http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbbl_a.htm
Last year, we consumed 6.8 billion barrels of oil. This has been a pretty consistent average over the past 5 years, all things considered (5 years prior it was 7.5B, but seems to mostly fluctuate around 7B). And this is US consumption *alone* -- not even factoring in the increased rate of Chinese consumption, or any of the European, African, Asian, Australian, South American nations (Antarctica gets a pass, because it's effing cold down there and they can use a little oil to not die while watching penguins)
7.4B to 11B barrels is 2 years AT BEST if we pare down our oil consumption. Then those resources are GONE.
Considering "oh, but there might be more than we think left over!" is pretty pointless when we alone are consuming oil at this rate. Absorbing the mild inconvenience of reducing our oil consumption should be priority #1 for all of us. It doesn't solve the problem but it will (a) give us a *little* more time to get off the sauce and (b) start altering our habits and consumption practices in a direction that will prepare us for the inevitable end of oil reserves, which are guaranteed to happen someday.
I don't understand why people get all bent out of shape that Ubuntu is successful -- makes me think of hipster bitching. There are many, many distros out there. Quite a few of them are actively supported and most of those use one of the common distribution architectures (deb/rpm). You can quite literally take your pick and not be that far behind the curve w/r/t support. If you are a linux user, there is seriously no reason to complain about "Ubuntu" as an OS. If it makes you butthurt to call it a Linux distro, then just leave off the "Linux" surname, just like Android does. Or MacOS.
While I agree with your sentiment, this is not really true in the Real World (tm).
My philosophy, as a webdev of...8 or 9 years now... is that you should test in IE so that the IE user experience is passable / acceptable. IE users should be able to access your site and not see a broken site. It can be degraded; it can even automatically redirect them to a page that says "your browser is so old and busted we can't show you our new hotness -- go upgrade, biatch."
There are 2 main reasons for this:
The sites I work with are pretty progressive about their IE support and are willing to only support back to IE8 (or in one case, IE7), so IE6 is no longer a concern. It's fine to advocate using better browsers, and it's even fine to design your site to the W3C specs explicitly (eg. go for the gold with your CSS and HTML5), but you should always test and at least provide your IE users (however many they are) with a degraded, yet stable, experience, at least. Base it on your analytics data.
New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman