From their own page, right now:

Linux Mint recommends the following search engines:
Engine Preserves your privacy Funds Linux Mint Description
        Yahoo The 2nd largest search engine on the Web, full of features.
        DuckDuckGo A safe and secure engine providing augmented Yahoo results.
        Ixquick A safe and secure engine gathering results from multiple search engines.
        Startpage A safe and secure engine providing augmented Google results.
        Amazon The largest online store.
        Wikipedia The largest online encyclopedia.

Why aren't some search engines included in Linux Mint?

Engines are included based on the following criteria:

        Funding: Whether using the engine funds Linux Mint
        Privacy: Whether the engine provides users with best-in-class privacy/security features
        Non-commercial: Whether the engine is popular and non-commercial

So, sorry, but for whatever reason in the version I had Google wasn't an option -- and figuring out what was required to change it wasn't worth it for me.

I was shopping for a distribution, not an ideology.

If the App store doesn't have Angry Birds a search for it may mean Disgruntled birds will show up.

I'm holding out for Mildly Irked in an Ironic Post-Modern-Sort-of-Way Birds.

That would be cool. ;-)

I completely fail to comprehend why most Slashdotters seem to push everyone towards DRM'ed iPads and Chromebooks that put Palladium to shame instead of more open Windows PCs.

I guess it's more about Microsoft hate and the desire to bring them down than software freedom.

You know, it's as much about giving our friends and family a user experience which a) won't drive them insane, and b) won't make them come to us for tech support.

And, really, for many of us this whole "software freedom" thing is a little overplayed.

I've always found Stallman to be a bit of a crank, and the vast majority of people hear this stuff, and they think of teenagers spouting Marxist theory because the school cafeteria switched from Coke to Pepsi ... it becomes a little tired and melodramatic.

I'd wager that 99% of all people will never audit their IP stack, recompile their browser, or otherwise want any involvement in this stuff. They want the latest cool thing, and not some near approximation of it which comes in a kit.

What they want is a tool to get the stuff done they need/want to, and they want it with as little hair pulling as possible.

And, really, let's be honest here ... Windows is no more (or less) open than Apple, and in the places where they're more open, they're trying to be less, just like Apple. Everybody wants their own walled garden.

Hell, I installed a Linux Mint VM image a while back, and it wasn't even possible to set the search provider to Google, apparently because it's not ideologically pure enough or something.

So, if my Mom was looking for a tablet ... I'm going to find her one which suits her needs and will work for her, and I am never going to say "ZOMG, but this software is teh free".

Because my Mom already rolls her eyes at the rest of my loony rants, and doesn't give a damn about software freedom.

So, if you want to know why people aren't doing this, it's because when someone starts screaming "viva la revolucion" over software freedom, people roll their eyes and try to get distance from you.

Don't get me wrong, I likes me some Open Source software. But, have I built an entire ideology around it? Hell no.

Editors can't spell (or read), that gross poop eating guy, Time Cube guy, Cowboy Neil, dupes.

I'm sure there's plenty more.

I, for one, welcome our new meme-studying overlords.

So I'm guessing you've never in your life installed a Sun patch cluster, have you?

... because hadoop is a database ... except that its not, in any way ...

And everything makes more sense to be in a nosql key-value store than something with structure and integrity.

With a 3 digit id I would have expected a better response than that from your age alone ... mind blowing.

... have you watched the full video ... because it confirms exactly what the police said, and has people on the video talking about how he ran at the cop with a knife even though its not visible in the video itself.

Not sure at all how you got that it was all lies. Pretty much EVERYONE else recognizes that it was suicide by cop.

You've watched an edited version that removes the beginning where the camera walks by the guy holding the knife. The camera man originally passed within a few feet of the victim from the same direction that cop vehicle came in from. You're also not seeing the ending where the witnesses are discussing the fact that he ran at the cop with a knife that THEY saw which you can't see on a shitty phone video.

You're basically watching the Julian Assange edit of the video thats designed to mislead you into thinking collateral murder.

There was no protest or riot because the full version of the video took away every excuse to protest. The guy had mental issues, had just robbed a store and was standing on the curb daring anyone to fuck with him and to try and get the two sodas he took from the store.

Considering that the only testimony that he had his hands up is from people that have already been caught telling multiple about what happened we can safely assume that he wasn't surrendering and he wasn't holding his hands up just like the autopsy showed he wasn't running away like they all said.

No, it won't. The shooting in Ferguson was used as an excuse to riot.

Look at the story, every 'witness' says he was shot in the back running away ... until the autopsy shows that NONE of the wounds were in his back. From the start every witness account was bullshit. The kid had JUST robbed a store, that there is video of. He's seen being aggressive in the video. This is fact. Everyone that knew what actually happened lied and started causing trouble.

Not since Watts has any riot in america been legitimate. Everyone has been an excuse for people to burn THIER OWN NEIGHBORHOOD DOWN ... W.T.F.

If you look at Ferguson, the actual people doing the 'rioting' have nothing to do with the incident, hell more than a few of them fucking flew in from the East or West coast. You know its bullshit the instant Al Sharpton gets involved. He's nothing but a loud mouth blowhard who does his very best to promote hatred and encourage racism.

Cameras won't stop this problem, they'll just remove this particular venus and instead it'll be more Treyvon Martin style incidents instead of cops.

I'm all for putting cameras on cops, but pretending this problem is a problem caused by the cops is ignorance at best. This is a cultural issue where the people 'rioting' live in and promote a culture of racism and use that as an excuse to be violent. The racism isn't just black vs white either, whites are a popular and easy target but any group thats different is used to facilitate this crap.

If you want to solve these 'riots' stop pretending the rioters are legitimate when they clearly aren't. Again, against the police in this case have been lying from the start acting like the kid was a saint, and every time a new fact emerges it becomes more and more clear that he was nothing more than a hood rat.

Humor has nothing to do with the incorrect definition of the number of dimensions of an object.

Which is why I mentioned your pedantry.

Let me draw you a diagram _________________

That is a two dimensional non-solid object since is has a height, one pixel, and a width, more than one pixel.

In fact, since it's drawn with electrons, it's got depth too. Actually, since it's drawn as pixels on your screen, which by now are probably discrete LED components, it's much more than that.

It's a signal which causes a series of diodes to emit a color which your eyes perceive as a straight black line -- in reality, it's none of those things either.

Look, you can be as pedantic, reductionist, and anal retentive about this as you like .. it's not contributing anything to this.

For purpose of explaining this and discussing it, they defined a plane in terms of this sheet of atoms with this particular layout.

That's it. There's no mathematical chicanery going on, and everybody knows it's not, strictly speaking, either a plane or a 2D structure. But it's got some characteristics of a plane, and, for purposes of discussion, is being treated as a 2D structure.

Because, if they had to say this 3-atom thick sheet of interlocking atoms which demonstrates some characteristics of planarity, and allow us to connect them together while maintaining the same type of planarity it would get awfully tedious.

In reality, it's probably not much different than LEGO.

Seriously, get over it. It's almost impossible to discuss this kind of thing without it turning into a tongue twister unless you come up with some form of metaphor.

The rest of this ... it's purely bullshit and pedantry by anal retentive people who need to demonstrate they remember something from math class.

Yes, excellent, from a mathematical perspective it's not 2D. But, for purposes of discussion of these material properties, they're calling it a plane.

You would think that scientists would be more accurate with their articulation of complex concepts.

Well, apparently they've defined a plane to be 3 atoms thick, and have grossly understimated the collective anal retentiveness of the people reading the article.

Dude, seriously, it's a dumbed down metaphor written for a press release.

From the parts of the paper which are available without subscription:

The junctions, grown by lateral heteroepitaxy using physical vapour transport7, are visible in an optical microscope and show enhanced photoluminescence. Atomically resolved transmission electron microscopy reveals that their structure is an undistorted honeycomb lattice in which substitution of one transition metal by another occurs across the interface.

I'm quite sure they're not idiots who really think this is a freakin' 2D plane.

TFA isn't the actual scientific paper, it's the press release intended for the public.

Now, unclench a little, you're gonna hurt yourself. :-P

While your pedantry skills are excellent, and your mathematical skills are pretty good ... I think you need to have your humor unit recalibrated, you seem to be a little out of phase.

I am perfectly aware of the fact that it isn't really a line on a plane in a strict mathematical sense ... heck, I even referenced the thickness of the ink and the fact that the paper has a surface.

Let me draw you a diagram _________________ ;-)

Now, what is the depth (stated in microns / femptofortnight) of the above line?