So, a server's RAM can be considered a "document," according to one US judge, and is therefore required to be turned over as evidence. Now, for any individual who understands how RAM works, it's obviously a ridiculously impractical and unreasonable decision. But let's take this whole argument to its logical end. Especially because we all know that lawyers prefer their evidence to be on paper, not stored electronically, making this concept all the more amusing.
American legal-sized paper is 8.5" by 14". Most black-and-white printers will print a resolution of approximately 600 dots per inch (DPI). This means that a standard sheet of legal paper can hold 42,840,000 bits of data, or 5,355,000 bytes, or 5.1 megabytes.
The average server will hold, let's say for argument, 2 gigabytes of RAM, or 2,147,483,648 bytes. That comes out to just a hair over 400 pages (single-sided, of course) for a one-time snapshot of the complete contents of a server's RAM.
Now, let's be reasonable (for just a moment) and say the judge will be lenient and agree to record snapshots from every ten seconds. So that means that a total of 8,640 snapshots would need to be recorded for a one-day period. That's a total of 3,456,000 sheets of paper, just for Exhibit A!
So, how much does legal paper weigh? Staples sells a stack of 5,000 sheets that weighs 20 pounds. So we divide the number of sheets in Exhibit A by 5,000 and multiply by 20, and we get a total of 13,824 pounds! That's basically a tractor-trailer load worth of papers per day of evidence collected.
"So, Judge, where do you want us to park?"
(Edited to adjust weight measurements.) Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Err... I think I miscalculated on the weight and truck estimates. Gimme a few minutes to revise that part... Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
God how I hate our legal system. Ever since that stupid McDonald's coffee thing, things have just gotten more and more ridiculous.
Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :
quote:Ever since that stupid McDonald's coffee thing, things have just gotten more and more ridiculous.
The rendition of this one in pop culture is actually very distorted from what actually happened. For example, the old lady was not the driver. She did experience intense burns to her legs (and other related areas) because when the cup spilled, the sweatpants she was wearing absorbed the extremely over-temperature liquid against her skin.
If the coffee had not been literally scalding hot, she would not have been as seriously injured as she was. McDonalds was indeed at least partially at fault for severely overheating the coffee.
That being said, this judge is on crack.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
On the plus side (for me) the judge involved was not from south florida (where after years of developers doubling as animal cruelty experts, a judge finally ruled that developers can not bury tortises alive rather than removing them from coastal construction sites. Much to the horror of animal rights activists, local legislators point out that the ruling still allows developers to kill the turtles prior to being buried by bulldozers...)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)