I'm in agreement with you.

On the flip side, I can think of one hospital I worked at that was a constant back and forth between the guys doing the network security and the doctors. The doctors won every time, with the guys doing the network security walking away with scraps of their generally good ideas. They eventually found a good compromise that didn't leave a bunch of security issues, but the doctors had the better leverage and wanted ease of use if they were going to use the computers at all. They just wouldn't use your computers if you made it too difficult (which was not very difficult at all, but not as easy as the old ways they did things). That said, they were able to figure things out, but if security makes the doctors' life more difficult, they'd rather just do it all without the computers, making the whole thing a moot point.

Having worked in hospitals, and currently working more in the background in the medical field, you would be really surprised how much of it needs access to the internet. Most of the software I've worked with in the medical field does, and it's only going more in the direction of needing access to the internet than away from such.

I can't speak for software in smaller clinics and stuff, as I'm not real experienced there. For a lot of hospitals and stuff, though, there's a lot of server farms hosted far off site that they have to connect to in order to do anything with the software.

*shudder*

My boss used to force me to write up a script for people to go through and test every new release of the software that I'm the lead developer for at my company. Amazingly obvious part that my boss didn't understand was, by the time I was done writing said script, anyone who ran through the script never found issues, because I had them fixed already. Then my boss would get furious when a client ran into an issue in it that I had never conceived of, and arguments galore would erupt.

Finally, I put every other item as "try every conceivable combination of everything you see here" just to make a point, even though the script did cover everything I could imagine being done with it (which has never been everything that can be done, as is always soon revealed). I promptly got into an argument with my boss, who did not like that, because "it didn't tell them what they need to actually do." After a nice hour of arguing my point and multiple coworkers from multiple different sections joining my side (all of whom were originally against me on this, so apparently I made some good arguments about it, even though it was just repeating the same 2-3 things over and over and over in as many different ways as I could conceive), the result was a new "script": "Break everything. Find what is too awkward or annoying to use in its current state. Report back your results."

Only once did I have a client who entered an agreement to do UAT for us when we were giving them the script and not get back "Yup, everything worked going through the script." That one time was something a lot like yours, and although we did end up deciding to effectively ignore half of their proposals, we had a lot of discussion and work because of it. Every client we updated to the new version called it the best version we had made to date. I only wish that I had more people like you doing that (half of the UAT and QA guys I get testing for me these days just shoot me an email every week, "Everything looks awesome so far!" Completely useless when the other half are providing me good information and asking questions that reveal issues that need to be worked on).

I can typically agree with this.

If I'm just looking up a single API call or two, MSDN is typically enough. Maybe I end up on StackOverflow, etc. if that fails and I can't figure out why on my own without too much effort, but MSDN is typically first and last.

However, if it is some odd part of the Win32 API that requires a significant set of functions in specific orders, and I'm not well versed in that specific set of functions, I end up at StackOverflow or the like first and MSDN second. Jogging my memory--it's been a while since I wasn't even remotely familiar with the parts I've ended up using--I recall working with COM with MinGW, "docking" a window to the side of the screen, and some others putting me in this position when I first began needing that information. Typically, though, StackOverflow and the like is a "Just give me an example that I can read and then look up on MSDN for what the hell I'm doing." All that followed by messing around with code and typically having to look up other pieces that those completely missed. I think that matches what you're saying, though.

Either way, the Win32 API is where I use StackOverflow more than any other API, though. (Except there are a couple of odd libraries I code with that I wish there was more information on the likes of StackOverflow for, because I instead spend hours reading header files, experimenting, ending up rebooting, etc., repeat until I maybe get what they're on about with their obscure descriptions.)

The number one thing I end up on StackOverflow for is Win32 API, which you don't list. There's a few good references out there, but not really any good "official" references. MSDN helps understand everything on a deeper level (more than sometimes deceptively), but it's just not realistic at several points compared to looking on StackOverflow and other sites along those lines. Furthermore, there's several elements of the Win32 API, the best reference that I find is from StackOverflow.

Otherwise (maybe a couple other exceptions if I really tried to dig my memories about it), I can agree with your point. I've been doing a lot of SQLite coding lately for my current project at work, and the SQLite website is pretty much my only real documentation I bother going to--the SQLite website is just easier than anything else.

And you could say that Valve is getting into the console gaming business with Steam Box because of Microsoft (although blaming that entirely on Microsoft is questionable and ignores other variables, but the point is there on a surface level). History repeats itself indeed.

It is.

According to my Physiology/Pharmacology textbook, the half-life of caffeine is 3-7 hours, though. Most drugs are cleared from the body at different rates depending on the person, but you can figure out a typical half-life range fairly easily. I don't know why the writer of this article ignored that (unless they just didn't bother to research it any more or thought that it complicated the article more than necessary).

You're forgetting the part where most Americans are brainwashed into thinking that the only point that their vote is going to do any good (or bad for that matter) is if they vote Republican or Democrat. I keep meeting more and more people that hate both parties but vote for them, because "there's no other choice that's not throwing my vote away!" There's a pretty good chunk of people in the US right now that despise our government and are trying all kind of different means outside of starting a revolution to correct it. Unfortunately, that's MUCH easier said than done.

You're missing out. I save all of my coins (I don't carry a coin pouch either--just empty my pockets at the end of the day), and end up having around $600 extra every 3-12 months (depending on how much cash I'm using; some cash-heavy months leave me with a lot of extra change, whereas other months barely add anything at all). It's not a huge gain, but just having a decent enough sides container in the closet that I throw my change it works quite well. In fact, right now, mine's getting pretty full; it's been about a year since I last emptied it, but that extra money is going to pay for Christmas for me instead of having to take it out of my paycheck.

Interesting. I guess being comfortable with some of the underlying things with Linux, I never thought about this...

That said, I have never seen a case outside of a kernel panic that I haven't been able to do a CTRL+ALT+F1 or variant, log in, and kill off any process that's creating issues like this. I have had it take a small amount of time to get that going--about the same as I have had to wait on the CTRL+ALT+DEL in Windows under similar circumstances. In that, I have seen cases where opening a graphical task manager or even a terminal inside of the X instance just isn't going to happen. And of course, the CTRL+ALT+F1 into the CLI is not going to work for people not comfortable with doing so (grandma is not going to be happy, although I question if she's actually going to be happy doing it in Windows with the GUI either--I see more non-techie users just reboot right away than even think of just killing the process).

Raises the question of why anyone hasn't thought to create a means of doing that more graphically. Something like a CTRL+ALT+DEL (or alternative thereof) that loads up a graphical option of managing tasks and other settings that will have more success when trying to do it through the normal means fails, which can then be closed to go back to your normal desktop. Maybe someone has worked on this and it just never gained traction (as unfortunately does happen with Linux sometimes). I can foresee some hiccups in getting that developed as well (such as how you're actually going to get a GUI for this up and running in these cases), but it would definitely be an interesting project that would make Linux look a lot better under these sort of circumstances if it could be pulled off.

Maybe I practice a different kind of meditation than the one that you were trying to practice, but when I'm meditating, the second voice that you're speaking of is actually a rather large piece of the meditation. I actually do start out with that first voice mostly, setting up my mental "meditation environment" (for me, I imagine a scene that, at this point, has become very detailed, using all 5 senses, that I associate with peace, love, calmness, being content, and other such good feelings) which sets me at a calm, peaceful level where I can listen to the second voice more clearly and respond to it appropriately. So, really, for me, the meditation ends up being a lot more about allowing the thoughts of that second voice to come and go, paying attention to them, accepting them, and letting them go. In a sense it's "clearing the mind", but really, it's letting the subconscious mind flow as it will and meeting it with conscious acceptance. I will say that it actually puts me in the exact same state as the few times I've been hypnotized, so it's kind of like self-hypnosis--in fact, the times I've been hypnotized utilized the exact thing I'm talking about, and I've found I can be more suggestible to my own conscious thoughts in this meditation as well, although it really only sticks if I continue consciously wanting it to after the fact as well (just like hypnotism has been for me)...

I haven't personally actually used it on a touchscreen yet, but from the videos and such that I've seen of KDE on a touchscreen, it looks like a pretty good deal on a touchscreen, if you use the more touch oriented interfaces in it. I have played with them on my non-touch screen and they're nice, but I can tell they are more practical for use on a touchscreen than with a mouse, as much as they do still handle the mouse very well. And I do know that KDE keeps getting better with their touchscreen interface, learning from their mistakes and overcoming their shortcomings. Apps are likely to be a whole different ballgame, though (again, haven't had the chance to actually try, so I could be surprised)... and I also can't speak for Gnome (never was a Gnome fan, even when everyone else actually liked it--back that far, I used Fluxbox, actually) or some details for any of them, like onscreen keyboard, etc.

I can say, by my limited experience with both, that I am more attracted to KDE's touchscreen interface than I am Windows 8's interface, but that's just me and a good number of people don't seem to agree with me on that...

I overall agree with you. For instance, the expose-like eye candy in KDE is one that I use quite frequently, and as you said, it serves a good purpose (although really not much more at all than already having the taskbar on the bottom of the screen...). Also, the desktop cube, while not serving a huge purpose on its own, adds a more solid visual element to the multiple desktops, making it useful simply for just making a concept more visual. Similarly, having windows actually move out of the way of each other isn't particularly useful but adds a visual element to a task that is already being done, therefore being a not necessarily needed or largely helpful feature but instead just a nice visual aid to make the whole interface more comfortable. And honestly, with the windows moving out of the way of each other, I find it easier to remember which window I last had opened, or some times even find it more obvious when a window hides behind a secondary window that I didn't mean to happen (and this does happen, particularly when working with multiple-screen virtual machines and a few other odd cases).

And I think that's what the wobbly windows is. It doesn't necessarily serve some new function. It's not necessary--you can live perfectly fine with no major differences without it. It simply serves to make the whole experience more comfortable. Some will find it does the opposite and is really annoying--that would be why I would never suggest saying that it should be a feature you can't turn off. But when you enjoy the visuals of seeing your windows move a little more fluidly and wobbly around the screen, it can definitely make the whole experience more comfortable overall. In that sense, it's not useless, really. Not practically useful, but not useless--it's use comes in comfort of using the environment as opposed to in function.

Putting Linux users in a box like that is rather wrong--especially when you're putting them in the wrong box. The nature of Linux and FOSS means a lot of software that is free as in beer. But the Free in FOSS does not mean free as in beer--in means free as in freedom. Very different concepts. And there's also more and more Linux users that don't really give a damn about FOSS. We enjoy the perks of FOSS, but we don't demand it by any means. There's just not a lot of things to pay for under Linux, unless you're working in a VM or under Wine, and plenty of FOSS and free as in beer replacements that do the job good enough. However, if you're me and require something that doesn't exist in FOSS, then I'm more than happy to pay and use it in a VM/Wine environment, unless it is available for Linux natively as well, which I will definitely prefer.

Fully agree with you. The hope (although far from expectation) would be that another country proving a policy works might have more weight than a few experiments that the government doesn't care about nearly as much apparently.