unless they would check the actual link, the price matching based on a lousy printout is unworkable. It's rather easy to photoshop the displayed price to an arbitrarily low value.

You're still first for billions of dollars spent on warfare.

You're still first in number of people incarcerated per capita.

You still lead in the number of gun-related murders per capita.

And you still lead the world in thousands of dollars per capita spent on healthcare.

It might work as a dirty hack, but I would really like to have my fstab not be hackery. Noauto is supposed to mean not mounted on boot after all. I do know that systemd isn't actually issuing the mount command. I also know that once in the emergency shell, a simple mount /aux works perfectly (showing that the fstab and dependencies are fine).

There should be a way to alter systemd's configuration to let mount -a take care of fstab.

I'm a bit skeptical that a .mount file will behave any better since it's still part of the systemd world that has already proven it isn't up to the task. I may try it though just to see if systemd failures are at all hackable short of twisting it to resemble sysV.

I'm honestly very interested in openBSD and it is obviously better to have fewer rather than more vulnerabilities. How would a person figure out which parts of openBSD go through the auditing they're famous for? I wouldn't want to be one of those people who installs openBSD and then believes myself invulnerable because of that fact alone -- that is just smug ignorance. So for example, the openBSD website advertises "Only two remote holes in the default install, in a heck of a long time!" How much worse is that figure if I also install Gnome or KDE; xine or mplayer and all the codecs; etc. etc.? Anyway, is there a list of what is and what is not subjected to the openBSD audit process? I can't imagine they have the resources to look at absolutely everything.

So is there a point to using OpenBSD if you install flash? I'm not trolling, I'm curious and open to the fact that there is almost certainly something I haven't considered, but running OpenBSD and then installing flash feels like spending a million bucks on a safe, and then writing the combination code to open it on a sticky note attached to the backside of a painting hung on the wall next to the safe's door.

Mod parent up!

I think the many megaton explosive effect of a comet hitting the Earth and the resulting severe disruption of the weather and massive loss of life would probably make us forget all about the kilo of plutonium.

That's 12 kilos for the SNAP minus the weight of batteries and associated chargers/management, solar panels , and heaters.

And still, all the fear would have been unfounded. Yes, from ESA's standpoint, it would be no consolation to know that the fear that was destroying them was unfounded.

Perhaps they should just say the space probes are powered by new and improved power pellets! (Pac Man approved!)

He's not advocating tyranny, he's pointing out that the government is already tyrannical, and thus doesn't understand why they try to pretend they're not.

Hence the repetitious use of the word, "illusion."

Statistically speaking, an average person in American is far, far more likely to be attacked and need to defend themselves than a federal building.

Pretty obvious, since if you actually break down the "people shot" statistic you find the vast majority were felons to begin with.

It's not that there are not enough viable alternatives to Overlord Google.

This is a spider.

The point here is that of all of the advocates claiming systemd skeptics are just afraid of change and that systemd is just fine as is cannot seem to come up with a solution to this problem. It's almost as if they don't actually know anything about the software they advocate...

As for solutions, I know a free one involving going back to sysvinit. I'm not going to get paid support for a test installation. If a simple problem can't be solved simply, it will just be rated not ready for prime time.

Personally I find it to be useless for my needs. Most of my searching is for tech documentation, example code, how-tos, and such. For whatever reason, Google just finds a lot more relevant material than Bing, and usually what I need is within the first 3-4 links on the results page. With Bing, I find that one often has to go through a page or two of results, skipping the obvious chaff in order to find anything relevant.

I've no idea how the two compare on non-technical searches, though.