Please take your business-school-douchebag-sales-is-more-important-than-competence attitude and shove it up your ass. Then waddle off Slashdot and go hump some business-seminar bullshit some more.
All sales does is take a product of a given quality and make it seem better than it actually is, so some shithead with money will get conned into forking it over. Even worse, it's pretty routine for sales to lie to a potential customer about the service and/or product they're pimping out, and leave the mess for people who do actual work to clean up while they snort coke off a hooker's ass with their client.
You sound like a PR flack for Scientology. Put down the grape Flavor-Aid and get back in touch with reality, where COMPETENCE AND QUALITY MATTER. Making a career out of denying that makes you a large part of the problem.
Yes, I'm bitter. I've spent the last fifteen or so years of my life watching people who drank their way through the business school at my university get rich while I work my ass off for (relatively) insulting wages and zero respect. If I hadn't managed to escape support when I did I'd either be dead from driving into a tree, or in jail for finally strangling one of you for treating me like shit because you could get away with it. Remember that you can't do your job without your computer, and the IT worker you berate for some bullshit reason today will be reading your email to your coke dealer tomorrow.
I see your job as being in academia, where, for better or worse, the normal rules of the job market frequently do not apply. It's been my experience that academia is one environment where intelligence and learning are valued, and there's far less emphasis on squeezing every nickel of profit out of the enterprise. You can excel at a job and be promoted in academia without changing employers; that isn't true in the job market as a whole.
IMHO help desk is a place to prove you can take abuse for an extended amount of time without driving off a bridge. You won't really learn any tech skills after the first couple of months; after that what you learn is that people are Wicked Fucking Stupid, and most management types couldn't find their asses with both hands, a flashlight, a road map, and a GPS receiver. To move up, you have to move out. If you remember that the job is nothing more than a resume builder (that is, if you don't put your real title on that entry on your resume; potential employers see "help desk rep" as "that cranky guy in IT that gets pissy when I say I don't want to be held to the same mail quota as everyone else"), then you will find it much easier to remain sane.
It's also a good example of how the business world works; the people who do actual work get shit on, while the people that profit off of others' hard work are the ones who get rich.
Yes, I did work help desk for a number of years. No, I haven't changed my general opinion of people since then, they're all Wicked Fucking Stupid. Yes, I'm bitter about it. Someone else might not come out so bitter, but others will become alcoholics from the stress.
You know, lawyers did draft the GPL. Some of them do, in fact, get it.
You're right, there are exceptions. I guess I should have said 'average lawyer'. Ostensibly, however, I wouldn't have to explain Linux to someone who already knew about it, so anyone I'd have to explain it to would cause pain.
I don't really see why not, unless they can conclusively demonstrate that you'd used that passphrase frequently.
If they can prove you were logged into a system at the time an encrypted file/volume was accessed, IMHO they've got a strong case for proving you knew the passphrase. All they have to do is prove you knew it once, and then convince a (most likely computer illiterate) judge that you should still know it.
Seems like this one would be pretty obvious, especially given that you can now buy a computer capable of (at least) PGP for less than the cost of a plane ticket. Unless you're arguing that every single Linux distro, or every single computer sold, has a keylogger by the US government, it isn't going to happen.
It might not have a keylogger on it out of the box, but 1) lawyers don't use (or know about) Linux, they use Windows, and 2) bearing 1) in mind, getting a keylogger onto a system is not beyond (technically or morally) the current government. (As an aside, I think I'd rather have my legs broken than try to explain Linux to a lawyer.)
Whoops, my hard drive crashed. And gosh darnit, I forgot to make backups. You know, I'd really love to cooperate; here's my PGP key... Now, what was the passphrase again?
That's called 'obstruction of justice' and 'destroying evidence'. "I forgot my passphrase" is much easier to prosecute; you're being compelled to disclose information pursuant (ostensibly) to a court order or other legal instrument. "I forgot" doesn't save you. You might prevent their access to the information on the drive, but you have to decide whether or not you're willing to be locked in a cell indefinitely for contempt of court to protect said contents. IANAL, are those separate charges or does the first cover both?
Also a fair point, but I think there might be an advantage in the carbon loop there (bugs -> fuel -> burn fuel -> carbon -> bugs -> fuel etc) instead of taking carbon out of the ground and putting it in the atmosphere. All conjecture, of course.
Has anyone seen any information regarding whether or not this process removes CO2 from the atmosphere in significant amounts? It would seem that if they're making carbohydrates (sugars) that this process would be pulling carbon from the environment to do it, which is another side benefit to the process if non-trivial. In other words, not only do we get usable fuel relatively cleanly, we remove greenhouse gases from the environment at the same time.
By the way, I'd like to remind people that how expensive a process is isn't always the only thing to consider.
If it's taxes you're looking to avoid, and you haven't already, consider contributing to a traditional IRA. The contributions can be deducted come April.
And it's not the system 'training' anyone, it's the fact that it's nearly impossible for many people to live within their means in a lot of cases due to companies not paying living wages and making sure the poor STAY poor. (And unhealthy, since you can't get affordable health insurance unless your employer provides coverage, which they're under no obligation to do.) I agree that you can make smarter choices with your money, but if your choices are having a 'safety margin' and eating, well, you'll probably choose to eat.
It's a vicious circle as far as credit goes; if you have money, you can borrow money, but if you don't, you're subject to predatory lending practices like those employed at 'no credit check' car lots and check cashing businesses. The TV isn't the problem there, it's the fact that you need a car. Where you and I could probably borrow at around 7% for that two-year-old used car, the guy with no money has to pay 20% interest or more in a lot of cases.
It always seems like the financial system charges more to the people who can least afford it. You can't get a checking account if you don't make enough money, so you lose a chunk of your paycheck to a place that WILL cash it for you. You get charged service fees on your checking account if you don't have enough money in it. The whole setup is regressive. If you resent people getting assistance from the system whose taxes you fund, then IMHO the right thing to do is to help people to make a living wage either through free job training or pressure on companies to pay people what they're worth and not what they can get away with.
You've seen those people with your own two eyes? I'm pretty sure the idea of a 'welfare queen' is at best a gross exaggeration and at worst an urban legend.
The 'working poor' mostly pay zero Federal Income Tax.
Come again? How little do you think the 'working poor' make in this country? Around here, someone making $40,000 and supporting a family of four falls squarely in the 'working poor' category, and even after dependent deductions wind up paying a significant amount in federal taxes.
Remember that 'working poor' is defined as people who don't qualify for social assistance like welfare or food assistance because they make 'too much' money.
Dude, have you been paying attention? This is MARKETING we're talking about. Don't you get it? These people are leeches on a society that claims to value progress but is vulnerable to the charms of the least common denominator.
You're making the assumption that since I feel this way about people in marketing, I must feel that way about everyone. Not so. Human beings, I do fine with.
Do you think anyone stops to consider the feelings and/or rights of IT when they're treating them like garbage? Hell no. What goes around, comes around.
I'm talking about pulling your head out of your ass long enough to, say, get to know some of them, as people.
That's kind of like saying you should get to know the pack of lions chasing after you before you run from them.
MAR KE TING. These people aren't even human beings. I didn't learn this until after I graduated and found out how the real world works.
After I got my CS degree, I went to an art school, where they have majors like Interior Design and Painting, and some of those students were the most intelligent and hard-working people I've known.
First off, it's great that you didn't have to enter the work force right away, and got a chance to expand your horizons a bit before the corporate machine crammed you into the round hole. Second of all, those are art students, not Marketing drones, so your comparison isn't really relevant IMHO.
And the chance to talk to students who had absolutely no interest in computers was both a world-broadening experience and a breath of fresh air.
My personal definition of 'stupid' is 'one who knows that they don't know something that they COULD learn, but actively choose to remain ignorant.' People who have no interest in computers fall into that category for me. Conversely, I have no artistic talent, and therefore no ability to learn art techniques, so you can't call me 'stupid' for that.
Yes, they will, which is why you'll find that hiring managers at all sorts of places do look at where you went to school to get an idea of what kind of experiences you've had, and they look favorably on small- to medium-sized Liberal Arts schools, over both Popcorn State and BigHardcore Tech.
First of all, I was using "Popcorn State" to represent the small to medium sized LA schools. Second of all, bullshit. HR looks at education, hiring managers care about whether you can do the job or not.
No, what he'd learn from the LA college is that the people he sees goofing off in the student union, drinking beer and smoking pot while he's working hard to get the most out of his education are the people who will be managing him later on in his career. I'd suggest going to the tech school just to avoid the douchebag factor.
Seriously, I went to a school that had a Fashion Marketing major. FASHION MARKETING. What the hell kind of a major is that? And what could you possibly talk about in the core classes? "Like, if you need something from, like, one of those icky computer guys, just open a button on your blouse and bat your eyelashes! Tee hee!"
Yes, I'm bitter. I believed people who told me that I should study what interested me and 'try to get the most out of my college experience'. Reality check: College is there to teach you things that will hopefully be useful for making a living later on in life. You can't eat a 'well-rounded education'. Determine what talents/interests you have that have the potential to make you the most money, and pursue/study those.
Also, remember that those letters after your name are only a 'get past the mouth-breathing morons in HR' card. The hiring manager at anyplace worth working at will be more interested in your skills and experience, not whether you went to Popcorn State or BigHardcore Tech.
My 'problem with English comprehension' stems from the fact that you used the word 'current', implying (to my mind) photovoltaics. I can see how you'd use the word 'current' to refer to the power generation which uses sunlight indirectly to generate power. I can also see how you could not be an asshole about a reasonable misinterpretation.
the reprocessed fuel is only a significant problem for three to five hundred years, totally solvable on a human timescale if you don't put the storage facility someplace as retarded as Yucca.
You prove my point through your description of our current disposal strategy for toxic byproducts of the current nuclear power generation process. We haven't been able to come up with a more viable strategy than 'just bury it'. For most meaningful current conversations, 300 to 500 years is no less relevant an issue than 100,000; anything that scales beyond 'next week' is irrelevant to most people.
We don't have breeder reactors. We're not likely to anytime soon. This solar tech is far more viable near-term for the following reasons:
1) It's much simpler to build and maintain. 2) It doesn't use radioactive materials that may someday in the future only be toxic for 300 years, but currently is toxic for thousands of years. (As far as I'm concerned, anything that's still toxic to my descendants 300 years hence is still a problem.)
What would YOU do with the waste, even taking as a given that we'll reduce the toxicity time-frame to 300 years? You still have to put it SOMEWHERE. Bear in mind that locations far removed from human populations will be fewer and fewer as our population increases exponentially.
But then you get into issues of power storage which we don't need to go into here and now.
Why not?
(At least these designs have the advantage that some of them are decently efficient in partial-sun situations; solar panels won't do this until another generation or so, they don't produce good current in even partial shade.)
Ah, you're thinking of photovoltaics, which the technology in question is NOT.
Nuclear is not the magic bullet you seem to think it is. There's still a few major issues I see with nuclear:
* Waste that is toxic for hundreds of thousands of years * The profit motive leading to corners being cut and safety being a casualty * NIMBY (not in my back yard) * Security - these plants are prime targets for terrorism
I know that other countries have made nuclear work (France is the most cited example.) However, those countries have been able to regulate the plants more closely without conservatives jumping all over their governments for 'promoting socialism' and 'over-regulation'. Our plants are (and would be) operated by for-profit companies. More corners being cut = more profit, so you better believe they'll cut those corners.
Relying on the sun for power is not feasible for anything other than base load stuff. When usage starts peaking there is no way to get the sun to send down more energy. A 92 square mile station wouldn't be any more useful than a much smaller station. Solar could only feasibly be a supplement to the grid.
This of course assumes that there's no way to store energy during off-peak periods as heat or hydrogen gas (new tech, great potential. You use the power generated to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen, and store the H2.). Where are you getting the 'base load' information? And so what? That's still power we don't need to generate in dirty ways.
I have to question why you think a 92 square mile station wouldn't be more useful. More reflective area = more power.
Should we wait for the 'right combination' to magically appear, or should we start doing what we can right now and learn what works and what doesn't? This tech is dead simple, it's scalable, and it taps a power source that won't exhaust itself for 5 billion years or so.
It's simple really. Redneck people make black people angry, and black people make rednecks angry.
And I'm guessing from your tone that it's more believable to you that minorities cause more problems than Caucasians. Not that simple. If you compare environmental factors like poverty, lack of access to education, inner-city blight, and so forth, I think you'll find that the homicide rate has far more to do with socioeconomic status than race.
Nice race-baiting by the use of "you people", by the way. Pity they're not biting...
If you define "Brady shill" as "someone who thinks the 2nd amendment doesn't preclude some sane regulation," then call me a Brady shill all you want.
You still have the right to 'keep and bear Arms', but within reason. Are you arguing that anyone should be allowed to bear any kind of firearm at any time they choose?
Without guns, you'll be conceding even MORE power to the government. At least now, when their jackbooted thugs kick down your door, you can shoot back.
If we've gotten to that point, the constitution is already dead, and the second amendment does not apply. Under the current system, if the jackbooted thugs kick in your door, you have recourse through the courts (as guaranteed by the first amendment.) Shooting someone should not be your first reaction to what you consider to be an unlawful search. (Chances are, you're not qualified to determine if a search is lawful or not.)
Violence should be your *last* resort, not your first. Even under your scenario, chances are there's a dozen jackbooted thugs, and you'll be swiss cheese before you can get your third shot off.
I hate pussy-ass liberals who ignore the 2nd.
I'm not ignoring it; I do believe that the people should be able to bear arms, within reason. What is 'reasonable' is where we disagree. I also believe that owning a gun doesn't protect you from harm under the circumstances you describe.
Most retard end users can barely turn the fucker on, let alone understand software licensing or hardware installs. The only time this is a good idea is if your IT department has a surplus of man-hours and doesn't want people to lose their jobs.
What needs to be mentioned here is that that isn't your computer, it belongs to the company. If there is a problem with, say, child porn, and the powers that be find out your company didn't do anything to prevent such content from being distributed on a company-owned computer, then your company is on the hook the same as your employee.
THIS IS A BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD IDEA. Support costs/demand will skyrocket if they CAN still get help from IT, but if they can't, well, the computers in your company will be completely unusable within a month. This is far too expensive an idea for it to be viable.
Yeah, that's a good idea. What's worse than the typical dumbass redneck American? That same typical dumbass redneck American with a gun.
Find me one study or article that supports home gun ownership as ensuring civil rights. (Difficulty: One that wasn't written by the NRA or one of its meat puppets in Congress.)
Granted, most people interpret the second amendment to mean that Americans have a right to own a gun, and that that's a civil right. But read the actual text:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Personally, I think that the meaning of this has been twisted over the years.
I was just about to post a comment saying that exact thing. The biggest problem with hydrogen as an energy storage medium is.. storage. (Nightmare of grammar, that is.) If this, theoretically, can solve that issue in a way that can become commercially viable (and that's an engineering problem, which we've become pretty good at overcoming) that's HUGE. No big pressurized tanks, no risk of leaks, (or, potentially, explosive combustion.. which is actually a much lower risk than the Hindenburg chicken littles would have you believe), no additional (hugely expensive) infrastructure. There's potential to be able to transport hydrogen like gravel, or (more likely) gasoline. (I'm guessing they could make a slurry of some kind, but I'm not a molecular physicist or a chemist.)
Agreed, the details are muddy, but IMHO this is well worth pursuing (and funding.) Combine this with high-efficiency photovoltaics (and from what I've seen, there's a huge breakthrough in the wings involving using a much wider spectrum of sunlight for energy conversion; current tech only uses one wavelength) and you have a near-100% clean energy source (provided the storage/extraction of hydrogen from these buckyballs can be a green process, which I'm not so sure about.)
The biggest issue with solar now is energy storage, but people are already using hydrogen for that (in large, expensive, pressurized tanks, granted). This seems like a logical next step, if it can make it out of the laboratory.
Slashdot Mirror
It's worse than I thought. You're in marketing.
Run into a stuttering rock crusher and die painfully, you self-promoting reality-distorting buzzword-humping douche.
Please take your business-school-douchebag-sales-is-more-important-than-competence attitude and shove it up your ass. Then waddle off Slashdot and go hump some business-seminar bullshit some more.
All sales does is take a product of a given quality and make it seem better than it actually is, so some shithead with money will get conned into forking it over. Even worse, it's pretty routine for sales to lie to a potential customer about the service and/or product they're pimping out, and leave the mess for people who do actual work to clean up while they snort coke off a hooker's ass with their client.
You sound like a PR flack for Scientology. Put down the grape Flavor-Aid and get back in touch with reality, where COMPETENCE AND QUALITY MATTER. Making a career out of denying that makes you a large part of the problem.
Yes, I'm bitter. I've spent the last fifteen or so years of my life watching people who drank their way through the business school at my university get rich while I work my ass off for (relatively) insulting wages and zero respect. If I hadn't managed to escape support when I did I'd either be dead from driving into a tree, or in jail for finally strangling one of you for treating me like shit because you could get away with it. Remember that you can't do your job without your computer, and the IT worker you berate for some bullshit reason today will be reading your email to your coke dealer tomorrow.
I see your job as being in academia, where, for better or worse, the normal rules of the job market frequently do not apply. It's been my experience that academia is one environment where intelligence and learning are valued, and there's far less emphasis on squeezing every nickel of profit out of the enterprise. You can excel at a job and be promoted in academia without changing employers; that isn't true in the job market as a whole.
IMHO help desk is a place to prove you can take abuse for an extended amount of time without driving off a bridge. You won't really learn any tech skills after the first couple of months; after that what you learn is that people are Wicked Fucking Stupid, and most management types couldn't find their asses with both hands, a flashlight, a road map, and a GPS receiver. To move up, you have to move out. If you remember that the job is nothing more than a resume builder (that is, if you don't put your real title on that entry on your resume; potential employers see "help desk rep" as "that cranky guy in IT that gets pissy when I say I don't want to be held to the same mail quota as everyone else"), then you will find it much easier to remain sane.
It's also a good example of how the business world works; the people who do actual work get shit on, while the people that profit off of others' hard work are the ones who get rich.
Yes, I did work help desk for a number of years. No, I haven't changed my general opinion of people since then, they're all Wicked Fucking Stupid. Yes, I'm bitter about it. Someone else might not come out so bitter, but others will become alcoholics from the stress.
Just so long as the benefits don't ALL have dollar/euro/pound/yen/whatever signs in front of them.
Also a fair point, but I think there might be an advantage in the carbon loop there (bugs -> fuel -> burn fuel -> carbon -> bugs -> fuel etc) instead of taking carbon out of the ground and putting it in the atmosphere. All conjecture, of course.
Has anyone seen any information regarding whether or not this process removes CO2 from the atmosphere in significant amounts? It would seem that if they're making carbohydrates (sugars) that this process would be pulling carbon from the environment to do it, which is another side benefit to the process if non-trivial. In other words, not only do we get usable fuel relatively cleanly, we remove greenhouse gases from the environment at the same time.
By the way, I'd like to remind people that how expensive a process is isn't always the only thing to consider.
If it's taxes you're looking to avoid, and you haven't already, consider contributing to a traditional IRA. The contributions can be deducted come April.
And it's not the system 'training' anyone, it's the fact that it's nearly impossible for many people to live within their means in a lot of cases due to companies not paying living wages and making sure the poor STAY poor. (And unhealthy, since you can't get affordable health insurance unless your employer provides coverage, which they're under no obligation to do.) I agree that you can make smarter choices with your money, but if your choices are having a 'safety margin' and eating, well, you'll probably choose to eat.
It's a vicious circle as far as credit goes; if you have money, you can borrow money, but if you don't, you're subject to predatory lending practices like those employed at 'no credit check' car lots and check cashing businesses. The TV isn't the problem there, it's the fact that you need a car. Where you and I could probably borrow at around 7% for that two-year-old used car, the guy with no money has to pay 20% interest or more in a lot of cases.
It always seems like the financial system charges more to the people who can least afford it. You can't get a checking account if you don't make enough money, so you lose a chunk of your paycheck to a place that WILL cash it for you. You get charged service fees on your checking account if you don't have enough money in it. The whole setup is regressive. If you resent people getting assistance from the system whose taxes you fund, then IMHO the right thing to do is to help people to make a living wage either through free job training or pressure on companies to pay people what they're worth and not what they can get away with.
You've seen those people with your own two eyes? I'm pretty sure the idea of a 'welfare queen' is at best a gross exaggeration and at worst an urban legend.
Remember that 'working poor' is defined as people who don't qualify for social assistance like welfare or food assistance because they make 'too much' money.
Thanks for Godwinning yourself. Saves me the trouble of telling you why you're wrong.
Dude, have you been paying attention? This is MARKETING we're talking about. Don't you get it? These people are leeches on a society that claims to value progress but is vulnerable to the charms of the least common denominator.
You're making the assumption that since I feel this way about people in marketing, I must feel that way about everyone. Not so. Human beings, I do fine with.
Do you think anyone stops to consider the feelings and/or rights of IT when they're treating them like garbage? Hell no. What goes around, comes around.
MAR KE TING. These people aren't even human beings. I didn't learn this until after I graduated and found out how the real world works.First off, it's great that you didn't have to enter the work force right away, and got a chance to expand your horizons a bit before the corporate machine crammed you into the round hole. Second of all, those are art students, not Marketing drones, so your comparison isn't really relevant IMHO.My personal definition of 'stupid' is 'one who knows that they don't know something that they COULD learn, but actively choose to remain ignorant.' People who have no interest in computers fall into that category for me. Conversely, I have no artistic talent, and therefore no ability to learn art techniques, so you can't call me 'stupid' for that.First of all, I was using "Popcorn State" to represent the small to medium sized LA schools. Second of all, bullshit. HR looks at education, hiring managers care about whether you can do the job or not.
No, what he'd learn from the LA college is that the people he sees goofing off in the student union, drinking beer and smoking pot while he's working hard to get the most out of his education are the people who will be managing him later on in his career. I'd suggest going to the tech school just to avoid the douchebag factor.
Seriously, I went to a school that had a Fashion Marketing major. FASHION MARKETING. What the hell kind of a major is that? And what could you possibly talk about in the core classes? "Like, if you need something from, like, one of those icky computer guys, just open a button on your blouse and bat your eyelashes! Tee hee!"
Yes, I'm bitter. I believed people who told me that I should study what interested me and 'try to get the most out of my college experience'. Reality check: College is there to teach you things that will hopefully be useful for making a living later on in life. You can't eat a 'well-rounded education'. Determine what talents/interests you have that have the potential to make you the most money, and pursue/study those.
Also, remember that those letters after your name are only a 'get past the mouth-breathing morons in HR' card. The hiring manager at anyplace worth working at will be more interested in your skills and experience, not whether you went to Popcorn State or BigHardcore Tech.
We don't have breeder reactors. We're not likely to anytime soon. This solar tech is far more viable near-term for the following reasons:
1) It's much simpler to build and maintain.
2) It doesn't use radioactive materials that may someday in the future only be toxic for 300 years, but currently is toxic for thousands of years. (As far as I'm concerned, anything that's still toxic to my descendants 300 years hence is still a problem.)
What would YOU do with the waste, even taking as a given that we'll reduce the toxicity time-frame to 300 years? You still have to put it SOMEWHERE. Bear in mind that locations far removed from human populations will be fewer and fewer as our population increases exponentially.
Nuclear is not the magic bullet you seem to think it is. There's still a few major issues I see with nuclear:
* Waste that is toxic for hundreds of thousands of years
* The profit motive leading to corners being cut and safety being a casualty
* NIMBY (not in my back yard)
* Security - these plants are prime targets for terrorism
I know that other countries have made nuclear work (France is the most cited example.) However, those countries have been able to regulate the plants more closely without conservatives jumping all over their governments for 'promoting socialism' and 'over-regulation'. Our plants are (and would be) operated by for-profit companies. More corners being cut = more profit, so you better believe they'll cut those corners.
I have to question why you think a 92 square mile station wouldn't be more useful. More reflective area = more power.
Should we wait for the 'right combination' to magically appear, or should we start doing what we can right now and learn what works and what doesn't? This tech is dead simple, it's scalable, and it taps a power source that won't exhaust itself for 5 billion years or so.
It's simple really. Redneck people make black people angry, and black people make rednecks angry.
And I'm guessing from your tone that it's more believable to you that minorities cause more problems than Caucasians. Not that simple. If you compare environmental factors like poverty, lack of access to education, inner-city blight, and so forth, I think you'll find that the homicide rate has far more to do with socioeconomic status than race.
Nice race-baiting by the use of "you people", by the way. Pity they're not biting...
If you define "Brady shill" as "someone who thinks the 2nd amendment doesn't preclude some sane regulation," then call me a Brady shill all you want.
You still have the right to 'keep and bear Arms', but within reason. Are you arguing that anyone should be allowed to bear any kind of firearm at any time they choose?
Violence should be your *last* resort, not your first. Even under your scenario, chances are there's a dozen jackbooted thugs, and you'll be swiss cheese before you can get your third shot off. I'm not ignoring it; I do believe that the people should be able to bear arms, within reason . What is 'reasonable' is where we disagree. I also believe that owning a gun doesn't protect you from harm under the circumstances you describe.
Fair enough. I was referring to the exact text of the amendment in my comments, but you're right, there's more to it than that.
HELL NO!
Most retard end users can barely turn the fucker on, let alone understand software licensing or hardware installs. The only time this is a good idea is if your IT department has a surplus of man-hours and doesn't want people to lose their jobs.
What needs to be mentioned here is that that isn't your computer, it belongs to the company. If there is a problem with, say, child porn, and the powers that be find out your company didn't do anything to prevent such content from being distributed on a company-owned computer, then your company is on the hook the same as your employee.
THIS IS A BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD IDEA. Support costs/demand will skyrocket if they CAN still get help from IT, but if they can't, well, the computers in your company will be completely unusable within a month. This is far too expensive an idea for it to be viable.
Find me one study or article that supports home gun ownership as ensuring civil rights. (Difficulty: One that wasn't written by the NRA or one of its meat puppets in Congress.)
Granted, most people interpret the second amendment to mean that Americans have a right to own a gun, and that that's a civil right. But read the actual text:Personally, I think that the meaning of this has been twisted over the years.
I was just about to post a comment saying that exact thing. The biggest problem with hydrogen as an energy storage medium is .. storage. (Nightmare of grammar, that is.) If this, theoretically, can solve that issue in a way that can become commercially viable (and that's an engineering problem, which we've become pretty good at overcoming) that's HUGE. No big pressurized tanks, no risk of leaks, (or, potentially, explosive combustion.. which is actually a much lower risk than the Hindenburg chicken littles would have you believe), no additional (hugely expensive) infrastructure. There's potential to be able to transport hydrogen like gravel, or (more likely) gasoline. (I'm guessing they could make a slurry of some kind, but I'm not a molecular physicist or a chemist.)
Agreed, the details are muddy, but IMHO this is well worth pursuing (and funding.) Combine this with high-efficiency photovoltaics (and from what I've seen, there's a huge breakthrough in the wings involving using a much wider spectrum of sunlight for energy conversion; current tech only uses one wavelength) and you have a near-100% clean energy source (provided the storage/extraction of hydrogen from these buckyballs can be a green process, which I'm not so sure about.)
The biggest issue with solar now is energy storage, but people are already using hydrogen for that (in large, expensive, pressurized tanks, granted). This seems like a logical next step, if it can make it out of the laboratory.