Oh, come now, you left out the best story: Monsanto secretly poisons Alabama town.

However, I do think you're completely trolling with this anti-GMO riff. Monsanto being a bunch of evil bastards does not mean that GMO is automatically harmful, and there is a distinct lack of factual evidence in your post to support that idea.

I am not interested in rhetoric. If you cannot show harm, then you are in exactly the same position as anti-vaxxers. If you want to argue that there should be rigorous testing of GMO organisms, sure -- vaccine manufacturers eliminated whatever minute quantities of mercury were used in the manufacturing process based on hypothetical dangers, and there's no reason not to be extra-careful when dealing with possible biological threats. If that's what you're after, maybe you should try mixing in some alternative content with your FUD.

1% is a bad number to use, especially out of context. 1 degree C is better, but the more exact answer is 3.7W/m^2. The Earth receives about 240W/m^2, which gives us a black-body temperature of 255 K, or -18 degrees C. The observed global average temperature is about 33 degrees higher than that, thanks to the atmosphere.

The effect of an increased partial pressure of CO2 is to extend the CO2-rich region further into space. Outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) has a low mean free path (which varies with altitude but is generally in the low tens of meters), so it doesn't make much difference near the surface. The lower atmosphere is already more or less opaque to IR, so the effect is for OLR to take slightly longer to leave the upper atmosphere. Overall this means that the system retains more heat energy, by a tiny amount.

The problem is that CO2 isn't the only gas in the atmosphere, and there happen to be huge reservoirs of a much more effective greenhouse gas covering some 70% of the Earth's surface. It would be nice if either we could figure out another way that heat is transferred to space, or if there were some agent in the upper atmosphere that would counteract the effect of CO2. The first one can be ruled out by the physics of radiation, and the second one has not been observed by satellites. So, that leaves us with a certainty of 3.7W/m^2 per doubling of CO2, plus water vapor feedbacks, which are likely to be strongly positive, because the amount of water vapor that can be held in the atmosphere goes up exponentially with temperature, and as stated, water vapor is a much more effective GHG than CO2.

One supplier does not competition make. Also, Intel isn't necessarily interested in making the chips that the Gov't wants, or this article would probably not exist.

No, the government's job is infrastructure, and other things that can be described as natural monopolies. If the start-up costs for a business are in the tens- to hundreds-of-billions, there isn't going to be much in the way of competition no matter what the industry is. If it's actually vital that said industry exists, it makes sense to nationalize it.

However, if competition is possible, it should be encouraged. There's no reason to nationalize SecureWidgetCo if a dozen people could take their place tomorrow, even if they only sell to the government.

It's clear that if the US Government wants to be sure of its chip supply, it needs to be in business for itself. The ultimate reason is not however that it's inherently inefficient for the government to enter into contracts with private companies, but that large scale microchip fabrication is so expensive that no (private, US) company is willing to do it.

P.S. With respect, if your response to this is that natural monopolies do not exist, please save yourself the trouble of responding.

Socialized does not mean paid with by tax money. Socialized means that the workers or public collectively own the means of production.

You're talking about fascism, which Mussolini was fond of describing as "the union of the Corporation with the State."

It's a matter of perspective. Being able to accurately track processes (via cgroups) is systemd's raison d'etre, and a natural part of this is to be able to start and stop services. In order to do that well, you're going to need to have some sort of idea about service dependencies and system resources. As long as you're going to do all the hard parts of init anyway, you may as well be an init system. Even so, it's not entirely necessary that systemd run as PID1, but it seems to have been coded that way. However, it's not the only service manager that does this: runit, daemontools, and the service managers for OSX and Solaris also handle init.

The other thing that is enabled by accurate process management is tracking user sessions. It's not strictly part of the mission statement, but it's not too much of a stretch, and no other project (besides the moribund ConsoleKit) is providing it. That would be why the major Desktop Environments are dependent on systemd, not because they want to, but because there's no alternative. So, it's not going to be enough to mandate that Debian be init-neutral, someone needs to sit down and either fix ConsoleKit (which was abandoned for a reason), or write something equivalent. I believe Canonical has made some steps forward there.

If you're going to argue against systemd, you should consider learning something about it. There is far more heat than light on the side of the detractors, and it does not help their cause.

There's submodules and subtrees, neither works all that well. SVN can pull down part of a repo, which is (IMO) slightly more sane behavior.

Git's subtree / subproject management is extremely painful. The information manager from hell, indeed. I dislike SVN/CVS extremely, but they make much easier to do sub-repositories. For example, Arch's ABS is entirely under SVN, which works well enough for them, but using git the same way sounds like torture.

Threatening a fork is like threatening legal action: if you think you're to that point, you need to just do it, and inform the relevant parties afterwards. Anyone can threaten to take action.

Apache is monolithic in the same way that systemd is. It does not do "one thing". Nginx exists because Apache does way too much. X.org is also absurdly complicated, but at least they stripped out the print server. Wayland is the attempt to make it more pared-down. An init system is either complicated or bad at what it does, or both. I would perhaps debate about including Postgres as a piece of monolithic software, perhaps in comparison to simple data stores, but it doesn't stray too far outside of the definition of "relational database".

Your system is not well thought out and would not handle dependencies / parallel startup very well. However, generally speaking shell scripts should definitely be the exception: executable configuration files are a bad design. If you must use arbitrary scripts, then you should abstract the common elements and reduce the part that must be expressed as executable code to the bare minimum. Have sane defaults, and an easily-reviewed common subset of functionality, make the simple things easy, and stay out of the way of anyone who really really needs a programming language and shell in order to start a program.

The important part of systemd is actually managing processes and services, startup is where most of that happens, but it's not the driving force of systemd. The reason why systemd exists, and the reason why it isn't portable, is because of cgroups, which are a feature specific to the Linux kernel allowing for real process management. In non-systemd Linux, daemons must carefully communicate through special files what they are doing, or the OS is not able to determine anything about the service. There is a complicated process which every process that wants to daemonize must follow, and the only thing that makes this remotely sane is longevity. Solaris and OSX have both separately replaced SysV init.

I have read that FreeBSD has taken the strategy of using essentially a library of common things that init scripts might want to do, but for the general case having this library be written in an interpreted language gains little.

...

</quote>

Found it!

A land-grab in the ocean? The Battle of Ellesmere Island?

I think there's about as much chance of having a small arms conflict in the Arctic as there is of Putin invading Greenland riding a polar bear. What exactly do you envision? Canadian troops invading Novaya Zemlya? The Arctic is unpopulated in a way that is difficult to describe. There is no one to shoot, and even getting there is a huge logistical problem. I'm pretty sure you've never been to the Arctic, but for the sake of argument, is there any basis to these ideas of yours?

I was wondering about that, but I didn't manage to find any information. Do you have a link handy? And maybe information about the differences between Google's stuff and ARChon?

When I said that it hadn't caught on, I meant that other browser vendors were not interested in implementing NaCl.

Isn't that more or less the idea behind NaCl/Native Client? It doesn't seem to have caught on. For that matter, there was also ActiveX, and the best that you could say about it is that it had a flawed implementation.

Chrome also just added a runtime for Android apps, which seems to handle at least some simple apps at native speed on my chromebook. I suppose that's a java runtime of some sort?

I know that there are many wonderful things done daily in JS, but I really would prefer another scripting language.