Being a bit pedantic here, but you are not using the real definition of the word. You are providing the recent "bastardized by US judicial decisions" biased definition which allow for additional prosecutions. Check both Websters (below)
1 a : the action or process of entrapping
b : the condition of being entrapped
2: the action of luring an individual into committing a crime in order to prosecute the person for it
And Oxford
1 Catch (someone or something) in or as in a trap: she was entrapped by family expectations
What a shock that an anonymous coward makes a false claim and a false accusation. This was simple to find, and countless others can be found with very simple search terms. Try "emotion in decision making differences between gender".
I'm guessing that you will do no such search, because it's easier to be a liar hiding behind anonymity than an intellectual person that is willing to back their claims.
SMF is like SystemD, and I remember spending about 3-4 months rewriting all of our tools to work with SMF when Sun released it. It was not the magic bullet Sun thought it would be, processes would stick and have to manually be cleared all the time and I don't ever recall it restarting a service like they promised.
At least SMF uses XML scripts, so you can hack away just like a boot script with minimal knowledge, just hack between XML tags. This is where I don't look forward to using systemd or it's competitor. They both believe that booting should be out of DB that you can't hack without importing and exporting objects. That is where my biggest frustration is, if I can't see it I don't trust it.
We have had several init systems in different Unices for years now, Linux itself having several.
So in Solaris 10 we could choose to remove SMF and use Init? No, we couldn't. You are trying to pretend that an Init system can cohabit with another Init system, and that does not work. Just like there is only 1 running Kernel on a *nix system (VMs don't count), there is only 1 running Init system.
Different Flavors of Linux have been experimenting with replacing init, but this is not something you change out easily and supporting multiples would be a massive undertaking.
We normally don't hack things because Init is broken, we hack things because a driver or application requires some tweaking. What if I'm on a server where the brocade takes longer than the driver expects to respond? What if I'm starting up 200-400 Apache sites on the same host and I need to make sure I have numerous DBs available, bind each site to a unique IP (and I only want the interface up if the site is up)?
There are numerous examples like this which have nothing to do with Init being broken, and Systemd does not make them any better. In fact a parallel Apache process is going to be a pain in the ass to write for systemd (or we keep that in legacy mode and hope that a package/update does not add it back into systemd. One of the primary principles of Unix has been "if it ain't broke don't fix it", and there is nothing broken about init.
In the case of a Desktop, most things work fine out of the box. Servers are not, and never have been, the same thing as a Desktop.
The main selling point for Systemd is like Sun's SMF, and it can restart process that die. They want Apache to restart if it crashes for example. From an old timer perspective, if Apache crashed then there was a reason. I don't want a service restarting Apache when this happens, I want to investigate and fix the problem. Central monitoring does more for this than SMF, and I have worked with SMF since it was released. Systemd is no better than SMF in any regard.
I will say this, though. When it comes to making heavily emotional decisions, men generally tend to do worse. Suicide - 3x to 10x worse. Murder. Stalkers. Violent assaults. Men lead women in all these categories. So many men try so hard to deny their emotions (possibly because they don't want to be seen as weak or wrong) that when it leaks out, it's like a gusher. Everyone ends up losing.
I gave the hint a couple times, but I'll spell it out more clearly. Most of societies problems are not due to our differences. Most of societies problems are due to a very small subset of people who use propaganda to perpetuate bickering among the "common" people. These are verifiable activities, historically documented. You won't hear it on the News or read it in a big newspaper, because those people own the media (or at least control the dialogue).
There are evolutionary reasons for men and women being different in how our brains work. Men can't conceive and carry a child to birth, and we don't develop mammary glands that produce milk to feed babies. Evolutionarily speaking who is best to be a protector/provider vs. nurture figure? For at least 4 decades we keep hearing that men are abusive if the woman stays at home to raise a kid, but isn't that the most logical choice especially for the first several years of a child's life?
How that evolutionary difference in how we think relates to transgender, I'm really not sure. Any theory I have would be completely anecdotal, and based on the few friends I had growing up that were homosexuals and not based on scientific evidence.
Once people realize that the dialogue is controlled and that we are being pitted against each other, you will see it all the time. The hard part is breaking the delusion which most of us are pretty happy living with (speaking from experience on that one).
You've never worked in fifty-person contract software houses, have you? With the way that world works, you have no choice but to often work on the same files. There's *actually* no way around it. (You can imagine how terrible things were back when we were using VSS with mandatory lock-and-checkout semantics.)
I'm sure that many of us have worked in much larger development environments than this. When every developer in the offices pulls out every thing in the repository and tries to check the whole repo in after modifying the 1-2 files they changed, that is the problem.
Personally I blame management in this case, since they are hiring and not training and/or supervising the staff properly.
Having worked with both, and being mostly operations, I prefer git myself. My coding is mostly operations tools, and I don't need heavy collaboration. Our products code base is in SVN because there is large collaboration. We have about 7 times the amount of developers you have, and the various teams have all tested git and decided to stick with SVN.
When management allows free for all, I recommend Clearcase/Rational so that you have full control over who has access to what files in a branch, not just a branch. It's expensive, but no more chaos.
Interesting, but is not what I was referring to nor does it change my statement. Psychological studies have consistently shown that women weigh more emotion into decisions than men. Sometimes called empathy, other times called compassionate. As I stated above, that way of thinking is different from a man who tends to think directly to the point without as much compassion/empathy. Both ways of thinking are perfectly valid, and neither is always superior. I'm sure you can think of situations where one or the other have been very effective, and if not you are very closed minded.
The differences are not a problem if we learn to work together. The biggest hurdle is that people continue to buy into a fabricated reality where one is superior to the other, and that having a difference is itself a bias. The latter has exacerbated and extended issues of racial superiority which should have been resolved centuries ago. "Feminism" was co-opted for the same purposes (to separate society) by the same groups.
Anyone not realizing that there are differences between men and women is an idiot. Men can lift more weight than women, and we have known this for thousands of years. In fact my favorite book "The Republic" has Socrates stating that Women should be in the military, even though everyone else argues that they can't carry as much weight into battle. It's not a shock, it's a fact that we each have some strong and weak points regarding our physique.
We also know that women tend to use more emotion in judgement than men. In fact women use emotion all the time quite, and quite differently from men. Amazingly, we have known about these differences for again thousands of years. It does not mean a women can't learn math, it means that when it comes to a snap decision a women will weigh the decision with a bit more emotion than a man. That is not a bad thing! At the same time, it does not make a man's decision always wrong.
Working together, all of these things can offset very nicely. 2 men and 2 women on the mission would give half of the crew with extra lift capability if needed. It would also provide different views of problem solving on the spot. I really don't see this as any type of problem, but then again I'm not a sexist.
Instead of promoting a work together attitude, TFA is yet another example of trying to separate the masses and keep us bickering with each other. Meanwhile, nothing will happen because the bureaucrats want your money for at least their lifetime. They do not progress, harmony, peace, or anything that may risk their lifelong free ride telling you how to live and where your tax money should go.
See how the game works? I really hope so. Don't argue the exception to the rule, argue the "normal" if you are going to respond.
First, the majority of the market is not PaaS vendors. The Majority of the market is everyone but PaaS vendors. Lastly, your generalization is probably false. I'm sure you can find a few anecdotal samples of companies that do, but there is no market study that polls all vendors to gather their opinions. I know of some that don't want it, and I know a couple that don't care one way or another.
The primary downer for systemd on servers is the lack of backward compatibility for boot scripts. We hack things often, and the last thing I want is to have a competing system which may decide that a systemd DB entry should override my #!/bin/sh legacy mode script for the same functionality. Further, we test things by interrogating boot script, and obviously with systemd those tests all need to change to new methods.
I'm not claiming it's an impossible task mind you, but would add a ton of work no matter how it's implemented. In a market that dictates minimum manpower, we don't have the headcount to do this.
Systemd may be fine for a desktop, but not fine for a server. I can say the same exact thing about NetworkManager, which I quickly remove from any server I touch because some Ditro's think that servers need this crap.
I refuse to use Ubuntu for example because they can their software for desktops. I don't have anything against Linux desktops mind you, but I don't manage thousands of desktops. I manage thousands of Linux Servers.
If Debian does not want to ship systemd I'm happy. It saves me from searching for a new Distro to replace our current all Debian environment.
If someone does not like Debian for doing so, they can go Fork themselves all they want. Forking has been the primary reason for Linux growth. Yeah yeah, we have seen some orphaned and a few died on the tree, but the best continue and breed more... (*intentionally punned*)
You would still have to house, guard, and keep tabs on "prisoners" when they were out doing non-prison related things. The answer to all of your points is "cost".
Funding could come from the currently corrupt systems by cleaning up the corruption and excessive bureaucratic build up, but we both know that won't happen any time soon.
While we are at it, remember that scientists have recently shown that black holes don't have to exist and may not exist. Further, the Expanding Quantum Vacuum theory for the evolution of the Universe discounts the need for a big bang.
Interesting surely, but this theory is trying to build upon two theories that have some very good scientific competition.
You are so far off the original point it's tempting to not respond. The original point was that the income tax was 90% in the 1970s, which is correct. You first said that it was progressive, which was proven wrong. Now you are attempting to argue that it was a marginal tax in progressive form, which again it was not.
What you are doing is cherry picking all of the exceptions which were passed in and out of legislation to avoid paying tax by the ultra wealthy. As originally stated, most people in 1970 making a million a year were not yelling about the tax, it was the rare exceptions like the Kennedy family, Rockefeller family, etc.. who were constantly working to pay less. Those same people were not starting companies and investing in society, they were hoarding and collapsing segments of society for personal gain. They still do the same things today, though cover things up a bit better.
Capital gains tax for example would have at least dozens of rules passed, repealed, rates reduced, rates increased, etc... and that would be just from 1960-1990 (some things are not worth tracking past a certain point) Not many people making a million a year ever paid the full 90% tax, but that _was_ their bracket. Just like most people in a lower bracket paying 20% ever actually pay 20% but pay slightly less. That does not make their bracket different than what the law and income tax forms state, it only demonstrates that the system has always had problems where people legislate in loopholes and people take advantage of the loopholes.
You can attempt to argue exceptions all day long, but the law is in the US Tax forms (including rate schedules). The exceptions are just that, and are not part of the tax form 1099.
Very informative, thanks for doing the work I was too lazy to do. Seems like I need to change my original statement from but rather pointing out that I have a feeling that the claim of reduction is at least partially a statistics game to make someone look good. TO but rather pointing out that I have a feeling that the claim of reduction mostly a statistics game to make someone look good, and kartaron provided factual information to back that belief.
Absolutely wrong on all accounts yet again. Instead of doing the work, you revert back to false claims and broken logic. Instead of making an attempt to show the theme I provided, oppression, was wrong you resort to personal attack. Instead of arguing against Socrates' Allegory of the Cave, you retort by attempting to belittle the work.
So now that you have demonstrated that you can argue like a juvenile, demonstrate that you can debate like an adult. I have a feeling that you are simply trolling, so I won't hold my breath for any intellectual response.
Please stop claiming I am misinformed, especially after you were proven to be wrong about the US having a progressive tax under Nixon and Reagan. You were wrong, which should result in the same action I took when I found that I was wrong about 1913.
Instead of admitting you were wrong, you are now attempting to move the goal post. A marginal tax is not the same thing as progressive tax, it was not the point you made previously, and has no bearing on your false claim that the US was using a progressive tax during the time periods I specified (Nixon/Reagan eras).
California had a massive reduction in prison population due to courts deeming that holding people under severely crowded conditions was unconstitutional. I'm too lazy to do the math and figure out what percentage of the alleged 20% this accounts for. Law enforcement being allowed to legally seize property without any charges has further reduced "criminals" but again to what level? That one we don't know, because there is little to zero accountability by agencies practicing this illegal act (and there are numerous agencies doing this).
Not to take away the point regarding "Crime Conundrum", but rather pointing out that I have a feeling that the claim of reduction is at least partially a statistics game to make someone look good.
So "nearly all governments" is a percentage? No, it's a generalization. Dictionaries are not that difficult to find, you should attempt to read one prior to attempting to correct anyone on language.
Slashdot Mirror
Being a bit pedantic here, but you are not using the real definition of the word. You are providing the recent "bastardized by US judicial decisions" biased definition which allow for additional prosecutions. Check both Websters (below)
1 a : the action or process of entrapping
b : the condition of being entrapped
2: the action of luring an individual into committing a crime in order to prosecute the person for it
And Oxford
1 Catch (someone or something) in or as in a trap: she was entrapped by family expectations
What a shock that an anonymous coward makes a false claim and a false accusation. This was simple to find, and countless others can be found with very simple search terms. Try "emotion in decision making differences between gender".
I'm guessing that you will do no such search, because it's easier to be a liar hiding behind anonymity than an intellectual person that is willing to back their claims.
SMF is like SystemD, and I remember spending about 3-4 months rewriting all of our tools to work with SMF when Sun released it. It was not the magic bullet Sun thought it would be, processes would stick and have to manually be cleared all the time and I don't ever recall it restarting a service like they promised.
At least SMF uses XML scripts, so you can hack away just like a boot script with minimal knowledge, just hack between XML tags. This is where I don't look forward to using systemd or it's competitor. They both believe that booting should be out of DB that you can't hack without importing and exporting objects. That is where my biggest frustration is, if I can't see it I don't trust it.
We have had several init systems in different Unices for years now, Linux itself having several.
So in Solaris 10 we could choose to remove SMF and use Init? No, we couldn't. You are trying to pretend that an Init system can cohabit with another Init system, and that does not work. Just like there is only 1 running Kernel on a *nix system (VMs don't count), there is only 1 running Init system.
Different Flavors of Linux have been experimenting with replacing init, but this is not something you change out easily and supporting multiples would be a massive undertaking.
We normally don't hack things because Init is broken, we hack things because a driver or application requires some tweaking. What if I'm on a server where the brocade takes longer than the driver expects to respond? What if I'm starting up 200-400 Apache sites on the same host and I need to make sure I have numerous DBs available, bind each site to a unique IP (and I only want the interface up if the site is up)?
There are numerous examples like this which have nothing to do with Init being broken, and Systemd does not make them any better. In fact a parallel Apache process is going to be a pain in the ass to write for systemd (or we keep that in legacy mode and hope that a package/update does not add it back into systemd. One of the primary principles of Unix has been "if it ain't broke don't fix it", and there is nothing broken about init.
In the case of a Desktop, most things work fine out of the box. Servers are not, and never have been, the same thing as a Desktop.
The main selling point for Systemd is like Sun's SMF, and it can restart process that die. They want Apache to restart if it crashes for example. From an old timer perspective, if Apache crashed then there was a reason. I don't want a service restarting Apache when this happens, I want to investigate and fix the problem. Central monitoring does more for this than SMF, and I have worked with SMF since it was released. Systemd is no better than SMF in any regard.
I will say this, though. When it comes to making heavily emotional decisions, men generally tend to do worse. Suicide - 3x to 10x worse. Murder. Stalkers. Violent assaults. Men lead women in all these categories. So many men try so hard to deny their emotions (possibly because they don't want to be seen as weak or wrong) that when it leaks out, it's like a gusher. Everyone ends up losing.
I gave the hint a couple times, but I'll spell it out more clearly. Most of societies problems are not due to our differences. Most of societies problems are due to a very small subset of people who use propaganda to perpetuate bickering among the "common" people. These are verifiable activities, historically documented. You won't hear it on the News or read it in a big newspaper, because those people own the media (or at least control the dialogue).
There are evolutionary reasons for men and women being different in how our brains work. Men can't conceive and carry a child to birth, and we don't develop mammary glands that produce milk to feed babies. Evolutionarily speaking who is best to be a protector/provider vs. nurture figure? For at least 4 decades we keep hearing that men are abusive if the woman stays at home to raise a kid, but isn't that the most logical choice especially for the first several years of a child's life?
How that evolutionary difference in how we think relates to transgender, I'm really not sure. Any theory I have would be completely anecdotal, and based on the few friends I had growing up that were homosexuals and not based on scientific evidence.
Once people realize that the dialogue is controlled and that we are being pitted against each other, you will see it all the time. The hard part is breaking the delusion which most of us are pretty happy living with (speaking from experience on that one).
You've never worked in fifty-person contract software houses, have you? With the way that world works, you have no choice but to often work on the same files. There's *actually* no way around it. (You can imagine how terrible things were back when we were using VSS with mandatory lock-and-checkout semantics.)
I'm sure that many of us have worked in much larger development environments than this. When every developer in the offices pulls out every thing in the repository and tries to check the whole repo in after modifying the 1-2 files they changed, that is the problem.
Personally I blame management in this case, since they are hiring and not training and/or supervising the staff properly.
Having worked with both, and being mostly operations, I prefer git myself. My coding is mostly operations tools, and I don't need heavy collaboration. Our products code base is in SVN because there is large collaboration. We have about 7 times the amount of developers you have, and the various teams have all tested git and decided to stick with SVN.
When management allows free for all, I recommend Clearcase/Rational so that you have full control over who has access to what files in a branch, not just a branch. It's expensive, but no more chaos.
Interesting, but is not what I was referring to nor does it change my statement. Psychological studies have consistently shown that women weigh more emotion into decisions than men. Sometimes called empathy, other times called compassionate. As I stated above, that way of thinking is different from a man who tends to think directly to the point without as much compassion/empathy. Both ways of thinking are perfectly valid, and neither is always superior. I'm sure you can think of situations where one or the other have been very effective, and if not you are very closed minded.
The differences are not a problem if we learn to work together. The biggest hurdle is that people continue to buy into a fabricated reality where one is superior to the other, and that having a difference is itself a bias. The latter has exacerbated and extended issues of racial superiority which should have been resolved centuries ago. "Feminism" was co-opted for the same purposes (to separate society) by the same groups.
True. But the claim was, "Systemd may be fine for a desktop, but not fine for a server". Obviously the PaaS vendors are doing server.
Which PaaS vendor has come out against systemd?
You failed to see the flaws in your logic even after they were called out. No thanks, I don't feel like playing this game today.
Anyone not realizing that there are differences between men and women is an idiot. Men can lift more weight than women, and we have known this for thousands of years. In fact my favorite book "The Republic" has Socrates stating that Women should be in the military, even though everyone else argues that they can't carry as much weight into battle. It's not a shock, it's a fact that we each have some strong and weak points regarding our physique.
We also know that women tend to use more emotion in judgement than men. In fact women use emotion all the time quite, and quite differently from men. Amazingly, we have known about these differences for again thousands of years. It does not mean a women can't learn math, it means that when it comes to a snap decision a women will weigh the decision with a bit more emotion than a man. That is not a bad thing! At the same time, it does not make a man's decision always wrong.
Working together, all of these things can offset very nicely. 2 men and 2 women on the mission would give half of the crew with extra lift capability if needed. It would also provide different views of problem solving on the spot. I really don't see this as any type of problem, but then again I'm not a sexist.
Instead of promoting a work together attitude, TFA is yet another example of trying to separate the masses and keep us bickering with each other. Meanwhile, nothing will happen because the bureaucrats want your money for at least their lifetime. They do not progress, harmony, peace, or anything that may risk their lifelong free ride telling you how to live and where your tax money should go.
See how the game works? I really hope so. Don't argue the exception to the rule, argue the "normal" if you are going to respond.
Hahaha, I just spit water all over my desk!
First, the majority of the market is not PaaS vendors. The Majority of the market is everyone but PaaS vendors. Lastly, your generalization is probably false. I'm sure you can find a few anecdotal samples of companies that do, but there is no market study that polls all vendors to gather their opinions. I know of some that don't want it, and I know a couple that don't care one way or another.
The primary downer for systemd on servers is the lack of backward compatibility for boot scripts. We hack things often, and the last thing I want is to have a competing system which may decide that a systemd DB entry should override my #!/bin/sh legacy mode script for the same functionality. Further, we test things by interrogating boot script, and obviously with systemd those tests all need to change to new methods.
I'm not claiming it's an impossible task mind you, but would add a ton of work no matter how it's implemented. In a market that dictates minimum manpower, we don't have the headcount to do this.
Systemd may be fine for a desktop, but not fine for a server. I can say the same exact thing about NetworkManager, which I quickly remove from any server I touch because some Ditro's think that servers need this crap.
I refuse to use Ubuntu for example because they can their software for desktops. I don't have anything against Linux desktops mind you, but I don't manage thousands of desktops. I manage thousands of Linux Servers.
If Debian does not want to ship systemd I'm happy. It saves me from searching for a new Distro to replace our current all Debian environment.
If someone does not like Debian for doing so, they can go Fork themselves all they want. Forking has been the primary reason for Linux growth. Yeah yeah, we have seen some orphaned and a few died on the tree, but the best continue and breed more... (*intentionally punned*)
Because burning man is cool and so is pot I guess.. Either that or a slow news/post day so they are trying to increase traffic.
You would still have to house, guard, and keep tabs on "prisoners" when they were out doing non-prison related things. The answer to all of your points is "cost".
Funding could come from the currently corrupt systems by cleaning up the corruption and excessive bureaucratic build up, but we both know that won't happen any time soon.
While we are at it, remember that scientists have recently shown that black holes don't have to exist and may not exist. Further, the Expanding Quantum Vacuum theory for the evolution of the Universe discounts the need for a big bang.
Interesting surely, but this theory is trying to build upon two theories that have some very good scientific competition.
You are so far off the original point it's tempting to not respond. The original point was that the income tax was 90% in the 1970s, which is correct. You first said that it was progressive, which was proven wrong. Now you are attempting to argue that it was a marginal tax in progressive form, which again it was not.
What you are doing is cherry picking all of the exceptions which were passed in and out of legislation to avoid paying tax by the ultra wealthy. As originally stated, most people in 1970 making a million a year were not yelling about the tax, it was the rare exceptions like the Kennedy family, Rockefeller family, etc.. who were constantly working to pay less. Those same people were not starting companies and investing in society, they were hoarding and collapsing segments of society for personal gain. They still do the same things today, though cover things up a bit better.
Capital gains tax for example would have at least dozens of rules passed, repealed, rates reduced, rates increased, etc... and that would be just from 1960-1990 (some things are not worth tracking past a certain point) Not many people making a million a year ever paid the full 90% tax, but that _was_ their bracket. Just like most people in a lower bracket paying 20% ever actually pay 20% but pay slightly less. That does not make their bracket different than what the law and income tax forms state, it only demonstrates that the system has always had problems where people legislate in loopholes and people take advantage of the loopholes.
You can attempt to argue exceptions all day long, but the law is in the US Tax forms (including rate schedules). The exceptions are just that, and are not part of the tax form 1099.
I ran some numbers and you are 98.43215% correct.
Very informative, thanks for doing the work I was too lazy to do. Seems like I need to change my original statement from but rather pointing out that I have a feeling that the claim of reduction is at least partially a statistics game to make someone look good. TO but rather pointing out that I have a feeling that the claim of reduction mostly a statistics game to make someone look good, and kartaron provided factual information to back that belief.
Absolutely wrong on all accounts yet again. Instead of doing the work, you revert back to false claims and broken logic. Instead of making an attempt to show the theme I provided, oppression, was wrong you resort to personal attack. Instead of arguing against Socrates' Allegory of the Cave, you retort by attempting to belittle the work.
So now that you have demonstrated that you can argue like a juvenile, demonstrate that you can debate like an adult. I have a feeling that you are simply trolling, so I won't hold my breath for any intellectual response.
Please stop claiming I am misinformed, especially after you were proven to be wrong about the US having a progressive tax under Nixon and Reagan. You were wrong, which should result in the same action I took when I found that I was wrong about 1913.
Instead of admitting you were wrong, you are now attempting to move the goal post. A marginal tax is not the same thing as progressive tax, it was not the point you made previously, and has no bearing on your false claim that the US was using a progressive tax during the time periods I specified (Nixon/Reagan eras).
California had a massive reduction in prison population due to courts deeming that holding people under severely crowded conditions was unconstitutional. I'm too lazy to do the math and figure out what percentage of the alleged 20% this accounts for. Law enforcement being allowed to legally seize property without any charges has further reduced "criminals" but again to what level? That one we don't know, because there is little to zero accountability by agencies practicing this illegal act (and there are numerous agencies doing this).
Not to take away the point regarding "Crime Conundrum", but rather pointing out that I have a feeling that the claim of reduction is at least partially a statistics game to make someone look good.
23.71% of those made up statistics are correct.
So "nearly all governments" is a percentage? No, it's a generalization. Dictionaries are not that difficult to find, you should attempt to read one prior to attempting to correct anyone on language.