It is called spoliation, and there's probably something similar in your juridiction. In a civil case, there is what's known as "discovery" when the parties must produce all relevant evidence in their possesion and provide it to the other parties. If you've destroyed evidence, then it is called spoliation. Depending on how and why the evidence was destroyed, there may be a range of penalties. If the destruction was innocent, the judge just might decide that the evidence just isn't available. If the destruction was not so innocent, the judge can instruct the jury that they are to assume that if the evidence had been available it would have been inculpatory, or as in this case, simply grant judgement for the other party.
A defendant (or plantiff) shouldn't be able to benefit by destroying all of the evidence against him. If that were the case, we would never be able to decide lawsuits.
Apples and coconuts. Bush is talking about a manned mission to mars. The Chinese are talking about some dinky probes. BTDT. And please provide evidence that this announcement is somthing other than "mere political propaganda."
Poorly worded is an understatement. I have no idea what this sentence means: "IBM's lawyer was on vacation at the time, didn't give prior notice to big blue, and now they've won the right to ask him anything they want."
So, an attorney who represents IBM went on vacation without telling his employer, and now his employer can ask with whatever questions it wishes. Which leads me to wonder why he went on vacation without telling his employer, and why his employer wants to depose him.
Some days I just wish people would just stop using pronouns.
I read the Groklaw article as well, and I'm no more enlightened than I was an hour ago. The article is as incomprehensible as the summary. I understand the legal process quite well, and I still have no idea what is going on here. If I'm going to have to read the last six months of Groklaw, and all of the court filings to understand what happened, then what's the point of posting this on/.? Presumably the Groklaw groupies (the only ones who have any idea what any of this is about) have already seen this.
I once tried to read a few of the articles at Groklaw about this, and all I got is, "SCO bad, SCO lawyers stupid, IBM good."
That's because Cisco wireless is a nightmare if you have more than a handfull of APs and you want to centrally manage them. Aruba wireless, on the other hand, is a beautiful thing to behold.
Yes, according to the signers of the Declaration of Independance, we are endowed with certain rights by our creator. Among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (hint, it doesn't mention copying other's works). And since the Constitution specifically endorses a system of copyright, you're going to have a hell of a time convincing anyone rational that the drafters of that document felt that free copying was a fundamental right.
Ticketmaster is a middleman. They have no control over production or supply. No matter how many competitors they have on the output side, there would never be any downward price pressure because the price is already set below where it should be. If Ticketmaster has set the prices above where they should be, there wouldn't be thriving secondary market, and selling tickets at auction would drive prices down.
The price of tickets isn't marked to the cost of production, because the supply is nearly completely inelastic (I guess at some price artists would add tour dates), it's marked to the maximum demand. That doesn't change no matter how many middlemen you add.
It doesn't really matter that Ticketmaster is the only one selling tickets. Even if there was competition, the number of tickets is expressly limited to the size of venues, and the number of shows, so no more supply can come to the market. Imagine Ticketmaster had an equally balanced competitor. Each would get exactly one half of the seats in any given venue. Would the consumer price for those seats be any lower? If you think the answer is yes, then why? There's no additional supply, so the curve doesn't change. The price at which 100% of the inventory can be sold is still at the same point, and it's in both firm's interest to sell at that price.
Even if you believe that Tickemaster has a monopoly, this is a good thing. The problem with monopolies, is that they artificially inflate prices above where scarcity and demand would dictate. So, if Ticketmaster lists these tickets for sale at whatever price they would normally ask, and the prices rise at auction, doesn't that tell you that the prices weren't set higher than the demand curve would dictate? Monopolies aren't inherently evil if they don't negatively impact the market.
Your children will work for one of those greedy corporations, which lucky for them, will have more money to offer in salaries. So, if your kids are good at what they do, more companies will have more resources to lure them. Further good news is that your children will sock some of that money away for retirement, and invest it in those same greedy companies which profits will increase the value of your children's investments!
I recently purchased a ticket from them (since I had no other choice)
You had no other choice? Were you convicted of some crime for which you were sentenced to buy a ticket from ticketmaster?
The fact of the matter is, you could choose not to go the concert. You chose to buy the ticket, therefore you felt like whatever you got in return was worth more than the money you traded for it. If Ticketmaster's fees were actually excesive, people would stop buying tickets. So, why shouldn't they keep raising prices until people stop buying?
And how do you suggest that they decide what prices to charge at the gate? If they charge too little, the seats will sell too quickly, for less than they could have. That's inefficient. If they charge too much, they won't sell as many seats as they could. That's also inefficient! Auctions are an effective way of setting the price.
You should follow your own advice. As Schneier points out in one of his books, four digit PINs are perfectly suitible from some applications, especially when multi-factor authentication is used and there are reasonable controls on incorrect PINs. A 4 digit PIN gives 1,679,616 possibilities (assuming case insentitive letters and numbers). If the phone does something smart like disable itself after 3 incorrect entries, then there is a 1:559,872 chance that an attacker will be able to unlock the phone trying codes at random.
More pedantry. And for some reason, no legal scholars (or even political opponents) have serously questioned the President's authority and ability to declassified most classified material on the spot. Why would he have to allow for review by an execuive agency? That's just stupid, all those people work for him. That would be like the CEO asking my permission to send an email to his wife.
And I suggest you take a look at your original post again. You link to the defenitions section of the subchapter related to protecting NOC identities. I posted a link to the definitions section of the subchapter addressing access to classified information.
Of course the point is that the company was sold and is now effectively controlled by the Chineese government. Don't you think that makes a difference?
And of course the US would spy on China by any means. It's also certainly possible that there are not only fears of spying, but sabotage as well. The US government has succesfully sabotaged computer chips manufactured here and sold to foreign governments. That's what governments do.
So, you can go to any doctor in the country at any time, and have any procedure performed that you are willing to pay for, with the only prerequisite being that said doctor is willing to perform the procedure and take your money? No, I believe that you can't. Of course what you can do is come across the border into the US, and pay cash as many of your countrymen do when they can afford it. Free as in beer healthcare is absolutely nothing like free as in speech healthcare.
For where your country's brilliant plan will end, you only need to look at the european socialist countries that have gone from socialized medicine, to approving of euthanasia, to executing children with incurable illnesses.
And who forces you into that HMO, dickwad? You do realize that socialized medicine is just one big HMO that in most cases you can't opt out of, don't you? If you think HMOs are bad, you'd surely love it when the board of that HMO was removed and replaced with a government beauracracy, and any motive of efficiency and profitability was replaced with an endless supply of taxpayer money.
So what you're saying, is that as a manager (albiet in government) I am unable to fire an insuborbordinate employee, no matter how many times he repeatedly defies a direct order. And you call that "freedom". As opposed to the way it is in this country where an employer can fire his employee for just about any reason. You call that less free?
BTW, civil service employees do enjoy significant job protection in this country, and we also have whistleblower laws which protect employees who report legal violations. But nothing should protect a jackass employee who runs his mouth whenever he feels like it.
You can even march down the streets here shouting "Jews must die!" Why can't you do that in Sweden? We also have the freedom to choose our own doctors, hospitals, and treatment options.
When confronted with the falsity of your statements, you resort to pedantry. You backed up your pedantry by citing the wrong law. The one you should have cited is here. Had you looked at the right law, you'd see that this law defers to Executive Order 12356 as to what is classified information. And Executive Order 12356 discusses declassification authority and states that material can be declassified by the person who classified it, or "the originator's successor; a supervisory official of either; or officials delegated such authority in writing." You think that the President might fall under the umbrella of "a supervisory official" of every single person in the Executive Branch? I do. So, no, the President doesn't have to put anything in writing or issue an executive order to declassify classified material. He can just do it.
Whether you admit it or not has nothing to do with whether you have commited an offense. However, it might have some bearing on whether you are convicted.
Slashdot Mirror
It is called spoliation, and there's probably something similar in your juridiction. In a civil case, there is what's known as "discovery" when the parties must produce all relevant evidence in their possesion and provide it to the other parties. If you've destroyed evidence, then it is called spoliation. Depending on how and why the evidence was destroyed, there may be a range of penalties. If the destruction was innocent, the judge just might decide that the evidence just isn't available. If the destruction was not so innocent, the judge can instruct the jury that they are to assume that if the evidence had been available it would have been inculpatory, or as in this case, simply grant judgement for the other party.
A defendant (or plantiff) shouldn't be able to benefit by destroying all of the evidence against him. If that were the case, we would never be able to decide lawsuits.
Apples and coconuts. Bush is talking about a manned mission to mars. The Chinese are talking about some dinky probes. BTDT. And please provide evidence that this announcement is somthing other than "mere political propaganda."
Hey moron, the Bush admin is on the same side as the EFF on this one.
Poorly worded is an understatement. I have no idea what this sentence means: "IBM's lawyer was on vacation at the time, didn't give prior notice to big blue, and now they've won the right to ask him anything they want."
/.? Presumably the Groklaw groupies (the only ones who have any idea what any of this is about) have already seen this.
So, an attorney who represents IBM went on vacation without telling his employer, and now his employer can ask with whatever questions it wishes. Which leads me to wonder why he went on vacation without telling his employer, and why his employer wants to depose him.
Some days I just wish people would just stop using pronouns.
I read the Groklaw article as well, and I'm no more enlightened than I was an hour ago. The article is as incomprehensible as the summary. I understand the legal process quite well, and I still have no idea what is going on here. If I'm going to have to read the last six months of Groklaw, and all of the court filings to understand what happened, then what's the point of posting this on
I once tried to read a few of the articles at Groklaw about this, and all I got is, "SCO bad, SCO lawyers stupid, IBM good."
We apparantly have different definitions of "pronouncable".
Microsoft does not have a version of Windows that anyone is using to run APs. They don't have a competitive product.
Dog bites man.
That's because Cisco wireless is a nightmare if you have more than a handfull of APs and you want to centrally manage them. Aruba wireless, on the other hand, is a beautiful thing to behold.
-- The voice of experience
Yes, according to the signers of the Declaration of Independance, we are endowed with certain rights by our creator. Among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (hint, it doesn't mention copying other's works). And since the Constitution specifically endorses a system of copyright, you're going to have a hell of a time convincing anyone rational that the drafters of that document felt that free copying was a fundamental right.
Ticketmaster is a middleman. They have no control over production or supply. No matter how many competitors they have on the output side, there would never be any downward price pressure because the price is already set below where it should be. If Ticketmaster has set the prices above where they should be, there wouldn't be thriving secondary market, and selling tickets at auction would drive prices down.
The price of tickets isn't marked to the cost of production, because the supply is nearly completely inelastic (I guess at some price artists would add tour dates), it's marked to the maximum demand. That doesn't change no matter how many middlemen you add.
It doesn't really matter that Ticketmaster is the only one selling tickets. Even if there was competition, the number of tickets is expressly limited to the size of venues, and the number of shows, so no more supply can come to the market. Imagine Ticketmaster had an equally balanced competitor. Each would get exactly one half of the seats in any given venue. Would the consumer price for those seats be any lower? If you think the answer is yes, then why? There's no additional supply, so the curve doesn't change. The price at which 100% of the inventory can be sold is still at the same point, and it's in both firm's interest to sell at that price.
Even if you believe that Tickemaster has a monopoly, this is a good thing. The problem with monopolies, is that they artificially inflate prices above where scarcity and demand would dictate. So, if Ticketmaster lists these tickets for sale at whatever price they would normally ask, and the prices rise at auction, doesn't that tell you that the prices weren't set higher than the demand curve would dictate? Monopolies aren't inherently evil if they don't negatively impact the market.
Your children will work for one of those greedy corporations, which lucky for them, will have more money to offer in salaries. So, if your kids are good at what they do, more companies will have more resources to lure them. Further good news is that your children will sock some of that money away for retirement, and invest it in those same greedy companies which profits will increase the value of your children's investments!
I recently purchased a ticket from them (since I had no other choice)
You had no other choice? Were you convicted of some crime for which you were sentenced to buy a ticket from ticketmaster?
The fact of the matter is, you could choose not to go the concert. You chose to buy the ticket, therefore you felt like whatever you got in return was worth more than the money you traded for it. If Ticketmaster's fees were actually excesive, people would stop buying tickets. So, why shouldn't they keep raising prices until people stop buying?
And how do you suggest that they decide what prices to charge at the gate? If they charge too little, the seats will sell too quickly, for less than they could have. That's inefficient. If they charge too much, they won't sell as many seats as they could. That's also inefficient! Auctions are an effective way of setting the price.
You should follow your own advice. As Schneier points out in one of his books, four digit PINs are perfectly suitible from some applications, especially when multi-factor authentication is used and there are reasonable controls on incorrect PINs. A 4 digit PIN gives 1,679,616 possibilities (assuming case insentitive letters and numbers). If the phone does something smart like disable itself after 3 incorrect entries, then there is a 1:559,872 chance that an attacker will be able to unlock the phone trying codes at random.
More pedantry. And for some reason, no legal scholars (or even political opponents) have serously questioned the President's authority and ability to declassified most classified material on the spot. Why would he have to allow for review by an execuive agency? That's just stupid, all those people work for him. That would be like the CEO asking my permission to send an email to his wife.
And I suggest you take a look at your original post again. You link to the defenitions section of the subchapter related to protecting NOC identities. I posted a link to the definitions section of the subchapter addressing access to classified information.
Of course the point is that the company was sold and is now effectively controlled by the Chineese government. Don't you think that makes a difference?
And of course the US would spy on China by any means. It's also certainly possible that there are not only fears of spying, but sabotage as well. The US government has succesfully sabotaged computer chips manufactured here and sold to foreign governments. That's what governments do.
The same reason he should be fired for any other abrogation of his job duties.
So, you can go to any doctor in the country at any time, and have any procedure performed that you are willing to pay for, with the only prerequisite being that said doctor is willing to perform the procedure and take your money? No, I believe that you can't. Of course what you can do is come across the border into the US, and pay cash as many of your countrymen do when they can afford it. Free as in beer healthcare is absolutely nothing like free as in speech healthcare.
For where your country's brilliant plan will end, you only need to look at the european socialist countries that have gone from socialized medicine, to approving of euthanasia, to executing children with incurable illnesses.
And who forces you into that HMO, dickwad? You do realize that socialized medicine is just one big HMO that in most cases you can't opt out of, don't you? If you think HMOs are bad, you'd surely love it when the board of that HMO was removed and replaced with a government beauracracy, and any motive of efficiency and profitability was replaced with an endless supply of taxpayer money.
So what you're saying, is that as a manager (albiet in government) I am unable to fire an insuborbordinate employee, no matter how many times he repeatedly defies a direct order. And you call that "freedom". As opposed to the way it is in this country where an employer can fire his employee for just about any reason. You call that less free?
BTW, civil service employees do enjoy significant job protection in this country, and we also have whistleblower laws which protect employees who report legal violations. But nothing should protect a jackass employee who runs his mouth whenever he feels like it.
You can even march down the streets here shouting "Jews must die!" Why can't you do that in Sweden? We also have the freedom to choose our own doctors, hospitals, and treatment options.
When confronted with the falsity of your statements, you resort to pedantry. You backed up your pedantry by citing the wrong law. The one you should have cited is here. Had you looked at the right law, you'd see that this law defers to Executive Order 12356 as to what is classified information. And Executive Order 12356 discusses declassification authority and states that material can be declassified by the person who classified it, or "the originator's successor; a supervisory official of either; or officials delegated such authority in writing." You think that the President might fall under the umbrella of "a supervisory official" of every single person in the Executive Branch? I do. So, no, the President doesn't have to put anything in writing or issue an executive order to declassify classified material. He can just do it.
That's incorrect. All radio stations pay royalties for the music they play.
Whether you admit it or not has nothing to do with whether you have commited an offense. However, it might have some bearing on whether you are convicted.