This is great... a new case has shown that even the *courts* feel that Google is an essential information-gathering tool. The plaintiff for the Munster v. Groce case in Indiana was ruled to have not exercised due diligence in locating a missing defendant because a Google search turned up some incredibly relevant evidence.
Thursday, June 23
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
The Geek Code desperately needs updating, but in any case here's mine (as of 2010-02-28):
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
GIT/MU d+(-) s:+>: a C++> ULXB++++$ L+++ M++ w--() !O !V P+ E---
W+++ N o++ K? PS PE++ Y+ PGP t !5 X- R- tv+@ b++ DI++++ D--- e*++
h--- r+++ y+++ G+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
If you really care about knowing what that all means, you either know the code already, or you can get it decoded for you here.