If you're travelling through the USA (into, out of, or stoppover in)
Or if you're traveling in any vehicle with a more-than-infinitessimal chance of being diverted to the USA in the event of a problem.
I can only conclude that the issue is not that you don't want to use that capability, it's that you don't want anyone else to be able to use that capability. The contradiction in wanting "open culture" to deny some users options that they desire never crosses your mind, does it?
Wanting "open culture" to not be destroyed by those who promote "closed culture" instead is not a contradiction.
There will be monitors that can display what's passing by the vehicle outside.
Trying to use that to compensate for motion sickness is a terrible idea. Unless the video is perfectly in sync with the passengers' inner ear (i.e., unless there is zero processing delay) it'll actually make their motion sickness worse instead of better.
I considered that a subset of "carrying stuff that sticks out a little," but probably should have mentioned it explicitly.
Oh yeah? Well I only drink water that's been chemically combined from hydrogen and oxygen in a fuel cell!
(Your response at this point should be something like "eww, you drink car exhaust?!")
There are plenty of reasons (beyond merely operating the vehicle) to need windows:
I think you meant to reply to the post above mine, because it sounds like you're agreeing with me.
I'm not
Fine, then enjoy your totalitarian surveillance state, because that's what it takes to provide the kind of security you want.
Just go enjoy it someplace else, and quit fucking up my free society!
You may have been going for sarcasm, but it's reality for car insurance companies...
There are certain off-work things that an employer should know about - witness the guy who intentionally flew the airliner into the mountain and killed all on board - when it can affect their on-the-clock performance
Not really. I mean, maybe if the job in question is life-safety-critical (and probably not even then!), but the vast majority of jobs are not even slightly like that.
It's worth noting that the situation you cite has happened exactly once in all recorded history, so it's not exactly a common case worth optimizing for.
And selling yourself into slavery is a PRIVATE agreement between a PRIVATE master and a PRIVATE slave. That doesn't make it okay, though!
Now go fuck yourself.
Every nonprofit on the planet has the long-term goal of having an endowment large enough that they can focus on their core mission rather than bullshit fundraising drives. In order to do that sustainably, they need to have an endowment approximately 25x their annual operating budget, plain and simple.
Okay, so you're saying that Wikipedia will raise another $9.5 million* and then stop, right? If they do that, then I won't complain.
Of course, they're almost certainly not going to stop. Instead, they'll just increase Jimmy Wales' compensation (among other silly things) and keep badgering users, because that's what all non-profits actually do.
(* 25 * $2.5M = $62.5M, $62.5M - $53M (the amount they already have) = $9.5M still needed)
Ubuntu, RedHat, Debian, CentOS
You just listed the same two groups twice. Ubuntu uses systemd because Debian chose to use it, and CentOS uses systemd because RedHat invented it. Ubuntu and CentOS aren't deciding independently; they're using what their upstream distro chose.
True, like any piece of software, systemd surely must have issues (binary logs seem like one) that should be fixed or parts that may be improved, but all this constant bashing from some members against it, is just purely irrational.
The problem with systemd is not that it has "issues" -- $DIETY knows lots of Free Software has "issues!" -- the problem is that systemd's issues are designed that way on purpose, marked "wontfix," no compromise is tolerated, and the main developer (Lennart Poettering) is an ass about it.
Hey, I'm an American and I'd like to have one of these Russian PCs for more or less the same reason! Sometimes it's nice to have a weird foreign architecture around...
So what you're saying is, you're terrified of his ideas. You can't stand the thought of simply eliminating subsidies and letting the chips fall where they may.
What's the matter? If you're right, then fossil fuels remain more profitable than renewables and nothing changes.
If you still want to try to defend subsidies, all it means is that you're admitting that fossil fuels can no longer compete.
We have a equal opportunity Calculus class -- it's fully integrated.
