Hitler persecuted the catholic faith and it's poitical infrastructure in germany to the degree he could get away with.
Yes, but only in very limited degree, and only after the RCC had concluded that he was not going to win, and quietly dumped him. They withdrew their support carefully so as not to offend their adherents within the Riech, and so were able to play both sides of the argument right up to the last day.
No one faith or group of people are safe from any amount of power and the will to use it.
Too true. As I suggested below (-: you are the same AC, aren't you?:-) go and live in Mexico for a year. If you are a masochist or simply an adventuresome spirit, pose as an Evangelical Protestant.
Yes, he died a Roman Catholic in good standing, although the reality seems to be that his beliefs tended more towards witchcraft, you know, Black Mass and that kind of thing? Also, he was a staunch supporter of Eugenics, the science of culling ``unworthy'' human beings, which is inconsistent with a Christian, even Catholic (in most cases, infidels being the obvious exception) viewpoint, but in line with Atheism.
The issue being alluded to is that the Roman Catholic Church provided extensive support to the Nazis in a variety of forms (such as information, 5th columnists, social support, rent-a-crowd, even priests machine-gunning Orthodox opponents ``right down to the cradle''). Whether Hitler was - officially and/or unofficially - Christian is irrelevant.
Yes, certainly. How much digging in European libraries are you willing to do, O anonymous one?
the notion that the Roman Catholic Church supported the Third Reich
Have a fewtertiaryreferences to get you started. Maybe you'll work your way down to interviewing a few of the people who actually lived through it, eventually. If they'll talk to a hostile interviewer at all. But I think the fact that Adolf Hitler died a Roman Catholic in good standing says enough by itself.
And think about the war in Yugoslavia: Croats, Serbs, and... Muslims? What nationality is Muslim?
The reality is Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims. The Roman Catholic church will not stop unless the world is at peace with her, that is, controlled by her. And then, history shows, she will only turn on herself. It's human nature.
I recall installing drivers for my ati rage 128 a few months back:
Windows 98: 10 minutes
Xfree86: 4 full evenings
Then another 90 minutes trying to get your modem going again, oh, and then discover that you've tromped a vital DLL, only you're not sure which one... )-:
BTW, you're not using Mandrake, are you? (-:
CONFIGURING YOUR WINDOW MANAGER is NOT FUN. It's infuriating.
City of Largo's experience is that users switched across from Windows tweak for a day or few after the switch. This would imply that it has at least some appeal.
This is probably a great deal more insightful than it seems. Muslims come in two major flavours, Sunni and Shi'ite, plus smaller groups not aligned with either of the above. The Sunni want nothing to do with/bin/laden and his activities.
At the time of World War II, Christians came in four major flavours, sort of: Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant (Low Anglican approx= Protestant). American (Wall Street) businesses made World War II financially and technically possible by supporting the Nazis; the Roman Catholic Church heirarchy made the war socially possible by supporting the Nazis. One of the reasons that they did this was in order to wipe out the Orthodox Church (``thou shalt do no murder!'' - ``but these are infidels!'' Sound familiar?).
This was so well known at the time that the Pope narrowly escaped (with the use of much political and financal pressure) trial as a war criminal, and Australia went to the trouble of sending their Catholic troops against the Japanese, and non-Catholics against the Axis. If you think that the Roman Catholic Church keeps out of politics today, go and live in (for example) Mexico for a year.
Only the Roman Catholic Church actively supported the Nazis, however, a significant majority of Roman Catholic individuals did not actively support the actions of their own heirarchy, and another significant group simply went along for the ride, that is, they wouldn't do anything hostile without prompting, but would let themselves be goaded into violence. There were also a class of people, Christian and not, including so-called Protestants, who should have protested many Nazi actions but didn't.
It would surprise me if there were not similar groups at work within Afghanistan, and it would surprise me even more if bombing Kabul, however carefully, didn't push a lot of inert Muslims from the ``no'' camp into the ``well, OK'' camp, and from there to the ``kill the imperialist scum'' camp.
The Q'ran is clearly and obviously stretched right out of shape to permit a lot of the violence and hatred already manifested, however it does conain a surah granting permission to attack those who attack you. Need I say more?
Just in case anyone feels left out, not all Atheists supported the ``Communist'' (read: Atheist) purges of the likes of Mao and Lenin.
Finally, from a military standpoint, Kabul is about the only target left in Afghanistan. You'dd be scratching to find a bridge or major intersection to bomb - let alone a military installation - in the rest of Afghanistan.
Yahoo! should probably change their name to OhShit!
Agree, but ``OhNo!'' or ``Oops!'' or ``Aaaaaaargh!'' would probably fit through more filters. OTOH, Microsoft might then sue ``the new Yahoo!'' for that on behalf of their users, who frequently employ all of the proposed replacement names in earnest...
It is true that he writes, directs and produces motion picture films in which he stars
Which is enough. Dunno about the USA, but here in Oz you can use your own name (all or a subset) as if it were the name of a company or a registered business name. This makes your name IP, kind of, no trademark required. If your name were also Yahoo, say, Mr Yahoo Eight One Two Three Ninc, you would also have a claim if Yahoo tried to register a name in any of your fields of endeavour. However, neither you nor Mr Serious could claim against each other. This prevents a million Johns from suing each other.
This raises an interesting legal question: could a Yahoo representative change his name by deed poll (to, say, Mr Yahoo Representative) and peppercorn-employ Yahoo!-the-company to present a website in his own name? Offhand (and BTW, IANAL), I can't think of an argument against it.
You'd harpoon it from a suitable mooring tower, then reel it in like a jellyfish on a ten-pound line. Of course, actually stopping it would be a bit of an issue... (-:
You'd harpoon it from a suitable mooring tower, then reel it in like a jellyfish on a ten-pound line. Of course, actually stopping it would be a bit of an issue... (-:
If we invested more research into nuclear fusion for our nation's power grid and started funding to move every car, truck, and boat/naval vessel to hydrogen power,
Fusion is not yet a goer, and it is still not certain that it will ever be a goer. Beamed microwave from powersats is a most definite goer, could be built with 50 year old technology and still turn a profit. Fusion (CanDu and the like) is much cleaner than coal, oil or petrol and could be on-line by next year but for politics.
Hydrogen takes energy to make. That energy doesn't pop out of thin air. You need energy to get hydrogen.
we could pull out of the middle east %100 and not get involved with these savages that kill in the name of religion.
Which savages? Mao? Trotsky? Lenin? Stalin? Hitler? Got the point?
As for meddling in the Middle East to protect energy sources, why not buy LNG from Australia instead? We've got plenty of it, it's called ``the North West Shelf.'' And there are other places in Oz and elsewhere. Or use WW2 technology for making diesel from coal, of which the USA has (pun intended) heaps? The official excuses for continuing to muck around in the Middle East are starting to sound pretty thin now.
but couldnt one store a bunch of water and apply an electric charge to it to split the H and the O. there you have your oxydizer and your fuel. once ignited, wouldnt it turn back into H2O?
Splitting the H from the O requires energy (which is why you get energy back when you burn it again). If you could reclaim the H2O after burning, you wouldn't need to carry much fuel at all.
So where do you get stupendous amounts of energy from? The most efficient source would be a pair of small nukes (for balance and redundancy). If you could pull a political rabbit out of a hat and get permits for flying sundry reactors around 24x7 you would be much better off simply using the nukes to heat air directly, or at least to heat a denser fuel than H2.
Another proposal I've seen which is much better is to use a big flat satellite to convert sunlight to microwaves and focus the result onto the 'plane. No chemical pollution at all (clean reaction mass like water or just heat air), no storage problems, little or no explosion if you crash. And cheaper to run, too. If another WTC was in the offing, it would help to turn the aircraft off; unless the hijackers knew how to switch over from microwave power to the backup system, you'd cut your casualties from circa 6000 to circa 300.
BOC, that's all science-fiction stuff (even though we could have built it in the '60s) which takes longer than a term of office to do, and so nobody wants to fund it.
In order to pack enough H2 into the tanks to be useful, you need a kind of catalytic medium to arrange the atoms closer than they would normally be if left to themselves, kind of like the acetylene tanks that make up one part of the oxy-acet mix used in many cutting and welding torches.
Besides close packing, this limits the rate of release. To some extent, the rate can be tailored (to, say, 120% of maximum consumption in nromal operation). In the case of the WTC, the slow release would have resulted in a slow burn rather than an ultra-hot explosion (the big orange flash just after the second plane got eaten by a building). If the fuel tanks were thoroughly enough ruptured, the H2 concentration might even be too low to support continuous combustion.
As well as all of this, H2 doesn't make as good an explosive as jet fuel (it burns slower). The H2 in jet fuel is packed closer together, kind of like in the special catalytic tanks, than in the wild state.
However, all of this would require a complete redesign of passenger aircraft and their engines for the considerably different storage, transfer and burning properties of H2. You could not realistically retrofit existing aircraft, with the possible exception of short-haul jets. There would be other prices to pay for the reduced efficiency of pure H2, such as bigger storage facilities and more frequent supply runs.
Hindenburg died firstly due to badly chosen material for the skin and bladders, and secondly because of poor design (inadequate facilities for static discharge, for example).
Linux needs one major manufacturer to produce and market a Linux Consumer PC.
The company is called Hewlett Packard. They ship a number of workstations with Mandrake 8.0 preinstalled, and even have fire-and-forget CDs for wiping some of their boxes and installing a fresh Mandrake 8.0 system with no user intervention.
which they tended to fight over, since nobody liked Linux
As long as they hold this attitude, it ain't gunna happen. You can use ext3 journalling, you can give them the latest-greatest KDE apps or Mozilla (which scream along in comparison to the second-latest-greatest), you can do all of these things to no avail. They will still find something to whine about.
Now if you keep your eyes open, you'll find one or two important people playing a game or using an app that they treasure. It might even be Solitaire. When you do discover what the sticking point is, install it or a better one on Linux boxes not being used by them, and show the other users how to use it. The answer to Solitaire would be PySol. You may lose a few man-hours to a game, but once your legacy system users are acquainted with it, the transition suddenly becomes easier.
A similar tactic is to install one or two Linux boxes in their area ``for visitors'' or whatever, and put a whole raft of really interesting things on them. Then have people go in every so often and use the interesting things on the Linux boxes only. I don't know your people; it might be bzflag, TuxRacer, Jabber, anything. Who knows what pushes their button? Try them all.
And yes, IIS really does mean Internet Infection Service (QED), and Microsoft also got the two syllables of their mailer backwards, and left some of the extra Es out of their web browser's name.
We pay for roads just as much as we would with tolls but it's much more practical to finance this with taxes instead
Absolutely. The difference is, we're not charged for every individual use of the road, which is the problem being originally addressed. One of the reasons that every street and footpath isn't tolled is the riot that would ensue when people couldn't visit their neighbours for free any more.
But there's another difference, too. Your proposed methodology would eventually tax tracks through the scrub, walking along the beach, probably even swimming. There would be no ad-hoc route formation without it first being assessed and dutied.
What software creates a need instead of filling it?
Outlook creates a need for virus scanners. IIS creates a need for intelligent firewalling or reverse-proxying. Word creates a need for document decoders and extra backup technology.
Since the bugfixes were only produced for the newest software, which you must then buy in order to have the bugfix. Oh, er, oops, you have to buy a new OS to run that, and oops again, you have to buy new hardware to run the new OS.
As an aside, 50% (or, 48.5% to be exact) is not a high level
Boy, has your frog been well-cooked! The US once faced revolution over a 6% tax! That's right - SIX percent. What is a high tax? 99%?
Tax is a necessary part of the State, and the fact that corporate tax revenues have been falling since the 70s are a big part of the reason why our hospitals and education system are in such bad shape.
Beg to differ.
Oz hospitals are in bad shape because they're being crushed under a growing pile of (often useless) regulation. If people won't do a good job by themselves, adding ISO-9002 and other paperwork will make their morale (and the situation) much worse.
Schools are in a similar corner, but have the added disadvantage of being founded to do pretty much the exact opposite of what most parents like to think of them as doing. The focus of education moved away from reality more than a century ago, and it's moved again even from the faux reality found in a schoolbook. Nowadays, every student can have their own unreality, as long as they fit into the System, and the System runs smoothly. Of course, we're dealing with people here so they really are pushing shit uphill. And of course, the response every time to the problems caused by an excess of control is to increase management interference in the situation.
Pumping more money into either is just adding more gasoline to the flames. They both need a revolution, education most of all.
High income earners also get lots of nifty ways to evade tax.
They do. And making the tax laws tougher, piling on more evasion rules, will have the effect of further stratifying things. The rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer.
Individuals on the dole in Oz, not doing a lick of work, with no special benefits, pay income tax. How stupid is that?
We pay more for diesel than for ULP in Oz, but diesel costs half as much to make, and produces less destructive pollutants. How stupid is that?
If we can stop or cut back on supporting the self-defeating beauracracies which you advocate paying taxes for, perhaps we can afford to have non-stupid income tax brackets, non-stupid fuel taxes, and lots of other useful and sensible things.
Is [Harry Fox] related to Mr. Clete, secretary of the Musicians' Guild?
Given that ``he'' appears to have a head with rocks in it rather than music with rocks in it, I'd say he was closer to Chrysoprase the loan-shark troll. (-:
It's quite a valid observation that ter[r]orists can write their own software.
Not just write their own, there is a heap of good working encryption stuff, including steganography, available outside the USA for essentially no effort. The effect of outlawing encryption (or legislating key-escrow) will be to leave ``real'' encryption only in the hands of the terrorists and other outlaws.
The gun people have a saying ``If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'' They're right, in a general sense, but this catch-cry is a two-edged sword. If guns (or truly secure encryption) is outlawed, ordinary people who must use them for their reasonable daily business will be, by definition, outlaws.
The idea of laws scaring terrorists is unbelievably stupid, thick, dumb, brainless, naive, irresponsible and many other bad things. It reminds me of the locality which has a $500 fine for detonating a nuclear explosive within city limits. If the cost of your terror mission against ``the great satan'' is your own life and the lives of many others what difference is the threat of a fine or jail term - or for that matter even a death sentence - ever going to make to you?
What I think would be interesting, is a Linux worm that used a security hole to get into a box
I've seen several reactive programs on FreshMeat which respond in various ways to attacks like CodeRed (finding and emailing the administrator is typical), and similar PHP packages released through various sites.
I've also seen several which fight back (note the lack of URLs at this point) and one system which uses spare machines to absorb TCP connects from infected hosts and keep them alive to gobble up sockets on the attacker and lock down the attacking threads.
It wouldn't be a big step from there to send back a payload which locks down the attacker, which then waits to be attacked so it can respond in turn.
And no MS-DOS to speak of connected to the 'net. One of the few epidemics that Microsoft weren't to blame for. (-:
I guess disconnecting every Unix box from the net would solve the problem in that very few Unix boxes would get worms. Of course, not having a working internet anymore could be a bit of a handicap, sort of takes the sting out of not being able to connect to it...
You may permit a maximum of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each
a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to utilize the services of the Product solely for File and Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote access (including connection sharing and telephony services).
No streaming cameras? No X-10? No RTTY?
Except as otherwise permitted by the
NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product.
No web, FTP or gopher servers, apparently including IIS (hooray!), no VNC, probably no SSH or telnet daemons, inasmuch as M$ are certain to define their miserable CLI as a part of XP's user interface.
Now for the scarey bit:
There are technological measures in this Product that are designed to prevent unlicensed or illegal use of the Product. You agree that we may use those measures.
...even if they deliberately or accidentally fail, for example, by refusing to run certain important Open Source products. Remember ``DOS ain't done 'till Lotus won't run?'' Add this clause...
Internet-Based Services Components. The Product contains components that enable and facilitate the use of certain Internet-based services. [but note that this doesn't actully restrict the scope of the following claim to Internet-based service software] You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the Product that will be automatically downloaded to your Workstation Computer.
OK, here's the big one: we can change any of your software (the ``Product'' and/or components such as applications built to run on it and containing parts of it (runtime library interface module etc) without notice, and you agree to this. This includes new ``measures'' to prevent ``unlicenced or illegal use'' - and it's no great stretch of the imagination to visualise this including software made illegal by the SSSCA such as Apache, PHP or Screem (does FrontPage things only better, faster, cheaper and safer).
But if you can't even use Frontpage in connection with an anti-Microsoft site then that option is out the window.
The implication is that any other sites on the same machine at your ISP, sites that you link to, or link to you, etc, can all disqualify you from using it.
`Disparage' is also a pretty general term. Saying that The GIMP is better than MS-Paint could be viewed as disparaging, even if you do it using benchmark results and no analysis.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but only in very limited degree, and only after the RCC had concluded that he was not going to win, and quietly dumped him. They withdrew their support carefully so as not to offend their adherents within the Riech, and so were able to play both sides of the argument right up to the last day.
Too true. As I suggested below (-: you are the same AC, aren't you? :-) go and live in Mexico for a year. If you are a masochist or simply an adventuresome spirit, pose as an Evangelical Protestant.
Yes, he died a Roman Catholic in good standing, although the reality seems to be that his beliefs tended more towards witchcraft, you know, Black Mass and that kind of thing? Also, he was a staunch supporter of Eugenics, the science of culling ``unworthy'' human beings, which is inconsistent with a Christian, even Catholic (in most cases, infidels being the obvious exception) viewpoint, but in line with Atheism.
The issue being alluded to is that the Roman Catholic Church provided extensive support to the Nazis in a variety of forms (such as information, 5th columnists, social support, rent-a-crowd, even priests machine-gunning Orthodox opponents ``right down to the cradle''). Whether Hitler was - officially and/or unofficially - Christian is irrelevant.
Yes, certainly. How much digging in European libraries are you willing to do, O anonymous one?
Have a few tertiary references to get you started. Maybe you'll work your way down to interviewing a few of the people who actually lived through it, eventually. If they'll talk to a hostile interviewer at all. But I think the fact that Adolf Hitler died a Roman Catholic in good standing says enough by itself.
And think about the war in Yugoslavia: Croats, Serbs, and... Muslims? What nationality is Muslim?
The reality is Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims. The Roman Catholic church will not stop unless the world is at peace with her, that is, controlled by her. And then, history shows, she will only turn on herself. It's human nature.
Then another 90 minutes trying to get your modem going again, oh, and then discover that you've tromped a vital DLL, only you're not sure which one... )-:
BTW, you're not using Mandrake, are you? (-:
City of Largo's experience is that users switched across from Windows tweak for a day or few after the switch. This would imply that it has at least some appeal.
This is probably a great deal more insightful than it seems. Muslims come in two major flavours, Sunni and Shi'ite, plus smaller groups not aligned with either of the above. The Sunni want nothing to do with /bin/laden and his activities.
At the time of World War II, Christians came in four major flavours, sort of: Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant (Low Anglican approx= Protestant). American (Wall Street) businesses made World War II financially and technically possible by supporting the Nazis; the Roman Catholic Church heirarchy made the war socially possible by supporting the Nazis. One of the reasons that they did this was in order to wipe out the Orthodox Church (``thou shalt do no murder!'' - ``but these are infidels!'' Sound familiar?).
This was so well known at the time that the Pope narrowly escaped (with the use of much political and financal pressure) trial as a war criminal, and Australia went to the trouble of sending their Catholic troops against the Japanese, and non-Catholics against the Axis. If you think that the Roman Catholic Church keeps out of politics today, go and live in (for example) Mexico for a year.
Only the Roman Catholic Church actively supported the Nazis, however, a significant majority of Roman Catholic individuals did not actively support the actions of their own heirarchy, and another significant group simply went along for the ride, that is, they wouldn't do anything hostile without prompting, but would let themselves be goaded into violence. There were also a class of people, Christian and not, including so-called Protestants, who should have protested many Nazi actions but didn't.
It would surprise me if there were not similar groups at work within Afghanistan, and it would surprise me even more if bombing Kabul, however carefully, didn't push a lot of inert Muslims from the ``no'' camp into the ``well, OK'' camp, and from there to the ``kill the imperialist scum'' camp.
The Q'ran is clearly and obviously stretched right out of shape to permit a lot of the violence and hatred already manifested, however it does conain a surah granting permission to attack those who attack you. Need I say more?
Just in case anyone feels left out, not all Atheists supported the ``Communist'' (read: Atheist) purges of the likes of Mao and Lenin.
Finally, from a military standpoint, Kabul is about the only target left in Afghanistan. You'dd be scratching to find a bridge or major intersection to bomb - let alone a military installation - in the rest of Afghanistan.
Agree, but ``OhNo!'' or ``Oops!'' or ``Aaaaaaargh!'' would probably fit through more filters. OTOH, Microsoft might then sue ``the new Yahoo!'' for that on behalf of their users, who frequently employ all of the proposed replacement names in earnest...
Which is enough. Dunno about the USA, but here in Oz you can use your own name (all or a subset) as if it were the name of a company or a registered business name. This makes your name IP, kind of, no trademark required. If your name were also Yahoo, say, Mr Yahoo Eight One Two Three Ninc, you would also have a claim if Yahoo tried to register a name in any of your fields of endeavour. However, neither you nor Mr Serious could claim against each other. This prevents a million Johns from suing each other.
This raises an interesting legal question: could a Yahoo representative change his name by deed poll (to, say, Mr Yahoo Representative) and peppercorn-employ Yahoo!-the-company to present a website in his own name? Offhand (and BTW, IANAL), I can't think of an argument against it.
You'd harpoon it from a suitable mooring tower, then reel it in like a jellyfish on a ten-pound line. Of course, actually stopping it would be a bit of an issue... (-:
You'd harpoon it from a suitable mooring tower, then reel it in like a jellyfish on a ten-pound line. Of course, actually stopping it would be a bit of an issue... (-:
Fusion is not yet a goer, and it is still not certain that it will ever be a goer. Beamed microwave from powersats is a most definite goer, could be built with 50 year old technology and still turn a profit. Fusion (CanDu and the like) is much cleaner than coal, oil or petrol and could be on-line by next year but for politics.
Hydrogen takes energy to make. That energy doesn't pop out of thin air. You need energy to get hydrogen.
Which savages? Mao? Trotsky? Lenin? Stalin? Hitler? Got the point?
As for meddling in the Middle East to protect energy sources, why not buy LNG from Australia instead? We've got plenty of it, it's called ``the North West Shelf.'' And there are other places in Oz and elsewhere. Or use WW2 technology for making diesel from coal, of which the USA has (pun intended) heaps? The official excuses for continuing to muck around in the Middle East are starting to sound pretty thin now.
No! Really? (-:
Splitting the H from the O requires energy (which is why you get energy back when you burn it again). If you could reclaim the H2O after burning, you wouldn't need to carry much fuel at all.
So where do you get stupendous amounts of energy from? The most efficient source would be a pair of small nukes (for balance and redundancy). If you could pull a political rabbit out of a hat and get permits for flying sundry reactors around 24x7 you would be much better off simply using the nukes to heat air directly, or at least to heat a denser fuel than H2.
Another proposal I've seen which is much better is to use a big flat satellite to convert sunlight to microwaves and focus the result onto the 'plane. No chemical pollution at all (clean reaction mass like water or just heat air), no storage problems, little or no explosion if you crash. And cheaper to run, too. If another WTC was in the offing, it would help to turn the aircraft off; unless the hijackers knew how to switch over from microwave power to the backup system, you'd cut your casualties from circa 6000 to circa 300.
BOC, that's all science-fiction stuff (even though we could have built it in the '60s) which takes longer than a term of office to do, and so nobody wants to fund it.
Besides close packing, this limits the rate of release. To some extent, the rate can be tailored (to, say, 120% of maximum consumption in nromal operation). In the case of the WTC, the slow release would have resulted in a slow burn rather than an ultra-hot explosion (the big orange flash just after the second plane got eaten by a building). If the fuel tanks were thoroughly enough ruptured, the H2 concentration might even be too low to support continuous combustion.
As well as all of this, H2 doesn't make as good an explosive as jet fuel (it burns slower). The H2 in jet fuel is packed closer together, kind of like in the special catalytic tanks, than in the wild state.
However, all of this would require a complete redesign of passenger aircraft and their engines for the considerably different storage, transfer and burning properties of H2. You could not realistically retrofit existing aircraft, with the possible exception of short-haul jets. There would be other prices to pay for the reduced efficiency of pure H2, such as bigger storage facilities and more frequent supply runs.
Hindenburg died firstly due to badly chosen material for the skin and bladders, and secondly because of poor design (inadequate facilities for static discharge, for example).
The company is called Hewlett Packard. They ship a number of workstations with Mandrake 8.0 preinstalled, and even have fire-and-forget CDs for wiping some of their boxes and installing a fresh Mandrake 8.0 system with no user intervention.
As long as they hold this attitude, it ain't gunna happen. You can use ext3 journalling, you can give them the latest-greatest KDE apps or Mozilla (which scream along in comparison to the second-latest-greatest), you can do all of these things to no avail. They will still find something to whine about.
Now if you keep your eyes open, you'll find one or two important people playing a game or using an app that they treasure. It might even be Solitaire. When you do discover what the sticking point is, install it or a better one on Linux boxes not being used by them, and show the other users how to use it. The answer to Solitaire would be PySol. You may lose a few man-hours to a game, but once your legacy system users are acquainted with it, the transition suddenly becomes easier.
A similar tactic is to install one or two Linux boxes in their area ``for visitors'' or whatever, and put a whole raft of really interesting things on them. Then have people go in every so often and use the interesting things on the Linux boxes only. I don't know your people; it might be bzflag, TuxRacer, Jabber, anything. Who knows what pushes their button? Try them all.
Quote of the day: ``Kill all of the lawyers! Let Satan sort them out!'' Where's a flaming arrow when you really need one? (-:
Easy: IIS can't do as much work per server.
And yes, IIS really does mean Internet Infection Service (QED), and Microsoft also got the two syllables of their mailer backwards, and left some of the extra Es out of their web browser's name.
But there is an answer:
Absolutely. The difference is, we're not charged for every individual use of the road, which is the problem being originally addressed. One of the reasons that every street and footpath isn't tolled is the riot that would ensue when people couldn't visit their neighbours for free any more.
But there's another difference, too. Your proposed methodology would eventually tax tracks through the scrub, walking along the beach, probably even swimming. There would be no ad-hoc route formation without it first being assessed and dutied.
Outlook creates a need for virus scanners. IIS creates a need for intelligent firewalling or reverse-proxying. Word creates a need for document decoders and extra backup technology.
Since the bugfixes were only produced for the newest software, which you must then buy in order to have the bugfix. Oh, er, oops, you have to buy a new OS to run that, and oops again, you have to buy new hardware to run the new OS.
Boy, has your frog been well-cooked! The US once faced revolution over a 6% tax! That's right - SIX percent. What is a high tax? 99%?
Beg to differ.
Oz hospitals are in bad shape because they're being crushed under a growing pile of (often useless) regulation. If people won't do a good job by themselves, adding ISO-9002 and other paperwork will make their morale (and the situation) much worse.
Schools are in a similar corner, but have the added disadvantage of being founded to do pretty much the exact opposite of what most parents like to think of them as doing. The focus of education moved away from reality more than a century ago, and it's moved again even from the faux reality found in a schoolbook. Nowadays, every student can have their own unreality, as long as they fit into the System, and the System runs smoothly. Of course, we're dealing with people here so they really are pushing shit uphill. And of course, the response every time to the problems caused by an excess of control is to increase management interference in the situation.
Pumping more money into either is just adding more gasoline to the flames. They both need a revolution, education most of all.
They do. And making the tax laws tougher, piling on more evasion rules, will have the effect of further stratifying things. The rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer.
Individuals on the dole in Oz, not doing a lick of work, with no special benefits, pay income tax. How stupid is that?
We pay more for diesel than for ULP in Oz, but diesel costs half as much to make, and produces less destructive pollutants. How stupid is that?
If we can stop or cut back on supporting the self-defeating beauracracies which you advocate paying taxes for, perhaps we can afford to have non-stupid income tax brackets, non-stupid fuel taxes, and lots of other useful and sensible things.
Given that ``he'' appears to have a head with rocks in it rather than music with rocks in it, I'd say he was closer to Chrysoprase the loan-shark troll. (-:
Not just write their own, there is a heap of good working encryption stuff, including steganography, available outside the USA for essentially no effort. The effect of outlawing encryption (or legislating key-escrow) will be to leave ``real'' encryption only in the hands of the terrorists and other outlaws.
The gun people have a saying ``If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'' They're right, in a general sense, but this catch-cry is a two-edged sword. If guns (or truly secure encryption) is outlawed, ordinary people who must use them for their reasonable daily business will be, by definition, outlaws.
The idea of laws scaring terrorists is unbelievably stupid, thick, dumb, brainless, naive, irresponsible and many other bad things. It reminds me of the locality which has a $500 fine for detonating a nuclear explosive within city limits. If the cost of your terror mission against ``the great satan'' is your own life and the lives of many others what difference is the threat of a fine or jail term - or for that matter even a death sentence - ever going to make to you?
I've seen several reactive programs on FreshMeat which respond in various ways to attacks like CodeRed (finding and emailing the administrator is typical), and similar PHP packages released through various sites.
I've also seen several which fight back (note the lack of URLs at this point) and one system which uses spare machines to absorb TCP connects from infected hosts and keep them alive to gobble up sockets on the attacker and lock down the attacking threads.
It wouldn't be a big step from there to send back a payload which locks down the attacker, which then waits to be attacked so it can respond in turn.
I guess disconnecting every Unix box from the net would solve the problem in that very few Unix boxes would get worms. Of course, not having a working internet anymore could be a bit of a handicap, sort of takes the sting out of not being able to connect to it...
No streaming cameras? No X-10? No RTTY?
No web, FTP or gopher servers, apparently including IIS (hooray!), no VNC, probably no SSH or telnet daemons, inasmuch as M$ are certain to define their miserable CLI as a part of XP's user interface.
Now for the scarey bit:
...even if they deliberately or accidentally fail, for example, by refusing to run certain important Open Source products. Remember ``DOS ain't done 'till Lotus won't run?'' Add this clause...
OK, here's the big one: we can change any of your software (the ``Product'' and/or components such as applications built to run on it and containing parts of it (runtime library interface module etc) without notice, and you agree to this. This includes new ``measures'' to prevent ``unlicenced or illegal use'' - and it's no great stretch of the imagination to visualise this including software made illegal by the SSSCA such as Apache, PHP or Screem (does FrontPage things only better, faster, cheaper and safer).
The implication is that any other sites on the same machine at your ISP, sites that you link to, or link to you, etc, can all disqualify you from using it.
`Disparage' is also a pretty general term. Saying that The GIMP is better than MS-Paint could be viewed as disparaging, even if you do it using benchmark results and no analysis.