Because it's clearly a tongue-in-cheek reference to the tyrannical rule of the womenfolk over us men archetype. At the same time, it pokes fun at the terrorists by comparing their actions to prudish housewives being offended by dick jokes. I don't think he was actually afraid of being bludgeoned by heavy cookware for making dirty jokes.

In other words, "whoosh".

The "Right Not To Be Offended" stifling media censorship is really more of a UK thing. In the US, the media censors itself in the name of maximizing profits (or minimizing any threat to profits). This may seem like an insignificant difference, but the motivations behind the censorship are vastly different. There is no moral imperative to avoid offending people in the US, only the pragmatic desire to avoid losing customers or provoking boycotts and the like. There are plenty of media outlets in the US that cater to the offensive speech seeking crowd and there's no popular movement to silence them.

Here's a gem from Poettering, where he dismisses basic security (why would you not implicitly trust unauthenticated packets from some random internet server?), as well as displays his total lack of awareness of the capabilities of the existing software he's bent on replacing (super-NIH syndrome... writing a simplistic replacement to ntpd and chronyd without even knowing what they currently do).

Yikes.

Wow, that thread is really depressing. So the decision path for what ships with Fedora has been simplified to: what package isn't broken by systemd? Suitability for a task and technical merits aren't even a consideration any more...

You know he reads the comments because he's responded to things before, so you have to wonder why he keeps posting stuff here. It's like the pathetic loser who keeps hanging out with people that constantly abuse him. It's not even funny anymore; it's just sad.

What's he getting out of this?

Most of the fail2ban exploits have been DoS, and the one that wasn't required a nonstandard installation.

Nevertheless, that is a really good piece of advice. "Keep it simple, stupid" is (or should be) the core mantra of the security field. Reacting to events (banning IPs trying to brute force passwords) is almost never as good of a solution as not needing to react to events (not (only) accepting passwords in the first place).

4b. Then redesign your system so that root doesn't need access anymore.

You don't need to imagine it. We saw it in 1967 with the Black Panther Party (before much of their violence; and the Statehouse protest itself was not violent). The response was the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which are only second to the National Firearms Act in limiting gun rights in the US.

Aside from encouraging the populace to study guerilla warfare, which doesn't seem like a great idea, the game itself does further the oppressor's goals. The game systematically removes the best fighters from the various districts, while assimilating the best ones into the privileged class.

I'm not really into the the books, but the games are a pretty decent oppressor tactic for several reasons. Games like this aren't exactly a new idea, either.

I honestly doubt we would. Not much shit goes down on busses or trains and they have a lower cost of entry (allowing the riffraff onboard).

But he didn't suggest getting rid of airport security. He suggested getting rid of the TSA and going back to the airport security we had before: walk-though metal detectors and luggage x-ray machines. Any shit that would go down on planes would likely be caused by hotheads with guns or knives (even though shit rarely went down on planes before they had any security at all) and the metal detectors would catch those.

You're buying into the FUD. The threat is enormously overstated.

They don't trust what they don't understand. The reason that the company exists is because the workers are working. Most of management could evaporate overnight without negatively affecting the company's revenue. Management, the "takers" of the corporation, depend on this mysterious "work" that the others are doing to support them. They are in a precarious position.

Not necessarily. If he doesn't pray or assert that "god(s) are a construction of human mind", then he doesn't fall into any of the above categories. Atheist vs theist is a false dichotomy. One of the other choices is agnostic.

By setting up your categories like this, you're giving undue weight to the emotional 'belief'. Most religious people, apart from fundamental x-ists, would also fall into your third category (which you claim to be the least represented). You're also lumping people who decisively BELIEVE in with people who would only fall into a 'belief' category if you made them choose one or the other based on a hunch.

Being able to pray almost requires belief in a specific god, which would be quite opposed to what most people would identify as agnosticism. Even general superstition or compulsions like knocking on wood don't represent a real belief in the metaphysical.

The claim of the agnostic is that it is impossible to know anything about the metaphysical because it cannot be observed. That you separate agnostics into people who maintain any concrete belief about the metaphysical, despite claiming that it cannot be known, only shows that you're not getting the whole concept of suspension of (dis)belief.

The decision to make an "I believe in god(s) existance [sic]" vs "god(s) are a construction of human mind" statement is ultimately incompatible with agnosticism, where conclusions are not made in the absence of evidence. Both of those statements are affirmative statements that cannot be made without supporting evidence.

What if agitating against those who choose the enemies makes you and your supporters enemies, a la COINTELPRO?

And do you follow up on the message or just blindly type 'yes'?

Anyway, RFC 4255 and 6594, along with DNSSEC mitigates this threat. You can even sign your keys with your CA using 'ssh-keygen -s cakey' if you like.

Layers, people.