The allegations include one woman "waking up" already engaged in intercourse, after having indicated that she did not want to have unprotected sex with him. Not sure how you defend that as anything other than rape. It COULD be a misunderstanding, there could be things that happened that she may have been unaware of (he may have thought she was awake and consenting, based on reactions she made while sleeping.... I have made this mistake, tho it has never gone nearly as far). This is why I made the stipulation of "If you take the stories at face value" because there probably is more to it than that, even if they are not nefariously motivated.
Again, I think there is ample reason to doubt them but... if the allegations are to be taken totally at face value, then I think the term could be applied, or is at least borderline. We could probably argue endlessly about where that line should be exactly, and that may be amusing but, I don't think it is relevant here, and would be quite a waste of time.
Its one thing to doubt the allegations, or to claim that it may not have happened quite the way it is portrayed,but another to pretend they are something that they are not. If you really think its ok to try to pressure a woman into unprotected sex, get rejected, and then simply start having unprotected sex with her while she is asleep.... then I don't see us coming to much agreement.
Actually.... I decided this morning to do some reading up on the allegations. The stories sound fairly bad, and damning, and paint a picture of a rather strange and misogynistic individual.... as long as you ignore a few bits that don't make sense, like "Mrs A" indicating a paranoid fear that he purposefully "tore the condom", based on.... um.... huh what?
If you take the stories at face value, they paint the picture of a misogenistic womanizing individual, and casual rapist (im not sure how one properly categorizes rapists)
Then... there are also counter allegations of twitter posts (I didn't have time to get that far, I mean to look more later, but if anyone has any pointers on this... I would love to see) that contradict the stories and indication that neither Mrs A nor Mrs W came forward until they found out about eachother, and even that they may have a profit motive to have both come forward together.... and that things looked non-kosher enough that the initial prosecutor dismissed the whole case as not being strong enough to pursue.
So we are left with a third possibility... the women are independent actors trying to cash in, and intelligence agencies are running with it because all it takes is a little pressure.
Of course... who knows... maybe he did it? After reading some articles on the allegations tho.... it does seem to stink of sex and money fueled drama.
Of particular interest is the allegations made by the Assange defense team: "There are many more text and SMS messages from and to the complainants which have been shown by the assistant prosecutor to the Swedish defence lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig, which suggest motivations of malice and money in going to the police" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden )
So it sounds like which version is true is going to come down to the content of those messages.
If thats true, and the prosecution knows about it.... then.... well... it makes the international intrigue aspect of this look much more probable.
...and if they did...and if they couldnt cover it up completely.... heads would totally um... be suspended with pay until it all blew over
In any case, so.. because you have some counter examples on the extreme the whole comparison is out the window?
Thus are thugs. Yes they operate by different codes and by different specific means but rule through intimidation and violence s thuggery any way you slice it.
the main difference is the cartels are not run by people who hold mock elections to maintain their veneer of legitimacy
Actually 16 is legal in my state. Also, I am not welcome to kill myself...thats against the law actually.
Anyway yah um... You can call all those things laws, but as far as I can tell, most people don't seem to need them. I have never, in my life, been prevented from killing someone by the law. And yes that means they have not physically stopped me, but only because, I never tried. Had I, they wouldn't have tried to stop me except in the farcical situation where there were already there.
On the other hand, these same laws ruined the lives of friends of mine over fucking plants that they used to grow and sell.
So frankly, your laws, the people that make them, and the people that enforce them can....all go fuck yourselves. Neither I, nor the people I know.... need them. In fact, we have no problem driving at safe speeds...which often have no relation to whats showing on those black on white signs, which are usually set arbitrarily low just to make money.
And yes, actually, try before the constitution. Lets not forget that the real reason the Articles of Confederation were abandoned. It was after events like Shays rebellion that showed that a strong central government would be needed to deal with uprisings amongst the peasant classes, slaves, and by Indians who didn't like their land being colonized.
It was never setup for the people, only the wealthy land owners. Its the rich man's government, always has been.
Then WHEN this has been implemented for a while... and tickets go up.... and there is no difference at all in accidents or deaths....
can we THEN admit that we have hit the point of diminishing returns wrt enforcement vs actual safety?
We keep seeing more rules or better enforcement... and yet.... don't seem to see corresponding improvements in safety. In fact, the only improvements in real safety that I have seen, have all come from safety devices in cars, like air bags.
We saw it in NY, when talking on phones was banned, and a study was able to verify that yes, people really were switching to headsets or not talking... more than a 60% drop in OBSERVED use...but.... no change at all in deaths or accidents. Yet somehow... that was explained away as not having any meaning (because if the report doesn't say we need more enforcement and more penalties, then its clearly not valid right?)
I can't really disagree with anything that you said there.... except I do have to point out... many states ban hunting with rifles (like mine), so if you are using an AR-15 here, you are breaking the law:)
It seems stupid to some people, until you point out how populated we are and how low the hills tend to be. Firing rifles needs to be somewhat controlled here since you generally can't fire a mile in any direction at all without endangering multiple people.
I have seen a few great videos of people using full auto weapons...its hilarious. They really are useless for just about anything most people would think to use them for.... thy come in handy in exactly 3 situations: 1. When suppressive fire is needed and 2. when the enemy has really large numbers and is dumb enough to gather in large groups, and march in formation (notice that nobody does this anymore) and 3. Fucking around on a firing range.
Not even intentional gaps... I had a friend who was going through a messy period with his wife, and she made him turn on tracking on his phone so she could watch him. We had to make a lunch run to a place where the lunch room was in a sub-basement. While we are there he takes out his phone...and the GPS says we are several towns away.... within minutes he gets a phone call about it.
Other times, I have seen my own GPS mess up and have me over 1000 miles from here. So.... your gps data, that you are compiling and sending to us, somehow claims you moved 1000 miles in 5 minutes.... care to tell us why you are faking your location? You aren't? Oh, then why are you sending us obviously bad data?
Of course you were in a spot with no GPS reception when your ex-wife died. Oh so you say the GPS just happened to be screwed up when you were at the airport? A likely story.
I wasn't aware that the "right to bear arms" was only if they are brought to bear against deer. I could have sworn that was for all reasons of defense, including against intrusion by a corrupted government.
Well you learn something new every day. I tried to check up on this but, the german wikipedia is the only place where I found info, and all the german I know, I learned from watching Hogan's Heros reruns as a kid.
I did find one website offering to, I think, sell me a pdf of this standard, but, if I was reading right, they were trying to charge 81 euros for it.... for which amount, I am happy to tell them where to stuff their PDF.
In any case, i defer to your claims of knowledge of international standards then.... but this is english, and I am in America, so.... the rest of the world is a bunch of drooling heathens anyway.... so my point still stands. God Bless America... and nowhere else! Now...someone pass me a bud light.
Actually.... this is the first Jobs story that hasn't made the song "cult of personality" stick in my head. This one is at least instructive of the truth that the laws in this country are written for the rich to take advantage of.
I randomly stumbled on discussion of this in a gun forum talking about ownership of automatic weapons in the US. Its not that they are illegal to own, its just that they are impossible to legally own unless you can afford to jump through the legal loopholes and get special approvals. (yes I know there are some exceptions for people working in certain fields, but, working for someone who can afford to make it so you can have them reduces to the same situation).
Similar to how, if you can afford to play the right financial games, you can basically pay little to no tax, even while making many times what a middle class worker makes.
No its not. 300000 has only one significant figure. 300000. however, is to an amazing precision as it has 6 of them.
3 x 10^5 vs 3.00000 x 10^5
In pure math, yes, they are the same number, however when dealing with measured quantities, significant figures matter. I learned it in high school but.... here you go if you are having trouble: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures
I did RTFA actually... I just really felt that it failed to make its case. I mean yes, I agree with the basic premise but, there are more bits needed to really make the case. For one thing, it never actually got into what the actual papers were about, to actually make the case, simpy stating that they are not relevant.
Secondly, he only linked to articles about the map, which contained a map with the lines, but, didn't show the actual versions used in any articles, which presumably would have had relevant data added to them....or not... I just don't know. Not even a link to the articles themselves, or some sort of snippet as an example.
Thirdly, it doesn't even attempt to address whether non-chineese have used similar maps with similar problems (or not), to show that china is not being singled out, and is being especially egregious and not just catching flak for something common. Do they/have they/would they have the same comments had the lines been ones that other organizations than the Chinese goernment agreed with?
I don't know the answer to these but, had the article attempted to address them, it would have been a far more solid and swaying argument.
If I were him, I would have just given up on them much sooner. I used CVS myself exclusively until recently but, I don't think I ever had the illusions of it being really good or even sufficient for real development (luckily for most of my use cases, cvs is borderline overkill)
I can't imagine someone using CVS heavily, for any significant period of time, and still believeing it to be the bees knees. Unless you have a top notch CVS admin who swoops in fixes things, and makes the annoying stuff nearly transparent for you, then it shows its age and its bain drammge very quickly. I ended up playing that CVS admin for a while, even got good at it....but doing so disabused me of any delusion of CVS being great.
Git on the other hand.... I can't imagine anyone using both git and CVS, and not wanting to convert everything to git, once and for all.
Hell I even want to do it in the few places that I still use CVS, I am tempted to change it, and only don't because they are places where changing it and retraining people would be more work than its worth, since its a case where file moves never happen, and we never have multiple lines of development at the same time. (making it a glorified change tracker, rather than a collaboration tool)
Except that its not really that simple.... they have created a large set of regulations around licensing, and driving, to the extent that pretty much anyone could lose that for any number of reasons. If driving is a right, then how can you justify taking it away for "violations" that are entirely paperwork related? A few years back they got me with a double whammy when they decided to just stop sending out the renewal notices that people had come to rely on for years, so thats license and registration. Two violations on my safe driving record (the insurance company must send them christmass cards), and possibly adding towards losing my license.... yah, they recognize the shit out of that "right".
I don't entirely disagree but, I don't see the "vote for obama" analogy. Boundaries ARE useful for orienting a map. They provide names that people know, and give markers that can be used to orient the map into its larger context, something thats much harder to do without some labels and lines in common. I will agree that there are other ways to do this, long/lat etc...but country names and boundaries are very easily recognizable and referable.
I don't really like it per se, and would like to see it changed overall. I would have to ask, would nature have complained if they used a map that still contained the boundaries, but used lines that others agreed with? If the answer is yes, then good for them but, I do think they need to give some thought about geographical context and how to provide it to people. If the answer is no...well... then they are just taking political sides, and no better than her.
Wow 2 GB per vm? My default is 512 MB and I am yet to need to make an exception.
Of course, I run linux, with KVM and only linux guests (what good is steam...er I mean windows on a VM? games would run very poorly over VNC)
In fact, the whole setup, as is, with the same 4-6 VMs at any given time was recently running with 4 GB total system memory. I only upgraded because my wife wanted to upgrade her desktop and we wanted to keep matching sets of RAM so I got 8 more for her and took her old 4 that was the same as the host box and tossed it in.
If its production, doing business....yes...go overboard. If performance really matters, go overboard. However,....for a test lab? Nah.
So basically the argument goes.... she shouldn't use the map that china wants her to use, for their own political reasons, and instead she should use other maps, that other people endorse for their own political reasons.
Well fuck.... this isn't a political map is it? Why are the political lines there except for illustration anyway? Why are they bickering over lines that only exist as an illustration?
The entire topic of where to place imaginary political boundaries on maps IS political. There is no way to remove political concerns from the topic without nixing the whole topic....because its a stupid topic that takes away from the real topic at hand....which is what the research is about.
This is a little like going to a panel discussion on economic issues, raising your hand, and asking the speaker why he bought the brand of shoes that he is wearing.
Yes well.... the default Debian install is.... fairly spartan. Installing less used to be the first thing I did. I say used to because, as I said, I only really use it on servers now, and so I setup FAI and put it in the profile. Not installing less by default may have made sense at one point, not sure why they haven't changed that. If I were to build a desktop again, since I already have fai setup, I will probably just make a desktop profile. Admittedly, its overkill if all you have is a desktop and a laptop.... but I like overkill.
Upstart is an interesting discussion. My main objection is one of consistency. As an old curmudgeon at the ripe age of 34, I am used to SYSV style init. I know how it works, hell, I have given a class that centered on how it works. It works mostly the same (with a few directory changes and caveats) on AIX, HP/UX, many Linux distros etc. Solaris abandoned it.... now Ubuntu is.
The problem is not upstart, the problem is, that it complicates things when you have systems that use it and systems that don't. I can't write one, single script that will work (or require only a few extra case statements to work) on multiple platforms. Solaris already complicated things this way, to have the Linux platform do it too means now I need three, completely different, initializations.... please, help me contain my excitement at the prospect.
As for "keeping it up". Thats an iffy one. I always came from the "set off a pager and have someone find out WHY it died" camp. "Self healing" sounds too much like painting over rust. Admittedly, upstart should log these things and so you should still be able to set off a pager, and have the "best of both worlds" (unless the restart destroys context that you might need in root cause analysis)....however.... a good monitoring package has the ability to do that too.... but... upstart should be faster at it....
In any case...yah upstart is fine, and it probably is an improvement.... but not really earth shattering for the number of scripts that have/had to be re-written.
Yes and no. I think its more complicated than that. Its partially about control of change.
When I upgrade my system, the theory is, I want the latest of everything sure.... but my session is my session. I want the latest everything, but i want to keep using what I have been using, just with bug fixes and new features. If I want to try something new, I will go try it....
Thats one thing I didn't like... that my session just "flipped" to unity. Thats not the latest version of what I have been using....thats new, it works very differently.
Now, I gave unity a chance. I used it for about 3 days before I just couldn't put up with the things that it did badly. Not just what I am "not used to" but, there were serious problems in doing things that I needed to do (is it any better about multiple simultaneous firefox sessions with different profiles? Because I need that...and no foxyproxy wont cut it either.
What really bothers, me anyway, is no the Unity interface, not even the default, its two things...a) changing my already existing session to use it (actually its likely that they just updated alternatives and my session was on defaults... the effect ends up being the same.... and much more importantly b) that each new release comes with claims that this may be the last one where gnome2 is available.
My problem is less this, I don't mind going a little ways off the reservation. Hell, for a long time (read: until a year ago) I was running the Gnome desktop with.... sawfish as my window manager. I don't mind some tweaks. I don't mind "unity" as the default desktop.
What bothers me is... that I keep hearing not just that unity is the default but, that "this may be the last release with the gnome desktop". That bothers me. See I can turn off Unity, and go back to gnome2, and have my desktop, I don't mind that. However, if its going to come down to not being easy, or being extra work that breaks on every single upgrade.... then fuck that.
I am on 11.04 now, and debating allowing the upgrade to run...and only because I know I can ditch unity easily enough still. Aside from Unity what makes it so "unusable"? I use it both on my laptop for work, and desktop at home as the primary OS (desktop has steam also, which I can't get to work under Wine so I have windows for that...and pretty much only that).
I can't say as I remember the redhat thing since I didn't use it at all in the 2002 period, as I had last tried redhat in 1997 when it was broken as hell (and I had nowhere near the experience needed to fix it), and ended up finding Debian, which I didn't stop using on the desktop until I found Ubuntu.
Slashdot Mirror
RTFA
The allegations include one woman "waking up" already engaged in intercourse, after having indicated that she did not want to have unprotected sex with him. Not sure how you defend that as anything other than rape. It COULD be a misunderstanding, there could be things that happened that she may have been unaware of (he may have thought she was awake and consenting, based on reactions she made while sleeping.... I have made this mistake, tho it has never gone nearly as far). This is why I made the stipulation of "If you take the stories at face value" because there probably is more to it than that, even if they are not nefariously motivated.
Again, I think there is ample reason to doubt them but... if the allegations are to be taken totally at face value, then I think the term could be applied, or is at least borderline. We could probably argue endlessly about where that line should be exactly, and that may be amusing but, I don't think it is relevant here, and would be quite a waste of time.
Its one thing to doubt the allegations, or to claim that it may not have happened quite the way it is portrayed,but another to pretend they are something that they are not. If you really think its ok to try to pressure a woman into unprotected sex, get rejected, and then simply start having unprotected sex with her while she is asleep.... then I don't see us coming to much agreement.
Actually.... I decided this morning to do some reading up on the allegations. The stories sound fairly bad, and damning, and paint a picture of a rather strange and misogynistic individual.... as long as you ignore a few bits that don't make sense, like "Mrs A" indicating a paranoid fear that he purposefully "tore the condom", based on.... um.... huh what?
If you take the stories at face value, they paint the picture of a misogenistic womanizing individual, and casual rapist (im not sure how one properly categorizes rapists)
Then... there are also counter allegations of twitter posts (I didn't have time to get that far, I mean to look more later, but if anyone has any pointers on this... I would love to see) that contradict the stories and indication that neither Mrs A nor Mrs W came forward until they found out about eachother, and even that they may have a profit motive to have both come forward together.... and that things looked non-kosher enough that the initial prosecutor dismissed the whole case as not being strong enough to pursue.
So we are left with a third possibility... the women are independent actors trying to cash in, and intelligence agencies are running with it because all it takes is a little pressure.
Of course... who knows... maybe he did it? After reading some articles on the allegations tho.... it does seem to stink of sex and money fueled drama.
Of particular interest is the allegations made by the Assange defense team: "There are many more text and SMS messages from and to the complainants which have been shown by the assistant prosecutor to the Swedish defence lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig, which suggest motivations of malice and money in going to the police" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden )
So it sounds like which version is true is going to come down to the content of those messages.
If thats true, and the prosecution knows about it.... then.... well... it makes the international intrigue aspect of this look much more probable.
...and if they did...and if they couldnt cover it up completely.... heads would totally um... be suspended with pay until it all blew over
In any case, so.. because you have some counter examples on the extreme the whole comparison is out the window?
Thus are thugs. Yes they operate by different codes and by different specific means but rule through intimidation and violence s thuggery any way you slice it.
the main difference is the cartels are not run by people who hold mock elections to maintain their veneer of legitimacy
Actually 16 is legal in my state. Also, I am not welcome to kill myself...thats against the law actually.
Anyway yah um... You can call all those things laws, but as far as I can tell, most people don't seem to need them. I have never, in my life, been prevented from killing someone by the law. And yes that means they have not physically stopped me, but only because, I never tried. Had I, they wouldn't have tried to stop me except in the farcical situation where there were already there.
On the other hand, these same laws ruined the lives of friends of mine over fucking plants that they used to grow and sell.
So frankly, your laws, the people that make them, and the people that enforce them can....all go fuck yourselves. Neither I, nor the people I know.... need them. In fact, we have no problem driving at safe speeds...which often have no relation to whats showing on those black on white signs, which are usually set arbitrarily low just to make money.
Nice try.
I firmly endorse that sentiment.
Laws are just the rules made up by people who got power from a system that you never actually had a chance to consent to.
Couldn't have worked out worst.
And yes, actually, try before the constitution. Lets not forget that the real reason the Articles of Confederation were abandoned. It was after events like Shays rebellion that showed that a strong central government would be needed to deal with uprisings amongst the peasant classes, slaves, and by Indians who didn't like their land being colonized.
It was never setup for the people, only the wealthy land owners. Its the rich man's government, always has been.
Then WHEN this has been implemented for a while... and tickets go up.... and there is no difference at all in accidents or deaths....
can we THEN admit that we have hit the point of diminishing returns wrt enforcement vs actual safety?
We keep seeing more rules or better enforcement... and yet.... don't seem to see corresponding improvements in safety. In fact, the only improvements in real safety that I have seen, have all come from safety devices in cars, like air bags.
We saw it in NY, when talking on phones was banned, and a study was able to verify that yes, people really were switching to headsets or not talking... more than a 60% drop in OBSERVED use...but.... no change at all in deaths or accidents. Yet somehow... that was explained away as not having any meaning (because if the report doesn't say we need more enforcement and more penalties, then its clearly not valid right?)
I can't really disagree with anything that you said there.... except I do have to point out... many states ban hunting with rifles (like mine), so if you are using an AR-15 here, you are breaking the law :)
It seems stupid to some people, until you point out how populated we are and how low the hills tend to be. Firing rifles needs to be somewhat controlled here since you generally can't fire a mile in any direction at all without endangering multiple people.
I have seen a few great videos of people using full auto weapons...its hilarious. They really are useless for just about anything most people would think to use them for.... thy come in handy in exactly 3 situations: 1. When suppressive fire is needed and 2. when the enemy has really large numbers and is dumb enough to gather in large groups, and march in formation (notice that nobody does this anymore) and 3. Fucking around on a firing range.
Not even intentional gaps... I had a friend who was going through a messy period with his wife, and she made him turn on tracking on his phone so she could watch him. We had to make a lunch run to a place where the lunch room was in a sub-basement. While we are there he takes out his phone...and the GPS says we are several towns away.... within minutes he gets a phone call about it.
Other times, I have seen my own GPS mess up and have me over 1000 miles from here. So.... your gps data, that you are compiling and sending to us, somehow claims you moved 1000 miles in 5 minutes.... care to tell us why you are faking your location? You aren't? Oh, then why are you sending us obviously bad data?
Of course you were in a spot with no GPS reception when your ex-wife died. Oh so you say the GPS just happened to be screwed up when you were at the airport? A likely story.
Maybe its time for a new version...
As the number of years that a government continues to wield power increases, the odds of them beginning to act like the Nazi's approaches 1.
What does deer hunting have to do with anything?
I wasn't aware that the "right to bear arms" was only if they are brought to bear against deer. I could have sworn that was for all reasons of defense, including against intrusion by a corrupted government.
Well you learn something new every day. I tried to check up on this but, the german wikipedia is the only place where I found info, and all the german I know, I learned from watching Hogan's Heros reruns as a kid.
I did find one website offering to, I think, sell me a pdf of this standard, but, if I was reading right, they were trying to charge 81 euros for it.... for which amount, I am happy to tell them where to stuff their PDF.
In any case, i defer to your claims of knowledge of international standards then.... but this is english, and I am in America, so.... the rest of the world is a bunch of drooling heathens anyway.... so my point still stands. God Bless America... and nowhere else! Now...someone pass me a bud light.
Actually.... this is the first Jobs story that hasn't made the song "cult of personality" stick in my head. This one is at least instructive of the truth that the laws in this country are written for the rich to take advantage of.
I randomly stumbled on discussion of this in a gun forum talking about ownership of automatic weapons in the US. Its not that they are illegal to own, its just that they are impossible to legally own unless you can afford to jump through the legal loopholes and get special approvals. (yes I know there are some exceptions for people working in certain fields, but, working for someone who can afford to make it so you can have them reduces to the same situation).
Similar to how, if you can afford to play the right financial games, you can basically pay little to no tax, even while making many times what a middle class worker makes.
No its not. 300000 has only one significant figure. 300000. however, is to an amazing precision as it has 6 of them.
3 x 10^5 vs 3.00000 x 10^5
In pure math, yes, they are the same number, however when dealing with measured quantities, significant figures matter. I learned it in high school but.... here you go if you are having trouble: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures
I did RTFA actually... I just really felt that it failed to make its case. I mean yes, I agree with the basic premise but, there are more bits needed to really make the case. For one thing, it never actually got into what the actual papers were about, to actually make the case, simpy stating that they are not relevant.
Secondly, he only linked to articles about the map, which contained a map with the lines, but, didn't show the actual versions used in any articles, which presumably would have had relevant data added to them....or not... I just don't know. Not even a link to the articles themselves, or some sort of snippet as an example.
Thirdly, it doesn't even attempt to address whether non-chineese have used similar maps with similar problems (or not), to show that china is not being singled out, and is being especially egregious and not just catching flak for something common. Do they/have they/would they have the same comments had the lines been ones that other organizations than the Chinese goernment agreed with?
I don't know the answer to these but, had the article attempted to address them, it would have been a far more solid and swaying argument.
Again...why would I run steam on a remote VM? :)
wow that sucks balls.
If I were him, I would have just given up on them much sooner. I used CVS myself exclusively until recently but, I don't think I ever had the illusions of it being really good or even sufficient for real development (luckily for most of my use cases, cvs is borderline overkill)
I can't imagine someone using CVS heavily, for any significant period of time, and still believeing it to be the bees knees. Unless you have a top notch CVS admin who swoops in fixes things, and makes the annoying stuff nearly transparent for you, then it shows its age and its bain drammge very quickly. I ended up playing that CVS admin for a while, even got good at it....but doing so disabused me of any delusion of CVS being great.
Git on the other hand.... I can't imagine anyone using both git and CVS, and not wanting to convert everything to git, once and for all.
Hell I even want to do it in the few places that I still use CVS, I am tempted to change it, and only don't because they are places where changing it and retraining people would be more work than its worth, since its a case where file moves never happen, and we never have multiple lines of development at the same time. (making it a glorified change tracker, rather than a collaboration tool)
thats just....lame.
Except that its not really that simple.... they have created a large set of regulations around licensing, and driving, to the extent that pretty much anyone could lose that for any number of reasons. If driving is a right, then how can you justify taking it away for "violations" that are entirely paperwork related? A few years back they got me with a double whammy when they decided to just stop sending out the renewal notices that people had come to rely on for years, so thats license and registration. Two violations on my safe driving record (the insurance company must send them christmass cards), and possibly adding towards losing my license.... yah, they recognize the shit out of that "right".
I don't entirely disagree but, I don't see the "vote for obama" analogy. Boundaries ARE useful for orienting a map. They provide names that people know, and give markers that can be used to orient the map into its larger context, something thats much harder to do without some labels and lines in common. I will agree that there are other ways to do this, long/lat etc...but country names and boundaries are very easily recognizable and referable.
I don't really like it per se, and would like to see it changed overall. I would have to ask, would nature have complained if they used a map that still contained the boundaries, but used lines that others agreed with? If the answer is yes, then good for them but, I do think they need to give some thought about geographical context and how to provide it to people. If the answer is no...well... then they are just taking political sides, and no better than her.
Wow 2 GB per vm? My default is 512 MB and I am yet to need to make an exception.
Of course, I run linux, with KVM and only linux guests (what good is steam...er I mean windows on a VM? games would run very poorly over VNC)
In fact, the whole setup, as is, with the same 4-6 VMs at any given time was recently running with 4 GB total system memory. I only upgraded because my wife wanted to upgrade her desktop and we wanted to keep matching sets of RAM so I got 8 more for her and took her old 4 that was the same as the host box and tossed it in.
If its production, doing business....yes...go overboard. If performance really matters, go overboard. However,....for a test lab? Nah.
So basically the argument goes.... she shouldn't use the map that china wants her to use, for their own political reasons, and instead she should use other maps, that other people endorse for their own political reasons.
Well fuck.... this isn't a political map is it? Why are the political lines there except for illustration anyway? Why are they bickering over lines that only exist as an illustration?
The entire topic of where to place imaginary political boundaries on maps IS political. There is no way to remove political concerns from the topic without nixing the whole topic....because its a stupid topic that takes away from the real topic at hand....which is what the research is about.
This is a little like going to a panel discussion on economic issues, raising your hand, and asking the speaker why he bought the brand of shoes that he is wearing.
Yes well.... the default Debian install is.... fairly spartan. Installing less used to be the first thing I did. I say used to because, as I said, I only really use it on servers now, and so I setup FAI and put it in the profile. Not installing less by default may have made sense at one point, not sure why they haven't changed that. If I were to build a desktop again, since I already have fai setup, I will probably just make a desktop profile. Admittedly, its overkill if all you have is a desktop and a laptop.... but I like overkill.
Upstart is an interesting discussion. My main objection is one of consistency. As an old curmudgeon at the ripe age of 34, I am used to SYSV style init. I know how it works, hell, I have given a class that centered on how it works. It works mostly the same (with a few directory changes and caveats) on AIX, HP/UX, many Linux distros etc. Solaris abandoned it.... now Ubuntu is.
The problem is not upstart, the problem is, that it complicates things when you have systems that use it and systems that don't. I can't write one, single script that will work (or require only a few extra case statements to work) on multiple platforms. Solaris already complicated things this way, to have the Linux platform do it too means now I need three, completely different, initializations.... please, help me contain my excitement at the prospect.
As for "keeping it up". Thats an iffy one. I always came from the "set off a pager and have someone find out WHY it died" camp. "Self healing" sounds too much like painting over rust. Admittedly, upstart should log these things and so you should still be able to set off a pager, and have the "best of both worlds" (unless the restart destroys context that you might need in root cause analysis)....however.... a good monitoring package has the ability to do that too.... but... upstart should be faster at it....
In any case...yah upstart is fine, and it probably is an improvement.... but not really earth shattering for the number of scripts that have/had to be re-written.
Yes and no. I think its more complicated than that. Its partially about control of change.
When I upgrade my system, the theory is, I want the latest of everything sure.... but my session is my session. I want the latest everything, but i want to keep using what I have been using, just with bug fixes and new features. If I want to try something new, I will go try it....
Thats one thing I didn't like... that my session just "flipped" to unity. Thats not the latest version of what I have been using....thats new, it works very differently.
Now, I gave unity a chance. I used it for about 3 days before I just couldn't put up with the things that it did badly. Not just what I am "not used to" but, there were serious problems in doing things that I needed to do (is it any better about multiple simultaneous firefox sessions with different profiles? Because I need that...and no foxyproxy wont cut it either.
What really bothers, me anyway, is no the Unity interface, not even the default, its two things...a) changing my already existing session to use it (actually its likely that they just updated alternatives and my session was on defaults... the effect ends up being the same.... and much more importantly b) that each new release comes with claims that this may be the last one where gnome2 is available.
Partially yes, and you have a point....but....
My problem is less this, I don't mind going a little ways off the reservation. Hell, for a long time (read: until a year ago) I was running the Gnome desktop with.... sawfish as my window manager. I don't mind some tweaks. I don't mind "unity" as the default desktop.
What bothers me is... that I keep hearing not just that unity is the default but, that "this may be the last release with the gnome desktop". That bothers me. See I can turn off Unity, and go back to gnome2, and have my desktop, I don't mind that. However, if its going to come down to not being easy, or being extra work that breaks on every single upgrade.... then fuck that.
Usable or usable out of the box?
I am on 11.04 now, and debating allowing the upgrade to run...and only because I know I can ditch unity easily enough still. Aside from Unity what makes it so "unusable"? I use it both on my laptop for work, and desktop at home as the primary OS (desktop has steam also, which I can't get to work under Wine so I have windows for that...and pretty much only that).
I can't say as I remember the redhat thing since I didn't use it at all in the 2002 period, as I had last tried redhat in 1997 when it was broken as hell (and I had nowhere near the experience needed to fix it), and ended up finding Debian, which I didn't stop using on the desktop until I found Ubuntu.