Because it's an art project. It's not meant to be a production device.

Fedora has implementations of just about every major desktop / WM, certainly including Xfce and LXDE. It's not GNOME or KDE-only.

Note that this is a Fedora Remix, which is a term with a specific meaning:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Remix

Basically a 'remix' is a very liberal conception of 'based on Fedora' - it allows the inclusion of third-party packages, the modification of Fedora packages, and so on. Really, you can do whatever you like and call it a 'Fedora Remix'.

So in this case, they can certainly tweak things extensively to target a low-resource system. Note that Fedora has a very active ARM port and community, and we've had Fedora running on many low-resource ARM devices for quite some time. Fedora is not 'just' a resource-heavy desktop distro.

i dunno why everyone's thinking so small in terms of distances.

thousands of kilometres? that's practically touching. halfway to the moon? well, maybe now we're only very good friends.

i mean, remember the douglas adams line. halfway to the moon is *nowhere* in terms of...Space. SPAAAAAACE.

let's face it, we puny humans already have the technology - if, for some reason, we had the desire - to build a ship which could fly to mars, come back, and then blow up the planet. now you're the captain of the ship that has to stop that ship. if your capabilities cover a sphere with a diameter of 'half the distance to the moon', you are comprehensively fucked.

for space combat to even be at all possible, defensive capabilities over truly mind-boggling distances - we're talking AUs here, not piddling thousands of kilometers - are going to need to get developed. somehow.

not so much a failure of imagination as wilful blindness. humans, in general, find stories about humans - or at least things you can sort of think of as people, like almost all aliens ever imagined - interesting. stories about autonomous robots blowing each other up...not interesting.

some authors go to quite intricate lengths to make it semi-plausible that actual human agency would be involved in something, trying to defend against the 'just use a bloody robot' complaint. viz gundam (referenced above) and the culture series. some authors just hope no-one notices. some lampshade it. but most have thought about it.

to expand on my comment: this is all really well-trodden stuff. just look at, well, any sf author ever. all sf I can think of either treats ships as one-hit kills, or hand-waves some kind of Advanced Energy Shielding system to magically bestow resiliency on spacecraft. in other words, everyone who's thought about it at all hard is perfectly well aware that any spacecraft without _serious_ shielding is insanely vulnerable to any kind of hull breach at all.

"Space introduces dynamics as unique as underwater. Craft can be insanely delicate and lack any armor and still be a potent force. "

Yes, so unique, they're not _at all_ like fighter planes. Which pretty much crash if you breathe on 'em too hard, but sure are potent forces...

you're assuming 'combat between people and some other species we simply want to annihilate', which is all well and good, but it's not the only possible type of combat.

it's pretty much a given for anyone who's thought about it for more than thirty seconds that kinetic bombardment is pretty much unanswerable, and hence the only type of combat that it's worth really thinking about is the kind in which kinetic bombardment of a 'stationary' target doesn't really achieve anything - so we're talking about, say, combat between two factions, whether human or non-human, for control of existing resources which have value to both sides. There's no point kinetically bombarding a planet if the whole point of the war is to gain control of something on the planet.

'traced back to someone who appears to be sympathetic to the NDP' is more accurate. and, well, bleeding obvious. you don't need an IP address to figure that someone tweeting embarrassing but entirely factual things about a Conservative politician is quite likely to be an NDP (or, I suppose, Liberal) sympathizer.

well, you can look at it that way. the other way you can look at it is this:

the police can already access all the records in question if they have just cause, by getting a court order. obviously, getting a court order isn't a terribly onerous thing in the context of a really serious crime - terrorism, child abuse, whatever. offences of that nature are rare enough and serious enough that there's no problem getting a court order where one is warranted.

it follows that, whatever the justification publicly offered, it doesn't make any sense that a law which removes the requirement to obtain a court order is truly targeted at very serious crimes. no, it only makes sense in the context of much less serious offences. say you're looking at, oh, to take a COMPLETELY random example, file sharing. you've got hundreds of thousands of potential offences, and probably little in the way of decent investigative evidence in any of them.

now THAT'S a case where it 'makes sense' to remove the requirement for a court order, because it really is going to cost of a lot of resources to go out and get a couple hundred thousand court orders, especially if your evidence is pretty weak.

So, yeah, we can ignore the rhetoric, and instead ask the question 'in what circumstances does it really benefit the police not to have to go and get a court order to look at these records?' And the answer to that question is very different to the rhetoric you hear from the Cons surrounding the bill.

But hey, if he has nothing to hide, he should have nothing to fear, right?