When those 3000 dudes come home, and go back through the major US airports, back to their families distributed across the country, and THEN spread the disease, it's going to be awesome.
Never wasting a good crisis, the President and administration will use this as an opportunity for massive federalization of health care and private sectore business.
As a RHEL server admin, the only thing I see systemd adding is complexity. Do a fresh install and compare it to RHEL5 or 6, and you have way more stuff running, new start/stop methods for init scripts, weird NTP replacements, and a bunch of stuff that you don't need. Then you go and install your app, or something like Postfix (because you're building a mail server). Why do you need parallel boot? udev hotpluggery? a "logind" process?
Why upgrade, Windows7 does everything I need.
The real one.
Read it.
Fear it.
Stone tablets from Babylon are still readable because analog degrades gracefully.
Want real long-term storage? Write them to analog tape again.
You do realize that HTML5 and the bitness of a CPU are orthogonal, right?
You know, just to be sure. Dear Friend, Please do the needful and report back, we'll close this ticket for now.
I have heard that two 720p channels can coexist on one carrier. I haven't heard of anyone doing this with 1080i or 1080p, and I don't know if the 720p channels were running 30 or 60 FPS.
"I'm a novice Linux/BSD user..."
Buy something, it will Just Work and work well.
This guy is an idiot, and by mocking him, you end up advocating for systemd.
Exactly as was intended.
Will it have a dbus interface, and run as PID 1?
ZMapp is produced by a private firm. By effectively socializing its production, Obama can say "they didn't build that".
C's bit fields are a really helpful feature in embedded programming. Unfortunately their implementation is strongly tied to the target CPU architecture. In particular, the endianness of the fields cannot be redefined in code, and bit fields are usually not allowed to cross word boundaries.
1) Never trust a civilian that says "these weapons you want are not very effective or what you need". He is not trained or capable to make that argument.
Why not? Is it impossible for civilians to study military matters? Are you saying that all military historians are quacks? You realize that weapons development and production is done by civilians, right? And that our military and its funding are under civilian control, which is also the case in China and Russia? Are you aware that people (even in the military) always want things that make their own job easier, regardless of the overall cost? And that always giving them what they want is bad management?
You can boil down his argument to what I originally said -"these weapons are good at killing people"
No, you can't. His argument is that hypersonic missiles will not give us enough of an *advantage* in killing people (or destroying equipment, which is arguably a more important use) to justify the cost. Absolute destructive power is meaningless on its own. A weapon only gains value in the context of specific opponents, strategies, and doctrines. In the context of mutually assured destruction, a hypersonic missile is useless.
You're trying to paint Gubrud as some sort of naive hippie who doesn't believe in war, and that's simply not supported by the article at all.
I still own a 'scientific' calculator that I bought in 1983, and it took me all the way up through Physics, Statics, Dynamics and Thermodynamics courses in a rather fine Engineering college. What do these fancy graphing calculators offer that paper and pencil + a decent scientific calculator can't ?
Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker
