And in this case, the idiom is "I couldn't care less." Most of the time it's not literally true, but it conveys the sense that the person using the idiom considers whatever it is being described as being at or near the very bottom of the list of things he cares about. So low on the list that in practical terms, he couldn't care less.

So when someone says the opposite of that ("I could care less"), it's not even a nod to the actual concept - it's just someone making sounds similar to the sounds in the idiom, without actually thinking about the words they're saying. By your thinking, "I wooden flare lens" would also be an idiom because if you mutter it badly enough it also sounds like the real idiom.

I didn't even call Libertarians out by now, and already the morons with mod points who compromise the Ron Paul Commemorative Movement are out to stomp on me.

Well fuck you, maters. I've got karma to burn.

Like, perhaps, English. So that he could - after all these years as a professional who types out strings of characters that very specific meaning - understand that when he says "could have cared less about my career," he means "could NOT have cared less about my career."

Maybe he's been working all these years in languages that don't incorporate the concept of "not" or " ! " in evaluating two values. Are there any? I couldn't care less. Grown-ups who communicate or code for a living should be able to handle that one correctly.

A lot of people who complain about government are people who would like to terminate most, if not all, labor protections. They bury that desire in ideological ruminations, and have convinced vast legions of rubes that the only good government is a non existent government, and somehow the magic of market forces will protect workers.

Following that logic, they should also be required to help pay for my network at home, part of the cost of my desktop, and my work clothes, since they have required me to have all three.

My compensation requirement when I look for a job is dependent upon my work requirements, I don't have to work for a company that won't pay for my internet connection, provide a support computer, or pay for business wear. I choose to work for the company I work for because they compensate me enough that I can take care of those requirements. I'm not one of those people that see 'free stuff' in these rulings. Instead, I see increased costs that will be passed on to the consumer.

Several years ago, a company paid for my relocation. Instead of having a list of onerous rules and requiring detailed record keeping, they gave me a flat fee based on my salary. Funny thing about that, I found the cheapest way to move and pocketed the rest. May or may not have saved the company money, but it sure made my life easier. And no one at the office had to deal with the paperwork, pouring over every receipt to make sure it was allowed. My guess is that the company found, in the long run, that it was cheaper to do it that way. It was their choice, their freedom to decide how to handle relocation. As most company benefits (including medical) should be. That's how a free market economy works, by providing choices and letting competition settle things. Companies with the best benefits/pay/work environment get the brightest and smartest. If someone works for a company with poor benefits/pay/work environment ...maybe it's their lack of marketable skills or motivation that keeps them there.

My company currently does provide support phones because some idiot in security won't let us use Touchdown on our Android phones to get our email. So they give me a useless piece-of-shit iPhone (small screen, no back button, can't install apps on it because of security). Which sits on my desk at home, plugged into a charger and never used. I setup Google voice to forward calls to my Android phone, and setup rules to forward emails from important people to my Android phone. The company spends $$ a month for phones for many employees that don't even use them. I'm can get an iPhone through my service provider, and they will pay for the monthly service if I choose to. But then I have to have a phone with fewer useful features than my Samsung S4, which I prefer (as do many ex-iPhone users that I know of).

Yet more bullshit rules from the land of nanny-government.

Sometimes I forget that some people see ads on the internet. It's disappointing to hear that /. is engaged in full page nastiness.

I agree completely. When I first started using an dreaded (an old LG keyboard phone with a JavaME spun reader I had hacked on to it) I found reading a bit of a chore. It took me a few days to get really comfortable with the seemingly small and yet ultimately pricing differences. Now I regularly read books on my smartphone and tablet without a hitch, and have noticed no recall problems.

I find a study like this to be highly suspect. It's a 28 page story, hardly anything special. Have them read an actual novel instead. In 28 pages the "plot" is going to either be very convoluted or extremely thin. I find it just as likely that the 28 page story bored the kindle folks half to death and they didn't bother trying to recall it.

You're going to have to do better than 28 pages. That's barely a chapter in the books I read.

And to take advantage of the Windows 8 fiasco Linux created it's own with Gnome 3, Unity and KDE 4. Honestly, Linux had the Windows 8 problem before Microsoft did. The state of UI's on Linux is a travesty.

Try 500-600. Most of those are "project managers" too who farm the work out to Indian contractors. Microsoft doesn't have the development force you think they do.

When did having a pool turn a mid-size home into an "estate?"

And ... 2400 square feet is "huge?" I'm sure millions and millions of people will be delighted to discover that, all the sudden, they are living on huge estates.

Somebody's been watching too many "tiny home" hipster cult reality cable shows.

Yes. The accident, as simplistically as you're describing it - which implies that "failing" or not, "you" were still able to drive around - is the fault of the driver that broke the law by running the red light. Without that driver's bad driving, the accident would not have occurred. Just like without the Chinese deliberately cracking in to take medical records, they wouldn't have thus been in receipt of those records. Which part of "the data theft cannot happen without a data thief actually acting to do the crime" are you unclear about? Though your car analogy is a bad one, it's very similar to, "You can't be in a collision with a person driving a car through a red light without that other person actually running the red." It's not complicated.

They want their user interface back.

Yeah, sure. Because all the other "global warming" prediction have been so fucking accurate. You morons are batting 0.0000