Hitler also failed to capitalize on nuclear weapons. Germany had the materials and the brainpower to construct one. As a matter of fact, the allies staged a number of spec ops to destroy German held assets, including a heavy water plant.
Let's be glad that Hitler was rather conservative with weapons technology research and use. He could have used chemical weapons too, which would have made WWII much, much more gruesome. He forbid their use because he got gassed himself in WWI, and wasn't keen on its use.
I can pack down a RedHat box as tight as any other distro. If you expect ANY OS to be default secure and don't make an effort to lock it down, you deserve to be cracked.
You're a damn fool if you install an OS on a box live on the network. Install the OS off the network, secure it, then put it on the network.
You're also a damn fool if you run public services that aren't nice and cozy between two firewalls in a DMZ. You can't stop all attacks, but you don't have to spread your legs and beg for one either.
Well, in all fairness, MacArthur would have started bloody WWIII. Remember that the USSR and China were still cozy, and those were RUSSIAN pilots in those MiGs over the Yalu. MacArthur wanted to lob a couple nukes at the Chinese, which surely would have started Armeggeddon.
IMHO, Truman was right to fire him. He was violating the subordination of the military to the civil elected government, and was rightfully slapped down for it.
Derek
The project was launched on a converted Russian ICBM. The fact that the rocket failed is SOME good news at least - maybe all those nukes would just fall into the arctic instead of turning North America into the world's second largest (second after Eurasia, of course, in such a scenario) glass bowl.;P
Har! That's pretty good. How about when you lease a dedicated Linux web server to some schmuck, who calls wondering why it won't work. Maybe because you rm'd everything in/var you idiot! Apache ist kaput!
There's enough deuterium in the top inch of Lake Erie to power the entire planet for a year.
I'd say its damn near perpetual enough.
Also, the moon is rich in an isotope that is ideal for fusion power. I read several years ago that the Japanese kicked around the idea of the possibility of mining the moon for fusion fuel in the future. I'm feeling too lazy right now to look it up for you. But basically, fusion is potentially a source of nearly unlimited, clean, failure proof safe, energy. Its the Holy Grail of energy production. And we've been damn close to realizing it for decades. It's been demonstrated feasible, but now its the engineering problems of getting it economically feasible (ie produce more power than it takes in).
How old are you? Obviously not old enough to remember a time very recently when one would go to bed wondering if they would wake up in the morning, or be vaporized by a hydrogen bomb in their sleep.
It is amazing to me that anyone would object to a military system which has as its sole purpose DEFENSE. The peaceniks used to protest and moan about MAD, now they protest and moan about a doctrine that is solely defensive in a world where MAD is no longer even relevant.
Its a different world. The Cold War doctrines are obsolete. The ABM treaty is moot, all parties know it. The Russians don't really care, they just want a bargaining position to get the US to recognize a Russian sphere of control in the former Soviet states. The Chinese only care because a missile defense system nullifies their 20 year buildup of surface to surface missiles meant to be used on Taiwan. The Chinese nuclear deterrent is a non-issue, they DON'T HAVE a deterrent because relatively speaking, we would obliterate them while they would only give us a bloody nose.
Bush has offered to extend the technology to all our allies, and even partner with Russia on it. This is technology that benefits everyone, except those who would use weapons of mass destruction as an international aggressor.
That's funny. A high school buddy's relatives lived practically right next door to the plant. You can look out their picture window and see the dome across the river.
They're about as healthy as you can get today. No mutated dandelions or cows or killer tomatos in their garden.
Three Mile Island was harmless, and I seriously question the validity of any of the claims on that website. There was no significant release of radiation, let alone enough to cause such massive deformities.
The "widespread fallout" from a (improbable) cracked plutonium case would give you the radioactive exposure of a good day at the beach. This is scare mongering. Plutonium can kill you, yes. But the plutonium used in spacecraft is encased and is not ingestible. A case can crack, the plutonium pellets can scatter, and the plutonium would not get into the air let alone the water.
Global warming is a natural process. The only concensus among scientists is that warming is occurring. No one believes the worst case scenario of a 5 degree C change will happen. What IS controversial, is whether humans are responsible. The science on that point, is highly debatable. Most of the warming of the past century occurred before 1940. The ground based readings are questionable because of the rapid urbanization of the northern hemisphere coupled with the heat island effect. Many of the ground based stations which used to be in rural areas are now surrounded in sprawl. Meanwhile, balloon and satellite observations of the upper atmosphere point to tropospheric *cooling* which runs counter to the predictions of the models. Fact is, we don't know nearly enough. But we only hear from politicians and special interests who don't have the responsibility of the majority of scientists who know enough to keep their mouths shut until the burden of proof justifies otherwise. We only hear from the same scare mongers who said in the 1980's that we were in for an imminent ICE AGE, both in the private and public sector.
Here's just one of many who are raising real questions.
The IPCC report is a sham. The scientific conclusions were ALTERED to match the political conclusions. This is a fact, which caused much crying of foul in the scientific community. "Nature" was caught in a hamstring over the scientific integrity of the report was questioned. Specifically, sections of the report which clearly stated that the models were imperfect and could not with any certainty predict future climate events were REMOVED from the report.
The current climate models are not even predictive - they can not even recreate past climate events, let alone predict future ones.
As to the report put in front of G. Bush, its an even bigger fraud. The scientists who signed the report DID NOT WRITE IT. It was written by functionaries. Several of the signees were global warming sceptics, who do not support anthropogenic climate change hypotheses.
Simple ideas for simpletons. Too bad climate isn't so neato simple. The population of the sub continent of India EXHALES more CO2 than the US expels in burning fossil fuels. Shall we nuke India, with the added benefit of a mini nuclear winter? That should do wonders for cutting the whole 2-5% of global CO2 emissions that humans are accountable for.
Did you know CO2 has been building up in the atmosphere for the past 150,000 years? And we're still far below the level of atmospheric CO2 that was present in past signifigant warm events. From ice core studies, the evidence points to warming occurring BEFORE CO2 rises, not AFTER. The planet is warming, big deal. It was warmer in 1100AD than it is today. That corresponds, by the way, to an explosion of agriculture worldwide. Including in the Southwest US. Global warming is a natural process. Get over it. We'd have to cut CO2 emmissions to 18th century levels to even DENT the computer models. And for what? Questionable conclusions that humans are warming the planet? No thanks.
Good advice. But for God's sake, stay away from tech sup and help desk!
HR people see tech sup or help desk and their eyes glaze over. It doesn't matter what other experience or knowledge you have, it seems tech sup kills resumes.
Yeah, thank GOD for my severence. Im still riding on it, because my current job doesn't cover the bills. It was an absolute bloodbath. Right before I was laid off, I was saying how I was glad I was in the profitable part of the company, instead of the poor MCI guys who got axed. Ouch.
Bull. I was laid off from UUNET, a network analyst. There were THOUSANDS more under the MCI/Worldcom umbrella. Here in Houston, Compaq laid off 2000+. Dell cut to the bone in Austin. The list goes on. These are not HTML For Dummies.
Oh..My..God.
Does anyone really take that hippie trash seriously? Leavers and takers indeed. Only a simpleton would think that book has deep insight into human nature.
Why don't you read some good primatology research if you want some insight into human nature? Jane Goodal, et al? You know, REAL apes, not ridiculous talking gorillas.
Derek
AH! An intelligent post! Collusion is a valid reason to be pissed!
Frankly, I resent not being able to get "Once Upon a Time in the West" when it is available, in Italy. Of course I could buy it, but I couldn't use it without messing with my DVD player's regioning. That makes me marginally postal.
Well, Im glad they're teaching you Mercantalism in high school. And Im glad you found Malthus such great reading. Only another 200 years worth of reading to do, and you'll catch up to modern economics.
Resources are finite and static (for the most part) but human methods of exploiting them are not. You fail to factor in advances in human resource use efficiency, which has been improving for a whole, oh, 150,000 years.
You made the assertion, the burden of proof lies on you. If you wish to be intellectually lazy, fine. But don't expect others to not call you on it.
All existing unions (the handful in the US which monopolize unionized labor) in the US are monopolistic. Your statement belies a lack of experience with unions, and the effects of crossing a picket - even if you are non-union.
Now, tell me. What is greed? At what point does self interest become greed? Dictionary.com throws out this handy definition:
greed:An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth
What is excessive? What is the limits of one's needs or desert? How do we quantify greed, so that we may be able to tell when self interest becomes evil? Well, what does one "need" as a baseline?
1. rent - $500/mo
2. vehicle - $250/m0
3. ins - 150/mo
4. food - 150/mo
5. utilities - 100/mo
6. gas - 60/mo
7. total = 1210/mo - adjust for regional col
14520/yr.
So, anything over $14 grand a year is pure greed, adjusted for taxation and regional cost of living, of course. Add extra for children. One certainly doesn't need any more than housing, food, a new vehicle and electricity and water. Anything more than minimal social fair share and you're maximizing your wages at the cost of your fellow workers. After all, your surplus wages could do so much more for those less fortunate, who don't make their minimal share, right? That is social justice. But I hear you objecting already.
Is a CEO who makes millions of dollars a year, for successfully managing a company with a budget measured in billions and a payroll measured in tens of thousands, getting more than he deserves? Is it more than he needs? Surely more than he needs. But then again, as I have attempted to show above, need is a relative term. And a very bad metric for judging others, because there is ALWAYS someone worse off than you.
Am I greedy, because I make more than a dishwasher? Is the dishwasher greedy, because he has everything he needs, but desires to make as much as I do?
Where is your quantification of Greed? You'll find it to be an indefensible position.
Slashdot Mirror
Hitler also failed to capitalize on nuclear weapons. Germany had the materials and the brainpower to construct one. As a matter of fact, the allies staged a number of spec ops to destroy German held assets, including a heavy water plant.
Let's be glad that Hitler was rather conservative with weapons technology research and use. He could have used chemical weapons too, which would have made WWII much, much more gruesome. He forbid their use because he got gassed himself in WWI, and wasn't keen on its use.
Derek
I can pack down a RedHat box as tight as any other distro. If you expect ANY OS to be default secure and don't make an effort to lock it down, you deserve to be cracked.
Derek
You're a damn fool if you install an OS on a box live on the network. Install the OS off the network, secure it, then put it on the network.
You're also a damn fool if you run public services that aren't nice and cozy between two firewalls in a DMZ. You can't stop all attacks, but you don't have to spread your legs and beg for one either.
Derek
Well, in all fairness, MacArthur would have started bloody WWIII. Remember that the USSR and China were still cozy, and those were RUSSIAN pilots in those MiGs over the Yalu. MacArthur wanted to lob a couple nukes at the Chinese, which surely would have started Armeggeddon. IMHO, Truman was right to fire him. He was violating the subordination of the military to the civil elected government, and was rightfully slapped down for it. Derek
The project was launched on a converted Russian ICBM. The fact that the rocket failed is SOME good news at least - maybe all those nukes would just fall into the arctic instead of turning North America into the world's second largest (second after Eurasia, of course, in such a scenario) glass bowl. ;P
Derek
Har! That's pretty good. How about when you lease a dedicated Linux web server to some schmuck, who calls wondering why it won't work. Maybe because you rm'd everything in /var you idiot! Apache ist kaput!
There's enough deuterium in the top inch of Lake Erie to power the entire planet for a year.
I'd say its damn near perpetual enough.
Also, the moon is rich in an isotope that is ideal for fusion power. I read several years ago that the Japanese kicked around the idea of the possibility of mining the moon for fusion fuel in the future. I'm feeling too lazy right now to look it up for you. But basically, fusion is potentially a source of nearly unlimited, clean, failure proof safe, energy. Its the Holy Grail of energy production. And we've been damn close to realizing it for decades. It's been demonstrated feasible, but now its the engineering problems of getting it economically feasible (ie produce more power than it takes in).
Derek
How old are you? Obviously not old enough to remember a time very recently when one would go to bed wondering if they would wake up in the morning, or be vaporized by a hydrogen bomb in their sleep.
It is amazing to me that anyone would object to a military system which has as its sole purpose DEFENSE. The peaceniks used to protest and moan about MAD, now they protest and moan about a doctrine that is solely defensive in a world where MAD is no longer even relevant.
Its a different world. The Cold War doctrines are obsolete. The ABM treaty is moot, all parties know it. The Russians don't really care, they just want a bargaining position to get the US to recognize a Russian sphere of control in the former Soviet states. The Chinese only care because a missile defense system nullifies their 20 year buildup of surface to surface missiles meant to be used on Taiwan. The Chinese nuclear deterrent is a non-issue, they DON'T HAVE a deterrent because relatively speaking, we would obliterate them while they would only give us a bloody nose.
Bush has offered to extend the technology to all our allies, and even partner with Russia on it. This is technology that benefits everyone, except those who would use weapons of mass destruction as an international aggressor.
Derek
Who the fsck cares how you pronounce nuclear? Do you understand what they are saying? THEN WHO CARES!
Sorry, pet peeve.
Derek
That's funny. A high school buddy's relatives lived practically right next door to the plant. You can look out their picture window and see the dome across the river.
They're about as healthy as you can get today. No mutated dandelions or cows or killer tomatos in their garden.
Three Mile Island was harmless, and I seriously question the validity of any of the claims on that website. There was no significant release of radiation, let alone enough to cause such massive deformities.
Derek
The "widespread fallout" from a (improbable) cracked plutonium case would give you the radioactive exposure of a good day at the beach. This is scare mongering. Plutonium can kill you, yes. But the plutonium used in spacecraft is encased and is not ingestible. A case can crack, the plutonium pellets can scatter, and the plutonium would not get into the air let alone the water.
Derek
Global warming is a natural process. The only concensus among scientists is that warming is occurring. No one believes the worst case scenario of a 5 degree C change will happen. What IS controversial, is whether humans are responsible. The science on that point, is highly debatable. Most of the warming of the past century occurred before 1940. The ground based readings are questionable because of the rapid urbanization of the northern hemisphere coupled with the heat island effect. Many of the ground based stations which used to be in rural areas are now surrounded in sprawl. Meanwhile, balloon and satellite observations of the upper atmosphere point to tropospheric *cooling* which runs counter to the predictions of the models. Fact is, we don't know nearly enough. But we only hear from politicians and special interests who don't have the responsibility of the majority of scientists who know enough to keep their mouths shut until the burden of proof justifies otherwise. We only hear from the same scare mongers who said in the 1980's that we were in for an imminent ICE AGE, both in the private and public sector.
h tm
Here's just one of many who are raising real questions.
http://www.osu.edu/researchnews/archive/nowarm.
Derek
The IPCC report is a sham. The scientific conclusions were ALTERED to match the political conclusions. This is a fact, which caused much crying of foul in the scientific community. "Nature" was caught in a hamstring over the scientific integrity of the report was questioned. Specifically, sections of the report which clearly stated that the models were imperfect and could not with any certainty predict future climate events were REMOVED from the report.
The current climate models are not even predictive - they can not even recreate past climate events, let alone predict future ones.
As to the report put in front of G. Bush, its an even bigger fraud. The scientists who signed the report DID NOT WRITE IT. It was written by functionaries. Several of the signees were global warming sceptics, who do not support anthropogenic climate change hypotheses.
Derek
Simple ideas for simpletons. Too bad climate isn't so neato simple. The population of the sub continent of India EXHALES more CO2 than the US expels in burning fossil fuels. Shall we nuke India, with the added benefit of a mini nuclear winter? That should do wonders for cutting the whole 2-5% of global CO2 emissions that humans are accountable for.
Did you know CO2 has been building up in the atmosphere for the past 150,000 years? And we're still far below the level of atmospheric CO2 that was present in past signifigant warm events. From ice core studies, the evidence points to warming occurring BEFORE CO2 rises, not AFTER. The planet is warming, big deal. It was warmer in 1100AD than it is today. That corresponds, by the way, to an explosion of agriculture worldwide. Including in the Southwest US. Global warming is a natural process. Get over it. We'd have to cut CO2 emmissions to 18th century levels to even DENT the computer models. And for what? Questionable conclusions that humans are warming the planet? No thanks.
Derek
Debian users seem pretty herd-ish to me... Derek
Good advice. But for God's sake, stay away from tech sup and help desk!
HR people see tech sup or help desk and their eyes glaze over. It doesn't matter what other experience or knowledge you have, it seems tech sup kills resumes.
Derek
Yeah, thank GOD for my severence. Im still riding on it, because my current job doesn't cover the bills. It was an absolute bloodbath. Right before I was laid off, I was saying how I was glad I was in the profitable part of the company, instead of the poor MCI guys who got axed. Ouch.
Derek
Bull. I was laid off from UUNET, a network analyst. There were THOUSANDS more under the MCI/Worldcom umbrella. Here in Houston, Compaq laid off 2000+. Dell cut to the bone in Austin. The list goes on. These are not HTML For Dummies.
The IT industry had a meltdown, across the board.
Derek
Oh..My..God. Does anyone really take that hippie trash seriously? Leavers and takers indeed. Only a simpleton would think that book has deep insight into human nature. Why don't you read some good primatology research if you want some insight into human nature? Jane Goodal, et al? You know, REAL apes, not ridiculous talking gorillas. Derek
Are you postulating a "right" to DVD's?
Derek
AH! An intelligent post! Collusion is a valid reason to be pissed!
Frankly, I resent not being able to get "Once Upon a Time in the West" when it is available, in Italy. Of course I could buy it, but I couldn't use it without messing with my DVD player's regioning. That makes me marginally postal.
Derek
Umm, no. One of the factors that lead to the great depression in the 30's was having a Federal Reserve Board that screwed up. Derek
Well, Im glad they're teaching you Mercantalism in high school. And Im glad you found Malthus such great reading. Only another 200 years worth of reading to do, and you'll catch up to modern economics.
Resources are finite and static (for the most part) but human methods of exploiting them are not. You fail to factor in advances in human resource use efficiency, which has been improving for a whole, oh, 150,000 years.
I don't buy your Neo-pastoralism.
Derek
You made the assertion, the burden of proof lies on you. If you wish to be intellectually lazy, fine. But don't expect others to not call you on it.
All existing unions (the handful in the US which monopolize unionized labor) in the US are monopolistic. Your statement belies a lack of experience with unions, and the effects of crossing a picket - even if you are non-union.
Now, tell me. What is greed? At what point does self interest become greed? Dictionary.com throws out this handy definition:
greed:An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth
What is excessive? What is the limits of one's needs or desert? How do we quantify greed, so that we may be able to tell when self interest becomes evil? Well, what does one "need" as a baseline?
1. rent - $500/mo
2. vehicle - $250/m0
3. ins - 150/mo
4. food - 150/mo
5. utilities - 100/mo
6. gas - 60/mo
7. total = 1210/mo - adjust for regional col
14520/yr.
So, anything over $14 grand a year is pure greed, adjusted for taxation and regional cost of living, of course. Add extra for children. One certainly doesn't need any more than housing, food, a new vehicle and electricity and water. Anything more than minimal social fair share and you're maximizing your wages at the cost of your fellow workers. After all, your surplus wages could do so much more for those less fortunate, who don't make their minimal share, right? That is social justice. But I hear you objecting already.
Is a CEO who makes millions of dollars a year, for successfully managing a company with a budget measured in billions and a payroll measured in tens of thousands, getting more than he deserves? Is it more than he needs? Surely more than he needs. But then again, as I have attempted to show above, need is a relative term. And a very bad metric for judging others, because there is ALWAYS someone worse off than you.
Am I greedy, because I make more than a dishwasher? Is the dishwasher greedy, because he has everything he needs, but desires to make as much as I do?
Where is your quantification of Greed? You'll find it to be an indefensible position.
Derek
Its not my fault you can't pick up an economics book. Ignorance is bliss, no?
Derek