If an HR department can install and manage software that interfaces with a companies email without IT knowing about, that company has bigger security concerns. If IT manages it, IT can circumvent it.
Most likely a subset of the IT team responsible for network security manages the software.
In other words, there are probably a few senior members of the IT team that are assigned the task of maintaining the software for HR, reporting on it, and showing that it is working.
If one of the other team members circumvents it, one of the IT security officers responsible for the software
will notice this, report it to HR, and an investigation will begin.
Why not just shoplift or do something less deadly to exercise their need to rebel?
Probably partially because stores are much more effective at catching shoplifters than police are at catching red-light runners, and those people wind up jail faster.
Another explanation would be they want to show off. If there were no danger, the little rebels wouldn't feel they're sending the message they want to send
Personally, I think drivers under age 25 should have to have the "black box" or "car chip" in their car,
with GPS tracking and data about their driving habits reported to their liability insurance provider on a monthly basis.
And there should no longer be an age-based premium on insurance rates; instead
there should be an exponential increase in insurance cost if unsafe driving or red-light running is detected.
Stores use technology such as 'anti-theft tags' and cameras to deter shoplifting.
Insurance companies should use technology to deter reckless driving on their dime.
That's 1/10th the cost of a software engineer for one year, going by the usual rule that half the cost of an employee is salary.
Doubtlessly the 1/2 figure is an overestimate of convenience for employee cost, or gross generalization, probably used to justify paying an unfairly low salary.
Most of the additional employee costs are imposed by the government, and around 10%, but SS taxes are capped at a certain salary level. Others are fixed costs that are not proportionally related to salary.
For example... company buys a laptop for each employee every 3 years, to get work done. Is that really an employee cost though; or is it just recorded as one for accounting purposes?
There are fixed costs that depend on the number of employees, but they're really incidental.
For Project X to be done on time, the cost of getting the project done is salary+taxes for N employees,
f(N) laptops, and g(N) desks.
Employee SS taxes and insurance, vary with salary, other costs are fixed besides salary
and insurance benefits; there are only some gross distinctions, such as managers might get a more expensive workspace, more powerful computer, more monitors than the engineers, etc.
Unless the company is granting employees some kind of extra variable benefit that depends on salary based on
internal policy, 1/2 should be a vast overestimate.
Jeez, when I want to get to work a little faster, I'm risking a fine that's equivalent to several hours of pay, and I only get paid 2000 hours a year... Google gives federal investigators a hard time and they only propose to fine them about
I think you're missing that there is no connection between fine amounts and your rate of pay.
Fines are a shot across the bow; "shape up, or else".
You too as an individual can give federal investigators a hard time and only get a $25,000 fine,
if you're lucky enough to not get a prison sentence.
Now if you happen to earn $40,000 a year, yes, that fine is a significant burden.
On the other hand, if you happen to earn $300,000 a year, much less of a burden.
This is an inherent injustice with using fines as a deterrant; they are unfairly caustic to
those who can't afford the fine, and they are unfairly lenient to those who can.
The government really has no business attaching dollar amounts to violations.
Instead what they should do is force the offender to take all reasonable
actions (even fiscally irresponsible ones) that ameloriate for their wrongdoing.
For example, I would support Google being required, as punishment for failure to comply
with the investigation, to get the list of wireless APs they
gathered too much data from, and send at least 2 employees to personally apologize to each
and every AP owner they gathered data from, offer them a minimum of $50 cash
compensation for their error, and they must visit every AP location for at least 10 minutes, within
30 days, and mail a check to the building owner if they cannot make personally make contact with
anyone there after 2 attempts.
Actually, I think this is a violation of Google's 5th amendment right to avoid self-incrimination.
They aren't asking Google to testify in court, so no, it's not self-incrimination, it's production of records.
Also, Google is being charged with violations of regulations, which is more of a "civil" matter.
The managers aren't at risk of going to jail over this; this isn't like a wire fraud allegation.
If you keep a personal diary, and in it you describe your crimes; the contents of your diary can
be used against you in court.
Unlike with Google, if you're suspected of a crime, police will get a warrant, go into your house and seize it.
Whereas, if you are a big company accused of violationg a regulation -- a court will order you to produce
all relevant evidence. You're on your honor to not hide anything. You as a corporation have an
opportunity to shred documents; and the worst case is if you're caught you pay a fine.
I've yet to see a company ever be "sent to jail" for violating a criminal act.
Does that mean for the next 10 years, all the employees including managers at 9am have to show up at
prison in orange, to sit in a cell for 8 hours every work day, do their work under close surveillance, and
the state gets all the company's profits?
When investigations go on longer than necessary it increases the workload for the investigators and their assistants and results in increased the costs to the taxpayer.
It seems they requested information that took Google a few months to produce.
Google did not provide emails that the FCC requested or identify the engineer who authorized the data collection
It doesn't seem that apparent that Google was attempting to delay the investigation.
If the FCC requests a company produce all e-mails that meet a certain criteria,
that can be a huge burden for IT that may inherently take many man hours, and they have to be certain
that what is produced is complete, before sending anything -- or be at risk of being accused of attempting to conceal or failing to comply with the order to produce.
As for reporting on 'which engineer authorized the data collection';
that may be a rather complicated matter as well -- the various entities involved need to complete their
finger pointing and internal investigations and review of internal records to figure out who actually did what.
That would be even more complicated if no engineer specifically authorized the data collection, but hey...
A 2 or 3 month delay begins to sound quite plausible, and not unreasonable. It could very well be innocent ineptitude, poor management, or inefficiency in doing the work to satisfy unusual requests, to draw matters out further,
it's not necessary to conclude malice.
Without specific evidence of intentional delay, there's no basis for a fine.
until your angle to the object is close to 360 degrees
P.S. Obviously I mean +/- 90 degrees; where an object at 0 degrees is directly ahead of you.
Since at 0 degrees you can see an object directly ahead.
At 90 degrees you can look out the right window.
At -90 degrees you can look out the left window.
At approximately +/- 40 to 45 degrees, an object will be obscured.
Most cars do not have a cockpit that gives the driver an unobstructed view in all directions.
There are plenty of blind spots both in front of and behind your car.
Actually, there is a lot of gray area around a stop sign. Lets say you come to a stop sign at the intersection of two streets in the middle of nowhere with 1/2 mile visibility in all directions and no traffic. Why should you stop?
For safety reasons you should stop. Usually stop signs are there to control an intersection, but there are sometimes other reasons, such as road hazards. You may think you have 1/2 mile visibility everywhere, but there is a danger there, because the driver's awareness is inherently limited; human vision only has an effective span of 120 degrees, much of that is peripheral vision which has a very limited useful distance; approximately 10 degrees is what you can actually see, the rest is a bit of an illusion created by the brain.
If you are looking straight ahead and side to side, you will still not necessarily notice a car with 1/2 mile visibility;
there is a probalistic occurence of the object "catching" your attention so that you unconsciously look at it.
But typically drivers are looking straight ahead; You don't really have clear sight of what is to the right or left of an intersecting road, until your angle to the object is close to 360 degrees, even with high visibility..
There is also the fact that even stronger safety measures are called for out "in the middle of nowhere".
The farther you are from civilization, the more likely a person is to die if a serious injury is experienced,
because it can take emergency medical assistance too long to arrive
If they chose to put a stop sign somewhere, there should be a good reason for their decision.
I'm all for taking this up with your county planning folks.
But it's not up to drivers to override the authorities' careful decisions with regards to road safety, and thereby put themselves and others at risk.
If you punish the officer for writing invalid tickets, and don't provide incentive for writing valid ones then they just won't write any tickets...
You punish them for writing any invalid ticket AND you punish them if they show a pattern of failing to write valid tickets, or failing to take on their assigned patrol correctly, if the situation demanded writing a ticket. You require the officer to have live video recording in their car of all their actions, and you require that their supervisors review a certain percentage of the footage on a regular basis.
Their incentive is that they are doing their job, therefore they get paid.
I can see no safety reason why one should have to wait for a light to turn green if there is no traffic coming. Come to a full and complete stop, and then proceed if it is safe to do so.
I can. Drivers in the US when reading the rule would read and understand "Come to a stop, then Proceed"
They would miss/ignore/fail to understand the "Full and complete stop" part, and they would miss/ignore/fail to understand the "if it is safe to do so" part.
Drivers already don't understand the "turn right on red" rule. They understand they can turn right on a red light. They don't understand the "Verify that the intersection is clear of oncoming traffic" in all directions, part.
In the same way drivers misunderstand the rule about Yellow lights.
Instead of "Stay out of the intersection, stop if safe to do so; otherwise proceed cautiously"
they read "Put the accelerator to the floor, and get into the intersection as quickly as possible".
I'm sorry, but running a stop sign in an intersection with good visibility in all directions most definitely _is_ a tiny little thing, and it's a shame both that the law doesn't treat it as such
It's not. If you don't stop and carefully look properly, drivers' danger of hitting a pedestrian or bicyclist are higher, because the amount of time the driver of a moving car has to look around is so limited, that even with
perfect visibility, there is not enough time to thoroughly inspect the surroundings, without stopping.
Well not having 4 way intersections is a major design change, especially
in cities which are often laid out in a grid.
And requiring traffic lights for 4way intersections to be safe is a consider drawback,
when you consider situations such as signal light failures, or citywide power loss type events;
in countries that treat "stop as stop", you have a safer failure mode..
At the end of the day the important thing isn't necessarily whether the signs mean "Stop" or "Yield";
an important thing is that all drivers adhere to a common set of rules, so that other
drivers have predictability.
If the signs mean STOP, then everyone must stop in the manner proscribed by the rules.
If the signs mean YIELD, then everyone must yield in the manner proscribed by the rules.
If when approaching an intersection, you can't be sure what the other driver's response to a STOP/YIELD
sign is, then you have a safety hazard introduced by the unpredictability
I wish cops would just not pick people on the little tiny things and just let things slide, unless its BLOODY obvious.
Running a stop sign is not a tiny little thing. If the officer actually observed the complete failure to properly obey the STOP sign, a ticket should have been issued.
Cars failing to stop ARE a safety issue.
And if the law was not being vigorously enforced, there are many jerks on the road purposefully ignoring STOP signs or red lights when they feel they can get away with it -- road safety would be much worse.
Lives are saved when people don't run stop signs because they're afraid of getting a ticket.
If you think this really happened, find a citation for the case that doesn't end up back at this same article.
The article is a citation; and it's not particularly newsworthy that someone successfully beat
charges of running a stop sign, it's not surprising that there would be one article referring to it.
You have really shown no evidence that it was actually an April Fools joke.
Until you go pull the public records, and find nothing, however, there is no reason to doubt the author's account on the matter.
And since when do people in the US submit April fools jokes at April 1, 4:00 AM GMT ?
In North America, San Diego, that's still a March 31 submission.
Asking them to hand over video evidence is a little unfair (the cop would be spending the day burning CDs) but they should be compelled to show that there is evidence and not simply an opinion.
They can use the printer in their car and hand you a sheet with the Youtube link to your ticketable offense.
I decided my time was worth more than that, and took the plea. I could have taken the second hearing to plead my case before a judge, but the amount it cost me to drive there and back, plus time taken off of work, was likely more than the small fine I paid them that day.
What should happen is the county should be required to fairly compensate you for your lost time, driving costs for both trips, and inconvenience (Including the inconvenience of having been pulled over), if you are found not guilty.
A portion of that should come from the officer's salary / annual bonus. Maybe then they would be
more careful about making sure a crime was actually committed before stopping a vehicle and issuing a ticket.
Physics explained what the officer saw (or thought he saw) but another car explains what the officer didn't see (Krioukov stopping at the stop sign).
The officer didn't observe him not stopping at the stop sign.
The officer ASSUMED he did not stop based on the state of the car he observed before his was obstructed,
and the state of the car he observed after it was no longer obstructed.
The officer should be disciplined for taking that shortcut and citing based on a supposed occurence that
were not actually directly observed.
But since Megaupload is contractually obliged to pay for the space and bandwidth, and the equipment is still there, they have to keep paying on the contract.
Well, not necessarily. They have a contractual obligation to pay for the bandwidth and hosting.
The DoJ's actions have forced the hosting provider into a situation where they are no longer providing the hosting
agreed upon in the contract; IOW, the government have forced the hosting provider to no longer be upholding their end of the contract. That means MegaUpload could start witholding payments, on the basis that their
service provider isn't providing the service agreed upon. The hosting provider then might have recourse against MegaUpload, which might or might not be cancelled out by MegaUpload's recourse against the hosting provider.
The DoJ is responsible for the hosting provider's non-performance, therefore, the DoJ should be liable to pay
MegaUpload's recourse against the hosting provider then.
In reality, the DoJ wants all those non-infringing files deleted because they'll hurt their case. The DoJ has also repeatedly tried to prevent MegaUpload from hiring good lawyers
Destruction of evidence required by the defense can hurt their case by having it thrown out.
(essentially, a server that works out which other users a user's avatar is able to see and only sends position updates for those, with various variations - all of which are obvious - involving how the necessary information is to be stored in a database) is so fundamental
Text-based MUDs do that, and have been around since the 80s.
The algorithm implementation required to determine who sees who
and what motion updates are sent is much simpler, but the principal of
sending updates to a server, and the server determining which player can see
what, is identical.
Focus your Facebook account on your off-hours hobby of DJ'ing for gay Jewish inter-racial couples retreats.
They would then refer you to section (5)(8).(2)(c) of their hiring policy.
"Do not hire any candidate who wastes spare time with activities such as DJ'ing"
Possible Facebook ToS violation? You don't "friend" sites, you "like" sites.
And when you friend someone, you can add them to a "group".
For example, you can have your privacy settings configured so that most of
your info, wall, photos, etc, are only visible to certain groups
Yeah, just like fans of Paris started settling in Las Vegas when they built a fake Eiffel Tower, and fans of Egypt started moving there when they built a fake Pyramid of Giza
That doesn't make much sense, since the Vegas replica of the Pyramid or Eiffel tower pales in comparison to the real deal.
If there were no Eiffel tower in paris, then the fake one might serve as an attraction for people to come and visit...
Slashdot Mirror
If an HR department can install and manage software that interfaces with a companies email without IT knowing about, that company has bigger security concerns. If IT manages it, IT can circumvent it.
Most likely a subset of the IT team responsible for network security manages the software. In other words, there are probably a few senior members of the IT team that are assigned the task of maintaining the software for HR, reporting on it, and showing that it is working.
If one of the other team members circumvents it, one of the IT security officers responsible for the software will notice this, report it to HR, and an investigation will begin.
Because they can get even more by hurting them *and* getting their golden parachutes after the havoc?
Until they get caught, and have to repay fradulently taken $$$, lose their golden parachute, and become unemployable.
Why not just shoplift or do something less deadly to exercise their need to rebel?
Probably partially because stores are much more effective at catching shoplifters than police are at catching red-light runners, and those people wind up jail faster.
Another explanation would be they want to show off. If there were no danger, the little rebels wouldn't feel they're sending the message they want to send
Personally, I think drivers under age 25 should have to have the "black box" or "car chip" in their car, with GPS tracking and data about their driving habits reported to their liability insurance provider on a monthly basis.
And there should no longer be an age-based premium on insurance rates; instead there should be an exponential increase in insurance cost if unsafe driving or red-light running is detected.
Stores use technology such as 'anti-theft tags' and cameras to deter shoplifting. Insurance companies should use technology to deter reckless driving on their dime.
That's 1/10th the cost of a software engineer for one year, going by the usual rule that half the cost of an employee is salary.
Doubtlessly the 1/2 figure is an overestimate of convenience for employee cost, or gross generalization, probably used to justify paying an unfairly low salary.
Most of the additional employee costs are imposed by the government, and around 10%, but SS taxes are capped at a certain salary level. Others are fixed costs that are not proportionally related to salary.
For example... company buys a laptop for each employee every 3 years, to get work done. Is that really an employee cost though; or is it just recorded as one for accounting purposes?
There are fixed costs that depend on the number of employees, but they're really incidental.
For Project X to be done on time, the cost of getting the project done is salary+taxes for N employees, f(N) laptops, and g(N) desks.
Employee SS taxes and insurance, vary with salary, other costs are fixed besides salary and insurance benefits; there are only some gross distinctions, such as managers might get a more expensive workspace, more powerful computer, more monitors than the engineers, etc.
Unless the company is granting employees some kind of extra variable benefit that depends on salary based on internal policy, 1/2 should be a vast overestimate.
Jeez, when I want to get to work a little faster, I'm risking a fine that's equivalent to several hours of pay, and I only get paid 2000 hours a year... Google gives federal investigators a hard time and they only propose to fine them about
I think you're missing that there is no connection between fine amounts and your rate of pay. Fines are a shot across the bow; "shape up, or else".
You too as an individual can give federal investigators a hard time and only get a $25,000 fine, if you're lucky enough to not get a prison sentence.
Now if you happen to earn $40,000 a year, yes, that fine is a significant burden. On the other hand, if you happen to earn $300,000 a year, much less of a burden.
This is an inherent injustice with using fines as a deterrant; they are unfairly caustic to those who can't afford the fine, and they are unfairly lenient to those who can.
The government really has no business attaching dollar amounts to violations. Instead what they should do is force the offender to take all reasonable actions (even fiscally irresponsible ones) that ameloriate for their wrongdoing.
For example, I would support Google being required, as punishment for failure to comply with the investigation, to get the list of wireless APs they gathered too much data from, and send at least 2 employees to personally apologize to each and every AP owner they gathered data from, offer them a minimum of $50 cash compensation for their error, and they must visit every AP location for at least 10 minutes, within 30 days, and mail a check to the building owner if they cannot make personally make contact with anyone there after 2 attempts.
Actually, I think this is a violation of Google's 5th amendment right to avoid self-incrimination.
They aren't asking Google to testify in court, so no, it's not self-incrimination, it's production of records. Also, Google is being charged with violations of regulations, which is more of a "civil" matter. The managers aren't at risk of going to jail over this; this isn't like a wire fraud allegation.
If you keep a personal diary, and in it you describe your crimes; the contents of your diary can be used against you in court.
Unlike with Google, if you're suspected of a crime, police will get a warrant, go into your house and seize it.
Whereas, if you are a big company accused of violationg a regulation -- a court will order you to produce all relevant evidence. You're on your honor to not hide anything. You as a corporation have an opportunity to shred documents; and the worst case is if you're caught you pay a fine.
I've yet to see a company ever be "sent to jail" for violating a criminal act. Does that mean for the next 10 years, all the employees including managers at 9am have to show up at prison in orange, to sit in a cell for 8 hours every work day, do their work under close surveillance, and the state gets all the company's profits?
When investigations go on longer than necessary it increases the workload for the investigators and their assistants and results in increased the costs to the taxpayer.
It seems they requested information that took Google a few months to produce. Google did not provide emails that the FCC requested or identify the engineer who authorized the data collection
It doesn't seem that apparent that Google was attempting to delay the investigation. If the FCC requests a company produce all e-mails that meet a certain criteria, that can be a huge burden for IT that may inherently take many man hours, and they have to be certain that what is produced is complete, before sending anything -- or be at risk of being accused of attempting to conceal or failing to comply with the order to produce.
As for reporting on 'which engineer authorized the data collection'; that may be a rather complicated matter as well -- the various entities involved need to complete their finger pointing and internal investigations and review of internal records to figure out who actually did what.
That would be even more complicated if no engineer specifically authorized the data collection, but hey...
A 2 or 3 month delay begins to sound quite plausible, and not unreasonable. It could very well be innocent ineptitude, poor management, or inefficiency in doing the work to satisfy unusual requests, to draw matters out further, it's not necessary to conclude malice.
Without specific evidence of intentional delay, there's no basis for a fine.
until your angle to the object is close to 360 degrees
P.S. Obviously I mean +/- 90 degrees; where an object at 0 degrees is directly ahead of you. Since at 0 degrees you can see an object directly ahead. At 90 degrees you can look out the right window. At -90 degrees you can look out the left window.
At approximately +/- 40 to 45 degrees, an object will be obscured.
Most cars do not have a cockpit that gives the driver an unobstructed view in all directions. There are plenty of blind spots both in front of and behind your car.
Actually, there is a lot of gray area around a stop sign. Lets say you come to a stop sign at the intersection of two streets in the middle of nowhere with 1/2 mile visibility in all directions and no traffic. Why should you stop?
For safety reasons you should stop. Usually stop signs are there to control an intersection, but there are sometimes other reasons, such as road hazards. You may think you have 1/2 mile visibility everywhere, but there is a danger there, because the driver's awareness is inherently limited; human vision only has an effective span of 120 degrees, much of that is peripheral vision which has a very limited useful distance; approximately 10 degrees is what you can actually see, the rest is a bit of an illusion created by the brain.
If you are looking straight ahead and side to side, you will still not necessarily notice a car with 1/2 mile visibility; there is a probalistic occurence of the object "catching" your attention so that you unconsciously look at it.
But typically drivers are looking straight ahead; You don't really have clear sight of what is to the right or left of an intersecting road, until your angle to the object is close to 360 degrees, even with high visibility..
There is also the fact that even stronger safety measures are called for out "in the middle of nowhere". The farther you are from civilization, the more likely a person is to die if a serious injury is experienced, because it can take emergency medical assistance too long to arrive
If they chose to put a stop sign somewhere, there should be a good reason for their decision.
I'm all for taking this up with your county planning folks. But it's not up to drivers to override the authorities' careful decisions with regards to road safety, and thereby put themselves and others at risk.
If you punish the officer for writing invalid tickets, and don't provide incentive for writing valid ones then they just won't write any tickets...
You punish them for writing any invalid ticket AND you punish them if they show a pattern of failing to write valid tickets, or failing to take on their assigned patrol correctly, if the situation demanded writing a ticket. You require the officer to have live video recording in their car of all their actions, and you require that their supervisors review a certain percentage of the footage on a regular basis.
Their incentive is that they are doing their job, therefore they get paid.
I can see no safety reason why one should have to wait for a light to turn green if there is no traffic coming. Come to a full and complete stop, and then proceed if it is safe to do so.
I can. Drivers in the US when reading the rule would read and understand "Come to a stop, then Proceed"
They would miss/ignore/fail to understand the "Full and complete stop" part, and they would miss/ignore/fail to understand the "if it is safe to do so" part.
Drivers already don't understand the "turn right on red" rule. They understand they can turn right on a red light. They don't understand the "Verify that the intersection is clear of oncoming traffic" in all directions, part.
In the same way drivers misunderstand the rule about Yellow lights. Instead of "Stay out of the intersection, stop if safe to do so; otherwise proceed cautiously" they read "Put the accelerator to the floor, and get into the intersection as quickly as possible".
I'm sorry, but running a stop sign in an intersection with good visibility in all directions most definitely _is_ a tiny little thing, and it's a shame both that the law doesn't treat it as such
It's not. If you don't stop and carefully look properly, drivers' danger of hitting a pedestrian or bicyclist are higher, because the amount of time the driver of a moving car has to look around is so limited, that even with perfect visibility, there is not enough time to thoroughly inspect the surroundings, without stopping.
Well not having 4 way intersections is a major design change, especially in cities which are often laid out in a grid. And requiring traffic lights for 4way intersections to be safe is a consider drawback, when you consider situations such as signal light failures, or citywide power loss type events; in countries that treat "stop as stop", you have a safer failure mode..
At the end of the day the important thing isn't necessarily whether the signs mean "Stop" or "Yield"; an important thing is that all drivers adhere to a common set of rules, so that other drivers have predictability.
If the signs mean STOP, then everyone must stop in the manner proscribed by the rules. If the signs mean YIELD, then everyone must yield in the manner proscribed by the rules.
If when approaching an intersection, you can't be sure what the other driver's response to a STOP/YIELD sign is, then you have a safety hazard introduced by the unpredictability
I wish cops would just not pick people on the little tiny things and just let things slide, unless its BLOODY obvious.
Running a stop sign is not a tiny little thing. If the officer actually observed the complete failure to properly obey the STOP sign, a ticket should have been issued.
Cars failing to stop ARE a safety issue. And if the law was not being vigorously enforced, there are many jerks on the road purposefully ignoring STOP signs or red lights when they feel they can get away with it -- road safety would be much worse.
Lives are saved when people don't run stop signs because they're afraid of getting a ticket.
If you think this really happened, find a citation for the case that doesn't end up back at this same article.
The article is a citation; and it's not particularly newsworthy that someone successfully beat charges of running a stop sign, it's not surprising that there would be one article referring to it.
You have really shown no evidence that it was actually an April Fools joke. Until you go pull the public records, and find nothing, however, there is no reason to doubt the author's account on the matter.
And since when do people in the US submit April fools jokes at April 1, 4:00 AM GMT ?
In North America, San Diego, that's still a March 31 submission.
Asking them to hand over video evidence is a little unfair (the cop would be spending the day burning CDs) but they should be compelled to show that there is evidence and not simply an opinion.
They can use the printer in their car and hand you a sheet with the Youtube link to your ticketable offense.
I decided my time was worth more than that, and took the plea. I could have taken the second hearing to plead my case before a judge, but the amount it cost me to drive there and back, plus time taken off of work, was likely more than the small fine I paid them that day.
What should happen is the county should be required to fairly compensate you for your lost time, driving costs for both trips, and inconvenience (Including the inconvenience of having been pulled over), if you are found not guilty.
A portion of that should come from the officer's salary / annual bonus. Maybe then they would be more careful about making sure a crime was actually committed before stopping a vehicle and issuing a ticket.
Physics explained what the officer saw (or thought he saw) but another car explains what the officer didn't see (Krioukov stopping at the stop sign).
The officer didn't observe him not stopping at the stop sign. The officer ASSUMED he did not stop based on the state of the car he observed before his was obstructed, and the state of the car he observed after it was no longer obstructed.
The officer should be disciplined for taking that shortcut and citing based on a supposed occurence that were not actually directly observed.
But since Megaupload is contractually obliged to pay for the space and bandwidth, and the equipment is still there, they have to keep paying on the contract.
Well, not necessarily. They have a contractual obligation to pay for the bandwidth and hosting. The DoJ's actions have forced the hosting provider into a situation where they are no longer providing the hosting agreed upon in the contract; IOW, the government have forced the hosting provider to no longer be upholding their end of the contract.
That means MegaUpload could start witholding payments, on the basis that their service provider isn't providing the service agreed upon.
The hosting provider then might have recourse against MegaUpload, which might or might not be cancelled out by MegaUpload's recourse against the hosting provider.
The DoJ is responsible for the hosting provider's non-performance, therefore, the DoJ should be liable to pay MegaUpload's recourse against the hosting provider then.
In reality, the DoJ wants all those non-infringing files deleted because they'll hurt their case. The DoJ has also repeatedly tried to prevent MegaUpload from hiring good lawyers
Destruction of evidence required by the defense can hurt their case by having it thrown out.
(essentially, a server that works out which other users a user's avatar is able to see and only sends position updates for those, with various variations - all of which are obvious - involving how the necessary information is to be stored in a database) is so fundamental
Text-based MUDs do that, and have been around since the 80s. The algorithm implementation required to determine who sees who and what motion updates are sent is much simpler, but the principal of sending updates to a server, and the server determining which player can see what, is identical.
Clearly Massachusetts is the new Eastern Texas; The folks in Texas must have begun to suspect that something strange is going on.
Focus your Facebook account on your off-hours hobby of DJ'ing for gay Jewish inter-racial couples retreats.
They would then refer you to section (5)(8).(2)(c) of their hiring policy. "Do not hire any candidate who wastes spare time with activities such as DJ'ing"
but you had to friend the site first
Possible Facebook ToS violation? You don't "friend" sites, you "like" sites.
And when you friend someone, you can add them to a "group". For example, you can have your privacy settings configured so that most of your info, wall, photos, etc, are only visible to certain groups
Yeah, just like fans of Paris started settling in Las Vegas when they built a fake Eiffel Tower, and fans of Egypt started moving there when they built a fake Pyramid of Giza
That doesn't make much sense, since the Vegas replica of the Pyramid or Eiffel tower pales in comparison to the real deal.
If there were no Eiffel tower in paris, then the fake one might serve as an attraction for people to come and visit...