Comment Re:I don't want to change the world (Score 1) 15
Fair enough and that's a laudable and, in a lot of satisfying ways, attainable goal.
Fair enough and that's a laudable and, in a lot of satisfying ways, attainable goal.
Most of what he's complaining about is undeserved (hiring a hit on him, WTF?) but he's not exactly known to be very diplomatic in his communications. He is, with a heavy hand, changing the fundamental landscape of a lot of people's favorite OS. This is upsetting people, in a big way in some cases. Again, constructive criticism is the way to handle dislike of systemd and his other projects, not death threats or even simple, juvenile insults.
But he shares some of the blame when it comes to the vitriolic nature of systemd discussions. He can't just brush off a large percentage of the community and not expect people to get upset.
What blows my mind is that every single major distribution seems to be hopping on the systemd bandwagon. I'm looking squarely at Debian. The short time systemd (relatively speaking) has been around and has been worked on and debugged does not justify it's inclusion in a system that's known for stability and correctness over latest/greatest.
Oh well, for me it was the kick in the head I needed to finally getting around to 100% embracing *BSD as a server system and not as something to play around with in my free time.
Well this is directed at university students and 13 - 17 year old kids. Both are groups whose members generally do think they can and want to change the world.
I don't want to assume anything about you unfairly but do you even qualify for these classes? Because my guess is that your older, out of school and maybe feel like you missed your chance to change the world at this point in your life.
But then again, that's a lot like how I feel when I read articles like this so maybe I'm just projecting...
Some like you
WTF? Assume much?
I wasn't expressing my own work habits, simply my observation of others. My preference is to type my commands on a black screen with green text.
And besides, why? Because your "vast" experience with desktop says so? Back up your statements with some usability facts because "I'm an expert and I say so" doesn't mean much to the
Nice job at inserting some superfluous, puerile humor though.
Pinning to the task bar eliminates a good bit of Start Menu usage - especially when you pin the Run command to the task bar. And some folks still seem to love using the Desktop as both Program Manager and Documents folder.
Not disagreeing at all but on the other hand don't comets pick up water as it encounters it throughout their life? Is it possible a comet is older than the sun but much of the H2O on it was picked much more recently than when it was born?
But again, no it does not surprise me that water molecules that still exist today possibly formed before the sun...
Seriously though is cygwin's bash vulnerable?
Looks like it is to me, haven't had a chance to check for an update yet though...
With Stephen Harper in charge the Canadian government doesn't look much different than the US's these days.
He is as bad as any leader we've ever had when it comes to science in general.
http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/12...
As a father I recommend Perfectly Normal
No, their website was compromised, not the library so the headline is valid.
Bush got Congressional approval, and had actual ground troops from 40 or so nations.
As mentioned, by lying to them and fabricating evidence.
... ISIS or a war in Syria if it wasn't created, armed and funded by the CIA and Saudi Arabia.
You keep saying this in your posts. Do you have a citation to back it up? I feel like I've been following recent events pretty closely and I've not heard anything about this...
Well sure and I had no real issue with Bush Sr. going into Iraq at the invitation of neighboring Arab countries. We went in with a clear objective and when that was complete we withdrew, told Saddam what he had to do to keep us from coming back and left with the approval of the international community. And whatever anyone's feeling on Saddam was he was the recognized sovereign leader of his country, not a terrorist leader announcing the creation of a new state in other countries' territory. He was an evil man and I was not sorry to see him go but my and others' emotions toward the man are not legal justifications for war.
The second time around the initiative was predicated on lies and innuendo about terrorism and Bush's "bring Democracy to the desert" was obviously not well defined or planned, thus the situation we have now. Both democrats and republicans have plenty of blame to share when it comes to F'ing up in the ME but I stand by my statement that what Obama doing now is not really comparable to what Bush Jr. did then.
This BBC article may help. There are a number of theories regarding international law and the legality of the U.S. led actions in Syria. Defense of neighboring states (Iraq, Jordan, etc.) and humanitarian aid being the two that make the most sense (IMHO).
the Syrian government has lost all control over the parts of Syria held by IS.
Indeed, until very recently, it has made no attempt to dislodge it, leaving this task instead to the armed opposition groups. Damascus is manifestly unable or unwilling to discharge its obligation to prevent IS operations against Iraq from its own soil. Syria cannot impose the costs of its inaction or incapacity in relation to IS on neighbouring Iraq.
Hence, under the doctrine of self-defence, the zone of operations of the campaign to defeat IS in Iraq can be extended to cover portions of Syria beyond the control of the Syrian government.
And...
Finally, it would be possible to base a claim for action on the activities of IS in Syria itself.
The Syrian government is under the obligation to secure its population from crimes against humanity committed on its territory. Clearly, it is unable to do so, having lost control over areas occupied by IS.
So invading a sovereign nation based on lies to the American people (and the world) is the same as bombing a terrorist group that's killed thousands of people, many whom are innocent bystanders, and invaded several sovereign nations is the same thing?
I'm not 100% convinced that our involvement in this at the moment is the right thing to do but I'm also convinced that Obama's reluctant return to the ME is in no way the same as Bush's eager "time to finish what Daddy started" invasion of Iraq.
If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.
