So you get to buy a bunch more mercury-laden CFLs, yay for you!

I've spent the time to test out a variety of brands at various prices in real-world usage patterns. In the majority of use patterns, CFLs blow out 2-4 times faster than Incandescents. If you want to get real savings, step up to full on fluorescent bulbs. The ones in my garage ran for over a decade. But they matched the usage profile for FLs. Every internal light (especially bathrooms and hallways) Incandescents have outlasted CFLs by very large margins. Even if the CFLs were priced as low as incandescents, they'd still be far more expensive.

Banning Incandescents is stupid, wasteful, and nothing more than a special interest gimme. If you really want to cut your energy costs, nothing beats turning off lights that aren't needed. Second to that is matching the lighting to the task. Perhaps a lower wattage bulb right where you need it (or even an LED right there) instead of the "big room light" that has to be brighter because it is trying to fulfill every role.

This latter point is the single biggest problem in home (and office) lighting. The notion that one light is all you need for a room is generally false and wasteful. That is why we see a trend toward more lights - and why more "upscale" homes have dozens of lights in the main room, the kitchen, and sometimes the dining room. So now, I expect that we will not see a reduction in electricity demand form lights, because we will have even more lights per room. Just like low-calorie drinks leads to people drinking more of them - and resulting in consuming more calories because the human mind tricks itself.

But don't take my word for it, or the OP's word either. Do the math on your own home and usage.

Of course, that will likely lead to having a mix of light types (LED, CFLs, Tubes, Incandescents, etc.) in your house. And that is partly why the neoliberals don't want you to have the option.

Funny how Mercury is so bad for you (which it is) that you can't possibly be allowed to have it anywhere. Except for lighting your home where you are clearly not getting enough of it and Mommy NeoLib has to force you to use it.

There are two basic ways for us to lower pollution output: stop living our modern high energy lifestyles or have an extreme technological breakthrough. I doubt the latter is going to occur anytime soon, even if it was discovered today there would be no way we could mass produce it enough to effectively change over our lifestyles and infrastructure (and it would have to be massive gains for it to most likely be worth the energy cost of the constructions of the new technology and recycling the waste from the old).

The facts bely your claim. The facts are that in the US at least, our pollution out has been decreasing for a very long time. Not that it makes news (until a politician of any stripe wants to claim he or she is responsible for it), pollution has in fact gone down significantly over the last 40+ years. Same with water pollution. Meanwhile, energy per-capita has increased. Not suprising given that cleaner technology usually requires more energy (most recycling consumes more energy than it "saves" for example), and that we as a group mus thave enough "excess" energy available to use the cleaner technology.

Advances don't generally happen suddenly, a point you make. However you seem to forget the fact that advances incrementally over time lead to more improvement than single one-shot advances, Further, not all improvements are the result of improving technology. Often they are ways of being smarter about things. For example, carrying more cargo per trip reducing the energy use of the cargo over taking two trucks to deliver it. Indeed, as some research shows more efficient technology can lead to an increase in net energy use. The effect is similar to reduced-calorie foods. Cut the calories in half and many people eat more than double what they were previously.

As to the latter part of your statement, again the history of technological changes proves your statement false. As I've heard said "We didn't leave the stone age because we ran out of rocks". Nor the Bronze Age for want of bronze, nor Iron Age for lack of iron. We as a species and civilization do in fact continuously replace prior technology. The problem we face now is government distortion of costs through mandates and subsidies. These actions cloud the needed information of relative supply and demand, as well as the incentive to produce lower cost versions of "better" technology.

"I know, you'd think any kind of team like this would need a demo man, but in fact, at least 80% of the time, high explosives are not the correct answer to your IT woes."

"That server over there is spreading a virus" - C4.apply()
"We can't upgrade to HW that meets our needs when the existing HW is still mostly functional" - C4.apply()
"MS wants us to pay for each server that might be running Windows" - C4.apply()
"No need for Business Continuity Planning, our data center will never ..." C4.apply() "...fail"
"the printer still isn't working" - C4.apply()
"We've hired an intern for you, we'll need you to train him on everything you do. You know, just in case something happened to you." - C4.apply()
"The DDOS won't stop" - findOffendingRouter() && C4.apply()
"Hey, who put IIS on our public network?" - C4.apply()
Anytime sledgehammers haven't solved the problem - C4.apply()
"How will we get that rack through the too-small door?" C4.apply()
Someone keeps swiping your keyboard or mouse - C4.apply()

I dunno, seems explosives are a valuable tool that can solve problems at least half the time.

Even if we accepted your assertion that we'd only need high explosives 1 time in 5, that is still grounds for a demo spec. Remember, not all high-explosives make big explosions. A well shaped small HE charge can do wonders.
If that isn't enough to convince you, know that my team includes a demolitions expert ... and someday our paths may cross. <evil grin>

His statement is simple fact. If you want privacy, you do have something you want to hide, or know you might. That isn't a problem. The problem lies in thinking that having_something-to_hide == being_bad. Everyone has something to hide, and that is good. Quite frankly some of us have things the rest of us want you to hide. Remember, "Spandex is a privilege,not a right".

As long as the mindset that wanting to hide something is by nature bad, privacy will have a bad rap.

"what's the opposite of "privatize"? "
Bailout.

Actually given the predictions claiming it is essentially unstoppable even if we brought all emissions to zero, it make MUCH more sense to invest in means of limiting or avoiding the consequences through a stronger economy for all and better technology and reducing regulations that stifle or hamper these things. Stop subsidizing building in the alleged high-risk areas Start rebuilding coastal cities to handle floods better (hint: wealth countries in monsoon regions have been doing this for years). Increase the amount of energy available for things such as A/C and better insulation of houses and commercial buildings.

While I'm no fan of excessive building codes, the fact is that you could raise the bar on hurricane or flood prone areas (or tornado prone) leading to a price increase on par with the increased cost of disaster management preparation for the area. I choose these areas specifically because frankly these are problem areas with or without global warming (man made or not). The government should stop re-building people's houses in these *known risky areas*. Have a sliding percentage that is higher for lower risk areas, and lower yet the more times you've "cashed in" on it. But only available for low income people, say 400% or lower of the poverty line.

Over time people will move out of those areas, or not move into them, in as high numbers thus reducing both the risk and cost should it happen. If the prophets of doom are wrong, we haven't spent trillions of dollars on something that would be more damaging than doing nothing.

As to your question of how "working to increase efficiency and reduce pollution" can make it worse, I am almost stunned by your lack of knowledge or imagination.

First, new technology is expensive. Very. Expensive. Hell, even old technology is. Solar cells, for example. By all rational definitions a mature technology. Yet it is horribly expensive. Sure, it may be efficient in one measurement, but that ignores the rest of the system. The "ecosystem" surrounding solar is horribly inefficient. The costs to replace the existing system with houses and businesses power by the sun are, pardon the phrase, astronomical. Mandating such a change, even say as little as 5%, would destroy the housing market. New construction would be priced dramatically out of the current range, leading to a drastic drop in demand for it combined with a drastic increase in demand for existing homes. As a result we'd have a big housing bubble, or we'd have a long term bubble that would price a significant percentage out of the market. Since this would apply to business facilities too, the price of all goods and services go up. Unnatural inflation is a ten ton anchor on a rowboat to the economy.

In order to actually make the difference the global disasterbators say is coming, we'd have to completely stop almost all industrial development in the third world. Assuming it would be possible, it would prove disastrous for the very people they say are at the highest risk. History shows quite clearly that the more wealthy and healthy a society and economy is, the better we the people can handle disasters.

Claiming that "any" effort to accomplish the goals is beneficial is akin to saying that the local economy is better off if we have a bunch of people paid to keep breaking windows so the window replacement industry can hire more people to replace the windows and the manufacturers have more orders. It just ain't true.

Which should demonstrate the sever disservice our "driver's ed" programs and expectations are. Mechanized units in the military are the same way. We could eat, navigate rough terrain, pay attention to up to four radios plus the other people in the car and be on the lookout for the enemy all at the same time. Sometimes you'd add engaging the enemy into that. Talking on a phone while driving a car in traffic? Pfft. Child's play.

We have these things called "reckless driving" laws. When you are being reckless, you get busted. It used to be you could go to court and either prove you were not being reckless (good luck) or fail to or admit to it and pay your fine.

But no, now we want things so simple that we have to specify things that are not always reckless, while ignoring things that are. We don't make a law that says "doing cookies (sometimes known as doughnuts) in parking lots or in traffic is dangerous and thus banned", we have the cop cite or arrest for reckless driving. If a cop can't tell the difference between being reckless and not being reckless either it isn't reckless or the cop needs better training and experience.

I did a year long experiment where I kept the radio off in my car. Did I drive better? Well I can't quantify it because I didn't get into accidents or such activities before or during. I did feel more aware of my surroundings however. I bet money there are studies that show that your impairment while listening to the radio is "more dangerous". Indeed I've seen them claiming we should be listening to calm music because "active" music makes us drive faster. And studies that show that listening to soft music makes us more sedate and less alert and responsive.

How about we raise the level of ability of our species and train our drivers (of all ages) better? And leave situational things to the people on the street, as it were?

Several of your assertions are unfounded, despite the argument itself being near-sound.

First, I am one of those you speak of. We *are* the ones trying to be involved. To the extent that that has expressed as a "reason" against vouchers - we will not be in the public schools anymore being involved and that will make them even worse than they already are. However, we run into a problem many here can identify with. We are fighting against a well funded and legally entrenched and protected class - the (so called) teacher's unions. Said groups are supported by not only tax dollars (a travesty on it's own IMO) but by the companies that make products that could go into the mandated schools if supported by the teachers unions they then fund - much like politicians only messier.

Yes we are taking our ball and going home. And while it may shock you, that i snot only a valid tactic, it is working. I'm in a state with a high and still growing percentage of home-schooled children. As upset parents *in* the system, we were isolated and marginalized "dissidents". Now, as a separate group no longer participating, we are a distinct demographic. Plus, the school system a couple decades ago decided that schools will get funded based on the student-days - the number of students per-day and the cumulative total. So a school with 180 days of perfect attendance of 100 students would have 18000 days of student attendance.

By us taking our collective balls and going home, we wind up in fact "taking" money from the school we leave - and it is having an effect. Schools are beginning to realize they do in fact need to perform better and several are. As a result those schools are now among the "nice" schools.

This is key, and key to vouchers causing positive improvement. Do you think McDonalds would care about your complaints regarding their service (or lack thereof) to quality (or lack thereof) if they were still going to get your money anyway? If you do, feel free to change your name to Pollyanna. ;)

Now, onto your false assertions. The widespread belief that schools are paid for via property tax is false not only in my state but in many. Income and sales taxes account for the majority of funding for schools, and a majority portion of the remainder is from the federal government - which is not collecting property tax (yet). Funding from property tax is a small portion of school system funding. Thus, your assertion that it is "shared equally" is false on the face. Thus, it really is the "rich" paying for it.

Even if it were, the assertion would be irrelevant. We do not benefit equally from it. It is rather disproportionate in outcomes because so far at least the powers that be have not managed to provide the same outcomes.

We don't want to harm the public schools, and they don't need any help in that department anyway. It is hypocritical (and possibly mean-spirited) to say that those who want to pay for their kids' education are just trying to have more money but those who want their kids' education to paid for by other people are somehow virtuous.

The existing system is broken, completely. By way of example, in my state our budget doubled over the course of a few years. The "reason" trotted out was that kids in school doubled in that time. It was a lie. Our system is require to publish those numbers, and they hide it well on the site - and post after the political season is over. Yet the numbers show that the net increase in kids attending school had increased by under 200. In an entire state. That isn't even ONE school. The number of school-age children did climb quite a bit in that period of time, but the actual enrollments barely rose - barely a percentage. Certainly a couple hundred wouldn't justify the hundreds of millions of increase that was blamed on student enrollment increases.

If a private system did such things they would be sued, and would lose. But the courts have held so far that despite requiring your kids to be there for "an education" the state doesn't have a responsibility to actually provide an education. They could literally just sit there as babysitters all day and be meeting their legal obligations.

You've seen very few actual proposals on vouchers. I've never seen one that could be classified as a tax break for the rich. Why? All the proposals I've seen are a flat per-child amount, not tied to income at all. Thus, we would have a "regressive" tax cut in the sense that the more you make, the less of a break it is. How you conclude that giving a family making 18-24k a year 3k to send their kid to a school they want to is a tax break for the rich is beyond reasonable comprehension. The "rich" making, say 150k per year will get far less relative benefit out of that 3k. In the first case it is around one and a half to two months worth of income, in the second it is around a couple of weeks. Perhaps if you seen some that truly were designed to benefit the rich *and not the poor in greater effective amounts* it is because they were designed for the express purpose of making vouchers unpalatable as a concept. Around here we call that FUD.

Perhaps it is the case you have "rich == evil" branded into your psyche and can't take off the blinders to anything that doesn't hurt the rich.

We are all suffering from the degradation of real education in this country. I've got plenty of non-US friends, and I owe much of my good start to starting out in German schools while my father was stationed there. The fluff our schools spend so much time on is optional in countries that are eating our collective lunch, and their expectations are higher. They focus on performance, not a false self-esteem, and the results are self-evident. The education system we have today in this country was not intended to be educational, but controlling. At that is has been doing a fine job. But it is even failing at that now.

It is inevitable that any human organization of significant size will begin to fail and do so either spectacularly or slide into mediocrity under cover of darkness. In a free society and free market, these organizations get seen for what they are and get replaced. Yes there may be a short-term "crash" and in the short term some people will suffer from it. When this organization either is the government or one protected by it, this does not happen for a long period of time and a lot of people suffer for a long time for it - and lessons are not learned for preventing that particular mistake set again. Especially anything that is essentially an entitlement or taken as one.

Now, through this you might think me a fan of vouchers. That is partially true. Would I like to see a tax break for those without kids? Sort of. I'd like to see it not collected in the first place. But short of that, yes, yes I would prefer that childless people not be required to pay for other people's children's schooling. And in case you didn't catch on I am not in that group (have 3 actually), so it certainly isn't a break for me. But it won't happen. For it to happen the state(s) would have to essentially advertise what they are taking to pay for each child by putting that as the annual credit. That level of sunshine causes people across the board to get upset over the poor performance for high prices.

Short of dumping the government control of society through schools, I'd prefer to at least not force non-parents (for whatever reason) to pay for my kids to go to school. Short of that I'd prefer a strict yet simple voucher system. Take the cost per student and make that a voucher. Or even 80 to 90% of it. No restrictions on what school. Religious, secular, science focused, business focused, technical, or even arts of athletics. Your money follows your student. Not as a lump sum to the school, but in the per-attendance system so that parents who find the school isn't living up to the promises made can still leave for somewhere else. Home-school groups should be allowed to make themselves into a distributed school. The precedent for which is already established via the k-12 VIrtual Academy several states have joined.

To make it better, let public schools convert to private ones. Naturally by vote of the parties involved, and with perhaps even a super-majority required.

Your notion to require voucher accepting students is, even if unintentionally, specifically designed to make it worse. That is precisely the situation we have now. Our children are literally being told that the government schools will take them in regardless of what they do or don't do. Do you think that is doing them a favor for when they go to get a job and learn suddenly that hey guess what, that isn't how the real world works? The mandate to accept anyone is one of the primary failure points in the current system. The second flaw is your requirement to only be funded by vouchers. Again, how is this any different than the existing system? We would find that the level of government expenditure to manage such a compliance system would suddenly be ... about the sam as it is now, plus the costs to administer and police the system itself.

We want our children to be able to pick themselves up when they fall. We want them to learn from mistakes and move on with their lives. How can we expect them to do this when we take that opportunity away when it is the least damaging to make? The earlier you learn to see potential consequences (good or bad) for your actions and reason the likelihood and weigh the risks, the least painful it is and the faster you get better at it. How can we expect our kids to learn these things when we put them in an environment that discourages that learning behaviour by removing the penalties associated with the poor choices. We humans learn the best from our own mistakes, and tangentially from the mistakes of those close to us. We learn the least from authority figures telling us these things.

Over time you'll see a dramatic improvement in not just overall education level but in public schools as well. Competition drives results for all but those who are looking to freeload. Surely one thing we can all agree on is that we don't want freeloaders to basically mooch off of our kids. So let the freeloaders get kicked to the curb. It isn't like the kids they are "teaching" or "administering" are being benefited by what they have now. To handle fraud you handle it like any other for-profit or not-for-profit organization. Fraud is fraud.

But those who are freeloading are those in power. They are well entrenched and a legally protected. Even if it is morally wrong and constitutionally illegal to create such protected classes. Thus it is taking a long time to effect change.

I presume you were in favor of nuclear power? That would put you at odds with the vocal left-extremists. I suspect that will change in about a decade. It seems to take around that long for such ideas to bubble-over to one of the extreme sides.

The simplest voucher system is almost precisely what you stated. I'd just add "or home-school", though in a few years I'd bet the home-schooler contingent will reverse curse and shrink since they'll have affordable schools to choose from at their disposal. Any stipulations on it and you create an inherent inequality to the system. The remaining tricky bit is how do you classify a school? I'd say same as any other business.They file their business paperwork to do a specific thing. Creating a "school" that really exists to collect voucher money is fraud and should be prosecuted as such - nothing more, nothing less.

And I fully agree that getting the nutbags into their own schools is a definite bonus.

Google definitely did something stupid. If they made the decision to auto-include everyone with a Gmail account in Buzz because they thought it was the only way to catch up with Facebook and Twitter in a reasonable amount of time then what they did could arguably be considered Evil as well.

Not exactly. Evil requires intent. No "accidental evil" exists. Doing something stupid != being evil. For your scenario to be evil they would have to have *known* what they were doing was evil, which is not even shown. Wrong != Evil either.

For them to include all of the gmail userbase in Buzz by default to be evil it would have to be evil w/o regard to catching up to Facebook or Twitter, and to support your hypothesis the motive would also have to be evil. While you may not have intended it, you asserted that catching Facebook or Twitter quickly is evil. I'm not sure I buy that argument, just as I'm not sure you intended it that way.

I suspect from the limited knowledge I have, that it was a story failure in a complex system. We all know that happens. If you "accidentally" publish something, YOU did that. If it is done for you, that is a different story. In the first case you were being stupid. We also know that you can't protect people from being stupid either. The question in my mind would be what allowed those flaws to get through testing, and how can it be prevented. So by all means have an investigation - to determine if people's data was intentionally exposed. If it was unintentional, they can and should be sued in civil court for *actual damages*. People should pay for their mistakes and make restitution. But punitive measures should be reserved for intentional acts.

Regarding lawmakers, they will ALWAYS pull the "TotC" card because it pre-emptively demonizes anyone that disagrees with them. After all, who would be against the children? We have politicians, not statesmen

The difficulty in implementing an AI that does not have full battlefield awareness such as in StarCraft is the difficulty in AI reconnoitering and pathing. IIRC it was this limitation that drove Blizzard to implement AI omniscience in SC - both the coding difficulty as well as the horsepower available at the time.

As far as accuracy of the AI as in shooters, it seems to me we may finally have a use for "fuzzy math"[1]. Let the AI have perfect knowledge of what it can "see", but have the calculation, or indeed the original data, have a "fuzziness" to it. For shooting accuracy that is a closer approximation of human capabilities. Have a built in random error margin. Sometimes it will be accurate enough, sometimes it won't be. Perhaps for some applications having an AI that can adapt to account for said error (again with the adaptation having a built in fuzziness margin) would be appropriate.

For many applications it seems to me something as simple as approximation can help with this problem. Mathematics tends toward perfection, no "good enough". AI's need "ok, that's good enough" ability.

Another possibility for simple expansion is the time factor. Touched upon by the parent is the reaction time. How quickly the AI responds is often an indication of whether it is an AI. If I am playing SC with human and AI enemies, I can tell which it is by how fast it responds to an attack or a two pronged attack. Provide a built in, random, fuzzy delay time to actions.

Combine these with limiting the parallel cognitive abilities of an AI - make it have to choose which attack to ignore or to split it's attention. Shoot for emergent behavior and you'll likely find a more natural response. Intelligence is not precise calculation, it is making correct for the context choices based on fuzzy and limited knowledge. It involves refining of estimates and calculations, and conflicting goals and options.

For military oriented games such as RTS or FPS AIs, give it the ability to be a hero or a coward. IIRC long ago there was a game called Close Combat that did this. Each individual of a unit could panic, carry out orders, or become the Spartan - one soldier taking down a platoon.

But for overall realism, how good the AI is is moot when you can see the guy behind the wall because his helmet is partially sticking through it. That math seems pretty fuzzy, maybe the codebase is already there? ;)

Sometimes I'd like to win because I got lucky, or lose because the AI got lucky. When everything is highly precise, luck is excluded.

1. Fuzzy as in "1/4 inch + 1/3" is about half an inch".

Oh the political irony.

Socialism/Fascism/Statism/Communism: I'm form the government, and I'm going to help.
Capitalism: Hi, I'm form a business, how can I help?

IMO those calling the second arrogant and insulting are being petty and bigoted. Asking someone if they NEED help is often worse than asking if they would like help or how you can help them. Regardless of the situation if you ask Putin if he NEEDs help he will always say no - no way he would admit to NEEDing help. He *might*, even if highly unlikely admit to wanting help. And the least offensive question is to ask how you can help. That Putin took offense at that is either a fault of translation or nothing less than sheer arrogance.

As a libertarian, I find you Socialist's never ending insistence that non-Socialists are the arrogance- and corruption-mongers hypocritical, self-serving, and demonstrably incorrect. Particularly when in the context of a capitalist offering help versus socialism's mandatory redistribution as alleged help.

If this was Dell offering money to help in the wake of a natural disaster we'd not hear from you. If there was a natural disaster and Dell did not offer help, we'd hear form you. But here we have Dell simply asking how it can help and you people (there are others on this page doing it - Socialist or not), get bent out of shape. Keep going, it merely illustrates the hypocrisy of the failed ideology of mass-Socialism

"This girl is typical of the mainstream, "

No, she isn't. If she is, then the world is terminally screwed.

"Just like with cars, some people are mechanics, some people just change oil and filters and others just drive the car. It's a shame the linux community can't understand the same thing about computers."

There is a distinct difference between understanding and agreeing. You are not saying we should *understand*, but that we should agree - you are just using the word understand incorrectly. To make the illustration clear, I understand why some people are racists, but I do not, as a consequence or otherwise, agree with them.

"why should we blame her if she looked on her computer and *GASP* didn't see Microsoft Word"

Because she somehow "accidentally" clicked through many additional steps to get a non-Microsoft operating system on her computer. No, you don't "accidentally" do that. Then again, taken from another point of view, why should we not point that finger directly at Microsoft. After all, Word/Office does in fact operate on non-MS OSes, but not Linux. That is their choice, not hers. Why should "linux users" be blamed when Microsoft chooses to not make their software available for Linux?

"Is it possible that just maybe, he classes said as a requirement you needed MSWord for the class materials? Maybe there are spreadsheets that are handed out that have tons of formulas and macros in them; is the instructor going to worry about OO macro compatibility."

MSWord doesn't do spreadsheets. But that aside, let us take another PoV again. He shouldn't have to care because spreadsheets should be the same. Yet MS insists on making and keeping theirs non-interoperable. Maybe spreadsheets should be treatable like black boxes. After all, math formulas are math formulas, right? Oh, but this prof is at a *technical* school. He *should* be expected to know and account for such differences, at least he should be if it is a *quality* school. Unless the class is "MS Word" or "MS Excel", it should be vendor agnostic.

Schools are focusing on a single vendor or language and billing it as the broad category. This is wrong. Yes, the prof *should* be better than what you suggest. Mediocrity and false claims are the last thing we need in professors, instructors, or teachers.

And finally, I'm sick of the arrogant "you Linux users are all ignoring the ignorant people" attitude. So what if we/they are? It is an equally valid argument to say the opposite, that people should know how to use things they use. Your continued analogy to "people just drive their car" is false to your claim anyway. People go to classes to learn how to drive the car. You don't just get to fire it up and go. A general purpose computer is nothing until you determine what and how to do something on it. If this woman was going to a driving school that insisted she bring a gasoline powered car, yet she went to a the dealer and insisted on and ordered a diesel powered one, where would you assign the blame when she couldn't fuel up at the school's pump or that the gasoline she put in at the school caused it to not run? Hey, it is clearly the attitude of those who make diesel cars when the rest of the world doesn't want to know what kind of fuel goes in their car they just want to drive it, right?

For all those who think computers, Linux or otherwise, should be so simple that any idiot can walk up, sit down, and use it productively, with no training at all - you can go make one that way. Until you accomplish that, all you have are vague and false platitudes and "comfort theater" - your proclaiming these non-extant virtues serve only to promote a sense of superiority in attitude. Meanwhile, the rest of us are working in reality. We recognize that "one size fits all" is a lie. We recognize that mediocrity is easy, and that handing out gold medals to anyone who tries out for the Olympics is stupid. Some things in life should be a challenge. That some will not succeed is part of life - the game of inches.

Mussolini kept the trains on schedule ...