I have my side mirrors turned so that while in a natural driving position I just barely can't see my own vehicle.
And I have mine turned so that I just barely can, which provides visual context at a glance in a sketchy situation. You've deprived yourself of that cue, which is fine until something unexpected happens.
If you can't remember where your car is in relation to where your mirror is set, then you likely also can't remember any of the other dozens of things you will need to know in order to drive.
Of course, I do have an advantage in that my mirrors are always set correctly when I enter my car, as it remembers me. If you drive a car that doesn't have such a feature and is driven by somebody that adjusts the mirrors differently, you might need that visible cue.
A camera could be permanently fixed to view exactly the right area
...for some people. I adjust my side mirrors so that I can't see my car, because seeing my car doesn't help me see other cars. I know exactly how much "off" the car my view is, and know that the tiny blind spot I create is covered by the rear view mirror inside the car.
The way I do it was considered correct by the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) in 1995, but it is not the traditional way that has been taught for decades, and is still taught in many places.
There are many reasons to get up to the stop location (either the line or the car in front of you) as quickly as possible.
One is to clear the intersection you just left. Another is to get past the beginning of the left turn lane so that people who want to turn left (which may be on a radically different cycle than the straight through) can get into that lane. For the same reason, don't stop two car lengths from the line/car. Pull up close and keep your foot on the brake. If somebody rams you hard enough that you hit the car in front, then you likely have bigger worries than hitting the car in front.
Yeah, or people could just drive somewhere near the speed limit, since most series of lights are timed correctly to ensure traffic flows well, and at the correct legal speed.
Even where the lights are timed with the speed limit, if you get caught by one light, the only way to hit the green ever again is to pretend you're a drag racer.
And, the primary road with traffic lights where I live has them timed to about 5-10mph over the speed limit, so if I get caught by the red, instead of drag racer mode, I have to try "rocket car mode".
The fact that the group of people I hung around with when "Darmok" first aired used language similarly may be why we enjoyed it so much. For example, late at night, someone would point at themselves and say "Bonzo", which indicated they were going to bed.
Of course, we might also have just been drunk out of our minds, as we watched TNG and played a drinking game where one of the rules was if any character spoke the episode title, it was two drinks. With this rule, "Darmok" and "The Pegasus" lead to alcohol poisoning.
(And really, what is the point of buying Blu-Ray if you're going to transcode it to half (or less) the bitrate of a DVD?)
Take a look at the quality of output from:
x264 --preset slower --tune film --crf 20
You'd be amazed at how many of the bits on the average Blu-Ray are wasted. What's especially noticeable is that most Blu-Ray encodes are essentially fixed bitrate...it's not unusual to see credits running at 20Mbps. OTOH, there are movies like Lord of the Rings or The Rock, where 4GB/hour is required to keep up the quality due to the amount of action. Or, there are grainy movies, like Fast Times at Ridgemont High or 300. All of these automatically get the bitrate they need because of the "crf" option. These are balanced by movies like The Sixth Sense, with minutes long scenes where nothing moves but the actor's mouth.
Are you bad at math, or have you been in a coma long enough that you'r'e unfamiliar with high definition video?
OP said "ripped from media and compressed", which is exactly what I do with my Blu-Ray disks. I'm pretty picky about video quality, and I leave sound intact, and I average around 2GB/hour on my 600 movies. I don't expect most people would use a lot more bits per second than I do.
So, for 25000GB at 2GB/hour with an average movie being 2 hours long, you get around 6000 movies. Pretty easy math.
You can argue about my assumptions, but even at 4GB/hour (which is insane overkill if you use a good encoder like x264), that's about 3000 movies.
I do wonder how they deal with the possibility of fraud
With scales, the only easy fraud is produce and the in-store bakery. Anything with a bar code is much harder, requiring a scan of a cheaper but same-weight code.
I suppose you could cut the bar code off of a box of pasta (often on sale for around $1/box) and palm it to scan for cookies, crackers, etc., of the same weight that sell for $3-4/box. Maybe the biggest overall gain would be something like a 1lb container of crab meat scanned as margarine/sour cream/etc., which would net you around $10/lb savings. Of course, if you are a saffron nut, you could scan pretty much any other spice and make out like a bandit.
In every grocery store (and Costco) I have seen each self-checkout lane was installed as a replacement for a human cashier lane. There really wasn't any space available to do it another way.
Although some of the self-checkouts I see use the same area as a regular lane due to having the large collection area, the vast majority are 2:1 in terms of space, since they are half-length.
Even the Sam's Club (not a Costco member) that put in self-checkout did it this way. They can get away with it because most people who self-check have a smallish number of items. One of the local grocery stores made all their self-checkouts full length, but I suspect that's because they had about 15 total before the conversion of 6 of them to self.
The huge advantage of self-checkout is that you can absorb some rush without having to add another human cashier, especially if most of the use is "express". I always go to the self-checkout if I can (no alcohol or peel-off price reduction stickers) because I am faster than 75% of humans. I scan with two hands (one picks up item and scans it, pass to other hand which places on belt/output while first hand picks up another), and have found that the scales are fast enough that they can keep up with me. And, you don't have to wait for spoken prices on most...just keep scanning. The other day I had nearly 30 buffered speeches (two forms of price reduction on individual bagels when I bought a dozen..that's 36 bits of speech) that just stopped when I swiped my credit card.
And Vegas sports books continue to make money because they do the math better than anyone else over the long haul.
How is adjusting the odds as people bet to keep the money on both sides as close as possible "doing math better"?
Essentially, it doesn't matter what the starting odds/spread/etc. are...the only thing that matters is adjusting the number as bets are placed so that bets are about even on both sides. Legitimate sports books don't make money by "winning" the bets...they make money by keeping a percentage of every bet, so their goals are to increase the total amount of money bet, while keeping the amount bet on each side about the same (assuming 1:1 payout...with different payout, then they would move the odds based on keeping the total expected payout the same as total intake).
I mean, get a SL8500 - only 2.1 Petabytes of tape backup space!
You misread a comma as a decimal. With filled-out slots, the library can hold 2,100PB, or 2.1 exabyte. Or, the equivalent of over half a million 4TB hard drives.
>We have two of these at work, and with just 3000 slots each and not the biggest tape drives, they can each store around 15PB.
Actually, none of the 25TB worth of stored movies I've got were downloaded. All of it was ripped from media and compressed.
Unless you aren't compressing very much from the original source, this means you have about 6,000 movies (2GB/hour, with an average movie being 2 hours).
I've got a few bins worth of media stored away
With 6,000 movies, your "few bins" would be a cube about 8 feet on each side, assuming standard DVD cases. And, it would also mean that you would spend over $3,000/year on movies (figuring $10/movie, and assuming you've been collecting since DVDs first came out). If you have been collecting for less time, or buy more expensive movies (Blu-Ray, special editions, at first release, etc.), then it would be closer to $5,000/year. Do you seriously spend $400/month on purchasing media?
An actually contemporary tape drive(and a machine capable of keeping it fed when it is running full bore) is Not Cheap; but the fleabay shit that is cheap tends to offer painfully mediocre capacity and unknown reliability. Disks, by contrast, have a cost of entry that basically starts at zero and scales more or less linearly with the number of disks
This is absolutely the best statement of this ever. Everyone who claims that tape is the One True Backup doesn't factor in the startup cost of $2-4K for a tape drive that can handle reasonably large capacity tapes, the hardware to connect it to a computer (many of these tape drives have fiber-channel as the only option), and then the cost of some kind of changer if you want any amount of automation.
For home use, hard drives are by far the cheapest and most convenient method, as long as you are in the less than 50TB world. If you aren't satisfied with hard drive reliability, back up your data twice, to two different drives. With 4TB drives selling for around $170, and backing up twice as I suggested, you don't reach the break-even point with tape (single backup) until you need to back up 15TB. With single backup to disk, the break-even is around 45TB.
20TB is not out of the world. With a RAID of 4TB disks you can cover that at home, and it doesn't need to be on all the time.
Sure, it's easy to have 20TB of usable disk space (I've got forty 2TB drives spread among 5 servers at my house), but 20TB of "must be backed up because that's the only copy" is a little unbelievable for a home user.
For example, I have 700 Blu-Ray movies that have been ripped and re-encoded to take about 2TB of disk space. If I had 30-40TB available, I might store the raw Blu-Ray images, but then I don't need backup, as the data is easy to re-create. So, I'm a little skeptical that the "friend" in TFS had 20TB data that he can't re-create by going back to original sources.
Some fake meats are bad, particularly the cheap rehydratable variety, but others taste OK. They are not my favourite option but if I eat with non-veg friends and the vegi option is a vegi-burger I will have it and enjoy it.
Why is it that vegetarians go to such lengths to procure food that tastes like meat but doesn't actually contain meat? If a vegetarian diet is so great, they wouldn't try to make their food taste like meat.
You don't see the rest of the population whining because their steak doesn't taste like tofu.
(And yes, I know about Cygwin; MKS is vastly superior to Cygwin, since everything just works in a standard DOS shell, it doesn't require it's own special environment).
I don't know what tool you are using, but nothing I run in Cygwin requires a "special environment". All the standard utilities (grep, awk, sed, perl, ssh, git, etc.) work just as you'd expect. The X server also "just works". The tools also interface nicely with 4NT/Take Command, so I can sort the Windows clipboard with:
sort < clip: > clip:
Now, I'm sure if I tried to use things like cron or the SysV init scripts, then I'd have to do some tinkering, but the whole point of those is to run a complete Unix environment.
That sounds like something restricted to an internal mail system since it requires a centralized database of mappings between aliases and email addresses.
Google seems to be pretty good at handling databases for other data...I think they could handle this.
I do exactly this same thing with a database for my home mail server. Every site I deal with gets a different e-mail address, so I know who sells their lists. There have been one or two sites that have had the alias deleted because they didn't pay attention to whatever opt-out method they claimed would stop the e-mail.
This technique also protects me from phishing, as an e-mail that isn't addressed to mybankalias@mydomain.com can't possibly be from my bank.
The car delivery is likely to be practical/profitable when cars are concentrated (i.e. when you are at work) so no, someone who doesnt leave their car in the same place for 8-9 hrs/day is not likely to be a candidate for this.
Of course, if this really takes off, then no one will be able to drive the group to lunch, as they are all waiting for a package to be delivered to their car.
Seriously, though, if they can deliver to my car parked outside of my office, why don't I just have them deliver to the office? There is no real value in this service unless it does track the car's movements.
Not really, since the OP was essentially talking about the effective wage after taxes. You can live quite nicely any place in the US for $60K take-home. Sure, you can't have the very best of everything, but it's way more than a living wage.
Although I don't like that the OP seems to be talking about a hard cap, this sort of thing would go a long way towards making the gap between top and bottom much more reasonable. There still should be a gap, as that makes people strive to improve, but the problem with people who have tens (or hundreds) of millions per year of discretionary spending is that it causes many things to become impossible for poorer people to ever consider buying. For example, real estate, goods, and services near any place that has become popular with the "wealthy" is no longer available to average people. As an example, see Park City, UT, where the median income is over $65K, yet the average (mean) was only around $45K, and 10% are under the poverty line.
You want that cash and job security then you ought to be a better worker and provide greater value.
There are no jobs that allow you to earn CxO-style money (i.e., millions in compensation per year) without managing other people. So, regardless of how good you are at programming/network design/chip design/whatever, as long as you actually do real stuff, you won't ever become stinking rich from the sweat of your own brow.
Conversely, because the vastly overpaid do nothing but manage other people, it seems quite reasonable that their maximum compensation be tied to that of the people they directly manage. Because, without those people doing the work, that CxO won't be able to look "brilliant" for raising the stock price.
If you don't care about boot times then you should have no problem with people trying to change them.
I wouldn't, if it didn't add hours to the install and config of a service that isn't available as a package from the distrubution.
And, even if a package is available, it's impossible to make a systemd dependency tree work correctly unless you install every package that might possibly be used. Based on other posts, this seems to be the assumption in the architechture of systemd.
As an example, if you have sendmail installed, it doesn't have to have clamav installed to work, and so the package doesn't have that dependency. Likewise, if you do have both installed, sendmail still can't have a systemd dependency on clamd running, because you might not want to use clamd to scan e-mail. But, if you do want that configuration, you need to muck about in dependency files that will be overwritten the next time you update one of the packages.
OTOH, with some other init system, all you need to do is add few lines to the sendmail init script to wait for the clamd socket to come into existence.
In the end, yes, it's another config language you'll have to learn, but it's worth it.
Why is it worth it?
I've heard lots of "systemd is better" claims, but not one real-world example of how it took 27 hours to debug a startup issue when using SysV, but only 13 seconds using systemd. And, I really don't care about boot times, because my physical servers take 10 times as long running through BIOS checks as they do going from grub load to system ready. Even VMs don't matter much, as they don't get rebooted very often, so saving 5 seconds on a 30-second boot time isn't really a big deal.
On the other hand, I've heard lots of stories from people who have to install a custom service (i.e., not from a "apt-get" or "yum install") on a systemd system and complain about how it took hours to get the dependencies right.
Fedora made the transition some time ago, and from a user's point of view it was completely transparent.
When you edit a file in/etc/rc.d/init.d and your changes don't have any effect because that service is actually controlled by systemd, I wouldn't call that "completely transparent".
In System V you have to define network as a number and make sure everything that depends on it has a bigger number and everything it depends on to have a smaller number. systemd's dependency model is also smart enough to start processes in parallel.
If only systemd were really "smart enough", it would be great. Unfortunately, if you have a sevice that needs another service 100% functional before it can run, systemd has no way to describe that in the dependency files nor to test it.
All systemd uses to define a "running" service is that a process doesn't throw an immediate error upon startup. And, that's all it can ever have, unless the service is specially coded to be systemd-aware or does something like create a file in/var/run after it has fully initialized, and the dependency can be written using file existence. This really isn't any different in SysV, but at least there I could trivially edit the startup script of the dependent service and add some sort of test.
Because there is no way to test every combination of services, there is no way to reliably create systemd dependency files that will always work. Because of that, we get things like rc.local running before other services have started completely.
The title implies that we should abandon gas as an alternative to diesel/petrol.
This is done by falsely implying that pollution due to methane leaks are an inherit part of the drilling process.
Also, the title implies that it is the use of natural gas in vehicles that is the issue, when it's really about the drilling, which would be required regardless of the end use of the gas
Slashdot Mirror
I have my side mirrors turned so that while in a natural driving position I just barely can't see my own vehicle.
And I have mine turned so that I just barely can, which provides visual context at a glance in a sketchy situation. You've deprived yourself of that cue, which is fine until something unexpected happens.
If you can't remember where your car is in relation to where your mirror is set, then you likely also can't remember any of the other dozens of things you will need to know in order to drive.
Of course, I do have an advantage in that my mirrors are always set correctly when I enter my car, as it remembers me. If you drive a car that doesn't have such a feature and is driven by somebody that adjusts the mirrors differently, you might need that visible cue.
A camera could be permanently fixed to view exactly the right area
...for some people. I adjust my side mirrors so that I can't see my car, because seeing my car doesn't help me see other cars. I know exactly how much "off" the car my view is, and know that the tiny blind spot I create is covered by the rear view mirror inside the car.
The way I do it was considered correct by the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) in 1995, but it is not the traditional way that has been taught for decades, and is still taught in many places.
There are many reasons to get up to the stop location (either the line or the car in front of you) as quickly as possible.
One is to clear the intersection you just left. Another is to get past the beginning of the left turn lane so that people who want to turn left (which may be on a radically different cycle than the straight through) can get into that lane. For the same reason, don't stop two car lengths from the line/car. Pull up close and keep your foot on the brake. If somebody rams you hard enough that you hit the car in front, then you likely have bigger worries than hitting the car in front.
Yeah, or people could just drive somewhere near the speed limit, since most series of lights are timed correctly to ensure traffic flows well, and at the correct legal speed.
Even where the lights are timed with the speed limit, if you get caught by one light, the only way to hit the green ever again is to pretend you're a drag racer.
And, the primary road with traffic lights where I live has them timed to about 5-10mph over the speed limit, so if I get caught by the red, instead of drag racer mode, I have to try "rocket car mode".
The fact that the group of people I hung around with when "Darmok" first aired used language similarly may be why we enjoyed it so much. For example, late at night, someone would point at themselves and say "Bonzo", which indicated they were going to bed.
Of course, we might also have just been drunk out of our minds, as we watched TNG and played a drinking game where one of the rules was if any character spoke the episode title, it was two drinks. With this rule, "Darmok" and "The Pegasus" lead to alcohol poisoning.
(And really, what is the point of buying Blu-Ray if you're going to transcode it to half (or less) the bitrate of a DVD?)
Take a look at the quality of output from:
You'd be amazed at how many of the bits on the average Blu-Ray are wasted. What's especially noticeable is that most Blu-Ray encodes are essentially fixed bitrate...it's not unusual to see credits running at 20Mbps. OTOH, there are movies like Lord of the Rings or The Rock, where 4GB/hour is required to keep up the quality due to the amount of action. Or, there are grainy movies, like Fast Times at Ridgemont High or 300. All of these automatically get the bitrate they need because of the "crf" option. These are balanced by movies like The Sixth Sense, with minutes long scenes where nothing moves but the actor's mouth.
Are you bad at math, or have you been in a coma long enough that you'r'e unfamiliar with high definition video?
OP said "ripped from media and compressed", which is exactly what I do with my Blu-Ray disks. I'm pretty picky about video quality, and I leave sound intact, and I average around 2GB/hour on my 600 movies. I don't expect most people would use a lot more bits per second than I do.
So, for 25000GB at 2GB/hour with an average movie being 2 hours long, you get around 6000 movies. Pretty easy math.
You can argue about my assumptions, but even at 4GB/hour (which is insane overkill if you use a good encoder like x264), that's about 3000 movies.
I do wonder how they deal with the possibility of fraud
With scales, the only easy fraud is produce and the in-store bakery. Anything with a bar code is much harder, requiring a scan of a cheaper but same-weight code.
I suppose you could cut the bar code off of a box of pasta (often on sale for around $1/box) and palm it to scan for cookies, crackers, etc., of the same weight that sell for $3-4/box. Maybe the biggest overall gain would be something like a 1lb container of crab meat scanned as margarine/sour cream/etc., which would net you around $10/lb savings. Of course, if you are a saffron nut, you could scan pretty much any other spice and make out like a bandit.
In every grocery store (and Costco) I have seen each self-checkout lane was installed as a replacement for a human cashier lane. There really wasn't any space available to do it another way.
Although some of the self-checkouts I see use the same area as a regular lane due to having the large collection area, the vast majority are 2:1 in terms of space, since they are half-length.
Even the Sam's Club (not a Costco member) that put in self-checkout did it this way. They can get away with it because most people who self-check have a smallish number of items. One of the local grocery stores made all their self-checkouts full length, but I suspect that's because they had about 15 total before the conversion of 6 of them to self.
The huge advantage of self-checkout is that you can absorb some rush without having to add another human cashier, especially if most of the use is "express". I always go to the self-checkout if I can (no alcohol or peel-off price reduction stickers) because I am faster than 75% of humans. I scan with two hands (one picks up item and scans it, pass to other hand which places on belt/output while first hand picks up another), and have found that the scales are fast enough that they can keep up with me. And, you don't have to wait for spoken prices on most...just keep scanning. The other day I had nearly 30 buffered speeches (two forms of price reduction on individual bagels when I bought a dozen..that's 36 bits of speech) that just stopped when I swiped my credit card.
And Vegas sports books continue to make money because they do the math better than anyone else over the long haul.
How is adjusting the odds as people bet to keep the money on both sides as close as possible "doing math better"?
Essentially, it doesn't matter what the starting odds/spread/etc. are...the only thing that matters is adjusting the number as bets are placed so that bets are about even on both sides. Legitimate sports books don't make money by "winning" the bets...they make money by keeping a percentage of every bet, so their goals are to increase the total amount of money bet, while keeping the amount bet on each side about the same (assuming 1:1 payout...with different payout, then they would move the odds based on keeping the total expected payout the same as total intake).
I mean, get a SL8500 - only 2.1 Petabytes of tape backup space!
You misread a comma as a decimal. With filled-out slots, the library can hold 2,100PB, or 2.1 exabyte. Or, the equivalent of over half a million 4TB hard drives.
>We have two of these at work, and with just 3000 slots each and not the biggest tape drives, they can each store around 15PB.
Actually, none of the 25TB worth of stored movies I've got were downloaded. All of it was ripped from media and compressed.
Unless you aren't compressing very much from the original source, this means you have about 6,000 movies (2GB/hour, with an average movie being 2 hours).
I've got a few bins worth of media stored away
With 6,000 movies, your "few bins" would be a cube about 8 feet on each side, assuming standard DVD cases. And, it would also mean that you would spend over $3,000/year on movies (figuring $10/movie, and assuming you've been collecting since DVDs first came out). If you have been collecting for less time, or buy more expensive movies (Blu-Ray, special editions, at first release, etc.), then it would be closer to $5,000/year. Do you seriously spend $400/month on purchasing media?
An actually contemporary tape drive(and a machine capable of keeping it fed when it is running full bore) is Not Cheap; but the fleabay shit that is cheap tends to offer painfully mediocre capacity and unknown reliability. Disks, by contrast, have a cost of entry that basically starts at zero and scales more or less linearly with the number of disks
This is absolutely the best statement of this ever. Everyone who claims that tape is the One True Backup doesn't factor in the startup cost of $2-4K for a tape drive that can handle reasonably large capacity tapes, the hardware to connect it to a computer (many of these tape drives have fiber-channel as the only option), and then the cost of some kind of changer if you want any amount of automation.
For home use, hard drives are by far the cheapest and most convenient method, as long as you are in the less than 50TB world. If you aren't satisfied with hard drive reliability, back up your data twice, to two different drives. With 4TB drives selling for around $170, and backing up twice as I suggested, you don't reach the break-even point with tape (single backup) until you need to back up 15TB. With single backup to disk, the break-even is around 45TB.
20TB is not out of the world. With a RAID of 4TB disks you can cover that at home, and it doesn't need to be on all the time.
Sure, it's easy to have 20TB of usable disk space (I've got forty 2TB drives spread among 5 servers at my house), but 20TB of "must be backed up because that's the only copy" is a little unbelievable for a home user.
For example, I have 700 Blu-Ray movies that have been ripped and re-encoded to take about 2TB of disk space. If I had 30-40TB available, I might store the raw Blu-Ray images, but then I don't need backup, as the data is easy to re-create. So, I'm a little skeptical that the "friend" in TFS had 20TB data that he can't re-create by going back to original sources.
Some fake meats are bad, particularly the cheap rehydratable variety, but others taste OK. They are not my favourite option but if I eat with non-veg friends and the vegi option is a vegi-burger I will have it and enjoy it.
Why is it that vegetarians go to such lengths to procure food that tastes like meat but doesn't actually contain meat? If a vegetarian diet is so great, they wouldn't try to make their food taste like meat.
You don't see the rest of the population whining because their steak doesn't taste like tofu.
(And yes, I know about Cygwin; MKS is vastly superior to Cygwin, since everything just works in a standard DOS shell, it doesn't require it's own special environment).
I don't know what tool you are using, but nothing I run in Cygwin requires a "special environment". All the standard utilities (grep, awk, sed, perl, ssh, git, etc.) work just as you'd expect. The X server also "just works". The tools also interface nicely with 4NT/Take Command, so I can sort the Windows clipboard with:
Now, I'm sure if I tried to use things like cron or the SysV init scripts, then I'd have to do some tinkering, but the whole point of those is to run a complete Unix environment.
That sounds like something restricted to an internal mail system since it requires a centralized database of mappings between aliases and email addresses.
Google seems to be pretty good at handling databases for other data...I think they could handle this.
I do exactly this same thing with a database for my home mail server. Every site I deal with gets a different e-mail address, so I know who sells their lists. There have been one or two sites that have had the alias deleted because they didn't pay attention to whatever opt-out method they claimed would stop the e-mail.
This technique also protects me from phishing, as an e-mail that isn't addressed to mybankalias@mydomain.com can't possibly be from my bank.
The car delivery is likely to be practical/profitable when cars are concentrated (i.e. when you are at work) so no, someone who doesnt leave their car in the same place for 8-9 hrs/day is not likely to be a candidate for this.
Of course, if this really takes off, then no one will be able to drive the group to lunch, as they are all waiting for a package to be delivered to their car.
Seriously, though, if they can deliver to my car parked outside of my office, why don't I just have them deliver to the office? There is no real value in this service unless it does track the car's movements.
But 60k a year is ludicrous
Not really, since the OP was essentially talking about the effective wage after taxes. You can live quite nicely any place in the US for $60K take-home. Sure, you can't have the very best of everything, but it's way more than a living wage.
Although I don't like that the OP seems to be talking about a hard cap, this sort of thing would go a long way towards making the gap between top and bottom much more reasonable. There still should be a gap, as that makes people strive to improve, but the problem with people who have tens (or hundreds) of millions per year of discretionary spending is that it causes many things to become impossible for poorer people to ever consider buying. For example, real estate, goods, and services near any place that has become popular with the "wealthy" is no longer available to average people. As an example, see Park City, UT, where the median income is over $65K, yet the average (mean) was only around $45K, and 10% are under the poverty line.
You want that cash and job security then you ought to be a better worker and provide greater value.
There are no jobs that allow you to earn CxO-style money (i.e., millions in compensation per year) without managing other people. So, regardless of how good you are at programming/network design/chip design/whatever, as long as you actually do real stuff, you won't ever become stinking rich from the sweat of your own brow.
Conversely, because the vastly overpaid do nothing but manage other people, it seems quite reasonable that their maximum compensation be tied to that of the people they directly manage. Because, without those people doing the work, that CxO won't be able to look "brilliant" for raising the stock price.
If you don't care about boot times then you should have no problem with people trying to change them.
I wouldn't, if it didn't add hours to the install and config of a service that isn't available as a package from the distrubution.
And, even if a package is available, it's impossible to make a systemd dependency tree work correctly unless you install every package that might possibly be used. Based on other posts, this seems to be the assumption in the architechture of systemd.
As an example, if you have sendmail installed, it doesn't have to have clamav installed to work, and so the package doesn't have that dependency. Likewise, if you do have both installed, sendmail still can't have a systemd dependency on clamd running, because you might not want to use clamd to scan e-mail. But, if you do want that configuration, you need to muck about in dependency files that will be overwritten the next time you update one of the packages.
OTOH, with some other init system, all you need to do is add few lines to the sendmail init script to wait for the clamd socket to come into existence.
In the end, yes, it's another config language you'll have to learn, but it's worth it.
Why is it worth it?
I've heard lots of "systemd is better" claims, but not one real-world example of how it took 27 hours to debug a startup issue when using SysV, but only 13 seconds using systemd. And, I really don't care about boot times, because my physical servers take 10 times as long running through BIOS checks as they do going from grub load to system ready. Even VMs don't matter much, as they don't get rebooted very often, so saving 5 seconds on a 30-second boot time isn't really a big deal.
On the other hand, I've heard lots of stories from people who have to install a custom service (i.e., not from a "apt-get" or "yum install") on a systemd system and complain about how it took hours to get the dependencies right.
Fedora made the transition some time ago, and from a user's point of view it was completely transparent.
When you edit a file in /etc/rc.d/init.d and your changes don't have any effect because that service is actually controlled by systemd, I wouldn't call that "completely transparent".
In System V you have to define network as a number and make sure everything that depends on it has a bigger number and everything it depends on to have a smaller number. systemd's dependency model is also smart enough to start processes in parallel.
If only systemd were really "smart enough", it would be great. Unfortunately, if you have a sevice that needs another service 100% functional before it can run, systemd has no way to describe that in the dependency files nor to test it.
All systemd uses to define a "running" service is that a process doesn't throw an immediate error upon startup. And, that's all it can ever have, unless the service is specially coded to be systemd-aware or does something like create a file in /var/run after it has fully initialized, and the dependency can be written using file existence. This really isn't any different in SysV, but at least there I could trivially edit the startup script of the dependent service and add some sort of test.
Because there is no way to test every combination of services, there is no way to reliably create systemd dependency files that will always work. Because of that, we get things like rc.local running before other services have started completely.
The title implies that we should abandon gas as an alternative to diesel/petrol.
This is done by falsely implying that pollution due to methane leaks are an inherit part of the drilling process.
Also, the title implies that it is the use of natural gas in vehicles that is the issue, when it's really about the drilling, which would be required regardless of the end use of the gas