Dump it to flat files on an external drive or two. Put it in storage in the police evidence locker. No need for encryption. Evidence locker tags and signatures are good enough for any judge in the country.
If after the doctor sneaks back into the country in 20 years and gets apprehended, and you find you can't read the drives or someone stole them, you dismiss the case THEN, not now.
None of that is a valid reason to dismiss the case.
Once an indictment is issued, the statute of limitation clock is stopped. It can sit dormant until the death of the subject. It costs nothing to move the case records to storage, and let them sit there for 20 years.
So, customary and normal police procedures is all that is required. Buy drives (maybe 4 or 6 for contingencies. Fill them. Put them back in the protective shipping containers. Put that in the evidence box. Seal box. Sign the seal. Send to evidence locker along with 4 zillion other boxes. Done.
Am I allowed to pup up and point out the obvious that the two Terabytes needed to store this information can be purchased from Seagate via Amazon for $139 bucks?
A single disk drive is not someplace to store data you want to keep..
If you are going to quote me in order to pontificate on the obvious, at least quote the first TWO paragraphs.
Further, storing several hundred boxes of paper documents is not a huge financial burden. Finding it again may be problematic, but the government has plenty of document storage facilities. Scan them all in and store them at the CIA's Utah Data Center.
No; The Chinese care very much. China began writing long after the Mesopotanians, however, because ancient Chinese texts were carefully and repeatedly copied, they have survived much longer than texts almost anywhere else in the world.
Not germane.
In those days, where originally there may have been exactly one copy of a text, the act of copying was critical to its preservation, not to mention dissemination. One copy does no one any good. The Chinese copied texts no more frequently, and no more widely than any other civilization. Its just that more of them survived.
That texts have survived in China longer is due to a lack of nut-job dictators and religious zealots seeking out and destroying every copy they can find, and even burning entire libraries to do so.
Am I allowed to pup up and point out the obvious that the two Terabytes needed to store this information can be purchased from Seagate via Amazon for $139 bucks?
DEA: Buy two drives. One for yourselves, one for discovery. You can take it out of the taxes I paid last year. Pay me back when you collect reasonable discovery charges.
The trifling cost aside, this seems to suggest that the DEA is aware that their case is fatally weak, and relies on sifting mountains of data that no jury on earth is capable of understanding in the hope of finding some faint pattern in the data that suggests intent. If there were obvious infractions, it would be easy to prove by pointing out 20 or 30 of them and call it a day. If it is so subtle that you need two terabytes to prove it, you probably don't have much of a case anyway.
Even if the Goods Doctor (see what I did there?) was guilty as hell, and the DEA is worried that purging some evidence and concentrating on specific acts might give grounds for appeal due to hiding evidence, the simple precaution of copying it to cheap off line storage should be sufficient.
Something is rotten about this whole story, and I suspect its a huge smoke screen for some other operation, or perhaps proceeding with the case would put methods or undercover operatives at risk, or require personnel that are current not available. Or maybe they know the Doctor is on his death bed or will soon contract some fatal disease, at which will make the whole point moot. Or maybe the doctor is singing like a canary these days.
It doesn't matter what textdrive's ownership was just that it was purchased by joynet the liability started with textdrive and moved to joynet when it was purchased. If two people start a company and one leaves the company's liability is not washed away.
As I stated before, you can't make Blanket statements like that. Its just not that simple, no matter how much you may thump your chest and speak with false authority.
Was Company A dissolved? Were the assets sold off (perhaps to the only knowledgeable party that wanted them)?
Companies (especially partnerships and C Corps) shut down all the time, sell assets. You buy some of these assets, say Joe's Plumber Company service vehicles, because they are a perfect fit for your business, Sams Pipes. Does that mean you are obligated to honor Joe's warranty? Of course not.
You are making assumptions that you have not a shred of data to support. You haven't followed the paper trail. You haven't looked at any of the documents. You don't know FACT ONE about how this all transpired.
Unless a bankruptcy ruling released them from those lifetime commitments there is no way out, when you purchase a company you don't just purchase its assets you get everything including any commitments they made and any liabilities they have.
Unless you know for certain that it was purchased, you can't make blanket assertions. Two guys form a company with a "as long as we exist" clause. One departs. Did he sell his share or just walk away? Was it a corporation, or an informal partnership? If a partnership, and the remaining partner chooses to pick up the pieces of the defunct business, its no longer a case of "WE existing. The original partnership is dead. The "WE" ceases to exist.
May be different if it were a corporation. But without wading through records (some of which may not be public) you can't be sure.
It doesn't say anything of the sort under their Terms of Service at the time, available through the wayback link.
It says"
How long is it good for? As long as we exist.
The original company no longer exists, and only half of the principals there of, are participants in the new owners.
Still, one wonders why he can't move all of that into a virtual machine and put the storage in his cloud. That is after all their current line of business is it not?
One could make the claim that since Joyent is not the originator of TextDrive, and has only ONE of the original textdrive founders, that the referred to "WE" no longer exists.
Of course there is also that bit where Jason Hoffman, who also co-founded Joyent, says: "Yes. Sorry. I just made bail.".
It was a silly promise to make on Textdrive's part, and a silly promise to believe on the user's part. I've bought lifetime memberships. I have no delusional expectation of enjoying them for the rest of MY life.
Except the point being argued is that the lack of attribution made the article feel more localized. The engagement of people not in Boston and Philadelphia by making it feel like it was their war too was a major reason for the success of the War. The argument here is about how much of a role unattributed news played a role in bringing the War to the locals.
Feel more localized when reporting incidents two or 6 states (colonies) away? Really?
As often as not "correspondents" in those days were exactly that, people who wrote LETTERS to various news papers as a way of making a living. They would have dozens of little newspapers signed up for a few cents per letter, and would include clippings (often of their own stories) from the newspapers where they were located in their mailings. Often these were reporters for local papers who expanded their own income by serving remote papers. As often as not they were the ones who wrote these articles in the first place.
Its hard to call that plagiarism, when it was tacitly acknowledged among the several papers involved.
Attribution of news is a relatively recent trend. Even as late as the Civil war reports were often not attributed.
'Oh, public release of obsolete military tech.' was my first thought.
Agreed that this doesn't sound very likely for making something MORE discernable.
Oh come on. What military do you know that uses little slow crawling 12 centimeter devices tethered by a cord with no internal power supply? What would be the use case for that?
The military's adoption of robot tech is limited to rather robust bomb/IED disposal roles and aerial surveillance/attack roles, all of which carry on board power supplies and are radio controlled, and big enough to at least carry a camera.
This isn't obsolete, its not even developed to the point of being useful yet.
I'd also like to know how a tethered end-effector qualifies as a robot. To my way of thinking, that's just a tool, more advanced than a wrench perhaps, but A robot is a mechanical device that can perform tasks automatically. Directing every movement via a tether seems a bit of a stretch.
Adding color seems a pointless exercise when a all you have to do is follow the cord to find out where it is.
At what point would individuality be replaced with fabrication?
At what point would our library of congress stored in DNA mutate into something totally different?
When the Gettysburg Address starts sounding lib Bob Dylan or worse yet, mutates into a hand with 7 fingers? Or would you simply call that evolution of knowledge, and line up for your smart-shots at the local library?
So please tell me what non proprietary connector allows any old dumb device to control functionality like line in, line out, volume, power, video out, and controlling playback? This can all be done by sending analog signals over certain pins. For very cheap devices a USB controller and the supporting chipset and software is not an option.
Haven't seen any android devices lately have you.... I suggest you broaden your horizons.
Meanwhile, I'm not convinced we need all these boutique TLD's. Maybe there's lots of pressure for more after the.xxx cash-grab.
The more descriptive TLDs are not something the xxx crowd wants. I suspect establishing these is but the first step to a wider enforcement of censorship. Once these are in place you can impose laws forcing the use of the appropriate TLD, and then simply make it really easy to block the entire TLD.
There are already restrictions in place on.gov and.edu (easily circumvented in many cases). There was even some noise about.net being tightened a bit in the last couple years.
Exactly my thought. Wouldn't this make it EASIER for them?
What are they bitching about? Its a boat load easier to block entire TL domains in their DNS servers than to block a gazillion.coms all over the world.
Sure the wise will change to some other DNS server, and they may have to block IPs, but so what? They already have that problem. I suspect they also block out of country dns servers.
Other things that were considered to be a single organism have turned out to be colonies of organisms. I believe there is s a type of fungus/mushroom in Wisconsin or Michigan that was found to be all connected under ground, and when taken as a whole ended up being the world's largest living organism.
We know some tree species have underground connected root systems, so its easy to mistake an individual tree for an individual organism.
The mystery here seems to be that nobody has nailed down the mechanism for differentiation within a tree. I could imagine one seedling (somehow) taking over the root system of another close relative species after a forest burned or something like that.
Slashdot Mirror
The place is looking kind of run-down, but its been chain link fenced for years.
No idea how it looks on the inside.
Dump it to flat files on an external drive or two.
Put it in storage in the police evidence locker. No need for encryption.
Evidence locker tags and signatures are good enough for any judge in the country.
If after the doctor sneaks back into the country in 20 years and gets apprehended, and you find you can't read the drives or someone stole them, you dismiss the case THEN, not now.
None of that is a valid reason to dismiss the case.
Once an indictment is issued, the statute of limitation clock is stopped. It can sit dormant until the death of the subject. It costs nothing to move the case records to storage, and let them sit there for 20 years.
So, customary and normal police procedures is all that is required.
Buy drives (maybe 4 or 6 for contingencies.
Fill them.
Put them back in the protective shipping containers.
Put that in the evidence box.
Seal box.
Sign the seal.
Send to evidence locker along with 4 zillion other boxes.
Done.
Cops. Do. This. EVERY. DAY.
Am I allowed to pup up and point out the obvious that the two Terabytes needed to store this information can be purchased from Seagate via Amazon for $139 bucks?
A single disk drive is not someplace to store data you want to keep. .
If you are going to quote me in order to pontificate on the obvious, at least quote the first TWO paragraphs.
Exactly.
Further, storing several hundred boxes of paper documents is not a huge financial burden. Finding it again may be problematic, but the government has plenty of document storage facilities. Scan them all in and store them at the CIA's Utah Data Center.
On the other hand.....
Maybe a good thing. If we can't limit the size of government lets limit the size of their data storage.
No; The Chinese care very much. China began writing long after the Mesopotanians, however, because ancient Chinese texts were carefully and repeatedly copied, they have survived much longer than texts almost anywhere else in the world.
Not germane.
In those days, where originally there may have been exactly one copy of a text, the act of copying was critical to its preservation, not to mention dissemination. One copy does no one any good. The Chinese copied texts no more frequently, and no more widely than any other civilization. Its just that more of them survived.
That texts have survived in China longer is due to a lack of nut-job dictators and religious zealots seeking out and destroying every copy they can find, and even burning entire libraries to do so.
Am I allowed to pup up and point out the obvious that the two Terabytes needed to store this information can be purchased from Seagate via Amazon for $139 bucks?
DEA: Buy two drives. One for yourselves, one for discovery. You can take it out of the taxes I paid last year. Pay me back when you collect reasonable discovery charges.
The trifling cost aside, this seems to suggest that the DEA is aware that their case is fatally weak, and relies on sifting mountains of data that no jury on earth is capable of understanding in the hope of finding some faint pattern in the data that suggests intent. If there were obvious infractions, it would be easy to prove by pointing out 20 or 30 of them and call it a day. If it is so subtle that you need two terabytes to prove it, you probably don't have much of a case anyway.
Even if the Goods Doctor (see what I did there?) was guilty as hell, and the DEA is worried that purging some evidence and concentrating on specific acts might give grounds for appeal due to hiding evidence, the simple precaution of copying it to cheap off line storage should be sufficient.
Something is rotten about this whole story, and I suspect its a huge smoke screen for some other operation, or perhaps proceeding with the case would put methods or undercover operatives at risk, or require personnel that are current not available. Or maybe they know the Doctor is on his death bed or will soon contract some fatal disease, at which will make the whole point moot. Or maybe the doctor is singing like a canary these days.
It doesn't matter what textdrive's ownership was just that it was purchased by joynet the liability started with textdrive and moved to joynet when it was purchased. If two people start a company and one leaves the company's liability is not washed away.
As I stated before, you can't make Blanket statements like that. Its just not that simple, no matter how much you may thump your chest and speak with false authority.
Was Company A dissolved?
Were the assets sold off (perhaps to the only knowledgeable party that wanted them)?
Companies (especially partnerships and C Corps) shut down all the time, sell assets.
You buy some of these assets, say Joe's Plumber Company service vehicles, because they are a perfect fit for your business, Sams Pipes. Does that mean you are obligated to honor Joe's warranty? Of course not.
You are making assumptions that you have not a shred of data to support. You haven't followed the paper trail.
You haven't looked at any of the documents. You don't know FACT ONE about how this all transpired.
If there was a bankruptcy some where along the way to that sale, the multi-national may be well within their rights to terminate the agreement,.
Unless a bankruptcy ruling released them from those lifetime commitments there is no way out, when you purchase a company you don't just purchase its assets you get everything including any commitments they made and any liabilities they have.
Unless you know for certain that it was purchased, you can't make blanket assertions.
Two guys form a company with a "as long as we exist" clause.
One departs. Did he sell his share or just walk away? Was it a corporation, or an informal partnership?
If a partnership, and the remaining partner chooses to pick up the pieces of the defunct business, its no longer a case of "WE existing. The original partnership is dead. The "WE" ceases to exist.
May be different if it were a corporation. But without wading through records (some of which may not be public) you can't be sure.
It doesn't say anything of the sort under their Terms of Service at the time, available through the wayback link.
It says"
How long is it good for?
As long as we exist.
The original company no longer exists, and only half of the principals there of, are participants in the new owners.
Still, one wonders why he can't move all of that into a virtual machine and put the storage in his cloud. That is after all their current line of business is it not?
One could make the claim that since Joyent is not the originator of TextDrive, and has only ONE of the original textdrive founders, that the referred to "WE" no longer exists.
Of course there is also that bit where Jason Hoffman, who also co-founded Joyent, says: "Yes. Sorry. I just made bail.".
It was a silly promise to make on Textdrive's part, and a silly promise to believe on the user's part.
I've bought lifetime memberships. I have no delusional expectation of enjoying them for the rest of MY life.
On a side note, one wonders how long could one keep a guillotined head alive if it were immediately connected to a blood supply (heart lung machine).
"Will soon cease working" != "Doesn't work".
Guess why it will stop working? Because it will cease being intact (due to missing oxygen).
Obligatory car analogy:
My engine is no longer intact because I ran out of fuel?
Except the point being argued is that the lack of attribution made the article feel more localized. The engagement of people not in Boston and Philadelphia by making it feel like it was their war too was a major reason for the success of the War. The argument here is about how much of a role unattributed news played a role in bringing the War to the locals.
Feel more localized when reporting incidents two or 6 states (colonies) away? Really?
As often as not "correspondents" in those days were exactly that, people who wrote LETTERS to
various news papers as a way of making a living. They would have dozens of little newspapers
signed up for a few cents per letter, and would include clippings (often of their own stories) from
the newspapers where they were located in their mailings. Often these were reporters
for local papers who expanded their own income by serving remote papers. As often as not
they were the ones who wrote these articles in the first place.
Its hard to call that plagiarism, when it was tacitly acknowledged among the several papers
involved.
Attribution of news is a relatively recent trend. Even as late as the Civil war reports were often
not attributed.
'Oh, public release of obsolete military tech.' was my first thought.
Agreed that this doesn't sound very likely for making something MORE discernable.
Oh come on.
What military do you know that uses little slow crawling 12 centimeter devices tethered by a cord with no internal power supply? What would be the use case for that?
The military's adoption of robot tech is limited to rather robust bomb/IED disposal roles and aerial surveillance/attack roles, all of which carry on board power supplies and are radio controlled, and big enough to at least carry a camera.
This isn't obsolete, its not even developed to the point of being useful yet.
I'd also like to know how a tethered end-effector qualifies as a robot. To my way of thinking, that's just a tool, more advanced than a wrench perhaps, but A robot is a mechanical device that can perform tasks automatically. Directing every movement via a tether seems a bit of a stretch.
Adding color seems a pointless exercise when a all you have to do is follow the cord to find out where it is.
At what point would individuality be replaced with fabrication?
At what point would our library of congress stored in DNA mutate into something totally different?
When the Gettysburg Address starts sounding lib Bob Dylan or worse yet, mutates into a hand with 7 fingers?
Or would you simply call that evolution of knowledge, and line up for your smart-shots at the local library?
So please tell me what non proprietary connector allows any old dumb device to control functionality like line in, line out, volume, power, video out, and controlling playback? This can all be done by sending analog signals over certain pins. For very cheap devices a USB controller and the supporting chipset and software is not an option.
Haven't seen any android devices lately have you....
I suggest you broaden your horizons.
Meanwhile, I'm not convinced we need all these boutique TLD's. Maybe there's lots of pressure for more after the .xxx cash-grab.
The more descriptive TLDs are not something the xxx crowd wants.
I suspect establishing these is but the first step to a wider enforcement of censorship. Once these are in place you can impose laws forcing the use of the appropriate TLD, and then simply make it really easy to block the entire TLD.
There are already restrictions in place on .gov and .edu (easily circumvented in many cases). There was even some noise about .net being tightened a bit in the last couple years.
Exactly my thought. Wouldn't this make it EASIER for them?
What are they bitching about? Its a boat load easier to block entire TL domains in their DNS servers than to block a gazillion .coms all over the world.
Sure the wise will change to some other DNS server, and they may have to block IPs, but so what? They already have that problem. I suspect they also block out of country dns servers.
Like Pando perhaps?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)
I assume you refer to Gregor Mendel, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel but I have to point out that grafting had been used for centuries before he did his work.
Other things that were considered to be a single organism have turned out to be colonies of organisms. I believe there is s a type of fungus/mushroom in Wisconsin or Michigan that was found to be all connected under ground, and when taken as a whole ended up being the world's largest living organism.
We know some tree species have underground connected root systems, so its easy to mistake an individual tree for an individual organism.
The mystery here seems to be that nobody has nailed down the mechanism for differentiation within a tree. I could imagine one seedling (somehow) taking over the root system of another close relative species after a forest burned or something like that.
I agree it's pretty astounding.