Re: Compacting

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
231 messages Options
1 ... 9101112
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compacting

Terry R.-3
The date and time was Tuesday, March 17, 2009 12:22:39 AM, and on a
whim, clay pounded out on the keyboard:

>
> The 2K install is original from 7 or so years ago. The box has been
> soundly thrashed over the years. Registry is a mess. Still chugs away.
> (This business of WinOS needing reinstalling every so often is a bunch
> of hooey.)

That was mainly for the older Win9x OS.  Although I see a marked
improvement when I reinstall XP clean on many laptops, to ones that have
been in use for a couple years.

> Both run fine once all of the 'bloat' is turned off.
> Both are rock stable despite my best attempts to jack them up.
> ...
>> XP for me is like W2K but better.  It loads faster, runs faster.  I have
>> it configured to look like W2K (Classic).
>
> Ever go to performance and select the option for 'best performance' (or
> whatever...)?

That was what I meant by the Classic look.  That's what you get when you
set it for performance.

>
>    If you had Win98 on the same box, why wouldn't you "go there"?
>
> Never had it on my box. I learned to hate W98 keeping a similar box
> alive that ran W98 because the milling software wouldn't run on NT.
> After all, it was 'New Technology' at one time.
>

Okay.  I thought you did by your comment, "NT4 didn't support USB.
W98 did on the same box..."

>> Windows XP had pretty good hardware support out of the box for large
>> selling machines.  On one network I admin, we had 2 older IBM
>> workstations donated.  I wiped the drives and reinstalled XP and
>> everything on the machines was natively supported.  NO additional
>> drivers were needed.  That is rare.  
>
> I dismembered the PIII box a while back. Put the HDD in a drawer with
> other retired HDDs.
> My sisters P4 2K box got rooted (Trojan.Vundo, iirc) so I grabbed some
> disks and a drive, went over to fix it.
> Figured if I couldn't clean it, I'd copy all her data off onto another
> drive and reinstall.
>

I'm using old laptop drives for video editing backup now.  Most are only
80 and 120 gig drives, but rather than getting rid of them I'm putting
them to use.  After I complete the video, I move the work files and
capture files from the workstation drive to a laptop drive using a
Universal Hard Drive Adapter that is USB.  Not much bigger than floppies...


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compacting

Terry R.-3
In reply to this post by Leonidas Jones-2
The date and time was Monday, March 16, 2009 7:24:47 PM, and on a whim,
Leonidas Jones pounded out on the keyboard:

> Terry R. wrote:
>> The date and time was Monday, March 16, 2009 9:49:59 AM, and on a whim,
>> clay pounded out on the keyboard:
>>
>>> Terry R. wrote:
>>>> ...The only reason XP users will have to upgrade is because the
>>>> hardware or software they eventually purchase will no longer support
>>>> it. At that point we'll be forced to move.
>>>>
>>> Welcome to the M$ conspiracy.
>> Because a MB manufacturer no longer supplies drivers for the MB isn't
>> MS's fault. If software developers stop updating their software for
>> older Win versions, that isn't MS's fault.
>>
>>
>> Terry R.
>
> Dare I mention OS 9?
>
> Okay, I though not.
>
> Lee

No, that's fine!  I have one client who still has OS 9 on a workstation.
  Some editing program that he claims still runs better on the old OS.


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compacting

clay-14
In reply to this post by Terry R.-3
Terry R. wrote:

>...
>>
>> I dismembered the PIII box a while back. Put the HDD in a drawer with
>> other retired HDDs.
>> My sisters P4 2K box got rooted (Trojan.Vundo, iirc) so I grabbed some
>> disks and a drive, went over to fix it.
>> Figured if I couldn't clean it, I'd copy all her data off onto another
>> drive and reinstall.
>>
>
> I'm using old laptop drives for video editing backup now.  Most are only
> 80 and 120 gig drives, but rather than getting rid of them I'm putting
> them to use.  After I complete the video, I move the work files and
> capture files from the workstation drive to a laptop drive using a
> Universal Hard Drive Adapter that is USB.  Not much bigger than floppies...
>

I have a couple of those leftover from upgrading mp3 players.
First one came with a 8GB drive. Upgraded to a 20GB then later, a 40GB.
That was fun, imaging the first 65535 bytes off the old drive to the new
one, to copy the OS.
Pick the wrong drive to write the image to and hose the PC.
Then discovered the fw limited the library to 8k tracks. Exceed that,
hard lock forcing reformat and complete reinstall. Not fun at USB1 speeds.
Bought the next generation mp3 player (40GB) and promptly upgraded to a
80GB. It had a 'Dark Limit' too of ~20k tracks but beyond that it would
just not display the tracks. No hard lock.
Interesting, the 40GB drive out of it showed 170GB of free space (back
when 80GB was as big as they came) before formatting, when connected to
my PC.
Only 42 or so would format though.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compacting

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
Ron Hunter wrote:

> Phillip Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
>> Terry R. wrote:
>>> The date and time was Sunday, March 15, 2009 8:46:06 AM, and on a
>>> whim, Phillip Jones, C.E.T. pounded out on the keyboard:
>>>
>>>> Terry R. wrote:
>>>>> The date and time was Saturday, March 14, 2009 3:39:36 PM, and on a
>>>>> whim, Moz Champion (Dan) pounded out on the keyboard:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Terry R. wrote:
>>>>>>> The date and time was Saturday, March 14, 2009 8:13:42 AM, and on
>>>>>>> a whim, Phillip Jones, C.E.T. pounded out on the keyboard:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Terry R. wrote:
>>>>>>>> -------------------------snip-------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And come to think of it. If apple had not come along do you
>>>>>>>>>> think you would be using computer with Windows a GUI. No you
>>>>>>>>>> would be on version 150 of DOS.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wrong.  Xerox had the first GUI.  Apple adopted it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Terry R.
>>>>>>>> where in the above comment did I say Apple came out with the first.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, you read what you wrote.  You said, "IF Apple had not come
>>>>>>> along, do you think you would be using computer with a Windows a
>>>>>>> GUI".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was referring to had not Apple adopted the GUI system. MS
>>>>>>>> would still be using some for of command line DOS
>>>>>>> Why wouldn't the PC platform adopted it?  What makes you think
>>>>>>> ONLY Apple would have?  More skewed thinking...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Terry R.
>>>>>> Bill Gates licensed the Apple operating system when he was
>>>>>> developing windows. He paid hefty licensing fees for Windows I and
>>>>>> II. By the time Windows III was out he adjudged his was
>>>>>> suffinciently different to not pay licensing fees. Apple sued, and
>>>>>> lost. The infamous 'look and feel' case.
>>>>> What I said was, even if Apple didn't adopt the GUI, no one can say
>>>>> whether the PC platform would have.  I think it would.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Terry R.
>>>> Why would they. If Apple opted for a UNIX command line style. and No
>>>> one was interested in the PARC system You think BG would have went
>>>> for it?
>>>>
>>>> Remember, MS has not once came up with an original idea for a
>>>> *major* software. Remember word, Excel, PowerPoint started out as
>>>> the idea of other companies and they bought for penny's on the
>>>> dollar the software worked bugs out of it, and renamed it. Even
>>>> VISTA's ancestor is That Windows I&II licensed from Apple.
>>>>
>>>> Even MS works was a ripoff of Appleworks on the Apple II machine.
>>>> which started life as software purchased from another company.
>>>>
>>>> So unless he got wind of the Parc Project its unlikely that Windows
>>>> would be here.
>>>>
>>> OK Phillip.  Obviously you know better than anyone else.  Apple is
>>> the creator god of computers and MS is the evil one.
>>>
>>>
>>> Terry R.
>>
>> No I'm not say one is better than another Just different. But I can't
>> stand Gates and MS arrogance That They should be the only system around.
>>
>> I think each Platform should has as easy access to software. And That
>> users should not have to choose what platform they use by the the lack
>> of software.
>>
>> Apple or Unix, or Linux or Widows should access to the same software
>> that have the same features. Then it would be up to the individual
>> which machine, and which operating system  the choose to use. In other
>> words competition. If everyone had equal footing, the software for
>> everyone would be cheaper and have more features.
>>
>> If you look through all modern Computer history, Apple has alway been
>> hamstrung due to some action by MS.
>>
>>
> What hamstrings Apple is that they want the whole (apple) pie for
> themselves and won't let anyone else have access.  That's it in a
> nutshell.  IF the OS and hardware are as good as Mac fans claim, it
> would long ago have overtaken MS/Intel, and made them disappear.  I
> remember when MS was a small company that had copied a version of BASIC
> onto paper tape, and made a killing selling it that way.
>
>
Not when you collude agreements with upstart computer companies to use
the MS Dos system or else at the beginning Remember DR. DOS?
  Had there been no agreements entered into with a hammer over their
head. Who knows? apple might have licensed The original system.

In order for Mac to get their OS out they had to create their own
hardware to put its own OS in.

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.  "If it Ain't Broke, Don't Fix it"
http: //www.phillipmjones.net           http://www.vpea.org
mailto:[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compacting

Terry R.-3
The date and time was Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:26:35 PM, and on a whim,
Phillip Jones pounded out on the keyboard:

>>>>> So unless he got wind of the Parc Project its unlikely that Windows
>>>>> would be here.
>>>>>
>>>> OK Phillip.  Obviously you know better than anyone else.  Apple is
>>>> the creator god of computers and MS is the evil one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Terry R.
>>> No I'm not say one is better than another Just different. But I can't
>>> stand Gates and MS arrogance That They should be the only system around.
>>>
>>> I think each Platform should has as easy access to software. And That
>>> users should not have to choose what platform they use by the the lack
>>> of software.
>>>
>>> Apple or Unix, or Linux or Widows should access to the same software
>>> that have the same features. Then it would be up to the individual
>>> which machine, and which operating system  the choose to use. In other
>>> words competition. If everyone had equal footing, the software for
>>> everyone would be cheaper and have more features.
>>>
>>> If you look through all modern Computer history, Apple has alway been
>>> hamstrung due to some action by MS.
>>>
>>>
>> What hamstrings Apple is that they want the whole (apple) pie for
>> themselves and won't let anyone else have access.  That's it in a
>> nutshell.  IF the OS and hardware are as good as Mac fans claim, it
>> would long ago have overtaken MS/Intel, and made them disappear.  I
>> remember when MS was a small company that had copied a version of BASIC
>> onto paper tape, and made a killing selling it that way.
>>
>>
> Not when you collude agreements with upstart computer companies to use
> the MS Dos system or else at the beginning Remember DR. DOS?
>   Had there been no agreements entered into with a hammer over their
> head. Who knows? apple might have licensed The original system.
>
> In order for Mac to get their OS out they had to create their own
> hardware to put its own OS in.
>

Again Phillip, look at the time frame you are referencing...


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compacting

Rostyslaw Lewyckyj
In reply to this post by Terry R.-3
Terry R. wrote:

> The date and time was Friday, March 13, 2009 9:08:00 AM, and on a whim,
> clay pounded out on the keyboard:
>
>
>> Last time I checked, you could buy a box of Mac OS without buying a
>> Mac PC. *g*
>> Would look real pretty sitting on the shelf since that's all you could
>> do with it without the PC.
>>
>> I'm guessing the reason they don't is hardware compatibility. Same
>> curse that plagues Linux.
>> Hardware manufacturers worship the mighty M$.
>> M$ keeps them alive by 'refining' it's OS periodically so that it
>> requires more resources to do the same thing, This forces Joe Public
>> to buy new hardware to run it.
>
> Not hardware at all. Macs are just PC's now.  If Windows and OSX can run
> on a Mac, it would run on a PC if the drivers were written for it.  But
> there's no reason why the Apple hardware vendors couldn't sell their
> products listed as "OSX compatible".
>
> We've got until 2014 for XP support.  By then most will have purchased
> new machines.  As long as I can get the drivers, I have no reason to
> update an OS.  It serves no purpose but to allow my programs to run so I
> can get my work done.
>
Except if the new and supported versions of programs you use require
the upgraded OS. For example the new versions of Mozilla FF, TB, and
SM will not run on older (pre Win 2000 & Mac OS 10.4); and the older
versions will no longer be supported with bug fixes, nor especially
security fixes.
--
Rostyk

>
> Terry R.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compacting

»Q«
In reply to this post by PhillipJones
In <news:[hidden email]>,
Phillip Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Not when you collude agreements with upstart computer companies to
> use the MS Dos system or else at the beginning Remember DR. DOS?
>  Had there been no agreements entered into with a hammer over their
> head. Who knows? apple might have licensed The original system.

Those collusions didn't hurt Apple -- they hurt people trying to market
OSes for the IBM-PC architecture.

> In order for Mac to get their OS out they had to create their own
> hardware to put its own OS in.

They didn't *have* to.  They could have made an OS for hardware already
in the marketplace, but that wasn't something the company was
interested in.  Apple had built its reputation on the Woz's brilliant
hardware design, and they weren't about to quit designing hardware.
And the OSes Jobs and Co. envisioned weren't possible on existing
hardware, so they had to design new hardware along with the software.

And if they'd let companies build Mac clones in 1984, companies would
have.  Gates could have done nothing to prevent it.

--
»Q«                                                              /"\
                                      ASCII Ribbon Campaign      \ /
                                       against html e-mail        X
                                     <http://asciiribbon.org/>   / \
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compacting

Terry R.-3
In reply to this post by Rostyslaw Lewyckyj
The date and time was Tuesday, March 17, 2009 2:08:17 PM, and on a whim,
Rostyslaw Lewyckyj pounded out on the keyboard:

>> Not hardware at all. Macs are just PC's now.  If Windows and OSX can run
>> on a Mac, it would run on a PC if the drivers were written for it.  But
>> there's no reason why the Apple hardware vendors couldn't sell their
>> products listed as "OSX compatible".
>>
>> We've got until 2014 for XP support.  By then most will have purchased
>> new machines.  As long as I can get the drivers, I have no reason to
>> update an OS.  It serves no purpose but to allow my programs to run so I
>> can get my work done.
>>
> Except if the new and supported versions of programs you use require
> the upgraded OS. For example the new versions of Mozilla FF, TB, and
> SM will not run on older (pre Win 2000 & Mac OS 10.4); and the older
> versions will no longer be supported with bug fixes, nor especially
> security fixes.
> --
> Rostyk
>

Hi Rostyk,

If you had been following the thread, I stated that early on.

A lot of software isn't vulnerable to the security risks that browsers
and mail clients are, so running the old versions doesn't cause any harm.


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Compacting

Leonidas Jones-2
In reply to this post by Terry R.-3
Terry R. wrote:

> The date and time was Monday, March 16, 2009 7:24:47 PM, and on a whim,
> Leonidas Jones pounded out on the keyboard:
>
>> Terry R. wrote:
>>> The date and time was Monday, March 16, 2009 9:49:59 AM, and on a whim,
>>> clay pounded out on the keyboard:
>>>
>>>> Terry R. wrote:
>>>>> ...The only reason XP users will have to upgrade is because the
>>>>> hardware or software they eventually purchase will no longer support
>>>>> it. At that point we'll be forced to move.
>>>>>
>>>> Welcome to the M$ conspiracy.
>>> Because a MB manufacturer no longer supplies drivers for the MB isn't
>>> MS's fault. If software developers stop updating their software for
>>> older Win versions, that isn't MS's fault.
>>>
>>>
>>> Terry R.
>>
>> Dare I mention OS 9?
>>
>> Okay, I though not.
>>
>> Lee
>
> No, that's fine! I have one client who still has OS 9 on a workstation.
> Some editing program that he claims still runs better on the old OS.
>
>
> Terry R.

I don't doubt, there are quite a few folks still hanging on to that one
or three aps that just were never prted to OS X.  They use them either
through Classic on OS X, if they have a PPC processor, or with an
install of OS 9.

OS 9 was a beautiful operating system, small, worked really well on
small hard drives, fast, and had smoe really great aps.  It was a shame
to see it die.

Lee
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Law Courts (was: Re: Compacting)

Daniel-257
In reply to this post by Alex K.-4
Alex K. wrote:

> Daniel wrote:
>> Alex K. wrote:
>>>
>>> The only way it could go any faster, within the confines of the
>>> rules, would be for Congress to hire more judges, thereby decreasing
>>> the caseload on any given judge.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for that, Alex.
>>
>> I guess what I am trying to say is that a Judge should not have so
>> many trials running concurrently, with which he may get confused.
>>
>> Having a lessor number of active trials should see the trials conclude
>> sooner, so the Judge could then turn his/her attention to other cases,
>> so that, over a given time period, a year or whatever, the same number
>> of cases would be conducted, just that each would be determined in a
>> shorter time.
>>
>> Daniel
>
> Well, that's essentially what I was getting at, when I made the
> statement, above.
>
> As I understand the way the system works, the judges don't have a say in
> which cases they get, or don't get (unless there is a conflict of
> interest involved, in which case they must recuse themselves).  When a
> new case is filed with the Clerk of the Court,  the computer system
> automatically assigns it to the next judge in the rotation.  So they
> really have no control over their caseload.
>
> They shouldn't get confused, though, in that, from what I've observed, a
> judge usually only has one case at the trial phase at a time, and once a
> trial begins, it will normally continue through to completion.
> Typically, it seems the judge will schedule a trial for the morning
> hours, leaving the afternoon available (or vice-versa) to deal with
> pre-trial matters in other cases, to keep them moving along.
>
> It's all the pre-trial procedures that take so much time, rather than
> the actual trial, itself.  Discovery, for example, can take many months
> to complete, depending on the complexity of the case.
>
> By the time it gets to the trial, the judge is already familiar with the
> issues of the case, through all the pre-trial wrangling.  All of that is
> on paper (well, on computer, these days), so he can, and I would assume
> he probably does, review that case history, prior to the trial.  At
> least, it would seem prudent to do so, to me.
>
> The other thing to consider is that, unless it's a bench trial, heard by
> the judge, alone, rather than a jury, it's the jury that is making the
> determination of the case.  The legalese term is the 'finder of fact'.
> In a jury trial, the jury decides all questions of contested *facts*,
> while the judge decides questions of *law*.  In a bench trial, the judge
> decides both.
>
> The judge's role during a jury trial can be likened to that of a
> moderator.  He will rule on questions of law, such as objections over
> the admissibility of testimony & evidence.  Then, at the close of
> arguments, after both sides have presented their case, he will instruct
> the jury on the law regarding the particulars of the case.
>
> It is then up to them, to weigh the evidence against the elements
> necessary under the applicable law, to determine culpability.  Every law
> has specific facts, what they call elements, that must be proven, in
> order to find that the defendant violated that particular law.
>
> As a simplified example, in a theft case, let's suppose that the
> prosecution must prove two elements to the jury:
>
> a) that the defendant took the victim's property, and;
> b) that he did so without permission from the victim.
>
> If the jury is not convinced of *both* elements of the crime, they
> cannot return a guilty verdict, for they must find that *all* elements
> of the charge are proven, to find the defendant guilty of that charge.
>
> That concludes today's civics lesson.  We now return you to the
> regularly scheduled cartoons.  ;-)
>

Thanks, Prof! What time's class next semester??

Daniel
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Law Courts

squaredancer
On 19.03.2009 00:29, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Daniel to
generate the following:? :

> Alex K. wrote:
>  
>> Daniel wrote:
>>    
>>> Alex K. wrote:
>>>      
>>>> The only way it could go any faster, within the confines of the
>>>> rules, would be for Congress to hire more judges, thereby decreasing
>>>> the caseload on any given judge.
>>>>
>>>>        
>>> Thanks for that, Alex.
>>>
>>> I guess what I am trying to say is that a Judge should not have so
>>> many trials running concurrently, with which he may get confused.
>>>
>>> Having a lessor number of active trials should see the trials conclude
>>> sooner, so the Judge could then turn his/her attention to other cases,
>>> so that, over a given time period, a year or whatever, the same number
>>> of cases would be conducted, just that each would be determined in a
>>> shorter time.
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>      
>> Well, that's essentially what I was getting at, when I made the
>> statement, above.
>>
>> As I understand the way the system works, the judges don't have a say in
>> which cases they get, or don't get (unless there is a conflict of
>> interest involved, in which case they must recuse themselves).  When a
>> new case is filed with the Clerk of the Court,  the computer system
>> automatically assigns it to the next judge in the rotation.  So they
>> really have no control over their caseload.
>>
>> They shouldn't get confused, though, in that, from what I've observed, a
>> judge usually only has one case at the trial phase at a time, and once a
>> trial begins, it will normally continue through to completion.
>> Typically, it seems the judge will schedule a trial for the morning
>> hours, leaving the afternoon available (or vice-versa) to deal with
>> pre-trial matters in other cases, to keep them moving along.
>>
>> It's all the pre-trial procedures that take so much time, rather than
>> the actual trial, itself.  Discovery, for example, can take many months
>> to complete, depending on the complexity of the case.
>>
>> By the time it gets to the trial, the judge is already familiar with the
>> issues of the case, through all the pre-trial wrangling.  All of that is
>> on paper (well, on computer, these days), so he can, and I would assume
>> he probably does, review that case history, prior to the trial.  At
>> least, it would seem prudent to do so, to me.
>>
>> The other thing to consider is that, unless it's a bench trial, heard by
>> the judge, alone, rather than a jury, it's the jury that is making the
>> determination of the case.  The legalese term is the 'finder of fact'.
>> In a jury trial, the jury decides all questions of contested *facts*,
>> while the judge decides questions of *law*.  In a bench trial, the judge
>> decides both.
>>
>> The judge's role during a jury trial can be likened to that of a
>> moderator.  He will rule on questions of law, such as objections over
>> the admissibility of testimony & evidence.  Then, at the close of
>> arguments, after both sides have presented their case, he will instruct
>> the jury on the law regarding the particulars of the case.
>>
>> It is then up to them, to weigh the evidence against the elements
>> necessary under the applicable law, to determine culpability.  Every law
>> has specific facts, what they call elements, that must be proven, in
>> order to find that the defendant violated that particular law.
>>
>> As a simplified example, in a theft case, let's suppose that the
>> prosecution must prove two elements to the jury:
>>
>> a) that the defendant took the victim's property, and;
>> b) that he did so without permission from the victim.
>>
>> If the jury is not convinced of *both* elements of the crime, they
>> cannot return a guilty verdict, for they must find that *all* elements
>> of the charge are proven, to find the defendant guilty of that charge.
>>
>> That concludes today's civics lesson.  We now return you to the
>> regularly scheduled cartoons.  ;-)
>>
>>    
>
> Thanks, Prof! What time's class next semester??
>
> Daniel
>  

hmmmm - shouldn't interest you, POM.... you'll be in your scheduled cage....

reg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
1 ... 9101112