Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:kill -1 (Score 1) 469

Why do we need this? I've been in unix for over 20 years and never even heard of kill -1.

I'm in the same boat. Is linux so unreliable and prone to disaster that "kill -1" used on a regular basis? There seems to be so much whining about "systemd", you just can't work out how much is complete FUD and whats a genuine gripe. Most of the gripes seems to be neutered by the Myths page http://0pointer.de/blog/projec...

There is an old saying that Unix is user friendly, it is just particular about who it chooses for friends. Maybe the two of you have been hanging around *nix for years, but how well do you really know it? Kill -1 (aka kill -HUP) is pretty handing if you are running infrastructure that other people rely upon for uninterrupted service. Just rereading a config file for updates is generally better and easier than stopping and restarting daemons*, and plenty of standard daemons expect it. It also a handy command since at times it will kill things that other variations of the kill command won't, including kill -9. It also can be a good place to start since "gentle" kills give a process an opportunity to clean up after themselves.

If you take into account all of the standard utilities of Unix and its derivatives there is an enormous amount of functionality and multiple ways to accomplish the same task. I haven't met anyone yet that was fluent in every tool and facility in standard Unixland. That is part of what I like about it - there is so much you can learn and apply, and knowing which tools can scratch particular itches. Even "obsolete" tools can be useful.

* Although there are times when stopping and restarting is a good thing too.

Submission + - The Ruinous Results Of Our Botched Understanding Of 'Science' (theweek.com) 1

An anonymous reader writes: Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry writes at The Week, "If you ask most people what science is, they will give you an answer that looks a lot like Aristotelian "science" — i.e., the exact opposite of what modern science actually is. Capital-S Science is the pursuit of capital-T Truth. And science is something that cannot possibly be understood by mere mortals. It delivers wonders. It has high priests. It has an ideology that must be obeyed. This leads us astray. ... Countless academic disciplines have been wrecked by professors' urges to look "more scientific" by, like a cargo cult, adopting the externals of Baconian science (math, impenetrable jargon, peer-reviewed journals) without the substance and hoping it will produce better knowledge. ... This is how you get people asserting that "science" commands this or that public policy decision, even though with very few exceptions, almost none of the policy options we as a polity have have been tested through experiment (or can be). People think that a study that uses statistical wizardry to show correlations between two things is "scientific" because it uses high school math and was done by someone in a university building, except that, correctly speaking, it is not. ... This is how you get the phenomenon ... thinking science has made God irrelevant, even though, by definition, religion concerns the ultimate causes of things and, again, by definition, science cannot tell you about them. ... It also means that for all our bleating about "science" we live in an astonishingly unscientific and anti-scientific society. We have plenty of anti-science people, but most of our "pro-science" people are really pro-magic (and therefore anti-science). "

Comment Re:Partisan bickering (Score 1) 392

You're deluded if you think that. The Progressive lobbyists and Democrats that wrote the bill are the ones that had to water it down and put state level bribes in it to get Democrats to vote for it. The Republicans couldn't be bribed, and knew better than to vote for it. It is a bill owned by Democrats, lock, stock, and barrel.

Comment Re:I'm wrong, shouldn't figure trillions in my hea (Score 1) 392

You mean the health care coverage businesses used to provide years ago, but scrapped in favor of a stock dividend and other profits?

That would be the health care coverage that was in place when "Obamacare" was deemed passed (remember that one?). Just kidding about the "deemed" part, it actually did pass on a party line vote. When a business fails the problem is even worse. Then there is no health insurance and no job.

And why we should not hold these businesses in moral contempt for callously skirting around the law so they can continue to abuse their employees?

Because it was the Democrats that passed Obamacare and forced bad choices on everyone?

If new "costs" are being incurred: It's because Life and the Pursuit of Happiness are expendable to American business.

Your life and pursuit of happiness (note: pursuit) are your responsibility, not your boss's.

Hard to have either when you're dying from lack of preventable treatment or sick.

I wouldn't worry too much about that, Obamacare is preventing a growing amount of treatment.

Comment Re:Please describe exactly (Score 1) 392

I see you have a very selective memory. Please read the original plan and then follow the idiotic path of compromises that Republicans forced onto it rendering it into the watered down ridiculous mess that it is.

Your memory isn't so good either. Obamacare was written by Democrats and "progressive" lobbyists*, voted for by Democrats, and implemented by a Democratic administration. They own it lock, stock, and barrel. The Republicans didn't vote for it, you can't blame the Obamacare debacle on them.

If you're going to create a massive new entitlement program grabbing control of 16% of the economy then you should have a broad consensus and support for doing it, and do it with care. The Democrats didn't have that but decided to force a badly written, ill conceived boondoggle on the country. We'll be paying the price for that for years, and I doubt that the Democrats will pay any real price at all.

* Center For American Progress President Shares Part In Obamacare: "I Helped Write The Bill"

Comment Re:This is supposed to be the *WAY* they do their (Score 2, Insightful) 392

I wouldn't worry about it. Once a Republican is back in the Oval Office the MSM will be interested in journalism again so there will be more places to find corroborating stories. Besides, the MSM won't have much choice, they'll need a break - carrying all that water wears on the arms and Obama has called for more than most. If only his presidency had turned out as well as Jimmy Carters. If only ...

Comment Re:I'm wrong, shouldn't figure trillions in my hea (Score 2) 392

You forgot to include the economic costs of people having their hours cut so they no longer qualify for benefits and end up working two part time jobs without benefits to make ends meet. You left out the costs of businesses cutting jobs and locations, and refusing to expand, to avoid the fines, penalties, and costs associated with Obamacare. You left out the costs of people that had benefits but lost them due to companies being forced to drop benefits due to the unnecessary costs forced on them if they offer healthcare due to Obamacare. You left out the stifling of innovation due to the punitive costs and structure of the medical device tax. You forgot to include the cost of trying to force people to violate their conscience as Obamacare is doing.

And perhaps most important, you forgot to include the dangerous precedent of allowing the Federal government to directly force nearly everyone to go buy a very expensive service specified at the whim of the government and its bureaucrats.

What will you have to say if the next administration decides to enforce the militia clause by requiring every adult not convicted of a felony to purchase a $800 rifle and 200 rounds of ammunition and keep it locked in their homes, available for yearly inspection? Not much different than Obamacare, which is now enforced by the IRS. Well, actually that is probably a lot cheaper than most people's Obamacare bill.

. Most of the cost of Obamacare is recognizing costs that were, until now, hidden.

Obamacare is creating plenty of new costs all by itself. It is been a debacle and it has barely started. It will be inflicting plenty more damage on the economy and society in the years to come baring a repeal.

Submission + - Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem (phys.org)

cold fjord writes: Phys.org reports, "The life sciences have come under fire recently with a study published in PLOS ONE that investigated the level of sexual harassment and sexual assault of trainees in academic fieldwork environments. The study found 71% of women and 41% of men respondents experienced sexual harassment, while 26% of women and 6% of men reported experiencing sexual assault. The research team also found that within the hierarchy of academic field sites surveyed, the majority of incidents were perpetrated by peers and supervisors. — More at The New York Times where it notes, "Most of these women encountered this abuse very early in their careers, as trainees. The travel inherent to scientific fieldwork increases vulnerability as one struggles to work within unfamiliar and unpredictable conditions..." "

Comment Re:lets pump the brakes here and analyze. (Score 0) 165

No person is "evil". Calling extremists evil is a lazy manipulation designed to stop you thinking about their motivations and grievances. I think we've had quite enough of that.

ISIS engages in rape, torture, beheadings, amputations, crucifixions, live burials, mass executions, and genocide.

Are they simply misguided? They desire to spread their civilization and form of government over all the earth. Is that wrong? Are you being "judgmental"?

ISIS Attacks: “Religious Cleansing and Attempted Genocide”
Horrors Of ISIS: Children Buried Alive, Crucified Corpses
Iraq crisis: Islamic militants 'buried alive Yazidi women and children in attack that killed 500'

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...