Well that all depends on your timeframe. Later on, perhaps, but at the Battle of Britain, the UK stood alone and was in immediate danger of being invaded. If that had happened it would likely have fallen as the UK didn't have the war industry at that time to defend on land. The technical superiority of the Spitfire (& to some extent Hurricane, not as good a plane but in far greater numbers) at that point in time saved the UK from invasion since air superiority couldn't be achieved.

I think "preventing invasion" could be described as fairly decisive...

Yup, just as long as you are willing to give up any sense of decent UI, performance, etc. Mobile devices are shockingly bad at rendering HTML at a good rate, and I'm yet to see a HTML5 page that properly scales to different screen sizes, has good information density, or works properlly offline.

That's not to say these things aren't possible, but I have to assume that they are very hard because nobody seems to be doing them.

*Fuck*. Why, after apparently 20 years, are we still having to explain this! So-called professional, intelligent people can't seem to grasp the fact that *bundling* is not problem. Bundling AND being in a monopoly position to enforce that bundle *is*. It's a logical AND. We're not talking mental gymnastics here, and you've had 20 years to understand, I would have thought a MS employee would especially be wanting to understand this. Jesus.

And don't think Google are somehow immune from this, Chrome on ChromeOS is fine since it's not in any way in a dominant position on operating systems, but using search monopoly to push their own products does have them currently in trouble with the EU.

I was online in 1994 (heck, I owned/operated an ISP...) and I'd prefer it over the internet of today. There was tremendous practical value at that time - especially for research/academics.

Well indeed, which is presumably why Google chose not to go with one. They were more interested in generating developer and manufacturer support (where "oo, free stuff!" is attractive) than maintaining absolute openness all the way down the chain.

Personally, I like copyleft, but sometimes getting people to piggyback is more important to your goals.

I don't know why you're the only poster that seems to understand why the subby wants this. He's basically trying to get slashdot to crowd-think for him, to solve a technical "problem" - allowing them to charge $10 each for crappy pictures instead of letting passengers take their own damn pictures. Just drive the damn limo and stop being a dick. If people want the photo service, offer it - but don't break their cameras just to force them to buy your pictures. And I hope the passengers of the limo are all made very well aware of the presence of your cameras is well - else you're in for some serious issues.

*Searching for sarcasm... appears clean*.
So... In what way is that "working"? Ending up in prison or on a plane back home?

Well, for a start if you're not a British Citizen then you might not have a right to enter.

Congratulations! You have just made an entirely pointless post that says nothing, and proves nothing!

You're right, it's just easy. As for the preview - when forced to do it every time, it can become something one ignores. All this yammering about "beta" and I'm still pining for the previous version of slashdot :P

oh boo, slashdot dropped the pre tag? Dorks. "As mentioned, the central responsibility of an init system is to bring up userspace. And a good init system does that fast." = that was a quote from that original post about systemd

There's this new thing called "init.d" which makes things really simple - you can start a system up and step through things, and though the boot takes 5 seconds instead of 1 second, that isn't really a problem.

Once I read the original post about systemd, and all the other let's-invent-a-problem-to-fix nonsense surrounding init.d, I literally hung up my hat and stopped being a syseng. I was a unix guy starting in 93, so it was probably time anyway, but it was the straw that broke my back, as it were.As mentioned, the central responsibility of an init system is to bring up userspace. And a good init system does that fast. I especially "loved" this line: As mentioned, the central responsibility of an init system is to bring up userspace. And a good init system does that fast. No. A good init system does it reliably, with no drama and no politics. A good init system allows one to easily determine the state of a system, and doesn't assume things like GUIs and such. A good unix init system does all this with commands which can be piped and parsed easily with grep and awk - two things the original post about systemd actually complains about. The idea that a unix person would complain about grep and awk was so mind-boggling to me that...well, I just hung up the hat. You did all this nonsense, just to save a few seconds? Because what, the only thing linux is used for, is laptops? Meh.

How about, whatever income allows you to have enough in savings/retirement such that you can have a $70k lifestyle during said retirement, yet still retire before you're too old to enjoy the retirement? Which is to say, if you want more than $70k/y, maybe it's so that later on you can have $70k/y without working, and are then free to pursue creative goals while your mind still works. You know, the sort of works you'd be free to pursue at age 18 in a post-scarcity world.

"no one would need to work, yes, but more importantly, no one would *want* to"

Such a boring argument. Are you not aware there are already people who do precisely that? Volunteerism, the OSS community, people who make a very deliberate decision to work a more altruistic job at 1/10th the pay, turning down full-paying jobs (yes yes, they get paid...only because we don't have a society where food/shelter/energy are given away). It's the core argument to capitalism - that without money to encourage productivity, no one would work - and it ignores the fact that for all but a very brief blip in the history of our species, that is precisely what happened - people worked without being paid money. They worked as a community, to accomplish collective goals.

You can disable them, they don't get removed from the phone but they also don't run.