Property ownership starts with self ownership. To earn money one has to spend his own time and effort, one has to use his own health and life, the time not spent enjoying but working. Property is thus extension of our own bodies and time given to us to spend on this planet.

To deny people ownership of the fruits of their labour is to deny people self ownership and it is disgusting. Noone should be born into slavery.

Your hands and your head and legs and the rest of it belongs to you. The collective does not own you and it cannot own what you produce. You can trade with others for what they produce or give it away, but that is your choice, your life. Your body your choice, yes?

Well, not according to you. You would steal from those who produce but how is it different from taking their body away? Taking 1 of every 2 chairs away from a chair maker is somehow different from taking away 50% of his life on the planet? It is not. That 50% of life is gone from him and nobody can fix that.

Your ideology is also insane in another regard. If somebody can produce chairs and another person cannot you want to take away from the one who can. What if there are people with no eyes? Let us then make it 'fare' for them and take everybody's eyes out. Some people are missing limbs, lets hack everybody's arms and legs off. There were people who died...... let us just murder everybody to make it fair for those who are dead but also for all of those who never lived at all.

Your ideas are horrendous if someone takes 1 minute to examine them, they lead to slavery and murder while providing superficial justification for the feeble minded.

You mean, like the Windows Registry? Nothing ever went wrong with the kitchen-sink approach to design, right?

You're kinda illustrating what I meant by my parenthetical, but I guess I didn't explain it very clearly - Libertarians often focus on keeping the government from restricting your rights, rather than focusing on ensuring that the government protects your rights.

For example, their platform reads "Members of private organizations retain their rights to set whatever standards of association they deem appropriate," which means that businesses should be free to openly discriminate against employees of a certain race, sexuality, gender, etc, in order to protect the business owner's freedom of association. Liberals generally believe that the government should be in the business of ensuring that people get a fair shot, in order to protect the employees' ability to earn a wage.

(Also, they want to entirely privatize schools, because nothing says "land of opportunity" quite like being too poor to afford first grade.)

Saying basically that "It's fine, as long as it's not government doing it" doesn't really seem "socially quite liberal" to me - it seems, frankly, like an anarchic appeal to the state of nature, in which only the strongest is secure in their rights.

An unlocked 6 from Apple cost $649. If you want to throw away $250 buying on Amazon, feel free.

Anyone who's been here a while knows all this crap is just APK going through my posting history on an hourly basis and attacking me any way he can because I dared to call him the HOSTS file troll (just google "hosts file troll apk" to get a better look). Why? I guess he has issues with transsexuals. Or maybe with all women, but it's just safer to publicly attack transsexuals.

And it's not been a secret that I'm trans since I was outed back in 2006. Nothing to be ashamed of. t's (to slowly get back on topic) now accepted as pretty mainstream. It happens, we see doctors, follow their directions, and live more-or-less normal lives ... which last time I looked doesn't include going through others posting history years later because you get all bent out of shape over anyone who dares call your hosts file an obsolete piece of crap. It's not 1990 any more. Things have changed, both in tech and society. Normal isn't that easy to pin down any more.

The attraction of the main characters in BBT isn't that they're different - their concerns are entirely normal. Relationships between the sexes is a good example. While individually they may seem strange, in the aggregate they cover a part of the normal spectrum of hopes and fears. Acceptance, rejection, what next, will I screw it up, why can't they change this ONE teeny thing that annoys me so much ... why do they want to change me, if I change will they like me better, do I dare tell them how I feel, now that I've told them, did I screw it up, will I lose them as a friend if I try to take it further, how do I tell them I only like them as a friend?

It doesn't have to be about geeks - you see the same situations played out in police dramas, soap operas, and probably (just guessing here because I've never seen one) reality TV shows. And in our lives and the lives of those around us. Every day. The BBT characters are more normal than we care to admit.

I have a work-provided 16GB 5s, which I use all the time. I am currently sitting at 7GB used, 5.8GB free.

I don't feel at all constrained.

Why? Justify that statement without using any reference to the UNIX way or it being the way things have always been designed.

IMHO a coordinated set of functions that are used in a common way should be combined. Why is it that to parse a log file I need to run grep, and sed, and all these other utilities in a continuous pipe? For that matter why should the tail command be able to open a file, is that against the unix way because everything should be grepped into it?

I'm getting sick of using 1000 different utilities to do one task or manage one system. Hate me, down mod me, argue with me, but I for one am a big fan of big software with multiple functions approach. If that one program does it well why wouldn't you let it manage multiple coherent tasks like getting a computer from nothing to at least a login prompt?

+1000

The shift key is, hands-down, the one aspect of iOS 7 (and 8) that annoys me more than anything.

On the bright side, iOS 8 borrows the suggestion feature from Android, and that makes getting the correct word much easier and faster. It will even try to help with typos and will suggest common phrases.

I appreciate calling out the "journalists" on their inability to explain a summary, but there's almost a systemd article on here every week, it's one of the biggest hot topics in the Linux world at the moment, and frankly I'm amazed that there's anyone who reads Slashdot doesn't already know absolutely everything about it.

But PID1 is not the lowest level. And restarting everything except SystemD is not really any different than doing a cold boot.

Why not implement a watchdog in the kernel that can restart the system if it crashes. You're arguing that this important job should be done by some high order process instead of some higher order process, why not the bottom?

The last time I saw a system where X died and didn't melt down everything with it was back in the early 2000s. My current experience is that with a lot of desktop Linux distributions is if X dies your system likely:
a) has already panic'd
b) is about to panic
c) has hard locked and makes you pray for a SysRq key.
d) is so broken that an attempt to restart X results in you wishing you'd just hit the reset button to begin with.

I haven't seen X gracefully die in a long time now. That said I don't see it die often but that's not really the heart of the debate.

Adamantium.

Google it. Takes a bit to set up but its great. Smaller then 1 mb.