It sounds like your perspective is stuck a few decades in the past. Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but the Chinese are in space now, regularly and reliably. Analysts are already looking at the Chinese produced Shenyang J-31 as a possible contender with the F-35C for the export market. It may be functionally a generation behind, but I'm sure it will be less expensive and easier to order especially for nations that aren't in the NATO core.

The SysV init scripts have one huge advantage though: I can read/debug/understand them and all I need to know for that is a bit of sh(1) and coreutils.

This sentence being included in your reply implies -- strongly -- that you didn't follow the link and read the scripts behind it.

Hint: run scripts are far, far simpler and easier-to-read than SysV init scripts. (They also exist on-disk -- in a directory matching /service/${servicename} if you're following DJB's conventions -- so filename matching is absolutely supported).

If you gained something by your race conditions, I'd see it. Using big, overcomplex SysV init scripts adds nothing but bugs.

I'm... sorry?

You think SysV init scripts are in any way, shape or form moderately acceptable?!

I have a very simple refutation to that -- the collection of run scripts behind this link.

Go ahead -- have a look. Keep in mind that systems using those mostly one-line scripts all provide not just startup/shutdown/status, but also the ability to auto-restart on failure and lack the propensity for race conditions that pidfile-based locking almost universally used by SysV scripts is so very, very prone to.

Holding up SysV init scripts as a thing that doesn't have to be changed... it beggars belief.

So hey, I'm shoving this camera in your face so ten years from now you can be turned down for a job because you might do today that can be taken out of context. But why all the hate?

Dunno. Personally, I'm all for personal responsibility -- if I do something in public today that'd get me turned down for a job in ten years, that's 100% my own damned fault.

Ubiquitous cameras help keep honest people honest, and help get people who aren't honest caught. If some asshat runs me off the road on my (very, very well-lit) bicycle, I damned well want there to be a record showing (1) their license plate, and (2) me being my usual, exceedingly law-abiding, conscientious self. If someone breaks into my condo? Record. If someone picks a fight, and I need to show that self-defense was justified? Record. If someone was merely an asshat? Well, that's fair game too.

Keep in mind, too, that if everyone is getting the same kind of record built up about them, then small infractions aren't such a big thing. If everyone is a drunk asshat at a party every so often, or does a bit of political baiting, then evidence of that happening doesn't really matter -- as long as it's equal-opportunity public record, then employers &c. will be forced to compromise on hiring people whose indiscretions aren't so bad.

So -- if shoving a camera in your face is something you hate, maybe you should think long and hard about the way you behave in public.

You are recording on private property and people can have an expectation of privacy.

It's more complex than that. Have a "privacy fence", where it takes some effort to see through? Yup, expectation of privacy. Have a chain-link fence which can be seen through from public land? Not in any state I've lived in, no.

He chooses what to post on to the internet. If somebody wearing Glass walks up to you, your property, or your workplace, you have no choice in the matter as to which of your activities gets uploaded to Google.

So what? If you're in a public place, you had no expectation of privacy to start with... and a world where you did, where people are prevented from photography in public by virtue of needing to get permissions from every single person near them, is no world I'd want to live in at all.

This is probably just a matter of valuing things differently; I value a person's right to record things which happen around them in public more than I wish to grant a new right not to be recorded in public places (thereby allowing any single member of the multitude present in a crowd to restrict the entirety of the masses nearby).

While it's true that most if not all of the gun control laws between the Civil War and World War I were part of the 'Jim Crow' system of creating separate systems of "justice" delineated on race, it is, as the AC who responded to you notes, false to say the NRA was a 'civil rights organization' and indeed it had little political function until after the NFA. You overreach into fiction degrades the value of your facts.

DeviantArt already allows pretty much everything except actual intercourse and erect penises (because a limp dick = art but hard dick = evil ... vaginas are fine no matter what *rolls eyes* yay arbitrary moralist bullshit).

There are already communities for disseminating all-the-way smut art, such as Hentai Foundry.

If you want to know what tumblr is really about these days, think of a sexual fetish, then put it into Google with 'tumblr' tacked on, and you'll get whatever you want stream dumped from tons of different sources. When it comes to jacking (pun huhuhu) still images from porn producers, the fetish catagorizing fans on tumblr are second to none. Granted sometimes the "blogs" (haha yeah right) get shut down for infringement, but there's always another dozen that spring up to fill the void.

Seatbelts: "Consumers find them too restrictive!"

So, an aside here: There's absolutely no question that seat belts make drivers and their passengers safer -- none whatsoever.

Pedestrians, on the other hand, have a considerably higher death and injury rate in areas where seat belts are in use -- seat belts reduce risk for drivers, drivers behave more recklessly (because they can), and other road users who aren't protected by those seatbelts die.

I'm also reminded somewhat of guard rails on some of our major freeways (Austin area) being replaced with a trio of metal lines intended to redirect vehicles back onto the road rather than letting them cross the median into the other direction's traffic. It's not an entirely bad idea -- unless you're on a motorcycle, in which contact with those things at speed almost always means dismemberment.

Anyhow -- there's more than one kind of road user, and decisions made intended to protect one class can have unintended effects on the rest. A groundswell of support for something that makes drivers safer might well increase the risk of death for folks who are already in a marginalized class.

Heh. I knew if I twisted the Yanks' tails I'd get outraged fanboy "'MERICA!" responses.

All y'all are nothing if not predictable.

Yup. We're a long way away from the ballistically-matched ranging gun.

With engagement distances up to 4000m, and ~2500m being a fairly routine shot, it's hard to imagine a ranging gun with that much reach and that provided enough visible splash to let you know you're on.

All the M1s I've seen and worked with had single-axis sight head mirrors. It adjusted for elevation, but lead compensation moves the sight picture around. If the target - or the tank - changes direction suddenly, the Abrams gunner has to "dump lead" (reset the system), retrack, and re-lase.

Whereas the Leo gunner just keeps tracking with the same sight picture and waits an extra heartbeat for the gun to realign.

Maybe the very latest Abrams finally has a 2-axis mirror and has made it into the 1980s.

Lack of an autoloader isn't really a knock on a tank. Autoloaders tend to be finnicky, and struggle to keep up with the reload speed of a well-motivated 19 year old.

But on top of that, it is really very useful to have that 4th crewman. Tanks need a lot of work to keep operational and the crew commander is frequently off getting orders - having that extra body is a real force enabler.

Crew a Leo, and crew a Abrams, and tell me what you think.

I know what I learned by doing so - and the Leo FCS is FAR superior.