Rubbish is a great word.
Your squiggles idea has been thought, tested and practically failed decades ago.
Learn the squiggles
Link to Original Source
Billy, three suggestions:
Quit calling it "inet" when you mean "init".
None of what you mention has anything to do with inet or init and so my laptops have done very well in your scenarios using the traditional sysvinit and now with upstart.
If you want to sell systemd, figure out what it does that was not done before, not just what was not done before by init.
And no, Linus, adding a printer is not "an everyday task."
You don't know college. A student is likely to be close to five different printers in a day.
And if you are "close to five different printers in a day" why would you want to add them to your system? There is no need to "add" a printer in order to print to it. The only reason to "add" a printer is if you regularly print to the same one.
Thinking you need to "add" every printer near you is a broken mindset spawned by Windows.
Can you help me out here? I would love to know what the crux of this little flamewar that's going on around here actually is. Near as I can tell:
1) init is pretty much just a bunch of shell scripts that are used to start & stop services. It, IMHO, qualifies as an unmitigated hack
2) systemd is... what? Something sensible that at least attempts to start & stop services in a standard way?
I mean, forgive me, but it seems that this is a vast improvement. Who wants a system that's basically a collection of scripts? That just seems so fragile and un-documentable.
I really seems to me that getting rid of that horrible kludge of shellscripts and moving towards a standardised and sensible startup process is a big step forwards in Linux land.
Those who don't know Unix are doomed to re-create it, poorly.
If you think sysv init is not broken, then you must not have been using unix systems in earnest.
"Sheesh" is right.
Funny how I've been "using unix systems in earnest," and Linux systems in particular for over 20 years, and never needed systemd to solve the problems you point out. That usage includes desktops, servers and laptops so I really don't know what impediment you and lennart suffer from that causes you such problems that you think systemd is the solution.
I think it would have been better to encourage inflation. In an inflationary system, currency essentially expires. The longer you hold it, the less value it holds. This is an excellent feature because it encourages the use of the currency,
You are obviously the one who needs to "look at modern economics with a more critical eye" especially re. that thoroughly debunked view of inflation.
The view of inflation espoused by modern Keynesian economics is wrong and benefits primarily the issuers of money and those nearest to them. Inflation hurts everybody else.
If all you see are the economic papers supporting your view of inflation, you need to broaden your horizons -- try a different school.
You really need to read at least the white paper or the code. It's been out for years now. The obvious questions like this are long since easily answered and so far the non-obvious ones also.
I don't think it correct to say the "hash" is "mined" but rather the block is mined. But whatever.
The hash validates the block, and in turn the hash must be valid or the other miners will refuse to accept the block.
The block contains a time stamp, a nonce, transactions, etc. Time stamps are required to be in sync within specified tolerance, and the earliest block wins.
During that "career in banking" Oligonicella must have been too close to the forest to see the trees. Either that or his verbage is careful sophistry...
Of course banks "implement security" for the right definition of "security", that was never the issue. The issue is how much security. Banks at best are just like any business -- they determine the minimum to get by, maybe add a little for show, and that is all they implement.
Banks do the normal cost vs. benefit analysis on their security. They implement the minimum security to balance the equation. If they implemented all possible security they could not afford to operate (cost and convenience) so they always implement less than the maximum security.
Before any further denial, or any more vapid claims of bank security, to have any credibility you have to excuse/explain existing bank security flaws. The first that come to mind include why have U.S. banks not yet switched to chip and pin or at least some similar or better level of proof that the user of the credit card is authorized? And why do they not require an auth token (e.g. secureID or other hardware/software equivalent) for online access?
Use your bitcoin to buy all the shiny you want: https://www.bitpremier.com/
I'm not interested in side discussion detailing what is necessary to fix the gov't when you have yet to substantiate your claim that gov't was being discarded. I see no evidence to support that claim given that gov't is now larger than it has ever been.
Your concept essentially reduces to only taxpayers can vote, and rich people's votes count more than others'. This is exactly what this country has been against from day one.
You stopped learning history beyond about 5th grade?
Only white male landowners could vote.
In these enlightened times, we should change that to only those who own their primary residence in the area can vote.
Theorists who did thought experiments. Now, how about a particle physicist that needs a multibillion dollar collider that may discover something that has absolutely no economic value - at least in the near term?
You believe then, that since you are unable to conceive of its value and articulate that vision sufficient to convince people (the rich and the corporations) to fund it, that instead you should use guns to force them to pay for it?
The commenters are CERTAIN that these guys stole the money that they have, not MADE it, but stole it. They probably believe those guys stole it from them personally, no less. OMFG, I wish I could collect these types of people specifically onto one continent, while the rest could live on another continent and we would have a WALL between us, a wall so tall, they would never have to see the other side again.
Yup. It's about that time. The question is, where do we go to get away from those who have nothing better to do than occupy space and complain that others have more than they?