So NSI's gonna get ripped a new one for the screw-up, right? Not according to the article, which points out that the courts haven't yet held NSI responsible for a mistake like this. I'm just shaking my head over this one; the fact that they failed to correct the problem after one mistake just screams negligence to me. Does a blanket "it's not our fault if something goes wrong" statement enable NSI to get away with something like this? Apparently so, but if anybody out there is into the whole legal thing and would like to comment, I'd certainly be interested.