It was my understanding that before is ok, but after would be destruction of evidence.
IANAL. (I'm getting tired of saying that, but I don't want to be thrown in jail.)
As I understand it, there are two parts to every crime or tort--the physical act, and the mental state that led to the act. Think of the difference between planning to kill someone (murder) and killing someone in the heat of the moment (manslaughter.)
If you take an act (delete file logs) for a legal-related purpose (to escape litigation), you may very well be destroying evidence in-fact.
Like I said, check with the lawyer before you do so.
But, the thing is...how can scrubbing logs be a violations. I mean, you 'could' run a system without any logs. They aren't required to run a system. So, what's the difference in running a system without logs at all...or voluntarily running a logging system with limited time of record?
The same difference between not having security cameras at all, and erasing your tapes in a "limited time" explicity because you fear they could be used as evidence against you.
IANAL (in case you missed that), but the above could theoretically be a contributory tort; I'd ask a lawyer before changing policy explicity to avoid prosecution. ("We ran out of disk space noted for logs" might be a better excuse...)
However, I *really* worry that the information could be subpoenad and used against individual students by the likes of the RIAA/MPAA. I've been harping on upper management to let us purge the history after roughly a week (tops), which would give us plenty of debugging time, and at the same time not give the legal system enough time to issue a subpoena before the information is gone.
Sounds like the sort of thing that has to pass muster up your University's legal flagpole.
The last thing that the University needs is to get slapped with a suit from RIAA for destruction of evidence--which, IMNALO, you would be if you destroyed logs just so lawyers couldn't supboena them.
The only times such a system gets out of hand is if there are a significant number of very high-level players who band together and decide to exploit it. Enter horror scenes like the evil clan taking over the fountain in the middle of the city, slaughtering all the guards, and requiring newbies to pay to get water from the fountain! But those should be rare enough to warrant intervention from the game moderators (and with an appropriate punishment the first time - eg demotion of all the involved characters to half their level and loss of all eq), it probably won't happen a second time.
Actually, the best way to handle something like that is for the mods to send an in-game response--a new quest to kill the perp's characters, some powerful NPCs, or a new "angel" type monster to come and kill those who upset the balance.
The biggest bug I've got about MMORPGs is that they don't allow for player expansion.
I searched for the term "playboy" and this site came up. Isn't that a reasonable enough possibility of confusion?
Nope. I mean, unless you're the kind of person who will do a search for "Paris Hilton" and think that your favorite hotel chain is very very lewd over in France.
If the non-Playboy site has a clearly different name, and there's no reasonable possibility of confusion, why is the non-Playboy site keying off of the trademarks of Playboy (and paying a 3rd party to do so)? I believe they are attemting to bank off of the confusion.
If I open up a quick-serve food restaurant, and there's no reasonable chance of confusing me with McDonalds, then why do I place my restaurant right next door to them?
If I do a search for "playmate," and a banner ad pops up for a non-Playboy adult-oriented site, how is that not trademark infringement?
If the non-Playboy site has a clearly differnet name, and there's no reasonable possibility of confusion?
For a different take--if a business named themsleves P-something, and took out a large ad in the "adult entertainment" directory that just happened to be on the same page as Playboy's--how would this be trademark infringement?
When the court says that they have the burden of proof.
Let's say that, while visiting your home, you assault me, and then try and claim that I got all battered and bruised by falling while drunk. The only proof of your claim is your home security camera--and, as I'm suing you, I'll probably have my lawyer dig up said security film.
Of course, this doesn't really apply to SCO--but you get the idea.
From your post, you don't use XP--hence, your vote doesn't really matter as to "which is more stable."
The new UI just sucks IMNSHO.
The configurable part or the themeable part?
I'll grant that the "luna" theme sucks--but I use the old theme at home, and I find XP's little tweaks to the Start Menu and system tray to be a vast improvement over the old 98ish standard that 2000 used.
Yep. While people should do the right thing, and most will, it's those that will do the wrong thing--especially those that will do it only if no one's watching--that justify a standard security system for everyone....so must treat them like children or animals.
Nope. Children and animals would require different security mechanisms. You need to treat them like adults on whom your livlihood depends.
They should have pay docked by the minute if they're late.
Only if they're consistently clocked by the minute, and paid by the minute. And only if the policy applies to everyone, and not just "bad apples."
Of course if they're a early that time doesn't count
Well, yeah. You don't need them to be there before you need them--you need them when you need them. (The exception, of course, is if you or your agent tells them to start work early--then you have to pay them.)
and of course if at the end of the day it takes them longer to finish than the hours you are paying them for, them that must be their fault so they shouldn't be paid for that either.
Nope. I believe that's a violation of various labor laws. Unless, of course, you pay them a set rate and let them leave early if they finish early.
At my company, all employees wear a special hat with a cam and microphone pointed at thier faces, so that we can see and hear them at any time. If they are doing or saying anything that isn't strictly work related, we dock those minutes from their pay too. It is very efficient - it keeps our salary bills low. We do have some problems with staff retention though.
Well, that's your problem. I'm sure your employees have no loyalty, and so the work you get even from the best of them is subpar busy-work as they look for better working conditions.
If this is what you want from your workers, of course, then who am I to judge you? Capitalism's grand invisible hand will judge if your company will sink or swim.
(One of these days I'll stop feeding trolls... and, of course, one of these days the trolls will stop doing what they do...)
Just the other day I was explaining the concept of a CD MP3 player to someone I know and when he showed me his digital music collection, it was all in WMA. Now of course it's easily converted, but that's one extra thing I'll have to show him how to do.
No! Bad techie!
Never, ever ever tell a non-techie to convert one compressed audio format into another--especially if you're trying to promote the second format.
Your friend will find one day that his new "MP3s" dont "sound as good" as the WMA format, due to double-compression artifacts, and the FUD will spread to the far reaches of creation.
Find your friend an MP3 CD-player that uses the same format as iTunes, install iTunes, and tell him to re-record his CDs into that. It'll be so simple, and MP3-based, that he won't want to use anything else.
MP3 is the standard, nothing else should be supported
"by you."
Tell your friend that you won't help him with WMA because it supports MS's evil monopolistic practices, and is generally a bad idea, and start him off anew with something taken from scratch.
Oh, and I wager that you can find a CD player somewhere that can understand WMA.
I'm talking in the general case. Walk into a bar on the Upper West Side talking about Castle in the Sky to the 6'0 Brazilian supermodel and she'll stare at you blankly while planning her escape.
The "general case" is neither a 'supermodel' nor are they in a bar. They're at home, married, with children (with or without a job of their own)--and their children likely are entertained by a good portion of gizmos and imports from Japan.
That said, Manga, Anime, and Videogames aren't Jappanese culture anymore than American novels and comic books are American culture. They're aspects of it, but that's quite a different matter.
If you want to take people's right to vote away on a whim, and pseudo intelligence tests will always be a whim, you have to accept the consequences, one of which is that you no longer have the moral right to punish someone in that situation.
So felons, juveniles, the mentally incompetent, and foreign persons should all be exempt from our laws?
The moral weight of the law doesn't come from seperate consent. It comes from the group consensus and respect for the government, and alteration of government is either civil or reactionary--not a matter of simple moral outrage.
Oh, and as for that "always a whim" remark: A fairly simple ten-question test (i.e., "name the three forms of government", "name the job of the person you've voting for", "recite the pledge of alliegance") could be a good bar for citizenship, and set low enough that most of the folks pass it.
So one of the benefits of the "global economy" is a bigger and more socialist government?
I didn't say "bigger" or "more socialist." I said "more sustainable."
Think about it this way: If you were a business and had the choice between paying inflated wages, or paying more taxes and being able to pay whatever wages you can get, which would you prefer?
That's only fair right? If you don't have the right to change or the ability to consent to the laws, you certainly shouldn't be subject to them.
Uhm, no.
While there is a good argument for making the mentally incompetent second-class citizens until they can prove otherwise, their second-class status should come in the form of being immune to contract law and government summons--i.e., unable to be sued for breach of contract, unable to be summoned for jury duty, and automatically exempt from the draft.
These 2ndCCs should still be liable for any minor violations (speeding tickets), torts (slander, assault), or crimes (murder, theft) that they commit.
That's fine. A lot of people didn't want Globalization, either.
But we've got both. Live with them, or come up with a better idea & a way to get said better idea to become "better world."
Of course, one of the problems with the whole thing is that there is a growing %age of folks in the USA who aren't willing to work (or at least work hard), who expect to have everything given to them. But that's another issue.
Here's a thought.
What's the percentage of the people in the world, or in America, who would like nothing better than to go some place quiet, live off a small stipend, and work to raise crops, volunteer, or serve part-time?
The idea that "everyone has to work" strikes me as missing a much better idea--"everyone lives, but if you want anything you need to work for it."
Its not our fault if other people around the world haven't done the same on their own.
we command an economcy that consumes a share of the world's resources wholly disproportionate to our population or land size.
This is what we call "unfair." I didn't say that it was wrong, just not fair. The world isn't fair, and you're correct that there is no rule that we have to be fair--but we tend to like to try and be fair when we can.
Maybe we're just all shmucks. That would explain globalism and cutting taxes while going to war...
What war has there been due to not sharing wealth?
All of them, essentially.
Hey, c'mon, everyone started out centuries ago on pretty much the same ground, tech, and tools.
No, they didn't. About 8,000 years ago we were all on the same ground, and technological and economic progress has been uneven ever since.
Now, why is it we need to give up what we're worked for just to give welfare to the rest of the world at our expense.
1: It'll save "us" money in the short and long run.
2: Beacuse Americans, by and large, think of themselves as good people who want to help the less fortunate. (i.e., we don't do it because we have to, we do it because we want to, as we feel it's the right thing to do.)
I dare say that MOST people in the US do not make their livelyhood as shareholders. This arguement is not valid...this only benefits a few, not a countries economy.
The new deal wasn't (directly) about the economy. It was introucing a small bit of socialism to counter the worst parts of our free market capitalism. (If Failure means a livable poverty instead of death, then risk is more palpable--and with more risk, the economy evolves faster.)
The problem with the new deal, as with all other government programs, is that it required a larger tax roll. Hence, for it to work, we need more taxable dollars--not more people with taxable dolalrs.
And, of course, "benfit" does not automatically mean "benefit economically."
1: If the rest of the world shares the wealth through trade, then there's no reason to go to war.
2: Corporations are (were?) only taxed on profits, and shareholders are only taxed on their share of the profits. More profits for US corporations = more US tax dollars = a more sustainable "new deal."
Of course, both of these have hundreds of caveats and exceptions, and globalism has other reasons, but this is the gist of it.
Also, globalism can help fix the US's unfair disparity with the rest of the world.
Sure, $3 million doesn't sound like a lot, but when has government ever provided anything at or under budget?
The JDAM--the GPS-guided smart-bomb--came in at about half the projected budget cost. (Sure, they just used the money to buy twice as mutch, but still...)
In general, though, I wouldn't blame the government for coming in "over budget" as much as I'd blame them for having bad (i.e., too low in the costs, too high in the revenue) budgets due to the political nature of so many projects.
? And when it does you have to had in your fingerprints and personal details or it's straight to guatanamo bay, do not pass go, do no collect $200.
Did you perhaps miss the reason that the tropical paradise that is Guatanamo Bay was chosen instead of, oh, one of those despicable, desolate deserts where we put our own Jappanese citizens?
Because if they were on US soil, they'd be protected by hordes of US laws.
Oh, sure, you have to get fingerprinted and tell us why you're here--but, really, once you're in, we don't much care what you do until it's time for you to leave.
Slashdot Mirror
Through /. posts? Ordinary procedures? Examination of internal e-mail?
Anything that can convince 6 of 6 people that you did it.
It was my understanding that before is ok, but after would be destruction of evidence.
IANAL. (I'm getting tired of saying that, but I don't want to be thrown in jail.)
As I understand it, there are two parts to every crime or tort--the physical act, and the mental state that led to the act. Think of the difference between planning to kill someone (murder) and killing someone in the heat of the moment (manslaughter.)
If you take an act (delete file logs) for a legal-related purpose (to escape litigation), you may very well be destroying evidence in-fact.
Like I said, check with the lawyer before you do so.
But, the thing is...how can scrubbing logs be a violations. I mean, you 'could' run a system without any logs. They aren't required to run a system. So, what's the difference in running a system without logs at all...or voluntarily running a logging system with limited time of record?
The same difference between not having security cameras at all, and erasing your tapes in a "limited time" explicity because you fear they could be used as evidence against you.
IANAL (in case you missed that), but the above could theoretically be a contributory tort; I'd ask a lawyer before changing policy explicity to avoid prosecution. ("We ran out of disk space noted for logs" might be a better excuse...)
However, I *really* worry that the information could be subpoenad and used against individual students by the likes of the RIAA/MPAA. I've been harping on upper management to let us purge the history after roughly a week (tops), which would give us plenty of debugging time, and at the same time not give the legal system enough time to issue a subpoena before the information is gone.
Sounds like the sort of thing that has to pass muster up your University's legal flagpole.
The last thing that the University needs is to get slapped with a suit from RIAA for destruction of evidence--which, IMNALO, you would be if you destroyed logs just so lawyers couldn't supboena them.
Seriously, what if I'm a game designer (I wish!) and wanted to print out samples of a game currancy to play-test something?
You make your own play design, don't include the "this is money" bit, and it's all fine and good.
(sheesh. Some people.)
The only times such a system gets out of hand is if there are a significant number of very high-level players who band together and decide to exploit it. Enter horror scenes like the evil clan taking over the fountain in the middle of the city, slaughtering all the guards, and requiring newbies to pay to get water from the fountain! But those should be rare enough to warrant intervention from the game moderators (and with an appropriate punishment the first time - eg demotion of all the involved characters to half their level and loss of all eq), it probably won't happen a second time.
Actually, the best way to handle something like that is for the mods to send an in-game response--a new quest to kill the perp's characters, some powerful NPCs, or a new "angel" type monster to come and kill those who upset the balance.
The biggest bug I've got about MMORPGs is that they don't allow for player expansion.
I searched for the term "playboy" and this site came up. Isn't that a reasonable enough possibility of confusion?
Nope. I mean, unless you're the kind of person who will do a search for "Paris Hilton" and think that your favorite hotel chain is very very lewd over in France.
If the non-Playboy site has a clearly different name, and there's no reasonable possibility of confusion, why is the non-Playboy site keying off of the trademarks of Playboy (and paying a 3rd party to do so)? I believe they are attemting to bank off of the confusion.
If I open up a quick-serve food restaurant, and there's no reasonable chance of confusing me with McDonalds, then why do I place my restaurant right next door to them?
If I do a search for "playmate," and a banner ad pops up for a non-Playboy adult-oriented site, how is that not trademark infringement?
If the non-Playboy site has a clearly differnet name, and there's no reasonable possibility of confusion?
For a different take--if a business named themsleves P-something, and took out a large ad in the "adult entertainment" directory that just happened to be on the same page as Playboy's--how would this be trademark infringement?
is it the defendant's job to prosecute himself?
When the court says that they have the burden of proof.
Let's say that, while visiting your home, you assault me, and then try and claim that I got all battered and bruised by falling while drunk. The only proof of your claim is your home security camera--and, as I'm suing you, I'll probably have my lawyer dig up said security film.
Of course, this doesn't really apply to SCO--but you get the idea.
My vote goes to Windows 2000.
From your post, you don't use XP--hence, your vote doesn't really matter as to "which is more stable."
The new UI just sucks IMNSHO.
The configurable part or the themeable part?
I'll grant that the "luna" theme sucks--but I use the old theme at home, and I find XP's little tweaks to the Start Menu and system tray to be a vast improvement over the old 98ish standard that 2000 used.
After all, we only use a portion of it... ...at any given moment.
Over the course of a year, you use almost every part of your brain. Maybe over the course of a day.
You can't trust people to do the right thing,
...so must treat them like children or animals.
Yep. While people should do the right thing, and most will, it's those that will do the wrong thing--especially those that will do it only if no one's watching--that justify a standard security system for everyone.
Nope. Children and animals would require different security mechanisms. You need to treat them like adults on whom your livlihood depends.
They should have pay docked by the minute if they're late.
Only if they're consistently clocked by the minute, and paid by the minute. And only if the policy applies to everyone, and not just "bad apples."
Of course if they're a early that time doesn't count
Well, yeah. You don't need them to be there before you need them--you need them when you need them. (The exception, of course, is if you or your agent tells them to start work early--then you have to pay them.)
and of course if at the end of the day it takes them longer to finish than the hours you are paying them for, them that must be their fault so they shouldn't be paid for that either.
Nope. I believe that's a violation of various labor laws. Unless, of course, you pay them a set rate and let them leave early if they finish early.
At my company, all employees wear a special hat with a cam and microphone pointed at thier faces, so that we can see and hear them at any time. If they are doing or saying anything that isn't strictly work related, we dock those minutes from their pay too. It is very efficient - it keeps our salary bills low. We do have some problems with staff retention though.
Well, that's your problem. I'm sure your employees have no loyalty, and so the work you get even from the best of them is subpar busy-work as they look for better working conditions.
If this is what you want from your workers, of course, then who am I to judge you? Capitalism's grand invisible hand will judge if your company will sink or swim.
(One of these days I'll stop feeding trolls... and, of course, one of these days the trolls will stop doing what they do...)
Just the other day I was explaining the concept of a CD MP3 player to someone I know and when he showed me his digital music collection, it was all in WMA. Now of course it's easily converted, but that's one extra thing I'll have to show him how to do.
No! Bad techie!
Never, ever ever tell a non-techie to convert one compressed audio format into another--especially if you're trying to promote the second format.
Your friend will find one day that his new "MP3s" dont "sound as good" as the WMA format, due to double-compression artifacts, and the FUD will spread to the far reaches of creation.
Find your friend an MP3 CD-player that uses the same format as iTunes, install iTunes, and tell him to re-record his CDs into that. It'll be so simple, and MP3-based, that he won't want to use anything else.
MP3 is the standard, nothing else should be supported
"by you."
Tell your friend that you won't help him with WMA because it supports MS's evil monopolistic practices, and is generally a bad idea, and start him off anew with something taken from scratch.
Oh, and I wager that you can find a CD player somewhere that can understand WMA.
I'm talking in the general case. Walk into a bar on the Upper West Side talking about Castle in the Sky to the 6'0 Brazilian supermodel and she'll stare at you blankly while planning her escape.
The "general case" is neither a 'supermodel' nor are they in a bar. They're at home, married, with children (with or without a job of their own)--and their children likely are entertained by a good portion of gizmos and imports from Japan.
That said, Manga, Anime, and Videogames aren't Jappanese culture anymore than American novels and comic books are American culture. They're aspects of it, but that's quite a different matter.
If you want to take people's right to vote away on a whim, and pseudo intelligence tests will always be a whim, you have to accept the consequences, one of which is that you no longer have the moral right to punish someone in that situation.
So felons, juveniles, the mentally incompetent, and foreign persons should all be exempt from our laws?
The moral weight of the law doesn't come from seperate consent. It comes from the group consensus and respect for the government, and alteration of government is either civil or reactionary--not a matter of simple moral outrage.
Oh, and as for that "always a whim" remark: A fairly simple ten-question test (i.e., "name the three forms of government", "name the job of the person you've voting for", "recite the pledge of alliegance") could be a good bar for citizenship, and set low enough that most of the folks pass it.
So one of the benefits of the "global economy" is a bigger and more socialist government?
I didn't say "bigger" or "more socialist." I said "more sustainable."
Think about it this way: If you were a business and had the choice between paying inflated wages, or paying more taxes and being able to pay whatever wages you can get, which would you prefer?
That's only fair right? If you don't have the right to change or the ability to consent to the laws, you certainly shouldn't be subject to them.
Uhm, no.
While there is a good argument for making the mentally incompetent second-class citizens until they can prove otherwise, their second-class status should come in the form of being immune to contract law and government summons--i.e., unable to be sued for breach of contract, unable to be summoned for jury duty, and automatically exempt from the draft.
These 2ndCCs should still be liable for any minor violations (speeding tickets), torts (slander, assault), or crimes (murder, theft) that they commit.
, I don't *want* a "new deal".
That's fine. A lot of people didn't want Globalization, either.
But we've got both. Live with them, or come up with a better idea & a way to get said better idea to become "better world."
Of course, one of the problems with the whole thing is that there is a growing %age of folks in the USA who aren't willing to work (or at least work hard), who expect to have everything given to them. But that's another issue.
Here's a thought.
What's the percentage of the people in the world, or in America, who would like nothing better than to go some place quiet, live off a small stipend, and work to raise crops, volunteer, or serve part-time?
The idea that "everyone has to work" strikes me as missing a much better idea--"everyone lives, but if you want anything you need to work for it."
Its not our fault if other people around the world haven't done the same on their own.
we command an economcy that consumes a share of the world's resources wholly disproportionate to our population or land size.
This is what we call "unfair." I didn't say that it was wrong, just not fair. The world isn't fair, and you're correct that there is no rule that we have to be fair--but we tend to like to try and be fair when we can.
Maybe we're just all shmucks. That would explain globalism and cutting taxes while going to war...
What war has there been due to not sharing wealth?
All of them, essentially.
Hey, c'mon, everyone started out centuries ago on pretty much the same ground, tech, and tools.
No, they didn't. About 8,000 years ago we were all on the same ground, and technological and economic progress has been uneven ever since.
Now, why is it we need to give up what we're worked for just to give welfare to the rest of the world at our expense.
1: It'll save "us" money in the short and long run.
2: Beacuse Americans, by and large, think of themselves as good people who want to help the less fortunate. (i.e., we don't do it because we have to, we do it because we want to, as we feel it's the right thing to do.)
I dare say that MOST people in the US do not make their livelyhood as shareholders. This arguement is not valid...this only benefits a few, not a countries economy.
The new deal wasn't (directly) about the economy. It was introucing a small bit of socialism to counter the worst parts of our free market capitalism. (If Failure means a livable poverty instead of death, then risk is more palpable--and with more risk, the economy evolves faster.)
The problem with the new deal, as with all other government programs, is that it required a larger tax roll. Hence, for it to work, we need more taxable dollars--not more people with taxable dolalrs.
And, of course, "benfit" does not automatically mean "benefit economically."
What possible good can it do for us?
Two parts, majorly:
1: If the rest of the world shares the wealth through trade, then there's no reason to go to war.
2: Corporations are (were?) only taxed on profits, and shareholders are only taxed on their share of the profits. More profits for US corporations = more US tax dollars = a more sustainable "new deal."
Of course, both of these have hundreds of caveats and exceptions, and globalism has other reasons, but this is the gist of it.
Also, globalism can help fix the US's unfair disparity with the rest of the world.
Abe Lincoln started the civil war in order to create a mercantilist country, and he succeeded.
Mercantilism doesn't work
If Abe Lincon turned us Mercantilist, and Mercanitism is a "bad thing"--they why the heck haven't we collapsed yet?
One of your assertions is wrong. I don't know which, and I won't presume to guess--but one of them is wrong.
Sure, $3 million doesn't sound like a lot, but when has government ever provided anything at or under budget?
The JDAM--the GPS-guided smart-bomb--came in at about half the projected budget cost. (Sure, they just used the money to buy twice as mutch, but still...)
In general, though, I wouldn't blame the government for coming in "over budget" as much as I'd blame them for having bad (i.e., too low in the costs, too high in the revenue) budgets due to the political nature of so many projects.
Sheesh.
? And when it does you have to had in your fingerprints and personal details or it's straight to guatanamo bay, do not pass go, do no collect $200.
Did you perhaps miss the reason that the tropical paradise that is Guatanamo Bay was chosen instead of, oh, one of those despicable, desolate deserts where we put our own Jappanese citizens?
Because if they were on US soil, they'd be protected by hordes of US laws.
Oh, sure, you have to get fingerprinted and tell us why you're here--but, really, once you're in, we don't much care what you do until it's time for you to leave.