Would You Like To "Opt-In" To Your Bank's Overdraft Fees? Tell The Federal Reserve! [Unauthorized Overdraft]

 

The Federal Reserve has proposed some new regulations that would, among other things, require banks to let you opt-out of the "overdraft protection" services that often result in consumers being charged large fees for buying one too many (or 6 too many) packs of gum with their debit cards. The Center for Responsible Lending thinks the programs should be "opt-in". Either way, without the overdraft program, your debit or atm transaction would be denied for non-sufficient funds and you would not be charged a overdraft fee.

From the Proposed Rules:

Among other things, the proposal would require institutions to provide consumers the ability to opt out of their institutions’ payment of overdrafts. The Board is proposing to amend Regulation DD to ensure that consumers receive effective disclosures about their right to opt out of overdraft services, by setting forth certain content, format and timing requirements for the notice.

The Center For Responsible Lending argues (emphasis ours):

Given the low likelihood that people will unsubscribe, the default policy should place consumers in the arrangement that provides them with the greatest benefit, which is clearly not one that costs Americans more in fees than the amount of the loans themselves. In fact, with debit overdrafts, the cost averages twice the amount of the transaction, while the cost of being denied is zero. If consumers were warned they would be charged a $34 fee for buying a $2 donut, they might instead choose to hand the clerk a $5 bill – or skip the donut. The proposed rule would only be justified if consumers preferred to be enrolled in these overdraft programs and received real benefits from them. But evidence overwhelmingly shows that consumers don’t want overdraft loans and don’t benefit from them; thus, they should not be strapped with the burden of escaping this expensive trap.

The Federal Reserve has asked that consumers who are affected by overdraft programs submit their opinion of the proposed rules. If you're interested in this issue, you can give the proposed rules a read (PDF) and then submit your comments to the Federal Reserve via email. To do so, place "Docket No. R-1315" in the subject of your email, and send it to: regs.comments@federalreserve.gov

If you'd like more information from the Center For Responsible Lending, you can get it here: "Support Opt-In Requirement for Overdraft Fees" (PDF)

Proposed Rules, Truth in Savings (PDF)
(Photo: Morton Fox )

US Supreme Courts: The Right to Bear Arms is For Individual Americans, Not Only State Militias

 

After 200 years of debate, the Supreme Court has finally ruled that the Second Amendment means that individual Americans - as opposed to state militias - have a constitutional right to own guns (at least in their homes).

In a tight 5-4 decision, Justice Antonin Scalia stated:

"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security and where gun violence is a serious problem," Scalia wrote. "That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct." [...]

"The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns," Scalia wrote. "But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

Link | Previously on Neatorama: US Supreme Court to Review Right to Bear Arms

This McDonald's Charges 25¢ To Use A Credit Or Debit Card, Violates Merchant Agreement [Your Rights]

 

Reader Brandon sent us this picture of a McDonald's violating its merchant agreement by charging a fee for using a credit or debit card. The text reads, "FEE ASSOCIATED WITH CREDIT/DEBIT CARD OF 25¢ WILL BE APPLIED TO CARD TOTAL."

As we've previously suggested, Brandon reported the violation to Mastercard and Visa, as well as to McDonald's headquarters. To reiterate: most credit card companies' merchant agreements forbid merchants from charging a fee to pay with a credit card, asking for ID when you pay with a credit card, or adding a surcharge (merchants are usually allowed to give a discount for paying cash, however, if it's clearly labeled as such), and we encourage readers to report violations directly to the credit card company using the info here.

The MPAA Says They Shouldn't Need Proof To Sue You [Mpaa]

 

A legal brief submitted by an attorney representing The Motion Picture Association of America stated that intellectual-property holders should have the right to collect up to $150,000 per violation without having to actually prove infringement, Wired reports. The MPAA attorney, who seems to feel very inconvenienced by the whole "due process" thing writes, "It is often very difficult, and in some cases, impossible, to provide such direct proof when confronting modern forms of copyright infringement, whether over P2P networks or otherwise; understandably, copyright infringers typically do not keep records of infringement." Details, inside...

This document is among other briefs submitted to a judge overseeing the Jammie Thomas trial, the only RIAA case ever to go to trial. Thomas was sued by the RIAA for $222,000 for "making available" 24 songs on the Kazaa network. At the time, Judge Davis instructed jurors that they only needed to find that Thomas had an open share folder and not that the songs were actually copied or transferred. However, the judge has since suggested that he made have made a mistake in giving this instruction and is deciding whether to order a mistrial.

The article says,

The deadline to submit briefs to the judge was Friday. Among the briefs, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, the United States Internet Industry Association and the Computer and Communications Industry Association all jointly filed a brief, saying the law did not allow damages for "attempted" copyright infringement.

"Given the serious consequences that flow from copyright’s strict liability regime, the court should resist plaintiffs imprecations to expand that regime absent an unequivocal expression of Congressional intent," the groups wrote, noting that the language in the Copyright Act demands actual distribution to the public of protected works.

It was a similar brief in tone to the one that a group of 10 intellectual property scholars lodged earlier in the week.

But the MPAA, long an ally to the RIAA, which has sued more than 20,000 individuals for file sharing of copyrighted music, told Judge Davis that peer-to-peer users automatically should be liable for infringement.

"The only purpose for placing copyrighted works in the shared folder is, of course, to 'share,' by making those works available to countless other P2P networks," the MPAA wrote.

It is absurd that lawyers, of all people, believe we should live in a society where clear and concrete proof needn't be necessary to establish one's guilt. Proving cases of copyright infringement is far from impossible. It is only a matter of spending the proper time and money to do so.

MPAA Says No Proof Needed in P2P Copyright Infringement Lawsuits [Wired]
Capitol v. Thomas [Wiki]

Goodbye, George Carlin

 

George Carlin, legendary comedian and free speech advocate has died at age 71.

Here is a verbatim transcript of "Filthy Words," the George Carlin monologue at issue in the historic 1978 Supreme Court case of FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, prepared by the Federal Communications Commission.

House passes wiretap telcom immunity bill

 

Senate House Democrats covered themselves in shame today, joining with Republicans to pass a bill granting amnesty to the cowardly telephone companies who helped the President's office with its illegal bulk-wiretapping campaign that spied on every American call and email without any judicial oversight. What's more, the bill also allows this to continue going on in the future. Who needs the fourth amendment?

The bill (.pdf) could be voted on as soon as Friday in the House, given its backing by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who in February organized a high-stakes showdown with the president over a substantially similar bill. The Senate would likely also quickly pass the bill, despite already vocal opposition from the ACLU, left-leaning bloggers, as well as Sens. Christopher Dodd (D-Connecticut) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)...

Additionally, the bill grants amnesty to the nation's telecoms that are being sued for allegedly breaking federal wiretapping laws by turning over billions of Americans' call records to government data-mining programs and giving the government access to internet and phone infrastructure inside the country. The bill strips the right of a federal district court to decide whether the companies violated federal laws prohibiting wiretapping without a court order.

Instead, the attorney general would need only certify to the court either that a sued company did not participate, or that the government provided some sort of written request to the companies that said that the president authorized the program and that his lawyers deemed it to be legal. That would be presented to federal district court Judge Vaughn Walker, who is overseeing the more than 40 consolidated cases against the telecoms. Walker's authority would be limited to judging whether the preponderance of the evidence is that the companies did get a written request, and if he finds that to be true -- as the Senate Intelligence Committee has already publicly stated -- he must dismiss the cases.

Link

Update: Tim from EFF sez, "The Senate vote will probably be sometime next week, could be as early as Tuesday. Folks can contact their Senator here"

Canadian DMCA will criminalize emailing your kids' class photos to their grandparents

 

Michael Geist continues his ongoing series on activities that will be illegal under Canada's new copyright act, the so-called Canadian DMCA (Bill C-61). Today, backing up DVDs and scanning school photos:

Diane, who is four years old, is a huge fan of the popular TV character Dora the Explorer. For her birthday, she received four Dora DVDs. Given Diane’s habit of scratching them, her dad has begun to create backup versions. That day, Diane brings home her kindergarten class photo, which was taken by a local photographer. Josee digitizes the photo and sends a copy to Diane’s grandmother.

If Industry Minister Jim Prentice’s Bill C-61 becomes law, all of these copying activities arguably violate the law.

Bill C-61 does not allow users to make backup copies of DVDs. The act of backing up the DVD is an infringement. Moreover, in order to make the backup copy, users must typically circumvent the copy-protection on the DVD, also an act of infringement.

For decades, Canadian copyright law has vested copyright in commissioned photographs – like school photographs – in the person who commissions the photo. Bill C-61 reverses that practice so that copyright now belongs to the photographer. (repeal of Section 13.2) Assuming the photograph came with an all rights reserved restriction, the act of distributing the digitized photo to Diane’s grandmother now violates the law. (Section 29.21 (1)(e))

I'm pretty sure that every Canadian reading Boing Boing knows about this law and what's wrong with it, and I hope you've all contacted your MPs. But the point of these posts is to help you communicate to your less tech-savvy friends about these issues. Did you email your grandmother a photo of your kids' kindergarten photos? Call her up and tell her that you won't be able to do it again with the grade one pics next year unless she calls up her MP and puts him on notice that he'd better oppose the CDMCA or lose her vote. Did your brother back up his DVDs to his laptop when he went away to university? Call him now and let him know that he'll be a criminal next year unless he calls and writes to his MP and lets her know what he thinks of Bill C-61.Link

California’s Same Sex Marriage: A Word from George Takei

 

Good for him and all the same sex partners who take advantage of the opportunity. 

After the state’s Supreme Court decision to legalize same sex marriage on May 15 took effect Monday evening (when most county clerk’s offices were closed) - so today, the rush is on.

One of the first gay couples that got married is Star Trek actor George Takei and longtime partner Brad Altman. Takei, who played Commander Sulu in the Star Trek: The Original Series, wrote:

Our California dream is reality. Brad Altman and I can now marry. We are overjoyed! At long last, the barrier to full marriage rights for same-sex couples has been torn down. We are equal with all citizens of our state!

The California Supreme Court has ruled that all Californians have a fundamental right to marry the person he or she loves. Brad and I have shared our lives together for over 21 years. We’ve worked in partnership; he manages the business side of my career and I do the performing. We’ve traveled the world together from Europe to Asia to Australia. We’ve shared the good times as well as struggled through the bad. He helped me care for my ailing mother who lived with us for the last years of her life. He is my love and I can’t imagine life without him. Now, we can have the dignity, as well as all the responsibilities, of marriage. We embrace it all heartily.

The California Supreme Court further ruled that our Constitution provides for equal protection for all and that it cannot have marriage for one group and another form - domestic partnership - for another group. No more "separate but equal." No more second-class citizenship. Brad and I are going to be married as full citizens of our state.

Read more of what George wrote in his official website: Link

RIAA Pulls Case Before It Can Be Dismissed, Then Refiles Days Later To Get Different Judge [Riaa]

 

If you were still somehow unconvinced that the RIAA's legal strategy is "be sleazy, intimidate, then profit," their latest legal maneuvering might finally convince you. Next week, a judge was to decide whether their case against a New York family should be thrown out—the family's lawyer, RIAA critic Ray Beckerman, argued "that if the RIAA can't prove anybody downloaded the music from an open share folder, then the case would have to be dismissed."

Earlier this month the RIAA voluntarily dismissed the case—then refiled it last week but didn't mention it was the same lawsuit, which means it was assigned to a different judge. Now the RIAA is demanding immediate discovery (which includes depositions and hard drives), which the previous judge had blocked pending a rule on the dismissal motion. We tip our hats to you, RIAA lawyers. You bring every evil-lawyer cliche from TV to life.

"These people are psychos," Beckerman said in an interview.

Also, the case was captioned under the name Does, meaning the RIAA was somehow pretending it didn't know the family's name allegedly behind the IP address in question.

"This case, it's the exact same internet access account," he said. "It’s the very same act of copyright infringement charged. It's no different."

The RIAA did not immediately respond for comment.

Beckerman has penned letters to both judges alerting them to the switcheroo.

"They're trying to force a settlement and frightening people," Beckerman said in the interview. "That's the only point of this."

"Lawyer: RIAA Gets Sleazy in Disputed Downloading Lawsuit" [Wired Threat Level] (Thanks to Chris!)
(Photo: Getty)

Nurse Pulled Cops Out of Burning Car, Got 10 Months in Jail For It

 

Rachelle Jackson, a trained nurse, pulled two policemen out of their burning squad car … and rather than being thanked for her heroic effort, she was arrested on charges that she robbed, battered and disarmed a peace officer and jailed for 10 months!

Jackson sued the city and several Chicago police officers, and a federal jury had just awarded her almost $8 million for false arrest, malicious prosecution, coercive questioning, and intentional infliction of emotional distress:

The case began in November 2002, when a car ran a stop sign in Jackson’s neighborhood, slamming into the squad car. Jackson was walking nearby and rushed to the scene. When she arrived, the officer behind the wheel was unconscious and the passenger, Officer Kelly Brogan, was dazed.

She pulled Brogan from the wreckage and helped her to a nearby stoop. Soon after, police approached Jackson and told her that the driver’s weapon had been stolen. When she was asked to go to the police station for questioning, she thought it was as a witness to the accident.

Instead,Jackson was accused of the theft. She was held for two days with little food and water and was threatened with violence until she agreed to sign a statement police had prepared for her. She was then charged and spent more than 10 months in the Cook County Jail awaiting trial.

Link - via reddit

Do Not Drive A Suburban Near Utah's Dugway Proving Ground [Offbeat News]

 

Apparently a couple of GI's were out minding their own business, driving a shiny maroon Chevrolet Suburban about five klicks out from the live fire range at Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah. Unfortunately at 10,000 feet, it's a bit more difficult to discern distance-from-target, and an F-16 pilot in the area thought the Suburban sure looked like fair game, opening up with 70 20mm rounds and totally decimated the SUV all about the 'merican revolution. Fortunately, the only injuries sustained by the occupants were from the flying glass and jumping out of the truck as it was being lit up. Unknown was whether live-fire is covered under the General's new 100,000 mile powertrain warranty. [StrategyPage]

WTF!? Internet Addiction Nominated for Entry in the Manual of Mental Disorders

 

By Katharine Gammon

start

First, we all had mild Asperger's. Now, Internet addiction disorder? Give a geek a break. In the March issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry, Jerald Block proposed that Web abuse be added to his field's bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Block cites research from South Korea, where, he says, the affliction is considered a serious public health problem, and the government estimates that 168,000 children may require psychotropic medications. In China, the Beijing Military Region Central Hospital puts the number of teenage pathological computer users at 10 million.

Like other addicts, users reportedly experience cravings (for better software, faster machines), withdrawal (logging off may cause irritability), a loss of sense of time (wee-hour fixes), and negative social repercussions (it's so much easier to date an avatar). Sound familiar? Your friend the World Wide Web may be a monkey on your back. Or not. Just ask yourself this: If Google were a drug, would I smoke it?

Mugger Admired Own Reflection … on a CCTV Camera Lens!

 

Talkin’ bout stupid criminals, check out this mugger in Bromley, London, who actually tried on the stolen necklace and admired his reflection … on the tram’s CCTV lens!

DcDan Arundell, of British Transport Police’s robbery squad, said: "The CCTV images are very clear.

"It was quite clear that he was checking himself out in the reflection of the CCTV camera.

"The general consensus is that he is not the brightest spark. He was there for a long time and either didn’t care or wasn’t aware he was being filmed."

Link

Previously on Neatorama: Thief Took Own Mugshot | Top 10 Stupid Criminals of 2007

In Early Termination Fee Hearing, FCC Chief Regurgitates Wireless Industry Proposals [News From The Swamp]

 

The FCC held hearings today to discuss early termination fees (ETF) for wireless carriers, the ~$175 charged if a customer exits contract before the contract is up. FCC Chairman Kevin "Golden Child" Martin's proposals largely mirrored those offered by the carriers themselves last month. Here's what he said today:

• ETFs should be relative to the phone's cost; a $5 phone should have a lower fee than a $50
• ETFs should go down month by month
• Contract lengths should be "reasonable" (whatever that means)
• Extended a contract shouldn't refresh the ETF (no shit, they've already recouped the cost of the cellphone)
• People should be able to get their first bill and look it over before the ETF goes into effect

Cellphone companies are eager to push for federal regulation so it can preempt state regulation and get them off the hook for various multibillion dollar class action lawsuits over ETFs. It's easier to control one body than 50. In my opinion, ETFs should be abolished and consumers should be able to purchase unlocked cellphones directly from manufacturers that they can port to any compatible carrier.

FCC chief lays out plan for cell phone fees [Washington Post]

McDonald's Refuses To Give You Sausage With Your McGriddle Happy Meal [Unacceptable Food]

 

Apparently,if you want a Sausage McGriddle Happy Meal, you're not necessary going to get it from McDonald's. Reader Alex says his girlfriend ordered the sausage and pancake treat for her 3 year old son, but when they got the sandwich it wasn't actually a sandwich at all — just two small pancake-bun-things and no meat. When they went inside to ask for the meat, the manager wouldn't budge. No sausage on the McGriddle Happy Meal! Is this normal?

Alex Writes:

This morning, my girlfriend made a quick run through her local Marysville, CA, McDonald's drive-thru to get a McGriddle Happy Meal for her three-year old. When pulling away from the restaurant, she heard a cry from the back seat. Her son's McGriddle, it appeared, was missing its sausage patty. Annoyed that yet another drive-thru order was bungled, she went into the restaurant to retrieve the missing meat. When she told the manager of the meat-less McGriddle, the manager replied that the McGriddles in the Happy Meals do not come with sausage, just two syrupy buns wrapped in paper. Seriously. Despite charging regular McGriddle prices, their kids' McGriddles arrive sans meat. SANS MEAT! So, my gf complained obviously, but this manager wouldn't budge, not even for the sake of the most base customer service, not even in the face of common sense, not even with a wailing three-year old in her store. She flat-out refused to hand over a a slice of meat that probably cost McD's pennies to pump out of their patty making plant.

I get that shoddy service at mammoth chains like McDs is pretty much the norm, but I'm absolutely perplexed as to why this store would turn logic on its head by packing two buns into a wrapper and call it a McGriddle, then refuse a customer's reasonable request for a tiny slab of cheap-ass meat.

We looked at McDonald's website to try to find a meatless McGriddle meal — but couldn't find nutritional information for such a thing. We asked Alex for some more info:

I believe the McGriddle Happy Meals are only available at certain locations. For example, the closest McDonald's to me in Rancho Cucamonga, CA, has had the meals since the McGriddles were introduced in 2003. (Comes with the usual: choice of drink, toy, hash browns, and sausage-enhanced sandwich.) However, the Gorman, CA, McDonald's doesn't carry them at all.

The Marysville location does indeed carry the item on their menu. On the drive-thru menu, it notes the meal comes with "two griddle cakes," but I can't imagine anyone assuming that the sandwich they were purchasing for their kids would solely consist of two syrup-drenched "cakes" without a slice of meat. It's tons misleading, and mind-bogglingly stupid to even make this a Happy Meal-exclusive menu item [and while the sausage McGriddles are a quick find on mcdonalds.com, the nutritional info. for these "cakes" only appears as part of the sausage mcgriddle sandwich. Here's the description from the site: "McGriddles® breakfast sandwiches provide an innovative way for customers to eat warm golden griddle cakes (with the sweet taste of maple syrup baked right in), and different combinations of savory sausage, crispy bacon, fluffy eggs and melted cheese in a convenient sandwich."]

Seriously,who orders a McGriddle without expecting meat?

Yeah,why wouldn't you just order Hotcakes?

Paying Your Verizon Bill With Cash? That'll Be $3.99 Extra [Legal Tender]

 

Employees at the Verizon store in Millington, Tennessee told reader Josh it would cost an extra $3.99 to pay his bill with cash. According to the employees, the charge was to offset the cost of "new money software."

Josh writes:

Just a few days ago, I took my bill to the Verizon wireless store in my hometown of Millington, TN. I had just cashed my paycheck and my bill was due, so I decided to pay it.
My bill looks somewhat like this:

Monthly Access Charges:
$55.31

Usage Charges

Voice

Data:
$3.39

Verizon Wireless' Surcharges's and Other Charges & Credits
$1.80

Taxes, Government Surcharges & Fees
$5.44

Total Current Charges
$66.54

So, I assumed that I would need to pay $66.54, as stated on my bill. I entered the store and waited nicely for about 15 minutes while the salesman discussed the merits of a newer bluetooth headset with a gentleman.

When I made it to the counter, I explained that I was just here to pay my bill. He brought up my information, told me how much my bill was, and I began to count out four twenties from my wallet. Before I handed the money over, he explained that there is a $3.99 charge for using cash. I held onto the money and pointed out that my bill was for $66.54. I also pointed out that I was paying in CASH and it is legal tender that Verizon is obligated to honor. The young man explained to me that the store had new money software. The fee to use cash was to pay for that software.

If I had exact change, I would have given only the amount to cover the bill, but I only had twenties at the time. So I left with an unpaid bill. I absolutely refuse to be nickeled and dimed like that.

So how do I pay Verizon in legal tender without paying for the privilege?

New money software? For what, the cash register?

Our guess is that a misguided Tennessee youth was trying to pocket $4. Verizon always places high in our personal bracket for Worst Company in America, but charging for the privilege of accepting cash is cartoonishly evil, and slightly beyond Verizon's capable and experienced reach.

(Photo:cut paste)

Canada may ransack travelers for pirated video and music at border, U.S. playing along

 

Canada is about to prove itself good friends with movie studios and record companies, trying to pass the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) we’ve been hearing about for the past few months. The idea behind this proposed international agreement is to search iPods, mp3 players and electronic devices for pirated videos and music at Canada’s borders, and get other countries in on the crazy ransacking of people’s rights, too. The agreement also aims to stop peer-to-peer applications such as BitTorrent.

What gets us steamed is one of the main proponents of such Constitution-flaunting (and secretly negotiated) laws here in the U.S. is Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), whose top four campaign contributions in 2006 were from Time Warner ($21,000), News Corp ($15,000), Sony ($14,000) and Disney ($13,550). Other Washington politicians are also listed as having their palms greased by the Hollywood greedmeisters.

So digital content will be the new contraband? Seems like just as the moronic "War on Drugs" winds down, here’s a brand new way to violate citizens’ rights, shaking them down for a few tunes. How will this be verified? What if we ripped the songs from CDs we legally own? What if we bought a Blu-ray disc and made a digital backup to watch on the iPhone while traveling? This is getting out of hand.

Wikileaks and UberReview, via Boing Boing

Leaked ACTA Treaty Will Outlaw P2P [Copyright]

 

ACTA—the misleadingly named "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement"—is the worldwide copyright treaty that's being negotiated behind closed doors, and that will create a sort of global DMCA if continues in its current state. Now Wikileaks has posted a draft of the treaty, and Boing Boing's Cory Doctorow gives his take:

Among other things, ACTA will outlaw P2P (even when used to share works that are legally available, like my books), and crack down on things like region-free DVD players. All of this is taking place out of the public eye, presumably with the intention of presenting it as a fait accompli just as the ink is drying on the treaty.

Wikileaks points out that the U.S. politician behind ACTA is Howard Berman from California, a Democrat whose top four campaign contributors for 2006 were Time Warner ($21,000), News Corp ($15,000), Sony Corp of America ($14,000), and Walt Disney Co ($13,550).

So what can you do, other than shake your head in disgust? Well, here's a list of members of the subcommittee overseeing the U.S. side of things, so you could start by seeing if your rep is listed and contacting him or her directly. One Boing Boing reader suggests contacting your representative regardless of committee membership—you can find the correct contact information here using your zip code or address.

"Proposed US ACTA multi-lateral intellectual property trade agreement (2007)" [Wikileaks via Boing Boing]
(Photo:Getty)

Indicted Saudi gets $80 million US contract

 

ABC News reports on the humorous story of Gaith Pharaon, a Saudi financier who is wanted by the FBI for alleged bank fraud that cost US taxpayer $1.7 billion. The funny part is that the US military just awarded him an $80 million contract to supply jet fuel to US military bases in Afghanistan.

The US military has awarded an $80 million contract to a prominent Saudi financier who has been indicted by the US Justice Department. The contract to supply jet fuel to American bases in Afghanistan was awarded to the Attock Refinery Ltd, a Pakistani-based refinery owned by Gaith Pharaon. Pharaon is wanted in connection with his alleged role at the failed Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), and the CenTrust savings and loan scandal, which cost US tax payers $1.7 billion.

As a purely coincidental aside: "Pharaon was also an investor in President George W. Bush's first business venture, Arbusto Energy."

Link (via Reason Hit & Run )

Even Garbage Bags Are Not Immune To The Grocery Shrink Ray [Grocery Shrink Ray]

 

Now that you have to buy more packages of your favorite orange juice, ice cream, and butter to get the same amount of the product as you used to get in one package... you're bound to have more garbage, right? Just a little bit more?

Well,that's just too bad for you, because even the trash bags are not immune from the evil grocery shrink ray.

Readerannelise13 says:

As I was picking up an 80-pack of Glad trash bags at the store last week, I thought to myself "Didn't there used to be around 90 per package for this exact same price?" Sure enough, when I checked the old box back at my house there were 96 in it!

You can't win, can you?

Comcast Starts "Net Neutral" Slowdowns of Heavy Broadband Users [Comcast]

 

Comcast is finally rolling out its "net neutral" network management scheme, starting with customers in Chambersburg, PA and Warrenton, VA. As we've explained before, Comcast says of the new plan that "heavy users, who are doing things like conducting numerous or continuous large file transfers, may experience slightly longer response times for some online activities, until the period of network congestion ends." And it doesn't matter whether it's BitTorrent or gobs of GooTube.

There are reasons behind the rush to curb heavy data users, whether or not they're asshole pirates, are simultaneously simple and complex, but one of the major reasons is that content flowing over the pipes increasingly competes with cable's TV offerings. Literally in Comcast's case, since it needs as much bandwidth as it can get to deliver HD content. We're keeping our eyes peeled for more about its rumored plan to test data caps, much like Time Warner is doing—it's increasingly looking like the future of broadband in the US. [Threat Level