the real capitalists are global. They benefit from us competing with cheaper labor. Marx predicted this but all anyone can remember about him is that a few dictators used his books for rhetoric.

As for Adam Smith, he actually as against this sort of naked capitalism. He wrote at a time of small merchant artisans. He didn't see the industrial revolution coming and if he had probably wouldn't have written the books he did. These days he's like Marx: all anybody remembers about him is what fits in with what they want.

Slaves were very expensive compared to immigrants. With immigrants you could treat them just as bad and when they got weak move on to the next batch. With slaves you had money sunk in. The south also had huge amounts of capital sunk into slaves. If you're selling someone's buying, and that costs money. It's one of the reasons they were so far behind the curve on the industrial revolution...

Actually there are a few tiny natural islands in the region where the shoreline is buried under a couple of meters of junk, mostly driftwood and large bits of plastic.

Water. AKA - "The universal solvent". I personally think wind farms are economically viable in many places, but not so much offshore for precisely the reasons you mention.

South Australia is 30% renewable despite a current federal government that is openly hostile to clean energy. The reasoning behind that ideological hostility is not difficult to spot - coal is our #1 export. India has recently declared that large scale PV solar is cheaper than Australian imported brown coal and is switching 400M people to solar over the next decade or so. Prices for coal are way down and mines are currently being mothballed, even those mining the high quality coking coal used to make chinese steel have seen recent mine closures.

The anti-science luddites in charge of this country can see the writing on the wall for the global coal industry, the words "stranded assets" are scaring them shitless. They lack the wisdom and intellectual independence required to plan a smooth transition so they do what politicians do best, fight it tooth an nail with tabloid propaganda and rigged domestic markets.

they just lost. That's all. I'm sure they fought mightily to avoid paying.

Motorola built a factory in the states and did just fine. They only moved it over seas because slave labor is still cheaper, but they were plenty profitable and selling the phones for competitive prices.

I've been filling the head of a good friend of mine with liberalism and it prompted his Dad to ask "What do you have against Profit". This. This is what I have against profit. It's _never_ enough.

The slave trade would not have existed without property law. A market that is free of regulation is an oxymoron, what the "free" in free market actually means is that anybody can participate in the market, nothing to do with the type or number of rules that make the market possible.

Wow, so you looked at a Surface pro with a small screen, perhaps the SP2 and you didn't like it because it had a smaller screen than a Mac Book. Why not look at one with a comparable size? You are one of those clever people, right? Your mom still ties your shoe laces?

I don't think people understand the Unix philosophy. They think it's about limiting yourself to pipelines, but it's not. It's about writing simple robust programs that interact through a common, relatively high level interface, such as a pipeline. But that interface doesn't have to be a pipeline. It could be HTTP Requests and Responses.

The idea of increasing concurrency in a web application through small, asynchronous event handlers has a distinctly Unix flavor. After all the event handlers tend to run top to bottom and typically produce an output stream from an input stream (although it may simply modify one or the other or do something orthogonal to either like logging). The use of a standardized, high level interface allows you to keep the modules weakly coupled, and that's the real point of the Unix philosophy.

I think he's off his meds again.

Never go full retard. X is not even remotely as important as init. For one thing, if X dies, who will restart it? And do we really want computers that explode when the GUI dies? I, for one, would like network services to terminate gracefully. The whole idea of TCP/IP networks, the dominant network used with Unix, is peer-to-peer. I may well run both services and clients on my machine. If X dies, the clients may die (if they're not text and running in screen) but the servers won't.

So the argument is that since the kernel is complex, we should add more complexity, or that more complexity won't matter? That's an ignorant, illogical argument.

Systemd still has to be more complicated so that it knows how to run these other processes, which wasn't even necessary. init was never meant to manage daemons. daemons were meant to manage themselves, or be run from inetd. If you want more complexity, inetd is the place to add it. And for handling daemons which don't adequately manage themselves, there's daemontools. There was simply no need whatsoever for this to happen.

It is bad, because PID1 is now responsible for a bunch of things which could have existed in any other daemon. And rather than roll the things which actually make sense in together, everything is getting rolled together. So now not only do we depend on a complex kernel, but we depend on a needlessly complex init system. There was no good reason to put all of this stuff into the same daemon.

Yes, yes I can. And I did.

Does nothing a script can't do

Systemd doesn't even fucking use capabilities, just cgroups. Which we could use before systemd. Systemd manages permissions in lieu of using capabilities, e.g. apparmor or selinux.

No. That is the virtue. They are simple. Simplicity is still a virtue.

Making PID1 more complex makes everything more fragile and opens up security holes.

NIH

This is making init do stuff it doesn't need to do, which makes it more complex, which makes it more fragile. You should not need a detailed explanation to understand why this is a bad thing.

Lifting which should not be done by PID 1. And PID 1 has to be more complex than it should be just to handle those external programs.

It does a lot of stuff the init system shouldn't do.

cgroups existed before systemd.

Up to the init script.

Already handled by several init systems.

We call it inetd.

That is ignorance at best, or perhaps a lie.

You have no idea about anything, that didn't stop you. I see why you didn't log in.

So to be clear, it's more awful to have 1 out of every 9 people have to pass two people if they want to use the bathroom than to have 2 out of every 6? Because that's typical economy seating plans are 3-3.