I understand that there is an update on the story, but is re-submitting the only way to convey that to HN? Not quite sure.
What if I find a bug in Mac OS X* that I need fixed yesterday. I file a bug, and hope that it gets fixed eventually. Now it is up to Apple to fix it and get back to me on their schedule.
I pay Apple for their OS, and they are the only ones that can fix it. I'm at their mercy to fix it, so I fail to see how this is that different.
* Could be anything that isn't open-source
It's no different than reporting a bug with a patch. If I go to the police with evidence of a crime and details to apprehend the probable culprit, I expect them to deal with it. Those are really low hanging fruits.
(from the article on Consumerist http://consumerist.com/2011/06/laptop-thief-caught-after-vic...)
The Oakland PD no longer responds to property crimes. This is a stopgap policy they started after they lost a large number of officers (100?) recently due to budget cuts.
"My name is Hernando. I have your bourgeois lap typing machine! I have it here, in my lair ... my love lair. So come and get it! Come, come here and taste death! I spit on your bourgeois typing machine! Pah! There! I don't want it! I don't steal because I covet! I steal for love. For PASSION. For the eternal animal within. AND ... why does this little dark circle above the screen keep lighting up? Um, maybe I should put a shirt on."
Also, I agree that the legal system and suchlike should presume innocence, but there's no reason private citizens can't advocate their believe that someone is guilty as sin.
I guess they will find that out later. But congrats on a happy ending.
Of course the police will probably keep it as evidence for a year now.
Ok let me summarize this. A person came in the car, driving to this persons house, stole the macBook, place it in the front and I guess is browsing Google Maps to find directions. Am I right buddy?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110513/01182814258/one-ma...
Prey is free BTW:
Some points, which are mentioned in the very wiki article you linked.
* The coffee was about 45F or 20C higher than McDonald's guidelines.
* The coffee caused third-degree burns that required skin grafting
* Liebeck initially only asked to be compensated $18,000 largely to cover medical expenses; third-degree burns, an eight-day hospital stay which lead her to lose 20 lbs.
Reasonable care would've prevented this injury and that's my problem with the ridiculous payout.
The law has many failings like this. For example, if you become intoxicated, get in a vehicle and manage to kill someone then the law largely says you were not responsible... because you were intoxicated. The punishment for vehicular manslaughter is WAY lower than other unlawful killings, if it's even tried as that. It's so hard to get vehicle-related felonies convicted that often they'll be settled for lower severity crimes (reckless driving and so forth).
But who got intoxicated in the first place? Who didn't take reasonable steps to avoid getting behind the wheel?
The McDonald's case is the poster child for frivolous litigation because, in spite of the misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the facts, ultimately it boils down to rewarding people for being stupid.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe, firstly, this is largely orthogonal to the original discussion, and secondly, my understanding behind why it is considered manslaughter is because of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
No she didn't. She was a passenger and the car was parked.
> The McDonald's case is the poster child for frivolous litigation because,
It's the poster child because if you don't bother to learn any of the facts, it sounds outrageous. And the world is full of people who can't be bothered to learn the facts before they form strong opinions.
I ask because those facts are often presented with the presumption that the person crying frivolousness hasn't considered them before forming his opinion.