I remember a Color 64 board where I was writing a post and suddenly someone broke into the session (as a sysop could do in that one) and started chatting with me. Turned out it was the sysop's daughter (who was about my age at the time), and a short, uneventful (unfortunately) relationship ensued.
Were you in the US at the time? I ask because I sometimes hear people talking about how BBS dialing racked up huge phone bills, but at least where I was at the time (suburban MN), all the phone plans were flat-rate....
My first real BBS was a Major BBS (yes, 12 phone lines to one BBS allowing realtime chat in 1988!) called Main Street (I think), in the Twin Cities. After that it was mostly WWIV's and Citadels (The Hub, and Confusion Central mostly, but also Ed's Board(I think) and a few old C64 boards).
That's part of what I think disillusions me about computing lately. The sense of learning and exploration are lacking.
CS isn't a business major. You don't just do it "because"... you gotta love it. It's not like a communications major where you go to class, then spend an hour or two doing a week's worth of homework, then do something else. That was one of the amazing things, to me at least, about getting a CS degree in the late 1990's. The sheer number of people in CS 1xxx was startling, but not as startling as the drastically lower number of people in the 3xxx series classes.
If you wanna have lots of "free" time and potential to make money without having to take "hard" classes, then you picked the wrong major. I agree with parent, enjoyed those "hard" classes (except Calc 3 at 8:00am M-F... that was killer), and most of my "free" time was spent on computers anyway.
I think programming has to be a calling, to some degree, otherwise one is probably better off doing something else.
Wasn't the matter at hand the Jones investigation? Jones was claiming sexual harassment when she was a subordinte government employee. How is sexual relations with another subordinate government employee not relevant?
How is an entirely consensual relationship with an entirely unrelated party relevant? It isn't automatically, you know. The trial in question was indeed about Paula Jones' allegations, but the question was of dubious relevance.
It was the very definition of a fishing expedition...
I suggest you brush up on the chronology of events. While investigating Whitewater, Starr got distracted and diverged into the Paula Jones bit. The Paula Jones bit is an entirely different and interestingly twisted matter laced with media and political interests (hint: The whole fiasco was not the "victim of workplace sexual harassment" seeking justice; rather it was someone who alleged that Clinton was harassing her, who rejected settlement at least once, being used as a pawn to get at Clinton). Starr literally wandered from his original investigatorial job into unrelated matters (which was investigating whether the Clintons had invested money in an illegal manner, an allegation which was never shown to hold prosecutable merit, but not until after Starr had left).
That's why we have the fifth ammendment. Before offering hints you should get a clue.
That wasn't the question. The question was: Is it ethical to not answer truthfully when obviously the subject of a witchunt. Not legally, ethically. i.e. The statement of "There is no sexual relationship", wherein the question of tense was the debated technicality.
Incidentally, I find it interesting that while *eventually* he was found in concept of court for misleading (but not false) testimony, there were never any criminal charges pressed in the matter. My guess is that someone with more experience than either of us in such matters agrees with me.
Actually, it's more a question of "is it appropriate for someone to obfuscate when they are they subject of a blatant witch hunt." Obviously not legal, but is it ethical?
Keep in mind that a standing president can't be called as a defendant. How do you think, exactly, that Clinton, therefore, was able to be put in a position to lie under oath? Answer: He wasn't a defendant, he was subpeona'd for a different matter.
The real core of this is, while probably he shouldn't have lied, he really should never have been asked any questions relating to his affair with Lewinski, as they were immaterial to the matter at hand. It was the very definition of a fishing expedition, just trying to find _anything_ to damage Clinton's administration. And "anything" they did find, but clearly the Lewinski escapade was a personal matter (which common sense dictates is not an uncommon activity in DC), and shouldn't have even been brought up in questioning.
So, the question remains, when one is the subject of a witchhunt, should they answer all questions that may aid the people running said hunt truthfully, knowing that even the smallest indiscretion will not be set aside in spite of your honesty?
Hint: In life, honesty isn't always the best policy.
If you are that worried about it, some of these other suggestions may work, but you're gonna be doing it over and over again.
What you really need to do for the medium-long term is prevent the access points from working at all (something like only allowing registered MAC addresses to get DHCP leases, for one example).
I'm fairly certain that Amazon carries it. I know that at least a year or so ago the channel that carried it (was it TLC? Or was it A&E at the time that carried it) was selling it online.
Great couple series that, though. I miss those days.
"Officially" in the Scientific Method there are no Laws, only more and more sound theories. "Laws" are kind of honorary titles for theories that have stood up for a long time, but it's more of a commonspeak thing.
Technically you have this process:
1) Observation of some phenomenon
2) Hypothesis is formed
3) Experimentation performed and data collected
4) If data supports hypothesis on a repeatable basis, then it *could* become a theory.
I mean, we have Newton's Laws of Motion, but they are known to have exceptions in some circumstances. Theory is a much more consistent label.
I'd venture the problem is more with the reader in this case than the writer. Seeing as this isn't a formal, edited publication, I'd suggest you save yourself the time of writing this sort of pointless reply next time around.
FYI, Entourage (part of Office v.X) supports Exchange integration. In fact, Entourage is about the only real killer app in Office v.X when faced off with NeoOffice/J. Especially for environments where Exchange is an absolute must-have.
Sadly, in my experience while hooking up Outlook to Exchange is a no-brainer, Entourage can be a pain in the ass. Last I used it was about a year ago and it still was unreasonably quirky. Plus its interface seems to be unnecessarily different than Outlook.
It's baffled me for years why MS dropped support for Outlook on the Mac and went to Entourage. From my point of view, it made zero sense.
Perhaps, but then again it's amazing what you can achieve if you feel the pressure to figure something out. It's something I've been experiencing since I left college, personally. It hasn't been particularly hard to figure out most things in IT. My brain has stopped trying to figure out unique, systemic ways to solve problems and instead immediately starts telling me to search google for someone else's answer.
Looks like they're just airing the original episodes in-order to help promote the upcoming movie (not a bad thing, mind you). When I hear "picked up" in relation to a TV show, I usually associate it with "making new episodes".
Do you "feel" gravity? I don't, because I am, as you say, at equilibrium with my environment (unless I am drunk, which is neither here nor there).
Deep sea creatures don't feel the pressure because they are also at equilibrium with their environment.
The point of my post was that, conditions of temperature, radiation, etc. aside, a planet having high gravity is not all that different from deep sea conditions in the fact that complex organisms can evolve and thrive in both.
Aren't there creatures living at far greater pressures in deep sea environments? Wouldn't that be similar to having creatures living at high gravities (leaving out the other ways the planet clearly isn't very "earthlike" for the moment).
Slashdot Mirror
I remember when the population was a wee bit smaller.... What year did they move it to a different box?
/nostalgia
Amazing...
Were you in the US at the time? I ask because I sometimes hear people talking about how BBS dialing racked up huge phone bills, but at least where I was at the time (suburban MN), all the phone plans were flat-rate....
I miss those days. Most of my IRC channels are pretty dead now.
That's part of what I think disillusions me about computing lately. The sense of learning and exploration are lacking.
Seeing as "bint" is a well-known bit of British slang for someone of the female persuasion, I'd say you're soundly wrong.
If I had mod points, I'd give them all to you.
CS isn't a business major. You don't just do it "because"... you gotta love it. It's not like a communications major where you go to class, then spend an hour or two doing a week's worth of homework, then do something else. That was one of the amazing things, to me at least, about getting a CS degree in the late 1990's. The sheer number of people in CS 1xxx was startling, but not as startling as the drastically lower number of people in the 3xxx series classes.
If you wanna have lots of "free" time and potential to make money without having to take "hard" classes, then you picked the wrong major. I agree with parent, enjoyed those "hard" classes (except Calc 3 at 8:00am M-F... that was killer), and most of my "free" time was spent on computers anyway.
I think programming has to be a calling, to some degree, otherwise one is probably better off doing something else.
How is an entirely consensual relationship with an entirely unrelated party relevant? It isn't automatically, you know. The trial in question was indeed about Paula Jones' allegations, but the question was of dubious relevance.
It was the very definition of a fishing expedition ...
I suggest you brush up on the chronology of events. While investigating Whitewater, Starr got distracted and diverged into the Paula Jones bit. The Paula Jones bit is an entirely different and interestingly twisted matter laced with media and political interests (hint: The whole fiasco was not the "victim of workplace sexual harassment" seeking justice; rather it was someone who alleged that Clinton was harassing her, who rejected settlement at least once, being used as a pawn to get at Clinton). Starr literally wandered from his original investigatorial job into unrelated matters (which was investigating whether the Clintons had invested money in an illegal manner, an allegation which was never shown to hold prosecutable merit, but not until after Starr had left).
That's why we have the fifth ammendment. Before offering hints you should get a clue.
That wasn't the question. The question was: Is it ethical to not answer truthfully when obviously the subject of a witchunt. Not legally, ethically. i.e. The statement of "There is no sexual relationship", wherein the question of tense was the debated technicality.
Incidentally, I find it interesting that while *eventually* he was found in concept of court for misleading (but not false) testimony, there were never any criminal charges pressed in the matter. My guess is that someone with more experience than either of us in such matters agrees with me.
Keep in mind that a standing president can't be called as a defendant. How do you think, exactly, that Clinton, therefore, was able to be put in a position to lie under oath? Answer: He wasn't a defendant, he was subpeona'd for a different matter.
The real core of this is, while probably he shouldn't have lied, he really should never have been asked any questions relating to his affair with Lewinski, as they were immaterial to the matter at hand. It was the very definition of a fishing expedition, just trying to find _anything_ to damage Clinton's administration. And "anything" they did find, but clearly the Lewinski escapade was a personal matter (which common sense dictates is not an uncommon activity in DC), and shouldn't have even been brought up in questioning.
So, the question remains, when one is the subject of a witchhunt, should they answer all questions that may aid the people running said hunt truthfully, knowing that even the smallest indiscretion will not be set aside in spite of your honesty?
Hint: In life, honesty isn't always the best policy.
What you really need to do for the medium-long term is prevent the access points from working at all (something like only allowing registered MAC addresses to get DHCP leases, for one example).
Great couple series that, though. I miss those days.
Technically you have this process:
1) Observation of some phenomenon
2) Hypothesis is formed
3) Experimentation performed and data collected
4) If data supports hypothesis on a repeatable basis, then it *could* become a theory.
I mean, we have Newton's Laws of Motion, but they are known to have exceptions in some circumstances. Theory is a much more consistent label.
I'd venture the problem is more with the reader in this case than the writer. Seeing as this isn't a formal, edited publication, I'd suggest you save yourself the time of writing this sort of pointless reply next time around.
Do not taunt the happy datacenter
Sadly, in my experience while hooking up Outlook to Exchange is a no-brainer, Entourage can be a pain in the ass. Last I used it was about a year ago and it still was unreasonably quirky. Plus its interface seems to be unnecessarily different than Outlook.
It's baffled me for years why MS dropped support for Outlook on the Mac and went to Entourage. From my point of view, it made zero sense.
That's what I'm wondering. My personal guess is this is sales to resellers, not to customers.
Control-T is hard and doesn't always work? It would seem that your problems extend beyond Firefox itself.
It troubles me.
Looks like they're just airing the original episodes in-order to help promote the upcoming movie (not a bad thing, mind you). When I hear "picked up" in relation to a TV show, I usually associate it with "making new episodes".
Deep sea creatures don't feel the pressure because they are also at equilibrium with their environment.
The point of my post was that, conditions of temperature, radiation, etc. aside, a planet having high gravity is not all that different from deep sea conditions in the fact that complex organisms can evolve and thrive in both.
Wasn't this a plotline in some old Seagal movie?
Well, it was never an idyllic paradise of techie glee, but it has had better days wrt its userbase. But then again, so has the internet in general.
Aren't there creatures living at far greater pressures in deep sea environments? Wouldn't that be similar to having creatures living at high gravities (leaving out the other ways the planet clearly isn't very "earthlike" for the moment).
I dunno, I've been able to do this with Pizza Hut in at least two metropolitan areas in flyover country (Denver and Minneapolis).