ClearOS reports this and will give you all the function you need. It is great for both seasoned and beginner Linux users. The alternative is to set it up yourself.
It is free and will run on that old computer you have in your closet.
The false 'prophets' of science can bend the attitudes of people as much as the false 'prophets' of religions. We seen this with unscrupulous doctors of science introducing non-facts (lies) into the body of science for their own gain. It happens in religion too, and that all to frequently. Equating science to religion is difficult because they both address the human condition and everything as it pertains to us. Not understanding the intricacies science does make the belief in it faith and it is the exact same condition as any other belief system. Faith is believing in something that is not seen or personally witnessed but it is true. It is not a religious concept only and it is not non-scientific either (excuse the negativity, double or otherwise). I have faith that the poster 'grub' is a human and not a sophisticated bot. I cannot prove it with my own resources but I know it to be true. If I apply some science to my hypothesis, it will either validate my faith in my hypothesis or invalidate it and reveal that my faith was unfounded (this is a proper phrase when exposing a belief as being false). Do not fall into the easy trap of equating faith to religion. Scientists exercise faith all the time or else they would never attempt an hypothesis.
Also, 'grub' insists that faith has NO EVIDENCE to back it up. This in not true, those accepting the concept of an atom as being real are as much a 'true believer' as any other idea put to religious believers. Though intelligent, they trust that such thing exists because they trust the witness or witnesses as being truthful. They do this in the EXACT same way as a child trusts all the adults around them that there is a Santa Claus. To that child, Santa is real and the evidence is astounding! The doors of the house were locked and in the morning there were presents around the tree. On account of two respected witnesses, the parents, an unexplained force left the presents. Is this not real then? Is this not demonstrable and repeatable? Is there a higher truth to be had, absolutely! I encourage you to watch James Burke's "The Day the Universe Changed" in order to have a greater appreciation for the concept.
Is it possible for a religion in the world today to be correct however improbable? Is it possible for there to be a sentient creator of the universe? I concede that it is possible...and extremely improbable. Since religion is a philosophical fountain and deals with the human condition from the basis of the end product (cognition, morality, and truth) rather than the material components or building blocks (biology, psychology, and facts), it would be have to be in absolute harmony to the laws of sciences at the end of the day. For such a religion to be true it would have to be:
1- perfect truth and the one true original (its truth must be truth itself. It would have to be true, and it would have to have existed before the big bang. This does not require that its adherents must be perfect)
2- singular (since all other religions which are unequal are imperfect)
3- would require communication to the sentient creator of the universe (or else its foundation is unrevealed and its answers to new questions and situations would be prone to error)
4- would be testable (else it would not have the power to convert or sway opinion. See number 3)
5- would have an improbable story (by the prevailing belief of science of that day) that defies explanation at the time of its introduction but would be validated later science as science became fuller and more closely describes found truth (this is required since our understanding of the universe would be constantly wrong until such time that science is perfect)
6- compatible with scientific absolutes (scientific absolutes would be truth itself therefore it would be equivalent See number 1)
7- as science advances, the religions original philosophies and positions would be validated and vindicated (corollary to number 6)
The plethora of religious ideas should show you that the plethora is wrong.
Lightning from thunderstorms produces ozone in the troposphere. Ozone in the troposphere is a pollutant and causes respiratory ailments in animal life. Moreover, it is too volatile to ever hope to make it 'back home' to the stratosphere. Lightning does not build the ozone layer but rather radiation from space. The problem with H2 is that it does NOT combine with O2 unless burned which it cannot do unless it is in concentrations of >4%. It is, however, reactive with ozone and water in the upper atmosphere is a bad thing.
Part of the reason for the hole in the ozone layer above the poles in the winter and spring is due to the fact that it is, at times, too cold for ozone to form as a stable layer. So a reduction in the temperature of the stratosphere due to water in the upper atmosphere can cause an additional decay. H2 recombining with O3 produces water which lowers the temperature of the upper atmosphere causing further depletion of the ozone. Additionally, oxygen is heavier than nitrogen so the process of 'balancing' the system only serves to deplete the stratosphere of oxygen in all forms.
Nobody, to my knowledge, has even studied the affects of ground sourced H2 and existing monatomic oxygen in the mesosphere. Lastly, leaking and unspent H2 which doesn't react with ozone doesn't 'build up' in the stratosphere but rather it goes into space leaving the 'balance' you mention unanswered and having the effect of stranding the oxygen on the planet. Remember that Oxygen is a pollutant too and at 35% (we are currently at 21%) we get massive fires from a highly combustable atmosphere and huge spiders and frogs.
I accept that Hydrogen power is a better alternative for the time being to that burning fossil fuels at an unsustainable rate. But it is so popular to say that hydrogen is green and the answer to all our problems when there is this caveat and very little has been done to properly research the downside.
PS. I think it would take a long time for us to turn that much water to Oxygen through leaking H2 into space and thereby making massive frogs. Although it might be fun to see!
Hydrogen's effects on the upper atmosphere is not yet well known but there are indicators that it is bad, very bad. They only reason sheeple are jumping on the hydrogen band wagon is because:
Hydrogen Fuel != Fossil Fuel
Fossil Fuel == Bad
Therefore (they conclude):
Hydrogen == Good
The proponents of Hydrogen Fuel say that the only waste product in the burning of H2 and O2 is H2O but this is NOT true. Because you do not get a 100% efficient burn and because H2 is very leaky stuff even in a fuel cell, the other waste product they fail to mention is the fuel itself. So the question is what happens to H2 and O3 in the upper atmosphere? We were is such a rush to eliminate CFCs (quite heavy molecules in comparison) because of their effects should they reach the ozone. How ironic that so many now turn to H2 as a panacea of clean energy when it can be demonstrated that it affects on ozone and unspent and leaky H2 has no where to go but up.
http://eands.caltech.edu/articles/LXVI/H2.html
In order to break up an monopoly you will have to prove that they are a monopoly or that practices were done that were monopolistic. Part of the aim for net neutrality is to define what this monopolistic behavior is for an industry that did NOT exist when the antitrust laws were created.
Whoa! I find out in the same paragraph that not only does CA have a database platform but suddenly it is worthy of intellectual property protection mechanisms. Why have I not heard of this yet? It must be awesome for them to have kept it secret all this time.
In other news, terrorists state admitted today that they are canceling their radioactive materials enrichment programs. "No need to irradiate the US with nuclear weapons anymore," they said. "They are now self-radiating."
Consider ClearOS too. Both SME and ClearOS received top marks in the recent review by theregister.co.uk. It is not surprising, they share the same stable code heritage and with the release of Redhat 6 we can expect more goodies to trickle down. They also have a fairly good relationship together and share knowledge. For instance, the Windows 7 compatibility in SME 8 comes from contributions from developers on the ClearOS project. The new installer on ClearOS 6 (not yet in beta) comes from developers on the SME project.
I find it interesting that ifrag uses the the quote from Asimov which illustrates what is not being said here. Swearing is a form of verbal violence. Like physical violence, once it becomes common place, society will look for greater forms as time goes on. For the f-bomb to be significant, relevant, or outrageous, it must be reserved. When I say reserved I mean that the usage of it should be deplorable, despised, reproached by the majority, and shocking. That it is used pervasively causes it to become insignificant, common place, and completely inexpressive. For some, it amounts to no more than an 'um' in their speech. How then do we know when these people are really upset or expressive? I don't use that word except on rare, rare occasions. When I have, people really know that something is horribly wrong.
If it is 'effective at expressing [his] thoughts and feelings' and it is used often then it truly the refuge for the incompetent who are ignorant of the direct, expressive and applicable terms. Manipulation of base terms is a lazy, mindless exercise. Trendy terms can change society to call things what they are not until the original meaning is utterly lost (ie. gay=happy, dope=impurity added to alter properties, fag=to work hard or toil). I personally think that both of these are damaging to humanity as a whole because it causes languages, (all languages suffer this) to drift and be too dynamic for understanding. In many cases, these new terms are language specific and lose meaning not only across languages but within dialects. This drift makes communication between people difficult and increases misunderstanding. Even for those that chase the trendier meanings, this means that the past lexicon is useless. In the case of the two year old exclaiming the f-bomb or even your expletive friend, it is unlikely that even a fraction of their issuance of that word is meant to convey fornication and unlawful carnal knowledge.
Sure, Asimov hated violence. Violence is destructive, it changes people attitudes and behaviours and causes segregation and exclusion. It also destroys property or causes ancient pieces of art and architecture to be destroyed, diminished, or lost. It truly is a bastion for the incompetent.
Profanity and trendy speak are a destructive form of violence too against understanding. Profanity and trendy speech can change peoples attitudes and behaviours and causes segregation and exclusion. It destroys meaning and causes the meaning of ancient writings, stories, and texts to be destroyed, diminished, or lost. These types of speech are low, ignorant, and are the bastion for the incompetent, even when expressing themselves.
The simple truth is that OSI is the de facto open source standard. If you don't believe that then perhaps this applies to you.
It is true that OSI does NOT hold the trademark which would make them the de jure open source standard. But the simple fact that they applied for the trademark shows greater investment and clout that other who simply seek to redefine the term to suit their own immediate needs. This gives OSI an even greater claim to the de facto status.
Additional basis for this claim is that vast majority of projects and software that claim to be 'open source' subscribe to these policies or licenses recognized by OSI as 'open source'. Other non-software users of the term may reference the term but there is some fluidity to it which is why OSI does not *own* it de jure.
Perhaps the word 'belt' conjours the fantastical idea of a traffic jam of large boulders bumping and colliding with each other as displayed in popular science fiction. The asteroid belt is not crowded as many would believe and the total mass of the entire thing is less than that of the moon. In fact, about 1/2 of the total mass is contained within just 4 objects which are approximately the sizes of Pluto and Charon (This is part of the reason why Pluto has been demoted as a full planet). The rest is much smaller bits (some the size of mere dust) randomly spread over an area of about 200,000,000,000,000,000 square kilometers
The only purpose for setting up camp on the asteroids would be for mining. Smelting presents a problem for both the moon AND for asteroids because most smelting requires the generation of heat and for that gravity and atmosphere tend to be bonuses.
The moons gravity well is one sixth that of earth which makes blasting off from the surface of the moon trivial at about 2 and 1/3 km/s. In addition, getting the moon is an easy calculation and takes only days with our current technologies, and you don't have to make an interplanetary insertion like you would to the asteroid belt.
It's BECAUSE it has gravity and it's proximity to the Earth that make the moon ideal. But interplanetary, exploration is sexier, costlier and case placates the masses who still yearn for man to be a space-faring people. Mars a waste, IMHO.
Bringing water from the Red Sea will only serve to increase the salt levels of the Dead Sea. Remember, the Dead Sea is normally only fed from 'fresh water' sources. Feeding this evaporative basin with salt waters will only dramatically INCREASE salt levels. It would be better to draw waters from the north or north-eastern sources. However, the best solution for this problem would be better conservation of the exist water.
Sadly, the likely scenario that will 'fix' this problem will be increased violence in the region and a reduction of population. Iran will likely use attacks against Israel to include statements like: 'Doing our part to fix the Dead Sea problem.'
Sometimes environmental engineering chases stupidity with stupidity.
This is why i use ClearOS. It comes with Intrusion Prevention via Snort right out of the box. It proactively blocks failed SSH attempts and keeps my boxes off the lists happy and smiley!
Luckily this was defeated on Friday. Seems like enough people with sense voted against this in the end. Unfortunately, the good senator that put forth this bill is not giving up on the idea and it may return. Luckily I know a lot of people in Orem (his home city) and come next election I will put some influence to get him out of there.
Alternately, he could put forward legislation that deems mailboxes as inviolate as post office boxen. Then I might forgive him....might.
Perhaps this article would mean more to you if MS started strangling your favorite open source project with threats of patent infringement. When a company like MS takes out ridiculous/obvious patents and the patent office gives then whatever they desire you can understand the trepidation. Manipulation of the ISO is just a showcase of how MS can operate with standards bodies and should not be taken lightly. If IE were the only browser out there, just how much motivation would MS have to fix their security issues with it? MS subsidizes and gives away things for 'free' when they know that they are getting financial remuneration on the side. This is true for IE (.NET, windows IIS environments running.NET backends, costly development tools) and also true with XBox (pricey games that work on a singular platform). Over time Microsoft will become an entity that cannot innovate themselves but only describe others innovations and race them to the patent office. They seemto bein thatstatealready.
People don't understand encryption and so they don't use/insist on it. Moreover, it is usually that thing that gets in the way when they want to be productive. I once saw the security manager at our company spend months specially crafting a security policy for the company and then sought board approval so that he could reign in the CEO and COO anytime they balked at the policies and procedures put in place. This is the 'iron fist' rule which does more to educate than any other tool. When forced to go through the hoop many times, the process becomes simpler.
The lesson to be learned here is to design systems that security is understood and mandated. That education and knowledge transfer become mandatory and not optional. This also helps to illustrate and point out the stumbling blocks for poorly designed or cumbersome systems.
For instance, ClearOS provides only 2 factor OpenVPN configurations for client VPN access to the network. Because key/password authentication is mandatory, efforts are made so that user key self-service is provided. If another method were provided that caused less friction, then the users would not sufficiently test/validate the process, training, or education of the secure method.
Slashdot Mirror
We saw this happen this morning at ClearFoundation and are already building against 6.1 for our 6.0 release. Look for it soon.
You can download it here
ClearOS reports this and will give you all the function you need. It is great for both seasoned and beginner Linux users. The alternative is to set it up yourself. It is free and will run on that old computer you have in your closet.
Thanks for all your hard work Pamela. The open source community has benefited greatly from your efforts. Good luck in you future endeavors!
The false 'prophets' of science can bend the attitudes of people as much as the false 'prophets' of religions. We seen this with unscrupulous doctors of science introducing non-facts (lies) into the body of science for their own gain. It happens in religion too, and that all to frequently. Equating science to religion is difficult because they both address the human condition and everything as it pertains to us. Not understanding the intricacies science does make the belief in it faith and it is the exact same condition as any other belief system. Faith is believing in something that is not seen or personally witnessed but it is true. It is not a religious concept only and it is not non-scientific either (excuse the negativity, double or otherwise). I have faith that the poster 'grub' is a human and not a sophisticated bot. I cannot prove it with my own resources but I know it to be true. If I apply some science to my hypothesis, it will either validate my faith in my hypothesis or invalidate it and reveal that my faith was unfounded (this is a proper phrase when exposing a belief as being false). Do not fall into the easy trap of equating faith to religion. Scientists exercise faith all the time or else they would never attempt an hypothesis.
Also, 'grub' insists that faith has NO EVIDENCE to back it up. This in not true, those accepting the concept of an atom as being real are as much a 'true believer' as any other idea put to religious believers. Though intelligent, they trust that such thing exists because they trust the witness or witnesses as being truthful. They do this in the EXACT same way as a child trusts all the adults around them that there is a Santa Claus. To that child, Santa is real and the evidence is astounding! The doors of the house were locked and in the morning there were presents around the tree. On account of two respected witnesses, the parents, an unexplained force left the presents. Is this not real then? Is this not demonstrable and repeatable? Is there a higher truth to be had, absolutely! I encourage you to watch James Burke's "The Day the Universe Changed" in order to have a greater appreciation for the concept.
Is it possible for a religion in the world today to be correct however improbable? Is it possible for there to be a sentient creator of the universe? I concede that it is possible...and extremely improbable. Since religion is a philosophical fountain and deals with the human condition from the basis of the end product (cognition, morality, and truth) rather than the material components or building blocks (biology, psychology, and facts), it would be have to be in absolute harmony to the laws of sciences at the end of the day. For such a religion to be true it would have to be:
1- perfect truth and the one true original (its truth must be truth itself. It would have to be true, and it would have to have existed before the big bang. This does not require that its adherents must be perfect)
2- singular (since all other religions which are unequal are imperfect)
3- would require communication to the sentient creator of the universe (or else its foundation is unrevealed and its answers to new questions and situations would be prone to error)
4- would be testable (else it would not have the power to convert or sway opinion. See number 3)
5- would have an improbable story (by the prevailing belief of science of that day) that defies explanation at the time of its introduction but would be validated later science as science became fuller and more closely describes found truth (this is required since our understanding of the universe would be constantly wrong until such time that science is perfect)
6- compatible with scientific absolutes (scientific absolutes would be truth itself therefore it would be equivalent See number 1)
7- as science advances, the religions original philosophies and positions would be validated and vindicated (corollary to number 6)
The plethora of religious ideas should show you that the plethora is wrong.
Part of the reason for the hole in the ozone layer above the poles in the winter and spring is due to the fact that it is, at times, too cold for ozone to form as a stable layer. So a reduction in the temperature of the stratosphere due to water in the upper atmosphere can cause an additional decay. H2 recombining with O3 produces water which lowers the temperature of the upper atmosphere causing further depletion of the ozone. Additionally, oxygen is heavier than nitrogen so the process of 'balancing' the system only serves to deplete the stratosphere of oxygen in all forms.
Nobody, to my knowledge, has even studied the affects of ground sourced H2 and existing monatomic oxygen in the mesosphere. Lastly, leaking and unspent H2 which doesn't react with ozone doesn't 'build up' in the stratosphere but rather it goes into space leaving the 'balance' you mention unanswered and having the effect of stranding the oxygen on the planet. Remember that Oxygen is a pollutant too and at 35% (we are currently at 21%) we get massive fires from a highly combustable atmosphere and huge spiders and frogs.
I accept that Hydrogen power is a better alternative for the time being to that burning fossil fuels at an unsustainable rate. But it is so popular to say that hydrogen is green and the answer to all our problems when there is this caveat and very little has been done to properly research the downside.
PS. I think it would take a long time for us to turn that much water to Oxygen through leaking H2 into space and thereby making massive frogs. Although it might be fun to see!
Hydrogen Fuel != Fossil Fuel
Fossil Fuel == Bad
Therefore (they conclude):
Hydrogen == Good
The proponents of Hydrogen Fuel say that the only waste product in the burning of H2 and O2 is H2O but this is NOT true. Because you do not get a 100% efficient burn and because H2 is very leaky stuff even in a fuel cell, the other waste product they fail to mention is the fuel itself. So the question is what happens to H2 and O3 in the upper atmosphere? We were is such a rush to eliminate CFCs (quite heavy molecules in comparison) because of their effects should they reach the ozone. How ironic that so many now turn to H2 as a panacea of clean energy when it can be demonstrated that it affects on ozone and unspent and leaky H2 has no where to go but up. http://eands.caltech.edu/articles/LXVI/H2.html
Hmmm, I guess we should start taking Chinese espionage seriously?
I guess it is ok then to jailbreak these?!!??
In order to break up an monopoly you will have to prove that they are a monopoly or that practices were done that were monopolistic. Part of the aim for net neutrality is to define what this monopolistic behavior is for an industry that did NOT exist when the antitrust laws were created.
Yet, Christians, Jews, and Muslims will accept this conclusion very well and this article will not be 'news' to them.
Whoa! I find out in the same paragraph that not only does CA have a database platform but suddenly it is worthy of intellectual property protection mechanisms. Why have I not heard of this yet? It must be awesome for them to have kept it secret all this time.
In other news, terrorists state admitted today that they are canceling their radioactive materials enrichment programs. "No need to irradiate the US with nuclear weapons anymore," they said. "They are now self-radiating."
Consider ClearOS too. Both SME and ClearOS received top marks in the recent review by theregister.co.uk. It is not surprising, they share the same stable code heritage and with the release of Redhat 6 we can expect more goodies to trickle down. They also have a fairly good relationship together and share knowledge. For instance, the Windows 7 compatibility in SME 8 comes from contributions from developers on the ClearOS project. The new installer on ClearOS 6 (not yet in beta) comes from developers on the SME project.
Can't we just rebuild him again? Don't we have the technology?
I find it interesting that ifrag uses the the quote from Asimov which illustrates what is not being said here. Swearing is a form of verbal violence. Like physical violence, once it becomes common place, society will look for greater forms as time goes on. For the f-bomb to be significant, relevant, or outrageous, it must be reserved. When I say reserved I mean that the usage of it should be deplorable, despised, reproached by the majority, and shocking. That it is used pervasively causes it to become insignificant, common place, and completely inexpressive. For some, it amounts to no more than an 'um' in their speech. How then do we know when these people are really upset or expressive? I don't use that word except on rare, rare occasions. When I have, people really know that something is horribly wrong.
If it is 'effective at expressing [his] thoughts and feelings' and it is used often then it truly the refuge for the incompetent who are ignorant of the direct, expressive and applicable terms. Manipulation of base terms is a lazy, mindless exercise. Trendy terms can change society to call things what they are not until the original meaning is utterly lost (ie. gay=happy, dope=impurity added to alter properties, fag=to work hard or toil). I personally think that both of these are damaging to humanity as a whole because it causes languages, (all languages suffer this) to drift and be too dynamic for understanding. In many cases, these new terms are language specific and lose meaning not only across languages but within dialects. This drift makes communication between people difficult and increases misunderstanding. Even for those that chase the trendier meanings, this means that the past lexicon is useless. In the case of the two year old exclaiming the f-bomb or even your expletive friend, it is unlikely that even a fraction of their issuance of that word is meant to convey fornication and unlawful carnal knowledge.
Sure, Asimov hated violence. Violence is destructive, it changes people attitudes and behaviours and causes segregation and exclusion. It also destroys property or causes ancient pieces of art and architecture to be destroyed, diminished, or lost. It truly is a bastion for the incompetent.
Profanity and trendy speak are a destructive form of violence too against understanding. Profanity and trendy speech can change peoples attitudes and behaviours and causes segregation and exclusion. It destroys meaning and causes the meaning of ancient writings, stories, and texts to be destroyed, diminished, or lost. These types of speech are low, ignorant, and are the bastion for the incompetent, even when expressing themselves.
...still no cure for cancer.
It is true that OSI does NOT hold the trademark which would make them the de jure open source standard. But the simple fact that they applied for the trademark shows greater investment and clout that other who simply seek to redefine the term to suit their own immediate needs. This gives OSI an even greater claim to the de facto status.
Additional basis for this claim is that vast majority of projects and software that claim to be 'open source' subscribe to these policies or licenses recognized by OSI as 'open source'. Other non-software users of the term may reference the term but there is some fluidity to it which is why OSI does not *own* it de jure.
The only purpose for setting up camp on the asteroids would be for mining. Smelting presents a problem for both the moon AND for asteroids because most smelting requires the generation of heat and for that gravity and atmosphere tend to be bonuses.
The moons gravity well is one sixth that of earth which makes blasting off from the surface of the moon trivial at about 2 and 1/3 km/s. In addition, getting the moon is an easy calculation and takes only days with our current technologies, and you don't have to make an interplanetary insertion like you would to the asteroid belt.
It's BECAUSE it has gravity and it's proximity to the Earth that make the moon ideal. But interplanetary, exploration is sexier, costlier and case placates the masses who still yearn for man to be a space-faring people. Mars a waste, IMHO.
Bringing water from the Red Sea will only serve to increase the salt levels of the Dead Sea. Remember, the Dead Sea is normally only fed from 'fresh water' sources. Feeding this evaporative basin with salt waters will only dramatically INCREASE salt levels. It would be better to draw waters from the north or north-eastern sources. However, the best solution for this problem would be better conservation of the exist water. Sadly, the likely scenario that will 'fix' this problem will be increased violence in the region and a reduction of population. Iran will likely use attacks against Israel to include statements like: 'Doing our part to fix the Dead Sea problem.' Sometimes environmental engineering chases stupidity with stupidity.
This is why i use ClearOS. It comes with Intrusion Prevention via Snort right out of the box. It proactively blocks failed SSH attempts and keeps my boxes off the lists happy and smiley!
Sadly, it is being re-introduced as a substitute bill...I guess no is not an option for these people.
Luckily this was defeated on Friday. Seems like enough people with sense voted against this in the end. Unfortunately, the good senator that put forth this bill is not giving up on the idea and it may return. Luckily I know a lot of people in Orem (his home city) and come next election I will put some influence to get him out of there. Alternately, he could put forward legislation that deems mailboxes as inviolate as post office boxen. Then I might forgive him....might.
Perhaps this article would mean more to you if MS started strangling your favorite open source project with threats of patent infringement. When a company like MS takes out ridiculous/obvious patents and the patent office gives then whatever they desire you can understand the trepidation. Manipulation of the ISO is just a showcase of how MS can operate with standards bodies and should not be taken lightly. If IE were the only browser out there, just how much motivation would MS have to fix their security issues with it? MS subsidizes and gives away things for 'free' when they know that they are getting financial remuneration on the side. This is true for IE (.NET, windows IIS environments running .NET backends, costly development tools) and also true with XBox (pricey games that work on a singular platform). Over time Microsoft will become an entity that cannot innovate themselves but only describe others innovations and race them to the patent office. They seem to be in that state already.
People don't understand encryption and so they don't use/insist on it. Moreover, it is usually that thing that gets in the way when they want to be productive. I once saw the security manager at our company spend months specially crafting a security policy for the company and then sought board approval so that he could reign in the CEO and COO anytime they balked at the policies and procedures put in place. This is the 'iron fist' rule which does more to educate than any other tool. When forced to go through the hoop many times, the process becomes simpler. The lesson to be learned here is to design systems that security is understood and mandated. That education and knowledge transfer become mandatory and not optional. This also helps to illustrate and point out the stumbling blocks for poorly designed or cumbersome systems. For instance, ClearOS provides only 2 factor OpenVPN configurations for client VPN access to the network. Because key/password authentication is mandatory, efforts are made so that user key self-service is provided. If another method were provided that caused less friction, then the users would not sufficiently test/validate the process, training, or education of the secure method.