* Sh is a terrible language to build any non-trivial functionality.
* System initialization has become more complex.
* Currently, managing daemons has a lot boilerplate code.
* That code is sub-optimal and fragile.
Personally, I don't want to know anything about the timing on which each device is available, to figure out manually the right order to start the services. That's the kind of job a program can and should do. I didn't like when I have to set IRQs manually too, or when X asked me about the data of the video chip that was connected to its bus.
Back to the init scripts. How do those scripts know if a daemon is still running? One mechanism is to check the existence of a file with the daemon's pid! IMO the current system is an anti-aesthetic patch. Only inertia keeps it alive.
This is what I would like to see in a linux system:
* A common config language for the basic services. Something like the defunct [elektra initiative](http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/Elektra/)
* An automate mechanism to orderly start the system.
* Something like Dan Berstein's daemontool to handle the daemons, plus the cron jobs.
* For Ritchie's sake, keep logs as text files!
daemontools has the best philosophy for this in my opinion: just start the service. If the prerequisites are unavailable, the service will just terminate. If that happens, wait one second, then try start again.
It's perfect. No stupid 5 minute timeout like sysvinit, no stupid dependency management like systemd/upstart, very little to consider when adding new services.
If you want to use it as your init.. just look into 'runit-init'. I've been using this for 4+ years, and it's fantastic.
Ah, do you remember the old good times when Terry Gilliam's Brazil came out, and the idea of a SWAT team destroying your house, imprisoning and killing your husband, all due to a bureaucratic mistake, was a bizarre fantasy of a dystopian and dictatorial future?
And that's one of the problems with PC. In that regards, it doesn't work. If we call "orange thinkers" those which IQ is around or above average and "green thinkers" to the other group, then sooner you'll hear "What? Are you a green thinker?"
Yes, but it's the intention of the teenager what's matter. There's a difference between Mel Gibson talking ill about jews and Sara Silverman or Lisa Lampanelli doing the same.
Another thing I don't buy is that idea that if you use "the N word" you're reviving two hundreds years of slavery, oppression and racisms. Certainly, if someone is racist, he'll use the word with hate. But pronouncing two syllables out loud doesn't transform you in a racist.
I think that most people can discern when you use a word with hate and when you don't. But there's some power in banning in words, in becoming a self-appointed speech police and to attack people by the way they talk instead of the content of their thoughts. I consider more dangerous to make certain words a taboo.
There's an old saying in Spanish: the word "dog" doesn't bite.
Oh, god, how I hate political correctness! I can understand that people get upset and offended. They can boycott someone they don't like, but that PC bullshit infuriates me. It only makes communication difficult and people more manipulable.
Take terms like "imbecile", "Idiot" and "retarded". They were medical terms applied using more or less objective measurements. What happened then? They became un-PC and were replaced by "intellectual disability". How much time before the "dis-" is considered offensive? Maybe we should use sometime abstract like "green thinker" and "orange thinker"? But it doesn't matter what term we chose, it'll be associated to something negative and it'll become an insult for the general population.
Do you want to live in a world where you have to say that the umpire has "visual impediments" for fears to offend to blind people? No, "impediments" is too strong, maybe "visually challenged"? No, too negative. "Almost all the senses of the umpire are up to the level of a person of his age, with the possible exception of one that, although its absence doesn't demerit him at all as a human being, maybe would suggest that he'll be better in another line of work, like piano tuner."
> Take terms like "imbecile", "Idiot" and "retarded".
These words now have an everyday use. They are no longer used medically because medical science advances and we have much better understanding.
> They were medical terms applied using more or less objective measurements.
They were medical terms used to detain people in hospital, or to deny them medical treatment, or to keep them in prison, or to deny them rights to fair trial or to justice if they were abused or murdered.
> They became un-PC and were replaced by "intellectual disability".
No. They became outmoded and less useful because times change.
> Do you want to live in a world where you have to say that the umpire has "visual impediments"
I don't want to live in a world where it's acceptable to kill someone who has a low IQ just because they have a low IQ. I don't want to live in a world where someone with a low IQ is denied medical treatment. I don't want to live in a world where someone with a low IQ is raped with no consequence. I don't want to live in a world of lazy stupid designers who can't make a website accessible to all. I don't want to live in a hateful, hurtful, world where ignorant bigots can spew their bile and get offended when people tells them they're being an arsehole.
I'm not sure that we're participating in the same conversation. They were medical terms, yes. They have an every day use, yes (that was exactly my point). They became outmoded and less useful, yes. But, no, not everyone who has used or uses those words is a proponent of IQ-based euthanasia, rape, and segregation.
Any reasonable people will criticize someone who bullies others who are in a weaker position. It's the bullying what is to condemn, not their particular use of words.
> But, no, not everyone who has used or uses those words is a proponent of IQ-based euthanasia, rape, and segregation.
But using those words leads to a culture where these things are more possible.
Ann calls Bob a retard.
i) Bob has a learning disability. Ann is either a bully, and should be condemned. Or Ann is using outmoded terminology, and she should appreciate the help she's given when people give her better information.
ii) Bob doesn't have a learning disability. Ann is a friend and they're having fun. What they do between themselves is up to them, but they're using hate speech casually, and they should at least consider the effect that use has on people who have learning disabilities.
iii) Bob doesn't have a learning disability. Ann isn't a friend, and she's using it as an insult. Ann needs to realise that her use of the term as an insult is contributing the continued abuse of people with learning disabilities. By using the word we diminish people with LD as less-than-people.
Part of the confusion is cultural difference. It's normal use in US to say "That's retarded!" and it's not at all offensive to most people. But it's really offensive to people from other countries.
I used it. It was a very interesting experience, but a little hard to get used to. The position of alt is not comfortable for the quasi-mode required. CAPS is more accessible, but then you can't use your pinkie. Raskin's idea was to use a special keyboard with two spacial keys, LEAP FORWARD and LEAP BACK near SPACE.
It's so sad that the project died. The interface was very promising and I long for that keyboard I never used.
"Banana Republic" means to me a country which government is at the service of foreign corporations. Under this definition, no, neither Venezuela or Bolivia are banana republics.
Is Venezuela a healthy democracy? Well, we have one of the best electoral systems in the world, so at least you can be sure that the people elected are the ones who got more votes. More than 70% of turn out in non compulsory elections. Probably you've heart differently, and that's because Venezuelan have the bad habit to vote for people not liked by western interests. Venezuela has been criticized for attacking the media too. That brings the idea of hundreds of reporters imprisoned and rampant censure. What it really means is that the current and previous president dared to criticize the media monopoly that was, among other things, accomplice in at least two attempts to overthrow the constitutional government.
Venezuela isn't a paradise of institutionalism, but at least I can say that today we are freer than 20 years ago when nobody heart about Venezuela in the media. That was the time when the country was sold as an "example for democracy for all Latin America."
The audit was a public act where participated all the parties, with the curious exception of the one who solicited it. It was open to the public, and filmed. People around the world was invited and witnessed it.
The electoral notebooks were audited twice. The first time before the October 2012 elections and the second one before the 2013 elections. In both case, the opposition parties approved the process. Now they are asking for a new audit of the used notebooks, one not supported by the law. They only asked for a new audit to try to keep alive their "protest".
Those 3,200 "irregularities" are anonymous, unsubstantiated, and in many cases patently false reports made in an opposition website. Some examples included "Ms. Mary, a witness from the government party didn't assisted to the process the day of the election", "An electronic machine didn't work". And you have the "grave" accusation like opposition witness expelled of the voting centers at gun point. The only problem is that there's no support for those accusation. No police report, no video, no witness willing to swear before a court of law. Or you have an accusation, like the one made by Capriles in public tv that a voting center had more votes that voters... if you count all the votes in the building but only the voters of one station poll in the building.
These kind of irresponsible denounces will be laughable and those who spread them condemn to the public ridicule if the media would do its job. Instead, they have been keeping repeating the number of (alleged) denounces without spending one second in their substance. For god's sake! The denounces officially presented to the electoral council were a printing of a powerpoint presentation devoid of any actionable piece of information that could be used to investigate them.
What good is the fact that the notebooks were audited before the last elections? The whole point of including them in the audit process is to fully ensure that each vote is valid and tied to a unique individual, not simply verifying whether an anonymous ballot was cast one way or another. The CNE can but doesn't want to include the notebooks, and the excuse is that the law doesn't require them to.
As far as the irregularities, my point wasn't they should all be automatically taken seriously, but certainly it should be within the CNE's interest to try to dispel some of the more plausible accusations such as voters attempting to vote multiple times under different identities.
* There is customary to make a check of the 54% of the vote stations. This was done the same day of the elections, before publishing the official results.
* There is not customary make a "recount" of votes in Venezuela.
* Nevertheless, the electoral council accepted a request made by the opposition to check the another 46% of the stations.
* The opposition welcomed the new audit... for a few hours.
* Then they added a lot of new requests and refused to participate in the audit.
* The audit result confirmed the original result.