You're problem with moving windows in low resolution is FUD as well as plain ignorant. For someone who claims to have used many OS's you might want to at least show some proficiency with something other than Windows to back up your claims.

Windows XP loses windows off the screen all the time, and there is no way to get them back because the only draggable handle is the title bar. I can't even express the frustration this has caused me over the years due to buggy video games and such causing resolution problems.

However, it is a standard feature of most Linux desktop managers (gnome/kde/etc) that any window can be grabbed at any location using ALT + LEFT MOUSE. So, with even the slightest proficiency you would have had no problems at all.

from the article:

"Our approach, however, reflects the original intent of copyright protection, which was conceived not as a welfare program for authors but to encourage the creation of new works."

I'm in complete agreement with you.

If Linux became another Windows it would not be better, but rather worse. As another poster put it, Windows has been designed for the lowest common denominator. It is 'good' by design in the same sense that Britney Spears is 'cool' by design. Why would we do that to Linux?

You aren't required to pay fees for electronic distribution (yet). Most CC works are distributed this way.

We just need someone to invent the 'streaming' radio for your car.

What's with all the "the industry is evil and stoopid and I'm just gonna ignore copyright" comments? Are you really that dumb? You want to go to prison?

Look, people, the CC exists for this exact reason. You want to enjoy socially beneficial creative works? Then stop download or buying commercial works, stop creating and distributing commercial works, and get it through your head that the CC is the right and legal way to circumvent this whole fiasco.

The problem with your argument is that intelligence has little to do with being 'good'.

Isaac Asimov has written many novels exploring the pitfalls of 'logic' vs. 'feeling'. Suffice to say, the dumbest thing you could ever do is give anyone or anything unchecked power over you.

Yes and no.

In my experience

• 3 out of 10 Windows 'friends' tell you to fuck off
• 3 out of 10 Windows 'friends' are incompetent jerks that tell you they know what they're doing but really don't.
• 2 out of 10 Windows 'friends' are just looking for an excuse to rummage through your private files.
• 1 out of 10 Windows 'friends' is actually the guy behind the desk at the electronics store, and he just deleted your hard-drive.
• 1 out of 10 Windows 'friends' is competent, cares, and actually helps you.

Meanwhile, in Linux land that 1 in a hundred friends is almost always ready, willing and capable of helping you. The times when she can't, you go to the forums and get 10,000 friends jumping over each other to answer your question.

Just so long as the music industry doesn't come back in 10 years with new lawsuits targeting little-old-lady-X because 10 mil. people somehow ended up with 'pirated' copies of music with her name in it.

Since this watermark must be fairly easy to modify, I can't really see how useful it would be in tracking piracy. It could probably have some uses for marketing research. Though, honestly, I can't think of any myself...

I hate to rain on your parade, but that 1k machine isn't all that impressive.

• A quad-core PhenomII @ 2.0Ghz is not nearly as fast as a dual-core Core2Duo @ 2.53Ghz. Only software written to make use of multiple CPUs will ever see a speed increase with multiple cores. Since very few programs are written this way (very, very few games) you are smarter to buy a dual-core CPU with faster cores than you are to buy a quad-core CPU with slower cores. Also, the Phenom isn't even as fast as the C2D clock-for-clock, so that 2.0Ghz is probably more equivalent to a 1.8Ghz C2D.
• The gfx card is an Nvidia 9500 GS. That's the cheap version of the 9500 GT, which is itself on the low end of the performance spectrum. The best of it's generation was the 9800 GTX, which is already far surpassed by the GTX280. Bottom line: This is not a serious gaming rig. You'd be lucky if it had playable frame-rates in Crysis at 1024x768 with mid-tier quality settings.
• A cheap TV tuner card is $50, which I'm sure is what you're getting in a Walmart 'special'. Such a card is going to need that quad-core CPU just to keep the video playing if you intend to watch HD channels because it won't have an integrated decoder so all that processing gets offloaded to the CPU. I guess that's fine for most people, but anyone with a bit of common computer sense wouldn't consider it a big selling point.
• 10/100 networking? Really?? What century was this motherboard manufactured?

Overall, this system is clearly designed to be a PVR and/or word processor. A performance/gaming rig it is not.

I don't know if the poster you responded too was trying to build a gaming rig, or just wanted some serious performance, but their computer is far better than what you've suggested. On the other hand, if all they wanted was an average computer to do work then there are perfectly decent low-end models on Dell starting at $400.