't like when people try to cheat/sneak around the law. They tend to spank idiots like you who think you're going to be clever to avoid the law.
You WILL NOT BEAT THE JUDGE BY TRYING TO BE CLEVER. All you're going to do is piss the judge off, and thats going to get you the short end of the stick.
Why do you think that some trivial little solution to the problem that you took all of 3 seconds to think of is something they've never seen before or had to deal with before. Do you REALLY think you're going to think of something they haven't seen
The sneaker you try to be, the harder you're going to get fucked. They detect and stop people trying to do shit like you're talking about everyday. That is their job. And you think you're going to pull one over on them? Seriously?
...imprisoning me over deleting my facebook account seems to be... harsh
In the US, divorce court is just a civil proceeding, not a criminal one.
If you don't care about losing your divorce case, don't even bother deleting your facebook account, then just don't give them your password, give up on the case, and tell the judge to give everything your ex-spouse is asking for. I'm sure the judge has better things to do, than to pry into your personal life, or satisfy your exe's curiosity, or even play your little word games about following his court order.
If you're willing to conced
> face penalties for spoilation of evidence
> Note: I am NOT a lawyer
No, clearly you aren't. It's "SPOLiation of evidence", not "SPOILation".
But everyone knows what you meant, so my point is mute.
You need to delete the account before being required to turn over the account.
Even better if you do it before the divorce is filed.
You would need to do that before being served with the initial papers and you probably wouldn't get away with it if you were the one asking for the divorce.
Evidence tampering isn't something that tends to be taken lightly by judges. Same goes for destruction of evidence.
And all that goes out the window when you start talking about deleting your account to avoid court issues
Deleting it now will count as destroying evidence regardless, he's made it clear the reason he's deleting it is to destroy evidence, doesn't matter that its not evidence yet, he's still trying to cover up some sort of activity.
The only way he could have done this without any concern for the law is if he would have just not told anyone and deleted his account.
He lost all hope w
1) You should probably delete your profile ahead of time, then.
2) I'm pretty sure that if you took the action to "delete your profile" with such a short turnaround time, then the spouse's login to your FB account would undo the "delete" action, anyway. Logging in to a FB account during the "deletion waiting period" cancels the deletion.
Well, I will probably looking at a divorce in a year's time or so, and if I was ordered to turn over my facebook password my very first action would be to delete my profile.
Er, "delete"? On Facebook?
You must be new here.
Even then, your data won't be deleted.
So, just for reference, you've not made it so that if at any point you delete your facebook profile you are intentionally destroying evidence to avoid it in court, which in and of itself is probably far more damaging than anything on Facebook.
If I'm wrong, and you did put something more damaging on Facebook, then you're just a fucking moron who gets what he deserves for posting illegal shit the Internet and not expecting it to bite you in the ass later.
Either way, I'm fairly certain you're going to get rape
No, its not the courts job to protect idiots. The only people being hurt by these sorts of issues are those directly involved and in that case, then there is a lesson to be learned and this is how they can learn it.
The cheater must be sentenced for being stupid, not for being unfaithful.
How can someone use his/her facebook/email account for cheat instead of creating a fake one?
Pretty easily, actually. People actually believe their "private" messages are private. Plus, friending someone on Facebook is something you do even before trading phone numbers these days, so you're going to get their real account if you meet them in real life in any sort of work/school related capacity.
When I was in college (only a couple of years ago), I met a girl a couple of years younger who was in a history class I was taking to fill up some requirements. She had a fiance, but he didn't pay her enough attention and bored her, so she was looking for action on the side. Some of the steamiest messages I've ever seen on a computer screen, all via her real Facebook account. She married the guy later and still has the account. The messages are at least still in my inbox on Facebook, so I assume they're still in hers too.
I wonder if Judge Shluger is aware that his order violates Facebookâ(TM)s TOS, which require that users not hand over their passwords to anyone else.
I think a court order trumps FB's TOS, so I doubt he cares.
And would we want it any other way, such as a corporate TOS overriding a court? I think not.
Facebook can act according to their policy until the court tells them otherwise OR the become obviously aware of the need to do something different.
Where facebook would get in trouble is if they did not follow their own internal established policy for data retention.
If facebook is not aware of the court case (and lets safely assume they aren't), and the guy deletes his account, and facebook really DOES delete it in 2 weeks, then Facebook is not in the wrong, the guy deleting his account is.
If facebook kn
I think the difference is... I'm not sure the judge can order fb to keep accounts open --- FB could be ordered to provide information... But fb still should be allowed to close/lock accounts that are violating their business practice...
if it were a fault of the business sure... But FB in this instance is a third party in the dispute. Force the information out from the company... But do not order the company to continue to serve those 2 customers if they choose not to
Why not also require them to make copies of their house keys for each other so they and their lawyers can go into each other's houses any time they want and rummage through each other's files, look for evidence of affairs in their bedrooms, look for property not reported in the divorce proceedings, look for signs of alcohol or drugs or depression or other personal factors that might have some bearing on the case?
They can. It's called discovery, and it's one of the most useful tools for civil litigants because it forces the adversary to disclose (or assert under legal penalty that it doesn't exist) any documents relevant to a particular trial. So if you sue some corporation for selling you a defective widget, you can force them to turn over all emails and notes about quality-testing or safety testing for that widget. Without it, you'd have absolutely no way to prove (e.g.) that Sally in engineering sent an email to her boss explaining that the flux capacitor supplier they chose was cutting corners and that it could cause device failure and you could basically never make a case for knowing indifference. Or if you are suing that corporation for violating the GPL and you have reason (binary similarity) to believe that product X contains GPL code, you can demand they turn over that source code for inspection. Again, without it, you would never be able to prove a GPL violation because that source code would be locked inside some secure internal server and you would be forced to make some equivocal claim about the binaries instead of looking at the plain evidence.
A divorce case is (in the eyes of the law, which has this odd thing about procedure being uniform) no different -- each party is entitled to any document or file, electronic or paper, that's relevant to the divorce. That includes anything inside your house, anything in your bedroom, unreported property*, hospitalization records. If it has a bearing on the case, the parties are absolutely entitled to it (under restrictions mind you, public disclosure of any information derived from discovery subjects you to criminal and civil sanctions plus is a great way to get the judge ticked off at you).
* I used to work the tech side of things for an investigation firm involved in the child-support end of divorces (long after the litigation ended) looking for evidence that parties exaggerated or even fabricated their claims of poverty when accused of nonpayment or underpayment. Some of these guys would come in to court pleading that they had no disposable income only to find our pictures of them at strip joints getting lap dances. Concealing assets and income from the court can land you in jail for contempt. Don't do it.
Is forcing a password disclosure really ok though? Sure, force them to disclose all their facebook photos, but not a password. That's like saying they must give each other their personal debit cards w/ pin, as opposed to the just the records for the accounts. Passwords are sensitive things.
Thanks for the dandy explanation of discovery. But you just made it crystal clear that what the judge ordered is not that.
I was responding to the GP's breathless assertion that what the judge did would be like giving litigants access to each other's homes and personal/medical information. Which they have.
He tried for an absurd comparison and landed right on the truth!
He missed a couple of tools that lawyers use for discovery. Search warrants are one of them. For example if a litigant find a safety deposit box that reasonably may contain hidden assets the court may issue a search warrant for that box. The exchange of passwords is in effect a search warrant for the Facebook account.
Uhm, thats all pretty much standard operating procedure during a divorce case.
See the thing is, when you get married, you're legally saying 'its okay for my spouse to know everything about me and act on my behalf'. So when you get divorced, nothing is off limits, and trying to prevent the other person from getting access to stuff just makes you look guilty of SOMETHING that would be bad for you in the courts eyes, so they're going to hold it against you either way.
If you don't want this person knowing ever
I would write a letter to facebook stating the following:
I intent to share my password with another person for my own advantage. Since i intentionally violate the TOS i would kindly ask you to delete my account or prohibit access.
Then i would wait try to delay swapping of the passwords until that is processed.
And then you'd be found guilty of contempt of court and possibly destruction of evidence, which is almost certainly far worse than getting caught cheating because your dumbass posted it on your FB page for the world to see.
I am not sure how pointing a TOS violation would make you liable. If the court wants facebook to open access to your profile then it should rule so.
If i own a shop where somebody bought something or use my services he used for cheating on his wife then - if the court thinks its necessary - the court should rule that i grant the court and the opposing party access to the proof.
The court should not allow to give unauthorized persons the key to a room i possess without asking me. In fact its not even unlikely
If it extended to civil cases you'd never see anyone successfully sued for defective cars or harsh work conditions, etc.
It doesn't mention anything but criminal cases, but your assertion that it "clearly states" anything about limiting it "only to criminal cases" is absolutely false.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; n
I wonder if Judge Shluger is aware that his order violates Facebook's TOS
Facebook's TOS stops applying where the Judge's order starts. Facebook's rules are always overridden by laws. This isn't difficult. Company rules have to follow the law, even when the law is changed right underneath them for something like this.
I can actually see a reasonable discovery purpose in looking at the contents of FB pages, and that is mentioned in the article. For example, if the parties have made comments about how responsible they might be in a custodial role (something suggested in article), that could be germane.
But FB isn't really a walled garden anymore. Now there is a quite good "export my data" functionality within it. A reasonable judge's order would simply be for exchange of that downloaded data, which will contain all the relevant background that might exist with past posts. Obviously, this is contingent on parties not deleting old posts first, but other posters have already noted how doing that would be spoilation of evidence (and if parties would do that, they could equally do so with a live account after passwords were shared).
I do recognize that the article mentioned "dating sites" too. Those sites may still be walled gardens, and may well not provide easy data export capabilities. For those, the only way to look at relevant posts/emails/profiles/etc. might indeed be password sharing. Of course, who knows what general data policies those sites have--i.e. are messages automatically deleted after N days, and archives inaccessible to users? Access to password may or may not reveal the full history of site usage.
Most things on Facebook are already public, or did it become that secure that a move like this is necessary?
What if they hand over their passwords without changing them first? Chances are they use that same password for just about everything, and could then give their spouse access to other things like email or other IM accounts.
So now we're defending arbitrary, silly, and unenforceable TOS and EULAs! Glad to get that cleared up!
Troops! ABOUT-FACE! March!
Yes Sir!
That's pretty ridiculous for any case whatsoever. Why do I feel like this whole thing isn't really accurate. Wouldn't a judge be more likely to make them each turn their passwords over to the court? Allowing the lawyers to perform discovery? But turning the passwords over to the respective people themselves, why would the judge do that?
After all, lawyers, despite what it may seem, do as far as I know (I'm not one), have rules they have to follow to continue practicing law. Breaking those rules could greatly impact their chances at winning their side's case. Or even continuing to work as a lawyer at all. On the other hand, the couple doesn't have any such issue really since they obviously already hate each other.
IANAL, but here's how a real lawyer explained it to me at a previous company:
While once you know something is likely to be used in a legal action you can't destroy it; it is perfectly fine to routine destroy material that you don't want to have to share. If you routinely delete all messages once every 30 days, for example, on an ongoing basis, then you aren't try to destroy evidence since it hasn't yet become an issue in a legal proceeding. Once you reasonably would know it may become evidence, you can't destroy it; and must stop any routine destruction activity.
We routinely, as soon as the final report came out, destroyed all our working papers and the floppies that contained them. Sensitive topics were not discussed via email. In our case, it was a written policy.
There are of course, exceptions to that - if you were engaging in criminal activities the courts may take a different view of your actions.
Moral issues aside, one only compounds the stupidity of using Facebook for illicit activities and keeping the messages instead of deleting them right away.
Facebook could, of course, be ordered to turnover the deleted messages; but I would think they would fight such an order since it would potentially open them to becoming a virtual repository of evidence that they would have to retain forever at great cost to store and retrieve.
If graphics hackers are so smart, why can't they get the bugs out of fresh paint?


text:
International football should be relatively simple when it comes to selection. If you come from England, you play for England, if you're from Glasgow, you play for Scotland, and if you're from Swansea you can't play for Argentina. But if you are born in a different country things can get complicated. The same is true if a player has lived in a country for enough years to gain citizenship.
So sometimes a player must decide where their loyalties lie. In some cases, countries have lost out on great players who could have made a real difference. In others, wily managers have offered a chance of international football to players who otherwise wouldn't get a game. Think of Jack Charlton's squads of the 1980's and 1990's with Andy Townsend, Mick McCarthy and Mark Lawrenson.
There are many players who could be in this list, but here we've only included players from the last 20 years who've had success with their adopted nations.
Claude Makelele- Zaire/DR of Congo
The man was so good, they named a position after him. The Makelele role was invented by the great man at Real Madrid, and perfected at Chelsea. The defensive midfielder allowed the players around him to flourish by acting as a deep lying playmaker and ball winning dynamo, protecting the defence and prompting attacks from deep.
When he left Real Madrid with Beckham arriving, the great Zinedine Zidane lamented "Why put another layer of gold paint on the Bentley when you're losing the entire engine". Steve McManaman and Fernando Hierro also criticised the management for their handling of Makelele, demonstrating his value to the team.
What most people don't know is that he could have played for Zaire, which changed to the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1997. He certainly could have improved the fortunes of the team, who came third in the African Cup of Nations in 1998. Instead, of course he played for France, and helped them to the 2006 World Cup Final.
Clarence Seedorf- Suriname
The only player to win the Champions League with three different teams, Seedorf has proven himself as a quality player for several clubs. In fact, he's still playing at 37 for Botafogo, in Brazil, the club of Nilton Santos and Garrincha.
He is a legend at AC Milan due to his ten years of service, despite arriving from their neighbours Internazionale. In fact, he became the foreigner with the most appearances for AC, beating the record of the great Nils Liedholm. He also played for Holland 87 times. scoring 11 goals and featuring in the 1998 World Cup.
But he makes it on to this list because he was born in the capital of Suriname, Paramaribo. Incidentally, so were Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink, Aron Winter, Edgar Davids and the great goalkeeper Stanley Menzo, all Netherlands internationals. Suriname's loss was clearly Oranje's gain.
Marcel Desailly- Ghana
We could fill a team with players who played for France rather than the country they were born in, but 'The Rock' gets his place in the list for his performances in the 1998 World Cup and the 1994 Champions League Final. Starting as a teenager at Nantes, he made his name by first winning the European Cup in 1993 with Marseille, then with AC Milan the following year.
Unfortunately, Marseille's chairman Bernard Tapie was found to have fixed league matches and his team were stripped of the title. However, he played as a midfielder for AC Milan and scored the last goal in a 4-0 rout of the mighty Barcelona. He demonstrated his ability again, bringing composure and steel to France 1998 and walking away with a winners medal. He moved to Chelsea in the same year and showed the English league just how good he was.
It's strange to think that being born in Accra, Ghana, he could have played for their national team alongside Tony Yeboah and Abedi Pele. With 116 French caps to his name, it's frightening to imagine how many times he could played for his birth nation.
Miroslav Klose and Lukas Podolski- Poland
Ok, we've been a little sneaky here but both of these players played for Germany rather than the country of their birth, Poland and still maintain strong links with the country. Klose's parents both played professional sport in Poland and he still speaks Polish at home.
First capped by Germany at 23, he said the decision to declare his loyalty was a tough one. In fact, he stated in a interview that if he'd been asked to play for Poland earlier in his career, he would have accepted. Joint top scorer for Germany with 68 goals, he's still going at 35 with Lazio. However, even with 130 caps, he's in danger of being caught by his old team mate Podolski.
Podolski played for Bayern Munich and FC Koln before his transfer to Arsenal, and has racked up 111 national team at the age of 28. In the time he has scored 46 international goals, appeared at two World Cups and should be in the squad for Brazil 2014.
Poland, on the other hand, will not be travelling to South America. We can only imagine how Lewandowski, Klose and Podolski would have combined in a dream Polish line up.
John Barnes- Jamaica
Fondly remembered in Liverpool for his starring performances in red on the wing, Barnes was one of the first black footballers to really command a place in the England team. His final haul of 79 caps is testament to his skill, especially as the majority of them came in the 1980's a time when racism was still rife.
For example, when Viv Anderson received a call-up to the England squad in 1978, the first for a black player, he was sent a bullet in the post with a note telling him not to play.
Just five years after this, Barnes' virtuoso performances for Watford earned him a debut against Northern Ireland. In 1984 he scored the goal that came to define his career, a stunning solo slalom against the mighty Brazil. A move to Liverpool brought out the best in him, and he linked up spectacularly well with Beardsley, Aldridge and Dalglish.
He never quite hit the heights expected of him in a England shirt after 1984, but we still must remember him fondly for his brilliant rap verses in New Order's World in Motion, arguably England's best ever World Cup song.
Born in Jamaica in 1963, the son of a Major in the army who also happened to be an international footballer, (for Jamaica of course) young John's early life was tough.
If his family hadn't moved to England in 1976, he almost certainly would've played for the Reggae Boyz. Instead, English fans got to enjoy 12 years of service from the man Peter Beardsley described as "The best player I ever played with, bar none."
So just imagine how some the great teams of the past could have been shaped by these players. Special mentions must go to Eusebio (Mozambique), Vasilis Hatzipanagis (Uzbekistan), and of course, Robbie Earle (England).
Write for GiveMeSport! Sign-up to the GMS Writing Academy here: https://gms.to/1a2u3KU
DISCLAIMER: This article has been written by a member of the GiveMeSport Writing Academy and does not represent the views of GiveMeSport.com or SportsNewMedia. The views and opinions expressed are solely that of the author credited at the top of this article. GiveMeSport.com and SportsNewMedia do not take any responsibility for the content of its contributors.
Do YOU want to write for GiveMeSport? Get started today by signing-up and submitting an article HERE: https://www.givemesport.com/writeforgms

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Want to remind yourself or a friend about this program? Fill out this simple form and klru will email you a reminder on the day that it will air.
The Americans In The Bulge
series: American Road To Victory
air date: 12/10/12 9:00 PM
Battlefield tour guide Ellwood Von Siebold takes us on a tour the frozen Ardennes Forests to Malmedy, Saint Vith, and Bastogne. Learn how the gallant actions of the US forces surprised the NAZI plan to encircle and destroy the Allied armies. Witness vignettes of individual gallantry, illustrated though blended archival footage, re-enactment and special effects. Visit the actual frozen foxholes and fog shrouded hills where we hear soldiers describe the unimaginable conditions of winter war.
WARNING: Email reminders for this program have already been sent out. Your reminder may not reach the intended address in time for this program's airing.
Back to TV Schedule


text:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is investigating [1] why Verizon Wireless doubled their Early Termination Fees for "Advanced Devices." The $350 ETF for "Advanced Devices" went into effect 11/15, and applies to PDAs and Smartphones (such as RIM Blackberries). The probe will presumably lead to federal mandates regarding ETFs and other Wireless practices. This is intolerable. The federal government has no business interfering in the free markets.
Let's review the situation. Verizon has not changed the terms of existing customers' contracts, which would be illegal. They haven't forced customers to buy anything. What they've done is entirely legal and morally sound. If potential customers don't like the contractual terms, they're free to choose another carrier. So why is it the government's business?
I've had discussions with colleagues regarding the housing crisis, and where blame should rest. All arguments aside, I will concede that a mortgage is far more complicated than a cell phone contract. Before coming to ECN, I worked at AT&T (then Cingular) for about 2 years, so I have some expertise in this area. Before any contract was signed, we gave a detailed explanation of activation fees, early termination fees, and any relevant information (for example, activation could take up to 24 hours). Let me reiterate—the customer was informed of all fees and relevant info. If the customer was unhappy with said fees, they could cancel immediately. If they had buyer's remorse within 30 days, they could return their phone and cancel their service with no ETF (Verizon has a similar policy [2]). There was no trickery.
Back in 2008, the FCC held a public hearing [3] on ETFs, and Chairman Kevin J. Martin had this to say: "Too often consumers are surprised that the amount they owe on their first bill is not what they expected, only to then learn that their 'trial' period already ended and cancellation will result in paying the early termination fee." If consumers are "surprised", I submit that it is more often a case of "selective memory." As mentioned, startup fees are not only part of the contract, but they're intentionally highlighted by the salesman to avoid confusion.
Martin adds, "The hallmark of a free market is the ability of consumers to choose from a variety of services and service providers. I am concerned that early termination fees are being used not as a means of recovering legitimate costs but as a means of locking consumers into a service provider." I think that Martin is confused. All the terms are laid out and explained before the customer signs a contract. No one is being hoodwinked. Customers are not "locked" into anything. They are merely obligated to fulfill the contractual terms that they agreed to.
Have you ever purchased a phone without a contract? You'll pay [4] well [5] over [6] a hundred dollars, even for an antiquated "brick phone." This is close to what the retailer pays. The massive loss incurred by selling the phone at a discounted rate (or free) is offset by the life of the contract. As salesmen, we earned our commission on the contract (and features like texting)—not on the phone. Customers seldom understood this. Most had no inkling of a phone's true cost, and why we were able to discount them. Without ETFs, phones would cost a great deal more. Even the Chairman fails to grasp this concept. Says Martin, "When a consumer ends a contract with wireless carrier, he is typically charged a fee ranging from $150 to $225…that is a significant sum for a subscriber to pay who is dissatisfied with the quality of service."
This is a matter of personal responsibility. Based on innumerable factors, including the contractual terms, customers are free to choose from among different wireless providers. No one coerces them to sign anything. 30 days is more than enough time to gauge a provider's service. Instead of interfering, the FCC should let the free market resolve itself. Verizon's new ETF fee will undoubtedly become a major talking point. I fully expect that forthcoming AT&T commercials will draw attention to Verizon's new practice. Problem solved.


text:
Not sure if this message will get to you. Maybe you have an answer already. The Y-DNA 12 marker test is only for the Male-Men. Family tree DNA (www.familytreedna.com) offers a Family Finder test and mtDNA tests for Females. I do wish you good luck on any search you do.
Rick Berryman


text:
Party perfect
Page Tools
There's always plenty to do when planning a party, be it a big bash or just small affair. Any help you get, from cleaning up the house to organising the guest list, will be a big plus. While I'm not volunteering to clean house for you, I can show you how to get the guest list under control. There are plenty of helpful online tools and perhaps the best known is Evite at evite.com
Invitations by email
This site lets you send out party invitations via email and collects the responses, so you know who's coming and how many guests they are bringing. The guests can see who else has been invited and whether they're coming too, so you won't be continually fielding questions such as: "Who else is coming?".
The service is free, easy and quick to use. First, visit evite.com and click "Plan an Event" and then click "Get Started". Choose a theme for the event from the list and a sample invitation will appear. Click this image to open a pop-up window displaying alternative invitation images. Click Select to confirm the one to use, then give your event a name and type your name as the host.
Enter date, time and location then you're ready to work on the guest list. This is a simple list of email addresses separated by a comma so it's easy to enter the data. Alternatively, there are tools accessible from the Home tab in Evite that help you import address book details from Outlook, Outlook Express or Eudora.
The RSVP style area lets you configure the wording chosen for guests to reply and they're the equivalent to Yes, Undecided and No. The formal style provides the options With Pleasure, Perhaps, and Regrets. Less formal choices include Site Found, Have Your People Call My People, and Unthinkable. Or write your own.
Can you bring?
Click the Guest list options to allow your guests to see who else is coming and to indicate if they can invite others or if the guest list is limited. Other options let you permit guests to email other guests from the list. Add a simple invitation message to your guests to tell them all about the occasion and click the spell check link to make sure it's correctly spelled before it's sent.
If you want your guests to bring something, there's provision for making a list of items required. When a guest chooses an item to bring, it is removed from the list so you know what's left unaccounted for.
When you're done, click Save to save the invitation settings and then register on Evite by providing your name, email address, country and a password. You'll be invited to include other personal information but there is no requirement to do this. In a few minutes you'll receive a confirmatory email including a link to click that confirms your email details. Now log in to Evite using your email address and password and preview your draft invitation. You can edit it if necessary and then click Send to send it.
As replies come in, return to the Evite area and log in. As host, you'll be able to see the status of the invitations: who has replied and who is coming. You can invite more people and generally manage everything to do with the guest list from this one place.
Remember that tools such as Evite aren't just for big parties. If you spend precious time each week organising the details for Friday night drinks or a monthly movie night, why not set it up on a site such as Evite? You can store your entire address book and everything can be managed without you doing much work at all. It makes organising events of any kind a snap, even to the extent of letting guests determine when the event is to be held.
Now, back to the serious work ...
Check and clean
View the amount of space available on your disk and, if needed, run a disk clean-up from your My Computer window. Launch My Computer and locate the disk to view. Right click and choose Properties and then the General tab. The pie chart shows you the free and used areas on your disk. To clean up what can be easily removed run Disk Clean-up using the button to the right of the chart.


text:
Mrs. Malory and Death in Practice: A Sheila Malory Mystery
Sign Up Now!
Already a Member? Log In
You must be logged into Bookshare to access this title. Learn about membership options, or view our freely available titles.
- Synopsis
- The new town veterinarian hardly has any kennel-side manner. His patients squirm and bark in his presence--and the humans don't fancy him, either. Even genial Mrs Malory can't find a redeeming bone in his body. So when the vet turns up dead, a whole roster of townspeople are suspects. Mrs. Malory refuses to drop this complicated case and, in the last few pages of the novel, solves the mystery. This mystery is set within a local English town and Hazel Holt, the author, interweaves the mystery with the lives of the local people and animals.
- Copyright:
- 2003
Book Details
- Book Quality:
- Excellent
- Book Size:
- 246 Pages
- 9780451209207
- Publisher:
- Signet
- Date of Addition:
- 07/28/11
- Copyrighted By:
- Hazel Holt
- Adult content:
- No
- Language:
- English
- Categories:
- Literature and Fiction, Mystery and Thrillers
- Submitted By:
- Barbara Baker
- Proofread By:
- Tomoko Miles
- Usage Restrictions:
- This is a copyrighted book.


text:
All or Nothing
A philosophy that just doesn't work.
Featured at Aish.com:
Give Tzedakah! Help Aish.com create inspiring
articles, videos and blogs featuring timeless Jewish wisdom.
Visitor Comments: 17
(17) Ann, October 7, 2013 7:11 PM
This is especially helpful to me right now. I have a nonobservant background and have taken on some regular practices like not eating shellfish or pork, going to Torah study, lighting candles, etc. But I don't think it matters because G-d is so angry at at all trangressions or omissions.
This was very helpful!
(16) paul solon, December 20, 2008 1:21 PM
(15) Allie, December 16, 2008 5:42 PM
Agree 100%
I completely agree with this. I am not in a place in my life where I have a desire to be 100% observant. But that doesn't mean I have to eschew every aspect of Judaism. I do what I am able, and I think that's perfectly okay. To do all or nothing would mean I would do nothing, which I am not comfortable w/. Perhaps a better philosophy is to do all all we are able.
(14) SusanE, December 6, 2008 2:44 PM
A bunch of 10%'s Can Add up to 100%.
Hello Rabbi Salomon, Thank you for a timely video this week. In a previous article on Aish, I read about this very thing. It talked about mizvots and observance, and the ALL or Nothing concept. Before reading it, I thought in terms of black and white, ...everything was either wrong or right. I lived by, 'do something 100% or don't do it at all'. After much reading and asking questions on Aish, I finally realized how much of my life I have been drifting along, not doing anything. Your article this week will help many people to understand how they can give and be observant on many levels....it will inspire them to.. Do something! Do anything! Give a little or give a lot. Good advice Rabbi, thank you.
(13) Marty Birnbaum, December 6, 2008 9:03 AM
Preaching to the Choir
Too bad this brilliant video is geting to mostly those who already practice some form of Judaism. It's premise deserves to be seen by everyone. I intend to pass it along to some of my friends who are Jews in name only. Thank you Rabbi Salamon for sharing your wisdom with all of us. It helps me to understand what Hashem really asks of us.


text:
WILMINGTON, Mass. — Considering a Montreal player had been rushed to the hospital a period earlier, it seemed a tad inappropriate that at the tail end of the Bruins' 4-1 loss last night Milan Lucic was trying to challenge Benoit Pouliot to a fight.
It becomes very inappropriate when you learn that, as suspected, Lucic was trying to send a message to Pouliot for something that took place in a game a month ago — a fight between Pouliot and David Krejci Feb. 9 — and not something that happened at the Bell Centre last night.
"Well, he fought [Krejci]. He's pretty tough when he fights [Krejci] but when he has to fight a guy his own size he clearly won't do it," Lucic told TheBruinsBlog.net in a 1-on-1 chat after practice today at Ristuccia Arena.
The 6-foot-3, 180-pound Pouliot did in fact turn down Lucic's offer to dance, which the Bruins winger delivered repeatedly by way of mouth over the course of a skate down the entire length of the ice as the clock ticked down on the Habs' victory. After a whistle, the exchange of words continued until Lucic was taken to the penalty box for roughing at 17:34. Had Pouliot accepted Lucic's offer to fight, the Bruins forward risked receiving a misconduct and suspension if he also received an instigator on the play.
Even if you believe that Pouliot, who has just three career NHL fighting majors according to hockeyfights.com, was chicken, you can at least see his side of the decision not to fight. His teammate Max Pacioretty had been wheeled out of the rink about 30 minutes earlier after an unfortunate hit from Zdeno Chara. And Montreal was on its way to an impressive win over a division rival.
"I mean, you know … that was the only opportunity for let's say myself, because that was the only opportunity I was on the ice with him. So that's why, I felt like even if you don't fight, you still let the guy know," said Lucic.
If you check out the fight video here it kind of looks like the 5-11, 176-pound Krejci actually challenged Pouliot anyway:
But regardless of what happened a month ago between Krejci and Pouliot, Lucic's attempt to ignite a second bout was ill-timed both in terms of the time left in the game and the proximity in time to the Chara/Pacioretty hit.


text:
This article was published May 15, 2014 at 8:50 a.m.
Authorities have released surveillance images and descriptions from three recent bank robberies in a bid to get tips that will help them make arrests.
In Little Rock, three separate robbers have made off with cash from the US Bank at 5200 Kavanaugh Blvd. on Tuesday, the Bank of America at 8200 Geyer Springs Road on Monday and the Bank of America at 200 W. Capitol Ave. on April 18.
No arrests have been made.
In the most recent robbery, the robber is described as being in his late teens or early 20s and weighing about 130 pounds. He was armed with a black revolver and may have left in a newer-model white truck. US Bank is offering a $10,000 reward for information leading to an arrest and conviction.
In the Monday holdup at the Geyer Springs Bank of America branch, the robber is described as a white man about 45 to 50 years old who stood about 5-foot-11 and weighed about 170 pounds. He had a light gray stubble beard and light gray hair and was wearing a gray-and-black jacket, black shorts, white socks, black shoes, black sunglasses and a black hat. He told the teller he had a gun while holding his waistband, police said.
In the April 18 robbery at the downtown Bank of America, the robber was a black man in his early-to-mid 40s who stood about 5-foot-10 and weighed 175 to 190 pounds. He was wearing a Kangol-style hat, slacks and a tie, and he carried a folio or a brief case. Police say he passed a note to a teller demanding cash and didn't show a weapon.
Anyone with information is asked to call authorities.
Comments on: Tips sought in trio of recent LR bank robberies
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.


text:
Word has it the New College of Florida wants to buy the Sarasota Classic Car Museum for $4.4 million from the Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority and turn it into a conference center and gym. The article makes no mention as to the fate of the museum, should the deal go through. The Sarasota Classic Car Museum has been around since February of 1953 and, according to its website, "enjoys the recognition of being one of the oldest car museums in the world." (via) (image via the museum's website)
Ran across Debra Jane Seltzer's online collection of photographs of old dealerships, part of her collection of photographs of roadside attractions. A lot of neat images of a significant, but often overlooked part of the old car hobby. (via)
Modern Mechanix has a scan from the December 1955 issue of Popular Mechanics briefly describing the propane-powered scooter (Cushman?) that Ralph Carlton of Wauchula, Florida, converted. While I'm a fan of propane-converted vehicles, I'm thinking the barbeque bottle hanging off the front isn't the safest way to go about it.
Finally, a significant and rare car, the only known two-owner full-size Bugatti in the United States, burned to the ground back in early September. Sports Car Market has a brief story and the above picture. (via)


text:
ST. THOMAS, U.S. Virgin Islands (AP) _ Shabazz Napier scored all
16 of his points in the final 10 minutes and Ryan Boatright also
scored 16 to lead No. 23 Connecticut to a 77-71 victory over Wake
Forest in the Paradise Jam on Friday.
Napier scored 10 points during a 12-0 run that put the Huskies
ahead for good midway through the second half. UConn (3-0) took a
65-55 lead on DeAndre Daniels' driving layup with 6:18 remaining.
Wake Forest (1-1) pulled to 73-69 on Travis McKie's 3-pointer
with 53 seconds left, but Napier knocked down four free throws over
the final 28 seconds to clinch it for UConn.
Enosch Wolf and Daniels each added 12 points for the Huskies,
while Wolf, a 7-foot-1 junior, had six rebounds.
Codi Miller-McIntyre led the Demon Deacons with 21 points, C.J.
Harris added 17 and McKie had 16.
In a back-and-forth affair that saw eight lead changes and two
ties, UConn made five of its final six shots in the first half to
take a 36-32 lead into halftime. Daniels had 10 points at the
Wake Forest went on a 10-0 run, highlighted by consecutive
3-pointers from McKie and Arnaud William Adala Moto, to take a
50-46 lead with 12:08 left.
Napier hit a driving layup to bring the Huskies within one, then
Wolf's 17-foot jumper from the wing put UConn ahead for good,
Boatright, a 6-foot guard, led UConn with seven rebounds.
The Huskies shot just 3 for 18 from 3-point range but made 80
percent (24 for 30) of their free throws. Wake Forest went just 55
percent (12 for 22) from the foul line and turned the ball over 18
McKie grabbed eight rebounds for the Demon Deacons and Devin
Thomas had seven.
UConn, which won the Paradise Jam in its last appearance at the
event in 2008, will now face either Iona or Quinnipiac on Sunday
night. Wake Forest will face the loser of tonight's Iona-Quinnipiac
game on Saturday.
(Copyright 2012 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)


text:
|Submit your comments on this article
|France jails nine over fundraising for Uzbek terrorists
|A court in Paris has jailed nine people for raising money for an al-Qaeda linked Uzbek militant group which is accused of numerous attacks.
Turkish-Dutch national Irfan Demirtas, the ringleader of the operation, was recieved an eight-year sentence while the others received up to three years. A tenth man was acquitted.
Demirtas was also fined 20,000 euros and banned from French territory upon completion of his sentence.
Operating in eastern France, the network managed to send 300,000 euros to Pakistan or Afghanistan. It was broken up four years ago by French, German and Dutch police.
The nine were convicted of raising funds for the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), which seeks to overthrow the country's president, Islam Karimov.
The court heard that Demirtas had met former IMU leader Tahir Iouldache,who was killed in 2009, on several occasions.
At the trial, defense lawyers sought to argue that the money raised had been used for humanitarian purposes.
|Posted by:ryuge


text:
Sensus divinitatis
From Iron Chariots Wiki
Sensus divinitatis or Sense of Divinity was posited by John Calvin as the inherent awareness of God which is implanted in every human being.
It is sometimes used to "prove" that atheists don't exist. Anyone who claims to be an atheist is in denial of the God which they know to exist; therefore, they are merely angry at or rebelling against God.
Even the Bible contradicts this view. Psalms 14:1 says, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." It seems hard to argue that anyone could say "in his heart" that there is no God while not believing that there is no God. Therefore, the Bible acknowledges that at least some atheists exists (and they are "fools" by Biblical definition).


text:
CEC member Sarah Alexander of the Keystone Center recently won an award from ACR, Association for Conflict Resolution. These awards are given in recognition of superior performance in, and outstanding contributions made to, the field of alternative dispute resolution.
June 2010
ACR Award Winners Announced
John Haynes Award - Kenneth Cloke - Center for Dispute Resolution, Santa Monica, CA
Marvin E. Johnson Award - John Marks and Susan Collin Marks - Search for Common Ground of DC
Mary Parker Follett Award - Ethan Katsh - National Center for Technology, Amherst, MA
Peacemaker Award - Padraig O'Malley - McCormack Graduate School of Policy Studies, UMass Boston
Sharon Pickett Award - Sarah Alexander - the Keystone Center, Keystone, Colorado
Sarah Stokes Alexander serves as Director of Sustainability and Leadership Programs for The Keystone Center and has over 15 years of experience working as a facilitator on collaborative problem-solving models. She has facilitated numerous efforts in the areas of sustainability, agriculture, transportation, environmental cleanup, and forestry at local, national, and international levels. She has provided facilitation of industry-led sustainability initiatives, interagency coordination efforts, regulatory negotiations, strategic planning, and national and regional dialogues. She provides training in collaborative leadership, stakeholder engagement, and sustainability strategies. She graduated from Middlebury College with a bachelor's degree in environmental studies and holds a Masters of Public Administration from Harvard University.


text:
No, just a lot of men around, I think, Ripley. However, I'm not a Spice Girl fan.
Student or Learner
I'd like to know what "it's raining men " mean.
It is just a way to say hey everybody, look, it's raining"? or are there men falling from the sky? I have found an Italian translation of the song and the traslator has chosen the second option I mentioned. But I am not sure if it is right. What do you think?
Thanks Ripley
No, just a lot of men around, I think, Ripley. However, I'm not a Spice Girl fan.
Neither am I. But in Italy we are used to singing songs even if we don't understand the meaning and this song has been a hit for much time. People sang it again and again, so I was just asking myself what that sentence meant.
My favourite singers and bands are David Bowie, Genesis, Pink Floyd................; I like classical and jazz music. Nevertheless I like to be uptdated and try to understand the meaning of the lyrics even if I don't like the song.
It's possible the Italian translation is referring to men falling from heaven. :wink: No matter where they fall from, even Grace, the song line means, there are a great deal of men around; they are pouring in all over the place; there as many men as there are raindrops when it rains.Originally Posted by ripley