This one wasn't so easy to find a definition for. My layman's understanding suggests that that means the party submitting the evidence holds an honest belief that the evidence will hold up (or at least stands a chance of holding up) during trial proceedings. Do I have it right? Or even close?
It should have more to do with the legitimacy of the case brought forward.
If I have a reasonable complaint -- not necessarily one that ultimately wins out, but one where there are real issues to be determined, then no one should pay the other side's costs. It should not matter what my resources are, just as if Joe Shmo sues IBM/General Motors/Random Large Company because he got bubble gum on his shoe, he should be forced to pay the other side's legal fees regardless of his resources.
From what I understand that's more or less how it works now, except the case has to be absurdly lopsided from the start. I think that standard should be adjusted.
I also think that the case currently before SCOTUS has more to do with the RIAA's abuse of the legal system than anyone looking to establish a de facto loser pays system. It's more of Corp X files 10000 lawsuits annually, and withdraws the complaint on over 9000. This being considered abuse of the system, Corp X now has to pay opponents fees on withdrawn lawsuits.
Every desk that I've had, whether it's been in an office, a cubicle, or just a table in the middle of a large room has been accessible to virtually everyone who works there. And yet, shockingly, nothing has disappeared on me.
The most I've done security-wise is to avoid leaving some of the more likely theft targets out in the open, but I've never worried about actually locking them away.
In the companies that I have worked for, if things disappear off of desks, someone (co-workers, cleaning staff, whatever) is going to be fired for it.
I think they picked two things that don't go well together and blamed the lack of one for the existence of the other.
Actually what they did was look at citation rates and beer consumption rates and found a correlation. That's it. No blame or any other assumptions. Now they're speculating (just like we are) as to what could possibly cause that correlation. They certainly have NOT stated that increased beer consumption will cause a decrease in citations.
That depends on the size of your data, and the quality of your hardware and/or indexes. It frequently comes much closer to "Give it to me. When you have a moment."
Asking for a generic answer to this question is like asking for a generic answer for when to settle a lawsuit: stop when the costs of moving forward are greater than the cost of switching.
I don't think the answer is actually that simple. You need to cover risks as well. Maybe the current maintenance costs are trivial, but replacing people *might* be time consuming (hence the emphasis on personnel by the submitter). It gets more complicated when you have to factor in unknowns.
And if it wasn't my comment you replied to, I'd be using some of my mod points for a funny on that one. Instead I'll have to settle for letting you know you made me laugh.
Precise (but not accurate) directions on how to get to the moon: Starting from where you are right now, drive 3.46987 kilometers northeast. Make a 46.3219 degree turn to your right, and then drive for another 4.92306 kilometers.
Accurate (but not precise) directions on how to get to the moon: Go up towards the big thingy in the sky that causes tides.
Real programming superstars, usually love coding so much they take precautions so that they are not accidentally promoted to have management responsibilities like tracking vacation requests and authorizing the expense accounts.
Not necessarily true. Sometimes they push for management positions because they pay better and will enable them to cover their mortgages. There are also times where they want to replace the management above them because they're tired of having to justify what to them are obvious technical decisions.
So they make sure their belts don't match their shoes, their pants, if and when they wear it, are never ironed.
Also not necessarily true. Sometimes you wear clothes that make you look like an adult because you're trying to get laid.
Here's the way to find the best: Find the guy that all your other programmers go to when they get stuck, and ask him what he thinks.
Did they edit the summary or something? I see all these posts talking about how you get screwed with net points on a movie, but both the summary and TFA claim 7.5% gross.
If the advertised price is clearly a typo or misprint or something along those lines, then the retailer is not required to honor the price. They might anyway if it's not that far from what they'd sell it at normally, just to avoid a hassle with customers.
If the advertised price is being used as a means to get people into the store in hopes they'll either buy the item at the full price, or buy something else, then they're in iffy legal turf.
The rule of thumb is basically the larger the discount, the more likely it is a mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
good faith evidentiary basis
This one wasn't so easy to find a definition for. My layman's understanding suggests that that means the party submitting the evidence holds an honest belief that the evidence will hold up (or at least stands a chance of holding up) during trial proceedings. Do I have it right? Or even close?
And, of course, Microsoft Windows is an anagram for 'Moo cow swift rinds'
Not sure what that's about though.
But, IANAL, YMMV, beware of dog, slippery when wet, etc.
I developed a newfound respect for Australians and their legal system last summer.
I was in my pool, and I happened to notice the warnings on the inflatables. It had three sections:
US: Do not leave children unsupervised. Not a life-saving device. Etc etc etc, about 5 or 6 lines worth.
UK: Not substantially different from US. Phrased differently, but effectively the same amount of material with the same meaning.
AU: Use only under competent supervision. That was it. All of it.
humans, in general, have certain times of the year when they are more likely to procreate.
One might even say, oh, *statistically speaking* certain times of the year have more birthdays.
The whole Barbie series is really a collection of well-thought out masterpieces.
It should have more to do with the legitimacy of the case brought forward.
If I have a reasonable complaint -- not necessarily one that ultimately wins out, but one where there are real issues to be determined, then no one should pay the other side's costs. It should not matter what my resources are, just as if Joe Shmo sues IBM/General Motors/Random Large Company because he got bubble gum on his shoe, he should be forced to pay the other side's legal fees regardless of his resources.
From what I understand that's more or less how it works now, except the case has to be absurdly lopsided from the start. I think that standard should be adjusted.
I also think that the case currently before SCOTUS has more to do with the RIAA's abuse of the legal system than anyone looking to establish a de facto loser pays system. It's more of Corp X files 10000 lawsuits annually, and withdraws the complaint on over 9000. This being considered abuse of the system, Corp X now has to pay opponents fees on withdrawn lawsuits.
Every desk that I've had, whether it's been in an office, a cubicle, or just a table in the middle of a large room has been accessible to virtually everyone who works there. And yet, shockingly, nothing has disappeared on me.
The most I've done security-wise is to avoid leaving some of the more likely theft targets out in the open, but I've never worried about actually locking them away.
In the companies that I have worked for, if things disappear off of desks, someone (co-workers, cleaning staff, whatever) is going to be fired for it.
It's been done:
Captured on film
I think they picked two things that don't go well together and blamed the lack of one for the existence of the other.
Actually what they did was look at citation rates and beer consumption rates and found a correlation. That's it. No blame or any other assumptions. Now they're speculating (just like we are) as to what could possibly cause that correlation. They certainly have NOT stated that increased beer consumption will cause a decrease in citations.
Most Americans are Pilsners
I am an American. I am not a Pilsner. I do not know anyone who is a Pilsner, nor have I heard of anyone who knows someone who is a Pilsner.
Also, I can't say that I've ever met someone trying to pass themself off as a Lager.
Give it to me. Now.
That depends on the size of your data, and the quality of your hardware and/or indexes. It frequently comes much closer to "Give it to me. When you have a moment."
Verizon has no issues with home routers. The FIOS service comes with a 4-port wireless.
Agreed. I just tagged it 'misleadingheadline'
I find it interesting that "wrong" did not make your multiple choice list.
If your chosen platform [snip] is unpronounceable.
This reason. I like this reason. Is good reason.
Asking for a generic answer to this question is like asking for a generic answer for when to settle a lawsuit: stop when the costs of moving forward are greater than the cost of switching.
I don't think the answer is actually that simple. You need to cover risks as well. Maybe the current maintenance costs are trivial, but replacing people *might* be time consuming (hence the emphasis on personnel by the submitter). It gets more complicated when you have to factor in unknowns.
And if it wasn't my comment you replied to, I'd be using some of my mod points for a funny on that one. Instead I'll have to settle for letting you know you made me laugh.
The platform is irrelevant. Maybe you could list a dozen problems with it off of the top of your head, but THAT'S NOT WHAT HE'S ASKING.
He wants to know, generically, how you decide that what you're using is the wrong choice.
It's all a matter of taste. I felt the exact opposite way when looking at the two languages.
I'd take either one in a heartbeat over perl though.
For those unfamiliar:
Precise (but not accurate) directions on how to get to the moon:
Starting from where you are right now, drive 3.46987 kilometers northeast. Make a 46.3219 degree turn to your right, and then drive for another 4.92306 kilometers.
Accurate (but not precise) directions on how to get to the moon:
Go up towards the big thingy in the sky that causes tides.
Real programming superstars, usually love coding so much they take precautions so that they are not accidentally promoted to have management responsibilities like tracking vacation requests and authorizing the expense accounts.
Not necessarily true. Sometimes they push for management positions because they pay better and will enable them to cover their mortgages. There are also times where they want to replace the management above them because they're tired of having to justify what to them are obvious technical decisions.
So they make sure their belts don't match their shoes, their pants, if and when they wear it, are never ironed.
Also not necessarily true. Sometimes you wear clothes that make you look like an adult because you're trying to get laid.
Here's the way to find the best:
Find the guy that all your other programmers go to when they get stuck, and ask him what he thinks.
Did they edit the summary or something? I see all these posts talking about how you get screwed with net points on a movie, but both the summary and TFA claim 7.5% gross.
IIRC, it works like this:
If the advertised price is clearly a typo or misprint or something along those lines, then the retailer is not required to honor the price. They might anyway if it's not that far from what they'd sell it at normally, just to avoid a hassle with customers.
If the advertised price is being used as a means to get people into the store in hopes they'll either buy the item at the full price, or buy something else, then they're in iffy legal turf.
The rule of thumb is basically the larger the discount, the more likely it is a mistake.
The non-lawyers must not post very often. Everything I read here is pretty much dead on for accuracy on legal issues.
how about... smart!=sexy