Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

[Flash]

I took this excerpt from this article.

[Gn2]

That applies primarily to pending /anticipated or on-going patent litigation suits
OR multiple use of prorietary source code contrary to EULA
agreements agreed to when software first used.

Other situations - if/when being audited - such as RMA, RIAA or Redmond sniff around.
Porno traffic
National securty

Redmond monitors Web for pirated software.Nothing to do w/OSS software.

The computers & all relevant hardware are siezed, very thorough disk analysis employed -

[Flash]

Actually the new rules apply to any federal litigation.

See here, here and here for more details.

[Gn2]

Hmm - perhaps - In excited states of Hew Hess WTHay !
OTOH
Just as a FYI it would first be needed > even in USA court - Proof of INTENT to destroy evidence

Except if you are a "Political Detainee" in Guantanamo Bay prison

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=ECC6D058DBAB4C8C80256F80005829F3

If anything to hide - YMMV...... who knows

Ignorance (of laws & all codes ) _ same as anywhere > applies

[Flash]

Actually if you had read the references you would know that lack of intent is no excuse. The court says that it is up to you to protect the evidence once it is part of a lawsuit. It's your fault even if you didn't mean to destroy the evidence.

These new rules are for civil cases, not criminal ones.

[Gn2]

Flash PLEASE just for once - why do YOU not read & limit missed - quoting" ??

[Flash]

Gn2, I know you can write well. I've seen it. So don't complain about the results when you willfully write with a style full of obscure references and abbreviations, not to mention peculiar grammar and sentence construction. In case you aren't aware, it is difficult to read.

Why you choose to write this way is a mystery to me. It doesn't bother me; I just ignore it, but I have reason to believe that your peculiar writing style in this forum confuses newcomers who don't know better. For their sake, please make the effort to make your meaning clear, as I know you can. Thanks.

[Gn2]

Thank you for comments .
Your reasons are well known to all
(By the way , a sentence as well a line ends at a period.)

[PaulBx1]

[Gn2]

Hi Paul

The "otherwise" lost to all ?
It is truely a loss to all - the originating founders of U.S.A. were so far-sighted & clearly understood principles of democracy -
Now they are circumvented by those who have sworn allegiance to defend rights of all segments of society and most vulnerable.

The only true defence .... seems to be what all politicians fear most -
An enlightened populace.
My most fervent wish - some day NO "party system" of Gov't !
Not only in North America -EVERYWHERE

And where is one "experiment " to be found - oddly enough - in the newly formed structure of the Inuit of Canada.
Poetic justice ? Only time may tell.

[amish]

freedom can't be Secured, per se.
it can be supported, reinforced, encouraged, and even legislated, but that legislation is ultimately an agreement on paper and nothing more.

freedom comes from practicing freedom... if everything is illegal, the only way to be free is break the law. the best term for this is "civil disobedience." so, you still have the option, albeit illegal option, of destroying anything that is yours. it's a question of what you consider your rights... and it's your decision.

of course, you can always make things "easier" on yourself SOMETIMES by coloring in the lines. do i pay a parking ticket and not fight it in court? probably. or maybe not.

when a country (cuba, turkey, n korea, america) becomes too oppressive, people escape to a place that is more reasonable, if lucky. we're not there just yet, we USED to be the place to go to get free, but all the agreements on paper that are made these days are about having less, not more.

[John Doe]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/12/28/ap-poll-bush-1-villain-of-2006/