OK, let me put it this way. Many Muslims do NOT believe in "god" - "La ilaha illillah". There is no god but Allah. Believing in "god" gets you a reserved place in hell.
You say that people who believe in god do so because they believe a particular historical person is a prophet, that is, a messenger of god.
No I don't say that at all. In fact the reason why they believe in god doesn't matter for this statement at all. I'm saying they believe mutually incompatible things, so "wisdoms of the crowds" are canceling each other.
Another example of a language that solved the halting problem is Coq
The "problem" in halting problem is that the "language" should be Touring complete. Otherwise either there is no halting "problem", or it can be said that the problem has been solved in 1930s and 1940s. So Coq "solves" it, by not being Touring complete i.e. there was no problem in the first place for 50 years when Coq was invented.
SQL has existed for a longer time, and is a much better known non-Touring complete, halting problem "solved" language.
You didn't answer the question "Please tell me the living thing that is better at programming than human beings."
You made up another question and answered it - doing a "programming task" that "can be precisely defined".
So groups of humans remain the best known programming machines - where programming is defined as repeatably solving real world problems with computers. Which is what a vast majority of programmers do.
Large groups of people independently acting in a certain way points at a reason for them doing so.
Yes. Then you look at another large group of people, who are acting in certain other ways, and then you can only deduce that the common parts of these ways have a reason.
Now the common parts are demonstrably non-existent. Large number of people think Mohammed was greatest of all prophets, and belief otherwise is seriously wrong. Another large number of people believes that Jesus was the last of the prophets - he will come back but no one else except people peddling false gods. While simultaneously believing that belief otherwise is seriously wrong. History centric religions are mostly contradict each other.
So no conclusion can be drawn from these large groups of people.
Hence to believe in sky daddy means you're rejecting science, or you're ignorant of it.
Further, a significant number of practicing scientists are religious
Irrelevant. Scientists can reject science in some of their walks of life and excel in scientific enquiry in other walks of life. There is no contradiction there. I know people who reject coffee after sunset because it interferes with sleep , and guzzle it down during mornings.
Similarly memory olympic winners may write down their shopping lists, mathematicians might make a mistake in computing fuel efficiency of their cars, and doctors may not treat some disease they have. All this despite being excellent in their professions.
With this logic, aircraft have never needed windows in the passenger area. Yet only some freight aircraft are low in windows, most have 2 per passenger row.
The client side decoration transition will certainly not limited to Gnome. KDE is also investigating something in that direction and will is likely to trig similar kind of bugs someday.
That will be as bad as incompatibility between Gnome applications and other window managers, and incompatibility between systemd-logind and other init systems. Currently the Gnome-systemd gang is the most active in this area.
"Write your own" is not the correct answer to any of these incompatibilities, and never will be.
That's why I pointed to the "discussion", not the bugs. Read the discussion, if you want to understand my statement about their philosophy.
Bugs exist for more than a year, pushed back multiple times by Gnome. The fixes still aren't available for most cutting edge distributions' updates - e.g. Fedora, Arch.
terrible for anyone who lost their home of business at the time.
Do you think a fair compensation plan for these people cannot be devised? I accept that Stalin's might not have been the fairest, and the one US might adopt might also be not great. But I think it is within the limits of humans - self-centered and corrupt as they may be, to devise and implement a fair compensation system for people thus dispossessed.
Is the company publicly owned?...If so, their morality is only dictated by laws and regulations
Definition of "publicly owned" is important here. There is an important edge case, increasingly becoming popular, where there are 2 types of shares - voting and non-voting. Your principle applies only if the voting shares are widely publicly owned.
You are going incoherent. Introducing some sanity -
For decades, applications developed by teams of one desktop environment were running fine in other desktop environments, and even standalone window managers. Then incompatibility madness takes over - myriad system services suddenly have a hard dependency on a particular init replacement, and Gnome applications behave idiotically in other desktop environments. Gnome being the chummiest with systemd work, having developed a hard dependency on logind early on.
It is not a coincidence. It is a change in philosophy.
I don't understand how the konqueror example is related to systemd.
Then choose simpler subjects for expressing your ill-informed opinion as this is beyond you. Instructions for idiots below :
1a. systemd team develops and/or maintains logind 1b. KDE team develops and/or maintains konqueror
2a. logind CAN have hard dependency on systemd 2b. konqueror CAN have hard dependency on KDE
3a. logind DOES have hard dependency on systemd 3b. konqueror DOES NOT have hard dependency on KDE
Exhibit : since Gnome and systemd teams started getting chummy, Gnome applications are always maximized and on top of all other windows in other window managers.
No one was surprised when konqueror ran perfectly fine under metacity/Gnome. Is compatibility extra work? Yes. Does it increase user choice? You bet it does.
The point is that it is a problem. Not that the problem doesn't have a solution / hack / workaround. And "systemd depends on logind" is the least of the points, besides being incorrect, which I pointed out with my post.
If konqueror didn't work with metacity window manager under gnome, it would have been a problem. And one could say "the version written and maintained by KDE project will depend on kwin/KDE". That problem would also have had a solution/hack/workaround - write your own browser for gnome or run kwin/KDE. But this problem did not have to be solved because it did not exist. And user choice was the greater because of this.
If you like the idea of having an other logind that the systemd-logind, just disable the systemd-logind service and wrote the service file to start the logind you like, or use the sysvinit compatibility to start it with a script.
No, the point is that logind doesn't work without systemd. Read properly. The statement is "Logind is stuck with systemd". It is not "systemd is stuck with logind".
It would work in many places, but not in the US. The attitude of the people there which is something like "Why should I pay for others?" would make them question people who have no hospital membership for years, so they get zero preventative care. Or make unhealthy life choices, so get serious diseases.
Once disease acquired, these people take up hospital membership consuming a huge amount of hospital resources while paying very little. People in the US are extremely intolerant of this.
in many places, taxis are given government-granted x-opoly in the form of taxi medallions
So could we start with saying that in only such "many places", Uber's activities are moral, and even there illegal?
At other places, they are both immoral and illegal so we will talk about them when they shut their services at least in places where there are no medallions. And let us be clear from the start that Uber knew about this immorality and illegality when they started their business and it didn't stop them from operating in such areas, so Uber cannot ride any high horse - moral or legal.
The conclusion is easy to reach. The worst can tell you to pay up for them to stop playing the music. The best can tell you to pay up for them to play the music.
You wouldn't pay the average musicians for jack shit.
The LEDs grow the light? Or emit it? Or plants grow using the light from the LEDs, so you call them grow lights? They use 3kWh every hour, every year, or every second ?
When a company wants to do something risky, I try to make sure I practice C.Y.A. with a well-CC'd email with wording similar to, "I believe it's notably risky to do X. I highly recommend against it. A lower-risk alternative is to do Y."
I have done this, with companies as well as a personal level. Though it is a good way to be marked as a troublemaker. Why? Because most people have zero understanding of the meaning of risk and probability.
When the stakes are high, a 5% probability of things going wrong is risky behaviour. That means when I am pointing out something as risky, 19 times out of 20 things turn out all right. Once it turns out all right, people turn to me and say - see, we told you everything will be all right.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, let me put it this way. Many Muslims do NOT believe in "god" - "La ilaha illillah". There is no god but Allah. Believing in "god" gets you a reserved place in hell.
You say that people who believe in god do so because they believe a particular historical person is a prophet, that is, a messenger of god.
No I don't say that at all. In fact the reason why they believe in god doesn't matter for this statement at all. I'm saying they believe mutually incompatible things, so "wisdoms of the crowds" are canceling each other.
Another example of a language that solved the halting problem is Coq
The "problem" in halting problem is that the "language" should be Touring complete. Otherwise either there is no halting "problem", or it can be said that the problem has been solved in 1930s and 1940s. So Coq "solves" it, by not being Touring complete i.e. there was no problem in the first place for 50 years when Coq was invented.
SQL has existed for a longer time, and is a much better known non-Touring complete, halting problem "solved" language.
You didn't answer the question "Please tell me the living thing that is better at programming than human beings."
You made up another question and answered it - doing a "programming task" that "can be precisely defined".
So groups of humans remain the best known programming machines - where programming is defined as repeatably solving real world problems with computers. Which is what a vast majority of programmers do.
And I cant even specify that my function definitely won't modify the parameters being passed to it
Yes, that would be great. But C, C++, Fortran, Perl also don't have it. Lisp and Haskell only get around it by being functional.
Which popular language have this feature?
Large groups of people independently acting in a certain way points at a reason for them doing so.
Yes. Then you look at another large group of people, who are acting in certain other ways, and then you can only deduce that the common parts of these ways have a reason.
Now the common parts are demonstrably non-existent. Large number of people think Mohammed was greatest of all prophets, and belief otherwise is seriously wrong. Another large number of people believes that Jesus was the last of the prophets - he will come back but no one else except people peddling false gods. While simultaneously believing that belief otherwise is seriously wrong. History centric religions are mostly contradict each other.
So no conclusion can be drawn from these large groups of people.
Hence to believe in sky daddy means you're rejecting science, or you're ignorant of it.
Further, a significant number of practicing scientists are religious
Irrelevant. Scientists can reject science in some of their walks of life and excel in scientific enquiry in other walks of life. There is no contradiction there. I know people who reject coffee after sunset because it interferes with sleep , and guzzle it down during mornings.
Similarly memory olympic winners may write down their shopping lists, mathematicians might make a mistake in computing fuel efficiency of their cars, and doctors may not treat some disease they have. All this despite being excellent in their professions.
With this logic, aircraft have never needed windows in the passenger area. Yet only some freight aircraft are low in windows, most have 2 per passenger row.
Trains? Buses? TFA is idiotic.
The client side decoration transition will certainly not limited to Gnome. KDE is also investigating something in that direction and will is likely to trig similar kind of bugs someday.
That will be as bad as incompatibility between Gnome applications and other window managers, and incompatibility between systemd-logind and other init systems. Currently the Gnome-systemd gang is the most active in this area.
"Write your own" is not the correct answer to any of these incompatibilities, and never will be.
That's why I pointed to the "discussion", not the bugs. Read the discussion, if you want to understand my statement about their philosophy.
Bugs exist for more than a year, pushed back multiple times by Gnome. The fixes still aren't available for most cutting edge distributions' updates - e.g. Fedora, Arch.
perfectly
For idiotic values of perfectly.
Just one of many threads being discussed :
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bi...
A KDE discussion :
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug....
terrible for anyone who lost their home of business at the time.
Do you think a fair compensation plan for these people cannot be devised? I accept that Stalin's might not have been the fairest, and the one US might adopt might also be not great. But I think it is within the limits of humans - self-centered and corrupt as they may be, to devise and implement a fair compensation system for people thus dispossessed.
What do you think?
Is the company publicly owned?...If so, their morality is only dictated by laws and regulations
Definition of "publicly owned" is important here. There is an important edge case, increasingly becoming popular, where there are 2 types of shares - voting and non-voting. Your principle applies only if the voting shares are widely publicly owned.
You are going incoherent. Introducing some sanity -
For decades, applications developed by teams of one desktop environment were running fine in other desktop environments, and even standalone window managers. Then incompatibility madness takes over - myriad system services suddenly have a hard dependency on a particular init replacement, and Gnome applications behave idiotically in other desktop environments. Gnome being the chummiest with systemd work, having developed a hard dependency on logind early on.
It is not a coincidence. It is a change in philosophy.
I don't understand how the konqueror example is related to systemd.
Then choose simpler subjects for expressing your ill-informed opinion as this is beyond you. Instructions for idiots below :
1a. systemd team develops and/or maintains logind
1b. KDE team develops and/or maintains konqueror
2a. logind CAN have hard dependency on systemd
2b. konqueror CAN have hard dependency on KDE
3a. logind DOES have hard dependency on systemd
3b. konqueror DOES NOT have hard dependency on KDE
Exhibit : since Gnome and systemd teams started getting chummy, Gnome applications are always maximized and on top of all other windows in other window managers.
Your initial point about init scripts depending on sysv init system is wrong - clearly explained by init scripts being invokable standalone. Your objection to The problem with systemd tools is that they depend on systemd more than just for booting or starting things is also wrong - existence of a solution/hack/workaround doesn't mean problem doesn't exist.
what's a surprise
No one was surprised when konqueror ran perfectly fine under metacity/Gnome. Is compatibility extra work? Yes. Does it increase user choice? You bet it does.
The point is that it is a problem. Not that the problem doesn't have a solution / hack / workaround. And "systemd depends on logind" is the least of the points, besides being incorrect, which I pointed out with my post.
If konqueror didn't work with metacity window manager under gnome, it would have been a problem. And one could say "the version written and maintained by KDE project will depend on kwin/KDE". That problem would also have had a solution/hack/workaround - write your own browser for gnome or run kwin/KDE. But this problem did not have to be solved because it did not exist. And user choice was the greater because of this.
wonder what finally made the c-levels unafraid of linux?
They are all interested only in running "cloud" services. No code is shipped - so no need to be afraid of GPL.
If you like the idea of having an other logind that the systemd-logind, just disable the systemd-logind service and wrote the service file to start the logind you like, or use the sysvinit compatibility to start it with a script.
No, the point is that logind doesn't work without systemd. Read properly. The statement is "Logind is stuck with systemd". It is not "systemd is stuck with logind".
It would work in many places, but not in the US. The attitude of the people there which is something like "Why should I pay for others?" would make them question people who have no hospital membership for years, so they get zero preventative care. Or make unhealthy life choices, so get serious diseases.
Once disease acquired, these people take up hospital membership consuming a huge amount of hospital resources while paying very little. People in the US are extremely intolerant of this.
in many places, taxis are given government-granted x-opoly in the form of taxi medallions
So could we start with saying that in only such "many places", Uber's activities are moral, and even there illegal?
At other places, they are both immoral and illegal so we will talk about them when they shut their services at least in places where there are no medallions. And let us be clear from the start that Uber knew about this immorality and illegality when they started their business and it didn't stop them from operating in such areas, so Uber cannot ride any high horse - moral or legal.
The conclusion is easy to reach. The worst can tell you to pay up for them to stop playing the music. The best can tell you to pay up for them to play the music.
You wouldn't pay the average musicians for jack shit.
In fact every study has found the TCO of the Model-S is the lowest of any car in it's class
By stealing from taxes levied on fuels, then used for road maintenance.
And in a class where TCO matters least.
8 kWh computer
8 kWh per hour? That will be 8 kW.
8 kWh per second? That will be 29 MW.
3 kWh in LED grow lights.
The LEDs grow the light? Or emit it? Or plants grow using the light from the LEDs, so you call them grow lights? They use 3kWh every hour, every year, or every second ?
When a company wants to do something risky, I try to make sure I practice C.Y.A. with a well-CC'd email with wording similar to, "I believe it's notably risky to do X. I highly recommend against it. A lower-risk alternative is to do Y."
I have done this, with companies as well as a personal level. Though it is a good way to be marked as a troublemaker. Why? Because most people have zero understanding of the meaning of risk and probability.
When the stakes are high, a 5% probability of things going wrong is risky behaviour. That means when I am pointing out something as risky, 19 times out of 20 things turn out all right. Once it turns out all right, people turn to me and say - see, we told you everything will be all right.