... or Red Dwarf.

This apparently calculates future positions based on movement direction and velocity changes from a known position, a process known as dead reckoning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_reckoning). I see two problems with this:
- You first need to have it at a known position, and give it that position;
- Its calculation of changes in position and velocity must be perfectly accurate.
The second one is the main problem. Unless it's perfectly accurate (unlikely?), it'll need recalibration often/occasionally, and how do you do that?

"it never was asked for; it was forced on everyone without any real reason."

I blame Red Hat for that. Red Hat has far too much control over what goes in to modern Unices; perhaps we need some discussion before radical new "features" are added.

As for Lennart Poettering himself, words continue to fail me.

"Because program managers get promotions by making new features, not by keeping old stuff working."

Well, that explains the rampant feature bloat in Outlook.

And that is why you don't give real answers to the security questions.
Example:
Q: What city were you born in?
A: Rhubarb

Then you save the answers you gave in your password app, so you don't forget them.

If they're going to insist on a new keyboard key, isn't it time they gave us an "any" key?

Better for what? Bragging rights?

Sorry, but if it's designed to be blown when a large enough current passes through it, it's a fuse. Whether it protects anything or not is irrelevant.

Source?
Aw, of course. There isn't one, is there?

As a card-carrying libtard, I'd have marked this as funny.

Damn. Where are mod points when you need them?

Should we get off your lawn?

"Carlos O'Donnell, a senior software engineer at Red Hat, recommended avoiding jokes altogether"

If only he'd said that when Red Hat came up with systemd ...

Oh, fsck, no. Please. She still hasn't learned that she was as popular as a bout of Ebola last time, and the the only reason she won the popular vote is that she wasn't Trump.
Please, please let someone else run this time, otherwise we'll be stuck with another GOP fsckwit.

Mention of that frequency range is what attracted me to this article. Long, long ago (well, 30+ years) I was a satellite communications guy posted to a remote earth station, so I'm well aware of the dangers of using this band for anything but satellite comms.
Why on earth does the FCC want to do this? Or have the major users given up C-band?