I have come to detest the people Bill Clinton brought to power in the government (by appointment) when he was elected and ripple-effect their proclamations and policies have had in the popular culture and mainstream media (who loved him and took cues from his administration) and the resulting destruction of intelligent dialog in America. Before "Bubba" elevated Donna Shalala from the PC hell hole that is the University of Wisconsin, Americans were free to speak their minds on any subject; people who heard what you said might not LIKE it... but everybody had been raised on the old rhyme "sticks and stones" and you were free to say it. NOW in post-Clinton America we have the "political correctness" of the UW speech codes. If you say something a leftist/liberal/progressive disagrees with he/she/it reverts to some infantile state and accuses you of "hate". like some 3-year-old, they say "why do you HATE me so much?" or they scream "you're just a HATER!" The nation has become a place where half the population seems to need diapers and pacifiers and cannot tolerate exposure to grown-up dialog.
GROW UP.
There are still some adults around. If somebody says something you do not like or that you disagree with, DEAL WITH IT. Grow up. Learn to tolerate disagreement. You are not a fountain of perfect knowledge and wisdom. Sometimes you are wrong, and there is NO HATRED INVOLVED when somebody disagrees with you. Wanna see actual "hatred"? Go to a holocaust museum and spend a few hours looking at what the NAZIS did to the Jews. Go look-up some of the grainy old photos of the innocent black men who were lynched by the Democrats in their KKK sheets. If you MUST see things in color, go back and review the video of people leaping from the WTC towers and the ghastly video of Palestinians and Iraqis celebrating.
Somebody being critical of Elon Musk's wunder car (rightly or wrongly) has NOTHING to do with HATE
Tesla is a hybrid vehicle: half political prop, half toy for the rich.
It's designed to prove that an electric car can look great, ride well, and go fast (to mislead the public into imagining an easy affordable and comfortable path to a fossil-fuel-free future). Any good engineer knew full well that an electric car could be made (some of the earliest cars were electric) and knew that modern tech and materials would mean it could now be made fast, stylish, comfortable, etc. The problem is that even with today's tech, it cannot be made cost-effective and it cannot easily be made to be as convenient. It's also likely not very "green" given that a battery is not a power source... when you plug one of those babies into the grid, there's a fair chance it's being pumped up with power generated from burning coal. It deceives gullible people into thinking it is "emissions free" because it has no tail pipe; the tail pipe is actually the smokestack of a nearby power plant (the very same smokestack whose smoke they curse when they see it on TV or the web or in print depicted as an example of big evil corporate pollution).
It's also designed to be the good-looking show-piece 4th, 5th, 10th, or 20th car of a rich person; the car you use when you want to impress certain people but that you can bypass in your big garage as you step toward your Lexus, Hummer, etc when you really need to go somewhere and your Tesla is not fully-charged or unable to complete the entire trip without a re-charge. (people take trips in cars that need a re-fill during the trip because it's a very short minor interruption in the trip to re-fill)
It's NOT something an average middle-class person could afford (in many senses of the word) to buy and have as his/her only car.
The worst part is that each and every one that rolls off the line is so cost-ineffective that it carries a taxpayer subsidy. NOT the sort of "subsidy" that "big oil" is always accused of getting (tax deductions, which most businesses can get and Tesla is probably also able to get) but actual subsidy (cash taken by force from a taxpayer and given to a politically-connected and favored business). The tax money should have been left in the pockets of the taxpayers so they could afford to pay the nearly $2.00/gallon "Obama tax" (price hike largely driven by his energy policies and money-printing Fed) that they have been paying nearly the entire time the man's been in office an funneling their money to guys like Musk
In both situations, the advocates for the tech proclaim its perfection and superior features... and when confronted with claims of its inferior performance/user-experience in the hands of a typical (non-advocate for the particular tech) user, the excuses and accusations about the user ensue. The user just did not use it right! The user is just an idiot! The user is too used to some inferior (but ubiquitous) tech. The user mislead people about his experience!
Every EE knows full-well the problems an electric car will have, most-particularly in a cold place. A proper electric car design will take these into account. This includes not only the fact the the cold batteries will under-perform, but also that the driver will want a toasty-warm cabin, may run the wipers, may use the headlights and the defroster, me use the heaters in the glass (if they exist) to melt ice accumulation, etc. It's also well-understood that, unlike a gas tank being re-filled, no car-sized battery pack will fully re-charge in a couple minutes in any climate. Why do I suspect all the "green energy" advocates would be ranting against "big oil" if they had to cool their jets for an hour or more every time they re-filled the gas tank of a car?
With both Linux and electric cars, the advocates need to drop all the defensiveness and learn from their critics.... and FIX the problems; the end-result will be a far better product that both the average user and the advocates like a lot better. There use to be a common phrase in American business: "The customer is always right". This was a very smart (in many ways) statement in a free-market economy. It was not just an admonition to employees that they should bend-over backwards to make customers happy (simultaneously keeping them from going to competitors AND creating positive word-of-mouth) but it also meant that when your customer complained about problems with your product/service you should pay attention and FIX IT. If something upsets/annoys one typical user then it will probably also affect other typical users similarly... and if you intend to sell to other typical users (who tend to be in the majority) then you are going to face the same opposition/anger/frustration/hostility over and over and over again if you insist on not fixing things and just blaming your critics.
In this case, Musk's defenders are missing the entire POINT: it's a CAR. It's advertized as a superior car. If the thing is a CAR, it ought to perform like a CAR (including being as tolerant of the imperfections of a typical human operator). If it's a superior car, then it should be even LESS demanding of its users and require FEWER specific instructions for how to use it to get from point A to point B. If you cannot use it in the same environment as a CAR to do the same things as a CAR with the same convenience as a CAR
Sure, metric makes everything simpler and it's a great benefit to idiots who failed basic math classes
Simply put, an inch and a foot are very natural and convenient SIZES; we like them; they're convenient. If the guys who came up with the metric system had simply defined a cm to be the physical size of an inch, then the cm would be a handy size... a decimeter would be about a foot long (another human-friendly size) and a meter would be about 10 feet (so things like levels of structures would be by rule-of-thumb approx 1meter..... another friendly size for quick estimates) They chose, however, an arbitrary cm size that is stupidly inconvenient and unnatural and then later tried to pass-off the story that a meter was defined as a particular fraction of the circumference of the Earth, as though that meant anything or added some legitimacy (they got it wrong anyway). People who keep trying to push metric in the US always seem to think it's just a cultural issue that will be overcome by "education"
The simple truth is that now we all have computers and/or calculators that can easily do the math for us to convert from any system to any other system and most modern engineering is done with CAD systems that support both inches and meters, so the supposed advantage of just being able to move the decimal pt are not that important.
"Republican party were behind the legislation that created this artificial fiscal cliff as an act of political brinksmanship to impose their policies into the budget"
Not so much. President Obama had borrowed and spent more money than any president in history and he maxed-out the national credit card. When he came back for more money and demanded a rise in the "debt limit" (the limit on the national credit card) they insisted on some assurance he would cut back on the spending so there would be something left for the grandkids to inherit. As part of the compromise that gave him a higher debt limit to allow him to get through the 2012 election cycle without a government shutdown, Obama demanded the massive defense cuts in the sequestration package
The nation is severely divided because about half the population wants the small government the Constitution provides, and the other half thinks the Constitution is an out-dated obsolete document and wants the government to do everything the majority wants; these positions are not reconcilable and the smaller government people have just recently realized that the bigger government people will never compromise (no proposed compromise ever includes smaller government or government at least not getting any bigger
In previous generations, such impasses were much less severe because government was smaller and involved in less of our lives; A citizen might not like some of the things Jack Kennedy or Ron Reagan did, but most of those things had no direct impact on the citizen, who could ignore stuff and go-on with his life. Now, however, government is so huge and so involved in everything
Are you truly who you think you are when you are addicted to drugs?
Are the pleasures a drug-affected brain feels to be equated with other forms of pleasure?
It would be one thing to wipe-out part of a healthy brain (thereby permanently altering it) like this but it might be another matter to make such a permanent change to a brain that has already had permanent, and negative, changes made by "modern chemistry". Of course, the presence of any pre-existing damage from drugs also raises questions of true consent. Not sure how I feel on this one, but given that this is on brains already affected by drugs the morals and ethics are a bit cloudier than they might otherwise be. Personally, I find the idea of depriving a person of the ability to experience pleasure both creepy and dangerous. Should we expect future headlines about "zombie" violence in China?
All terrorism is done by people
First, WHAT people believe is every bit as important as THAT they believe. There are a great many religions (particularly when you count sects/denominations) and of those VERY FEW have any tie to violence.
Second, some violence commonly blamed on religion (like the violence in Ireland) is not religious at all. The troubles in Ireland fall along religious lines BUT these are actually political lines that line-up with religious lines. To massively over-simplify: The Catholics tend to be for separation from the folks in London and the Protestants tend to want better relations with those folks in London (see King Henry VIII and the CoE for some of the context). AFAIK nobody has ever seen a member of the IRA screaming his disagreements over interpretations of the writings of the Apostle Paul as he fired his weapon and I doubt there have been any protestants there who shrieked about their disagreements with a papal decree while shooting at an IRA member....
When the state casts a suspicious eye upon somebody, it has an obligation to narrow the scope as much as possible
You are correct on your history of US school violence however
... did not also publish the data from the thousands of documents the Obama administration is hiding (and that Atty Gen Holder is in contempt of congress for withholding from a lawful subpoena) about the thousands of assault weapons they transferred to Mexican drug gangs
"We the people" need AR-15s, big magazines, hollow-point rounds and body armor etc
Try READING what our founders actually WROTE! They wrote a LOT about this stuff
The founders of the nation wanted the people to have both rifles AND pistols (Washington himself made this point in writing) and they wanted those to be the EXACT military weapons that the government had. They did NOT define a "militia" as an organized uniform-wearing national-guard-type force that was under ANY form of government control (if it's controlled by the government it can hardly be expected to deter the government)
Nobody on the pro-gun side is "cherry-picking" anything
Sure, the firearms were simpler then, but so were all the other things, like the vehicles (ride a horse, ride or sail a boat, or ride in a horse-pulled cart).
If you actually read all the other stuff our founders wrote, you see that the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with hunting or recreation; they assumed any free people could obviously do those things. Their reasons for the 2nd amendment were:
All of these reasons for the 2nd amendment are undermined if you allow the government to control who has weapons, how many they have, what type they have, how much ammo they have, where they keep them, etc. (and that's why every tyrant tries to impose some or all of those things). The simple fact is that our founders made it very clear that they intended the citizens to have the front-line weapons (and the guns the Americans had in the revolutionary war were actually superior to the weapons of the British troops
If you insist that the founders only intended the citizens to have single-round muzzle-loaded flintlock rifles, then for the sake of consistency (and so the 2nd amendment can still fill its role) you must also insist that the government:
For the Constitution to work, the power must be balanced as it was designed to be
It was not just an innocent mistake
There are some specific bold rules for kernel devs
As always (see: "Watergate", or "Bill Clinton") the cover-up attempt only made things worse
One of the things I have always liked about coding apps on Linux is that I've never actually had to code-around any buggy kernel behaviors.
hmmmm.... I guess I've been doing something wrong
Just admit it: AFTER you open a file or device and you are then using it, NOTHING you do to it should result in a returned error code of, in-effect, "file not found"
Sorry, but computer users are a subset of the general population, and the ones who care at all about the actions/behaviors/attitudes of any of the developers of the software for those computers is a subset of that subset. Within that set, the vast majority have never even heard of (nor do they care about) any kernel mailing list nor do they care about e-mails that have nothing to do with them. They just want their systems to work and do the things they need them to do. Period.
I am NOT a Linus fan-boy, but the man was absolutely right here:
Linux suffers far more in the public view when it looks unstable or incomplete than it does from any other peripheral matters. Given that most of the developers of the code that sits on top of Linux are also unpaid volunteers, it's doubly-bad to make changes under their feet that keep breaking their code. Developers of good applications get very frustrated by unstable platforms where the rules keep changing, and the sort of change that Linus attacked here is just plain BAD. The fact that a kernel developer risked making a bunch of apps look bad (and without good justification) is a major problem and actually a symptom of a severe Linux-on-the-desktop problem: too many people making too many poorly-thought-out changes (often where not needed) while neglecting many of the things that are in serious need of fixing. Unfortunately, when everyone is a volunteer and working for free, it's hard to find competent people to do the un-popular grunt-work to fix many long-term usability issues - but there can be a surplus of people who will happily change lots of other stuff on a whim (because it's interesting to them, or because they think they've had a clever idea and they don't feel like "running it by" other people FIRST). Some might want to complain about Linus's tone here (which did no actual harm to anybody, but might have gotten the attention needed to avoid repetitions), but the real offensive act was by the guy who decided to break other peoples' stuff without consulting anybody else first; that's borderline narcissism.
KDE and Gnome are excellent examples of this general phenomenon: neither one became fully stable with all advertized functionality "just working" before both teams made major changes in the look-and-feel of their projects
An average user (not a geek) needs to be able to sit down at a Linux system and easily manage printers (add them, test them
If the guy Linus blasted is too "hurt" by this to go-on, then he was not worth having around. If, on the other hand, he was a productive "good guy" who just screwed-up, then this will improve him and he'll be even better in the future. People need to stop wringing their hands over the wrong stuff.... if the guy's an adult, he'll be just fine.
"Just think, with VLSI we can have 100 ENIACS on a chip!" -- Alan Perlis