1. "We" (not I) feel the need to believe in some higher power because of the crippling fear that death is final, and that there is some higher purpose. 2. The emotional need for other people is evolutionarily advantageous. There is safety in numbers, it takes 2 to make a child, etc. It's not a metaphysical need. It's chemical. 3. Not everyone does, so the question is meaningless. Morals are learned, so that "conflict" is just contrast. Again, nothing metaphysical there. 4. That's easy. The combination of 2 sets of DNA is what allows the population to be varied enough genetically to not get wiped out by diseases. Some will die, while others will live on. 5. Meaningless, non-specific question. Points to a lack of understanding about evolution. 6. I already answered the first part (or you aren't asking what you meant to). "Figure out"? Seriously? Do you think that there was some magical time that offspring reproduced so radically different from its parent that it couldn't be taught or observed? As if my parent was an amoeba, but now I have external genitalia? There are lots of questions that can't be answered by evolution, or science in general. But that's due to not currently having an answer. It's not chance. There may be odds that something will or won't happen, but it isn't like evolution tries to explain our existence as some cosmic roll of the dice. It doesn't take faith, not in the least. I'd like to address your last point. This is the bit that irritates me every time. You said "What we don't have answers to points to something so much bigger than evolution". It seems that you're implying religion. That's cognitive and emotional weakness at its worst. Not having an answer can not, and will never, point to something. Not knowing means just that. You (and I) don't know. It doesn't mean that it can't, or will never, be known.
Really? Who's going to spend $$$ on a rubber doll that knows that you're doing it wrong?!?
I ran a node for a while, when the software was a lot younger. I had just stopped using FB, but I couldn't get enough people to join. Certainly not enough people that they would keep coming back (especially on the slow box I had at the time). I have an account on the main node, and it's greatly improved. I log in now and again, but it of course hasn't reached any kind of critical mass yet.
Someone above mentioned that it's as easy as "sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop" if that's what you want. Now, there's all kinds of holes in that argument, namely the needed familiarity with the terminal, so I checked to see how hard it would be using the Ubuntu Software Centre. I would have figured somewhere around 4 clicks or so (although I use synaptic primarily, so I'm not sure). I opened USC, and typed in KDE. I couldn't find a KDE meta-package anywhere! I didn't realize that USC hides (by default only) what it calls "technical items", which for the most part are libraries and other dependencies. Also, it appears, meta-packages! I agree with the idea of offering screenshots during install, and installing another desktop if there is a network connection available (or if it's from DVD).
May I ask? How long have you spent using Unity? Judging by your tone, and your aggressive use of colloquialisms, as well as use of one study to try to prove something entirely unrelated, (and your ACowardice), you haven't used it for any longer than I have used Metro. The difference between you and I, A. Coward, is that I have no problem admitting when I am mistaken! And FYI, I am not a fanboi, as you like to call it. I use what works best for me, and have no problems publicly voicing my opinion on things that I care about. While I may occasionally come off as snide, I am in no way beyond reproach. N.B. It's unfortunate that the same anonymity which protects people from unfair reprisals due to unpopular opinions, also gives real cowards the temerity to be offensive.
I stand corrected! So then Unity being default is moot, just as it is with Metro. Thanks for the info.
Alright, maybe that last comment was unnecessary, since it was already established above that most users aren't even going to realize that it's possible to change the UI. Or care...
Yeah, well with Unity, I can change my wallpaper, enable wobbly windows, and move the window decoration buttons to the other corner with a simple point > click wintard
They surely won't! But the difference is people can be shown how to do something that is possible, whereas Metro users will have a choice of Metro or...um...Metro. Don't like it? Too bad. As for your condemnation of the UI, it's kind of egocentric to think that your workflow is the same as everyone else's. What's really important to me is that I can get the things done that I need to do, and I do them using Unity. I'm sorry for you that not everyone wants to stick with your Windows 3.1 era idea of UI perfection, but that's just the way it is. Can you tell me the specific UI blunders that Unity has done wrong? I'm assuming that you are a UI professional, with credentials that you're willing to share, right?
How is that sad? Would you rather use Windows than Linux with Gnome Shell? KDE? XFCE? LXDE? IceWM? OpenBox? If so, well, there's the other 95% that you're welcome to buy! I am happy with Unity, and even happier that I don't have to use it if I don't want to. I hope you're happy with Metro. Good Riddance, and please stop whining about not liking something that you don't have to use.
that I know of. It's called Diaspora. It's a piece of social networking software with distributed servers, and the goal is for people to be able to share without having all of their data owned perpetually by some corporation. Their site has been running the software for a while now, and I was running a node too. It's open-sourced, so those people and companies who invested are free to continue the project if they wish. I suppose that's a bit different than just funding a game, because with Diaspora, the benefits are for everyone, and don't depend on some unknown release date. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/196017994/diaspora-the-personally-controlled-do-it-all-distr
Sure, but Linux doesn't have LinuxExploder 6 that you can't uninstall if you don't like it. There are defaults, but none are forced on you. It's also a different market now. When they got in to trouble, companies were trying to sell browsers. They're mostly free now.
@TheThinkingGuy Didn't MS have agreements with OEMs that said the OEMs would get cheap copies of Windows if they would agree to only install Windows and no other OS? What percentage of pre-built x86 computers circa 1992-1998 came with another OS installed? I'm sure you could buy a computer with no OS whatsoever, but what were the alternatives for people shopping at popular electronics stores?
It might have been funnier (or not) had you read the article. I'm sorry to have given you the impression that I am that ignorant. Here's the part of the article I was referring to: "Despite his desire to draw the body accurately, Leonardo was still wedded to certain ideas that he had inherited from the Middle Ages. He still, for instance, thought of the human reproductive system as in some way analogous to that of plants.[....]Below his embryo, Leonardo sketched the uterus opening like the petals of a flower."
Intuitive thinking relies on shortcuts for efficiency. Analytical thinking yields more deliberate, reasoned responses. They aren't totally separate, it's just that the former uses current schema to save time. If I raise a child from birth, and say "box" whenever I point to a sphere, and vise versa, but give accurate and truthful definitions of each word, "intuition" will tell you that a sphere is a box until you stop being lazy and think about it for yourself. You ask whether athiests are lacking in intuitive thinking, but that doesn't make a lot of sense, since they are only shortcuts based on prior learning. Analytical thinking vs intuition are kind of like pedalling a bike vs coasting. If you're bad at the former, there's a good chance that when you try to do the latter you'll end up hurting yourself.