Technically incorrect: Mac filenames could be 255 chars, but at some revision of Finder (forget which), they limited things to 31 characters as a practical limit. The underlying system remained capable.
HFS was limited to 31 characters.
HFS+, introduced in Mac OS 8.1, allows filenames of up to 255 characters, but Classic Mac OS never, for all intents and purposes, supported it.
If you're going to try to correct people, you should probably make sure you're correct yourself so you don't end up looking like an ass.
If she'd had a living will or durable power of attorney, it wouldn't have happened.
Both are vital documents—even for married spouses—that lay out what you want to have happen to you and who you want to be in charge of having it happen.
For example, if your spouse is critically ill, you want to be able to make decisions on their behalf. Not possible for homosexuals married in a civil ceremony.
Very possible for homosexuals with a durable power of attorney.
Note that while upper and lower case letters are allowed in domain names no significance is attached to the case. That is, two names with the same spelling but different case are to be treated as if identical.
Would a law stand up which requires people submit to government drug testing to hold ANY job? Probably not.
No, but laws exist which require people to submit to government drug testing to hold certain government jobs. Also, employer drug testing as part of a uniform policy has stood up thus far to the scrutiny of the courts.
FYI, the government can't restrict free speech, regardless of the penatly they set up. Please cite the part of the first amendment that says government can restrict free speech as long as the restriction doesn't land you in jail.
The Fourth Amendment, on its face, guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
Courts have held, time and time again, that student athletes (at public schools, no less) may be required to submit to drug testing as long as the procedure is part of a uniform code of conduct.
No, they have constitutional right to keep their constitutional rights. Also, as a STATE agency, Kent is not allowed (via the 1st amendment) to restrict free speech.
Kent State is allowed to set a code of conduct to which all students must agree in order to have the privilege of participation in intercollegiate athletics.
So, while Kent State can kick me off the basketball team for having a Facebook profile, they can't send me to jail for having one, and that's the fundamental difference you're not understanding.
I just wanted to make sure that everyone realizes that it's not limited to the scholarship recipients. The ban affects ALL athletes on university teams, irregardless of whether they are receiving scholarships. It's these "regular" athletes that are most likely having their freedom unlawfully encroached on, and are the most likely to win in court. (Scholarship candidates can lose their free rides for much less than this already.)
Collegiate athletes can get dismissed from their teams for much less as well. Intercollegiate athletics (especially at the Varsity level) are not a required part of any degree program at any University anywhere in the United States. As such, short of violating any existing state or federal law (e.g., "No blacks" or "No women"), eligibility can be determined by administrative fiat.
Just as there's no constitutional right to an athletics scholarship, there's no constitutional right to intercollegiate athletics participation at the varsity level. I invite you to show me case law that demonstrates contrarily.
But it's wrong to cut a special treatment for a silly reason like that. Special treatment should be cut only if the receiver is wasting (e.g. skipping classes, endangering their health, etc) or if the funds are no longer available. Facebook doesn't fit in both cases.
You seem to be equating "silly" with "illegal" and "should" with "must" and that's where your argument falls apart.
If Kent State were to say for example that "a gay individual cannot be an athlete", would that be a reasonable policy? Both cases (gay athletes and facebook-user athletes) are not even reasonable! Both activities do not expose athlete (or group of athletes) to risk. Both activities do not affect one's athletic performance . Why should them be restricted?
It's a silly policy and won't stand in courts.
As homosexuals are not a protected class in federal law, if Ohio doesn't have it in state law, Kent State could, legally, say that homosexuals can't be athletes. It'd be pretty bad PR, but they could do it. It probably won't endear them to Slashdot, but I highly doubt Kent State really cares too much what you think.
Once again, you're confusing "silly" and "reasonable" with actual values of legality.
Yes, but Kent State is a State institution, and is governed by little things like the Constitution of the United States, which supercedes littler things like contracts.
Oh?
How, then, do they legally give out athletics scholarships? It seems that might run afoul of Equal Protection!
No! The right in question is the right to not be discriminated (fund cutting) by the State as a consequence of freedom of speech exercise.
So, let me get this straight.
People who are already getting special treatment have maintenance of that special treatment as a constitutional right?
No, and here's why:
1) These students are getting scholarships solely to participate on a Kent State athletics team. It's not neccesarily because they're smart, nor necessarily because they have financial need. It's because they run fast and jump high.
2) The Kent State Athletics Department has decreed that if you have a Facebook profile, you had best get rid of it or you will no longer be eligible to participate in athletics at Kent State. This is quite legal. The NCAA itself has lots of restrictions on student athlete behavior.
3) If you are no longer allowed to participate in athletics, you lose your athletic scholarship.
If challenged, this policy will most likely be struck down. It is wrong to implement mass bans on actions such as these, and probably encroaches on a few key liberties that we're guaranteed.
Shit.
You mean we have a constitutional right to a college scholarship?
There should be some way of informing CNN that their blatant disregard for accessibility via their irrational usage of random javascript for everything is probably illegal due to accessibility laws.
Yeah. Like those accessibility laws that make newspapers print Braille editions?
Or the ones that make radio accessible to deaf people?
Maybe its just the way I read the original statement I referenced
It is.
I suppose I should expect this though, remember when OSX Server came out? I don't even remember how big the discrepancy was between releases of the server and desktop OS. I guess turtlenecks will do that eh?
Mac OS X Server 10.0 was very similar to Mac OS X 10.0.
Mac OS X Server 1.x wasn't like anything else at all.
I like making choices based on the relative merits of the options and not so much on the people/organizations/entities tied to the options.
I made up my mind based on the merits.
But when The Fathers Of The Internets, MoveOn, and the Christian Coalition are together in support of something you don't like, chances are you're out in the tall grass.
Slashdot Mirror
HFS+, introduced in Mac OS 8.1, allows filenames of up to 255 characters, but Classic Mac OS never, for all intents and purposes, supported it.
If you're going to try to correct people, you should probably make sure you're correct yourself so you don't end up looking like an ass.
How much are marriage licenses?
If she'd had a living will or durable power of attorney, it wouldn't have happened.
Both are vital documents—even for married spouses—that lay out what you want to have happen to you and who you want to be in charge of having it happen.
From RFC 883:
Any case-sensitivity is an implementation bug and not part of the specification.
It doesn't matter if it's uppercase or lowercase. Did they have the word "dot" instead of a period, too?
Also, if you're not having people read back what you had them type in, you're failing even more at your job.
Was that an implementation bug or by design? I can't find any mention of it in any RFC.
Please elaborate.
Also, if you were any good at your job, you'd know that hostnames aren't case-sensitive.
So your anecdote is that you speak imprecisely and the customer did exactly what you told him to do?
You've changed your argument from "they're not allowed to" to "they shouldn't be allowed to". Well done.
No, but laws exist which require people to submit to government drug testing to hold certain government jobs. Also, employer drug testing as part of a uniform policy has stood up thus far to the scrutiny of the courts.
Courts have held, time and time again, that student athletes (at public schools, no less) may be required to submit to drug testing as long as the procedure is part of a uniform code of conduct.
Unless Ohio law says Kent State can't discriminate on sexual orientation, they can. But that's neither here nor there.
Kent State is not abridging the right to free speech. They're setting terms to the privilege of participation in intercollegiate athletics.
So, while Kent State can kick me off the basketball team for having a Facebook profile, they can't send me to jail for having one, and that's the fundamental difference you're not understanding.
Just as there's no constitutional right to an athletics scholarship, there's no constitutional right to intercollegiate athletics participation at the varsity level. I invite you to show me case law that demonstrates contrarily.
As homosexuals are not a protected class in federal law, if Ohio doesn't have it in state law, Kent State could, legally, say that homosexuals can't be athletes. It'd be pretty bad PR, but they could do it. It probably won't endear them to Slashdot, but I highly doubt Kent State really cares too much what you think.
Once again, you're confusing "silly" and "reasonable" with actual values of legality.
How, then, do they legally give out athletics scholarships? It seems that might run afoul of Equal Protection!
People who are already getting special treatment have maintenance of that special treatment as a constitutional right?
No, and here's why:
1) These students are getting scholarships solely to participate on a Kent State athletics team. It's not neccesarily because they're smart, nor necessarily because they have financial need. It's because they run fast and jump high.
2) The Kent State Athletics Department has decreed that if you have a Facebook profile, you had best get rid of it or you will no longer be eligible to participate in athletics at Kent State. This is quite legal. The NCAA itself has lots of restrictions on student athlete behavior.
3) If you are no longer allowed to participate in athletics, you lose your athletic scholarship.
You mean we have a constitutional right to a college scholarship?
I wish I knew that earlier.
Or the ones that make radio accessible to deaf people?
Retard.
Mac OS X Server 10.0 was very similar to Mac OS X 10.0.
Mac OS X Server 1.x wasn't like anything else at all.
If you manage your calendar with Outlook Express, it's no wonder you're still living in your parents' basement.
But when The Fathers Of The Internets, MoveOn, and the Christian Coalition are together in support of something you don't like, chances are you're out in the tall grass.
Consumer portable (MacBook): Intel.
Consumer desktop (iMac): Intel.
Pro portable (MacBook Pro): Intel.
Pro desktop (PowerMac): PPC.
Rack-mount server (Xserve): PPC.
4/6 of Apple's computer models are now Intel, and these 4/6 comprise the bulk of Apple's sales. The two stragglers await the chips from Intel.
That Apple's transition isn't complete enough for you doesn't make the transition any less nearing completion.