Hurting innocent people, huh? Why shouldn't investors share responsibility for the actions of the corporations in which they invest? This is exactly the mindset that got us into this corporate ethics mess in the first place. If the shareholders aren't responsible, then who is? As a part owner of a corporation engaging in illegal activities, you aren't an innocent. If the stock value declines as a result of illegal activities of the corporation, stockholders deserve to lose money. Otherwise, there's no incentive for the corporations to behave responsibly and no incentive for investors to avoid corporations that engage in illegal/unethical practices.
Because minority investors don't really have a say in management decisions. Corporate shareholders elect the board, then the board appoints management. If, in the course of your retirement investing, you have a sector fund that includes HP in your 401(k), do you really believe you should take a hit because of a manager's wrongful actions? It's not like you KNEW they were going to break the law and chose to invest anyway. That's the difference between you, the un/semi-sophisticated investor, and an insider. An insider is making the decision, while you're largely unaware that they will act.
That's why, if the offense is great enough, you can pierce the corporate veil and get personal liability. Of course, in this instance, the offense was incomplete reporting (not saying why the director quit in the filing). Hardly a capital crime!
Oh, and if you want an incentive for a corporation not to engage in illegal practices, there are plenty besides hitting the corporation in the wallet. Namely, the SEC can bar you from ever serving as a director or officer of a public corporation again, if you've done something bad. That's a stronger incentive than fining the corporation, because an illegal action can potentially cost that individual his livelihood.
Fining the corporation is a good solution for ongoing, fairly obvious bad behavior. Say, if a company has been illegally dumping chemicals in the river and has gotten nailed a couple times for it. Yeah, fine the coporation then. They should pay to clean it up, and investors who didn't pull out deserve a stake in paying for the wrong committed because it was blatant and known to them. I'm not trying to tell you it's always a bad idea, I just think it's a bad idea in this instance and in similar situations where the offense was either minor or singular/isolated and not reasonably anticipated by the public.
Nawww, couldn't possibly be that American investors wised up to IPO funds paid to companies with no clue how to make money were being used to buy Aerons and Lears and strippers and crack. It's gotta be those damn laws.
Yeah, only American investors wised up, right? It's just a lot easier to issue securities in other markets. The SEC requires a lot of disclosure, both prior to issuance and ongoing, that other markets don't require. The SEC is not run by idiots, and they believe this to be a problem, so I'm going to go with them on that.
No, but the people who give the orders are, and by ruling that "nothing bad happened", those living, breathing things are now protected from the consequences of those orders. Charging the company (and damaging the shareholders) opens up avenues for the people personally responsible for the problem to be held personally responsible by those damaged (thanks to our legal system's strong "no harm, no foul" spirit, causing more damage is pretty much the only way to fix damage).
Look, the company failed to disclose the reason why a director quit. The issue here wasn't pretexting, as many posting in this thread seem to think. It was a disclosure violation. It's really not the most serious of errors. If it were, money damages against the corporation are an avenue, but if it's really that serious, there are circumstances where managers can be held personally liable. That's a lot less harmful to investors, if you really think something that bad happened.
Finally, someone who actually read what the issue actually was. I'd mod you up but I've already replied to other posts.
This actually isn't a very serious offense. HP was probably a bit dumb in misinterpreting the regulation (or forgetting it existed), especially since securities laws tend to interpret broadly because of the overarching goal of investor protection, but it's not terrible.
Moron. This settlement had nothing to do with pretexting. Read the SEC release before posting. Mods who bumped this to a 5, do a little bit of reading yourselves.
HP was charged with a '34 Act violation because they didn't report WHY a director (Perkins) resigned, only that he did. They were required to report WHY he resigned because he resigned over a disagreement with corporate policy, which must be disclosed per the '34 Act. He could've resigned because he disagreed with their pricing of toner, and it would've had to have been reported because:
Federal securities laws require a public company to disclose - by making a public filing with the Commission - the circumstances of the disagreement if a director resigns because of a disagreement with the company on any matter relating to its operations, policies or practices.
Yes, this happened in relation to the pretexting scandal, but that's not why the SEC sought enforcement. Therefore, HP's claims that it thought it was acting "lawfully" are not in regard to pretexting, but in regard to the disclosure of a director's resignation and what amounts to the quote above. They thought it didn't fit that definition, stupidly and blatantly incorrect, might I add, but it had nothing to do with them believing pretexting was a lawful action. That wasn't the question to be decided here.
...and escape all punishment for having knowingly and egregiously broken the law before the promise. From the SEC press release: "Without admitting or denying the Commission's findings, HP consented to an order that it cease and desist from committing or causing violations of these provisions." Oh, wait I get it! Knowing something is illegal and doing it anyway is not grounds for punishment as long as you, once cuaght, just promise to cease and desist violating the law thereafter. Defendant: "Gosh Your Honor. If, despite the prosecution's proving I broke the law and robbed a bank, I neither admit nor deny doing it and further I promise to cease and desist robbing banks in the future, can I just go free now?" Judge: "Certainly. I think you've learned your lesson. Defendant dimissed. Son you are free to go" Corporations and the rich are held to far lower standards than the rest of us.
Do yourself a favor and think about this for a second before you go off spouting this nonsense.
A corporation isn't a living, breathing thing. But its shareholders are. If you impose economic sanctions on a corporation, that hurts the shareholders. You might be thinking "well, all these higher ups at HP are shareholders, so screw them!" But so are various individuals who had nothing to do with this behavior. You'd be devaluing the stock for everyone, including what is probably the majority: people who had nothing to do with the corporate action being sanctioned.
Your argument could've been for the personal liability of the persons involved, but it wasn't. You just wanted to penalize the corporation as a whole, which hurts a lot of innocent people. Stop and consider that next time.
Our securities laws are probably the toughest in the world, so much so that it's driving IPO's to other markets, because they protect investors pretty well. If your aim is to protect the investor, but in enforcing those rules, you sanction the corporation as a whole, devaluing the stock, how exactly did you protect that investor?
Actually, what I understand is that the odd numbered titles will be console, even number will be PC. COD4 will probably be a PC release, and ported eventually to consoles if there is demand.
If you think it's simple and cheap, go look at Boeings experimental processes for the construction of their JSF entry. They were prototyping a production environment, and they had a high attrition rate with fiber layups that were done robotically. High quality aerospace-grade composites are expensive no matter how many you're making.
You're still missing a key point. We don't need aerospace-grade in automobiles, not to the extent that a jet or F1 chassis needs. There are many grades in between the fishing pole and the jet fuselage that everyone is completely ignoring. Somewhere in between, there's a cost-benefit that makes sense for the automotive industry, or can with the right improvements in production automation. We don't need the ability to walk away unscathed at 150 MPH, but we could use it at 85-100 MPH. Same as we don't need the most strength in the thinnest possible wall, we're not going for 300 MPH on a 1.5L engine. There's something in between what both of you are talking about that would make sense, it's just not cheap enough yet (but has the potential to become).
In other news, the iPod now requires me to plug in a dongle in my parallel port before I can open iTunes and transfer any music. What's that you say? You don't have a parallel port anymore? TOO BAD!
And that's why I'm sticking with AMD products despite the Core2Duo being more powerful -- I'm not a top end buyer. I've never bought the top or even second-to-top AMD or Intel offering. It's just not worth the money to me. I'm personally willing to take the chance on the lower end of the mix, knowing that yields from both companies have been very good the past few years, and I can probably overclock it to something more "expensive."
Right now my main PC is an Opteron 165 (bought back when they first came out, I wanted a dual processor system ever since the Pentium Pro days and never had one, so I figured I could be an early adopter on the "low" end). Sure enough, it holds 2.5 GHz all day on 1.4v and the stock cooler. My motherboard caps me at 1.4, but I'm otherwise certain it'd be stable at 1.45-1.5v with an aftermarket cooler at 2.7-2.8 GHz (it'll boot windows but crash at 1.4v). Saved a lot of money going this route. I'll probably get a 3600 to throw in my HTPC just to play with it, it's cheap enough and even at stock speeds is more than adequate for HTPC duty (my Barton 2500 stutters a little on 1080i content), so its low risk dollar-wise.
As the owner of a Supra, I'm aware of some pretty redneck projects like sticking a 350 under the hood, but nothing to the effect of what you're describing. I'd really like to see it done, though, I think it might be a good idea and the car's a good candidate for it.
I would suggest staying with the stock engine to start, though. In the 3rd gen, you're getting 250 ft-lbs of torque stock out of a 3L I6, and quite a bit more with basic modifications. It'd be a lot easier to keep that than trying to shoehorn in a diesel, at least to start. You could drop out the transmission and try the alternator idea, there's a lot of room under there. But I think the suspension would make the hub motors a difficult idea. Not impossible since there's a lot of space in there, but you'd essentially need to fab new hubs that can fit a motor and still mount to the upper/lower A-arms.
Assuming the stock engine, would replacing the driveline with motors at the hubs be a net gain over normal driveline losses? I'm nearly certain you'd come out ahead with a diesel engine.
You just underscored my point. An E4300 for $169 is the same as a 3600 and a good motherboard (can go cheaper if you get a very basic board). While the OC'ed 4300 will beat out the OC'ed 3600,
I'm also not ready to call ANY dual core low end just yet, not on anything but price. The sub-$100 market is pretty powerful these days, considering you get two cores and the most current platform.
In the meantime, you can get an AMD X2 3600 (65nm Brisbane core) for around $85 now, and probably in the $60 range well before these new products hit. The high end is one thing, but who actually buys it? Very few. I don't know anyone that bought the latest FX when it came out, or an Opteron 185 when they hit, or even a Core2Duo Extreme. All this does is push the mid- to low-end products down, and a ~$65 dual core that overclocks like crazy (some are getting 3 GHz on stock volts on the 3600) would seem like the best price/performance to me.
AMD's not out because they don't control the high end. Remember, you can get the X2 3600 w/ a Biostar TForce 550 motherboard at Newegg for the same price as an E4300 CPU (no mobo), and that's the board folks are using to get it up to crazy clock speeds.
We're actually covering the privilege in my white collar crimes course now. I would say that the 5th would not apply to turning over your private key for an encrypted volume because the key itself is not testimonial. On the other hand, as defense, I would argue that production of the key is admission that the encrypted volume, and therefore what it contains, is yours and that IS incriminating. But that probably wouldn't fly because it's a foregone conclusion that the drive is yours based on other evidence. Now, just because the drive contains incriminating stuff, it's not that you're being compelled to CREATE the incriminating evidence.
Since I'm learning here, then (and I do appreciate the lesson), what would you argue on defense if you wanted to attack admissibility? Is there a credible argument? I realize you couldn't likely plead 5th amendment privilege since the "document" (the search itself) wasn't made under compulsion, and I don't see any other privilege available. I don't think it's hearsay. All I can come up with is that it's far too prejudicial, but it's also very probative, so I think that might fail too. Do you think anything could be argued against admissibility?
If I was defense, I would argue that it's overly prejudicial when balanced with its probative value, but without more of the facts, I really can't expand on that. I think that's a better shot than hearsay. I don't think its hearsay at all (not really an out of court statement meant as an assertion by a party other than the accused). If it is, though, that's why FRE 807's there, this would probably fall into the residual exception.
IANAL, so could someone explain to me how the heck something like this could be admitted as evidence?
IAALS, so this might not be entirely the best answer, but it seems to me the hardest thing will be authenticating the data. Barring a first party admission (who the hell would admit to this?), Google would have to authenticate the search terms, the IP would have to be authenticated as that of the defendant's at that time. So you'd have to subpoena the records from Google, authenticate them, and in they come.
But remember, admitting something as evidence doesn't mean it's not rebuttable. You can bring in an expert to talk about how its cloudy that the IP was hers, etc. In the end, the finder of fact (the jury) determines whether or not its credible. The rules of evidence only keep out the stuff that's really irrelevant, overly prejudicial, hearsay, etc.
Now maybe a real lawyer will correct me if I'm missing something.
So do you buy our Gallo wines for $200, when they're $10 here in the US?:)
Seriously, its no secret, we in America will overpay for anything, ESPECIALLY things we know little about but have high price tags. It's $200? It MUST be good.
I've been buying a lot of "cheap" Australian and Chilean wines here in the US recently, though, in the $10/bottle range. Why? Because the equivalent $10 in a California, French, or Italian wine will be pretty awful unless you really know what you're doing and spot a bargain. And in my state, I'm not finding those bargains like I did back in New Jersey, so I stick with the $10 Australian and Chilean wines, which I find to be fantastic at the price.
And THAT is why I am an evening student. I have a whole life outside of law school, as does everyone else, and that's what we bring when we meet every night for class. These are dedicated folks who manage to have families, jobs, and school and do it all very well for the most part (I say they because I don't have a wife and kids yet). For the most part, nobody in my program needs law school for the money and are not there because they have undergraduate degrees in philosophy or political science and are otherwise unmarketable. As a result, there's a whole lot less incentive to be anything but collegial, and that's TOLD to you your first night there when the evening students association takes you out to the bar for a few drinks.
I originally went to law school with the intention of transferring to the day division after my 2nd year, to strike a balance between ROI on the degree (no income + loads of debt is not attractive to me). I'm about to finish my 2nd year and will not transfer because the environment in the evening class is a ton more educational and rewarding. There are actually an abundance of good people in the evening program, and these are the people I want to work with later and call my colleagues. I don't put myself in the same group because I'm younger than most of them, don't have to balance a family in with school (a career, yes, but so do they), but the group dynamic is ENTIRELY different than the day classes I've taken.
If you want to avoid this crap, go in the evenings and be prepared to be a decent, mature person. Sure, message boards like that one will probably tell you an evening degree is worthless, but that just keeps evening school all the better. Law review pads a resume very well, as does a high GPA, but if you add an established career to those credentials anyone who tells you you can't compete for the top jobs is out of their mind.
I agree, but the post I was responding to was stating that quad core was rolling out despite demand and die space that might reduce yield. My point was only that because its two dies put together, its different than having to put four on one die and having corresponding yield issues.
Intel's quad cores are, and they're actually two Core2 dies connected together I believe. "Native" quad core is in the works by AMD and Intel, but is currently not on the consumer market.
Now, if there are other CPU's out there doing native quad core for general purpose computing, I'm unaware and withdraw my ignorance if so:)
Despite the NASDAQ being down 1.5% so far today, AMD's only given back a bit more than 2%, leading me to believe this is at least fairly serious speculation.
In an instance where the price was pumped because it was baseless guessing, today's market dive should've given back the 5% gain and then some. Of course, no one can predict the market, and this is only the opinion of one investor (disclosure: I do not own any shares of AMD or its competitors).
There is still serious thought that AMD is going to be bought up by a private firm, at least in part. If the 13D filings don't come in the near future, it's going to get dumped hard, though. I personally don't think its up for sale and am waiting for it to fall to a new 52 week low following the selloff. I plan to invest in AMD following that. Again, just my guess.
Italians either drown everything in tomato sauce or they drown everything in cream and butter sauce.
Wow, there's a lot you don't know about Italian cooking if that's your impression. I think you just described the Olive Garden, not an Italian kitchen.
Slashdot Mirror
Hurting innocent people, huh? Why shouldn't investors share responsibility for the actions of the corporations in which they invest? This is exactly the mindset that got us into this corporate ethics mess in the first place. If the shareholders aren't responsible, then who is? As a part owner of a corporation engaging in illegal activities, you aren't an innocent. If the stock value declines as a result of illegal activities of the corporation, stockholders deserve to lose money. Otherwise, there's no incentive for the corporations to behave responsibly and no incentive for investors to avoid corporations that engage in illegal/unethical practices.
Because minority investors don't really have a say in management decisions. Corporate shareholders elect the board, then the board appoints management. If, in the course of your retirement investing, you have a sector fund that includes HP in your 401(k), do you really believe you should take a hit because of a manager's wrongful actions? It's not like you KNEW they were going to break the law and chose to invest anyway. That's the difference between you, the un/semi-sophisticated investor, and an insider. An insider is making the decision, while you're largely unaware that they will act.
That's why, if the offense is great enough, you can pierce the corporate veil and get personal liability. Of course, in this instance, the offense was incomplete reporting (not saying why the director quit in the filing). Hardly a capital crime!
Oh, and if you want an incentive for a corporation not to engage in illegal practices, there are plenty besides hitting the corporation in the wallet. Namely, the SEC can bar you from ever serving as a director or officer of a public corporation again, if you've done something bad. That's a stronger incentive than fining the corporation, because an illegal action can potentially cost that individual his livelihood.
Fining the corporation is a good solution for ongoing, fairly obvious bad behavior. Say, if a company has been illegally dumping chemicals in the river and has gotten nailed a couple times for it. Yeah, fine the coporation then. They should pay to clean it up, and investors who didn't pull out deserve a stake in paying for the wrong committed because it was blatant and known to them. I'm not trying to tell you it's always a bad idea, I just think it's a bad idea in this instance and in similar situations where the offense was either minor or singular/isolated and not reasonably anticipated by the public.
Nawww, couldn't possibly be that American investors wised up to IPO funds paid to companies with no clue how to make money were being used to buy Aerons and Lears and strippers and crack. It's gotta be those damn laws.
Yeah, only American investors wised up, right? It's just a lot easier to issue securities in other markets. The SEC requires a lot of disclosure, both prior to issuance and ongoing, that other markets don't require. The SEC is not run by idiots, and they believe this to be a problem, so I'm going to go with them on that.
No, but the people who give the orders are, and by ruling that "nothing bad happened", those living, breathing things are now protected from the consequences of those orders. Charging the company (and damaging the shareholders) opens up avenues for the people personally responsible for the problem to be held personally responsible by those damaged (thanks to our legal system's strong "no harm, no foul" spirit, causing more damage is pretty much the only way to fix damage).
Look, the company failed to disclose the reason why a director quit. The issue here wasn't pretexting, as many posting in this thread seem to think. It was a disclosure violation. It's really not the most serious of errors. If it were, money damages against the corporation are an avenue, but if it's really that serious, there are circumstances where managers can be held personally liable. That's a lot less harmful to investors, if you really think something that bad happened.
Finally, someone who actually read what the issue actually was. I'd mod you up but I've already replied to other posts.
This actually isn't a very serious offense. HP was probably a bit dumb in misinterpreting the regulation (or forgetting it existed), especially since securities laws tend to interpret broadly because of the overarching goal of investor protection, but it's not terrible.
HP was charged with a '34 Act violation because they didn't report WHY a director (Perkins) resigned, only that he did. They were required to report WHY he resigned because he resigned over a disagreement with corporate policy, which must be disclosed per the '34 Act. He could've resigned because he disagreed with their pricing of toner, and it would've had to have been reported because:
Yes, this happened in relation to the pretexting scandal, but that's not why the SEC sought enforcement. Therefore, HP's claims that it thought it was acting "lawfully" are not in regard to pretexting, but in regard to the disclosure of a director's resignation and what amounts to the quote above. They thought it didn't fit that definition, stupidly and blatantly incorrect, might I add, but it had nothing to do with them believing pretexting was a lawful action. That wasn't the question to be decided here.
...and escape all punishment for having knowingly and egregiously broken the law before the promise. From the SEC press release: "Without admitting or denying the Commission's findings, HP consented to an order that it cease and desist from committing or causing violations of these provisions." Oh, wait I get it! Knowing something is illegal and doing it anyway is not grounds for punishment as long as you, once cuaght, just promise to cease and desist violating the law thereafter. Defendant: "Gosh Your Honor. If, despite the prosecution's proving I broke the law and robbed a bank, I neither admit nor deny doing it and further I promise to cease and desist robbing banks in the future, can I just go free now?" Judge: "Certainly. I think you've learned your lesson. Defendant dimissed. Son you are free to go" Corporations and the rich are held to far lower standards than the rest of us.
Do yourself a favor and think about this for a second before you go off spouting this nonsense.
A corporation isn't a living, breathing thing. But its shareholders are. If you impose economic sanctions on a corporation, that hurts the shareholders. You might be thinking "well, all these higher ups at HP are shareholders, so screw them!" But so are various individuals who had nothing to do with this behavior. You'd be devaluing the stock for everyone, including what is probably the majority: people who had nothing to do with the corporate action being sanctioned.
Your argument could've been for the personal liability of the persons involved, but it wasn't. You just wanted to penalize the corporation as a whole, which hurts a lot of innocent people. Stop and consider that next time.
Our securities laws are probably the toughest in the world, so much so that it's driving IPO's to other markets, because they protect investors pretty well. If your aim is to protect the investor, but in enforcing those rules, you sanction the corporation as a whole, devaluing the stock, how exactly did you protect that investor?
Actually, what I understand is that the odd numbered titles will be console, even number will be PC. COD4 will probably be a PC release, and ported eventually to consoles if there is demand.
Then release the cane snake, followed by the cane gorilla. In the winter, the gorillas will just freeze to death.
If British ingenuity is involved, the oil leak will be a minor concern compared to the electrical fires in the chassis.
If you think it's simple and cheap, go look at Boeings experimental processes for the construction of their JSF entry. They were prototyping a production environment, and they had a high attrition rate with fiber layups that were done robotically. High quality aerospace-grade composites are expensive no matter how many you're making.
You're still missing a key point. We don't need aerospace-grade in automobiles, not to the extent that a jet or F1 chassis needs. There are many grades in between the fishing pole and the jet fuselage that everyone is completely ignoring. Somewhere in between, there's a cost-benefit that makes sense for the automotive industry, or can with the right improvements in production automation. We don't need the ability to walk away unscathed at 150 MPH, but we could use it at 85-100 MPH. Same as we don't need the most strength in the thinnest possible wall, we're not going for 300 MPH on a 1.5L engine. There's something in between what both of you are talking about that would make sense, it's just not cheap enough yet (but has the potential to become).
In other news, the iPod now requires me to plug in a dongle in my parallel port before I can open iTunes and transfer any music. What's that you say? You don't have a parallel port anymore? TOO BAD!
And that's why I'm sticking with AMD products despite the Core2Duo being more powerful -- I'm not a top end buyer. I've never bought the top or even second-to-top AMD or Intel offering. It's just not worth the money to me. I'm personally willing to take the chance on the lower end of the mix, knowing that yields from both companies have been very good the past few years, and I can probably overclock it to something more "expensive."
Right now my main PC is an Opteron 165 (bought back when they first came out, I wanted a dual processor system ever since the Pentium Pro days and never had one, so I figured I could be an early adopter on the "low" end). Sure enough, it holds 2.5 GHz all day on 1.4v and the stock cooler. My motherboard caps me at 1.4, but I'm otherwise certain it'd be stable at 1.45-1.5v with an aftermarket cooler at 2.7-2.8 GHz (it'll boot windows but crash at 1.4v). Saved a lot of money going this route. I'll probably get a 3600 to throw in my HTPC just to play with it, it's cheap enough and even at stock speeds is more than adequate for HTPC duty (my Barton 2500 stutters a little on 1080i content), so its low risk dollar-wise.
As the owner of a Supra, I'm aware of some pretty redneck projects like sticking a 350 under the hood, but nothing to the effect of what you're describing. I'd really like to see it done, though, I think it might be a good idea and the car's a good candidate for it.
I would suggest staying with the stock engine to start, though. In the 3rd gen, you're getting 250 ft-lbs of torque stock out of a 3L I6, and quite a bit more with basic modifications. It'd be a lot easier to keep that than trying to shoehorn in a diesel, at least to start. You could drop out the transmission and try the alternator idea, there's a lot of room under there. But I think the suspension would make the hub motors a difficult idea. Not impossible since there's a lot of space in there, but you'd essentially need to fab new hubs that can fit a motor and still mount to the upper/lower A-arms.
Assuming the stock engine, would replacing the driveline with motors at the hubs be a net gain over normal driveline losses? I'm nearly certain you'd come out ahead with a diesel engine.
You just underscored my point. An E4300 for $169 is the same as a 3600 and a good motherboard (can go cheaper if you get a very basic board). While the OC'ed 4300 will beat out the OC'ed 3600,
I'm also not ready to call ANY dual core low end just yet, not on anything but price. The sub-$100 market is pretty powerful these days, considering you get two cores and the most current platform.
In the meantime, you can get an AMD X2 3600 (65nm Brisbane core) for around $85 now, and probably in the $60 range well before these new products hit. The high end is one thing, but who actually buys it? Very few. I don't know anyone that bought the latest FX when it came out, or an Opteron 185 when they hit, or even a Core2Duo Extreme. All this does is push the mid- to low-end products down, and a ~$65 dual core that overclocks like crazy (some are getting 3 GHz on stock volts on the 3600) would seem like the best price/performance to me.
AMD's not out because they don't control the high end. Remember, you can get the X2 3600 w/ a Biostar TForce 550 motherboard at Newegg for the same price as an E4300 CPU (no mobo), and that's the board folks are using to get it up to crazy clock speeds.
We're actually covering the privilege in my white collar crimes course now. I would say that the 5th would not apply to turning over your private key for an encrypted volume because the key itself is not testimonial. On the other hand, as defense, I would argue that production of the key is admission that the encrypted volume, and therefore what it contains, is yours and that IS incriminating. But that probably wouldn't fly because it's a foregone conclusion that the drive is yours based on other evidence. Now, just because the drive contains incriminating stuff, it's not that you're being compelled to CREATE the incriminating evidence.
Since I'm learning here, then (and I do appreciate the lesson), what would you argue on defense if you wanted to attack admissibility? Is there a credible argument? I realize you couldn't likely plead 5th amendment privilege since the "document" (the search itself) wasn't made under compulsion, and I don't see any other privilege available. I don't think it's hearsay. All I can come up with is that it's far too prejudicial, but it's also very probative, so I think that might fail too. Do you think anything could be argued against admissibility?
Law student :)
If I was defense, I would argue that it's overly prejudicial when balanced with its probative value, but without more of the facts, I really can't expand on that. I think that's a better shot than hearsay. I don't think its hearsay at all (not really an out of court statement meant as an assertion by a party other than the accused). If it is, though, that's why FRE 807's there, this would probably fall into the residual exception.
IANAL, so could someone explain to me how the heck something like this could be admitted as evidence?
IAALS, so this might not be entirely the best answer, but it seems to me the hardest thing will be authenticating the data. Barring a first party admission (who the hell would admit to this?), Google would have to authenticate the search terms, the IP would have to be authenticated as that of the defendant's at that time. So you'd have to subpoena the records from Google, authenticate them, and in they come.
But remember, admitting something as evidence doesn't mean it's not rebuttable. You can bring in an expert to talk about how its cloudy that the IP was hers, etc. In the end, the finder of fact (the jury) determines whether or not its credible. The rules of evidence only keep out the stuff that's really irrelevant, overly prejudicial, hearsay, etc.
Now maybe a real lawyer will correct me if I'm missing something.
So do you buy our Gallo wines for $200, when they're $10 here in the US? :)
Seriously, its no secret, we in America will overpay for anything, ESPECIALLY things we know little about but have high price tags. It's $200? It MUST be good.
I've been buying a lot of "cheap" Australian and Chilean wines here in the US recently, though, in the $10/bottle range. Why? Because the equivalent $10 in a California, French, or Italian wine will be pretty awful unless you really know what you're doing and spot a bargain. And in my state, I'm not finding those bargains like I did back in New Jersey, so I stick with the $10 Australian and Chilean wines, which I find to be fantastic at the price.
And THAT is why I am an evening student. I have a whole life outside of law school, as does everyone else, and that's what we bring when we meet every night for class. These are dedicated folks who manage to have families, jobs, and school and do it all very well for the most part (I say they because I don't have a wife and kids yet). For the most part, nobody in my program needs law school for the money and are not there because they have undergraduate degrees in philosophy or political science and are otherwise unmarketable. As a result, there's a whole lot less incentive to be anything but collegial, and that's TOLD to you your first night there when the evening students association takes you out to the bar for a few drinks.
I originally went to law school with the intention of transferring to the day division after my 2nd year, to strike a balance between ROI on the degree (no income + loads of debt is not attractive to me). I'm about to finish my 2nd year and will not transfer because the environment in the evening class is a ton more educational and rewarding. There are actually an abundance of good people in the evening program, and these are the people I want to work with later and call my colleagues. I don't put myself in the same group because I'm younger than most of them, don't have to balance a family in with school (a career, yes, but so do they), but the group dynamic is ENTIRELY different than the day classes I've taken.
If you want to avoid this crap, go in the evenings and be prepared to be a decent, mature person. Sure, message boards like that one will probably tell you an evening degree is worthless, but that just keeps evening school all the better. Law review pads a resume very well, as does a high GPA, but if you add an established career to those credentials anyone who tells you you can't compete for the top jobs is out of their mind.
I agree, but the post I was responding to was stating that quad core was rolling out despite demand and die space that might reduce yield. My point was only that because its two dies put together, its different than having to put four on one die and having corresponding yield issues.
Intel's quad cores are, and they're actually two Core2 dies connected together I believe. "Native" quad core is in the works by AMD and Intel, but is currently not on the consumer market.
:)
Now, if there are other CPU's out there doing native quad core for general purpose computing, I'm unaware and withdraw my ignorance if so
Despite the NASDAQ being down 1.5% so far today, AMD's only given back a bit more than 2%, leading me to believe this is at least fairly serious speculation.
In an instance where the price was pumped because it was baseless guessing, today's market dive should've given back the 5% gain and then some. Of course, no one can predict the market, and this is only the opinion of one investor (disclosure: I do not own any shares of AMD or its competitors).
There is still serious thought that AMD is going to be bought up by a private firm, at least in part. If the 13D filings don't come in the near future, it's going to get dumped hard, though. I personally don't think its up for sale and am waiting for it to fall to a new 52 week low following the selloff. I plan to invest in AMD following that. Again, just my guess.
Italians either drown everything in tomato sauce or they drown everything in cream and butter sauce.
Wow, there's a lot you don't know about Italian cooking if that's your impression. I think you just described the Olive Garden, not an Italian kitchen.