No Soliciting...

On or about July 29, 2011, I got a solicitation in the mail from a local car dealership. The solicitation told me that  I am "guaranteed" to win a prize of at least $49.00. Being a lawyer, I was interested. I read the fine print, and found that all I needed was a driver's license and social security number. Also, I had to show up to claim the prize.

When I get to the dealership on the morning of the first day of their prize giveaways, I was greeted by three young men wearing UNH t-shirts. The young men asked me if I got the same solicitation in the mail, and I said yes. The three men went into the dealership before me and one sat down to be "registered". I was able to watch the registration process.

The salesman at the dealership (doing the registration) asked the young man from UNH for his driver's license. The young man handed it over. The  salesman then asked for the young man's phone number. The young man gave it up without hesitation. The salesman then asked about what kind of car the young man drove and whether he wanted to upgrade to a bigger model or to a sportier model. The salesman gave his lecture, which sounded prepared, about all the sales that were going on and all the prizes that the young man could win. Finally, the salesman told the young man that another salesman would be happy to show him around the lot.

Then, I sat down. I gave up my driver's license. When asked for my phone number, I requested to see the portion of the solicitation which required this. The registrar was unable to procure this. He again asked for my number. I told him that all that was required of me was in the solicitation. He seemed upset and filled out a certificate for a free oil change and inspection. See below.

I called today, August 17, 2011 to check if my Subaru would be covered, and a man from the dealership said yes.

On my way out of the dealership after getting the certificate, two of the young men I had seen were waiting for their friend who was still in the lot. They asked me what happened. I told them that I offered only what was required of me and showed my certificate. The two young men looked upset that they had been "sold" at least to the point of waiting in expectation of "prizes". They started to walk towards their friend on the lot - they looked upset, and seemed to want to leave.

All of the papers that were mailed to me are below, followed up with the certificate that I got, which says it has no value.

 

For the record

A few weeks ago, a guardian ad litem (GAL) was deposed at my law office. In preparing for this deposition, my office acquired a digital copy of the audio record of a hearing in the same matter. Once we acquired the CD that the audio was fixed on, I figured we could just put it into a CD player in a computer and listen. Instead, the envelope that the court sent the CD in had a single sheet of directions... Find them below.

As a relatively sophisticated computer user, I was able to follow the directions, but it still took me some time. Having to register with a website in order to listen to a 30 minute hearing (once) did not seem necessary. I don't understand why the court system keeps its audio records in a proprietary format. If "For the Record" the company were to go out of business, would that render all of the court's audio records useless?

The player is good - it keeps track of the start and end times of the hearing. So, ten minutes into the recording, you can tell the corresponding time was ten minutes into the hearing - if the hearing started at 10:00 am, the player will display 10:10 am. Aside from that, I'm not impressed... Give me VLC.

What if your computer fan didn't just blow?

I have had this talk with friends before: How can the exhaust from computers be utilized? Right now, computer labs and server rooms are cooled at no small expense to the owners. What if the heat could be channeled?

Computers run hot. Thus, fans and air conditioning must be used to keep rooms full of computers cool. The exhaust of the computers is allowed to simply leak from the computers and into the air of the room. The AC needs to be kept high because it is constantly fighting the leaking hot air. There is certainly a better way to use this heat.

Recently, Microsoft has suggested heating homes with "data furnaces". I don't think that the monolithic software company is the first to suggest this method, but they are arguably the most powerful. Find the link, provided at SLASHDOT, here: http://www.extremetech.com/computing/90992-microsoft-suggests-heating-your-home-with-data-furnaces.

I'm sure that the patent filings will follow Microsoft's suggestion. Soon after that will be the trademark filings with all the clever names inventors have assigned to their data furnaces.

The Copyrightor Goes Phishing

So, a couple months ago, I received the certificate of registration for a blog post that I did last year. It certifies that I have a federal registration for that blog post. Not long after that, in May of this year, I received a letter at my personal address, which is now public information available to anyone who cares to search the records of the copyright office.

The letter is like the requests that people sometimes get in the mail, asking for money to put the person on some list or publish the person's name in some book. If you ask enough people for money, and you do it with sophisticated looking letters, some people will pay. Like any good phishing scheme, you do it by the numbers and only grab at the low hanging fruit.

I suppose I thought that the Copyright Office would be different, that somehow it was above the scammers and the junk mailers. I suppose I was wrong. I do not mean to imply that the Copyright Office is involved, but there are people who fervently watch the records of the office and send letters like that shown below. I especially like how my blog post is referred to as a manuscript and how the signature looks like two sea gulls. I may follow up on this, and if I do, look for more posts.

Google sent me a request to fill out a survey regarding their erroneous suspension of my Adwords accounts. I filled it out - see below. Please comment if this has happened to you...

Google suspends my adwords campaign in error... and admit to it.

So, the other day, I got the below email and the remainder of the thread follows. Apparently, Google not only exercises some absolute power with regard to advertisers, but they also make mistakes. I have heard many stories of people engaging adwords campaigns of thousands of dollars a month being suspended without warning or appeal. Mine (luckily?) was not suspended for cause, but by accident.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Thu 4/21/2011 5:25 AM

Dear AdWords Advertiser,

It has come to our attention that your Google AdWords account does not comply with our Terms of Service and Advertising Policies.  As a result, your account and any related accounts have been suspended, and your ads will no longer run on Google.  Please be aware that you are prohibited from possessing or creating any other AdWords accounts, both now and in the future.  For more information on AdWords suspension policies visit this

link: 

http://adwords.google.com/support/aw/bin/static.py?topic=28449&guide=28446&page=guide.cs&hl=en_US

If you have a prepaid balance remaining in your account, you can request a refund at any time, by following the instructions at http://adwords.google.com/support/aw/bin/answer.py?answer=8440&hl=en_US.

If you believe your account was suspended in error, please contact us through the AdWords Help Center.

Sincerely,

The Google AdWords Team

___________________________________________________________________________________

Date: Thursday, 21 Apr 2011 5:51PM

I received an email that my adwords campaign does not comply with ToS in some way. The email did not provide any other relevant data. I currently also use Google sync and am unsure whether it has also been suspended. My Google sync account seems to have been suspended because my phone is now unable to access it. Kindly explain what has happened. Please send the reply to my email captioned above.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Friday 4/22/2011 12:34 PM

Hello David,

Thanks for contacting the Google AdWords Welcome Team. I am sorry for the inconvenience caused to you regarding your account suspension.

I confirm that your site has been suspended in an error, and your account is currently not in violation with any of our policies. Please note that this is not related to your Google Sync account not being accessible. If you have any issues with your Google sync account, please visit http://www.google.com/mobile/sync/ as we are only able to support any issues related to AdWords.

Got more questions?

Remember you can call us at 1-866-2GOOGLE (246-6453) for the first six weeks that your account is up and running. We’re here to help Monday through Friday 9am - 8pm EST. Alternatively, you can also visit our Online Help Center any time which can provide you with great resources and answers to your questions about AdWords at http://adwords.google.com/support/aw/?hl=en.

Sincerely,

Name ********

The Google AdWords Welcome Team

Last Tuesday, February 22, I went to a hearing at the Legislative Office Building in Concord, NH. The hearing was for HR7, a bill " directing the house judiciary committee to investigate whether grounds exist to impeach marital master Phillip Cross and/or any justice of the New Hampshire superior court."

Marital Masters do pretty much the same stuff as judges, but in marital cases. At the meeting, the bill's sponsor spoke first. He recounted the four charges against Master Cross, but didn't mention the Master made no errors of law.  Cross's lawyer, Attorney Cronheim, cleared this up as the second to give testimony. 

As Cronheim got up, a man sat down as the next to testify. He stated that Master Cross issued a divorce order that was disfavorable to him. Other attorneys, ex-judges, and lawmakers testified - against the bill. Then, there was testimony from the parents of the man who received the disfavorable divorce ruling. They argued that the Master's termination of their grandparental rights was unfair.

Peppered throughout this testimony and coming from those opposed to the bill, was the argument that the legislature should not be a place where one may launch an appeal from a court ruling. It just makes sense that the NH Supreme Court should NOT be reviewable by the NH legislature. If Master Cross made no errors of law, then how could be guilty of maladministration or malpractice? And in fact some of Master Cross's orders brought into question had been appealed and affirmed.

I just got today's New Hampshire Bar Association e-Bulletin:

On Tuesday, March 1, [2011] the House Judiciary Committee voted 10-5 to take the first steps toward the impeachment of Marital Master Philip Cross. In testimony last week, Judge Edwin Kelly urged lawmakers not to proceed with the impeachment. The allegations are based on disagreements with the master's decisions,and  are vague or unsupportable, he said.  

read the testimony from Edwin Kelly here.