No, the GP was making a joke. You saw the word "God" and immediately threw an off-topic temper tantrum.

If you swap caps with control, then in vim you can use Control-[ for escape, which is also a pretty good option. (That's what I do.)

The problem I had was I wanted to map the CapsLock key to Control, and the LeftCtrl key to Hyper. There are built-in xkb rules for doing both, but they don't work right when you try to combine them, and the documentation available for xkb is hard to understand, to say the least. I finally got it working by hacking one of the rules definitions in the system-provided definition files to do what I wanted -- I gave up trying to figure out how to do it the "right" way.

Unfortunately it's hard to get xmodmap to play nicely in cases like hotplugging keyboards or using Gnome, at least under Linux. There is a standard option for swapping caps lock and control (or escape, or several other similar options), but if you want a layout option that isn't built-in, then prepare yourself for a world of frustration.

You could also invest in a tool to remap the key next to 'A' to "Control," like God intended. You don't need to get a whole new keyboard. Write on the key with a marker if you're the kind of person that looks at key labels when you're typing.

If you click through to the "article," you'll get a long list of ten-word sentences formatted as tweets. When did this become an even remotely acceptable way of presenting something?

Good lord. If you work for Google, can't you figure out how to create a blog? My mother did it.

They were probably just making a reference sample.

Warhol's Entitlement isn't just for people anymore.

Mea culpa. I did not read my own second paragraph. I meant to (and remembered writing) a point to the effect that the carrier does exert control, and that discretion or lack of concern is *certainly* part of their final product. That is implied (but not explicitly stated) in my original comment where I note that I will leave and no longer patronize a site with popups or any ad that makes noise unprompted.

And of course, as I *do* state in the second paragraph, some scammers will get annoying ads that violate the site's rules or are criminal in intent now and then, even with a genuine effort on the part of the carrier. Thus the occasional prominent note similar to "Sorry about the autoplay video ads; I'm working to eliminate them with my ad service." So long as it is handled promptly and in good faith, I have no problem, any more than a health hazard being handled at a restaurant in a prompt and safe manner is fine.

I'm fairly certain you're just restating the point I made in the second paragraph which you did not quote (or seem to read).

While my initial point of puzzlement is why you would ever click on an ad, the core issue you're bringing up seems flawed: I'm not quite sure why the product is the responsibility of the carrier. A newspaper isn't responsible for the food in a restaurant that advertises in them, nor is PBS responsible for what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does -- even though they namecheck them as sponsors quite often. The telephone company and postal service carry scams without intent to do so, but Verizon is not generally seen as culpable for the mess a computer can get in when "Microsoft called" somebody in the house to walk them through "free support."

You are of course correct in that carriers do bear an onus to reasonably and in good faith remove scams when they are brought to them. There's always a struggle there, and there will likely always be, as the scammers are adept at countering such effort.

In all seriousness, I do not use ad blockers, and I have the "disable advertising" off, although it is offered to me. I view my use of a web site and their ads the same way as walking into a restaurant and paying for the meal. They are putting content into a rectangle, and if I like the content, I will return. Some smaller groups provide free food or community supported food (heck, I do that on Wednesday game nights at my home), and some smaller sites provide free content. But in general, it's part of the assumption. If the cost is too high (too many ads, or even one that makes any kind of noise), I don't go back.

I do, however, block the hell out of popups. The agreement is a page of content. You don't get further access to my desktop unless and until I agree.

Unless for some bizarre reason you are purposefully trying to avoid non-GMO food, then you shouldn't care.

If you want to ensure that you are buying non-GMO food -- which is what the anti-GMO activists want -- then all you have to do is buy food that is so marked. This law doesn't change that at all.

I hate to say it, but not only are your figures are quite off, you have fallen into the specific trap of misguided thinking that both I and the comment I was responding to was making.

The level of technology reflected in a design is determined by the date the thing was *built*, not when it finally failed. Going to the comment I was replying to, you have just implied that an antique Studebaker that crashed this year represents the cars of 2015, and thus all current cars are unsafe as they lack air bags, seat belts, and crumple zones (in the last few years of the company they added the new innovation of the roll bar to the Studebaker Avanti, but most lacked even that).

The Hindenberg was built 79 years ago and crashed 78 years ago. It was built with technology of 79 years ago, not the technology of the following year when it crashed. There's a five year wonkiness in there involving bankruptcy and Nazi funding, but I went with the date of completion rather than the laying of the keel to match the other figure.

Chernobyl's reactors were designed, built and then the first came online in 1977. As they were all designed at the same time and built in a short period of a few years, they presumably all reflected the technology of that year, 37 years ago. When the disaster happened, they were not the technology of 1986, any more than that hypothetical crashed Studebaker reflects this year's car safety standards, even if you do safety retrofitting: that gets you seatbelts, but not some really fundamental things like crumple zones, roll bars and countless other basic improvements made to personal vehicle technology.

Which, if you'll read the comment I was responding to, was *exactly* the point being made, the one I was echoing, and the trap of thinking you fell into when reading my comment. That does indicate how pernicious an issue it is.

I know that *I* refuse to fly -- I've seen the footage of the Hindenberg. I know how dangerous flying is, and I would assume that absolutely no progress has been made in the last 79 years.

Similarly, in the last 37 years since Chernobyl, I can't imagine that anybody has had any ideas. It's not like nuclear engineering or flight are new fields that would have major advances.

I look forward to your reply when you get this message in the next few weeks, and hope to have your response in the next couple months!

to be made by someone other than the lowest bidder.