Who fucking cares? systemd is modular, Debian can just pull in the init stuff of systemd.
Even the init stuff of systemd requires the Linux kernel, so it is incompatible with Debian's commitment to a diversity of systems. In any event, systemd is not modular by any reasonable definition. All of those "separate binaries" expect to be talking to each other, and the uselessd developer found he had to go far back in the systemd versioning to be able to use just the init system components without the rest.
Regardless of what's running as PID 1, many administrators of Linux installations do not want any of Poettering's libs installed at all. With a codebase this polemic, it's understandable that there would be a call for removing systemd libs as obligatory dependencies.
In any event, it's not GIMP itself that has the dependency but an intermediate library. I simply used it as an example of a *nix desktop application that pulls in systemd libs on Debian even if one is trying very hard to avoid everything systemd related.
Sorry, that should have read "...nearly all of the support for systemd was based on the advantages that systemd, as an init system, offered over competing init systems."
You do not have to install gnome3 on Debian, I don't.
systemd on Debian is a dependency for most desktop applications even if one avoids Gnome 3. Installing GIMP, for example, will pull in systemd libs.
As for systemd, I suggest looking through Debian's extensive documentation detailing why they chose systemd over the alternatives.
During that "lengthly consultation process", nearly all of the for systemd was based on the advantages that systemd, as an init system, offer over competing init systems. In the months since Debian committed to systemd, Poettering has been increasingly vocal that he wants systemd to be more than an init system. That is why there is a renewed call for debate.
then the police should use the powers at their disposal, like search warrants, to end the anonymous communiation of this person on the internet.
What good is a local police search warrant going to do when it could be some guy in Germany connecting to public wi-fi with a randomized MAC, or some one in Madagascar using Tor? Sometimes the FBI with possible NSA help goes after big fish like the Silk Road owner (but note they didn't spend resources on going after many individual Silk Road buyers and sellers), but I don't think this is going to considered worth it for the legions of small-time 4Chan pranksters, especially when they are located outside the US.
Well, that's the thing. The people who make these pranks are using anonymizing services, so there doesn't seem to be an easy way to stop them without affecting anonymous communication on the internet in general, and they are a subculture with obsessive interests and a general disregard for proprietary, so there doesn't seem to be any way of shaming them into stopping either. I think we are stuck with them.
I've frequented the deeper sewers of Usenet, before the web came to universities, and that simply was not done. Nor was posting anyone's personal information. It was crossing a line.
On Usenet, there was a strong culture of using one's real name, and often one's institutional affiliation was readily visible from the network one posted from. These kind of prank death threats tend to be organized on fora where people are encouraged to use a pseudonym, and where many people post through anonymizing services like Tor, public wifi, etc. How can one eradicate these death threats short of outlawing anonymous communication on the internet? And doing so would certainly have a chilling effect on political speech in general.
When someone yells "fire" in a movie theatre, everyone can see the guy. When someone on the internet makes a death threat, he might be doing it through Tor or public wi-fi and there is no straightforward way to determine his identity. Should we then end anonymous communication on the internet entirely?
I think creating stricter enforcement of death threats is fine. Guess what? it's already a crime in meat space.
And what if these death threats are being made by people posting through Tor or public wi-fi? They might be posting to 4Chan and you could shut that down, but then some other site would spring up: there has always been demand for those kind of sites on the internet. The only way to end the treats for good would be to end anonymous communication on the internet. That is what I was talking about in my post above.
On one hand, I feel deeply for these women and hope the harassment against them ends soon. On the other hand, the majority of threats against them are 4Chan-centred pranks, and I can't help but feel there's no real way to put an end to 4Chan pranks short of a police state. Aegrescit medendo.
Export. Tree paper can be exported anywhere; hemp paper can only be exported to places where it is legal.
If that were the case, places like the Soviet Union (which had a steady industrial hemp industry throughout the 20th century) would have used hemp paper for its enormous internal market and export to Eastern Bloc nations. However, hemp simply doesn't offer significant advantages over wood pulp, especially in a country that has plenty of forest.
There is no legal minefield outside the US. In many countries, industrial hemp remained a perfectly legal industry for the whole the 20th century and beyond, and hemp continued to be used in certain niches. However, it has not managed to oust other materials like paper, it simply isn't the miracle material that many legalization advocates depict it as.
As we discussed last time marijuana came up on Slashdot, that particular Anslinger quotation is hard to substantiate. The first attestation comes from decades after he supposedly said it. There are already plenty of rigorously sourced statements on marijuana with similar hyperbole, and trotting out that weakly sourced one only undermines the legalization cause.
If marijuana is such a threat to tree-based paper products, then why does paper continue to be so heavily used in many fields even in countries with hemp industries?
Yawn. Everytime a story on marijuana comes up on a US-centric site, someone suggests that hemp is a miracle material, and it had to be banned so other industries wouldn't be threatened. If hemp is so great, then why is interest in it so relatively low in the many other industrialized countries around the world where industrial hemp has always been legal and easy to grow, even state-subdizied?
Adobe is going to get exactly one single data point from me: I open a DRMed book in Adobe Digital Editions. However, I then strip the DRM and read the book in the PDF or ebook viewer of my choice. But ADE DRM has been cracked for so many years it baffles me while it is still used at all.
The so-called "Krushchev thaw" was not a thawing of the Cold War, it was a relaxation in restrictions on Soviet cultural expression in the late 1950s and early 1960s, along with some economic reform, after over two decades of Stalinism.
People climb Everest every year with commercial sponsorship. Someone might die, or more probably have to turn back a few hundred metres from the summit, but by the time they do, they've given a few press conferences where they flaunt the names of their backers, and maybe have appeared in some extreme sports documentary or website wearing very visible "Pepsi" or "[national supermarket chain]" corporate logos on their jackets, so it is ultimately worthwhile to fund these expeditions. (Source: close friend climbs an 8000-metre peak with annually). A rocket explosion, however, is a much more public disaster, and it's no surprise that those who earlier were prepared to invest might not back out.
What the fuck, you think you can set rules for discussion on Slashdot? Like on any Slashdot post, this is going to evolve into a free-for-all. Even requests for interview questions tend to have a lot of posts that aren't interview questions. With a topic as polemic as systemd, half of the top-level posts aren't going to be what you are looking for. Damn, son, I think you came to the wrong site.
And I am aware that my post pointing this out may be moderated as flamebait or off-topic, but it's still going to be a top-level post.
In Canada it might be the employer's policy, but in other countries it is the government's policy: the government reimburses the employer, and then your employer pays you as if you showed up (or at least 80% of what you'd get if you had showed up). The enforcement by demanding a note might be the employer's burden, but since the practice is part of the national health system, the doctors at one's local municipal clinic are quite happy to sign (or say there's no grounds for sick leave and refuse to sign).
When health care is 'free' costs go up. But people still don't like to go to the doctor.
In many developed countries, in order to still get paid for the day when you call in sick, you must visit your local clinic and get your sick day signed off on by a doctor or RN there. That's a powerful motivator not to tough it out on your own. But that works best in a place where the visit to the clinic is free or involves a negligible fee, whereas in the US the fear of crushing bills and insurance premium increase would keep many away.
Slashdot Mirror
Virtually all your Slashdot comments are in defense of systemd. Could you please disclose your relationship to the the project?
Even the init stuff of systemd requires the Linux kernel, so it is incompatible with Debian's commitment to a diversity of systems. In any event, systemd is not modular by any reasonable definition. All of those "separate binaries" expect to be talking to each other, and the uselessd developer found he had to go far back in the systemd versioning to be able to use just the init system components without the rest.
Regardless of what's running as PID 1, many administrators of Linux installations do not want any of Poettering's libs installed at all. With a codebase this polemic, it's understandable that there would be a call for removing systemd libs as obligatory dependencies.
In any event, it's not GIMP itself that has the dependency but an intermediate library. I simply used it as an example of a *nix desktop application that pulls in systemd libs on Debian even if one is trying very hard to avoid everything systemd related.
Sorry, that should have read "...nearly all of the support for systemd was based on the advantages that systemd, as an init system, offered over competing init systems."
systemd on Debian is a dependency for most desktop applications even if one avoids Gnome 3. Installing GIMP, for example, will pull in systemd libs.
During that "lengthly consultation process", nearly all of the for systemd was based on the advantages that systemd, as an init system, offer over competing init systems. In the months since Debian committed to systemd, Poettering has been increasingly vocal that he wants systemd to be more than an init system. That is why there is a renewed call for debate.
What good is a local police search warrant going to do when it could be some guy in Germany connecting to public wi-fi with a randomized MAC, or some one in Madagascar using Tor? Sometimes the FBI with possible NSA help goes after big fish like the Silk Road owner (but note they didn't spend resources on going after many individual Silk Road buyers and sellers), but I don't think this is going to considered worth it for the legions of small-time 4Chan pranksters, especially when they are located outside the US.
"general disregard for propriety", rather.
Well, that's the thing. The people who make these pranks are using anonymizing services, so there doesn't seem to be an easy way to stop them without affecting anonymous communication on the internet in general, and they are a subculture with obsessive interests and a general disregard for proprietary, so there doesn't seem to be any way of shaming them into stopping either. I think we are stuck with them.
On Usenet, there was a strong culture of using one's real name, and often one's institutional affiliation was readily visible from the network one posted from. These kind of prank death threats tend to be organized on fora where people are encouraged to use a pseudonym, and where many people post through anonymizing services like Tor, public wifi, etc. How can one eradicate these death threats short of outlawing anonymous communication on the internet? And doing so would certainly have a chilling effect on political speech in general.
When someone yells "fire" in a movie theatre, everyone can see the guy. When someone on the internet makes a death threat, he might be doing it through Tor or public wi-fi and there is no straightforward way to determine his identity. Should we then end anonymous communication on the internet entirely?
And what if these death threats are being made by people posting through Tor or public wi-fi? They might be posting to 4Chan and you could shut that down, but then some other site would spring up: there has always been demand for those kind of sites on the internet. The only way to end the treats for good would be to end anonymous communication on the internet. That is what I was talking about in my post above.
On one hand, I feel deeply for these women and hope the harassment against them ends soon. On the other hand, the majority of threats against them are 4Chan-centred pranks, and I can't help but feel there's no real way to put an end to 4Chan pranks short of a police state. Aegrescit medendo.
If that were the case, places like the Soviet Union (which had a steady industrial hemp industry throughout the 20th century) would have used hemp paper for its enormous internal market and export to Eastern Bloc nations. However, hemp simply doesn't offer significant advantages over wood pulp, especially in a country that has plenty of forest.
Exactly, even with the hemp of considerable subsidies to countries' hemp industries, the material has proven uncompetitive against others.
There is no legal minefield outside the US. In many countries, industrial hemp remained a perfectly legal industry for the whole the 20th century and beyond, and hemp continued to be used in certain niches. However, it has not managed to oust other materials like paper, it simply isn't the miracle material that many legalization advocates depict it as.
As we discussed last time marijuana came up on Slashdot, that particular Anslinger quotation is hard to substantiate. The first attestation comes from decades after he supposedly said it. There are already plenty of rigorously sourced statements on marijuana with similar hyperbole, and trotting out that weakly sourced one only undermines the legalization cause.
If marijuana is such a threat to tree-based paper products, then why does paper continue to be so heavily used in many fields even in countries with hemp industries?
Yawn. Everytime a story on marijuana comes up on a US-centric site, someone suggests that hemp is a miracle material, and it had to be banned so other industries wouldn't be threatened. If hemp is so great, then why is interest in it so relatively low in the many other industrialized countries around the world where industrial hemp has always been legal and easy to grow, even state-subdizied?
Adobe is going to get exactly one single data point from me: I open a DRMed book in Adobe Digital Editions. However, I then strip the DRM and read the book in the PDF or ebook viewer of my choice. But ADE DRM has been cracked for so many years it baffles me while it is still used at all.
The so-called "Krushchev thaw" was not a thawing of the Cold War, it was a relaxation in restrictions on Soviet cultural expression in the late 1950s and early 1960s, along with some economic reform, after over two decades of Stalinism.
Sorry, that should have read "...may now back out".
People climb Everest every year with commercial sponsorship. Someone might die, or more probably have to turn back a few hundred metres from the summit, but by the time they do, they've given a few press conferences where they flaunt the names of their backers, and maybe have appeared in some extreme sports documentary or website wearing very visible "Pepsi" or "[national supermarket chain]" corporate logos on their jackets, so it is ultimately worthwhile to fund these expeditions. (Source: close friend climbs an 8000-metre peak with annually). A rocket explosion, however, is a much more public disaster, and it's no surprise that those who earlier were prepared to invest might not back out.
What the fuck, you think you can set rules for discussion on Slashdot? Like on any Slashdot post, this is going to evolve into a free-for-all. Even requests for interview questions tend to have a lot of posts that aren't interview questions. With a topic as polemic as systemd, half of the top-level posts aren't going to be what you are looking for. Damn, son, I think you came to the wrong site.
And I am aware that my post pointing this out may be moderated as flamebait or off-topic, but it's still going to be a top-level post.
In Canada it might be the employer's policy, but in other countries it is the government's policy: the government reimburses the employer, and then your employer pays you as if you showed up (or at least 80% of what you'd get if you had showed up). The enforcement by demanding a note might be the employer's burden, but since the practice is part of the national health system, the doctors at one's local municipal clinic are quite happy to sign (or say there's no grounds for sick leave and refuse to sign).
In many developed countries, in order to still get paid for the day when you call in sick, you must visit your local clinic and get your sick day signed off on by a doctor or RN there. That's a powerful motivator not to tough it out on your own. But that works best in a place where the visit to the clinic is free or involves a negligible fee, whereas in the US the fear of crushing bills and insurance premium increase would keep many away.