i.gizmodo.com— Lee Harbert was an investment banker with a history of DUIs. On Jan. 11, 2005, he killed 55-year-old Gurdeep Kaur in a hit-and-run with his Jaguar. Google got him convicted.
Jan 19, 2009View in Crawl 4
Heh I am guessing he was using IE. Most financial people I know are generally pretty ignoant when it comes to technology. Not their fault. They are not into it like most of us on digg are.
I've attended two VIP (Victim Impact Panels) in the last few weeks because they were court mandated. Not because I was driving drunk but because I had an MIC. And after attending those and reading this discussion I've learned something. And that is that this topic gets people so emotionally charged they are incapable, or less capable, of making logical decisions. It doesn't matter how sound my argument is, if it is not condemning a suspect of drunk driving to the fullest it will be disregarded. I vividly remember one presenter drawing comparisons from a drunk driver to a 9/11 terrorist. I seemed to be the only one who objected to this.
paradexesJan 20, 2009
Heh I am guessing he was using IE. Most financial people I know are generally pretty ignoant when it comes to technology. Not their fault. They are not into it like most of us on digg are.
Closed AccountJan 20, 2009
Tor.
technewsguyJan 20, 2009
Maybe the point should be not to run over and kill people
bluedostoevskyJan 21, 2009
remember when that guy was high on marijuana and hit that person going 60?oh wait......
jake1337Jan 22, 2009
Yes...birthday gifts...that's it..
kevynJan 22, 2009
'your smart' - I just love it when people say those two words together when spelled like that.
bryanteeJan 24, 2009
I've attended two VIP (Victim Impact Panels) in the last few weeks because they were court mandated. Not because I was driving drunk but because I had an MIC. And after attending those and reading this discussion I've learned something. And that is that this topic gets people so emotionally charged they are incapable, or less capable, of making logical decisions. It doesn't matter how sound my argument is, if it is not condemning a suspect of drunk driving to the fullest it will be disregarded. I vividly remember one presenter drawing comparisons from a drunk driver to a 9/11 terrorist. I seemed to be the only one who objected to this.