systemd's init functionality is fine, as good as (or better than) most other alternatives.
it even makes sense to have the control group manager as part of the init process (although even that should be optional if someone wants to run something else to manage control groups).
absolutely everything else that systemd does, though, (network setup, logging, crappy cron imitation, consolekit login services, etc etc etc) should be entirely separate, completely optional programs with good documentation (incl. API and protocol docs).
if systemd confined itself to just init services, nobody would bother hating it because there would be nothing to hate - it would be just one init option amongst many. probably a very popular option because, as init, it's pretty good.
I read all of those authors (and more) many years ago. I wouldn't call many of them 'hard SF', even by the standards of their times.
Asmiov is mostly famous for 1. inventing mechanical-negro servants that can never rise up against their masters because of in-built rules that prevented such scary and impolite naughtiness and 2. the pseudo-science of 'psychohistory'.
Bova, OK, yeah. mostly hard SF.
Heinlein's earlier work was Boys Own Space Adventure stuff that used "outer space" as a backdrop but ignored science. Admittedly, it was genre he excelled at. Pretty much everything after SiaSL was complete self-indulgent crap. none of his work was actually 'hard SF'.
Leinster, yes. hard SF for his era.
van Vogt. the psychic supermen of null-A. you're probably the first person ever to accuse him of writing 'hard SF'.
Blish...with only a little generosity you can label much of his work as being reasonably 'hard' SF for its era.
Clement, yes. he qualifies as a hard sf author.
"Doc" Smith - Lensmen, Skylark series. fun read? yes. hard SF? no.
Niven...not so much. grandiose sciency-sounding ideas, but not much actual science to back them up. even so, his work was quite enjoyable when he wasn't being lured towards his neo-fascist side by pournelle (and even then could be enjoyable if you chose to ignore the militarist jingoism and overtly pro-monarchist ideology).
Most of the Golden Age publication was far more interested in the 'Amazing' or 'Astounding' or even 'Weird' than in the 'Science'. And moralising (esp. about being careful what you wish for, or Man not overstepping his ability or usurping "god's place") was almost mandatory.
American writing *in general*, not just in SF tends towards a harshly judgemental, moralising tone that is also anti-intellectual and anti-science. and in the 50s and 60s heavily self-censored for fear of McCarthy.
None of which is to say that I didn't enjoy most of these authors(*) when I read them, but they're hardly 'hard-SF'. and a lot of their writings ARE anti-science. I'm a lot less tolerant of that in my science-fiction than i was when i was much younger.
(*) I've always thought Asmiov was over-rated, never liked his stuff. And I didn't enjoy most of Bova's work that I read.
Any company that outsources workers of any kind (including helpdesk staff, programmers, sysadmins, clerical and admin staff, etc) doesn't value institutional knowledge.
This attitude has been fashionable amongst CEOs for decades - they like to see workers as slot-in replacable production units....and they try extremely hard to try to force reality to fit their model, no matter how much in-their-faces evidence there is to show them that it just doesn't fucking work and costs their companies a fortune every year in re-training and the just plain incompetence of new hires and outsourced "contractors" forced into running small-businesses rather than being employees.
Another thing they ignore is institutional loyalty - most employees have some kind of loyalty to their employer (even if only out of self-interest). Outsourced "contractors" have no such loyalty, they're loyal only to themselves, their pay-cheque, and maybe to the contracting company that pays them and finds work for them.
No, it's not a "legal definition". It's a made up propaganda word designed by copyright-maximalists to make people think about copyright, patents, and/or trademarks in the same way that they think about actual property - because thinking about those things in such an unnatural and false way allows them to easily lobby for laws that suit their agenda.
the fact that the games industry has been infected by this pernicious meme does not make it any more real. or legitimate.
It's no surprise that Avatar's overall message is that "technology is bad" because American Science Fiction's overall message is exactly that.
American SF almost always (that is, with very few exceptions) has an underlying message that technology or science is bad and/or leads to disastrous consequences, or that "man should not meddle with things he is not meant to understand", or that the "power of love" or human emotion in general is vastly superior and/or preferable to technology.
And it's never acknowledged that human emotions are essentially just chemicals operating within and on the brain. In fact, it's always the reverse message, either explicitly or implicitly, that emotions are some mystical non-matieral thing completely disconnected from (and superior to) physical reality.
In short: insipid anti-science, pro-ignorance religious/mystical propaganda, usually with either heavy-handedly overt biblical themes or bland new-age mysticism.
American authors/tv-writers/movie-makers etc also have an extremely hard time distinguising between SF and Fantasy, with "psychic powers" being magic dressed up in pseudo-science to sound all sciency.
It would be more accurate to call it Anti-Science Fiction.
tax evasion is fraud, you moron. Even the fact that their lobbying has corruptly caused some of what they do to be technically "legal" makes no fucking difference - it's still tax evasion, and it's still fraud.
I really have no more time for stupid people, especially morons who are pretending to be even more stupid than they actually are so that they can keep on advancing cretinously lame "arguments" and "counterpoints".
do you really need the bleeding obvious spelt out for you?
you make the penalties for such fraud so large for everyone involved (lengthy gaol sentences, huge fines, punitive additional tax rates, expulsion from professsional associations such chartered accountants, lifetime or least lengthy bans fom running a company or serving as a director, etc) that doing this kind of evil shit is far too risky for all but the stupidest of criminals.
the point of a simplified tax system as was proposed several posts back is to close exploitable loopholes, so why the fuck would it make any sense to leave a huge loophole like you're suggesting wide open?
that, btw, was a rhetorical question. which means that it doesn't require an answer.
1. no, as i said, they're not companies so why the fuck would you expect them to be taxed as companies. again, are you fucking stupid?
2. income already has a well-defined meaning (which varies slightly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction). why the fuck is there any need for me to redefine it - just so you can have some strawman to demolish? no thanks - you may be fucking stupid, but i'm not.
and as i said, money deposited in a bank is NOT income for that bank because it doesn't fucking belong to the bank. cretin!
3. how do you even manage to breathe and type at the same time?
1. NGOs, charities, and other non-profits are not companies or corporations.
2. bank deposits are not income for the bank. they are monies held in trust by the bank. they do not own the deposits, which remain at all times the property of the depositor.
your "argument" (for want of a better word) is akin to saying that because some people get away with murder, we should never bother charging anyone with that crime.
Perhaps. i wouldn't have any objection to that, but i guess the real people who live there would.
Places like Delaware would be handled with the organisations list - legal and accounting firms known to assist with tax evasion would be listed, and dealing with them would be illegal.
If necessary, individual lawyers and accountants and other people could be named - and any company or business set up by them would be automatically added to the list (in addition to a lifetime ban on them being director or partner in a company). Sure, they could use patsies to "own" their new companies, but the supply of idiot patsies willing to go to gaol for them is limited.
"But B is outlandish! Blasphemous even!" Let me ask you this: Do you believe in taxation without representation? Do you believe corporations deserve representation in government? For most people the answer is no, no. What's the logical conclusion regarding taxing corporations then?
Corporations are not people, they are an artificial legal construct created by governments. They do not deserve representation.
BTW, the people who directly or indirectly own them already have representation. Those people do not deserve double (or triple or whatever multiple) representation just because they own or part-own one or more companies.
If we can have lists of "rogue nations" and "terrorist organisations" that it is illegal to deal with, then there's no reason why we can't also have lists of "rogue tax-haven nations" (like British Virgin Islands) and "tax-evasion organisations" (like Mossack Fonseca) that it is also illegal to deal with.
It should be a serious crime with huge penalties (both monetary and gaol time) to negotiate with or transact business with any government, company or organisation in one of the listed countries, or to own, operate or conduct business with any listed entity in the organisations list.
That would solve the problem at its source.
And before anyone says that Mossack Fonseca is a legal company that provides other services than just setup of shell companies and tax evasion, the same is true of Hamas. They are a huge humanitarian organisation in the Middle East, providing financial and medical aid and other services to those who need it. Unfortunately, they also have a nutcase terrorist militant wing - this gets them listed as a terrorist organisation and no amount of humanitarian work by the majority non-terrorist parts of Hamas will ever get them off that list.
In related news, they neglected to announce that the propaganda song-and-dance show worked perfectly and most of the public now believe that Apple courageously stood up to the FBI's demands and hadn't given them access years ago.
Well, that's certainly one possible interpretation.
Another interpretation (only slightly more extreme than yours) is that even prisoners and inmates of mental hospitals, being citizens, have a right to keep and bear arms - a right that is inalienable under any circumstances.
Yet another interpretation is that ONLY members of a well-regulated militia have the right to keep and bear arms. And then you can argue about the definition of 'militia' - does it mean something official like the 'National Guard', or does it mean any group of people who declare themselves to be a militia (white skinned, of course. black or brown people doing that are obviously terrorists). And, then, what does 'well-regulated' mean? does it mean subject to government regulation, or able to march in something roughly akin to a uniform.
There are lots of possible interpretations. Some more stupid than others.
the only thing you missed was explicitly stating (rather than just implying) the self-defence fantasist's favourite conclusion: "your threat towards me makes you a subhuman, and subhumans have no rights, so i can kill you whenever i like".
this fantasy is also popular with alienated teenagers. most of them grow out of it.
Slashdot Mirror
yep.
systemd's init functionality is fine, as good as (or better than) most other alternatives.
it even makes sense to have the control group manager as part of the init process (although even that should be optional if someone wants to run something else to manage control groups).
absolutely everything else that systemd does, though, (network setup, logging, crappy cron imitation, consolekit login services, etc etc etc) should be entirely separate, completely optional programs with good documentation (incl. API and protocol docs).
if systemd confined itself to just init services, nobody would bother hating it because there would be nothing to hate - it would be just one init option amongst many. probably a very popular option because, as init, it's pretty good.
This discovery will inevitably be garbled and abused by pseudo-science charlatans to promote highly profitable bullshit like homeopathy.
I can see it now:
(finally had time to respond to this)
I read all of those authors (and more) many years ago. I wouldn't call many of them 'hard SF', even by the standards of their times.
Asmiov is mostly famous for 1. inventing mechanical-negro servants that can never rise up against their masters because of in-built rules that prevented such scary and impolite naughtiness and 2. the pseudo-science of 'psychohistory'.
Bova, OK, yeah. mostly hard SF.
Heinlein's earlier work was Boys Own Space Adventure stuff that used "outer space" as a backdrop but ignored science. Admittedly, it was genre he excelled at. Pretty much everything after SiaSL was complete self-indulgent crap. none of his work was actually 'hard SF'.
Leinster, yes. hard SF for his era.
van Vogt. the psychic supermen of null-A. you're probably the first person ever to accuse him of writing 'hard SF'.
Blish...with only a little generosity you can label much of his work as being reasonably 'hard' SF for its era.
Clement, yes. he qualifies as a hard sf author.
"Doc" Smith - Lensmen, Skylark series. fun read? yes. hard SF? no.
Niven...not so much. grandiose sciency-sounding ideas, but not much actual science to back them up. even so, his work was quite enjoyable when he wasn't being lured towards his neo-fascist side by pournelle (and even then could be enjoyable if you chose to ignore the militarist jingoism and overtly pro-monarchist ideology).
Most of the Golden Age publication was far more interested in the 'Amazing' or 'Astounding' or even 'Weird' than in the 'Science'. And moralising (esp. about being careful what you wish for, or Man not overstepping his ability or usurping "god's place") was almost mandatory.
American writing *in general*, not just in SF tends towards a harshly judgemental, moralising tone that is also anti-intellectual and anti-science. and in the 50s and 60s heavily self-censored for fear of McCarthy.
None of which is to say that I didn't enjoy most of these authors(*) when I read them, but they're hardly 'hard-SF'. and a lot of their writings ARE anti-science. I'm a lot less tolerant of that in my science-fiction than i was when i was much younger.
(*) I've always thought Asmiov was over-rated, never liked his stuff. And I didn't enjoy most of Bova's work that I read.
Any company that outsources workers of any kind (including helpdesk staff, programmers, sysadmins, clerical and admin staff, etc) doesn't value institutional knowledge.
This attitude has been fashionable amongst CEOs for decades - they like to see workers as slot-in replacable production units....and they try extremely hard to try to force reality to fit their model, no matter how much in-their-faces evidence there is to show them that it just doesn't fucking work and costs their companies a fortune every year in re-training and the just plain incompetence of new hires and outsourced "contractors" forced into running small-businesses rather than being employees.
Another thing they ignore is institutional loyalty - most employees have some kind of loyalty to their employer (even if only out of self-interest). Outsourced "contractors" have no such loyalty, they're loyal only to themselves, their pay-cheque, and maybe to the contracting company that pays them and finds work for them.
No, it's not a "legal definition". It's a made up propaganda word designed by copyright-maximalists to make people think about copyright, patents, and/or trademarks in the same way that they think about actual property - because thinking about those things in such an unnatural and false way allows them to easily lobby for laws that suit their agenda.
the fact that the games industry has been infected by this pernicious meme does not make it any more real. or legitimate.
anyone who refers to a game as "an IP" (or, worse, "a new IP") is either not a gamer or has been infected by MBA-speak.
It's no surprise that Avatar's overall message is that "technology is bad" because American Science Fiction's overall message is exactly that.
American SF almost always (that is, with very few exceptions) has an underlying message that technology or science is bad and/or leads to disastrous consequences, or that "man should not meddle with things he is not meant to understand", or that the "power of love" or human emotion in general is vastly superior and/or preferable to technology.
And it's never acknowledged that human emotions are essentially just chemicals operating within and on the brain. In fact, it's always the reverse message, either explicitly or implicitly, that emotions are some mystical non-matieral thing completely disconnected from (and superior to) physical reality.
In short: insipid anti-science, pro-ignorance religious/mystical propaganda, usually with either heavy-handedly overt biblical themes or bland new-age mysticism.
American authors/tv-writers/movie-makers etc also have an extremely hard time distinguising between SF and Fantasy, with "psychic powers" being magic dressed up in pseudo-science to sound all sciency.
It would be more accurate to call it Anti-Science Fiction.
tax evasion is fraud, you moron. Even the fact that their lobbying has corruptly caused some of what they do to be technically "legal" makes no fucking difference - it's still tax evasion, and it's still fraud.
I really have no more time for stupid people, especially morons who are pretending to be even more stupid than they actually are so that they can keep on advancing cretinously lame "arguments" and "counterpoints".
so, I bid you a heartfelt FOAD.
do you really need the bleeding obvious spelt out for you?
you make the penalties for such fraud so large for everyone involved (lengthy gaol sentences, huge fines, punitive additional tax rates, expulsion from professsional associations such chartered accountants, lifetime or least lengthy bans fom running a company or serving as a director, etc) that doing this kind of evil shit is far too risky for all but the stupidest of criminals.
the point of a simplified tax system as was proposed several posts back is to close exploitable loopholes, so why the fuck would it make any sense to leave a huge loophole like you're suggesting wide open?
that, btw, was a rhetorical question. which means that it doesn't require an answer.
1. no, as i said, they're not companies so why the fuck would you expect them to be taxed as companies. again, are you fucking stupid?
2. income already has a well-defined meaning (which varies slightly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction). why the fuck is there any need for me to redefine it - just so you can have some strawman to demolish? no thanks - you may be fucking stupid, but i'm not.
and as i said, money deposited in a bank is NOT income for that bank because it doesn't fucking belong to the bank. cretin!
3. how do you even manage to breathe and type at the same time?
are you stupid or something?
1. NGOs, charities, and other non-profits are not companies or corporations.
2. bank deposits are not income for the bank. they are monies held in trust by the bank. they do not own the deposits, which remain at all times the property of the depositor.
all income before ANY expenses.
your "argument" (for want of a better word) is akin to saying that because some people get away with murder, we should never bother charging anyone with that crime.
Perhaps. i wouldn't have any objection to that, but i guess the real people who live there would.
Places like Delaware would be handled with the organisations list - legal and accounting firms known to assist with tax evasion would be listed, and dealing with them would be illegal.
If necessary, individual lawyers and accountants and other people could be named - and any company or business set up by them would be automatically added to the list (in addition to a lifetime ban on them being director or partner in a company). Sure, they could use patsies to "own" their new companies, but the supply of idiot patsies willing to go to gaol for them is limited.
I'd be more than happy to see corporate taxes simplified.
My proposal is a flat 30% of gross income. No deductions for anything - no exemptions, no offsets, no deductions at all for any reason.
you can't get simpler than that.
Corporations are not people, they are an artificial legal construct created by governments. They do not deserve representation.
BTW, the people who directly or indirectly own them already have representation. Those people do not deserve double (or triple or whatever multiple) representation just because they own or part-own one or more companies.
a race to the bottom is not a solution.
> More money doesn't fix anything, it just generates demand for
> even more money.
Why can't greedy capitalists ever learn this valuable lesson?
If we can have lists of "rogue nations" and "terrorist organisations" that it is illegal to deal with, then there's no reason why we can't also have lists of "rogue tax-haven nations" (like British Virgin Islands) and "tax-evasion organisations" (like Mossack Fonseca) that it is also illegal to deal with.
It should be a serious crime with huge penalties (both monetary and gaol time) to negotiate with or transact business with any government, company or organisation in one of the listed countries, or to own, operate or conduct business with any listed entity in the organisations list.
That would solve the problem at its source.
And before anyone says that Mossack Fonseca is a legal company that provides other services than just setup of shell companies and tax evasion, the same is true of Hamas. They are a huge humanitarian organisation in the Middle East, providing financial and medical aid and other services to those who need it. Unfortunately, they also have a nutcase terrorist militant wing - this gets them listed as a terrorist organisation and no amount of humanitarian work by the majority non-terrorist parts of Hamas will ever get them off that list.
in theory, what you say is correct.
in practice, devops is about saving money by firing the sysadmins and making one or more of the devs do the sysadmins' job.
In related news, they neglected to announce that the propaganda song-and-dance show worked perfectly and most of the public now believe that Apple courageously stood up to the FBI's demands and hadn't given them access years ago.
> A gun that looks like dog's balls, however...
would be great as long as you had to lick them to fire.
that trigger mechanism ought to be mandatory. hopefully they can get the flavour right.
because sometimes a penis-substitute is just a penis-substitute.
Well, that's certainly one possible interpretation.
Another interpretation (only slightly more extreme than yours) is that even prisoners and inmates of mental hospitals, being citizens, have a right to keep and bear arms - a right that is inalienable under any circumstances.
Yet another interpretation is that ONLY members of a well-regulated militia have the right to keep and bear arms. And then you can argue about the definition of 'militia' - does it mean something official like the 'National Guard', or does it mean any group of people who declare themselves to be a militia (white skinned, of course. black or brown people doing that are obviously terrorists). And, then, what does 'well-regulated' mean? does it mean subject to government regulation, or able to march in something roughly akin to a uniform.
There are lots of possible interpretations. Some more stupid than others.
bravo, well done!
the only thing you missed was explicitly stating (rather than just implying) the self-defence fantasist's favourite conclusion: "your threat towards me makes you a subhuman, and subhumans have no rights, so i can kill you whenever i like".
this fantasy is also popular with alienated teenagers. most of them grow out of it.