Give me an objective definition of "market" that makes the doesn't make the distinction between software products and support services, yet does distinguish between, say, operating systems and web browsers.

I doubt you have one. You just draw the line on a case-by-case basis wherever it supports your argument.

Yes. They're using their profits from selling their support product to fund development of their free operating system.

So, what you're saying is that there are pending court cases against, say RedHat, because they offer their OS free of charge, undercutting Microsoft's offering?

Or maybe against Google, or OpenStreetMaps, for uncompetitively providing free services that conflict with other services who do not charge?

Yeah, because USB hadn't already gone through three generations of improvements and refinements before Apple's messianic connector forced the industry to start improving again.

I was referring to the US military, which has a budget more than three times the size of China's. China might have more troops, but the US' combat ability is still far greater.

There's also quite a difference between "strong central military" and "three times the size of any other military force in the world"

Congratulations. You've now broken the phone, and the photos are on the cloud.

To offer a counter-opinion:

I played 2E in high school, missed most of 3E (except for the computer games loosely based on that ruleset, which I love and still play today) and these days play 4E. I've played a couple of encounters with the 5E playtest bundle.

My group play D&D more as a tactical skirmish game than as an RPG. We play RPGs too, but we tend to use indie or White Wolf (does White Wolf count as indie these days) systems for that. D&D 4E as a tactical skirmish game, is awesome. I'm not sure if you'd consider my style to be "adversarial" DMing. I'm certainly deliberately trying to bring the team down in combat, but I'm not trying to "beat" them - I'm the DM, if I want to "beat" them, rocks just fall.

A perfect encounter, for me, is when the party beats the monsters with no deaths, but feels like they only just pulled it off. A perfect adventuring day is when the whole party finishes the last encounter for the day with no surges, and dailies used. If I've killed one of them, I've failed; if they haven't been challenged, I've failed. If they've felt like they were on the edge of disaster the whole time, but pulled through by the seat of their pants, I've succeeded.

5E is not the edition for us. Like you said, it's clear and simple, streamlined, and without as much math, but we enjoy the complexities. We like the billions of permutations 4E offers for characters, despite the balance and function issues such an array of options present. For me, 5E doesn't have the in-depth combat complexities that 4E offered as a skirmish game, but neither does it have the narrative elements that support role-playing that systems like Fate, or Storyteller do.

That aside, I still wouldn't be buying 5E, simply because I no longer trust Wizards management of the brand. I avoided the 3/3.5E debacle, but 4E was just as poorly managed. There are whole classes that are practically unplayable (Seeker, Runepriest, etc) because WotC decided to switch to Essentials mid-stream; others were neglected ever since they were printed (Assassin, Artificer, etc). Martial characters got two hard-cover Power books; every other power source got one - classes that were printed after their power book got zero. Dragonborn and Tielfling were the only races to receive dedicated books, giving them far more options than other races. And that's aside from stuff like expertise math-fixes due to insufficient QA in the first place.

TL;DR: I'll keep 4E for a skirmish game, and keep using indie systems for role-playing. 5E fills neither niche.

The editors have already begun this process by eating the very name of the fish in question.

i.e. thigh meat, not breast meat

They'll also not take seriously self-righteous morons who use the word "proven" as a justification for their technical prejudices, instead of to denote some objective reality. Or actually, they might, but the rest of us won't.

Most I know do. The problem is that they're not sufficiently expert in the domain (in this case, health care) to determine the purpose, and the purpose the client gave them is wrong.

Specs aren't just some bureaucratic hoop that needs to be jumped through to get a developer to sit down and code, and they're not something a developer can just wing, and get right anyway, because they already knew what they were and were just being anal about getting you to write down.

They are important, and if they're not done properly, the dev will likely spend a lot of time doing the wrong thing correctly, and you will be billed for it.

No, it's really not. It's the name for a cluster running a virtualisation environment that lets you spin up virtual server instances quickly and easily.

It's an abstraction layer that sits between your clustered hardware, and your virtual machines.

It's a mobile. It's basically a rectangular screeen. There's not really much space for design innovation.

Besides, since when have mobiles not had rounded corners?