No shit on hardware checks. Minutes. Minutes to post on anything server-class these days. 15 seconds to boot up after that. Even with old init. Getting that to 5-10 seconds is going to be a game-changer!
It does, as the old HAL has been merged into udev/systemd. The fact that systemd-udevd runs as a separate process is largely irrelevant, as it is entirely dependent on a fully functioning systemd bundle. (unless you use one of the castrated forks, like eudev), so your parent's question is good, and your response is stupid. systemd-udevd is dependent on systemd being init. udevd was never dependent on init.
So that it can handle basic interaction with the system, now that systemd is responsible for opening privileged sockets, logging, setting up the network, setting up the hardware, changing your mother's laundry and finding a suitable wife for your daughter.
Next question.
Did he? What a dick. The only person I could imagine being more dickish would be someone slandering him with false accusations and attributions.
The demon you're looking for is most likely Kay Sievers. You may be familiar with that name due to all the systemd controversy, but perhaps you didn't know about his role in udev.
It was proved false by math, by the person who proposed it. He gave the energy required- 7 million kelvin (iirc) to sustain the CNO chain fusion reaction. It's literally impossible in our atmosphere, or any atmosphere that isn't pure nitrogen at several hundred thousand times sea-level air pressure. He thought it might be, then he did the math and realized it was not. It was proven false with simple thermodynamics. No nuclear physics needed. There was 0 risk of extinction. One guy tossed out a hypothesis, and it became popular. Just like LHC black holes. It was never a real concern. It. Is. Impossible. We knew it then, we know it now. You're blowing a crack-pot theory out of proportion by calling it a risk. Like I said, your points sans this one are good. Science is uncertain. The laws of thermodynamics are not.
Also, nuclear physics were in fact pretty well established by that point. The difficulty in making the bomb was not the physics, it was the engineering and materials tech. The physics required to construct an atomic bomb were known in the 20s.
You're being ridiculous. The igniting atmosphere hypothesis was an arm-chair speculation based on nothing but some guestimations which turned out to be wildly off. It was never seriously considered by a single person involved in advanced nuclear physics. There was no possible way for a self-sustaining nitrogen fusion reaction to occur in our atmosphere.
Your points can't be argued, but they lend no credibility to the fear of a single wild and physical impossible hypothesis, so they are meaningless to the discussion.
There was also a "theory" (misuse of word intended for purposes of education) that the LHC was going to create small mini black holes and destroy the earth. It had significantly more credibility than the igniting atmosphere "theory".
In practice, a hypothesis can be ruled "highly unlikely" without conducting the actual test it hypothesizes. This is why we have maths and physics.
In hindsight, we know that the chain reaction is very hard to maintain. But in the 1940's this was not so certain.
Not hindsight, this was well known even at the time. Even by the guy who proposed the theory. Calculations showed it to be thoroughly impossible long before a weapon was released.
It again depends entirely on intent whether it is criminal, or simply tort.
If the girl knew the boy was likely to do it because he was mentally unstable, she'd likely be brought up on some sort of manslaughter charge.
If it couldn't be shows that she had any expectation of it actually happening, the best anyone could likely hope for would be damages in a wrongful death civil suit.
You literally have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
There's no legality involved with your piece of hardware using unlicensed bits in a protocol field. None. Zero. Nada.
There's no legality involved with a device driver talking to your hardware. None. Zero. Nada.
Legality didn't even enter the picture until FTDI wrote malicious software that disabled end-user devices. Were this a mistake, they could be off the hook by replacing them, by civil court order if necessary. Since it was intentional, that makes it criminal as well.
I have a good friend there right now. There have been 2 attempts on her where she had to physically fight someone off of her, and the first 2 days of reception were sexual assault awareness classes where they're instructed to stay out of the dark and not go anywhere on-base that they're not familiar with or get into any cars they're not familiar with. No shit. On a US army base.
Not just sexual harassment. It's safer for a supermodel to walk down MLK in your favorite large city naked than a homely woman to walk from one end of Fort Hood to the other, wearing ACUs after dark.
When soldiering becomes less of a duty and more of a way to delay starting out your life of dismal poverty, you start making the wrong kind of army.
One quibble,
There is a difference between a ballistic sneeze droplet and an able-to-be-supported-by-simple-air-pressure-differences aerosol droplets.
The latter shows no evidence of being able to successfully transmit Ebola. If it could, this epidemic would probably be over now with massive reductions in populations world-wide.
It's one thing to have someone sneeze in your face and you get infected, and an entirely different one to have someone get infected on the other side of the plane simply because you breathed.
That's because contrary to what some people are saying, Ebola isn't *that* transmissible.
It takes extreme exposure (and thus extreme viral load) for the virus to overload immune response. This isn't HIV, it's not that your immune system can't knock these bastards out, it's just that it'll likely kill you before your immune system can really get into whole-body-lockdown gear in the case of a massive infection.
Depends entirely on the inertial reference frames of you and the interacting I-beam.
Hard-hat is protective of somewhere around 99.9999999999999999999999% of human-head to I-beam inertial interactions.
Morons, or the law of large numbers at work? There are 10's of thousands of doctors treating patients. Mistakes, unforeseen circumstances, or simply having to "make due" in a third-world country are part of real life. I don't think idiocy is required for the model's equation.
However, this virus has a 50-70% mortality rate and there is no vaccine.
Actually, if I'm not mistaken Ebola seems to have about a 12.5% mortality rate in the US, currently, and very likely to decline since the 1 death was the single one not treated with the vaccine you claim does not exist.
Well, I think usually they require some kind of cell-breaching machinery as well. I think it's unusual for cells to swallow up random strands of pure RNA floating around outside their walls- but I could be entirely wrong.
On the contrary, aerosol transmission absolutely is one of the methods of airborne transmission. You are correct that droplet nuclei are another. The common cold is however both. Of course they spread more efficiently via fomite transfer. A volume of air is big, very big- especially when you're the size of a viral nuclei or an aerosol droplet full of thousands of virus. You argued the common cold isn't really airborne, but it really is. That's all I was saying.
That's some good spin!
If your hypothetical daughter tells her to kill herself, ultimately, there's 2 things that will happen.
She will either do it, or she will not.
Don't loose your anger upon the man who said it if she does though, because he's got the chuckugly defense of "only a defective human would have behaved in such a defective manner"
Slashdot Mirror
In my line of work, servers are far cheaper than downtime
No shit on hardware checks. Minutes. Minutes to post on anything server-class these days. 15 seconds to boot up after that. Even with old init. Getting that to 5-10 seconds is going to be a game-changer!
It does, as the old HAL has been merged into udev/systemd. The fact that systemd-udevd runs as a separate process is largely irrelevant, as it is entirely dependent on a fully functioning systemd bundle. (unless you use one of the castrated forks, like eudev), so your parent's question is good, and your response is stupid. systemd-udevd is dependent on systemd being init. udevd was never dependent on init.
So that it can handle basic interaction with the system, now that systemd is responsible for opening privileged sockets, logging, setting up the network, setting up the hardware, changing your mother's laundry and finding a suitable wife for your daughter.
Next question.
Did he? What a dick. The only person I could imagine being more dickish would be someone slandering him with false accusations and attributions.
The demon you're looking for is most likely Kay Sievers. You may be familiar with that name due to all the systemd controversy, but perhaps you didn't know about his role in udev.
It was proved false by math, by the person who proposed it. He gave the energy required- 7 million kelvin (iirc) to sustain the CNO chain fusion reaction. It's literally impossible in our atmosphere, or any atmosphere that isn't pure nitrogen at several hundred thousand times sea-level air pressure. He thought it might be, then he did the math and realized it was not. It was proven false with simple thermodynamics. No nuclear physics needed. There was 0 risk of extinction. One guy tossed out a hypothesis, and it became popular. Just like LHC black holes. It was never a real concern. It. Is. Impossible. We knew it then, we know it now. You're blowing a crack-pot theory out of proportion by calling it a risk. Like I said, your points sans this one are good. Science is uncertain. The laws of thermodynamics are not.
Also, nuclear physics were in fact pretty well established by that point. The difficulty in making the bomb was not the physics, it was the engineering and materials tech. The physics required to construct an atomic bomb were known in the 20s.
You're being ridiculous. The igniting atmosphere hypothesis was an arm-chair speculation based on nothing but some guestimations which turned out to be wildly off. It was never seriously considered by a single person involved in advanced nuclear physics. There was no possible way for a self-sustaining nitrogen fusion reaction to occur in our atmosphere.
Your points can't be argued, but they lend no credibility to the fear of a single wild and physical impossible hypothesis, so they are meaningless to the discussion.
There was also a "theory" (misuse of word intended for purposes of education) that the LHC was going to create small mini black holes and destroy the earth. It had significantly more credibility than the igniting atmosphere "theory".
In practice, a hypothesis can be ruled "highly unlikely" without conducting the actual test it hypothesizes. This is why we have maths and physics.
In hindsight, we know that the chain reaction is very hard to maintain. But in the 1940's this was not so certain.
Not hindsight, this was well known even at the time. Even by the guy who proposed the theory. Calculations showed it to be thoroughly impossible long before a weapon was released.
It again depends entirely on intent whether it is criminal, or simply tort.
If the girl knew the boy was likely to do it because he was mentally unstable, she'd likely be brought up on some sort of manslaughter charge.
If it couldn't be shows that she had any expectation of it actually happening, the best anyone could likely hope for would be damages in a wrongful death civil suit.
The situation is really pretty analogous.
You literally have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
There's no legality involved with your piece of hardware using unlicensed bits in a protocol field. None. Zero. Nada.
There's no legality involved with a device driver talking to your hardware. None. Zero. Nada.
Legality didn't even enter the picture until FTDI wrote malicious software that disabled end-user devices. Were this a mistake, they could be off the hook by replacing them, by civil court order if necessary. Since it was intentional, that makes it criminal as well.
I have a good friend there right now. There have been 2 attempts on her where she had to physically fight someone off of her, and the first 2 days of reception were sexual assault awareness classes where they're instructed to stay out of the dark and not go anywhere on-base that they're not familiar with or get into any cars they're not familiar with. No shit. On a US army base.
Not just sexual harassment. It's safer for a supermodel to walk down MLK in your favorite large city naked than a homely woman to walk from one end of Fort Hood to the other, wearing ACUs after dark.
When soldiering becomes less of a duty and more of a way to delay starting out your life of dismal poverty, you start making the wrong kind of army.
One quibble,
There is a difference between a ballistic sneeze droplet and an able-to-be-supported-by-simple-air-pressure-differences aerosol droplets.
The latter shows no evidence of being able to successfully transmit Ebola. If it could, this epidemic would probably be over now with massive reductions in populations world-wide.
It's one thing to have someone sneeze in your face and you get infected, and an entirely different one to have someone get infected on the other side of the plane simply because you breathed.
Brilliant :)
That's because contrary to what some people are saying, Ebola isn't *that* transmissible.
It takes extreme exposure (and thus extreme viral load) for the virus to overload immune response. This isn't HIV, it's not that your immune system can't knock these bastards out, it's just that it'll likely kill you before your immune system can really get into whole-body-lockdown gear in the case of a massive infection.
Depends entirely on the inertial reference frames of you and the interacting I-beam.
Hard-hat is protective of somewhere around 99.9999999999999999999999% of human-head to I-beam inertial interactions.
Nobody likes being made to look like a fool on the internet, but I know a lot of people who handle it a lot classier than you.
Morons, or the law of large numbers at work? There are 10's of thousands of doctors treating patients. Mistakes, unforeseen circumstances, or simply having to "make due" in a third-world country are part of real life. I don't think idiocy is required for the model's equation.
He's consistently full of shit. Ignore him.
However, this virus has a 50-70% mortality rate and there is no vaccine.
Actually, if I'm not mistaken Ebola seems to have about a 12.5% mortality rate in the US, currently, and very likely to decline since the 1 death was the single one not treated with the vaccine you claim does not exist.
Well, I think usually they require some kind of cell-breaching machinery as well. I think it's unusual for cells to swallow up random strands of pure RNA floating around outside their walls- but I could be entirely wrong.
On the contrary, aerosol transmission absolutely is one of the methods of airborne transmission. You are correct that droplet nuclei are another. The common cold is however both. Of course they spread more efficiently via fomite transfer. A volume of air is big, very big- especially when you're the size of a viral nuclei or an aerosol droplet full of thousands of virus. You argued the common cold isn't really airborne, but it really is. That's all I was saying.
*daughter's boyfriend
That's some good spin!
If your hypothetical daughter tells her to kill herself, ultimately, there's 2 things that will happen.
She will either do it, or she will not.
Don't loose your anger upon the man who said it if she does though, because he's got the chuckugly defense of "only a defective human would have behaved in such a defective manner"