Once you start to work out that you are part of the problem you can do something to fix it. It's not China, your own actions can have an impact on what sort of government you have. Your opt-out suggestion is counterproductive and a denial of your responsibility as a citizen. You are part of society. Being sociopathic isn't going to improve society.
With respect, a lot of that is about solving non-problems, getting into areas where other software deals with things effectively after INIT has done it's job and just making a mark. WTF is it even putting mounting volumes as a problem that systemd is there to solve? There's other stuff to do that work. Take a look at the example at the end of (http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html) as a case of a "solution" to a non-problem, it's something that can be dealt with via environment variables FFS instead of some complex btfs filesystem games. Other similar situations can be dealt with via zones, jails and other idea far more effectively than such a complex suggestion. It's a fucking octopus trying to get in everywhere instead of just passing things on to the tight tool for the job - which creates nightmares when the job is something the systemd people haven't thought of yet.
Why do you think things are chosen by merit alone? Pulseaudio, NetworkManager, and the optical media writing fork were all options chosen when they had less functionality than the alternatives (as with the rewrite of gnome with deliberate breakage of gnome2 software - DLL hell on linux for the first time ever). It's "office politics" in the linux community that drives these things and not function. The people behind systemd are in an influential faction so this stuff is being pushed hard despite problems that leave a lot of it in a pre-beta state and give people exposed to it a bit of a shock. Suddenly a thing does not work and the experienced user cannot easily find out how to fix something that was trivial to fix before. Neither performance, stability or adequate documentation is there, yet it's being rolled out in places where people using it expect the same easy to deal with stuff they've been working with for years. I'm giving it a go but I can't say I like dealing with it - it means a bit of scripting to do what used to be easy to set up during the init process.
Similarly I had severe migraines for years - but as I did not start using various types of fairy dust I cannot give them the credit for that condition ceasing. Stuff happens to your body, and the environment you expose it to, whether you are feeding it weird stuff or not so it's a guess that the weird stuff is causing the change, especially since insomnia can have so many causes. Just chatting to people at the herb shop for instance may displace stress that causing insomnia more than the herbs. It's a bit depressing I felt I had to write something like that here but the post-enlightenment attitudes are even creeping into tech sites like this, probably because there has been so much contempt of the "reality based community" over the last couple of decades.
For about 20 years I have felt that the solution to spiraling costs in medicine is to enable collaborative or "open source" type research
The idea of "open source" software was inspired by academic research. Most health research still runs that way and is published. The pharma stuff is mostly "product development" which is based on some open research somewhere.
The natural remedy crowd has long rightly claimed that there are many natural remedies available that can never get the funding needed to pass FDA approval
Yes, it costs a bit to prove whether something works or not instead of just guessing. Many things in use in medicine were originally from a natural source, but it's the stuff that's been proven to work, as distinct from the sympathetic magic suggested by naturopaths.
The one I saw on display in 2002 was a model of a skull of a heavily deformed child. The surgeon cut up the model and positioned the plastic "bone fragments" in places where they could be used for facial reconstruction. It took more than one attempt to develop the procedure, which was a success. As the child grew the gaps between the bone fragments filled with bone to make a complete skull and a face that does not look deformed in any way. Maybe the surgeon could have manipulated models on a screen for the same result, but I doubt it would have been as easy since it's a completely different skillset. Working with a physical instead of digital model appeared to be both a better simulation of the operation and easier for the person developing the procedure to manipulate. Maybe there are surgeons that could just as effectively rehearse on a 2D screen but that's a very different skillset to carrying out the operation. Until we get "Iron Man" style 3D representations that we can manipulate like objects we're stuck with a simulation a long way short of reality.
I'm sure you can put more of your own words in my mouth again to pretend I'm wrong if I do not. So many posts, so much revisionism and such vitriol in response to an offhand joke post - what an utter loser you are. If all it takes is a fuckup to deliver "victory" to another country then you clearly do no have much faith in the USA.
which would seem to make them not so much of a "hard" limit
It's still a limit even if it's pushed along a bit.
I'm sorry, I saw the bald link as a bald denial that did not actually refute what I had mentioned. That link and some radio interviews of Elizabeth Blackburn describe things far better than anything I could write. The bits about stress reducing telomerase production are especially interesting and may lead to ways to deal with premature aging.
No, they really mean "commie satantic bastard who is not one of us". Socialist is another term used in a way that doesn't match a dictionary so is effectively meaningless in the USA apart from being a generic insult from someone too much of a weasel to use a real insult. Similarly "libertarian" means a cool sounding self applied label that has the word liberty in it, and has no actual indication of what the ideals of the person actually are. Any criticism of libertarian ideas seems to end with someone saying they are not from a "true libertarian" even if it's a quote from someone like Koch who ran under that banner.
With respect, a denial in the form of a link that goes to something that does not actually refute the point is IMHO vastly ruder. It is a failed appeal to authority and is a direct insult.
Not necessarily: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Australia That lot can be defined as currently against anything that could be seen as socialism, even if it's really just Christian charity. They've strayed a bit from the ideals of their founder but some members may agree with this quote from when it was set up by Menzies:
As the etymology of our name 'Liberal' indicates, we have stood for freedom. We have realised that men and women are not just ciphers in a calculation, but are individual human beings whose individual welfare and development must be the main concern of government... We have learned that the right answer is to set the individual free, to aim at equality of opportunity, to protect the individual against oppression, to create a society in which rights and duties are recognised and made effective.
They are in the International Democrat Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Democrat_Union) just like the US Republican Party is.
They are of course just as "liberal" as they are "conservative" and they are known to have Christian values for several minutes on Sundays or if a TV camera is pointing at them - they make a big deal about those values (which must be in perfect condition because they don't get any use) especially around election time.
Note the article linked says "slows" and not halt or reverse. Not a reset button, or even a pause button.
Also, why do you consider "for now they look like" and "consider X then get back to me" as "posting like an asshole"? I'm not pretending to have the absolute answer like someone rubbing a link in my face as if I've never read it.
There you go kiddies - take a look at the sort of person we are dealing with - he's put the following words in my mouth that I did not write - in fact he wrote them himself:
Removal of the missiles from Cuba was a major strategic setback for the USSR
Here's the link - his post not mine: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6666339&cid=48770271 Whatever worth that opinion has aside they are not my words so we have a shameless liar building a strawman on our hands.
What an utterly pathetic person. You owe me and Microlith an apology. You made some noise about being old enough in 1962 to know more about the political situation than everything I've read about it, so why act like a poorly raised ten year old?
Oh was it someone else than you that repeatedly said "Kennedy had his balls handed to him:
No more a victory for the USSR than covering your balls with honey, poking a stick in an anthill, then sitting on it is a victory for the ants.
never bothered to think about the fact we kept the THOR missiles
Which went into Turkey and Italy - oh wait - they didn't did they, because there had been a backdown. Instead of warming up a lost argument I suggest you apologize to Microlith for your hypocritical attack. "Pavlovian response"? You really can hand it out but can't seem to take the slightest criticism yourself.
I never said it was a victory for the USSR - it was a truly major fuckup by Kennedy (and others) that required a step backwards by the USA. The USSR did not "win" anything so no victory, even though the USA lost the right to base missiles in Italy, Turkey and agreed to a hands off policy in Cuba. So a loss for the USA but no gain for the USSR, it just went back to the status quo before the missiles were based in Turkey and Italy. An "own goal" but not something to win or lose the match if you want me to descend to the "victory" level.
However, my point here is that you are taking an opposite line to the one you took earlier. Losing military superiority was as worthless as "belly button lint" in your very strange earlier posts. I think you should apologize to the above poster since you have pushed the same line yourself yet hypocritically went for their throat.
That's because military inferiority is the way to go forward ?
That's exactly the line you are pushing about the removal of US missiles in the Cuban missile crisis. It's a stupid idea in both cases, yet for some reason you are suggesting it's not stupid if you are the one suggesting it but stupid if others suggest it.
Slashdot Mirror
Once you start to work out that you are part of the problem you can do something to fix it. It's not China, your own actions can have an impact on what sort of government you have.
Your opt-out suggestion is counterproductive and a denial of your responsibility as a citizen. You are part of society. Being sociopathic isn't going to improve society.
With respect, a lot of that is about solving non-problems, getting into areas where other software deals with things effectively after INIT has done it's job and just making a mark. WTF is it even putting mounting volumes as a problem that systemd is there to solve? There's other stuff to do that work.
Take a look at the example at the end of (http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html) as a case of a "solution" to a non-problem, it's something that can be dealt with via environment variables FFS instead of some complex btfs filesystem games. Other similar situations can be dealt with via zones, jails and other idea far more effectively than such a complex suggestion. It's a fucking octopus trying to get in everywhere instead of just passing things on to the tight tool for the job - which creates nightmares when the job is something the systemd people haven't thought of yet.
Why do you think things are chosen by merit alone? Pulseaudio, NetworkManager, and the optical media writing fork were all options chosen when they had less functionality than the alternatives (as with the rewrite of gnome with deliberate breakage of gnome2 software - DLL hell on linux for the first time ever). It's "office politics" in the linux community that drives these things and not function. The people behind systemd are in an influential faction so this stuff is being pushed hard despite problems that leave a lot of it in a pre-beta state and give people exposed to it a bit of a shock. Suddenly a thing does not work and the experienced user cannot easily find out how to fix something that was trivial to fix before. Neither performance, stability or adequate documentation is there, yet it's being rolled out in places where people using it expect the same easy to deal with stuff they've been working with for years. I'm giving it a go but I can't say I like dealing with it - it means a bit of scripting to do what used to be easy to set up during the init process.
So? They had Xenix back then as well which was a superior product without even stepping outside of the building MS was in.
Similarly I had severe migraines for years - but as I did not start using various types of fairy dust I cannot give them the credit for that condition ceasing. Stuff happens to your body, and the environment you expose it to, whether you are feeding it weird stuff or not so it's a guess that the weird stuff is causing the change, especially since insomnia can have so many causes. Just chatting to people at the herb shop for instance may displace stress that causing insomnia more than the herbs.
It's a bit depressing I felt I had to write something like that here but the post-enlightenment attitudes are even creeping into tech sites like this, probably because there has been so much contempt of the "reality based community" over the last couple of decades.
The idea of "open source" software was inspired by academic research. Most health research still runs that way and is published. The pharma stuff is mostly "product development" which is based on some open research somewhere.
Yes, it costs a bit to prove whether something works or not instead of just guessing. Many things in use in medicine were originally from a natural source, but it's the stuff that's been proven to work, as distinct from the sympathetic magic suggested by naturopaths.
The one I saw on display in 2002 was a model of a skull of a heavily deformed child. The surgeon cut up the model and positioned the plastic "bone fragments" in places where they could be used for facial reconstruction. It took more than one attempt to develop the procedure, which was a success. As the child grew the gaps between the bone fragments filled with bone to make a complete skull and a face that does not look deformed in any way.
Maybe the surgeon could have manipulated models on a screen for the same result, but I doubt it would have been as easy since it's a completely different skillset. Working with a physical instead of digital model appeared to be both a better simulation of the operation and easier for the person developing the procedure to manipulate.
Maybe there are surgeons that could just as effectively rehearse on a 2D screen but that's a very different skillset to carrying out the operation. Until we get "Iron Man" style 3D representations that we can manipulate like objects we're stuck with a simulation a long way short of reality.
I'm sure you can put more of your own words in my mouth again to pretend I'm wrong if I do not.
So many posts, so much revisionism and such vitriol in response to an offhand joke post - what an utter loser you are. If all it takes is a fuckup to deliver "victory" to another country then you clearly do no have much faith in the USA.
Wow - somebody modded up a post asking why the poor don't just splash out on travel expenses.
It's still a limit even if it's pushed along a bit.
I'm sorry, I saw the bald link as a bald denial that did not actually refute what I had mentioned. That link and some radio interviews of Elizabeth Blackburn describe things far better than anything I could write. The bits about stress reducing telomerase production are especially interesting and may lead to ways to deal with premature aging.
So what is more foolish than putting your own words in someone else's mouth on a forum where such an act is easily proven?
No, they really mean "commie satantic bastard who is not one of us". Socialist is another term used in a way that doesn't match a dictionary so is effectively meaningless in the USA apart from being a generic insult from someone too much of a weasel to use a real insult.
Similarly "libertarian" means a cool sounding self applied label that has the word liberty in it, and has no actual indication of what the ideals of the person actually are. Any criticism of libertarian ideas seems to end with someone saying they are not from a "true libertarian" even if it's a quote from someone like Koch who ran under that banner.
With respect, a denial in the form of a link that goes to something that does not actually refute the point is IMHO vastly ruder. It is a failed appeal to authority and is a direct insult.
So me quoting you is supposed to be me expressing my view? Who are you trying to fool with that stupidity? Please apologize now for your blatant lie.
Also what's wrong with using a URL in a post on the internet?
However many who call themselves that do have a goal of radical change. Take the example here for instance of removing privacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Australia
That lot can be defined as currently against anything that could be seen as socialism, even if it's really just Christian charity. They've strayed a bit from the ideals of their founder but some members may agree with this quote from when it was set up by Menzies:
They are in the International Democrat Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Democrat_Union) just like the US Republican Party is.
They are of course just as "liberal" as they are "conservative" and they are known to have Christian values for several minutes on Sundays or if a TV camera is pointing at them - they make a big deal about those values (which must be in perfect condition because they don't get any use) especially around election time.
Note the article linked says "slows" and not halt or reverse. Not a reset button, or even a pause button.
Also, why do you consider "for now they look like" and "consider X then get back to me" as "posting like an asshole"? I'm not pretending to have the absolute answer like someone rubbing a link in my face as if I've never read it.
Here's the link - his post not mine:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6666339&cid=48770271
Whatever worth that opinion has aside they are not my words so we have a shameless liar building a strawman on our hands.
What an utterly pathetic person. You owe me and Microlith an apology. You made some noise about being old enough in 1962 to know more about the political situation than everything I've read about it, so why act like a poorly raised ten year old?
No more a victory for the USSR than covering your balls with honey, poking a stick in an anthill, then sitting on it is a victory for the ants.
Which went into Turkey and Italy - oh wait - they didn't did they, because there had been a backdown.
Instead of warming up a lost argument I suggest you apologize to Microlith for your hypocritical attack. "Pavlovian response"? You really can hand it out but can't seem to take the slightest criticism yourself.
I never said it was a victory for the USSR - it was a truly major fuckup by Kennedy (and others) that required a step backwards by the USA. The USSR did not "win" anything so no victory, even though the USA lost the right to base missiles in Italy, Turkey and agreed to a hands off policy in Cuba. So a loss for the USA but no gain for the USSR, it just went back to the status quo before the missiles were based in Turkey and Italy. An "own goal" but not something to win or lose the match if you want me to descend to the "victory" level.
However, my point here is that you are taking an opposite line to the one you took earlier. Losing military superiority was as worthless as "belly button lint" in your very strange earlier posts. I think you should apologize to the above poster since you have pushed the same line yourself yet hypocritically went for their throat.
Yes, take a look at that page and consider what Blackburn got a Nobel for then get back to me. It's not a reset button.
So atmospheric research is out? Who else do you suggest does it? Can they buy NASA's satellites off them or do they have to build their own?
It may. Homeland Security is an enormous pork barrelling operation that could take over that role from NASA.
That's exactly the line you are pushing about the removal of US missiles in the Cuban missile crisis. It's a stupid idea in both cases, yet for some reason you are suggesting it's not stupid if you are the one suggesting it but stupid if others suggest it.
The joke story posts are early this year.
What, you mean this is not a joke post?
"I'm learning Chinese" said Werner Von Braun.