You sound like a fucking mess to me. Mentally and physically.
I was, I've been through a lot. Anyone carrying around a lot of physical injury is going to suffer mentally from it, it is impossible not to. That's why I started by healing my body to see where it would lead. Turns out it gives you the cognizance to sort all your mental shit out as well.
If you've got the balls to though, it is very confronting, I doubt it is for everyone.
Too precise? What's "too precise" for humans? The available precision in corn stalks isn't very fine grained, and many crop circles were done by a group that had effectively made it their profession.
Sorry, I'm not an expert however I think they are beautiful, so maybe you're right and that are all just an art project. Perhaps a comparison of the characteristics of these things and see what emerges from that data, even if it is to establish they are all pranks.
Too much meaning? Whatever meaning humans are capable of deducing from them, humans are capable of encoding into them.
True that, however anyone sending us a message would want us to understand it too so I'm just trying to balance keeping an open mind and healthy skepticism.
My Dr gave me a referral to a physical therapist that actually helped correct the problem.
So did mine, however I still ended up needing a chiropractor.
Next you are going to tell us the magic crystals and diterary bullshit that chiropractors deal in works too, right?
I think when you find the right chiropractor that sticks with skilled mechanical movement of the joints in the body I can't move, they are a blessing you will thank for the relief. I will indulge your patience so I can explain.
I've been training martial arts for around 30 years and occasionally competed to test myself. Mainly muay Thai and Jui Jitsu are my favorites because they are effective. I also love playing sports like football, hockey, climbing, swimming, I love it all.
Well after all those years of training all of those injuries leave scar tissue which accumulates in the body, the pain of movement becomes an issue. I was doing some intense physiotherapy deep tissue massage for many years, documenting my progress and changes which I one day presented to my doctor.
He looked at them and suggested "Dry Needling", which uses larger needles than acupuncture which is inserted directly into injury sites around the body. It's as extremely confronting as it is effective. I have had over five thousand needles stuck into pretty much anywhere you could name in the body (ok, maybe not my dick). I have resolved 27 injury sites in my body.
A pattern emerged while going through all this, all muscle tension moves from the extremities to the spine which is where I was eternally grateful for a chiropractor with the skill to cavitate my spine and get it moving again. After that the injury site was fully resolved.
I've taken almost three years off training to do this and I feel fucking amazing. I've logged movements of hundreds of hours of cavitation of joints all over my body as scar tissue broke up all over my body. I've recovered range of motion in almost every joint in my body in the cycle, needles, cavitation, chiropractor. Repeated in joints from my fingers to my hips.
The hips have been the hardest to move which I am going through writing this. For the last two days my left ankle, knee and hip have cavitated hundreds of times over a period of about 5 hours a session. The release events (I don't know what else to call them) breaks up the scar tissue through a series of numbness, stretching and cavitation and wipes you out physically. It leaves me nauseous and feeling like I've done a heavy weights session, I slept 40 hours over three days as I felt the muscles slowly pulling my hips to where they should be. It feels like I've been kicked solidly in the balls.
This is resolving a snapped achilles tendon and has been re-occurring for the last six weeks which is pulling the left side of my hips down back into horizontal alignment after previously pulling them back into lateral alignment some weeks ago. I have been through this cycle with other joints like elbows and shoulders, all resolved.
Indeed I think the biggest problem I've had is with a part of my neck that many chiropractors had difficulty moving. I've found that some Chiropractors are afraid of moving peoples necks and it is a risk, that has to be acknowledged. However I know the few times I found a chiro that could move that problem part of my neck I slept like a baby for months. Most of the time it was me pushing the chiropractor.
I think you're right to call the bullshit parts of chiropractors out, just stick with moving the spine and keeping it moving, it is a key component of the body and you want it to function properly. Having said that I offer the following advice from what I've learned:
Build a team of physical therapists that know you, push them to push you.
Find more than one chiropractor with differing mechanical techniques, the variation of movements to challenge your body
My bad - I neglected to mention that I'm familiar with Linda and the subject matter. I love to watch that stuff. Anyhow, what you have from her is conjecture, supposition, and willful ignorance. Well, I assume it's willful - it appears to be.
This is the second of her videos I've watched. I decided long ago that the answer to if unidentified alien craft exist is essentially unknowable until I am standing in front of one.
I've always thought it was more than likely a group of people being encouraged to believe that something was a UFO as cover for military operations of spy aircraft. The thing that intrigues me is more and more information is coming out about commercial pilots seeing uacs so I don't know what to make of it all. I do know that putting a stigma around people who risk sharing their stories is not going to uncover the truth of these matters.
In the case of livestock mutilations, the damage has perfectly normal reasons. For crop circles, those are made by humans.
I've never seen a mutilation, but I have seen carcases partially eaten by animals, it's a mess.
I like looking at crop circles because they are beautiful however it is hard for me to believe that every single one of them is created by teams of dedicated circle jerkers who go around making intricate designs.
An acceptable analysis to me would be to have a cross report on as many crop circles as possible and the defining characteristics to determine what patterns emerge. I don't know what it proves without further investigation however it *seems* to me to be an acceptable first step in the process of a scientific analysis though. What do you think?
Anyhow, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. She just takes evidence and decides it means what she wants it to mean and then ties things together when there's no association between them.
She is a journalist, so she is doing her job and reporting her thesis based on peoples experience. I'm inclined to give the people reporting their experiences the benefit of the doubt, because whilst whatever they experienced made an impact, commonalities in peoples stories could be suggesting that something is happening that is beyond our understanding. That's when we need to pay attention to facts that don't support the theory and challenge knowledge filtration.
Maybe one or two experiences could be written off and who knows, maybe all it proves is that someone really is putting hallucinogens into the water. Seems more feasible than aliens on earth. I don't know.
I have actually spoken on this subject, to a crowd of ufologists. My talk was about the mathematical probabilities of intelligent life existing on other planets. In my talk, I conclude that I have zero reason to doubt the existence of said life. (I was redacting this last night, 'cause it can raise a whole lot of questions from a bunch of ACs and I don't feel like answering them all today.) In my talk, we discussed things like the Drake equation.
I'm impressed that you don't get sucked into your equations and not get detached from reality, every time I'm presented with interesting math in computing I get sucked into it and loose all sense of time. I'm no mathemetician though. Do you model the equation on a star map or something and apply it to a region of space? I would like to read your paper if it is available.
I have no doubt that intelligent life exists on more planets than Earth. However, I see zero evidence that suggests extraterrestrial activity on this planet.
What constitutes evidence of extraterrestrial activity?
Let's try a simple thought experiment...
I don't think it can be a simple thought experiment, I think it would be an intellectual challenge to grasp what motivates a space
I somehow doubt you need to invoke a conspiracy theory at this point to explain either the Olympics being a security boondoggle, nor a right-wing government imposing ridiculous laws in the name of fighting terrorism. Its happening all over the world, Fukushima or not.
I don't see it as a conspiracy theory, I see it as a politically convenient excuse. Government has a technique for acquiring a type of power. There is no conspiracy in saying the state acquires power, that is what it does. So it can only be described as thought policing, because that is what it is. Both right and left wing parties participate as they certainly aren't looking after the interests of the populous if a direct attack on freedom of speech is sustained and passed into law, in a democracy.
This is what the Soviet government did to their people, forced them to falsify their existence and look how that turned out. People *have* to be allowed to speak their truth no matter how ridiculous it is. After all, that's the job of the fool, to speak truths no one can.
I think this is fundamental to our existence, our very sanity, to speak our truth.
Never mind the fact that the Fukushima disaster was 6 years ago. Which would make them about 6 years too late to bother implementing blackout laws.
This is about how long the Australian amendments took to become permanent law, which has similar political system to Japan, even though the names are different.
I wonder if the Japanese people will receive a list of things they can't talk about, or just be arrested when they do. What an uncomfortable predicament that would be. The list should be called "The list of things to lie about" because it's a parody of democracy.
I had the name this morning on another machine and this was the first site I tried. Sorry I'm too tired to remember. I wanted to find out what was on the list.
Sadly, if we look at history this can be a very long time. All it takes is the right propaganda to convince people that you're serving them, and terrorism has given governments around the world a very deep well to draw such propaganda from, as we're all terrified of being the victim of an attack (even though statistically we're far more likely to be done in by a car accident or a peanut allergy or a lightning strike or any of a few dozen other things.)
A great politician can get a crowd to applaud his incompetence as he takes away their freedom.
Are you fucking retarded ? Hmmm...it seems like you're mentally ill with your ramblings.
Haters, and their "ignor-rants".
The Olympics in Australia were held in 2000 and no Australian soldiers shot at anyone.
Gee, sorry about being tired and making that tiny teeny error.
The only people empowered to shoot at civilians are the police and they didn't go around shooting anyone before the Olympics either.
The military call-out legislation was passed by the Commonwealth Parliament in September 2000. The amended call-out powers, contained in Part IIIAAA of the
Defence Act 1903 (called Utilisation of Defence Force to protect Commonwealth interests and States and selfgoverning Territories) have not yet been invoked. However preparations have been made for their application. These include the staging of nine simulation exercises by the end of 2003.
It was ratified as permanent law in 2005.
Don't tell me....the gubmint is fixin' to take yer gerns.....right ?
Attempting to call people out on the basis of your own ignorance is a pretty foolish thing to do. Check the convenient link I sent you and educate yourself.
Precisely the same reason was laid out for granting Austrailian soldiers legal immunity for shooting at groups of citizens prior to the 2001 Olympics. Looking at what has happened to the Olympic infrastructure that was to be granted to the people of Brazil I think it is fair to say that the Olympics is a boondoggle factory of epic proportions.
For Japan in particular, considering the media blackout surrounding Fukushima it is more that likely the government and olympic officials don't want anyone talking about the toxic radionuclides that have been distributed over Tokyo. Since you can't get any reliable information about it I'm sure the brave Japanese people who are trying, whilst suffering the criminal negligence of TECPO and the regulator, will be shut down soon.
I would like to have a look at the text of this legislation and what is on that list however it wasn't posted with the story. As has become usual here, we are talking about this law in ignorance of what is in it. I tried to find the text of the Act for the last 45 minutes and whilst I see a lot of stories from around the world about how it was rammed through and how there was a brawl in the house about the passage of the war bill, it seems incredibly difficult to find the text of Japanese laws.
Free speech is a joke under such laws and I wonder how long the illusion that these acts of government are in place to serve the people can be maintained.
If it took us less than 100 years to get from flight to landing on the moon, what the fuck has humanity been doing in this form for the last 299,900 years.
A (wild!) theory goes that human sentience did not emerge as a result of physical evolution, but as an accidental artefact born from culture and language. So at one point you would have anatomically modern humans but without the self-awareness that we now take for granted.
Take for granted. You've just described leaving the Garden of Eden, or the Buddha outside the Walled Garden. The architypical human self-aware realizing that he will one day die now has to labor for the future, knows he is naked and has become a slave.
I don't think it is that simple. Lots of them are created by humans. No doubt. Lots of them cannot possibly be created by humans alone. They are too precise and carry too much meaning.
Are you sure you want to keep up that line of argument?
What line of argument? I have no idea what is out there, I just thought you'd be interested in the video.
You said If they were gonna send us something, they'd probably send something with more bits, unless they figured we could (and would) decode it from that. Dunno but I bet any aliens sending messages aren't stupid. It turns out there are several events meeting that criteria that you may not have been aware of.
There is not enough time between the posts for you to have watched the video and it talks about more than cattle mutilations. This lady is a reporter drawing from multiple sources and presenting the things she finds.
I respect you for having the courage to put that out there. No, I am not kidding.
Thanks, I see things that aren't being explained because they are taboo and I don't think being dogmatically skeptical in our ignorance serves us anymore. I used to think that UFOs were just cover stories for spy plane operations, now I'm not so sure.
I saw this last night and thought 'holy shit, WTF?'. I know that there are smarter people than I here so I've got nothing to lose by being a fool by asking.
There's no credible evidence that livestock mutilation is done by an extraterrestrial source. Do you get that? No credible evidence exists to support the hypothesis that it is caused by an extraterrestrial source. Please don't read into my statement more than what I have written. I am not saying it is impossible. I am saying that no credible evidence exists to support it. And, trust me, I look.
Would you elaborate please because that is no different from someone saying the complete opposite and asking me to trust them. What does credible evidence look like, how was unexplained phenomenon explained and does the explanation make sense?
Like many/.rs I respect your opinion, I wouldn't bother posting otherwise. I've never subscribed to UFO phenomenon, I've never seen one, I don't know so I'm asking for people to take a ride to what could be crazy town for their opinion because I think that wisdom comes from challenging presumptions.
I am kinda the exact definition of scientist.
If you have time to watch the video I'd be interested in what you think because the message is describing technology and motivations far beyond our understanding. The definition of terrifying.
[Redacted.][Redacted.][Redacted.][Redacted.]
This is why this subject is so fraught with prejudices. It is not an open subject, it's all MAJIC knowledge.
As a mathematician, I have spoken at [redacted] and will say that it is my opinion that aliens exist. I will go even further and say that I'm pretty fucking convinced that intelligent aliens exist.
So is it mathematically possible that more than one sort of alien exists and that one of them is hostile towards us?
Where I draw the line is in saying that they've interacted with humans.
I don't know if or what sort of alien technology exists or how evolved they are so I have no idea where to draw the line with what they are capable of, so how would we actually know?
This lady presents information, from more than one source, that one alien race is trying to warn us about another alien race that is hostile towards us and to be prepared.
Sure, it could be a hoax, but if it isn't we are all fools.
The odds of it being from an intelligent source, are REALLY fucking low. If they were gonna send us something, they'd probably send something with more bits, unless they figured we could (and would) decode it from that. Dunno but I bet any aliens sending messages aren't stupid. They're gonna make it easy to decode. Call it a hunch...
I watched a lecture by Linda Howe, a journalist who started investigating cattle mutilations, on binary messages from, crop circles and abductees. Its a 2 hour lecture with much of it spent building the necessary context about several binary messages delivering a warning that at least one alien species is extremely hostile to humanity and we should not be transmitting *anything*. Ironically, one of the things she shows was a crop circle with a binary code in it reported here on slashdot years ago.
As for SETI itself, considering that we already know how often governments lie to us I don't think we're going to get any help from them. Politicians are too spineless to tell us what the truth is about the evidence that has already been discovered about corporate behavior, so why the fuck would we expect the truth about ETIs, if they actually did find evidence. For all we know SETI is a project with a goal of making us feel safe in our complacency whilst our governments continue to pathologize us with stories of terror and the need monitor our every move to ensure lies become beliefs.
Recent discovery of a modern human skull dated at over 300,000 years old calls into question our presumed understanding of evolution and the actual age of the human race. If it took us less than 100 years to get from flight to landing on the moon, what the fuck has humanity been doing in this form for the last 299,900 years. We don't even know what *WE* are other than slightly evolved monkeys struggling to evolve past our petty warlike nature.
So even if ETIs do exist, it would be completely naive to expect a message from our leaders saying "Yep, they're out there".
Multiple people have tried to tell you. There are plenty of whitepaper documents that describe the use cases. There is the entire Debian debate topic on the subject. In what way is any of this an insufficient justification? Why do you need yet another justification.
Multiple people have demonstrated that they didn't use initd properly in the first place. If you have further documentation to send me that demonstrates a full understanding of initd functionality before advocating replacing it send it. So far all of the articles I've read don't demonstrate that understanding.
Even you have demonstrated a consistent lack of understanding of initd functionality and when asked, three times now, how much time you've invested in learning it, you ignore the question. This double standard again reeks of social proof.
You've decided systemd is unnecessary, so any justification that is provided you will refute or ignore.
No, I'm looking for the irrefutable systemd use case that initd isn't capable of answering and so far no one has provided it.
You are making claims about impact on performance without evidence and I'm asking for proof. You are making statements like "it generates i/o and therefore it is worse than a bunch idle processes doing nothing", which doesn't make any sense at all.
My advice is you understand how the CPU scheduler functions to understand this. As I said, I'm still testing systemd and it involves doing work to understand it.
Moreover, if I want to determine the status of a process and do something with that information, I think it is quite handy that systemd provides that interface. I don't have to scrape a bunch of logs or test for sockets and such. That information is just there for me to grab in a standardized, easily parseable format, provided by systemd.
You mean like the/proc interface.
Perhaps we will see a shell like interface emerging for systemd next?
You claim that, but you still don't seem to know the difference between systemd and journald.
I also claim not to be a systemd expert and that I am getting my head around it and in the process have found that it is a monolithic concentration of domain knowledge.
I've also repeatedly asked for the use case it answers that initd cannot so I can test it.
I don't have a lot of time to write long, detailed responses. I apologize for being curt; it is not my intention to be rude.
ok, appreciated.
rc scripts or some other mechanism, ultimately your "event manager" would have to initiate a runlevel change. That's the only thing init can do in response to some sort of "event".
No, just no. Obviously this is why better documentation is required.
Answer: use it if you want to, it has nice features. If you want to redo all of that with a bunch of custom shell scripts, go ahead and do it. Clear enough?
What you are arguing is a change of paradigm and mindset. You are arguing that complex is better than simple and I am arguing that simple can become complex.
And here you are, again, accusing me of being rude while in the same breadth calling me (and everyone else) a fool and/or idiot, but I digress...
No, who is the fool, the fool or those who follow the fool. Being forced to use systemd in some distributions is what I mean by being forced to follow fools.
The theme throughout systemd discussions is that those advocates refuse to listen to dissenting opinion and when challenged with counter-rationalism have nothing to offer. That is a sign of foolishness.
If you're going to claim that it's because everybody is an idiot, then that's a reasoning that is pretty hard to accept.
This is the first time I've lost my patience and I di
That's because you're not listening. You're just shouting people down saying the problems aren't really problems. As I said earlier, it comes down to your opinion. You don't think they are problems, so you don't see them.
Bullshit. I ask one simple question What is the use case that systemd answers that initd does not and so far all I hear is crickets. I have repeatedly asked this question and still I have no answer. You are trying to reframe the arguments you yourself have not been able to answer. If any systemd advocate was able to answer they would simply answer the question with a concise justification.
Considering systemd advocates also have the benefit of hindsight to provide that concise justification of why you should use systemd, why don't you?
I'm listening, intently, for the use case over all the crickets.
Well, if you think it's so straightforward, why don't you lead the charge and implement all of systemd's features with init+inittab? Why is it taking so long for the anti-systemd crowd to come up with a suitable replacement? If it was really that easy, I would have expected to see it years ago.
I'm pro-initd, it's better than anti-systemd and much better than being anti-initd. You can't even justify the existence of systemd with a concise use case, so what exactly has to be written?
That said the reason I have been asking is for that exact reason: what complementary piece of software is required, what does it need to do, how should it interact with initd. So far the answer is software to make the core features of initd available to a wider audience because they aren't being used, that SCO effectively stole core functionality from initd with the AT&T source code license, Cgroups and, of course, better documentation. Most of all, is to free initd from that bloated crapware rc implementation that Red Hat surrounded it with.
So yes, I'll contribute to the devuan effort as I ascertain what exactly is required.
An hour of reading man pages and learning how to use some new utilities doesn't seem like that much an investment to me.
And how much time did you invest learning initd? A question you have avoided.
Considering I have a lab of VMs with systemd testing our applications, that I got my head around unit files, journalctl, systemctl, exploring its multitude of properties over a year ago because I have to be able to understand its impact. Guys like you are professing that it is so good that anyone using initd must be fucking idiot, all I've seen you and many systemd advocates profess is your ignorance of how to use initd properly and that someone says systemd is really good and that I should use it too.
I'm not a systemd expert, I'm still testing it. You and all the other systemd experts are supposed to tell me why I *should* use it, what I'm missing, why it's so great and you haven't and I think that is a rather hypocritical and disingenuous position that you maintain. Testing systemd so far hasn't shown me a good reason to use it, however it has shown me a few reasons why I should not.
You see, you don't understand why nobody is explaining it to you, but it has been explained many times by many people. I could make a list, but I'm tired of doing it, and you probably won't listen anyway. There are a ton of whitepapers and discussion topics on the init system and the various ways of implementing it. It is you who is ignoring all of the arguments in favor of your preference.
No, you won't make a list because you don't know. You've had two weeks and the only argument you can provide is to twist my words, ignore my questions and be rude. Pretty typical of someone arguing from a position of social proof to be unable to answer counter-rationalism and instead replies with moral superiority.
You should examine your own position relative to your accusations.
I'm trying to master the rowing machine. It's kicking my ass and it doesn't help that my stomach gets in the way. I also do the cable row with 150 pounds.
Rows are a great exercise, however I think you'll find that when you put on muscle by using iron your body will start to gobble up the fat stores. If it's cool to suggest, try doing deadlifts, squats, chest an back exercise. Legs will up the testosterone and put you body into build mode, then build your chest. This will make the rows more effective.
My colleague is/was the same size as you and he has been doing the alternating workout style I preach and has trimmed down significantly in the last 6 months. I keep giving him compliments because I want him to win.
Getting big is easy. I want to tone down.
If you mean building muscle is easy for you, you're probably have an endomorphic body type. the body holds onto and metabolizes fat efficiently. However it also builds muscle easily too and big guys pretty much have to work out like animals. People are sometimes uncomfortable finding out just how much physical power they have, however I think when you meet that animal and embrace the sensation, you're gonna fucking love it.
A morning workout will raise your metabolic rate for the day however if you do a hard workout between 6-8pm you can suppress you evening appetite and not feel hungry by drinking egg smoothies or just a glass of milk. By which time you will be so tired nothing will stop you sleeping. Timebox eating, ie eat all meals inside 12 hour window will build and inside a 9 hour window will build and burn.
Realistically once you get the hang of it it will take about a year, just pace yourself so you don't get injured.
I've been losing weight. The problem is that the scales at the gym max out at 350 pounds. I recently got a digital scale for home. I'm 350 pounds, +/- five pounds.
Beer dude, it's beers:) - Half joking there dude, mates I trained with at your weight told me that beer was the biggest contributor to their weight gain.
What workouts do you enjoy? Often I've seen big guys like you rip into weights and get really strong. They never really get ripped, but it doesn't matter, bone mineral analysis of spartan warriors found that they carried a layer of fat on them and were completely healthy.
The main issue is processed foods, that stuff messes you up. It's understandable why people eat it, convenience wise, however if fools the body into thinking it's getting the nutrition it needs. This IMO is where the cycle begins and the challenge is not loosing weight, but breaking the processed food cycle.
Bottom line here is I notice that people get caught in the trap of consciously trying to alter their behavior without any attempt at programming the sub-conscious vehicle that will get them their desired outcome. Fuck the scales, find a mate you like to hang out with and do weights, then go eat all of the non-processed foods you enjoy and skip the guilt that comes with the shitty fragile transitory diet culture.
Get out of your mind and be in your body, it will tell you better than I or anyone else can what you need and is completely honest with you, which is what scares people off into diet culture and turns them into neurotic wrecks. Those who embrace their bodies message train and eat for life, and get everything they want as a result.
I think you're right. Every insurance policy that covers employees traveling from work to home or visa-versa covers a direct route home, therefore they will only be covered from their last delivery to home. There is also the issue of third parties injured and whose insurance is liable.
I'm certain Walmart will do all they can to offset the costs of this liability onto its employees - it's what they do.
Or maybe you want state-defined infrastructure and continuous integration
I think you'll find the reason that Etcetera has not answered you is because this is the primary operating mode of initd. These sorts of arguments for systemd are flimsy at best because they ignore existing functionality in initd.
I have no idea what you mean by this. Accurately defining the dependency graph for booting a system in a general way (ie: for any type of system with any type of hardware) is not a simple process in any language.
He is telling you initd is not complex, it is a foundation that you build complex modular interactions on, and that you can't make systemd less complex because it already is. Etcetera is telling you that you don't need a dependency graph because you are attempting to solve the wrong problem.
No, unit files don't run shell scripts. They can as an easy migration path, but they are designed to operate independently of the shell.
I realise that. I said unit files are *going* to run shell scripts, in fact they are going to run *existing* int.d entries for most vendors that .
The way you *say* unit files *should* be configured is how inittab entries are configured after *optionally* being set up by shell scripts in the rc system, that is why a dependency tree isn't required. This misuse case is consistently demonstrated in these arguments and I haven't seen a distribution that utilizes initd properly. Which is crazy.
Systemd was designed to solve problems that are not easily solvable with initd. If you don't have those problems with initd, then you don't see the need for systemd.
Well what are they? I keep asking this question and I get no clear answer. I see plenty of vendors and distributions not using initd properly. They look at the steaming pile of shit scripts that Red Hat created in their misunderstanding of the rc system and throw their hands up, and I don't blame them.
What I don't buy is the same group that had a crap understanding of sysVinit and the rc system in the first place is now leading the charge to replace initd <slaps forehead> WTF? Perhaps my tolerance of bullshit is just extremely low.
Furthermore, if you happen to like initd, you probably hate systemd.
It's not about liking it. It's about how valuable the return on investment in learning a bad idea or investing effort in calling it out for what it is. The best argument offered by systemd proponents is 'well you must be stupid, cause RTFM systemd" but have they ever spent any effort figuring how to actually use initd properly?
Have you? Have you ever configured a custom runlevel? or figured out how an rc script and an intitab entry should be used together? If you haven't where are your grounds for criticism? I've invested effort in learning systemd, it looks like a whole lot of domain knowledge to me. I don't really want to invest any more of my time into it, but I have to because inevitably I am going to encounter it somewhere.
What I don't like is being maneuvered into learning software and putting effort into something I can see is pretty awful.
but if not feel free to keep building up strawmen just so you can knock them down.
And you just feel free to ignore all the arguments about how the CPU scheduler actually works. How you can call that a strawman just boggles my mind with evidence that you are relying on social proof.
Seriously, what are you smoking?
Look, I don't really understand why you what to hurl emotive language around about operating system concepts. I can do it too, I just prefer not to. Yep, you can piss me off if you want but so far I've conducted a conversation with you about these things through a hang-over and a pretty bad headache right now, so maybe if you can keep it civil instead of treating me like a jerk maybe we can both learn something. Is that ok?
If systemd is so good, why can't you guys explain to me why instead of ignoring my arguments?
I sincerely want to know why I'm being asked to replace skill with a whole lot of dead wood domain knowledge? You're suggesting to replace an elegant and subtly powerful initd with a complete paradigm shift, by the people who couldn't use initd properly in the first place and the best reason you can give me is, because someone else knows better. How can I take that argument seriously?
The same way syslog does. Do you also complain about syslogd hogging CPU resources?
No I don't, I just don't want my init process to do it. I want it to be lightweight and I want it to be out of my applications way. I don't want it to generate application latency. I don't care about syslog gener
Initd farms out all of its work to the shell, so if you're going to look at memory consumption and software interrupts, you need to include the shell processes when comparing with init.
So what? unit files are going to run shell scripts and systemd has both problems, however you've missed the point - but I'll get to that next and address the new point you've raised first.
You are falling into the same flawed thinking all systemd proponents fall into, that the mis-used rc system (incidentally designed by red hat) is the justification for ditching initd and replacing it with systemd. Your example fails to take into account system processes that are compiled, executed from inittab with their environment managed by a shell that exits after it has done it's work, which is how the init system is supposed to be used.
For your example to be true I have to mis-configure init, and then configure systemd so that it won't spawn a shell for a process, which is common however the bar for failure on unix systems is generally so high that a shell process has to be so absurdly bad for it to become a problem. That's common between systemd and initd, so it's hardly a fair comparison.
Out of curiosity I tested your premise on a desktop linux box and found that systemd remains in the top 10 processes consuming CPU and memory resources top(pped) only by firefox, X11. Even with 60 shell processes running they don't even make it into the top 80 processes consuming resources on my system. So I'll be interested in trying this on a server when I get back into the office.
So let's get back to the point.
And systemd is much better in this regard than init.
Only if the linux CPU scheduler has been re-written in the time between now when I posted my OP. systemd generates I/O and initd writes small messages to stdout as a char device. So as far as I can tell your premise, like the design of systemd, is based on flawed thinking because the CPU scheduler *will* bump processes off cores that hog resources in favor of I/O bound processes. In other words systemd can bump my important CPU intensive tasks that I want to be extremely responsive off a CPU core unless I configure the scheduler, which most people do not.
So unless systemd is now assuming the role of the kernel's CPU scheduler it is a Post Incident Review in waiting compared to initd.
The primary arguments behind using shell scripts are a) flexibility, and b) the shell is already there. So in other words, you can write a quick boot process for your system without properly designing system bootup. Once you have a proper dependency tree for bootup, you no longer need the flexibility of shell scripts and you can put a better system in place.
That's windows registry thinking, why the hell would I want that?
I want shell scripts to set up and check the dependencies are in place before my process is initialized in its appropriate runlevel. The thinking you have cited is the core reason for objections to systemd, that the flawed thinking is so apparent and obvious and forces us into a flawed paradigm by people who wrote a solution to a problem they did not properly understand.
That doesn't happen.
Well unless you can explain to me how systemd writes the log blocks to disk as a machine crashes we are relegated by systemd to scan through memory dumps to find that last block of information that should be in a log file. Sure the class type logging of systemd is pretty good, but not at the expense of root cause information that we may need to fix our own fuck-ups.
This is what highlights the fundamental design flaw of systemd. To write I/O for logging it demands CPU resources that otherwise would be consumed by a client process (breaking the usefulness of top as well), or it's less demanding of CPU with a higher chance of loosing logging and root cause information.
It would help if you didn't reinforce that perception with such a poor use case justification.
I don't profess to be a systemd expert, just that I've tested it and tried to see what benefits it can offer.
Systemd is not a large monolithic process.
systemd has its own lib directory. It is a much more memory intensive process than init.
By software interrupts, I assume you mean it uses dbus instead of just piping everything to stdout.
No. I mean it generates interrupts for service from the CPU and steals context from other processes. If it write I/O it forces other processes to minor page fault back to ram and off the CPU core. Though I still have more research in this area about systemd behavior.
That argument just makes no sense whatsoever. Shell scripts were a quick and dirty way of getting a system up and running.
Which shows you are using inncorect assumptions and don't know how to configure initd properly.
Teach your tools to read the binary log, and it will actually be better because you will get a lot more information.
Which is not very useful if some problem causes you to loose your last buffer full of critical information that you need to determine why you system went down.
You are contradicting yourself, because you just said,
No I am not. An evet management system and a process managenment system *should* be separate process entities that interact.
Slashdot Mirror
Something about this smells really bad.
No.
That is why you down mod.
possibly went wrong.
You sound like a fucking mess to me. Mentally and physically.
I was, I've been through a lot. Anyone carrying around a lot of physical injury is going to suffer mentally from it, it is impossible not to. That's why I started by healing my body to see where it would lead. Turns out it gives you the cognizance to sort all your mental shit out as well.
If you've got the balls to though, it is very confronting, I doubt it is for everyone.
Too precise? What's "too precise" for humans? The available precision in corn stalks isn't very fine grained, and many crop circles were done by a group that had effectively made it their profession.
Sorry, I'm not an expert however I think they are beautiful, so maybe you're right and that are all just an art project. Perhaps a comparison of the characteristics of these things and see what emerges from that data, even if it is to establish they are all pranks.
Too much meaning? Whatever meaning humans are capable of deducing from them, humans are capable of encoding into them.
True that, however anyone sending us a message would want us to understand it too so I'm just trying to balance keeping an open mind and healthy skepticism.
Bullshit.
My Dr gave me a referral to a physical therapist that actually helped correct the problem.
So did mine, however I still ended up needing a chiropractor.
Next you are going to tell us the magic crystals and diterary bullshit that chiropractors deal in works too, right?
I think when you find the right chiropractor that sticks with skilled mechanical movement of the joints in the body I can't move, they are a blessing you will thank for the relief. I will indulge your patience so I can explain.
I've been training martial arts for around 30 years and occasionally competed to test myself. Mainly muay Thai and Jui Jitsu are my favorites because they are effective. I also love playing sports like football, hockey, climbing, swimming, I love it all.
Well after all those years of training all of those injuries leave scar tissue which accumulates in the body, the pain of movement becomes an issue. I was doing some intense physiotherapy deep tissue massage for many years, documenting my progress and changes which I one day presented to my doctor.
He looked at them and suggested "Dry Needling", which uses larger needles than acupuncture which is inserted directly into injury sites around the body. It's as extremely confronting as it is effective. I have had over five thousand needles stuck into pretty much anywhere you could name in the body (ok, maybe not my dick). I have resolved 27 injury sites in my body.
A pattern emerged while going through all this, all muscle tension moves from the extremities to the spine which is where I was eternally grateful for a chiropractor with the skill to cavitate my spine and get it moving again. After that the injury site was fully resolved.
I've taken almost three years off training to do this and I feel fucking amazing. I've logged movements of hundreds of hours of cavitation of joints all over my body as scar tissue broke up all over my body. I've recovered range of motion in almost every joint in my body in the cycle, needles, cavitation, chiropractor. Repeated in joints from my fingers to my hips.
The hips have been the hardest to move which I am going through writing this. For the last two days my left ankle, knee and hip have cavitated hundreds of times over a period of about 5 hours a session. The release events (I don't know what else to call them) breaks up the scar tissue through a series of numbness, stretching and cavitation and wipes you out physically. It leaves me nauseous and feeling like I've done a heavy weights session, I slept 40 hours over three days as I felt the muscles slowly pulling my hips to where they should be. It feels like I've been kicked solidly in the balls.
This is resolving a snapped achilles tendon and has been re-occurring for the last six weeks which is pulling the left side of my hips down back into horizontal alignment after previously pulling them back into lateral alignment some weeks ago. I have been through this cycle with other joints like elbows and shoulders, all resolved.
Indeed I think the biggest problem I've had is with a part of my neck that many chiropractors had difficulty moving. I've found that some Chiropractors are afraid of moving peoples necks and it is a risk, that has to be acknowledged. However I know the few times I found a chiro that could move that problem part of my neck I slept like a baby for months. Most of the time it was me pushing the chiropractor.
I think you're right to call the bullshit parts of chiropractors out, just stick with moving the spine and keeping it moving, it is a key component of the body and you want it to function properly. Having said that I offer the following advice from what I've learned:
This is the second of her videos I've watched. I decided long ago that the answer to if unidentified alien craft exist is essentially unknowable until I am standing in front of one.
I've always thought it was more than likely a group of people being encouraged to believe that something was a UFO as cover for military operations of spy aircraft. The thing that intrigues me is more and more information is coming out about commercial pilots seeing uacs so I don't know what to make of it all. I do know that putting a stigma around people who risk sharing their stories is not going to uncover the truth of these matters.
I've never seen a mutilation, but I have seen carcases partially eaten by animals, it's a mess.
I like looking at crop circles because they are beautiful however it is hard for me to believe that every single one of them is created by teams of dedicated circle jerkers who go around making intricate designs.
An acceptable analysis to me would be to have a cross report on as many crop circles as possible and the defining characteristics to determine what patterns emerge. I don't know what it proves without further investigation however it *seems* to me to be an acceptable first step in the process of a scientific analysis though. What do you think?
She is a journalist, so she is doing her job and reporting her thesis based on peoples experience. I'm inclined to give the people reporting their experiences the benefit of the doubt, because whilst whatever they experienced made an impact, commonalities in peoples stories could be suggesting that something is happening that is beyond our understanding. That's when we need to pay attention to facts that don't support the theory and challenge knowledge filtration.
Maybe one or two experiences could be written off and who knows, maybe all it proves is that someone really is putting hallucinogens into the water. Seems more feasible than aliens on earth. I don't know.
I'm impressed that you don't get sucked into your equations and not get detached from reality, every time I'm presented with interesting math in computing I get sucked into it and loose all sense of time. I'm no mathemetician though. Do you model the equation on a star map or something and apply it to a region of space? I would like to read your paper if it is available.
What constitutes evidence of extraterrestrial activity?
I don't think it can be a simple thought experiment, I think it would be an intellectual challenge to grasp what motivates a space
I somehow doubt you need to invoke a conspiracy theory at this point to explain either the Olympics being a security boondoggle, nor a right-wing government imposing ridiculous laws in the name of fighting terrorism. Its happening all over the world, Fukushima or not.
I don't see it as a conspiracy theory, I see it as a politically convenient excuse. Government has a technique for acquiring a type of power. There is no conspiracy in saying the state acquires power, that is what it does. So it can only be described as thought policing, because that is what it is. Both right and left wing parties participate as they certainly aren't looking after the interests of the populous if a direct attack on freedom of speech is sustained and passed into law, in a democracy.
This is what the Soviet government did to their people, forced them to falsify their existence and look how that turned out. People *have* to be allowed to speak their truth no matter how ridiculous it is. After all, that's the job of the fool, to speak truths no one can.
I think this is fundamental to our existence, our very sanity, to speak our truth.
Never mind the fact that the Fukushima disaster was 6 years ago. Which would make them about 6 years too late to bother implementing blackout laws.
This is about how long the Australian amendments took to become permanent law, which has similar political system to Japan, even though the names are different.
I wonder if the Japanese people will receive a list of things they can't talk about, or just be arrested when they do. What an uncomfortable predicament that would be. The list should be called "The list of things to lie about" because it's a parody of democracy.
Try http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/?re=02. It would certainly be easier if any of the news sources would bother including the Japanese name for the bill though.
I had the name this morning on another machine and this was the first site I tried. Sorry I'm too tired to remember. I wanted to find out what was on the list.
Sadly, if we look at history this can be a very long time. All it takes is the right propaganda to convince people that you're serving them, and terrorism has given governments around the world a very deep well to draw such propaganda from, as we're all terrified of being the victim of an attack (even though statistically we're far more likely to be done in by a car accident or a peanut allergy or a lightning strike or any of a few dozen other things.)
A great politician can get a crowd to applaud his incompetence as he takes away their freedom.
Are you fucking retarded ? Hmmm...it seems like you're mentally ill with your ramblings.
Haters, and their "ignor-rants".
The Olympics in Australia were held in 2000 and no Australian soldiers shot at anyone.
Gee, sorry about being tired and making that tiny teeny error.
The only people empowered to shoot at civilians are the police and they didn't go around shooting anyone before the Olympics either.
The military call-out legislation was passed by the Commonwealth Parliament in September 2000. The amended call-out powers, contained in Part IIIAAA of the Defence Act 1903 (called Utilisation of Defence Force to protect Commonwealth interests and States and selfgoverning Territories) have not yet been invoked. However preparations have been made for their application. These include the staging of nine simulation exercises by the end of 2003.
It was ratified as permanent law in 2005.
Don't tell me....the gubmint is fixin' to take yer gerns.....right ?
Attempting to call people out on the basis of your own ignorance is a pretty foolish thing to do. Check the convenient link I sent you and educate yourself.
Precisely the same reason was laid out for granting Austrailian soldiers legal immunity for shooting at groups of citizens prior to the 2001 Olympics. Looking at what has happened to the Olympic infrastructure that was to be granted to the people of Brazil I think it is fair to say that the Olympics is a boondoggle factory of epic proportions.
For Japan in particular, considering the media blackout surrounding Fukushima it is more that likely the government and olympic officials don't want anyone talking about the toxic radionuclides that have been distributed over Tokyo. Since you can't get any reliable information about it I'm sure the brave Japanese people who are trying, whilst suffering the criminal negligence of TECPO and the regulator, will be shut down soon.
I would like to have a look at the text of this legislation and what is on that list however it wasn't posted with the story. As has become usual here, we are talking about this law in ignorance of what is in it. I tried to find the text of the Act for the last 45 minutes and whilst I see a lot of stories from around the world about how it was rammed through and how there was a brawl in the house about the passage of the war bill, it seems incredibly difficult to find the text of Japanese laws.
Free speech is a joke under such laws and I wonder how long the illusion that these acts of government are in place to serve the people can be maintained.
If it took us less than 100 years to get from flight to landing on the moon, what the fuck has humanity been doing in this form for the last 299,900 years.
A (wild!) theory goes that human sentience did not emerge as a result of physical evolution, but as an accidental artefact born from culture and language. So at one point you would have anatomically modern humans but without the self-awareness that we now take for granted.
Take for granted. You've just described leaving the Garden of Eden, or the Buddha outside the Walled Garden. The architypical human self-aware realizing that he will one day die now has to labor for the future, knows he is naked and has become a slave.
Perhaps it happened in bursts or some other way.
I don't think it is that simple. Lots of them are created by humans. No doubt. Lots of them cannot possibly be created by humans alone. They are too precise and carry too much meaning.
Are you sure you want to keep up that line of argument?
What line of argument? I have no idea what is out there, I just thought you'd be interested in the video. You said If they were gonna send us something, they'd probably send something with more bits, unless they figured we could (and would) decode it from that. Dunno but I bet any aliens sending messages aren't stupid. It turns out there are several events meeting that criteria that you may not have been aware of.
There is not enough time between the posts for you to have watched the video and it talks about more than cattle mutilations. This lady is a reporter drawing from multiple sources and presenting the things she finds.
I respect you for having the courage to put that out there. No, I am not kidding.
Thanks, I see things that aren't being explained because they are taboo and I don't think being dogmatically skeptical in our ignorance serves us anymore. I used to think that UFOs were just cover stories for spy plane operations, now I'm not so sure.
I saw this last night and thought 'holy shit, WTF?'. I know that there are smarter people than I here so I've got nothing to lose by being a fool by asking.
There's no credible evidence that livestock mutilation is done by an extraterrestrial source. Do you get that? No credible evidence exists to support the hypothesis that it is caused by an extraterrestrial source. Please don't read into my statement more than what I have written. I am not saying it is impossible. I am saying that no credible evidence exists to support it. And, trust me, I look.
Would you elaborate please because that is no different from someone saying the complete opposite and asking me to trust them. What does credible evidence look like, how was unexplained phenomenon explained and does the explanation make sense?
Like many /.rs I respect your opinion, I wouldn't bother posting otherwise. I've never subscribed to UFO phenomenon, I've never seen one, I don't know so I'm asking for people to take a ride to what could be crazy town for their opinion because I think that wisdom comes from challenging presumptions.
I am kinda the exact definition of scientist.
If you have time to watch the video I'd be interested in what you think because the message is describing technology and motivations far beyond our understanding. The definition of terrifying.
[Redacted.][Redacted.][Redacted.][Redacted.]
This is why this subject is so fraught with prejudices. It is not an open subject, it's all MAJIC knowledge.
As a mathematician, I have spoken at [redacted] and will say that it is my opinion that aliens exist. I will go even further and say that I'm pretty fucking convinced that intelligent aliens exist.
So is it mathematically possible that more than one sort of alien exists and that one of them is hostile towards us?
Where I draw the line is in saying that they've interacted with humans.
I don't know if or what sort of alien technology exists or how evolved they are so I have no idea where to draw the line with what they are capable of, so how would we actually know?
This lady presents information, from more than one source, that one alien race is trying to warn us about another alien race that is hostile towards us and to be prepared.
Sure, it could be a hoax, but if it isn't we are all fools.
The odds of it being from an intelligent source, are REALLY fucking low. If they were gonna send us something, they'd probably send something with more bits, unless they figured we could (and would) decode it from that. Dunno but I bet any aliens sending messages aren't stupid. They're gonna make it easy to decode. Call it a hunch...
I watched a lecture by Linda Howe, a journalist who started investigating cattle mutilations, on binary messages from, crop circles and abductees. Its a 2 hour lecture with much of it spent building the necessary context about several binary messages delivering a warning that at least one alien species is extremely hostile to humanity and we should not be transmitting *anything*. Ironically, one of the things she shows was a crop circle with a binary code in it reported here on slashdot years ago.
As for SETI itself, considering that we already know how often governments lie to us I don't think we're going to get any help from them. Politicians are too spineless to tell us what the truth is about the evidence that has already been discovered about corporate behavior, so why the fuck would we expect the truth about ETIs, if they actually did find evidence. For all we know SETI is a project with a goal of making us feel safe in our complacency whilst our governments continue to pathologize us with stories of terror and the need monitor our every move to ensure lies become beliefs.
Recent discovery of a modern human skull dated at over 300,000 years old calls into question our presumed understanding of evolution and the actual age of the human race. If it took us less than 100 years to get from flight to landing on the moon, what the fuck has humanity been doing in this form for the last 299,900 years. We don't even know what *WE* are other than slightly evolved monkeys struggling to evolve past our petty warlike nature.
So even if ETIs do exist, it would be completely naive to expect a message from our leaders saying "Yep, they're out there".
Han shot first.
Multiple people have tried to tell you. There are plenty of whitepaper documents that describe the use cases. There is the entire Debian debate topic on the subject. In what way is any of this an insufficient justification? Why do you need yet another justification.
Multiple people have demonstrated that they didn't use initd properly in the first place. If you have further documentation to send me that demonstrates a full understanding of initd functionality before advocating replacing it send it. So far all of the articles I've read don't demonstrate that understanding.
Even you have demonstrated a consistent lack of understanding of initd functionality and when asked, three times now, how much time you've invested in learning it, you ignore the question. This double standard again reeks of social proof.
You've decided systemd is unnecessary, so any justification that is provided you will refute or ignore.
No, I'm looking for the irrefutable systemd use case that initd isn't capable of answering and so far no one has provided it.
You are making claims about impact on performance without evidence and I'm asking for proof. You are making statements like "it generates i/o and therefore it is worse than a bunch idle processes doing nothing", which doesn't make any sense at all.
My advice is you understand how the CPU scheduler functions to understand this. As I said, I'm still testing systemd and it involves doing work to understand it.
Moreover, if I want to determine the status of a process and do something with that information, I think it is quite handy that systemd provides that interface. I don't have to scrape a bunch of logs or test for sockets and such. That information is just there for me to grab in a standardized, easily parseable format, provided by systemd.
You mean like the /proc interface.
Perhaps we will see a shell like interface emerging for systemd next?
You claim that, but you still don't seem to know the difference between systemd and journald.
I also claim not to be a systemd expert and that I am getting my head around it and in the process have found that it is a monolithic concentration of domain knowledge.
I've also repeatedly asked for the use case it answers that initd cannot so I can test it.
I don't have a lot of time to write long, detailed responses. I apologize for being curt; it is not my intention to be rude.
ok, appreciated.
rc scripts or some other mechanism, ultimately your "event manager" would have to initiate a runlevel change. That's the only thing init can do in response to some sort of "event".
No, just no. Obviously this is why better documentation is required.
Answer: use it if you want to, it has nice features. If you want to redo all of that with a bunch of custom shell scripts, go ahead and do it. Clear enough?
What you are arguing is a change of paradigm and mindset. You are arguing that complex is better than simple and I am arguing that simple can become complex.
And here you are, again, accusing me of being rude while in the same breadth calling me (and everyone else) a fool and/or idiot, but I digress...
No, who is the fool, the fool or those who follow the fool. Being forced to use systemd in some distributions is what I mean by being forced to follow fools.
The theme throughout systemd discussions is that those advocates refuse to listen to dissenting opinion and when challenged with counter-rationalism have nothing to offer. That is a sign of foolishness.
If you're going to claim that it's because everybody is an idiot, then that's a reasoning that is pretty hard to accept.
This is the first time I've lost my patience and I di
That's because you're not listening. You're just shouting people down saying the problems aren't really problems. As I said earlier, it comes down to your opinion. You don't think they are problems, so you don't see them.
Bullshit. I ask one simple question What is the use case that systemd answers that initd does not and so far all I hear is crickets. I have repeatedly asked this question and still I have no answer. You are trying to reframe the arguments you yourself have not been able to answer. If any systemd advocate was able to answer they would simply answer the question with a concise justification.
Considering systemd advocates also have the benefit of hindsight to provide that concise justification of why you should use systemd, why don't you?
I'm listening, intently, for the use case over all the crickets.
Well, if you think it's so straightforward, why don't you lead the charge and implement all of systemd's features with init+inittab? Why is it taking so long for the anti-systemd crowd to come up with a suitable replacement? If it was really that easy, I would have expected to see it years ago.
I'm pro-initd, it's better than anti-systemd and much better than being anti-initd. You can't even justify the existence of systemd with a concise use case, so what exactly has to be written?
That said the reason I have been asking is for that exact reason: what complementary piece of software is required, what does it need to do, how should it interact with initd. So far the answer is software to make the core features of initd available to a wider audience because they aren't being used, that SCO effectively stole core functionality from initd with the AT&T source code license, Cgroups and, of course, better documentation. Most of all, is to free initd from that bloated crapware rc implementation that Red Hat surrounded it with.
So yes, I'll contribute to the devuan effort as I ascertain what exactly is required.
An hour of reading man pages and learning how to use some new utilities doesn't seem like that much an investment to me.
And how much time did you invest learning initd? A question you have avoided.
Considering I have a lab of VMs with systemd testing our applications, that I got my head around unit files, journalctl, systemctl, exploring its multitude of properties over a year ago because I have to be able to understand its impact. Guys like you are professing that it is so good that anyone using initd must be fucking idiot, all I've seen you and many systemd advocates profess is your ignorance of how to use initd properly and that someone says systemd is really good and that I should use it too.
I'm not a systemd expert, I'm still testing it. You and all the other systemd experts are supposed to tell me why I *should* use it, what I'm missing, why it's so great and you haven't and I think that is a rather hypocritical and disingenuous position that you maintain. Testing systemd so far hasn't shown me a good reason to use it, however it has shown me a few reasons why I should not.
You see, you don't understand why nobody is explaining it to you, but it has been explained many times by many people. I could make a list, but I'm tired of doing it, and you probably won't listen anyway. There are a ton of whitepapers and discussion topics on the init system and the various ways of implementing it. It is you who is ignoring all of the arguments in favor of your preference.
No, you won't make a list because you don't know. You've had two weeks and the only argument you can provide is to twist my words, ignore my questions and be rude. Pretty typical of someone arguing from a position of social proof to be unable to answer counter-rationalism and instead replies with moral superiority.
You should examine your own position relative to your accusations.
If you are going t
I'm trying to master the rowing machine. It's kicking my ass and it doesn't help that my stomach gets in the way. I also do the cable row with 150 pounds.
Rows are a great exercise, however I think you'll find that when you put on muscle by using iron your body will start to gobble up the fat stores. If it's cool to suggest, try doing deadlifts, squats, chest an back exercise. Legs will up the testosterone and put you body into build mode, then build your chest. This will make the rows more effective.
My colleague is/was the same size as you and he has been doing the alternating workout style I preach and has trimmed down significantly in the last 6 months. I keep giving him compliments because I want him to win.
Getting big is easy. I want to tone down.
If you mean building muscle is easy for you, you're probably have an endomorphic body type. the body holds onto and metabolizes fat efficiently. However it also builds muscle easily too and big guys pretty much have to work out like animals. People are sometimes uncomfortable finding out just how much physical power they have, however I think when you meet that animal and embrace the sensation, you're gonna fucking love it.
A morning workout will raise your metabolic rate for the day however if you do a hard workout between 6-8pm you can suppress you evening appetite and not feel hungry by drinking egg smoothies or just a glass of milk. By which time you will be so tired nothing will stop you sleeping. Timebox eating, ie eat all meals inside 12 hour window will build and inside a 9 hour window will build and burn.
Realistically once you get the hang of it it will take about a year, just pace yourself so you don't get injured.
I've been losing weight. The problem is that the scales at the gym max out at 350 pounds. I recently got a digital scale for home. I'm 350 pounds, +/- five pounds.
Beer dude, it's beers :) - Half joking there dude, mates I trained with at your weight told me that beer was the biggest contributor to their weight gain.
What workouts do you enjoy? Often I've seen big guys like you rip into weights and get really strong. They never really get ripped, but it doesn't matter, bone mineral analysis of spartan warriors found that they carried a layer of fat on them and were completely healthy.
The main issue is processed foods, that stuff messes you up. It's understandable why people eat it, convenience wise, however if fools the body into thinking it's getting the nutrition it needs. This IMO is where the cycle begins and the challenge is not loosing weight, but breaking the processed food cycle.
Bottom line here is I notice that people get caught in the trap of consciously trying to alter their behavior without any attempt at programming the sub-conscious vehicle that will get them their desired outcome. Fuck the scales, find a mate you like to hang out with and do weights, then go eat all of the non-processed foods you enjoy and skip the guilt that comes with the shitty fragile transitory diet culture.
Get out of your mind and be in your body, it will tell you better than I or anyone else can what you need and is completely honest with you, which is what scares people off into diet culture and turns them into neurotic wrecks. Those who embrace their bodies message train and eat for life, and get everything they want as a result.
I think you're right. Every insurance policy that covers employees traveling from work to home or visa-versa covers a direct route home, therefore they will only be covered from their last delivery to home. There is also the issue of third parties injured and whose insurance is liable.
I'm certain Walmart will do all they can to offset the costs of this liability onto its employees - it's what they do.
Or maybe you want state-defined infrastructure and continuous integration
I think you'll find the reason that Etcetera has not answered you is because this is the primary operating mode of initd. These sorts of arguments for systemd are flimsy at best because they ignore existing functionality in initd.
I have no idea what you mean by this. Accurately defining the dependency graph for booting a system in a general way (ie: for any type of system with any type of hardware) is not a simple process in any language.
He is telling you initd is not complex, it is a foundation that you build complex modular interactions on, and that you can't make systemd less complex because it already is. Etcetera is telling you that you don't need a dependency graph because you are attempting to solve the wrong problem.
No, unit files don't run shell scripts. They can as an easy migration path, but they are designed to operate independently of the shell.
I realise that. I said unit files are *going* to run shell scripts, in fact they are going to run *existing* int.d entries for most vendors that .
The way you *say* unit files *should* be configured is how inittab entries are configured after *optionally* being set up by shell scripts in the rc system, that is why a dependency tree isn't required. This misuse case is consistently demonstrated in these arguments and I haven't seen a distribution that utilizes initd properly. Which is crazy.
Systemd was designed to solve problems that are not easily solvable with initd. If you don't have those problems with initd, then you don't see the need for systemd.
Well what are they? I keep asking this question and I get no clear answer. I see plenty of vendors and distributions not using initd properly. They look at the steaming pile of shit scripts that Red Hat created in their misunderstanding of the rc system and throw their hands up, and I don't blame them.
What I don't buy is the same group that had a crap understanding of sysVinit and the rc system in the first place is now leading the charge to replace initd <slaps forehead> WTF? Perhaps my tolerance of bullshit is just extremely low.
Furthermore, if you happen to like initd, you probably hate systemd.
It's not about liking it. It's about how valuable the return on investment in learning a bad idea or investing effort in calling it out for what it is. The best argument offered by systemd proponents is 'well you must be stupid, cause RTFM systemd" but have they ever spent any effort figuring how to actually use initd properly?
Have you? Have you ever configured a custom runlevel? or figured out how an rc script and an intitab entry should be used together? If you haven't where are your grounds for criticism? I've invested effort in learning systemd, it looks like a whole lot of domain knowledge to me. I don't really want to invest any more of my time into it, but I have to because inevitably I am going to encounter it somewhere.
What I don't like is being maneuvered into learning software and putting effort into something I can see is pretty awful.
but if not feel free to keep building up strawmen just so you can knock them down.
And you just feel free to ignore all the arguments about how the CPU scheduler actually works. How you can call that a strawman just boggles my mind with evidence that you are relying on social proof.
Seriously, what are you smoking?
Look, I don't really understand why you what to hurl emotive language around about operating system concepts. I can do it too, I just prefer not to. Yep, you can piss me off if you want but so far I've conducted a conversation with you about these things through a hang-over and a pretty bad headache right now, so maybe if you can keep it civil instead of treating me like a jerk maybe we can both learn something. Is that ok?
If systemd is so good, why can't you guys explain to me why instead of ignoring my arguments?
I sincerely want to know why I'm being asked to replace skill with a whole lot of dead wood domain knowledge? You're suggesting to replace an elegant and subtly powerful initd with a complete paradigm shift, by the people who couldn't use initd properly in the first place and the best reason you can give me is, because someone else knows better. How can I take that argument seriously?
The same way syslog does. Do you also complain about syslogd hogging CPU resources?
No I don't, I just don't want my init process to do it. I want it to be lightweight and I want it to be out of my applications way. I don't want it to generate application latency. I don't care about syslog gener
Initd farms out all of its work to the shell, so if you're going to look at memory consumption and software interrupts, you need to include the shell processes when comparing with init.
So what? unit files are going to run shell scripts and systemd has both problems, however you've missed the point - but I'll get to that next and address the new point you've raised first.
You are falling into the same flawed thinking all systemd proponents fall into, that the mis-used rc system (incidentally designed by red hat) is the justification for ditching initd and replacing it with systemd. Your example fails to take into account system processes that are compiled, executed from inittab with their environment managed by a shell that exits after it has done it's work, which is how the init system is supposed to be used.
For your example to be true I have to mis-configure init, and then configure systemd so that it won't spawn a shell for a process, which is common however the bar for failure on unix systems is generally so high that a shell process has to be so absurdly bad for it to become a problem. That's common between systemd and initd, so it's hardly a fair comparison.
Out of curiosity I tested your premise on a desktop linux box and found that systemd remains in the top 10 processes consuming CPU and memory resources top(pped) only by firefox, X11. Even with 60 shell processes running they don't even make it into the top 80 processes consuming resources on my system. So I'll be interested in trying this on a server when I get back into the office.
So let's get back to the point.
And systemd is much better in this regard than init.
Only if the linux CPU scheduler has been re-written in the time between now when I posted my OP. systemd generates I/O and initd writes small messages to stdout as a char device. So as far as I can tell your premise, like the design of systemd, is based on flawed thinking because the CPU scheduler *will* bump processes off cores that hog resources in favor of I/O bound processes. In other words systemd can bump my important CPU intensive tasks that I want to be extremely responsive off a CPU core unless I configure the scheduler, which most people do not.
So unless systemd is now assuming the role of the kernel's CPU scheduler it is a Post Incident Review in waiting compared to initd.
The primary arguments behind using shell scripts are a) flexibility, and b) the shell is already there. So in other words, you can write a quick boot process for your system without properly designing system bootup. Once you have a proper dependency tree for bootup, you no longer need the flexibility of shell scripts and you can put a better system in place.
That's windows registry thinking, why the hell would I want that?
I want shell scripts to set up and check the dependencies are in place before my process is initialized in its appropriate runlevel. The thinking you have cited is the core reason for objections to systemd, that the flawed thinking is so apparent and obvious and forces us into a flawed paradigm by people who wrote a solution to a problem they did not properly understand.
That doesn't happen.
Well unless you can explain to me how systemd writes the log blocks to disk as a machine crashes we are relegated by systemd to scan through memory dumps to find that last block of information that should be in a log file. Sure the class type logging of systemd is pretty good, but not at the expense of root cause information that we may need to fix our own fuck-ups.
This is what highlights the fundamental design flaw of systemd. To write I/O for logging it demands CPU resources that otherwise would be consumed by a client process (breaking the usefulness of top as well), or it's less demanding of CPU with a higher chance of loosing logging and root cause information.
An analogy would be the ty
It would help if you didn't reinforce that perception with such a poor use case justification.
I don't profess to be a systemd expert, just that I've tested it and tried to see what benefits it can offer.
Systemd is not a large monolithic process.
systemd has its own lib directory. It is a much more memory intensive process than init.
By software interrupts, I assume you mean it uses dbus instead of just piping everything to stdout.
No. I mean it generates interrupts for service from the CPU and steals context from other processes. If it write I/O it forces other processes to minor page fault back to ram and off the CPU core. Though I still have more research in this area about systemd behavior.
That argument just makes no sense whatsoever. Shell scripts were a quick and dirty way of getting a system up and running.
Which shows you are using inncorect assumptions and don't know how to configure initd properly.
Teach your tools to read the binary log, and it will actually be better because you will get a lot more information.
Which is not very useful if some problem causes you to loose your last buffer full of critical information that you need to determine why you system went down.
You are contradicting yourself, because you just said,
No I am not. An evet management system and a process managenment system *should* be separate process entities that interact.