It's a series of rules. It doesn't take much intelligence or creativity and pays pretty well. It can be taught very quickly. Learn to like copying and filling out forms. Bonuys, as a developer, you probably won't forge anything due to your own inability to recognize what someone can or cannot prove via provided documents. As a PREPARER, you aren't 100% liable for validating these documents, so it's pretty much boilerplate.

It's what I intend to do once I lose an important sense/appendage (as long as it's not both my hands and both eyes completely, in which case I'm fucked)

> In the civilian world, if you have meetings every day, it's because your boss or some other important idiot is a bottleneck in the process and they need daily reinforcement of common sense, at the expense of department productivity.

I know this might be a little foreign to someone from the military, but some of us get multiple things done in a day. Our team has a daily standup to ensure we don't step on each others' toes too often, while we're getting shit done. The manager is almost never present, nor does he speak unless spoken to in the standups (with exceptions, if he's gone and done something related to one of our features or has a concern about contingency).

Your sentiment is backward, at best.

Probes have been sufficient for other solar planets. Multiple probes sent to the moon would have happened in the 80's (probably) and again in the 90's to make certain it was a dead rock. Wild theories of 'possible' alien lunar life would be a constant drone heard across the internet. Hell, I still hear there are Nazis hiding on the darkside to this day after we sent some rockstars out there.

> there is no evidence that is has changed enough to cause the change in temperatures we've seen

There is that one U.S. National Academy of Sciences study that appears on the Solar Variation wiki. I'm really interested where I can find something that indicates otherwise (substantiating your claim).

> You are in danger the second you enter a country with a failing justice system and the death penalty,

Thanks for reaffirming.

> including the U.S....

Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-ninety_rule

Any evidence that the statement:
> It is far, far easier to create a new language from whole cloth than it is to convince the existing user base of a popular language to accept radical changes.
is true in any way?

My application needs traditional text log files on disk, can I configure journald to generate those?
No, you can’t. If you need this, just run the journal side-by-side with a traditional syslog implementation like rsyslog which can generate this file for you.

So no, the idea is to add an auditable logging system to run in parallel.

The suggested workaround will only work until software starts using The Journal directly without going through syslog, which is I think the end plan since syslog presumably can't support all the neat extra functionality.

It's a little difficult to understand which "workaround" you are referring to.

How difficult is it to use pipe to splitting input to another daemon that outputs plaintext files. I hazard it can be a simple configuration option...as if choosing to not use r/syslog in parallel was remotely realistic. The extra functionality The Journal proposes is a tamper-resistent file that can be relied upon for log accuracy. No software that needs to read from a file (most existing software that relies on traditional syslog files) would switch to reading from The Journal, as the operational time would be prohibitive (in normal use cases). A much more likely scenario would be to generate a new logfile from The Journal for inspection or operation, if that were needed.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this is about log integrity and nothing I've read implies massive disruption of existing setups.

What makes you think you can't use text in parallel? The idea is to have a more secure audit-log, not to replace it and leave a gaping usability hole.

The Matrix Trilogy had an excellent line, that really isn't played up enough.

> There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept.

This implies the machines were ready to separate (some programs) into compartmentalized versions to ensure survival and to start over, as in the beginning of their ascension to dominate the earth's surface. This strategy seems particularly applicable to deep space exploration as it speaks to practicality and the machine equivalent of transhumanism.

A form of space ark is currently, our best bet. Haul organic material (maybe just DNA) or a machine capable of synthesizing appropriate material from raw materials and send it off, piloted by an advanced AI and + digital copies of human minds. Based on our current understanding of physics, people born in the solar system will never get out of the solar system. The idea of self-contained craft that "lug around" energy is really silly and prone to failure. It's incredibly risky and there's no good model for how to do it. When you take the idea of minimizing organic maintenance and we already assume we're willing to invest a relatively large amount of inorganic components, we have a couple near-practical solutions. After we arrive at a habitable planet, we have a new set of problems. Say there's (likely) a ubiquitous pathogen that our human bodies can't defend against in the planet's environment, we better have the technology to adapt our bodies. There's not as many hurdles to cover as one would think, they are just different hurdles than most people think about and it's within reach.