You just described the whole problem with fusion power more concisely than I though possible. Basically, it is an enviable goal, and looks completely theoretically feasible, but we just haven't worked out how to do it yet. We're working on it, and we're not far enough along yet to even know exactly what route to take, but we should get there eventually. Being far from a goal and not knowing how much time or money it will take can only stifle progress, so it is in the public interest to subsidize fusion research however we can so we keep making progress. Just because you aren't somewhere yet doesn't mean you shouldn't go.

But when considering thermal pollution levels, you must also acknowledge that the shift to favoring thermal pollution would be more than balanced by the decrease in other types of pollution that contribute directly or indirectly to global warming. That is the ultimate point of current fusion - a lesser overall negative impact on our environment (and that means it has to be cheap, of course). Not only are we already generating direct thermal pollution, we are compounding that with our poor management of carbon, plus our brutal extraction methods, highly radioactive waste we still don't really know how to dispose of, etc. etc.

Practical fusion could quickly eliminate our reliance on fossil fuels, more quickly than other alternative methods of power generation are proliferating, anyway. It seems like we should be able to achieve sustainable reactions someday, but how far off that is I have no idea, and no one can say what the lag time between that and widespread implementation might be. However, the goal seems realistic and worthwhile. We need some supporting technical breakthroughs, which could come in quick succession or could take quite a while, but we basically know how to do it, and it would be a huge upgrade. The thermal pollution of fusion-based power generation is not a remotely legitimate reason not to pursue it, thus you're probably not going to read much about it.

Yeah, and even though I have heard and uttered their name enough times to know how to pronounce it, when I read it my first thought is still "crotch." Not just because their name is sometimes mispronounced to rhyme with crotch, which is undeniably hilarious (on a seventh grade level), but also because I think of them as being miserable, crotchety old turds who are as undesirable as a smelly old, gross crotch, and listening to them is one level worse than being kicked in the crotch.

It is not surprising at all that Ulbricht's attorney is pressing hard to try to get all of the significant evidence excluded. It is a standard (if desperate) legal tactic, especially when the evidence is extremely damning. This case looks like it will essentially be decided by what evidence is allowed, since the evidence the government has should make convictions a slam dunk. Getting the court to believe that the FBI's hack was illegal (and perhaps uncovering their true methods) is about the only thing that is going to get the guy off.

The article is a bit fluffy and their favoritism for Arch is a bit puzzling, but props for their mention of Tails. It is nice because it makes security and privacy much more simple to achieve if you follow a few basic steps, which is useful. It does a good job of filling the niche of a light, portable, usable distro that covers your tracks well.
But they did leave out another good distro that is also frequently used in live mode, Kali - my favorite distro for, um, "penetration testing." Yeah, "testing," that's what we use it for...

This is soooo stupid! Everyone knows that the only thing we define as "people" are humans. And corporations.

Not sure why this was posted anonymously, but someone needs to mod it up - a score of zero is plain silly.

Very well said, and accurate! And that it is why it is hard to name a winner of the "best distro" contest - there are so so many with so many different target audiences and points of emphasis that it becomes impossible to simply and concisely rank them all. So while this is a silly exercise I think you actually answered it correctly, on all points. I like Mint and Mint-Debian, I would definitely use RHEL for enterprise use or CentOS for a university or large non-profit (or with admins much more capable than myself), and Gentoo and Slackware users are unique breeds. Everything else is redundant, aside from personal preferences and all the niche uses you can dream up, which are incalculable. So I for one am glad we have choices AND that we can acknowledge some clear leaders (or starting points, I guess) for certain categories, at least.

No. Please explain. (Or, even better, don't.)

They do seem to like Arch an awful lot, but their case is less than compelling.

"But what makes Arch our winner is this: for the large part, its information applies to other distros."
That is very funny of them to say, since I'm not sure how that makes Arch itself a "better" distro than the competition (and since Ubuntu and Debian help apply to many many distros) though something to remember when you get tired of Arch and switch to Ubuntu or Mint. That said, the Mint forums have been an excellent resource for me. If I have a problem or can't figure something out, I first Google it, then Google it with "Ubuntu" as a search term, then if necessary I can ask a question in the Mint forums and generally have it answered within 24 hours. I have precisely zero intention of switching to Arch, but maybe I'll try their wikis and docs next time I have a problem.

Just because you say "enough said" that does not mean debate has ended or enough has been said. That is an over-used conversation stopper. Nuf said.

While Slackware has stood the test of time as a distro favored by many developers and admins, it is still not exactly "user friendly" for the average person. It is the first distro I ever installed, so it holds a place in my heart. However, I've tried it a few more times over the years and it has not been the best fit for my non-guru abilities.

FreeBSD is not Linux though.

Mint has become the leader for home/desktop users. The Ubuntu base lends stability compatibility, while the more complete out-of-the-box experience and homegrown tools Mint offers make it a no-brainer (although I personally use Mint's Debian-based distro). For enterprise use I'd probably stick with RHEL, and perhaps CentOS for in between needs, but Mint just works so well that it has become a truly viable Windows replacement for many tinkerers and average, average people, and those who prefer not to support MS for whatever reason.