All unixes differ. Trying to claim that the way it happens to have been done in Linux for a while is the "one true unix way" is frankly bullshit.
Claiming that's what's claimed is frankly bullshit. Before systemd Linux systems used either sysvinit or BSD-style init, one of the two primary init standards.
True,
However Linux has shone from time to time that it was able to push Traditional Unix systems to switch to their method of doing things.
However the real question is what is the benefits vs cost of the change.
How will that affect GNU/Linux primary purpose (Server OS).
Why would I object to you pointing out those possibilities?
Because of a lack of common sense? Because you don't care about Occam's Razor's and rational thinking? Because you the Law of Parsimony has no place in logical/scientific thinking?
No. They mean before juming to the conclusion that all is as it appears, consider the other very distinct possibilities
Obligatory : https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Perhaps some reading comprehension is in order. The OP didn't say they did it; they merely pointed out the possibility.
Oh well, in that case, let me point out the possibility that Elvis is still alive, that the Moon landings were a hoax filmed at a NASA's garage, that 9/11 was masterminded by the Rothschild family and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is a real, historical document.
Hell, here is another possibility. Obama ordered it because Benghazi. Or better yet, maybe Bush ordered Cheney to assemble a bunch of hackers back in 2007, but these hackers went rogue for lack of sex or whatever, beyond the original, official parameters of their mission, which did not include making fake bomb threats.
It is possible. You cannot prove it to me that this is not possible.
To borrow your own words, I am merely pointing out the possibility. Again, I cannot prove it (that the possibility is false), but I can say it (pointing it out.)
Anything that is not mathematically provable to be impossible is, by definition, possible. But just because something is possible, it does not make it reasonable. It certainly does not imply that such thing is even noteworthy of consideration.
Again, Law of Parsimony, or Occam's Razor or whatever you want to call it. If people want to spend brain cells in merely pointing out the possibility of really stupid, inane, batshit crazy conspiracy theories, whatever rocks their proverbial boats. They should not expect not to be called on it, though.
Seems quite possible that Sony just offered a lot of money to one of these script kiddies so that the authorities would be incentivised to do the corporation's dirty work.
The offer will never materialise.
I can't prove it, but I can say it. - Stephen Colbert
Slashdot, where nerds forget The Law of Parsimony.
Perhaps some reading comprehension is in order. The OP didn't say they did it; they merely pointed out the possibility.
Oh well, in that case, let me point out the possibility that Elvis is still alive, that the Moon landings were a hoax filmed at a NASA's garage, that 9/11 was masterminded by the Rothschild family, the Chupacabra is related to the Yeti and Kim Kardashian, and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is a real, historical document.
Hell, here is another possibility. Obama ordered the hacking and bomb threat because Benghazi. Or better yet, maybe Bush ordered Cheney to assemble a bunch of hackers back in 2007, but these hackers went rogue for lack of sex or whatever, beyond the original, official parameters of their mission, which did not include making fake bomb threats.
It is possible. You cannot prove it to me that this is not possible.
To borrow your own words, I am merely pointing out the possibility. Again, I cannot prove it (that the possibility is false), but I can say it (pointing it out.)
Anything that is not mathematically provable to be impossible is, by definition, possible. But just because something is possible, it does not make it reasonable. It certainly does not imply that such thing is even noteworthy of consideration.
Again, Law of Parsimony, or Occam's Razor or whatever you want to call it. If people want to spend brain cells in merely pointing out the possibility of really stupid, inane, batshit crazy conspiracy theories, whatever rocks their proverbial boats. They should not expect not to be called on it, though.
Robotic hive mind, just sounds like a bad idea.
We need some movies where the Robots and the Super Intelligent computer is the good guy for once. Just so we can get research grants and come up with neat new things.
I was thinking from the title it would be more about how Journalists who get killed gets so much more attention and call to action from both sides of the political spectrum, then say a Red Cross worker or the countless other civilian groups who are facing danger on a daily bases from these people.
If it were a religious (Say a Christian charity) group who had one of its members kills the right will be all angry about it, but the left would be mediocre. However if it was an organized non-religious not for profit group then the Left would raise the flag, while the right would just let it slide.
However when it is a Journalist, the side that no one really wants to piss off, then we get a strong call to action. It is really sad that there is so much disparity between people trying to do the right thing, and how much value they are to the public.
Checking BMW's web site gives me 4365. Roughly 300 pounds isn't that much at that point, I'll admit, but that's with the heaviest engine.
And you need it, to match the practical (road-going) performance of the Model S. I think that's a pretty fair comparison. Truth is, the average car is just quite heavy these days. 4,000 pound cars are commonplace again. 4,600 just ain't so much of a stretch. I don't appreciate this trend; I like lightweight vehicles. My old sedan is a 300SD (~3500lb) and my new one is a D2 A8 Quattro (~3900 lb) and both vehicles are lightest-in-class.
But things took a turn from irritating DDoS attacks to another level of harassment earlier this afternoon when the group took to Twitter to announce publicly that it a believed the flight carrying Sony Online Entertainment President John Smedley had explosives on board.
From US Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 40 844 - Penalties
(e) Whoever, through the use of the mail, telephone, telegraph, or other instrument of interstate or foreign commerce, or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, willfully makes any threat, or maliciously conveys false information knowing the same to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made, or to be made, to kill, injure, or intimidate any individual or unlawfully to damage or destroy any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property by means of fire or an explosive shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years or fined under this title, or both.
This is not including whatever state laws that were violated on top of Federal laws. One (well deserving) word: Darwin.
Pissing off game companies is one thing. Getting the DHS involved is another entirely. They've just brought a level of hell down on themselves they are woefully unprepared to deal with.
My thoughts exactly. These kids better find a cave or a hole on the ground somewhere near the Khyber Pass or Timbuktu. Making bomb threats/pranks? There is a whole lot of angry coming right at them right now, the likes you can only escape by being a government entity, not some stupid script kiddie.
^^ That.
With the piles of money that Sony stood to lose over any PR fallout resulting from another "hacking" scandal on the PSN network, regardless of the validity of said scandal, there is every reason to believe that they would use any means necessary to neutralize this threat. And, honestly, posing as the spokesperson for a loosely-affiliated group with no valid way to repudiate the incident is fecking trivial for any entity with the financial and technical resources of Sony.
Seems quite possible that Sony just offered a lot of money to one of these script kiddies so that the authorities would be incentivised to do the corporation's dirty work.
The offer will never materialise.
I can't prove it, but I can say it. - Stephen Colbert
Slashdot, where nerds forget The Law of Parsimony.
I.e. The reasoning given for the law was to protect public safety, specifically to ensure compliance with fire and safety codes.
I have to say that my thought on this is 'Why?'. Why is the fire code stricter for a hotel than an apartment? I can see it if the density is higher - More people packed into a smaller space means that without taking extra measures evacuation will take more time. Such measures can mean things to slow fires down like sprinklers, fire walls and such as well as additional exits, larger hallways and fire escapes to accommodate more people. I can also see more signage - presumably everybody in an apartment complex will have a good idea about all the exits, less so for short term dwellings.
Ya'll hear about the geometer who went to the beach to catch some rays and became a tangent ?
