I think that's a little bit of oversimplification. I've yet to see what systemd does so much better than traditional init or sysvinit style other than make a clusterf*ck out of everything... Maybe it's "I've been working 20 years with something. It might not be perfect, but the alternative seems to be at least an order of magnitude worse than what I currently have."
As for service monitoring, there are other options out there than you can use to replace init or mix into your init system to handle that... such as runit.
Are you sure you understand what a microkernel design actually is?
It saves them money and makes use of existing stuff instead of having to build new.
No. No. And again, No. It's cheaper if we just electrocute to death everybody ever found guilty of a crime. Why don't we just electrocute them all instead of having to build those big, expensive prisons and feed people? Hell, does it even matter that they're guilty of having forgotten to pay for their livestock purchase within 24 hours?
When it comes to the police, cheaper is not necessarily better. I would rather not have police plowing through mine or my neighbor's door with an MRAP. We aren't in a war zone, the police aren't the military, and there is zero justification to make everybody feel like we're living without rights and freedoms under martial law. Some studies have shown that when police are less aggressive (possible even not carrying guns) and laws are toned down from the "let's be tough on crime and send people away to jail for 10 years for carrying around a little dead leaf in their pocket", that violence between the police and the populace also goes down.
Accountants and MBA's tend to be only concerned with financial costs and ignore the other, real costs. Surely you're not one of those?
...and yet there is no one single vaccine for the entire influenza virus family. Thus even getting the vaccine can be completely useless, and needs to be given seasonally even. And even if you're not immunocompromised, if you have egg allergies that can be a problem too.
And then let's not forget the whole "I'm healthy and young..." argument brought up by the GP... Spanish Flu about 100 years ago killed predominantly young, healthy adults.
I call BS on much of your post.
I can smell plenty of it coming from your post as well.
Umm, on many of the highways I drive on in the U.S., when the oncoming traffic is placed closer (without a significant median), there are guardrails. If it's even closer, there's a concrete or double concrete barrier. You can argue that maybe we need more barriers, but engineers clearly use these solutions in many places in the U.S. when conditions warrant it.
There are *vast* stretches of highway that are just as the GP described them - completely and without any barriers other than the median. Apparently you have driven on a select few roads in this country. I've driven many very long distance trips, and about the only region I have yet to drive through is the PacNorthwest.
There's something called "adjust your driving to conditions." You simply can't always go the posted speed limit in heavy rain.
Thanks, Captain Obvious. I think the GP already stated "while driving the posted speed limit or less". I've hydroplaned at speeds of 15 mph in extremely heavy flow on I-35 near Dallas. Do you think either I or the GP continued to drive at that speed?
For normal traffic, there's no need to travel at 80 mph. In fact, it reduces gas mileage usually to go significantly above 55 or so, because air resistance increases much more rapidly and you have to fight that at high speeds.
Cite your sources for this often repeated tripe. My own MPG continues to rise until it peaks when my speed exceeds 110 mph. Most any car that I've owned (and none of them were your big honking pointless SUVs or any other sort of passenger truck) continued to increase in performance up to at least 80 mph. Even in the case of a Toyota Prius, the efficiency won't peak until approximately 75 mph. This statistic that you quote is a relic of the 1970's oil embargo years and the types of cars typically driven at that time. I somehow doubt it even applies to diesel big rigs these days either.
As for why speed limits are what they are, I'm sure there are SOME places in the U.S. where they are politically motivated... corruption is everywhere.
Probably a non-trivial number. Remember, there are many places where the police will harass and/or arrest a private citizen who visibly warns drivers that they are approaching a speed trap. If safety was the real motivation, then the police would not harass people like this. But instead it's about the money.
The human body has physiological reactions to traveling. On an open highway, with little to look at, the sound, vibrations, and general motions of the vehicle tends to lull people into relaxation and sleep at speeds around 55 mph. At speeds approaching 80 mph, everything about the vehicle tends to key the occupants into full alertness. Except for known unsafe areas, the interstates would be much SAFER with higher speed limits.
What the heck are you talking about? Citation needed. Maybe in cars from 25 years ago or in your giant truck.
To the best of my knowledge, the increase in speed limit in TX over the years did not see a significant increase in accidents or fatalities. There are plenty of roads with posted limits as high as 80 and I think even SH 130 toll has 85 even.
In most modern cars, putting the cruise control on at high speeds will result in people relaxing... it doesn't matter whether you're going 55 or 65 or 80.
In any case, even if there were some minor benefit in terms of alertness at 80 mph, it would largely be trumped by the vast increases of kinetic energy that happen as you go faster at high speeds -- which means a subsequent significantly greater time and effort to stop safely... or greater energy thrown into collision scenarios, which means it's more likely for injury.
You're pretty much street pizza at speeds greater than 60mph. The risk of bodily injury and the mortality rate increase from a speed of 60 mph to 80 mph is such a small number that you can consider it a foregone conclusion that you're not coming home in one piece or at all.
While the GP was describing a lot of the symptoms of the problem, the major problems with our roads are:
1. The auto industry pushed for a very long time to keep the standards of licensing of drivers to a bare minimum. This is simply not the case in places like Germany. Lower qualifications to licensing means that you have to assume more of the drivers on the road are not really capable.
2. Roads are often build to the minimum requirements. If you don't keep an eye on the contractors, they will often overstate how much building materials they actually used in order to get free money. These are old tricks on the trade. My father, as an engineering geologist, encountered unscrupulous contractors often on public works projects that he was involved with.
3. If they would build the roads to last, that would mean less annual income for the contractors. We still haven't been able to fix this problem in many parts of the country.
The vast majority of accidents are low-speed accidents with limited or no injuries in... parking lots.
Now, can somebody please explain to me what any of this has to do with the TSA?