Ubuntu has one: He's called Jono Bacon and has his own one-man metal band.

...its GUI is more like Microsoft Office pre-2007 than Microsoft Office 2007 is, and I have never gotten used to the 2007 interface.

It is fairly stupid to treat the janitors poorly if you work at the place. Keep in mind janitors are one of the few people in a building which usually have keys to every single door in it. Once I forgot something inside a meeting room, the people who opened it (and had key access) had left a long time ago. I just asked the janitor and he opened me the door.

"Nokia does have user-friendly interface" .... I guess the only good thing is all Nokia phones use the same charger. Well at least the "old" and the "new".

I got the impression that their atmosphere is very different, because humans had to hide behind the transparent mask to breathe properly. Simply high amount of CO2 cannot do that. Even on earth, we have 70-75% inert gas (for our breathing purpose) and we breathe quite fine. Was it mentioned that atmosphere is similar to earth's?

I agree with your statement about seeing electromagnetic radiation because we see best in the wavelength range in which solar radiation filtered by atmosphere reaches best on earth's surface.

But about audio frequencies, even if the atmosphere is similar, it can carry various frequencies. Humans hear well in only a particular frequency range. Even different organisms on earth do not hear/emit sound in the same frequency range: elephants, dogs, bats, snakes all have vastly different audio frequency sensing ability despite living in the same atmosphere.

But having said all that, still the amount of similarity with an independently evolved species is too uncanny for me to digest. 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose with 2 nostrills, 2 arms with hand like endings, a navel, 2 legs, tendency to hide one's groin, hair like thing on head and rest of the body relatively hairless? Doesn't seem to be realistic.

Right!

(1) "I'm tempted to say your post is troll-like but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and put it down to retarded-like ignorance."

OK - I did not say the post was a troll and reading the above line what I posted was maybe a bit harsh.

(2) Please do not attack my friends and call them "idiots".

(3) "incapable of doing simple arithmetic and understand that more going out than is coming in" - This is fine if your financial situation is straightforward. If you have a family of 2 kids, both parents are working, husband decides to walk away from everything and cease his financial contribution then things get messy very quickly. Believe me the bank is not understanding at all.

(4) What about the businesses that have suffered from banks withdrawing financial support (there are a few legitimate reasons why this is needed) and then hitting them with "unauthorised" fees afterwards?

(5) I can add and subtract - my finances are fine as I am sure my friends can add and subtract too.

I just think you arguments are very simplistic.

I disagree that uniforms are a bad idea and yes I work in IT. I was also a member of the armed forces for a time in my life and as a service member I wore a uniform as well. Would you compare a soldier to a fast-food worker because they both wear a uniform? When you and your group that you work with everyday wear uniforms it can sometimes reinforce that you feel a member of something, a part of something bigger than yourself all working towards a common goal. If you have pride in yourself and your workplace and what you and your peers do for a living then a uniform should not bother you, in fact it would bring you all closer together. On the other hand if the company has consistently treated you with disrespect and you aren't particularly happy with what you are doing and where you are at then I can understand how it can be construed as demeaning.

Doc, chill... I was being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic. A. it's too early for me to even attempt to read and understand your last reply, and B. You're obviously smarter than me, which means... YOU WIN!

Frankly they could withdraw the stock on the shelves and restock the shelves for virtually nothing. The thing that is on the shelf does not cost $$$ to make.

For those attempting to view the slideshow on a non-windows machine, you can download the wmv file and play in mplayer (if you have the win32codecs installed).

What are you using to cluster Postgres? I have looked at a couple of options here but didn't see an open source solution that was current and able to handle multi-master synchronous replication with some sort of automatic failover.

Thanks for your response!

No offense, but maybe you should not have cast yourself in the lead role?

I am not trying to troll or label you a troll. I understand the MS does not have a monopoly in the search industry while it could be argued that Google in fact does.

Regardless, MS does have a monopoly in operating systems that they have historically been willing to abuse to enter and dominate other markets. This is where, as I understand it, the antitrust issues of a monopoly come into play.

The point I was originally trying to make is that MS *is* leveraging their monopoly on operating systems to enter the search market. This is by virtue of the fact that MS has claimed (since the original antitrust suit of the late 90s and of Netscape fame) that the browser is an integral part of the operating system that cannot be removed; yet, MS' browser which dominates (one might say, "monopolizes") the browser market defaults to bing.com. The fact that MS is now *paying* companies to distance themselves from MS competition (Google) is only adding fuel to the fire.

My original response was to your statement that Google is a monopoly. That is hearsay unless you have some sort of proof otherwise. Comparing Google's dominance of the search market with MS dominance of the OS market is apples and oranges. When Google has 95%+ of the search market then a fair comparison can be made. This is not to mention that Google, to date, has not leveraged their "monopoly" position illegally to enter another market while MS has a history of just that; as is the case now.

You are correct in your definition of monopoly, however MS has been convicted of illegal monopolistic practices many times over, not only in the U.S. but Europe and Asia as well.

Google has not, to my knowledge, ever abused their market share in a monopolistic manner. I was asking for corrections on this point.

Also, Google is arguably *not* a monopoly. There has been competition in the search market since Google's inception and Google has not dominated the search market in the same manner as MS has with operating systems, AT&T has with phone service or many other historically significant monopolies have with their respective markets.

And Google was convicted of this exactly when? I am sure that you must have some credible sources for such a statement made with such conviction.