Well, having worked in both the non-profit sector and in public health, I think the criticisms of the Gates Foundation's public health efforts are malarkey. It's basically an opportunity cost argument and by that standard virtually every charitable foundation is wanting. Why are you spending money on the ballet when there are kids who can't read? Why are you spending money on literacy education when there are kids who don't have enough to eat etc. The problems of the world are endlessly varied and complex, and you can't ask much more of anyone than that they pick a spot and take a whack.
That said, the idea that spending money on infectious diseases is wasteful is particularly inane. Sure, in some places obesity may result in more premature deaths than malaria, but the fact is nobody really knows how to effectively fight an "obesity epidemic", whereas malaria is clearly eradicable -- and once it's gone, it's gone forever, because P. falciparum has no natural host other than humans. The same goes for communicable diseases for which we have vaccines; we know how to fight those cost effectively, even eradicate them in many cases. The missing piece of the puzzle is money.
Now criticism of the foundation's education efforts is a lot more warranted. Just like everybody thinks they're qualified to design a website because they have opinions about which sites they like and don't like, everyone thinks they're qualified to redesign the educational system because they went to school. The difference is that Gates has the money to make his bad ideas materialize. It may be hacker philanthropy, but most attempts at "hacks" result in kluges.
So overall it's a mixed bag. While you do have to give props to Gates for being "the man in the arena", sometimes, unlike in Teddy Roosevelt's famous speech, the man in the arena's failings don't fall exclusively on himself. So while philanthropy is admirable in itself, where the philanthropist's activities impinge on areas of public policy like education his actions should be held up to scrutiny like anyone else's.
What makes anyone think they have a right to an accounting?
I'd say anyone who pays taxes in a jurisdiction which grants the foundation tax-exempt status would have a reasonable claim to a right to an accounting.
Oh yes, I recall Bill and Melinda Gates sneaking up behind me, clubbing me on the back of the head...
Because we all know that's the only way there is to steal money...
You didn't RTFA, did you?
Alternatively, that's MICRO doses of LSD, not MEGA.
Actually, the degraded option does NOT work for BTRFS or at least hasn't when I've tried it. I still ended up in the shell. I checked the changelog for systemd from present back to the date of that report and there is no mention of it at all. Once in the shell, mount -odegraded / will work just fine. If systemd' wasn't too mind-bogglingly stupid to just try the mount command nobody would have to get out of bed at 3AM just to type that. But if I just rip systemd out and use the supposedly old and broken down sysV init, it works every time. If systemd had a sane configuration, I'd just poke that mount commend in as an explicit action and it would just work, but in all of that tangled spaghetti just below the surface, there appears to be no way to do that.
For md devices, they get around the problem by having a regular old script in the initrd go ahead and assemble the RAID before systemd gets a chance to get the vapors and refuse.
Mainframes certainly DO cost 100x more than (for example), a supermicro server.
Sure, networks do go down, but in those cases, you're either dual homed or no amount of non-stop can help you. Again, take the 90% solution or be prepared to start paying a lot more. I did say it should be in a good datecenter with backup power. If that fails, again, no amount of non-stop can help you.
Then look at all the school children taking related stimulants.
Too bad he was deprived of his right to an attorney.
Funny thing, strip the nicotine from the terrible delivery system (and the MAOIs it contains) and nicotine becomes much more benign.
But in general, most of the actual harm from drugs comes from the prohibition itself.
How do you know it was credible, besides through the benefit of hindsight? The CIA/FBI/police get 100 tip-offs per day that the stranger down the street must be a drug dealer/kiddie fiddler/international terrorist because he can't whistle 'Dixie'.
Strawman argument. The point is that there were several credible warnings of both an Al Qaeda attack and specific concerns with piloting students affiliated with them, some from foreign intelligence agencies; all these reports were not duly considered and discarded -- not because they were the moral equivalent of not being able to whistle "Dixie", but because of organizational and political dysfunction.
It was a failure -- specifically a failure to do something that was well within the government's power to do. I'm not saying that signals intelligence is not important, but it's an evasion of responsibility to claim our failure to take effective action was because we needed some technical capability that we lacked at the time. We had everything we needed to catch the 9/11 hijackers before they struck except for leadership.
Clauses in legally binding agreements that grant one party the ability to unilaterally change the terms of those agreements are illegal in most places where the rule of law has any meaning. That's one of the reasons almost every contractual agreement, of which EULAs are one kind, have a clause that says if any of the terms are illegal they are void.
... assuming that if the bicycles weren't there that their riders would just disappear, rather than switch to cars.
If you give them enough money, they'll do whatever you want. The question is only of the relative cost. Getting something custom done in open source is sometimes a matter of asking and waiting, or of paying a developer to do it for you. Getting something done in closed source might be a matter of filing a request under your support agreement, or it might mean a very expensive contract.
News for nerds? Sure. Stuff that matters? No.
Here's my anecdote: Many interesting ideas I had back in the day came to me under the influence of pot. Some of those ideas brought me a great deal of money.
I never said this doesn't happen, but your reasoning is post hoc ergo propter hoc: your ideas came to you while you were stoned, therefore they must have come from the pot. In order to conclude that you'd have to have done all of your thinking about the problems while you were stoned.
As I said, I think it quite plausible that drugs can, at the right time, help you escape the limitations of self-censorship in your thinking. But in my experience people who are stoned all the time certainly have novel ideas, but those ideas aren't particularly useful. That's because creativity actually involves a kind of interplay of critical and imaginative thinking. Enough people have anecdotes like yours to think there's something to it, but the very nature of creativity -- at least as I'm defining it -- makes me doubt you can get it entirely out of a bottle.
For the record, I consider creativity the finding of novel approaches to a thing that are better in some way than pre-existing approaches. This almost certainly presupposes an intimate familiarity with pre-existing approaches, unless we count pure dumb luck as creativity. Picasso, for example, didn't draw the way he did because he couldn't to realistic work. He had very good drawing skills, and his early works were representational. That level of draftsmanship doesn't come without struggle; and from that he derived his interest in geometric figures, most easily seen in the development of his landscapes. Note if "House in the Field" seems a bit crude, it was painted when he was twelve years old.
6 Curses = 1 Hexahex