It didn't help because it was too honest?
Seriously, I see this quote get resurrected from time to time, but: is it wrong? If so, why?
Perhaps it would've been better if he'd said, "You have zero privacy anyway. Be prepared to deal with it." But he tends to err on the side of brevity.
Disclaimer: he and I once worked for the same company, albeit at slightly different strata.
OT: in your sig, were you using "for all intensive purposes" sarcastically as commentary on the decay of grammar in today's society? If so, carry on, but if not, please be aware that the actual phrase is "for all intents and purposes."
This was an article in the medical center's newsletter, so I think its purpose was more likely a profile of one of their internal services and the people behind it.
If it was a plant by a pneumatic tube company it was an epic fail, because one notably missing datum was the name of the vendor.
The full version is covered by the Personal Use and Evaluation License (PUEL), which technically speaking may be "restricted," but not very:
"Personal use is when you install the product on one or more PCs yourself and you make use of it (or even your friend, sister and grandmother). It doesn't matter whether you just use it for fun or run your multi-million euro business with it. Also, if you install it on your work PC at some large company, this is still personal use. However, if you are an administrator and want to deploy it to the 500 desktops in your company, this would no longer qualify as personal use. Well, you could ask each of your 500 employees to install VirtualBox but don't you think we deserve some money in this case? We'd even assist you with any issue you might have."
No, really, seriously: if you're in it for the money, why would you make it harder by pitting yourself *against* the oil companies and (at least for 2000-2008) the US Government? Wouldn't the lazy way be -- especially if as you seem to be positing, it's also the truth -- to say, "no global warming and here's my carefully cooked data to prove it. Hello, Chevron, big checks gladly accepted at the following address"?
This is where the "big bucks in AGW" theory seems to totally and irrevocably fall apart.
>I remember that Rackable bought SGI, so "Rackable nee SGI" would be somewhat logical
No, because Rackable was never previously known as SGI.
You could say that a *unit* of Rackable was previously known as SGI, except that unit would not, strictly speaking be known as just "Rackable", but rather the "SGI unit of Rackable" -- and in any event, Rackable pretty much instantly changed their name to SGI (Silicon Graphics International Corporation, to use the full name) as soon as they acquired old-SGI's assets.
It doesn't help that the "new SGI" website hops indiscriminately between servers that declare themselves to be "www.sgi.com" and "www.rackable.com" at various turns
"Look at the history books that refuse to mention Reagan when addressing the cold war. It's the same type of thing, just from a different groups agenda."
This sounded maybe a little far-fetched, so I went and grabbed my son's high school history textbook (we live in the SF Bay Area, which I hear is considered by some to be at least slightly to the left of center).
I wound up turning right to chapter 22, "A Conservative Era", which begins with a two-page photo of a smiling Ronald Reagan working a crowd, with the precis, "Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980 by appealing to a discontented electorate with the promise to return to a simpler time and conservative values. Reagan and his successor, George H.W. Bush, presided over the end of the Cold War and huge changes in economic and social policy." (American Anthem, Modern American History, Holt Rinehart Winston, California edition, 2007)
If there's a meme being spread that Evil PCers have expunged Reagan from history books, there's little evidence to support that here in California.
CDC said there were 17,000+ abortions after week 21 in 1993 and concedes that number is likely under-reported.
That would be late-term abortions, not "partial-birth abortions", of which 2,200 were reported in 2000. (I would consider that number to be an over-reporting, as there is no medically accepted definition of this procedure, and the political definition is worded such that it includes miscarriages.)
As far as epidemics are concerned: the historical human maternal death rate is 1 in 100, which would be 60,000 deaths per year in the US if that number applied today. The actual maternal death rate in the US today is fewer than 1,000. I strongly contest the implication that these procedures are being carried out frivolously, or for any other reason than proper medical procedures, unless you have proof otherwise. It is much more likely that these procedures, carried out as they must be under full medical oversight, are being chosen as a last resort to save the life of the mother.
You can't take damsel here now.
