Re: LIST ALL THE WAYS YOU WOULD RUN THE WORLD DIFFERENTLY IF YOU WERE IN POWER, BELOW.
Very well. Please see here for the rules which would govern my governance of the world.
5591 posts • joined 31 May 2010
I have easily read it at least 100 times, cover to cover in the course of my 14 years of religious schooling. I signed the petition with alacrity.
Perhaps, sir, your presumptions are in error. I submit that those who dislike the bible do so because of their familiarity with it. Otherwise, why care?
Yaaarrrrr, I be joining ye scurvy dogs! Ramen!
@Denarius: Religion is a lie, regardless of what deity you choose to worship. Materialist religions absolutely can be crazy arsebags too. Look at the Randians, or the Sceintologists. They've both done some horrible things in the name of their beliefs.
Compassion and decency towards your fellow man is not the province of religion, and certainly not the province of only one particular religion. It's just what the majority of people do by default.
Unfortunately, the world is run by the "squeaky wheel", and they are almost universally extremist asshats out to do as much harm as humanly possible, all to frequently in the name of fuzzy sky fairy. Whether that sky fairy be the god of Abraham, the invisible hand of the market or anything else, it's nothing but harming others to fill some void in yourself that your desperately clung to beliefs have been unable to fulfill.
This world will not improve until we make radical religion - all of it - socially unacceptable. Critical thinking and evidence-based science are the only rational means to govern ourselves and our societies.
Dogmatic adherence to any belief results in nothing more than violent immorality in the name of an individual's faith. There is nothing more dishonorable than killing in the name of "god" or "the invisible hand of the market" or Buddha, or...
If you want to kill a man, be honest about why. Be honest with him, with yourself, with others.
"I am killing you because I want your stuff" or "I am killing you because what you say angers me" or "I am killing you because I am angry all the time and I am hoping this will make the voices stop for a while" at least have a shred of honour. "God says so" is bullshit. Bullshit of the highest order.
And that applies just as much to "god hates homosexuals" or "god says shun rape victims" or "god says get a job, ya bum".
Take some fucking responsibility for your own beliefs and your own actions. If you're going to be an asshole, don't hide behind a sky fairy that doesn't exist. if your actions make you so ashamed you need metaphysical permission then don't perform those actions. Learn to walk the fuck away and let others live their lives.
God is never a reason. God is nothing more than an excuse. Now, then, and forevermore.
You're an idiot.
The issue isn't "which version of bullshit hocus pocus is believed", it's extremists and evangelists of any religion.
In the case of certain sects of the Muslim population, there is a sad truth that many of the religious leaders are encouraging radicalization and violence. Just like with extremist Protestant groups. Both of these need to be targeted for deletion. That fact that you kill in Jesus' name rather than Muhammad's doesn't make you any more righteous. You both need to be stopped.
We're fortunate that today very, very few Catholics are radicalizing people and pushing them to violence. Historically, they've been among the worse of the worst. If Catholics can move more towards a moderate, accepting religion then that's good for a huge chunk of the planet.
Unfortunately, Protestants and Muslims are both a massive problem. Too easily are whackos attracted to these religions, because they are fundamentalist and literalist in their interpretation of the scrawlings of the relevant madmen.
In the case of the protestants, we're quite lucky that most of them live in the middle of the goddamned desert and simply ferment a hatred of their federal government and shoot people who come on their land. It could be a lot worse. Sometimes - all too often, in fact, - it is worse.
The protestants don't own a whole country. They are tempered by their fellow citizens. But more than enough times they have pushed for unholy havoc to be wrought on their religious rivals.
Sadly, the Muslim radicals have more power at the moment. That makes them a more immediate threat...but it is only the immediacy of the treat that is different. Given enough time, the fringe Protestants will be riding on tanks killing the non-believers too.
Any religion that views killing those who are different as not only okay, but justified needs to be brought to an end. Fortunately, it's typically the radical elements of a religion that believe that...not the mainstream.
Unfortunately, making a dent in the fact that people believe in s ridiculous sky fairy at all is taking forever. We need to push back against all religion. The fewer people who believe in sky fairies of any kind, the fewer will become radicalized on the name of one of them.
Instead, let's teach compassion, acceptance and critical thinking. If you want to believe in a religion, that's fine...up to a point. You can believe lies if you wish, but the instant you advocate - or attempt - the restriction of the rights of others in the name of your religion, the rights to advocate and practice your religion need to end.
Regardless of whether the sky fairy you worship is Jesus, Mohammad, Yaweh, or Barney the motherfucking dinosaur.
In Canada, "caved in" means "the damned thing collapsed on top of you. Conversely, in Canada "caved" is a colloquialism for "acceded to the demands of the plaintants."
@Nate: honestly, chances are it's a vsync issue. I hate the same problem with "twitch" games for a while, until I forced vsync at the video card. Headaches went away.
Then I discovered I liked simpler games anyways (CoH, Gratuitous Space Battles, FTL, Space Pirates and Zombies, etc.) Something about 2D games makes it easier to disconnect after 15 minutes and go do something productive. Not because of headaches, but because they're more...episodic?
Well, except Civ. One...more...turn...
"Events for which the Church of Rome were the moral and intellectual foundation"
Except that - in modern times at least - it's not the Catholics that are the problem. It's extremist protestants. And I can think of (of the top of my head) at least 300 people whoa re now dead because of extremist protestants wigging the fuck out about their religion (or the perceived lack of it/inadequacy of it in others). And that's just my memory, without Google, and confined to North America.
That's not even touching organized religious warfare, driving people to suicide (thanks, Westboro Baptist Church!), or getting into far more controversial topics like "babies who died from neglect because they were born to mothers who shouldn't have been having kids, but didn't use contraception because God." Or how about "babies who died en masse due to starvation/AIDS because an entire fucking continent has been hoodwinked into no contraception because God."
You know, I'm going to go waaaaaaaaaay out on a limb here and say "deaths/rapes due to GTA influence" are way the hell lower than atrocities committed in the name of God. And that's just the Christian god. Let's not open the can of worms that is "the Abrahamic sky fairy is really the same sky fairy for a number of religions"...
Then you don't get out enough.
VMware: look up "PEX and Nutanix". Or really, any sales strategy involving a VMware partner that has a successful product.
Google: Oh, let me count the ways in which they have actively tried to sabotage the competition. But let's start with a discussion about Android restrictions, shall we?
Be honest with yourself here, mate: do you see "Dave's Apache Highmem Config, Optimised for 50,000 user Wordpress installs including OOB integration with Cloudflare and automated Dropbox Backups" ever coming to the Microsoft Store? Really?
Because that's exactly the sort of package that makes Docker attractive. And it's exactly the sort of package I have a hard time believing will show up in Microsoft's App Store.
Sysadmins can't do anything about it. Every major new tech that comes out with a significant ease of use change means fewer sysadmins are required than were before. That's why ease of use matters; it gets rid of the need for priests to tend the temple and allows a single contracted janitorial team to handle hundreds of companies as they do their rounds every night.
If you're looking for "how can docker make me, as an Ops guy, better off" the chances are that it won't. Oh, if you master it, you could probably become a "containerization consultant" and be one of the janitors tending multiple businesses, but since it is the equivalent of moving from "having to carefully manage each install of each app separately" to "click install in the app store", it removes a lot of why you might need to be there.
And that, right there, is why it is valuable to business. Unfortunately, in this instance, "good for the business" is "bad for the ops guys".
RedHat are any better? VMware? Oracle? Google?
Not a lot of honour amongst IT companies.
Think of Docker as being "Steam for enterprise applications and web development platforms" and you might begin to grok what it's bringing to the table. Stop thinking of things in terms of "I'm a sysadmin with a strong ops background who can figure this out if you pay me" and start thinking of it from the standpoint of business owners and developers who don't want to have to pay ops guys at all.
I gotta be honest when I say I can't picture actually using IIS in production. I just can't. Apache is ground into my bones. I've redone those configs so many times that I don't even need the comments in httpd.conf anymore.
That said, I have seen what httpd.conf does to newbies. It's about what IIS does to me. So whenever I picture starting Apache from scratch I imagine someone asking me to take all my websites and move them to IIS. Then I quickly think of something else before that becomes a desire to self-harm.
Don't forget OpenIndianna. Or BSD Jails. Or Virtuozzo. Or OpenVZ. Or Rocket. Or...
Just because you have a containerization tech doesn't mean you have momentum, hype, a community, backing, industry support, an "app store", community input to that "app store", cloud provider adoption, etc. etc. etc.
That makes Docker quantitatively as well as qualitatively different from any of the other containerization techs that have gone before. Technology doesn't matter here nearly so much as politics, damned politics and "moolah, moolah, moolah, moo-la-haaaaaaaaaaa..."
Parallels has virty tech, they aren't a threat to VMware. Virtualbox is groovy, nobody runs a large datacenter on it. Solairs/OpenIndianna/Illuminos jails are awesome and even have enterprise support...but there isn't a heck of a lot of cloud provider adoption, hype or community support.
That isn't to say it couldn't happen. It's just that these are projects by engineers, for engineers. And that means they likely won't succeed where the marketdroids and moneymen walk.
"In the playground there's a possibility that at least some of the others who see bullying may point out that it's not a particularly nice thing to do."
What the hell playgrounds were you a part of as a kid? I sumbit that what you suggest is fantastically rare.
Quite the converse, in fact: while kids will never stick up for another that is being bullied, the Internet is full of White Knights who will appear out of a portal and fire back at cyber-bullies with both barrels.
@Khaptain your mother smelt of elderberries.
God doesn't exist. Rights granted by a non-extant entity are irrelevant. Thus the "god-given" right to view a website, or to track someone are non-extant. The rights are as they have been defined in various documents, starting with the UDHR and ending with local bylaws.
"Maybe the risk of a network outage is as costly as you claim to that company,"
They're damned high for almost any company.
"but the risks of on-premise data storage and computing are also considerable."
No, they're not. Are you sure you understand how storage works? Because we're really quite good at it by now.
"Not long from now that same insurer will demand draconic and auditable standardized measures to be taken on your 'own' systems to even consider giving you coverage."
Already do. No problem. Well, actually, that're not draconic at all. They're fairly well thought out standardized tests that can be easily seen off by getting a member of CIPS to sign off on it. Just like having a professional accountant sign off on your books is required, so to can getting a legally recognized professional IT practitioner to sign off on your IT designs be required.
What's wrong with that? I'd need the same thing if I were using the almighty American Public Cloud...except that it would be 10x as expensive and far less likely to pass muster, due to the nature of single points of failure in the American Public Cloud Computing model that are completely beyond my control.
"That will make the comparison more balanced I expect, even without the already high costs of local solutions."
Actually, it usually means the unreliable and ridiculously expensive public cloud solutions go down in flames. And speaking of flames, I think you'd be surprised at what local tech can take.
Baaaahhh. Baaaaaahhhhh. Baaaaah.
You can fight with diplomacy, logic, rationality and compassion. With the exception of the most extreme of extremists it usually works.
Please, do explain why private actions that harm noone should be prohibited, hmm?
Why should I be subject to your morality? Just who the hell are you to tell me what I can and can't do? Why should I comply? Why shouldn't you be made to comply with my morality instead?
"Just like sexual assault, rape, and other exploitative or sexual crimes against a person, it is both bad form and highly prejudicial to engage in even the tiniest amount of victim-blaming. In cases were there is doubt, the jury should return a Not Guilty verdict, and that would include situations where the only evidence of wrongdoing is hearsay or conflicting accounts lacking in any evidence that will given credibility to one side or the other."
I agree that victim blaming is bad. By the same token, I don't have any faith whatsoever that a jury will return a verdict of Not Guilty if a fellow is not guilty. What's more, merely being accused of such crimes can ruin someone's life. And there absolutely, 100% are vicious, mean-spirited harpies out there who will drag a man down to hell for some imagined slight. I can introduce you to a few, if you'd like. The results of their hell-hatched plans of ruination are mighty tales in and of themselves.
It's funny, you never read in the newspaper about the guy let out of jail after 3 months when new evidence comes to light if the reason he was banged up was supposed spousal abuse. But if a guy is found not guilty, well, he's hounded by the press ad aeternum and presumed to be "guilty, but let off via the old boys' club."
When sex or sexuality is involved, justice is anything but blind.
"Banning abortion? What? People think killing babies is wrong? How backward is that!"
Potential babies aren't babies yet. And it's pretty goddamned backwards to ban abortion. Question for you: do you give a fuck about the "precious little baby" once it has exited the woman's vagina, or do you only care about it while it is part of a woman's body? If you do care about the "precious little baby" after it has exited a woman's vagina, I assume you're in full support then of universal health care, the welfare state, free post-secondary education, employment insurance and other means and measures to ensure a happy and productive life for all members of society?
If you are not, please explain why not, starting with why a potential baby merits more concern than an actual living, breathing human being?
"Teaching an alternative theory of the origins of life on earth? Ah yes, that's just like beheading people who oppose your rule and hiding half the population under tent-clothes while the other half can do as they wish."
I'm glad we're able to come to an agreement about just how completely fucked up beyond all repair suppressing scientific knowledge is, especially when it is done in the name of a false god. One amongst hundreds of other false gods that madmen have dreamt up over the centuries.
Keep up the good work!
"How much more civilised we are, sending our armies off to foreign lands where they can wreak havoc on them undeserving heathens, killing them, so that they don't have to endure the dreadful atrocities their leaders inflict on them."
Well, seems both sides to this argument engage in this particular bit of fuckwittery. Though, I daresay, the Islamics have claimed far fewer western scalps than we've managed to kill of them. Over a million in Iraw, was it? And how many in Afghanistan? Pakistan? Syria?
Hmm...I think I'm going to go with "we're a bunch of peckerheads too".
Until you commented here, I'd never even heard of it, to be perfectly honest. I guess I'll add it to my list of things to investigate in 2015...
Hi, maybe I can help some.
I think the answer to your question is "either/or". For the VCs - and typically most founders - "suceed" in the market means "have a profitable exit". That exit can be IPO, or it can be acquisition. But the point is that you get 5-10x out what you put in (time or money wise, where time is calculated at what you could command working full time for someone else.)
Remember that most founders don't stay with their "baby" past the contractual period after acquisition. They have their money, and they're going to go roll the dice one more time and try to make another startup, get more money.
The thing you have to remember is that the people who start SV startups chafe under the rules and restraints of big business. They want to be free to innovate, make their own choices...and mistakes. The startup life is a lifestyle as much as anything. It's about the freedom as much as the money.
So for VCs, all that matters is the money, but for execs the money is the means to the end of going back and doing it all over again.
Funnily enough, I am working on an article about exactly that.
Capitalism doesn't work so much as "devolves". But that's a discussion for another time...
Agree 100%. Containers are useful to small businesses. But they can't give up the benefits of hypervisors either. They'll be deploying containers inside VMs almost exclusively. Best of both worlds!
Only those who are dedicated at a religious level will be deploying to metal. They need/want every erg of efficiency possible. SMBs aren't in it for the efficiency; they need ease of use way more than efficiency.
"Most of the SMBs I know aren't running VMs even now, they run their applications on a miscellany of elderly hardware held together by good fortune and the occasional visit of the part-time finance director's second cousin."
Then you don't know SMBs, period. "Small to medium business" covers 1 to 1000 seats, generally. With enterprise being above 1000 seats. (Depending on which government is doing the counting.) The bulk of those companies are in the 50-250 seat range, and as an SMB sysadmin by trade, I promise you they've been virtualised for some time now.
"And as soon as containerisation makes it properly to Windows, those people will be taking it up in their droves, because there's no point running multiple OSs if you don't have to - even just from a licensing point of view."
Wrong again. Ignoring the rest of your prejudiced (and false) remarks, you don't understand at all <i.why</i> most companies use VMs. It is to obtain the benefits of redundancy, reliability and manageability (including snapshots, backups, replication, live workload migration during maintenance, etc) that hypervisors provide. Contianers, at the moment, don't provide that.
SMBs want far more than just the ability to run the maximum number of workloads on a given a piece of hardware. They want those workloads to be bulletproof. They need them to be something that can be moved around while still in use because there aren't any "maintenance windows" anymore. There's always someone remotely accessing something. That's just life today. Hell, that was life 5 years ago. It's like you have a picture of SMBs stuck in a time warp from 1999 and you imagine that they've never evolved.
"Containers aren't just a packaging technology - they depend on the provision of resource management and scheduling in the OS that are equivalent to those provided by a current hypervisor."
Everything depends on " the provision of resource management and scheduling in the OS that are equivalent to those provided by a current hypervisor". Whether running on metal in it's own OS, in a container, or in a hypervisor. I don't understand how this precludes containers from being "just a packaging technology".
"And while Docker may have a little way to go (but I think 30 months rather than 30 years will see some big changes), I think you'd have a hard time persuading the people on non-x86 hardware that their WPARs and Zones are manifestly harder to work with than VM solutions."
No, I wouldn't. Because you are completely ignoring the desired outcome portion of the equation. Containers provide what companies desire when the hardware underneath the container provides the required elements of high availability, workload migration and continuous uptime during maintenance. Run containers on an HP NonStop server or an IBM mainframe and you get all the bits you want while getting the extra efficiency of containers.
But, shockingly enough, most businesses don't have the money to spend $virgins on mainframes or NonStop servers. So they use hypervisors to lash together commodity hardware into what amounts to a virtual, distributed mainframe. They then package up their applications in their own OSes and move them about.
Are containers realtively easy to deploy and somewhat easy to manage? Sure. I'll even go so far as to say they're way easier to deploy than VMs are, but I will remain adamant that VMs are currently easier to manage. What you're missing, however, is that hypervisors democratize all the other things - portability, heterogeneity, high availability and so forth - that are requirements of modern IT. Containers don't provide mechanisms for that, unless you burn down your existing code bases and completely redesign.
"Even IBM praises the benefits of WPARs (containers) over LPARs (hypervisor) in the majority of use cases, even though it supports both and the latter has rather more hardware support than the typical x86 VM. I can't really improve on their reasoning:"
Of course IBM is touting WPARs over LPARs. They sell the pantsing mainframes that make containers a viable technology. And they only ask the firstborn of your entire ethnic group in order to afford it!
"Better resource utilisation (one system image)"
Nobody is debating this one. Containers are more efficient.
"Easier to maintain (one OS to patch)"
One OS reboot takes down 1000s of containers. Also, you get the lovely issue of having to deal with workloads that may react badly to a given patch being mixed in with workloads that might need a given patch, all running on the same OS instance. Funny, container evangelists never talk about that one...
Easier to archive (one system image)
Oh, please. We're not using Norton Ghost here. Ever since Veeam came along nobody in their right mind has had trouble doing backups, DR or archives of VMs.
Better granularity of resource management (CPU, RAM, I/O)"
That depends entirely on how shit your hypervisor is. Funnily enough, VMware seems to be quite good at providing granularity of resource management.
So, of IBM's four-point path to victory, the only thing that really shines as rationale is "efficiency". And it carefully sidesteps some pretty significant issues ranging from price (we can't all afford mainframes or NonStop servers) to manageability (1000 workloads sharing a single OS can actually be less desirable than, say, 10 OSes, each with 100 workloads.)
@dan1980 except you leave out the part of the Office 2007/2010 licensing that pertains the remote/VDI usage whilst attempting to sing Microsoft's praises of licensing that product. Though you at least acknowledge the media-based madness of the time.
Microsoft doesn't do "rational".
By "array" I typically mean SAN and NAS. DAS stuff is usually not called an array. It's just called DAS. (Or JBOD). It's a separate thing. It's usually many more disks than you'll find in a server SAN, but it's not shared across multiple systems...or at least not enough systems to make more than a two or three node cluster.
DAS is a very Microsoft thing, at least where virtualization is involved. I know it's still a thing for those few running workloads on metal, but only Microsoft really thinks it's remotely viable for hosts with hypervisors on them. But, hey, it's Microsoft. Being trapped 15 years in the past is quite an advancement for them.
I...I don't think you understand how these work? Especially how they're installed in enterprises.
As a general rule, enterprises used to buy hardware dedicated to a specific project or workload. Each DB had it's own SAN, it's own servers, etc. But then we found that this was spectacularly inefficient and led to massive underutilisation of resources. Private clouds - or at least virtualisation setups that were closeish - began to become the order of the day.
Resources began to be purchased and pooled based on cumulative predicted need, not based on the individual project or workload. Now the question has become "how best to maintain these sorts of environments."
Something like a Nutanix or VSAN cluster rarely goes beyond 16 nodes, sometimes to 32. You get multiple clusters in a virtual datacenter. You are highly unlikely to have nodes in the cluster that are different speeds/capabilities because clusters tend to live and die as a group. We've seen that even in non-VSAN clusters thus far. Clusters are born, they live and they die as one.
But in the rare instance where clustered are mixed - I run a mixed cluster myself - sysadmins can simply tell workloads to keep the copies on "like" nodes. If you have PCI-E storage on nodes A-D and only SAS storage on nodes E-H, then you can "segregate" the cluster into two.
In theory, you could end up with a workload split along the storage plane, but only if you'd lost enough of one type of node that rebuilding would cause it to put the second copy on the other class of node. As soon as you've repaired the server sin question, policies would take over and make sure your workloads go where they are supposed to.
If your assertion is somehow that server SANs are unable to support SQL or OLTP workloads, well...you're just wrong. You're wronger than wrong.
Believe it or not, server SANs have been around long enough to evolve to handle the concept of diversity in workloads...and to handle workloads that are as demanding as anything you could throw at a traditional SAN. Indeed, I'd challenge a traditional SAN to keep up with the all-flash server SANs. The MCS setups in particular are utterly spectacular.
Exactly why data governance is the new hotness, and new ways to get disks into the datacenter are not. :)
Did you know that the closest land-based relative to cetaceans (a family that includes whales) is the hippopotamus?
"Why claim victory for "server SAN" instead of the broader category, except as a marketing move?"
A) "Server SAN" was coined by Stuart Miniman. An analyst, not a marketing bloke, because we needed something to call "lashing together storage from multiple servers and present it to the cluster" that was shorter than "lashing together storage from multiple servers and present it to the cluster"
B) Because not all "clusters of storage lashed together" are the same. Object storage is, for example, going it's own say, despite being something we could reasonably call a "server SAN" as a technicality. The big money isn't in object storage. You can't charge the big margins for it. It's things like VSAN, Nutanix, etc that are wining out and going to form the "default" for enterprise workloads.
C) I calls it like I sees it. Arrays, clusters of arrays and "lashed together clusters of storage that don't run workloads on the same nodes as the storage" are simply not winning out over more modern "hyperconverged" (and by, do I loathe that term) setups.
And it's enterprise workloads that matter, mate. They're where the money is. They're where you get the margin.
5-10 minutes is a long way from a half hour. Also: for the record, you don't tend to need such long boot times in server SAN boxes, because you need RAID cards so complicated that they need to load an OS from the future when they init.
Of course, you could also be seeing extended boot times because you're using 1.5TB of RAM and doing extended memory tests on each boot. Dell in particular seems to like really indulgent mem tests.
expanded on his cloud strategy to get Microsoft apps on every internet-equipped device on the planet.
"Talk about making pigs fly. Does anyone in their right mind even remotely think that this is doable?"
"Does you leccy meter that sends your reading to the mothership need a Word Interface? Does it even need to run Windows of any shape or form? Does it need an SQLServer Client or even client access to CRM, BizTalk or any other MS product?"
No, but it probably could report it's data back to Azure, or run a little Microsoft Research-developed micro OS (they have a couple) that are efficient, small, and designed for embedded devices. I think one of them even runs in less than 2MB of RAM.
"My current smart meter does not. I know that it runs Linux."
"Does he think that every Router on the planet is going to have some MS software in it?"
Why couldn't it?
"The list of area where MS will fail is very long."
I can say this about (almost) every OS or software company, if we're being honest.
"Perhaps he should become a Politician. They always promise stuff that is clearly impossible to deliver (if you have half a working brain that is) but they make great sound-bites don't they?"
He's the CEO of one of hte most important corporations on the planet. He is a politician, now.
So...anyone with a genetic predisposition towards any of a number of different diseases will pay more to live? Anyone who is poorer (and thus can only afford bulk processed foods that aren't good for us) will pay more to live? Anyone who has had an accident (I can give you a list of people who have had spectacularly costly - read: millions of dollars and counting - worth of medical issues due to being hit by a drunk driver) will pay more to live?
You can't control your genetics. Poverty is a vicious circle that very, very few escape from. Lots of things can happen to you where you have absolutely zero control or ability to prevent them.
And we're going to place people at a disadvantage because of this people for this? There is a thin line here between medical insurance tracking bracelets and eugenics. It's maybe a slower process to use the bracelets, but the end result is the same: pushing those who are "impure" into a position of significant disadvantage such that they will eventually just die off.
Where did I say that marijuana was safe for everyone? Hmm? No chemical is. And yet, that doesn't mean you lock it up and away from everyone. It means you put your time and effort into education. Into making sure you can tailor drugs to the individual, etc.
People with peanut allergies know to stay away from peanuts. People with certain genetics should know to stay away from marijuana. People on the schizophrenia spectrum need to know to stay way from amphetamines. People on the autism spectrum need to stay away from antipsychotics.
We are all different, and it is up to the individual to know their own selves; what they can tolerate, and what they can't. We can test for this stuff now. It's not that hard. I mean, hell, you need to get a blood pressure test before getting birth control pills, why the hell can't we mandate a genetics test before being cleared for marijuana/amphetamines/etc.
There are a huge number of drugs withheld from the market that could do real good in the world. These are drugs that could change the quality of life for tens of millions of people, but are held back because less than 1% of people would experience serious negative side effects.
This is stupid, wasteful and harmful to anyone with an IQ bigger than their shoe size. Those drugs can not only improve life for people, in many cases they can save lives.
But no, they're locked away from everyone because of shortsighted fearmongers who are terrified that they will get into the hands of the less than 1% of people they would truly harm. Any attempts to work out a middle ground - for example, make those drugs prescription only, put money into developing commoditized test to ensure that taking that drug is okay, etc - are stamped out in furious anger by the fearmongers.
Troglodytes. Troglodytes that care nothing for the suffering of others so long as it allows them to impose their narrow, limited worldview on everyone else. I hope each and every one of them suffers greatly from a perfectly preventable illness before dying a miserably, lingering, horribly painful death. One that a drug withheld because of fear of how it would affect less than 1% of people could have mitigated or cured.
There is a corrections link at the bottom of the article, in the left column. Thank you.
You mean the end user experience has been awful because the install you're working with, specifically, cut a shitload of corners and/or you don't know what you're doing.
That's a hell of a different thing from generalizing to "this is how it is for everyone."
"It can be, and has been, construed that the fact that someone is breaking into your house constitutes a de facto threat to life and limb. I thoroughly agree with you in that possessions are not worth lives, though I suspect we disagree on the point at which one reasonably might be expected or allowed to use lethal force."
And this is the difference between the American - read; batshit fucking bananas - view of the world, and the Canadian - read: proportional response to events - approach to life.
Americans are xenophobic by nature. Terrified of everything and everyone. They believe that everything and everyone are out to get them, all the time. They believe they are special, important, what they own is important, that everyone wants to harm them, specifically, or just wants to do harm to everyone indiscriminately.
It is very rare to find a Canadian with that twisted worldview. Oh, yes, crime does happen, but there's usually a damned good reason for it. We're taught statistics in school. Repeatedly, over the course of about 8 years.
We understand that while, for example, there are people out there who will kill indiscriminately because they're unhinged, the chances of that are roughly equal to getting hit by lightning twice and then walking out into the street and getting shit on by a bird. Especially because we have the beginnings of a competent mental health care system. (With, admittedly, some lamentable gaps.)
Yes, some dude might be breaking into your house, but the chances that he is going to harm you or wants to harm you are virtually nonexistent. And they are not legally grounds for you to attack him.
Explain to me exactly how the NSA is changing the readout on this in real time to match their usage?
Who the metric fuck has the resources to fork an app that's a half million lines of code? What about once it's a million? Two? Ten?
Past a certain point, the fact that it's GPL means nothing.
You are basically making the argument that the American people have power over their government because the second amendment gives them the ability to carry around AK-47s. Ignoring completely the part where the government has everything from tanks to helicopters to drones, and there isn't a hope in hell of "the people" rising up against the government without being beaten back down as domestic terrorists.
The same basic principles apply to open source. Past a certain point, the complexity, integration and sheer size of a project make it functionally impossible to fork, unless you can convince the overwhelming majority of the original developers to move to the fork. (LibreOffice, MariaDB, etc.)
SystemD is a fucking cancer. The goal behind it's ongoing metastasization is nothing more than control of the Linux ecosystem in it's entirety. You can lay down any excuses you want, attempt to dismiss any criticism with a half truth or a technicality, but you can't change the fact that the thing has been rammed up our asses against the express wishes of a huge chunk of the community and with the developers openly and proudly refusing to engage with the community about any aspect of either design or implementation.
it's the same arrogant egofuckery that the Gnome team displayed and it has no fucking place as a hydra-like unkillable monster at the core of open source upon which everything expected to hang.
There is room for exactly one Linus Torvalds in the Linux ecosystem, and he's right where he belongs: keeping the kernel sane.
We don't need a second goddamned kernel running in userland.
Where/how did you pull from anything above that the application or guest OS should be the one moving things around? Whaaaaa?
@J3, wipe them out. All of them. Viral warfare. Fire. Destruction of the planet. I don't care what it takes!