Unity, like most other operating system visual shells, is moving in a decidedly touch-oriented direction. Has this actually proved beneficial in pushing forward an OS that's primarily in use on servers and workstations? Have users (as a percentage of total OS users, or as a percentage of total Linux users) risen or declined since Unity was introduced?

Which disclaimer was present why?

I'll help - it's there because an email from a U of Humbug account DOES CARRY the implicit assumption that its author is speaking for the school in some capacity. If it didn't, there wouldn't be a disclaimer.

Even if not every message on school letterhead IS attempting to speak in the school's person, that interpretation is still enabled by the presence of that letterhead.

THIS.

If that was how that worked, maybe it would be a problem. But it's not - no one is saying you can't post things on external resources accessed through campus connections. They're just saying that your advocacy site can't have myschool.edu after it.

I was born and raised in FLORIDA and I still think you're being kind of an ageist jerk here.

I've seen that behavior in over-50s, I've seen it in under-50s. Entitlement isn't an age issue, it's a class issue, or sometimes just a personality issue.

Correction - I guess ATI released technical specifications; but your second concern would seem to apply.

Because that's what's happened with ATI's recent foray into OSS drivers?

Oh no! Large organizations that do charity work have overhead, just like any real organization!

Overhead costs are a very bad measure of charity effectiveness - especially for large, long-term charities that offer services like high-quality legal aid, which is where a lot of the "expensive lawyer fees" come from.

I do think effectiveness is an important thing to determine, and a hard one - but "low admin costs" aren't actually a way to determine it, and it's not actually shameful to have your donation to the women's shelter go to the salary of their childcare provider or other employees.

I suggest you read my comment more carefully. My point there isn't that "she" is or is not exclusionary, or that the bias in the word "he" is or is not imaginary. My point is that it can't be both.

Also, I'd suggest you read any of the actual rationales behind people who use "she" exclusively for the neutral gender case, or who use "he" and "she" interchangeably. You're misrepresenting their arguments very, very badly.

A short summary of such might go as such: "Sure, in a world where we could just search and replace sexist customs and cultural constructs by magic, your argument makes sense. But the people who use "she" exclusively are largely reacting to the existing male bias in the language - they're trying to counterbalance the perceived imbalance, by engaging in the opposite behavior. You don't right a scale by putting pressure on the fulcrum."

If using the female gendered pronoun is exclusionary, how is using the male gendered pronoun not? Either the usage of the gendered pronoun is exclusionary, or the bias isn't imaginary. Pick one.

I do think that "fan" is probably not the term to use, but he's clearly not using it to be snobby - he refers to himself as a Unix "fan" as often as he says "Windows fan."

Basically, chill, the only rage here is yours.

Aren't those tutorials just "the articles on AListApart?" http://www.alistapart.com/articles/responsive-web-design/ http://www.alistapart.com/articles/fluidgrids/ They don't quite cover the mockup aspect, but I think they're at least a baby step in the direction of comprehending the issues you're talking about.

That... that's not exactly new. I mean, are you saying that kids were encouraged to watch softcore porn in the 60s?

Yes. Those people. And I very, very much agree on the lack of pretension.

Another writer who I felt has a pleasing lack of pretension (although he's much inferior in many other respects) is E. C. Tubb. The Dumarest series is kind of fun - it's formulaic fluff, but the sense of fun I got out of it kind of reminds me of Simak.

The roving band of nitwits seems clearly constructed above as a generic term for people who dislike Rand, but alright.

Rand didn't actually invent a new definition of selfishness - she tried to positively connote the existing one as part of her "enlightened self-interest." But she's clearly advocating for greed as a motivating factor, when viewed through any outside lens.

As far as (B), I don't think she did. Her villains were caricatures of attitudes that don't actually exist - their motivations and construction is so far removed from reality as to be useless to model the genuine possibility of abuse in the guise of altruism.