I'm not arguing with the advice, I'm arguing with the notion that there are only a few bad cops. There are criminal cops and there are cops that tolerate criminal cops, which makes them no better.

So some of his co-workers are psychotic murderers, but the rest of the cops are "great guys" who won't kill you themselves, but they will definitely help cover up your murder. I'm sorry, but if you know your co-worker is a murderer, you're not a "great guy" if you aren't trying to stop him.

In fact, we will progress to artificial life and artificial intelligence in erratic steps - some large, some small - some hard, some easy. Yep, got your pseudo-religious bullshit right there. The real Rapture of the Nerds

I know it is popular these days in our little nerd bubble to hate on positive portrayals of girls, but when the highest-grossing film of 2013 gets called poorly-performing, I think it is time you turn in your geek card and search for a forum more appropriate to your intelligence.

There's a saying in my native language: "Higher trees catch more wind". I think the most obvious reason why this gets more attention now is the size of the organisation doing the product placement.

So, given your admiration for an economy driven by government land grants and the US army genociding the inhabitants of such lands, coupled with an other aspect of fascism, reverence of power, how does this not apply to you?

The question was rhetorical, by the way. There is no way you can come up with a rational answer to deny it, you'll probably just come up with another deluded rant.

Calling government led genocide of natives "winning in the marketplace". Dear God, I knew you were mad, but you get worse by the day.

Finding road edge boundaries in snow, at least, is actually a place where existing self-driving car systems do better than humans already. Keep in mind that they're not limited to the visual end of the EM spectrum.

For the rest, I'll defer to empirical studies on effectiveness under varying conditions. It's easy to think of corner cases -- but the real question, corner cases or no, is whether the average amount of liability incurred per hour of driving is greater or less than a human at the wheel.

I guess, if you like the state or insurance companies telling you when and where you may travel.

The power of the state is one thing. On the other hand, doing harm to others without means to provide recompense is legitimately immoral even under reasonable Libertarian frameworks.

Motor vehicle insurance allows the externalities which would otherwise be created by individuals defaulting rather than being able to pay off debts they incurred to be priced by the market -- quite transparently, given as the profit margins are known and available to customers as well as shareholders. If you can't pay for the harm you're doing to others by an action, even as aggregated and normalized by the insurance industry, can you truly morally justify that act?

And see here the naked sociopathy without any disguise: "Might makes right". Scratch a Randian, and find a fascist.

You specified the 19th century US economy as ideal. Since westward expansion was a large driver of that, you don't get to shift the goalposts: your ideal economy was built on force of arms.

Of course you try to shift the attention to my slavery quip, because that draws attention away from the real meat.

My 'beloved' free market created the USA economy of 19th century

Wait, that economy that was based upon forcibly (as in, using Armed Forces) taking land from the natives and the government redistributing it to settlers in the form of land grants? That 19th century USA economy?

Or do you mean the other one, built on trade in goods farmed by slaves?

Yes, but as GP proves, the haters don't want to make any effort to understand systemd, because that would mean they would actually have to put some effort into maintaining their systems.

Putting badly-founded rants on the Internet just looks more impressive to a certain mind.

And to be fair, when I read about the boot-time mount behaviour of systemd, my first thought was "WTF?". I understand the logic, so I can live with it, but ideal it is not, IMO.

No, you couldn't unfuck what Ubuntu broke

Ubuntu, releasing beta quality software with patches just to make it Ubuntu-specific, has done more to damage Linux on the desktop than it contributed, in my opinion.

Good. Fuck off already.

It would help if you stuck to the facts, instead of selling more BS, like all the other anti-systemd merchants.

Mount works the way it always does, it does not invoke systemd. Automatic mounting at boot and on other system events is handled by systemd, but the mount command is what it always has been.

Again, another hater shows that they haven't even done the barest minimal testing on systemd to see what it actually does.