They were willing to show it with ads, you mean. Yes it's the same answer, but lets keep some things in perspective here.
It's a really important perspective.
Netflix attracted its audience by being a legal and convenient way to watch movies without ads. "Without ads" was really important to their audience. The main things early Netflix demonstrated were that people would actually pay money for content and that content could be streamed fast enough, to a large enough audience, to be profitable. They demonstrated that the cable subscription model would work for internet 'channels.'
"Without ads" is not important to most people. It's nice, but not necessary. This means any upstart that's willing to charge admission and show ads gets higher revenue, and the cycle of revenue->content->revenue begins. Netflix may become the Public Access of internet streaming.
Here's the misleading thing about surveying incomes of the under-30 crowd: a lot of them are students. As millenials are being encouraged, even more than Gen-X, to get a college degree, or advanced degrees, or just go to school for something, a lot fewer of them are earning any money. Today. Presumably, those college-educated kids will, eventually, have better income potential than their floor-sweeping, landscaping counterparts, so please hold off on the panic until you're sure you're comparing today's apples with yesterdays apples.
I'm not saying that a UBI is a surefire good idea, but it also shouldn't be dismissed out-of-hand as a replacement to our current welfare systems.
Depending on whether you believe the Heritage Foundation or Congressional Budget Office, US "welfare," ie: means-tested aid, is between $590-1000 billion/year. Between $1800-3000 per capita. "Means-tested aid" includes Pell grants, food stamps for people with jobs, and Medicare part D subsidies for people who worked hard all their lives.
The closest thing we have to "welfare," as it existed in the 1970s, is "Temporary Aid to Needy Families." Per capita spending on TANF was $15 in 2014. That's $15, not $15 thousand, about the cost of a movie and popcorn. And it turns out that states have diverted most (ie 70+%) of TANF spending away from direct payments to individuals.
So, if your argument is that there are so many 'needy' people in the US, and our bureaucracy prevents much of that money from getting to those who need it, then one alternative is to just divide all the means-tested aid evenly. We could give everyone $2000/year of UBI. That's not what UBI proponents are asking for. They're asking for $2000/month. That's not a rearrangement in the distribution of current assistance spending, it's a 10-12x expansion.
Even if you include all payments to individuals, Federal 'aid' for 2014 was only $6000 per capita, and you only get there by taking away medicare and social security payments that many people believe are their personal retirement account. UBI is not just another way to manage current social support programs.
The problem with the future of AI and automation is that you might not have the opportunity to work.
You always have the opportunity to work. The opportunity to work, not to have a job. You just have to be clever enough to figure out what people will pay you to do. Robots are pretty good at doing jobs where the tasks and outcomes are defined. They are exceptionally bad at inventing new kinds of work.
One of the utopian visions is to have machines do all of the mind-numbing, back-breaking work, so that people are free to express their creativity. If you're actually creative, people will pay you for it.
There are no longer enough jobs for everyone, no matter how much people may want to work.
There have never been enough jobs for everyone. Well, maybe in 1942, when 12% of the population were in the military and the rest were trying to build airplanes faster than they got blown up. The US isn't built on an image of "come to the US because our factories need drones," it's built on the image of "come to the US and build something for yourself."
India is trying hard to take the title "land of entrepreneurs," but there's a reason so many great companies have started in the US. Do something for yourself. Don't sit around waiting for someone else to "give" you a job; much less to just give you money. Look around, find something you can do for other people, and do it.
Where are big pharma's recreational drugs? The ones they engineer from the ground up to provide a pleasant, short-term euphoria with designed-in features to prevent overdose, mitigate overconsumption and abuse, and cheap enough that they could be priced lower than mass-produced marijuana?
What do you think Prozac is?
The real problem is ethics. If you're going to use FDA-approved processes to develop such a drug, you need to define the medical condition it answers and you need to go through human trials (I'm a little fuzzy on the need for animal trials if it's a small modification of an existing compound). Consumers would need to trust that a company that derives its profit from continued, brisk sales, has intentionally designed their drug so that you can stop any time you like. And, of course, there's a social cost of intoxication: it changes the intoxicated's judgement (if only because happy people make different choices than sad or scared people), and mucking around with the nervous system is likely to change all manner of other behaviors. It is in the national interest that people be sober and rational as much as possible.
Intent is irrelevant to a crime. The guy who killed someone in a car crash may not have intended to kill someone, but he can still be guilty of vehicular manslaughter.
This example clearly demonstrates that intent is relevant to the crime. Killing a person with your car can be murder, if you intentionally chase them down and make sure they're dead; it can be manslaughter, if you didn't mean to kill them, but acted in such a way that put other people at unnecessary risk, or it could be an accident with no criminal charges at all, if, for example, a pedestrian jumped out in front of your car. Victim is dead just the same; culpability lies in the mind of the killer.
Is there any level of stupidity that will finally convince the man is a simpering retard?
Trump's use of language is pretty amazing. He manages to come across as so sloppy in his selection of wrong words that his supporters can think, "He didn't really mean that, literally." It gives them license to imagine that Trump "really" meant whatever is in that supporter's own head. So, when Trump detractors see him make racist, economically irrational, or politically naive statements, his fans get to hear exactly what they want to hear.
I have no idea if he's doing this intentionally or if it's an accident of his 6th-grade vocabulary, but it's fascinating. If the PR people can figure out how he does it, I have no doubt that we'll see a new wave of politicians replacing the old-style non-statement with Trump-style reverse-projection.
Whether GMO or not, species strains should be labeled.
What you ask is impractical. There are, for example, at least a dozen different varieties of "winter wheat." Each of these varieties is outbred, meaning that the genotype of individual plants is different, and a farm that uses its own crop to seed will diverge in mean genotype and phenotype in just a few years.
People already complain that nutrition labels and ingredient lists are overwhelming and confusing. Can you imagine what they would be like if required to track and label every variety of wheat, sugarcane, and apple from farm gate through elevator to mill, bakery, and processor? Most food producers already struggle to tell you whether they're prepared with corn, soybean, or "vegetable" oil. What's it going to look like when Ben & Jerry have to tell you whether their cookie dough ice cream uses North Platt Flourish, Saskatoon Buteo, or Barlow wheat?
How much is it going to cost for every producer from farm to consumer to track the lot composition of every upstream ingredient? It can be done. The FDA requires this kind of tracking for medical devices and drugs. It's just hard to see where, for "wheat," the massive increase in cost actually provides a commensurate benefit to the consumer.
I don't see the problem. $13/hour is much better than what many, many other people earn at other jobs.
The problem isn't that $13/hr is inhumanely low. The problem is that Uber's recruiting material says its drivers make $20-30/hour, net, after expenses and taxes, but their drivers actually make $9-13.
Explorer-class container ships (e.g.: the mentioned CMA CGM Benjamin Franklin) are bigger and heavier than Nimitz class Aircraft carriers (e.g.: USS Georges H.W. Bush), and the later are powered by nuclear reactors.
Nautically speaking, aircraft carriers are tiny. For a long time, this was because there's strategic advantage to being able to short-cut through the Panama or Suez Canals, although they've begun to outgrow Panama. There's strategic advantage to being Fast, and that means Power. Wave-making power goes something like fourth power of velocity, and a nuclear reactor really helps in the go-fast department.
Commercial traffic is dominated by efficiency. They keep speeds down in the range where resistance is dominated by friction and raise very little wake. Viscous friction is linear with speed divided by hull length, so larger commercial ships can both go faster and carry more. They have no particular need for massive power.
The only real solution is to free up economics to the point where fast, agile market leaders can adapt to the changing conditions quickly, while limiting influences and protectionist regulations upon the market by governing forces. All regulations are a drain on the economic engine.
The problem with market economies is that most humans are unwilling to watch another starve in the street when the supply of labor exceeds the demand. Or to let an insurance company fail and trash a bunch of pension funds. The boom-and-bust cycle inherent in free markets looks fine on paper, but then there's some 90-year-old spinster, too blind or senile to keep her job as a nurse, eating moldy cat food out of a dumpster.
one can disagree with others but one cannot use violence.
That's the rule. Not everyone follows the rule.
Humans get passionate about their beliefs. They raise their voices. Some of them get carried away. It hardly even matters what they get passionate about - football or faith: both result dead people.
The best you can do is try to arrange so that when people let their passions carry them away, the scale of violence is limited. This is why football riots usually injure rather than kill. Don't take your gun to the bar, don't take it to the KKK rally, don't take it to the Occupy protest.
Nobody is going to use a quadcopter for long distance travel. That is not the use case. It would be useful as a short distance shuttle, say from a rooftop in downtown SF to SFO, or downtown NYC to JFK.
Sorry, Manhattan to JFK is 18 miles. You've forgotten mileage from the drone hub to your penthouse and from JFK back to the hub. Anywhere this thing can take you, it's only going to save a few minutes over ground transport.
And whatever constitutes "teeming with aliens". Is that 10 planets per galaxy? 100? 1,000?
The optimistic estimates I see are closer to 100 million. In a galaxy of 20 billion stars, over 14 billion years, I'm ok with that. It suggests there might be another life (at some time) about 80 light years away. That's a whole lot of too far away to detect.
These guys are using the other common answer to the Fermi paradox: life doesn't last very long. "Very long" on the galactic time scale being a few hundred million years. Maybe they have a new argument for why it doesn't last very long, but it's not a fundamentally new argument.
If you use your single random password/phrase on many sites, you can add a formulaic tag based on the website. eg, CorrectHorseBattery becomes sCorrectHorseBattery on slashdot, rCorrectHorseBattery on reddit, or wCorrectHorseBattery on wired.
Still easy to remember, but won't pass through to other sites, unless there's a formula collision. A human looking at your password might suspect or recognize the formula, but a program won't.
According to WolframAlpha, there are about 1 million words in the English language.
Most people have a working vocabulary of about 3000 words. They can generally recognize or decipher many more, but if asked for a 'random word' will generally choose from fewer, and they'll often have some syntactic connection (eg, adjective-noun). 3 truly random words may have 2^57 possibilities, but 3 words you choose yourself are closer to 2^30. That's about 5 characters.
Rich people invest in transformative tech innovation. Poor people don't.
Rich people invest in rent-seeking. Poor people figure out new ways to do stuff. Like Elon Musk, who turned $30k into a $300M internet-Fodor's, then turned that into an internet prepaid credit-card. Or like Eric Schmidt, who worked his way from public high school to chief of Alphabet.
OK, maybe not poor poor, but technical revolutions are not started by some rich dude looking for something interesting to do with his money. Once you're rich, your main concern becomes staying rich. Technical revolutions are started by relatively ordinary people doing something interesting, then going out and borrowing money from some rich dude.
I expect most admins would prefer the default behaviour to be to clear up left over processes and services when the user's last session disappears.
This is the problem. You, and the systemd maintainers, know your use case and 'expect most admins' to have the same set of problems and expectations. I imagine the change in default will be very handy for people who maintain computer labs, where the computer is only expected to be doing something if someone is physically present at the console. Very handy if your computers are only used to deliver content to users.
Maybe that's even a majority, now that we've reduced "computers" to fancy televisions. To people who've been around longer and actually use the computational power of the system, this change will break a lot of existing scripts and functionality. Those people are going to be inconvenienced because people who maintain interactive-only systems can't be bothered to disable persistent processes on their own, or to type "loginctl disable-linger someuser" for people they don't trust with unattended processes.
One of the best things on linux is screen. I can start a long calculation, compile, transcode, whatever, log out, drive home, and pick up where I left off. Let the computer work while I drive: there's no reason for it to be stuck in traffic, too.
It's not "scapegoating" if they are the ones that really broke the law in a major fashion leading to major consequences, is it? So yes, it really does matter who they are and what they did.
I think the point of this story is that you will never know which ones really broke the law. You will only have a good story about laws broken, and people within the organization can manipulate the release of information in order to assure that they choose the identity of the criminals. Treasonous spies within the organization who leak state secrets and endanger the lives of committed service men and women overseas. People like John Crane and Thomas Drake.
Maybe, with electronic distribution of vast data troves, we are beginning to see those whistleblowers find a public voice. Still, 53% of Americans think Snowden should face charges. Only 30% think he should be pardoned or avoid prosecution. Snowden has been pretty well defined as the person who broke the law in a major fashion.
Meanwhile, even within his documentation, the identities of actual decision makers who set all of the excesses in motion are fuzzy. They're gradual, creeping extensions, with no one person to point at and decry as evil. And there is not such a person: the nature of a bureaucracy is to obscure and protect the individual. So, even if the organization has to sacrifice some loyal soldiers, the selection of those individuals is largely arbitrary and constructed from and for propaganda.
The interesting question is why men seem to go out of their way to review "chick shows" like Sex in the City, but women fail to go out of their way to review "guy shows" like Batman.
Do the number of reviews reflect who controls the remote? Do guys who accidentally watch a chick flick get more angry than women who accidentally watch a guy flick? Are women more susceptible to "If you can't say something nice..."?
This pretty much sums up the problem with many wikipedia pages on complex subjects... for outsiders they are man pages where even the syntax is esoteric... only useful when you want to remind yourself the details of something you already know quite well... If not then it's a difficult decoding exercise.
There's a (relatively) modern buzzphrase, "life-long learning," that basically means you take up those difficult decoding exercises in order to make yourself a better person.
With private insurance companies you have the same costs as government run insurance plus profit and shareholder expectations(profits and unlimited growth quarter after quarter)/dividends. It would have to be cheaper.
Capitalism is based on the idea that a bureaucrat, who has no negative consequences for incompetence, will provide worse service than a capitalist, who gets paid more if he cheats you.
The free market only really works if both parties are well-informed and capable of walking away from the negotiation. How well do you understand the options for treating your ACL tear? or your diabetes? Are you willing to skip the coronary bypass if the hospital charges too much?
Funny, but it's a well known issue, going back decades, especially with old Hoover "Dustette" hand-helds. I had a college prof use it as an object lesson in designing for safety in off-label applications.
Slashdot Mirror
They were willing to show it with ads, you mean. Yes it's the same answer, but lets keep some things in perspective here.
It's a really important perspective.
Netflix attracted its audience by being a legal and convenient way to watch movies without ads. "Without ads" was really important to their audience. The main things early Netflix demonstrated were that people would actually pay money for content and that content could be streamed fast enough, to a large enough audience, to be profitable. They demonstrated that the cable subscription model would work for internet 'channels.'
"Without ads" is not important to most people. It's nice, but not necessary. This means any upstart that's willing to charge admission and show ads gets higher revenue, and the cycle of revenue->content->revenue begins. Netflix may become the Public Access of internet streaming.
Here's the misleading thing about surveying incomes of the under-30 crowd: a lot of them are students. As millenials are being encouraged, even more than Gen-X, to get a college degree, or advanced degrees, or just go to school for something, a lot fewer of them are earning any money. Today. Presumably, those college-educated kids will, eventually, have better income potential than their floor-sweeping, landscaping counterparts, so please hold off on the panic until you're sure you're comparing today's apples with yesterdays apples.
I'm not saying that a UBI is a surefire good idea, but it also shouldn't be dismissed out-of-hand as a replacement to our current welfare systems.
Depending on whether you believe the Heritage Foundation or Congressional Budget Office, US "welfare," ie: means-tested aid, is between $590-1000 billion/year. Between $1800-3000 per capita. "Means-tested aid" includes Pell grants, food stamps for people with jobs, and Medicare part D subsidies for people who worked hard all their lives.
The closest thing we have to "welfare," as it existed in the 1970s, is "Temporary Aid to Needy Families." Per capita spending on TANF was $15 in 2014. That's $15, not $15 thousand, about the cost of a movie and popcorn. And it turns out that states have diverted most (ie 70+%) of TANF spending away from direct payments to individuals.
So, if your argument is that there are so many 'needy' people in the US, and our bureaucracy prevents much of that money from getting to those who need it, then one alternative is to just divide all the means-tested aid evenly. We could give everyone $2000/year of UBI. That's not what UBI proponents are asking for. They're asking for $2000/month. That's not a rearrangement in the distribution of current assistance spending, it's a 10-12x expansion.
Even if you include all payments to individuals, Federal 'aid' for 2014 was only $6000 per capita, and you only get there by taking away medicare and social security payments that many people believe are their personal retirement account. UBI is not just another way to manage current social support programs.
The problem with the future of AI and automation is that you might not have the opportunity to work.
You always have the opportunity to work. The opportunity to work, not to have a job. You just have to be clever enough to figure out what people will pay you to do. Robots are pretty good at doing jobs where the tasks and outcomes are defined. They are exceptionally bad at inventing new kinds of work.
One of the utopian visions is to have machines do all of the mind-numbing, back-breaking work, so that people are free to express their creativity. If you're actually creative, people will pay you for it.
There are no longer enough jobs for everyone, no matter how much people may want to work.
There have never been enough jobs for everyone. Well, maybe in 1942, when 12% of the population were in the military and the rest were trying to build airplanes faster than they got blown up. The US isn't built on an image of "come to the US because our factories need drones," it's built on the image of "come to the US and build something for yourself."
India is trying hard to take the title "land of entrepreneurs," but there's a reason so many great companies have started in the US. Do something for yourself. Don't sit around waiting for someone else to "give" you a job; much less to just give you money. Look around, find something you can do for other people, and do it.
Where are big pharma's recreational drugs? The ones they engineer from the ground up to provide a pleasant, short-term euphoria with designed-in features to prevent overdose, mitigate overconsumption and abuse, and cheap enough that they could be priced lower than mass-produced marijuana?
What do you think Prozac is?
The real problem is ethics. If you're going to use FDA-approved processes to develop such a drug, you need to define the medical condition it answers and you need to go through human trials (I'm a little fuzzy on the need for animal trials if it's a small modification of an existing compound). Consumers would need to trust that a company that derives its profit from continued, brisk sales, has intentionally designed their drug so that you can stop any time you like. And, of course, there's a social cost of intoxication: it changes the intoxicated's judgement (if only because happy people make different choices than sad or scared people), and mucking around with the nervous system is likely to change all manner of other behaviors. It is in the national interest that people be sober and rational as much as possible.
Intent is irrelevant to a crime. The guy who killed someone in a car crash may not have intended to kill someone, but he can still be guilty of vehicular manslaughter.
This example clearly demonstrates that intent is relevant to the crime. Killing a person with your car can be murder, if you intentionally chase them down and make sure they're dead; it can be manslaughter, if you didn't mean to kill them, but acted in such a way that put other people at unnecessary risk, or it could be an accident with no criminal charges at all, if, for example, a pedestrian jumped out in front of your car. Victim is dead just the same; culpability lies in the mind of the killer.
Is there any level of stupidity that will finally convince the man is a simpering retard?
Trump's use of language is pretty amazing. He manages to come across as so sloppy in his selection of wrong words that his supporters can think, "He didn't really mean that, literally." It gives them license to imagine that Trump "really" meant whatever is in that supporter's own head. So, when Trump detractors see him make racist, economically irrational, or politically naive statements, his fans get to hear exactly what they want to hear.
I have no idea if he's doing this intentionally or if it's an accident of his 6th-grade vocabulary, but it's fascinating. If the PR people can figure out how he does it, I have no doubt that we'll see a new wave of politicians replacing the old-style non-statement with Trump-style reverse-projection.
Whether GMO or not, species strains should be labeled.
What you ask is impractical. There are, for example, at least a dozen different varieties of "winter wheat." Each of these varieties is outbred, meaning that the genotype of individual plants is different, and a farm that uses its own crop to seed will diverge in mean genotype and phenotype in just a few years.
People already complain that nutrition labels and ingredient lists are overwhelming and confusing. Can you imagine what they would be like if required to track and label every variety of wheat, sugarcane, and apple from farm gate through elevator to mill, bakery, and processor? Most food producers already struggle to tell you whether they're prepared with corn, soybean, or "vegetable" oil. What's it going to look like when Ben & Jerry have to tell you whether their cookie dough ice cream uses North Platt Flourish, Saskatoon Buteo, or Barlow wheat?
How much is it going to cost for every producer from farm to consumer to track the lot composition of every upstream ingredient? It can be done. The FDA requires this kind of tracking for medical devices and drugs. It's just hard to see where, for "wheat," the massive increase in cost actually provides a commensurate benefit to the consumer.
I don't see the problem. $13/hour is much better than what many, many other people earn at other jobs.
The problem isn't that $13/hr is inhumanely low. The problem is that Uber's recruiting material says its drivers make $20-30/hour, net, after expenses and taxes, but their drivers actually make $9-13.
Explorer-class container ships (e.g.: the mentioned CMA CGM Benjamin Franklin) are bigger and heavier than Nimitz class Aircraft carriers (e.g.: USS Georges H.W. Bush), and the later are powered by nuclear reactors.
Nautically speaking, aircraft carriers are tiny. For a long time, this was because there's strategic advantage to being able to short-cut through the Panama or Suez Canals, although they've begun to outgrow Panama. There's strategic advantage to being Fast, and that means Power. Wave-making power goes something like fourth power of velocity, and a nuclear reactor really helps in the go-fast department.
Commercial traffic is dominated by efficiency. They keep speeds down in the range where resistance is dominated by friction and raise very little wake. Viscous friction is linear with speed divided by hull length, so larger commercial ships can both go faster and carry more. They have no particular need for massive power.
The only real solution is to free up economics to the point where fast, agile market leaders can adapt to the changing conditions quickly, while limiting influences and protectionist regulations upon the market by governing forces. All regulations are a drain on the economic engine.
The problem with market economies is that most humans are unwilling to watch another starve in the street when the supply of labor exceeds the demand. Or to let an insurance company fail and trash a bunch of pension funds. The boom-and-bust cycle inherent in free markets looks fine on paper, but then there's some 90-year-old spinster, too blind or senile to keep her job as a nurse, eating moldy cat food out of a dumpster.
one can disagree with others but one cannot use violence.
That's the rule. Not everyone follows the rule.
Humans get passionate about their beliefs. They raise their voices. Some of them get carried away. It hardly even matters what they get passionate about - football or faith: both result dead people.
The best you can do is try to arrange so that when people let their passions carry them away, the scale of violence is limited. This is why football riots usually injure rather than kill. Don't take your gun to the bar, don't take it to the KKK rally, don't take it to the Occupy protest.
Nobody is going to use a quadcopter for long distance travel. That is not the use case. It would be useful as a short distance shuttle, say from a rooftop in downtown SF to SFO, or downtown NYC to JFK.
Sorry, Manhattan to JFK is 18 miles. You've forgotten mileage from the drone hub to your penthouse and from JFK back to the hub. Anywhere this thing can take you, it's only going to save a few minutes over ground transport.
Drone tourism I can see.
And whatever constitutes "teeming with aliens". Is that 10 planets per galaxy? 100? 1,000?
The optimistic estimates I see are closer to 100 million. In a galaxy of 20 billion stars, over 14 billion years, I'm ok with that. It suggests there might be another life (at some time) about 80 light years away. That's a whole lot of too far away to detect.
These guys are using the other common answer to the Fermi paradox: life doesn't last very long. "Very long" on the galactic time scale being a few hundred million years. Maybe they have a new argument for why it doesn't last very long, but it's not a fundamentally new argument.
If you use your single random password/phrase on many sites, you can add a formulaic tag based on the website. eg, CorrectHorseBattery becomes sCorrectHorseBattery on slashdot, rCorrectHorseBattery on reddit, or wCorrectHorseBattery on wired.
Still easy to remember, but won't pass through to other sites, unless there's a formula collision. A human looking at your password might suspect or recognize the formula, but a program won't.
According to WolframAlpha, there are about 1 million words in the English language.
Most people have a working vocabulary of about 3000 words. They can generally recognize or decipher many more, but if asked for a 'random word' will generally choose from fewer, and they'll often have some syntactic connection (eg, adjective-noun). 3 truly random words may have 2^57 possibilities, but 3 words you choose yourself are closer to 2^30. That's about 5 characters.
Rich people invest in transformative tech innovation. Poor people don't.
Rich people invest in rent-seeking. Poor people figure out new ways to do stuff. Like Elon Musk, who turned $30k into a $300M internet-Fodor's, then turned that into an internet prepaid credit-card. Or like Eric Schmidt, who worked his way from public high school to chief of Alphabet.
OK, maybe not poor poor, but technical revolutions are not started by some rich dude looking for something interesting to do with his money. Once you're rich, your main concern becomes staying rich. Technical revolutions are started by relatively ordinary people doing something interesting, then going out and borrowing money from some rich dude.
I expect most admins would prefer the default behaviour to be to clear up left over processes and services when the user's last session disappears.
This is the problem. You, and the systemd maintainers, know your use case and 'expect most admins' to have the same set of problems and expectations. I imagine the change in default will be very handy for people who maintain computer labs, where the computer is only expected to be doing something if someone is physically present at the console. Very handy if your computers are only used to deliver content to users.
Maybe that's even a majority, now that we've reduced "computers" to fancy televisions. To people who've been around longer and actually use the computational power of the system, this change will break a lot of existing scripts and functionality. Those people are going to be inconvenienced because people who maintain interactive-only systems can't be bothered to disable persistent processes on their own, or to type "loginctl disable-linger someuser" for people they don't trust with unattended processes.
One of the best things on linux is screen. I can start a long calculation, compile, transcode, whatever, log out, drive home, and pick up where I left off. Let the computer work while I drive: there's no reason for it to be stuck in traffic, too.
It's not "scapegoating" if they are the ones that really broke the law in a major fashion leading to major consequences, is it? So yes, it really does matter who they are and what they did.
I think the point of this story is that you will never know which ones really broke the law. You will only have a good story about laws broken, and people within the organization can manipulate the release of information in order to assure that they choose the identity of the criminals. Treasonous spies within the organization who leak state secrets and endanger the lives of committed service men and women overseas. People like John Crane and Thomas Drake.
Maybe, with electronic distribution of vast data troves, we are beginning to see those whistleblowers find a public voice. Still, 53% of Americans think Snowden should face charges. Only 30% think he should be pardoned or avoid prosecution. Snowden has been pretty well defined as the person who broke the law in a major fashion.
Meanwhile, even within his documentation, the identities of actual decision makers who set all of the excesses in motion are fuzzy. They're gradual, creeping extensions, with no one person to point at and decry as evil. And there is not such a person: the nature of a bureaucracy is to obscure and protect the individual. So, even if the organization has to sacrifice some loyal soldiers, the selection of those individuals is largely arbitrary and constructed from and for propaganda.
The interesting question is why men seem to go out of their way to review "chick shows" like Sex in the City, but women fail to go out of their way to review "guy shows" like Batman.
Do the number of reviews reflect who controls the remote? Do guys who accidentally watch a chick flick get more angry than women who accidentally watch a guy flick? Are women more susceptible to "If you can't say something nice..."?
This pretty much sums up the problem with many wikipedia pages on complex subjects... for outsiders they are man pages where even the syntax is esoteric... only useful when you want to remind yourself the details of something you already know quite well... If not then it's a difficult decoding exercise.
There's a (relatively) modern buzzphrase, "life-long learning," that basically means you take up those difficult decoding exercises in order to make yourself a better person.
With private insurance companies you have the same costs as government run insurance plus profit and shareholder expectations(profits and unlimited growth quarter after quarter)/dividends. It would have to be cheaper.
Capitalism is based on the idea that a bureaucrat, who has no negative consequences for incompetence, will provide worse service than a capitalist, who gets paid more if he cheats you.
The free market only really works if both parties are well-informed and capable of walking away from the negotiation. How well do you understand the options for treating your ACL tear? or your diabetes? Are you willing to skip the coronary bypass if the hospital charges too much?
Funny, but it's a well known issue, going back decades, especially with old Hoover "Dustette" hand-helds. I had a college prof use it as an object lesson in designing for safety in off-label applications.