So you specifically installed it. Unless you go about your business installing tasks without knowing what's in them.
And you couldn't be bothered to RTFM. Instead you rant on Slashdot. And when called upon it, you get defensive. You are not an admin, you're a script kiddie living in Mommy and Daddy's basement.
And the rightist disregard for the rule of law and presumption of innocence when the subject in question is of a group they disapprove of is disgusting. We used to hang people for that. Unfortunately Nuremberg is fading in our institutional memories.
apt-cache show resolvconf
Let's snip some output, and then we see: Priority: optional
So, it only installs by default if you select tasks. What sane admin complains about a package that they selected themselves? And besides, it is only an apt-get --purge remove away.
For all your bragging that you have used Linux for so long, you sure make the impression of a script kiddie who thinks he's l33t for having successfully installed Ubuntu. Assuming you speak the truth, all it proves is that it took you ages to improve to merely incompetent.
The way to manage a Debian system is to set up a boot server with a netinst image, ideally with some preseeded packages and config, and then pull in the rest of the packages and config using a management system like cfengine or puppet. Either way, if you're an experienced Debian admin, you should know about the existence of resolvconf, and when it is useful or not. Installing it on a server and then complaining about it managing your resolv.conf file makes you a luser.
From my perspective, it tends to be the people who say they support "family values" that actually support legal and social measures that keep families small.
Look at who it is defending zoning laws enforcing "single-family household" status as excluding larger chosen (non-blood-related) families, and compare to who it is embracing legal and social norms that allow maximum flexibility in assembling a strong, self-supporting structure from such components as available. Look at who is trying to restrict legal marriage and adoption and who is trying to extend it. Look at the group voting for judges that view large aggregated families-of-choice as evidence of perversion -- from which children should be protected -- and the group voting for judges who view a large, stable support network built from people who love and care for each other as precisely that. I'm all for "family values", in by that one means values that support large and strong families... but if I say "family values" in public to a random stranger, what's going to come to their mind is not the same as what I'm actually referring to.
I say this as someone who is overwhelmingly happy to have participated in the upbringing of children -- two of whom are now legal adults -- in whose genes I have no role, but to whose memes and ethics I am gratified to have contributed. I'm glad to have contributed to the financial stability of their household; I'm glad to have been another person there to help with homework and listen to their stories and serve as a role model and help keep things running. The people who say they support "family values" but who would have broken apart that family? I cannot, at such short notice, find words for the damage I see being done -- or attempted -- in the name of "family values".
And yes, I know that you're acknowledging much of the above, and that a great deal of my rant (perhaps all of it) doesn't apply to you. Please forgive that. I don't believe your assertion that anyone (for a statistically significant value of same) views state programs as an adequate replacement for having a genuine support structure... but would suggest that, perhaps, there are those who would like those who don't have a support structure to have somewhere to turn.
I've known too many people whose blood families weren't a healthy place for them -- physical abuse and the like. Several of those people were welcomed into a family of choice that gave them the support that they needed -- but not everyone can be that lucky, and establishing social policy in a way that only helps those who are already fortunate... well, there's a lot of that done already, and a lot of people it leaves behind.
I'm not arguing with the advice, I'm arguing with the notion that there are only a few bad cops. There are criminal cops and there are cops that tolerate criminal cops, which makes them no better.
So some of his co-workers are psychotic murderers, but the rest of the cops are "great guys" who won't kill you themselves, but they will definitely help cover up your murder. I'm sorry, but if you know your co-worker is a murderer, you're not a "great guy" if you aren't trying to stop him.
In fact, we will progress to artificial life and artificial intelligence in erratic steps - some large, some small - some hard, some easy. Yep, got your pseudo-religious bullshit right there. The real Rapture of the Nerds
I know it is popular these days in our little nerd bubble to hate on positive portrayals of girls, but when the highest-grossing film of 2013 gets called poorly-performing, I think it is time you turn in your geek card and search for a forum more appropriate to your intelligence.
There's a saying in my native language: "Higher trees catch more wind". I think the most obvious reason why this gets more attention now is the size of the organisation doing the product placement.
So, given your admiration for an economy driven by government land grants and the US army genociding the inhabitants of such lands, coupled with an other aspect of fascism, reverence of power, how does this not apply to you?
The question was rhetorical, by the way. There is no way you can come up with a rational answer to deny it, you'll probably just come up with another deluded rant.
Calling government led genocide of natives "winning in the marketplace". Dear God, I knew you were mad, but you get worse by the day.
Finding road edge boundaries in snow, at least, is actually a place where existing self-driving car systems do better than humans already. Keep in mind that they're not limited to the visual end of the EM spectrum.
For the rest, I'll defer to empirical studies on effectiveness under varying conditions. It's easy to think of corner cases -- but the real question, corner cases or no, is whether the average amount of liability incurred per hour of driving is greater or less than a human at the wheel.
I guess, if you like the state or insurance companies telling you when and where you may travel.
The power of the state is one thing. On the other hand, doing harm to others without means to provide recompense is legitimately immoral even under reasonable Libertarian frameworks.
Motor vehicle insurance allows the externalities which would otherwise be created by individuals defaulting rather than being able to pay off debts they incurred to be priced by the market -- quite transparently, given as the profit margins are known and available to customers as well as shareholders. If you can't pay for the harm you're doing to others by an action, even as aggregated and normalized by the insurance industry, can you truly morally justify that act?
And see here the naked sociopathy without any disguise: "Might makes right". Scratch a Randian, and find a fascist.