Shorter length mainly forces concise language to deal with a law. It also removes the need for a line item veto, and for omnibus bills that carry multiple laws layered in amongst its voluminous text. The handwritten aspect also forces accountability to a single individual, and no outsourcing 500 pages of environmental law into the defense package, for instance, or various aspects of health care via inclusion. It would essentially have the benefit of reducing pork and focusing lawmakers on laws, not attempting to micromanage government money into their friends' pockets.
Facts are not the enemy. Journalism is largely dead in the mainstream. "Fact checkers" as they're currently self-labelled rarely operate without an agenda.
I'd rather have a fact checker with an agenda any day over the opinionated loon reporting "alternative facts". At least with a fact checker there will be backing data.
Interesting take on it, but if you want to lay blame for partisanship, then it belongs at the feet of Hamilton first and foremost.
A couple of additional lines added to the Constitution when it was written, something along the lines of "No consecutive terms except for president/vice president" and "all bills must be hand authored by a single lawmaker" would have gone far to limit the BS currently in vogue.
I'll let that soak in for a while. You apparently need the time....
Not forcing people to pay for insurance does NOT mean other people pay for their care. Simply let them be denied treatment at emergency rooms if they can't pay.
OK mr smartguy. You injured in an accident, emergency services are called, There's no wallet or ID. Do you advocate
A) the paramedics leave you there to bleed out because they can't be assured you'll pay
B) the paramedics work to save you, cart you to the hospital where you go through 100K of emergency surgery etc to stabilize you, then bill you
If you advocate A, what about if you have insurance or could pay? If you advocate B, who pays when you cannot and do not carry insurance?
The current study in my is no more advanced than phrenology. You compare it to work regarding hormone and enzyme imbalances or damage causing certain types of behavior, this immediately looks more like phrenology with 100 years of biological and anatomical terms added with MRIs into the mix. Those other studies actually detail cause and effect. This is no more than observational coincidence at this point.
That's somewhat true, except for the fact that the mail client, also likely written by the OS vendor, is able to run a file in the core OS, and not within its own process (unlike a browser, where it is executed within the browser's process) Why is this not a problem with other OSes? Because apparently no one else is stupid enough to default execute a downloaded file with no checks. Most reasonable systems won't allow that without setting the file to executable, which, again, no reasonable client would do without explicit instructions from a user. So again, we're down to the stupidity and insecurity of Windows. There's no getting around the core problem. Everything else is just a bandaid.
Let's not say it's not openness, but healthy skepticism. Just because someone throws out some random word salad doesn't mean I have to believe it. They studied this, published it, and honestly, unless you can scientifically point out that a causes b, except when c exists, you don't have causality. It'd be no more accurate than if they measured pinkie bones and tried to relate coincidental traits to that.
Sounds a lot like phrenology to me, granted, with a slightly more scientifically sounding basis. But really, if you have one person with a thicker cortex and doesn't exhibit these traits or one neurotic that has a thinner cortex, then there is no more causality than saying something like "it appears that having yellow or brown skin predisposes you to malaria" ignoring the fact that the majority of people living in areas of malaria infected mosquitoes are yellow or brown skinned.
Accidents can happen at any age, but insurance is ultimately a bet against yourself and a bet against the odds.
There's a reason it's an incredibly profitable industry, from medical to home to auto to whatever else. Statistically, you pay more in than you get out.
The reason for this is not what you think. It's that almost all states "regulate" (wink wink) the insurance industry to a maximum net profit of 20% on policies, minus, of course, fees for inefficient employees, systems, extra paperwork, extra office buildings that we built and then rented out after our 5 year depreciation write-offs generating non policy income, etc etc etc.
The vast majority of young people would be better off without medical insurance.
Yep, they sure would. They only need that 22 single shot pistol for when they get injured or sick.
The same is true of "preventive care". The costs of preventive care, routine screening, etc. have crept up and up yet they've shown little to no real benefit.
Yeah, preventative care has no effect. People are dying of mumps, measles, and general various infections all the time. Oh, and the child mortality rate is sky high.
What the ACA did is FORCE everyone to get insurance or pay a tax (and yes, it's a fucking tax). Ultimately, this just resulted in increased costs.
Yep, or they pay higher other taxes, whether in higher premiums, their own care costs, or, actual taxes, to cover those uninsured jerks who won't just die quickly already and demand, just demand, treatment at whatever hospital they end up at.
I'm 100% with you. Don't force anyone to pay for insurance. However, I think we should implant a self-termination device in everyone that refuses to pay insurance and is not wealthy enough to be self-insured (defined as having $20M US set aside in a trust account for health needs) so when the slightest thing happens that negatively affects their health, we can terminate their dependence upon the costly health system you so despise. After all, burdening others is not something you wish to do, right?
Because most software developers do not understand security at all and are under the mistaken impression that more functionality is always better. Or in other words, because incompetent idiots implemented it.
Actually, it's windows that's the major problem there, not JS, JS attached to email, or anything else. Windows. You know, that super secure can't be cracked OS brought to you by that uber coder and architect, Bill Gates. Castles built on sand.
You shouldn't be able to run a script in anything other than a sandbox designed to run scripts (ie browsers) or from files explicitly set to be executable. Random shit coming through an internet connection? No. Windows is scrapware, people should just say no.
No, I was responding to one of the examples provided as to why 'systemd sucks' in that it seemed (in the past) to hang at boot if there was a bad entry in/etc/fstab.
It'd be nice if there were dependencies marked and things could move on while it waited. I don't recall if systemd allows for this now. I obviously haven't looked at a system in a while, and this only takes me down memory lane.
[init scripts]
I (and you) might be able to, but at present I doubt any of my colleagues would be able to do it correctly without leaving a booby trap for the next sysadmin.
It is true that init script editing can be obtuse. Then again, you should know what you're doing when you're mucking about with the configuration of enterprise systems. If your colleagues can't do it correctly, perhaps they shouldn't be tasked with those types of jobs. I wouldn't expect a web dev to configure an HA cluster of DBs. I wouldn't expect a DBA to edit JavaScript for a webapp. You should be good in your areas of expertise, or you shouldn't be hired for those tasks. Regardless of whatever management's smoking this week, people are not interchangeable cogs, and expertise is a real differentiator.
So, not using an optional service that systemd provides but doesn't require is a workaround outside of systemd?
Like I said, it's been a while, but I don't recall it being optional when I looked at it.
It is unfortunate that a lot of other tooling that pre-dates systemd has so much bit-rot that the systemd developers seem to think writing a replacement (e.g. systemd-login) is better than asking the developers (of e.g. ConsoleKit, which itself was a replacement for something, pam_console?) to fix the bugs, but I don't think the intention is to make systemd an OS. And it is quite modular, many of their newer tools are optional (where possible).
I'll agree that it would have been nice to have a parallel initialization system created that allowed for dependencies. Systemd's supposed premise is valid, the implementation seems overly broad and all encompassing.
systemd-login was the big WTF. To have something like Gnome completely dependent upon a system initialization tool seems completely fubar, doesn't it? What, pray tell, does a GUI have to do with system initialization, other than to be initialized by it? These are the types of things that drive people away from systemd. If it just initialized your system, ok, I can live with that. To infiltrate and essentially tie entire sets of software to your optional and non essential tool is what drives the systemd hate, and deservedly so.
And that took all of 2 min to search, read, and compile, because I wanted to give you some solid backing for stating it sucks.
Yes, it is trivial to find old bugs that are fixed, and FUD complaints from systemd haters about behaviour that has been improved.
I'll note that with 1 "fixed" bug, the rest appeared to all be current. You give a specific instance where systemd helps you. Just one. IIRC, you should be able to achieve the same effect in the other scripts by merely checking and waiting on pieces to come up (admittedly, this has been more than a few years, my memory may be hazy as to its simplicity) You also specify several workarounds outside of systemd to deal with things others don't like. The thing you don't address is why systemd, purportedly a startup management system, appears to have taken over as almost a full OS. I personally think that's my largest argument against it - it's monolithic, which has ALWAYS been a bad model.
They're now forced to buy health insurance they...often don't need
I wholeheartedly disagree. Everyone needs health insurance, or you're essentially forcing higher costs on the rest of us in subsidizing your treatments when you do get them (maybe not you specifically, but x percent of you that think you don't need health insurance) That actually brings up another topic - health insurance shouldn't be age related, as in costs go up as you age. Everyone will get older, and given the average life expectancy, the majority can expect to move through to medicare / medicaid. So what's really happening is that the young are being subsidized by their future older selves for all intents and purposes. Health insurance for base coverage should be a common pool as long as you carry it all the time. Note that this is base coverage, not the everything for everyone coverage of the ACA.
The gov's "unemployment" numbers are whatever the current administration and Congress want to make them look good to their target constituents. The only numbers that really matter are the "employed" numbers, and that tells a different story.
Some of our Linux servers that are not exposed to any hostile networks and inconvenient to reboot (e.g. monitoring display server that is displayed, along with other stuff, on a 30mx6m video wall) have uptimes of 5 years or more.... I also can't think why systemd would have any impact on uptime...
5 years? Seriously? You're running on an 5 year old kernel with multiple known issues (TLS, OpenSSL, etc)? I hope they're firewalled well. As for systemd, you must not be very well versed in it. SSH Fails, NTP magically fixed a service startup issue, no one knows why, and just a general list of why systemd sucks. And that took all of 2 min to search, read, and compile, because I wanted to give you some solid backing for stating it sucks. You're in RH land with supported versions, so it's likely that these problems, when they crop up, are offloaded as RH issues and you just monitor a trouble ticket. Lucky you. I guess I wouldn't care in that scenario either, as it's SEP.
Science-based beliefs are the new bible. One is either a Darwinist global warmist or religious scum taking money from Big Oil. There is no longer room for discussion or dissent. Just hint at possible issues with carbon-14 dating and you're branded a creationist. Discuss the climategate and you're automatically a global warming denier.
It's just like the switch between Republicans and Democrats over the last century. Nowadays it's easier to have discussions with pro-lifes or intelligent designers than with "learned" people.
Maybe for you it is easier. Why have a discussion with someone who refuses to acknowledge facts and sticks their head in the dung pile? Seriously, the time for discussion is past on some portions of these topics, e.g., Are we pumping stored CO2 into the atmosphere? Yes. Does CO2 have the ability to raise temperatures? Yes. Is the world warming? Yes. Anything that refutes those statements requires backing scientific evidence of a degree that would indicate matter/energy can be destroyed, as the science behind those facts is about as solid as you can get. I'm not sure what you want to argue about there, or why. Maybe it goes against intelligent design or a pro-life stance?
What's your issue with Carbon-14 dating? That it's limited to 50K years and that it is based on statistical sampling? Don't complain about the acknowledged error margins unless you can come up with something better. We'll all be all ears should you do so. At this time it is one of the few tools in the basket for this specific task.
Slashdot Mirror
Shorter length mainly forces concise language to deal with a law. It also removes the need for a line item veto, and for omnibus bills that carry multiple laws layered in amongst its voluminous text. The handwritten aspect also forces accountability to a single individual, and no outsourcing 500 pages of environmental law into the defense package, for instance, or various aspects of health care via inclusion. It would essentially have the benefit of reducing pork and focusing lawmakers on laws, not attempting to micromanage government money into their friends' pockets.
Journalism and fact checkers are not the enemy.
Facts are not the enemy. Journalism is largely dead in the mainstream. "Fact checkers" as they're currently self-labelled rarely operate without an agenda.
I'd rather have a fact checker with an agenda any day over the opinionated loon reporting "alternative facts". At least with a fact checker there will be backing data.
You realize #fakenews wasn't invented till AFTER the democrats lost the election, right?
Don't believe me? Check Google Trends for fakenews.
I don't know about #fakenews (like a hashtag means anything) but fake news was all over the media prior to the election.
In this case, it might be a case of not enough government, regardless of the number of sides to the story.
Just think about the single lawmaker handwriting a bill. Exactly how big would a bill be?
My more outrageous suggestion would be that the bill in its entirety would have to be 1 word shorter than the original Constitution.
You can blame republicans for removing the Fairness Doctrine, Reagan specifically.
Interesting take on it, but if you want to lay blame for partisanship, then it belongs at the feet of Hamilton first and foremost.
A couple of additional lines added to the Constitution when it was written, something along the lines of "No consecutive terms except for president/vice president" and "all bills must be hand authored by a single lawmaker" would have gone far to limit the BS currently in vogue.
It's newspeak. Better doublegood follow it.
You're a fucking moron.
I'll let that soak in for a while. You apparently need the time....
Not forcing people to pay for insurance does NOT mean other people pay for their care. Simply let them be denied treatment at emergency rooms if they can't pay.
OK mr smartguy. You injured in an accident, emergency services are called, There's no wallet or ID. Do you advocate
If you advocate A, what about if you have insurance or could pay? If you advocate B, who pays when you cannot and do not carry insurance?
"Fucking moron," QED
The current study in my is no more advanced than phrenology. You compare it to work regarding hormone and enzyme imbalances or damage causing certain types of behavior, this immediately looks more like phrenology with 100 years of biological and anatomical terms added with MRIs into the mix. Those other studies actually detail cause and effect. This is no more than observational coincidence at this point.
That's somewhat true, except for the fact that the mail client, also likely written by the OS vendor, is able to run a file in the core OS, and not within its own process (unlike a browser, where it is executed within the browser's process) Why is this not a problem with other OSes? Because apparently no one else is stupid enough to default execute a downloaded file with no checks. Most reasonable systems won't allow that without setting the file to executable, which, again, no reasonable client would do without explicit instructions from a user. So again, we're down to the stupidity and insecurity of Windows. There's no getting around the core problem. Everything else is just a bandaid.
Let's not say it's not openness, but healthy skepticism. Just because someone throws out some random word salad doesn't mean I have to believe it. They studied this, published it, and honestly, unless you can scientifically point out that a causes b, except when c exists, you don't have causality. It'd be no more accurate than if they measured pinkie bones and tried to relate coincidental traits to that.
Sounds a lot like phrenology to me, granted, with a slightly more scientifically sounding basis. But really, if you have one person with a thicker cortex and doesn't exhibit these traits or one neurotic that has a thinner cortex, then there is no more causality than saying something like "it appears that having yellow or brown skin predisposes you to malaria" ignoring the fact that the majority of people living in areas of malaria infected mosquitoes are yellow or brown skinned.
I'm no warmonger, but as Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
I vote tyrants.
Accidents can happen at any age, but insurance is ultimately a bet against yourself and a bet against the odds. There's a reason it's an incredibly profitable industry, from medical to home to auto to whatever else. Statistically, you pay more in than you get out.
The reason for this is not what you think. It's that almost all states "regulate" (wink wink) the insurance industry to a maximum net profit of 20% on policies, minus, of course, fees for inefficient employees, systems, extra paperwork, extra office buildings that we built and then rented out after our 5 year depreciation write-offs generating non policy income, etc etc etc.
The vast majority of young people would be better off without medical insurance.
Yep, they sure would. They only need that 22 single shot pistol for when they get injured or sick.
The same is true of "preventive care". The costs of preventive care, routine screening, etc. have crept up and up yet they've shown little to no real benefit.
Yeah, preventative care has no effect. People are dying of mumps, measles, and general various infections all the time. Oh, and the child mortality rate is sky high.
What the ACA did is FORCE everyone to get insurance or pay a tax (and yes, it's a fucking tax). Ultimately, this just resulted in increased costs.
Yep, or they pay higher other taxes, whether in higher premiums, their own care costs, or, actual taxes, to cover those uninsured jerks who won't just die quickly already and demand, just demand, treatment at whatever hospital they end up at.
I'm 100% with you. Don't force anyone to pay for insurance. However, I think we should implant a self-termination device in everyone that refuses to pay insurance and is not wealthy enough to be self-insured (defined as having $20M US set aside in a trust account for health needs) so when the slightest thing happens that negatively affects their health, we can terminate their dependence upon the costly health system you so despise. After all, burdening others is not something you wish to do, right?
Because most software developers do not understand security at all and are under the mistaken impression that more functionality is always better. Or in other words, because incompetent idiots implemented it.
Actually, it's windows that's the major problem there, not JS, JS attached to email, or anything else. Windows. You know, that super secure can't be cracked OS brought to you by that uber coder and architect, Bill Gates. Castles built on sand.
You shouldn't be able to run a script in anything other than a sandbox designed to run scripts (ie browsers) or from files explicitly set to be executable. Random shit coming through an internet connection? No. Windows is scrapware, people should just say no.
So the OS should block any executable that is obtained through the internet? Perfect!
By default? Um, yes?
In addition, I believe that Zuckerberg will be the second greatest president in the history of the US, after Trump.
I believe that we will see him on currency in less than a decade.
There's so many ways this is awesome. So what year do you expect Zuckerberg to kick the bucket? I got dibs on year 5.
No, I was responding to one of the examples provided as to why 'systemd sucks' in that it seemed (in the past) to hang at boot if there was a bad entry in /etc/fstab.
It'd be nice if there were dependencies marked and things could move on while it waited. I don't recall if systemd allows for this now. I obviously haven't looked at a system in a while, and this only takes me down memory lane.
[init scripts]
I (and you) might be able to, but at present I doubt any of my colleagues would be able to do it correctly without leaving a booby trap for the next sysadmin.
It is true that init script editing can be obtuse. Then again, you should know what you're doing when you're mucking about with the configuration of enterprise systems. If your colleagues can't do it correctly, perhaps they shouldn't be tasked with those types of jobs. I wouldn't expect a web dev to configure an HA cluster of DBs. I wouldn't expect a DBA to edit JavaScript for a webapp. You should be good in your areas of expertise, or you shouldn't be hired for those tasks. Regardless of whatever management's smoking this week, people are not interchangeable cogs, and expertise is a real differentiator.
So, not using an optional service that systemd provides but doesn't require is a workaround outside of systemd?
Like I said, it's been a while, but I don't recall it being optional when I looked at it.
It is unfortunate that a lot of other tooling that pre-dates systemd has so much bit-rot that the systemd developers seem to think writing a replacement (e.g. systemd-login) is better than asking the developers (of e.g. ConsoleKit, which itself was a replacement for something, pam_console?) to fix the bugs, but I don't think the intention is to make systemd an OS. And it is quite modular, many of their newer tools are optional (where possible).
I'll agree that it would have been nice to have a parallel initialization system created that allowed for dependencies. Systemd's supposed premise is valid, the implementation seems overly broad and all encompassing.
systemd-login was the big WTF. To have something like Gnome completely dependent upon a system initialization tool seems completely fubar, doesn't it? What, pray tell, does a GUI have to do with system initialization, other than to be initialized by it? These are the types of things that drive people away from systemd. If it just initialized your system, ok, I can live with that. To infiltrate and essentially tie entire sets of software to your optional and non essential tool is what drives the systemd hate, and deservedly so.
And that took all of 2 min to search, read, and compile, because I wanted to give you some solid backing for stating it sucks.
Yes, it is trivial to find old bugs that are fixed, and FUD complaints from systemd haters about behaviour that has been improved.
I'll note that with 1 "fixed" bug, the rest appeared to all be current. You give a specific instance where systemd helps you. Just one. IIRC, you should be able to achieve the same effect in the other scripts by merely checking and waiting on pieces to come up (admittedly, this has been more than a few years, my memory may be hazy as to its simplicity) You also specify several workarounds outside of systemd to deal with things others don't like. The thing you don't address is why systemd, purportedly a startup management system, appears to have taken over as almost a full OS. I personally think that's my largest argument against it - it's monolithic, which has ALWAYS been a bad model.
They're now forced to buy health insurance they...often don't need
I wholeheartedly disagree. Everyone needs health insurance, or you're essentially forcing higher costs on the rest of us in subsidizing your treatments when you do get them (maybe not you specifically, but x percent of you that think you don't need health insurance) That actually brings up another topic - health insurance shouldn't be age related, as in costs go up as you age. Everyone will get older, and given the average life expectancy, the majority can expect to move through to medicare / medicaid. So what's really happening is that the young are being subsidized by their future older selves for all intents and purposes. Health insurance for base coverage should be a common pool as long as you carry it all the time. Note that this is base coverage, not the everything for everyone coverage of the ACA.
The gov's "unemployment" numbers are whatever the current administration and Congress want to make them look good to their target constituents. The only numbers that really matter are the "employed" numbers, and that tells a different story.
Some of our Linux servers that are not exposed to any hostile networks and inconvenient to reboot (e.g. monitoring display server that is displayed, along with other stuff, on a 30mx6m video wall) have uptimes of 5 years or more.... I also can't think why systemd would have any impact on uptime ...
5 years? Seriously? You're running on an 5 year old kernel with multiple known issues (TLS, OpenSSL, etc)? I hope they're firewalled well. As for systemd, you must not be very well versed in it. SSH Fails, NTP magically fixed a service startup issue, no one knows why, and just a general list of why systemd sucks. And that took all of 2 min to search, read, and compile, because I wanted to give you some solid backing for stating it sucks. You're in RH land with supported versions, so it's likely that these problems, when they crop up, are offloaded as RH issues and you just monitor a trouble ticket. Lucky you. I guess I wouldn't care in that scenario either, as it's SEP.
This is completely wrong.
Science-based beliefs are the new bible. One is either a Darwinist global warmist or religious scum taking money from Big Oil. There is no longer room for discussion or dissent. Just hint at possible issues with carbon-14 dating and you're branded a creationist. Discuss the climategate and you're automatically a global warming denier.
It's just like the switch between Republicans and Democrats over the last century. Nowadays it's easier to have discussions with pro-lifes or intelligent designers than with "learned" people.
Maybe for you it is easier. Why have a discussion with someone who refuses to acknowledge facts and sticks their head in the dung pile? Seriously, the time for discussion is past on some portions of these topics, e.g., Are we pumping stored CO2 into the atmosphere? Yes. Does CO2 have the ability to raise temperatures? Yes. Is the world warming? Yes. Anything that refutes those statements requires backing scientific evidence of a degree that would indicate matter/energy can be destroyed, as the science behind those facts is about as solid as you can get. I'm not sure what you want to argue about there, or why. Maybe it goes against intelligent design or a pro-life stance?
What's your issue with Carbon-14 dating? That it's limited to 50K years and that it is based on statistical sampling? Don't complain about the acknowledged error margins unless you can come up with something better. We'll all be all ears should you do so. At this time it is one of the few tools in the basket for this specific task.