Slightly easier to use? Crusing with a friend in the '80s went something like this:
"Hey, Frank, get the Def Leppard tape out of my glovebox. I know, the tape comes out and gets tangled. Stick a pencil in the hole and turn it for a bit. Okay, now the fifth song on the first side is 'Pour Some Sugar on Me', and it totally rocks. You need to fast forward. No, that's not it...forward some more. More. Now you've gone too far...rewind. Damnit Frank, who taught you how to use a tape player? Ah, that's it, now find the beginning."
Let me guess.... Your name is Frank, and your friend made you listen to a lot of Def Leppard and Van Halen in this manner?
Damnit Frank, who taught you how to stick up for yourself?
I think free as in beer is what he meant.
Granted, $10 a month isn't much, but if in general you would rather pay $10 than not, I think you have another kind of bigger problems. If that's the case you can give all the money you want to me:)
I think the grandparent was saying that internet access is worth giving up privacy in the cyber-world (especially if it's broadband), not that $10 is too much for internet access. So the reasoning was that giving away privacy for internet access, which would be given away willingly, is better than giving away money for internet access, which would be given away less willingly.
I am a student at the UofC and know that the university uses a seperate 6 digit ID number for identification.
It sounds like to me this is more like there were some files out on the Web server that listed the SSNs of some of the students and had improper permissions.
But yes I know this can be a huge problem. I used to go to a small university where they did use the SSN for an ID, mostly due to laziness. They didn't want to go through the trouble of having to create another unique ID for each student. I worked in the computer helpdesk as a work study and we would always ask their SSN when a student wanted their email password reset. On a busy day we might get a few dozen resets.
Needless to say it was a huge risk. A worker with bad intentions or the wrong person overhearing somone recite their SSN could be disasterous. This situation wasn't helped much by the student workers since we usually had at least half a dozen student workers each semester and they were coming and going like crazy.
Thankfully they changed over to another ID about a year ago.
What actually strikes me as interesting about this is the battle for control of reality and truth. As you noted, many companies want to delete email quickly, but you ignore the question of why. If they are only doing good and honest things, then (you would think) they should be delighted to be able to conclusively prove their innocence. Yet they want to delete the email?
Maybe I'm taking this out of context, but I see an obvious reason why they wouldn't want to keep emails very long: cost. All this backup isn't free, and the more data and longer time period you want to back up, the more it costs.
Now it may be an insignificant cost to a big company like Morgan Stanley, but I can see a manager in a small company, or even in Morgan Stanley, deciding that the cost is too high considering the benefits for a huge backup of emails.
But what if you created a new timeline?
Assuming that time naturally progresses in a linear fashion, there had to have been a timeline that you didn't go back. Then you go back in time, at which point history changes and creates a new timeline. This isn't your timeline, so you are not bound by what happened in your old timeline.
So then you kill Hitler, and then time unfolds like you really did kill Hitler. But this is a seperate timeline with you existing during WWII, so it doesn't matter if this isn't what you remember. You belong to the timeline where you only existed from your birth on, or only one of you existed if you were born before WWII. You are kind of like a visitor in the new timeline.
So then time unfolds, and eventually you are born. But this isn't really you is it? This is the new you in the new timeline.
So this would also explain why killing your parent before you were born isn't really a paradox. You're only preventing the you in the new timeline from existing. The old you still exists since you were born in the old timeline.
Another way to think of that is less confusing IMO is that the past isn't real in the way that the present or a physical object is. The past is only an absract list of changes to an ever moving present. That way a person's past doesn't really matter, just their present. So these time paradoxes of killing parents doesn't create paradoxes because at the moment of the kill, you're alive now.
I guess a good analogy would be memory. Memory is really just a state of the memory parts of the brain. What is happening right now creates a memory, which lingers as a part of the state of the person's memory. Memories of events, people, objects, etc can be created, changed, and removed by various means. The only thing that affects your memory right now is what you remember happening, not what really happened.
Then our reality is like the universe stuck in a vivid dream, with all the people, objects, environments, events, etc as parts of the dream for the universe to remember. Your birth, death, and time travels are all just new memories creating the memory of your existence or nonexistence. So when you go back in time, that is like another memory for the universe. You can go around doing things in the past, which creates more or different memories for the universe. When you kill your parent, you have killed their memory and the possiblity of creating the memory of your birth. But the universe has the memory of you living when you killed your parent, so it runs with that memory and you still exist in the dream. You just don't get born again and only exist from the moment you reappeared from the time travel.
I think that pretty much explains how I think of it. I might have lost everyone since I don't know that I could follow it.
My explanation for time travel gets a lot from the explanation in Back to the Future II (or at least the one I remember if there are parts in the movie that contradict my theory). Remember I didn't say the first or third movie, since those express different views, the most glaring of which that I remember are the parts about photos changing and Marty dissapearing.
Yes that can be a big problem, but I wonder what an acceptable fix would be?
Metal detectors and security guards at the exits would be expensive, not to mention how much the employees will thank you for the hassle and lack of trust.
I guess you may be able to get computers without USB connections, but that might be a problem since very few, if any, compaines are making computers without USB connections.
The best solution I guess might be to monitor usage even more than you are now. If someone is copying documents around, especially ones that he really doesn't need to copy or if it's to an external drive, then something's up. That may make people feel like big brother is watching, but at least it'll probably get a better reaction than the security guard.
The article may only show data from UCLA, but I think this is a valid trend. I know that when I graduated from my Bachelors degree in CS last year from a university in Memphis, they were having problems finding enough new students just like UCLA. The head of the department expressed the same kind of views that were expressed in the article, so this kind of thing definitely exists outside of UCLA.
Abusing children, that's illegal.... but it's not my job to tell other people what's right and wrong.
Is it just me, or are those two statements contradictory? I mean, you say that abusing children is illegal, obviously saying that someone should be jailed/fined/whatever for what you consider to be very immoral. To me that's trying to enforce your beliefs on others. Then you turn around and say that you shouldn't enforce your beliefs on others.
To me, abusing children is immoral and should be illegal because you're harming other people (i.e. the children), but looking at photos of abusing children is usually immoral but shouldn't be illegal since you're not affecting anyone else. It's a fine distinction and somewhat arbitrary, but it's the best I've come up with to protect the rights of everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Slightly easier to use? Crusing with a friend in the '80s went something like this:
"Hey, Frank, get the Def Leppard tape out of my glovebox. I know, the tape comes out and gets tangled. Stick a pencil in the hole and turn it for a bit. Okay, now the fifth song on the first side is 'Pour Some Sugar on Me', and it totally rocks. You need to fast forward. No, that's not it...forward some more. More. Now you've gone too far...rewind. Damnit Frank, who taught you how to use a tape player? Ah, that's it, now find the beginning."
Let me guess.... Your name is Frank, and your friend made you listen to a lot of Def Leppard and Van Halen in this manner?
Damnit Frank, who taught you how to stick up for yourself?
I think free as in beer is what he meant. :)
Granted, $10 a month isn't much, but if in general you would rather pay $10 than not, I think you have another kind of bigger problems. If that's the case you can give all the money you want to me
I think the grandparent was saying that internet access is worth giving up privacy in the cyber-world (especially if it's broadband), not that $10 is too much for internet access. So the reasoning was that giving away privacy for internet access, which would be given away willingly, is better than giving away money for internet access, which would be given away less willingly.
I am a student at the UofC and know that the university uses a seperate 6 digit ID number for identification.
It sounds like to me this is more like there were some files out on the Web server that listed the SSNs of some of the students and had improper permissions.
But yes I know this can be a huge problem. I used to go to a small university where they did use the SSN for an ID, mostly due to laziness. They didn't want to go through the trouble of having to create another unique ID for each student. I worked in the computer helpdesk as a work study and we would always ask their SSN when a student wanted their email password reset. On a busy day we might get a few dozen resets.
Needless to say it was a huge risk. A worker with bad intentions or the wrong person overhearing somone recite their SSN could be disasterous. This situation wasn't helped much by the student workers since we usually had at least half a dozen student workers each semester and they were coming and going like crazy. Thankfully they changed over to another ID about a year ago.
Maybe I'm taking this out of context, but I see an obvious reason why they wouldn't want to keep emails very long: cost. All this backup isn't free, and the more data and longer time period you want to back up, the more it costs.
Now it may be an insignificant cost to a big company like Morgan Stanley, but I can see a manager in a small company, or even in Morgan Stanley, deciding that the cost is too high considering the benefits for a huge backup of emails.
But what if you created a new timeline?
Assuming that time naturally progresses in a linear fashion, there had to have been a timeline that you didn't go back. Then you go back in time, at which point history changes and creates a new timeline. This isn't your timeline, so you are not bound by what happened in your old timeline. So then you kill Hitler, and then time unfolds like you really did kill Hitler. But this is a seperate timeline with you existing during WWII, so it doesn't matter if this isn't what you remember. You belong to the timeline where you only existed from your birth on, or only one of you existed if you were born before WWII. You are kind of like a visitor in the new timeline. So then time unfolds, and eventually you are born. But this isn't really you is it? This is the new you in the new timeline.
So this would also explain why killing your parent before you were born isn't really a paradox. You're only preventing the you in the new timeline from existing. The old you still exists since you were born in the old timeline.
Another way to think of that is less confusing IMO is that the past isn't real in the way that the present or a physical object is. The past is only an absract list of changes to an ever moving present. That way a person's past doesn't really matter, just their present. So these time paradoxes of killing parents doesn't create paradoxes because at the moment of the kill, you're alive now.
I guess a good analogy would be memory. Memory is really just a state of the memory parts of the brain. What is happening right now creates a memory, which lingers as a part of the state of the person's memory. Memories of events, people, objects, etc can be created, changed, and removed by various means. The only thing that affects your memory right now is what you remember happening, not what really happened.
Then our reality is like the universe stuck in a vivid dream, with all the people, objects, environments, events, etc as parts of the dream for the universe to remember. Your birth, death, and time travels are all just new memories creating the memory of your existence or nonexistence. So when you go back in time, that is like another memory for the universe. You can go around doing things in the past, which creates more or different memories for the universe. When you kill your parent, you have killed their memory and the possiblity of creating the memory of your birth. But the universe has the memory of you living when you killed your parent, so it runs with that memory and you still exist in the dream. You just don't get born again and only exist from the moment you reappeared from the time travel.
I think that pretty much explains how I think of it. I might have lost everyone since I don't know that I could follow it.
My explanation for time travel gets a lot from the explanation in Back to the Future II (or at least the one I remember if there are parts in the movie that contradict my theory). Remember I didn't say the first or third movie, since those express different views, the most glaring of which that I remember are the parts about photos changing and Marty dissapearing.
Yes that can be a big problem, but I wonder what an acceptable fix would be? Metal detectors and security guards at the exits would be expensive, not to mention how much the employees will thank you for the hassle and lack of trust. I guess you may be able to get computers without USB connections, but that might be a problem since very few, if any, compaines are making computers without USB connections. The best solution I guess might be to monitor usage even more than you are now. If someone is copying documents around, especially ones that he really doesn't need to copy or if it's to an external drive, then something's up. That may make people feel like big brother is watching, but at least it'll probably get a better reaction than the security guard.
The article may only show data from UCLA, but I think this is a valid trend.
I know that when I graduated from my Bachelors degree in CS last year from a university in Memphis, they were having problems finding enough new students just like UCLA. The head of the department expressed the same kind of views that were expressed in the article, so this kind of thing definitely exists outside of UCLA.
Abusing children, that's illegal. ... but it's not my job to tell other people what's right and wrong.
Is it just me, or are those two statements contradictory?
I mean, you say that abusing children is illegal, obviously saying that someone should be jailed/fined/whatever for what you consider to be very immoral. To me that's trying to enforce your beliefs on others.
Then you turn around and say that you shouldn't enforce your beliefs on others.
To me, abusing children is immoral and should be illegal because you're harming other people (i.e. the children), but looking at photos of abusing children is usually immoral but shouldn't be illegal since you're not affecting anyone else.
It's a fine distinction and somewhat arbitrary, but it's the best I've come up with to protect the rights of everyone.