Or it could become a Kinja blog under the Gawker umbrella. *shudder*

I honestly think giving it as a present to moot would be better than that.
http://boards.4chan.org/v/
http://boards.4chan.org/b/
http://boards.4chan.org/\./

There is precedence. The WELL was bought by users, and is still operational.

What's Rob Malda doing these days? Any spare time?

You don't need to, but they'd want to. Else, a trial would mean losing even more face and credibility. There is no way in hell that The Man would allow that.

No, i'm not. The problem isn't the word stem "fit", but the qualifier "-est". There is no evolutionary reward for being fittest; nature only tends to weed out those least fit. Which rewards both the fittest and those slightly less fit as long as they're fit enough. The fittest may not be the winners - everyone fit enough have a fair chance at the game, and sometimes the fittest lose to those just fit.

The tally of the score after the fact is what we call evolution; evolution itself causes no changes, of course.

I use NFC for just one thing - powering on a bluetooth speaker. (For some reason, i can't use NFC to power it off.)

There really aren't any NFC capable stores anywhere, and the only one I know of requires you to show a physical ID, which defeats the purpose, as it's less hassle using a card.
For anything else, bluetooth proximity detection works fine.. No need to use the NFC tag in my car when the phone and car pair up automatically. No need to use it for the TV, as i have to use a remote anyhow.

My wish list for mobile phones include:

Dual-radio (both GSM family and CDMA family).
2.4 and 5 GHz WiFi.
Ability to turn off high-pass and low-pass filters.
Standard USB charging.
Transparent VoIP, i.e. not have to fiddle with other apps.
A distance from mic to speaker that matches the distance between mouth and ear.
Fits in a standard shirt pocket, without tearing it or falling out.
Transparent aluminum (also known as sapphire) screen.
True IPA that is readable at all angles and doesn't show patterning at close range.
Dual storage cards; one for backup.
As many hardware buttons as practical.
An option to have NO CAMERA, so I can use it in places where cameras are not allowed.

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
You are very ignorant. Nazism sought to control who got to live and who didn't. That's called eugenics, which I find despicable.

Taking away the ability to control who lives is not eugenics. If anything, it's the opposite.
Right now, parents in the rich world will vaccinate our child, without also ensuring that a poor child gets vaccinated.

There are an awful lot of mini-Hitlers around who will jump at a chance to give their sub-tribe an advantage. Whether it's by killing the children of others or by increasing the survival rate of your own more than of others, the result is the same.
I happen to abhor that.

You don't understand the difference between risk of death and certainty of death? Or evolution vs eugenics, for that matter?

No, that's a common misconception.
The driving force is that the less fit will lose more often. This may sound like it's a different way of phrasing the same thing, but it isn't.

Say you have three variants of a species: one that can run 4 mph, one that can run 6 mph, and one that can run 8 mph. And a predator that can run 5 mph.
Evolution doesn't reward the fittest - it increases the risk of the least fit. Given a few generations, the first variant will dwindle, while the two other variants will intermingle and be just as successful.

Even worse, a predator may arrive that can run 10 mph or throw atl-atls. In which case the fittest doesn't survive, and the species might go extinct. One day something else may move in to fill the niche, but that's not a certainty.

What doesn't disadvantage an individual to a statistically significant degree isn't evolved away, even if it isn't the "fittest". Which is why men still have nipples, and we all have tailbones.
And being the fittest doesn't imply survival. It's not very useful against a direct meteor hit. Being less fit and somewhere else may be more beneficial.

So the saying really shouldn't be "Survival of the fittest", but "Higher death risk for the most unfit" doesn't roll as nicely off the tongue.

Only if you keep them around. Which is chiefly a religious and cultural choice, not a scientific one.

Why is this a problem? As long as the death toll isn't large enough to be a significant cause of a dwindling population, what's the long-term harm?

We all have survival instincts, but death isn't something to fear. Everyone will die. If a small percentage die sooner rather than later, there's no harm to humanity, which easily compensates due to the high human reproduction rate. A risk of dying before old age adds spice to life, and prompts the individual to put more meaning into it here and now.

That used to be the case. Kids were sent to measles parties to catch the disease. Most would survive.

The inherent problem with vaccines is that they really are safe and effective. They save lives.

This is great for the individuals who gets saved, but it's very short-term thinking and harms the herd long-term.

Without vaccinations, childhood diseases kill more weaker individuals than stronger ones. The healthier you are, the greater are your overall chance of reaching reproductive age and reproducing. It's an evolutionary advantage to not have mutations that give you an increased risk of dying should you contract diseases.
With vaccinations, everybody gets the same chance, including those who would have been culled.
The herd becomes less healthy in the following generation, because there is no culling.

There may very well be a correlation between autism and vaccines, but that isn't the link the anti-vaxxers see. The link is that the parent generation had less culling due to vaccinations, which increases the risk of the child generation inheriting genes making them susceptible to a wider range of problems, including autism, allergies and other conditions that have become more commonplace.

We have pretty much stopped evolution by making the chance of surviving and having a chance to reproduce close to 100%. Not only for ourselves, but other species as well. Evolution has become an enemy, and is well on the way to becoming history.

The only ethical solution I can see that causes neither unnecessary suffering for future children, nor an unfair advantage for the rich tribes, is to let culling take place. The reproductive rate of humans is high enough to compensate for a fair amount of childhood deaths. A smaller ratio of children dying now may be preferable to a larger ratio of children suffering from problems in the future. Let a statistically significant number of children die. As long as we don't engage in eugenics by deciding who gets a better chance than others, evolution will tally the score.

The article does not specify what configuration changes are needed to get the flaw to appear or disappear.
It references a code patch, which is a completely different thing.

And from what I can tell, non-BSD systems are vulnerable too - as long as you don't use the default configuration. If you do, you probably should wait for vendor patches anyhow, and are safe while you wait...

Except increasing your salary to a competitive level.

You can call script snippets, but they are not allowed to do the same as init scripts did, including calling each other, detaching, or prompting. You're shoehorned into the limited context of systemd.

The answer is in your one word "basically". There is a word for "95% the same", and that's "different". There's another word for not dealing correctly with the 5%, and that's "broken".

When something needs to know the status, it calls the start/stop script with a "status" parameter. And for most jobs, you don't need to monitor anything. Some tasks are one-time jobs, and others are monitored from the outside.

And if there needs to be a watchdog, you use an actual watchdog. One that fits the task at hand, not one that can't handle special requirements. One that's capable of things like asking "is the master up?", and not just "am I up?". One that's capable of negotiating with neighbors on who should propagate to become a master. One that isn't interested in whether a process is present, but whether a service is present. One that allows for systems to have different runtime configurations. including dynamic changes, like ensuring services are not running, but present and configured to start when needed. Like adding/removing services without requiring a reboot.

The great thing about init scrpts is that they give you the freedom.

You got that too wrong. What matters the most to businesses are reliability and costs. Whether that is achieved through minions or hardware or licenses is irrelevant.

Automation is only good if it can be relied on. And when the unexpected happens, as it is wont to, that it can be troubleshot and repaired with a minimum of impact.
If it means a week of production downtime when things go wrong, because nobody can troubleshoot and fix what's wrong, it's not a benefit.

A good sysadmin plans for the unexpected. Not just for sunshine days, or things that can be anticipated. Sure, plan for that too, but don't rely on it. Things will go pear shaped, and that's when you need a human to be able to troubleshoot and fix things, with a minimum of impact to the customer. Who, quite frankly, doesn't give a damn about automation and other methods, but whether the product is available, and how long it will take to fix it when it isn't. Not how. That's the domain of the sysadmin.
And the experienced sysadmin says loud and clear that systemd is utter shite, that puts all the eggs in one basket, adds restrictions, and is too abstracted to troubleshoot in any meaningful way when things go wrong.
I see systems set up by other admins that have important jobs started through at, cron or even remote runners, to avoid systemd, and regain control. Even a /dev2 system that avoids systemd-udev trampling all over the place like an elephant in a china factory. I cannot blame them one bit.

Which is why the init process needs to be trivial.

Sure, shell scripts are slower, but you can easily fix any bugs you find in them, or modify them with very little risk. And they don't take down your hole system.

Boot time is a non-issue for sysadmins. When it takes more than five minutes pre-boot just to enumerate the RAID disks, whether you save 15 seconds at boot time is irrelevant. If anything, running things serially is a boon, as you avoid hidden race conditions and can step through the boot and shutdown, correcting things as they occur. With systemd, all your eggs truly are in one basket.