Mind you now, you're probably safer from sinking on an exact Titanic replica than most modern vessels. The coal bunkers and limits of materials/rivets of the time lent themselves to high levels of subdivision, and the WT bulkheads were carried quite high up - higher than many modern passenger vessels would have their watertight deck. They were well designed, if somewhat utilitarian, boats struck by circumstance rather than endemic flaw.
As an aside, there are a good number of incorrect posts below and a quick read shows some minor problems on the Wikipedia entry for this paper boat as well. I'm a Newfoundlander who enjoys history, a HAM, and a naval architect by trade - so the old Titanic is like a confluence of personal interests. If there are any late comers, I'd be happy to answer any particular questions on the boat - old or the theoretical new.
Let us imagine environmentally exposing 1,000 people to the disease: say the chance of acquiring this disease being 10%, 96% of the people are vaccinated, and the vaccine is completely effective 75% of the time (75% effective), completely useless otherwise.
Without the vaccine, a similar 1,000 exposed people would have 100 acquiring and suffering from the disease..
With a 96% vaccination rate, 960 of the 1,000 exposed would have had the vaccine (vs. 40 that have not). 10% acquiring the disease is again 100 people. Of those 100 infections, the breakdown would now be 96 vaccinated vs. 4 non-vaccinated people.
Of 96 vaccinated people, only 75% are effectively vaccinated -> 96 x 0.75 = 72, so the remaining 24 are no better off than not having been vaccinated at all.
This means there are 24 + 4 = 28 total infected and suffering people. 24 vaccinated folks amongst 28 means 85% of infected and suffering people were vaccinated. In comparison though, 72% of those suffering from infections in the 1,000 no-vaccine scenario are prevented in the 96% vaccination scenario (96% x 75%).
This, of course, is meant to be entirely illustrative, but the point should be evident: the expectation is that vaccinated people will be over-represented in samples where the population's vaccination levels are high and the vaccine is less than 100% effective.
This is the typically ideal solution, when there's other hardware around to take advantage of. C-Kermit is also your able-bodied manservant for getting all the settings right for the client.
Unfortunately, some BIOS's have never worked well for setting the BIOS interface at anything other than 115.2 KBaud, at least without an undocumented BIOS update. And guess what you need to to the BIOS update? You guessed it: Windows and boot-time console access. I ran into this problem with some new Linux servers and a vendor who'd never bothered to test their serial-over-IP setup.
Also, simply saying "use a null-modem cable" isn't enough. Remember that many modern machines don't have a serial port, which the original poster mentioned. I've also seen low-end rack servers that didn't, and proving only USB has gotten more common. Setting up a USB-serial or USB->USB console access takes some time as well, and our poster didn't say he had the money for the more sophisticated modern KVM's that do KVM over IP reliably. I've searched before for a toolkit to do KVM over IP from an identically installed computer, but found nothing for handling the video. It's a shame, really, such a device could be very handy for remote operations staff rather than my having to walk them through grub or BIOS options over the phone.
Every game could include an input lag calibration mode, much like the one in Guitar Hero. Heck, it wouldn't even have to be obvious - just include it with the tutorial mode of the first level, and the user won't even know.
If the lag-compensation in GH works the way I think it does, I'm not sure it would be very effective for FPS games.
There's no way for the game to properly remove the lag between the console and display device. Instead, to account for the fact that you're seeing things on screen a few tens of milliseconds after they actually happen, the game engine compensates by delaying the time window in which it expects to a response (controller input). You won't be too slow on your chords anymore, but the delay between button press and on-screen action is still there.
That sort of delay can really throw off your rythym in a FPS when you're expecting an immediate response to movement / throwing a grenade / firing your gun. In a fast-paced multiplayer scenario, a lot can change in the span of a few video frames (depending on the action and movement of your opponents), whereas gameplay in GH is fairly deterministic.
Modern FPS do use a few tricks to minimize the impact of internet lag - motion prediction, immediate client-side response to many actions (moving, shooting) with no host-side verification, etc - these help in making the game play feel more natural, but latency still has a big impact on gameplay quality.