The SAN is usually less of a single point of failure because they usually have a lot of redundancy built-in, redundant storage processors, multiple backplanes, etc. You're right that off-site replication is still important, but usually more for whole site loss than storage loss.

This actually doesn't have to be answered in the theoretical, it was common a century or so ago. Companies used to control their markets in a variety of was. One common one was vertical integration, a large company would buy up all producers for its source material, and all distributors for its product. Any new comer to the market then either had to either produce an entire supply and distribution chain before marketing a product, or had to purchase from and sell to their biggest competitor. Another common ploy was price fixing. The prices were kept high when there was no competition, but as soon as another company came into the market they'd sell below cost just long enough to drive the competition into bankruptcy. In other cases the company would offer kick backs to retailers to not sell a competing product, or would increase their wholesale cost if they did offered a competitor.

Modern NAC as far more sophisticated that just Mac filtering. You can use 802.1X which requires a "supplicant" on the device to login to the switch with a user/password or certificate before the port will forward traffic. The switch checks with a RADIUS server, and you can even configure the system for "posture validation" which means things like the antivirus are checked to ensure the machine is clean and up to date before to device is given full network access.

The default Blackberry Enterprise Server install is Tomcat on Windows. The same with ADP's self hosted packages.

Contract law requires them to give notice of any such changes and allow you out of the contract without penalty if you do not agree to the changes.

It's far from clear that it went out the window, though. He professed to being a catholic even at the height of his power, and had even used the "Jews as Christ killers" line as part of the justification for his anti-semetic actions. He also took the swastika from the symbols all over the church where he was a choir boy. I personally wouldn't be shocked to find out that Hitler secretly doubted a religion with origins in ancient judaism, but I wouldn't say it was clear his belief went out the window.

I agree, the details of Hitlers views are hard to pin down. But I think that lumping him into a list of "atheist mass murderers" is extremely misleading. Aside from a few anecdotal accounts of skepticism, we have little reason to believe Hitler was not religious and many reasons (including his own statements) to believe that he was. These arguments are also beside the point, as there is a key difference between the three men listed above, and the religious zealots they are being compared to. The men above, whether atheist or not, did not do what they did because of atheism. They did not justify their actions by appealing to atheist teachings. Their religious beliefs can not be directly linked to their unspeakable actions. On the other hand, the abhorrent actions of the religious justified by, or taken "in defense of" their faith can.

Um, Hitler was Roman Catholic...

Actually, it isn't everyone here is just misunderstanding his question. He wants to be able to connect his phone to the internet over wifi, but through a proxy server. This is probably the only way he can use wifi where he works.

You are within your rights to consider the GPL unethical, that's your (or their) opinion. However, you have no right to the use of the software copyrighted by the opensource developers. The only thing giving you any right to that software is the terms of the GPL. If you disagree with its terms or consider it unethical, you can choose to not use GPL software. If I think the local store is price gouging, I have a choice to go elsewhere, but I am not entitled to steal their product because I consider their prices unreasonable or enethical.

I actually have heard this several times myself; mostly from truckers and people who knew truckers. From what I'm told, when you do that - in particular for a truck - it's taken as "you're past me, it's safe to merge". This is because - particularly with trucks - the driver might not be able to tell if they're trailer completely past you and at a safe distance to merge in front. I've used this many times and have also seen the mentioned return gesture of flashing brake lights.

The issue brought against Intelligent Design is that is not, and cannot be, science. Although I personally have no issue with individuals believing in ID, it adds nothing to the progression of science. Science requires theory to explain observations and create testable predictions. This is not what Intelligent Design does, and because of this ID is incompatible with a proper understanding of the scientific method. ID vs Natural Selection only seem to be equivalent to the average laymen. It is only when you progress from reading about science to actually doing science that the shortcomings of ID become apparent. You mention ID bringing a reevaluation of the facts, but its arguments bring nothing useful to the table and only serve to confuse those not well versed in the intricacies of the discussion at hand. The reason so few reputable scientists seem willing to entertain ID discussion is not because of any prejudice, but because they see the arguments as what they are and have discarded them already. You bring up many off hand questions, but have you honestly looked at what science has to say about those questions? In virtually every case, the questions brought by Intelligent Design advocates have already been answered by modern science. In the few cases that science does not have a complete answer, ID adds nothing to the discussion but to say "God did it" which gives us no better understanding and stifles real research into causes. I do not mean to be confrontational or offensive, but it is important that people understand what ID really is and why it is not treated as real science.