Turbotax 2010 install freezes at 27%

Well, actually, it goes up to 28%, then back down to 27%. Running Windows 7, the problem ended up being that I didn't have write access to the start menu... strange since I was running that install as Administrator.

Verify in the system application event logs.

To fix it I used this awesome little app called, rightfully enough, "Take Ownership"...
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/add-take-ownership-to-explorer-right-click-menu-in-vista/

Father's Day Project

Dev and I turned an old monitor into a snazzy cat house.

A political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)

If you've ever been involved with the Greene County, Virginia, Sheriff's Office and/or court system, you quickly realize 3 things:

1. You are considered a nuisance. At best. At worst, you're an ignorant nuisance.
2. You are guilty until proven.. well, you're guilty if they think you are. Proof doesn't count for a whole lot in Greene County, from what I've seen.
3. There's no real concern about upholding the letter of the law. Upholding the generality of the law is OK, because that way they still get paid.

Case in point:
There's a minor I know, we'll call her 'Kate'. Kate's friend's shirt was stolen. Not while she was wearing it of course, but out of her locker or something.
Soon after, another girl (we'll call her 'Emo girl') was spotted with a very, very similar shirt. Well, Kate and her friends spot Emo Girl's bag with the shirt hanging out of it, and they vote Kate to sneak over and grab it. She does, and it is Kate's friend's shirt after all. No problem, right? At worst, Emo Girl and Kate should get a little talking to about the value of other people's property and personal space.

Wrong. Kate's mom get's a phone call from the resource office (Greene County-speak for on-school Greene County Police) informing her he had Mirandized her daughter. Kate's mom misheard the statement, thinking he was asking permission to Mirandize her daughter. Kate's mom says "Hell no, wait til her father or I are there."
The cop (we'll call him Ignorant Fascist) neglected to elaborate to Kate's mom that he had already Mirandized her daughter, in private, with no school authority present, and had her sign some document.

There are other stories.

Another friend of mine got a call because her daughter (we'll call her M) was driving around with M's boyfriend. Turns out a Greene County cop pulled her over. Why? Well, for driving around her boyfriend, of course. Held her for more than an hour, if I remember correctly. What, you thought this was a free count(r)y?

M and I both got speeding tickets for speeding on the same stretch of road. We were speeding, yes, but we didn't know it, because the closest speed limit sign to the point of the infraction was miles away, and we never passed it on the path we took leading to the road. The cop couldn't prove it in court because he lost sight of us several times in the ensuing 'chase' and had no proof that the car he pulled over (me or M's) was the same one he clocked. The judge literally told me 'Well, you say you were there around the time the officer clocked a car that looked like yours, and he thinks it was you driving, so I have to give the judgment to the officer.' In other words, guilty until proven innocent.

I called the police when a neighbor shot her gun at my kindergartner, who was trespassing on her property. He said "Yeah, there's a lot of good old boys and girls back in there that'll shoot at anything." Since I had already gone and 'talked' to this neighbor, that's how they handled my complaint.

No, really.

Stop for a Moment

I freakin' love my Samsung Moment. I think it's highly underrated in the Android phone buzz. It's fast, clear, with an amazing screen and Sprint service is great for me in Central Virginia. Rumor is it's getting the Android 2.1 update on February 22... w00t.

DirecTV saga complete

DirecTV just called me; the new lady in charge of arbitration cheerfully and apologetically refunded the $210 early cancellation fee. See past posts for the drama. Contractually I had to wait 60 days after notification of arbitration before I could file for arbitration; that would've been this past Sunday.. so it took them just over 2 months to respond to my notice.
It was well worth the letters and phone calls I had to make.

Orwell would be proud

Big Brother is watching you.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/no-place-for-crooks-to-hide-20091208-khqk.html

THE retail giant Westfield is considering introducing controversial face recognition technology at its Penrith shopping centre in Sydney's west.

Unlike closed circuit television (CCTV), the identification system matches images captured by surveillance cameras to an existing database of faces.

The Herald understands Westfield is considering upgrading its already advanced CCTV to include the biometric technology in its security measures.

Police said they could not comment on the centre's intentions, but would welcome any move to improve security and technology in the area. They said many businesses already used face recognition systems without public knowledge.

''You'd be surprised at how many have it,'' Detective Inspector Grant Healey of Penrith said. ''Any tool that helps us identify offenders is a great tool for us, too.

''Some [face recognition systems] can go live, so if they walk into the place, it will tell you that they're in there.''

Westfield would not comment on any plans to introduce the technology at its Penrith shopping centre, but a company spokeswoman said it was not used at present. ''I wouldn't comment on what we might be considering,'' she said.

''There are different security needs at different centres.''

The use of face recognition surveillance has alarmed privacy advocates.

''I think it's an extremely dangerous thing,'' the chairman of the Australian Privacy Foundation, Dr Roger Clarke, said. ''There's no control to ensure it will only be used for crooks.''

The technology has already been used at Sydney Airport for passengers to check themselves through passport control and it is used by police and by the Roads and Traffic Authority to combat identity fraud.

Professor Maciej Henneberg, of the University of Adelaide, said the recognition technology would be particularly useful in shopping centres. ''I would advocate this to be used more and more,'' he said.

''It will prevent many individuals who have criminal records of being a danger to normal shoppers in malls.

''Most of the CCTV systems now in shopping malls, service stations and in banks produce images of poor quality,''Professor Henneberg said.

DirecTV and the BBB

Ugh, not pretty.

Complaint Classification:

Complaint Description - Posted 9/30/2009 4:45:12 PM

DirecTV attempted to change the terms of my customer agreement in April 2009. I took that opportunity to contact their customer service to decline the contract change under the conditions that I would not be charged more than $15 when they disconnected me. At no time did I ask to be disconnected, and was very careful to confirm multiple times that there would be no early disconnect fee (and to not request disconnection) - They disconnected me when I refused their contract change after being told that I would not be charged in this circumstance. I subsequently received a confirmation that no money was owed. Then I started receiving bills monthly, which were waived in subsequent calls to support each month. Eventually all traces of the real disconnect event seems to have disappeared from their records and to have been replaced with my requesting a disconnect, so they now stand by their $210 disconnect fee.

Complaint Summary

Customer Service rep said my service would be disconnected for no charge, or $15, when I denied to accept their contract change. Later billed $210

Resolution Sought

Stop billing me for $210. Waive any fees and repair my credit if it has been affected by their collections department.

Additional Information

Date Problem First Occurred:
4/1/2009
Product or Service: satellite television service
Model Name or Number:
Date Purchased: 4/1/2008
Order Number:
Amount In Dispute: $210.00

Company's Response

Company's Initial Response - Posted 10/15/2009
We are sorry for any misunderstanding concerning the difference between the disconnection or deactivation fee and the Early Cancellation Fee as outlined in the terms and conditions of service. We have reviewed your account and we are unable to waive your Early Cancellation Fee. Prior to the change in terms of the DIRECTV Customer Agreement in April 2009, you were using the service in accordance with the existing terms and conditions as well as the terms described in the DIRECTV Equipment Lease Addendum. The terms of your service were available in the DIRECTV Customer Agreement dated April 2007, which was provided with your first billing statement. In section 5 of that agreement it stated in part “…In addition to any deactivation or change of service fees provided in Section 2, if you cancel Service or change your Service package, you may be subject to an early cancellation fee if you entered into a separate programming commitment with DIRECTV in connection with obtaining Receiving Equipment, and have failed to maintain the required programming package for the required period of time.” On 5/11/09, you requested that your service be terminated (disconnected) because you did not like the customer service, guide or pricing. You declined all offers to retain your service and scheduled disconnection of the account. The equipment was returned to DIRECTV thus ending your DIRECTV service. Because you ended your service prior to completing the required service agreement, you were charged a valid Early Cancellation Fee. Respectfully, DIRECTV Office of the President
Initial Response Summary
Because you ended your service prior to completing the required service agreement, you were charged a valid Early Cancellation Fee.


Consumer's Rebuttal

Consumer's Rebuttal - Posted 10/16/2009
Section 5 is not applicable, since, as stated in my complaint, I never requested to be disconnected or deactivated. On 5/11/09, I did NOT request my service be terminated. That is false. A fabrication. An untruth. As stated in my complaint, I never requested to be disconnected. Returning equipment is not a significant event to equate to a request to disconnect. I don't see the relevance to my complaint. I am unable to prove that I never requested to be disconnected, since it didn't happen. You are unable to prove that I requested to be disconnected, since it didn't happen. I know that my disconnect fee was waived at least twice. I have a bill for $0.00 that I received after one of my complaint calls about the bill. I also know that my bill went into DirecTVs collections department and that they did not collect on my bill after telling me that they saw in their records where the disconnect fee had been waived. I don't know why normal billing then resumed after collections efforts stopped. This fee is an unfair billing practice that should be refunded to me.


Company's Final Response

Company's Final Response - Posted 10/22/2009
If the disconnection of your service was done in error, we would expect that you would have contacted us to reinstate your service. The return of your leased equipment confirms your request to no longer continue with the DIRECTV service, as you are unable to continue with service without the equipment. You received a statement with a $0.00 balance as this statement only reflected programming charges. Your Early Cancellation Fee applied after you account was disconnected, and a statement was mailed reflecting the new balance due. The existing terms of your service agreement were not affected by the revised DIRECTV Customer Agreement that took effect in April 2009. Your service agreement was in exchange for discounted leased equipment and installation. As previously advised, there is no record your service agreement would be waived. You have not provided us with any additional information to change our position. Your Early Cancellation Fee is valid. Respectfully, DIRECTV Office of the President

Ahh, if only I could rebut their final response with:

• I never said it was an error, I just said I didn't request it. DirecTV canceled it on purpose.
• The return of the equipment does not confirm any request, as no request was made. I returned the equipment only because you told me my service had been canceled for no (or nominal) charge so I didn't need the equipment any more.
• I'm sorry I assumed that a $0.00 bill meant I owed $0.00. Having already assumed that being told I wouldn't have to pay an early disconnect fee and been lied to about that, you would think I would know better.
• I'm not sure about the relevance of "Your service agreement was in exchange for discounted leased equipment and installation". If you mean the changes to the contract were in regard to discounted leased equipment and installation, then it's irrelevant. You can change the contract to offer me free service, and it's still a contract change that I don't have to accept. What has changed doesn't matter.