Yes, there are TONS of IP KVMs that have a client you can run on your laptop. ps2/usb/video to the kvm, then ethernet from kvm to network (or crossover into laptop). Easy setup, easy to use.
You're absolutely right. How dare ANY country prevent objectional material, nuclear, biohazard, etc, from going through their country. The shipping of that kind of material should be controlled by the laws on the endpoints. They should be able to ship that stuff through any country they want without being subject to that country's laws, like, say, radioactive shielding requirements.
Yeah, suddenly that didn't sound so good, right? Remember, information is just another commodity. Nobody says the internet HAS to go through the US. If you object, route a few lines AROUND the US.
>>But if a company being run by the founder is flourishing it would probably be a bad idea to hire "professional" management to replace the founder.
I think that's a bit redundant. If any company is fourishing, _no_matter_who's_ at the tiller, it'd probably be a bad idea to hire _anyone_ to replace them.
The real reason is that igneous rock is very porous and doesn't conduct heat very well. The lava up against the leaves transfers heat into the hen, leaving a layer of porous, insulating rock which protects the hen from the "real" temperature of the very hot lava. Heat is then transfered slowly to the hen via the cooled, solidified, porous, insulating, damn, I'm out of adjectives, lava.
BTW, this is also how firewalking is done. Well, one of the theories, anyway. Porous rock is put on coals, sometimes lava, sometimes basalt, etc. The rocks are very hot, but that heat is absorbed into the flesh, callous, whatever. Internal heat takes enough time to reheat the surface that they're able to walk across.
This cannot be allowed to happen. The article mentions the possibility of mixed species creatures. I think the bible mentions the Apocalypse as having a rain of frogs or something.
What if someone creates frogs with WINGS?!?!
The benefits of large scale military action
on
Our New Pearl Harbor
·
· Score: 1
I've seen several posts here decrying the use of force without knowing exactly who perpetrated the attack, citing the initiation of a circle of violence, loss of innocent lives, the rule of law, et cetera. What I haven't seen is any kind of logical thought as to the positive effects of such a strike. To do so, we'd need to take a good look at the motives and support of terrorism.
Just off the top of my head, at rock bottom it boils down to pro-my-party, anti-that-party. As fanatics conduct almost all terrorism, I don't think you can resolve the "anti-that-party" issue very easily without going belly up. If you can think of a way to stop people from hating what you stand for, definitely, post it. However, enough retaliatory military strikes at people belonging to the "pro-my-party" camp will cause "pain" to the organization and thusly create a negative reinforcement to each terrorist action. Large amounts of pain would eliminate half of the motive of terrorist action because the "pro-my-party" stance couldn't condone the damage done to "my-party."
It isn't even necessary to be sure you have the right terrorist organization. Just the fact of violence has been used against terrorist nations would most likely have a deterring effect. It's a well-known fact that terrorism isn't self-sufficient. Terrorist organizations must receive funding and support from somewhere. In most cases, this support comes from what are often called "terrorist nations." In many cases, not only does the terrorist nation and the people of that nation provide funding for the terrorist organization, it actively protects the organization from law enforcement activity. Large-scale military action would most likely encourage terrorist nations to cooperate with international law enforcement to stop terrorist organizations.
Most posts against the use of force seem to be largely complaints against the loss of innocent life. I completely agree. Innocent lives should not be lost due to terrorism, theirs _OR_OURS_. Force can be applied in such a way as to encourage antiterrorism cooperation without the loss of human life. For example, it should be possible to broadcast to the world that we will level a certain major city in a certain terrorist nation, conventionally or with nuclear weapons, but I think nuclear weapons would make a much stronger, _enduring_ statement. The people living in that city will have two or three weeks to evacuate before the city is destroyed. The nation will have enough warning to be able to evacuate people without the ability to evacuate on their own. The loss in terms of resources would be tremendous. I'll bet it would take only two such examples to largely eliminate terrorism with very little loss of life. If not, take two more and reassess. Soon, the people of the terrorist nations would likely give up the terrorists.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, there are TONS of IP KVMs that have a client you can run on your laptop. ps2/usb/video to the kvm, then ethernet from kvm to network (or crossover into laptop). Easy setup, easy to use.
You're absolutely right. How dare ANY country prevent objectional material, nuclear, biohazard, etc, from going through their country. The shipping of that kind of material should be controlled by the laws on the endpoints. They should be able to ship that stuff through any country they want without being subject to that country's laws, like, say, radioactive shielding requirements.
Yeah, suddenly that didn't sound so good, right? Remember, information is just another commodity. Nobody says the internet HAS to go through the US. If you object, route a few lines AROUND the US.
>>But if a company being run by the founder is flourishing it would probably be a bad idea to hire "professional" management to replace the founder.
I think that's a bit redundant. If any company is fourishing, _no_matter_who's_ at the tiller, it'd probably be a bad idea to hire _anyone_ to replace them.
The real reason is that igneous rock is very porous and doesn't conduct heat very well. The lava up against the leaves transfers heat into the hen, leaving a layer of porous, insulating rock which protects the hen from the "real" temperature of the very hot lava. Heat is then transfered slowly to the hen via the cooled, solidified, porous, insulating, damn, I'm out of adjectives, lava.
BTW, this is also how firewalking is done. Well, one of the theories, anyway. Porous rock is put on coals, sometimes lava, sometimes basalt, etc. The rocks are very hot, but that heat is absorbed into the flesh, callous, whatever. Internal heat takes enough time to reheat the surface that they're able to walk across.
Now how long will it take to get Coppertone 1500 (with Cerac alpha-1500 heat dissipation)?
This cannot be allowed to happen. The article mentions the possibility of mixed species creatures. I think the bible mentions the Apocalypse as having a rain of frogs or something.
What if someone creates frogs with WINGS?!?!
I've seen several posts here decrying the use of force without knowing exactly who perpetrated the attack, citing the initiation of a circle of violence, loss of innocent lives, the rule of law, et cetera. What I haven't seen is any kind of logical thought as to the positive effects of such a strike. To do so, we'd need to take a good look at the motives and support of terrorism.
Just off the top of my head, at rock bottom it boils down to pro-my-party, anti-that-party. As fanatics conduct almost all terrorism, I don't think you can resolve the "anti-that-party" issue very easily without going belly up. If you can think of a way to stop people from hating what you stand for, definitely, post it. However, enough retaliatory military strikes at people belonging to the "pro-my-party" camp will cause "pain" to the organization and thusly create a negative reinforcement to each terrorist action. Large amounts of pain would eliminate half of the motive of terrorist action because the "pro-my-party" stance couldn't condone the damage done to "my-party."
It isn't even necessary to be sure you have the right terrorist organization. Just the fact of violence has been used against terrorist nations would most likely have a deterring effect. It's a well-known fact that terrorism isn't self-sufficient. Terrorist organizations must receive funding and support from somewhere. In most cases, this support comes from what are often called "terrorist nations." In many cases, not only does the terrorist nation and the people of that nation provide funding for the terrorist organization, it actively protects the organization from law enforcement activity. Large-scale military action would most likely encourage terrorist nations to cooperate with international law enforcement to stop terrorist organizations.
Most posts against the use of force seem to be largely complaints against the loss of innocent life. I completely agree. Innocent lives should not be lost due to terrorism, theirs _OR_OURS_. Force can be applied in such a way as to encourage antiterrorism cooperation without the loss of human life. For example, it should be possible to broadcast to the world that we will level a certain major city in a certain terrorist nation, conventionally or with nuclear weapons, but I think nuclear weapons would make a much stronger, _enduring_ statement. The people living in that city will have two or three weeks to evacuate before the city is destroyed. The nation will have enough warning to be able to evacuate people without the ability to evacuate on their own. The loss in terms of resources would be tremendous. I'll bet it would take only two such examples to largely eliminate terrorism with very little loss of life. If not, take two more and reassess. Soon, the people of the terrorist nations would likely give up the terrorists.