I don't know about ALL of them, but I know most APS and my Kensington surge protector comes with a 10,000 dollar surge-damage gaurentee. Basically, they'll pay for anything behind their unit that gets toasted. I'm sure it takes forever, but it's nice to know that it's there should the need arise.
At $.13 per user to get that letter written, I don't think it's *THAT* much to ask for from the GAIM community. Anyone want to do the $/man-hour computations?
My understanding of this matter is that he's based this site off of slashcode? Hm... how is it that U of U can claim to own the entire site, intellectually, when Slashcode isn't owned by the person who essentially "tweaked" the slash code? The Code itself is owned by someone else, is it not? Couldn't the 'owners' or whatnot of the slashcode itself sue U of U for misrepresentation because they (UofU) say that thay own 'the whole thing'?
Aye, your evolutionary theory needs a tweaking. Why would humans have canine teeth (which are designed for ripping and severing meet) if they had evolved to eat plants and nuts and such? Those types of food would exert a selective pressure on man to develope wider, bigger teeth, with bigger muscular attachments than we have now. The person who stated that we have evolved to be omnivorous is completely correct.
I will, however, agree with you that man's digestive track is not used to eating large amounts of meat at a time, but the quantity that qualifies as large is somewhere in the order of 2 to 3 pounds. I don't know many people who can eat 2 to 3 pounds of meat in one sitting without vomiting. Man *IS* evolved to eat meat, as evident by the meat specific enzymes used to break it down in our digestive tracks.
28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
So, does this mean that only a woman who's a lesbian can commit adultery? I submit that the Bible is an outdated manuscript of social order and either needs to be revamped to accomodate for todays.... peculiarities, or we do away with it completely and become Aztecs.
-Sean
Shouldn't a judge who gets this personally involved in a case recuse himself? It doesn't seem that he can be impartial because he's exhibited evidence that he has a bias in the case by ruling that if they ever come to court again for this that they must come back to his court.
What's wrong with this? The people who started this nation did so because they were being persecuted by the people in power in the "Olde Countries". They wanted a country where every man was free to do what he wanted without fear of retribution by the government if the people who comprised the government didn't agree with him. This country is all about freedom of speech, and it was constructed so the the freedom of the one was not discarded to quell the many. What I'm trying to say is that this country was founded on more of less Libertarian (Vote Harry Brown for President - 2000!!!) principles, and it's slowly turning into such a society where every facet of american life is being monitored and okayed by the government. What's wrong with it? I don't WANT the government to know what I do every minute of every day and with who I do it with. Government is supposed to provide a stable infrastructure (National Defenses, Police forces, Regulators of Food, Banks, etc) for people to feel safe in, not to dictate what I do or wether it's okay to do it or not.
For all of you nay-sayers who assert that Windows2k doesn't have a DOS prompt, rest assured that there is one there, and you can even boot to it. To boot to it, just hit F8 like you would with Windows98 and you get a menu to choose what mode you want to start in.
To get to a CLI from Windows, just go to START, RUN, then type "cmd.exe" or "command".
Isn't it interesting how computer-users at large seem to bounce back and forth between individual, autonomous systems and the mainframe paradigm big ble had in my school where you booted off a floppy and everything loaded across the network? What makes people do this?
When you say that there is always the argument that the technician was just doing his job, I kinda think of a police officer doing his. Say they (being the police) have a search warrant for a gun you are supposed to have at your house. They search your house, garage, whatever and en start searching your computer. Even if they find kiddy porn, they can't prosecute you because that was not what the search warrant was for. i think this example is applicable because he was not there to do anything with the hard drive (or so the sory says), instead, he was there to upgrade the ram or something else that is pretty much unrelated to hard drive perusal. The point: browsing the hard drive casually is unethical. Don't go looking for stuff to incriminate people without *due cause*.
Also, do you think that he agreed that anything on the hard drive was property of the university? I don't think so, as that would commit a hundred bajillion copyright infringments by just browsing a couple webpages.
Overall point: I think the tech was out of line looking through his stuff, both legally and ethically.
*SNIP* I've worked as a lowly PC tech and have been in a similar position, finding stuff on a work computer that should not have been there. It is **NOT** an "invasion of privacy" when there's a bunch of adult oriented.jpgs sitting in a C:\windows\temporaryinternetfiles folder. *SNIP*
So do you consider it your ethical/moral duty to do a hard drive check of every computer you administer when it comes through? Honestly, I think it's the same as keeping bank statements or something on your computer. Granted it's the property of the University, but if we put you in the same situation (replacing memory, IIRC), why would you go perusing through the hard drive? I guess my quandry is this . . . does your rights as an OWNER of the files (in the case that you created them) or your rights as a licensee to use them (in the case of downloading them) override the campuses property rights? Here's an interesting paradigm...
The university owns a shelf in your office.
Now you put a vase on the shelf.
Does the university own the vase? Of course not, you paid for it, it's your property.
Now let's say that you put a CD on the shelf. You've licensed the right to listen to the music by paying for it. Does the universities right to "control" the shelf supercede your right to excersize your rights? If a University official comes in, they have no right to inspect the CD. It's not theirs.
What's the difference between Deja.com doing this and Hotmail or some other service inserting a little tagline at the bottom of my email saying "Get Free Email At Hotmail.com"? Is it because they're matching shing in the text to an actual ad or just tat they're appending HTML?
Slashdot Mirror
What if they are using their solar panels to charge batteries for .... [dramatic pause] The Alan Parsons Project?
Mwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah!~
If it's no Scottish.... IT'S CRAP!
I don't know about ALL of them, but I know most APS and my Kensington surge protector comes with a 10,000 dollar surge-damage gaurentee. Basically, they'll pay for anything behind their unit that gets toasted. I'm sure it takes forever, but it's nice to know that it's there should the need arise.
At $.13 per user to get that letter written, I don't think it's *THAT* much to ask for from the GAIM community. Anyone want to do the $/man-hour computations?
My understanding of this matter is that he's based this site off of slashcode? Hm... how is it that U of U can claim to own the entire site, intellectually, when Slashcode isn't owned by the person who essentially "tweaked" the slash code? The Code itself is owned by someone else, is it not? Couldn't the 'owners' or whatnot of the slashcode itself sue U of U for misrepresentation because they (UofU) say that thay own 'the whole thing'?
Aye, your evolutionary theory needs a tweaking. Why would humans have canine teeth (which are designed for ripping and severing meet) if they had evolved to eat plants and nuts and such? Those types of food would exert a selective pressure on man to develope wider, bigger teeth, with bigger muscular attachments than we have now. The person who stated that we have evolved to be omnivorous is completely correct.
I will, however, agree with you that man's digestive track is not used to eating large amounts of meat at a time, but the quantity that qualifies as large is somewhere in the order of 2 to 3 pounds. I don't know many people who can eat 2 to 3 pounds of meat in one sitting without vomiting. Man *IS* evolved to eat meat, as evident by the meat specific enzymes used to break it down in our digestive tracks.
-Sean28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
So, does this mean that only a woman who's a lesbian can commit adultery? I submit that the Bible is an outdated manuscript of social order and either needs to be revamped to accomodate for todays.... peculiarities, or we do away with it completely and become Aztecs.
-Sean
Do you realize that you just set off every red flag on Echelon? I'd behave for a couple months if I was you. :)
Shouldn't a judge who gets this personally involved in a case recuse himself? It doesn't seem that he can be impartial because he's exhibited evidence that he has a bias in the case by ruling that if they ever come to court again for this that they must come back to his court.
What's wrong with this? The people who started this nation did so because they were being persecuted by the people in power in the "Olde Countries". They wanted a country where every man was free to do what he wanted without fear of retribution by the government if the people who comprised the government didn't agree with him. This country is all about freedom of speech, and it was constructed so the the freedom of the one was not discarded to quell the many. What I'm trying to say is that this country was founded on more of less Libertarian (Vote Harry Brown for President - 2000!!!) principles, and it's slowly turning into such a society where every facet of american life is being monitored and okayed by the government. What's wrong with it? I don't WANT the government to know what I do every minute of every day and with who I do it with. Government is supposed to provide a stable infrastructure (National Defenses, Police forces, Regulators of Food, Banks, etc) for people to feel safe in, not to dictate what I do or wether it's okay to do it or not.
For all of you nay-sayers who assert that Windows2k doesn't have a DOS prompt, rest assured that there is one there, and you can even boot to it. To boot to it, just hit F8 like you would with Windows98 and you get a menu to choose what mode you want to start in.
To get to a CLI from Windows, just go to START, RUN, then type "cmd.exe" or "command".
-Sean
Yes, a completely 3|33+ chocolate chip cookie and recipe warez channel. Wonder if Martha will stop by.... it's a Good Thing(TM).
:)
-Sean
Isn't it interesting how computer-users at large seem to bounce back and forth between individual, autonomous systems and the mainframe paradigm big ble had in my school where you booted off a floppy and everything loaded across the network? What makes people do this?
When you say that there is always the argument that the technician was just doing his job, I kinda think of a police officer doing his. Say they (being the police) have a search warrant for a gun you are supposed to have at your house. They search your house, garage, whatever and en start searching your computer. Even if they find kiddy porn, they can't prosecute you because that was not what the search warrant was for. i think this example is applicable because he was not there to do anything with the hard drive (or so the sory says), instead, he was there to upgrade the ram or something else that is pretty much unrelated to hard drive perusal. The point: browsing the hard drive casually is unethical. Don't go looking for stuff to incriminate people without *due cause*.
Also, do you think that he agreed that anything on the hard drive was property of the university? I don't think so, as that would commit a hundred bajillion copyright infringments by just browsing a couple webpages.
Overall point: I think the tech was out of line looking through his stuff, both legally and ethically.
-Sean
*SNIP* I've worked as a lowly PC tech and have been in a similar position, finding stuff on a work computer that should not have been there. It is **NOT** an "invasion of privacy" when there's a bunch of adult oriented .jpgs sitting in a C:\windows\temporaryinternetfiles folder. *SNIP*
So do you consider it your ethical/moral duty to do a hard drive check of every computer you administer when it comes through? Honestly, I think it's the same as keeping bank statements or something on your computer. Granted it's the property of the University, but if we put you in the same situation (replacing memory, IIRC), why would you go perusing through the hard drive? I guess my quandry is this . . . does your rights as an OWNER of the files (in the case that you created them) or your rights as a licensee to use them (in the case of downloading them) override the campuses property rights?
Here's an interesting paradigm...
The university owns a shelf in your office.
Now you put a vase on the shelf.
Does the university own the vase? Of course not, you paid for it, it's your property.
Now let's say that you put a CD on the shelf. You've licensed the right to listen to the music by paying for it. Does the universities right to "control" the shelf supercede your right to excersize your rights? If a University official comes in, they have no right to inspect the CD. It's not theirs.
What's the difference between Deja.com doing this and Hotmail or some other service inserting a little tagline at the bottom of my email saying "Get Free Email At Hotmail.com"? Is it because they're matching shing in the text to an actual ad or just tat they're appending HTML?
-Sean