I can't wait for a system where each application automatically takes up the entire screen!

Just imagine, reading facebook.com on my 30 inch screen, FULLY MAXIMIZED, so that no other applications can distract me. Or, if I decide to code, EACH terminal could span the entire desktop. No longer will I have to struggle with seeing two things at once -- from now on, it's peace of mind with GNOME 3.

Thankfully I can now give gvim the space it has always deserved -- a fully uncluttered 2560 x 1600 space. And when I decide to listen to music, my music app can take up the entire space too! Imagine, seeing nothing but whitespace. Thank goodness someone thought of this. I can finally relax and do what I've always wanted to do: use my computer, one app at a time, in FULL SCREEN!

If you think about it, this is almost as good as DOS. No more annoying window title bars and multi-app desktop usage. No more extra buttons and widgets. Just one thing and one thing only -- what you're going to work on. I can't wait to develop kernel drivers and work on my apps this way. The fact that when I currently work I can actually see (and be distracted by) about three to four windows at a time is just devastating. I have to (currently) *navigate* to each and every window, and precariously drag the window across my entire desktop to achieve this effect, only to remain haunted by menu bars, title bars, and application switchers.

If only they could put a stop to all those pesky background processes and really get it down to just one single process. Then all the processes on my computer wouldn't have to compete for computer resources. Just like DOS, I'm telling you, I can't wait, we're getting back to the single-purpose one-thing-at-a-time operating system!

Obligatory slashdot sayings:
I for one welcome our maximized-app overlords!
In Soviet-Russia, window manager maximizes YOU!
One app to rule them all!
It was as if millions of apps suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced, replaced with calming whitespace.

Couldn't they just compile the 32 bit version with gcc on windows, and accept that it may not be quite as optimally built?

Why not a kindle or nook? Because they suck at reading PDFs. Yes, they can technically show a PDF on the screen. But unless that PDF is formatted for a small screen size, the experience is going to be awful. The more expensive devices (iPad, color-screen-glossy nook-kindle-whatever, $400+) have solved this with better multi-touch zoom and pan options, but then you're going to pick the iPad if they're in the same price arena. Just go on youtube and look for "kindle touch pdf reading" and you'll see how awful it is.

For someone trying to study, you need the ability to quickly browse material and annotate, and the cheaper devices don't offer this in any reasonable way.

So why not a netbook? Sure, a netbook can display PDFs quickly. But if your input is limited to mouse and keyboard, you're ten times less likely to annotate. Which is the function you would normally perform on a real paper textbook. So the iPad and other stylus-bearing devices come out on top, due to their size, advanced software, and input methods.

Here's the problem: You can block "Lightspeed" from deploying devices known to cause harmful interference to GPS signals. Big deal. What you can't do is make it "illegal" to jam GPS. Well, you can make it illegal, but it's a matter of enforcement. Expecting it to work 100%, especially in a battle field, is stupid. Your enemy will build GPS jammers by the dozen and hide them all over the place once they realize this is how you guide your missiles.

All I'm saying, is that this is a symptom of a larger problem: depending on easily jammed GPS.

I realize the military will just triangulate and find the jammers. But a jammer just has to hide their equipment in nearby hospitals and grocery stores, and use intelligent timing and antenna arrangements.... they can make triangulation a very difficult and time-consuming operation. And once the devices are found and destroyed, it's another $15 to deploy another one somewhere else.

I think it's a good idea to try and prevent what you can, such as by not certifying equipment that causes harmful interference. But let's not think this is the real problem with GPS...

It's not surprising that an RF signal can be interfered with remotely. Whether the signal was for a baby monitor, an emergency room health computer system, remote aircraft control, etc, people will always be astonished that they were susceptible to interference.

But honestly, it's an RF signal. Blocking the signal is about the same for any given service. Some are a little more robust than others, but it's the same mathematical game.

Let's get over the sensationalism and realize the real problem: We had false expectations of GPS and therefore should not have depended on this technology in defense systems.