The only downside to using Linux in the workplace doesn't become apparent unless you regularly exchange documents with people in other locations, be they coworkers, clients, or what have you. At that point, you will discover that people outside your office will send you Microsoft format documents and not only expect you to be able to read them, but that you will be able to modify them and send them back.

While a pure linux shop can just use "Libre Office" and whatever other tools work well for a given circumstance, that idea just flat out fails when you're collaborating with folks who are using current Microsoft tools. The people in the home office don't like being told their document doesn't look right because they used a feature that's standard in Microsoft Office 2013, but that LIbre Office doesn't implement or doesn't get quite right. They *REALLY* don't like it when they send you a document and you send them back something forced down to Word 98 compatibility format.

So, that's the headache you're setting yourself (and your boss) up for if you switch the office (or part of it) to Linux. If you're all internal, it's easier to work around, but will still become an issue from time to time. If you don't share documents often, then it's a moot point.

How's that old saying go? Security through obscurity is not security at all?

Yeah, it'll convince people to switch alright... to switch the the clone version of the coffee maker so they can continue to use their favorite coffee pods. You can argue about the quality all day, but the fact is... being able to get a cup of coffee in the morning without all the fuss of making more than you need, or having to clean everything up is worth something.

The fact that LED bulbs get gradually dimmer over time is a huge failure point in their design. With incandescent or CFL bulbs, people buy the brightness they want, and when a bulb goes out, they replace it. No harm, other than a bit of cost in the replacement. On the other hand, do you REALLY want people to wonder why their having trouble reading, even with all the lights on? Having bulbs get gradually dimmer over time is a great way to make people visit the eye doctor, wasting hundreds of dollars on insurance, and even more if they end up getting new glasses more often than they might really need to.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- some old guy nobody remembers these days.

How many of those Apple portables are running WIndows via bootcamp?

...but the SEND/RECEIVE pins between modem and computer are always named from the perspective of the computer. There's precedent to use server-centric nomenclature.

...That is an excellent point.

Well, Toronto just finished its mayoral election, which was decided by a margin of almost 100K people (out of the roughly 500K votes that seemed to be counted for the mayor's office). My showing up (to vote not for the guy I thought would do the best job, but in typically Canadian fashion, against the guy I thought would do the worst) feels like it was a waste of my time, other than councillor, where i did vote for the winner. School board trustee, they gave me the wrong ballot, so I had to abstain there.

Basically, I don’t think showing up and spoiling your ballot is a waste of time; it’s speaking up and registering your discontent. I know they’re counted the same as uncast ballots, but maybe they shouldn’t be.

I disagree. I think that abstaining is a vote of "I don't care", but actually spoiling your ballot is a way to indicate you have no confidence in any of the candidates--and *those* ballots should be counted toward the overall total.

Of course, I also think that an election should be won by a majority of eligible voters, rather than a simple plurality of voters who turned up... But that's just me. And I'm aware that those are kind of contradictory statements... it's hard to explain. More just of a case of what I think abstentions and ballot-spoils mean in terms of intent.

THERE! ARE! FOUR! LIGHTS!

I can think of worse people than undertakers to describe as “scummy bottom-feeders”&hellip personal-injury lawyers who encourage people to sue their own elderly parents, just for one example. Undertakers provide a fairly valuable service—they work with death on a daily basis, so they can help the bereaved through what has to get done. Anyone who encourages someone to sue family for their own carelessness they need to be introduced to the business end of a hot poker.

I feel that the use of Leviticus and Deuteronomy to provide the original basis of the majority of Western law is the problem here.

If it weren't for lawyers, gay men and women wouldn't be allowed to marry in Canada. Tell me, honestly, that you believe that providing equal rights doesn't create value for society.