Please remember there is a human being on the receiving end of your comments. Being called an âoeidiotâ and a âoemoronâ is hostile and frankly misguided. It achieves nothing for civil discourse. You should be discussing the danger of any entity - government or other - deciding what is âoetrueâ while displaying zero transparency or accountability. Not trying to start a war of aggression against people youâ(TM)ve never met.

Twitter linked to an opinion piece. The opinion piece had factual errors. When this was pointed out Twitter silently edited the opinion piece and left no mention of the mistake or the correction. Orwell would be appalled. âoeFact checkersâ indeed.

If you want to while away an afternoon, download SIMH and one of the PDP-8 kits.

People who complain about systemd the most seem to have been using Linux for a very long time

Aka people with lots of experience. 24 years Linux experience here, for example.

and just "don't want to change"

Happy with change. Unhappy with systemd. It's a terrible idea and a badly run project as well.

And by "into the wild", they mean they're now letting it run on other people's sites.

The really sad part is how far Microsoft has fallen. They can't even do FUD well anymore.

It already exists:

http://www.amazon.com/Hank-Greens-2D-Glasses-Headaches-Discomfort/dp/B004X4L1UC/

A friend who gets headaches loves these.

I love this. They charge a premium for 3D that half of everybody hates. Now they'd like to charge another premium for 3D that will suck a bit less.

I look forward to the next article bleating about the mysterious decline in box office attendance. What could it possibly be?

I agree that it can't be done right, but I think it's not just about screen size. On my mobile device I'm much more task-focused. When I'm up to something specific, I almost always ignore ads.

On a desktop I'm much more likely to be poking around or under less time pressure, so I'm much more willing to explore the tangent an ad generally represents.

Because business school also trains them to minimize costs and maximize quarterly profits. And their managers and stockholders reward them for that as well. Which inevitably leads to that behavior and a bunch of other idiotic ones. Because as you demonstrate with the bit about fixed costs, a lot of these numbers are fictions. Sometimes convenient fictions, but always fictions.

This is in contrast to the Lean approach where one minimizes waste and maximizes value delivered to the end user. In Lean thinking, staff aren't a cost to be shed ASAP, they're an asset, one you invest in.

That doesn't strike me as particularly paradoxical. Hate-crimes laws recognize existing substantial bias against particular minority groups with an eye toward reducing the bias. Most laws recoginize an existing problem and have the aim of reducing it.

As far as I can see, what I wrote is true.

But we happen to have hate-crime laws protecting specific groups because of the history of violence directed against them. If this is more common, I'm sure a law banning that will eventually appear.

I'm saying your question is nonsensical. The crime is "inciting racial hatred". It's a crime because there's a longstanding problem with racial hatred which people would like to stop.

Similarly, inciting a riot is a crime because that was a significant problem at some point. Imagine you find somebody convicted of inciting a riot and then ask me "well, what if he didn't incite?" or "what if it wasn't a riot he was inciting?" I'd have the same response to your question above: a) then it wouldn't be a crime, and b) you're missing the point.

It seems very weird. One rents something when one can't afford to buy it. Domain names cost very little, so they should just own the domain outright, especially as it's the one whose name matches the legal entity. As far as I'm concerned, any web site developer that doesn't insist that the client own the domain name in a case like this is at best negligent.

But it's also the kind of thing a shady operator would do to take advantage of naive clients.

Sure, but it makes it an understandable mistake on the part of Rackspace. And if the company gave Rackspace some documentation that the poster was buying the name on behalf of Learning Together, then the transfer may have been proper.

More importantly, though, it puts the poster in a different light. He concealed material facts in his summary, and on the face of it trying to hold on to a client's domain is shady. It makes me wonder what else he's hidden.