The problem with your response is that you assume that all of these things occured without ID, therefore they are proof in themselves. [This is clearly not the way to prove anything. Its the chicken and the egg scenario all over again.] Your assesment may be entirely accurrate but what are your facts to backup the statement? Run down your list of proof the same way a mathemetician can prove his equations.

I am completly open to being shown the error of my beliefs. But statistically, it seems exceptionally improbable that these things could have occured 100% without intervention by some force or intelligence. I am thinking in terms of the something like the lottery - 180,000,000 to 1 odds of winning... and then winning twice? and then three times? what about 50 times in a row? These are the statistics i am talking of. On a cellular level I can see how you can get into billions and trillions of cells mutating into more and more advanced life, and all of this occurring in the span of the earth's existance...but where is the spark that starts it all? How does that spark occur? and in what conditions. Clearly, once we figure this out and are able to replicate it then this will no longer be theory. Until we do then it IS all just theory, cannot be proven, and we should neither condemn nor demean those who believe otherwise. I respect the beliefs of others. I don't judge them for those beliefs. But don't judge me for questioning those beliefs. There is nothing wrong with asking Why.

This is an intelligent and insightful response. I would mod it so if i could.

Thanks for the additional information. Looking at the drake equation now. ;)
br Its good to see an intelligent response instead of "Because I said so!"

Let me review your data for this. If it is accurate my eyes will be opened and i will believe whole-heartedly.

Smart people are so dismissive of people who do not see or believe the way they do. Instead of being able to fully explain thier facts they demean those that question. It is a very small, sad, "smart" person who behaves this way. Try being a little more open minded and try to consider why you believe the way you do, and be able to explain it to those who question instead of demeaning them. You may find that you are able to sway them to your view. Demeaning them will almost certainly not do so.

Open your eyes, indeed.

maybe you should take a minute to explain it to me then, mr. smartypants. your comment is useless otherwise.

What are the odds of life evolving on its own from within an environment devoid of life?
What are the odds of such evolved life would mutate?
What are the odds of such mutated life to mutate into a form that would allow it to continue to live?
What are the odds of such survivable life to further mutate into a higher order of life?
What are the odds of such evolved life to further mutate into different domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and finally, species?
What are the odds of such enourmous variance occurring naturally?
What span of years would it take for such evolution to arise, given the proper environment?
Please account for all of this while explaining the further likelihood of the variance in species color, gender, etc. while also considering that the evolutionary train would have to be unbroken at any point for a speoies to evolve to its current state. This means, over and over and over and over this genetic mutation would have to occur without a species dying off over hundreds of millions, if not billions of years.

Now, statistically, can you explain the odds in all of this occurring over the course of the earth's existance?

And finally, how do we know these statistics are 100% accurate without having other worlds where we have life that arose in a similar manner that we can look at and test to be certain our theory is correct? I am not saying evolution is untrue, nor am i saying that ID is untrue. I am saying that we have no method of verifying our "scientific" finding that life evolved and there was never any ID involved at all. To me, that means the science that is frequently put forward as truth is actually just a theory and not really a fact. This belief of mine is furhter solidified in my mind by the fact that we still cannot create life from lifelessness. We can create synthetic life using building blocks from existing life, but no one, to my knowledge has taking a bunch of inorganic material and make it a living and procreating life-form. Statistically, i believe that such life from lifelessness is very very improbable without some form of ID, somewhere along the line. I also believe evolution occurs without needing ID. That is, once life exists, it evolves to suit its environment, or it dies.

All that data routed to the wrong place accidentally... hmmm sounds like a perfect excuse to me - for intelligence gathering. If it passes through their routers, they have the data.

SCOTUS does not necessarily have to cite precedence or case law when they are interpreting something that is in the Constitution. Thats the benefit to them of being the supreme arbiter in the land of what is the law and what is not the law. Where other courts in the land must use case law to justify, SCOTUS can look at the law itself and determine what it means.

Your examples refer to property that is not owned by the company - just because its on their property doesn't give them rights over it. The article and this discussion pertains to company owned property.

oops! Accesible instead of accisible.

The data exists on the company's computers, likely passed through their network and servers, and because of these things they are legally accesible by the company. Unless the company accessed her email account at Yahoo using this data, there doesn't seem to be an issue to me. Unfortunately, the article is sparse on the details. Only an idiot would think, in these times, that the things they do on their company PC or laptop would not be accisible by the company. Just because they issue you a system doesn't make that system yours - its theirs, including all its contents.

rts

It was all intened as a joke. Really. I swear!

You are incorrect in what you term proper nouns. ethernet cable is not a proper noun. Ethernet Cable George is a proper noun since it takes a general item and specifies an individual of that general item that has the name George. Jargon indicates proper words, not slang, pertaining to a specific subset of the language. That is, computer terms, legal terms, medical terms, HVAC terms, anthropology terms, etc. These are all actual words and not slang; they are mostly understood by people in and working with those in specific fields of interest. This does not mean that they do not have application outside that field, but that in speaking on these subjects the word has specific meaning to the subject. And thus, the people involved in the subject may have understanding of said words that people not involved in the subject do not. Jargon has nothing whatsoever to do with slang because jargon is a very clearly defined real word that may not be understood in certain context by an average person.

Just because you fail to be able to do this does not mean an end user fails to comprehend descriptions of what these cables look like, what the shapes are, where they connect, possibly what color they are, etc. End users can be can be infuriatingly dense at times but it is up to you as the support professional to find a level at which they can communicate thier needs to you and you communicate the fix to them. If you cannot do this then you should not be in the support business.

jargon

NOUN

1. specialist language: language that is used by a group, profession, or culture, especially when the words and phrases are not understood or used by other people "typesetters' jargon"

2. unintelligible language: pretentious or meaningless language ( disapproving ) "Cut the jargon and get to your point."
____________________________________

Your definition and the dictionary's definition of Jargon do not agree. A network cable is just a cable of some sort to most end users. They don't recongnize it for its function, just that it plugs into thier comuter the same as the monitor cable, the power cable, etc. It's up to you to define the cable for them using terms they will understand. That is part of your role as a support person. Not bothering with this aspect of your job makes you bad at your job.