Getting closer to retirement here. I've done my share of coding, and the heart rate hasn't killed me.
On the other hand, I don't spend large parts of my life exercising and worrying about my health. Why spend 30% of your off-time to perhaps live 20% longer? Especially if most of that time is going to be in a retirement home, worrying about bowel movements and whether there will be pudding.

I honestly prefer to live my life in the fast lane.
Caffeine, nicotine and endorphines keep me living when I'm alive, and still young enough to enjoy it.
If I die earlier, so be it - being dead isn't anything to fear. It's just non-existence. I was in that state for billions of years before I got born.

And now it's time for another pot of coffee and a fresh tin of snuff. Got another book chapter to write.

Indeed. Iffen ain't broke, don't "fix" it. Or, in this case, don't outright break it.

The best hope I see for a viable long-term supported Enterprise Linux now is a ScientificLinux spin, with eudev and continued hal support. CentOS has become a Red Hat subsidiary, and will toe the party line.

I was saddened to see CERN leave SL for CentOS, and wonder what lubed that decision. I hope Fermilab keeps up the dedication and support, also for spins, and don't get tempted by tall sandwiches.

Then the solution seems to fix sleep and hibernate, not to break servers.

The first ones making complaints are the users, if you kill their processes in a reboot. Even if it is was announced weeks in advance, with follow-ups.
The sane thing to do is to make sure you don't have to reboot. Not going the systemd route helps with that.

The compatibility is a main reason. Being able to run and configure all startup/shutdown processes independently of the overseer is nice. As a sysadmin, I get to do easy manual corrections, additions and deletions without giving init a thought.
i don't have to use the "service" command, and I spend far less time when seting up a new server or adding a service.

i don't give a crap whether the system boots twice as fast - reboots are years between, and in scheduled windows. I want something that lets me admin my systems without relying on anything more than a dumb terminal - and if need be, not even that.

Which is why I don't see a systemd fork as a viable alternative. The whole idea is broken, as it breaks with the Unix toolbox approach, where tools work independently, and not as a clusterfuck of apps that engage in social networking under the dictatorship of an object-oriented leviathan.

I have turned down Red Hat EL 7 for my business systems, and install RHEL 6 with vaious 3rd party repos to get new packages, precisely because of systemd.
A leaner fork of systemd just won't do it.
Give me an init that only does init and does it well with a KISS philosophy. And give me hal back - systemd-udev cannot do what it does, which makes RHEL 7 unusable. I don't want a 90% system, when the 10% is used by my business to earn money.

I am very happy that they make a comeback. If they recover to a point that they become harvestable resorce, I may get to eat blue whale again.

"Whale meat again, don't know where, don't know when...."

Yes, I think the rule should be simple:
Anyone or anything that claims a right to privacy shall have it.

That's today's F1, with fuel flow and rpm restrictions. The F1 of yesteryear was very different, and there could be extreme differences. Some cars went much faster, but accellerated slower. Others had an emphasis on brakes or curve hugging. Or on completing a race with one pit stop less.
I find F1 today completely uninteresting, much like a Indy cars with lower top speed. There's next to no difference between cars, and few overtakings. It's like the emphasis is on making it so uneventful that you can buy hotdogs without losing anything.
Bring back the 1000+ hp F1 engines, wide wings and wide tires. Let the drivers push the envelope. Because right now it's as boring as Indy cars.
(And bring back the Killer B rally class too.)

Do you have an example of a matriarchal society where men do not overall prefer women younger than themselves? It only takes one counter-example to topple his claim, but you need to provide one.

"A" home server? Who would have just one?
Local DNS, DHCP and DCHPv6 servers need failover, and onsite online backups are done cross-server.
So I'd think any nerd would have at least two.

I also have two different wired networks - one that is used for clients to talk to the servers and the gateway, and one that's used for servers to talk between themselves. There's no reason for traffic between a client and a server or internet to get slowed down just because one server backs itself up to another.

And two different Wireless N networks - one 2.4 and one 5 GHz. That way, using one band won't slow down the other.

They already have been changed to glucose before they become fat, which means that the body quite obviously could process them. That they became fat is because there weren't any takers for the glucose.

Wow, I can't believe that someone missed the point so completely!
The point being that it is unlikely that the brain is stealing the glucose and thus stunting growth like the article supports, because when kids are fat, that means they have metabolized carbs->glucose->fat, and thus have had plenty of glucose. That fat kids' bones don't appear to shoot past normal kids in growth strongly suggest that there are other reasons why kids don't grow physically to adults in half the time.

I suggest that being smaller and having different proportions to adults triggers the "do not harm" and "protect" instinct in most adults, thus increasing the chance of reaching adulthood and bringing one's genes on.
There are probably other survival advantages, like having less mass and more flexible bones might be adventageous at the age one learns to climb trees and cliffs.
When reaching the age where one is going to procreate and bring up own children, the advantage is to have a more adult body, capable of hunting, foraging, carrying and protecting.

Get it now, or are you going to get sidetracked by a single word again?

No, it doesn't. You have the wrong idea of what "imply" means. It is not a synonym for "hint at" or "suggest" any more than "implication" is a synonym for "hint" or "suggestion". It is a near synonym to "mean".

That you have two X chromosomes and no Y chromosome implies that you are female. It does not merely hint at it.

When I used the word imply in the real world example of my GPP, it was to say exactly what I said. Not your uneducated guess at what it means.