It wasn't my intention to imply that these techniques are unique to git.
The original poster mentioned liking SVN better because of the command structure, and I was pointing out that that's possible as well with git. My point was that for certain corporate environments (or large teams in general) git can be made more centralized without losing many of its benefits.

I've used git in a traditional corporate environment, and done right, it can be a lot more powerful than SVN.

"Done right" means you have someone dedicated to the role of "git master" who merges the team's commits into the master repository.
This is what Linus does, and it works to great effect. The great advantage is that individuals and teams can very easily work on their private branches before merging into mainline.

The second method is to set up a server which runs automatic tests on all commits and guarantees at least that the git history remains clean and contributions do not break the build.

From my experience, people tend to resist git because the concepts are a bit difficult to get in, especially when coming from other SCMs. It doesn't help that git uses many of the same nomenclature as other systems for slightly different operations.
However once the concept starts to settle in, git is actually quite simple and its use becomes second nature.

I don't know mercurial that well. From my experiments and what I've read on the Internet, it's essentially the same as git. Some people have strong opinions (like you seem to have) towards one or the other, but I've found that it's mostly down to small differences.
However, to me it makes no sense to use mercurial when almost all open-source projects already use git. Using mercurial only means you have to deal with two SCMs rather than one.

*were

Democracy, and The spirit of it, are two differing entities in the wild. Democracies was conceived with the notion of an informed voting populous. This is hardly the case in modern times.

Are you really that dumb of a fuck to spew this out yet again.... sorry, obviously, because you did. Dumb Fuck. Kthxbye.

I'm sorry that you lack imagination and need others to stimulate you for your entertainment.

If you already have an Android phone you already take everywhere, then it makes more sense.
An independent device would certainly be more useful, but that would greatly increase cost and size, and increase battery drain. And most of that would just be replicating things your smartphone already does.
Given the hardware constraints, it seems that this method is a decent compromise, at least for a first-generation device.

Personally I think the round version from Motorola looks good enough that I'd consider wearing it. It actually looks like a watch, even if a bit too thick for my taste, though I like my watches to be as thin as possible (I tend to buy Skagen).

The LG just looks too much like a gadget to me, sort of like the Pebble and the Samsung Gear, which is why I never got any of those.

These watches have a touchscreen

That's not true. Alternative medicine has been tested, in some cases extensively, and proven not to work beyond the placebo effect.

In the rare cases that it does work (some traditional herbal concoction turns out to actually have medicinal properties) it stops being labelled "alternative medicine" and joins the ranks of "real medicine".
That's the irony of alternative medicine -- if it does work, it's no longer alternative. Proponents of alternative medicine are essentially trusting their health to the exact therapies which have been proven *not* to work.

Ford? Chrysler?

Subscribing to a lie doesn't make it less of one.

That's rich. Nice choice of words there.
I bet you could also replace the Windows kernel with Linux "with enough effort".
Or turn a car into a space shuttle, "with enough effort".
Or move the great wall of China 10 meters to the left, "with enough effort".

Now I am curious. Can you please provide me with an example of such a component? Lets use input sanitation of a form as this is the example that got introduced into this context. Which component do you use that will work across the various, disconnected, frameworks to validate all of your forms? If they are truly generic, in the sense that no one should need to ever write them out again, then I would love to get my hands on some of these!

You have reading comprehension issues. I'm not "defending the practice of unique buggy code". I'm not even suggesting that's what programming is at all about. Fundamentally, if a programmer finding himself writing code, any code, he better have a damn good reason for doing it. That said, you have missed, fantastically, the issue, because appearantly you've tunnel vision. The type of code you seem to think exists, doesn't. So no one, absolutely no one has access to these magical reusable components that work in every instance. This includes form processing, as the set of types of data is an infinite set -- perpetually open to modification. As such, instead of looking for something that does not exist, the specific components get developed. For the very small set of components that satisfy a large majority of users, you have apps, with their own set of limitations. Yes, there is a set of persons that do not know how to search for existing code at all. These aren't programmers. It's a mistake to hire them as such, but your mistake in their label is a function of your own ignorance. Know what programming means before hiring someone that claims to be a "programmer".

By the way, you want to avoid personal insults? How about you don't start out calling all programmers idiots, and degrading the entire field -- just a thought. You started out down right hostile.