We don't have "thousands" of machines yet where I work, but are over 1,000. With the rise of virtualizaton, SysV does just fine, since most servers are now single purpose, and don't have a lot of interdependent services running. For these, systemd really is a solution in search of a problem.

OTOH, for a GUI desktop which starts "services" when a user logs in, then systemd might help a lot.

Unless you are using a disto like Gentoo, you can't replace systemd because everything useful depends on it either directly or indirectly.

And now, I expect that you will say "that's not systemd's fault, that's the fault of the distro". Except that without dbus, systemd won't run, and without dbus, you the number of apps that will actually run can be counted on on hand. And, it's that way because the same guy that wrote systemd wrote dbus, and baked in the dependency.

OTOH, if you have a step-by-step guide on how to replace systemd with any other init system on current releases of CentOS or Fedora, and the upcoming release of Debian, I'm sure there would be many people who would be grateful.

I fail to see how the GP used the terms in any way other than what you listed for definitions.

Even though systemd is made up of multiple separate binaries, it is "[has] a uniform, massive, redoubtable, or inflexible quality or character", since you can't replace any one of those binaries with an alternative. Each of the individual binaries cannot "be combined or interchanged with others like it to create different shapes or designs", which means it isn't "modular", but is "monolithic".

Also, you still missed the most appropriate definition of "modular" for software: "employing or involving a module or modules as the basis of design or construction". Again, although systemd uses separate binaries, there is no way to replace any one of those binaries with an alternative, so the net effect is no different from a single binary that happens to be made up of 69 object files compiled from 69 source files.

As I said in another post, Overdrive also offers Kindle format books that you download from Amazon.

Overdrive also offers books in Kindle format that you download from Amazon. If you don't have a Kindle, get the Kindle app for PC/Mac/Android/iOS/whatever.

Kindle reading apps and standalone readers also send exactly this same kind of information about books you download from Amazon. They do this to pay authors royalties for books that were loaned by other users or though KindleUnlimited or Prime.

The difference here is that ADE sends info about any ePub you open with it, even if that file was downloaded by some other app, and even if it is not protected with Adobe DRM. I read everything through Calibre's reader, so I'm not really worried about this, even though I do download books from my library that use Adobe DRM.

Do you seriously believe this?

Do you know why the only statistics the TSA provides is on "items seized" and not "failures to seize really dangerous items in tests"? It's because they routinely miss far too high a percentage of dangerous items in tests, and have never actually caught somebody at screening that was intending serious harm.

The "secret dangers" the government is protecting us from basically don't exist. Sure, there are dangers, but invasive screenings at airports, collecting every phone call and e-mail, and tossing people into prison without trials haven't stopped one single plot. The Boston Marathon bombings could likely have been stopped far in advance if data that had been collected not through the drag net that is the NSA would merely have been analyzed in time. Instead, because so much data is being collected, everything important is being overlooked.

Then, there's the whole class of dangers that can't be protected against (the whole "going postal" bit) without imposing dictatorial restrictions on movement, yet governments are actually trying to stop them. Then we have incidents like in Ferguson, MO, where agents of the government might have committed a crime, and when the people complained, they were met with force and had all legal means of redress blocked at every turn. That desire for control by governments is why we need to start reining it in now, before it's too late.

The pipe was more than big enough, but ISPs chose to not allow all the packets through. Once Netfilx paid the ransom, though, the pipe instantly opened up to the full available bandwidth.

Netfilx did pay to upgrade their pipe to their ISP, just like I paid to upgrade my pipe to my ISP. Just like I shouldn't have to pay to upgrade the pipe from Amazon to Amazon's ISP because it is too congested, Netfilx shouldn't have to pay to upgrade the pipe from me to my ISP, nor should they have to pay to upgrade pipes inside transit ISPs. Regardless of the fact that the onus was on other ISPs to either upgrade their infrastructure, Netflix offered to install for free devices inside customer ISPs that would reduce the need to send as much data over the pipes, except for the last mile (which can't be avoided). Still, the ISPs refused and instead requested cash to stop throttling Netflix.

And, again, note that as soon as that cash was paid, the pipes magically opened up, which means that the bandwidth was available all along, but ISPs just chose to throttle Netfilx. If you've got fiber installed, and switch port connections available, lighting up the fiber costs pennies per terabit transferred, but the ISPs saw this as a way to again make money for something they had already been paid money (multiple times) to do.

You are looking more and more like a shill with every post.

No, I meant exactly what I said. If you don't understand why a single ISP getting paid twice for the same packet is bad for all users of the Internet (end users, businesses, etc.), then you should educate yourself before you continue in the discussion.

You have done nothing to show that you understand the issue...you merely state that the government has to prove that net neutrality is better than the current situation. You also complain about the government "want[ing] to control the hundreds of billions of dollars of network infrastructure that private companies have invested it", when those hundreds of billions of dollars were provided by the government as tax relief with the expectation that the companies would fulfill their end of the agreement (to provide high-speed last-mile universally). Since the companies have not fulfilled their end, and charging twice for the same packet means they are now charging five times for some services (once to the federal government for the tax break to build the infrastructure, once to local governments for tax breaks to build the infrastructure, once to the end user to install infrastructure to their house, once to the end user for monthly fees, and once to the service to avoid artificial congestion caused by using all the other charges to line the pockets of executives), this shows you are woefully uneducated on the subject.

Or, you could be one of those executives with lined pockets. In which case, yes, I don't agree with the way you do business, and your opinion should no longer matter, as you've been paid enough, thank you very much.

Then, your setup is horribly broken, as Microsoft limits individual download speeds to far less than 100Mbps. You can get more total speed if you are downloading multiple files at the same time, but even 4-5 at the same time shouldn't cause a problem.

Of course the Internet isn't a series of UPS trucks.

When something is shipped via UPS, only one party pays UPS. Sure, sometimes the other party pays the first party so they can pay UPS, but UPS doesn't collect money for the same package from multiple parties. On the other hand, ISPs do collect money for the same packet from multiple parties. This is a bad thing and net neutrality should prevent it.

If you can't understand why it's important that ISPs not be able to be paid more than once for the same packet, then you really shouldn't be in a discussion about whether the government should or shouldn't impose regulations on ISPs.

The data just says that of all Mercury Topaz's included in the report (and at least 50 must have been used to generate a quote for the model to appear at all), 28.8% have been ticketed at least once. The list is then sorted by the percentage. You can see the obvious flaws.

First, if a single Corvette received 100 tickets last year, it still just counts as "ticketed once". Second, if 10,000 Tempo's were given quotes, while only 50 Topaz's were, every Topaz influences the results 200 times as much as a Tempo. Third, miles driven isn't taken into account.

A much better way to report this data is by total tickets for a model per mile driven. This eliminates both the "ticketed once" issue as well as the "sample size" issue. It also would help show trends like a Ferrari that is only driven on weekends might get far more tickets per mile driven than a sedan.

I was trying to point out that 4 years ago this month (when I bought my "2011"), many of the features from the new Corvette were already available.

I have no idea exactly which models have the same feature, but this shows the Focus had it the model year before (in a more limited feature set), so the answer would be "pretty much every Ford had it back then".

There's nothing bizarre about it...MLB wants you to watch games on the network that pays them the most money. In order from most to least:

1. You must watch a "national network" (Fox, ESPN, TBS, etc.) if it is carrying the game.
2. You must watch your local regional sports network, if it is carrying the game.
3. You must watch a local OTA channel, if it is carrying the game. Note that some regional sports networks partner with local stations for some games, and either channel is then considered to be the RSN.
4. You must watch on an out-of-town RSN or MLB.tv., assuming you have paid for one of these packages.

This order is what makes the MLB blackouts so draconian (as you point out). It means that what the end viewer most directly paid for has the least priority for being watched by them.

I suspect that all of these sports have the same rules (which I know MLB has) that you cannot watch your local team live over the Internet...you must watch them on local TV (either OTA or the regional sports network).

Note that this means that if you live in Chicago and buy the MLB.tv package because you are a fan of the Cleveland Indians, you will not be able to watch over the Internet when Cleveland visits either Chicago team, or vice-versa. In some years, that would mean that out of 162 games, as many as 25 will not be available to you.