This diversity junk is a disease. Its a mental disorder. People must take personal responsibility if they want something and they refuse to do so they have no one to blame but themselves. To say we should punish people who did work to reward people who refuse to take initiative and make the equal effort is insane and it punishes those who honestly worked for what they have. There is nothing, nothing at all that prevents people of any race, or gender, from going into IT job fields. As long as they are citizens of the country, I am all for anyone who wants to doing this. The fact is, they should have the same access to educational opportunities as everyone else. If you give anyone preferential treatment, you are creating a system of discrimination that provides a benefit to one group and not another. In fact, that seems to be what they are doing. The Bottom line, is if this group or that group is not taking advantage of the educational opportunities that is available to everyone equally, then thats their own fault and their own problem. If we are going to give these people MORE opportunities than other groups what you are doing is creating a new form of discrimination. Basically, the rule should be everyone should have access to the same educational, prepatory, and employment opportunities, regardless of their race. If people of a certain race refuse to make use of these opportunities, thats their own problem, they have to take responsibility for themselves and their actions and no one else is to blame if they refuse to do so. If we start shovelling more money at people who through their own choice refuse to take advantage of the same opportunities available to everyone else, you are punishing everyone else who WORKED and made the effort to achieve, you are punishing people for no fault of their own, people who honestly worked to achieve what they have, not having a benefit that was not available to anyone else, essentially what we are doing is rewarding mediocrity and sloth. This diversity for the sake of diversity and punish people who actually work for their achievement to reward those who refuse to take initiative has got to stop
I've heard about MUMPS from it being used in Vista, the records system of the Veterans Affairs Administration, a large public domain corpus of software which was released from a FOIA request to the VA.
MUMPS is not a bad language. As with many languages, the source code readability depends on the programmers mostly, there isnt anything about MUMPS that makes it particularly hard to read. Intersystems Cache is one of the commercial implementations though it tends to downplay its MUMPS foundation, because of the false stigma around the language.
You are right. Data could also be leaked, which would be awful. Guard pages are another feature often used, when a buffer overflow occurs it would often hit the guard page which being unallocated space will segfault, but its not perfect. Its a lot easier to protect code than it is to protect data.
PAE and x86-64 and probably other CPUs now have page table flags for protecting against buffer overrun by non-executable, readonly memory sections and such. An overrun will cause a segfault rather than an actual overrun. This significantly improve things. So what is the status of this in major Linux distros?
The fact is, systemd doesnt force anything on you. You are free to start your jobs from SysV scripts just as before. Systemd also follows a highly modular architecture and design that fits in with the Unix philosophy. So its not a big monolithic thing. So, I don't see what the problem is. Systemd is fine by me and I see no issue as it only adds additional capability rather than takes them away. Since it does not take away any features, basically what you are arguing for is that people should not be allowed to have Systemd's features or be able to use them. Ironically its people like you who make the accusation that you are being put upon, when in fact Systemd has taken nothing away from you, it does not prevent you from starting your jobs just as you do now as it fully supports the older mechanisms and is backward compatible. The bottom line is if you dont like the new mechanisms, systemd lets you use the old ones.
Its astonishing to me that this thing still doesnt do a sandbox. They keep adding stuff like video chat, great, but if you can spend time on that you can find time for getting the sandbox in. They have been talking about the sandbox for years. Implement it by default already and if for some reason a plugin a user is incompatable allow the user to select to go back to single process. There is no reason why the sandbox should have taken this long. Yes you have go to a multi process model but it shouldnt be THAT big of a job to take years.
A scenario like this has been warned about or some time. The policymakers have ignored these warnings. Instead, they spent money on wasteful projects such as long distance high speed rail, projects which are not really feasible in a state like California. Basically, California is run by foolish idiots who ignored their states real problems and instead wasted money on expensive and wasteful long distance rail projects, which are more about optics than about value. Before you misunderstand, understand that rail inside cities is a good idea, but the market dynamics for that is very different from rail lines between cities. Building long distance high speed rail is far too expensive and will not really be a good value at all, partly due to planes likely being preferable to many, with all of the costs and funding being accounted for. The amount of track that has to be installed is far greater, than in cities where you can serve commuters with far less trackage. For ground based transport an upgrade to bus lines would be a much more cost effective solution.
Instead of spending money on that it should have spent it on more water projects, including desalination, reservoirs and storage. Things like water storage and transport are just not as hip and cool sounding as massively wasteful white elephants like the long distance rail.
I would also like to add that my previous comments regarding the loss of free speech in our society was about civility and issues regarding etiquette rather than exclusively the law. Obviously, etiquette and law are different things, I do lament the loss of the ability to openly profess ones views generally in a society, regardless as to the legal status and condition around such speech issues. On the gay wedding cake issue, I can see there is a problem there and the denial of service is not something I agree with.
Apples and oranges. there is a tendancy to compare a speech issue to what the law actually is regarding a non-speech issue. The gay wedding cake issue is not about speech, the baker didnt deny the gay couple any free speech rights. The baker was also not playing cop, businesses generally have a right to refuse services (not that I am wholly in agreement with this), and there are exceptions to that, the case concerns how far those exceptions go. About the issue regarding legality of acts in relation to speech, For instance, you have every right to suggest that say, driving 200 mph on residential streets should be legal, that its not legal does not mean your free speech rights have been violated to hold your own opinion on this matter. Free speech does not give you the right to do things that you can use your free speech rights to advocate should be legal. Its important with the wedding cake issue, was that they were not refusing service to all gays for any service, only the cake which was being used for the weddings. Obviously, to refuse service to gays for say, table seating in a restaurant, is a situation with different circumstances. Not all christians support the idea of refusing service to gays on the issue of providing a cake, basically becuase many christians have a view that its not our position to judge them, even though it is against the tenants of the religion. Not all christian denominations oppose gay unions, either, if you are gay there are several Christian denominations to choose from that would accept you and hold your ceremony. The people that were pressing these buttons on the gay wedding cake issue had plenty of bakers who would bake a gay wedding cake for them, they actually went from baker to baker to find one who one who would refuse to do it so they could then castigate them. Personally, I do not agree with refusing to make a wedding cake for gays, if I am running a business and someone comes to me wanting a lawful product or service I would not deny it to them on account of their sexual preferences. It is my view that gay marriage should not be legal, you cannot just change the definitions of words. I am supportive of civil unions for gays that give them the same benefits, they can call it a wedding if they want but thats not what it should officially be titled on paper. Yes, its about definitions of words, words do mean things, you cannot call a cat a dog and just change those definitions willy nilly, the very definition of marriage is a union between man and women for the purpose of producing children, it is important that Marriage mean something and have a clear definition for the function it is mean to encourage, to be something that is to promote family values as this is a critical bedrock for a civilization.
People may have different religious views than you, but, so what, its a free country. The manner in which in this society we have this oversensitization to being offended and against someones views and opinions offending someone is being used to shut down free speech and the free expression and exchange of ideas and information. Its actually the worst with the leftists who are most intolerant of anyone who does not agree with their views on matters and use "being offended" by Christians to basically attack and shut down anyone who is a professed Christain from being able to talk about their own beliefs and profess it. There's in an old phrase, I disagree with what you say but I respect your right to say it. So many people today, especially those on the left, are becoming increasingly opposed to people being able to express themselves and use their own perverse, twisted and insane defintions of "tolerance" to shut down any dissenting or opposing viewpoints, especially if you are a Christian and someone doesnt like your viewpoints, you are accused and labelled as being "intolerant" and "hateful" just by expressing your own viewpoints and religious ideas, not by trying to shut down others ability to express their own. What is going on here is that "intolerance" is now expressing a view that other people think are offensive, rather than trying to shutdown others peoples ability to express their own views. They have in effect turned everything upside down. Now if it is "tolerant" to suppress and censor anyone who says something you offend with, and "intolerant" for anyone to express views you disagree with. By basically saying that if you disagree with leftist atheists, muslims or whatever, you are somehow "intolerant", leftists are shutting down free speech and claiming to be "tolerant" when in fact they are "intolerant".
Exactly, the IPA and Extra IPA are supposed to be bitter. For a less bitter beer go with a regular Ale such as Pale Ale.
IPA is supposed to be a bitter beer, by definition. And thats exactly why many of us love it. We want a bitter beer. If you dont like a bitter bear than the IPA is not for you. go back to drinking your Bud dish water.
For me as well bitter chocolate tastes the best, really. The common milk chocolates sold taste like nothing except for sugar and milk, the taste of chocolate is barely there. Many people enjoy bitter tasting foods.
All of the earth crust floats. Mountains are higher because the rock beneath them is lighter, hotter, or thicker than elsewhere. Continental crust does not subduct because it is the result of island arc subduction related magmatism which produces metal poor rocks due to fractional melting, producing a rock that is lighter than mantle. Oceanic crust is mafic and contains more metals, is more dense, and has similar composition to the mantle, so it tends to subduct easily. Good we are covering basic geology 101 for the benefit of all here.
While they keep on adding stuff like this which is okay, it seems like they neglect security. Firefox's security is pathetic when it ought to be a top priority.
While this is great, shouldnt Firefox finally get around to doing something about having a real sandbox on Linux on par with what Google Chrome has had for years? I mean come on, Google Chrome has had this since 2013 and yet it still on Firefox's to-do, while somehow they can manage to find time for all of this other stuff. Maybe they should work on getting the sandbox first and then work on these other features after that? I think security should be the #1 priority. Firefox has added a million other things over 2 years but someone cannot find the time to get the sandbox working. This is very serious as a sandbox is necessary, and essential, with a code base as large as Firefox it has been shown that there is usually some memory error that creeps in somewhere. The sandbox makes is to that even if they can take over a process, thats as far as they can get as the rendering code does not have access to kernel surfaces for things it does not need.
Because of the lack of sandbox, Firefox remains pathetic, the worst and most insecure browser that now exists. Even IE has a sandbox now, so Firefox is even less secure than IE. Yes IE, has had its CVEs, but so has firefox, but the sandbox is essential, due to the fact that it protects you at least to some degree in that time between the bug being implemented, being found and then finally repaired.