GeorgeOrr

I've seen a couple of posts that the image was a Photoshop/hoax by the offending trolls. They incorporated it into what they claimed was from the live feed then edited from the show. But I have no real information to judge the image or the claim it was faked.

Even if it was a mistake made, caught and never put in the show Leo still has a problem. The live feed gives the trolls ammunition to capture mistakes, amplify them, make sure they are in the worst light and here we are discussing it.

So I can see why this was the straw that broke the camels back .. and now we loose what was a great source of entertainment and community.

I stand by "this is why we can't have nice things."

The trolls apparently have won. By being open and transparent apparently you just give trolls ammunition, which they use to harass and threaten. Not just Leo, not just his employees' but family as well.

To protect his family, and his business, Leo is shutting down the live feed and the chat.

This is why we can't have nice things.

So that's what Hamas spent the humanitarian aid money on. That and tunnels and a few rockets apparently.

When it comes to book publishing, isn't it Hachette that is the Giant monopoly?

If you want to buy a book they publish, you are a click away from bying it from http://www.barnesandnoble.com/ or from Apple if you want it on your ipad.

But if Amazon wants to sell it they have no choice but to get it from the conglomerate Hachette.

My favorite comment on this so far comes from Hugh Howey (author of the WOOL series)at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hugh-howey/winning-at-monopoly...

From that article.

“The real monopoly, once you start examining business practices and attitudes, is Big Publishing itself,”

"Where is the outcry for Amazon-published authors who are blocked from sale by practically every brick and mortar store? It doesn't exist. The response is simply: That's what those authors get for signing with Amazon. Imagine an observer today saying, "That's what those authors get for signing with Hachette." The hypocrisy astounds."

The way Uber works is that they already have my credit card on file. I don't have to fumble with the card or my wallet either.

I particularly like that I don't have to deal with cash while tipsy and in the dark of night.

I've never used Lyft, but I have used Uber and usually find them them be quick and very service oriented. From what I've heard Lyft is given them competition in both ways, so I look forward to trying them as well.

Far better than any cab I've ever taken.

I love LastPass, and this response is one of the reasons why. There will always be issues in security, there is nothing out there that will ever be perfect. The question is how you respond when things are discovered.

The one caveat I have is that I do wish they open sourced. Overall I prefer that when it comes to security.

But LastPass has always responded well when issues come up.

Good point, basically the Streisand affect.

Scary rant.

I'd hate to think that accusations become so commonplace that we no longer think of such a horrible accusation as being unusual. That would give cover to those actually guilty, and leave the innocent always accused.

Sadly, I can't say you are wrong.

Do you mean legally? I hope not. It sounds like he's feeling concerned for a person he once knew. Being confused/disturbed by the accusation didn't prevent him from being concerned.

It would suck if that was used against him legally.

Got it. Disagreeing with someone is a reason to down vote.

Re-read the original article. When someone writes with such extreme language about a transaction they've apparently gotten value out of - then fail to even mention the idea of exit, then I suppose my response will let a little condescension and self-righteousness seep through.

Your inability to understand that is just not relevant.

I hear you. But I will point out that they are often just the default option not necessarily the best available.

I learnt that when they stopped supporting their news reader. It forced me to look at what had been out there all along, but I had simply not looked because their reader was good enough. They taught me in this way to look for alternatives that are often better.

For instance, I've come to appreciate the features at: https://duckduckgo.com/?q= For search.

Google isn't any more evil than they have ever been - they are however huge and it's almost certain that some aspect of what they do will rub lots of people the wrong way.

I don't avoid them like the plague, but I also don't stick to services I don't like and I suggest as much as I can seeking out alternatives.

If you don't like being the product that is sold, leave. If you like the trade for the value you get, than it's worked out well for you. I can't blame them for making an offer you chose to accept.

Did you find that by googling it? Just wondering.

And of course, outraged and harmed by this you proceeded to stop using Google services. They are paying for it by acting in a way you find distasteful, so of course you will show them by no longer using their services.

Or ... are you using their services while moaning about it? No, I'm sure you wouldn't do that.

You would think adults would be past playing with imaginary friends. But they can't even get over their imaginary enemies.

The author seems a bit dismissive of what I would call a healthy scepticism towards the current medical establishment. He refers to such sceptics as conspiracy theorists, which is a great way to ignore people without any thought.

Is it that odd to think that there are well funded big pharma interests in making sure that only that which is patented is approved?

Sadly, most of the proof that treatments work are provided by the drug company that has a profit motive to produce that proof. There is no interest in providing that research for something that isn't controlled for someone's profit.

To be clear, there's nothing wrong at all with profiting from research done. It's also very important to understand the risks taken when using something that isn't well studied. Natural doesn't mean safe, of course that's true.

But it also isn't a conspiracy theory to say that people who have billions of dollars in profit at stake may occasionally give money to the right Senator, or fund only that which is in their interest.

FUD. Nothing new, or insightful. Just FUD.

Chromecast has some issues - an occasional glitch in sending Youtube videos. But nothing that isn't fixed by a quick refresh of a page.

Overall I've been very happy with it, for Netflix and Youtube it's very convenient. Tabcast less so.

Now also Hulu on board.

This article gives me hope that Amazon will add their streaming video to it as well.

The author also posted the following follow up, also worth a read:

http://www.ewherry.com/2013/10/follow-up/

From the article:

“I am sure this is the first time in my experience we have come across what was literally a caffeine overdose. "

The energy mints have been around a long time, as have other high caffeine sources. And yet apparently this sort of tragedy is so completely rare.

Hopefully then, we wont have any alarmists calling for banning something that has been so safe apparently.

tl:dr from the final part of the article:

—DISCLAIMER: The above article is a work of satire and fiction and in no way attempts to depict events in real life.

People do know they can turn off the new "shared endorsement" thing don't they?

https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en

By "getting hands on" to be clear you are referring to his fondling her backside and front. Just to be clear, what those witness saw was molestation in progress.

Thank god one of them gave her a chance to escape. Thank god there was one person not like you there.

I really don't think it's about alcohol or about men and women working in close quarters for long hours.

This is about a small number of pigs that care more about their desire than any thought of consent or mutual interest. Real men, the vast majority, would never consider inflicting this sort of evil on another. Drunk or not. It's not about sex, it's about power and abuse.

The part of that culture that is, IMHO, the worst is the idea that alcohol is to blame for our behaviour.

Pigs are going to be pigs. They don't get to say "but I was drunk" Real men don't have it in them to treat others they way pigs do - alcohol or no.

I just don't blame the substance. Blame the man who thinks of his immediate satisfaction without regard to the cost he inflicts on others.

The vast majority of people are good, honourable though often less vocal on the internet.

We outnumber the bastards out there. We just need to learn to step up and stop evil when we see it. That's the leson I take from Zach's account.

If we can be just as quick in doing that as others are in posting judgemental comments on board then a lot of horrible experiences will be averted.

How horrible the effect evil has on people is what I learned from Justine's account. The stakes couldn't be higher.

Did he at least see the cover, in order to judge it?

I suppose I shouldn't be, but I am a bit surprised by how easily people seem to think they know exactly how other people have gone wrong in their lives. And how to insult them into fixing things.

Are there really that many people around who have so completely solved their own lives that they know, after a single article, exactly what is wrong and what will fix total strangers?

And, these wise insightful people seem to choose harsh judgement and even shaming as tools to fix others. That seems odd as well, I wouldn't have thought such enlightened people would go the judgemental shaming route.

So, you aren't being a judgemental jerk, you are trying to help her. By shaming her into doing what you, in your great insight into other peoples lives, have figured out would be best for her.

You are so kind.