Whereas the DoD *actually* just shreds them. The most discs I've seen were removed from copy machines so that they could decommissioned. (Did YOU know that copy machines had hard drives?)
I laugh whenever I see references to the DoD specifications for erasure. The way the defense contractor I work for actually handles it is with a shredder. A big ugly 20HP shredder that weighs about two tons and will turn disc drives into confetti that looks like lathe chips as fast as you can feed them in. (The brand is "AMS" if you're interested.)
Was space created by the Big Bang, or did the Big Bang happen inside of space that already existed?
Observe something that is more distant in space-time than the big bang, and settle the matter!
It is fine to speculate, but if you want coherent scientific models of the universe, you need to either assume the 13.7 billion light-year horizon or else show by observation or by theory that the horizon does not exist.
The ideas of an infinite theoretical universe aren't incompatible with a finite observable universe, but people who build telescopes are going to be concerned exclusively with the practical aspects of the latter, even if they believe in the former.
You don't need to. The only thing to consider is the death threat, and whether the target could have a reasonable apprehension of the threat being carried out.
Don't you think a competent lawyer can convince a jury that the facebook status was not a real assassination offer? The question won't be whether it was "real" or not, the question will be whether the target (represented by a hypothetical "reasonable person" and little personal information will be disclosed) would have a "reasonable apprehension" that the threat constituted a genuine danger.
So "the girl" is irrelevant, and nobody is being asked to "trust her".
Your dog does not have the ability to have a reasonable apprehension of being in danger, so the analogy isn't relevant. Maybe he can get a lawyer to successfully explain to a jury that his repeated solicitation of murder was a joke. Maybe a jury will take pity on him despite him being the kind of person who would joke about such a serious matter. More likely, a jury will consider him to be exactly the kind of person who should be locked up and not allowed into society.
>That doesn't mean he should be forced into a corner with a plea bargain that will waste 11 years of his life.
Yes it does, if the state fails to get life without parole for solicitation of murder, which would be entirely more appropriate. "His life" is already forfeited, it's not a consideration anymore.
I used to go to a movie theatre that was in a different county from its box office, a few steps away. This was done intentionally, for tax reasons related to the location of the point of sale, and because a competing theatre across the street would have had an unfair advantage had they not done this.
>The collapse of the MPAA does not imply the collpased of the studio system, but even if it did, would it really be missed?
It might create opportunities. It could engender a cultural shift where eventually, every film doesn't have to strive to be superlative over every other film that was ever made. A film could be merely good, and still be made, without being relegated to a single screening at some festival.
What we have today is a situation where only the films with the biggest financing and/or the greatest projected financial upside even get made, and there's only that tier and nothing else.
This could be different, if we as a culture could survive such a shift.
It's high time that the ideas of "producer" and "consumer" get turned around anyway.
We don't have enough creative people, creating. Too many people are satisfied being consumers of whatever media some corporation tells them to consume.
We should celebrate the independent, individual work far more than we worship the blockbuster or the mainstream hit. This is backwards, and ends up being way outside of appropriate human proportions.
They will still manage to pass it, or some even worse law, under a pretense of it being a huge emergency. They will even use today's failure to help make the case for the emergency.
I'm not seeing where anyone abused anything. Bureaucrat wrote a letter complaining about something. Turns out he has a right to do that, even if it makes him look like a moron in a very public way. Unless it's a matter of libel, it's First Amendment activity. I don't see where anyone's rights were abridged.
Is it? Last time I checked, anybody can write a letter complaining about anything they want. It doesn't amount to "big government beating the little guy".
Now, if TFA was about getting a judgment issued by a court based on the complaint, there would be something to make it worth reading.
"Bad mouthing" is not a standard with a legally defined meaning. In a wrongful termination suit, the city would have to be much more specific and a reasonable person, AKA a jury and a judge, would have to be convinced that the definition was appropriate.
It is conceivable that one's job duties requires one to make statements about a party which in the wrong context could be construed as disparaging.
There could also be something like an equal protection concern if a law is tailored toward one specific medium of communication but would allow the same communication on a different medium.
I know of a ferry landing that you could miss. I also know of a couple of seasonal fords that are perfectly passable some of the time, and would be deadly at other times. I also think drivers are responsible for where their vehicles go.
I still think it is as simple as Facebook having *the* catchy brand name. That's it. All the rest of the analysis of why Facebook succeeded where Orkut and Friendster and so on didn't, is meaningless compared to the subtle and immense value of the brand name itself.
Slashdot Mirror
>there's a DoD spec for doing it (DoD 5220.22-M).
Whereas the DoD *actually* just shreds them. The most discs I've seen were removed from copy machines so that they could decommissioned. (Did YOU know that copy machines had hard drives?)
I laugh whenever I see references to the DoD specifications for erasure. The way the defense contractor I work for actually handles it is with a shredder. A big ugly 20HP shredder that weighs about two tons and will turn disc drives into confetti that looks like lathe chips as fast as you can feed them in. (The brand is "AMS" if you're interested.)
I wonder what the value of "remnant data" could be when the data were, say, AES encrypted?
You are encrypting your confidential data, correct? Or should I say, unencrypted data are not "confidential" in the first place?
Was space created by the Big Bang, or did the Big Bang happen inside of space that already existed?
Observe something that is more distant in space-time than the big bang, and settle the matter!
It is fine to speculate, but if you want coherent scientific models of the universe, you need to either assume the 13.7 billion light-year horizon or else show by observation or by theory that the horizon does not exist.
The ideas of an infinite theoretical universe aren't incompatible with a finite observable universe, but people who build telescopes are going to be concerned exclusively with the practical aspects of the latter, even if they believe in the former.
"80% of the world" didn't post two death threats against an individual bracketing a police interrogation...
>The question is: Why do you trust the girl?
You don't need to. The only thing to consider is the death threat, and whether the target could have a reasonable apprehension of the threat being carried out.
Don't you think a competent lawyer can convince a jury that the facebook status was not a real assassination offer? The question won't be whether it was "real" or not, the question will be whether the target (represented by a hypothetical "reasonable person" and little personal information will be disclosed) would have a "reasonable apprehension" that the threat constituted a genuine danger.
So "the girl" is irrelevant, and nobody is being asked to "trust her".
Your dog does not have the ability to have a reasonable apprehension of being in danger, so the analogy isn't relevant.
Maybe he can get a lawyer to successfully explain to a jury that his repeated solicitation of murder was a joke. Maybe
a jury will take pity on him despite him being the kind of person who would joke about such a serious matter. More likely,
a jury will consider him to be exactly the kind of person who should be locked up and not allowed into society.
>That doesn't mean he should be forced into a corner with a plea bargain that will waste 11 years of his life.
Yes it does, if the state fails to get life without parole for solicitation of murder, which would be entirely more appropriate. "His life" is already forfeited, it's not a consideration anymore.
>Boy gets angry, write on facebook "this bitch!! $500 to whoever kills her!". Which obviously doesn't mean he intend people to kill her.
How is that "obvious", again?
I used to go to a movie theatre that was in a different county from its box office, a few steps away. This was done intentionally, for tax reasons related to the location of the point of sale, and because a competing theatre across the street would have had an unfair advantage had they not done this.
>The collapse of the MPAA does not imply the collpased of the studio system, but even if it did, would it really be missed?
It might create opportunities. It could engender a cultural shift where eventually, every film doesn't have to strive to be superlative over every other film that was ever made. A film could be merely good, and still be made, without being relegated to a single screening at some festival.
What we have today is a situation where only the films with the biggest financing and/or the greatest projected financial upside even get made, and there's only that tier and nothing else.
This could be different, if we as a culture could survive such a shift.
Google undoubtedly has assets diversified among all of those companies and more.
It's high time that the ideas of "producer" and "consumer" get turned around anyway.
We don't have enough creative people, creating. Too many people are satisfied being consumers of whatever media some corporation tells them to consume.
We should celebrate the independent, individual work far more than we worship the blockbuster or the mainstream hit. This is backwards, and ends up being way outside of appropriate human proportions.
They will still manage to pass it, or some even worse law, under a pretense of it being a huge emergency. They will even use today's failure to help make the case for the emergency.
I/O is a much bigger problem than processor power or storage.
>Is China not a place that like...has a lot of earthquakes, or not?
China is a very big place. Some parts of it are more geologically stable than others.
The US has a lot of earthquakes but North Dakota doesn't.
>Some government bureaucrat abuses his power
I'm not seeing where anyone abused anything. Bureaucrat wrote a letter complaining about something. Turns out he has a right to do that, even if it makes him look like a moron in a very public way. Unless it's a matter of libel, it's First Amendment activity. I don't see where anyone's rights were abridged.
Is it? Last time I checked, anybody can write a letter complaining about anything they want. It doesn't amount to "big government beating the little guy".
Now, if TFA was about getting a judgment issued by a court based on the complaint, there would be something to make it worth reading.
>Making 80 grand a year is easily trivial as a PE.
I certainly hope so. Any less and it's out of the category of compensation for degreed/licensed professionals at all.
I'm not convinced that Alabama has quite accepted the Fourteenth Amendment or it's interpretation that the Constitution constrains state governments.
I've been to Alabama, and am fully unconvinced of this as a result.
"Bad mouthing" is not a standard with a legally defined meaning.
In a wrongful termination suit, the city would have to be much more specific and a reasonable person, AKA a jury and a judge, would have to be convinced that the definition was appropriate.
It is conceivable that one's job duties requires one to make statements about a party which in the wrong context could be construed as disparaging.
There could also be something like an equal protection concern if a law is tailored toward one specific medium of communication but would allow the same communication on a different medium.
Every part of it:
Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)
"Not smart enough" isn't a petty reason, it's on the short list of really good reasons.
I know of a ferry landing that you could miss. I also know of a couple of seasonal fords that are perfectly passable some of the time, and would be deadly at other times. I also think drivers are responsible for where their vehicles go.
I still think it is as simple as Facebook having *the* catchy brand name. That's it. All the rest of the analysis of why Facebook succeeded where Orkut and Friendster and so on didn't, is meaningless compared to the subtle and immense value of the brand name itself.