Don't get me wrong, it's not always reliable as it depends on the municipality or county to draw the lines and how long to make them, and better funded means better adherence to the guideline, but generally that is what can be found in Georgia, especially on more well traveled thoroughfares; and yes, their primary purpose is to discourage lane changes in the junction. The lines however are visibly longer the higher the speed limits of the roadway, and in most intersections applying the brakes just outside the bounds of the solid line will allow the vehicle to come to a nice easy stop at the stop line without much of any inertial throwback.

Travel on a US Highway in Georgia out between the towns (generally 30 - 60 miles between each). It's not uncommon where you have two major US or State Highways cross (not interstates) with a traffic light where the speed limits are 55 - 65 mph. As I stated somewhere above, the white lines that divide the lanes will go from dashed to solid at a point where if you're within the solid white lines while traveling within 5 mph of the speed limit, and the light turns yellow, the light should be timed properly that your vehicle can make it all the way through the intersection before the light turns red. Understand that this is for your average passenger vehicle. Busses, RV's and Semi's need to take special care and gauge their own safe stopping distance. These guidelines were written into State Law, and I've yet to see any small town communities violate this, since the State Department of Public Safety (DPS) is known to perform spot checks and actually fine the municipalities in violation.

Speed traps are a whole different story. Yes there are requirements in State Law dictating officer visibility, the use of speed detection equipment including the old two posts and a stopwatch method, minimum speed violation before a municipality can write a ticket (no less than 10 mph above the limit, and since equipment is rated to an accuracy of +/-1, reasonable doubt gives a total 11 mph buffer [State Patrol has no such limit, only County, Municipal, and Private officers]) as well as minimum notice between speed limit changes. However a lot of smaller communities can operate outside of these laws without being detected for quite a while, but woe to them if they're ever caught by DPS through court challenge of a ticket (often requiring appeal to the State system after losing in the local court, which would prompt investigation) or by State Patrol/Department of Drivers Services witnessing a violation. Communities can be fined by the State, lose their license to operate speed detection altogether, or, in some extreme cases of municpal corruption, have lost their ability to operate their own police departments for several years, having policing measures being taken over directly by the State Patrol (A division of DPS) in the interim.

I can't speak for everywhere, but many of the towns in Georgia the solid white lines that divide lanes before a stop light (as opposed to the normal white dashed lane dividing lines) are generally painted to a length where if you're outside of this region when the light turns yellow and you're travelling the speed limit you will need to stop. If you're inside the region of the solid line at the start of the yellow, you should have enough time to get through the intersection safely before the light changes (note I did not say get past the stop line, but through the entire intersection. It is illegal to be under the light when it turns red in Georgia, unless road conditions required it, which is difficult to prove.) Obviously if your speed is above or below the speed limit the safe distance is proportionately longer or shorter, respectively.

Um...you apparently missed the context of the parent completely. You even quoted the parent, called him wrong, then made the focus of your statement a point that agreed specifically with the part of the parent that you quoted; and all through that you completely did not show how the statement you quoted was in any way wrong.

The main focus of the parent that he showed examples of is on the sentence "They care about branding and image." Your rebuttal included the list of things that people use a computer to accomplish:

All of those things can be done on Windows, Linux, or Mac OS X. Which one a person uses is based completely on branding or image. The parent went into what most users would use based on their perceptions of specific brands. Most users would use MS Windows because that is "Normal" and "Conforms" to what they believe they should be using based on the requirements on the side of the box of the software they want to use for whatever they want to do. The ones who would use Mac OS tend to be the "hipster" type that want to appear different and call themselves superior to those who use Windows, even though they need to do all about the same things as their Windows brethren. The Linux/BSD crowd tend to be more independent thinkers than the above two, though they very well fall into conforming with themselves (for example, those who say "I use Debian. Yes it's Linux, but you'd never catch me dead using Gentoo." and vice versa.) These too will also get the tools to do all of the above functions from their package manager of choice, and have the heart and fearlessness to perhaps tinker with software under the hood

Your post did not make any claim that refutes any of these points that the parent made and I have outlined... therefore you did not prove how you thought he was wrong in his statement that you quoted.

On my servers, the current business week is in plain text and not compressed and archived until 11pm Sunday night for the next week. I keep a month's worth of archived logs. Now here's why: If a system goes down for some reason, the only logs that are going to have anything immediately useful are going to be the uncompressed ones that can easily be cat dumped or vi'd for initial troubleshooting. You're most likely going to need only the last few lines of the log just to find out what went wrong. If troubleshooting is greater than that and you find a longer history of problems that culminated in the panic, any liveCD distro will have the tools necessary to crack open your archives.

Binary log systems are a Disaster Recovery nightmare. The only reason you have a log system is that something went wrong and you need to do some form of troubleshooting/recovery. If your core system is still working fine and the native systemd is able to read the binary, great. What happens when a system partition crashes and won't boot back up? Please enlighten me on how a binary log file can be read on a system that won't boot itself? Can any liveCD using a systemd based distro read the binary file and translate it to a human readable format? Also, it's been said that using a config file, the journal system of systemd can write to a plaintext file. Please explain how that works? Using the config file, does the journal system completely turn off and each component individually writes to syslog, generating their own log file or adding to one of the already created pertinent log files, as it does with System V? Or, does each program send it's message to the journal system and it's this system that sends a message to syslog to write? If it's this latter case, what happens if during a system panic the journal system corrupts the data being written? What if the journal system itself craps out in a failure?

These are all questions that I legitimately do not have an answer to yet, and I haven't had time to research into it. Before I consider updating my systems to a systemd based distribution these questions MUST be answered satisfactorily, and it will be as I draw closer to that point that I will be making time to research it. I don't have time for FUD, fanboyisms, or anything else as such from either side. I have specific requirements that must be completely answered. If the answers are not forthcoming, I, and many many many sysadmins like me, will be keeping System V init systems on my servers by whatever means necessary.

I'm waiting for a Pipboy style mount for my phone with hard inputs on top of touchscreen. Telephone style communication can be had through Bluetooth headsets.

Unfortunately, I don't know of any cell modem manufacturers other than Qualcomm, so thus, not much option for an open modem platform. Unless you happen to have information on other platforms that are open and mass marketed that could enlighten me.

Ms. Miss. and Mrs. are all abbreviations for the same word: Mistress. So by pedantic technicality, no matter which abbreviation is used they all mean the exact same thing, so there's no real distinction between them.

And to the A/C child that stated "Maybe she remarried." Maiden always refers to the name a lady was born with, not any of the ones she took on through any number of subsequent marriages.

"I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss." --Cypher, The Matrix

I'm PC-centric. I know this and I embrace it. Unlike the "rest of the world," as you put it, I see that there are more than enough good titles on PC to occupy my limited entertainment time. Those games that want to be console exclusive? Bye. I don't need you. There's only a handful of franchises that make me consider buying a console, and they tend to be on Nintendo anyway since it's mostly nostalgia driven impulses. Even those, the newer titles seem to break and disjoint the franchises. On the other consoles everything seems generic enough that there's usually a PC title that can mimic the fix if I really want it. One case in point: Dishonored vs. Assassin's Creed; also, just about any FPS can fill in for another. Destiny? Far Cry. Call of Dookie(any of them). Crysis(again, any of them). Deus Ex:HR. Hell, old school Deus Ex can even fill this niche satisfactorily, and with none of them do I have to have an active internet connection to play. The only FPS series that I haven't been able to find a game on the PC to mimic it is the Metroid: Prime series.

Tool for the job. OOP has its place in programming as does procedural. The same can be said of systemd. My desktop system I'm probably not going to care when the upgrade forces me into systemd since it's not a system that I need to be concerned about long term uptime and stability. My servers on the other hand, they're a completely different story. I've got another year or so on my LTS, and in that time I intend on putting systemd through its paces on a test machine to force it to fail, and then observe the ways in which it fails. If it does what my hypothesis says it will, based on its generally monolithic design strategy, then I will be looking for a distribution that hasn't drunk the systemd Kool-Aid for my next LTS. If it surprises me and performs well during the fail testing, then I will consider using it.

I believe that this is where the core hatred for systemd is really coming from. It's not so much that it's a bad init system or that people are resistant to change, though the latter is certainly a factor with good reason. It's the fact that Distributions are forcing this change on System Administrators and removing the choice for the Sysadmins to continue with a technology that they have working and have learned the core of how it works or have to install and learn a whole new system that they may not know their way around yet. Has RH or Debian offered the old System V init package as an alternative on their default install? Not that I've seen. This is where the ire is coming from. The defense for systemd is "if you don't like it, it's open source; change it in the source." The people that say this don't realize that in a corporate production environment, this is rarely a feasible argument. Sysadmins are not usually programmers, and these operating system distributions -- Redhat, CentOS, Debian, etc -- have just sold them out and made more work for them to test the ways systemd can fail on their systems and reanalyze their disaster recovery plans to account for this new anomaly. Or management may just decide that they need to go get a service contract with Microsoft for their needs and dump Linux altogether as they may deem the MS option as cheaper and easier to maintain long term.

Fast blanket changes to new technologies by the distributions without accounting for the slower moving but gigantic enterprise user base without offering the option to keep their current technologies was probably one of the dumbest moves they could have done. Why did most Enterprise that use windows software keep on XP until Windows 7 came out, skipping Vista? Why am I using a windows 7 desktop at my employer right now when Windows 8.1 is out there and mature enough for the next phase of OS to have been announced? For the same reason you're not going to get Enterprise customers jumping on board with the next release of the Linux OS they're using...if they're using one of those that is dropping System V.

For your first point, he's saying don't bother with wiring the house with crossover lines, just use straight through cable to go from your jacks (which if you noticed the next line after what you quoted, he is running jacks in the room, not RJ-45 crimps) in each room to the central switch. Don't forget that this is for residential use: One jack per room is usually sufficient. He is right that using a Gigabit Ethernet switch should automatically change the port operation from straight-through to crossover depending on what device it's being connected to, therefore it technically doesn't matter; it's just a better practice to treat it like it does. In my own residential setup, I ran straight-through to one jack in each room, up into the attic space, and plugged them all into a gigabit switch mounted near the access door. If any of the rooms has multiple computers in it, I would just plug a crossover patch cable in the jack and run it to another gigabit switch in the room, and have all the computers connect into that.

There are two ways that your second point can be interpreted. You either think that he's crimping an RJ-45 end on the cable where it comes out of the wall and leaving enough cable in the wall to be able to pull it out and make the connection in the room (not what he's doing; again, read his next sentence after what you quoted.); or you think that he's wiring the jack in the room back to a switch that he's connecting into using an RJ-45 connector (this is exactly what he's doing), and don't understand why he'd do it this way as opposed to running it to a patch panel.

While patch-panels are a veritable necessity in your large environments where cable runs can be complex and need to be labeled as well as quick changes to network topology can be facilitated, in a residential system where there's most likely only going to be 5 - 10 single line runs that aren't going to move or change much it's an added cost and complexity that doesn't necessarily need to be purchased when each run can be directly connected into the mounted switch and left alone. Also, every time you jump from cable to patch panel to cable to device there's a performance hit on the network. Granted, over the residential runs we're talking about this hit would be nigh negligible, but if it's part of a network plan that adds a touch more complexity that isn't needed and poses no real benefit, its just one more reason to do direct-to-switch runs. Remember, we're talking about spaces where you have a single line coming from the switch and you can most likely easily trace it to the room it's running to just by standing in one place in the attic and following the line with your eyes.

It will never happen because it would be illegal for the lawyer to do so. The worst a lawyer can do to his client if he knows his client is guilty and cannot bring himself to put forth his best efforts in defense is recuse himself from the case... and even this can have repercussions for the lawyer such as have his case reviewed by the Bar Association.

One part you missed in this whole thing, as mrchaotica pointed out in his subject below: There was no warrant sought; let alone signed. The feds performed a potential act of war to gather the data by hacking into a server on foreign sovereign soil without direct authorization from either Congress or Presidential approval, and most certainly without the prior authorization of the country where the server is located. In this case the three letter organization involved went rogue, and imho completely botched this case, and Ross's lawyers are right in their attempt to get the evidence repressed. In reality heads need to roll for this within the organisation that overstepped its jurisdictional bounds, and the rolling heads must be done in complete view of the public.