No, you're saying that if some crooks can take advantage of corrupted/captured jurisdictions to get away with murder and some others escape because the prosecution cannot obtain enough evidence for a conviction[*], then the ones that do get convicted due to enough evidence and a proper use of the justice system should subsequently be set free anyway because reasons. Then, no doubt, such a decision should be the basis for letting the next convictions be vacated, because now at least one full-fledged conviction was not enforced fully or at all. Good reasoning all around.

[*] to get an idea about how hard it is to prosecute financial crimes when the will to do it exists, look at how much potential evidence had to be thrown out due to technicalities in Holmes' trial. Getting absolutely ALL the ducks in a row when the opposing council hunts for any slight mistake is not trivial.

Well, for some very VERY small subset of "it." And if you start disabling the broken ancillary services that it grew like some mutant monster - right now, it's best to get rid of stuff like the broken "internal" dhcp client, the ntp service, the resolver service ... add your favorite "you'll get less functionality and you'll like it" piece of systemd-adjacent pseudo-cake.

Besides, it seems dear old Greg is getting forgetful in his advanced years. One might want to take a trip down the memory line to the point that the systemd devs kinda sorta angered the kernel devs by requesting that there should be a change in the kernel parameters passed by the bootloader, as systemd wanted to take over some of those because ... reasons. Is that one of the "did it right" examples then, Greg?

Valuing one's mental health, perhaps? or having a high opportunity cost for the time spent digging through the insane number of pages of exceptions that the application server outputs for anything that goes wrong? ;-)

It seems any Math classes you ever attended were something of a joke. What makes you think CS will be any different? (as a hint, one is far more likely to learn those skills you enumerated in a properly taught Math class; without that as a basis there's little chance a CS class will compensate)

Besides being off-topic and coming across as rather insecure, you are aware that anyone who shorted TSLA in the last week of August is still in the money, right? as currently the stock is ~20% down from September 1st ...

Aaaaand there you have it, ladies and gents. Apres moi the deluge, Millennial version. Not so different from the Boomer version in essence, only in details.

Humans inherently don't have a good perception of the consequences cascade of their actions. There is always something done in good faith that'll eventually have some bad consequences down the road. Mistakes are easy. Scapegoating is easier.

For kicks, someone should come up with a boomer hoodie with something like

Nonsense alert - while energy density is a well-defined, meaningful metric, power density is at best a poorly defined one and at worst a meaningless juxtaposition of words, a.k.a. marketing. It certainly does not make sense to talk about both of them together this way. One of them is a physical metric, the other is ... not. Otoh, if he were talking about power, that would have been a different kettle of fish altogether.

Sorry Rei, but this shows your bullshit detector is out of whack. If it's [something] density then the total amount of volume (or in this case, cells) is irrelevant, since density is [something] per unit volume (or per cell). So the statement is wrong as is, would be "right-er" for power, but then it's not just cells that you have to add, is it? more power requires higher amperage wiring, better cooling, and so on - it's not just about stuffing the car to the gills with batteries.

:-( this post started so well, factual and stuff. Please, next time, try to refrain from repeating something like this last paragraph. If you really have to, make a separate post. There are so many things wrong in this small ending that it'd take a full post to explain - stuff about how stock market works, about sending messages, especially during conference calls, and lastly about irony and seeing emotions in others while being blind to them in oneself. I am aware of your history of posting pro-Musk things on /. but for the sake of efficiency do try to keep informative posts separated from "opinion" posts. It makes for better reading.

You're also comparing fire safety of a luxury sedan with the average over all UK cars, where the vast majority are quite a bit older and priced new at what, less than at half of what Model S costs. Compare Teslas with new gas cars in the same price bracket for safety if you want to be consistent, otherwise you might as well throw in some Yugos to round it up.

Um, re-read the book. You are off as well, Heinlein refuses to ascribe a reason for the system. See the HaMP lessons at the Officer school, where the teacher states that they have that system because it works. As you pointed out, auxiliary personnel is also fully qualified for citizenship, but in peace time that's just a formal way of spending a 2-year term while doing a job that would have had the same health hazards whether inside or outside the military system, no extra life risk.[*] And he stated that crime rate is about the same for veterans and civilians, so there really is no moral compass issue to push here. As Mj. Reid says, it's a trick question.

[*] actually, not quite. There's always the risk of what happened to Rico, join up during peace time, find yourself in the middle of a war by the time you'd finish. However, the explicit goal of all who joined was to do their term (and do some cool research/piloting/etc.) and in the absence of the war it would have been just that (and no book, of course). So I'll have to disagree with you about risking life and all that, it's not the main thrust of it at all.

That's quite surprising, considering the amount of fluff included in the latest version. Don't worry though, chances of something like that being included in a future revision are quite high. (snark is good against depression - see what i did here? regardless, please do keep in mind that it's not polite to bring DSM-V into a serious conversation. if it really must be done, use an earlier version)

(* Skipping irrelevant bits)
Hmm. I would be quite tempted to hit you with some more snark for this part, but that would be ill played considering the rest of that paragraph. Still, you might want to consider your own earlier words:

so simply saying You're a survivor. You can do this. is ... well, you get the idea. Any depressive that's not on medication will ask you a simple question: why? and demolish that argument. If you truly want to write that kind of letter and not just bandy words on /. consider the problem of choice - the lack of it, specifically. Depressives often enough have one way of coping with a situation, and it's a way that is (shall we say) inadequate; hence, the lack of alternatives is a big part of the problem. And depression is not exactly the most find-other-ways-enabling state of mind. I would humbly suggest, as an alternative approach, showing (not talking about) alternatives, even for minor things. To paraphrase a dead French pilot who wrote about little princes, I can describe for you the view from a mountaintop and you'll never have an image for it if you never saw it, but if I bring you there, you'll see it and you'll have your own image. The best thing imho that one can do for a depressive is enable choices. And if, given several choices, suicide still follows, then maybe a life had to come to its end, and these things can happen if you place any value on freedom of choice. But sadly it sounds as if this boy had none.

Ah, and one more thing. I would submit that it's not exactly the brain trying to kill anyone here. Brain cells and their activity suffer quite a bit in a depressive, and I'd count the brain as a victim as well. But that's just a personal opinion.

That would make sense if you had to pull bios with an article, which should hardly be the case. At most, you'd have to pull in current authors' affiliations. A bio would ideally stay behind an author link, and be pulled in quite rarely. I for one would much rather have a list of authors immediately followed by the abstract than having to move through several pages of biographies for an article with 4-5 authors in order to find the abstract an the actual article. So for me the decision to put every bio in every article looked like a poorly researched one. YMMV and all that.

There are no valid cases for assert() in release code. It's about as uninformative as it gets for that. If you really need thosue checks done, put an actual check in place - you know, something that will log/tell you useful information like what invalid value was encountered versus what was expected, a stack trace, and so on. Not just printing out __FILE__ and __LINE__ and expect what, that the customer will have a debugger already attached to the process to pick up the rest of the info a developer would need?

assert() is a debug macro. If you need to test release code then use/write something appropriate for release. Especially something that does not abort() when returning an error code would be sufficient.

What's stopping you to make a special locked-down profile for it in selinux, apparmor or whatever favorite RBAC system you have and then check for access violations? THEN you'll know if it messes up with the system.[*] Or are you trying to argue that the client is bidding its time now, playing it safe and will do the nasty things only when Skynet becomes operational?

[*] Of course, 'demonstrate' is not what this would be doing. One can't demonstrate absolute safety on a system that can update itself any more than one can predict the future. However, one can obtain a reasonable system lockdown with judicious use of RBAC and if that is not enough for you then maybe you shouldn't be contemplating gaming on such a high-security-requirements machine in the first place.

Mate, your opinions on yourself are your own business and those on myself are lighter than a feather, so please consider not wasting page space next time. As they say, stones and sticks may break my bones and all that jazz.

Now as to your question. A picture of your face is in the majority of cases not a definitive means of identification - especially the limited type in photo IDs. Maybe you've heard of people looking alike. Perhaps that's one reason why some places (like banks) would ask you for 2 photo IDs for identification? OTOH a fingerprint is supposed to be a unique means of identifying a person. Try proving your innocence in court if the prosecution has only a picture of someone looking like you, versus them having found your fingerprint at the scene.

So you're unknown to the government if they don't have your prints now? I guess before this breakthrough invention a census was a meaningless exercise. And IDs and passports a joke. And paper trail for taxes, properties and so on just something to kindle fire. Oh, how silly of so many other countries.

Yeah, whoever heard of things that you either have or don't. Also, you're a little pregnant, you know?

Right. Of course. And whoever does not fully trust that bunch of selfish bureaucrats is a traitor. Or a terrorist. Or something. Mussolini would be proud of you, son.