You should have just made up your own words to fit the letters.
Considering packaging is exactly where a distro's development focus should be, I'd say they are working just fine. Also, APT isn't the packaging system, dpkg is.
That's why I predict that the Open Source protocol will be a bit player in a market dominated by an inferior protocol that does require internet access (it will be called "cloud access" soon enough), is completely insecure, and the developers of which are more interested in data harvesting than making it work better. Because sticker prices will be lower due to offsets from revenue from advertising/market intelligence, and consumers are stupid.
It seems to be the way of the world.
I pretty much gave up on Pandora after a couple years of subscription. Yeah, it finds some new artists, but it's obvious that the algorithm is biased towards predefined notions of genre, and there's no way to change the weights. They say they are constantly improving their algorithm, but I see/hear no real evidence of that. If they were, I'd expect more options to start appearing to allow advanced users to tweak stuff. Never saw any even as a paying user. I suspect these days it is more of a mechanical turk than an actual algorithm.
Given the comparative price/port of mini GE switches vs USB hubs, the cost argument just doesn't hold water. PoE can add some cost, but it's mounds better than USB power, so if the ethernet folks had made a crappy class1-only PoE standard early on, they probably could have played in the crap market. Point being, the USB folks could have, but didn't, use existing line coding standards and just cut corners on the protocol they ran over that coding. Hell they probably could have built a chip that was intended to be sold as an ethernet chip but fused to a USB chip on the rejected dies. Instead they hacked their own junk together likely out of hubris.
Ethernet does need to come up with a new standardized connector that caters to the thin device fanatics, however.
There are things that are completely ugly, and then there are things that are a matter of taste. Personally I like the look of solar panels and think they are a whole lot prettier than shingles.
However, these associations use the aesthetic excuse for banning people from putting any solar up even on back roofs. So we know where they are really coming from.
This is why users of solutions like Outlook are encouraged to use archiving.
Sooooo 80's. I want my mail client to save me work, not create busywork for me.
Also, please tell me how I peruse my old e-mail when my internet connection goes down or the provider has a service outage for a webmail app.
I have a hard enough time doing that in outook when the network is up and running smoothly.
Seriously, 10 minutes to search an inbox with just a few tens of thousands of emails in it? I pretty much have to keep both outlook and OWA open so I can use each to work around the serious deficiencies of the other.
I've generally found the people who make more than occasional use of calandering features are the most unproductive ones. I could entirely live without calandering myself.
To be fair, that's not what the topic of the whole thread is about. The GOP resistance to the solar indistry goes deeper than government subsidies. It goes way down into the trenches with local regulators and neighborhood associations doing the dirty work trying to bury would-be installers under mounds of bureaucratic paperwork and restrictions (not that I'm a big fan of deregulation, but some of the crap that is being pulled is clearly not for saftey purposes.)
it had a significantly lower value than my current car, which limited the maximum that insurance would ever have to pay for repairs
The premium should be dominated by the cost of the damage the car might do to other cars, property, and people, not the cost of the car itself, unless you opt in to the gold-plated buy-me-a-trip-to-the-bahamas-if-my-fender-gets-scratched add-ons.
Your post offered me the inventive to go some spell checker insurance.
Risk Pools have a purpose. A pool of one is not a pool.
I think you nailed it succinctly there. While it's a popular idea that responsible customer A should not have to pay for irresponsible customer B, and certainly it is good to encourage less risky behavior, insurance is supposed to work as a protection against risk. The finer the analysis done to create these micro-pools, the more likely it is that instead of being insured for a risk, you get blamed for it instead, even in cases where it really isn't your fault.
Example: you're driving on the highway and encounter a dangerous situation for which the safest solution is to speed up way past the speed limit -- e.g. you are beside a the first of a tandem trailer, the truck driver doesn't see you, and he starts to change into your lane. So you do, and you may get on "Flo"'s shit list for it, or not, depending on how some coder tuned some Kalman filter or whatnot.
Attempts have been made in the past to automate programming, it's never worked very well (or at all in some cases)
The places where it does work, you don't notice. Compilers/optimizers/JIT engines are automated programming. You tell the system what you want to do and behind the scenes it figures out all the stuff you did not tell it. Like not to actually check if X again if you have checked that earlier and X could not have changed, even if you told it to check X again because it was easier for you to write it that way.
That said, we have words for this in Perl5/Perl6, DWIM (Do What I Mean) and WAT (acronym open to conjecture and often followed by ?!?!) and the Perl6 folks are working under the hypothesis that every DWIM you add will cause and equal and opposing WAT, so to be careful not to DWIM just for the sake of it.
TFA sounds like an uber-DWIMmy initiative. The corresponding WAT behavior is almost guaranteed to be hilarious.
No, I don't trust applications to handle the security of packet data coming in.
In fact you do, unless you're running a pretty top notch L7 DPI box. And even then,,,
Besides, these days everything that's an app must be considered good and trustworthy. How else can we expect you to turn over all your data to criminals, much less corporations?