The order did not include FB nor was FB given legal notice of impending action. A warrant or judge's order still needs to be specific to the parties involved so I'm having difficulty agreeing with your conclusion, though I do agree with your points regarding destruction of evidence or spoilation.
Correct Facebook hasn't been notified. Which means that if Facebook were to take actions for reasons unconnected with the court, for example if they decided to delete all accounts in Illinois and that's where the couple lived, they would be fine. Spoilation is black letter law. You can't murder people, you can't steal cars and you can't destroy evidence that a court lilely wants. You don't to get a special order, it is a standing law pertaining to all cases going on in the United States from any court at all times.
Just to pick a similar example. If I knew of a criminal trial, that I was a first party too, and decide to intimidate a juror to try and get a verdict that would be a crime regardless of the fact that the court never ordered me now to engage in intimidation.
You are wrong. spoliation of evidence is the intentional or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding.
Courts aren't interested in playing games where: A has evidence A gives the evidence to B A gets a subpoena B destroys the evidence then B gets the subpoena and is unable to comply.
or variations. The court doesn't have to tell you not to destroy evidence. If you want to destroy evidence which is likely needed for a legal proceeding you need to go to them. And that's likely, you don't have to be sure it is needed.
No that's not the law. Once you know a court has interest you can't act. spoliation of evidence is the intentional or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding. You don't need to be put on notice what you know it is likely to be relevant, you have automatic obligations.
So if Facebook didn't know and deleted the account that's fine. If Facebook deleted the account for some other reason that's still a crime.
Facebook is obligated not to destroy evidence that a court is likely to express interest in. So once there is an order Facebook must preserve the evidence. They can request the right to limit damage by closing the accounts and giving information to the clerk. But the judge is not going to care about them getting a new cost, that was their choice to interfere.
The judges implicit order to them was not to close the accounts. Once they become aware of it, they have some limited obligations to obey. If it becomes explicit i.e. if the order were worded in such a way that closing the accounts would be an explicit violation, then Facebook can't do anything other than appeal. They were denied so they are going to be given wide latitude. But complying with court orders is not going to be considered harming their business by US courts.
Yes. Anytime you reasonable believe that a court is likely to want information in your possession you lose the right to destroy. That's before the court order.
Just second what Nailer235 wrote you. Get rid of incriminating stuff now from your old profile intermixed with other activities and then turn over everything pristine when asked. Once the divorce has started don't even think of doing any new hiding.
He's treading on thin ice with this one. What's next, swapping bank account info?
What's next? Courts have been ordering people to reveal bank account info in divorces since they started presiding over divorces.
And if the two laymen involved in a divorce case are basically being tasked to "snoop" on the other and find out every bit of information, then what the hell is anyone paying a highly educated divorce attorney for.
The laymen don't have to do the snooping. They can hire professionals to look through their spouses facebook account. But frankly a spouse can often find things that are useful.
the fact that actions like this will set precedent in damn near every single future court case involving two people who are divorcing who happen to have Facebook accounts(that would be just about EVERYONE)
The precedent already exists. If either party alleges the other party is unfit to be a partent and indicates where the evidence can be found the court will start issuing orders for that evidence to be turned over as part of discovery. This is not unusual.
The issue of precedent is whether a social networking account is a single thing, or a broad search. I think there is room to argue such orders are overly broad in terms of what they require. But one of the parties would have had to raise this point and demand more specificity. And that likely would have been held against them in terms of custody, i.e. they are clearly hiding something.
They could have raised this point with the judge. Judges are often quite reasonable about exploring alternative ways of getting evidence when the one they order will cause harm. They can do the whole thing where they give each other passwords and then their attorneys conduct searches supervised..... it just raises both parties costs.
Several thousand years of legal precedent covering spoliation of evidence and evidence tampering. We don't live in libertarian heaven, you are not allowed to destroy something that a court might likely consider to be evidence that is your property or your possession. Period. Your property rights stop where court interest start.
Doesn't matter. If Facebook is aware of the order, they are obligated to obey. You can destroy evidence you believe is likely to be needed by a court just because they haven't figured out in whose possession it is. spoliation of evidence / evidence tampering covers 3rd parties.
Facebook as a US corporation has an obligation not to destroy evidence in its possession. Facebook can't remove anything having to do with those accounts once a judge has indicated the there is interest in them for a trial.
The original post was about Ubuntu relative to Fedora not Mint. You are still missing that. It wasn't about Mint, the points you were responding to originally had nothing to do with Mint. I'm not pretending anything. Are you trolling?
In the response post I addressed Mint.
As for ease of installation, it is entirely possible that Mint doesn't provide a good GUI for RAID installation. I don't consider that a huge problem, you do.
As for Fedora being buggy vs. RHEL. I agree RHEL isn't buggy. The original question was about Fedora vs. Ubuntu not RHEL.
I think you'll find light users barely notice the difference between OSes. They weren't functional before and they aren't on the new system. The group that has the worst time switching are skilled non pros, power users. They have a lot of skills on one platform but not a lot of depth.
I also think your use of "GUI" is... not right, or at least, not what most people would think. A desktop itself is a graphical interface, and thus a GUI, so how can you argue that multiple desktops came "before GUIs," when a desktop is a GUI itself?
A GUI has a window manager but also has additional components, for example:
a framework most important frameworks provide for inversion of control -- i.e. OS gets messages and passes it to the application. This is called event management, from the end user's perspective they are using the OS and the Applications do stuff.
A graphical widget set. Some sort of consistent look and feel between applications.
An interface manager. That is a way for an application to hint at what size various windows should be, and more importantly have windows that are "on top" or float together.
Sound support Obviously multiple applications have a to share a single sound system. Someone has to administrate between them.
Application programming services. This is what GUIs compete on. and the debates about bloat vs. features happen here.
Window management predated GUIs. Arguably some of the graphical applications from the 1960s had something you could call window management, but none had GUIs. In the case of X, windows managers came immediately (X windows 1984, uwm 1985) but it would be fair to say the first major Unix GUI was CDE in 1993; and most Unix users weren't using a GUI until the early 2000s after the rise of Gnome and KDE.
As for the rest, let me remind you of your initial statement Are you retarded? Exposé? Spaces? Mission Control? All of those offer way better window management than anything in X, much less anything in 1995. Virtual desktops are the only thing that X offers for window management. And this accusation of brain damage was in response to SomeKDE's OS X always had dismal window management compared to X Windows circa 1995.
You made a statement of fact of who had which features when, and which features existed. An implication of your statement was that features like tiling do not exist, not that you don't personally like them. Your original statement, was simple factually false. This is not a question of opinion but a matter of fact. If your statement had been that window management under X is more sophisticated than window management under OSX but you like the quality of Apple's execution of a fairly simple virtual desktop model then you would be stating something truthfully. The window management that OSX provides is rather basic by OS standards today. The desktop virtualization is on par with what Unixes offered two decades ago. You may find it more pleasant to use, but you need to start distinguishing history for your personal taste.
Finally:
That's your preference. You can't say that "OS X doesn't hold a candle to tiling window managers" and expect it to apply to anyone but you.
You are actually misquoting me here, which specifically refutes your claim. OSX window managers don't hold a candle to modern tiling window managers, where each virtual desktop can have different window management behaviors In context I was giving you a specific feature advantage, an example of something that didn't exist in mission control and is common in modern Unix window managers. That is an objective matter of fact about a feature. That doesn't apply to me, that applies to reality.
Again, you really need to start distinguishing between your personal preferences and history. You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.
I agree. This is part of the open source culture. Free (as in beer) open languages encourage open tools, in theory they don't have to but in practice they do. There are companies making some open development tools but I think fundamentally it is going to be platform owners subsidizing tool creation (i.e. XCode/Interface builder, Visual Studio...)
I agree with you. Flash was (and is) an excellent easy to use vector graphics format. There were replacements for video. Flash faced resistance, but Adobe could have opened it rather than killed it.
I think this is a major step back for Adobe. They've now lost most of what they got from Macromedia. Obviously they made their purchase money back, but they bought Macromedia to get them out of this position ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Macromedia_software )
I suggest you might want to read context before going on a screed. This post was about Ubuntu relative to Fedora not Mint.
But now that you mention Mint I'll address that. I like the included drivers in Mint. Getting hardware running fast is a huge plus for me and better hardware compatibility than Knoppix is impressive. I've never used a software RAID on a desktop. I think you are focused on one issue which happens to a minority issue. And to be honest, if you can't handle mdadm then what are you going to do when something goes wrong with your RAID?
But regardless, this is where diversity of distribution has its advantages. I don't like Anaconda as an installer because it often fails to detect when GRUB has problems and I have that problem more often. Not everyone has the same needs.
I get you and you are proving my point about why people weren't willing to buy. citizenklaw (grandparent) was whom I was responding to. I never had any problem paying for Mandrake (now Mandriva), but I felt like I was getting the value from their work. Ultimately though, I did have problems with the distributions that were more expensive. For example I used to think RHEL was total ripoff before the price cut and still it's higher than I'd be willing to pay. So I think it is totally personal.
I think it is good that the 2005-8 people who switched to Ubuntu move on to another distribution. Debian is obviously a good choice.
I was not a fan at the time of standardizing on Gnome. I always felt the goals of Gnome and the goal of Linux as a poweruser's desktop were in completely conflict. I think Gnome and KDE have generally worked well when each other dropped the ball and LXDE and XFCE now add another layer. I like the fact they are forking and getting further apart in feel and functionality.
What Linux brought to the desktop is "you can have it your way" and so I think extremes are great.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct Facebook hasn't been notified. Which means that if Facebook were to take actions for reasons unconnected with the court, for example if they decided to delete all accounts in Illinois and that's where the couple lived, they would be fine. Spoilation is black letter law. You can't murder people, you can't steal cars and you can't destroy evidence that a court lilely wants. You don't to get a special order, it is a standing law pertaining to all cases going on in the United States from any court at all times.
Just to pick a similar example. If I knew of a criminal trial, that I was a first party too, and decide to intimidate a juror to try and get a verdict that would be a crime regardless of the fact that the court never ordered me now to engage in intimidation.
I've answered this a 1/2 dozen times already look elsewhere in the thread.
You are wrong. spoliation of evidence is the intentional or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding.
Courts aren't interested in playing games where:
A has evidence
A gives the evidence to B
A gets a subpoena
B destroys the evidence
then B gets the subpoena and is unable to comply.
or variations. The court doesn't have to tell you not to destroy evidence. If you want to destroy evidence which is likely needed for a legal proceeding you need to go to them. And that's likely, you don't have to be sure it is needed.
No that's not the law. Once you know a court has interest you can't act. spoliation of evidence is the intentional or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding. You don't need to be put on notice what you know it is likely to be relevant, you have automatic obligations.
So if Facebook didn't know and deleted the account that's fine.
If Facebook deleted the account for some other reason that's still a crime.
It is a custody issue. One of them is alleging the other is unfit and there is evidence of activity X (whatever makes them unfit) on Facebook.
Facebook is obligated not to destroy evidence that a court is likely to express interest in. So once there is an order Facebook must preserve the evidence. They can request the right to limit damage by closing the accounts and giving information to the clerk. But the judge is not going to care about them getting a new cost, that was their choice to interfere.
The judges implicit order to them was not to close the accounts. Once they become aware of it, they have some limited obligations to obey. If it becomes explicit i.e. if the order were worded in such a way that closing the accounts would be an explicit violation, then Facebook can't do anything other than appeal. They were denied so they are going to be given wide latitude. But complying with court orders is not going to be considered harming their business by US courts.
You aren't being subjected to state power. Both sides are on an equal field in a civil trial.
Yes. Anytime you reasonable believe that a court is likely to want information in your possession you lose the right to destroy. That's before the court order.
Just second what Nailer235 wrote you. Get rid of incriminating stuff now from your old profile intermixed with other activities and then turn over everything pristine when asked. Once the divorce has started don't even think of doing any new hiding.
What's next? Courts have been ordering people to reveal bank account info in divorces since they started presiding over divorces.
The laymen don't have to do the snooping. They can hire professionals to look through their spouses facebook account. But frankly a spouse can often find things that are useful.
The precedent already exists. If either party alleges the other party is unfit to be a partent and indicates where the evidence can be found the court will start issuing orders for that evidence to be turned over as part of discovery. This is not unusual.
The issue of precedent is whether a social networking account is a single thing, or a broad search. I think there is room to argue such orders are overly broad in terms of what they require. But one of the parties would have had to raise this point and demand more specificity. And that likely would have been held against them in terms of custody, i.e. they are clearly hiding something.
They could have raised this point with the judge. Judges are often quite reasonable about exploring alternative ways of getting evidence when the one they order will cause harm. They can do the whole thing where they give each other passwords and then their attorneys conduct searches supervised..... it just raises both parties costs.
Asking her account be removed after the judge has indicated it is needed by the court is called evidence tampering.
Several thousand years of legal precedent covering spoliation of evidence and evidence tampering. We don't live in libertarian heaven, you are not allowed to destroy something that a court might likely consider to be evidence that is your property or your possession. Period. Your property rights stop where court interest start.
What makes you think email is sacred? Judges can and have ordered people to turn over emails.
Doesn't matter. If Facebook is aware of the order, they are obligated to obey. You can destroy evidence you believe is likely to be needed by a court just because they haven't figured out in whose possession it is. spoliation of evidence / evidence tampering covers 3rd parties.
Facebook as a US corporation has an obligation not to destroy evidence in its possession. Facebook can't remove anything having to do with those accounts once a judge has indicated the there is interest in them for a trial.
The original post was about Ubuntu relative to Fedora not Mint. You are still missing that. It wasn't about Mint, the points you were responding to originally had nothing to do with Mint. I'm not pretending anything. Are you trolling?
In the response post I addressed Mint.
As for ease of installation, it is entirely possible that Mint doesn't provide a good GUI for RAID installation. I don't consider that a huge problem, you do.
As for Fedora being buggy vs. RHEL. I agree RHEL isn't buggy. The original question was about Fedora vs. Ubuntu not RHEL.
I think you'll find light users barely notice the difference between OSes. They weren't functional before and they aren't on the new system. The group that has the worst time switching are skilled non pros, power users. They have a lot of skills on one platform but not a lot of depth.
A GUI has a window manager but also has additional components, for example:
Window management predated GUIs. Arguably some of the graphical applications from the 1960s had something you could call window management, but none had GUIs. In the case of X, windows managers came immediately (X windows 1984, uwm 1985) but it would be fair to say the first major Unix GUI was CDE in 1993; and most Unix users weren't using a GUI until the early 2000s after the rise of Gnome and KDE.
As for the rest, let me remind you of your initial statement Are you retarded? Exposé? Spaces? Mission Control? All of those offer way better window management than anything in X, much less anything in 1995. Virtual desktops are the only thing that X offers for window management. And this accusation of brain damage was in response to SomeKDE's OS X always had dismal window management compared to X Windows circa 1995.
You made a statement of fact of who had which features when, and which features existed. An implication of your statement was that features like tiling do not exist, not that you don't personally like them. Your original statement, was simple factually false. This is not a question of opinion but a matter of fact. If your statement had been that window management under X is more sophisticated than window management under OSX but you like the quality of Apple's execution of a fairly simple virtual desktop model then you would be stating something truthfully. The window management that OSX provides is rather basic by OS standards today. The desktop virtualization is on par with what Unixes offered two decades ago. You may find it more pleasant to use, but you need to start distinguishing history for your personal taste.
Finally:
You are actually misquoting me here, which specifically refutes your claim. OSX window managers don't hold a candle to modern tiling window managers, where each virtual desktop can have different window management behaviors In context I was giving you a specific feature advantage, an example of something that didn't exist in mission control and is common in modern Unix window managers. That is an objective matter of fact about a feature. That doesn't apply to me, that applies to reality.
Again, you really need to start distinguishing between your personal preferences and history. You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.
Could you expand on that? How? For example how do you avoid the quadratic memory issues in lazy languages?
I agree. This is part of the open source culture. Free (as in beer) open languages encourage open tools, in theory they don't have to but in practice they do. There are companies making some open development tools but I think fundamentally it is going to be platform owners subsidizing tool creation (i.e. XCode/Interface builder, Visual Studio...)
I agree with you. Flash was (and is) an excellent easy to use vector graphics format. There were replacements for video. Flash faced resistance, but Adobe could have opened it rather than killed it.
I think this is a major step back for Adobe. They've now lost most of what they got from Macromedia. Obviously they made their purchase money back, but they bought Macromedia to get them out of this position ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Macromedia_software )
I suggest you might want to read context before going on a screed. This post was about Ubuntu relative to Fedora not Mint.
But now that you mention Mint I'll address that. I like the included drivers in Mint. Getting hardware running fast is a huge plus for me and better hardware compatibility than Knoppix is impressive. I've never used a software RAID on a desktop. I think you are focused on one issue which happens to a minority issue. And to be honest, if you can't handle mdadm then what are you going to do when something goes wrong with your RAID?
But regardless, this is where diversity of distribution has its advantages. I don't like Anaconda as an installer because it often fails to detect when GRUB has problems and I have that problem more often. Not everyone has the same needs.
I get you and you are proving my point about why people weren't willing to buy. citizenklaw (grandparent) was whom I was responding to. I never had any problem paying for Mandrake (now Mandriva), but I felt like I was getting the value from their work. Ultimately though, I did have problems with the distributions that were more expensive. For example I used to think RHEL was total ripoff before the price cut and still it's higher than I'd be willing to pay. So I think it is totally personal.
I think it is good that the 2005-8 people who switched to Ubuntu move on to another distribution. Debian is obviously a good choice.
I was not a fan at the time of standardizing on Gnome. I always felt the goals of Gnome and the goal of Linux as a poweruser's desktop were in completely conflict. I think Gnome and KDE have generally worked well when each other dropped the ball and LXDE and XFCE now add another layer. I like the fact they are forking and getting further apart in feel and functionality.
What Linux brought to the desktop is "you can have it your way" and so I think extremes are great.