We've explored more of this rock than any other. That's the "mostly".

Finding the lost airliner isn't a matter of lack of exploration. That is, we can't recheck an entire ocean in a short period to see if the airliner is there now. I believe that part of the ocean was already mapped, so it has already been "explored".

Your airplane argument would be like saying you haven't explored your back yard, if someone tossed a beer can over the fence yesterday, and you didn't know about it.

BTW, I tossed a beer can over your fence yesterday, you should go clean it up, your yard is a mess.

Dude, it's from Close Encounters of the Third Kind. I picked it on purpose, just to show that I wasn't totally serious. Damn, you'd think an obvious landmark from an extremely popular science fiction movie would be a hint to some people.

I'm not saying that it's an alien spacecraft. What I'm saying is, we wouldn't necessarily know if we saw one. Hell, people find all kinds of "lost" things in their own back yards. In the last year, someone found a viking burial site. Someone else literally found buried gold. Would you know if there was an ancient spacecraft buried 20 feet under your house?

I wasn't even trying to propose that alien spacecraft do have rock shielding. What I'm saying is there's a lot we *don't* know. Short of seeing a spacecraft that looks like a spacecraft as we'd expect it, we could easily overlook it.

I did say it was poorly constructed statistics. :) I know I'm not immortal, but it looks good on paper.

Everywhere is relative. There are an estimated 5 trillion habitable planets in the known universe. We've mostly explored one. On our closest neighbors, we've done roughly the equivalent of checking your back yard and saying "There are no whales". Well, unless you happen to have whales in your yard, then we'll say "... no elephants". :)

If there is/was life on other planets, it is very likely not to be in our solar system. Even if there was an species that achieved space travel, and spent millions of years settling on millions of planets, it's *still* not very likely they'd be found on one in our solar system.

Even if we found one, would we know what we're looking at? Since rock seems to be pretty abundant in the tiny speck of space that we've explored, a sand and rock covered hull of a spacecraft would be reasonable. That would help protect from micro-meteors and other hazards. If one crashed on a neighboring planet even 10,000 years ago, would just look like rock. Heck, if one crashed on Earth, it would still look like a rock.

Is this space craft remains, or a natural formation?

No, I don't believe it's a crashed spaceship. It's just a rock. But since we don't exactly do thorough core samples on every large rock on the planet (and under the surface), we wouldn't know if it was.

I can understand the perspective that a single repository for more of the userspace resembles the *development* of traditional Unix systems, the argument made is usually not about where it is developed, but reducing the principle of having small simple utilities with straightforward interactions with other componets. For example, Most traditional Unix systems have terrible implementations of a shell interpreter and things like fileutils. It is an awkward, but not too terrible a situation since you can replace that stuff with GNU equivalents trivially without horribly breaking the OS. An administrator that understands enough to write scripts can discern the nature of interaction even if that administrator isn't a full-on software developer. systemd design trends in many ways toward requiring someone needing to dig in to have more development competency than previous designs. As a developer, I understand the attraction of some of the architecture choices, but I think they lose perspective of what it's like to be an administrator on the ground. Someone who doesn't live and breath your code has a harder time wrapping their heads around how it should be working when something requires customization, replacement, or debug.

In general, systemd is all-or-nothnig about a lot of things. They figure out a way to achieve what could be considered a sensible goal, but then go about it in highly disruptive ways. The sense is they throw up their hands and say 'well, this is the only way to do it, and it's worth it' rather than rethinking how the end could be achieved in a less disruptive way.

Careful, that's my argument for immorality. :)

A person can die in just a second. I've been alive for over 1.3 billion seconds.

So far, it's 0 in 1.3 billion. With my own (poorly constructed) personal statistics, the chances of dying are very very slim.

Plane crashes? 0 in 1.3 billion.
Shootings? 0 in 1.3 billion.
Lethal virus? 0 in 1.3 billion
Extraterrestrial object impact? 0 in 1.3 billion
Potentially lethal natural disaster? 1 in 654 million.

Then there are car accidents have been 1 in 218 million.

I'd expect I'm probably safe for the next 1.3 billion seconds. Unless, an asteroid carrying a lethal virus hits an airplane I'm flying in, which then crashes into a highway during an earthquake.

Hey, it could happen. I'll worry more about what I'm having for dinner.

The same fears started when people first started with saying that AIs could someday become sentient. Why wouldn't they want to kill us? Why would they? The same with aliens coming to us wanting to help or exterminate us. We can thing they'll act any way we can imagine, and with as many possible outcomes mentioned, one might be right.

To the best of my knowledge, no program has become self aware. And no martians have seen our probes as a hostile invasion. It makes for (sometimes) good fiction though.

They wanted bragging rights to be the early adopters. I was interested enough to say "I'll get them when the price is about $50 to $100."

There's one up for bidding on eBay, currently at $105.50. I didn't put my bid in, because that's beyond what I'm willing to pay for a toy that I'll stop using in a few days. I'll check back in a year, and see what's selling at $50.

I actually went to one the other weekend. They actually had a good selection of resistors, capacitors, and so on. As others have said, I can't think of another brick and mortar anywhere near me where I could pick up components *now* if I wanted. I think there was a phase where they got all of that out of their stores to chase yet another business strategy. I think that was a mistake because it removed radio shack from the minds of the few people who still would go there to chase a market that didn't place any value whatsoever in their company.

I really wish they had settled into some run-rate business model that could've sustained them while continuing to stock those piece parts.

2 dr coupe, 4 dr sedan, 2 dr convertible, 4 dr standard sportwagon, 4 dr custom sportwagon?

What percentage of the total mass has already rusted off?

So close, but instead of a poster, it's a 140 character scribble on the bathroom wall of the Internet, and childish clips of kids kicking each other in their nuts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_4jrMwvZ2A

Your point is a big part of why management should be very careful about apparent 'cost savings' In a large amount of cases, management is chasing a buzzword more than carefully examining what comprises their budget for in-house versus cloud hosted.

Part of the cost savings of the cloud operator is having them do things to the data that most companies would never approve for themselves. Additionally, only a relatively small portion of the expense is moved 'to the cloud'. A lot of work still *should* happen that is lumped into the presumed cost of being internal versus external. So either a new budget starts growing to cover the cost previously not broken out or work stops happening that may critically matter.

Actually, if anything the typical cloud experience doubles down on proprietary tools. Sure the vendor may be availing themselves of open technologies on the backend, but the vast majority of them use proprietary interfaces to interact with their customers.

ntp is surprisingly complex to deal with a surprisingly complex thing. If tlsdate was a decent enough utility, then we'd still be using the time protocol of rdate as the go-to time sync strategy. Precision and quality is much lower.

There's also a couple of tricky things. One is that it could be dropped in TLS 1.3. Another is that it doesn't play with the concept of TLS certificate expiry.

Basically, this is a potentially handy utility to take the place of rdate, not something that begins to touch ntp.