Extremophile

I'm thinking more along the lines of "Life that will use radio signals (or similar) to communicate in such a way that we have a chance of detecting them without either of us leaving our solar systems".

But that's a bit wordy.

Everyone covers up mistakes. Everyone reveals everyone else's mistakes.

The San are pretty much where they were when humanity evolved.

Nothing is objectively known about the airliner. Everything, from Ukrainian air traffic control ordering the plane to descend to a dangerous altitude to who detected what, is all supposition and hearsay at this point.

It is my personal suspicion that the Ukrainian authorities were hoping for an accident of this sort and were intent on placing a civilian airliner in as dangerous a position as possible. Whether that was the case for this specific airliner on this specific flight is unclear.

And I'd argue that Korean Airlines 007 is a better example for this reason. The US had been using civilian airliners for spying on Russia for some time and doctored the evidence to remove Russian pilots radioing warnings to the aircraft in order to make the incident more incriminating than it was. Whether that flight was used for spying, was shadowed by such an aircraft, or merely happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, all becomes incidental. The accident was inevitable and the US government of the time was guilty of ensuring civilians would someday die for the benefit of military intelligence. It was merely a matter of which plane would be blown out of the sky and when.

In this case, the Ukranian authorities deliberately downplayed the risk of missile attacks on overflying aircraft and deliberately worked to place aircraft in the most dangerous air corridors that the airlines would permit. That is indisputable. Their opponents were known to be firing on aircraft and had shot several down. When your time to respond is measured in milliseconds, the nearest aircraft identification guide is mere hours away, to paraphrase what Americans often say about cops.

An accident was inevitable. The separatists weren't interested in avoiding one, the Ukrainian authorities certainly weren't. It was merely who would die for someone else's ideals. Whether or not this aircraft was deliberately placed in the path of a SAM battery is unimportant.

Both sides are therefore guilty. Both sides deserve blame.

If that's what you read, you need to practice your reading skills, cause they suck.
What I pointed out is that cgroups are separate from the init process, and can and do indeed run on sysv init systems too. cgroups has nothing to do with init, and runs separate from init no matter what you use for init.

When you brought up cgroups as an argument, it appeared to be from a false belief that systemd was needed for cgroups to work - in fact, it's the other way around!
And when systemd uses cgroups, it takes them over for its own purpose, which lessens the value of cgroups compared to systems where you are free to use cgroups from scratch. Freedom to choose - that's what makes Unix great. Poetterware takes away that freedom.

TCP isn't noticably more secure than UDP - the extra fields in TCP are unsigned and can be spoofed too. There are even a couple of attacks that only works with TCP, like source congestion. The only "security" TCP buys you is if you have a dynamic real-time alerting system for tcp sequence errors and similar likely to be seen in spoof attacks. You don't have such an alerting system.
Thus, security is implemented on top of the transport layer, where it works just as well for udp as tcp. The advantage of udp then is that you get more payload per encrypted or signed unit, thus higher speed.

That said, the main use of nfs is within secure perimeters, where speed and transparency is the main goal. In which case all you need is a honor system access control, designed to prevent users and apps from doing bad things no matter who they (say they) are. I.e. the focus is on what is shared, and what's allowed, not who you share it to.

Where Windows is very user focused in its trust based security model, Unix is very data focused.
A typical Windows share will allow any user to write and execute whatever they like. The users don't understand the "Advanced Security" properties anyhow, so implementing it will just lead to complaints. If a client is compromised, so is the share..
A typical Unix share will only allow users write and execute access to specific directories, no matter who they say they are. Remote root users typically get even less access, not for security but to prevent accidents. If a client is compromised, the shares should be safe.

Wrong multiverse theory. And, indeed, wrong experiment. In fact, the wrongitudinal level of your post is so extreme that it should really be on K5.

It's testable, it's measurable, it's repeatable, it's capable of prediction. it's either the simplest model that meets these requirements AND produces correct predictions, OR it is not.

Therefore it is science.

Maths is a science, for the reasons given in the first line. Science is a mathematical system, because ultimately there is nothing there, just numbers. (See: Spinons and other quasiparticles.)

There are many multiverse theories and they can all be tested.

Many Worlds: The theory that there are no real "probability waves" in QM, merely overlapping realities that diverge at the time the "waveform" collapses.

This is an easy one. Entangled particles operate using the same physics as wormholes. If one of the entangled pair is accelerated to relativistic velocities, say in a particle accelerator, they will not exist in the same relative timeframe. It would seem to follow that if Many Worlds is correct, one of the particles will be entangled with multiple instances of the other particle, which would imply that every state would be seen at the same time. If the options are left spin and right spin, you'd see an aggregate state of no spin even if no spin isn't a physical possibility. And seeing something that doesn't exist either means you're in a Phineas and Ferb cartoon or Many Worlds is correct.

Foam Universe: This is the sort described in the article.

Yes, impact studies are possible, but they're only meaningful if you have enough data and you can't possibly know if you do. You're better off trying to make a universe, preferably a very small one with a quantum black hole at the throat of the bridge linking this universe to that one. What you will observe is energy apparently vanishing, not existing in any form - mass included, then reappearing as the bridge completely collapses.

Orange Slice Universe: This conjectures that multiple, semi-independent, universes formed out of the same big bang and will eventually converge in a big crunch.

It doesn't matter that this universe would expand forever, left to its own devices, because the total mass is the total mass of all the slices. Although they are semi-independent, they interact at the universe-to-universe level. In this scheme, because there's a single entity (albeit partitioned), leptons cannot have just any of the theoretical states. The state space must also be partitioned. Ergo, if you can't create a state for an electron (for example) that it should be able to take, this type of multiverse must exist.

Membrane-based Universe: This postulates that universes are at an interface between a membrane and something else, such as another membrane.

However, membranes intersecting with the universe are supposed to be how leptons are formed, in this theory. The intersection will be governed by the topology of the membranes involved (including the one the universe resides on), which means that lepton behaviour must vary from locality to locality, since the nature of the intersections cannot vary such as to perfectly mirror variations in the shape of the membrane the universe is on. Therefore, all you need to do is demonstrate a result that is perfectly repeatable anywhere on Earth but not, say, at the edge of the solar system.

Not everyone "gets" that advertising is needed. In fact, click-through revenue is so miniscule that it would be more cost-effective to not saturate the Internet with ads, or indeed have ads on the Internet at all. The Internet had no advertising at all until two Utah lawyers invented spam and made a fortune promoting their book on Internet advertising. That was around 5 years after the Internet was privatized.

Almost no site I give a damn about relies on advertising. As advertising on a site goes up, the time I spend there goes down. When in England, I watch BBC almost exclusively, ITV stuff is relegated to whenever it comes out on DVD. That has been the case for much of my life. When moving to the US, I abandoned television entirely simply because of the adverts.

Linux is one of the top Operating Systems and gained almost all of that reputation and awesomeness before IBM started their TV ads.

So if products don't need advertising, the Internet doesn't need advertising and users hate advertising, then who the hell is this "everyone" who "understands" the need?

But nfs does not take over and cripple your dns server.
It's the hooks into and taking over parts that work fine on their own that's the problem with domain controllers and systemd. It goes directly against the Unix toolbox approach, and stifles innovation because now you have to do everything within the context of the super-program.

(As for your testing, did you try with jumbo packets? NFS supports it, and CIFS doesn't. It makes a tremendous difference, especially for writes to remote RAIDs or disks with a 4k block size. Also, avoid distros that set up NFS to use tcp instead of the default udp. That's a huge performance killer, and not needed unless you use hubs instead of switches or need to tunnel the traffic.)

No, not at all. They produce the very finest shit eating utensils in the world. It's not the utensil that is the problem.

What does cgroup have to do with anything? I run several systems with cgroup and sysv init. The two are separate, and there is no need for systemd for that.

Actually, they're all mine - no repeat at all. I have been a system administrator since the early 90s, and know what problems Unix like systems have. sysv init has not been anywhere near the top of that list. It was a great improvement over starting apps directly from inittab, and is something that has been working and has kept on working, precisely because it's so simple.

I say this with feeling: You are an idiot.
The problem is obviously not "learning that an .ini file has sections", but that you cannot easily use standard Unix tools on an .ini file because of the sections. sed -e 's/port=.*/port=587/' works great on standard config files, but not .ini files where more than one section may have a port. .ini files are inherently automation unfriendly, because the lines depend on a context you can't derive from the line itself.

No, more the rubberbanding. Consoles don't have mice that can easily change acceleration and start and stop instantly, so to make games playable with a controller, the movements are not synchronized with the stick - when you let go of the stick, you don't instantlly stop, but your movement slows down to a halt over a small period of time. So your actions don't match your movements.
That's also seen in bad console ports, by the way.