Yeah, that's my fallback option; I've tried Xubuntu off and on in VMs going back to around 9.10, and it seems reasonable. But I like some of what I see in KDE, so I'm willing to make a go of getting up to speed on a new DE. If KDE pisses me off too much, I'll go with XFCE instead.

If that was true, why would they post negative stories like this one? You fail at logic.

I haven't looked back. I pretty much follow Google's model for my primary desktops (home and work) -- I stick with the LTS releases, and transition several months after the new LTS comes out. In the interim, I load up the non-LTS releases in VMs or on secondary machines to try them out and get a feel for what's coming in the next LTS release.

Have to say, I'm not a Unity fan so far. I've been using GNOME up until now, but will likely transition to KDE when I upgrade to 12.04. KDE does seem to be a resource pig, but hey RAM is cheap these days, all my desktops have at least 8GB.

Does anyone know what this alleged show-stopper (for Google) Python 2.7 compatibility issue is?

My home data center consists of three old PCs (two servers and a router, all running Ubuntu Server), a couple of gigabit switches, and a pair of UPSes, stacked in a corner of my crawlspace.

Yes, lack of accountability is a big part of the problem. Top executives' rewards are not tied closely enough to long-term performance, and they are rarely punished when they screw up.

Black-Scholes is sound in a statistical/mathematical sense. Unfortunately it makes implicit assumptions about how the market operates that simply aren't true, so it was bound to fail. Financial engineers -- and I use the word "engineers" loosely here! -- accepted the assumptions as gospel because their jobs/bonuses depended on it.

I used to work in that industry. It will be a cold day in Hell before I go back.

The only way to prevent another train wreck is to remove the incentives for "too big to fail" banks to take unreasonable risks with other peoples' money, based on the assumption that the government will bail them out if things go badly.

I think the threshold for achieving that level of trust is probably lower for men. ;-)

...and never assume malice where incompetence will suffice. You'll get through life with a lot less conflict that way.

You didn't even notice that the subject line says "femal", huh?

While I agree that proper grammar and spelling are something we should strive for, in a web discussion forum "it's the thought that counts". Isn't that the purpose of language -- to convey our thoughts?

Dismissing someone who may have a worthwhile contribution to the discussion just because they misplaced an apostrophe (or misspelled a word) smacks of elitism. If we measure someone's value by the amount of useful information contributed to the discussion, you're more of a "fuckwit"... by at least an order of magnitude.

...women are more selective than men regarding who to include in their social circle. I could've predicted this from real-world interactions. Women tend to form close-knit cliques. Men will hang with anyone who will get shitfaced drunk with them and commiserate about their problems with women, work, money, etc.