You believe that someone who sabotages someone else's career with malicious slander wouldn't have legal liability? I strongly disagree. On the other hand, depending on the wording of the job offer, it is entirely possible that it would be retracted without legal liability at anytime prior to start of employment. In many states firing someone doesn't require any cause, your fired because it's Tuesday and I want to fire someone would be perfectly legal. The employer who revoked his offer was in Mississippi and Mississippi is an "at will" state so revoking or firing someone because you don't like what you read about them on a peer review site would be legally permissible. Thus he likely would not have a case against the people who retracted the job offer.

... or he lost his tenure because he resigned to take another offer and that other offer was revoked. I've looked at some of those comparison images and found some completely laughable (rotate image and take one small section and show it is similar to another small section but not other portions of the image) and others more like trying to compare two pictures of 4 sausages and thinking those sausages are all a bit similar to start with but not exactly. In another image comparison the comparison itself altered the dimension of the original images and they still didn't look exactly alike, just similar. But you expect similarity in similar things. From some of the comments it would be reasonable to think there was someone with an axe to grind rather than an objective review of his articles.

In many states you losing your job because your boss was unreasonable is not a cause for action against your employer as your employer can fire you for any reason that isn't unlawful. For example, if my boss was told that I cheated on my spouse my boss could fire me because spouse cheating is not a legally protected class. But if the person who told that to my boss did so with the intent of getting me in trouble and it was not in fact true I would reasonably say that he was the cause of me being fired and has liability for defaming me. Blame can be held by multiple persons, my boss for being unreasonable in firing me and the person who defamed me. One can be legal (my boss being unreasonable) and the other not (the person who defamed me).

The "keys to the kingdom" point to virtual machines that can be rehosted faster than the raider can work the legal system in multiple countries to get to the next level of servers after raiding the load balancer. The point is not that they can prevent raids but that any raids will be ineffective at shutting them down for more than a few minutes. That effectively discourages raids as a strategy as they are expensive and ineffective.

We have more regulations each year than last and I think the amount of dumb shit done every year is pretty constant. That isn't to say it wouldn't increase if the regulations disappeared, but I do think that regulations try to plug the hole the last clever scam artist figured out and there is no shortage of yet to be uncovered holes that are or will be exploited.

... only to find out that the mercenaries were really scammers who took his money and skipped town.

Guess what happens when you tell people they are gullible or fools? They get defensive and mad at you. Part of me wants the scammers in jail, the other part realizes that we don't have enough jail cells and it wouldn't matter because a fool and his money are soon parted. I Person X doesn't scam them out of their money then Person Y or Z will. It's just a matter of when and for how much, not if.

They don't pay the FedEx fee, they use stolen FedEx account numbers.

Banks facilitate the payment of checks drawn on other banks. They are not in the business or compensated for taking the risk that the check you give them is bad.

Check21 created the legal framework to allow for check truncation. Your bank never "clears" a check, checks are only paid at the bank they are drawn on. My bank gives me instant access to all my check deposits but I don't labor under the delusion that means the checks have cleared. The bank a check is drawn on generally doesn't do much more than see if the account has enough funds and relies on its customers to inform them if a particular check that was presented was fraudulent, this can take some time. You always remain responsible for bad checks that you give to someone else, within the statute of limitations. The same is true of many things. Let's say you had a rare coin and sold it to me for $500 and 6 months later I sold it to someone else for $600. That someone else took the coin into a dealer 3 months after that to have it appraised and is informed that it was a fake. That person has legal recourse to recover the $600 from me and I in turn have legal recourse to recover the $500 I paid to you for the fake coin. That 9 months have passed doesn't matter, that you thought the coin was real doesn't matter, that I thought the coin was real also doesn't matter. Just because you got a bank to give you money for a bad check doesn't shift responsibility for the loss from you to the bank. So as to make it clear, when you accept a check from someone you are taking on a risk that the check is bad. Don't take checks from strangers or people you know who might stiff you.

Banks don't have time to make a phone call for every check you deposit, it is your responsibility to only accept checks from people you know so you can recover the funds if the check bounces. Your bank's job is to submit the check on your behalf to the bank it was drawn on and request that it be paid. You clearly are gullible and were fleeced, that isn't the bank's fault it is your fault. But because I'm a really nice guy I'd like to let you know that I have many contacts in the scammer community and believe I know the person who fleeced you. I can help you recover all your money but will need a $100 retainer sent via MoneyGram and will only keep 10% of the amount I recover. Reply for details.

Basic fraud statutes apply

Either one of two statements is true: 1) Access to air travel is essential to people of all economic means. 2) Air travel is a luxury. neither of those statements need be true, stating that one is true isn't true Access to air travel is not essential to people of all economic means AND air travel is not a luxury

Do you see any limits to those accommodations? The 7' 10" guy has to be accommodated, the 850lb man has to be accommodated? How do you propose they manage that? They measure you at the gate? Will sales of elevator shoes take off when people realize they can get a premium seat by being a bit taller? Does the 6' 0.5" person feel slighted because he gets a regular seat while his buddy who is 1/2" taller gets 5" of extra legroom for free? There is already a very simple solution already in place. If you desire, for whatever reason, extra legroom you purchase a premium legroom seat. There, problem solved. At least for everyone but that 850lb man who is simply too large to safely accommodate.

Are you aware that in at least one of the cases of airborne anger over reclining seats they WERE in the premium Economy Plus seats? If I want a seat that reclines I purchase a seat that reclines, there are at least 12 seats on every modern jet that don't recline. I avoid those. If you want a seat with out someone sitting in front of you reclining then kindly purchase such a seat. There are at least 18 seats in every modern jet that don't have a reclining seat in front of them. There, problem solved.