Protip No. ERROR IN RAND(): when the pointy-headed elites are telling you that you're a boor for not wanting to be party to a system of "government" that routinely intersperses fantasy and fairytales with their run-of-the-mill socialism, boor is exactly what you want to be.
Oh, it can hurt you. Just like a motion detector hooked up to pull the pin on a grenade can hurt you. But the blame goes to the asshat who built it and armed it, not the pile of inanimate objects that does the damage.
when he said his job description included outreach to the Muslim world?
Seriously. Why the fuck should NASA be sucking up to guys who were half a notch below 'desert savages' fifty years ago when we were already in space. There is no good explanation for this. It's either an act of gutless PC to make good on the 'promise' of Muslim outreach or its whoring out what are supposed to be our best and brightest to some tin-pot dictator in the desert.
I thought Bolden was an idiot from day one. Now I have incontrovertible proof.
Their instinct is always that if something exists, the government bureaucracy needs to get its tentacles into it. The idea that a free marketplace of ideas can exist is just foreign to these guys. I honestly don't think even dyed-in-the-wool socialists like Sanders or Jill Stein would think to make everyone unambiguously identify themselves online with a government id.
They're not. And half the shit Trump says isn't wrong. The problem is that 1. he's a scam artist, so he's probably lying to you, and 2. the other half is beyond-the-pale wrong and puts him tied in last place with Kim Jong-un for people who should have the authority to deploy the military and order a nuclear strike. So I'm voting Libertarian. I don't agree with half the stuff Johnson has to say, but he's not a criminal and he's not batshit insane.
Boston did try it. It doesn't work so well. First is the fact that the metro area is large enough that cycling isn't a realistic option, let alone a realistic year-round option for most people. Second is the fact that the whole place was layed out before cars, so when a four-lane road (of which there are few) becomes a tw-lane road, it hurts and causes traffic to clog. The corollary is that on many roads, it's not possible to drop alane because it's a two lane road already and is the only way in or out of a place without a very long detour, so they make it legal for bicycles to use the whole lane--on a road with a 40mph speed limit--which is just plain unsafe, but the bike lobby is loud and obnoxious and the politicians have a bug up their asses about looking like they're being green, so...
I went to Shanghai and Hangzhou about 18 months ago, and saw this stuff for myself. The newly-built portions of these Chinese cities (ie the ones that used to be open fields 20 years ago or razed slums) have their nice and shiny new roads layed out as follows:
1. Storefronts
2. A portion of the sidewalk taken up by space for bikes and electric scooters, with power strips provided by shopkeepers for their customers
3. Rest of the (wide) sidewalk
4. Dedicated bike+electric scooter lane, maybe 6-8 feet wide
5. Small median (~1-2 feet, bigger for bus stops)
6. Traffic lanes, 4 or more lanes total, sometimes in groups of two or three, sometimes with a set of reversible lanes, sometimes dedicated bus lanes.
5 downto 1 in reverse order on the other side.
At almost all intersections, the bike lanes have separate traffic signals (usually overlapping with pedestrian walk signals), and sometime the bike lanes have separate left turn signals which coincide with exclusive left turn signals for the car lanes. If I remember right, the car left and right turn lanes can be either on the interior or exterior of the road and there are signs to indicate which set of lanes allow you to turn which way at the upcoming intersection. This is to deconflict turning vehicles from bikes/pedestrians going straight at the outside of the road.
Overall, it was a pretty good system. But (especially in Shanghai) you could tell that half the people on the road didn't have an f'ing clue of how to operate a vehicle in traffic, and one time when I was riding a bus, a woman cut of the bus changing from one set of lanes to another (in a way that just wouldn't happen here) and got her rear tail light knocked out.
The other thing is that this all takes space. You couldn't do it unless you were building from scratch or were willing to knock down large numbers of existing buildings. But the Chinese had to do it this way because maybe only half of their people can afford to own cars, and even fewer back when this was built 20 years ago. So the streets were layed out to accomodate an equal number of people on bicycles and buses/motor vehicles. That's a ready market for electric scooters.
Read again. The fact that it kills the process masks the error. If it did something semi-intelligent like sending SIGKILL only after SIGHUP failed to terminate the process and logged that fact, then it's not silent. But that's not what we're talking about.
There's a simple reason, that anyone who's worked with a large and diverse set of people can identify in a heartbeat, and that Feynman put in your words.
Speaking directly and writing clearly is a conscious effort. You need to force yourself to do it, because your natural tendency is to issue qualifiers left and right.
The reason for that is clarity of prose conveys confidence which implies clarity of thought. Clarity of thought implies the ability to take responsibility and confidence of words implies a willingness to take responsibility.
These are not natural instincts, especially for technical people who know all-to-well the limitations of their work. Thus they instinctively hedge, and engage in high-context communication among their peers. People who don't understand try to ape those who do, by speaking as they do: with nuances and qualifications and indirect references to something grand, except without tie to an underpinning context. Hence: buzzword stew.
Bertrand Russell famously said that the greatest tragedy is that fools speak freely and wise men are full of doubt.
But does the fridge email you--sorry old fogey here, just turned 30--does the fridge text you (in a proprietary app, of course) when the milk is about to go bad?
Let me make yet another attempt to explain it to you in simple terms: Neither you nor Poettering are king of the world and systemd is not a throne from which you get to dictate terms. Neither he, nor you, nor anyone else gets to make extra work for us (now and going into the future) by breaking the way things function and telling it that it's on us to manage two different and incompatible versions of the same code where before we had one set of code that worked fine. > Bullshit dictatorial attitudes like that is why I have never voted for a Democrat, why I will be voting Libertarian this year, and why I will be deliberately uninstalling systemd from my machines going forward, both at home and at work.
Right back atcha! Telling people they're wrong because they know what they're doing and you're too lazy to learn what they're doing therefore you're right is not an argument, it's a temper tantrum.
I'd like to see you driving a car in traffic: my traffic laws are more sensible than yours, so I'll just expect you to follow my rules of the road and blame you when there's a crash.
Except you can't make the same argument. If you crap over another process, you get a SIGSEGV and an entry on both the terminal and system log telling you you screwed up. Not a quiet failure.
What the fuck do you actually do for a living? The way you're talking about this stuff, I'm starting to suspect you push a broom for a living and computers are just a hobby.
Cling to the old ways, and you and your skills become obsolete in the same way.
That's what they said about COBOL programmers in the 80's and early 90's. On a completely unrelated note, a large number of COBOL programmers made quite a handsome income around the late 90's.
SSH did not change the workflow. SSH (the new thing) has a way of acting exactly like telnet and RSH (the old thing). And I will remind the arithmetically challenged that installing a package manually is a whole different beast from HAVING TO REWRITE ALL OF YOUR SCRIPTS.
Best practice is to do what the users says and not to try to make the machine attempt to be smarter than him. If he wants to run something with nohup, he'll use nohup. If he wants to run something with screen, he'll use screen. That's what those commands are for.
If a program fucks up and is unresponsive, the correct course of action is not to paper over it with your whiz-bang init system/session manager/ninja/pirate/robot/zombie; the correct course of action is to 1) identify the problem (which you can't do if the process is clobbered automatically) and 2) fix it or file a bug.
Took me a while to guess this is sarcastic. But I'll run with your argument to illustrate yet another important point about good engineering: avoiding quiet failures.
Back when you couldn't tell if process unintentionally didn't respond to SIGHUP or intentionally kept running, you could tell if you had a bug by seeing all kinds of copies of your process still running after you closed out your session. You'd see your process table fill up with copies of your executable, and you'd know to look for a bug, or at least to report one.
Now, if the default behavior is to kill everything, you could well have some kind of latent bug that you'd never discover because systemd squashes its manifestation. What was before a conspicuous failure mode (albeit intermittent) is now a quiet failure mode. So now you might not notice the bug until it really bites you in the ass, loses you money, or God forbid: kills people.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember that OPM hack last summer? And now you know.
Protip No. ERROR IN RAND(): when the pointy-headed elites are telling you that you're a boor for not wanting to be party to a system of "government" that routinely intersperses fantasy and fairytales with their run-of-the-mill socialism, boor is exactly what you want to be.
So what's your argument? That you have to preemptively shield people from the consequences of their bad decisions? I don't want to live in that world.
Because he's not a criminal or a raving nut. Sad but necessary.
Oh, it can hurt you. Just like a motion detector hooked up to pull the pin on a grenade can hurt you. But the blame goes to the asshat who built it and armed it, not the pile of inanimate objects that does the damage.
when he said his job description included outreach to the Muslim world?
Seriously. Why the fuck should NASA be sucking up to guys who were half a notch below 'desert savages' fifty years ago when we were already in space. There is no good explanation for this. It's either an act of gutless PC to make good on the 'promise' of Muslim outreach or its whoring out what are supposed to be our best and brightest to some tin-pot dictator in the desert.
I thought Bolden was an idiot from day one. Now I have incontrovertible proof.
I don't have facebook. And this is why. I don't make broken shit, I don't buy broken shit. Professional ethics.
Their instinct is always that if something exists, the government bureaucracy needs to get its tentacles into it. The idea that a free marketplace of ideas can exist is just foreign to these guys. I honestly don't think even dyed-in-the-wool socialists like Sanders or Jill Stein would think to make everyone unambiguously identify themselves online with a government id.
They're not. And half the shit Trump says isn't wrong. The problem is that 1. he's a scam artist, so he's probably lying to you, and 2. the other half is beyond-the-pale wrong and puts him tied in last place with Kim Jong-un for people who should have the authority to deploy the military and order a nuclear strike. So I'm voting Libertarian. I don't agree with half the stuff Johnson has to say, but he's not a criminal and he's not batshit insane.
Boston did try it. It doesn't work so well. First is the fact that the metro area is large enough that cycling isn't a realistic option, let alone a realistic year-round option for most people. Second is the fact that the whole place was layed out before cars, so when a four-lane road (of which there are few) becomes a tw-lane road, it hurts and causes traffic to clog. The corollary is that on many roads, it's not possible to drop alane because it's a two lane road already and is the only way in or out of a place without a very long detour, so they make it legal for bicycles to use the whole lane--on a road with a 40mph speed limit--which is just plain unsafe, but the bike lobby is loud and obnoxious and the politicians have a bug up their asses about looking like they're being green, so...
Or is this one of those "diesel and CNG don't count as gas" sort of deals that lets them play propaganda games?
I went to Shanghai and Hangzhou about 18 months ago, and saw this stuff for myself. The newly-built portions of these Chinese cities (ie the ones that used to be open fields 20 years ago or razed slums) have their nice and shiny new roads layed out as follows:
1. Storefronts
2. A portion of the sidewalk taken up by space for bikes and electric scooters, with power strips provided by shopkeepers for their customers
3. Rest of the (wide) sidewalk
4. Dedicated bike+electric scooter lane, maybe 6-8 feet wide
5. Small median (~1-2 feet, bigger for bus stops)
6. Traffic lanes, 4 or more lanes total, sometimes in groups of two or three, sometimes with a set of reversible lanes, sometimes dedicated bus lanes.
5 downto 1 in reverse order on the other side.
At almost all intersections, the bike lanes have separate traffic signals (usually overlapping with pedestrian walk signals), and sometime the bike lanes have separate left turn signals which coincide with exclusive left turn signals for the car lanes. If I remember right, the car left and right turn lanes can be either on the interior or exterior of the road and there are signs to indicate which set of lanes allow you to turn which way at the upcoming intersection. This is to deconflict turning vehicles from bikes/pedestrians going straight at the outside of the road.
Overall, it was a pretty good system. But (especially in Shanghai) you could tell that half the people on the road didn't have an f'ing clue of how to operate a vehicle in traffic, and one time when I was riding a bus, a woman cut of the bus changing from one set of lanes to another (in a way that just wouldn't happen here) and got her rear tail light knocked out.
The other thing is that this all takes space. You couldn't do it unless you were building from scratch or were willing to knock down large numbers of existing buildings. But the Chinese had to do it this way because maybe only half of their people can afford to own cars, and even fewer back when this was built 20 years ago. So the streets were layed out to accomodate an equal number of people on bicycles and buses/motor vehicles. That's a ready market for electric scooters.
Read again. The fact that it kills the process masks the error. If it did something semi-intelligent like sending SIGKILL only after SIGHUP failed to terminate the process and logged that fact, then it's not silent. But that's not what we're talking about.
There's a simple reason, that anyone who's worked with a large and diverse set of people can identify in a heartbeat, and that Feynman put in your words.
Speaking directly and writing clearly is a conscious effort. You need to force yourself to do it, because your natural tendency is to issue qualifiers left and right.
The reason for that is clarity of prose conveys confidence which implies clarity of thought. Clarity of thought implies the ability to take responsibility and confidence of words implies a willingness to take responsibility.
These are not natural instincts, especially for technical people who know all-to-well the limitations of their work. Thus they instinctively hedge, and engage in high-context communication among their peers. People who don't understand try to ape those who do, by speaking as they do: with nuances and qualifications and indirect references to something grand, except without tie to an underpinning context. Hence: buzzword stew.
Bertrand Russell famously said that the greatest tragedy is that fools speak freely and wise men are full of doubt.
But does the fridge email you--sorry old fogey here, just turned 30--does the fridge text you (in a proprietary app, of course) when the milk is about to go bad?
Is he also the lead user?
Good point. Stop buying from Red Hat and stop using CENTOS.
You don't understand anything. Educate yourself by starting here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...
Let me make yet another attempt to explain it to you in simple terms: Neither you nor Poettering are king of the world and systemd is not a throne from which you get to dictate terms. Neither he, nor you, nor anyone else gets to make extra work for us (now and going into the future) by breaking the way things function and telling it that it's on us to manage two different and incompatible versions of the same code where before we had one set of code that worked fine.
>
Bullshit dictatorial attitudes like that is why I have never voted for a Democrat, why I will be voting Libertarian this year, and why I will be deliberately uninstalling systemd from my machines going forward, both at home and at work.
Right back atcha! Telling people they're wrong because they know what they're doing and you're too lazy to learn what they're doing therefore you're right is not an argument, it's a temper tantrum.
I'd like to see you driving a car in traffic: my traffic laws are more sensible than yours, so I'll just expect you to follow my rules of the road and blame you when there's a crash.
Except you can't make the same argument. If you crap over another process, you get a SIGSEGV and an entry on both the terminal and system log telling you you screwed up. Not a quiet failure.
What the fuck do you actually do for a living? The way you're talking about this stuff, I'm starting to suspect you push a broom for a living and computers are just a hobby.
Cling to the old ways, and you and your skills become obsolete in the same way.
That's what they said about COBOL programmers in the 80's and early 90's. On a completely unrelated note, a large number of COBOL programmers made quite a handsome income around the late 90's.
SSH did not change the workflow. SSH (the new thing) has a way of acting exactly like telnet and RSH (the old thing). And I will remind the arithmetically challenged that installing a package manually is a whole different beast from HAVING TO REWRITE ALL OF YOUR SCRIPTS.
Best practice is to do what the users says and not to try to make the machine attempt to be smarter than him. If he wants to run something with nohup, he'll use nohup. If he wants to run something with screen, he'll use screen. That's what those commands are for.
If a program fucks up and is unresponsive, the correct course of action is not to paper over it with your whiz-bang init system/session manager/ninja/pirate/robot/zombie; the correct course of action is to 1) identify the problem (which you can't do if the process is clobbered automatically) and 2) fix it or file a bug.
Took me a while to guess this is sarcastic. But I'll run with your argument to illustrate yet another important point about good engineering: avoiding quiet failures.
Back when you couldn't tell if process unintentionally didn't respond to SIGHUP or intentionally kept running, you could tell if you had a bug by seeing all kinds of copies of your process still running after you closed out your session. You'd see your process table fill up with copies of your executable, and you'd know to look for a bug, or at least to report one.
Now, if the default behavior is to kill everything, you could well have some kind of latent bug that you'd never discover because systemd squashes its manifestation. What was before a conspicuous failure mode (albeit intermittent) is now a quiet failure mode. So now you might not notice the bug until it really bites you in the ass, loses you money, or God forbid: kills people.