Sys-V is an utter shambles when automating that many machines. You obviously have not experience of it if you claim otherwise.
We don't have "thousands" of machines yet where I work, but are over 1,000. With the rise of virtualizaton, SysV does just fine, since most servers are now single purpose, and don't have a lot of interdependent services running. For these, systemd really is a solution in search of a problem.
OTOH, for a GUI desktop which starts "services" when a user logs in, then systemd might help a lot.
systemd is optional, you can remove it and replace it with any init system you like
Unless you are using a disto like Gentoo, you can't replace systemd because everything useful depends on it either directly or indirectly.
And now, I expect that you will say "that's not systemd's fault, that's the fault of the distro". Except that without dbus, systemd won't run, and without dbus, you the number of apps that will actually run can be counted on on hand. And, it's that way because the same guy that wrote systemd wrote dbus, and baked in the dependency.
OTOH, if you have a step-by-step guide on how to replace systemd with any other init system on current releases of CentOS or Fedora, and the upcoming release of Debian, I'm sure there would be many people who would be grateful.
its amazing how people bastardise definitions to suit their arguments.
I fail to see how the GP used the terms in any way other than what you listed for definitions.
Even though systemd is made up of multiple separate binaries, it is "[has] a uniform, massive, redoubtable, or inflexible quality or character", since you can't replace any one of those binaries with an alternative. Each of the individual binaries cannot "be combined or interchanged with others like it to create different shapes or designs", which means it isn't "modular", but is "monolithic".
Also, you still missed the most appropriate definition of "modular" for software: "employing or involving a module or modules as the basis of design or construction". Again, although systemd uses separate binaries, there is no way to replace any one of those binaries with an alternative, so the net effect is no different from a single binary that happens to be made up of 69 object files compiled from 69 source files.
Library ebook rentals, for example, because most of them rely on Overdrive.
Overdrive also offers books in Kindle format that you download from Amazon. If you don't have a Kindle, get the Kindle app for PC/Mac/Android/iOS/whatever.
The outrage needs to be swift and directly entirely at the fact that they are collecting this information in the first place
Kindle reading apps and standalone readers also send exactly this same kind of information about books you download from Amazon. They do this to pay authors royalties for books that were loaned by other users or though KindleUnlimited or Prime.
The difference here is that ADE sends info about any ePub you open with it, even if that file was downloaded by some other app, and even if it is not protected with Adobe DRM. I read everything through Calibre's reader, so I'm not really worried about this, even though I do download books from my library that use Adobe DRM.
On the other hand, people who've been actually in charge of government and military units know better than most why "blind trust" is the only kind they can appeal to. They know the real reasons for these measures, and why the public must not.
Do you seriously believe this?
Do you know why the only statistics the TSA provides is on "items seized" and not "failures to seize really dangerous items in tests"? It's because they routinely miss far too high a percentage of dangerous items in tests, and have never actually caught somebody at screening that was intending serious harm.
The "secret dangers" the government is protecting us from basically don't exist. Sure, there are dangers, but invasive screenings at airports, collecting every phone call and e-mail, and tossing people into prison without trials haven't stopped one single plot. The Boston Marathon bombings could likely have been stopped far in advance if data that had been collected not through the drag net that is the NSA would merely have been analyzed in time. Instead, because so much data is being collected, everything important is being overlooked.
Then, there's the whole class of dangers that can't be protected against (the whole "going postal" bit) without imposing dictatorial restrictions on movement, yet governments are actually trying to stop them. Then we have incidents like in Ferguson, MO, where agents of the government might have committed a crime, and when the people complained, they were met with force and had all legal means of redress blocked at every turn. That desire for control by governments is why we need to start reining it in now, before it's too late.
In this case, Netflix (for example) has also paid for "a pipe", capable of a given flow rate, into the system you get your data from. It's not nearly big enough, though, to service all the people who want to consume data from Netflix.
The pipe was more than big enough, but ISPs chose to not allow all the packets through. Once Netfilx paid the ransom, though, the pipe instantly opened up to the full available bandwidth.
Now, your argument is that the people who sell the pipes should just give Netflix a bigger pipe and take it on the chin because goddamnit you want to watch your Breaking Bad reruns. But the pipe Netflix needs, to do what you're asking, is really goddamned big. Big enough that if Netflix wants a pipe that big, it should damned well pay for upgrading it themselves.
Netfilx did pay to upgrade their pipe to their ISP, just like I paid to upgrade my pipe to my ISP. Just like I shouldn't have to pay to upgrade the pipe from Amazon to Amazon's ISP because it is too congested, Netfilx shouldn't have to pay to upgrade the pipe from me to my ISP, nor should they have to pay to upgrade pipes inside transit ISPs. Regardless of the fact that the onus was on other ISPs to either upgrade their infrastructure, Netflix offered to install for free devices inside customer ISPs that would reduce the need to send as much data over the pipes, except for the last mile (which can't be avoided). Still, the ISPs refused and instead requested cash to stop throttling Netflix.
And, again, note that as soon as that cash was paid, the pipes magically opened up, which means that the bandwidth was available all along, but ISPs just chose to throttle Netfilx. If you've got fiber installed, and switch port connections available, lighting up the fiber costs pennies per terabit transferred, but the ISPs saw this as a way to again make money for something they had already been paid money (multiple times) to do.
You are looking more and more like a shill with every post.
Ah, yes, let me paraphrase that sentiment: "If you can't agree with me, then you really shouldn't be in a discussion about the topic of debate."
No, I meant exactly what I said. If you don't understand why a single ISP getting paid twice for the same packet is bad for all users of the Internet (end users, businesses, etc.), then you should educate yourself before you continue in the discussion.
You have done nothing to show that you understand the issue...you merely state that the government has to prove that net neutrality is better than the current situation. You also complain about the government "want[ing] to control the hundreds of billions of dollars of network infrastructure that private companies have invested it", when those hundreds of billions of dollars were provided by the government as tax relief with the expectation that the companies would fulfill their end of the agreement (to provide high-speed last-mile universally). Since the companies have not fulfilled their end, and charging twice for the same packet means they are now charging five times for some services (once to the federal government for the tax break to build the infrastructure, once to local governments for tax breaks to build the infrastructure, once to the end user to install infrastructure to their house, once to the end user for monthly fees, and once to the service to avoid artificial congestion caused by using all the other charges to line the pockets of executives), this shows you are woefully uneducated on the subject.
Or, you could be one of those executives with lined pockets. In which case, yes, I don't agree with the way you do business, and your opinion should no longer matter, as you've been paid enough, thank you very much.
Turned out one of my coworkers was downloading the some Windows ISOs from Microsoft.
Then, your setup is horribly broken, as Microsoft limits individual download speeds to far less than 100Mbps. You can get more total speed if you are downloading multiple files at the same time, but even 4-5 at the same time shouldn't cause a problem.
Trying to assert that the internet is like "a series of UPS trucks", as you do, is not in any way an apt analogy, and you know it (or should, at any rate, if you're hanging out on a site like Slashdot).
Of course the Internet isn't a series of UPS trucks.
When something is shipped via UPS, only one party pays UPS. Sure, sometimes the other party pays the first party so they can pay UPS, but UPS doesn't collect money for the same package from multiple parties. On the other hand, ISPs do collect money for the same packet from multiple parties. This is a bad thing and net neutrality should prevent it.
If you can't understand why it's important that ISPs not be able to be paid more than once for the same packet, then you really shouldn't be in a discussion about whether the government should or shouldn't impose regulations on ISPs.
A small family sedan that hasn't been made since 1994 still hits #7 in getting the most tickets? It's the Mercury version of the Ford Tempo, which didn't make the top 20 at all. And I'd be willing to bet Ford sold a lot more Tempos than they did Topazs...
The data just says that of all Mercury Topaz's included in the report (and at least 50 must have been used to generate a quote for the model to appear at all), 28.8% have been ticketed at least once. The list is then sorted by the percentage. You can see the obvious flaws.
First, if a single Corvette received 100 tickets last year, it still just counts as "ticketed once". Second, if 10,000 Tempo's were given quotes, while only 50 Topaz's were, every Topaz influences the results 200 times as much as a Tempo. Third, miles driven isn't taken into account.
A much better way to report this data is by total tickets for a model per mile driven. This eliminates both the "ticketed once" issue as well as the "sample size" issue. It also would help show trends like a Ferrari that is only driven on weekends might get far more tickets per mile driven than a sedan.
I was trying to point out that 4 years ago this month (when I bought my "2011"), many of the features from the new Corvette were already available.
I have no idea exactly which models have the same feature, but this shows the Focus had it the model year before (in a more limited feature set), so the answer would be "pretty much every Ford had it back then".
Major League Baseball has one of the most draconian and bizarre blackout policies even conceived
There's nothing bizarre about it...MLB wants you to watch games on the network that pays them the most money. In order from most to least:
You must watch a "national network" (Fox, ESPN, TBS, etc.) if it is carrying the game.
You must watch your local regional sports network, if it is carrying the game.
You must watch a local OTA channel, if it is carrying the game. Note that some regional sports networks partner with local stations for some games, and either channel is then considered to be the RSN.
You must watch on an out-of-town RSN or MLB.tv., assuming you have paid for one of these packages.
This order is what makes the MLB blackouts so draconian (as you point out). It means that what the end viewer most directly paid for has the least priority for being watched by them.
You can watch MLB, NHL, or NBA, if you don't mind paying for it.
I suspect that all of these sports have the same rules (which I know MLB has) that you cannot watch your local team live over the Internet...you must watch them on local TV (either OTA or the regional sports network).
Note that this means that if you live in Chicago and buy the MLB.tv package because you are a fan of the Cleveland Indians, you will not be able to watch over the Internet when Cleveland visits either Chicago team, or vice-versa. In some years, that would mean that out of 162 games, as many as 25 will not be available to you.
They clicked "Start" then started typing "wor"... and hit enter.
Presto. MS Word.
On my system, "Microsoft SharePoint Workspace 2010" is the first option offered with just those three characters. Since I have never used that app, it's not about frequency or recent apps, it's about having the entire MS Office suite force-installed by group policy.
"word" does get Microsoft Word listed first, but I'm old-school and often still type "winword".
You also don't need to update them if you don't use them - go to Settings, Apps, go through all Google apps that you don't use and [Uninstall Updates] followed by [Disable] on each one of them. You need to disable automatic app updates as well, otherwise the apps will get updated and will occupy the Internal Memory (FLASH).
On later versions of Android, you can just "Disable" and the system will also uninstall updates for you. In addition, "Disabled" apps aren't updated automatically, even if automatic updates are turned on.
Perhaps a better solution would be a 'valet key' that when used limits access to the boot, reduces acceleration (like the Eco mode you get on lots of modern cars and limits speed to say 60mph),
Except for the recording part, my car has exactly that feature. I can program keys that limit the maximum speed, radio volume, etc. It's a 2011 Ford.
Obviously that scenario would not be legal, but putting cameras in your house to see what the babysitter is doing or to see if anyone breaks in is perfectly legal.
Actually, it's a tough call on the legality, because in theory the guest could change clothes in any "private" room in the house.
If the only other person in the house is a baby in a crib, and I change clothes in a bedroom, then is capturing video of me "illegal", while if I merely enter the bedroom and walk around, the capture is "legal"?
But higher wattage CFLs I've used in the garage don't last very long.
CFLs seem to be much more sensitive to climate than incandescent bulbs (or even tubes, as you noted).
I have some 300W equivalent 6500K CFLs that I use for photography, and they have done fine even with being used in varying climates, but always stored in controlled conditions.
I've never seen car loans at rates lower than or even close to inflation, for buyers without excellent credit ratings, and frequently large down payments.
My current car was purchased in October 2010 with less than $5K down on a $40K vehicle with a 5-year 1.9% loan. That's not a "large down payment", since most of it was trade-in. I might have "excellent credit", but I don't really know, as I really only use it for infrequent car and home purchases. I have credit cards, but they all get paid off each month.
For me, the advantage of a new car is the lack of unexpected expenses. I added 4 years to the manufacturer's warranty for $750 (rolled into the $40K), so for 7 years, I have bumper-to-bumper coverage. My dealer gives me essentially free oil changes and tire rotations for life (4 per year limit, which is more than I use), and the other standard maintenance costs aren't unreasonable. I've spent far more money repairing damage caused by a squirrel that shredded the heat guard inside the hood than on maintenance. So, yeah, I have a fairly large payment for 5 years, then 2 years of pretty much nothing where I stuff the car payment into savings, then about 3-5 years of having to pay for some repairs before I buy a new car.
Overall, I think buying a new car every 10 years or so makes better sense than getting a used car every 2-3 years, especially if you want the used car to have the same sort of feature set as the new car. If you are buying beaters, then you'll save a lot of money, but you'll also have a lot more uncertainty about whether your car will start when you want it to.
It might be possible to bypass it, but blocking the signal isn't the solution. He parked his car in an underground garage, and when he came back it wouldn't start. Turns out if the disabler hasn't received a ping in a certain elapsed time it also disables the starter.
I think a DDoS by anonymous on the servers that send the ping is in the works some time in the future. That would result in literally millions of cars (based on the percentages in TFA) being disabled.
I can understand a "kill switch" as a tool to encourage on-time payments, but not a dead-man's switch. With that sort of design, just about any problem with any part of the system would result in cars that won't run.
It doesn't need to know about the underlaying stuff, but it's not that uncommon to publish new LUN to some server (like when you add more local storage and create new array or when you assign more space from your SAN).
Which, as I said, is managed quite nicely by the device node manager, and the init system doesn't need to know anything about it.
Everything that exists to deal with things that happen because an inexperienced GUI user might do something stupid (like manually change the system time).
Last I used systemd (Fedora), the dependency tree for packages is such that packages like NetworkManager are required by systemd. Do a minimal CentOS 7 install and see just how many packages you can remove from the system without having systemd be removed because of dependencies. Then, look at the list of remaining packages and you'd have to be a complete liar to tell us that none of them are GUI-centric.
Slashdot Mirror
Sys-V is an utter shambles when automating that many machines. You obviously have not experience of it if you claim otherwise.
We don't have "thousands" of machines yet where I work, but are over 1,000. With the rise of virtualizaton, SysV does just fine, since most servers are now single purpose, and don't have a lot of interdependent services running. For these, systemd really is a solution in search of a problem.
OTOH, for a GUI desktop which starts "services" when a user logs in, then systemd might help a lot.
systemd is optional, you can remove it and replace it with any init system you like
Unless you are using a disto like Gentoo, you can't replace systemd because everything useful depends on it either directly or indirectly.
And now, I expect that you will say "that's not systemd's fault, that's the fault of the distro". Except that without dbus, systemd won't run, and without dbus, you the number of apps that will actually run can be counted on on hand. And, it's that way because the same guy that wrote systemd wrote dbus, and baked in the dependency.
OTOH, if you have a step-by-step guide on how to replace systemd with any other init system on current releases of CentOS or Fedora, and the upcoming release of Debian, I'm sure there would be many people who would be grateful.
its amazing how people bastardise definitions to suit their arguments.
I fail to see how the GP used the terms in any way other than what you listed for definitions.
Even though systemd is made up of multiple separate binaries, it is "[has] a uniform, massive, redoubtable, or inflexible quality or character", since you can't replace any one of those binaries with an alternative. Each of the individual binaries cannot "be combined or interchanged with others like it to create different shapes or designs", which means it isn't "modular", but is "monolithic".
Also, you still missed the most appropriate definition of "modular" for software: "employing or involving a module or modules as the basis of design or construction". Again, although systemd uses separate binaries, there is no way to replace any one of those binaries with an alternative, so the net effect is no different from a single binary that happens to be made up of 69 object files compiled from 69 source files.
Overdrive.
Adobe's e-reader REQUIRED if you want to check out e-books from most libraries.
As I said in another post, Overdrive also offers Kindle format books that you download from Amazon.
Library ebook rentals, for example, because most of them rely on Overdrive.
Overdrive also offers books in Kindle format that you download from Amazon. If you don't have a Kindle, get the Kindle app for PC/Mac/Android/iOS/whatever.
The outrage needs to be swift and directly entirely at the fact that they are collecting this information in the first place
Kindle reading apps and standalone readers also send exactly this same kind of information about books you download from Amazon. They do this to pay authors royalties for books that were loaned by other users or though KindleUnlimited or Prime.
The difference here is that ADE sends info about any ePub you open with it, even if that file was downloaded by some other app, and even if it is not protected with Adobe DRM. I read everything through Calibre's reader, so I'm not really worried about this, even though I do download books from my library that use Adobe DRM.
On the other hand, people who've been actually in charge of government and military units know better than most why "blind trust" is the only kind they can appeal to. They know the real reasons for these measures, and why the public must not.
Do you seriously believe this?
Do you know why the only statistics the TSA provides is on "items seized" and not "failures to seize really dangerous items in tests"? It's because they routinely miss far too high a percentage of dangerous items in tests, and have never actually caught somebody at screening that was intending serious harm.
The "secret dangers" the government is protecting us from basically don't exist. Sure, there are dangers, but invasive screenings at airports, collecting every phone call and e-mail, and tossing people into prison without trials haven't stopped one single plot. The Boston Marathon bombings could likely have been stopped far in advance if data that had been collected not through the drag net that is the NSA would merely have been analyzed in time. Instead, because so much data is being collected, everything important is being overlooked.
Then, there's the whole class of dangers that can't be protected against (the whole "going postal" bit) without imposing dictatorial restrictions on movement, yet governments are actually trying to stop them. Then we have incidents like in Ferguson, MO, where agents of the government might have committed a crime, and when the people complained, they were met with force and had all legal means of redress blocked at every turn. That desire for control by governments is why we need to start reining it in now, before it's too late.
In this case, Netflix (for example) has also paid for "a pipe", capable of a given flow rate, into the system you get your data from. It's not nearly big enough, though, to service all the people who want to consume data from Netflix.
The pipe was more than big enough, but ISPs chose to not allow all the packets through. Once Netfilx paid the ransom, though, the pipe instantly opened up to the full available bandwidth.
Now, your argument is that the people who sell the pipes should just give Netflix a bigger pipe and take it on the chin because goddamnit you want to watch your Breaking Bad reruns. But the pipe Netflix needs, to do what you're asking, is really goddamned big. Big enough that if Netflix wants a pipe that big, it should damned well pay for upgrading it themselves.
Netfilx did pay to upgrade their pipe to their ISP, just like I paid to upgrade my pipe to my ISP. Just like I shouldn't have to pay to upgrade the pipe from Amazon to Amazon's ISP because it is too congested, Netfilx shouldn't have to pay to upgrade the pipe from me to my ISP, nor should they have to pay to upgrade pipes inside transit ISPs. Regardless of the fact that the onus was on other ISPs to either upgrade their infrastructure, Netflix offered to install for free devices inside customer ISPs that would reduce the need to send as much data over the pipes, except for the last mile (which can't be avoided). Still, the ISPs refused and instead requested cash to stop throttling Netflix.
And, again, note that as soon as that cash was paid, the pipes magically opened up, which means that the bandwidth was available all along, but ISPs just chose to throttle Netfilx. If you've got fiber installed, and switch port connections available, lighting up the fiber costs pennies per terabit transferred, but the ISPs saw this as a way to again make money for something they had already been paid money (multiple times) to do.
You are looking more and more like a shill with every post.
Ah, yes, let me paraphrase that sentiment: "If you can't agree with me, then you really shouldn't be in a discussion about the topic of debate."
No, I meant exactly what I said. If you don't understand why a single ISP getting paid twice for the same packet is bad for all users of the Internet (end users, businesses, etc.), then you should educate yourself before you continue in the discussion.
You have done nothing to show that you understand the issue...you merely state that the government has to prove that net neutrality is better than the current situation. You also complain about the government "want[ing] to control the hundreds of billions of dollars of network infrastructure that private companies have invested it", when those hundreds of billions of dollars were provided by the government as tax relief with the expectation that the companies would fulfill their end of the agreement (to provide high-speed last-mile universally). Since the companies have not fulfilled their end, and charging twice for the same packet means they are now charging five times for some services (once to the federal government for the tax break to build the infrastructure, once to local governments for tax breaks to build the infrastructure, once to the end user to install infrastructure to their house, once to the end user for monthly fees, and once to the service to avoid artificial congestion caused by using all the other charges to line the pockets of executives), this shows you are woefully uneducated on the subject.
Or, you could be one of those executives with lined pockets. In which case, yes, I don't agree with the way you do business, and your opinion should no longer matter, as you've been paid enough, thank you very much.
Turned out one of my coworkers was downloading the some Windows ISOs from Microsoft.
Then, your setup is horribly broken, as Microsoft limits individual download speeds to far less than 100Mbps. You can get more total speed if you are downloading multiple files at the same time, but even 4-5 at the same time shouldn't cause a problem.
Trying to assert that the internet is like "a series of UPS trucks", as you do, is not in any way an apt analogy, and you know it (or should, at any rate, if you're hanging out on a site like Slashdot).
Of course the Internet isn't a series of UPS trucks.
When something is shipped via UPS, only one party pays UPS. Sure, sometimes the other party pays the first party so they can pay UPS, but UPS doesn't collect money for the same package from multiple parties. On the other hand, ISPs do collect money for the same packet from multiple parties. This is a bad thing and net neutrality should prevent it.
If you can't understand why it's important that ISPs not be able to be paid more than once for the same packet, then you really shouldn't be in a discussion about whether the government should or shouldn't impose regulations on ISPs.
A small family sedan that hasn't been made since 1994 still hits #7 in getting the most tickets? It's the Mercury version of the Ford Tempo, which didn't make the top 20 at all. And I'd be willing to bet Ford sold a lot more Tempos than they did Topazs...
The data just says that of all Mercury Topaz's included in the report (and at least 50 must have been used to generate a quote for the model to appear at all), 28.8% have been ticketed at least once. The list is then sorted by the percentage. You can see the obvious flaws.
First, if a single Corvette received 100 tickets last year, it still just counts as "ticketed once". Second, if 10,000 Tempo's were given quotes, while only 50 Topaz's were, every Topaz influences the results 200 times as much as a Tempo. Third, miles driven isn't taken into account.
A much better way to report this data is by total tickets for a model per mile driven. This eliminates both the "ticketed once" issue as well as the "sample size" issue. It also would help show trends like a Ferrari that is only driven on weekends might get far more tickets per mile driven than a sedan.
That doesn't narrow things down a lot.
I was trying to point out that 4 years ago this month (when I bought my "2011"), many of the features from the new Corvette were already available.
I have no idea exactly which models have the same feature, but this shows the Focus had it the model year before (in a more limited feature set), so the answer would be "pretty much every Ford had it back then".
Major League Baseball has one of the most draconian and bizarre blackout policies even conceived
There's nothing bizarre about it...MLB wants you to watch games on the network that pays them the most money. In order from most to least:
This order is what makes the MLB blackouts so draconian (as you point out). It means that what the end viewer most directly paid for has the least priority for being watched by them.
You can watch MLB, NHL, or NBA, if you don't mind paying for it.
I suspect that all of these sports have the same rules (which I know MLB has) that you cannot watch your local team live over the Internet...you must watch them on local TV (either OTA or the regional sports network).
Note that this means that if you live in Chicago and buy the MLB.tv package because you are a fan of the Cleveland Indians, you will not be able to watch over the Internet when Cleveland visits either Chicago team, or vice-versa. In some years, that would mean that out of 162 games, as many as 25 will not be available to you.
They clicked "Start" then started typing "wor"... and hit enter.
Presto. MS Word.
On my system, "Microsoft SharePoint Workspace 2010" is the first option offered with just those three characters. Since I have never used that app, it's not about frequency or recent apps, it's about having the entire MS Office suite force-installed by group policy.
"word" does get Microsoft Word listed first, but I'm old-school and often still type "winword".
You also don't need to update them if you don't use them - go to Settings, Apps, go through all Google apps that you don't use and [Uninstall Updates] followed by [Disable] on each one of them. You need to disable automatic app updates as well, otherwise the apps will get updated and will occupy the Internal Memory (FLASH).
On later versions of Android, you can just "Disable" and the system will also uninstall updates for you. In addition, "Disabled" apps aren't updated automatically, even if automatic updates are turned on.
Perhaps a better solution would be a 'valet key' that when used limits access to the boot, reduces acceleration (like the Eco mode you get on lots of modern cars and limits speed to say 60mph),
Except for the recording part, my car has exactly that feature. I can program keys that limit the maximum speed, radio volume, etc. It's a 2011 Ford.
Obviously that scenario would not be legal, but putting cameras in your house to see what the babysitter is doing or to see if anyone breaks in is perfectly legal.
Actually, it's a tough call on the legality, because in theory the guest could change clothes in any "private" room in the house.
If the only other person in the house is a baby in a crib, and I change clothes in a bedroom, then is capturing video of me "illegal", while if I merely enter the bedroom and walk around, the capture is "legal"?
But higher wattage CFLs I've used in the garage don't last very long.
CFLs seem to be much more sensitive to climate than incandescent bulbs (or even tubes, as you noted).
I have some 300W equivalent 6500K CFLs that I use for photography, and they have done fine even with being used in varying climates, but always stored in controlled conditions.
I've never seen car loans at rates lower than or even close to inflation, for buyers without excellent credit ratings, and frequently large down payments.
My current car was purchased in October 2010 with less than $5K down on a $40K vehicle with a 5-year 1.9% loan. That's not a "large down payment", since most of it was trade-in. I might have "excellent credit", but I don't really know, as I really only use it for infrequent car and home purchases. I have credit cards, but they all get paid off each month.
For me, the advantage of a new car is the lack of unexpected expenses. I added 4 years to the manufacturer's warranty for $750 (rolled into the $40K), so for 7 years, I have bumper-to-bumper coverage. My dealer gives me essentially free oil changes and tire rotations for life (4 per year limit, which is more than I use), and the other standard maintenance costs aren't unreasonable. I've spent far more money repairing damage caused by a squirrel that shredded the heat guard inside the hood than on maintenance. So, yeah, I have a fairly large payment for 5 years, then 2 years of pretty much nothing where I stuff the car payment into savings, then about 3-5 years of having to pay for some repairs before I buy a new car.
Overall, I think buying a new car every 10 years or so makes better sense than getting a used car every 2-3 years, especially if you want the used car to have the same sort of feature set as the new car. If you are buying beaters, then you'll save a lot of money, but you'll also have a lot more uncertainty about whether your car will start when you want it to.
It might be possible to bypass it, but blocking the signal isn't the solution. He parked his car in an underground garage, and when he came back it wouldn't start. Turns out if the disabler hasn't received a ping in a certain elapsed time it also disables the starter.
I think a DDoS by anonymous on the servers that send the ping is in the works some time in the future. That would result in literally millions of cars (based on the percentages in TFA) being disabled.
I can understand a "kill switch" as a tool to encourage on-time payments, but not a dead-man's switch. With that sort of design, just about any problem with any part of the system would result in cars that won't run.
Does your home router have any cgi scripts that use bash?
Even if it did, it only serves web pages to IPs on the "LAN" side, right?
If not, you've already been pwned long ago.
It doesn't need to know about the underlaying stuff, but it's not that uncommon to publish new LUN to some server (like when you add more local storage and create new array or when you assign more space from your SAN).
Which, as I said, is managed quite nicely by the device node manager, and the init system doesn't need to know anything about it.
What packages are you talking about?
Everything that exists to deal with things that happen because an inexperienced GUI user might do something stupid (like manually change the system time).
Last I used systemd (Fedora), the dependency tree for packages is such that packages like NetworkManager are required by systemd. Do a minimal CentOS 7 install and see just how many packages you can remove from the system without having systemd be removed because of dependencies. Then, look at the list of remaining packages and you'd have to be a complete liar to tell us that none of them are GUI-centric.