You are wrong on several points, and failed to comprehend my point on the rest.
From Dictionary.com:
Truth: 1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5.
1. Reality; actuality.
2. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.
Fact: 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
1. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
2. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
3. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.
Zealot: 1.
1. One who is zealous, especially excessively so.
2. A fanatically committed person.
2. Zealot A member of a Jewish movement of the first century A.D. that fought against Roman rule in Palestine as incompatible with strict monotheism.
The definition of Fact and truth are different. The definition of Zealot mentions nothing about rejecting disagreeable facts.
ntrue when the Union in question feels it's better to kill Brown People(TM) rather than fund the generation of knowledge and that this Union is being run by adherents of one particular Religion, one of whose most amusing vagaries is the notion that the universe was made by your dad.
My Dad is a mechanical engineering technician. of course he did help make the most important thing IN the universe(me), but please explain the connection you are trying to make between my original point, which was to try to clarify an academic distinction between intellectual honesty and lazyness, and killing brown people?
Lastly, in reference to Ford, this was a joke. In one of the Indiana Jones movies, he makes a statement much like my original premise, that there is a critical distinction between facts, such as we can establish by reproducable experiment, and "Truth" which represents elements ultimate reality which lie beyond the scope of scientific experiment.
If you are limited in your understanding of the universe to only those things which you can demonstrate by reproducable experiment, you have my pity.
I suspect you misread the court. I think, without having read the opinion in detail, that what they mean by this statement is that, since copyright law makes no provision for even trivial borrowing, that such should not be legal in the eyse of the courts as a de mimimus exception.
That being the case, the Creative Commons license should still have value. Then again, any license that has express terms is going to have more value by reducing the risk associated with hoping a sample is small enough that YOUR judge will find it de minimus.
This does not imply that the models are the "truth" (by definition, they are at best an approximation of the "object" they model). As usual, this is the part that Creationist always fail.
Is this the fault of Creationism or of CreationISTS? Creationism as a model for understanding our environment seems pretty sound. It is a philosophical approach, rather than a scientific one. I think too many creationists fall into the trap of assuming science is the only way to learn about and understand the universe. The problem arises (I think) when Creationists go around saying both:
1. My religion is all about Faith in something that cannot be proven.
2. Creation is a fact, and I can prove it.
The Scientific community, perhaps, falls victim to this temptation too, when it tries to establish as fact something that cannot be reproduced by experiment.
It seems to me either model is just dandy. The problem is when you get lazy people involved. Try explaining to a creationist who already knows how the universe was formed that you want tax dollars to study it in detail. An intellecually honest creationist would pull out his checkbook in the hopes of better understanding his god. The intellectually lazy creationist will tell you we already know how it got here, so lets all sing a song.
So I leave you with the question, are there more lazy people in the world than not?
Judging by your statement, I am quite sure you do not live in the United States.
As for my credentials, I was born in South Dakota, I've lived in 3 states, I've vistied about 25 of them. I've managed to visit about 5 foreign nations from Europe to Asia. I'd like to think that makes me a pretty good judge of culture shifts.
When I drive from Pennsylvania into Maryland and Washington, D.C., I do not feel as though I am passing some geographical flux of cultures.
Drive from Virginia to North Dakota and listen to the accent of the gas station attendants. Look at the condition of the roads, houses, and the styles of public buildings or churches. The change is amazingly cool.
Similarly, the public schools in Florida work just like those found in Maine
How frequent are the private schools, and if they work the same, but Main's are better, are you saying the people in them are different? That would suggest a local culture.
And if I wind up in court in Missouri, I have the same fundamental rights as I would in California.
Not true. Each state has its own constitution and provides very different fundamental rights. For example, the Massachusents Constitution does not provide an express right to bear arms. The Constitution of South Dakota has always declared such right in detail. Or are you limiting your understanding of "fundamental rights" only to those expressed in the federal consitution?
Right-wing politics is in the roots of America now. It's not just another opinion. It's a religion in itself and it is indeed sweeping the United States, which is not so much a collection of states these days as it one giant creature that is currently trying to decide which side of the fork to walk down.
I live in North Dakota and I don't have cable TV. I haven't noticed much of a change.
Being wrong is frowned upon - but STAYING wrong is a virtue somehow. And it is certainly proud and boastful - that's how it sells, because so many people don't think for themselves.
You're right. I do recall President G.H.W.Bush state that he was signing a law prohibitng flag burning when he knew it to be unconstitutional. I still haven't figured out that one.
I also encounter folks all to often who will say without blinking, "I don't know anything about [Insert issue here], but I'm voting for this guy because he's out to help me."
I think, however, that this just illustrates that people in large groups tend to be stupid... whatever their culture.
(The other reason is religious fanaticism directed against science because of the unpleasant truths it persists in revealing.)
I have two problems with this statement.
1. Science does not reveal truth, it searches for fact and tries to creat models for predicting facts. (Didn't Harrison Ford give a lecture on this?)
2. It is equally incorrect, and very unfair, to suggest that any religious fanatic is opposed to what science may generate.
America is becoming the land of the ignorant. Proud, boastful, even aggressive ignorance.
This is another bad generalization. America, assuming you mean the United States, is not an idealogical or even cultural monolith. The United States are a collection of individual states, each with a unique cultural, legal, and educational system.
It is not that your comments do not bring to mind some serious problems, but your energy is far better directed at those specific kinds of religious zealot or ignorant culture, rather than at the Union or Religion as a whole.
I agree with most of this, especially the bit about bullets not making a satisfying spark when they hit something. Man that was a disappointment. You forgot the obligatory "girl power" character all movies are required to include.
One problem though...
Art is something made with a message or story in mind
Art can also include the making of something beautiful for its own sake. No story, no message, just nice to look at. Consider paintings of fields full of flowers & light like those done by all those famed French guys.
I think we're identifying the same problem from different sides. I say fragmentation is good, because different rules, norms, and laws are better for different groups. I argue that by forcing everyone to drink at a common news trough local identity is lost.
You seem to argue that people isolate too much when not forced to drink at the common trough and start to try forcing their rules, norms, and laws on other groups.
I think we're both correct, My original post assumes that interraction with outsiders will take place only when needed by both groups. Looking at the facts in the United States, however, your approach seems more probable under prevailing attitudes.
Currently, when California has a problem they go to Washington D.C. to fix it, rather than Sacramento. My suggestion, I guess, is that maybe, just maybe, localized news sources will help people realize that few problems should even be addressed on a national or global level.
Small groups of people with similar ideas and interests living together, Cooperating with other groups when desire or necessesity dictate... How is this a bad thing? Isn't this what the United States are supposed to be?
How about, at the very least, a high-school disctionary. Or is the whole point to dumb-down the entire nation, laws and all?
I guess I don't see the conflict of interest. Lawyers are trained to be able to write in such a way that the text, when read, can have only that meaning that was intended. Otherwise you get laws like "Pay your fair share of taxes" or "No acting suspiciously in an airport."
What if we get a few folks, in their spare time to make just ONE GM strain of a grain and release it under an open license. Then any seed which derives part of its DNA from this patented seed must also be made freely available for replanting.
That and a few spendy lawyers (like me) should solve the problem.
The UK? I WINTER in the UK when I can. Try living in North Dakota. We go to Scotland in March just to get a bit of sunshine and warmth. Bring on the warming trend! It is -20F outside right now, and it gets colder some days.
Nearly all the food in the country comes from the rural areas, true, but the amount of people these farming operations employ is nowhere near high enough to explain the population of these small towns.
I'm beginning to suspect you've never been to one. Most of the in-town labor comes from value-added agriculture. Meat packing, baking products, dairy processing, shipping, elevators, ethanol and soy biodisel plants, oil rigs... this is what employs people in small midwestern towns. Come to think of it, there isn't an automotive plant within 500 miles of me.
Farming turned into big business long ago, and what you generally have is some company or corporation owning hundreds of thousands of acres and farming the whole thing.
This is just plain false, and illegal in some states. Where are you getting this?
I live in Dickinson, North Dakota. After 6 months I know quite a few people in this town. Some of them are related to law school classmates of mine. Some have done business with my former bank. Finding references that both sides can accept is not hard.
Maybe instead of hiding in your house or apartment you got out and met your neighbors? Maybe if instead of moving to a whole new state every time someone offered you another perk you put down some roots and started contributing to your own home town, you wouldn't need to rely on an impersonal and easily spoofed credit reporting system.
While I agree, having been a victim of identity theft (only once that I know of) Perhaps part of the problem is credit ratings themselves.
There are other ways for a lender or landlord to learn whether a person is a risk. Most people have a reputation in their community that one need only ask to learn. Most credible people can provide credible references. The current addiction to putting everyone's number in a New Jersey database does more harm than good, especially when folks like Cummings come along.
Back in Law School, there were a number of students in my class living in the same apartment complex. When one of my classmates got himself cable internet and a wireless router for him and his room-mate, we offered to "buy" access from him. (Most of us had newer laptops with WiFi cards) When the dust settled, each of 5 students paid about $30 for cable internet at home for the entire semester. It pays to get to know your neighbors.
At the risk of saying something other than, "Well duh... who posted this?!"
I think the great engine behind the "popular" image of gamers as loafers stems from marketing rather than popular experience. I see "gamers" depicted in television advertising regularly. It always has 2-3 guys in their early 20's sitting in a dark room, on the couch, surrounded by junk food and illuminated by the blue glow of a television. I see this almost every time I turn on "The Simpsons."
By contrast, in real life I've only seen this environment a handful of times. Now why exactly the marketing folks think telling me I can be like the balding guy on the couch is going to get me to buy their game, I don't know. Maybe the answer is that gamer/loafers tend to wind up in marketing?
If forehead advertising catches on, Rogain sales will plummet. Pfizer will suffer heavy losses and raise drug prices on other product lines. Other companies will follow suit in short order, setting of a nationwide panic. The Canadian border will be overrun until their stocks run out, and then is pure anarchy....
Software like this raises an interesting question, where is the talent?
I'm running Firefox, a free browser created from donated talent on the internet,(and occasionally funded & used as a testing ground for new stuff by corporations.)
I read my email with Thunderbird, a free client created from donated talent on the internet,(and occasionally funded & used as a testing ground for new stuff by corporations.)
I write documents with OpenOffice.org, a free office sutie created from donated talent on the internet (and occasionally funded & used as a testing ground for new stuff by corporations.)
Why is there so little entertainment produced this way? There are people out there with free time and talent. There are media companies with spare cash who don't want to spend jillions hyping a sitcom with a theme that will flop. Or is it just a matter of time?
We had a constant battle with our users, telling them that email was a communication system - not a filing cabinet. Don't want to enable the pack-rats.
Tell that to my wife who still "saves" documents by sending them to her university email account, she graduated a year ago.
I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Sorry.
I understand that the process was complex, but I look at this from a very different perspective. I do legal defense work, some of which is for businesses. It is not uncommon for a plaintiff's lawyer to make huge discovery requests which are designed more to "fish" for infractions as yet undiscovered rather than to seek information relevant to the case.
Smart corporations have a document destruction policy to avoid being called on to dig up, index, and summarize 10 years worth of records for an opposing attorney who's just fishing for something to add to his complaint. Technology like this would make objecting to such a demand more difficult and essentially render a company potentially liable for any wrongdoing the attorney can manage to dig up WHETHER OR NOT there is a real person claiming to be insured by it.
It is a fact that under our modern laws, it is almost impossible to operate within the law. Plaintiff's lawyers know this and when the legitimate work gets a little slow they often try to root through 10 years of records and make a class action suit out of a molehill.
This, then is why I suggest that actually buying drives this size and storing decades of corporate emails on it is more of a liability than a help, at least in the business environment.
Slashdot Mirror
You are wrong on several points, and failed to comprehend my point on the rest.
From Dictionary.com:
Truth: 1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5.
1. Reality; actuality.
2. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.
Fact: 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
1. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
2. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
3. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.
Zealot: 1.
1. One who is zealous, especially excessively so.
2. A fanatically committed person.
2. Zealot A member of a Jewish movement of the first century A.D. that fought against Roman rule in Palestine as incompatible with strict monotheism.
The definition of Fact and truth are different. The definition of Zealot mentions nothing about rejecting disagreeable facts.
ntrue when the Union in question feels it's better to kill Brown People(TM) rather than fund the generation of knowledge and that this Union is being run by adherents of one particular Religion, one of whose most amusing vagaries is the notion that the universe was made by your dad.
My Dad is a mechanical engineering technician. of course he did help make the most important thing IN the universe(me), but please explain the connection you are trying to make between my original point, which was to try to clarify an academic distinction between intellectual honesty and lazyness, and killing brown people?
Lastly, in reference to Ford, this was a joke. In one of the Indiana Jones movies, he makes a statement much like my original premise, that there is a critical distinction between facts, such as we can establish by reproducable experiment, and "Truth" which represents elements ultimate reality which lie beyond the scope of scientific experiment.
If you are limited in your understanding of the universe to only those things which you can demonstrate by reproducable experiment, you have my pity.
I suspect you misread the court. I think, without having read the opinion in detail, that what they mean by this statement is that, since copyright law makes no provision for even trivial borrowing, that such should not be legal in the eyse of the courts as a de mimimus exception.
That being the case, the Creative Commons license should still have value. Then again, any license that has express terms is going to have more value by reducing the risk associated with hoping a sample is small enough that YOUR judge will find it de minimus.
This does not imply that the models are the "truth" (by definition, they are at best an approximation of the "object" they model). As usual, this is the part that Creationist always fail.
Is this the fault of Creationism or of CreationISTS? Creationism as a model for understanding our environment seems pretty sound. It is a philosophical approach, rather than a scientific one. I think too many creationists fall into the trap of assuming science is the only way to learn about and understand the universe. The problem arises (I think) when Creationists go around saying both:
1. My religion is all about Faith in something that cannot be proven.
2. Creation is a fact, and I can prove it.
The Scientific community, perhaps, falls victim to this temptation too, when it tries to establish as fact something that cannot be reproduced by experiment.
It seems to me either model is just dandy. The problem is when you get lazy people involved. Try explaining to a creationist who already knows how the universe was formed that you want tax dollars to study it in detail. An intellecually honest creationist would pull out his checkbook in the hopes of better understanding his god. The intellectually lazy creationist will tell you we already know how it got here, so lets all sing a song.
So I leave you with the question, are there more lazy people in the world than not?
Lets work through this:
Judging by your statement, I am quite sure you do not live in the United States.
As for my credentials, I was born in South Dakota, I've lived in 3 states, I've vistied about 25 of them. I've managed to visit about 5 foreign nations from Europe to Asia. I'd like to think that makes me a pretty good judge of culture shifts.
When I drive from Pennsylvania into Maryland and Washington, D.C., I do not feel as though I am passing some geographical flux of cultures.
Drive from Virginia to North Dakota and listen to the accent of the gas station attendants. Look at the condition of the roads, houses, and the styles of public buildings or churches. The change is amazingly cool.
Similarly, the public schools in Florida work just like those found in Maine
How frequent are the private schools, and if they work the same, but Main's are better, are you saying the people in them are different? That would suggest a local culture.
And if I wind up in court in Missouri, I have the same fundamental rights as I would in California.
Not true. Each state has its own constitution and provides very different fundamental rights. For example, the Massachusents Constitution does not provide an express right to bear arms. The Constitution of South Dakota has always declared such right in detail. Or are you limiting your understanding of "fundamental rights" only to those expressed in the federal consitution?
Right-wing politics is in the roots of America now. It's not just another opinion. It's a religion in itself and it is indeed sweeping the United States, which is not so much a collection of states these days as it one giant creature that is currently trying to decide which side of the fork to walk down.
I live in North Dakota and I don't have cable TV. I haven't noticed much of a change.
Being wrong is frowned upon - but STAYING wrong is a virtue somehow. And it is certainly proud and boastful - that's how it sells, because so many people don't think for themselves.
You're right. I do recall President G.H.W.Bush state that he was signing a law prohibitng flag burning when he knew it to be unconstitutional. I still haven't figured out that one.
I also encounter folks all to often who will say without blinking, "I don't know anything about [Insert issue here], but I'm voting for this guy because he's out to help me."
I think, however, that this just illustrates that people in large groups tend to be stupid... whatever their culture.
I've got to bite on this one.
(The other reason is religious fanaticism directed against science because of the unpleasant truths it persists in revealing.)
I have two problems with this statement.
1. Science does not reveal truth, it searches for fact and tries to creat models for predicting facts. (Didn't Harrison Ford give a lecture on this?)
2. It is equally incorrect, and very unfair, to suggest that any religious fanatic is opposed to what science may generate.
America is becoming the land of the ignorant. Proud, boastful, even aggressive ignorance.
This is another bad generalization. America, assuming you mean the United States, is not an idealogical or even cultural monolith. The United States are a collection of individual states, each with a unique cultural, legal, and educational system.
It is not that your comments do not bring to mind some serious problems, but your energy is far better directed at those specific kinds of religious zealot or ignorant culture, rather than at the Union or Religion as a whole.
I agree with most of this, especially the bit about bullets not making a satisfying spark when they hit something. Man that was a disappointment. You forgot the obligatory "girl power" character all movies are required to include.
One problem though...
Art is something made with a message or story in mind
Art can also include the making of something beautiful for its own sake. No story, no message, just nice to look at. Consider paintings of fields full of flowers & light like those done by all those famed French guys.
I think we're identifying the same problem from different sides. I say fragmentation is good, because different rules, norms, and laws are better for different groups. I argue that by forcing everyone to drink at a common news trough local identity is lost.
You seem to argue that people isolate too much when not forced to drink at the common trough and start to try forcing their rules, norms, and laws on other groups.
I think we're both correct, My original post assumes that interraction with outsiders will take place only when needed by both groups. Looking at the facts in the United States, however, your approach seems more probable under prevailing attitudes.
Currently, when California has a problem they go to Washington D.C. to fix it, rather than Sacramento. My suggestion, I guess, is that maybe, just maybe, localized news sources will help people realize that few problems should even be addressed on a national or global level.
further fragmenting society
Small groups of people with similar ideas and interests living together, Cooperating with other groups when desire or necessesity dictate... How is this a bad thing? Isn't this what the United States are supposed to be?
Do they eat flies?
How about, at the very least, a high-school disctionary. Or is the whole point to dumb-down the entire nation, laws and all?
I guess I don't see the conflict of interest. Lawyers are trained to be able to write in such a way that the text, when read, can have only that meaning that was intended. Otherwise you get laws like "Pay your fair share of taxes" or "No acting suspiciously in an airport."
Actually, from my experience, its more a quest to try and write a law to which nobody can twist the text on in order to cheat the system.
In the words of Professor Slagle, "Laws can be simple, or they can be fair, but they cannot be both simple AND fair."
This is because the world is not simple either.
I've got your slashdot buzzwords right here in one handy, easy to remember phrase:
In Soviet Russia, all your base are imagining an ad-hoc beowulf cluster of old korean overlords welcoming YOU!
Thank you.
What if we get a few folks, in their spare time to make just ONE GM strain of a grain and release it under an open license. Then any seed which derives part of its DNA from this patented seed must also be made freely available for replanting.
That and a few spendy lawyers (like me) should solve the problem.
The UK? I WINTER in the UK when I can. Try living in North Dakota. We go to Scotland in March just to get a bit of sunshine and warmth. Bring on the warming trend! It is -20F outside right now, and it gets colder some days.
Nearly all the food in the country comes from the rural areas, true, but the amount of people these farming operations employ is nowhere near high enough to explain the population of these small towns.
... this is what employs people in small midwestern towns. Come to think of it, there isn't an automotive plant within 500 miles of me.
I'm beginning to suspect you've never been to one. Most of the in-town labor comes from value-added agriculture. Meat packing, baking products, dairy processing, shipping, elevators, ethanol and soy biodisel plants, oil rigs
Farming turned into big business long ago, and what you generally have is some company or corporation owning hundreds of thousands of acres and farming the whole thing.
This is just plain false, and illegal in some states. Where are you getting this?
Haven't had a date in a while, eh Lubricated?
I live in Dickinson, North Dakota. After 6 months I know quite a few people in this town. Some of them are related to law school classmates of mine. Some have done business with my former bank. Finding references that both sides can accept is not hard.
Maybe instead of hiding in your house or apartment you got out and met your neighbors? Maybe if instead of moving to a whole new state every time someone offered you another perk you put down some roots and started contributing to your own home town, you wouldn't need to rely on an impersonal and easily spoofed credit reporting system.
While I agree, having been a victim of identity theft (only once that I know of) Perhaps part of the problem is credit ratings themselves.
There are other ways for a lender or landlord to learn whether a person is a risk. Most people have a reputation in their community that one need only ask to learn. Most credible people can provide credible references. The current addiction to putting everyone's number in a New Jersey database does more harm than good, especially when folks like Cummings come along.
Back in Law School, there were a number of students in my class living in the same apartment complex. When one of my classmates got himself cable internet and a wireless router for him and his room-mate, we offered to "buy" access from him. (Most of us had newer laptops with WiFi cards) When the dust settled, each of 5 students paid about $30 for cable internet at home for the entire semester. It pays to get to know your neighbors.
At the risk of saying something other than, "Well duh... who posted this?!"
I think the great engine behind the "popular" image of gamers as loafers stems from marketing rather than popular experience. I see "gamers" depicted in television advertising regularly. It always has 2-3 guys in their early 20's sitting in a dark room, on the couch, surrounded by junk food and illuminated by the blue glow of a television. I see this almost every time I turn on "The Simpsons."
By contrast, in real life I've only seen this environment a handful of times. Now why exactly the marketing folks think telling me I can be like the balding guy on the couch is going to get me to buy their game, I don't know. Maybe the answer is that gamer/loafers tend to wind up in marketing?
If forehead advertising catches on, Rogain sales will plummet. Pfizer will suffer heavy losses and raise drug prices on other product lines. Other companies will follow suit in short order, setting of a nationwide panic. The Canadian border will be overrun until their stocks run out, and then is pure anarchy....
Secondly, why not just make the piece of electronic equipment incorporate the material, so you wouldn't need to plug it into anything?
Because I don't want to wear the same sweater every day?
Software like this raises an interesting question, where is the talent?
I'm running Firefox, a free browser created from donated talent on the internet,(and occasionally funded & used as a testing ground for new stuff by corporations.)
I read my email with Thunderbird, a free client created from donated talent on the internet,(and occasionally funded & used as a testing ground for new stuff by corporations.)
I write documents with OpenOffice.org, a free office sutie created from donated talent on the internet (and occasionally funded & used as a testing ground for new stuff by corporations.)
Why is there so little entertainment produced this way? There are people out there with free time and talent. There are media companies with spare cash who don't want to spend jillions hyping a sitcom with a theme that will flop. Or is it just a matter of time?
We had a constant battle with our users, telling them that email was a communication system - not a filing cabinet. Don't want to enable the pack-rats.
Tell that to my wife who still "saves" documents by sending them to her university email account, she graduated a year ago.
I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Sorry.
I understand that the process was complex, but I look at this from a very different perspective. I do legal defense work, some of which is for businesses. It is not uncommon for a plaintiff's lawyer to make huge discovery requests which are designed more to "fish" for infractions as yet undiscovered rather than to seek information relevant to the case.
Smart corporations have a document destruction policy to avoid being called on to dig up, index, and summarize 10 years worth of records for an opposing attorney who's just fishing for something to add to his complaint. Technology like this would make objecting to such a demand more difficult and essentially render a company potentially liable for any wrongdoing the attorney can manage to dig up WHETHER OR NOT there is a real person claiming to be insured by it.
It is a fact that under our modern laws, it is almost impossible to operate within the law. Plaintiff's lawyers know this and when the legitimate work gets a little slow they often try to root through 10 years of records and make a class action suit out of a molehill.
This, then is why I suggest that actually buying drives this size and storing decades of corporate emails on it is more of a liability than a help, at least in the business environment.