I read it too, years ago, and also follow its recommendations. (And I ended up in the Seattle area, so I've gotten to experience the same traffic the author did...) It makes traffic less annoying for sure, even if there were 0 other benefits I'd do it. The only freeway issue that annoys me these days is people who don't keep right except to pass during non peak times.
I got the sense too. The message sharing the link to the source describes it as "incomplete and extremely buggy". Was it that way when it was first proposed to the kernel group for integration? If so that seems like a reasonable reason to reject it...
I googled for "kernel mailing list managed runtime initiative" and found this: https://lwn.net/Articles/392307/ Apparently it was never even proposed on the kernel mailing list! But then apparently the code as written wasn't ever meant to be integrated into the kernel upstream but as a sort of PoC that would maybe be a better starting point than going fresh for eventual integration... But there's lots of interesting details, and as I'm reading through the comments, things are coming back, now I remember reading about this in 2010/2011...
If your bar for evidence is that a human revival process has been shown to work, I don't think you'll see that for quite some time. But to say there's no evidence it can work is pretty out there... 10 years ago they vitrified a rabbit kidney, then warmed it up, and successfully transplanted it.
A kidney's a lot less complicated than the brain, and that was 10 years ago. The research has been pretty underfunded. If you'd actually like the field to progress and uncover evidence for or against the prospect of those who have been suspended up until now ever even having the slimmest chance of revival greater than that of cremation, maybe you should encourage legislation that lets them test on volunteering criminals heading for lethal injection or other end-of-life volunteers who don't want to be preserved but are happy to contribute to Science or large animals. Don't get squeamish over experiments like this: http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/bringingdixieback.html
Fair enough. I will offer $10 million for a demonstration that this technology works and has a scientific basis, with the proof being the successful resuscitation and revivification into a whole functioning human from any human brain that is in cryogenic storage at this company. I'll even give you a generous whole year to demonstrate it, since you have stated the only problem is insufficient support and funding, well here it is, your big chance. And of course should the year pass and there is still no evidence, just like each of the last 40 years this has been claimed to be a viable technology without a shred of evidence, then you will pay $10 million, to be used for anti-cult deprogramming efforts. Looking forward to acceptance of this offer, followed by either your verifiable evidence or your payment.
Did you even read the link already provided? I advise you to look into the history of the people on the Trust Board, and the people on Alcor's board of directors, and the people of Alcor's general staff. Note how many are members of Alcor, or who have family members already being preserved, and thus have a personal interest in the mission succeeding. How about you browse their library and see what things are being discussed and by whom? http://www.alcor.org/Library/index.html
Then consider you don't even have to be rich. As already noted on this very page (ed: I see you already noted that), it costs $80k to suspend your head with Alcor. Not $800k, which would still be pretty reasonable and not only for the rich, because someone in their 30s can pay only $60/mo for a 20-year life insurance policy paying out $1m.
How much are you looking to get paid? If you don't care that much, try putting an ad on craigslist or see if your high school's CS teacher has any connections. (Others in the school who might help network you are web dev teachers, computer networking teachers, and IT.) There may be a solo guy in the area who's working on his startup (probably funded from his personal savings and/or from a wife, or the startup might be a side-project while he works a 9-5 or occasional consulting) and who would find it worthwhile to pay a bright student $10-$20 per hour to do work. Or they might be a small shop with multiple people who don't realize they could use a cheap intern until the cheap intern asks them if they'd consider it. :) If you'd like a shot at more money, I'd either go the app route others are suggesting, or do your own freelancing. Ask your dentist, etc. if they need a new or updated website, that sort of thing. If you want other ideas, observe how people are operating at their jobs and try to imagine how software could make them more efficient, and if you think you could write that software talk to the person with the power to pay you.
To a distro that doesn't force things down the throats of its users in the same degree Ubuntu et al. do. e.g. Gentoo. (You can even run a FreeBSD kernel in Gentoo if you want.)
That isn't to say it's been all rosy in Gentoo-land. It was an effort to keep Gnome3 off my system, to keep the existing Gnome2 versions of everything until MATE (and the Gentoo community packaging) was ready enough to replace Gnome2. But my system is happily free of Gnome3, systemd, and pulseaudio. And because Gentoo doesn't really have release versions, I can keep my other packages up to date indefinitely.
I do wonder how much effort and forks will be required to keep Gentoo, well, Gentoo going forwards, as more and more stuff either is either lumped into Systemd or depends on/assumes its presence.
One can already see how you at least have to keep the libsystemd package installed on Debian's latest, even if you use something other than systemd as the init etc, or else apt throws a tantrum.
http://ewontfix.com/15/ may be the most interesting read in all this. Notice how everything but dbus and the systemd lib have various issues. And if kdbus hits the kernel, systemd is poised to position itself as the mediator between (legacy) dbus and kdbus.
All in all there is some serious "one true way"-ism coming out of the systemd camp.
Basically I have a horizontally split 'screen' session, code in the top and repl in the bottom, and I just ctrl+[c+c] to send paragraphs from the top to the bottom. I don't remember if vim-slime comes with it or if I augmented it, but I also do ctrl+[c+f] to send the current Lisp/Clojure form, ctrl+[c+l] to send the current line... Or just ctrl+a+tab to switch screen windows and type in the REPL directly.
I think you need a bigger reference frame of Lisp's usage over its 50 year history that extends even to 2015. But even then, quoting Kent Pitman: "Please don't assume Lisp is only useful for Animation and Graphics, AI, Bioinformatics, B2B and E-Commerce, Data Mining, EDA/Semiconductor applications, Expert Systems, Finance, Intelligent Agents, Knowledge Management, Mechanical CAD, Modeling and Simulation, Natural Language, Optimization, Research, Risk Analysis, Scheduling, Telecom, and Web Authoring just because these are the only things they happened to list." (My additions are video games and Mars rovers.)
Part of the visibility issue is that there are very few big-name open source Common Lisp success stories which aren't CL implementations, or CL ecosystem tools. Most of the things in that list are big-ticket enterprisey applications.
It's also not Common Lisp. I get that emacs lisp is a pretty good example of a lisp, but I do find it interesting that the Lisp designed to be the widely-applicable industry standard hasn't seen something on the same level.
> Emacs is not an editor. Emacs is a family of editors. You are probably talking about GNU Emacs.
You tell me, you brought it up!
> They never tried and it would not make sense. GNU Emacs exists already and supports Lisp development very well. The other tools have concentrated on other things: GUI-based IDEs for Lisp.
Emacs is for more than Lisp development, though. It's not popular because you can do Lisp in it, it's popular because you can do everything in it. So we're back to my earlier question, which is why we haven't seen major, broad-based wins for Common Lisp, on the scale that we have for other languages.
> Emacs is for more than Lisp development, though.
Not Emacs, GNU Emacs. That's what I wrote.
> we haven't seen major, broad-based wins for Common Lisp, on the scale that we have for other languages.
Common Lisp tends to be used in very specialized areas. It's a complex language.
Though sometimes it has been used where you don't see it, but you may be affected. American Express runs a Lisp based system checking credit card transactions. Should be running for two decades or longer. Amazon was using Lisp to compute some stuff on their shopping pages. CIA and NSA use it to spy on us. Lots of aircrafts (Airbus & Boeing) and cars (Jaguar, Ford, ...) were designed with Lisp-based CAD systems. NASA uses it for checking software correctness. Chip makers like AMD have used it to check processor designs for correct operations. There are many of those applications. Google's flight search engine has its core written in Lisp. Dwave wrote the software for their quantum processor in Lisp. There is a broadband internet of satellite company running Lisp on their antennas. Parts of the precursor software of Apple's Siri were written in Lisp. That's the stuff what it was originally was designed for...
If you have no idea what the superintelligence will do, then you should set your expectation to be the outcome of any random one of possible superintelligent mind designs. Not all superintelligent mind designs are totally unpredictable -- if I know it will prefer winning in a game of chess to losing, I predict it will win every match against a human, even if I don't know exactly what moves it will make. If I know it will prefer existing to not existing, I predict it will seek the resources to continue existing. If the superintelligence has the hardwired goal of producing paperclips, one of the possible outcomes is tiling the solar system with paperclips. Another is that humans succeed in shutting it down but not until after it's killed people.
Once you're done enumerating as many possibilities as you can for what a superintelligence might have as its goals, simple and complicated or even nonexistent, and what the various outcomes of a superintelligent agent with those goals broadly look like, find out how many of them are positive, negative, or neutral to the future of humanity, especially if these things the superintelligence does requires resources humans also use. I did this once, it convinced me that the likely case is something negative for humanity, even if it's unlikely to be a Terminator/Matrix/Hollywood scenario or really any specific enumeration. What further convinced me that the likely outcome is still negative for humanity, in the event of people making an honest but uninformed attempt at after having created an AGI making sure it won't be net-negative for humanity, is understanding the complexity of human value and how almost right is still very wrong. (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Complexity_of_value)
I actually don't quite agree with the spaces on this chart because the scientific method should set us far apart from mice and chimps so that they would almost merge in a single point.
Anyway, there are a handful of reasons to assume that an artificial general intelligence would likely turn out to be far superior to us: (1) Hardware is a much less noisy computation environment compared to the badly insulated neurons in our wetware (though this might be a feature rather than a bug), (2) our neurons operate at about 200 Hz, microchips at 10 million as much, (3) they would have extremely fast access to physical simulations and other computational resources, knowledge bases, other AIs, (4) they would never get tired, no body to maintain, no social obligations, and (5) they could replicate within seconds and easily modify their own sourcecode.