On the other hand, you could just avoid color printers for sensitive information. The paranoid can take the extra step of photocopying the pages to remove any other traces of printer fingerprints.

Why does TFA say the opposite of what you claim? Is this a technical or a mudslinging debate?

I find it's one of the most useful things I've encountered in Gnome 3, but I agree the top zone should be just the very edge of the screen, not the entire width of the panel. The side zone is hardly prone to accidents though, since you need to be dragging the titlebar, or Alt-dragging. In fact, since positioning windows by Alt-dragging around the center of the window is so much more convenient than hunting for the title bar, I'd argue that it doesn't matter how close to the edge you need to be.

I don't quite get the kerfuffle here..

Any application or window I open in Gnome 3 is invariably non-maximized, unless I had already maximized it before. The only difference to Gnome 2 I've found is that it's now easy to maximize by pulling the window to the top, or left/right edges for maximizing or half-maximizing respectively. Maybe everything will be forced full screen in the future, but Gnome 3 is fine.

I don't think everyone focusing on compassion is liable to eradicate religions anytime soon. You may have noticed that showing compassion is a difficult task for most.

Maybe you have some option set to ignore karma bonuses? There used to be these sorts of score adjustment controls, but I can't find them anymore.

You do realize that the electrons are interchangeable, and once they start pushing around the system it is of no consequence where or what grid they came from? The only thing that matters is by who and how they were generated, so by giving your money to the generator mix of your choice, you are buying the electricity source of your choice. Cost of transfer obviously comes into the price, but that's a different matter.

I'm thinking this kind of mocking actually just increases their sales, judging by the quality displayed in this thread that I randomly found by searching for the manufacturer in question. After reading that, in case everyone here aren't already furiously headdesking, here's a quote from the main page: "I'm not a big fan of blind listening tests."

That's rather odd. I can see how a recycler might want the material to be already cleaned, but surely they can't rely on that and have to clean it anyway? Where I live, cleaning the recyclables means that e.g. jars are empty and given a quick rinse, not that you actually have to go in there with detergent and a steel brush. Basically they don't want big chunks of food complicating the cleaning process.

Are you paying them to sort the thrash? If yes, all is well. If not, you can pay the higher fee for the added service or sort it yourself.