The better question is why bother supporting two sets of packages and scripts that accomplish precisely the same thing. Pick one and go with it. Given the support for systemd (by people who matter, not trolls), it seems the logical choice.

I see it another way. If you have a RC drone then chances are you won't let it out of your sight because if you can't see it you can't control it. So you are naturally more cautious about where you fly it, how you fly it and to what distance you allow it to fly.

Conversely these "set it and forget it" drones can be programmed to fly miles. You set a course, off it goes and you'll see it again 20 minutes later. Assuming it hasn't hit a tree, power / cable line, or a bird, or a plane, or been flipped by the weather, or simply suffered a fault and fallen out of the sky. The drone is also likely to be programmed to fly over points of interest which may be roads, buildings, cities etc.

That's where the danger lies. The risk for the operator has disappeared and a laissez faire attitude which could put other people at greater harm.

Yes as the death / murder statistics in countries with firearm controls would show.

the perils of autocomplete...

And the reason he wants opt-in is because he knows that 99% of people would never bother. As a law enforcement official it's understandable that encryption poses barriers to investigations. It doesn't excuse or justify why it should be opt-in in the wider scheme of things.

Secure by default should ALWAYS be the policy pursued in software. People are afraid to change the default setting and if that default setting compromises their safety, privacy or otherwise puts them at risk then the default sucks.

They might not lock-in but we see time and time again that they will still buy shit that contains it - razor blades, electric toothbrushes, coffee pods, ink jet printers, mops, ball point pens, scented air fresheners, iPods / iPhones / iPads / Android, Kindle, countless online services etc. etc.

Anything which has a consumable element to it is manufactured in such a way as to be proprietary and usually protected by design patents and / or DRM.

Or just buy an aerobie and be done with it.

The issue is they only said they were wrong because they lost money. If they had made money they'd all be hive fiving each other on their business acumen and other companies would soon follow with their own proprietary DRM systems.

There is no "damage" here aside from learning that this secret society is as ludicrous as all the rest. A fact that most people would know already.

The main question is do you get enough charge from a solar array to actually fill the battery. Because if you don't then you either top up off the mains (which must still get its power from somewhere) or you eat warmed beans by torchlight.

Not saying the concept is a bad idea at all but it might not be ideal. I expect people in sunny climes all year round could easily supply 90-100% of their supply from solar assuming they had the means to capture the energy.

Why doesn't the federal or local government simply commission the books it requires for its educational curriculum? Then give them away for free from a website. It shouldn't be necessary to go cap in hand to publishers begging for a few freebies when the publishers shouldn't be in such a strong position to start with.

The Telegraph is just a mouthpiece for the views of the Barclay brothers. Its profoundly anti science, anti immigration, anti EU, mysteriously silent on matters of taxation, offshore accounts, and pro big business. Until recently, it's been trumping up UKIP like theyre the second coming of Jesus and now they've served their purpose it's desperately trying to undermine them to put votes back to the Conservatives.

It's shame it's gotten this way since it used to be a good paper with good journalists. Now it's just clickbait.

And Christopher Booker is a blithering idiot. I suspect he actually believes the shit he's spouting even though it doesn't pass a cursory fact check. I mentioned those two but there are several more there spouting some highly questionable views.

I find it hilarious that the one "leading climate change skeptic" they name is Christopher Monckton who is basically a climate change denial kook. The Telegraph seems to have an obsession for climate change denial and hosts columns from two other prominent denialists - James Delingpole and Christopher Booker.

No it isn't. Quite the opposite really:

1. What does my software look like to a non-technical user who has never seen it before? Simple, discoverable and easy to use.
2. Is there any screen in my GUI that is a dead end, without giving guidance further into the system? No.
3. The requirement that end-users read documentation is a sign of UI design failure. Is my UI design a failure? There is no requirement to read documentation.
4. For technical tasks that do require documentation, do they fail to mention critical defaults? Not applicable to a desktop since technical tasks would be done by other tools.
5. Does my project welcome and respond to usability feedback from non-expert users? Yes. In fact GNOME is driven by such feedback.
6. And, most importantly of all...do I allow my users the precious luxury of ignorance? Yes.

For all the hate GNOME receives it is simple, forgiving, task centric, and generally acts as a facilitator to do other stuff. It doesn't mean it's flawless but it doesn't follow a kitchen sink mentality that could confuse a non expert. I daresay many experts (including myself) appreciate a simple desktop too and if they don't, they can use another one.

VR isn't new tech by any stretch. I remember VR headsets powered by Commodore Amigas.