What I do know is that he is not an idiot, there is quite some evidence for this, and so he knows he has no chance of gaining actual direct power (becoming any sort of a tyrant).
Stalin, Mao, and Hitler weren't idiots either. George W Bush, maybe, but that's a different story.
The Pope is very much a luddite with a very specific agenda. He wants to hide the Church's sins in the deep dark cellar again. This is quite obvious from what he has said and what his Cardinals have said. They blame the media for not helping them hide the truth, and they blame the Jews for spreading the truth. The Internet makes it harder to hide the truth, and that terrifies them.
the Pope is the bishop of Rome, and his primacy is in matters of faith. He is *not* the CEO of the Church like you might find in an ordinary industry. If we want to find resolutions to the abuse scandal, we have to bring the local bishops to account. If somehow the Pope is removed, it will not get rid of the problem. All it will do is make a few Atheists happy.
I wonder what your news sources are; perhaps you need to read non-church news a bit more often. Two of the sickening cases are the coverups he managed while a bishop and while a cardinal (or archbishop? I do not know the titles well). He stalled one pedophile priest who requested defrocking, worrying about the priest being so young (what about the kids who were so much younger? He didn't care about them) and he transferred another pedophile priest whose victims had been promised he would never be in contact with children again.
The Pope IS part of the problem, and WAS a part of the problem. The only thing you are right about is that removing him will not stop the problem, but that is because the church itself is its own problem.
You also have strange views of industry if you think changing CEOs solves company problems. The entire culture of a company has to change to change attitudes.
You really need to get out and about more and get a bigger world view.
The problem with your problem with my analogy is that you forget that a modded cell phone can disrupt cellular traffic. Further, theft is theft, and if you signed a contract with ATT to use their service in exchange for a cheaper phone, you are stealing that phone from ATT.
Whereas my machine gun mod doesn't steal squat from anybody, and the additional pollution from any single car is such a tiny change in the cancer rates as to be undetectable.
Yes... because my cell phone is very a dangerous weapon and a threat to those around me, especially if I modify it beyond what the law allows.
What if your modded cell phone disrupts cellular traffic in ordinary use? That would be far more hassle for others than an illegally modded rifle in ordinary use. My use of a machine gun to scare burglars or for target shooting does no one any harm beyond what an ordinary semi-auto would do.
And before you start ranting about illegal use, let me remind you that one of the illegal uses of a cell phone, even an unmodded cell phone, is to trigger bombs remotely. That's a lot more dangerous that an illegal machine gun, where the shooter is readily identifiable.
But if it results in a lawsuit and your bankruptcy, that's effective enough for the legal system.
My thoughts on the matter are simple -- if I paid for it, it's mine, I do what I want with it. This does not include copying for others. But it does include loaning to others, using with others, modifying to my heart's content, and anything I want. I do not modify my semi-auto rifles to full auto, as regardless of whether I think that should be my right, it's a serious felony where I live, and I choose to not take that risk. Nor do I modify my car such that it won't pass relevant smog tests. But in both these cases, the manufacturer hasn't forbidden the mod, and I wouldn't pay attention if they had. If I didn't have to smog the car, I wouldn't sweat those mods, and if the full auto mod weren't such a heavy duty crime and fairly easy to detect, I might do that too, altho full auto is not interesting or useful to me, and it sure does eat up ammo. I suppose if they ever require yearly DRM checks on computers, some rethink will be necessary, but I can't imagine what that could be so I don't worry about it now.
And what if you had not noticed the error until other debits bounced?
Debit cards suck for automatic charges in comparison to credit cards. Your excuses and rationalizations do not make this untrue, they merely point out the obvious, that yes, debit cards suck for automatic withdrawals.
Two weeks? You were without your own cash for two weeks and think that is perfectly acceptable?
The worst that happens with a credit card is it hits a credit limit and won't accept more charges. Maybe some automatic charges are denied because of this, but you can probably put them on a different card in the meantime and not really lose anything but some hassle. Meanwhile you dispute the bogus charges and the merchant loses and gets a black eye with real financial encouragement to do better: they pay more for credit card purchases due to their lousy track record, and if their lousy track record gets too lousy, they lose all ability to accept credit cards.
Contrast this with a debit account, where your own money is gone, you are guilty until proven innocent, and the merchant's only incentive to not do so again is losing your business.
Now maybe you are the kind of anal freak who checks your checking account balance and transactions every hour; you might catch malfeasance quick enough to undo most of the damage. But most of the rest of us only check it when we withdraw cash from the ATM or make a deposit. Once a week if we are lucky, once a month when the statement comes otherwise. That's a long time to not know about missing cash.
How you gonna get enough power to make daytime *brighter*?
Was the idea to cook people and see who notices?
How about bad stormy weather which the (visible light) laser can't penetrate?
You going to have geostationary satellites so far away as to multiply the power required and the tremendous power losses?
Or were you going to have low level satellites, and need thousands to make sure every inch of ground was within a few seconds of any satellite coming into position?
How about topography blocking line of sight?
There are so many FAILs all over this idea.
It's a comic book idea, should never have gotten past the hangover stage.
Apple wouldn't dare block google search because even the notoriously tame Apple fanbois would revolt unless the Apple replacement were 99% as good. Even then there would be an uproar.
Search is also incompatible with Apple's closed-box approach. I can't see Steve Jobs avoiding the temptation to cook the results in some petty way, even if not directly against those who have crossed him. Look at how closed his app markets are. His ego is too big to let a search engine escape his control.
People who think Google might drive a company out of business by biasing the search results against them should consider who would be more likely to do that -- Apple or Microsoft or Google?
You might want to brush up on everyday English, where a cruise missile attacks land targets, or ships with a stretch, since there have been no long range ship attacks.
Hint: everyday English is what most English speakers speak every day. Indeed, definitions change too. Do you know why Rocket Assisted TakeOff (RATO) is a subset of Jet Assisted TakeOff? Because when NACA did the original studies, I believe sometime around 1940, "jet" was a much more generic term. Do you know squids and octopuses jet around?
For that matter, what is the difference between missiles and rockets? There are lots of airplane launched rockets, which are unguided, and airplane launched missiles, which are generally guided. Some missiles are air breathing, others use rocket engines. I know of no air breathing rockets, tho there may have been some. There are ground launched rockets and ground launched missiles. Some ground launched missiles are air breathing, others use rocket engines. Some use both.
Find all the silly definitions you want. A missile which attacks flying airplanes is an anti-aircraft missile and they are almost entirely guided. A missile which attacks land targets is a cruise missile, and in popular usage, they are also all guided. If they aren't guided, they are rockets.
Cruise missiles are x-to-surface, where x can be air or surface or even subsurface.
x-to-air is not a cruise missile by and standard definition. They have had supersonic capability since the very beginning and yet they are not supersonic cruise missiles.
Slashdot Mirror
One may joke about Russian tech, but they are good at one thing : building missiles that bypass American protections.
Really? You have personal knowledge of tests on this capability? Or perhaps you have visited an alternate world where this actual combat has happened?
You may joke about joking about Russian tech, but you are good at one thing: building posts that bypass mods with no knowledge.
would then have to evade battleships
Ummm, no, not today, not since WW II.
What I do know is that he is not an idiot, there is quite some evidence for this, and so he knows he has no chance of gaining actual direct power (becoming any sort of a tyrant).
Stalin, Mao, and Hitler weren't idiots either. George W Bush, maybe, but that's a different story.
The Pope is very much a luddite with a very specific agenda. He wants to hide the Church's sins in the deep dark cellar again. This is quite obvious from what he has said and what his Cardinals have said. They blame the media for not helping them hide the truth, and they blame the Jews for spreading the truth. The Internet makes it harder to hide the truth, and that terrifies them.
A decoy then. I see. Who's the real criminal, and are they going to hire OJ to find him?
the Pope is the bishop of Rome, and his primacy is in matters of faith. He is *not* the CEO of the Church like you might find in an ordinary industry. If we want to find resolutions to the abuse scandal, we have to bring the local bishops to account. If somehow the Pope is removed, it will not get rid of the problem. All it will do is make a few Atheists happy.
I wonder what your news sources are; perhaps you need to read non-church news a bit more often. Two of the sickening cases are the coverups he managed while a bishop and while a cardinal (or archbishop? I do not know the titles well). He stalled one pedophile priest who requested defrocking, worrying about the priest being so young (what about the kids who were so much younger? He didn't care about them) and he transferred another pedophile priest whose victims had been promised he would never be in contact with children again.
The Pope IS part of the problem, and WAS a part of the problem. The only thing you are right about is that removing him will not stop the problem, but that is because the church itself is its own problem.
You also have strange views of industry if you think changing CEOs solves company problems. The entire culture of a company has to change to change attitudes.
You really need to get out and about more and get a bigger world view.
Well, it stripped at least 2/3 of your decimal points.
Or should I say, point taken ... err, points taken.
And how fast did you type that response? Were you in fact under the characters per second speed limit the entire time, or did you take a break?
I hate to pick on people
No you don't.
But I am a safe target.
The problem with your problem with my analogy is that you forget that a modded cell phone can disrupt cellular traffic. Further, theft is theft, and if you signed a contract with ATT to use their service in exchange for a cheaper phone, you are stealing that phone from ATT.
Whereas my machine gun mod doesn't steal squat from anybody, and the additional pollution from any single car is such a tiny change in the cancer rates as to be undetectable.
Yes ... because my cell phone is very a dangerous weapon and a threat to those around me, especially if I modify it beyond what the law allows.
What if your modded cell phone disrupts cellular traffic in ordinary use? That would be far more hassle for others than an illegally modded rifle in ordinary use. My use of a machine gun to scare burglars or for target shooting does no one any harm beyond what an ordinary semi-auto would do.
And before you start ranting about illegal use, let me remind you that one of the illegal uses of a cell phone, even an unmodded cell phone, is to trigger bombs remotely. That's a lot more dangerous that an illegal machine gun, where the shooter is readily identifiable.
But if it results in a lawsuit and your bankruptcy, that's effective enough for the legal system.
My thoughts on the matter are simple -- if I paid for it, it's mine, I do what I want with it. This does not include copying for others. But it does include loaning to others, using with others, modifying to my heart's content, and anything I want. I do not modify my semi-auto rifles to full auto, as regardless of whether I think that should be my right, it's a serious felony where I live, and I choose to not take that risk. Nor do I modify my car such that it won't pass relevant smog tests. But in both these cases, the manufacturer hasn't forbidden the mod, and I wouldn't pay attention if they had. If I didn't have to smog the car, I wouldn't sweat those mods, and if the full auto mod weren't such a heavy duty crime and fairly easy to detect, I might do that too, altho full auto is not interesting or useful to me, and it sure does eat up ammo. I suppose if they ever require yearly DRM checks on computers, some rethink will be necessary, but I can't imagine what that could be so I don't worry about it now.
Maybe you just don't recognize sarcasm.
And what if you had not noticed the error until other debits bounced?
Debit cards suck for automatic charges in comparison to credit cards. Your excuses and rationalizations do not make this untrue, they merely point out the obvious, that yes, debit cards suck for automatic withdrawals.
Two weeks? You were without your own cash for two weeks and think that is perfectly acceptable?
The worst that happens with a credit card is it hits a credit limit and won't accept more charges. Maybe some automatic charges are denied because of this, but you can probably put them on a different card in the meantime and not really lose anything but some hassle. Meanwhile you dispute the bogus charges and the merchant loses and gets a black eye with real financial encouragement to do better: they pay more for credit card purchases due to their lousy track record, and if their lousy track record gets too lousy, they lose all ability to accept credit cards.
Contrast this with a debit account, where your own money is gone, you are guilty until proven innocent, and the merchant's only incentive to not do so again is losing your business.
Now maybe you are the kind of anal freak who checks your checking account balance and transactions every hour; you might catch malfeasance quick enough to undo most of the damage. But most of the rest of us only check it when we withdraw cash from the ATM or make a deposit. Once a week if we are lucky, once a month when the statement comes otherwise. That's a long time to not know about missing cash.
Really annoying to click thru and find it is just work clothes, not a pressure suit for the vacuum of space.
No, it's far easier to make the competition look inferior in just a few months of bad publicity than spend years redoing the entire corporate mindset.
Not that I agree this is a government conspiracy, but to say it's easier to build a better product is flat wrong.
How you gonna get enough power to make daytime *brighter*?
Was the idea to cook people and see who notices?
How about bad stormy weather which the (visible light) laser can't penetrate?
You going to have geostationary satellites so far away as to multiply the power required and the tremendous power losses?
Or were you going to have low level satellites, and need thousands to make sure every inch of ground was within a few seconds of any satellite coming into position?
How about topography blocking line of sight?
There are so many FAILs all over this idea.
It's a comic book idea, should never have gotten past the hangover stage.
Apple wouldn't dare block google search because even the notoriously tame Apple fanbois would revolt unless the Apple replacement were 99% as good. Even then there would be an uproar.
Search is also incompatible with Apple's closed-box approach. I can't see Steve Jobs avoiding the temptation to cook the results in some petty way, even if not directly against those who have crossed him. Look at how closed his app markets are. His ego is too big to let a search engine escape his control.
People who think Google might drive a company out of business by biasing the search results against them should consider who would be more likely to do that -- Apple or Microsoft or Google?
Anything dealing with bits has always been base-10.
Really? Memory chips came in decimal units?
I thought I'd left that behind with the IBM-1620 (20,000 digits) and Univac SS-90 (5000 words).
No, you've proven yourself adept at whining. Popular English usage is against you.
If you want citations for that, show me how easy it is to get citations for every word in your post, not just the one you want me to cite.
You might want to brush up on everyday English, where a cruise missile attacks land targets, or ships with a stretch, since there have been no long range ship attacks.
Hint: everyday English is what most English speakers speak every day. Indeed, definitions change too. Do you know why Rocket Assisted TakeOff (RATO) is a subset of Jet Assisted TakeOff? Because when NACA did the original studies, I believe sometime around 1940, "jet" was a much more generic term. Do you know squids and octopuses jet around?
For that matter, what is the difference between missiles and rockets? There are lots of airplane launched rockets, which are unguided, and airplane launched missiles, which are generally guided. Some missiles are air breathing, others use rocket engines. I know of no air breathing rockets, tho there may have been some. There are ground launched rockets and ground launched missiles. Some ground launched missiles are air breathing, others use rocket engines. Some use both.
Find all the silly definitions you want. A missile which attacks flying airplanes is an anti-aircraft missile and they are almost entirely guided. A missile which attacks land targets is a cruise missile, and in popular usage, they are also all guided. If they aren't guided, they are rockets.
Cruise missiles are x-to-surface, where x can be air or surface or even subsurface.
x-to-air is not a cruise missile by and standard definition. They have had supersonic capability since the very beginning and yet they are not supersonic cruise missiles.
Surface to air is not exactly your stereotyped *cruise* missile, supersonic or not.