terrible for anyone who lost their home of business at the time.
Do you think a fair compensation plan for these people cannot be devised? I accept that Stalin's might not have been the fairest, and the one US might adopt might also be not great. But I think it is within the limits of humans - self-centered and corrupt as they may be, to devise and implement a fair compensation system for people thus dispossessed.
What do you think?
Is the company publicly owned?...If so, their morality is only dictated by laws and regulations
Definition of "publicly owned" is important here. There is an important edge case, increasingly becoming popular, where there are 2 types of shares - voting and non-voting. Your principle applies only if the voting shares are widely publicly owned.
You are going incoherent. Introducing some sanity -
For decades, applications developed by teams of one desktop environment were running fine in other desktop environments, and even standalone window managers. Then incompatibility madness takes over - myriad system services suddenly have a hard dependency on a particular init replacement, and Gnome applications behave idiotically in other desktop environments. Gnome being the chummiest with systemd work, having developed a hard dependency on logind early on.
It is not a coincidence. It is a change in philosophy.
I don't understand how the konqueror example is related to systemd.
Then choose simpler subjects for expressing your ill-informed opinion as this is beyond you. Instructions for idiots below :
1a. systemd team develops and/or maintains logind
1b. KDE team develops and/or maintains konqueror
2a. logind CAN have hard dependency on systemd
2b. konqueror CAN have hard dependency on KDE
3a. logind DOES have hard dependency on systemd
3b. konqueror DOES NOT have hard dependency on KDE
Exhibit : since Gnome and systemd teams started getting chummy, Gnome applications are always maximized and on top of all other windows in other window managers.
Your initial point about init scripts depending on sysv init system is wrong - clearly explained by init scripts being invokable standalone. Your objection to The problem with systemd tools is that they depend on systemd more than just for booting or starting things is also wrong - existence of a solution/hack/workaround doesn't mean problem doesn't exist.
what's a surprise
No one was surprised when konqueror ran perfectly fine under metacity/Gnome. Is compatibility extra work? Yes. Does it increase user choice? You bet it does.
The point is that it is a problem. Not that the problem doesn't have a solution / hack / workaround. And "systemd depends on logind" is the least of the points, besides being incorrect, which I pointed out with my post.
If konqueror didn't work with metacity window manager under gnome, it would have been a problem. And one could say "the version written and maintained by KDE project will depend on kwin/KDE". That problem would also have had a solution/hack/workaround - write your own browser for gnome or run kwin/KDE. But this problem did not have to be solved because it did not exist. And user choice was the greater because of this.
wonder what finally made the c-levels unafraid of linux?
They are all interested only in running "cloud" services. No code is shipped - so no need to be afraid of GPL.
If you like the idea of having an other logind that the systemd-logind, just disable the systemd-logind service and wrote the service file to start the logind you like, or use the sysvinit compatibility to start it with a script.
No, the point is that logind doesn't work without systemd. Read properly. The statement is "Logind is stuck with systemd". It is not "systemd is stuck with logind".
It would work in many places, but not in the US. The attitude of the people there which is something like "Why should I pay for others?" would make them question people who have no hospital membership for years, so they get zero preventative care. Or make unhealthy life choices, so get serious diseases.
Once disease acquired, these people take up hospital membership consuming a huge amount of hospital resources while paying very little. People in the US are extremely intolerant of this.
in many places, taxis are given government-granted x-opoly in the form of taxi medallions
So could we start with saying that in only such "many places", Uber's activities are moral, and even there illegal?
At other places, they are both immoral and illegal so we will talk about them when they shut their services at least in places where there are no medallions. And let us be clear from the start that Uber knew about this immorality and illegality when they started their business and it didn't stop them from operating in such areas, so Uber cannot ride any high horse - moral or legal.
The conclusion is easy to reach. The worst can tell you to pay up for them to stop playing the music. The best can tell you to pay up for them to play the music.
You wouldn't pay the average musicians for jack shit.
In fact every study has found the TCO of the Model-S is the lowest of any car in it's class
By stealing from taxes levied on fuels, then used for road maintenance.
And in a class where TCO matters least.
8 kWh computer
8 kWh per hour? That will be 8 kW.
8 kWh per second? That will be 29 MW.
3 kWh in LED grow lights.
The LEDs grow the light? Or emit it? Or plants grow using the light from the LEDs, so you call them grow lights? They use 3kWh every hour, every year, or every second ?
When a company wants to do something risky, I try to make sure I practice C.Y.A. with a well-CC'd email with wording similar to, "I believe it's notably risky to do X. I highly recommend against it. A lower-risk alternative is to do Y."
I have done this, with companies as well as a personal level. Though it is a good way to be marked as a troublemaker. Why? Because most people have zero understanding of the meaning of risk and probability.
When the stakes are high, a 5% probability of things going wrong is risky behaviour. That means when I am pointing out something as risky, 19 times out of 20 things turn out all right. Once it turns out all right, people turn to me and say - see, we told you everything will be all right.
The idea that everyone has the same brain and so goes through the same development following the same linear path is wrong.
Great that I didn't express this idea, then.
Moreover the idea that morality is in strict correlation with intelligence is also wrong
In this context, a paraphrase of my sentence "If you think that inability to control impulses is lack of demonstrable intelligence, you are the stupid guy here." YOU were the one unsuccessfully trying to convey that your "intelligence" means you were capable of control your impulses at an early age.
Sociopaths are often highly intelligent and have successful career (including in science), most don't even commit serious crimes when they are adults, it doesn't change that they are sociopaths.
Yes, there a few examples of teenagers who were rebellious and then became productive member of society. But there are an awful lot more examples of juvenile delinquent who committed crimes after crimes during all their lives. Prisons are full of them.
Schools are full of kids who never committed a serious crime (apart from trying drugs, which to me is not a serious crime) and who will never commit any. How do you explain that if they can't fully understand the consequences of their actions?
Got educated yet?
U X e dUdX, e dX, cosine, secant, tangent, sine, 3.14159...
