I'm not saying that there were not problems, but there was more than one solution. She decided to smash it all. Look at Germany now. Strong manufacturing and industrial base. Recovered from the financial crisis a lot faster than we did, with real jobs and real wage rises. The average UK citizen is still poorer than they were in 2008.

Also, some things don't have to be profitable. The NHS, basic utility services etc.

There is plenty of room, especially in the north. The problem is no-one wants to live there, and houses in the south cost too much. Immigration might make it a little worse but the basic problem has nothing to do with it.

And they've been going backwards ever since.

You cant rest on your laurels and talk about what happened 150 years ago (my descendants started freeing slaves in the 11th century, when the US was having it's civil war, they had the largest single fleet in the world dedicated to stopping the slave trade out of Africa, just for a bit of context). Its like Berlusconi claiming he is Caesar because Julius Caesar was Roman or Putin calling himself Peter the Great because he was also a Russian leader.

A lot of B777's have the same configuration. The alternative used by a few airlines are 3-3-3. This is one of the reasons I prefer A330's over the B777, the A330 is usually in a 2-4-2 configuration unless you're flying a budget (or crappy) airline where they'll have 3-3-3.

Budget airlines are pushing for 10 on B787 and 11 abreast on the A380 lower deck.

Thats kind of like saying it's a shame the DeHavilland Comet is not still flying. All things have their time.

However the DC10 is still in service with cargo carriers (notably fed-ex). Trijets are from a time where we didn't trust twinjets to make long flights. Since the A330 and B777 (two of the safest airliners in existence) and ETOPS 180 they've been completely redundant.

Actually there are a few tiny natural islands in the region where the shoreline is buried under a couple of meters of junk, mostly driftwood and large bits of plastic.

To be honest, would you pay tax that you didn't have to.

Don't get me wrong, I dont at all advocate tax evasion but you've got to be mad not to be trying to minimise your tax.

The big difference between Uber and AirBNB is that AirBNB tried to fight, yeah it was a forgone conclusion (I fought the tax dept and the tax dept won) but Uber is not even trying to fight the system at all, they're trying to ignore the system. This never works as the system won't ignore you. Its a toss up over whether Uber will go down for something like tax evasion or get sued into oblivion by insurance companies.

Water. AKA - "The universal solvent". I personally think wind farms are economically viable in many places, but not so much offshore for precisely the reasons you mention.

South Australia is 30% renewable despite a current federal government that is openly hostile to clean energy. The reasoning behind that ideological hostility is not difficult to spot - coal is our #1 export. India has recently declared that large scale PV solar is cheaper than Australian imported brown coal and is switching 400M people to solar over the next decade or so. Prices for coal are way down and mines are currently being mothballed, even those mining the high quality coking coal used to make chinese steel have seen recent mine closures.

The anti-science luddites in charge of this country can see the writing on the wall for the global coal industry, the words "stranded assets" are scaring them shitless. They lack the wisdom and intellectual independence required to plan a smooth transition so they do what politicians do best, fight it tooth an nail with tabloid propaganda and rigged domestic markets.

The slave trade would not have existed without property law. A market that is free of regulation is an oxymoron, what the "free" in free market actually means is that anybody can participate in the market, nothing to do with the type or number of rules that make the market possible.

the cgroups functionnality existed in the kernel but wasn't really used that much before.
systemd, with its tasks in setup/startup of things can handle the creation of jails during lauch when needed.
whereas current /etc/init.d/apache can't without fumbling of shell scripts.

And thus each script end up fucking things up in its own original and different way.

None of which are the original sysvinit.
Either it's relying on LSB-extended script and a different core which starts the scripts. (Debian had a makefile based one)
Or it's an entirely new system anyway like upstart.

Or cron if it's time-based activation. Or udev if it's hardware based activation. Etc.
Why do we need 83 different way to start some code ?!
Wasn't the whole point of Unix philosophy having one piece of software which concentrates into doing one thing and doing it well?
With systemd, setup/startup/stop/teardown responsibilities are concentrated with PID1 and it's helpers.
Before, you'd have the same concept spread into a dozen of different systems, each only doing part of that functionnality.

I like systemd, it makes my work easier on desktop, on server, on virtual machines, etc. and although it used to have hiccups when it was introduced before in opensuse, by now it has had the time to mature.
no need to bash it. if you don't like it, don't use it.
and perhaps the fact that it's slowly gaining popularity in lots of mainstream distro might be due not because systemd is "a spreading cancer" but because systemd is actually useful and solves real world problem

And another thing I like about systemd:
- it groups into 1 single project: 1 single task (starting-up/seting-up things) that was spread accross way too many different project before.

Before systemd:

Want to start a service during boot-up ? Put it into sysvinit. Except if it's a file system, then it goes into /etc/fstab. Or if it's not a *service* but like of an interface like your terminal that should go into inittab (Except on distribution which do THE EXACT SAME THING but in init.d anyway).
The thing which start is related to actual hardware? the you need to put it into hal, no way we replaced that with udev... except that a few distro put them any way in init.d and thus your hardware might not work when plugged after booting... unless you also duplicate some code into modprobe.conf's post-runs.
And what if conditions for your code to start isn't "boot-up" nor "plug-in" ?
Then put it into inted/tpcd if it's network triggered. Except for code that doesn't work there, because the service needs to be compiled to use libwrap to work this way. So then you'll have to run the service constantly and fumble around with ip filtering to enable/disable it on demand.
Or put it into cron if it's time triggered.
And you need to start a service and the periodically monitor it for failure, and restart and raise alert if it has failed? Well either use an entirely separate custom system like djbdns's daemontools. Or write your own monitoring solution by writing a ton of scripts which tap into all those different ways to start/stop stuff and hope that it works.

And don't get me started about initialising containers (limited fonctionnality, tons of script), brokering access rights around (not really used. lot of interface must run as root and drop privileges, or lot of interface must be world accessible), handling situation as missing configuration or drivers in a system that hasn't fully booted up to the point where the GUI works and the user can fix things from here (huge tons of scripting to achieve way to detect that Xorg is failing and to propose solution to fix drivers)

All this written in shell script which can have their own pitfalls, and every single system using a different syntax.

After systemd:
PID1 and its herd of helpers take care of setup/start/stop/teardown.
Want to do *something*? Write a systemd config file, and describe which trigger (boot, after another service has started, on network, by clock, on device plug, etc.) should start it.
You can even call legacy systems from within systemd (cron can be reimplemented as a systemd service that runs periodically and reads/executes crontab, etc.)

You can have an LXC that is quickly setup. In fact you can quickly create throw-away container to jail any service separately (systemd is the kind of infrastructure that can boot a dedicated LXC jail to run Skype into, with restriction correctly setup so that no hidden backdoor could spy on you).
You can have systemd handle brokering the necessary rights (to the point that plugin an USB stick and having the currently active user access to it isn't a nightmare anymore).

If anything the handling of setup/startup/stop/teardown WAS NOT "unixy" before, it was "have 384 different programme which all do a different part of one single task in subtly different ways".

So you think this is different then the Christian Republican right trying to suppress the teaching of evolution? Or pretty much the entire Republican party denying climate change? Or all the science illiterate parents who decided that their precious baby isn't going to risk those evil vaccines?

So before you go around using a goat herd as a representative of all Arabs, take a look around. We are actively supporting a lot of extremely stupid thinking right here in the US, much of it under the guise of religious freedom or free speech.

Do we have more to fear from ISIL (note: ISIS does not stand for any organization; it's the stupid press pandering to the stupid public), or are we more at risk from the Koch family deliberately interfering with addressing global warming? ISIL can do a lot of bad things, including attacking in Europe or the US, but they can't really do anything to destroy the West. The Koch brothers/Republican Party and global climate change; that is a real concern, and it could conceivably end western civilization.

They are fundamentally different.

On one side you have turn-by-turn games, that progress in fixed steps, and thus simply paint the game field by putting varied wall graphics at exact predefined places.
It's really the discrete position on the map and cardinal headings that are specific,
(That's what you get in most classical RPG).
Could very easily be done back then with a few lines of code. The biggest chunk of work came from the *art* to have a big enough choice of wall to draw to make an interesting world (because it's mostly static, you'll be spending a lot of time at the same, and need something nice to look at).

Basically, the graphic engine has a fixed grid on screen and you put different sprites at said fixed grid positions.

On the other side you have game engines that try to have some actual notion of 3D built into them and allow smooth motion, with complete arbitrary position/headings.
(That's what you get in most FPS and real-time RPG like ultima).
There is really require more advanced coding. (With Origin more concentrating on making an imersive game, emphasis on beautiful graphics, and ID concentrating on make their engine fast and responsive, sacrificing any detail necessary for the sake of being able to make a fast paced game).

Basically, the graphic engine use geometric techniques like wolf's raycasting do determine what is visible where, and gives you total freedom (or at least tons more of freedom, as Carmack used limitation to beat Ultima in speed and fluidity).

From a basic visual composition, both categories have a first person perspective.
From a technical point of view, they are designed completely differently.

Okay, and that'd be perfectly reasonable, if there was any way I was supposed to understand that source for the figures.

To put it another way, how was I supposed to know it wasn't armchair in the context of information available in this thread?