Perhaps it will kill your glorified memories of how GNU/Linux used to work. Things are changing and most importantly, things are improving. You don't have to like those improvements, but they are. The people that make GNU/Linux distributions, especially Debian, are super-serious about it. They would not have used systemd if it threatened the system's existence.
Linux is dead. Someone said udev would kill it, and they were right. Oh wait...
> systemd is default.
That sucks. Since it swallows stderr and syslog output, that makes it very hard to troubleshoot start-up problems.
If only systemd did logging. If only sad anonymous arseclowns had someway of finding answers for themselves.
(Pretend you had never heard of Google. Now you might understand just how fucking stupid it is to direct someone to google.com to learn about Google)
Pretend you're an arseclown and can't use the links on an entry page for a company, to find out about a company. Oh wait - you don't have to pretend.
In todays tech news someone from a tech company died. In arseclown news yet another arseclown couldn't find arseclown.org so trolled as anonymous coward on slashdot instead. When interviewed the arseclown said "I hate tech, it's full of smart people who make me feel stupid, when I'm not busy pissing on people's furniture I like to troll on
Try not to waste my time the next time, some thinking before writing makes a huge difference.
Tickets much? Who makes your hats - Barnum and Bailey?
"Personal Computers'", "Micro Computers", "Home Computers" - are all nebulous terms.
Semantic pedantics enjoy pointless arguments have no point of any importance to make.
If a PC runs business software is it still a PC? If you put it on the floor is a desktop? Did you see those pictures of Lady Gaga? (sigh). Oh, and you're grammer is wrong. (I was going to work the word "nowadays", and the phrase "moving forwards", but...)
Killing someone with 100% CO2 would certainly be cruel.
And killing someone by any means when they don't want to die is not cruel? Do you prefer a particular shade of lipstick on your pig?
CO2 works fine too, but the hand flapping and increased respiration attempts aren't real pretty to watch
I'm pretty sure that the increased respiration attempts aren't enjoyable to endure either - the body senses heightened levels of CO2 as a sign of suffocation. Whereas CO simply attaches to red blood cells instead of O2, meaning there's no sense of suffocation.
I never said it was fun. Don't kid yourself that nitrogen being "painless" makes the experience any less unpleasant the person being executed. Heroin overdoses are very pleasant (I know that first-hand from a misspent youth). But only the deluded or those sick of life would willingly submit the experience - no matter how "pain free" the process. All your "humanity" is nothing more than the moral high ground of someone out of touch with reality. Knowing you are going to die real soon by any means makes the situation real. Very few take that awareness gracefully - and all those that do, that I've known, gain a greater respect for all life as a consequence - all others theorize from the safety of denial. Knowing you will die someday is not the same. You'll know the difference when it happens - I hope you never have to be that aware.
If you can't bear to kill your 'criminal' by ripping off their heads with a rope tied to the back of a F100 you're just putting lipstick on a pig and calling it pretty.
I strongly disagree with this sentiment.
And I support your right to hold the opinion your deserve - even when it's wrong.
Even if you're against capital punishment you can still recognize the reality of the current situation and desire a better form of execution.
No - I can't. Your logic is flawed. Executions don't prevent crimes, slapping a political approval on murder doesn't change the reality. Hence the lipstick on a pig metaphor. Making it "nice" is just butter for those without bread.
It's quite simple, if you yourself were to be executed which method would you think is more humane?
Again your logic is flawed (how's that confirmation bias working out?). It's akin to asking me for a defense plan against an invasion of Martians (or whether I want to be punched or kicked in the balls).
At least then the innocent people we kill wouldn't have to suffer while it's done.
Wow! You really are one sick fucker.
If you're going to embrace state sanctioned murder you should realize that the pain and embarrassment of the method of execution are irrelevant to the person being executed at the time. It's the audience, and those twisted blood lusting promoters of execution that worry about the ironic "humanity" of the method. The dead get over it pretty quick.
Nitrogen really is a good method. I learned about its use in this area when I read about 2 NASA(?) engineers who died right after a fuel tank was flushed with nitrogen. One walked into the middle of it for whatever reason and then collapsed, then the second went in to see what was wrong and he collapsed. They say it brings a bit of euphoria and then eternal sleep.
CO2 works fine too, but the hand flapping and increased respiration attempts aren't real pretty to watch (though worrying about the aesthetics of how you kill someone is, um, just fucking weird). CO also works just fine - no hand flapping or straining to breath, but it also has aesthetic "issues".
Note: I don't support state sanctioned murder - if for no other reason than the abysmal record the US has for justice - even when the condemned was actually guilty of the crime, the crime was arguably that of the state, not the condemned (homeowner shoots unarmed petty thief, petty thief that is not shot dead is convicted). I doubt there are many people outside the US that don't believe there is something extremely wrong with the self-appointed moral guardian of the world (life imprisonment for a joint, fines for giving out food, secret trade agreements that breach US sponsored International Human rights, etc, etc).
If you can't bear to kill your 'criminal' by ripping off their heads with a rope tied to the back of a F100 you're just putting lipstick on a pig and calling it pretty. And yes, there really are a large number of US 'citizens' that'd like (Facebook style) the F100 method (sadly it's not unique to the US), just look at the comments on
Disclaimer: I spent part of my youth in Missouri (pronounced "misery") within sight of Monsanto - it's not Denmark that reeks of something seriously rotten.
[*1] I know.. (sigh), those that deny their ugly blood lust will point to statistically insignificant data from countries with populations of less than 100K, and simultaneously justify their own countries imprisonment rate, and their "right" to armed self-defense - whilst remaining blind to all the inherent contradictions. i.e. if your prison and justice system worked your 'citizens' wouldn't need guns, and you'd have the safest nation on earth. Roll on the triumph of optimism over experience like the Sherman tank of freedom, and whenever you lose a hand - double up.
How about discussing the technical differences and pros & cons instead of the source then? A post below does that and is way more informative than just listing off other protocols and saying nothing about them.
Nooooooo!! It should be decided by a house vote. Face-painters rule!
That search engine will be hunted down and convicted of breaking the DMCA.
a search engine that searches the internet. Not parts of the internet, all of the internet.
I'd also like the search engine to do Boolean and regex.
P.S. I couldn't give a flying fuck if it:- has ads; tries to profile my search queries. I can at least attempt to get avoid those things. But if it does not index the entire internet it's as useful as a range of shoes that consist of one size and one style only.. And no, I don't care if it doesn't come with a free set of steak knives and is 100% dolphin free and kind to puppies, as long as it indexes everything
I don't care if Bill Gates wrote the back end, hell, I'd use it even if it was run by the scumbag behind DuckDuckFuckADuck.
Thanks
Maybe the reason why geniuses are so miserable is because they look around and find themselves surrounded by morons.
Maybe - it (might) be dependent on several things: definition of genius (high level abilities across a range of fields); reaction to competition.
Not being a genius I'd be guessing - and that'd be ironic given my experience with people who consider me "very intelligent" and then say "I don't understand why you don't waste your abilities" (i.e. why aren't I famous/richer/better fit their stereotype of what "smart" people do). My experience is that the smarter someone is - the less certain they are of their abilities (the more you know, the more you know you don't know). One perception is that society (the average) recognises and rewards those that are not as clever as they claim to be (or good). E.g. Not so smart. If you are so smart why don't you cure cancer/old age? Smarter. Because I can extrapolate. (none of those things would improve the world in which I live) Not so smart You are an idiot.
As someone mentioned earlier in this thread - expectation is an important component. One of the smartest people I know lives under a bush - his family had high expectations for him and got him scholarships in the "best" schools. Their expectations were that he would do much "better" than them (make more money, get more respect). He thought (correctly) that they were ignorant and relied too much on the opinion of those "who appointed themselves as peers". So he went the the "best" schools - on scholarships offered to raise the academic ratings in order to attract the offspring of the wealthy, and not surprisingly was victimized and did not get to join the exclusive boys clubs. I don't know whether the unrealistic expectations of his family or the first-hand insights into the lives and realities of those who society calls successful, caused him to reject societies expected standards. He's clean and healthy - and one of the happiest people I know.... so I have no reason to doubt he's still very, very smart.
Some things he's said:- the very smart are a threat to those that are not so smart - so if you're smart, play dumb; the only way to get smarter is to challenge people who are even smarter (so being surrounded by morons might have several effects); most people are too stupid to know how stupid they are; approval is a prison - pick your jailer carefully; most things are without reason or purpose and the dumbest thing is to search for reason where there is none; happiness is a choice; don't ask me - if you can't work it out the answer is valueless.
My point - if I have one, is that I'm not sure "smarter" people are unhappier because the smartest people I've ever met are not obviously smart (they hide their abilities). There is a myth that those that are much smarter than the average have an advantage - which is like believing that because you have 20 years experience at fighting you can beat someone twice your weight who has no experience. Numbers of people is like the weight of your opponent. It also overlooks the fact that in life we rarely get to chose the games we play - you may be much smarter than your colleagues, but they may have devoted their lives to licking arses - and if you are so much smarter than your boss unless he takes advantage of your superior abilities you are of no greater value than your dumber colleague. You are also more cautious about implementing changes - your dumb colleague is not. Perhaps being smarter means that you are unwilling to shit upstream because of the perceived consequences (you drink that water) - your dumber competition is not so constrained and achieves greater financial success.... Does your extra smart make you aware of this? Does your extra smart make you realise that there is no point in trying to educate your dumber competitor or their customers?
Tricky..
Exactly. Point a loaded gun at a playful dog and he'll be all excited by the new game.
Apropos of little - what I hate most is the happiness of the stupid.
Call me a cynic - but if Twitter chose Ireland for "privacy" purposes then it's a huge coincidence it just happens to be cheaper - as well
Switzerland is not as private as Ireland, because, um, CERN is just another name for GCHQ, unless.... oh crap, GCHQ is an NSA partner (cough* we keep the data, NSA keeps the index/metadata*cough).
Never mind, I'm obviously delusional - GCHQ doesn't have access to Ireland, what was I thinking? As you were, carry on, nothing to see here...
An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.
