What makes you think that interactive notifications are less likely to get stuck than non-interactive notifications? This all boils down to the reliability of the notification daemon, not to the interaction style. If the daemon displaying an interactive notification suddenly hangs, you won't be able to interact with the notification anyway. You'll have to restart the daemon.

I would say that a daemon that can only display non-interactive notifications will probably be simpler, and, thus, more likely to be reliable. We'll see how Canonical's implementation fares in this regard.

I'm from Colombia and can speak three languages fluently. Should we conclude that all Colombians are polyglots?

Soy colombiano y hablo tres idiomas fluidamente. Deberiamos concluir entonces que todos los colombianos son poliglotas?

Ich bin Kolumbianer und kann fliessend drei Sprachen sprechen. Sollten wir dann zum Schluss kommen, dass alle Kolumbianer mehrsprachig sind?

(excuse the lack of diacritics/special letters, being an American website, Slashdot still doesn't handle them properly...)

You're right on the mark, sir! Compilers deal with this stuff quite easily, why should people have problems with it? You are showing us the True Way here: forget about improving programming languages or implementing sensible coding conventions. They just take time and cause too many unproductive flamewars in Slashdot. Instead, ask people to learn to parse code just like compilers do, without ever missing the lack of a semicolon, or misinterpreting indentation as syntactical scoping. This will get rid of all those pesky programming errors at once, and will probably eliminate world poverty and cure cancer as a side effect.

Now, the way you speak, I suppose you already taught yourself these incredible compiler-true-perfect-parsing abilities, didn't you? Would you mind to share your method with us? I, for one, am really interested...

First, this woman knew about the girl's condition. Second, according to the eggshell skull rule the sole fact that she performed a deliberately harming action which resulted in death (whether intended or not) would be enough to call this murder.

Mmmn, guess you're rediscovering economic theory here. Sure, money is intended to represent wealth. You trade the actual wealth you produce for money, and later you can trade that money back for wealth in some other form.

Still my point holds: the important part are the goods and the services, because those are the ones you can directly benefit from. In that sense, money is just a means to an end, not the end in itself.

There's a big difference: gravity is ruled by the laws of nature, company behavior isn't. Actually, companies are nothing else than a bunch of people that have access to certain resources. If I deal with any of these people personally, I expect them to behave morally. Why should I accept that they behave otherwise when representing their company? Just because they have to serve some random stakeholders?

Many people seem to think that companies are autonomous beings, with a live and motivations of their own. They aren't. All actions of a company are, in reality, the actions of people working for the company. I'm sure that if those people were held accountable for what they do in the name of their companies as much as they are held accountable for their personal actions, this world would be much much better.

Nope, I won't say it with you. Goods and services bring well-being. They are the food that you eat, the house you live in, the clothes you wear, and the car you drive. They are the care you receive when you're ill, and the entertainment and culture you enjoy everyday. It is the availability of such goods and services that constitutes wealth, not money, which, in and by itself, is basically worthless.

Sure, and that makes sense. But these profits should translate into a real net gain for society, and not simply into an increase in the balance account at the expense of other people's lifes or well-being.

And what good is money if you don't have any goods or services you can buy with it? Even if you are a soulless capitalist like many slashdotters seem to be, it is in your best interest that someone takes care of actually producing goods and offering services, because otherwise you won't have a lot to do with your loved money. Would you care explaining me how this is supposed to be sustainable if everyone concentrates on making money instead of on creating actual wealth?

I'm glad to see you got my point completely. Indeed, it is exactly this state of affairs you describe so well that worries me so deeply.

If I'm reading well, what you're implying here is that all ethical and moral concerns you may have about a particular action should be ignored as long as this action increases profits. This is, once again, the logic behind such tragedies as Union Carbide's disaster in Bhopal, India. I'm pretty sure Union Carbide's behavior was not illegal according to Indian law, but I'm also pretty sure many people inside the company knew what was going on, but didn't act on ethical grounds becase it was legal and would increase profits.

So, this way of thinking can kill people and ruin lifes. It is actually doing it as we speak. I thought capitalism was supposed to make us all prosperous and happy by making resources available where they are needed for wealth creation, and rewarding people according to the value of their contributions. I doesn't seem to me, however, that our current form of capitalism is doing any of these.

Nope, companies are there for offering goods and services, which means, they should concentrate on serving their customers, not their shareholders. If capitalist principles hold at all, a company that serves its customers well should of course make money, which, in turn, should result in higher returns for the shareholders.

Saying that companies are there only to serve their shareholders, that is, only to make profits, is just a justification for all sorts of dirty business practices. If all you have to do is increasing profits, it is then perfectly OK to release dangerous products, abuse your employees as much as possible under applicable legislation (and then maybe a bit more), harm the environment with your production methods, or risk people's life savings in absurd investment schemas, among many other horrors of modern life.