I wonder why dark fiber was so cheap in the early 2000s when google famously started using it to link their datacenters?
Not to mention that a huge percentage of the fiber laid in the 90s was never used. It was put in the wrong place or turned out to be the wrong type or was just lost when the "the internet is the future and will change everything. it runs over fiber and we'll need so much more than we could ever lay" companies went bust.
Yeah and it's a myth that fracking makes water undrinkable.
I'll bet anything you'd be the guy that won't drink a glass of the "perfectly safe, completely unaffected" water while making such utterly absurd claims.
And you regulate a militia by making sure all the bits work together, for instance by standardizing weapons and ammo.
This is also a great argument for licensing - proving that you know how to properly work and use a gun seems like perfect militia regulation (in the proper functioning sense).
A simple google search also pulls up explanations of the opposite. And plenty talking about how the grammar is extremely ambiguous.
I actually like this ruling. I just think the absurd level of zealotry and bad/stupid/illogical reasoning that comes from the ignorance worshiping 2A crowd is fucking embarrassing as a human.
What an absurd thing to say. You just made my point - a well regulated militia vital to the amendment. So why in your vast wisdom are you opposed to regulations associated with a regulated militia?
A well regulated militia would determine what types of guns, what ammo, what uniforms, what qualifies a member, etc.
Besides the freedom of the State means that its not subordinate to another State. Not that random people get to shoot at the duly elected State government.
Which part of "a well regulated militia" is hard to parse exactly?
The right to bear arms is the subordinate clause to the purpose of a well regulated militia.
Since the purpose of that militia is clearly defined as "being necessary for the security of the State", it seems to me that the regulating body is the State.
Seems to me that the right to bear arms is limited to circumstances when the State itself is under threat. It seems to me that anyone having a gun in their home when the state is not under attack is an open question not covered directly by "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed".
But that's because I'm looking at all the words of the actual amendment. I guess your position is that "only randomly selected phrases from the constitution matter if they help me get what I want, whole sentences and the whole document don't actually matter".
Yeah! It was typed into a computer and never even put on paper. How can you say it was written at all?
Further, can anything be "100% human writt even if it uses pen and paper? No of course not! Unless it is created by pricking a finger and put on human vellum, it's only partially human written.
Seriously though - if you want to do stupid purity test games, at least be properly pure about it. This half-assed nonsense is just trite.
Rarely does one acquire dollars for the sake of having dollars. Dollars are power tokens, and the acquisition of them beyond a certain point is almost always accompanied by a motive.
I was at the hardware store this morning. I bought a hammer. It sure seemed like a product... with the whole "being displayed on store shelves" and "available for purchase" thing.
There were several different hammers there, bearing different branding and having different manufacturers.
I get it. Some software had a couple bugs at first, as does all new software. And now some whiny people who have never, don't currently, and will never provide value to the open source ecosystem have spent more years whining and complaining about the bugs than the entire piece of software was in widespread use.
Yeah, it's sad that a few dozen very vocal people got upset that they would have to read the manual and maybe get rid of some of the hacky nonsense they cobbled together to get an equivalent experience to what default pulse provided. Those people have spent decades whining about imagined issues and preventing reasonable discourse about actually good software.
Wierd. I like systemd. It's given me more stability and control over my systems than anything before provided. I like pulseaudio - it made the linux audio experience better than anything that came before it.
I don't live in terror of new things though, so I don't really understand the propaganda.
* coalescing jobs with control over the granularity of it. That means you can say "i want this job run on at 14:30:02 exactly" and I want these jobs run at 19:21 or so, 19:22 or so: and 19:23 and set your resoultion to 10m and they'll all run at once. Great on laptops and other scenarios where you want to reduce power draw.
* System wakeup - you can wake a system from sleep various sleep modes (details depend on hw support) and run a job.
* cohesion with the rest of the system. this is a big deal when you stop playing with just your desktop and pet server and have to deal with 10^4 or more servers. having to deal with the wierd quirks of cron vs inittab vs whatever is frustrating and when there are many people working on it, someone is always going to do something quirky and fragile. Yes you have to know the systemd things, but that's it - a timer starts a unit, any unit, without all the bullshit (e.g, oh im stating with cron, these magic invocations are neeeded, oh im starting it with runit and these different invocations are needed, etc)
I literally never experienced any of the problems people complain about for pulseaudio - at the time it was released it was the smoothest audio experience i ever had on linux. I think some people just want to look cool and complain about the new thing.... But also I read manuals and think for 3 or 4 seconds before doing things, so maybe it has something to do with that.
My point was purpose built doesn't mean its the best tool for the job.
As for the rest of the drivel: so what it was used for a long time. That just means it was pretty good. That doesn't mean it has to stay forever, just that a new contender should do things better.
Systemd timers address real shortcomings of cron.
Your argument boils down to: everyone should be stuck with shortcomings of the early days of computing because you don't like new things.
Total n00b here. My first linux install was pretty recently, in late 1996 or early 1997 (sometime that winter).
I just don't get it. Like is the core sentiment "How dare they address obvious system shortcomings"? Is it "I learned once and how dare you think I'm capable of learning again"? Is it "I want others to suffer the way I did to learn job scheduling"?
cron did a job, but had shortcomings. Systemd addresses many of those shortcomings. One day something else will come along and address the shortcomings of systemd, and no one will care about systemd nostolgia. This is how technology is supposed to work: making progress and fixing the shortcomings of the past generation. It's not a religion, we don't have to maintain the weird old ways from the 80's, your soul won't be saved by cron or corrupted by systemd.
Not to mention that a huge percentage of the fiber laid in the 90s was never used. It was put in the wrong place or turned out to be the wrong type or was just lost when the "the internet is the future and will change everything. it runs over fiber and we'll need so much more than we could ever lay" companies went bust.