Well, you'd be right if North was actually up. However, it's settled science that West is actually up given that the sun and planets rotate top to bottom down the solar system's vertical plane.

But more seriously, am I the only one sick and f r e a k i n g tired of erstwhile do-gooders running around trying to enforce their superior judgements on everybody else? Even if I may agree with some of their good ideas, I don't want them to be coercively enforced on everyone unless there is a legitimate criminal, or real public safety aspect to them (and by real public safety I mean leading to imminent danger, not "may contribute to poor eating habits in some people"). Sheesh! This kind of crap makes my blood boil.

Ummmm...earthquakes?

...or Vermont Maple syrup, but honestly, I don't think the Maple Trees much care, disloyal bastards.

MASM

I can't help agreeing. I got to really liked GNOME 2. Bummer it had to be reinvented. I switched from Unity to GNOME 3 this update, just as I had switched from Unity back to GNOME 2 just after last one. It has nothing to do with being "too cool" for Unity. I tried to get used to Unity, but "clunky" doesn't even adequately describe it. I guess I'll try XFCE again. I tried it a long time ago, and it was a little to minimal at the time. I hear it's grown up.

Allow me to add my critique: Astute and well put, elrous0. The issues are actually two fold assuming agreement on the nature and scope of GW. The firsts involves consequence; and, whether GW provides positive effects, net and/or varied by geography, negative effects, same condition boundaries, and who would be affected negatively, positively, and by how much. The second involves actionability, that is, where GW incurs negative effects, whether there are actions humans can implement to avoid or mitigate those effects, and the cost versus benefits of those actions, or even inactions. The off-putting factor to me is that vague theory, as well as solution sets, always seem to revolve around the politics of the camps involved.

Two finger tap functions like right click on Mac. No problem. Otherwise, agree Unity was just awful. I say was, because it's so easy to change to Gnome 3 and make default (Synaptic, find GNOME 3, click, apply, reboot). That said, GNOME 3 is an unnecessary departure from what was otherwise a perfectly good desktop. But, getting wing used to it. Far better than Unity. Life goes on.

I was one of those people who were kind of annoyed, both when GNOME 3 messed with the legacy GNOME interface, and super annoyed with Ubuntu for Unity, which is a travesty. That said, and to Ubuntu's credit, changing to GNOME 3 at least was as easy as a click from Synaptic. GNOME 3 is beginning to grow on me. Oh well. The only constant in this world is change. Isn't it wonderful to at least have a choice?

If the EU believe the benefits justify the lifecycle costs, then they should go for it, and good for them. Of course, if their choice of incompatible standards introduced into a mature market reduces demand to below profitability thresholds, then too bad, so sad. Good luck friends.

BINGO! Policies that carry significant political political weight, especially when they become fashionable routes to swift approval, are especially prone to misunderstanding, misapplication, and imbalance between indented and unintended consequences. COTS, when misused as a panacea to achieve affordability, tends to not only be less affordable in the long run, but often leads to less effective solutions. The problem is that panaceas rarely are. Policies mindlessly pursued lead to poor results decoupled from original kernel of intent. There are certainly valid places for COTS, and valid reasons for nots.

Unless you're Duke, then you should always FEAR THE TURTLE!

I believe that certain concepts, however archaic by virtue of the passage of time, are worthy of continued consideration, such as the idea that powers vested in a government derive from the consent of the governed. Yes, we have TV now, as well as airplanes, trains and automobiles.That doesn't keep me from appreciating the wisdom and continued value in the Constitution any more than the Constitution prevents me from appreciating the public good of having an FDA, FAA, or EPA. "Parroting the argument," condescending as that phrase is no doubt meant to be, that the passage of time abrogates the value of the Constitution is one with which I disagree. The constitution provides a framework of delegated powers, and imposes constraints, checks and balances if you will, on government, which is necessary because any institution administered by humans is subject to abuse.

I'd miss it too. The EPA performs a valuable regulatory role. Like any other bureaucracy, it may occasionally gets out of hand. What well meaning human institution is immune from occasional excess, sloth, or stupidity? It would be nice to have an ability to conduct a rational discussion on government restraint without the extreme assertion that any such discussion means that one is against government per se, and therefore a "right wing extremist" during a Democratic administration, or "left wing extremism" during Republican administration by partisans in the opposite camp. Were in a very bad place at this point in our history. I hope we can get over it.

Um, you're right. And now Mr. Knowitall will illustrate the term "irony" and the metaphor "eats crow."