Sounds like you work for a crap employer. Most companies nowadays recognise that developers are far more productive with at least 2 monitors. Where I work we all have 2 dell monitors attached to a laptop docking station for our company issue laptop so we can actually use 3 screens if you don't mind one being smaller than the other two.

Why? Personally I try and avoid working unpaid hours from home, if it was part of my job requirement then I would want the company to buy be the necessary gear.

I don't mind the off bit of being on call to reboot servers and such, but that hardly requires anything more than a laptop screen.

Then why look at this card at all? You must be able to get something FAR cheaper if all you want is 2d real estate for software development. Wouldn't 2 or 3 cheaper cards be a far better purchase, even if you needed to buy a new motherboard to support it.

Ifr they were listening they would fix this crap. The problem though is that the stuff he points out all seems like the sort of horrible boring drivel that most devs hate fixing. they want to work on new features that are fun to implement, not digging through tons of other peoples code and all you see at the end is a few dialog boxes not being displayed when they don't make sense to.

This is one of the reasons why commercial software generally does this sort of thing much better, because you can assign this bug to someone then tell them their bonus depends on it getting fixed this sprint.

Doing that with unpaid devs is more tricky :)

The US subsidizes its own farming industry in order to enable it to compete with the third world where people work for peanuts. Europe does the same.

This whole argument seems to be based around the idea that systemd is trying to do something that you do not want: make bootup a more efficient process as more things can be started in parallel. Ok, the trade off is that solving this is a complex problem so it does introduce more complexity.

The question is though, at what point would a system boot too slowly to force you to start acknowledging that this is an issue?

Linux boots have been getting slower and slower for as long as I can remember even though the hardware is getting faster. When it starts taking closer to 2 or 3 minutes to boot to a working desktop would you ever acknowledge that this problem needs fixing? I have a feeling that most people who are against this sort of work simply never reboot their machine so would be happy with it taking 5 or 10 minutes to boot, the problem though is the most people do seem to care about this, especially people who use linux desktops and do not want it to look like something 20 years old.

In my case, I have to cold boot my PC at least once everyday because I use full disk encryption mandated by my employer. That means i also have to do a full shut down if I am out and about and putting it back in my bag. Every time I stop using it, it needs a full shutdown so the encryption key is definitely out of memory. So for me, a faster boot is useful and saves me time.

I do not want to sacrifice a working system to obtain that, but I do want people to look at how they can solve this problem, even if it results in something slightly more complicated. All software and hardware has been getting more complicated as they hardware has become more powerful. Once upon a time nobody cared about multitasking, now any OS without it would be useless on the average PC. Surely enabling multitasking as early on in the boot process for as much as possible is actually a good thing now most PC's have 4 or more cores.

The problem is that there is the other side of the coin to people who spend their whole life documenting and avoiding writing code, that is developers who just churn out tons of code say "hey, i don't need o write documentation as the code is easy to read". The problem with this approach is twofold:

1) Your are nearly always a poor judge of your own code, in terms of how straightforward it is. Of course, you understand it, you wrote it. It needs to be reviewed and the reviewer should also determine if it needs any additional documentation. Also, big pieces of work should actually be designed beforehand, at least in broad strokes, and the design should be included in the documentation and kept up to date with any changes during implementation.

2) It requires someone to look at the code in depth to understand what bits they need to change if any future amends are required. You should always be aiming to write code that is as straight forward as possible for a developer who is new to the project to pick up. A large part of that is making sure they can start looking at the right bit of code they need to change when given a project easily without it taking up your, or another developers time. If you give them a head start by having things like design diagrams, database schema and other documentation then your team becomes more productive as a result, even as people rotate into and out of it.

Having someone who loves writing documentation of your team can be very valuable if the documentation they produce is good.

(Disclaimer: I hate writing docs, if someone else wants to do it for me and the docs they produce are half decent I will cover for them and say how great they are to management. If I don't have anyone like that on my team I just slog through them bitching about how much I hate documenting stuff, even though I know it needs doing)

Then maybe your duty even extends to things like civil disobedience to try and obstruct you government from behaving in this way? I am not sure I actually agree with this, but I do understand people who do.

There is an interesting side point to this though with regard to Israel in that US taxpayers do help foot the bill to pay for their armed forces. They also pay a sizable amount to Egypt to keep the military there Israel friendly and maintain the blockade of Gaza.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrar...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl...

Does this make US citizens compliant also for the deeds of the Israeli armed forces? $3.1 billion is quite a lot after all.

Of course the problem with this argument is that in many cases the US taxpayer simply has no idea what their money is spent on.

Not true. Often laws are in place to provide cover for those who want to engage in activities the laws sound like they should prevent. For instance if you have a law that has a few well crafted loopholes then the people engaging in activities that may not fall under a technical definition of the law but are certainly against its spirit can point at the law and say "hey, we are following all relevant laws so we are the good guys".

Gun ownership is a big con when it comes to preventing crap like this. The problem is that the government will always have more people, who are better trained with bigger guns unless a sizeable part or the population come to their senses. Gun ownership might help prevent a foreign aggressor from taking over, but it does precious little to prevent a government from manipulating its own populace into putting up with their corruption.

The reality of the US is that the corporations have long since bought all the news media and are very adept at using it to push the population into electing the politicians who they want in power. Recently this has actually been accentuated with the complete relaxation of the campaign financing laws as politicians need lots of rich backers to get elected. This money is actually an investment though, as the politicians then have to pay the people who provide it far more attention than their own voters.

Unfortunately this is a pretty spot on assessment of the situation in my mind.

Ok, It was annoying that companies were starting to find ways to use OS technology as center pieces in their products and not opening all of their source code to let people tinker with it. The problem their though is that in some cases if they did that then they would reveal too much about things like the underlying hardware that might be under NDA's forced upon them by other companies

Given enough time this sort of problem might have solved itself as companies slowly moved away from doing business in this way and embracing ideas that ultimately gave them long term benefit (ie: free code), but the GPL3 seemed a crude attempt to force too much change too quickly on business executives who have too much to lose, so are by that point in their careers too conservative.

Just like the native american indians existed first in the US before they were fucked over by the european settlers who now rule the country and own all the land? if every country had to go back to the borders it had last time the Jewish people were actually in the promised land then the world would be very different. That is never going to happen though, and most people would not want it to.

The two state solution involves pretty much drawing the borders where they are now with the exception of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is sacred ground to Christianity, Islam and Judaism so the only fair option is that it is ruled by no single religion and is shared by all as the cradle of all religions. This is simply the only fair option.

Sure, there are extremists on the arab side who would like to drive into the sea, they have to realise that simply will not happen. There are also people within Israel though who view the promised land, as handed down to the Jews by god as sacred and that includes all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates rivers, these people also have to realise that driving that many Arabs from their current homes is also out of the question. Once all parties back away from these extremes only then will there be peace.

What utter crap. Who would destroy them?

Egypt is now a puppet state of the US, that is why the army threw the Muslim brotherhood out of power. Syria is too fucked to have a go at anyone, and most other countries nearby like Jordan would not want to do anything to upset the US. The only country that would consider attacking Israel now is Iran and they do not actually have a border with them.

The only people who still have a grievance with Israel are Gaza and Palestine, and they would never be in a position to use military force to take Israel back for the Arabs. The truth is that the only problem with Israel giving up its huge armed forces that the US subsidises is that they would have to stop expanding.

Not everyone in Israel agrees with this. The hardcore Zionists consider it part of the promised land that was given to the Israelites by god.

Income tax actually, although over here is there is less difference than you would think.

Actually what happened was that many bankers deferred their bonus payments then took them after the rate was abolished. This means the stats are pretty worthless. If it had stayed on the books for a few more years it might have worked, but since people were allowed to just defer paying tax at the higher rate until after it was abolished we will never really know.