I guess one solution is for UN to own a small number of nukes in exchange for individual members giving up their own. Then if someone builds a facility to develop nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, they get a warning, two weeks of grace period and then a low-yield nuke to the area if UN inspectors are not overseeing its dismantlement.
Or they'll get a warning, a resolution, some grumbling, another warning, another resolution, some grumbling...
I wasn't entirely clear about that - I don't think that 5 guys with boxcutter could take over a plane with 100 people in it today. The economics of hijacking changed on September 11th from "sit down and be quiet until released" to "we're all going to die anyway so let's get them first".
Some very public failures of the screening process (like that college kid from Louisianna(?)) show that you are correct about it being mainly for show - and for disarming those who would fight back in the event of a hijacking.
Airplanes would be less apt to be hijacked if they issued everyone on board a stun gun or a big pointy stick and locked the pilots in the cabin.
In all fairness here, would 20 guys with boxcutters be able to do that today?
They were effective because no one else had hijacked a plane to fly into a building before - the "rules" had been to sit down and shut up so that you'll be eventually released. Those "rules" no longer apply.
I do agree with you that we are vulnerable to low tech attacks and that we must work on it!
Or install Linux on the machine after it's been moved out of its first use.
I've only installed Linux on a couple of new machines - most of the time I install it on machines that have been used for another application for a few years before being upgraded.
Not necessarily. If the 26 smallest states had 100% representation of 1 party, and the 24 largest states had 100% representation of another party (and thus rules the House), the party with 26 states wins.
It also might get interesting in cases where a state has an even number of representatives evenly split between parties.
This money will almost certainly never come back to the states so it functions as a loan the government never has to pay back, every time you tear up a bill the government makes money
Actually, they make more money just by placing bills in circulation. It costs a few cents to make any denomonation bill, which is then sold into circulation at face value.
They're working the way towards that now. Compare the new 20's to the current 10's - notice the peach hue to the paper. The new 50's will have red, white, and blue in the background.
I think that they get greedy because it costs a lot to set up an operation than will make good quality counterfeits, so they're seeking a return on their investment.
I live and work in a small town, and do computer work after hours. There's one other guy in town that I compete with, and I don't know what he charges (but I think it's less than me). I charge enough that I'm happy with what I get, I have enough work to keep me out of trouble, and don't have too many projects going at a time. And the other guy calls for advice from time to time.
I guess that I'm saying that being the premium service provider is a good place to be.
Then they get pissed when a tech isn't there within 5 mins. Hmm.....maybe I don't charge enough for service calls?
Do you think so?
In all seriousness, charge them what you're worth to them. If they're not interested in learning about their systems, charge them for your expertise. If they want to save some money, offer to tell them how to do some of that basic stuff so they won't need to call you for silly stuff.
When you start from zero, anything is a good start. The original post said that Russia should have an easy time meeting the quotas because the base was set high because of the output of the former soviet union. I don't think that Russia's industrial output is where it was artificially sustained prior to the fall of their government.
For the rest of them, if a country wants to be bound by the treaty, that's up to them. If they find it in their self interest to do so - good for them!
So we start with Kyoto. Then we demonstrate improvements without destroying economies.
The parent said that Russia was most of the way there because of the way that their economy tanked after the fall of the Soviet Union. I'd say that it took a destroyed economy to get them there.
The parent also said that Great Britain is converting coal fired power plants to natural gas - don't they have a ready supply of that in the north sea so that it kind of makes sense to do that?
Slashdot Mirror
Or they'll get a warning, a resolution, some grumbling, another warning, another resolution, some grumbling ...
Some very public failures of the screening process (like that college kid from Louisianna(?)) show that you are correct about it being mainly for show - and for disarming those who would fight back in the event of a hijacking.
Airplanes would be less apt to be hijacked if they issued everyone on board a stun gun or a big pointy stick and locked the pilots in the cabin.
In all fairness here, would 20 guys with boxcutters be able to do that today?
They were effective because no one else had hijacked a plane to fly into a building before - the "rules" had been to sit down and shut up so that you'll be eventually released. Those "rules" no longer apply.
I do agree with you that we are vulnerable to low tech attacks and that we must work on it!
So does Lucifer's Hammer by Larry Niven
Then make it even bigger for more of a surface area :)
But as big as it is, it has a larger surface area for a smaller wind to move against.
I've only installed Linux on a couple of new machines - most of the time I install it on machines that have been used for another application for a few years before being upgraded.
You can get desktops that way (if you look for them), but I don't think that you can get laptops without an operating system from Dell.
Because it will cause the intended pain on the US economy.
Not necessarily. If the 26 smallest states had 100% representation of 1 party, and the 24 largest states had 100% representation of another party (and thus rules the House), the party with 26 states wins.
It also might get interesting in cases where a state has an even number of representatives evenly split between parties.
A savvy and well informed voter will look closely at the ballot and wouldn't be likely to make a mistake.
Actually, they make more money just by placing bills in circulation. It costs a few cents to make any denomonation bill, which is then sold into circulation at face value.
They're working the way towards that now. Compare the new 20's to the current 10's - notice the peach hue to the paper. The new 50's will have red, white, and blue in the background.
I think that they get greedy because it costs a lot to set up an operation than will make good quality counterfeits, so they're seeking a return on their investment.
The free market is a wonderful thing.
I live and work in a small town, and do computer work after hours. There's one other guy in town that I compete with, and I don't know what he charges (but I think it's less than me). I charge enough that I'm happy with what I get, I have enough work to keep me out of trouble, and don't have too many projects going at a time. And the other guy calls for advice from time to time.
I guess that I'm saying that being the premium service provider is a good place to be.
Most people in most local governments aren't evil. And if it was intentional, I don't think it would have been done as well.
You've got to wonder if these people do any sort of proof reading before printing that kind of thing. (Hope that I spelled evrythng ok!)
There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!
How much do you charge then?
Nothing like a geek with a hero complex.
Do you think so?
In all seriousness, charge them what you're worth to them. If they're not interested in learning about their systems, charge them for your expertise. If they want to save some money, offer to tell them how to do some of that basic stuff so they won't need to call you for silly stuff.
It's much easier to go phishing instead!
For the rest of them, if a country wants to be bound by the treaty, that's up to them. If they find it in their self interest to do so - good for them!
The parent said that Russia was most of the way there because of the way that their economy tanked after the fall of the Soviet Union. I'd say that it took a destroyed economy to get them there.
The parent also said that Great Britain is converting coal fired power plants to natural gas - don't they have a ready supply of that in the north sea so that it kind of makes sense to do that?
But if we covered the whole country with those mattresses, think of how much fun it would be to jump off buildings while waiting for the pod to land!