If they were your servers, you'd be the one to blame for installing it.

Or are you coveting your sysadmin's servers again? Jealousy is bad for your health.

I hope so, it is always nice for a big group of haters to have a mass-migration. It is a lot healthier than to stay and whine. Those that leave can enjoy their greener grass, and those that stay have them off the lawn. Everybody wins.

If you hate systemd, don't use it. Problem solved!

Nothing is being forced on anybody. The situation is that systemd is popular and well liked by people making actual decisions, and hated by a bunch of loud pundits that don't have any responsibilities and are jealous of the decisions of others.

Nobody is trying to force anybody to use systemd. We like it, we're adopting it, and haters are loudly shouting that we should somehow be stopped, that we shouldn't be allowed to use what we want, that somehow the world would be better of if some giant angry conspiracy could be formed to somehow cast us out, or something like that.

Newsflash: systemd is popular among people with the technical background to be in charge of choosing a daemon and interface manager. SysV was not the Second Coming, it was only better than what came before. We stuck with it for so long because it worked, but it has serious failings that make it unsuitable and non-optimal for a wide variety of real life use cases.

You won't take it away from us, and no, failing to oppress people doesn't make you martyrs.

Keep your silly file server inside of your own network boundaries. Nobody is trying to touch it. Nobody is telling you what to run on it. So don't tell me what to run on mine.

Being against something is needless; just choose what you want for the reasons you want. There is no natural reason to be against everything else that others choose.

What happened is that the FUD is so deep, the haters don't realize that they're hating a modular system and that none of their talking points are actually true! lolol

Upstart has serious, known design flaws that cannot and will not be fixed. It will not be adopted for real technical reasons. Shouting slogans doesn't change the technical issues.

See: http://0pointer.de/blog/projec...

SysV is the weird monster that this thing is finally saving me from. You can't force me to keep using that old crap, and you can't force systemd not to replace it for me.

They're simply getting it wrong; they're falling victim to a hateful extremism that hand-feeds them selected (disputed or sectarian) teachings by later people. The basic Sunni/Shia split is similar to Catholic/Protestant in being at least largely about accepting later teachings from a claimed official line of the church and if such new teachings would count as Scripture.

It is generally a bait-and-switch; they emphasize that making images of Mohamed is offensive to God, and then they switch to telling the other humans to be personally offended. They don't continue with the same religious argument from beginning to end. After they establish that the person creating the image is [list of horribles] then they switch to talking about what punishments that would incur if done by nominal Muslims within the unified Muslim State that is assumed and ordered in scripture. Historically when such a state existed it would indeed have been punishable by death. Mainly because there was no chance that an Islamic court was going to treat a person making banned Muslim religious images as other than a heretic Muslim. If they were Christian images, that was actually okay, as long as the person making the images wasn't from a Muslim family. So they had freedom of religion, but not as a matter of personal choice. And non-Muslims who already lived in Muslim-ruled lands were allowed freedom of religion, but had to pay a tax. (Christians and Jews were excepted and didn't need to pay the tax or have a visa)

Freedom of expression isn't a natural right. It is a created right, a somewhat arbitrary luxury. Even where it exists it is not absolute. Historically, the Islamic State had a high level of freedom of expression. It did not extend to religious iconography, but there was extensive and open discussion of the philosophical and creative implications of different religious ideas. This was at the same time that scientists in Europe were being burned at the stake by the Christian Church, just for believing in the wrong physical facts, even where they had conceded they had no opinion on the religious implications. And yet later it was Christian extremists during the English Civil War that created the modern right of freedom of the press, and the separation of church and state; both were enacted so that individuals could have a personal conversation with God, without interference from the State (via an approved church) and then write about their experiences.

So Christians have rejected freedom of religion and freedom of expression in the past, too. It should be no surprise that there will be extremists that engage in these patterns of control. But it is not something that is in the nature of either religion; it is in the nature of sociopathic control freaks who sometimes manage to get power over land, or for example in France, simply can persuade some common criminals to become murderous villains.

The Koran does call for strict religious rule in a home region, but there is nothing in it about restricting freedom of expression beyond the standard anti-veneration protocols. And it could be argued that the history of the Catholic Church and freedom of expression is diametrically opposed to modern American values, and yet, it doesn't stop Catholics from loving God, or being good Americans. Like my dad (a non-Catholic) says, "if you don't want to be anything like a Catholic, just hate God and you'll have nothing in common."

We don't need to reconcile the views, the vast majority will continue to come together to oppose religious violence. There will still be radicalized nutjobs blowing stuff up, just like there are still burglars and murderers and various sorts of neer-do-wells.

That said, if I intentionally antagonize my neighbor by posting insulting pictures of what he values (and presumably, I don't) then he may eventually snap and punch me, or do whatever bad thing. Almost everybody in the community will agree punching is bad. He'll probably get fined and put on probation. But also, I'd still know when choosing to antagonize him that he may snap and blow me up.

Just like, if I wear an insulting T-shirt making fun of President Reagan to a bar, I might get in a fight over it. That doesn't make it okay to fight. It just means if I'm going to intentionally insult people, I should be prepared to accept the predictable consequence knowingly, and believing I'm making the world a better place. In my city I can get away with almost any t-shirt I want. But swastikas would probably get my ass whooped. Now, if somebody was going to threaten to kill me over a Star Trek shirt, maybe I'd be willing to take a bullet for free speech. Science Fiction is that important to society. It may sound like I'm joking, but if you're not ready to die to defend your expression... does it even have value to you in the first place?

If you aren't willing to die expressing your right to cause grave insult to maniacs and religious extremists, why go out of your way to insult them? It seems to me these French journalists must deeply value insulting religious extremists, or why would they go out of their way to be insulting? If they didn't think, for better or worse, that they're making the world a better place, wouldn't they be drawing pictures of kittens or sex or something? So I assume they're willing heros, and in that sense, that they were successful in exercising their freedom of expression, and that their murders in no way succeeded in removing that freedom. So there is freedom, and there is also crime. And some of that crime is driven by passions inflamed by communication. It is all part of the give-and-take of Progress.

This really makes me ask: Is there a real shift here that is problematic, or was there a bubble where research increased very rapidly in new fields, where older people didn't have right degrees to get the money, and so it started out with an unusually young group of people? Like in CS at the start of the modern research efforts the people had math and physics degrees. In medicine I'm assuming that wasn't done; they didn't just have veterinarians doing human studies because there weren't enough research doctors. There doesn't seem to be any closely related fields to draw people from either. So I would expect there to be research age bubbles whenever there is a major new round of medical tech.

A big question I don't know the answer to: What percent of NIH grants go to that sort of degree-restricted field, compared to degree-portable fields like CS? My initial guess is that most of the NIH grants would be degree-restricted and require a medical degree.

Just having 1983 and 2010 as data points, without anything farther back, seems dubious, even with the other data point in TFA using 1980 instead of `83.

If you were 36 in 1980 you were born in `44. So it may even just be as simple as, "baby boomer generation had a baby boom, news at 11." If the percent of young researchers had remained level, that would actually mean that researchers were getting younger, because there are a higher percent of older people with medical degrees now.

Nope. You don't consume media that would contain that information, that is why you're unaware of it. It is a lie, because you know that you don't know. You know that being unaware of what regular Muslims, and Muslim-focused media, are saying, is not the same as them not saying anything. You're not a low-IQ schoolchild who never confronted the difference between what you know, and what you know you don't know. Hate can blind anybody, even people who would otherwise be intelligent.

I saw headlines in some media giving an analysis of actual media coverage in the middle east, and there was extreme outrage, and religious offense. You'd rather hate people based on what other people with the same religious label than to understand what is actually going on in the world and what the majority views of that religion are.

Most of the elites have been under forced foreign divestiture rules the past couple years, in anticipation of sanctions, so those still there are mostly stuck now.

I fully support Russia's efforts to establish themselves as the force of Evil to be opposed in this New Cold War.

It is great for the US economy.

The average Christian on the street in many places is not going to be at all impressed by blaming Christians generally for bad Popes, past or present.

Some Blargs are murderers. Therefore, all Blargs are murderers. T/F?

It is a simple IQ test. You come out on the side of hate. It is not only immoral, it is stupid.

It isn't odd at all, building probes advances multi-use engineering, and lab science doesn't. Not in a comparable way, anyhow.

Like in the book Interface by Neal Stephenson and George Jewsbury

Proving the control is not absolute does not actually prove that the control exists. Demonstrating that the control is less than 10% effective certainly doesn't prove the thesis that the Government is in control of that subject. Actually it refutes it.