Samsung did it!

I think that the new iphone could almost 2 Courics. Which is 2 more Courics than I could give.

Instead of making it more difficult to text while driving - why not make it easier? People are going to do it so why not have speech to text conversions and heads up displays so people don't have to take their hands or eyes off the wheel and road. The technology is already out there, people will use it even when it is irresponsible to do so - so instead why not just make it safer and easier so that people can get on with driving?

There is no law out there that has more influence than a partner, child or obligation has to take the risk in the first place.

Falling bullets still mame and injure people, even if they don't kill. Wouldn't it just be easier to interfere with the control signals and "liberate" the drone from it's owner? You have a mains powered transmitter - they have batteries. Yes they can encrypt the signals, yes you can still make the drone uncontrollable.

Some people exposed to this disease will survive and develop an immunity.

Shouldn't we be developing vaccines based on human beings who have survived and develop that? The human condition itself is a remarkable platform for self preservation and we have science as a tool. Thinking this is not our problem or that it is a challenge of a particular country seems to be a great way to spead this disease.

Ebola is a human challenge, shouldn't we treat it that way?

I'm unsure if the law is the same in the US as commonwealth countries, however, this is the relevant legal construct. That to accept passengers you have to be a common carrier, and I wondered how ride share programs got around this.

On the whole though, I think ride share is a good idea - though the odd crazy may be a bit spooky.

I can't wear them while I train BJJ. The only reason I was interested in doing that was to try to get an idea just how much energy I consume when I train. Alas the tech is not rigorous enough to deal with hard training.

If you think you are free then you are a fool. If you aren't arguing for change in energy policy then you are reinforcing the status quo of oil and coal companies whose manipulation of the media to cast this doubt over the science presented over many years has produced the very state of mind you are in.

They call you "useful idiots".

If someone comes to try and educate you or demonstrate why you are arguing against your own best interests you respond in the hostile aggressive way you have been programmed to.

I think they would choose life over a hidden taxation that they will inherit. They will have no choice but to pay it.

I will take the responsibility for arguing in their interests because I have analysed the threat and the evidence supports the need for modifying the way our world works.

The difference between my position and yours is that mine gives them a choice and yours denies them a choice. Your position takes away their freedoms whilst mine position grants them their freedom because my position takes responsibility whilst your position forces responsibility onto a later generation for which they have no choice but to deal with our irresponsibility.

Irresponsibility because we don't own the air , oceans or land, we are borrowing them off future generations of humanity. Acknowledging that doesn't mean you're a hippy, it just means that you think humanity deserves a future. If you don't think humanity deserves a future then just let the people concerned with building a future free of oil/coal externalities get on with it.

Yes it does. It diminishes our individual freedom because we are choosing to do so. We are choosing to take responsibility when there is still an opportunity to prevent consequences we don't understand. We are acknowledging that we are stewards to future generations of humanity and adult enough to accept that there are burdens that come with it.

You can either choose to be responsible to future generations or not - to take their freedom or not. That is the freedom you have now.

No it doesn't - it just shows that you really don't give a fuck about any future human beings. It's the kind of selfishness that ignores even the slimmest chance that you are wrong because even if you are you will not have to deal with the consequences.

You're like a screaming child that wants their own way no matter how much someone else has to suffer. You're difficult to ignore and eveyone wants to slap you.

I spawn services from init. It works very well, on, off, once, respawn. It's very fast when it restarts a service and if a service flaps then it won't expend all of CPU restarting, it will just wait before attempting to restart the service and scream loudly in the meantime. I don't wonder if it is working because init is so responsive.

Perhaps it's just easy for people to write bad init.d scripts and everything 'kinda' works?

I've tried to make init crash in tests - it's very difficult. As a daemon manager, init works well.

Sorry friend, I read your link but it's immediately apparent that this guy hasn't even read the inittab manual. The answer to many of the statements made in that blog are answered in the subject line of this post. Others are implementation issues with the application.

He may have a point with parallelism in the boot sequence, but I only care about boot speed if I am on a desktop - in which case I can just re-write how rc starts things. On a server rc's runlevel and service ordering K and S answer the question of service dependencies in a much easier and *transparent* way. And why are dependencies such a big deal - the application should be able to cope with a required service missing in an intelligent way. And if the dependency doesn't start it has a problem that systemd or init can't handle, so I'm back to wondering what systemd is actually doing for me.

Please don't see this as me defending init. I am trying to see what the justification is in choosing to run systemd with my servers - which I am trialling. I'm finding the unnecessary complexity of systemd can put me in a bad situation when I am trying to control the uptime of commercial services.

If you just want the system to boot faster - you can already achieve that with rc tweaks and implementing your service startup better instead of hacking it. The way I see it with systemd I now have three problems to deal with instead of one. 1. I still have crappy start-up implementations for services. 2. I have to now manage systemd's characteristics (obviously init isn't perfect) 3. When I have downtime I have to manage 1&2 at the worst time. Frankly operating init is so much faster and more transparent than systemd.

I see no tangible benefit for the expenditure of effort I've sincerely made, so far and I'm still wondering if there is a compelling reason. I'd rather have a discussion based on merit of the two systems, however what is compelling is that many people haven't used init to it's full capacity.