Didn't have to do any of that. After install I got a little message saying "proprietary drivers available". I clicked and they installed. Its been that way for years now.

Nonsense. The vast majority of users these days just need a working browser. My mom, dad, and sister all run Linux. Only my sister seems to even be aware that it's not Windows. Simple fact is they know to click on the Chrome logo (same one a Windows user uses) to bring up the browser and they're off. I don't have to worry about fixing any malware that does crop up, and in the event that they DO have a problem I can easily SSH into the machine and tunnel through to a VNC server to look at things remotely.

As a matter of fact its the mid-range skillset users who seem to have the most trouble with Linux. For basic users it covers all of their use cases. For the geeky power users they don't mind getting their hands dirty and getting creative to make things work. The mid-range users though want to do semi-complex things but get frustrated when it doesn't work exactly the same way in Linux.

I've been using a Nvidia card in Linux (with binary drivers) for years now with no issues whatsoever. Not sure how it would "suck". System boots, runs fine, and does what I need it to :S.

Most really don't need to anymore. I've been using Linux for a LONG time. Started when I was in high school circa 1997 or so. I'll admit that back then it was a pain in the ass to get a lot of stuff working.

Now - I install it and everything just works. I haven't had to mess around with text config files just to get the system running or the like for years (probably around 2009 or so).

The only time when things get a little hairy is when doing something a bit outside of the ordinary - IE, getting certain games running under Wine and the like. That's trying to work around a simple lack of native apps though. When running Linux software on a Linux system - piece of cake. As a matter of fact the only thing that keeps Windows from feeling completely foreign to me is that I have to use it at work.

Actually, when I said "half the stuff on your list" insurance was the only one I was allowing. The others really make no difference.

Also - this story is specifically about restricting a ride to the AIRPORT. Do you honestly think that such a ride deserves a different set of criteria than a ride to the bowling alley?

Given that I don't really give a darn about half the stuff on your list, how about let the consumer make those choices for themselves?

The local SHERIFF bought these. The Sheriff is a county level official - mayor is a local/city level official. More importantly though, the Sheriff virtually everywhere is an *elected* official. Generally elected officials can do whatever they want (within some level of reason) without any recourse until they next election day.

Basically you're talking about someone with their own budget who can't be "fired" like a normal person could. Though I must admit that this seems like it would be unpopular at the polls. Democrats hate anything weapon related and Republicans while pro-military tend to be very anti-militarization of the local police (plus just anti-government spending in general). Seems like both sides will not be happy with this.

It depends. You allude to the big picture but never step back and take a look at it. Sony and Microsoft typically have taken a loss on the consoles specifically because they DO make a lot of money on games sales.

So if when the numbers are tallied MS and/or Sony are coming in higher net positive, then their strategy is still working better.

Netflix, being a newer company, strikes me as aware of the fact that regardless of what they do, their shows are going to be on the torrent sites. DRM will never prevent that, and I think they know that.

No - I'm 32. Cheap has nothing to do with it. I have no problem with people thinking I'm cheap, or thrifty. There is an all too accurate negative stereotype of Walmart shoppers though that I simply wish to avoid.

I've never seen a successful argument involves "the right to *not* . . .". You have the right to something. The right to "not" is just used as a contrived way to deprive others of rights.

IE, "I have the right to not see gays kissing in the street.". "I have the right to not see a black man with a white woman.".

As soon as you have to frame your argument around "the right to not", you've already lost.

Your mistake is that thinking guns have anything to do with a penis or being a "real man". Seriously how often do you think people sit around thinking about the size of their dick?

People like guns because they happen to like guns. Some people like golf, basketball, big trucks, or a whole host of other stuff without worrying about their mainhood.

I swear we need to define a new logical fallacy revolving around this.

Not always the best strategy. You have to understand that many people in the buying public view such corrections as you being overly pedantic. If they want a "Samsung iPad" and you tell them Samsung only makes the Galaxy Tab, many will get offended and walk away.

The last one: image. Wal-mart has picked up such a negative image that a lot of people will pay extra just to make sure they don't have to shop there. Heck I personally buy a lot of store-brand generics for lots of products, but I won't buy those at Walmart because I don't want anyone who might come in my home to see a Wal-mart store brand product in my house.

One thing stores can compete in too is in non-imported goods. I try to buy "Made in the USA" goods when I can - particularly for things like tools. The local hardware store runs about 15-20% more than Walmart but a LOT of what they carry is domestically produced, and even for the stuff that isn't, they generally filter out the "junk" that Walmart sells. If something is of low/poor quality, that store generally won't stock it. They also have knowledgeable people working there, which helps. You're not going to find a person with actual plumbing or electrical experience working the hardware section at Wal-mart.

By "printing" I'm assuming they mean to duplicate the template person entirely - including memories. That tech might not exist today, and we might never be able to, but if we could, it would certainly work great for this.

Depending on the data size it might be feasible to store the templates of a few dozen individuals. Half male, half female. All the varying skillsets. Send out a few hundred probes that would systematically search star systems and if it finds an uninhabited one that could sustain human life, touch down and print/deploy/grow/whatever its digitally stored crew to colonize the planet.

The same individuals might get duplicated on quite a few planets - possibly during different time frames. IE, a probe lands, one crew builds a society, persists for thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, and then finally perishes, whilst the other ones continue to search and might touch down and redeploy further duplicates of those individuals millions of years later.

Ultimately, the question of "are we alone" in the universe becomes meaningless. Is there other life elsewhere? Quite likely, but even if its NOT, life in the universe has begun - as evidenced by ourselves. Even if we're the only examples, we can spread life everywhere else.