The Great Extinction, caused by Siberia becoming one gigantic lava bed (probably after an asteroid strike), was a bit further back in time. Geologically, Siberia is old. You might be confusing the vestiges of Ice Age dessication (which was 10,000 years ago) but which involves the organics on the surface with the geology (aka rocks).

Regardless, though, of how the craters are forming, the fact remains that an awful lot of greenhouse gas is being pumped into the air, an awful lot of information on early civilization is being blasted out of existence, and a lot of locals are finding that the land has suddenly become deadly.

That is a good question. The last time the courts ruled on this, the ruling was that the FCC had ceded power and couldn't claim it back without the will of god. Or Congress, or something.

Personally, I'm all in favour of Thor turning up to the Supreme Court, but he probably wouldn't be allowed in on account of not having a visa.

Myth: Anyone gives a damn about factually dubious rants.

As far as I know, Systemd has no capacity to think and therefore has no opinion on net neutrality.

Some people have an irrational and emotional dislike of trade unions and are not afraid to show it, with words such as fools, idiots, morons, and so on. Crispin Odey the president of a 12-billion-dollar hedge fund would like to disagree with you: “... there is huge value in being in a union at the moment.” http://moneyweek.com/merryns-b...

First, the complexity of the engine shouldn't matter. You will never get the bulk of users out there to use, or care about, the real power of the engine. They don't want to mess with the engine. The engine should be under the hood, in a black box, whatever engineering metaphor you want. Users just want things that work.

I remember way back when I was at university. There were various absolute rules for good software engineering. The first was that the user should be presented with a must-read manual no longer than one paragraph. Tips and tricks could be more extensive, but that one paragraph was all you needed.

The second was that the user absolutely must not care about how something was implemented. In the case of encryption, I take that to mean, in the case of e-mail, that the engine should not be visible outside of configuration. A supplied key should trigger any behind-the-scenes compatibility mode or necessary configuration to talk to that user. If the keys the user has aren't suitable to correspond with that person, the system should ask if one is needed and tie it to that protocol.

There should be no extra controls in e-mail, except at an advanced user level. If a key exists to correspond with a user, it should be used. If a key exists for inbound e-mail, the key should be applied. The process should be transparent, beyond getting passwords.

Any indexes (particularly if full indexes) should be as secure as the message, good security practices on both will take care of any issues.

Ideally, you want to have the same grades of authentication as for the early certification system, adapted to embed the idea that different people in the web of trust will have done different levels of validation and will be trusted to different degrees. The user should see, but not have to deal with, the level of trust.

Last, GnuPG is probably not the system I'd use. Compatibility cruft needs to be as an optional layer and I'm not confident in implementation.

There should be eight main libraries - public key methods, secret key methods, encryption modes, hashes (which encryption modes will obviously pull from), high level protocols, key store, index store and lacing store. (Lacing is how these are threaded together.) The APIs and ABIs to those libraries should be standardized, so that patching is minimally intrusive and you can exploit the Bazaar approach to get the best mix-n-match.

There should also be a trusted source in the community who can evaluate the code against the various secure and robust programming standards, any utilized theorum provers and the accepted best practices in cryptography. Essentially replicate the sort of work NIST does, but keeping it open and keeping it free of conflict of NSA interest.

US businesses are as incompetent and insecure as Sony, but can be provoked into taking absolutely minimal action when their profits are under direct threat by sufficiently powerful financial organizations. You mean nothing, you never have, you never will. You have no say, you have no power, you have no rights, you cannot walk away. You aren't the customer, merely the product. Easily replaced if damaged.

You aren't getting security because security matters. You aren't getting security because you matter. You're getting it because two vendors and a trading bloc said so.

Seems ok. Cheaper than gear that's rated worse. The 5 isn't rated as good, which is weird. There comes a point where you have to spend a lot more before you hear a real improvement.

Refusing a patch that added bare bones compatibility with LLDB results in less functionality software.

There are many reasons to refuse a patch, but not liking the other products licence should not really be one of them.

No, not new to the industry being now in my late thirties and having worked for the last decade as and server admin and developer. Don't really have an agenda as I have moved into pure development now and have no interest in moving back to being a sysadmin as I have a family now and the out of hours on call bit of being a sysadmin sucks.

You say that but in my last sysadmin role I was responsible for supporting a pair of IIS servers we needed to serve certain crap developed for windows (needed to be case insensitive, and had occasional chunks of ASP). Windows 2003 Server was rock solid in this regard and managed similar uptimes to apache which we used for most stuff.

MS desktop offerings might be utter shit without a reboot but I was pleasantly surprised by IIS. I would still never choose to use again out of principle though as do I think open source is a good thing.

Jesus, why would you even think about using Ubuntu in a server anyway? Everywhere I ever worked or heard of used RHEL, Centos or occasionally Debian. Since I discovered Mint I would not even waste my time using Ubuntu on a desktop.

His mind, in this case is that a piece of free software should be less functional, in order to lock you in to not using LLVM if you use the Emacs debugger, just because both separate packages are from the GNU stable. This seems remarkable similar to the sort of tactic Microsoft has been accused of for years.

But equally, thousands of companies now trust systemd to run enterprise servers since centos or RHEL is pretty much the defacto linux distribution in this regard. The fact that this is the case does indicate that it must be pretty stable when correctly configured.

If there are bugs in systemd, then report them and maybe even help diagnose them to make it better. It has huge traction now so there is zero chance of it disappearing.

What about "people keep saying it crashes but they are making it up or blaming it when the fault is somewhere else just because they hate the developer and do not agree with the reason for its development"?

If you really know what you're doing AND you get lucky with reasonable community support for your model of phone then yes this works. Otherwise there is a very good chance you will brick your expensive hardware. THAT is why everyone is not "just doing it."

Solar sail can achieve 25% light speed, according to NASA, and Alpha Centauri is 4 light years away.

You want a manned mission (with robots doing all the actual work) to determine if the conventional wisdom that a manned mission to the outer planets is physically impossible is correct. Even if the pilot dies, you learn the furthest a manned mission can reach. There's seven billion people, you can afford to expend one or two. Ideally, they'd be volunteers and there'll be no shortage of them, but if you're concerned about valuable life, send members of the Tea Party.