Well, yes, but I tend to side first with the people whose agenda is "Don't kill us."

So... we're probably going to see new connection flood DOS attacks like the ones that prompted SYN cookies a couple of decades ago. Application stacks will need to handle their own congestion control, and applications that do so poorly will negatively impact carrier networks. And, yay, a new variant of TLS when there are already several versions that aren't widely implemented, let alone deployed.

Oh, and in the application so that each of those problems can be addressed over and over. Yay!

Yes, if you don't know how long lives will be extended, it will be indefinite. That's what indefinite means.

Not on his part. The world at large did not believe that Iraq had WMDs, which is why the UN did not authorize the use of force.

Even we didn't believe it. Recall that Cheney advocated a "1% doctorine." If there was even 1% chance that Iraq had WMDs, he thought we should invade. In other words, we were 99% certain that there were no weapons, but, "What the hell? Let's invade."

Fuck you and fuck anyone who defends those murderous scumbags. People died for their aggression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Rights exist, absent government. The U.S. Constitution doesn't create rights, it protects several of them from government infringement.

A couple of days ago, Bruce Schneier posted a blog entry that seems relevant. There's something in the military mindset about secrecy that I don't understand, and perhaps none of us do.
How people talked about the secrecy surrounding the Manhattan project.

That seems like an overreaction. You can't purchase anything from the Google Play Store without a Google account (which automatically means Plus). Why would they allow someone who can't use the Play Store to review an app there? That's nothing more than an open invitation for abuse.

It's not 2x, it's less than 50% more expensive. +$14 on top of $35. For reliability, it's worth the extra cost. But it's not just reliability, it's also has useful interfaces that aren't present on the Pi, like SATA. SATA is worth the extra cost. But it's not jut reliability and SATA, it's also a whole lot faster and generally more capable. It's also a more open SoC.

As another user suggested, it's not the form factor, is the available current. A USB wall wart is still going to be designed to conform to USB draw limitations. That means that a USB device attached to a Pi is capable of drawing as much power as the wart is designed to provide. That USB device + Pi are capable of drawing more.

It would make the system more reliable, yet. Not reliable, though. If you connect a USB device to the Pi that draws the maximum amount of power provided by the USB power input on the Pi, the two devices are still going to need more than is being input. Capacitors can take care of short bursts, but it's still possible to need more energy than is available, at which point the system will fail. Usually that'll mean a USB attached device will go offline, and some don't recover well. As we've seen, that's usually the Ethernet port, and you have to reset the Pi to fix the problem. It's gross.

Funny thing, I ordered a cubieboard this morning before this story was posted:
http://cubieboard.org/

Two of my roommates have RPis. One of them has two of them. I watched them both struggle with the RPi units when they were first setting them up. Those things are god awful. Graphics requires a binary blob, and the USB power source causes a lot of stability problems. Since the Ethernet is attached by USB, this normally manifests by the Ethernet dropping off, the kernel spewing messages about it, and the whole system reduced to a grinding mess as syslogd tries to write all that noise to the SD card. Running off of USB power is just ridiculous.

The cubieboard is 2x as fast, has 2-4x the memory, a SATA port, and Ethernet on the SoC rather than via USB. And, since it doesn't power off of a USB port I expect it to be a lot more stable. Most importantly to me: it doesn't require a binary blob for standard graphics.

They aren't being replaced. Each of these codenames is an additional optimization layer. The performance enhancements are cumulative.

The guiding thought is that every option MULTIPLIES code complexity. Options tend to interact with other options, and testing is required to verify that all options work together, or that the system provides a means of preventing options that don't from being used together. The drive to simplify interfaces is intended to reduce the number of bugs present in the system.

As a secondary effect, removing optional behavior forces developers to make sure that the normal behavior is sane and doesn't need dozens of radio buttons on a configuration app.

No, it isn't. I have a number of non-tech friends (and my mom) who use Fedora with GNOME Shell. I use Fedora with GNOME Shell. I know a fairly large number of GNU/Linux users, and very few of them actually hate GNOME Shell. Not none, but few. For my part, I think notifications aren't very good, but otherwise the system does what it's supposed to. It stays out of my way. It isn't distracting and it uses minimal screen space. I like those things quite a lot.

People continue to repeat this reasoning, attributed to various developers, but that doesn't make it true. The guiding thought is not that users cannot make choices. It is that every option MULTIPLIES code complexity. Options tend to interact with other options, and testing is required to verify that all options work together, or that the system provides a means of preventing options that don't from being used together. The drive to simplify interfaces is intended to reduce the number of bugs present in the system.

As a secondary effect, removing optional behavior forces developers to make sure that the normal behavior is sane and doesn't need dozens of radio buttons on a configuration app.

I understand people talking about Chrome being a faster browser, and I don't begrudge them that. However, anyone who contends that Chrome uses less memory doesn't know what they're talking about. Firefox uses less memory, is a smaller download, and is a much smaller installation than Chrome (particularly if you only measure code and leave out translations).

The Firefox installer on Win32 is almost half the size of Chrome, and the installed code is about half the size of Chrome as well. It's no wonder it uses less memory.