I'm not sure what you mean `100% liability` ? perhaps you mean reliability ? It doesn't need 100% reliability, nothing is 100% reliable in this world: bridges collapse, airplanes crash, etc. It only needs to do a reasonable effort to police.

and why do you think it doesn't?

try uploading porn or copyrighted material on youtube and see how long it lasts

Minor nitpick

I'd replace faith with trust. The difference is that faith is blind and taken for granted, while trust is built.

This is not true. The judges explained exactly what's wrong

If you think military intervention is necessary, why don't you pick up the guns and go fight? i.e. organize an army of voluteers, collect donations, buy supplies, etc... Oh, you mean, military intervention with OTHER PEOPLE's blood....

And those that don't have an APK will be distributed as an .AMP

Athena and Ares. Ares may get the upper hand at the beginning of the conflict, but Athena always wins.

Joke ---> Whooosh

You

You have a pretty good argument about SystemD here, and I want to use it to highlight why I consider systemD especially bad, as software goes.

- It breaks expectations of experienced Unix/Linux users. Where somebody was accustomed to interact with the system a certain way, e.g. having console logging and log files available to cat/grep/etc, systemD changes that. Programs should be designed for human usage - if it breaks already established human interfaces, it drives up the learning curve, and that is bad. We are overstressed with too much information as it is.

- Non-deterministic. If reordering the startup daemons breaks the system, systemD is at fault. You're saying that it's my fault for having broken systemD configuration. I want to remind you that a program should help me out, not raise barriers for me. If I write a configuration, test it, verifies that it works, and then two weeks later it refuses to work, nothing changed, this is horrible design - how was I even supposed to know it will break ? When I test a program, get to run through inputs and verify the results, I don't want unexpected surprises with the program changing behaviour without me telling it to do so.

I'm not going into technical merits here. I am talking as a human interacting with a machine - the behaviour of the systemD-driven machine is horrible.

Would you even drive a car that randomly speeds up a bit before breaking when you hit the breaks, because it thought it would get me a bit faster to my destination ? KISS is a principle because experience shows that simpler things work better.

What do you mean "_was_ _first_ implemented" ?

I don't understand why people need to deface sites just to show ... what ? their skillz ? the poor security of the website ?! This is beyond childish, and the "authors" are probably no more than script kiddiez. As tinKode points out on his site, he wants to drive attention to security problems. In fact, if he wanted to do only that, he could privately inform the site owners about the problems he sees. He could make his own security company, and make some nice bucks out of doing this specific job he seems to enjoy. But what he does now is no better than hooliganism, and I hope he will be tracked and serve some sentence for defacing of private property or anything similar.

My cats would let me know when they are in pain, either chronic or acute. On chronic pain I'd see 'meow' movements of the mouth without sound, curling up on me, or increased keading. Massaging the back of the neck always helps since it triggers serotonin release and calms the cat down. Works on older cats too. I've never seen any cat making sounds on chronic pain. But this doesn't mean that the signs aren't in there if you look for them.

I could bet that it will run X11 as a separate application (like OSX does).

and, I could bet that it will run something like wine, or CrossOver, to have limited support for windows application - it will even be advertised as such: " Runs Microsoft Office** ! ". Google invested quite a bunch in Wine, and the number one of reasons the Linux netbooks are returned is that Win apps are not supported - so it would be an obvious move from the part of Google to embed wine in the OS.

For the interface, it will probably run a modified version of Chrome with hooks added to control the hardware (D-Bus, much like Nokia did with maemo), and will have some kind of AIR environment to support webish application development.

** somewhat poorly, better try this nice online suite here, mmmkay ?

That says he whom can't get hot chicks :)

From my experience (posted above)

> * Is the apparent slowing something actually allowing you to do *something* better in that short period of time?
Yes. Definitely. The feeling is that you have more time to do some things, not that you do them quicker. Still it seems that other people around you see you like doing things very fast, faster then normal.

> * Does the apparent slowing allow you read numbers more quickly?
No. I feel that you can only speed up things that allow you to survive. So unless you're trying to disable a bomb in the 0.10 seconds left, and you depend on correctly reading the disabling code and keying it in, it won't happen.

> * Does the apparent slowing allow you to dodge bullets?
Yes. If you do not freeze. From my discussion around this subject, I think lots of people getting themselves in that situation just freeze. I personally believe that the freeze is induced by panic triggered by the slowdown of time, and not by immediate and clear danger that triggered the response in the first phase. In other words, we may be getting too smart for our own safety. I believe that at least cats share the same slowdown, allowing them to have time to take the "air-foil" mode, when falling, even on very short distances, but I don't think they are conscious about it. Maybe only humans use time as subjective reference, thus enabling us to recognize the slowdown, and then panic about it. This is wild speculation at best.

> * Is the apparent slowing only an illusion?
No. I actually had time to do lots of things in a very short objective time line, but very long subjective time line.