You do not always need a judge's order or warrant to confiscate property. This is much the same as not needing a grand jury indictment to arrest and charge someone. But there does have to be certain elements present that would constitute probable cause or the necessity of taking action before getting the rest in order.
What is alleged to have happened in this situation and many other situations do not seemingly rise to that level by any stretch of the imagination. I'm not condoning the actions of the police here, just stating that there are times when a judge does not have to sign off on taking someone's property.
In a roaming profile environment, which is what the gp was describing, the entire desktop is stored on a server and sync'd with the system during log on for each user. There is a cached profile left on the system to speed these things up a bit, but if it is a corporate environment, chances are it is just one of many copies (backups).
The profile contains any default program settings stored in the ~user directory plus certain parts of the registry and all of the my-documents (libraries) and desktop. You can redirect some of these locations, but the user generally doesn't have that ability unless they are their own IT too. One of the biggest pet peeves I have with this is the damn Itunes which needs to be installed in order to sync calendars to Iphones which once installed will re-download all their store purchased music making it a nightmare for managing disk space and backups on older servers with limited partition space available or older backup systems with smaller media storage.
Deleting everything is not within the scope of his work. From an outside perspective, it would appear that a disgruntled employee damaged systems on the way out and you would be hard pressed to demonstrate anything else to a judge or jury should it go to a law suit.
I'm betting those employees in that 1000 person company are not necessary to the sale or production of a service or product. I own part of a local family owned restaurant and surprise, the entire kitchen staff along with part of the wait staff decided they needed the entire weekend off to see a concert and recover from the experience. Of course this couldn't happen without closing down so the requests were granted on a first come first serve basis with me and some family members filling in to accommodate more people.
You cannot realistically have 75% of your employees taking the same time off in most businesses unless it is a planned shut down or something. A site I administrate closes for a week twice a year for maintenance and they continue to pay the weekly salaries. They try to do this around major holidays and hire outside organizations to complete the maintenance. This is probably the closest most companies can realistically have that situation without adverse impacts on their sales.
You are correct, but the point is they still exist and are able to be owned by the general population.
I might add that the legality or perhaps the legitimacy of this might be in question should it ever come up in a clear court case where the defendant is not implicit in another crime.
I'm not sure of any laws against wearing a sword in most situations. I often carry a hunting knife, a 12 inch boning knife, that has an overall length of 16 inches. It just has to be strapped to my side and in plain view like a non-concealed carry firearm.
In 1789, most swords were not designed to be used as a weapon either. They were more status symbols then anything. But your comment is very telling in how stupid you really are. If you don't give a shit about concepts behind something in the constitution and are willing to take freedoms and rights away from others, then you have right to bitch when someone else comes along and screws the pooch on anything else in the constitution like the 5th amendment and so on. Good luck in that world.
What about pools? Pools also serve a utilitarian purpose of cooling people off.
You can legislate safety devices like fences and gates, water level alarms and so on for the pools. But your comment is just a red herring as I never claimed to support the ban on magnets or the legitimacy of swimming pools. I pointed to the obvious that should not be escaping you train of thought so easily. The world is full of stuff justified by reasons and purposed beyond your immediate mental prowls.
First, the president can only serve two terms. Perhaps you mean 4 more years, Second, we do not have a democracy, we have a constitutional republic and there is no requirement for elected officials to do the will of the people. Third, often voting for one candidate is not always an endorsement of them, it's a rejection of the other candidates. In that case, no will of that or those people would be served outside of not electing the other person. Bush got elected to a second term because John Kerry was a giant douche who couldn't energize the public with a tesla coil and a stun gun. It's the same reason it seems that Obama will get a second term.
Finally, I was being facetious about those unpopular programs that had more people against them then for them. Elections are often decided on one or two important issues and not all of the situations that crop up. WE do not have a democracy- remember. But none of that is important as the situation at hand was created underlings at an appointed department that is supposed to operate independent from the government by law. Even if you can somehow muscle ultimate executive responsibility into some purposeful act by the elected officials who never considered the facts and circumstances before the offensive action, we are still presented with the supposed autonomy from government in this situation which implies a separate regardless of what you think.
So no child left behind, warrant-less wiretaps, NSA letters, the war in Iraq and/or Afghanistan as well as the coming war with Iran, the bank bailouts- all are the will of the people?
I see your point, I also see a large disconnect between political will and the will of the people. Furthermore, I seriously doubt any politician was consulted before this action happened.
I'm sure there are some, but again, there is no indication they played a role in this ban and appointees do not have to clear their actions through elected officials that may have appointed them. Now the elected official (in this case the executive) can direct certain things to happen, but again there is no indication that President Obama or any member of congress ordered the ban on the sale of these magnets.
The complaint is signed by the executive director who isn't an appointed official and the only other listings on it are subordinate attorneys.
wow. mo0dded troll for pointing out the obvious. Perhaps someone is all but hurt about the obama comment. It was the article not me that said it....lol freedom of speech! fuck yeah.. ohh.. wait, not that speech, we don't agree with it.
And the democratic government looked at the wishes of the citezens and responded.
Actually, no it wasn't a democratic government that banned them. It was an agency under the executive which happens to be controlled by the democrats who like to be referred to as democratic but that isn't the same as a democratic government. There is no evidence to date that any elected official played any part in the issue of the ban. Certainly no act of congress has happened specifically to this.
I can understand the confusion though, the article says they will fight the ban that was issued by Obama's hand picked agency.
Automatic weapons are not banned. Whoever gave you that idea. I have two of them sitting beside me right now. Well, actually, they are locked in my gun safe but all you need to do is get a tax stamp for them. I suggest you stop imagining things and take a trip to the machine gun festival and see how many private citizens own fully auto weapons. You might be surprised to find that ordinary citizens can and do own explosives too.
Bear arms is not some set of furry paws sitting in the den. If you have no ammunition, you cannot bear arms.
The passage is pretty much interpreted as it meant in 1789. Every court case involving the second amendment reflects on definitions of the time and so on or precedent created by cases which did. The DC gun ban case that got overturned by the supreme court even specifically referenced state constitutions and other sources to get an exact meaning or definitions.
The thing is, the constitution can be amended. It's spelled out exactly how to do it right in the constitution. What you and other liberals seem to want to do is always ignore that and find ways to trick your viewpoint into play. Well, that is exactly what happened with the expansion of the interstate commerce clause which allows the government to ball toys.
There is nothing broken about the US constitution. It's more in the interpretation of it leading to the practice.
The difference in the sale of bleach is that it is commonly used for things other then a toy. Bucky balls have no significant use outside of being a toy. You can still buy them, just not in the local toy store.
Yes, because as everyone agrees, the federal government should be in the business of picking and choosing which genes get passed on based on your biased opinion and pushing birth control and abortions onto the unworthy.
I'm sorry your quest to create an utopian super race of humans are being thwarted by those selfish religious nuts but hey, look on the bright side, government funding of planned parenthood was only a small portion of their overall budget so Margret Sanger's dream of Eugenics will still be somewhat in place.
90% or better of people are that sorry of an excuse in some way. Study after study has shown that attractive people get the hirer paying jobs, advance easier in the workplace, and are treated better by coworkers, peers, and authority figures.
You can compensate for how people view you by dressing and grooming more pleasingly to their tastes. This is especially true when there is somewhat of a target audience. If you doubt me, just show up to a klan rally wearing a shirt that says "once black never back" or go to the hood wearing a shirt saying "I hate stupid niggers". Those will be two extreme and obvious examples, the middle ground, while not as obvious, still exists.
Yep, they could hire a judge to rubber stamp warrants. However, they likely wouldn't be a judge or a lawyer for long (at least in the US).
Most local jurisdictions elect their judges but some of the more populated areas have to hire some in the process. Even if there is not a requirement for the judge to be a bar approved lawyer, the state bar- read state supreme court in most cases, will have jurisdiction over them and can remove them from office or remove the court's ability to hear legal matters if they abuse their position.
A warrant provides a paper trail which is important. In the US, we have what some refer to as fruit of the poisonous tree in which any ill gained evidence cannot be used against someone. If a judge rubber stamps a warrant that should not have been legitimately granted, any evidence gained from the warrant, or even evidence they were lead to because of the faulty warrant, can be bared from being used in the prosecution.
The constitutional requirement for a warrant stems back from a time when the then government or police officials (whether government or some company's) could search you without cause at any time or place and find anything deemed to be violating the law and lock you up over it. The framers said, not any more unless there is direct probable cause. you will have to contact a third party, create this paper trail, and only search people when it is absolutely justified.
This policy statement pertains to one police department and is basically the result of a lawsuit filed by someone who had been mistreated for recording them in the past. This isn't a policy statement by someone wanting to improve their image to enter higher levels of politics or something. The entire policy change is pretty detailed in what the cops can and cannot do including what specific situations that a camera can be seized and how to handle a situation where someone will not voluntarily hand it over.
If you find they are abusing their discretion, file a complaint against the officers. There is even a web site that allows that which is floating around in these comments. My understanding is that the complaint stays with the officer's permanent record whether they find something substantial or not coming from it. It will eventually show a pattern that will eventually catch up with them.
Seriously, read the PDF associated with it. It is very specific and part of a settlement from which someone was mistreated by one of the cops.
Windows 8 should scare you a little. If you look at Microsoft's history, they have a pattern of in-between favorite releases being more of a testbed then a release.
If we start with windows 95, we get windows 98 which they fixed half way through with windows 98 second edition which was pretty stable by the time windows ME came out. Windows Me either rocked for you or it sucked donkey balls. If it worked, it worked well, if it didn't, it hardly ever did. Then came XP which by all accounts was a world of improvement over windows ME and stability once again resumed. We then got the testbed for windows7 which was windows vista. Vista is comparable to windows ME in that it seemed to try but wasn't the little engine that could. Now we have windows 7 which once you get used to the UI differences from XP, is once again the solid result of the previous operating system or beta version.
It actually goes back a little further then win9x. As a user who has had experience with working on and fixing MS based systems since DOS 4.01(a), and later windows, I will gladly wait for windows 9 or at least a service pack or two for windows 8 before trying to be productive with it. windows 8 should be the testing platform if MS maintains its trend.
Of course you could always go here and play with the windows really good edition.
Ha.. that's a bit of a stretch. I turn roaming profiles off on a number of desktops and if the system hasn't been down for too long, windows will allow cached credentials to get you to a desktop as long as the last valid password is used. Well, at least XP will, we have application issues stopping a move to newer operating system at one of my sites. I have never tried to log on with vista or windows 7 with the AD down at my other sites. But you can get to a desktop without touching the network at a corporate site.
Slashdot Mirror
You do not always need a judge's order or warrant to confiscate property. This is much the same as not needing a grand jury indictment to arrest and charge someone. But there does have to be certain elements present that would constitute probable cause or the necessity of taking action before getting the rest in order.
What is alleged to have happened in this situation and many other situations do not seemingly rise to that level by any stretch of the imagination. I'm not condoning the actions of the police here, just stating that there are times when a judge does not have to sign off on taking someone's property.
In a roaming profile environment, which is what the gp was describing, the entire desktop is stored on a server and sync'd with the system during log on for each user. There is a cached profile left on the system to speed these things up a bit, but if it is a corporate environment, chances are it is just one of many copies (backups).
The profile contains any default program settings stored in the ~user directory plus certain parts of the registry and all of the my-documents (libraries) and desktop. You can redirect some of these locations, but the user generally doesn't have that ability unless they are their own IT too. One of the biggest pet peeves I have with this is the damn Itunes which needs to be installed in order to sync calendars to Iphones which once installed will re-download all their store purchased music making it a nightmare for managing disk space and backups on older servers with limited partition space available or older backup systems with smaller media storage.
Deleting everything is not within the scope of his work. From an outside perspective, it would appear that a disgruntled employee damaged systems on the way out and you would be hard pressed to demonstrate anything else to a judge or jury should it go to a law suit.
Very good, I'm glad you finally figured out what everyone else already knew.
I'm betting those employees in that 1000 person company are not necessary to the sale or production of a service or product. I own part of a local family owned restaurant and surprise, the entire kitchen staff along with part of the wait staff decided they needed the entire weekend off to see a concert and recover from the experience. Of course this couldn't happen without closing down so the requests were granted on a first come first serve basis with me and some family members filling in to accommodate more people.
You cannot realistically have 75% of your employees taking the same time off in most businesses unless it is a planned shut down or something. A site I administrate closes for a week twice a year for maintenance and they continue to pay the weekly salaries. They try to do this around major holidays and hire outside organizations to complete the maintenance. This is probably the closest most companies can realistically have that situation without adverse impacts on their sales.
You are correct, but the point is they still exist and are able to be owned by the general population.
I might add that the legality or perhaps the legitimacy of this might be in question should it ever come up in a clear court case where the defendant is not implicit in another crime.
I'm not sure of any laws against wearing a sword in most situations. I often carry a hunting knife, a 12 inch boning knife, that has an overall length of 16 inches. It just has to be strapped to my side and in plain view like a non-concealed carry firearm.
In 1789, most swords were not designed to be used as a weapon either. They were more status symbols then anything. But your comment is very telling in how stupid you really are. If you don't give a shit about concepts behind something in the constitution and are willing to take freedoms and rights away from others, then you have right to bitch when someone else comes along and screws the pooch on anything else in the constitution like the 5th amendment and so on. Good luck in that world.
What about pools? Pools also serve a utilitarian purpose of cooling people off.
You can legislate safety devices like fences and gates, water level alarms and so on for the pools. But your comment is just a red herring as I never claimed to support the ban on magnets or the legitimacy of swimming pools. I pointed to the obvious that should not be escaping you train of thought so easily. The world is full of stuff justified by reasons and purposed beyond your immediate mental prowls.
I think you are a bit delusional or confused.
First, the president can only serve two terms. Perhaps you mean 4 more years, Second, we do not have a democracy, we have a constitutional republic and there is no requirement for elected officials to do the will of the people. Third, often voting for one candidate is not always an endorsement of them, it's a rejection of the other candidates. In that case, no will of that or those people would be served outside of not electing the other person. Bush got elected to a second term because John Kerry was a giant douche who couldn't energize the public with a tesla coil and a stun gun. It's the same reason it seems that Obama will get a second term.
Finally, I was being facetious about those unpopular programs that had more people against them then for them. Elections are often decided on one or two important issues and not all of the situations that crop up. WE do not have a democracy- remember. But none of that is important as the situation at hand was created underlings at an appointed department that is supposed to operate independent from the government by law. Even if you can somehow muscle ultimate executive responsibility into some purposeful act by the elected officials who never considered the facts and circumstances before the offensive action, we are still presented with the supposed autonomy from government in this situation which implies a separate regardless of what you think.
So no child left behind, warrant-less wiretaps, NSA letters, the war in Iraq and/or Afghanistan as well as the coming war with Iran, the bank bailouts- all are the will of the people?
I see your point, I also see a large disconnect between political will and the will of the people. Furthermore, I seriously doubt any politician was consulted before this action happened.
crap.. I even previewed that too.
I'm sure there are some, but again, there is no indication they played a role in this ban and appointees do not have to clear their actions through elected officials that may have appointed them. Now the elected official (in this case the executive) can direct certain things to happen, but again there is no indication that President Obama or any member of congress ordered the ban on the sale of these magnets.
The complaint is signed by the executive director who isn't an appointed official and the only other listings on it are subordinate attorneys.
wow. mo0dded troll for pointing out the obvious. Perhaps someone is all but hurt about the obama comment. It was the article not me that said it....lol freedom of speech! fuck yeah.. ohh.. wait, not that speech, we don't agree with it.
All those things have common uses outside of being toys.
Actually, no it wasn't a democratic government that banned them. It was an agency under the executive which happens to be controlled by the democrats who like to be referred to as democratic but that isn't the same as a democratic government. There is no evidence to date that any elected official played any part in the issue of the ban. Certainly no act of congress has happened specifically to this.
I can understand the confusion though, the article says they will fight the ban that was issued by Obama's hand picked agency.
Automatic weapons are not banned. Whoever gave you that idea. I have two of them sitting beside me right now. Well, actually, they are locked in my gun safe but all you need to do is get a tax stamp for them. I suggest you stop imagining things and take a trip to the machine gun festival and see how many private citizens own fully auto weapons. You might be surprised to find that ordinary citizens can and do own explosives too.
Bear arms is not some set of furry paws sitting in the den. If you have no ammunition, you cannot bear arms.
The passage is pretty much interpreted as it meant in 1789. Every court case involving the second amendment reflects on definitions of the time and so on or precedent created by cases which did. The DC gun ban case that got overturned by the supreme court even specifically referenced state constitutions and other sources to get an exact meaning or definitions.
The thing is, the constitution can be amended. It's spelled out exactly how to do it right in the constitution. What you and other liberals seem to want to do is always ignore that and find ways to trick your viewpoint into play. Well, that is exactly what happened with the expansion of the interstate commerce clause which allows the government to ball toys.
There is nothing broken about the US constitution. It's more in the interpretation of it leading to the practice.
The difference in the sale of bleach is that it is commonly used for things other then a toy. Bucky balls have no significant use outside of being a toy. You can still buy them, just not in the local toy store.
Yes, because as everyone agrees, the federal government should be in the business of picking and choosing which genes get passed on based on your biased opinion and pushing birth control and abortions onto the unworthy.
I'm sorry your quest to create an utopian super race of humans are being thwarted by those selfish religious nuts but hey, look on the bright side, government funding of planned parenthood was only a small portion of their overall budget so Margret Sanger's dream of Eugenics will still be somewhat in place.
90% or better of people are that sorry of an excuse in some way. Study after study has shown that attractive people get the hirer paying jobs, advance easier in the workplace, and are treated better by coworkers, peers, and authority figures.
You can compensate for how people view you by dressing and grooming more pleasingly to their tastes. This is especially true when there is somewhat of a target audience. If you doubt me, just show up to a klan rally wearing a shirt that says "once black never back" or go to the hood wearing a shirt saying "I hate stupid niggers". Those will be two extreme and obvious examples, the middle ground, while not as obvious, still exists.
Yep, they could hire a judge to rubber stamp warrants. However, they likely wouldn't be a judge or a lawyer for long (at least in the US).
Most local jurisdictions elect their judges but some of the more populated areas have to hire some in the process. Even if there is not a requirement for the judge to be a bar approved lawyer, the state bar- read state supreme court in most cases, will have jurisdiction over them and can remove them from office or remove the court's ability to hear legal matters if they abuse their position.
A warrant provides a paper trail which is important. In the US, we have what some refer to as fruit of the poisonous tree in which any ill gained evidence cannot be used against someone. If a judge rubber stamps a warrant that should not have been legitimately granted, any evidence gained from the warrant, or even evidence they were lead to because of the faulty warrant, can be bared from being used in the prosecution.
The constitutional requirement for a warrant stems back from a time when the then government or police officials (whether government or some company's) could search you without cause at any time or place and find anything deemed to be violating the law and lock you up over it. The framers said, not any more unless there is direct probable cause. you will have to contact a third party, create this paper trail, and only search people when it is absolutely justified.
This policy statement pertains to one police department and is basically the result of a lawsuit filed by someone who had been mistreated for recording them in the past. This isn't a policy statement by someone wanting to improve their image to enter higher levels of politics or something. The entire policy change is pretty detailed in what the cops can and cannot do including what specific situations that a camera can be seized and how to handle a situation where someone will not voluntarily hand it over.
If you find they are abusing their discretion, file a complaint against the officers. There is even a web site that allows that which is floating around in these comments. My understanding is that the complaint stays with the officer's permanent record whether they find something substantial or not coming from it. It will eventually show a pattern that will eventually catch up with them.
Seriously, read the PDF associated with it. It is very specific and part of a settlement from which someone was mistreated by one of the cops.
Windows 8 should scare you a little. If you look at Microsoft's history, they have a pattern of in-between favorite releases being more of a testbed then a release.
If we start with windows 95, we get windows 98 which they fixed half way through with windows 98 second edition which was pretty stable by the time windows ME came out. Windows Me either rocked for you or it sucked donkey balls. If it worked, it worked well, if it didn't, it hardly ever did. Then came XP which by all accounts was a world of improvement over windows ME and stability once again resumed. We then got the testbed for windows7 which was windows vista. Vista is comparable to windows ME in that it seemed to try but wasn't the little engine that could. Now we have windows 7 which once you get used to the UI differences from XP, is once again the solid result of the previous operating system or beta version.
It actually goes back a little further then win9x. As a user who has had experience with working on and fixing MS based systems since DOS 4.01(a), and later windows, I will gladly wait for windows 9 or at least a service pack or two for windows 8 before trying to be productive with it. windows 8 should be the testing platform if MS maintains its trend.
Of course you could always go here and play with the windows really good edition.
Ha.. that's a bit of a stretch. I turn roaming profiles off on a number of desktops and if the system hasn't been down for too long, windows will allow cached credentials to get you to a desktop as long as the last valid password is used. Well, at least XP will, we have application issues stopping a move to newer operating system at one of my sites. I have never tried to log on with vista or windows 7 with the AD down at my other sites. But you can get to a desktop without touching the network at a corporate site.
I don't know anymore, the whole thing seems fishy to me.
Thank you for the correction.