Uhhhmm - I need some perspective. You are European, or American? Or, possibly standing on the outside looking in?
Windows is simply unnecessary. I only run it in virtual machines, mostly for the fun of it, and to test stuff. I don't "need" it. It's trash, considering that it's the only OS to be consistently eaten up by virus, worms, trojans, etc.
Yeah, before you jump on that, I know that every operating system has it's bugs. Bug, Windows IS A BUG!!
Clueless, huh? Windows NT can connect to the intertubes at the same speed as Win7, or any other operating system. Fire up a virtual machine and test it out, huh?
Non-authorized machines? What is that, exactly? If I sell a machine, the customer wants Windows, I install it from an OEM disk that I legally paid for, what's the deal?
Or, are you referring to those people who use the same OEM disk to install on dozens or hundreds of machines?
That's the only smart thing to do. Why pay exorbitant prices for a shoddy operating system? Switch to something stable, like Debian. Some of the finest cities in Europe are already doing so, as noted in another/. article yesterday.
Hell, I live in the US, and I don't want to pay for Windows!!
Paying artists is alright. Cut out the parasitic middlemen though. The artist can't expect me to pay fifteen middlemen just to hear his song, which I may or may not like. Stop signing those moronic contracts that give the parasites the right to suck the blood out of the industry.
Ahhhh, but - you seem to be makng an assumption here. That being, that the United States has the best infrastructure. Scroll up to Yvan256's post. In Europe, people living out in the countryside have internet connections that rival what we can boast in our population centers. From what I've read and understand, only Japan can rival Europe's infrastructure. The US is being left further and further behind, primarily because we like our monopolistic corporations to concentrate their resources in the largest population centers.
So, rdnetto, we have that in common. We are both at the mercy of the people with the money.
"So, we must accept that the best (most scientifically rigorous) argument has the most convincing power, and thus has a higher likelihood of being correct. Obviously this is somewhat flawed, but there really is no better method of short-term discrimination between a good fit with the truth, and pure mumbo-jumbo."
You will admit that the very concept of global warming is an emotional issue. Relying on the most "convincing" argument in this case, means taking the most emotionally convincing arguments as true. This consensus you speak of has taken full advantage of that emotional baggage. More, they have had no compunctions with making emotional appeals to the general population for funding, and for making political change.
Science? Decades from now, scientists are going to look back at today's alarmists, and laugh their butts off.
Look at how emotionally charged arguments about global warming get right here on slashdot. The "scientists" amongst us can't point to any clear, convincing evidence, and say that they have demonstrated this action caused that result, and that action caused another result. It's all guess work, based on computer models. There is a presumption that those computer models have taken all variables properly into account.
Once again, I'll compare mankind's current reaction to global warming to religion. Believe, or be branded a heretic.
"This is an inchoate rant to support your POLITICAL opinions."
Correct me if I'm wrong - but hasn't global warming become a political issue? And, aren't politicians and political groups actively trying to muzzle and discredit any scientist who disagrees with their political agenda?
The whole thing smells strongly of the Catholic church's inquisition.
"Heresy, I say!! Burn him at the stake!" "But, sir, we don't burn people at the stake anymore - human right's activists get all upset when we try to do that." "Fine, then burn him in effigy, and destroy his career, along with any credibility he may have enjoyed. Burn the heretic!!"
You left out the word "model" somewhere in there. As has already been pointed out, the bulk of "experimental evidence" comes from computer models. Would you have all of us to believe that somewhere, someone has actually programmed a complete model which takes into account ALL PARAMETERS of heat absorption and circulation, and that none of those parameters are subject to the programmer's assumptions?
In short, some group of programmers had god-like knowledge and understanding, and based their model on that knowledge and understanding?
I hardly think so.
Most of us want to hear of, and see, the results of genuine experiments, rather than taking the results of computer models as an act of faith. My faith in God is assaulted daily. Don't ask me to lay aside one faith, and adopt another. It isn't happening.
"There are perhaps two main lessons to be drawn from Munich's experience. The first one is that such a large-scale migration requires careful analysis and planning, as well as a clearly defined goal. It bears repeating that in Munich this goal is the strategic independence from software suppliers. Lower IT costs are a welcome side-effect, but autonomy is more important."
I don't believe that anyone in the Linux world has ever suggested that migrating to Linux is completely "free", or even that it saves money in the short term. It most definitely saves tons of money in the long run. To suggest otherwise amounts to FUD.
Well, allow me to address that "design philosophy".
Computers, first. GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out. Meaning, of course, no computer can give results that are any better than it's design parameters, it's programming, and it's data input. If there is a weak link anywhere, it amounts to garbage going in, so you can only expect garbage to come out. Computers are unable to "learn" in the fashion that human minds learn, they rely on the three criteria already mentioned. They can never exceed some "x" level of proficiency, or "y" level of of response.
Man, second. Most men learn, daily, whether they mean to or not. Even the dullest of individuals manage to learn how to be more dull as they age and mature, it seems. An individual with a will to learn continues learning long after an observer thinks that he "knows it all". That goes for craftsmen, technicians, and most other disciplines.
A man in control of an aircraft (or anything else) for thousands and thousands of hours must respond to so many stimuli, that it is impossible to quantify them. Time and time again, that man is relearning old skills, and on occasion learning to recognize some unique combination of events and stimuli. A lifetime of piloting (or even driving) teaches the pilot to expect the unexpected.
Oh, wait. "The unexpected". The computer again, alright? The computer has been programmed to face every single event that it's programmers ever "expected" that it might face.
Am I the only one who sees a bit of a conflict here? The computer cannot be programmed to deal with the unexpected - however, a sentient mind might be expected to cope with something just beyond the range of it's training and experience.
Yes, I hear the objections already. People died in aircraft crashes before the computer that would fit aboard an aircraft was ever built. Yes, of course. People die as a result of human error.
All the same, I'll trust human reaction ahead of computerized flight, any day. No matter how much a daredevil he might be at heart, I know that the bush pilot with the roughest edges really wants to get back home again. The computer has no motivation to see it's children, or to practice making children. The computer will only ever do what it has been programmed to do, and if that means everyone aboard dies, well, so be it.
"but who is good at giving presentations and presenting the science in a way that is easy for non-scientists to understand."
Look at Al's charts again. They purport to present a "cause and effect" relationship between CO2 and temperature increases. Unfortunately, the supposed causes and effects are shown to be bass-ackwards on the very chart he is photographed (filmed, actually) with. Scientist or not, you have to be very stupid to miss it after being informed of it.
The rest of your post, Ham, sounds pretty reasoned and reasonable - except that I think you still have cause and effect out of kilter. I've read plenty of articles and reports that seem to suggest the temperature increases first, then the CO2 goes up. Warmer water holds less CO2, right?
And, you think that you'll convince me that your view is right, by talking to me like an ass? Sorry, that doesn't work either.
Consensus. Another word for collectivism, which is yet another word for communism, from which we took "politically correct".
Give me a freaking break. You don't speak like a scientist any more than I do. Nor do you speak for scientists, or even for this "consensus". If I can show you that North Dakota was a steaming rain forest ages ago, do you suppose that you MIGHT question this "consensus" that man has caused the world to warm? I don't even ask that you reject this collectivist reasoning, just that you question it.
All of the little Al Gore wannabe critters taken together can't prove that man caused global warming, nor can the heretics prove that man has NOT caused global warming. But, anyone with the least bit of intelligence can clearly see that warming and cooling has happened time and time again on the earth. It takes an IQ of about 30 to figure out that it would be happening with, or without, humans on the earth.
Did we contribute to accelerating the latest round of warming? You'll never know. You just accept it on faith. And, call me a jerk because I don't share your faith.
Fuck you, asshole. And, fuck every religious zealot in history who saw the nonbeliever as an asshole.
I have a great idea. Pull your lower lip over your head, then swallow. That may not save the earth, but it will save reasonable men and women from listening to your mindless prattling.
The ordinary view? WTF is THAT supposed to mean? Is it something like "consensus"?
FYI, very few real scientists have accepted some "ordinary view" or "consensus". You may go back as far as you like in history. Those individuals who discovered valuable and meaningful knowledge were generally frowned upon for challenging the "ordinary view".
Try Webster's or the Oxford dictionaries. Look up "scientific method", and "science". You'll find nothing in there about "ordinary view" or "consensus".
And, yes. I insist that today's generation is indeed subscribing to a new religion, generally accepted on nothing more than faith. There is over fucking whelming evidence that global warming and global cooling has happened repeatedly, both historically and prehistorically. Wild fluctuations that have gone above and below the extremes in which life "as we know it" might be supported.
The earth is warming. Evolution is at work. Adapt, or die. And, in the end, no one will give a shit which you do. Except maybe your grandchildren, however many generations removed.
The only good thing to come of the global warming alarm, is the growing attitude that we really shouldn't be polluting the earth. Man has been like a pig for the last couple hundred years - shitting in the drinking water, dumping garbage in the backyard, etc ad nauseum. Cleaning up our act can only be a good thing. But, don't expect that to cool the earth off. And, don't expect me to pay homage to the global warming gods, like Al Gore. They are all full of shit.
Uhhhmm, removing the female brain from the female body precludes the nooclear monthly. Or, is that the monthly nooclear? Whatever - no hormones, no nookie.
On target, gandhi. Global warming is nothing more than the religion of the 21st century. Either you are a believer, or you are a blasphemer. By definition, a blasphemer is NOT qualified to have an opinion. To make things clear, I am a blasphemer, and I think that Al Gore goes down on little children and baby goats.
"Duh" to bit-torrent"? What exactly is the difference between direct access, and bit torrent, assuming that my bandwidth is being used to capacity? The protocol maks little difference, it's the bandwidth. On a GOOD day, I will see 42 to 44 Kbs downspeed. Most days, the speed will vary from 30 to 36. On a bad day, 4 browsers on the line at the same time have problems navigating the web.
You may not be aware that "average" in New York City, and "average" in Backwoods Nowhere are entirely two different animals. It takes me DAYS to download a 4 GB ISO. Seriously, I wouldn't bullshit you. I use Firestarter firewall, and set it to shape traffice, giving priority to interactive (browsing) traffic, so I'm only using about 85 to 90 % of my bandwidth for a download. On "average" it takes between 4 1/2 and 6 days to download a movie.
Now that you realize that not everyone has the bandwidth that you enjoy, you might do a little research, and find out what percentage of the US population enjoys "fast" internet. Or not. No research is required to stick your foot in your mouth again.;)
Odd. You make the point that copyright law is fubar'd. You quite reasonably point out that Jammie Thomas is probably guilty of something. We can agree that much. But, you seem to see little problem with Jammie, and people like her, being prosecuted under law that is fucked up beyond all recognition. Odd.
My attitude is, if the law is wrong, then no one can be guilty of violating that law.
If I may draw a parallel between the legal system, and the military?
A leader never issues an order that he knows will be disobeyed. The recent (two year old?) story about a transport captain who ordered a convoy, knowing full well that the convoy wouldn't follow orders, is more guilty than those individuals who refused the orders. He is an incompetent, and ineffective leader.
Here, we have an entire body of law that the entire world scoffs at.
Who is guilty? Jammie? I hardly think so. I say, fix the law, then chase the real criminals.
Oh. Wait. Many of the real criminals wear suits, and prop their feet up on desks in penthouse offices. That wouldn't work, would it?
Let's ask one of the biggest computer buyers in the world if they are being forced to use IBM mainframes, or, if maybe they have satisfactory and competitive alternatives.
Uhhh, correct me if I'm wrong. I've been looking at after market bolt on parts for my car. The headers claim increase fuel mileage, the spark plugs, the air filter, the tires, as does a turbocharger. The glass pack mufflers, and the resonator. Oh yeah, the aerodynamic rims, the hood, and spoiler. Don't forget the carbon fiber body panels. Taken all together, those increased MPG's add up to about 150 MPG. You're saying I may not see that much improvement on my 1968 Chevy Malibu? It's just hype? Man - you just saved me about $5,000!!!
"In a secure environment, with no one looking over my shoulder"
I don't need to be looking over your shoulder. My boys didn't get the keylogger installed on your keyboard quickly enough, but they DID manage to get that wireless camera working. Everything your screen shows is being recorded now.
Secure environment? As soon as people assume that any environment is secure, that person becomes a security risk. He has an attitude problem, regarding security.
Jackson wasn't an icon of MY America. Frigging queer won't be missed by me. And, before some gay rights kook blasts me, look up the term queer. The word preceded any gay rights activists in the United States.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhhhmm - I need some perspective. You are European, or American? Or, possibly standing on the outside looking in?
Windows is simply unnecessary. I only run it in virtual machines, mostly for the fun of it, and to test stuff. I don't "need" it. It's trash, considering that it's the only OS to be consistently eaten up by virus, worms, trojans, etc.
Yeah, before you jump on that, I know that every operating system has it's bugs. Bug, Windows IS A BUG!!
Clueless, huh? Windows NT can connect to the intertubes at the same speed as Win7, or any other operating system. Fire up a virtual machine and test it out, huh?
Non-authorized machines? What is that, exactly? If I sell a machine, the customer wants Windows, I install it from an OEM disk that I legally paid for, what's the deal?
Or, are you referring to those people who use the same OEM disk to install on dozens or hundreds of machines?
That's the only smart thing to do. Why pay exorbitant prices for a shoddy operating system? Switch to something stable, like Debian. Some of the finest cities in Europe are already doing so, as noted in another /. article yesterday.
Hell, I live in the US, and I don't want to pay for Windows!!
Paying artists is alright. Cut out the parasitic middlemen though. The artist can't expect me to pay fifteen middlemen just to hear his song, which I may or may not like. Stop signing those moronic contracts that give the parasites the right to suck the blood out of the industry.
Ahhhh, but - you seem to be makng an assumption here. That being, that the United States has the best infrastructure. Scroll up to Yvan256's post. In Europe, people living out in the countryside have internet connections that rival what we can boast in our population centers. From what I've read and understand, only Japan can rival Europe's infrastructure. The US is being left further and further behind, primarily because we like our monopolistic corporations to concentrate their resources in the largest population centers.
So, rdnetto, we have that in common. We are both at the mercy of the people with the money.
"So, we must accept that the best (most scientifically rigorous) argument has the most convincing power, and thus has a higher likelihood of being correct. Obviously this is somewhat flawed, but there really is no better method of short-term discrimination between a good fit with the truth, and pure mumbo-jumbo."
You will admit that the very concept of global warming is an emotional issue. Relying on the most "convincing" argument in this case, means taking the most emotionally convincing arguments as true. This consensus you speak of has taken full advantage of that emotional baggage. More, they have had no compunctions with making emotional appeals to the general population for funding, and for making political change.
Science? Decades from now, scientists are going to look back at today's alarmists, and laugh their butts off.
Look at how emotionally charged arguments about global warming get right here on slashdot. The "scientists" amongst us can't point to any clear, convincing evidence, and say that they have demonstrated this action caused that result, and that action caused another result. It's all guess work, based on computer models. There is a presumption that those computer models have taken all variables properly into account.
Once again, I'll compare mankind's current reaction to global warming to religion. Believe, or be branded a heretic.
"This is an inchoate rant to support your POLITICAL opinions."
Correct me if I'm wrong - but hasn't global warming become a political issue? And, aren't politicians and political groups actively trying to muzzle and discredit any scientist who disagrees with their political agenda?
The whole thing smells strongly of the Catholic church's inquisition.
"Heresy, I say!! Burn him at the stake!"
"But, sir, we don't burn people at the stake anymore - human right's activists get all upset when we try to do that."
"Fine, then burn him in effigy, and destroy his career, along with any credibility he may have enjoyed. Burn the heretic!!"
You left out the word "model" somewhere in there. As has already been pointed out, the bulk of "experimental evidence" comes from computer models. Would you have all of us to believe that somewhere, someone has actually programmed a complete model which takes into account ALL PARAMETERS of heat absorption and circulation, and that none of those parameters are subject to the programmer's assumptions?
In short, some group of programmers had god-like knowledge and understanding, and based their model on that knowledge and understanding?
I hardly think so.
Most of us want to hear of, and see, the results of genuine experiments, rather than taking the results of computer models as an act of faith. My faith in God is assaulted daily. Don't ask me to lay aside one faith, and adopt another. It isn't happening.
Conclusions
"There are perhaps two main lessons to be drawn from Munich's experience. The first one is that such a large-scale migration requires careful analysis and planning, as well as a clearly defined goal. It bears repeating that in Munich this goal is the strategic independence from software suppliers. Lower IT costs are a welcome side-effect, but autonomy is more important."
I see no failure. I see people thinking outside the Microsoft box. People who are interested might actually read and understand. http://www.osor.eu/case_studies/declaration-of-independence-the-limux-project-in-munich#section-12
I don't believe that anyone in the Linux world has ever suggested that migrating to Linux is completely "free", or even that it saves money in the short term. It most definitely saves tons of money in the long run. To suggest otherwise amounts to FUD.
Well, allow me to address that "design philosophy".
Computers, first. GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out. Meaning, of course, no computer can give results that are any better than it's design parameters, it's programming, and it's data input. If there is a weak link anywhere, it amounts to garbage going in, so you can only expect garbage to come out. Computers are unable to "learn" in the fashion that human minds learn, they rely on the three criteria already mentioned. They can never exceed some "x" level of proficiency, or "y" level of of response.
Man, second. Most men learn, daily, whether they mean to or not. Even the dullest of individuals manage to learn how to be more dull as they age and mature, it seems. An individual with a will to learn continues learning long after an observer thinks that he "knows it all". That goes for craftsmen, technicians, and most other disciplines.
A man in control of an aircraft (or anything else) for thousands and thousands of hours must respond to so many stimuli, that it is impossible to quantify them. Time and time again, that man is relearning old skills, and on occasion learning to recognize some unique combination of events and stimuli. A lifetime of piloting (or even driving) teaches the pilot to expect the unexpected.
Oh, wait. "The unexpected". The computer again, alright? The computer has been programmed to face every single event that it's programmers ever "expected" that it might face.
Am I the only one who sees a bit of a conflict here? The computer cannot be programmed to deal with the unexpected - however, a sentient mind might be expected to cope with something just beyond the range of it's training and experience.
Yes, I hear the objections already. People died in aircraft crashes before the computer that would fit aboard an aircraft was ever built. Yes, of course. People die as a result of human error.
All the same, I'll trust human reaction ahead of computerized flight, any day. No matter how much a daredevil he might be at heart, I know that the bush pilot with the roughest edges really wants to get back home again. The computer has no motivation to see it's children, or to practice making children. The computer will only ever do what it has been programmed to do, and if that means everyone aboard dies, well, so be it.
"but who is good at giving presentations and presenting the science in a way that is easy for non-scientists to understand."
Look at Al's charts again. They purport to present a "cause and effect" relationship between CO2 and temperature increases. Unfortunately, the supposed causes and effects are shown to be bass-ackwards on the very chart he is photographed (filmed, actually) with. Scientist or not, you have to be very stupid to miss it after being informed of it.
The rest of your post, Ham, sounds pretty reasoned and reasonable - except that I think you still have cause and effect out of kilter. I've read plenty of articles and reports that seem to suggest the temperature increases first, then the CO2 goes up. Warmer water holds less CO2, right?
And, you think that you'll convince me that your view is right, by talking to me like an ass? Sorry, that doesn't work either.
Consensus. Another word for collectivism, which is yet another word for communism, from which we took "politically correct".
Give me a freaking break. You don't speak like a scientist any more than I do. Nor do you speak for scientists, or even for this "consensus". If I can show you that North Dakota was a steaming rain forest ages ago, do you suppose that you MIGHT question this "consensus" that man has caused the world to warm? I don't even ask that you reject this collectivist reasoning, just that you question it.
All of the little Al Gore wannabe critters taken together can't prove that man caused global warming, nor can the heretics prove that man has NOT caused global warming. But, anyone with the least bit of intelligence can clearly see that warming and cooling has happened time and time again on the earth. It takes an IQ of about 30 to figure out that it would be happening with, or without, humans on the earth.
Did we contribute to accelerating the latest round of warming? You'll never know. You just accept it on faith. And, call me a jerk because I don't share your faith.
Fuck you, asshole. And, fuck every religious zealot in history who saw the nonbeliever as an asshole.
I have a great idea. Pull your lower lip over your head, then swallow. That may not save the earth, but it will save reasonable men and women from listening to your mindless prattling.
The ordinary view? WTF is THAT supposed to mean? Is it something like "consensus"?
FYI, very few real scientists have accepted some "ordinary view" or "consensus". You may go back as far as you like in history. Those individuals who discovered valuable and meaningful knowledge were generally frowned upon for challenging the "ordinary view".
Try Webster's or the Oxford dictionaries. Look up "scientific method", and "science". You'll find nothing in there about "ordinary view" or "consensus".
And, yes. I insist that today's generation is indeed subscribing to a new religion, generally accepted on nothing more than faith. There is over fucking whelming evidence that global warming and global cooling has happened repeatedly, both historically and prehistorically. Wild fluctuations that have gone above and below the extremes in which life "as we know it" might be supported.
The earth is warming. Evolution is at work. Adapt, or die. And, in the end, no one will give a shit which you do. Except maybe your grandchildren, however many generations removed.
The only good thing to come of the global warming alarm, is the growing attitude that we really shouldn't be polluting the earth. Man has been like a pig for the last couple hundred years - shitting in the drinking water, dumping garbage in the backyard, etc ad nauseum. Cleaning up our act can only be a good thing. But, don't expect that to cool the earth off. And, don't expect me to pay homage to the global warming gods, like Al Gore. They are all full of shit.
Uhhhmm, removing the female brain from the female body precludes the nooclear monthly. Or, is that the monthly nooclear? Whatever - no hormones, no nookie.
On target, gandhi. Global warming is nothing more than the religion of the 21st century. Either you are a believer, or you are a blasphemer. By definition, a blasphemer is NOT qualified to have an opinion. To make things clear, I am a blasphemer, and I think that Al Gore goes down on little children and baby goats.
"Duh" to bit-torrent"? What exactly is the difference between direct access, and bit torrent, assuming that my bandwidth is being used to capacity? The protocol maks little difference, it's the bandwidth. On a GOOD day, I will see 42 to 44 Kbs downspeed. Most days, the speed will vary from 30 to 36. On a bad day, 4 browsers on the line at the same time have problems navigating the web.
Trees? Yes, of course we have trees. In fact, you can just send me your carbon credit payments: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/25/AR2009062503028.html
With enough payments coming into the area, maybe we can all get together, and convince the telcos to upgrade to optic fiber.........
You may not be aware that "average" in New York City, and "average" in Backwoods Nowhere are entirely two different animals. It takes me DAYS to download a 4 GB ISO. Seriously, I wouldn't bullshit you. I use Firestarter firewall, and set it to shape traffice, giving priority to interactive (browsing) traffic, so I'm only using about 85 to 90 % of my bandwidth for a download. On "average" it takes between 4 1/2 and 6 days to download a movie.
Now that you realize that not everyone has the bandwidth that you enjoy, you might do a little research, and find out what percentage of the US population enjoys "fast" internet. Or not. No research is required to stick your foot in your mouth again. ;)
Write your own editorial, and quit being so damned pissy. M$ is the accepted way to abbreviate, unless you are A - a grammar nazi or B - a M$ fanboi.
Odd. You make the point that copyright law is fubar'd. You quite reasonably point out that Jammie Thomas is probably guilty of something. We can agree that much. But, you seem to see little problem with Jammie, and people like her, being prosecuted under law that is fucked up beyond all recognition. Odd.
My attitude is, if the law is wrong, then no one can be guilty of violating that law.
If I may draw a parallel between the legal system, and the military?
A leader never issues an order that he knows will be disobeyed. The recent (two year old?) story about a transport captain who ordered a convoy, knowing full well that the convoy wouldn't follow orders, is more guilty than those individuals who refused the orders. He is an incompetent, and ineffective leader.
Here, we have an entire body of law that the entire world scoffs at.
Who is guilty? Jammie? I hardly think so. I say, fix the law, then chase the real criminals.
Oh. Wait. Many of the real criminals wear suits, and prop their feet up on desks in penthouse offices. That wouldn't work, would it?
Let's ask one of the biggest computer buyers in the world if they are being forced to use IBM mainframes, or, if maybe they have satisfactory and competitive alternatives.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10209580-92.html
I suspect that one of their datacenters has more computing capacity than most mainframes...
Uhhh, correct me if I'm wrong. I've been looking at after market bolt on parts for my car. The headers claim increase fuel mileage, the spark plugs, the air filter, the tires, as does a turbocharger. The glass pack mufflers, and the resonator. Oh yeah, the aerodynamic rims, the hood, and spoiler. Don't forget the carbon fiber body panels. Taken all together, those increased MPG's add up to about 150 MPG. You're saying I may not see that much improvement on my 1968 Chevy Malibu? It's just hype? Man - you just saved me about $5,000!!!
"In a secure environment, with no one looking over my shoulder"
I don't need to be looking over your shoulder. My boys didn't get the keylogger installed on your keyboard quickly enough, but they DID manage to get that wireless camera working. Everything your screen shows is being recorded now.
Secure environment? As soon as people assume that any environment is secure, that person becomes a security risk. He has an attitude problem, regarding security.
Jackson wasn't an icon of MY America. Frigging queer won't be missed by me. And, before some gay rights kook blasts me, look up the term queer. The word preceded any gay rights activists in the United States.