My company mandated use of the installed OS on our macbooks, so I've had to run OS X instead of Linux these last 2-3 years. No terminal program I've tried other than xterm seems to be able to support double-click to select, right-click to extend, middle-click to paste. Most support the first and third only. This is so basic if you've used an xterm any amount of time. Focus follows mouse is not supported by most tools either. If you install xterm/xquartz, the fonts are crappy on retina displays, and x didn't play well with spaces. You also can't reserve an area of the screen (I used to reserve the bottom 100-200 pixels on my linux desktop and extend only my xterm there so I could keep an eye on logs and processes while running a browser). Finally, there is no window switching, only app switching, and window switching in between app windows. All told the OS X desktop is a mess, especially if you've ever really productively used an xterm.

These things are daily annoyances, and I hate them so much. Even Windows (well, I haven't used 7) used to be better. For some reason though, only Linux desktops get all of these things right -- effortlessly. The crap they don't get right is bells and whistles I never ever use and just get in my way. Linux on the desktop has been complete and effortless for me since around 2007 - previously I recall wifi problems and such, but since then it's been fine. Everything else has blown massively.

Sure, you're modded as insightful because we love to think of all federal government initiatives as security theatre. But this article cites no actual statistics to the contrary. Its entire premise seems to be that child abduction is rare, and law enforcement often can't get an alert out within three hours, therefore "probably" the system is useless. Seriously, it cites no actual numbers as to the effectiveness of the system, and uses the word "probably" and pure rhetoric (i.e. bullshit) a lot. If the same article was changed around so that the author appeared to be a law enforcement spokesman and the conclusions were just reversed, we'd all be picking it apart as bullshit.

Everyone already knew this system was being rolled out for an extremely rare type of crime. Society decided (yes, it did, that's why the media hype launched this in the first place) that the crime was bad enough that no matter how rare, we wanted a system to help mitigate it. Yes, society can be emotional like that, but that is no reason in itself to condemn the system. I want to see actual numbers, not bullshit opinion pieces.

Not for all that long. Asquith broke their power against the Commons and New Labour took away their judicial role. I was saddened to see the latter happen.

Is this just his way of dealing with mid-life crisis?

This is probably a very stupid question, but I'd still be grateful if an expert could chime in.

It's not hard to detect big storms, either from land-based radar or aircraft-based radar. If we can do that, then why can't we just fly around them? Sure, it'll mean a long delay, but modern airliners are bound to have enough fuel to cope with it, and being late but safe is probably a good tradeoff for most people. After all, 50 years ago, flights were regularly delayed due to bad weather -- I mean by days -- so why can't we tolerate, say, a 6-hour delay in a transatlantic flight to evade a storm?

Just as an anecdote: I'm really touchy about interfaces and them staying exactly the same so I can keep productive (that's mostly why I use GNU screen all the time), and I thought I'd hate the removal of the status bar, but it's actually fine. When I need to check a link URL and hover over it, my eyes automatically pop to the lower left-hand corner of the browser and the URL is there. I never cared about the progress bar, and I just put my addon buttons at the top, to the right of the URL bar. (The first row in my browser is menu items, URL bar, and addon buttons; the next row are bookmark bar icons/folders).

Very insightful sounding, but astounding BS. When government doesn't restrict people's choices in life, other people do, much more so. It's generally called the "state of nature", and the guy that first described it as such also noted how people's lives in it were solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

It's never one IT person, especially for such a massive outbreak or such an important site. Any actual boots-on-the-ground guy could have done what you said, but getting a whole org to do things is just a hair short of infinitely harder.

I see you've run out of arguments. Don't worry, it's easier to attack than to think.

I want you to refuse any treatment that was not done using 'real' science.

Sure. Actually, no -- I insist on it. Double-blind study anything you want to give me.

You're not a foreigner to this, your country has a financial sector too. (I'm not American, nor does my country have a big financial sector, but I am from a Western country.)

I don't want anybody to suffer. I think a fast route to suffering would be for the West to destroy its financial sector, because some of that money (not nearly enough, by the way), to use Reagan's words, trickles down, and some if it is taxed, so they are an important prop to Western economies.

Nor does a financial sector that profits from selling to foreigners mean suffering for the same foreigners, so please don't be melodramatic. Most of the time you enjoy buying its services. I grant you that when it crashes, it's bad, but the fix to that is better regulation, not destruction.

By the way, in the case of any big Western country -- say the G7 -- if the financial sector were destroyed, it wouldn't be just that country that would be crippled; the knock-on effects would cause a major depression in the world economy.

Much as I hate them, they also drain Johnny Foreigner's wallets, and just as badly as ours. Destroying the financial sector would not be a good thing for the West.

I'm not American, but wow, your kind of comment makes me ashamed of being European. American engineering in its heyday was really good. All right, a good chunk of it was boostrapped from the British, and a lot of it from imported German scientists, but the British used their own non-metric measurement systems too. Units do not make good or bad engineering. The best engineers in the world are the British, the Russians, the Germans and the Americans. Of those, two used to use non-metric systems, and two use metric. Your argument is ridiculous, arrogant and patronising.

Disagree, imperial measurements (and the "traditional" measurements of most countries) have the undisputable advantage of actually being useful in day-to-day conversions. It's very easy to divide a yard into three, a foot or a dozen into three or four or two or six, etc. On the other hand, with a system based on how many fingers most of us have on two hands, you get ugly repeating decimals.

Just throw a dice for your next move. 1-2 for rock, 3-4 for paper, 5-6 for scissors. You can't be second-guessed.