Moving to a new computer?

So you just got a new computer and now you're ready to start setting it up. Taking a few quick and simple steps now will make your next computer move much, much easier.

First, on your desktop create a new folder called downloads. Set your browser to download everything into this folder. Open the programs like you normally would, but leave the downloaded and compacted files in the download folder. It makes things MUCH easier to find after you download them, and it's a simple matter, when you do switch computers again, to copy this entire folder to some kind of removable memory device (a cd or an external hard drive are examples) and move it over to your new computer.

Second, create another folder on your desktop called Sys Tools. This is for your security programs. There are two reasons for this folder being on your desktop. One, it's easy to get to, which makes running your system cleaners simple. Two, once you have found security programs that you love, you really don't want to be in a situation where you've sent your computer in for repairs and are trying to set up a new one while it's gone, only to realize that you can't remember all of the programs that you loved. Since nearly all of the programs in this folder will just be shortcuts, it also is very simple to copy to a removable device to move to a new computer. Even if you somehow didn't have the downloaded programs saved in your download folder, at least you have the name of the programs so that you know what you're wanting to add to your computer.

The last folders I add to the desktop on a new computer are folders to help organize all of the shortcuts that I keep ending up with. I usually title one "Unused" and put all of the stuff that came with the computer and is already on the desktop, but that I will either use very infrequently or most likely won't ever use but I'm not sure enough to delete it entirely. The next one, for me, is games. I like finding new games and having a games folder on my desktop makes it easy to pick one out to play when I'm in the mood. I also make sure to copy this folder whenever I'm switching computers, so that I'll at least have the names of the games I want to reload on my computer (and can remember exactly which ones I don't want to reload also). Remember, any folders that you load onto a removable device don't have to be transferred to the new computer in their entirety. In fact, except for the downloads folder, you don't have to transfer them at all, just have them available so that you can find the information that you're looking for.

The next step requires an internet e-mail address. I strongly suggest g-mail (I've tried and gotten rid of most of the others, but really like how g-mail works). If you don't have g-mail already, e-mail me and I'll send you an invite. Now, for any programs that you've downloaded and purchased the registration codes, write down the codes and save them in your gmail account as a draft. Create a new label for the codes and store them under "Registrations". If you don't have the codes for any of them, write to the vendors, and make sure to ask them to e-mail the codes to your g-mail account. This way, no matter how many times you change computers, you will have all of your codes waiting on-line and don't have to worry about whether you remembered to get all of your information off of your old computer. For those who are computer minded, I would also suggest creating a list of the registration numbers for all of the disks you plan to load onto your computer, and maybe make a note of your computer's name for if you ever need to reinstall windows and recreate all of your information.

Now you've got everything set up to enjoy your new computer and to help you enjoy any other new computer you get as quickly and easily as possible.

Friendships

I have a theory that when it comes to friends, there are two types of people in the world...those who need and desire frequent contact with their friends and those who are happy to get together whenever life allows a few moments of pleasure. The second kind of people are the ones who can call an old friend they haven't seen in 20 years and suddenly they're talking like they saw each other only yesterday. People who have the first kind of friend personality have a very hard time understanding people who have the second kind. I have a good friend who is type 1. Her husband is type 2 and she has a hard time with his attitude towards friends. Luckily, my husband and I are both type 2. We have a lot of good friends all over the world, but seeing them frequently isn't an issue for us. Maybe once or twice a year we'll contact most of them and talk for a bit (some more often, some less)...and know that if life ever brings us near them again, we'll pick up right where we left off. My friend who is type 1 thinks that the issue is male vs female, but I don't think so. I'm still studying the issue, trying to determine what makes one person need frequent contact while another is just as happy to speak every once in a while. Perhaps it relates to personality types, maybe extroverts need more stimulation from friendships. I'm not sure.

Government wins conviction against civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart, 10 Feb 05

Government wins conviction against civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart, 10 Feb 05




I like hearing both sides of an issue. I sometimes despair of the shape of civil rights in our country. BUT, this is not a lawsuit about civil rights, no matter who tries to say it is. When I read this page, I came away wondering why (and how) on earth a lawyer who is reportedly great at handling cases, would get herself locked up. This site tries to make her out as some kind of martyr. There are martyrs in the US right now, people who have been locked up just because they fit a description and not because they haven't broken any laws. I've read cases about several of them. Many are doctors, pursued so that the "War on Drugs" will look like it's being won. Others are editors, computer experts, etc. Nearly always you can find an internet page about them, proclaiming FREE (insert name here). Many times its legitimate. Many other times it's not. This is one of those times.

Here is the quote from the page:
"We have very sad news. Lynne Stewart was found guilty on all counts Thursday February 10. All defendants in the case were found guilty on all counts. We must continue our fight to FREE LYNNE STEWART!

Lynne told reporters: 'We are not going to give up,' a tearful Stewart said outside court. 'We're going to fight on. This is the beginning of a larger struggle.

I know I committed no crime. I know what I did was right….I see myself as a symbol of what people rail against when they say that civil liberties are eroded,' she said, her voice breaking with emotion. 'We don't live in the same America we lived in even three or four years ago.

'We will all wake up one morning to hear someone say guilty and be placed in jail," she said. "I hope this verdict will be a wake-up call to all the citizens of this great country that you can't lock up the lawyers. You can't tell the lawyers how to do their jobs.'"

Sounds interesting, doesn't it? The problem is that there is WAY too much information left out. What did she do? What was she charged with? Why are we left to sort out the truth if we are supposed to believe that she is innocent?

A quick search brings up an article in the Washington Post. "She was found guilty of trying to cover up secret conversations between Rahman and his followers and violating federal regulations by publicly announcing in 2000 that the cleric had withdrawn his support for a cease-fire between the Egyptian government and the Islamic Group -- a fundamentalist organization that carried out terrorist attacks on tourists and police officers." I'm sorry, I don't care if you're a lawyer or a judge or a policeman or a person off the street or even the President, being an American citizen carries with it the responsibility of obeying the laws of the land. And flaunting the law can lead to punishment.

" "We all believed it was our role to keep him on the world stage," Stewart told The Washington Post last year. "His word matters. And he wouldn't be the first man accused of terrorism who is later released from prison when times change."

This strategy, and Stewart's decision to smuggle out the sheik's message advocating the end of the cease-fire, troubled legal ethicists from both ends of the political spectrum.

Steven Lubet, director of Northwestern University's program on advocacy and professionalism, dismissed much of Stewart's defense. "There is nothing about 'vigorous defense' that requires a lawyer to facilitate her client's political goals," he said in a statement. "This case has nothing to do with zealous defense."

Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at New York University, added that Stewart comes from a long tradition of radical defense lawyers who stop at little in defense of their clients. But he noted that few go so far as Stewart.

"I don't think most lawyers would take these risks,' he said. 'Her conduct, when she crossed the line, was bold.'"

Bush picks Roberts to succeed Rehnquist - Yahoo! News

Bush picks Roberts to succeed Rehnquist - Yahoo! News

I am really upset right now. I've been a republican for years. When I was in college, I stood outside the voting booths and handed out cards for Jesse Helms and Charles Taylor. I had met and talked with both of them and their opponents and were convinced that they were the right ones for the job.

I have never been a straight party voter, I'd rather know about someone before they get my vote. But lately, I'm really getting frustrated with our system.

Historically in America, unless you are part of the main parties, you won't get elected. The problem that I've seen, particularly lately, is that both the Republican and Democratic parties have their own agendas...and those agendas aren'twhat most of the American people want (at least the hopes of the various people I've talked to). What I've seen is that when most of us talk in a nonthreatening setting, our political views have a lot in common with each other, even if we disagree in some areas. But our political parties seem to be based more on the differences instead of the similiarities.

What does this have to do with the website that I thumbed? Not a lot. I'm just getting frustrated at the way our government is going. I voted for Bush and I'd probably do it again if I were given the same two choices. I'm from NC and I wouldn't vote for John Edwards. I think it's rather telling that even given the opportunity to have someone from NC in the White House, NC still voted predominantly for Bush. But choosing between two options on either end of a scale isn't always the best way to choose. Perhaps it's time for a new party in the US, one that truely is a party of the people, for the people, and by the people.

And now I'll actually talk about the page and what brought all this on....Today President Bush said that Roberts is his choice for Chief Justice. Roberts, the canidate that both Republicans and Democrats have complained about. Even Ann Coulter (a very vocal Republican writer) has complained about him.

As the South recovers from Katrina and the rest of us do what we can to help and wait to see what changes the future will bring, Bush could have taken a step that would have shown the world that racism is becoming a thing of the past in the US, that equal rights are alive and active by naming Clarence Thomas to the role of Chief Justice. Justice Thomas has the credientals, he's proven as a Justice, and he has a record that Bush should like. Naming Thomas as Chief Justice would be good for the Nation, and a good move politically for both Bush and the Republican party.

Instead, Bush's move has me shaking my head, wondering "What was he thinking?" I've been against believing that Bush had a political agenda. I don't want to believe it, honestly. But this move really makes no sense otherwise.

O'Reilly Network: Free Culture: Lawrence Lessig Keynote from OSCON 2002

O'Reilly Network: Free Culture: Lawrence Lessig Keynote from OSCON 2002

Free Culture
Lawrence Lessig Keynote from OSCON 2002
by Lawrence Lessig
08/15/2002

Editor's Note: In his address before a packed house at the Open Source Convention, Lawrence Lessig challenges the audience to get more involved in the political process. Lawrence, a tireless advocate for open source, is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and the founder of the school's Center for Internet and Society. He is also the author of the best-selling book Code, and Other Laws of Cyberspace. Here is the complete transcript of Lawrence's keynote presentation made on July 24, 2002.

Lawrence Lessig: I have been doing this for about two years--more than 100 of these gigs. This is about the last one. One more and it's over for me. So I figured I wanted to write a song to end it. But then I realized I don't sing and I can't write music. But I came up with the refrain, at least, right? This captures the point. If you understand this refrain, you're gonna' understand everything I want to say to you today. It has four parts:

*

Creativity and innovation always builds on the past.
*

The past always tries to control the creativity that builds upon it.
*

Free societies enable the future by limiting this power of the past.
*

Ours is less and less a free society.

In 1774, free culture was born. In a case called Donaldson v. Beckett in the House of Lords in England, free culture was made because copyright was stopped. In 1710, the statute had said that copyright should be for a limited term of just 14 years. But in the 1740s, when Scottish publishers started reprinting classics (you gotta' love the Scots), the London publishers said "Stop!" They said, "Copyright is forever!" Sonny Bono said "Copyright should be forever minus a day," but the London publishers said "Copyright is forever."

These publishers, people whom Milton referred to as old patentees and monopolizers in the trade of book selling, men who do not labor in an honest profession (except Tim here), to [them] learning is indebted. These publishers demanded a common-law copyright that would be forever. In 1769, in a case called Miller v. Taylor, they won their claim, but just five years later, in Donaldson, Miller was reversed, and for the first time in history, the works of Shakespeare were freed, freed from the control of a monopoly of publishers. Freed culture was the result of that case.

Remember the refrain. I would sing it, but you wouldn't want me to. OK. Well, by the end we'll see.

Boston.com / Latest News / Region

Boston.com / Latest News / Region

This is absolutely ridiculous!!! The more I read the more I realize that our liberties are being trampled on daily.

BOSTON -- The state's highest court on Friday upheld the conviction of a man who secretly recorded police after they pulled him over.

The Supreme Judicial Court in a split decision ruled that Michael Hyde violated the state's electronic surveillance law, which prohibits secret recordings.

But in a strongly worded dissent, two justices said the wiretapping statute was not meant to prevent citizens from recording an encounter with police.

Hyde, a rock musician, said he recorded Abington police because he thought they unfairly targeted him for a traffic stop on Oct. 26, 1998, because of his long hair, leather jacket and his sports car.

Hyde recorded officers using an obscenity, asking him if he had any cocaine in his car, and threatening to send him to jail.

Several days later, he brought the tape to police headquarters to try to prove he was harassed. Instead, police charged Hyde with unlawful wiretapping.

A jury took less than an hour to convict Hyde of breaking the electronic surveillance law. He was sentenced to six months of probation.

At Hyde's trial, police testified they pulled him over because of the loud revving of his car's engine, a noisy muffler and a broken license plate light.

The SJC rejected Hyde's argument that the law was not applicable because the police were performing their public duties and therefore had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

"We conclude that the Legislature intended (the law) strictly to prohibit all secret recordings by members of the public, including recordings of police officers or other public officials interacting with members of the public, when made without their permission or knowledge," Justice John M. Greaney wrote in the majority opinion.

Chief Justice Margaret Marshall and Justice Robert Cordy used the famous videotape of the Rodney King police beating in Los Angeles as an example of a recording that would have been prohibited under Massachusetts law.

Marshall said the purpose of the law was not to shield public officials from exposure of their wrongdoings.

"In our Republic, the actions of public officials taken in their public capacities are not protected from exposure. Citizens have a particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue is that of the police," Marshall wrote.

Marshall also said the ruling threatens the ability of the media to do their job.

Hyde's lawyer, Peter Onek, had argued that police officers, acting in their official capacity, are not afforded the same protections from electronic surveillance as private citizens.

"We are very disappointed," Onek said Friday. "We think the decision is wrong and that the dissenting decision is right on target."

Onek said Hyde may take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Prosecutor Robert Thompson said the language of the law explicitly protects the privacy rights of all individuals, whether they are private citizens or police officers.

"How the dissent can suggest that police officers are no longer citizens is a little bit problematic to me," Thompson said.

David Yas, publisher of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, said the wiretapping law was established to protect citizens against government oppression.

"The preamble to the law said electronic devices are a danger to the privacy of all citizens. This case turns that notion on its head because here we had an individual trying to protect himself from a misdeed on the part of public officials and he's the one who ends up being arrested for it and prosecuted," Yas said.

Rights, Responsibilities, and Communitarianism

Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D.:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...

Thomas Jefferson, "The Declaration of Independence," 1776

Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now [i.e. under a State religion 1]. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as medicine, the potato as an article of food.

Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia," 1784

A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded....Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes.

Abraham Lincoln

ometimes so many people seem to be screaming about their rights, while neglecting to answer to their responsibilities, that many of us may become completely disgusted with the whole discourse of "rights." A whole movement exists, billing itself as "Communitarianism," that promotes an effort to restore the notion of responsibility and to establish a balance both between rights and responsibilities and between individuality and community. There has actually been talk of building a "Statue of Responsibility" on the West Coast as the counterpart of the Statue of Liberty in New York harbor. The movement is spearheaded by sociology professors Robert Bellah, in Habits of the Heart, and Amitai Etzioni, in The Spirit of Community. Their viewpoint is shared by many others, including historian Garry Wills; and it is reflected in the title of Hillary Clinton's book on the responsibilities of government in child rearing, It Takes a Village.

Communitarians, however, promote a certain view of rights and responsibilities that is quite different from that of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc. It is more in the tradition of G.W.F. Hegel, where the community, or the state, is more real than the individual and the individual who does not fit in with the social norms or the law is objectively irrational. Hegel has been regarded, justly, as the father of modern totalitarianism. How different these attitudes are comes out in the Communitarian treatment of things like seat-belt and motorcycle helmet laws. Etzioni would deny to the automobile or motorcycle rider the right to decide for themselves whether to wear seat-belts or motorcycle helmets because, if they are injured, the public is liable to end up paying for their injuries. Thus the riders have a duty to protect themselves in such a way as to not impose a burden on the public through their injuries.

This is interesting reasoning, for the denial of the right of choice about seat-belts and motorcycle helmets is really predicated on the concession of another right: that the injured riders have the right to be treated at public expense. The claim of that right is then used to deny the other [3]. The question is not even asked: do those who don't want to use seat-belts or motorcycle helmets really want their liberty curtailed for the privilege of their injuries being treated at public expense? Evidently they are not even asked. The consequence, then, is not that Communitarians want to balance rights and responsibilities; it is that they want to deny certain rights in favor of certain other ones, without asking whether that is the particular choice other people really want to make.
....
This also comes out in the Communitarian attitude towards the War on Drugs. Etzioni says that drugs cannot be legalized because the laws "communicate and symbolize those values that the community holds dear." Repealing the drug laws would send the message that "the community approves of people being in a drug-induced stupor." This is a common response from both Conservatives and Liberals; but it is not right. The proper role of the laws is to forbid and punish judicial wrongs (of negligence, violence, and fraud) and protect judicial rights (of person, property, and contract). The law should not be used to send any "messages," especially messages that reflect moralistic views of prudential virtues as imposed by the tyranny of the majority. The absence of drug laws does not mean that drug usage is endorsed or promoted. Frederic Bastiat addressed this issue in relation to socialism in his 1850 classic The Law:

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

Similarly, just because we disapprove of the government attempting to forbid imprudent or self-destructive behavior, this does not mean that we approve of that behavior.

The emphasis of the authors of American Independence and of the Constitution was clearly on the liberties of individuals, who were responsible for themselves, and not on the powers and liabilities of the community to be responsible for individuals. Their emphasis on Liberty contrasts with the typical emphasis of older societies, which was on Duty -- still the keynote even in a generally liberal thinker like Immanuel Kant. The Preamble of the Constitution thus says that it is intended to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." The Communitarian emphasis on positive responsibilities to others, rather than on the mere negative responsibility not to be a burden to others, thus sounds like a return to the traditional emphasis on Duty.

The Communitarian pitch to balance rights and responsibilities thus masks an attempt to shift the basic nature of rights and responsibilities from individuals to the community, i.e. to the state. They can always refer to the clause in the Preamble that says to "promote the general Welfare" -- regardless of whether particular individuals want their welfare promoted by the state, as it sees fit, or not. Unfortunately, the people who often do seem to be screaming about their rights all the time, seem mostly to want to have it both ways: to have the liberties of individualism and to impose liabilities on the community for the errors in judgment and action that they make [6]. What needs to be made clear to people is that they cannot have it both ways. The Communitarians, in turn, don't seem to understand that there is a choice: they would just as soon strip individuals of their liberties every time there is a conflict with communal power and liability.

Behind the Communitarian shift of power to the state is a certain distorted preference about what a "community" is: Communitarians distrust and dislike voluntary communities. Robert Bellah especially believes that the only true community is one created and controlled by democratic political power, which also happens to mean that of the largest political unit possible. To him, small units, whether voluntary associations or smaller units of government, do not represent enough of "the People" to properly represent the General Will (as Rousseau would have said) of the Community. This is an amazingly credulous, dangerous, and naive view of the benevolence of democracy and of large government. What it reveals is that Communitarians are not basically advocates of real community, but they are statists and collectivists who confuse their own benevolent intentions, if they were in power, with what such a government would be like operating under the incentives for corruption that are created in the sort of unrestrained and absolutist, indeed totalitarian, government that they desire.

No "community" worth the name is founded on anything other than voluntary association. An interesting example is the mediaeval Jewish community. Most Jews in the middle ages lived in countries with Christian or Moslem majorities and governments. No Jew could be forced to remain a Jew, because all that a gentile government needed was the slightest hit that a Jew wanted to convert to Christianity or Islam and it would use, literally, all means necessary to "rescue" that potential convert. Such governments also provided various incentives for conversion, including greater freedom and security and more moderate taxation. Nevertheless, not only did the Jewish community survive (though there were many conversions), but the community also assessed contributions from its members to take care of its own. Such contributions, then, could only be enforced by persuasion. But that was a very effective means of enforcement, since the Jewish community mostly succeeded in taking care of its less fortunate members. Certainly nobody else was going to.

It is particularly sad, then, when many people in the 20th century (including Jews) look at something like the mediaeval Jewish community and think that it is precisely the same thing to use the power of government to care for society in the same way. It is not the same thing, because the power of government means the police. As George Washington himself said: government is not reason; it is not persuasion; it is force -- like fire, a dangerous servant and a terrible master. Community, in short, is not the State. The Communitarians don't seem to realize, or perhaps they do, that trying to create a "community" by the threat of the police kicking down people's doors, to enforce the laws and taxes dictated by the "habits of the heart" of people like Robert Bellah, does not create a "community" but instead a police state and a prison for anyone who isn't 100% in tune with the crowd of demagogues returned by the latest election. Thus the columnist Alexander Cockburn, although himself a strange kind of civil liberties Leninist (not realizing that is a self-contradiction), aptly parodied the title of Hillary Clinton's book, It Takes a Village, as It Takes a Police State.

No, the "heart" works by love and persuasion, not by force, by a free and voluntary community, not by government; and the Communitarian view that small and voluntary associations won't do the right thing by the community really means that they don't trust what anyone will do until they themselves have the absolute power, in the name of the "People," to control society the way they see fit. Since what they also want to do is control private property and "redistribute" income, it should be clear that they are not new, non-partisan lovers of Community but really very old, very remorseless leftists who love power and hate capitalism in the very same ways that they have all this century [7].

Private Property in Peril

Newsroom: The Independent Institute: "Private Property in Peril
June 27, 2005
William J. Watkins Jr.

Property owners beware. If an owner does not make maximum productive use of his property, government is now empowered to transfer the property to another person. This is the essence of the Supreme Court’s ruling last week in Kelo v. City of New London (No. 04-108).

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution only permits government to take property for “public use” upon paying “just compensation” to the owner. Via the Kelo decision, the Court has deleted the words “public use” from the Bill of Rights and made property ownership less secure."

Underage Drinking Laws Put Young People in Jeopardy

"Society can enforce the law in as draconian a manner as it pleases. The law will never stop underage drinking. But the law, enforced as Valparaiso police claim it is, will stop intoxicated individuals from seeking medical care if they make the mistake of drinking too much."

Watching the news tonight (something I try to avoid whenever possible) I caught a story about the evils of underaged drinking and how as graduation season nears, even parents are having to be careful that they don't break the law and actually buy alcohol and hold supervised parties for their graduating sons and daughters since we all know that alcohol before you turn 21 is listed in the Bible as one of the 7 deadly sins.

After you turn 21, on your 21st birthday even, you suddenly gain the knowledge to know how to drink responsibly since you are most likely away from home and no longer under your parents watchful supervision.

I'm not saying that all parents would supervise their children's forays into drinking. Or that all children experiment with it as soon as they turn 21. But I think that our attmosphere of "You can't do this" makes it more likely that a child will do it, most likely before they turn 21.