|
2003/6/14-15 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:28730 Activity:moderate |
6/14 Can digital pictures be used in court room? \_ of course they can \_ why of course? Can't pictures be doctored? \_ just because they can be doctored doesn't mean they aren't allowed. If you DO doctor photos and get caught you are in for loads of trouble. \_ i've just assumed "real" photos can be doctored as well, albeit with a bit more effort. \_ most of the techniques for doctoring digital photos are emulations of well-understood darkroom techniques. -tom \_ I used to use photoshop in the darkroom all the time when I was on the high school year book staff and you were in band. \_ lets say I took pictures of the apartment before and after moving out, gets deducted for ridiculous amounts and didn't get the deposit back. Can I still use digital pictures as evidence in a small claims court? I mean it's sooooo easy to doctor pictures. \_ you're supposed to have someone witness you taking pics when you move in. ObGoogle. \_ Yes. The small claims court judge will decide based on anything they feel like. Who says they're digital sourced anyway once you've had them printed on kodak? Don't tell the judge unless he asks, dumbass. \_what are the discovery rules in small claims court? if it was regular court, you wouldn't only have the judge to worry about but the opposing party. that a photo was doctored would come out on cross-examination. the opposing party would very likely have the photo ruled inadmissible on lack of foundation alone. even if the rules are way more relaxed in small claims court, there has to be some similar mechanism, i'd imagine. \_ Can't you read? I just told you small claims court judges decide based on whatever they feel like. The typical case time in front of a judge is about 45 seconds for each side. You watch too much TV. \_ don't forget to check if this landlord has done these kind of things to other tenants in the past. That could be more firepower than any pictures, digital or not. i highly doubt that digital pictures would be ruled out as evidence. you can scan a negative and doctor it up as well. \_ in real court, they can ask for the negative and have experts analyze the negative. Small claims court could have more lenient rules. |
2003/6/14 [Uncategorized] UID:28731 Activity:kinda low |
6/14 erikred, green tea has like 20mg of caffeine in it. That is pretty trivial. Anyway, once you get to the green tea stage it is pretty easy to just drop off, though i don't know why you would want to. -phuqm \_ how much caffeine is in semen? I love drinking cum! -bukkake boy \_ There's this new invention called 'email' for these kinds of messages. |
2003/6/14-15 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers] UID:28732 Activity:moderate |
6/14 I fill out a lot of forms for sweepstakes/free stuff that basically just ask for name, address, email. Is there any way to partially automate this within mozilla? Preferably it would generate random answers to any survey questions and generate a new spamgourmet email address. \_ good idea... may be you should post this at the mozdev site and someone will write it :p \_ do you ever win anything? \_ I've never won any drawings, but I do get a lot of free stuff. I have free subscriptions to Maxim, InfoWeek, Field and Stream ect. Occasionally I get small things like a free Webster dictionary and golf balls. Whatever... free= good. And I really haven't seen much of an increase in spam because of it. \_ It's not truly free. They're getting some info out of you. \_ given that the op is implying that he is providing false data, the companies are really recieving something of negative value in exchanege for their giveaways. of course, the op's time is probably worth way more per hour than the compensation from the giveaways for filling out stupid web forms. It seems to me that both sides are losing. \_ You can't provide all false data and expect to get anything in the mail ;) Besides, if you look at it that way every time you write to this you're loosing $$ for little gain. But really, I've got nothing better to do while currently unemployed :) \_ uhm, look for work? \_ Well, I have a job lined up for next month. |
2003/6/14-15 [Computer/SW/Unix, Computer/SW/Editors/Emacs] UID:28733 Activity:nil |
6/14 In older versions of xemacs, if I click anywhere on foo_bar_baz, the entire string is highlighted. But with newer versions the highlight stops at the underscore. I have to click on the underscore to highlight the whole string. Anybody know if this is a configurable thing? I've searched the FAQs and didn't find anything. This problem is very annoying because I highlight and paste function names into M-x grep or other search tools a lot. Thanks. \_ use the older version. |