Ubuntu inherits Debian policy. Anything--supported or not--is not updated in any way that breaks things. You might not be able to get security patches for stuff in Universe or Multiverse in a timely manner without rolling and submitting it yourself; but they won't go releasing a package that no longer does X when X worked before. The idea is that, if your configuration works, it will continue to work *exactly* the way you have it without modification no matter which version of the package you have across the entire lifecycle of a stable release--if it doesn't, that's a bug and they need to undo that breakage. Extending is fine, breaking is *not* acceptable.
RedHat on the other hand released RHEL 6.4 and removed crmsh, the configuration system for Pacemaker, to be replaced with PCS. This wasn't documented in the release notes, either. Suddenly things that configure high-availability fail-over on RHEL 6 don't work. Running the same tools/scripts/whatnot breaks. This is still RHEL 6 stable, and under Debian policy that's not supposed to happen. RedHat doesn't have such a policy, so it happens.
That means you're persistently at risk of reaching a situation where your patching priority demands increased resources: I can continue to patch Ubuntu while my dev team comfortably works on readying our stuff for the next LTS or the next 9 month release, usually; but one day RHEL has patches and I either don't upgrade as my company's security policy dictates OR we find resources (meaning, sometimes, hire more people) to step up the porting process.
With RHEL, the risk is that we may need more manpower (labor cost--salaries) to support the same security policy; and that we may still not be able to keep in step as quickly as with a Debian-style update policy (i.e. there may be greater lag time as we rewrite scripts and configurations and do more dev testing before releasing patches). On top of that, we're faced with the risk of more frequent large roll-outs--things that worked in dev might not work in production, and now we're rolling out a patch that breaks production along with a bunch of patches to production to un-break it, and hoping that it all works in production.
Breaks one day because snapshots are a "Technology preview" and destroys all your disk images when RedHat releases a new update to RHEL7 production stable feed.
They are. Corruption is a portion, and it doesn't have to be a majority--just one damaged organ with 10% of its tissue rotting away will kill the whole organism.
My stance on drugs is constantly evolving. Currently it stands:
If it's viciously addictive, it should be regulated; the more physically and socially toxic (you CAN'T go to work without shooting heroine if you're DYING FROM WITHDRAWAL) and the more addictive, the higher the penalties should be. For dealing the penalties should be a hell of a lot higher--you sell methamphetamine to minors, we bring back crucifixion. For possession and use, lower penalties--for addiction cases, I want to get people off the drugs. Possession and use are difficult because leaving them open creates problems, but attempting to address them puts people who made mistakes and now are seeking help in the line of fire--and those who repent deserve help, not punishment; they are no longer a danger to society (i.e. by exemplifying and encouraging the consumption of dangerous substances) and deserve to not be treated as one.
If it's not addictive, or just not very--if the risk is very low--then the danger to society is very low and the damage done by prohibition is extremely high. We have two options: Accept the potential risk (maybe we find out some day marijuana is like... really, worse than Heroine) and leave open the possibility to discover great benefits in the future; or reject the risks and take away any potential benefits. I can tell you straight out marijuana is anxiolytic--sure I've never used it, but THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE USE IT FOR so you know... I'm about 100% certain that's the primary positive benefit. By banning it, we're saying the risk to society outweighs the harm done by prohibition enforcement plus the loss of an anxiolytic option--is that really true? If not, then it shouldn't be banned.
Disclosure: I'm basically always on Piracetam, Aniracetam, L-Theanine, Alpha-GPC, Noopept, and SAM-e, all currently legal. I also have Oxiracetam and Pramiracetam for occasional use (also legal); and I do often take standardized antioxidants marketed as "green tea extract" standardized to 98% polyphenols, with 50% of the total mass being EGCg.
The doctors had me on Methylphenedate and Risperdal, which had vicious side effects and were terrible and relatively toxic; they suggested a mixture of mainly dexamphetamine (Adderall--78.2% dex), which is also too toxic to my tastes (but people who snort cocaine insist that dex isn't bad for you and tell me it's the best substance ever invented...). I'm on zero prescription drugs.
I've actually gotten better results out of the drugs I've picked out for myself, and can safely adjust them at will--the drug interactions are good, and doses of 80 times the standard dosage are minimally risky, and the side effects are things like headache (because of choline depletion--hence Alpha-GPC, fixes that), insomnia (I have that anyway, and Melatonin 1mg time release fixes that), and an upset stomach (eating at McDonalds does that too, and it doesn't happen to me). This works better for me, and if we just brazenly banned all kinds of shit without evaluating if it's dangerous then I wouldn't have that option.
Now, Dexamphetamine is another potential treatment route; but it's dangerous--I actually believe that, you can dispute it but let's keep context clear--and I have no problem with it being scheduled. I can get it with prescription. Cocaine I can't get, even if the doctors determine that cocaine may be an effective option to treat some condition I have--I understand that too, but if that ever happens I don't think I'd be able to argue that banning cocaine is a bad thing. I'd argue that the lack of research into medical use and access to prescription under a doctor's professional judgment is... inconvenient, and that if there's such a body of knowledge suggesting it should be scheduled for prescription then that needs to be fixed. But I mean, hell, dangerous substances, I don't want that stuff floating around out there. Look at how that works with cigarettes.
You can be an uberlibertarian if you want and go raving that we sho
Some e-mail address in.ru or.cn or something e-mailed me child porn once. The girl in the picture was older than I was at the time. Looking back on this, I lol.
OIG explained to us that the imaged human is victimized and subjected to psychological trauma the instant any person looks at the image. The victim is victimized again whenever someone sees the image, so people need to not look.
I think they just don't like the idea that people who have spent time looking at child pornography need to be subject to psychological evaluation; and that those of us who have an adaptive stress reaction are impossible to discern from sociopaths (i.e. people who are plotting to destroy you because it's fun). To put this into perspective: most people, when you expose them to bestiality and scat and child porn and other gross shit, after repeat exposure they're a nervous wreck with PTSD--hence the psychological evaluation, Class A amnesics, etc. Then there's folks like me who have our absolute breakdown right away and start *screaming*, and then taper down--and what you're left with is someone who's just not bothered by it, which really scares the shit out of people.
The worst ones aren't the ones that get used to it. The worst are the ones that recognize a sexual context and adapt to meet social pressure--and that's, unfortunately, fairly normal. The PTSD folks get is from exposure creating a subconscious feeling that this is what they need to be to be accepted into society, while their mind violently rejects the images they're being fed. Without the rejection, you'd get... well... people who are off-put, and then able to handle it, and then turned on by sex with animals and children. It's the same as reprogramming a dude to be bisexual, really (reprogramming someone to be gay/straight is hard--you have to add a revulsion to one mode of sexual attraction, which usually brings all kinds of other damage and really only creates repression).
Yes, I've learned far too much about how humans work.
Has anyone considered counting out the patronage of movies instead of the box office revenue? $2 tickets in 1980 become $20 tickets in 2008. Do you fucking monkeys know what inflation is?
Unless you're PR, you shouldn't use 'we' when talking about RedHat.
Also, RedHat is garbage, so stick that one in your hat. Debian and Ubuntu both have the policy that any updates must absolutely not break release; if they do, they're slated for next release. RedHat? Oh, right in the middle of RHEL6, let's drop crmsh for pcs, which didn't exist before in RHEL6, and not even note in our 6.4 release notes that crmsh is going away. People tell me "technology preview" a lot, but that's only an excuse for it being not-totally-functional to begin with; in Ubuntu, the policy of "Don't break shit that already works" applies to unsupported software as well as supported software--even if you don't get regular patches or bugfixes unless somebody is bored or you submit it yourself, you still don't wake up one day and find out that something that worked when the distro was released no longer works now because of an update.
The issue is that the SQL Standard says NULL is an unknown value and "" is a known value of empty string. Oracle considers "" to be NULL, which is incorrect in the same way that considering 'char *s = "";' equivalent to 'char *s = NULL;' in C is incorrect.
Sure, why not? MySQL is crap. MySQL is crap. 10 years later, MySQL is still crap. MariaDB and Percona are less crap, but still crap.
Oracle is on-par with PostgreSQL, with some drawbacks, and you can argue and haggle--personally I think Oracle is inferior, but you'll get dissenters and they *are* in the same class. MS SQL Server is inferior--it's a good product in its space, but its space is a subset space of PostgreSQL. More to the point, Oracle and MS SQL Server are both closed, proprietary pay-ware; PostgreSQL, MySQL, DB2, and SQLite are free. That means the argument is essentially PostgreSQL vs MySQL.
PostgreSQL actually functions like a real database (MySQL does a lot of crap it shouldn't), outperforms MySQL, has working replication now (FINALLY, since around 8.0-ish, a few short years back), has BETTER replication than MySQL, and is about as easy to set up (I learned it in about 30 minutes). In general it's a better product as a database. Since it has no real drawbacks besides blunt protocol compatibility (i.e. a MySQL-specific app can't talk to PostgreSQL, either because of network presentation protocol (MySQL protocol 3306) or application protocol (MySQL-specific command language)) compared to MySQL, and many advantages, it's essentially a higher-quality and thus better piece of software.
Optimally, RedHat, Debian, Ubuntu, SuSE, etc should provide the best MySQL possible--Percona, MariaDB, whatever--while providing the guideline that PostgreSQL is a better product. Because, hell, they're already endorsing by dumping MySQL instead of simply including both Percona and MariaDB. The issue is that the political chip of saying, "X is better than Y," is very volatile. We could sit here and hash out merits and come to that exact conclusion--but even then, when we're all convinced that this is FACT and not OPINION, what do you think would happen if RedHat and Ubuntu both flatly said, "Use PostgreSQL, MySQL is crap"?
In Debian policy, something that is "unstable" and "unsupported" is still subject to the rules. Ubuntu repositories are organized based on support--main, universe, multiverse--and even things in multiverse aren't to receive breaking changes during a release. They may lag--they might be poorly tested, they might not work, they might not get prompt updates--but they certainly won't break on you.
High-availability is, by the way, a common business case and is in primary support in Ubuntu; but that's just nitpicking. Ubuntu is satisfied with the risk/responsibility the current software provides with the amount of testing they've done and the resources they have; RedHat is not. The real difference is Ubuntu does not expect its customers to accept the risk that software in the stable distribution may change, whether they officially support it or just supply it as a convenience.
Really, this is like one dentist office (RedHat) having a notice that says, "Our fillings contain 50% mercury and may leech over 5 years and cause long-term mercury poisoning," and another dentist office (Debian) having a notice that says, "We use 100% composite resin fillings." Amalgam fillings last 12-15 years, if they don't expand and crack the tooth; composite-resin last 7-10 years, after which they tend to shrink some and leak, requiring replacement. Then: You go into the dentist's office... and they tell you you need fillings or your teeth will rot out and you'll need root canal oral surgery.
Obviously, a 15 year replacement cycle is nicer than a 10 year replacement cycle, just like RedHat's 20 year maintenance term is nicer than Ubuntu 5 year LTS. Too bad RHEL is toxic while Ubuntu is guaranteed not to be.
Well, that's all well and good. I had RHEL installed in high-availability mission critical fail-over clusters back in 6.3 earlier this year. Then RedHat released 6.4 and immediately broke Pacemaker. I had to rewrite the configuration "stuff" to get fail-over working again. So Enterprise.
Ubuntu is my favorite distro even if I hate their NIH mentality and backwards shit. It's just good. Well, less-bad. The point is Ubuntu inherits Debian "stable" policy: If thy Change break anything for any user, thy Change waitith until thy next Release. Oh, you want to throw out a configuration system and switch some software to a completely different configuration manager requiring different commands and a different configuration format and a different back-end protocol? Not in stable. Do that in stable+1.
This is why there was a giant flamewar on the mailing list a bit ago. People were crying because I was pushing to have Ubuntu 13.04 upgrade to Puppet 3 from 2.7 in the distro repos, and folks were raising hell because they were NOT ready to upgrade from Puppet 2.7. Well that's all well-and-good, but 12.10 has Puppet 2.7; since it was January and 13.04 was still in development and not stable, I felt justified in pushing for 13.04 to have the latest-and-greatest Puppet. Not ready to upgrade? Stay on 12.10 until you're ready--why would you upgrade your distribution if you don't want to upgrade your fucking software?
On RHEL, it's more like: Oh, hi, we upgraded Puppet to 3.0 in RHEL6, so when you run 'yum update' on 6.5 you'll wind up with redhat-release saying you're on 6.6 and with Puppet 3.0 and half your modules break! New features! Not ready to update? Well Puppet 2.7 isn't getting any new updates, no security or bugfix patches, because it's not part of a supported distro anymore (it was supported in Redhat 6, now it's not in Redhat 6).
That's hypothetical, but it's exactly what happened in RHEL 6.4 for crmsh configurations of Pacemaker. crmsh was thrown out of RHEL6, instead now you must use pcs. Just like if Ubuntu threw out crmsh in 12.04 LTS today and said it now uses pcs and users of 12.04 who use crmsh will lose crmsh on next update and so are no longer getting updates until they rewrite their shit to use pcs. Ubuntu and Debian policy strictly forbids that shit.
Mission-critical means stuff. It means stuff RHEL can't satisfy.
You mean when you hit ALT+F2 and type "DVD", it shows you a list of DVD authoring, DVD ripping, and DVD burning apps? Or if you start typing 'thog' it shows you Thoggen? "Software" gives you synaptic, Ubuntu Software Center, and Software Updater? Must've missed that.
Not really. What this is is political bullshit: Backlash at new UIs means don't release with a new UI, and claim that people won't have to relearn. Then when they're forced to otherwise relearn anyway, they won't be as bothered down the line. On top of that, in 25 years when RHEL8 comes out there won't be any more bickering about Gnome-Shell and they'll be able to release without political pressure.
Well, okay; but most modern blacksmiths are going to have trouble producing nanosteel in their home forge from raw metal taken straight from the ground. Just saying.
Wrong. go talk to a doctor that knows their shit. While many of them have greater effect, they do so at a cost of greater side effects. One of the benefits of many of the newer ones is lower side effects. For example Sertraline (Zoloft) has no serious side effects, all the ones it has are annoying at most, they are not harmful. Also it is non-addictive, non-habit forming, so it is something that can be taken your whole life, no problem.
In the early years, drugs easily beat the placebo: They were, on average, 4.5 times as effective, where effectiveness means how well they lowered blood pressure, vanquished tumors, lifted depression or did whatever else they were intended to.
But the trend line was inexorably downhill, found Dr Mark Olfson of Columbia University and statistician Steven Marcus of the University of Pennsylvania. By the 1980s drugs were less than four times better; by the 1990s, twice as good, and by the 2000s just 36 percent better than a placebo. Since older drugs were much superior to placebo and newer ones only slightly so, that means older drugs were generally more effective than newer ones.
Do you know who works on medicine? Companies that make money from you getting sick. Now, medicine is patented, and the price is kept high because a $1500/year medicine costs the consumer $10/mo directly (and $1500/year through insurance... well, okay, not really; it's an averaging game). Generics cost less, and 14 years down the line Pfeizer needs to make a new drug to patent. The patent expiring is good for the consumer, but not so good for Pfeizer who would rather keep price gouging unethically.
Whatever the reason for many new drugs packing less punch than old ones, that will not keep them from reaching patients.
"The way the drug regulatory system is set up, even if you have just a small advance, if you market it right it can be very profitable," said Kesselheim.
Back in the 90s, psychiatrists prescribed very low doses of MDMA to treat PTSD. It worked for about 3-4 months--one tiny dose, 1/10 of what it takes to actually get you high, and you're good for months--then you take another one. No side effects (MDMA is ridiculously benign, it's unheard of--even Piracetam has worse side effects accounting for effect, scale, and frequency) and almost 100% population effectiveness. MDMA is impossible to patent and is cheap. Now we use terribly damaging drugs that aren't nearly as effective... is this a casualty of the War on Drugs making MDMA hard to get even legitimately, or a casualty of Pfeizer not being able to make money on MDMA?
Concession: The study was done by the Government, which under Obamacare (what a stupid buzzname, isn't it like Healthcare Reform Act of Somestupidshityear?) has the interest of reducing costs. A number of alternate explanations were given, such as that people are harder to treat today, or that we're scrutinizing clinical trials more now than before. However, this is interesting:
While experts agree that tougher trials and similar factors explain some of the decline in drugs' reported effectiveness, "something real is going on here," said Olfson. "Physicians keep saying that many of the new things just aren't working as well," and therefore prescribe antidepressant drugs called tricyclics (developed in the 1950s) instead of SSRIs (from the 1980s), or diuretics (invented in the 1920s) for high blood pressure instead of newer anti-hypertensives.
Doctors don't sit around weighing clinical trials; they read a pamphlet and prescribe new drugs. When they stop prescribing new drugs, it's because they've had 2000 patients and found that more than 1000 of them did very poorly on the new shit that they were told was better but did very well on old shit that was i
Diapers cost what? Reusable diapers (you know, there's a woman that cleans them? The thing they had before they decided to landfill millions of pounds of shit?) don't cost much. Food is tits for six months, then tits and cheap vegetables--I own a food mill that I've used to mash up sweet potato (an excellent baby food), but can also do butternut squash (I've done this), carrots, peas, etc. I can't liquefy meat, but the kid will have meat added when teeth are sufficient. The WHO recommends 2 years or longer breast feeding, although I'd need to keep the woman on a combination of Choline supplements for the whole time to improve the child's brain development (Alpha-GPC is great, but I'll multi-source when the goal is upping breast milk choline levels instead of neural choline levels).
Braces are covered by insurance, as with infant healthcare. If we don't include the cost of health insurance--because I need family insurance to cover the wife, so I need that whether or not I have a baby--we're talking not-very-much. Medical expenses amount to almost nothing--my insurance covers 100% all "wellness" expenses, that means physicals and doctors office check-up visits, as well as infant care to make sure your baby doesn't develop into some horribly expensive medical failure because it got some strange disease (polio?) and became a cripple they have to pay for. I know vaccinations and pediatrician check-ups for newborns and small children are 100%; the other expenses are $10 deductible.
As you can tell, I don't know shit about how much healthcare costs in this situation and prefer to mitigate risk via good insurance; as a single male, I manage my risk on a CDHP for minimum cost with a $3500-per-year expense ceiling and $1500 per-incident deductible, and of course 100% "wellness" coverage. I get doctor's visits free, physicals free, if the doctor decides I should have a colonic irrigation as a preventative health measure my insurance will pay 100% of the cost of having a tube shoved up my ass. As long as the doctor says "this is to ensure continued good health," it's free. If it's to correct bad health or injury, I have to pay for it. But a baby? Shit I don't know how any of that works; I don't know how the woman works or how sick she's going to get or what my financial situation will be; so when I'm not single I'll take the $10 deductible $250/mo family plan instead of the $1500 deductible $50/mo CDHP.
A baby costs less than $3500/year; there are anti-teen-pregnancy billboards claiming $750/mo for a baby, but you'd have to be buying gold-lined diapers for them to hit that. We're talking 4-6 months on tits for food (free), then on what 1-2 pounds of $2/lb vegetables ($4/day, $120/mo) (I don't believe in cereals--it is recommended to feed your baby refined white wheat germ, which is pure sugar, because it's fortified with iron. I can get iron out of other shit, trust me; the doctor will let me know if I'm doing something horribly wrong), then when they get teeth we can move to fish at first and then tougher meats like beef and pork. One-time expenses like clothes, which you can thrift-shop really--second hand is great.
Really roughing it here feeding not-processed foods to a baby, right?
For the record, yes, I know I'm being unconventional--reusable diapers instead of Huggies, mashed fresh fruits and vegetables instead of jars of Gerber, breast feeding, second-hand baby clothes--but I've already accounted for all that. The woman can do the work, she's supposed to do the mothering, it's her tits the thing needs to suck on to survive. Since I make so much money, I'll just make sure there's a functional dishwasher and double-sink and vacuum cleaner and washing machine in the house, and take the (minimized) time to get the clothes (sans reusable diapers--woman's job) done and the dishes washed. Figure the woman should teach me to cook fairly well before getting knocked up, can at least help some in the kitchen. I'm used to being single; I can shift the load off a woman who's supposed to be tending to a small, annoying cretin, it's not like I've never done dishes before.
Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu inherits Debian policy. Anything--supported or not--is not updated in any way that breaks things. You might not be able to get security patches for stuff in Universe or Multiverse in a timely manner without rolling and submitting it yourself; but they won't go releasing a package that no longer does X when X worked before. The idea is that, if your configuration works, it will continue to work *exactly* the way you have it without modification no matter which version of the package you have across the entire lifecycle of a stable release--if it doesn't, that's a bug and they need to undo that breakage. Extending is fine, breaking is *not* acceptable.
RedHat on the other hand released RHEL 6.4 and removed crmsh, the configuration system for Pacemaker, to be replaced with PCS. This wasn't documented in the release notes, either. Suddenly things that configure high-availability fail-over on RHEL 6 don't work. Running the same tools/scripts/whatnot breaks. This is still RHEL 6 stable, and under Debian policy that's not supposed to happen. RedHat doesn't have such a policy, so it happens.
That means you're persistently at risk of reaching a situation where your patching priority demands increased resources: I can continue to patch Ubuntu while my dev team comfortably works on readying our stuff for the next LTS or the next 9 month release, usually; but one day RHEL has patches and I either don't upgrade as my company's security policy dictates OR we find resources (meaning, sometimes, hire more people) to step up the porting process.
With RHEL, the risk is that we may need more manpower (labor cost--salaries) to support the same security policy; and that we may still not be able to keep in step as quickly as with a Debian-style update policy (i.e. there may be greater lag time as we rewrite scripts and configurations and do more dev testing before releasing patches). On top of that, we're faced with the risk of more frequent large roll-outs--things that worked in dev might not work in production, and now we're rolling out a patch that breaks production along with a bunch of patches to production to un-break it, and hoping that it all works in production.
Yes, I blame RHEL for this.
I was thinking more "Why DNA instead of fluorescent dye?"
Breaks one day because snapshots are a "Technology preview" and destroys all your disk images when RedHat releases a new update to RHEL7 production stable feed.
They are. Corruption is a portion, and it doesn't have to be a majority--just one damaged organ with 10% of its tissue rotting away will kill the whole organism.
My stance on drugs is constantly evolving. Currently it stands:
If it's viciously addictive, it should be regulated; the more physically and socially toxic (you CAN'T go to work without shooting heroine if you're DYING FROM WITHDRAWAL) and the more addictive, the higher the penalties should be. For dealing the penalties should be a hell of a lot higher--you sell methamphetamine to minors, we bring back crucifixion. For possession and use, lower penalties--for addiction cases, I want to get people off the drugs. Possession and use are difficult because leaving them open creates problems, but attempting to address them puts people who made mistakes and now are seeking help in the line of fire--and those who repent deserve help, not punishment; they are no longer a danger to society (i.e. by exemplifying and encouraging the consumption of dangerous substances) and deserve to not be treated as one.
If it's not addictive, or just not very--if the risk is very low--then the danger to society is very low and the damage done by prohibition is extremely high. We have two options: Accept the potential risk (maybe we find out some day marijuana is like... really, worse than Heroine) and leave open the possibility to discover great benefits in the future; or reject the risks and take away any potential benefits. I can tell you straight out marijuana is anxiolytic--sure I've never used it, but THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE USE IT FOR so you know... I'm about 100% certain that's the primary positive benefit. By banning it, we're saying the risk to society outweighs the harm done by prohibition enforcement plus the loss of an anxiolytic option--is that really true? If not, then it shouldn't be banned.
Disclosure: I'm basically always on Piracetam, Aniracetam, L-Theanine, Alpha-GPC, Noopept, and SAM-e, all currently legal. I also have Oxiracetam and Pramiracetam for occasional use (also legal); and I do often take standardized antioxidants marketed as "green tea extract" standardized to 98% polyphenols, with 50% of the total mass being EGCg.
The doctors had me on Methylphenedate and Risperdal, which had vicious side effects and were terrible and relatively toxic; they suggested a mixture of mainly dexamphetamine (Adderall--78.2% dex), which is also too toxic to my tastes (but people who snort cocaine insist that dex isn't bad for you and tell me it's the best substance ever invented...). I'm on zero prescription drugs.
I've actually gotten better results out of the drugs I've picked out for myself, and can safely adjust them at will--the drug interactions are good, and doses of 80 times the standard dosage are minimally risky, and the side effects are things like headache (because of choline depletion--hence Alpha-GPC, fixes that), insomnia (I have that anyway, and Melatonin 1mg time release fixes that), and an upset stomach (eating at McDonalds does that too, and it doesn't happen to me). This works better for me, and if we just brazenly banned all kinds of shit without evaluating if it's dangerous then I wouldn't have that option.
Now, Dexamphetamine is another potential treatment route; but it's dangerous--I actually believe that, you can dispute it but let's keep context clear--and I have no problem with it being scheduled. I can get it with prescription. Cocaine I can't get, even if the doctors determine that cocaine may be an effective option to treat some condition I have--I understand that too, but if that ever happens I don't think I'd be able to argue that banning cocaine is a bad thing. I'd argue that the lack of research into medical use and access to prescription under a doctor's professional judgment is ... inconvenient, and that if there's such a body of knowledge suggesting it should be scheduled for prescription then that needs to be fixed. But I mean, hell, dangerous substances, I don't want that stuff floating around out there. Look at how that works with cigarettes.
You can be an uberlibertarian if you want and go raving that we sho
Some e-mail address in .ru or .cn or something e-mailed me child porn once. The girl in the picture was older than I was at the time. Looking back on this, I lol.
OIG explained to us that the imaged human is victimized and subjected to psychological trauma the instant any person looks at the image. The victim is victimized again whenever someone sees the image, so people need to not look.
I think they just don't like the idea that people who have spent time looking at child pornography need to be subject to psychological evaluation; and that those of us who have an adaptive stress reaction are impossible to discern from sociopaths (i.e. people who are plotting to destroy you because it's fun). To put this into perspective: most people, when you expose them to bestiality and scat and child porn and other gross shit, after repeat exposure they're a nervous wreck with PTSD--hence the psychological evaluation, Class A amnesics, etc. Then there's folks like me who have our absolute breakdown right away and start *screaming*, and then taper down--and what you're left with is someone who's just not bothered by it, which really scares the shit out of people.
The worst ones aren't the ones that get used to it. The worst are the ones that recognize a sexual context and adapt to meet social pressure--and that's, unfortunately, fairly normal. The PTSD folks get is from exposure creating a subconscious feeling that this is what they need to be to be accepted into society, while their mind violently rejects the images they're being fed. Without the rejection, you'd get ... well ... people who are off-put, and then able to handle it, and then turned on by sex with animals and children. It's the same as reprogramming a dude to be bisexual, really (reprogramming someone to be gay/straight is hard--you have to add a revulsion to one mode of sexual attraction, which usually brings all kinds of other damage and really only creates repression).
Yes, I've learned far too much about how humans work.
You people are retarded.
*Money* is the demographic, you idiots! MONEY! Don't you understand the meaning of the word RICH?!
People want JLU Superman, not DC Comics 1st Edition Superman.
Stock market up!
Movies bring in more money!
Has anyone considered counting out the patronage of movies instead of the box office revenue? $2 tickets in 1980 become $20 tickets in 2008. Do you fucking monkeys know what inflation is?
Unless you're PR, you shouldn't use 'we' when talking about RedHat.
Also, RedHat is garbage, so stick that one in your hat. Debian and Ubuntu both have the policy that any updates must absolutely not break release; if they do, they're slated for next release. RedHat? Oh, right in the middle of RHEL6, let's drop crmsh for pcs, which didn't exist before in RHEL6, and not even note in our 6.4 release notes that crmsh is going away. People tell me "technology preview" a lot, but that's only an excuse for it being not-totally-functional to begin with; in Ubuntu, the policy of "Don't break shit that already works" applies to unsupported software as well as supported software--even if you don't get regular patches or bugfixes unless somebody is bored or you submit it yourself, you still don't wake up one day and find out that something that worked when the distro was released no longer works now because of an update.
RedHat is in the business of supplying crap.
The issue is that the SQL Standard says NULL is an unknown value and "" is a known value of empty string. Oracle considers "" to be NULL, which is incorrect in the same way that considering 'char *s = "";' equivalent to 'char *s = NULL;' in C is incorrect.
Sure, why not? MySQL is crap. MySQL is crap. 10 years later, MySQL is still crap. MariaDB and Percona are less crap, but still crap.
Oracle is on-par with PostgreSQL, with some drawbacks, and you can argue and haggle--personally I think Oracle is inferior, but you'll get dissenters and they *are* in the same class. MS SQL Server is inferior--it's a good product in its space, but its space is a subset space of PostgreSQL. More to the point, Oracle and MS SQL Server are both closed, proprietary pay-ware; PostgreSQL, MySQL, DB2, and SQLite are free. That means the argument is essentially PostgreSQL vs MySQL.
PostgreSQL actually functions like a real database (MySQL does a lot of crap it shouldn't), outperforms MySQL, has working replication now (FINALLY, since around 8.0-ish, a few short years back), has BETTER replication than MySQL, and is about as easy to set up (I learned it in about 30 minutes). In general it's a better product as a database. Since it has no real drawbacks besides blunt protocol compatibility (i.e. a MySQL-specific app can't talk to PostgreSQL, either because of network presentation protocol (MySQL protocol 3306) or application protocol (MySQL-specific command language)) compared to MySQL, and many advantages, it's essentially a higher-quality and thus better piece of software.
Optimally, RedHat, Debian, Ubuntu, SuSE, etc should provide the best MySQL possible--Percona, MariaDB, whatever--while providing the guideline that PostgreSQL is a better product. Because, hell, they're already endorsing by dumping MySQL instead of simply including both Percona and MariaDB. The issue is that the political chip of saying, "X is better than Y," is very volatile. We could sit here and hash out merits and come to that exact conclusion--but even then, when we're all convinced that this is FACT and not OPINION, what do you think would happen if RedHat and Ubuntu both flatly said, "Use PostgreSQL, MySQL is crap"?
In Debian policy, something that is "unstable" and "unsupported" is still subject to the rules. Ubuntu repositories are organized based on support--main, universe, multiverse--and even things in multiverse aren't to receive breaking changes during a release. They may lag--they might be poorly tested, they might not work, they might not get prompt updates--but they certainly won't break on you.
High-availability is, by the way, a common business case and is in primary support in Ubuntu; but that's just nitpicking. Ubuntu is satisfied with the risk/responsibility the current software provides with the amount of testing they've done and the resources they have; RedHat is not. The real difference is Ubuntu does not expect its customers to accept the risk that software in the stable distribution may change, whether they officially support it or just supply it as a convenience.
Really, this is like one dentist office (RedHat) having a notice that says, "Our fillings contain 50% mercury and may leech over 5 years and cause long-term mercury poisoning," and another dentist office (Debian) having a notice that says, "We use 100% composite resin fillings." Amalgam fillings last 12-15 years, if they don't expand and crack the tooth; composite-resin last 7-10 years, after which they tend to shrink some and leak, requiring replacement. Then: You go into the dentist's office... and they tell you you need fillings or your teeth will rot out and you'll need root canal oral surgery.
Obviously, a 15 year replacement cycle is nicer than a 10 year replacement cycle, just like RedHat's 20 year maintenance term is nicer than Ubuntu 5 year LTS. Too bad RHEL is toxic while Ubuntu is guaranteed not to be.
If you're using KDE, yes, it does.
Yes but if you're using KDE you should be euthanized.
Well, that's all well and good. I had RHEL installed in high-availability mission critical fail-over clusters back in 6.3 earlier this year. Then RedHat released 6.4 and immediately broke Pacemaker. I had to rewrite the configuration "stuff" to get fail-over working again. So Enterprise.
Ubuntu is my favorite distro even if I hate their NIH mentality and backwards shit. It's just good. Well, less-bad. The point is Ubuntu inherits Debian "stable" policy: If thy Change break anything for any user, thy Change waitith until thy next Release. Oh, you want to throw out a configuration system and switch some software to a completely different configuration manager requiring different commands and a different configuration format and a different back-end protocol? Not in stable. Do that in stable+1.
This is why there was a giant flamewar on the mailing list a bit ago. People were crying because I was pushing to have Ubuntu 13.04 upgrade to Puppet 3 from 2.7 in the distro repos, and folks were raising hell because they were NOT ready to upgrade from Puppet 2.7. Well that's all well-and-good, but 12.10 has Puppet 2.7; since it was January and 13.04 was still in development and not stable, I felt justified in pushing for 13.04 to have the latest-and-greatest Puppet. Not ready to upgrade? Stay on 12.10 until you're ready--why would you upgrade your distribution if you don't want to upgrade your fucking software?
On RHEL, it's more like: Oh, hi, we upgraded Puppet to 3.0 in RHEL6, so when you run 'yum update' on 6.5 you'll wind up with redhat-release saying you're on 6.6 and with Puppet 3.0 and half your modules break! New features! Not ready to update? Well Puppet 2.7 isn't getting any new updates, no security or bugfix patches, because it's not part of a supported distro anymore (it was supported in Redhat 6, now it's not in Redhat 6).
That's hypothetical, but it's exactly what happened in RHEL 6.4 for crmsh configurations of Pacemaker. crmsh was thrown out of RHEL6, instead now you must use pcs. Just like if Ubuntu threw out crmsh in 12.04 LTS today and said it now uses pcs and users of 12.04 who use crmsh will lose crmsh on next update and so are no longer getting updates until they rewrite their shit to use pcs. Ubuntu and Debian policy strictly forbids that shit.
Mission-critical means stuff. It means stuff RHEL can't satisfy.
I recommend against RHEL for mission-critical anything. Ditto MySQL.
You mean when you hit ALT+F2 and type "DVD", it shows you a list of DVD authoring, DVD ripping, and DVD burning apps? Or if you start typing 'thog' it shows you Thoggen? "Software" gives you synaptic, Ubuntu Software Center, and Software Updater? Must've missed that.
Not really. What this is is political bullshit: Backlash at new UIs means don't release with a new UI, and claim that people won't have to relearn. Then when they're forced to otherwise relearn anyway, they won't be as bothered down the line. On top of that, in 25 years when RHEL8 comes out there won't be any more bickering about Gnome-Shell and they'll be able to release without political pressure.
Well, okay; but most modern blacksmiths are going to have trouble producing nanosteel in their home forge from raw metal taken straight from the ground. Just saying.
Learn.
Considering the size of a typical wolf's stomach, I can only imagine they can "have them all" if they're Welsh.
62% of Americans would be okay with random ass-fucking if it were to fight arabs and niggers.
Wrong. go talk to a doctor that knows their shit. While many of them have greater effect, they do so at a cost of greater side effects. One of the benefits of many of the newer ones is lower side effects. For example Sertraline (Zoloft) has no serious side effects, all the ones it has are annoying at most, they are not harmful. Also it is non-addictive, non-habit forming, so it is something that can be taken your whole life, no problem.
Ask a scientist about research.
In the early years, drugs easily beat the placebo: They were, on average, 4.5 times as effective, where effectiveness means how well they lowered blood pressure, vanquished tumors, lifted depression or did whatever else they were intended to.
But the trend line was inexorably downhill, found Dr Mark Olfson of Columbia University and statistician Steven Marcus of the University of Pennsylvania. By the 1980s drugs were less than four times better; by the 1990s, twice as good, and by the 2000s just 36 percent better than a placebo. Since older drugs were much superior to placebo and newer ones only slightly so, that means older drugs were generally more effective than newer ones.
Do you know who works on medicine? Companies that make money from you getting sick. Now, medicine is patented, and the price is kept high because a $1500/year medicine costs the consumer $10/mo directly (and $1500/year through insurance... well, okay, not really; it's an averaging game). Generics cost less, and 14 years down the line Pfeizer needs to make a new drug to patent. The patent expiring is good for the consumer, but not so good for Pfeizer who would rather keep price gouging unethically.
Whatever the reason for many new drugs packing less punch than old ones, that will not keep them from reaching patients.
"The way the drug regulatory system is set up, even if you have just a small advance, if you market it right it can be very profitable," said Kesselheim.
Back in the 90s, psychiatrists prescribed very low doses of MDMA to treat PTSD. It worked for about 3-4 months--one tiny dose, 1/10 of what it takes to actually get you high, and you're good for months--then you take another one. No side effects (MDMA is ridiculously benign, it's unheard of--even Piracetam has worse side effects accounting for effect, scale, and frequency) and almost 100% population effectiveness. MDMA is impossible to patent and is cheap. Now we use terribly damaging drugs that aren't nearly as effective... is this a casualty of the War on Drugs making MDMA hard to get even legitimately, or a casualty of Pfeizer not being able to make money on MDMA?
Concession: The study was done by the Government, which under Obamacare (what a stupid buzzname, isn't it like Healthcare Reform Act of Somestupidshityear?) has the interest of reducing costs. A number of alternate explanations were given, such as that people are harder to treat today, or that we're scrutinizing clinical trials more now than before. However, this is interesting:
While experts agree that tougher trials and similar factors explain some of the decline in drugs' reported effectiveness, "something real is going on here," said Olfson. "Physicians keep saying that many of the new things just aren't working as well," and therefore prescribe antidepressant drugs called tricyclics (developed in the 1950s) instead of SSRIs (from the 1980s), or diuretics (invented in the 1920s) for high blood pressure instead of newer anti-hypertensives.
Doctors don't sit around weighing clinical trials; they read a pamphlet and prescribe new drugs. When they stop prescribing new drugs, it's because they've had 2000 patients and found that more than 1000 of them did very poorly on the new shit that they were told was better but did very well on old shit that was i
I never had a trip to Disneyland.
Diapers cost what? Reusable diapers (you know, there's a woman that cleans them? The thing they had before they decided to landfill millions of pounds of shit?) don't cost much. Food is tits for six months, then tits and cheap vegetables--I own a food mill that I've used to mash up sweet potato (an excellent baby food), but can also do butternut squash (I've done this), carrots, peas, etc. I can't liquefy meat, but the kid will have meat added when teeth are sufficient. The WHO recommends 2 years or longer breast feeding, although I'd need to keep the woman on a combination of Choline supplements for the whole time to improve the child's brain development (Alpha-GPC is great, but I'll multi-source when the goal is upping breast milk choline levels instead of neural choline levels).
Braces are covered by insurance, as with infant healthcare. If we don't include the cost of health insurance--because I need family insurance to cover the wife, so I need that whether or not I have a baby--we're talking not-very-much. Medical expenses amount to almost nothing--my insurance covers 100% all "wellness" expenses, that means physicals and doctors office check-up visits, as well as infant care to make sure your baby doesn't develop into some horribly expensive medical failure because it got some strange disease (polio?) and became a cripple they have to pay for. I know vaccinations and pediatrician check-ups for newborns and small children are 100%; the other expenses are $10 deductible.
As you can tell, I don't know shit about how much healthcare costs in this situation and prefer to mitigate risk via good insurance; as a single male, I manage my risk on a CDHP for minimum cost with a $3500-per-year expense ceiling and $1500 per-incident deductible, and of course 100% "wellness" coverage. I get doctor's visits free, physicals free, if the doctor decides I should have a colonic irrigation as a preventative health measure my insurance will pay 100% of the cost of having a tube shoved up my ass. As long as the doctor says "this is to ensure continued good health," it's free. If it's to correct bad health or injury, I have to pay for it. But a baby? Shit I don't know how any of that works; I don't know how the woman works or how sick she's going to get or what my financial situation will be; so when I'm not single I'll take the $10 deductible $250/mo family plan instead of the $1500 deductible $50/mo CDHP.
A baby costs less than $3500/year; there are anti-teen-pregnancy billboards claiming $750/mo for a baby, but you'd have to be buying gold-lined diapers for them to hit that. We're talking 4-6 months on tits for food (free), then on what 1-2 pounds of $2/lb vegetables ($4/day, $120/mo) (I don't believe in cereals--it is recommended to feed your baby refined white wheat germ, which is pure sugar, because it's fortified with iron. I can get iron out of other shit, trust me; the doctor will let me know if I'm doing something horribly wrong), then when they get teeth we can move to fish at first and then tougher meats like beef and pork. One-time expenses like clothes, which you can thrift-shop really--second hand is great.
Really roughing it here feeding not-processed foods to a baby, right?
For the record, yes, I know I'm being unconventional--reusable diapers instead of Huggies, mashed fresh fruits and vegetables instead of jars of Gerber, breast feeding, second-hand baby clothes--but I've already accounted for all that. The woman can do the work, she's supposed to do the mothering, it's her tits the thing needs to suck on to survive. Since I make so much money, I'll just make sure there's a functional dishwasher and double-sink and vacuum cleaner and washing machine in the house, and take the (minimized) time to get the clothes (sans reusable diapers--woman's job) done and the dishes washed. Figure the woman should teach me to cook fairly well before getting knocked up, can at least help some in the kitchen. I'm used to being single; I can shift the load off a woman who's supposed to be tending to a small, annoying cretin, it's not like I've never done dishes before.