I just switched to OS X. As much as I loved my G2 install with Compiz, having a system that is no longer updated is not something that I find palatable.

Given the current state of GNOME, seems about right. As someone who can't continue using Mint 10 (because it's no longer supported), nor upgrade (because GNOME 3 sucks, Cinnamon is nowhere near ready, and Mate is ... problematic), I'm starting to heavily lean toward abandoning Linux for something like Mac OS X. At least until GNOME gets its shit together.

I hear about her from the Swedish Chef all the time

After getting used to GNOME 2 with Compiz Fusion, I can't stand GNOME 3, and I'm having an impossibly difficult time finding a replacement. I've tried GNOME 3, GNOME Classic, Mate, and even KDE, and at this point, I have to either endure xfce's bugs, or wait until Mate's are ironed out. All along, my install of Mint 10 is aging, and given that its support period is ending, I'm basically stuck between a rock and a hard place. I don't understand why GNOME's devs would screw its supporters this way. Not only is 3 inferior to anyone who likes any sort of flexibility, but its interface is downright maddening at times.

No, it's an unfortunate choice. As a hobbyist dev, I find Android difficult to follow. Since I started adding tablet support to my app (which included, among other things moving from SDK 4 to 10), my app's stability has considerably worsened, with various problems in Android's core that often make no sense. The SDK change introduced problems with about 10 different types of hardware that required painstaking, slow fixes, which are difficult for anyone but a company with a dedicated test team. Some of the changes in ICS completely hosed parts of code (including services), and required considerable rewrites. Apple's not without its quirks - changes in Xcode are ridiculously capricious, and not always for the best (e.g. storyboards). That said, supporting only 3 -4 types of hardware, instead of thousands, is considerably more predictable. Android's in a unique situation - it's attempting to be everything to everyone, which ultimately puts the strain on the devs. For people like me (who aren't even mobile devs by profession), this is extremely taxing. However, for companies that have staff dedicated to exactly this type of thing, this should be a non-issue.

Yeah, stupid California. If only more states allowed public smoking and DDT use.

I'm curious as to what they'll do when "the Doomsday clock" is at 11:59, and they feel like they need to forward it yet again - without an actual doomsday. This _is_ imbecilic, and you can't get any more tinfoil-hat than this.

Most programmers I know (myself included) hate doing UI work. We feel that there are people far more qualified to do layouts and graphical design than we. Unfortunately, this usually falls on deaf ears for management, who feel that it's a lot cheaper to have one person do mediocre work, than two people do something that actually looks good/is usable.

why does a moon rock taste better than an Earth rock?

If you don't like that, try some Archduke Chocula. (P.S. It appears that you beat me to it. I tip my hat to you, Sir)

Baconated Grapefruit? Admiral Crunch?

Steven Spielberg's non-union Mexican equivalent.

And the majority of the software folk go "we need a language that's not stewarded by Beelzebub himself"

Or denies? Because there's a big difference between the two, and I believe it's the latter.

Exposing an internal ID in such fashion is not only foolish, but very much a beginner error. I would expect this from some half-assed forum software - not a bank. That said, I've worked for the government before, and seen the same stupid mistake repeated time and time again. A salted hash would have been a lot less idiotic. The fact that there was no authorization performed makes compounds the issue, however, and one wonder who these people hired to write their infrastructure.