raised. Namely that Hitler forced the Church to allow him to directly appoint bishops, ended the political party that was affiliated with the church, tried to destroy the confessing church, and threw in jail the leadership of both the catholic and the protest church. Moreover they forced as many churches as possible into the German Church movement (which created the confessing church in the first place), forced a pact onto Rome, etc.
Which is unChristian how exactly? You should look into the history of your religion before defending it. That's *how* religions have always spread, that's how they've always evolved.
You can dig up a single speech, and completely miss the context of it to make your point.
Again with not only a lie, but a ridiculously idiotic one. Those were excerpts from speech after speech after speech rallying the German *Christians* together for his holy cause. So, no "single speech". It was a well established pattern perfectly in keeping with the history of religion as a whole and that one in particular.
Of course, you don't like that fact so you'll spout the most stupid and easily falsified lies in order to avoid being honest with yourself.
Private statements
Don't matter one bit. Nobody cares what Hitler's actual religious beliefs were. What he *used* was Christianity. The people who went along with his plan *were* Christians.
Deal with the facts, quit trying to throw out red herrings to avoid honesty.
The good techs will tell you all of this without being prodded -- to them, "tell me about your computers" is an invitation to talk about stuff they really like. If they're not all about it, they don't have the level of interest in technology qua technology that's going to work here.
Sure, I use that too and it works well.. My problem is how do you get them to shut up once you're convinced they know their stuff;-)
here is growing social and peer pressure for kids to start doing things they are really not equipped to handle. Society is treating kids like mini-adults which they are not.
Teenagers (13..18) were once considered kids in their emerging years. Now they are treated like adults.
Where do you people get this insane assinine idiotic delusional nonsense?!?!?
Teenagers were married and raising their own fucking families at 13 not too long ago and for the vast majority of human history. This whole "durrr they're idiots and need to be protected from reality" is the new thing.
Would you *please* stop repeating this revisionist bullshit that does nothing but demonstrate a complete ignorance of reality so we can actually have sane conversations about issues?
Please, for the love of God, don't classify him as a Christian. I'm offended that he tries to use christianity as a platform to push his agenda. If he wanted to be a good christian, I think he would sympathize with the families of the victims in cases like the VTech shootings and try to help them overcome their grief, instead of lying to build up his podium and attempting to use it to further his misguided causes.
If he wanted to be a good Christian he'd be running around beating heretics to death with rocks. Try and read the whole book. Don't just pick and choose a few scraps and claim *you're* the one who really gets it this time.
Hitler was raised a Catholic, but expressed nothing but contempt for Christianity later in life.
That's an idiotic, bullshit *lie* and nothing besides.
Here are a selection of quotes from Hitler proving you to be a liar:
The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.
Life comes from God and returns to God. All life and all races follow God's ordinances. No people and no race can ignore them. We want the German youth to again recognize the religious nature of life. They must realize that God wants the individual as well as the whole people, and that they lose contact with life when they lose contact with God! God and nation are the two foundations of the life of the individual and the community. We want no shallow and superficial piety, rather a deep faith that God guides the world, that he controls it, and a consciousness of the relationship between God and each individual, and between God and the live of the people and the fatherland. The National Socialist state will promote such a deeply religious educational system. We want parents to support and strengthen this by honesty and by good example.
"And now Staatspräsident Bolz says that Christianity and the Catholic faith are threatened by us. And to that charge I can answer: In the first place it is Christians and not international atheists who now stand at the head of Germany. I do not merely talk of Christianity, no, I also profess that I will never ally myself with the parties which destroy Christianity. If many wish today to take threatened Christianity under their protection, where, I would ask, was Christianity for them in these fourteen years when they went arm in arm with atheism? No, never and at no time was greater internal damage done to Christianity than in these fourteen years when a party, theoretically Christian, sat with those who denied God in one and the same Government.
I would ask whether the economic policy of this now superseded system was a Christian policy. Was the inflation an undertaking for which Christians could answer, or has the destruction of German life, of the German peasant as well as of the middles classes, been Christian?"
In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before - the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago - a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.
Then indeed when Rome collapsed there were endless streams of new German bands flowing into the Empire from the North; but, if Germany collapses today, who is there to come after us? German blood upon this earth is on the way to gradual exhaustion unless we pull ourselves together and make ourselves free!
And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress which daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I
I thought Hitler and the Nazis were devout christians ( fair enough they may not have justified their actions in terms of religion )
It's arguable as to whether Hitler himself was "actually" a Christian, but the Nazi ideology was explicitly, militantly, and absolutely Christian.
The holocaust followed step by step the plan laid out by Martin Luther, father of protestantism, in his book, "The Jews and Their Lies". Hell, Kristallnacht was on his birthday. Hitler was absolutely a huge promoter of Christianity since he was absolutely opposed to the "godless commies".
So, yeah, the OP is either completely ignorant of the entire history of anti-semitism in Christianity or just a liar.
Christians are quite eager to deny the role their religion played in a couple thousand years of slow roasting jews alive, which the holocaust was merely the culmination of. In that respect they're even worse than the holocaust deniers.
Should we have protesters outside of christian churches every time there is a sermon on 1 Timothy (it is blatantly sexist)? Should we chant and jeer outside churches that teach the parts of the bible about male genital manipulation (circumcision)?
Sure, why not?
Idiotic delusional nonsense is just that regardless of what the particular trivial details that are the only distinctions between these various "absolute truths", so they should be ridiculed mercilessly until people are just too fucking embarrassed to be associated with such idiocy.
And, before you go quoting sections of the Christian bible (Old Testament) which proscribe stonings or other violent actions, be aware it's not a fair comparison. You see, there are no Christians ACTUALLY PERFORMING THESE ACTS. Christianity went through The Reformation, wherein it shrugged off many of these proclamations as archaic and incompatible with modernity. Islam has had no such event.
So all you're saying here is that the "Christians" not performing these acts aren't actually Christians. They are heretics who have hijacked the faith. Now, it's certainly arguable that that's a good thing, but it's far better to be honest, deal with the fact that Christianity itself is every bit as evil as Islam if honestly followed, and treat both faiths as the unmitigated evils that they are.
I understand what you're saying, but who gets to decide what the bad laws are?
In this case it's absolutely obvious that drug laws are bad laws. How can you tell?
They have no possibility of achieving any positive effects. This has nothing to do with their unenforcibility, it's because even if they were 100% effective, there would be nothing positive achieved. They have caused massive harm to our society and to *millions* of individuals without leading to any positive results. They have caused massive increase in crime, massive increase in violent crime, massive increase in organized crime, and have led the US to be the worst police state in the world. Disagree with that last bit? Name one country with more people in prison per capita than the US? Hell, name one with more people in raw numbers in prison than the US. You can't, because there aren't any.
So sometimes it's a difficult choice to decide if a law is bad or not. That isn't the case for drug laws. It's really obvious. They do nothing good, have no possibility of doing any good and almost every problem commonly associated by drugs are created *entirely* by drug laws. The only problems actually created by drugs are far easier and cheaper to address than the problems created by the bad laws.
So sometimes, it really is that easy to know absolutely that certain laws are bad. Why do you think it is that nobody has ever come up with an honest argument in favor of drug laws? Because we already proved absolutely with prohibition that there are no good arguments for them.
Seriously often basic common sense is all you need to make those sorts of decisions.
The only "bad" laws which SHOULD be disobeyed are the ones which conflict with basic human rights, and/or the Constitution.
Drug laws directly conflict with both of those things. Locking somebody in a cage to be beaten and raped because they grew a plant on their own property is a pretty fucking serious human rights violation. Far more so than making somebody sit at the back of a bus.
Are you somehow implying that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong? If so, you're a fool.
Well, I guess it's a very good thing that he said nothing of the sort, isn't it? Heck, there's no possible way to take what he said and interpret it that way.
He said: "If you don't like owning up to your actions....don't do the actions. " He did not say doing the actions is wrong. He said lying about it later to avoid honestly addressing it is wrong.
Now, are you honestly going to own up to your actions in this case?
You're fine with firmware that's soldered onto the board as a non-FRU mask-programmed ROM, but if it's loaded as a vendor-supplied blob that can (at least in principle) be updated as issues are identified, that's bad?
Actually, I never said I was "fine" with anything.
Given the same piece of hardware, it's better to have drivers written by people who care about security than by those who don't. If issues are found, I want the people fixing it to be those whose incentive is securing my infrastructure as opposed to those who see fixing flaws in their product as a cost to be avoided if at all possible.
Ah, the "free advertising" bullshit. Pirates use arguments like this to justify stealing EVERYBODY'S stuff, not just the ones who have turned a blind eye on purpose
Ahhh yes, the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, that radical hotbed of piracy and socialist thought who constantly crusade for the rights of the thief over those of the honest producer of goods and services.
Maybe you should pay attention to who it is that is making the argument this time, notice that they are absolutely enamored of free markets, and deal with their arguments at face value.
Heck, the OP might not "know" that (maybe he does) but I barely even noticed that I read the summary more or less how he translated it;-)
That's very relevant to why, while I use Linux for my web, file and database servers, when it comes to my firewalls it's OpenBSD. *Every* *fucking* *time*.
Yes, Theo can be abrasive. Yes, he's an absolutist on a lot of topics. Absolutely yes, that's the type of person I'll trust for the security of my network and my business. I'll install a binary blob driver for my desktop so I can run games, but security is not a game.
Given that the primary focus of his distribution is security, he's 100% absolutely *right* to refuse to allow binaries which he and his team can not audit to the extent that they do every other part of their releases.
So, they might be behind on support for some hardware, but when it's done, your confidence in its security is rightfully higher.
So, it's not just that he doesn't want it GPL. He doesn't trust people whose goal isn't security to write his code for him. He sure as shit isn't going to put his reputation and the security of the people who trust his OS in large part because of that reputation in the hands of some third party. So, maybe a lot of people think he has a reputation as a dick, but let's see them go up against him purely in a security context. They've had issues, but vulnerability for vulnerability he wins against damn near anything else. In the context of anything a normal person could get ahold of, I don't think anything else is even in the same league as OpenBSD. Not Linux, sure as hell not Windows.
Security and useability are in an inverse relationship. Some people are willing to adjust their balance on that scale and that's fine. A lot of good things can come out of that. It is absolutely a great thing that there is somebody out there who refuses to shift it away from security too.
Seriously, I don't know crap about kernel development, but: 1) I knew the answer to your question since the first time I even tried to compile a kernel. By "compile a kernel", I mean run make menuconfig, flip through idiot proof menus and say yes when it tells me to. 2) You proposed a bunch of dumb ideas implying that the people who actually do know how to develop one are idiots. 3) asking questions in a dick way and then appending a question mark in no way indicates humility, or even politeness.
Seriously, asking dumb questions is fine, but *you* need to actively treat them as dumb questions if you want them to be treated as legitimate questions in a problem space in which you're ignorant. Don't treat the people you want answers from as dumb preemptively.
If you want to posit that any artificial market factor invalidates the free market status, then you're going to have to rule out control of supply, DRM, DMCA and all other artificial means, like owning politicians. For example, diamonds (DeBeers), music (RIAA), movies (MPAA)...
Exactly, every thing you listed involves a non-free market. That's why all of those things are such huge problems.
I wouldn't take the summary at face value for this one - IIRC, there are some driver issues that cause this flag to pop up when it's really not supposed to.
There are no circumstances under which this should pop up. The fact that it's even there is the fundamental problem.
Quit making excuses for Microsoft. This is an intentional restriction of people's *rights* for which there is no reasonable justification.
The United States and the entire mechanics of the system supporting MCA, the legislators who crafted it, and everyone else involved has no interest or intent for MCA to apply to US citizens,
That's where you lost all credibility.
You don't know what the motivations of the legislators. All you have to go on is what they tell you, and one of the most universal truths we know is that all politicians are liars. The pack of jackals in office now are far and away the worst we've ever seen in this country.
You complete credulity is foolish to the point of idiocy in any circumstance. Far more so in anything involving elected officials who are explicitly not working in your best interests.
I'm amazed you could even type something so utterly insane without your head expoloding.
Try an maintain a little skepticism, or even just basic sanity in future.
Maybe I should ask for corroboration. Is IIS really bug free software? I mean, at lease for security bugs?
Bug free? No, it's a fucking joke in that respect. Security bugs? There don't seem to be many. Of course with a brand new install being hit only with HEAD requests from the Load Balancer it goes down faster than a Tijuana hooker. Presumably, MS would call that a feature, but it's quite obviously a very badly broken piece of software.
I have heard of a concept that might interest you. Omniderigence
I'd heard of the concept, but not the word. It made me laugh at first glance though because It made me picture Jesus, Buddha and Muhammed sitting around getting stoned jamming on didgeridoos. OK, it's been a long week, apparently, if I'm getting that silly. Gotta run and catch my train. I'll finish responding later.
Slashdot Mirror
Does he have any patents?
He *has* to have the patent on barratry, or somebody would have crawled out of the woodwork and sued him over it by now.
raised. Namely that Hitler forced the Church to allow him to directly appoint bishops, ended the political party that was affiliated with the church, tried to destroy the confessing church, and threw in jail the leadership of both the catholic and the protest church. Moreover they forced as many churches as possible into the German Church movement (which created the confessing church in the first place), forced a pact onto Rome, etc.
Which is unChristian how exactly? You should look into the history of your religion before defending it.
That's *how* religions have always spread, that's how they've always evolved.
You can dig up a single speech, and completely miss the context of it to make your point.
Again with not only a lie, but a ridiculously idiotic one.
Those were excerpts from speech after speech after speech rallying the German *Christians* together for his holy cause.
So, no "single speech". It was a well established pattern perfectly in keeping with the history of religion as a whole and that one in particular.
Of course, you don't like that fact so you'll spout the most stupid and easily falsified lies in order to avoid being honest with yourself.
Private statements
Don't matter one bit.
Nobody cares what Hitler's actual religious beliefs were. What he *used* was Christianity. The people who went along with his plan *were* Christians.
Deal with the facts, quit trying to throw out red herrings to avoid honesty.
The good techs will tell you all of this without being prodded -- to them, "tell me about your computers" is an invitation to talk about stuff they really like. If they're not all about it, they don't have the level of interest in technology qua technology that's going to work here.
;-)
Sure, I use that too and it works well.. My problem is how do you get them to shut up once you're convinced they know their stuff
here is growing social and peer pressure for kids to start doing things they are really not equipped to handle. Society is treating kids like mini-adults which they are not.
Teenagers (13..18) were once considered kids in their emerging years. Now they are treated like adults.
Where do you people get this insane assinine idiotic delusional nonsense?!?!?
Teenagers were married and raising their own fucking families at 13 not too long ago and for the vast majority of human history.
This whole "durrr they're idiots and need to be protected from reality" is the new thing.
Would you *please* stop repeating this revisionist bullshit that does nothing but demonstrate a complete ignorance of reality so we can actually have sane conversations about issues?
Pretty please?
Please, for the love of God, don't classify him as a Christian. I'm offended that he tries to use christianity as a platform to push his agenda. If he wanted to be a good christian, I think he would sympathize with the families of the victims in cases like the VTech shootings and try to help them overcome their grief, instead of lying to build up his podium and attempting to use it to further his misguided causes.
If he wanted to be a good Christian he'd be running around beating heretics to death with rocks.
Try and read the whole book. Don't just pick and choose a few scraps and claim *you're* the one who really gets it this time.
Sorry, but you are an ignorant fool or a liar.
Hitler was raised a Catholic, but expressed nothing but contempt for Christianity later in life.
That's an idiotic, bullshit *lie* and nothing besides.
Here are a selection of quotes from Hitler proving you to be a liar:
I thought Hitler and the Nazis were devout christians ( fair enough they may not have justified their actions in terms of religion )
It's arguable as to whether Hitler himself was "actually" a Christian, but the Nazi ideology was explicitly, militantly, and absolutely Christian.
The holocaust followed step by step the plan laid out by Martin Luther, father of protestantism, in his book, "The Jews and Their Lies". Hell, Kristallnacht was on his birthday.
Hitler was absolutely a huge promoter of Christianity since he was absolutely opposed to the "godless commies".
So, yeah, the OP is either completely ignorant of the entire history of anti-semitism in Christianity or just a liar.
Christians are quite eager to deny the role their religion played in a couple thousand years of slow roasting jews alive, which the holocaust was merely the culmination of. In that respect they're even worse than the holocaust deniers.
Should we have protesters outside of christian churches every time there is a sermon on 1 Timothy (it is blatantly sexist)? Should we chant and jeer outside churches that teach the parts of the bible about male genital manipulation (circumcision)?
Sure, why not?
Idiotic delusional nonsense is just that regardless of what the particular trivial details that are the only distinctions between these various "absolute truths", so they should be ridiculed mercilessly until people are just too fucking embarrassed to be associated with such idiocy.
Where's the problem exactly?
And, before you go quoting sections of the Christian bible (Old Testament) which proscribe stonings or other violent actions, be aware it's not a fair comparison. You see, there are no Christians ACTUALLY PERFORMING THESE ACTS. Christianity went through The Reformation, wherein it shrugged off many of these proclamations as archaic and incompatible with modernity. Islam has had no such event.
So all you're saying here is that the "Christians" not performing these acts aren't actually Christians. They are heretics who have hijacked the faith.
Now, it's certainly arguable that that's a good thing, but it's far better to be honest, deal with the fact that Christianity itself is every bit as evil as Islam if honestly followed, and treat both faiths as the unmitigated evils that they are.
Here's a bunch.
;-)
I'd just point you at one of the results, but then somebody would just jump in and say that one doesn't count for some arbitrary reason
I understand what you're saying, but who gets to decide what the bad laws are?
In this case it's absolutely obvious that drug laws are bad laws.
How can you tell?
They have no possibility of achieving any positive effects. This has nothing to do with their unenforcibility, it's because even if they were 100% effective, there would be nothing positive achieved.
They have caused massive harm to our society and to *millions* of individuals without leading to any positive results.
They have caused massive increase in crime, massive increase in violent crime, massive increase in organized crime, and have led the US to be the worst police state in the world.
Disagree with that last bit? Name one country with more people in prison per capita than the US? Hell, name one with more people in raw numbers in prison than the US. You can't, because there aren't any.
So sometimes it's a difficult choice to decide if a law is bad or not. That isn't the case for drug laws. It's really obvious.
They do nothing good, have no possibility of doing any good and almost every problem commonly associated by drugs are created *entirely* by drug laws. The only problems actually created by drugs are far easier and cheaper to address than the problems created by the bad laws.
So sometimes, it really is that easy to know absolutely that certain laws are bad.
Why do you think it is that nobody has ever come up with an honest argument in favor of drug laws? Because we already proved absolutely with prohibition that there are no good arguments for them.
Seriously often basic common sense is all you need to make those sorts of decisions.
The only "bad" laws which SHOULD be disobeyed are the ones which conflict with basic human rights, and/or the Constitution.
Drug laws directly conflict with both of those things. Locking somebody in a cage to be beaten and raped because they grew a plant on their own property is a pretty fucking serious human rights violation. Far more so than making somebody sit at the back of a bus.
OK... I am an atheist... but this does remind me of a certain story in the bible.
Except the whole virgin birth thing was purely the result of a mistranslation.
It was "young woman", not "virgin".
Of course the nutters can't exactly be honest about it now
Are you somehow implying that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong? If so, you're a fool.
Well, I guess it's a very good thing that he said nothing of the sort, isn't it?
Heck, there's no possible way to take what he said and interpret it that way.
He said:
"If you don't like owning up to your actions....don't do the actions. "
He did not say doing the actions is wrong. He said lying about it later to avoid honestly addressing it is wrong.
Now, are you honestly going to own up to your actions in this case?
You're fine with firmware that's soldered onto the board as a non-FRU mask-programmed ROM, but if it's loaded as a vendor-supplied blob that can (at least in principle) be updated as issues are identified, that's bad?
Actually, I never said I was "fine" with anything.
Given the same piece of hardware, it's better to have drivers written by people who care about security than by those who don't. If issues are found, I want the people fixing it to be those whose incentive is securing my infrastructure as opposed to those who see fixing flaws in their product as a cost to be avoided if at all possible.
Ah, the "free advertising" bullshit. Pirates use arguments like this to justify stealing EVERYBODY'S stuff, not just the ones who have turned a blind eye on purpose
Ahhh yes, the Ludwig Von Mises Institute,
that radical hotbed of piracy and socialist thought who constantly crusade for the rights of the thief over those of the honest producer of goods and services.
Maybe you should pay attention to who it is that is making the argument this time, notice that they are absolutely enamored of free markets, and deal with their arguments at face value.
Hell, "Overly critical". Hardly.
didn't know Theo was the party involved.
;-)
Heck, the OP might not "know" that (maybe he does) but I barely even noticed that I read the summary more or less how he translated it
That's very relevant to why, while I use Linux for my web, file and database servers, when it comes to my firewalls it's OpenBSD. *Every* *fucking* *time*.
Yes, Theo can be abrasive. Yes, he's an absolutist on a lot of topics. Absolutely yes, that's the type of person I'll trust for the security of my network and my business. I'll install a binary blob driver for my desktop so I can run games, but security is not a game.
Given that the primary focus of his distribution is security, he's 100% absolutely *right* to refuse to allow binaries which he and his team can not audit to the extent that they do every other part of their releases.
So, they might be behind on support for some hardware, but when it's done, your confidence in its security is rightfully higher.
So, it's not just that he doesn't want it GPL. He doesn't trust people whose goal isn't security to write his code for him. He sure as shit isn't going to put his reputation and the security of the people who trust his OS in large part because of that reputation in the hands of some third party. So, maybe a lot of people think he has a reputation as a dick, but let's see them go up against him purely in a security context. They've had issues, but vulnerability for vulnerability he wins against damn near anything else. In the context of anything a normal person could get ahold of, I don't think anything else is even in the same league as OpenBSD. Not Linux, sure as hell not Windows.
Security and useability are in an inverse relationship. Some people are willing to adjust their balance on that scale and that's fine. A lot of good things can come out of that. It is absolutely a great thing that there is somebody out there who refuses to shift it away from security too.
Seriously, I don't know crap about kernel development, but:
1) I knew the answer to your question since the first time I even tried to compile a kernel. By "compile a kernel", I mean run make menuconfig, flip through idiot proof menus and say yes when it tells me to.
2) You proposed a bunch of dumb ideas implying that the people who actually do know how to develop one are idiots.
3) asking questions in a dick way and then appending a question mark in no way indicates humility, or even politeness.
Seriously, asking dumb questions is fine, but *you* need to actively treat them as dumb questions if you want them to be treated as legitimate questions in a problem space in which you're ignorant. Don't treat the people you want answers from as dumb preemptively.
If you want to posit that any artificial market factor invalidates the free market status, then you're going to have to rule out control of supply, DRM, DMCA and all other artificial means, like owning politicians. For example, diamonds (DeBeers), music (RIAA), movies (MPAA)...
Exactly, every thing you listed involves a non-free market.
That's why all of those things are such huge problems.
The Derby was first raced over 1779 and is where we all get the term "Derby" from.
;-)
And you still haven't learned to pronounce it properly
hat was the final straw, the earlier post about Joe Sixbit is now me, learning all about Mythtv, Gentoo, X11, Lirc, ALSA, et all.
;-)
Let me know if you have any problems. That's the same setup I've had for years
I wouldn't take the summary at face value for this one - IIRC, there are some driver issues that cause this flag to pop up when it's really not supposed to.
There are no circumstances under which this should pop up. The fact that it's even there is the fundamental problem.
Quit making excuses for Microsoft. This is an intentional restriction of people's *rights* for which there is no reasonable justification.
The United States and the entire mechanics of the system supporting MCA, the legislators who crafted it, and everyone else involved has no interest or intent for MCA to apply to US citizens,
That's where you lost all credibility.
You don't know what the motivations of the legislators. All you have to go on is what they tell you, and one of the most universal truths we know is that all politicians are liars. The pack of jackals in office now are far and away the worst we've ever seen in this country.
You complete credulity is foolish to the point of idiocy in any circumstance. Far more so in anything involving elected officials who are explicitly not working in your best interests.
I'm amazed you could even type something so utterly insane without your head expoloding.
Try an maintain a little skepticism, or even just basic sanity in future.
Maybe I should ask for corroboration. Is IIS really bug free software? I mean, at lease for security bugs?
Bug free? No, it's a fucking joke in that respect. Security bugs? There don't seem to be many.
Of course with a brand new install being hit only with HEAD requests from the Load Balancer it goes down faster than a Tijuana hooker. Presumably, MS would call that a feature, but it's quite obviously a very badly broken piece of software.
I have heard of a concept that might interest you. Omniderigence
I'd heard of the concept, but not the word. It made me laugh at first glance though because It made me picture Jesus, Buddha and Muhammed sitting around getting stoned jamming on didgeridoos. OK, it's been a long week, apparently, if I'm getting that silly. Gotta run and catch my train. I'll finish responding later.
What if I devise a system whereby i am allowed to touch all womens boobies unless they have a sign on their back saying "No touching my Boobies".
Then you should approach from the front and claim ignorance of the notice