NBVegita

Minus the migration folder, those are all of my ghost files so that I can boot the ghost and image directly from my drive. Are you trying to create an image of your current setup? or load a new ghost image?

I agree with freak.

Sama can you give me a full list of the files you have on your drive for the ghosting?

ghosting can be funny, I have my external at work configured to image directly from the drive. Let me see if I can get something for you, as we use about 8 images here.

Why trying for the record? lol It's not normally a good thing to staff more than one zone. In fact when I ran staff for the 17th, years ago, if I found someone to be double staffing, I would terminate their posistion. That didn't include dev posistions.

As for the verbal shortcut, that is true, I don't mean that he could not present a case in court, as he does have the ability to do so. By stating that he does not have a case I was implying that he does not have near the evidence to win the case. Yet again I understand exactly what you are saying. Basically you are taking something I am using in a broad cir!@#$%^&*stance and picking on the literal meaning. By stating that in this case the plaintiff would need evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" I am not saying that his case requires evidence as critical as the legal definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt". I am trying to imply that the plaintiff needs to produce evidence that a judge would deem more credible than the evidence the defence would be able to produce. From experience working in retail management, the evidence a retail location can produce in said situation would be overwhelming, thus in order for the plaintiff to produce evidence more credible than the defendant, it would fall into the degree of evidence needed to convict most criminal cases. Maybe if I phrase it like this, the burden of evidence would not need to be beyond a reasonable doubt, moreso the degree of evidence would have to be that severe. EDIT: By this I do not mean that the evidence would have to be proven true, to a judge or jury, beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't misunderstand the burden of proof, in actuality, even in criminal cases, the evidence doesn't have to be beyond a reasonable doubt, as you just need to convince a jury of your peers that you are in the right or wrong. Now in a civil case a judge might be more liable to make a ruling based on inconclusive evidence, or a closer margin on your balance of evidence. In a criminal case, a minor case will be easier to rule upon than a major criminal case. In all reality, and I am sure you will agree, all civil and criminal cases are settled on a balance of evidence, the degree to which the balance must tip is adjusted per case, per judge, per jury. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is not an applicable scale of evidence in any case. Jury's are made of people, and people are who make the decisions. They might be told that they must not be able to find reasonable doubt, but that is the same as a judge ordering the jury to disregard a statement. Is it possible that the jury may make their ruling disregarding the statement? Sure it's possible. Is it likely that the jury will disregard the statement? Not very. Precisely why a lawyer makes said statement fully planning to revoke it or have it disregarded. I feel beyond a reasonable doubt is a sad legal term, with no applicable standing. If I am being criticized for using it on a gaming forum beyond the formal legal context, well then so be it. Also this is a shame that this has happened over the forum as I feel many things have been misinterpereted that I have posted, or maybe I have misinterepereted what I have meant in certain areas, such things would not happen in a discussion. I agree thoughroughly with much you have posted.

Yeah I managed 2 retail stores to put myself through college. The key is to make the customer happy. And we'd do what ever it took. Even if we knew they were scamming us, because that item, or items was not worth the bad publicity we would get otherwise. It was wretched customer service.

Also I appreciate that Hoch is a lawyer and although I did not know that at the beginning I knew he has a good legal experience base. The point I'm trying to prove is that in this particular case, the plaintiff would need to produce near, or infalable evidence to win against CompUSA based on the evidence that can be presented by CompUSA. I have been debating one particular theoretical evidential severity pertaining to a singular civil lawsuit, whilst hoch has been debating the theoretical evidential severity of criminal vs civil lawsuits. In closing we have been debating two separate subjects, unless Hoch's ultimate arguement is that in no civil case, including the one I have mentioned, would you need to produce evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt". In which I would argue that you would need to produce, due to the degree of evidence admissable by the defence, evidence that would need to be near infallable, as the evidence by the defence is also near infalable, and thus would fall into needing such severe evidence as could be classified "beyond a reasonable doubt". Of course I don't see the difference between stating, specially on ssforum: To win the case the plaintiff would need to produce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt; vs The plaintiff, due to the fact that the defendant can produced such evidence as to nearly absolve himself of all legal obligation in said matter, must produce evidence that supercedes the nearly infalable evidence produced by the defendant; so that if the plaintiff cannot produce stalwart enough evidence, that can be proved less falable than the nearly infalable evidence of the defendant, he cannot win a civil lawsuit against said defendant. I sincerly hope that is not what this debate has been about.

What I think you miss is that I've never once stated that in a civil case there NEED be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, in fact I quite implicitly said that in all criminal cases there need not be. I think you are more picking on the literal meaning of my syntax. In a case, civil or criminal, if the defending party has overwhelming evidence in their defence, the plaintiff would have to produce near infalable evidence proving his claim to be more credible then the defence. In essence the evidence produce by the prosecution would be statistically, of course depending on the judge, 85-100% true, thus falling it in the realm that the evidence would need to be so severe as to be categorized as beyond a reasonable doubt. The only point I've been trying to make is that in THIS case, the plaintiff would have to produce evidence that would fall into, legally, the category of beyond reasonable doubt, to win a case against a defendant with such strong evidence to support their claim. by syntax you can fall back on the fact that no he does not have to produce "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt", as that is required in nothing more than severe criminal cases , but in reality you would have to provide evidence that is more credible and solid that the defendant, who in this case can produce evidence that could most likely fall withing your criminal bounds of evidence. Beyond a reasonalbe doubt is not a scale you can base a case on. Criminal cases have been ruled upon with evidence as simple as an eye witness and a bad alibi, and criminal cases have been lost with evidence that is all but !@#$%^&*ing. The same can be said for civil cases. If you really look at it the way you are presenting it, being beyond a reasonable doubt is not a scale we can really measure, every case, be it criminal or civil, is really just about who has more credible evidence. In a civil court you need just need to convince a judge, where as in a criminal court you need convince a jury. As in the OJ simpson case, the defence produced enough evidence to convince the jury who was 75% black that O.J. was innocent. There were also loopholes in the evidence, and his lawyers, who were the best money could by, dismissed some key evidence through legal technicalities. Dispite being able to convince 12 people that he was innocent, the majority of the world believed the prosecuters charge and knew O.J. to be guilty. That is why when faced in a civil court he was found to be guilty. The O.J. simpson trial is a perfect example of how our legal system can fail, so not exactly the best to base an arguement off of. I mean for heavens sake the man even wrote a book about "if I did kill them". I've typed too much and done it broken at work so if I missed something I meant to say, or don't make sense at some point I'll try to clarify later.

Polygraphs are not deemed solid evidence in a united states court of law. And even if the judge, which is all that presides over a civil case, allows the polygraph test results to sway his opinion, it would fall into the low to middle end category of evidence. So even if he paid for and brought in the polygraph test results, which most likely would cost more than the camera, it would be the only, minor, bit of evidence in his favor, and not allow him to win his case. Polygraph tests have been proven terribly innaccurate over the past century and can have a nervous person telling the truth shown false, and a calm person lying shown true. I'm not clear on international law, but I don't believe anywhere considers them to be credible sources of evidence.

Yet the "women" thread does not violate any rules held by the ssforum community, unless you are claiming that said picture where you can see the outside of the woman's nipple vaguely cons!@#$%^&*utes soft pornography. Further Incomplete should then be allowed to open a new topic, under the same pretenses as the first, but with more caution used in the pictures posted. Incomplete is far from hurting the ss community and or ssforums, in fact we are more likely to get some traffic from young teenage boys looking for almost nude pictures of women, the target player audience for subspace. I really don't have a worry about if it gets to stay open or not, what I am curious of if the thread broke any forums rules, please state them and where it broke said rules.

The way I look at it is that it was not pornography, well there was that one where you could see the tops of her nipples, other than that half of those pictures were from magazine covers and the like. Yes there may be 12 year old children on here, but there was no porn. Should we not allowing swearing because of young children?

Yet again neither am I wrong nor innacurate. The burden of proof required is direcly dependent on the evidence produced by the defendant. In the US we even have a 3rd level of "proof" something like clear and convincing evidence. In the United states there is no structure as to which type of suit requires which burden of proof. Typically in capital criminal cases the jury will not come to a conclusion unless the evidence is overwhelming, but even in standard criminal cases they do not need to excercise evidence that falls in the category of beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the defendant can produce very solid clear and convincing evidence, which is a step above your balance of evidence in the US legal system, so in order for the plaintiff to win his case, he would have to produce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if by some chance the plaintiff could manage to produce clear and convincing evidence, which would be an oxy-moron in this instance, the evidence, according to your preponderance would have to outweight the defence, which in this case they can easily produce clear and convinsing evidence. So thusly in order for the preponderance of the plaintiff to be greater than that of the defendant, the plaintiff would have to produce evidence near or within the bounds of beyond a reasonable doubt. Not very difficult to see. In your math terms: Balance = 50% Clear = 75% Reasonable = 90-95% If defendant A produces evidence in the realm of 75%-89% thus the plaintiff would have to produce evidence greater than 75%-89% to win his case. You can call it anything you want, but based on the standard evidence a retail store is able to produce in any type of suit, the plaintiff must present extremely solid and convincing evidence, thus falling in a very very high % of legal truancy, thus falling near or in beyond a reasonable doubt. And yes if this were a common occurance, or even if this gentleman could get hundreds of plaintiffs together to go after CompUSA in a class action lawsuit he might have a chance, but otherwise no matter how bad it stinks for the guy, he's SOL.

gb > worms I'd rather play gb over worms anyday <3 high angles

if you like worms, ever play gunbound?

Nothing like trying to start the next cold war.

GD liberals.

It possibly could be a gfx card, not quite the first suspect I would blame though. First thing to try is to eliminate your windows aero scheme and still see if you have the problem, then systematically eliminate things like windows firewall (if its on), Vista security measures ect. and see if the removal of any/all of them help out with your fps. Always try to trouble shoot the solution with your software before you resort to hardware on these types of issues. Specially being you are only running 1gb of ram with ultimate, and ultimate has a lot of services you will never need. Also if you have a flash drive, preferably > 1GB, you can format that to run as a psuedo memory source which I know has been proven to greatly enhance the launch time of programs, but it might also help the running of said programs. Give those a shot and let us know.

I am neither inaccurate nor am I incorrect. To prove your case, criminal or other, the evidence you present in defence of your case must be found to be accurate and true beyond a reasonable doubt, to a judge or jury of your peers. In a civil law suit most often there is not solid evidence as there is in capital cases, as in DNA, law enforcement ect. Thus the evidence you do have to present must be shown to be more credible than the defendants. Finally if the defendant can provide reasonable doubt that your evidence is either inaccurate or false, then the case is won by the defendant. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. If the plaintiff cannot present solid evidence, thus meaning evidence that can be shown as true without reasonable doubt, he has no case. In this case it is impossible for the plaintiff to produce said evidence. The only singular evidence the plaintiff would be able to provide would be an eye witness to state that they were both present and coherent upon the plantiffs original opening of said product. Which if you know much of the legal system is tantamount to kissing your sister. Then all CompUSA would have to do is bring forth their own video recordings and staff to verify that to the best of their knowledge the package was sealed and untampered with when sold to the client. Then they would also bring in evidence to show the weight variation in a camera box with and without a camera in it, and many other resources. It would be infinitely easy for CompUSA to provide reasonable doubt as to the claim that the camera was not in the box when it was sold. Thus he cannot sue for breach of contract, fraud or misrepresentation, because without him being able to prove, yes beyond a reasonable doubt, that the camera was not in the box, CompUSA and or !@#$%^&*ociating companies have done none of the above. No matter what branch of law you are in, the defendant is always innocent until proven guilty. Please don't try to tell me that I am wrong when I am far from wrong.

Legally he has no case. By law if he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the camera was not in the box at the time of purchase, then CompUSA and all affiliates, including any and all companies liquidating said product would be responsible to refund or replace said product, regardless of any notation on said reciept stating otherwise. The problem is that he cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no camera in the box. Even with a list of character witnesses he legally, unless a judge felt sympathetic to his cause, which could then be appealed, depending on the foyer, has no case. Morally this is awful, but unfortunaly legally he has no case.

I am not personally impressed with the iphone. It does have 4gb standard, or 8gb standard memory. With a 2 year contract it will cost you 500 for the 4gb flash mem and 600 for the 8 gb flash memory. When you think of how much you're paying for the phone, that isn't a remarkable amount of memory. With a roughly 3.5x2 in screen to work with it really doesn't help you out much being able to use two fingers at once. To hold it and use multiple touches one will have to be your thumb, and I don't know about you, but I don't have very good nails and I can't get too precise with my thumb. Also to go along with the story of apple, it is closed to developers. Open development is a huge market in smartphones and being iphone really doesn't do anything functionally wise, than your other smartphones don't already do, or can do with the correct application, I think it's an overhype.

Now the way I see it is that stem cell research is a much bigger issue in the United States than even the war in Iraq. I feel you just hear about the war in Iraq more because you can't get daily updates on stem cell research. You can get day by day updates on the war in Iraq. And as for the war, most republicans are against it, but not as extreme as Paul. In his debate he out right said if he was elected he would pull the troops out next day. A lot of republicans don't agree with the short timeline that is trying to be put on the war let alone pulling troops out immediately. On the abortion topic, maybe because New York is a very liberal state, I know that is a huge issue here. I know plenty of women, it is not such a big deal with men, who would refuse to vote for a candidate who would vote against abortion. Of course this is all just speculation as all politics is. You could be right, I could be right, or we both could. And as of right now I don't see Ron Paul making any kind of comeback in the polls, his ratings are very very low.

The problem is, using just some examples, he sides with the more liberal side on the war in Iraq. Yet he is 100% pro life and against stem cell research. So he won't gain liberal support because of his pro life stance, and he'll lose conservative support with his soft stand on the war in Iraq. Paul is against amnesty for illegal immigrants yet is against capital punishment. He support the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes yet he doesn't agree with gay marriage and votes against it. He's an extremist moderate, for each view he has that would gain him support with a particular group, he has views that lose him that same support.

well thats the problem with our political system, ideally it is designed so that if I, a citizen of the United States of American, !@#$%^&*uming I am over the age of 35, decided I wanted to run for president, I could do it. The reality is I could if I was rich. Not being rich means you have neither the funding or the resources to run for president. As of right now the way I see it is that people are turning a blind eye to our economy hoping that if they don't notice a problem it will go away. It's a very dangerous line to be walking.

Something definately need be done, and its not that people in government and the other candidates don't know this, it is that the broad side of the public has no idea whats really going on in our economy. So campaining for something like this has a smaller, moreso a gamble, effect than the issues that are at the foremost of the american society. Things will change, let's just hope things change before we enter into a 21st century depression.