I tried 11.04 a month ago.
First unity, which was a serious impediment and barely configurable.
Next, classic desktop, which had problems forgetting to redraw windows and panels. Unfortunately, bugs like this are now a low priority.
So I'm back on 10.10.
My next upgrade will be to a non-default-unity 'nix.

The thing I don't get is why the hell can't the UI elements be independent apps - Instead of having the sidebar or taskbars part of the UI, make them separate applications.

That way, we can customize them at will, and download new ones easily without having to replace the whole UI. Modularity is good.

I'm not debating the rights here, just whether the actual text in your constitution, without additional context, has a clear and current meaning.

It was claimed the current meaning was clearly in the text. I strongly disagree, as a foreigner the text is way ambiguous. And this goes for amendments 1 & 2, 1 I support and 2 I oppose (or, at least I would hate to see it here).

1) I agree that the purpose of the amendment is to establish a right. I'm disputing that the text itself does that explicitly. It doesn't state "the people have the right to bear arms". Literally, it only states that this already existing right can't be infringed (which to me seems superfluous, as I thought this was the de-facto understanding of a right).

This is the same difference as between "the dragons on the moon cannot be eaten" vs "there are dragons on the moon". The first doesn't explicitly imply the second.

2) Yes, my bad, it says conferred, and my example was poor, and I should have been assuming #1 for this reply.

4) I just assumed property was in there somewhere, after all the original quote sourced for your Declaration of Independence was Life, Liberty and Property IIRC, from John Locke. Property is frequently stated as a natural right.

As for not doing any harm, I'm pretty sure I'm not allowed to keep a nuke even if I don't cause any harm. And any claim about unplanned harm applies, albeit at a lesser level, to guns, even knives.

Although this enforcement of this right is a different question from the definition of this right. Just because you're not allowed to keep nukes under conventional law doesn't directly mean that you don't have this right under your constitution.

Also, looking at the Wikipedia 2nd amendment cases, it appears SCOTUS has frequently not seen things your way.

If you had grown up here with a lifelong knowledge of our history, it would be.

That was kinda my point. If you need to use historical context to interpret it then the text itself is vague.
Laws are intended to be understood in and of themselves, without relying on unreferenced context (although very little is perfect).

Also, historical records aren't perfect either, and history is far from everyone's favorite subject.

However, I believe the clarity in many of your amendments is below average for law.

1) The intent is clear. Is that enough? It isn't explicitly stated.
2) I would disagree with the and only. This doesn't of itself ban dogs from bearing arms.
3) If 1 were true, OK.
4) x) Nuclear weapons are arms. (as I say below).
4) y) I don't see it as clear - it isn't stated. You have the right to property, yet you may not own certain pornography. You have the right to free speech, but not slander. You can assume that the right to bear arms is absolute, but again, it's not stated here. You might have the right to bear arms, just not guns.

It appears to me that your amendments (at least the few I just looked at) are all about intent and precedent, the wording is old and loose. If you think this is precise wording, I'd hate to see your notion of vague.

This is the 1st time I've considered the wording, I haven't heard the arguments before.

That reads, to me (a non-USAian), like:
Only male citizens or intended citizens ages 17-45, or covered by said section 313, and female citizens if belonging to the National Guard, are part of a militia.

As for the 2nd Amendment's words - "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" - it seems this could be satisfied by letting everyone own one knife and banning all guns.

Or, you could argue that it refers to a pre-existing but not fully defined right, as "to bear arms" could mean "to bear any arms" or "to bear at least one type of weapon", which is again satisfied by "knives only".

Or, to be utterly semantic, it states that any existing right to bear arms can't be infringed but does not explicitly create or acknowledge the existence of such a right.

Crystal clear it most certainly is not.

And however it reads, there is no stated or implied distinction between the right to own a gun and the right to own, say, a nuke.

Now that every (ex)fan has had a decent taste of Activision-Blizzard, It will be interesting to see how well their next few products do.

Do consumers actually pay attention to corporate ethics any more? Time to find out.

Force people to use this? No.
Allow this as an option? Absolutely.

Make it default - probably a bad idea.
Ensure continuing support for page-less mode? Mandatory.

You're puzzled by the idea or why it's happening?

Cos it's certainly happening when you look at obesity levels, number-of-children-vs-socioeconomic-status graphs, and the number of low-skill unemployed that don't go into study even when it's almost fully subsidized with loans for the rest.

I'm going to be controversial here - perhaps the worst of these people would have failed the test of natural selection in past millennia.

Yes, this time it's different. Every year you don't die... until you do.

The required IQ for the average available job has been rising because machines are getting smarter. It didn't really matter when that IQ was rising from the 60s (eg: grain harvester) to the 80s (eg: retail staff) because very few people were too dumb to stack shelves. But it's creeping around the 90+ level now and it's moving beyond a massive portion of the workforce. It won't stop.

How many jobs exist that your average 90 IQ'er can do that aren't under threat from automation - mostly only the ones that aesthetically require humans (waiters, etc). Not enough for all the 90s. And it only gets worse. I'm not saying they'll be gone next year, it'll take a few decades at least.

Look up the Luddite Fallacy in Wikipedia. Read to the bottom.

Firstly, it's not always a question of "will not work", it's often a question of "no work available". It is certainly ethical to expect to be fed if you can't find work.

Secondly, those products are becoming less and less products of human effort and more products of automation. If, for example, wheat goes to bread goes to customer's doorstep with virtually no human intervention (we are heading toward this fast) then why demand people do work to receive it.

Is there a halfway - give people enough to live on as long as they seek to improve themselves in both education and health, and adhere to family planning guidelines.

I'm not talking full-time study at facilities, just pass a few extramural courses per year, do say 3 hours of decent exercise per week, and have say three or less children.

Since bottom-end jobs are drying up with no end in sight (due to automation), it's crazy to expect that just tweaking our economy can restore low unemployment long into our future.

(I actually think you've hit the nail on the head, but you'll have a hard time selling that concept directly)

Does RF imply FRAND?

Having no restrictions at all is Fair.
It's also Reasonable to charge nothing (at least from an implementer's perspective, which is what counts here).
Everybody is charged nothing and not restricted in any way, so it's Non Discriminatory.

So there's nothing actually bad about FRAND compared to nothing, but RF is at least equally as good (from an implementer's perspective).

Is that 100% accurate? (I haven't been following this debate).

You don't have to remake coal or oil. You can use lower-energy storage forms, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_scrubber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage

I've seen many mistakes and even one alarm go off due only to DST.

The biggest problem with it, IMO, is that not every point in time is represented by a unique DST measurement. Typically, there's two "2 AM"s or similar on the day when the extra hour is squeezed back in.

This could be fixed by using a 25 hour day, although I'm sure that would annoy some other code.