The problem here is that nobody really has the necessary power to force IPv6 on the world
That's where you are wrong.. The CONSUMER has the power to force it to happen.
This is not really a consumer issue. The consumer browsing the internet really doesn't know or care what version of IP is being used. This is really about what it costs...
Not really, they only put a small amount of adult content out there. I'm sarcastically suggesting they actively move all obviously adult websites to IPv6. Heck, just start charging more for IPv4 DNS records, a LOT more...
Actually, this problem will not be fixed anytime soon. Nobody has the power to force IPv6 adoption.
I never really understood why we didn't just map all the IPv4 addresses to a IPv6 subset and provide a very simple rule to translate, say by adding all zeros or some other number to the IPv4 address to get its IPv6 one. Then start forcing the adoption of IPv6 by not accepting v4 traffic from the top down though the domain registration authorities and hosting providers. Get legal agreements from them to not route IPv4 traffic in exchange for IPv6 address assignments and allowing new domain registrations, force top level domain authorities to only support IPv6 going forward.
You want to keep your website available? You want your customers to see new domains? You need a IPv6 assignment because we won't route v4 traffic and DNS is going to give you an IPv6 address. ISP's would then be free to provide IPv4 connections, but only if they did the translation to IPv6 internally themselves, which would end up costing IPv4 customers more money and limiting what they can see.
Eventually, there would be enough pressure for the ISP's to push IPv6 down the food chain to the end user who will either pay more for IPv4 service, or upgrade to IPv6. Eventually there will be a tipping point and IPv6 will see universal acceptance.
The problem here is that nobody really has the necessary power to force IPv6 on the world.... So we will keep bumping along trying more and more incremental patches to IPv4. Eventually, you could be behind 20 NATs wondering why your SIPP/VOIP device won't make any calls...
Hey, how about we just put all of the adult content on IPv6 only addresses.... You know THAT would set a fire under things....
No, not a good idea. You can offer automated updates if the user opts into them, but the user must make that choice.
I'm not installing *anything* that doesn't at least give me the *option* to review updates before they get installed. If I choose to automatically update my windows machines, so be it. If it just phones home and installs updates, I'm not going to use the thing. I can see it now, some company decides to disable a whole family of equipment by issuing a bum software load, either on purpose or by mistake.
The regulations that allowed Unions, prohibited child labor, and mandated work place safety are not in question here.
The unnecessary financial involvement of government in a for profit enterprise is however the problem. Government is horrible at acting like a business because there is no natural force to improve efficiency or foster innovation. A business will go bankrupt if it is not able to be efficient enough so there is ample motive and outside forces that lead to innovation in efficiency. Businesses that can't keep up, go away.
What happens when the government can not keep up? Can we say Greece?
Wrong, capitalism is the most efficient system ever devised for creating wealth not the best system ever devised for creating wealth. Best is a qualitative term and can not be measured subjectively.
I'll agree that you have a point that capitalism is efficient, but in my view that makes it the best, so I don't think I'm "wrong" as you claim.
The regulation we applied to capitalism made higher standard of living for a population.
You might want to actually read up on capitalists.
"Tax payer money was wasted by loaning it to a business nobody else would touch."
while true with studio 38, usually that isn't true.
In fact, a lot of case it as helped. but success in government isn't really reported. You know why? it's not unusual.
All things in moderation I suppose.
In a framework of fair rules (Fair being about equally treated, not equal outcome) , Capitalism is the best route to the creation of wealth for the betterment of all. But it works best with the minimum of rules, and is most effective at generating wealth when taxes are as low as possible. Government doesn't work that way. Ever heard about the $500 toilet seat or $1,000 hammer?
Government has no business being IN business or partnered with for profit businesses in any way for any reason except to buy stuff it needs to do its job. Further, to keep taxes low and encourage more wealth development, government should be as small as possible.
But, as I said, Capitalism is the best system we have and government should stay out of it when possible.
Crony capitalism is what actually happens when you implement captialism in the real world. Capitalism is the theory, cronyism is the practice.
In which real world?
It may have its problems, but capitalism is the best system ever devised for creating wealth and a higher standard of living for a population. Depart from it at your own risk.
Tax payer money was wasted by loaning it to a business nobody else would touch. When you depart from Capitalism, you reap the reward of inefficiency.
I'm not so sure I'd run around the exclusion zones for very long. Problem with these stories is that it is hard to tell if there was any issues because radiation simply increases one's chances of getting cancer. Even at high doses it's not a slam dunk you will get cancer, but it sure gets more and more likely. It's like using the 2 pack a day smoker who lives to 100+ years old to claim smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. Just because one guy got lucky, doesn't mean you will, in fact it doesn't mean much of anything. The ladies you point to are a case in point.
Wind is extremely reliable because it is so distributed.
Um.. Not really. Problem with wind is that you are never quite sure when and where it will blow so you have to over build by about double to have any reasonable chance of being sure of how much power you can generate 24 hours from now. Keeping the grid stable means that we have to only count on a fraction of what the weather forecast says we will get, something like half.
Most folks don't realize that electrical power must be generated the instant it is used. There is very little energy storage in the electrical grid beyond the mechanical storage in the rotating components of the generators. This means that as the load varies throughout the day the generating capacity has to be adjusted to match. Another thing most folks don't know is throttling an industrial sized power plant can take hours, days or months of advanced planning depending on the fuel type. All this planning and forecasting is what keeps our power grid up and stable, and if they get it wrong, of if something breaks then bad things start happening for lots of people.
So we simply CANNOT count on wind power to keep the grid up and running. We are going to have to use some kind of fuel based capacity for as long as I can imagine. Maybe industrial storage of electrical power fixes that, but for now there is no real way that's going to happen.
So, with enough discipline and forethought, one could use nuclear power as a transitional step away from fossil fuels, and later replace nuclear plants with wind and solar as they age and need to be decommissioned.
I'm not so sure we are going to ever totally replace them in this progression. Renewable sources are not usually very reliable. If the wind doesn't blow, windmills are useless. Or if it's midnight, there is nothing a solar plant can do for your power consumption needs.
What we need is a market based 'all of the above" solution.
I wonder if you added up all the land which is now unusable from mining coal and disposing ash if you would get anywhere close to the size of the exclusion zones...
I'm thinking that Necular power has even less impact per terawatt hour in land use too..
I'm thinking you are onto something here. Only, I'd do it this way...
You bid for rights to a specific number of years, let's say 10, to allow companies to get a reasonable ROI at some known cost. Lease fees are payable for a year at a time, 90 days in advance. At the end of your lease, the spectrum goes back to bid. If the lease holder does not pay the fees 90 days in advance of the new year, the spectrum goes back to bid. If the spectrum is not in use at the 90 day mark, it goes back to bid. You choose not to pay in the middle of your lease or you don't use the spectrum, then you loose the lease and cannot bid on the same spectrum in the next round of bidding. Spectrum may be subleased, but the lease holder must pay the FCC administrative costs plus 10% of the sublease value.
All auctions should be open bidding. Minimum bid advances based on the bid value. Minimum 10 days of bidding, with a minimum of one full working day after the winning bid is made before the auction is closed. 10% deposit is required to bid, winning bids must be paid in cash within 30 days or the deposit is forfeited and the spectrum is resold. Only US citizens or US companies may bid.
NASA failings are well known and documented. They took a risk management approach, and made some serious mistakes in the process, but they also succeeded in getting the shuttle into space and back over 100 times albeit with two accidents and at a cost that was many times the original estimates. This kind of thing is a prime example of why government is not usually a good place for efficiency. But that issue is not what I was replying to.
As a technology, the Shuttle was very cutting edge for its day. Getting a man rated launch system into space 30 years ago was a hugely expensive and difficult project, beyond the means of all but the most affluent governments. The Shuttle program was a HUGE decrease in cost compared to previous programs when measured in a number of ways. Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury programs had serious limits on payload weight, payload size, launch costs, and returnable weight and the shuttle improved on these programs in many ways.
The fact that the USAF now has a "shuttle like" system that has a reusable launch vehicle that is smaller, cheaper and has a faster turn around really means that the Shuttle program was a national success story and that NASA, even with its failings has delivered much value for the money we've invested.
The worst features of the Space Shuttle were put there for possible military missions, but the military looked at the final product and basically said "What were we thinking?", and continued to use rockets.
Not exactly true. Shuttle missions where partially funded by USAF projects on a number of occasions, and I recall at least one "classified" shuttle mission.
Conspiracy or no, the Air Force did what NASA could not: demonstrate a PRACTICAL, reusable space plane.
NASA had a "designed by committee" project that threw in everything including redundant kitchen sinks and ended up with a bloated whale of a project that was highly impractical and utterly a failure at what it was intended to do: reduce costs. Instead what we got was something designed by committees
The Shuttle was a MANNED vehicle while the USAF's is NOT manned. Having a crew requires significant amount of equipment and weight to provide the minimum of life support (power, air, light, cooling, food, waste processing etc) which is not required by the USAF's unmanned drone. Further, it's been a couple of decades since the shuttle was designed and technology has advanced, getting smaller, lighter, and less power hungry. I am not surprised that an unmanned vehicle is smaller, cheaper, and more mission capable all things being equal. But they are not equal..
Comparing the current state of the art and complaining that what we fielded 30 years ago was a waste is not valid. Yes, the Shuttle did not meet the cost per launch targets, but I don't think the shuttle program was a total waste of time or money because of that. And the USAF's unnamed drone is 30 years more advanced in technology which was partially developed through what we learned though the shuttle program.
If anything surprises me is that it took so long for the USAF to figure out they needed a reusable platform of their own, but even that is understandable when you remember they used the shuttle for some classified work when it was available. This is just the natural progression of things.
If I have intruders in the house, I'm already in trouble, 9mm in hand or not. I don't care where I am, I'd rather be armed with something more than my skivvies and a pillow if somebody is kicking down the bedroom door in the middle of the night. But the goal is to convince them it's time to leave and a 9 mm will sure help with that.
In my state you can pretty much shoot intruders in your house with impunity. Most DA's are not going to prosecute you for shooting an armed intruder in your house even in the most liberal of areas (authorized authorities with a valid warrant excepted of course).
You are right about Mr 9 mm being small potatoes. A short 12 Gauge shotgun would be more effective at close range plus it makes a lot more noise when you chamber a shell or pull the trigger. It's just hard to sleep with it under the pillow.
Yea, but that.45 is sure lumpy under the pillow... Seriously, modern thugs are going to run like rats when shot at during a break in attempt, even if they have an RPG. If they are jumpy enough to fire first, it doesn't matter what you have in your hand if they hit you. Shoot first (even into the air) and they are going to leave post haste. The only exception to that is if they actually know who you are and they intend to do you harm in the first place, but those situations usually involve driving by and firing out the window towards your house.
Hardly.. They are the middle east version of Iran. Not to be confused with the US version of Iran.
They routinely Photoshop things and act as rough and tough as possible. Most of it is just propaganda, but there is enough truth mixed in to keep the average person guessing. Their whole point is to make it clear they are not to be trifled with, or at least make it seem likely would have a bad bite to go with the barking. But they know they are playing chicken on foot with a semi.
There is no doubt that Iran would not be easily defeated in a full on conflict. There is also NO chance they would prevail in a conflict with any US allies in the region unless the US decided to let them. The question really is how far will they be allowed to go before they get put back into their place. Right now, I don't think anybody has a clue, which is very dangerous.
As it stands, Iran is rapidly going to start looking more and more like North Korea and it's leaders are going to get more and more desperate to get the UN sanctions lifted. Caged animals are dangerous things.
Just because the world's worst accident didn't go a wrong as it could doesn't negate that the way we were constructing plants was horrendously stupid.
Just to make sure... The RUSSIANS where the ONLY folks building and operating plants of this design. These plants would not have been legally acceptable in most of the industrialized world, at least for power generation. This is not to say that such designs are "stupid" or that such plants cannot be operated safely, they can. Only that it wasn't that everybody was using this kind of reactor design (Stupid or not).
How stupid the design was is an open question that can be argued both ways. There where reasons that drove them down this path, most of which where about the economics of things and the cold war. Yea, they took risks that in hindsight look foolish, but except for the operator error, this plant could easily operated for decades. Had the mistake not been made, what would be said about this reactor? Not much.
Don't know about German law, but in the US... Collecting money for damages is civil law which is separate from criminal law.
Doing damage to a car that is not yours by say breaking all the glass with a hammer, would be a criminal offense. The local government may go after the criminal charge and haul the kid into court (or not). The prosecutor is not tasked with collecting damages for crimes he prosecutes, but they can ask for payment of damages as part of punishment if they decide to.
Even if ordered paid as part of punishment for a crime, the actual damage remains a civil issue. If the victim doesn't get paid for damage, they is free to sue and use the criminal conviction as evidence. Even if there where no charges or the kid was acquitted one would be free to sue for damages in civil court.
Sharing MP3's is not necessarily a criminal offense. Further, it is unlikely to be something the local DA would be interested in trying in criminal court if it was. You might get local police to step in and stop commercial duplication and distribution infringement operation, but usually you need to get the attention of the FBI for that. Most copyright crimes are Federal and not state or local and have more to do with distribution and mass duplication. A kid with a computer is not likely to get much attention at the Federal level, they are busy with other things.
Which is why all this kind of thing usually boils down to civil court actions and rarely involves criminal charges.
You do know the difference between civil and criminal law right?
Murder is a criminal offense and would be tried in a criminal court where the rules of punishment range from fines, probation, jail time and even death in some locations. Criminal cases are brought by the state and prosecuted by the state for violating criminal laws.
Downloading music in violation of copyright is a civil matter. The state really doesn't care that much if you do it and are not likely going to be interested in tracking you down and hauling you to court for it. The state does not actively enforce copyrights or look for people who violate the copyrights of others. However, the copyright owner does have the right to sue for infringement and collect damages in civil courts. The RIAA is just a group of copyright holders who have banded together to find people who infringe on copyrights and take them to civil court and recover damages.
The question being asked here is what is the civil responsibility of parents when their children are taken to civil court and loose. It seems that in Germany, the collection of civil judgments against minors just got a lot more difficult. Given that most 13 year old kids don't usually own that much or even have a job, I suspect this will pretty much squash any attempts to sue kids for sharing music in Germany at least.
Seems you have summed up a very typical problem. Not just with computer guys, but with all sorts of professions. So the question really is how can you lead Bob to make changes in how he does things so everybody can find what they need, without making him feel threatened or defensive about how things are now. Apparently you don't think the direct approach is a good because you fear that Bob might be offended and leave, dropping the whole thing in your lap. So how about some indirect approaches?
Start asking Bob about how you can find things you need. Ask him to help you locate some documents that might be fairly obscure. Then ask him how he knew where it was so you won't have to bother him all the time asking for help. Say things like, "Man, I wish I understood how this is organized as well as you, I hate having to bother you." You might find out that there really IS a system that can explain what Bob is doing, or Bob, being the helpful sort, may actually figure out that he needs to organize things a bit to help everybody out and start doing it on his own. He may even ask for suggestions or even help, at which point your problem gets solved and Bob stays.
Other indirect approaches are similar. Ask questions, Ask for help, Ask why things are where they are. You can even ask if he's ever seen this tool or that, would that make your life easier? Just try to never hint that there is a problem until Bob starts talking about it as a problem, then offer to help with what ever solution Bob thinks is best.
If indirect doesn't help, then you need to decide if it is worth the risk of loosing Bob by coming out and just saying there is a problem. If it's worth it, confront him about it directly. If it's not, then forget about it and just live with the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
But liars figure....
The problem here is that nobody really has the necessary power to force IPv6 on the world
That's where you are wrong.. The CONSUMER has the power to force it to happen.
This is not really a consumer issue. The consumer browsing the internet really doesn't know or care what version of IP is being used. This is really about what it costs...
Hey, how about we just put all of the adult content on IPv6 only addresses.... You know THAT would set a fire under things....
It's been tried. It was called the Great IPv6 Experiment and it was a failure.
Not really, they only put a small amount of adult content out there. I'm sarcastically suggesting they actively move all obviously adult websites to IPv6. Heck, just start charging more for IPv4 DNS records, a LOT more...
Actually, this problem will not be fixed anytime soon. Nobody has the power to force IPv6 adoption.
You are right.
I never really understood why we didn't just map all the IPv4 addresses to a IPv6 subset and provide a very simple rule to translate, say by adding all zeros or some other number to the IPv4 address to get its IPv6 one. Then start forcing the adoption of IPv6 by not accepting v4 traffic from the top down though the domain registration authorities and hosting providers. Get legal agreements from them to not route IPv4 traffic in exchange for IPv6 address assignments and allowing new domain registrations, force top level domain authorities to only support IPv6 going forward.
You want to keep your website available? You want your customers to see new domains? You need a IPv6 assignment because we won't route v4 traffic and DNS is going to give you an IPv6 address. ISP's would then be free to provide IPv4 connections, but only if they did the translation to IPv6 internally themselves, which would end up costing IPv4 customers more money and limiting what they can see.
Eventually, there would be enough pressure for the ISP's to push IPv6 down the food chain to the end user who will either pay more for IPv4 service, or upgrade to IPv6. Eventually there will be a tipping point and IPv6 will see universal acceptance.
The problem here is that nobody really has the necessary power to force IPv6 on the world.... So we will keep bumping along trying more and more incremental patches to IPv4. Eventually, you could be behind 20 NATs wondering why your SIPP/VOIP device won't make any calls...
Hey, how about we just put all of the adult content on IPv6 only addresses.... You know THAT would set a fire under things....
No, not a good idea. You can offer automated updates if the user opts into them, but the user must make that choice.
I'm not installing *anything* that doesn't at least give me the *option* to review updates before they get installed. If I choose to automatically update my windows machines, so be it. If it just phones home and installs updates, I'm not going to use the thing. I can see it now, some company decides to disable a whole family of equipment by issuing a bum software load, either on purpose or by mistake.
Oh wait.... Hasn't that actually happened?
The regulations that allowed Unions, prohibited child labor, and mandated work place safety are not in question here.
The unnecessary financial involvement of government in a for profit enterprise is however the problem. Government is horrible at acting like a business because there is no natural force to improve efficiency or foster innovation. A business will go bankrupt if it is not able to be efficient enough so there is ample motive and outside forces that lead to innovation in efficiency. Businesses that can't keep up, go away.
What happens when the government can not keep up? Can we say Greece?
Wrong, capitalism is the most efficient system ever devised for creating wealth not the best system ever devised for creating wealth. Best is a qualitative term and can not be measured subjectively.
I'll agree that you have a point that capitalism is efficient, but in my view that makes it the best, so I don't think I'm "wrong" as you claim.
Wrong.
The regulation we applied to capitalism made higher standard of living for a population.
You might want to actually read up on capitalists.
"Tax payer money was wasted by loaning it to a business nobody else would touch." while true with studio 38, usually that isn't true. In fact, a lot of case it as helped. but success in government isn't really reported. You know why? it's not unusual.
All things in moderation I suppose.
In a framework of fair rules (Fair being about equally treated, not equal outcome) , Capitalism is the best route to the creation of wealth for the betterment of all. But it works best with the minimum of rules, and is most effective at generating wealth when taxes are as low as possible. Government doesn't work that way. Ever heard about the $500 toilet seat or $1,000 hammer?
Government has no business being IN business or partnered with for profit businesses in any way for any reason except to buy stuff it needs to do its job. Further, to keep taxes low and encourage more wealth development, government should be as small as possible.
But, as I said, Capitalism is the best system we have and government should stay out of it when possible.
Crony capitalism is not capitalism
Crony capitalism is what actually happens when you implement captialism in the real world. Capitalism is the theory, cronyism is the practice.
In which real world?
It may have its problems, but capitalism is the best system ever devised for creating wealth and a higher standard of living for a population. Depart from it at your own risk.
Tax payer money was wasted by loaning it to a business nobody else would touch. When you depart from Capitalism, you reap the reward of inefficiency.
I'm not so sure I'd run around the exclusion zones for very long. Problem with these stories is that it is hard to tell if there was any issues because radiation simply increases one's chances of getting cancer. Even at high doses it's not a slam dunk you will get cancer, but it sure gets more and more likely. It's like using the 2 pack a day smoker who lives to 100+ years old to claim smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. Just because one guy got lucky, doesn't mean you will, in fact it doesn't mean much of anything. The ladies you point to are a case in point.
Wind is extremely reliable because it is so distributed.
Um.. Not really. Problem with wind is that you are never quite sure when and where it will blow so you have to over build by about double to have any reasonable chance of being sure of how much power you can generate 24 hours from now. Keeping the grid stable means that we have to only count on a fraction of what the weather forecast says we will get, something like half.
Most folks don't realize that electrical power must be generated the instant it is used. There is very little energy storage in the electrical grid beyond the mechanical storage in the rotating components of the generators. This means that as the load varies throughout the day the generating capacity has to be adjusted to match. Another thing most folks don't know is throttling an industrial sized power plant can take hours, days or months of advanced planning depending on the fuel type. All this planning and forecasting is what keeps our power grid up and stable, and if they get it wrong, of if something breaks then bad things start happening for lots of people.
So we simply CANNOT count on wind power to keep the grid up and running. We are going to have to use some kind of fuel based capacity for as long as I can imagine. Maybe industrial storage of electrical power fixes that, but for now there is no real way that's going to happen.
So, with enough discipline and forethought, one could use nuclear power as a transitional step away from fossil fuels, and later replace nuclear plants with wind and solar as they age and need to be decommissioned.
I'm not so sure we are going to ever totally replace them in this progression. Renewable sources are not usually very reliable. If the wind doesn't blow, windmills are useless. Or if it's midnight, there is nothing a solar plant can do for your power consumption needs.
What we need is a market based 'all of the above" solution.
I wonder if you added up all the land which is now unusable from mining coal and disposing ash if you would get anywhere close to the size of the exclusion zones...
I'm thinking that Necular power has even less impact per terawatt hour in land use too..
I'm thinking you are onto something here. Only, I'd do it this way...
You bid for rights to a specific number of years, let's say 10, to allow companies to get a reasonable ROI at some known cost. Lease fees are payable for a year at a time, 90 days in advance. At the end of your lease, the spectrum goes back to bid. If the lease holder does not pay the fees 90 days in advance of the new year, the spectrum goes back to bid. If the spectrum is not in use at the 90 day mark, it goes back to bid. You choose not to pay in the middle of your lease or you don't use the spectrum, then you loose the lease and cannot bid on the same spectrum in the next round of bidding. Spectrum may be subleased, but the lease holder must pay the FCC administrative costs plus 10% of the sublease value.
All auctions should be open bidding. Minimum bid advances based on the bid value. Minimum 10 days of bidding, with a minimum of one full working day after the winning bid is made before the auction is closed. 10% deposit is required to bid, winning bids must be paid in cash within 30 days or the deposit is forfeited and the spectrum is resold. Only US citizens or US companies may bid.
NASA failings are well known and documented. They took a risk management approach, and made some serious mistakes in the process, but they also succeeded in getting the shuttle into space and back over 100 times albeit with two accidents and at a cost that was many times the original estimates. This kind of thing is a prime example of why government is not usually a good place for efficiency. But that issue is not what I was replying to.
As a technology, the Shuttle was very cutting edge for its day. Getting a man rated launch system into space 30 years ago was a hugely expensive and difficult project, beyond the means of all but the most affluent governments. The Shuttle program was a HUGE decrease in cost compared to previous programs when measured in a number of ways. Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury programs had serious limits on payload weight, payload size, launch costs, and returnable weight and the shuttle improved on these programs in many ways.
The fact that the USAF now has a "shuttle like" system that has a reusable launch vehicle that is smaller, cheaper and has a faster turn around really means that the Shuttle program was a national success story and that NASA, even with its failings has delivered much value for the money we've invested.
The worst features of the Space Shuttle were put there for possible military missions, but the military looked at the final product and basically said "What were we thinking?", and continued to use rockets.
Not exactly true. Shuttle missions where partially funded by USAF projects on a number of occasions, and I recall at least one "classified" shuttle mission.
Conspiracy or no, the Air Force did what NASA could not: demonstrate a PRACTICAL, reusable space plane.
NASA had a "designed by committee" project that threw in everything including redundant kitchen sinks and ended up with a bloated whale of a project that was highly impractical and utterly a failure at what it was intended to do: reduce costs. Instead what we got was something designed by committees
The Shuttle was a MANNED vehicle while the USAF's is NOT manned. Having a crew requires significant amount of equipment and weight to provide the minimum of life support (power, air, light, cooling, food, waste processing etc) which is not required by the USAF's unmanned drone. Further, it's been a couple of decades since the shuttle was designed and technology has advanced, getting smaller, lighter, and less power hungry. I am not surprised that an unmanned vehicle is smaller, cheaper, and more mission capable all things being equal. But they are not equal..
Comparing the current state of the art and complaining that what we fielded 30 years ago was a waste is not valid. Yes, the Shuttle did not meet the cost per launch targets, but I don't think the shuttle program was a total waste of time or money because of that. And the USAF's unnamed drone is 30 years more advanced in technology which was partially developed through what we learned though the shuttle program.
If anything surprises me is that it took so long for the USAF to figure out they needed a reusable platform of their own, but even that is understandable when you remember they used the shuttle for some classified work when it was available. This is just the natural progression of things.
If I have intruders in the house, I'm already in trouble, 9mm in hand or not. I don't care where I am, I'd rather be armed with something more than my skivvies and a pillow if somebody is kicking down the bedroom door in the middle of the night. But the goal is to convince them it's time to leave and a 9 mm will sure help with that.
In my state you can pretty much shoot intruders in your house with impunity. Most DA's are not going to prosecute you for shooting an armed intruder in your house even in the most liberal of areas (authorized authorities with a valid warrant excepted of course).
You are right about Mr 9 mm being small potatoes. A short 12 Gauge shotgun would be more effective at close range plus it makes a lot more noise when you chamber a shell or pull the trigger. It's just hard to sleep with it under the pillow.
Yea, but that .45 is sure lumpy under the pillow... Seriously, modern thugs are going to run like rats when shot at during a break in attempt, even if they have an RPG. If they are jumpy enough to fire first, it doesn't matter what you have in your hand if they hit you. Shoot first (even into the air) and they are going to leave post haste. The only exception to that is if they actually know who you are and they intend to do you harm in the first place, but those situations usually involve driving by and firing out the window towards your house.
That lock on my door was for *your* protection not mine.
Say hello to Mr. 9 mm who IS here for my protection.
Hardly.. They are the middle east version of Iran. Not to be confused with the US version of Iran.
They routinely Photoshop things and act as rough and tough as possible. Most of it is just propaganda, but there is enough truth mixed in to keep the average person guessing. Their whole point is to make it clear they are not to be trifled with, or at least make it seem likely would have a bad bite to go with the barking. But they know they are playing chicken on foot with a semi.
There is no doubt that Iran would not be easily defeated in a full on conflict. There is also NO chance they would prevail in a conflict with any US allies in the region unless the US decided to let them. The question really is how far will they be allowed to go before they get put back into their place. Right now, I don't think anybody has a clue, which is very dangerous.
As it stands, Iran is rapidly going to start looking more and more like North Korea and it's leaders are going to get more and more desperate to get the UN sanctions lifted. Caged animals are dangerous things.
>
Just because the world's worst accident didn't go a wrong as it could doesn't negate that the way we were constructing plants was horrendously stupid.
Just to make sure... The RUSSIANS where the ONLY folks building and operating plants of this design. These plants would not have been legally acceptable in most of the industrialized world, at least for power generation. This is not to say that such designs are "stupid" or that such plants cannot be operated safely, they can. Only that it wasn't that everybody was using this kind of reactor design (Stupid or not).
How stupid the design was is an open question that can be argued both ways. There where reasons that drove them down this path, most of which where about the economics of things and the cold war. Yea, they took risks that in hindsight look foolish, but except for the operator error, this plant could easily operated for decades. Had the mistake not been made, what would be said about this reactor? Not much.
Don't know about German law, but in the US... Collecting money for damages is civil law which is separate from criminal law.
Doing damage to a car that is not yours by say breaking all the glass with a hammer, would be a criminal offense. The local government may go after the criminal charge and haul the kid into court (or not). The prosecutor is not tasked with collecting damages for crimes he prosecutes, but they can ask for payment of damages as part of punishment if they decide to.
Even if ordered paid as part of punishment for a crime, the actual damage remains a civil issue. If the victim doesn't get paid for damage, they is free to sue and use the criminal conviction as evidence. Even if there where no charges or the kid was acquitted one would be free to sue for damages in civil court.
Sharing MP3's is not necessarily a criminal offense. Further, it is unlikely to be something the local DA would be interested in trying in criminal court if it was. You might get local police to step in and stop commercial duplication and distribution infringement operation, but usually you need to get the attention of the FBI for that. Most copyright crimes are Federal and not state or local and have more to do with distribution and mass duplication. A kid with a computer is not likely to get much attention at the Federal level, they are busy with other things.
Which is why all this kind of thing usually boils down to civil court actions and rarely involves criminal charges.
You do know the difference between civil and criminal law right?
Murder is a criminal offense and would be tried in a criminal court where the rules of punishment range from fines, probation, jail time and even death in some locations. Criminal cases are brought by the state and prosecuted by the state for violating criminal laws.
Downloading music in violation of copyright is a civil matter. The state really doesn't care that much if you do it and are not likely going to be interested in tracking you down and hauling you to court for it. The state does not actively enforce copyrights or look for people who violate the copyrights of others. However, the copyright owner does have the right to sue for infringement and collect damages in civil courts. The RIAA is just a group of copyright holders who have banded together to find people who infringe on copyrights and take them to civil court and recover damages.
The question being asked here is what is the civil responsibility of parents when their children are taken to civil court and loose. It seems that in Germany, the collection of civil judgments against minors just got a lot more difficult. Given that most 13 year old kids don't usually own that much or even have a job, I suspect this will pretty much squash any attempts to sue kids for sharing music in Germany at least.
Seems you have summed up a very typical problem. Not just with computer guys, but with all sorts of professions. So the question really is how can you lead Bob to make changes in how he does things so everybody can find what they need, without making him feel threatened or defensive about how things are now. Apparently you don't think the direct approach is a good because you fear that Bob might be offended and leave, dropping the whole thing in your lap. So how about some indirect approaches?
Start asking Bob about how you can find things you need. Ask him to help you locate some documents that might be fairly obscure. Then ask him how he knew where it was so you won't have to bother him all the time asking for help. Say things like, "Man, I wish I understood how this is organized as well as you, I hate having to bother you." You might find out that there really IS a system that can explain what Bob is doing, or Bob, being the helpful sort, may actually figure out that he needs to organize things a bit to help everybody out and start doing it on his own. He may even ask for suggestions or even help, at which point your problem gets solved and Bob stays.
Other indirect approaches are similar. Ask questions, Ask for help, Ask why things are where they are. You can even ask if he's ever seen this tool or that, would that make your life easier? Just try to never hint that there is a problem until Bob starts talking about it as a problem, then offer to help with what ever solution Bob thinks is best.
If indirect doesn't help, then you need to decide if it is worth the risk of loosing Bob by coming out and just saying there is a problem. If it's worth it, confront him about it directly. If it's not, then forget about it and just live with the issue.