Seriously? Most women you've met fall under two categories? For real? And let me guess, do those categories happen to be slut and not-slut? Let's read on...

Well I'll be. How about that. Your attitude to women is quite frankly pretty shocking, except of course it isn't because I hear it all the time. Listen carefully. Women do not fall into 'one of two categories'. Not even most women. There is no 'they'. I mean, are you trolling or something? Do you really believe this shit? How old are you?

Why do slashdotters find these issues so hard to understand. The law is all about intent. If you intend to access services to which you are not entitled, the ease with which you do so is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not your actions are legal.

You can type in eighteen "plain text" keystrokes (whatever that means - aren't all keystrokes plain text? Anyway) and log into the Attorney General's gmail account. Well, if you knew the password you could. But the action is trivially simple. And that doesn't matter. And why would it? Would you want the law to be based on how difficult an action is to undertake? It's pretty easy to pull a trigger you know...

OH come on - just because something is easy to do automatically makes it legal. Is that your argument?

If you're not authorized to receive upgrades and/or support, and you knowingly misrepresent your system in some way in order get those upgrades and/or support. Well of course that's illegal.

Do you really believe that? If your life is so special and precious, it shouldn't be something I can so trivially extinguish with this here handgun.
Oops - And I told myself I wasn't going to use analogies, which inevitably end up driving the conversation in the direction of whether or not the analogy holds.
Sigh.

And they say that it's nothing to do with revenge...

Good lord.

Yeah. You'll probably find something upwards of 90% of those people were innocent.

Plus, the general comment seems to be that the children are used to getting their own way, and have become used to immediate gratification of their wishes. Doesn't sound like it's got a whole lot to do with computers to me. It's certainly easier to leave pre-school kids in front of iPads that it would have been to leave them in front of the TV - they have more fun with the iPad than the TV. But it doesn't change the fact that this is simply bad parenting, and not a problem with technology per se.

In The Loop FTW. Now that's a TV series you can get behind.

Silverstripe is great, I've used it quite a bit and it does stand head & shoulders above the competition. But, possibly this is because it's written in PHP, it's dog-slow. Odd that the four comments above are all AC...

It's a problem because insurance cares about who's fault a crash is. If it's your fault, your insurance has to pay up - and they may even refuse to if they can prove negligence, in which case you have to pay up. Bad news all round. If it's the other parties fault, then same story but for them.

BUT - if it's some computer programmer in Silicon Valley's fault.. well, now we're in a whole other area. Do computer programmers need insurance now? It's a whole big liability clusterfuck, and I think it's entirely possible that it might prevent fully-automatic car driving in a general urban type environment from ever taking off, no matter how smart it gets.

Mind you, I thought that about fully-armed drones blowing people up too, and it looks like I was wrong there...

Slight irony, since sound in Windows works fine... ;-)

Can you help me out here? I would love to know what the crux of this little flamewar that's going on around here actually is. Near as I can tell:

1) init is pretty much just a bunch of shell scripts that are used to start & stop services. It, IMHO, qualifies as an unmitigated hack
2) systemd is... what? Something sensible that at least attempts to start & stop services in a standard way?

I mean, forgive me, but it seems that this is a vast improvement. Who wants a system that's basically a collection of scripts? That just seems so fragile and un-documentable.

And then, into this, comments such as yours are thrown:

When I see a statement like that I think to myself - why. What is sacred about PID 1? Why should it do very little? How is this a premise of an init system? And would you be happier if PID1 launched systemd as, I don't know, PID2, and then did very little?

I really seems to me that getting rid of that horrible kludge of shellscripts and moving towards a standardised and sensible startup process is a big step forwards in Linux land.

Most other countries have figured that out actually.

Well I'd opine that they rather fucked that balance up. Bit late now I suppose. And what kind of bent thinking sees a link between arming everyone and a peaceful society? It's the same logic that led to nuclear proliferation, and it makes no sense whatsoever.

That's not completely true. Crossbows are categorised as offensive weapons, and the police are going to take a reasonably dim view of you if you start carrying one around in public. From the nz police website:

"Bow and arrows should only be carried with a lawful, proper and sufficient purpose, for example you are taking your crossbow to archery practice or hunting."