Link to Original Source
When, for example, I am dealing with a particularly inscrutable comment on say
That said, I agree with the whole friends list thing and typically try to keep my online "friends" to IRL friends, or in rare cases people I seem to have connected with significantly well on the intertubes. Also, there are instances where true anonymity is beneficial to certain things that otherwise would not be said or taken seriously.
OK so you put different calorie counts for every snack combo: butter, no butter, extra butter, light butter (where butter = whatever the fuck that stuff actually is). All the old cups and printing plates at some point become landfill. Then a change is made... more landfill.
Except these things take a certain amount of time to implement and companies are generally given some leeway.
For example, recently Canada changed the warning labels on cigarettes again. You know how they worked the change, all packs made after a certain date had to have the new labeling. Thus we are currently in an in between period where some of the packs I buy have the new labeling and some have the old. Eventually the old packs run out, and all you have is the new labeling. Seems like they'd do the same thing for this Movie Snack thing if it was implemented.
Thus no extra fill for the landfill.
I partially agree with
Republicans are not distrustful of Science, they are distrustful of politicized scientists and various hangers on.
But I do think there are some that do completely disregard science (eg. Young Earth Creationists). I have been given the impression by the media that this is a significant part of the republican party, but who knows, it is the media we're talking about.
However I am curious as to what you mean by questionable science. Are you towing the standard "Climate Science isn't real science" line, or something more concrete than that?
I'm not trying to be contrary or anything, it's just I haven't kept up on American politics and domestic affairs nearly as much since I moved away and want to know what you are specifically referring to.
Link to Original Source
1. GNOME 3 is different than [insert other DE here, usually GNOME 2] so I don't like it.
2. The interface is too simple Well what do you want? Whenever I'm looking for ways to change my own UI, the most easily findable ones are always how to simplify it, I assume that functional simplicity is a popular, and good, thing (especially among the non-linux users who everyone seems to think GNOME 3 will drive away).
3. I can't customize it enough Well, yeah. Because it's new. The vast majority of customizations for GNOME 2 are third party programs and/or themes, which are available because it's been out for so long.
Anyways I could find more, but the point is this, there is nothing inherently wrong with it, one of the beautiful things about the linux world is that it gives you the chance to choose, not just choose the distribution, which widely vary, but your DE, IDE, dock, system monitor, terminal, shell, hell, you can even change things in the kernel if you know what your doing. This may astound people but I REALLY LIKE GNOME 3, and HATE GNOME 2. However I realize that this is a matter of personal preference and that there is nothing really wrong with gnome 2 persay. I like having a launcher in the launchy sytle (which is really efficient by the way, you hit one button and type in what you want), and dislike the menu system in GNOME 2. Does that mean it is bad, NO, it means I have an opinion, but I do think GNOME 2 was executed well.
So go use something else if you don't like it, and stop telling me that I'm the stupidest person on the face of the earth for an OPINION that is different than yours.