As so many people are fond of saying, RedHat's product is not Linux, but rather support for Linux, which they charge for.

No, their revenue generating products are support, training, etc....

You seem to be trying to change the definition of the word product (a thing produced by labor; a person or thing produced by or resulting from a process, as a natural, social, or historical one; result; etc...) to include a revenue component and/or implying that a company can only produce one (or one type of) product.

Really you can get basic coverage for 10K per year for a family of four.

So, if you're take home is $12,000 a year, your gross should be around $15K, assuming that's wages. If it is scholarship money or a stipend of some kind, I'm not sure how that's taxed, but it is still going to be a pretty low income. Either way it's well below poverty for a family of 4. You should qualify for all kinds of public assistance like welfare, food stamps, AFDC, Medicaid... oh, there we go. Problem solved. Now, if you misunderstood the post you were responding to, and don't have a spouse and kids, you'll be looking at much, much less than 10 grand a year. And you might even still qualify for Medicaid at $12K a year. And many colleges and universities have basic health services available at little or no cost to students.

There are other unsaid/unseen aspects here too. I have a good friend who is a teacher. He's smart and likes helping the kids, but he's always talking about quitting for basically the opposite of what we see in this article. He will have someone disrupt his class and have little to no authority to remove or punish the student. If he sends the kid to the office, the kid comes right back and the teacher later gets told by the administration to "deal with it" even though all he really has the authority to do is send a kid to the principal's office. Once the kids figure out that there are no consequences, the teacher is pretty much SOL.

In the case in the article, the administration is at least supporting the teacher's authority. It sounds like the officer is permanently assigned to the school, and therefore effectively part of the staff normally involved in keeping the school secure and dealing with unruly or disruptive students. Now, whether the student should have been cited (not arrested as the article falsely claimed) for disorderly conduct is debatable. Was she disrupting the class by trying to covertly text? It was obviously a distraction to the teacher. Could be that the district's policy calls for that level of consequence before a student can be searched.... just speculation though. Could also be that this was a second, third, fifth, nth offense and the school/officer are just continuing to escalate the consequences. The police report is public, but the students school disciplinary record is not, so we can't tell if this is just the next step in a progression of attempts to deal with the student.

Again, no. A swindle, at least IMO, requires intentional deception. There's none of that here. The OS is listed right along with all the other features. No fine print. If she's not competent to understand the features, she should probably have someone to help her order, then set up the machine.

If Dell has any fault here, it is that the Rep should have either 1) given the girl a Windows laptop (along with the additional charges that likely would have been due); or 2) Given her enough information to do what she needed, rather than just (apparently) telling her it would work for her. #1 is probably the better choice, given the customer's apparent lack of tech skills or knowledge.

That's called bait and switch, and it's a swindle.

Um, no. Nothing here suggests that she ordered a Windows machine and got Ubuntu instead. She either didn't pay close enough attention, or did not understand enough about computers to know the difference. That's not a swindle. That's user error.

The line in question is the "so help me god" at the end of the swearing in speech for new presidents, which is in the constitution.

No it's not. At least, not on my copy, or the copy in the national archives, or any copy I can recall seeing.

There is a reference to the Official motto of the U.S. ("In God we trust") in the (rarely used fourth verse of the) national anthem. But The Star-Spangled Banner was written (with that line included) in 1814. So, no, it was not added later. Not in the 1950s or any other time. This page has an image of Francis Scott Key's original manuscript of the poem which became the anthem. Incidentally, the motto was not made official until 1956, though it began appearing on US currency in the 1860s.

80 hours for nine days? Smarter.

Fixed that for ya. Seriously? 100 hours is more than 14 hours a day, 7 days. Even if you really love your job (and if you did, it would just be a busy week, not a "bad week"), that's excessive.