Does mean it's ethical or right. I agree with GP about drug tests. I really don't use drugs, but I wouldn't work for any company who wanted to drug test me. I've already decided if or when that happens, I'll go take the test to prove I'm not a druggie, then decline their offer citing their drug test policy as the reason.
It really is none of their fucking business what I do with my own time. If they want to do drug tests, it just proves they don't give jack shit about my privacy or my personal time. Those people are exactly the type of schmucks who wouldn't think twice about having my sensitive personal data on their unencrypted PDA phone which they accidently left at McDonalds for MaccyMcCrackhead to find and sell to his friend who's into ID theft.
Yeah, I think at some point, you're hired to keep the network running. That means it's your responsibility. If they wanted him to hand the keys to some shmuck, he KNEW he'd be responsible to fix whatever the other guy screwed up, and he knew it would be his ass on the line for the problems.
Businesses want to pin responsibility on IT people, but don't want to give them they power to back it up.
I have been the sole IT employee of a small business for over two years now. I basically do Systems Admin. stuff as well as working on their internal software.
I've tired to stress over and over again I need to do documentation and disaster recovery planning, but it gets ignored. They are more interested in asking for a new button on a form somewhere, that doesn't really even do what they want it to, because they won't just come to me with requirements, and let me figure out the best implementation.
I know this is a small business, but I can't imagine that this is a unique mindset for management. I really feel for the guy.
My theory is that "hard criminals" who commit truly violent crimes know immediately they've fucked up, and that they're going to be doing time. They knew it before they even did the crime. It was something they accepted internally as they were in the act.
But spamming? Seriously, I think it's wrong, but why did this guy get jailtime for it? That would've made me snap, too. I mean, I've probably infringed on copyright before, but if the feds came in here and carted me off to jail for 2 years, I don't know that I wouldn't go batshit insane, too.
Don't get me wrong: killing your family is truly demented. But I'm going to guess this guy lost his mind somewhere along the way, and it's probably because he was facing two years in prison for sending unsolicited 1's and 0's across the interwebs. Maybe he did hurt some people financially, but he certainly can't repay that "debt" to those people if he's locked up and unable to make money legitimately. And if he can make millions from spam, I'm going to guess he can probably make money through more legitimate means, too.
I blame this one on out fucked up criminal justice system than I do the guy.
First off, the color temperature of most "soft white" CFL's is not even 3000K. Normal incandescent bulbs give off light at about the same color. You can get "cool white" CFLs, though they are much less common, which give off light at around 4100K.
Both of these are much, much warmer than natural sunlight, which is usually over 6000K.
I see this argument a lot against CFLs, and fluorescent lighting in general. People describe it as "blue" or having an "unnatural color", but that's not really the truth.
What you ARE seeing as the problem is the difference between full-spectrum lighting and light that has a low CRI (Color rendering index). There's no clearly visible difference (as with color) between low CRI and high CRI (full spectrum) lighting, except that one causes your vision to feel strained.
Do yourself a huge favor and go to store that specialized in lighting, and find yourself a true full-spectrum CFL, and give it an honest try. The stuff they sell in supermarkets sucks, and I won't use them either. I would suggest a light about 5000K, because anything higher -- though it is truly more like natural sunlight -- will appear really, really blue when you compare it to the other light you'll see at night.
Right, but there really isn't a broadcast solution available right now. So if we think of "wasteful" as a relative term, neither way is more wasteful than the other.
Actually, with P2P, smart ISP's could keep peers on their side of the fence, and not have to clog up the tubes connecting them to others. I don't remember if that's what Sandvine is supposed to do or not, but I remember reading about it somewhere.
Of course, we could all use a proxy server to the same effect, but I don't think anyone wants to go through the hassle. ISP's could also do some advanced sort of caching, but that's a legal can of worms I'm sure they don't want to get into.
So why do people like you think that folks with different skin colors are all "crackwhores, violent criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, layabouts, and social misfits"? Because you saw it on TV?
Actually, no.
I'll explain this a little better for you, because you don't know anything about me.
I live in Nashville, TN. Middle of the south. I grew up in a very rural, mostly white area. I later MOVED TO THE CITY where I could afford to. Mommy and daddy are dirt poor and I don't get a trust fund -- so I'm definitely not the rich white kid going to prep school type.
When I moved to the city, in the poorer part, where rent was actually affordable, the population was mostly black, with an equal number of whites and mexicans.
Before I moved, I thought all the stereotypes were just made up -- that people were just being hateful and misguided. But they're not. None of them. They're all true to some degree. Since you've never lived in a poor black area (I'm guessing), you wouldn't know that, though. But I'm telling you from experience, I thought the same way you did until I saw it with my own eyes.
It boils down to this: There are extreme cultural differences between most blacks and most whites in the U.S. Even in drug use -- there may be an equal number of white and black drug users, but what about drug-related violence? Are the numbers equal there? It goes back to the cultural differences -- rich white kids like you use drugs in a different environment and have a different approach to it than people who live East Nashville, where I lived.
I mean, blacks and whites even TALK differently. You don't see that in any other country. If you called up Mother England for some reason, and a brit answered the phone, you'd probably have no idea whether it was a black brit or a white brit. But in the U.S., you can immediately tell most of the time, because even though blacks and whites can grow up in the exact same town, they have wildly different accents. I think that's definite proof there is a serious cultural difference.
And by the way, all the cops I've met have been assholes. It doesn't matter that I'm white. Of course, I never lived in the "rich" parts of town or in the counties where they make more than 30k a year to risk their lives -- so maybe they're nicer there.
I don't think it matters if the difference are biological or cultural. I should have said that clearly.
If you consider the evolution of human society, we have come so far. We're no longer a hiding-in-caves, nomadic, hunter-gatherer type of creature. But I think biologically, we're not terribly different than we were just a few thousand years ago. How we are different is culturally. So to discount culture as a valid point of reference is to discount everything that our culture has given us -- and that's EVERYTHING that isn't biological. Right up to the body of human knowledge, which includes science and technology.
So when you think about it like that, if girls don't want to go into science because it's not a very "girly" thing to do, I think that's completely valid. We shouldn't implement quotas to require a certain number of girls to go into the field. I think it's perfectly fine to encourage them to go into science, if they want to, and I definitely think women who do want to go into science should have every opportunity to do so.
But if they'd rather do "girlier" things... my answer is... "so what?" Let them. The definition of "girlier" things will change over time, and it'll probably take a few generations. Affirmative action is a very bad shortcut, IMO.
As for differences between genders OR races: Everything is too PC these days to really study it. Stereotypes are an anecdotal sort of conventional wisdom, and while they're often used to justify prejudice and bigotry, I don't think it's fair to completely discount them and the premises they claim. There are biological AND cultural differences between genders and races. The reason no one can discuss that is because no one wants to open the can of worms where we can objectively qualify our differences. If we do that, our natural human tendency is going to say that X is better than Y, even though "better" is completely divorced from the objective observation.
I also wanted to comment that gender and sex are different things. Gender is an idea based around social roles, while sex is biologically identifiable. Which is a whole other discussion, even though it's very pertinent. I have friends who are transgendered and transsexual. The difference being the former still thinks he is a boy, but doesn't fit the "boy" gender role, while the latter actually wants to become a girl, and have the "girl" gender role. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can't completely discount the "psychological" (not biological) aspect of gender. Someone who thinks science isn't appropriate for their gender really isn't going to be interested in it enough to be good at it. While that may not be "fair" (though I don't see anything inherently bad about it -- go diversity), it's the reality of things.
I really DON'T want to see everyone be the same. I like that there are all different kinds of people, and I think they can all find their niche. For some women, that's science. For most it's not. I don't see why that's a bad thing.
Maybe when we start having a racially-equal number of crackwhores, violent criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, layabouts, and social misfits; then maybe we can start applying it to other things.
I'm not for political correctness (only fairness). If racial profiling, or gender profiling, or sexual profiling, or any other type of profiling generates positive results, then why aren't we doing it?
In other words -- if girls don't want to study science them please, for the love of science, don't try to make them. I sincerely believe that statistically, men are better at science than women. There are enough objectively identifiable differences between the sexes to justify such a statement. (The same could be said for races, too.)
The key thing to remember, though is that, being good at science doesn't have, or doesn't need to have any particular value or "worth" associated with it. I'm not good at sports, and I don't think that makes me less of a person.
(In case you're wondering, I'm a gay man who considers himself a very liberal Socialist on the political spectrum.)
One could make the same argument about state government as a whole, though. By the same line of thought, we could do away with states all together, and let the federal government handle everything that state government currently does.
I think the way it works is: If you spend 100k on a vehicle and write it off as a work expense, you essentially made 100k less income that year. So it's still really expensive, you just don't get taxed on that amount.
I actually think that's sound. If the oil giants crashed, it would cause a huge depression. A transition of the same companies to producing energy a different way isn't necessarily a bad thing. And they DO have a lot of experience in the energy sector. I've never not be able to get gas.
If you know something's gonna pass even if you veto it, why waste taxpayer dollars to send it it back to congress? People blame Clinton for a lot of things he "signed into law", but a lot of those things had a veto-proof majority.
I've seen articles about using nano-particles to make both fuel cells AND make anodes and cathodes for electrolysis REALLY CHEAP.
I read something like 98% efficiency? I might be off on that, but that's crazy-efficient.
Here's what I'm waiting for: A car with it's own closed system for turning electricity into hydrogen via electrolysis, then converting it back into electricity with a fuel cell. Essentially, it's using hydrogen as a "battery". I think we're a lot closer to that than we are supercapacitors.
I'm still a big fan of hybrids, and even a design like that should be hybridized. Gasoline isn't going away, and you don't always have the time and access to an electrical outlet. This puts most of the work on the grid, which we can feed with renewables or at least scrubbed coal. The gasoline for the "hybrid" engine could be from organic/synthetic sources.
Over time, the infrastructure could change to hydrogen, so that you could "fill up" your tank, if you don't have time to wait for the the car to "charge" itself back up.
How is that sustainable? Last time I checked, petroleum went into every step necessary to make the food you're eating, which is totally fair to consider a "fuel source" for walking or biking. From extracting and transporting raw resources to make the machinery to harvest. Into the fertilizers necessary to mass produce. Into the machinery itself to harvest. To transport it to your local grocery story.
Beyond that, your walking shoes have the same issues, as does your bicycle.
I'm not saying trying to help in this way is BAD, but you have to pause to consider that EVERY bit of energy we use pretty much comes from petroleum or coal, with the exception of a small percentage from other sources.
Societies that aren't industrialized rely on food at their ONLY energy source. They have to be able to grow more energy than it took them to plant and harvest, or they would have starved to death. Discovery of fossil fuels is the ONLY thing that's broken us out of the Malthusian trap, and your ability to walk or bike instead of drive a car is completely dependent on fossil fuels -- especially petroleum.
Having said all that, hydrogen is the only viable fuel we have right now. Not fuel source, but fuel. Even if we are using solar power to run electric cars, we still need to make fuel for them to run on. Hydrogen is being proposed in fuel cells, but that's a VERY new technology. The idea of burning fuels is thousands of years old and works well enough. There's nothing inherently bad about hydrocarbons. If we could produce and oil or gasoline from purely organic sources, we'd be as well off doing that as any other idea I've heard of. When you really think about it, oil is a hydrogen fuel. An oil economy is a hydrogen economy.
The problem is the environment and political problems associated with using the stored reserves of oil in the ground. We are using oil as an energy source -- that's BAD. But using it as a fuel, just as a way to easily transport energy around; there's not inherently bad about it. We have the technology to synthetically make oil, and I think that's the best route to go. Making oil from renewable resources. There will likely be a period of time where we mix synthetic and natural oil to make gasoline (think E85), but eventually, as natural oil reserves dwindle, synthetic oil will replace it. As we being mass producing synthetic oil, we'll figure out ways to make it better and cheaper, too. It's really just a matter of time...
I find it odd that you all are suggesting Microsoft go with a linux kernel when their own kernel is not the major problem with their OS. It's all the junk they've piled on top of it.
If they were using the linux kernel instead of the NT kernel, I think their OS would have just as many problems.
I hold out faith that the soldiers aren't completely brainwashed, and would refuse orders to attack domestic civilians for corrupt reasons. Rocket launchers are only useful if you have people to shoot them.
Hey, why don't get just give them guns instead of computers. Sounds like a more effective way to deal with the warlord problem you've described. Plus, it's hard to beat to death someone that's shooting you.
I don't know. You CAN live with bad air. You CAN'T live without food. For people in poverty, money has to be their primary concern, even if they hate the choices it forces them to make.
Slashdot Mirror
Does mean it's ethical or right. I agree with GP about drug tests. I really don't use drugs, but I wouldn't work for any company who wanted to drug test me. I've already decided if or when that happens, I'll go take the test to prove I'm not a druggie, then decline their offer citing their drug test policy as the reason.
It really is none of their fucking business what I do with my own time. If they want to do drug tests, it just proves they don't give jack shit about my privacy or my personal time. Those people are exactly the type of schmucks who wouldn't think twice about having my sensitive personal data on their unencrypted PDA phone which they accidently left at McDonalds for MaccyMcCrackhead to find and sell to his friend who's into ID theft.
Yeah, I think at some point, you're hired to keep the network running. That means it's your responsibility. If they wanted him to hand the keys to some shmuck, he KNEW he'd be responsible to fix whatever the other guy screwed up, and he knew it would be his ass on the line for the problems.
Businesses want to pin responsibility on IT people, but don't want to give them they power to back it up.
I have been the sole IT employee of a small business for over two years now. I basically do Systems Admin. stuff as well as working on their internal software.
I've tired to stress over and over again I need to do documentation and disaster recovery planning, but it gets ignored. They are more interested in asking for a new button on a form somewhere, that doesn't really even do what they want it to, because they won't just come to me with requirements, and let me figure out the best implementation.
I know this is a small business, but I can't imagine that this is a unique mindset for management. I really feel for the guy.
Exactly! That's the issue here.
My theory is that "hard criminals" who commit truly violent crimes know immediately they've fucked up, and that they're going to be doing time. They knew it before they even did the crime. It was something they accepted internally as they were in the act.
But spamming? Seriously, I think it's wrong, but why did this guy get jailtime for it? That would've made me snap, too. I mean, I've probably infringed on copyright before, but if the feds came in here and carted me off to jail for 2 years, I don't know that I wouldn't go batshit insane, too.
Don't get me wrong: killing your family is truly demented. But I'm going to guess this guy lost his mind somewhere along the way, and it's probably because he was facing two years in prison for sending unsolicited 1's and 0's across the interwebs. Maybe he did hurt some people financially, but he certainly can't repay that "debt" to those people if he's locked up and unable to make money legitimately. And if he can make millions from spam, I'm going to guess he can probably make money through more legitimate means, too.
I blame this one on out fucked up criminal justice system than I do the guy.
I don't get it.
First off, the color temperature of most "soft white" CFL's is not even 3000K. Normal incandescent bulbs give off light at about the same color. You can get "cool white" CFLs, though they are much less common, which give off light at around 4100K.
Both of these are much, much warmer than natural sunlight, which is usually over 6000K.
I see this argument a lot against CFLs, and fluorescent lighting in general. People describe it as "blue" or having an "unnatural color", but that's not really the truth.
What you ARE seeing as the problem is the difference between full-spectrum lighting and light that has a low CRI (Color rendering index). There's no clearly visible difference (as with color) between low CRI and high CRI (full spectrum) lighting, except that one causes your vision to feel strained.
Do yourself a huge favor and go to store that specialized in lighting, and find yourself a true full-spectrum CFL, and give it an honest try. The stuff they sell in supermarkets sucks, and I won't use them either. I would suggest a light about 5000K, because anything higher -- though it is truly more like natural sunlight -- will appear really, really blue when you compare it to the other light you'll see at night.
Right, but there really isn't a broadcast solution available right now. So if we think of "wasteful" as a relative term, neither way is more wasteful than the other.
Actually, with P2P, smart ISP's could keep peers on their side of the fence, and not have to clog up the tubes connecting them to others. I don't remember if that's what Sandvine is supposed to do or not, but I remember reading about it somewhere.
Of course, we could all use a proxy server to the same effect, but I don't think anyone wants to go through the hassle. ISP's could also do some advanced sort of caching, but that's a legal can of worms I'm sure they don't want to get into.
You realize that even traditional "broadcast" (e.g. streaming from youtube) has to send countless duplicates of the same data, right?
Dude, c'mon! Rose Nylund was a fucking hottie.
Actually, no.
I'll explain this a little better for you, because you don't know anything about me.
I live in Nashville, TN. Middle of the south. I grew up in a very rural, mostly white area. I later MOVED TO THE CITY where I could afford to. Mommy and daddy are dirt poor and I don't get a trust fund -- so I'm definitely not the rich white kid going to prep school type.
When I moved to the city, in the poorer part, where rent was actually affordable, the population was mostly black, with an equal number of whites and mexicans.
Before I moved, I thought all the stereotypes were just made up -- that people were just being hateful and misguided. But they're not. None of them. They're all true to some degree. Since you've never lived in a poor black area (I'm guessing), you wouldn't know that, though. But I'm telling you from experience, I thought the same way you did until I saw it with my own eyes.
It boils down to this: There are extreme cultural differences between most blacks and most whites in the U.S. Even in drug use -- there may be an equal number of white and black drug users, but what about drug-related violence? Are the numbers equal there? It goes back to the cultural differences -- rich white kids like you use drugs in a different environment and have a different approach to it than people who live East Nashville, where I lived.
I mean, blacks and whites even TALK differently. You don't see that in any other country. If you called up Mother England for some reason, and a brit answered the phone, you'd probably have no idea whether it was a black brit or a white brit. But in the U.S., you can immediately tell most of the time, because even though blacks and whites can grow up in the exact same town, they have wildly different accents. I think that's definite proof there is a serious cultural difference.
And by the way, all the cops I've met have been assholes. It doesn't matter that I'm white. Of course, I never lived in the "rich" parts of town or in the counties where they make more than 30k a year to risk their lives -- so maybe they're nicer there.
I don't think it matters if the difference are biological or cultural. I should have said that clearly.
If you consider the evolution of human society, we have come so far. We're no longer a hiding-in-caves, nomadic, hunter-gatherer type of creature. But I think biologically, we're not terribly different than we were just a few thousand years ago. How we are different is culturally. So to discount culture as a valid point of reference is to discount everything that our culture has given us -- and that's EVERYTHING that isn't biological. Right up to the body of human knowledge, which includes science and technology.
So when you think about it like that, if girls don't want to go into science because it's not a very "girly" thing to do, I think that's completely valid. We shouldn't implement quotas to require a certain number of girls to go into the field. I think it's perfectly fine to encourage them to go into science, if they want to, and I definitely think women who do want to go into science should have every opportunity to do so.
But if they'd rather do "girlier" things... my answer is... "so what?" Let them. The definition of "girlier" things will change over time, and it'll probably take a few generations. Affirmative action is a very bad shortcut, IMO.
As for differences between genders OR races: Everything is too PC these days to really study it. Stereotypes are an anecdotal sort of conventional wisdom, and while they're often used to justify prejudice and bigotry, I don't think it's fair to completely discount them and the premises they claim. There are biological AND cultural differences between genders and races. The reason no one can discuss that is because no one wants to open the can of worms where we can objectively qualify our differences. If we do that, our natural human tendency is going to say that X is better than Y, even though "better" is completely divorced from the objective observation.
I also wanted to comment that gender and sex are different things. Gender is an idea based around social roles, while sex is biologically identifiable. Which is a whole other discussion, even though it's very pertinent. I have friends who are transgendered and transsexual. The difference being the former still thinks he is a boy, but doesn't fit the "boy" gender role, while the latter actually wants to become a girl, and have the "girl" gender role. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can't completely discount the "psychological" (not biological) aspect of gender. Someone who thinks science isn't appropriate for their gender really isn't going to be interested in it enough to be good at it. While that may not be "fair" (though I don't see anything inherently bad about it -- go diversity), it's the reality of things.
I really DON'T want to see everyone be the same. I like that there are all different kinds of people, and I think they can all find their niche. For some women, that's science. For most it's not. I don't see why that's a bad thing.
Maybe when we start having a racially-equal number of crackwhores, violent criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, layabouts, and social misfits; then maybe we can start applying it to other things.
I'm not for political correctness (only fairness). If racial profiling, or gender profiling, or sexual profiling, or any other type of profiling generates positive results, then why aren't we doing it?
In other words -- if girls don't want to study science them please, for the love of science, don't try to make them. I sincerely believe that statistically, men are better at science than women. There are enough objectively identifiable differences between the sexes to justify such a statement. (The same could be said for races, too.)
The key thing to remember, though is that, being good at science doesn't have, or doesn't need to have any particular value or "worth" associated with it. I'm not good at sports, and I don't think that makes me less of a person.
(In case you're wondering, I'm a gay man who considers himself a very liberal Socialist on the political spectrum.)
Actually, it was definitely sci-fan. It had magical and advanced technological elements. In more than one episode, a robot is the major antagonist.
One could make the same argument about state government as a whole, though. By the same line of thought, we could do away with states all together, and let the federal government handle everything that state government currently does.
I love you Doc Ruby!
I think the way it works is: If you spend 100k on a vehicle and write it off as a work expense, you essentially made 100k less income that year. So it's still really expensive, you just don't get taxed on that amount.
I actually think that's sound. If the oil giants crashed, it would cause a huge depression. A transition of the same companies to producing energy a different way isn't necessarily a bad thing. And they DO have a lot of experience in the energy sector. I've never not be able to get gas.
If you know something's gonna pass even if you veto it, why waste taxpayer dollars to send it it back to congress? People blame Clinton for a lot of things he "signed into law", but a lot of those things had a veto-proof majority.
If people live 1000 years, the death rate would have to drop proportionally. There really wouldn't be that many kids trying to move up the ladder.
I've seen articles about using nano-particles to make both fuel cells AND make anodes and cathodes for electrolysis REALLY CHEAP.
I read something like 98% efficiency? I might be off on that, but that's crazy-efficient.
Here's what I'm waiting for: A car with it's own closed system for turning electricity into hydrogen via electrolysis, then converting it back into electricity with a fuel cell. Essentially, it's using hydrogen as a "battery". I think we're a lot closer to that than we are supercapacitors.
I'm still a big fan of hybrids, and even a design like that should be hybridized. Gasoline isn't going away, and you don't always have the time and access to an electrical outlet. This puts most of the work on the grid, which we can feed with renewables or at least scrubbed coal. The gasoline for the "hybrid" engine could be from organic/synthetic sources.
Over time, the infrastructure could change to hydrogen, so that you could "fill up" your tank, if you don't have time to wait for the the car to "charge" itself back up.
How is that sustainable? Last time I checked, petroleum went into every step necessary to make the food you're eating, which is totally fair to consider a "fuel source" for walking or biking. From extracting and transporting raw resources to make the machinery to harvest. Into the fertilizers necessary to mass produce. Into the machinery itself to harvest. To transport it to your local grocery story.
Beyond that, your walking shoes have the same issues, as does your bicycle.
I'm not saying trying to help in this way is BAD, but you have to pause to consider that EVERY bit of energy we use pretty much comes from petroleum or coal, with the exception of a small percentage from other sources.
Societies that aren't industrialized rely on food at their ONLY energy source. They have to be able to grow more energy than it took them to plant and harvest, or they would have starved to death. Discovery of fossil fuels is the ONLY thing that's broken us out of the Malthusian trap, and your ability to walk or bike instead of drive a car is completely dependent on fossil fuels -- especially petroleum.
Having said all that, hydrogen is the only viable fuel we have right now. Not fuel source, but fuel. Even if we are using solar power to run electric cars, we still need to make fuel for them to run on. Hydrogen is being proposed in fuel cells, but that's a VERY new technology. The idea of burning fuels is thousands of years old and works well enough. There's nothing inherently bad about hydrocarbons. If we could produce and oil or gasoline from purely organic sources, we'd be as well off doing that as any other idea I've heard of. When you really think about it, oil is a hydrogen fuel. An oil economy is a hydrogen economy.
The problem is the environment and political problems associated with using the stored reserves of oil in the ground. We are using oil as an energy source -- that's BAD. But using it as a fuel, just as a way to easily transport energy around; there's not inherently bad about it. We have the technology to synthetically make oil, and I think that's the best route to go. Making oil from renewable resources. There will likely be a period of time where we mix synthetic and natural oil to make gasoline (think E85), but eventually, as natural oil reserves dwindle, synthetic oil will replace it. As we being mass producing synthetic oil, we'll figure out ways to make it better and cheaper, too. It's really just a matter of time...
Because the Casino industry has lobbied Washington to keep those reserves from being tapped. When will the corruption end?
I find it odd that you all are suggesting Microsoft go with a linux kernel when their own kernel is not the major problem with their OS. It's all the junk they've piled on top of it.
If they were using the linux kernel instead of the NT kernel, I think their OS would have just as many problems.
I hold out faith that the soldiers aren't completely brainwashed, and would refuse orders to attack domestic civilians for corrupt reasons. Rocket launchers are only useful if you have people to shoot them.
Hey, why don't get just give them guns instead of computers. Sounds like a more effective way to deal with the warlord problem you've described. Plus, it's hard to beat to death someone that's shooting you.
I don't know. You CAN live with bad air. You CAN'T live without food. For people in poverty, money has to be their primary concern, even if they hate the choices it forces them to make.