Fun! Someone has too high of an opinion of himself.
Good trolling.

So she employs them AND is able to pay them zero. Barbie is a business genius.

You're both right! She used nmap to find the IP, the sshnuke exploit, then ssh to gain access.
screen capture.

I was impressed that they would use a real exploit. They knew their audience.

Her role in the movie was to be nerdy like her brother, so that she would have something to do to help out at the end. Unlike the book version of the kids, where the nerdy brother was both computer expert and dinosaur expert, while the sister whined the whole time and had no redeeming values.

It's my f#$@ing phone. If I want root on my own phone, I should be able to get it, just like I can get root on my home computer.

But the only way to root, say, the Galaxy S5 is to run an older version of the kernel.. a version vulnerable to a root exploit. The exploit of course allows OTHERS to root the phone if I'm not careful, but installing ANY security updates or upgrading the OS on the phone fixes the "flaw" that gives me root.

So the only way to get root is to leave my phone running older, insecure software.
All because these shitty companies go ballistic at the thought of the user being the administrator of his own device.

I'm not sure that we've seen that. The complaints we've seen are either unsubstantiated so far (the logs are more vulnerable to corruption!) or theoretical (a monolithic design might lead it to be more vulnerable to crashes taking out the system). But it's not something that is just now being introduced into Linux; systemd has been the default startup agent in Fedora for three and a half years, every Fedora 15+ machine runs systemd. Suse and Arch made it the default in 2012, various other distributions either have made it the default or are contemplating it. This is not an insignificant number of users, and these horrible bugs that concerned the anti-systemd crowd just haven't materialized yet.

systemd has been in Debian testing since 2012 as well, but I don't think it was the default init system.

OnePlus One? http://oneplus.net/

One person's "RAEL EXPERIENCE" is another person's "useless anecdote."

In an ideal libertarian world, what stops the mega-wealthy from exploiting the people? Is there any room for labor laws? OSHA? EPA? Regulations of any kind? FCC?

How does any of that square with extremely limited governance?

What does Libertarianism mean to you?

From what I've been told by libertarians is that the government needs to be smaller, less rules, less regulations, less interference. Individuals and market forces and rational common interest will benefit us all.

I don't buy it myself, but...

The problems you're describing where the hyper wealthy are colluding in an oligarchy to oppress the people and keep them consuming isn't solved by being more libertarian. Being hands off, having less regulations and rules doesn't solve that problem.

That problem's solved by *more* rules, specifically the rules to reform election laws to keep money out of politics.

The implicit theoretical side effect of libertarianism is that the wealthy, those with the means and resources, would do every well and those with out wouldn't. If you don't have people paying taxes for schools, libraries, roads, etc. How do things get better? When you've got concentrated wealth, what's stopping the wealthy from taking over?

Violent insurrection is a fine idea in that case, but, I wouldn't bet on it.

Of course SHIELD runs Android, how else could they have gotten Ultron?

I don't think Ultron's too keen on sweets though. Must be a proprietary fork.

1. i didnt say it was, that's why it is in quotes. of course it isn't autonomous, its totally blind, but the metaphor usually works. evolutionary literature abounds with anthropomorphic language, but most people get that because its a useful way to communicate. anyways, we humans, we do make decisions, and what right do we have to introduce or delete species at will? I would argue that it is something that should be discussed more before we do not this mindless bs jurassic park stunt . this is an example of: "we can" therefore "we should". I don't think the first predicates the second. 2. i agree with you. we are probably in the midst of a massive extinction event right now (the 6th major one to occur), there was a good article on this in Nature in the last couple months. as gould has said, we could nuke the planet and nature wouldn't care ("care": thats a metaphor), life would go on. we'd be dead of course, but thats inconsequential to the machination that is nature and evolution. 3. this is a wooly mammoth we are talking about, not a recently killed off species.why waste time to resurrect a wooly mammoth? how about trying to preserve the biodiversity that we have now instead of wasting time on recreating the bloody Flinstones! at the very least if we restored a carrier pigeon that would have a bit more merit. my guess is this just a massive advertisement for some other business plan they have, like cloning your dog or cat. but again, it doesn't seem to make sense to me to. If we are able to recreate species going extinct and then introduce them back into their environment why wouldn't they just go extinct again? shouldn't we just fix the problem? i don't think we disagree here!

it's unethical because we are bringing back an animal that has gone extinct. What purpose is there in doing this? what gives us the right to "override a decision" that nature made many thousands of years ago? It isn't even a "real" mammoth, because contextually it will not be brought up nor living in the same environment in which it went extinct. if they splice in bits of extant elephants for missing genomic bits its even less a mammoth, although superficially it may still look like one. Its just a circus sideshow. and if the "scientific" point to doing this were to reintroduce mammoths into the wild, how would that upset ecosystems if it were successful? my cynical scientist hat says this is just headlining grantsmanship.

Don't know. I don't run xfce, so I don't know what it depends on. Here's how I did it, if you're comfortable with aptitude's interactive resolver:

bash# aptitude -s purge '?name(systemd)?installed' libsystemd0+

then review the list of conflicts and suggestions in simulate mode. (I started without explicitly marking libsystemd0 for install, but after I realised its list of reverse-dependencies, I relented.)

I proceeded by looking at the 800ish packages it suggested removing, picking two or three packages I use and marking them as rejected (in my case, initially kmail, kdm, xserver-xorg-video-all), cycling to the next suggested resolution. then repeat. Whenever it suggested installing a systemd package, I rejected that suggestion too.

Eventually I settled on removing about 20 packages I didn't need (networkmanager, gnome-shell, some evolution packages, etc). Then I re-ran it without the simulate option.

Afterwards, I realised that I really wanted something to manage the network for me, so I had to manually bring the wifi network up, and

bash# aptitude install wicd-gtk wicd-cli

Yeah, that was an ass-pull. :-(

Season four couldn't really be salvaged after the writers just threw five darts at the board to come up with five character who were inexplicably Cylons.