Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Systemd, WTF? (Score 4, Interesting) 165

Systemd, WTF???

As I understand it, one of the stated goals was to speed up boot times. It's had exactly the opposite effect on my Ubuntu system -- that is, when the boot doesn't die altogether when I try to mount NFS shares. (Also, thanks to systemd, I can't even *reboot* or shut down the machine when there's a hung NFS process. I am forced to hard-reset it.)

For years, warning flags have been raised about systemd. It more or less seems that we're bringing all the disadvantages of the Windows architecture to Linux, without any of the advantages of running WIndows.

So, again: systemd, wtf???

Comment Re:wow, great (Score 1) 181

The solution is easy and has been mathematically proven for literally hundreds of years: use a Condorcet method to count ballots and strategic voting is a thing of the past.

The much harder followup problem, however, is how to get the people in power, who benefit from the broken system we have now, to implement that easy solution to something they consider a feature, not a bug.

Comment Re:Nothing to do with Trump (Score 1) 432

The company that owns that investment is in your country.

Think as if it were people: a given American citizen might $X invested domestically, or $2X invested internationally. In the latter case, the American citizen has twice as much money invested somewhere earning him more money, which is better for him, the American, even though that money isn't invested in other Americans.

Comment Re:Yay (Score 2) 432

You realize they said the same thing about Obama curbing Bush's then-decried use of Executive Orders, don't you?

The ACLU had this huge list of things that Obama could and should have done on day one, using Executive Orders, to reverse bad things that Bush had done before, and the Democrat narrative in response to that was "he can't do those things because Executive Orders are bad and Bush was bad to use them and we shouldn't use them or else the next Republican president will feel even more emboldened to use them". And then they went and used them anyway -- on things other than fixing the problems Bush caused -- and yeah, almost certainly emboldened Trump to use them even though he decries Obama's use of them every bit as much as Obama decried Bush's.

Comment Re:Ain't nobody got time for that (Score 1) 111

Yeah, IF ther isn't already a pile of work queued up overnight or before I even got to my desk in the morning that's good new, but it's the panicked thought that there likely is all that which drives me to check my email first thing I wake up in the desperate hope that it might not be and I can stop freaking out about it.

Comment Ain't nobody got time for that (Score 1) 111

And if I did have time for it (and to maintain a 'social support network', whatever the fuck that is, in the first place) a few work emails first thing in the morning wouldn't be enough to bring me down.

I check work email first thing when I wake up hoping to see confirmation that I am not already half a day's work behind schedule. If I just didn't check it, I would instead just be constantly worried that I probably was until I got to my desk and THEN maybe found out I wasn't.

Comment Re:Strange Definition of Homelessness (Score 1) 504

You are absolutely right that there are degrees of homelessness, and I would argue that the only people who are 0% homeless, not homeless at all, are people who own their homes outright. Which, yes, means that almost everybody besides the richest of the rich, since at least feudalism onward, has been homeless to some degree. If you're mortgaging your home, the lender has an interest in it and can take it from you so you don't really own a home, you're borrowing someone else's. If you're a tenant renting the land -- whether in cash as renters today or in kind as tenant farmers in the feudal era -- then you are explicitly borrowing someone else's land, and don't have a home of your own. In a sense, even people who "own their homes outright" in the usual way (fee simple) are still technically, legally, tenants on the State's land, which is how property taxes are justified.

And in a very real and intuitive way, unless you really explicitly own something outright, you don't really "have" it. Say you drive a beaten up old clunker normally, and it's broken down again, and your rich friendly neighbor lets you drive his fancy Ferrari to the store for groceries. While there, you run into an old friend you haven't seen in years, who sees the car you're driving and say "Whoa, man! You have a Ferrari now!?" Is the correct answer to his question "yes" or "no"? If you say "yes", he will think that you own the Ferrari, so "you have a Ferrari" means "you own a Ferrari". If you don't own it, the answer he will expects will be "no" and an explanation of why you're driving one anyway.

In that same sense, "do you have a home?" means "do you own a home?", so if you don't own a home, you don't have a home, and not having a home makes you homeless. Homeless people can borrow other people's homes, to various degrees -- a friend letting you sleep on his apartment floor is different from a richer friend letting you sleep in his summer house, and renting or mortgaging something is just yet another degree of borrowing someone else's home -- but they're still essentially homeless.

Slashdot Top Deals

The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.