You don't plant oil fields. You can try, but you won't grow any(thing).
Cocoa is chocolate. We grow that is West Africa, mostly, and the Caribbean. Maybe you were thinking of coca? I know cultural sensitivity is just an American lefty thing, and you hate America. but actually coca is a traditional crop in Columbia and neighboring countries. Nobody has to go there and plant it for them. Actually the CIA goes there and pays other Columbians to murder the coca farmers and burn their plantations, and they still keep planting it. There might be some wrongs there, but at least pick true ones to complain about, jeeze! This is slashdot.
I have great politicians in my State, you're just voting for the wrong people.
Go give Senator Wyden a big campaign donation, and see if his policies change. Hint: they don't, and he votes the way he says he will.
Choosing sucky politicians who vote for whatever the rich people want is just poor electoral practice, it isn't bribery. Yes, most pols support the rich going in, that is what they promise to do: be "business friendly." And then they support policies that are "business friendly." That isn't bribery, either; they donate to him because he supports them, and they know he already wants to do what they ask for.
The existence of constituencies that you dislike is not bribery. The rich having more sway than you is not necessarily caused by bribery. Here in the USA it is almost never caused by bribery, but by a culture of voters handing control to the rich freely, believing that it will create jobs.
It isn't. Lobbying is talking. Bribing is paying or giving stuff. Lobbyists that are caught paying or giving stuff go to jail for... bribery. Which means the same thing here as other places.
No, they patented it so that when some other search engine has to go to court to get it tossed, they'll get 7 or 8 figures of free PR, telling the whole world they're the company fighting the evil baddy-bads.
The equivalent would be cannons. Were cannons regulated in the 18th and 19th centuries?
Correct. Artillery has never been found to be covered by the right to "bear arms." And, cannons were considered "artillery," not "arms," which were carried weapons, like swords, spears, and muskets.
I hope so, since it isn't the equipment you'd actually be short of if you were building one. The stuff may not be good enough for nukes, but it surely has some sort of use...
How is it making them look bad? They seem to be claiming that if you buy aluminum tubes off of Alibaba, they're higher quality than used in construction, or even rocket tubes, and that they're so perfect they can be used for centrifuges!
I'm not building centrifuges, but that sounds like better aluminum than is even MADE in the US. And historically we've always had excellent quality metals.
99%+ glycerin is also available in health food stores labelled as "glycerin"; used to make health care products, and also to create non-alcohol botanical extracts. I use it to make mushroom tinctures, because my wide doesn't like my vodka based ones.
In my state acetone requires a trip to a chemical supply store, and you have to convince them you own a business and have a "business use."
That's even worse than McCarthyism. At least McCarthy wanted to know whether you were a communist first.
No, he wanted to know if you had ever been accused of being a communist, or if anybody had every suggested anonymously behind closed doors that your name should be added to a list of known communists.
Intentionally avoided those combinations when they are the combinations you actually are ending up with could get you flagged on an even worse list. I don't think trying to game it is the way to go. Probably if they smashed your door in on an "oops," they won't do it again, and you're safest just doing things straight.
So your choice is either to accept that these substances can be used for unlawful purposes and find a way to observe their use, or you accept that you can't do jack anymore yourself and are reduced to a consuming drone.
Your choice.
Most of this stuff can be ordered through a chemistry supply store in small quantities suitable for experimentation, but you have to fill out a bunch of paperwork and explain some real reasons why you want it. It turns out, very few of the kids trying to buy it are trying to learn chemistry. Usually it is Beavis and Butthead trying to blow something up, and they didn't pay attention in chemistry well enough to describe the right experiment.
I buy controlled chemicals for wild mushroom identification (the flesh of various species changes color when exposed to various chemicals) and there is no problem getting any of it, as long as I don't mind my ID being recorded, and how much I bought, when. If I was using it for some other use, the quantities wouldn't match up, and they could investigate. It seems like a good idea to me; I want to buy my test chemicals, but I don't want terrorists to have an easy time building bombs. And a more pressing threat, I don't want the teenager next door to blow up half the block making "fireworks." Some idiot was just arrested 3 blocks from me after blowing himself up (part way, anyhow) lighting off home-made fireworks. And the idiot lived in an apartment! We're not smart enough to have "nice things," if explosives are nice anyways.
You know, most of the things they stopped putting in chemistry sets are dangerous to handle, and not just if you eat it. Is it really so "cool" that it is worth getting cancer?
And you can still buy strong acids at art supply stores. I worked with acids for etching glass in middle school in the 80s, and that stuff is still available now.
It may very well be that customers (the parents) didn't want the acid in the kit, and that is the only reason it was removed. That is perfectly normal. It doesn't mean that kids whose parents will let them have it can't go to the store and buy it themselves. You may need ID to buy some brands of cough syrup, but you don't need ID to buy strong acids.
When my dad was a kid, shoe stores had x-ray machines, so you could look at the bones in your feet. The kids really loved them! They didn't bother making prints, the way x-rays were later used, they just blasted your feet with a steady stream of x-rays and showed it through a view port. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... http://gizmodo.com/the-insane-...
Yeah, my parents had the "cool" stuff.
As an aside, lemon juice teaches the chemical properties of an acid just as well as a stronger acid; probably better, because instead of getting distracted melting stuff, which doesn't have much value in understanding the chemistry, you'll have to make use of electrical properties to do anything cool. And electrical potential is the whole point of those lessons. Heck, even a potato probably teaches that easier than a strong acid. We made a potato-powered electrical motor in my 4th grade class.
That said, I tend to you agree with your conclusion: the real losers are industry and research.
Except industry and research still have access. The chemicals aren't banned, they're restricted to business use. All you have to do buy them is... be industry, or be doing research.
Honestly it sounds like you tripped and fell over the anti-policy propaganda, and are arguing against something different than what the policy actually is. And from your comment, I can't even tell that you would be against the real policy if you had heard it explained accurately.
Except they DO make meth out of it. That you don't have the recipe doesn't mean it isn't true. Go look it up.
And US manufacturing went down after those laws came in, and foreign imports went up. So it didn't really change the price on the street. Clearly the drug war is failed.
But that has nothing to do with the fact that it IS an ingredient in multiple meth recipes.
Fucking joke is right, smoke another bowl and do a web search ganjadude
Odd that of all possible choices, systemd developers chose almost always a way that is exactly the same or very similar to what Debian does. For example, I don't see stuff like/etc/sysconfig, while I do see things like/etc/hostname etc.
Everybody else has/etc/hostname too, sorry to pop your fanspiracy.
Now, as it turns out, more frequently than not we actually adopted schemes that where Debianisms, rather than Fedoraisms/Redhatisms as best supported scheme by systemd. For example, systems running systemd now generally store their hostname in/etc/hostname, something that used to be specific to Debian and now is used across distributions.
Maybe the example was too subtle, but for sure there are some things from/etc/sysconfig that are gone from Red Hat, and are substituted by Debian-style configuration.
Sorry, redhat has had/etc/hostname since the 90s. As for/etc/sysconfig, I have a systemd distro from the RedHat family, and it still has/etc/sysconfig too.
You quote the least important part of that passage, and I think it has a very different flavor when the whole thing is quoted:
One goal of systemd is to unify the dispersed Linux landscape a bit. We try to get rid of many of the more pointless differences of the various distributions in various areas of the core OS. As part of that we sometimes adopt schemes that were previously used by only one of the distributions and push it to a level where it's the default of systemd, trying to gently push everybody towards the same set of basic configuration. This is never exclusive though, distributions can continue to deviate from that if they wish, however, if they end-up using the well-supported default their work becomes much easier and they might gain a feature or two. Now, as it turns out, more frequently than not we actually adopted schemes that where Debianisms, rather than Fedoraisms/Redhatisms as best supported scheme by systemd. For example, systems running systemd now generally store their hostname in/etc/hostname, something that used to be specific to Debian and now is used across distributions.
So "more frequently than not" isn't the same as "almost always,"/etc/hostname was probably a clumsy example since RH already had that file, which is read as configuration by other programs, but not usually what is setting it. But the point is that they have an agenda of pushing towards consistent configuration, and to do that by setting defaults. Because those are often the easiest to standardize on. They don't go into the why. I would speculate that since RH is perceived as being behind systemd already, and Debian fans won't complain as much about Debianisms as RH-isms, it is simply more down-hill to standardize in that direction. Because where these differences exist, all the variants have been proven to work, so the difficulty of adoption is the more critical thing.
It certainly undercuts the RH-ism complaint, the only problem is that it is standardization that the complainers are against. They don't want the distros to get locked into having the same setup as each other. What really destroys the complaint though is that these are only defaults, not requirements. I would not be at all surprised if a future Debian wants to move away from the Debianisms because they're hated by users as RH-isms as soon as somebody says, "well we can't change it because it is standardized."
None of the involved parties are trying to make standardization required, and they're not trying to choose the best configuration system either. That is why it is going to be hard to stop them from improving defaults.
No, you're just trolling. Nothing was fixed, and the very concept that you can "fix" another persons opinion by stating your own opinion as if it was theirs... is not a realistic way to convince anybody of your opinion.
I didn't advocate against understanding your computer, I advocated against complaining about not understanding it if you're not competent to understand it. Don't ask that the capabilities be minimized so it is easier to understand. Nerds should succeed at understanding, others probably shouldn't bother. And if they really want something easier to understand, something that intentionally is less capable, they should seek that from a niche hobby OS and not the world's main server OS.
systemd setups in the wild still load the SysV init scripts. They didn't go away. Just delete the systemd symlinks, and install the old scripts. No problem. FUD cleaned.
But it requires knowing enough about the distro you to choose to set it up the way you think you want it. So it doesn't really help him.
Often true, but there is always some bottleneck. If I have a database cluster, it is probably a bottleneck, and if a database node appears to have some sort of OS screwup, I mostly don't care; if it repeats I want to fix it. But getting the node back up quickly is a bigger deal unless the same problem repeated itself. The database can already handle keeping its data from being corrupted, getting the node back up quickly only affects the cluster load. And in that sort of case, I really might not care to "fix" whatever part of the OS that crashed. It may be that an OS update will fix the problem, and the best solution is to set up a new cluster node master image.
For me that is the most often transient error situation; secondary software rarely hits a known bug, and updating the right package will make it go away; nothing was ever wrong with the actual server software that I care about. Where there are multiple front/back ends and high availability techniques, this stuff can usually be dealt with however often you change your distro. Maybe every couple years! On a small setup or single server, then you can just fix it right away, no problem.
On large systems if you're ready to chase any transient error down a rabbit hole, you'll be buried in them and blaming your boss for not hiring 1000 sysadmins.;)
In a modern "cloud" setup restart might not be risky at all because you might be discarding that node and instantiating a new one, and investigating the log on the log server.
Also, if a service can't be safely restarted, my advice, use the best mainstream open source server software available and this should not be an issue. This is not the 90s anymore, computers are still not reliable but mainstream software software is pretty good. For custom software, those are bugs I want to hit; I need to fix those. If restarting is dangerous, I've got a totally broken application architecture and I should fix it before it causes further embarrassment.
Slashdot Mirror
You do know Fox News isn't "our government," right? Oh, wait, you must be from a "red" State...
You don't plant oil fields. You can try, but you won't grow any(thing).
Cocoa is chocolate. We grow that is West Africa, mostly, and the Caribbean. Maybe you were thinking of coca? I know cultural sensitivity is just an American lefty thing, and you hate America. but actually coca is a traditional crop in Columbia and neighboring countries. Nobody has to go there and plant it for them. Actually the CIA goes there and pays other Columbians to murder the coca farmers and burn their plantations, and they still keep planting it. There might be some wrongs there, but at least pick true ones to complain about, jeeze! This is slashdot.
I'm not gay, but my boyfriend sure as shit is.
In Putin's Russia, gay boyfriends you!
Speculation and hand-waving.
I have great politicians in my State, you're just voting for the wrong people.
Go give Senator Wyden a big campaign donation, and see if his policies change. Hint: they don't, and he votes the way he says he will.
Choosing sucky politicians who vote for whatever the rich people want is just poor electoral practice, it isn't bribery. Yes, most pols support the rich going in, that is what they promise to do: be "business friendly." And then they support policies that are "business friendly." That isn't bribery, either; they donate to him because he supports them, and they know he already wants to do what they ask for.
The existence of constituencies that you dislike is not bribery. The rich having more sway than you is not necessarily caused by bribery. Here in the USA it is almost never caused by bribery, but by a culture of voters handing control to the rich freely, believing that it will create jobs.
It isn't. Lobbying is talking. Bribing is paying or giving stuff. Lobbyists that are caught paying or giving stuff go to jail for... bribery. Which means the same thing here as other places.
No, they patented it so that when some other search engine has to go to court to get it tossed, they'll get 7 or 8 figures of free PR, telling the whole world they're the company fighting the evil baddy-bads.
You're going to hurt your neck with that much tinfoil, man.
The equivalent would be cannons. Were cannons regulated in the 18th and 19th centuries?
Correct. Artillery has never been found to be covered by the right to "bear arms." And, cannons were considered "artillery," not "arms," which were carried weapons, like swords, spears, and muskets.
I hope so, since it isn't the equipment you'd actually be short of if you were building one. The stuff may not be good enough for nukes, but it surely has some sort of use...
How is it making them look bad? They seem to be claiming that if you buy aluminum tubes off of Alibaba, they're higher quality than used in construction, or even rocket tubes, and that they're so perfect they can be used for centrifuges!
I'm not building centrifuges, but that sounds like better aluminum than is even MADE in the US. And historically we've always had excellent quality metals.
99%+ glycerin is also available in health food stores labelled as "glycerin"; used to make health care products, and also to create non-alcohol botanical extracts. I use it to make mushroom tinctures, because my wide doesn't like my vodka based ones.
In my state acetone requires a trip to a chemical supply store, and you have to convince them you own a business and have a "business use."
That's even worse than McCarthyism. At least McCarthy wanted to know whether you were a communist first.
No, he wanted to know if you had ever been accused of being a communist, or if anybody had every suggested anonymously behind closed doors that your name should be added to a list of known communists.
Intentionally avoided those combinations when they are the combinations you actually are ending up with could get you flagged on an even worse list. I don't think trying to game it is the way to go. Probably if they smashed your door in on an "oops," they won't do it again, and you're safest just doing things straight.
You're mostly right, but they were secret programs before they were finished. Sorry, they were.
So your choice is either to accept that these substances can be used for unlawful purposes and find a way to observe their use, or you accept that you can't do jack anymore yourself and are reduced to a consuming drone.
Your choice.
Most of this stuff can be ordered through a chemistry supply store in small quantities suitable for experimentation, but you have to fill out a bunch of paperwork and explain some real reasons why you want it. It turns out, very few of the kids trying to buy it are trying to learn chemistry. Usually it is Beavis and Butthead trying to blow something up, and they didn't pay attention in chemistry well enough to describe the right experiment.
I buy controlled chemicals for wild mushroom identification (the flesh of various species changes color when exposed to various chemicals) and there is no problem getting any of it, as long as I don't mind my ID being recorded, and how much I bought, when. If I was using it for some other use, the quantities wouldn't match up, and they could investigate. It seems like a good idea to me; I want to buy my test chemicals, but I don't want terrorists to have an easy time building bombs. And a more pressing threat, I don't want the teenager next door to blow up half the block making "fireworks." Some idiot was just arrested 3 blocks from me after blowing himself up (part way, anyhow) lighting off home-made fireworks. And the idiot lived in an apartment! We're not smart enough to have "nice things," if explosives are nice anyways.
When Feynman was a kid he played around dipping his hands in benzine as part of his "chemistry magic" show.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/c...
You know, most of the things they stopped putting in chemistry sets are dangerous to handle, and not just if you eat it. Is it really so "cool" that it is worth getting cancer?
And you can still buy strong acids at art supply stores. I worked with acids for etching glass in middle school in the 80s, and that stuff is still available now.
It may very well be that customers (the parents) didn't want the acid in the kit, and that is the only reason it was removed. That is perfectly normal. It doesn't mean that kids whose parents will let them have it can't go to the store and buy it themselves. You may need ID to buy some brands of cough syrup, but you don't need ID to buy strong acids.
When my dad was a kid, shoe stores had x-ray machines, so you could look at the bones in your feet. The kids really loved them! They didn't bother making prints, the way x-rays were later used, they just blasted your feet with a steady stream of x-rays and showed it through a view port.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
http://gizmodo.com/the-insane-...
Yeah, my parents had the "cool" stuff.
As an aside, lemon juice teaches the chemical properties of an acid just as well as a stronger acid; probably better, because instead of getting distracted melting stuff, which doesn't have much value in understanding the chemistry, you'll have to make use of electrical properties to do anything cool. And electrical potential is the whole point of those lessons. Heck, even a potato probably teaches that easier than a strong acid. We made a potato-powered electrical motor in my 4th grade class.
That said, I tend to you agree with your conclusion: the real losers are industry and research.
Except industry and research still have access. The chemicals aren't banned, they're restricted to business use. All you have to do buy them is... be industry, or be doing research.
Honestly it sounds like you tripped and fell over the anti-policy propaganda, and are arguing against something different than what the policy actually is. And from your comment, I can't even tell that you would be against the real policy if you had heard it explained accurately.
Except they DO make meth out of it. That you don't have the recipe doesn't mean it isn't true. Go look it up.
And US manufacturing went down after those laws came in, and foreign imports went up. So it didn't really change the price on the street. Clearly the drug war is failed.
But that has nothing to do with the fact that it IS an ingredient in multiple meth recipes.
Fucking joke is right, smoke another bowl and do a web search ganjadude
You're not even a member, not even a greenhorn, how would you know what this website is about? Answer, of course, you have no idea.
Odd that of all possible choices, systemd developers chose almost /etc/sysconfig, while I do see things /etc/hostname etc.
always a way that is exactly the same or very similar to what Debian does.
For example, I don't see stuff like
like
Everybody else has /etc/hostname too, sorry to pop your fanspiracy.
Let me quote from the
biggest myths:
Now, as it turns out, more frequently than not we actually adopted schemes /etc/hostname, something that used to be specific to Debian
that where Debianisms, rather than Fedoraisms/Redhatisms as best supported
scheme by systemd. For example, systems running systemd now generally store
their hostname in
and now is used across distributions.
Maybe the example was too subtle, but for sure there are some things from /etc/sysconfig that are gone from Red Hat, and are substituted by
Debian-style configuration.
Sorry, redhat has had /etc/hostname since the 90s. As for /etc/sysconfig, I have a systemd distro from the RedHat family, and it still has /etc/sysconfig too.
You quote the least important part of that passage, and I think it has a very different flavor when the whole thing is quoted:
So "more frequently than not" isn't the same as "almost always," /etc/hostname was probably a clumsy example since RH already had that file, which is read as configuration by other programs, but not usually what is setting it. But the point is that they have an agenda of pushing towards consistent configuration, and to do that by setting defaults. Because those are often the easiest to standardize on. They don't go into the why. I would speculate that since RH is perceived as being behind systemd already, and Debian fans won't complain as much about Debianisms as RH-isms, it is simply more down-hill to standardize in that direction. Because where these differences exist, all the variants have been proven to work, so the difficulty of adoption is the more critical thing.
It certainly undercuts the RH-ism complaint, the only problem is that it is standardization that the complainers are against. They don't want the distros to get locked into having the same setup as each other. What really destroys the complaint though is that these are only defaults, not requirements. I would not be at all surprised if a future Debian wants to move away from the Debianisms because they're hated by users as RH-isms as soon as somebody says, "well we can't change it because it is standardized."
None of the involved parties are trying to make standardization required, and they're not trying to choose the best configuration system either. That is why it is going to be hard to stop them from improving defaults.
There; fixed that for you.
No, you're just trolling. Nothing was fixed, and the very concept that you can "fix" another persons opinion by stating your own opinion as if it was theirs... is not a realistic way to convince anybody of your opinion.
I didn't advocate against understanding your computer, I advocated against complaining about not understanding it if you're not competent to understand it. Don't ask that the capabilities be minimized so it is easier to understand. Nerds should succeed at understanding, others probably shouldn't bother. And if they really want something easier to understand, something that intentionally is less capable, they should seek that from a niche hobby OS and not the world's main server OS.
systemd setups in the wild still load the SysV init scripts. They didn't go away. Just delete the systemd symlinks, and install the old scripts. No problem. FUD cleaned.
But it requires knowing enough about the distro you to choose to set it up the way you think you want it. So it doesn't really help him.
Often true, but there is always some bottleneck. If I have a database cluster, it is probably a bottleneck, and if a database node appears to have some sort of OS screwup, I mostly don't care; if it repeats I want to fix it. But getting the node back up quickly is a bigger deal unless the same problem repeated itself. The database can already handle keeping its data from being corrupted, getting the node back up quickly only affects the cluster load. And in that sort of case, I really might not care to "fix" whatever part of the OS that crashed. It may be that an OS update will fix the problem, and the best solution is to set up a new cluster node master image.
For me that is the most often transient error situation; secondary software rarely hits a known bug, and updating the right package will make it go away; nothing was ever wrong with the actual server software that I care about. Where there are multiple front/back ends and high availability techniques, this stuff can usually be dealt with however often you change your distro. Maybe every couple years! On a small setup or single server, then you can just fix it right away, no problem.
On large systems if you're ready to chase any transient error down a rabbit hole, you'll be buried in them and blaming your boss for not hiring 1000 sysadmins. ;)
In a modern "cloud" setup restart might not be risky at all because you might be discarding that node and instantiating a new one, and investigating the log on the log server.
Also, if a service can't be safely restarted, my advice, use the best mainstream open source server software available and this should not be an issue. This is not the 90s anymore, computers are still not reliable but mainstream software software is pretty good. For custom software, those are bugs I want to hit; I need to fix those. If restarting is dangerous, I've got a totally broken application architecture and I should fix it before it causes further embarrassment.