 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/17/2009 2:22 PM, andrel wrote:
> Next legal problem: we now know that we have probably a criminal amongst
> us
Pick your battles. Do you know how many people come through our
drive-through window, and present as identification an ID card instead
of a driver's license?
It's not worth going further with it.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:19:25 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> On 3/17/2009 2:22 PM, andrel wrote:
>> Next legal problem: we now know that we have probably a criminal
>> amongst us
>
> Pick your battles. Do you know how many people come through our
> drive-through window, and present as identification an ID card instead
> of a driver's license?
>
> It's not worth going further with it.
Especially considering the general difficulty with tying a specific
individual to Ian's posts here on the server. Could well have been
someone who hijacked his system and made the claim. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:15:03 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> On 3/17/2009 4:22 PM, [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
>> I will not retaliate in such a way again...
>
> God knows we've all wanted to...
Yep, I know I've been tempted, but it was easier just to restrict ssh
access to my machine based on RSA public key authentication rather than
passwords. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> That's not a very good indication; reinstalling an OS is easy. Suppose
> the system were being used to do cancer research; that could be years of
> work lost. Of course if it were, they'd *better* be running backups, too.
It would be very foolish to do something important and not make regular
backups. A simple hard drive failure can destroy all of your work at any
moment. Or a power surge (it's not even rare that lightning has fried a
computer so completely that all data has been irreversibly lost). Especially
in the latter case (and tons of others, such as a fire) you can't even rely
on RAID for safekeeping.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
[GDS|Entropy] <gds### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Solaris sucks. There aren't many apps that run on it either.
Yeah. Sun has developed this OS for like 3 decades, and there aren't many
apps for it. Just the OS. They have been doing it just for the fun of it.
Sure.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Reminded me of:
> http://imagechan.com/images/4256c6ebf2ec36d11ed68fc71fd34bfb.gif
While definitely pervy, that's not necessarily illegal in his country.
16 is a very common age of consent in many countries (including many
western ones, including many states of the US, Canada, and many European
countries, eg. Finland).
Such an age difference may be frowned upon, but not necessarily illegal.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:01:21 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> That's not a very good indication; reinstalling an OS is easy. Suppose
>> the system were being used to do cancer research; that could be years
>> of work lost. Of course if it were, they'd *better* be running
>> backups, too.
>
> It would be very foolish to do something important and not make
> regular
> backups. A simple hard drive failure can destroy all of your work at any
> moment. Or a power surge (it's not even rare that lightning has fried a
> computer so completely that all data has been irreversibly lost).
> Especially in the latter case (and tons of others, such as a fire) you
> can't even rely on RAID for safekeeping.
Of course it would, but just because someone's being foolish doesn't make
it OK to hack their system and destroy it because you think they're the
source of problems on your system.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> While definitely pervy, that's not necessarily illegal in his country.
Unless the country of Georgia has a sports team named "The Tigers", I'm
pretty sure they're in the state of Georgia in the USA. :-)
But I'll grant you it's not obvious without looking really close. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > While definitely pervy, that's not necessarily illegal in his country.
> Unless the country of Georgia has a sports team named "The Tigers", I'm
> pretty sure they're in the state of Georgia in the USA. :-)
At least this: http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm lists 16 as the
age of consent for the state of Georgia, USA.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> At least this: http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm lists 16 as the
> age of consent for the state of Georgia, USA.
Heh. I'm not surprised.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
