SystemD is the joke that isn't funny. This is just getting ridiculous. Pottering and his band of evil worms are literally trying to intrude their piece of shit Window-esque system into absolutely every corner of Linux. I'm getting out of LInux entirely. If I wanted to run Windows, I'd run fucking Windows.
Ah, but now you can run Windows Server headless from a CLI! It's the best new thing ever! Sure, a decade ago, anyone using *nix was mocked by Windows admins as being some sort of dinosaur, but now that Windows has a reasonably capable (if obnoxiously complex) shell, all of sudden, CLIs are the bestest ever!
Jack Layton certainly made an impact, but the Orange Crush was mainly a Quebec phenomena, and clearly had more to do with the collapse of the Separatist vote. But it is pretty clear that even Quebec voters are casting their nets a little more widely, and that the Liberals are not the toxic brand they were even three or four years ago.
The permanent electioneering is a product of fixed election dates. I live in BC, and that is exactly what we have had since the BC Liberals instituted fixed four year terms in 2001. The UK has also seen this happen since instituting four year limits on Parliament.
Actually, I don't think it is because of Stephen Harper. It is because his opponents were weak and disorganized. In particular, the Liberals were divided and damaged after the Gomery Inquiry, and suffered from a series of weak and unpopular leaders; Paul Martin, Stephan Dion, and Michael Ignatieff. Even Harper's victory in saving his government from a collapse in the face of a coalition government of Liberals, NDP with Bloc Quebecois support, came only because his opponents were too dimwitted to realize that a Prime Minister still commands the ear of the Governor General up until the point that Parliament revokes its confidence.
In other words, Harper isn't that skilled, he's simply lucky; not that that is bad, luck is often very important in politics. But now that the Liberals have reunited themselves, have a leader that, if not exactly capable and tested, is at least a unifying figurehead, suddenly Tory fortunes look a lot worse. The same applies to the NDP, who, like the Tories, greatly benefited from the Liberals. The NDP could cast themselves as the "progressive alternative", but now that the Liberals' fortunes have recovered, suddenly the NDP doesn't seem to have much of a purpose, and the party is slipping back to its natural third place status.
The decade from 2003 (when the Martin-lead Liberals only won a minority government) until roughly 2013, when the Liberals finally put most of their demons to bed (or at least hid them from plain sight) will likely be seen as an aberration. I think Canadian politics is returning to the decades-old norm of the Liberals and Tories exchanging government, with the general trend of the Liberals retaining the dominance of the "natural governing party of Canada". This, by the way, was Harper's clearest mission, to overturn the decades' old order and destroy the Liberals' natural position at the top of the Canadian political establishment, so whatever victories he may count (some good ones, like reuniting Reform and the PCs, and the free trade deal with the European Union), ultimately his years as Prime Minister will be seen as something of a failure.
Ministers re-announcing projects, or announcing what amounts to political vaporware is probably as old as democracy itself. Again, not defending the Tories, just putting it forth that they are behaving exactly like their predecessors.
That seems to be the price of democracy; that politicians spend much of their time considering their re-election. As bad as that it is, the alternatives would be much worse.
I can't remember a time when governments at the Federal, Provincial and sometimes even municipal level didn't use public funds for the purposes of self-aggrandizement. The temptation to use legislative clout for partisan gain is just simply too great.
I'm fairly certain that the Government has many sources of money that do not require Parliament's vote. I certainly disagree with much of what any government advertises on, but the idea that Parliament has to approve every line item problem hasn't been true since before Canada was even created.
There's a blogger on Canadian constitutional matters that actually has a good description of the Tories; he calls them "lazy revolutionaries". The Tories seem full of all this desire to reform various aspects of the Canadian government, but seem too lazy to actually do the legwork. That's how they end up in fiascos like the copyright notice incident.
While some ascribe malice to the Tories' actions, it's become very clear to me, particularly during the years of the majority government, that while maliciousness may play a part in some of what they do, a good deal of what they do is just simply incompetent.
No, he compared Mann to Jerry Sandusky. Again, this is paraphrasing so broadly that it misses the entire point of the complaint.
And it still doesn't change the crucial fact that the overwhelming majority of the climatology agrees with Mann. You don't seriously think a civil trial is going to decide AGW, or that a judge will allow Steyn to go on endless asides, do you?
You can, oh I dunno, gather more data... Which they do. What the fuxk do you think researchers actually do? They gather data, they refine models, they compare to the data, repeat and rinse.
Not all theories are built as monolithic constructs, and nowhere in science is it a requirement that a theory must be complete (whatever that means) to have utility.
Why should making a specific industry stop causing us harm require the industry find profit in it? Shouldn't it be enough to demonstrate the harm and industry then stop the harm? Frankly if an industry requires a profit motive to stop hurting us, then that industry needs serious reforms at a root level.
Slashdot Mirror
SystemD is the joke that isn't funny. This is just getting ridiculous. Pottering and his band of evil worms are literally trying to intrude their piece of shit Window-esque system into absolutely every corner of Linux. I'm getting out of LInux entirely. If I wanted to run Windows, I'd run fucking Windows.
Christ almighty, this beast is a fucking monster. What's next, a shell and a userland?
Glad I'm heading to FreeBSD. Linux is going down the tubes.
One word: "Metro"
No, in fact, the guy that forced Metro on the Windows world owns the LA Clippers now.
Ah, but now you can run Windows Server headless from a CLI! It's the best new thing ever! Sure, a decade ago, anyone using *nix was mocked by Windows admins as being some sort of dinosaur, but now that Windows has a reasonably capable (if obnoxiously complex) shell, all of sudden, CLIs are the bestest ever!
Jack Layton certainly made an impact, but the Orange Crush was mainly a Quebec phenomena, and clearly had more to do with the collapse of the Separatist vote. But it is pretty clear that even Quebec voters are casting their nets a little more widely, and that the Liberals are not the toxic brand they were even three or four years ago.
The permanent electioneering is a product of fixed election dates. I live in BC, and that is exactly what we have had since the BC Liberals instituted fixed four year terms in 2001. The UK has also seen this happen since instituting four year limits on Parliament.
Actually, I don't think it is because of Stephen Harper. It is because his opponents were weak and disorganized. In particular, the Liberals were divided and damaged after the Gomery Inquiry, and suffered from a series of weak and unpopular leaders; Paul Martin, Stephan Dion, and Michael Ignatieff. Even Harper's victory in saving his government from a collapse in the face of a coalition government of Liberals, NDP with Bloc Quebecois support, came only because his opponents were too dimwitted to realize that a Prime Minister still commands the ear of the Governor General up until the point that Parliament revokes its confidence.
In other words, Harper isn't that skilled, he's simply lucky; not that that is bad, luck is often very important in politics. But now that the Liberals have reunited themselves, have a leader that, if not exactly capable and tested, is at least a unifying figurehead, suddenly Tory fortunes look a lot worse. The same applies to the NDP, who, like the Tories, greatly benefited from the Liberals. The NDP could cast themselves as the "progressive alternative", but now that the Liberals' fortunes have recovered, suddenly the NDP doesn't seem to have much of a purpose, and the party is slipping back to its natural third place status.
The decade from 2003 (when the Martin-lead Liberals only won a minority government) until roughly 2013, when the Liberals finally put most of their demons to bed (or at least hid them from plain sight) will likely be seen as an aberration. I think Canadian politics is returning to the decades-old norm of the Liberals and Tories exchanging government, with the general trend of the Liberals retaining the dominance of the "natural governing party of Canada". This, by the way, was Harper's clearest mission, to overturn the decades' old order and destroy the Liberals' natural position at the top of the Canadian political establishment, so whatever victories he may count (some good ones, like reuniting Reform and the PCs, and the free trade deal with the European Union), ultimately his years as Prime Minister will be seen as something of a failure.
Because the GOP overfloweth with talent...
Ministers re-announcing projects, or announcing what amounts to political vaporware is probably as old as democracy itself. Again, not defending the Tories, just putting it forth that they are behaving exactly like their predecessors.
That seems to be the price of democracy; that politicians spend much of their time considering their re-election. As bad as that it is, the alternatives would be much worse.
I can't remember a time when governments at the Federal, Provincial and sometimes even municipal level didn't use public funds for the purposes of self-aggrandizement. The temptation to use legislative clout for partisan gain is just simply too great.
I'm fairly certain that the Government has many sources of money that do not require Parliament's vote. I certainly disagree with much of what any government advertises on, but the idea that Parliament has to approve every line item problem hasn't been true since before Canada was even created.
There's a blogger on Canadian constitutional matters that actually has a good description of the Tories; he calls them "lazy revolutionaries". The Tories seem full of all this desire to reform various aspects of the Canadian government, but seem too lazy to actually do the legwork. That's how they end up in fiascos like the copyright notice incident.
While some ascribe malice to the Tories' actions, it's become very clear to me, particularly during the years of the majority government, that while maliciousness may play a part in some of what they do, a good deal of what they do is just simply incompetent.
It's always good to get a sociopath's point of view.
Well yes, admittedly, those gene changes could lead to the spontaneous evolution of a new race of supermen.
Surely you can at least bother to give direct citations, right?
No, he compared Mann to Jerry Sandusky. Again, this is paraphrasing so broadly that it misses the entire point of the complaint.
And it still doesn't change the crucial fact that the overwhelming majority of the climatology agrees with Mann. You don't seriously think a civil trial is going to decide AGW, or that a judge will allow Steyn to go on endless asides, do you?
Apart from Steyn's rhetoric, is there any evidence that Mann wishes to back out?
That's paraphrasing to the point of inaccuracy.
I can't tell whether you're being ironic, or are just retarded.
And you have citations and peer reviewed and primary literature that Mann is a fraud, right?
You of course can provide citations in actual peer reviewed and primary literature to show Mann is a fraud, right?
Steyn compared Mann to a notorious pedophile. Steyn is a vile asshole.
You can, oh I dunno, gather more data... Which they do. What the fuxk do you think researchers actually do? They gather data, they refine models, they compare to the data, repeat and rinse.
Not all theories are built as monolithic constructs, and nowhere in science is it a requirement that a theory must be complete (whatever that means) to have utility.
Why should making a specific industry stop causing us harm require the industry find profit in it? Shouldn't it be enough to demonstrate the harm and industry then stop the harm? Frankly if an industry requires a profit motive to stop hurting us, then that industry needs serious reforms at a root level.