"Of course, I would fucking hope the average person has saved enough money to cover one month's worth of expenses just for an emergency."
ROFL. You seem to be seriously out of touch with "average". The AVERAGE person lives paycheck to paycheck and can't pay every bill every month, the AVERAGE person knows how far behind you have to be with company x before they shut off service.
Why is that a problem? What does it matter if my purchases are denoted in bitmils or whole bitcoins? You just pick some reasonable decimal place along the bitcoin to call the new "1" and you are back to the kind of numbers we are used to dealing with.
They don't need the money to bust him. But because they are drug related crimes they can steal the money (along with everything else he and anyone they can find the slightest indication knew about what he did own) and keep it for the agency. You can be damn sure they want that money.
Why do you think police organizations support the war on drugs so much? They know as much as anyone that it is a pointless war on citizens. They support it so heavily because stealing the money of a multi-millionaire they caught selling a buddy turned snitch 1/4oz ($50) of weed as a favor is a big part of how they fund their organizations. It's why the party who doesn't want to pay taxes supports it so strongly. They'd actually have to fully fund the police by paying their taxes without the war on drugs.
I said they were normal not average. Billionaires are a lot more common than people like Tesla and Einstein. Being a billionaire requires the same kind of genius that being a mob boss has, ruthlessness, lack of conscious when it come to exploiting others, and persistence.
If being "professional" means presenting a false, colorless, expressionless version of yourself rather than behaving like you would with friends and family without the need to present an artificial image I think the Linux developers are better off.
People really need to get over their silly aversion to so called "obscene" words and gestures. They are just words and gestures. They aren't going to hurt anyone. We would all be better off if the entire world were bombarded with and thereby desensitized to this stuff.
"2. Perpetual motion is idiotic; There has never been a case of it being observed."
That isn't true at all. Perpetual motion is an innate property of the universe itself on many scales. On the macro scale there is the constant expansions and contraction. All energy and particles are in a state of perpetual motion. The only reason anything ever appears to not be moving is because the scale you are focusing on is moving at a rate comparable or slower than the rate your energy is moving at on that scale.
If your body and mind moved at the speed of rock the landscape would be bubbling (rock moves like a fluid, rising when heated, sinking when cool, and yes I'm referring to the 'solid' stuff) and erosion on a mountain might appear to be sand being blown off a dune. People might look like sparks or possibly move so fast as to not be observable.
Thomas Edison was no genius, he just hired a bunch of smart people. Do not confuse an Edison or a Ford with Tesla or an Einstein. Ford and Edison were normal people with lots of resources who were very successful at getting people to produce results. People like Tesla and Einstein are geniuses.
Of course it would be optional. You always have the option to pay out of pocket and go somewhere private. Having a national healthcare system is not the same as outlawing private medicine.
Of course, you can't opt-out of your taxes otherwise the wealthy would simply opt-out to dodge paying their share of the taxes after gleaning the wealth generated by the output of thousands of (now healthy) workers utilizing public infrastructure.
Fair enough. You don't want to pay 1/3 of what you ALREADY PAY in taxes to provide tax breaks and regulation for the private health industry just to get complete health coverage for every citizen with better patient outcomes. And you feel so strongly about not wanting health care and a tax break that you are willing to bear arms on anyone who tries to shove it down your throat!
I mean longer expectancy, lower infant mortality, better patient outcomes, lower cost. Who would stand for that sort of tyranny!
"Why is it my job to pay for someone else's insurance when I'm already paying for mine and when I'm already satisfied with the care I am getting?"
The average US family pays $9000/yr for healthcare while the UK pays an average of $3000/yr. Adopt the UK system and can have to pay for two other families health care and still break even.
Insurance does not equal having health care. Having health care means you pay your taxes, you get sick, you go to the doctor, you get whatever tests you need, you stay as long as you need. You don't get a $700 bill after your $3000 MRI, you don't get a $300 bill after visiting the ER for a stitch after being cut with a kitchen knife.
"what does that have to do with the government being unable to manage money and providing healthcare as it is"
Medicaid and Medicare get better prices for drugs and treatments than any private organization in the US. The US spends most of the tax dollars in the form of tax breaks and money spent regulating private healthcare. It is unreasonable to work from the assumption that simply copying the program of any of the many government run systems from around the world will automatically somehow magically transform into a wasteful garbage system when handled by our government.
We pay 5-10x as much for a one night stay in a hospital in the US than they do in any other western nation. That has nothing to do with obesity. Obesity, adds about 2 billion dollars to US health costs which is a drop in the bucket
What would help folks is a national health care system. The US spends more tax dollars on health care than any of the top 10 nations that have actual national health care systems... while not providing any healthcare. The US is ranked below most western nations on patient outcomes even though people in the US pay dramatically more for hospital care and procedures (I'm talking what is paid, not what is paid out of pocket).
Provide national health care and otherwise allow no distinction between employees based on the number of hours worked (except for breaks over the course of a day and overtime of course but that should apply the same way to everyone).
Also provide federal protection from termination or sanction for refusing to work the shift of another employee.
That shit will help people and it targets some of the worst practices of the chronically worst employers.
The GNU faq does not set the definitions. A monolithic kernel is a fully functional system once booted and without GNU you have a perfectly functional system. Ask millions of embedded devices that don't utilize anything GNU or perhaps simply look at Android, a distribution built on the Linux OS that doesn't use GNU.
"My understanding has always been that RMS wants people to refer to distributions that contain the Linux kernel and GNU userspace tools to refer to it as GNU/Linux... not that he wants the Linux kernel itself to be referred to as GNU/Linux."
Which you apparently think is ridiculous as well:
"Specifically, in all the distributions that some (admittedly persnickety) people like to call GNU/Linux."
Right, so again. It is difficult to argue with someone who agrees with you.
"Linux doesn't need GNU tools. Nobody's arguing with you there.
GNU tools don't need Linux."
"Specifically, in all the distributions that some (admittedly persnickety) people like to call GNU/Linux."
You do know that the debate is about whether or not the GNU demand that everyone refer to Linux as GNU/Linux is reasonable? At least, that's what I thought we were debating. If you agree to the above then I'm just plain confused.
"The kernel can't do anything useful without the userspace stuff"
False. The kernel can do exactly what it is supposed to do, provide a managed and unified system for applications to target. You can write a program to run on top of the Linux kernel/OS that doesn't require a shell, or any GNU tools. There are alternatives that provide similar functionality to the GNU tools as well. The kernel is no way dependent on the GNU tools they are merely a popular choice to combine with the kernel. Similarly, the GNU tools are not dependent on the Linux OS but they are dependent on there being an OS to run them on.
It is quite likely there are several Linux systems in your home that do not include GNU tools at all. You may not even be aware they are running Linux.
The kernel is the part that actually provides the system. GNU maintains some very handy optional utilities/libraries that one might opt to run on that system and that often are chosen. The kernel can run without those utilities/libraries. The utilities can not run without some flavor of operating system to run them on, Linux being one example of such.
GNU produces some very valuable stuff. That is worthy of recognition and acclaim. It provides not the slightest bit of credibility to a petty tantrum and rant trying to steal the acclaim of a completely distinct project by asserting everyone should stick your teams name IN FRONT of the name of that project if anyone happens to bundle the two together.
Or perhaps it is the compiler and c libraries. There are other options for that as well. Why aren't the GNU team trying to assert that every obscure project nobody cares about that is compiled with their compiler be called GNU/x where x is the name of that project? It would make more sense than cherry picking a project that is popular... at least it would if it weren't about simply being jealous about that project getting more mainstream attention than theirs.
I didn't know GNU produced a Linux system. Yes, I know the reference it is the result of petty jealousy and attempt at attention grabbing, nothing more.
No controls is kind of the point here. The sun spends 60% of it's time passing through these arms according to the summary. We have no way to change that and wouldn't if we could (altering the course of the sun seems like a "bad idea"). So what does this do for us? What do we do with it? Come up with a color system and give the current probability we are all going to die today due to events that are completely outside our control as a little colored bar in the corner on the weather channel?
Just from the perspective of the US but I bet it is the same or worse in at least the rest of the western nations. The shelves of every retail store, empty within a few weeks. Processors, memory, storage chips, pretty much all electronics manufacturing capability gone in a day. Most of the worlds oil supplies gone. Most of the rare earth minerals gone so no more things like solar panels. It then becomes a race between building this kind of infrastructure up in our world and the existing systems we rely on to accomplish that failing.
Could we do it in a generation? I'm going to say yes. But would our existing infrastructure survive a generation without replacement parts that require the task already be complete to build? Highly suspect. The newest electronics are highly sensitive and fragile devices and fail very easily and it is reasonable based on my experience working with high end digital electronics that significantly more than half, lets call it 70%, will fail within five years. Remember, we are in a world where a failed ram chip, hard drive, corrupt flash memory, or a failed power supply automatically equals a failed piece of gear. So you can forget the internet and cell phones within five years.
The electronics of yesterday (15-20 yrs ago) aren't as sensitive and fickle and they tend to be what is used in the core of our more critical infrastructure. Railroad switches, subways, power infrastructure, communications infrastructure. The problem with these is the reason they are still there is inertia, this 15-20yr old gear is 15-20yrs old already and dropping left and right. So the reality is that this stuff is probably going to die as quickly as the more sensitive new electronics.
So within a month there are virtually no consumer goods and within five years there is no infrastructure with which to coordinate the building of new infrastructure. And good luck building a chip fab without a chip fab btw. People will see it as life as mostly normal until it is too late. There will still be food in the stores, power from the wall, their cell phones will work, their blu-ray players, etc. It won't go all at once, it will be little things. Your blu-ray player dies, some sites on the net start to go dark but for the most part, the biggest sites will fail last. Then individual neighborhoods will lose internet and cell coverage will start to suffer. There will start to be brownouts and then isolated blackouts. Rail and transport lines will drop but slowly and only individual sections. The most critical and central stuff will fail last because there is redundancy built in and because people are resourceful and will cannibalize parts from less critical pieces to keep it going but it's just a matter of time before it fails.
There is no way a democratic society gets outraged and determined enough to pull this off fast enough. If someone gets the needed infrastructure built, it will more likely be a dictatorship that can ignore property rights, skip the debates, and act immediately on no more than the right guy saying "do this now." You can be certain that would change the geopolitical landscape but not set us into the dark ages.
Slashdot Mirror
Average is an ambiguous term. Typical is more like it.
"Of course, I would fucking hope the average person has saved enough money to cover one month's worth of expenses just for an emergency."
ROFL. You seem to be seriously out of touch with "average". The AVERAGE person lives paycheck to paycheck and can't pay every bill every month, the AVERAGE person knows how far behind you have to be with company x before they shut off service.
Why is that a problem? What does it matter if my purchases are denoted in bitmils or whole bitcoins? You just pick some reasonable decimal place along the bitcoin to call the new "1" and you are back to the kind of numbers we are used to dealing with.
They don't need the money to bust him. But because they are drug related crimes they can steal the money (along with everything else he and anyone they can find the slightest indication knew about what he did own) and keep it for the agency. You can be damn sure they want that money.
Why do you think police organizations support the war on drugs so much? They know as much as anyone that it is a pointless war on citizens. They support it so heavily because stealing the money of a multi-millionaire they caught selling a buddy turned snitch 1/4oz ($50) of weed as a favor is a big part of how they fund their organizations. It's why the party who doesn't want to pay taxes supports it so strongly. They'd actually have to fully fund the police by paying their taxes without the war on drugs.
I said they were normal not average. Billionaires are a lot more common than people like Tesla and Einstein. Being a billionaire requires the same kind of genius that being a mob boss has, ruthlessness, lack of conscious when it come to exploiting others, and persistence.
If being "professional" means presenting a false, colorless, expressionless version of yourself rather than behaving like you would with friends and family without the need to present an artificial image I think the Linux developers are better off.
People really need to get over their silly aversion to so called "obscene" words and gestures. They are just words and gestures. They aren't going to hurt anyone. We would all be better off if the entire world were bombarded with and thereby desensitized to this stuff.
"2. Perpetual motion is idiotic; There has never been a case of it being observed."
That isn't true at all. Perpetual motion is an innate property of the universe itself on many scales. On the macro scale there is the constant expansions and contraction. All energy and particles are in a state of perpetual motion. The only reason anything ever appears to not be moving is because the scale you are focusing on is moving at a rate comparable or slower than the rate your energy is moving at on that scale.
If your body and mind moved at the speed of rock the landscape would be bubbling (rock moves like a fluid, rising when heated, sinking when cool, and yes I'm referring to the 'solid' stuff) and erosion on a mountain might appear to be sand being blown off a dune. People might look like sparks or possibly move so fast as to not be observable.
Thomas Edison was no genius, he just hired a bunch of smart people. Do not confuse an Edison or a Ford with Tesla or an Einstein. Ford and Edison were normal people with lots of resources who were very successful at getting people to produce results. People like Tesla and Einstein are geniuses.
Of course it would be optional. You always have the option to pay out of pocket and go somewhere private. Having a national healthcare system is not the same as outlawing private medicine.
Of course, you can't opt-out of your taxes otherwise the wealthy would simply opt-out to dodge paying their share of the taxes after gleaning the wealth generated by the output of thousands of (now healthy) workers utilizing public infrastructure.
Fair enough. You don't want to pay 1/3 of what you ALREADY PAY in taxes to provide tax breaks and regulation for the private health industry just to get complete health coverage for every citizen with better patient outcomes. And you feel so strongly about not wanting health care and a tax break that you are willing to bear arms on anyone who tries to shove it down your throat!
I mean longer expectancy, lower infant mortality, better patient outcomes, lower cost. Who would stand for that sort of tyranny!
I wouldn't go as far as to say it is good at it but government is good at providing uniform care at low cost. That's good enough.
"Why is it my job to pay for someone else's insurance when I'm already paying for mine and when I'm already satisfied with the care I am getting?"
The average US family pays $9000/yr for healthcare while the UK pays an average of $3000/yr. Adopt the UK system and can have to pay for two other families health care and still break even.
Insurance does not equal having health care. Having health care means you pay your taxes, you get sick, you go to the doctor, you get whatever tests you need, you stay as long as you need. You don't get a $700 bill after your $3000 MRI, you don't get a $300 bill after visiting the ER for a stitch after being cut with a kitchen knife.
"what does that have to do with the government being unable to manage money and providing healthcare as it is"
Medicaid and Medicare get better prices for drugs and treatments than any private organization in the US. The US spends most of the tax dollars in the form of tax breaks and money spent regulating private healthcare. It is unreasonable to work from the assumption that simply copying the program of any of the many government run systems from around the world will automatically somehow magically transform into a wasteful garbage system when handled by our government.
We pay 5-10x as much for a one night stay in a hospital in the US than they do in any other western nation. That has nothing to do with obesity. Obesity, adds about 2 billion dollars to US health costs which is a drop in the bucket
What would help folks is a national health care system. The US spends more tax dollars on health care than any of the top 10 nations that have actual national health care systems... while not providing any healthcare. The US is ranked below most western nations on patient outcomes even though people in the US pay dramatically more for hospital care and procedures (I'm talking what is paid, not what is paid out of pocket).
Provide national health care and otherwise allow no distinction between employees based on the number of hours worked (except for breaks over the course of a day and overtime of course but that should apply the same way to everyone).
Also provide federal protection from termination or sanction for refusing to work the shift of another employee.
That shit will help people and it targets some of the worst practices of the chronically worst employers.
The GNU faq does not set the definitions. A monolithic kernel is a fully functional system once booted and without GNU you have a perfectly functional system. Ask millions of embedded devices that don't utilize anything GNU or perhaps simply look at Android, a distribution built on the Linux OS that doesn't use GNU.
"My understanding has always been that RMS wants people to refer to distributions that contain the Linux kernel and GNU userspace tools to refer to it as GNU/Linux... not that he wants the Linux kernel itself to be referred to as GNU/Linux."
Which you apparently think is ridiculous as well:
"Specifically, in all the distributions that some (admittedly persnickety) people like to call GNU/Linux."
Right, so again. It is difficult to argue with someone who agrees with you.
"Linux doesn't need GNU tools. Nobody's arguing with you there.
GNU tools don't need Linux."
"Specifically, in all the distributions that some (admittedly persnickety) people like to call GNU/Linux."
You do know that the debate is about whether or not the GNU demand that everyone refer to Linux as GNU/Linux is reasonable? At least, that's what I thought we were debating. If you agree to the above then I'm just plain confused.
"The kernel can't do anything useful without the userspace stuff"
False. The kernel can do exactly what it is supposed to do, provide a managed and unified system for applications to target. You can write a program to run on top of the Linux kernel/OS that doesn't require a shell, or any GNU tools. There are alternatives that provide similar functionality to the GNU tools as well. The kernel is no way dependent on the GNU tools they are merely a popular choice to combine with the kernel. Similarly, the GNU tools are not dependent on the Linux OS but they are dependent on there being an OS to run them on.
It is quite likely there are several Linux systems in your home that do not include GNU tools at all. You may not even be aware they are running Linux.
The kernel is the part that actually provides the system. GNU maintains some very handy optional utilities/libraries that one might opt to run on that system and that often are chosen. The kernel can run without those utilities/libraries. The utilities can not run without some flavor of operating system to run them on, Linux being one example of such.
GNU produces some very valuable stuff. That is worthy of recognition and acclaim. It provides not the slightest bit of credibility to a petty tantrum and rant trying to steal the acclaim of a completely distinct project by asserting everyone should stick your teams name IN FRONT of the name of that project if anyone happens to bundle the two together.
Or perhaps it is the compiler and c libraries. There are other options for that as well. Why aren't the GNU team trying to assert that every obscure project nobody cares about that is compiled with their compiler be called GNU/x where x is the name of that project? It would make more sense than cherry picking a project that is popular... at least it would if it weren't about simply being jealous about that project getting more mainstream attention than theirs.
"GNU/Linux"
I didn't know GNU produced a Linux system. Yes, I know the reference it is the result of petty jealousy and attempt at attention grabbing, nothing more.
Video and pics or it never happened!
What were the five things he wanted her to do on the cam? Did she do them. Inquiring minds want to know.
No controls is kind of the point here. The sun spends 60% of it's time passing through these arms according to the summary. We have no way to change that and wouldn't if we could (altering the course of the sun seems like a "bad idea"). So what does this do for us? What do we do with it? Come up with a color system and give the current probability we are all going to die today due to events that are completely outside our control as a little colored bar in the corner on the weather channel?
It's amazing how over the decades you see the same stuff pitched as new over and over again isn't it?
That depends. What if we lose, Asia?
Just from the perspective of the US but I bet it is the same or worse in at least the rest of the western nations. The shelves of every retail store, empty within a few weeks. Processors, memory, storage chips, pretty much all electronics manufacturing capability gone in a day. Most of the worlds oil supplies gone. Most of the rare earth minerals gone so no more things like solar panels. It then becomes a race between building this kind of infrastructure up in our world and the existing systems we rely on to accomplish that failing.
Could we do it in a generation? I'm going to say yes. But would our existing infrastructure survive a generation without replacement parts that require the task already be complete to build? Highly suspect. The newest electronics are highly sensitive and fragile devices and fail very easily and it is reasonable based on my experience working with high end digital electronics that significantly more than half, lets call it 70%, will fail within five years. Remember, we are in a world where a failed ram chip, hard drive, corrupt flash memory, or a failed power supply automatically equals a failed piece of gear. So you can forget the internet and cell phones within five years.
The electronics of yesterday (15-20 yrs ago) aren't as sensitive and fickle and they tend to be what is used in the core of our more critical infrastructure. Railroad switches, subways, power infrastructure, communications infrastructure. The problem with these is the reason they are still there is inertia, this 15-20yr old gear is 15-20yrs old already and dropping left and right. So the reality is that this stuff is probably going to die as quickly as the more sensitive new electronics.
So within a month there are virtually no consumer goods and within five years there is no infrastructure with which to coordinate the building of new infrastructure. And good luck building a chip fab without a chip fab btw. People will see it as life as mostly normal until it is too late. There will still be food in the stores, power from the wall, their cell phones will work, their blu-ray players, etc. It won't go all at once, it will be little things. Your blu-ray player dies, some sites on the net start to go dark but for the most part, the biggest sites will fail last. Then individual neighborhoods will lose internet and cell coverage will start to suffer. There will start to be brownouts and then isolated blackouts. Rail and transport lines will drop but slowly and only individual sections. The most critical and central stuff will fail last because there is redundancy built in and because people are resourceful and will cannibalize parts from less critical pieces to keep it going but it's just a matter of time before it fails.
There is no way a democratic society gets outraged and determined enough to pull this off fast enough. If someone gets the needed infrastructure built, it will more likely be a dictatorship that can ignore property rights, skip the debates, and act immediately on no more than the right guy saying "do this now." You can be certain that would change the geopolitical landscape but not set us into the dark ages.