Linux on the desktop hasn't happened for one reason, and one reason only: Linux is fractured. There are several desktops, window managers, package systems, even kernels. This isn't the case with OS X or Windows, where you have a single API and standard to develop for. No commercial developer is going to write software for a chameleon operating system with a half dozen desktop packages.The same thing that caused Linux to take off with hobbyists and adapt so well to the server room is the same thing that will prevent it from ever being a major desktop OS: choice to the extent of almost chaotic proportions. Apple in particular succeeded because they in fact limited choices in some spheres for the sake of consistency and unity. And it worked for them.

Everytime the Unix community... Linux included... has tried to bring things together into a single standard of some kind, the result has either been something that looks like it was put together by committee *cough*CDE*cough* or lots of end users went "Nope, I'm gonna fork it", and produced so many variants that one standard never catches on.

There will never be a "Year of the Linux Desktop" because there will never be a single Linux.

This is silly and absolute Malthusian nonsense. It's not how many kids a country or region has, but how well they support themselves and use their resources and grow their economies. Some parts of Africa are doing quite well, thanks, feeding growing populations as they learn modern agricultural techniques and develop markets for foodstuffs that increase production and efficiency and lower costs. The United States went from a population of around 15 million to over 300 million in just over two hundred years. And even our poor people are fat. More people does not necessarily equal starvation. In free economies, it's actually the opposite case. Instead of handing out condoms, you'd be better off teaching modern agriculture and encouraging development. Economies and wealth (and food production is very much a part of wealth) are not a zero sum game.

Also, isn't casting doubt on DNA based evidence also a double edged sword? You've got groups like the Innocence Project that rely almost entirely on DNA as a means of proving their client's innocence. If you can cast doubt on DNA evidence when trying to convict someone, you can also cast doubt on that evidence when trying to prove someone innocent.

Well, in a way, yes. Because Steve Jobs, after years of experience with the first Mac and at NeXT, decided that maybe Big Brother existed for a good reason, was actually necessary, and that he was doing the world a favor by being a better Big Brother, and that the world would love him for it. And you know what? After billions in sales and millions of devices sold to adoring fans... the vast majority of which had never purchased an Apple product in the pre-comeback era... the world proved him right.

I wouldn't say that. What I would say is "stay away from people who have certs but not much in the way of real experience". Really, it's not that hard. Ask for references and work history. Check on those references, and call former employers. Ask "does he know his stuff?" If he does, and has a good work history that satisfies you, hire him. Anything else is minor. Despite all the mockery here at Slashdot, most Windows admins aren't dummies, and do a good job and know their stuff, and they know stuff beyond Windows. If they're good, they'll learn everything they need to know about a mixed shop soon enough.

This is basically what it comes down to. If you don't wanted to be treated like freight, then don't pay freight prices. All that glamorous air travel of the past? Hey, I romanticize it too... especially the flying boats that worked Pacific routes. But when the article says that it was expensive, I dont' think you get the picture of just HOW expensive it was: "In 1939, a one-way ticket from San Francisco to Honolulu cost $278, and a one-way ticket to Hong Kong cost $1,368. In 2010 dollars, these were $4,317 and $11,803.

Even paying for first class is nothing like that today.

The fact is, when something becomes cheap and common, then it loses its glamour.Flying was glamorous preciesely because only a few could do it. Space tourism is much the same way right now. If it ever becomes common and affordable, in 100 years you'll read stories on Slashdot's MegaNet page about how much the Space Travel Security Agency sucks, and how they groped grandma and held up her sub-orbital flight to Europe, and what a ripoff it is to charge for blankets and Tang on a 15 minute flight.

American military bases are considered sovereign US territory for reasons of birth, just like the Navy's ships and American embassies. Anyone born there is considered to have legally been born on US soil. This isn't new or noteworthy, this is longstanding United States law. Also, a candidate's parent's birthplace has zero consequence in the Constitution. And you'd know that if you'd bothered to take 30 seconds to Google an answer instead of sounding like a fool.

It's easy to be successful when the rest of the world is still digging out of the rubble, and you live in the only place that went both untouched by the war on your mainland, and also had the last major center of industrial production intact on a large scale. You're giving people credit for all the wrong reasons here.

And just what proof of this do you present? Because I present, for my case of man being inherently flawed and evil unless taught not to be and enforced with laws and social codes, the entire history of the human race. You're essentially using Rousseau's "noble savage" argument, that man, until corrupted by civilization, is inherently good. But it fell out of favor because common sense triumphed, and we re-discovered that, shockingly, savages tend to be... savage.

Dysfunctional? Are you that much of a hypocrite?

Ryan worked for a long time on a budget, with a real plan, with actual numbers that he'll argue and defend. He has ideas. His opponents on the other side of the aisle... they don't even have the courage to produce an actual budget. How long as Congress gone without a budget? How long has the country been running on "continuing resolutions"? Four years now. Where's your criticism of that. I don't want to hear about "morally and ethically bankrupt" from such people. It's like getting a lecture on ethics from a mugger.

You had some decent analysis until you got to that part. And then you just blew your credibility right out of the water.

Plenty of your "fellow Wisconsinites" keep sending him back to office. So maybe... just maybe... the "lulzy" is just with you.

Dubya inherited a phantom surplus built on a tech bubble that went bye-bye, all on its own. The "surplus" was always smoke and mirrors... fake money created by a fake boom built on fake promises. Remember how much the stock for VA Linux... which owned Slashdot... went for? Remember how it dropped like a rock when investors realized there were no profits to be had? Yeah, that's your "surplus" in a nutshell. The "surplus" went away for the same reason that instant dot com millionaires were pouring lattes at Starbucks for a living shortly afterward; there was no "there" there.

Blaming it all on Bush certainly isn't letting "facts get in the way". It's downright dishonest. At what point, pray tell, does Barrack Obama ever become responsible for his own actions, ideas, and proposals?

This is the kind of dishonest argument we see on Slashdot all too much. One can agree with some of a person's positions and not all of them. Thinking that Atlas Shrugs is an important book doesn't necessarily imply that you agree with Ayn Rand on every single thing she believes. I'm fond of saying that Rand got many things right for the wrong reasons. I certainly don't agree with her on her anti-religious beliefs, and I have some serious misgivings with Objectivism. But that doesn't change the fact that I think she made a lot of important arguments in her books. You seem to be arguing, however, that to endorse one idea is to be forced to endorse all the ideas of the writer. This simply isn't true. Do YOU endorse every single idea of the writers that you read? No? Then why do you expect others to do so?