It all boils down to this.
That's a great graph. Took me a minute to realize that it was very strange to me to have time on the y axis, since it so rarely appears there - but once I got used to tilting my head at 90 degrees, it worked..
Right now on my desk, I've got an iPad (iOS), a Thinkpad Tablet (Android), a MacBook (OS X) and a Thinkpad (dual boot Windows 7 and Ubuntu Linux, depending on what I'm trying to get done). And, surprisingly to me, at least, I get real work done on all the devices, pretty much every day.
Oh, and my servers all run Debian Squeeze... but I haven't ssh'ed into any of them today.
Just so long as his corpse gets to hang out at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe, I'd say you're on to something.
Worst argument ever!
Having bad eyesight != Analytical thinking.
Appreciating art != Analytical thinking.
And yet, if you took the time to read the research, the authors are pretty much claiming that:
a) giving a questionnaire in a hard-to-read font (which I would say is a good proxy for bad eyesight) promotes analytical thinking
b) showing a picture of a great sculpture (The Thinker) promotes analytical thinking.
In fact, their whole experimental design is premised on those two points.
Well, the irony here is that the GP is actually the first person I've read a comment from who actually seems to be trying to figure out what the authors of the paper were actually claiming, based on their methodology. They had people answer questionnaires written in hard-to-read fonts, and claimed that that was a good promoter of "analytic thinking". They showed people a picture of the "The Thinker", and presumed that that promotes analytic thinking. Then they had people (a few anyways - quite a small sample size) answer a questionnaire, and found that those who had to squint or look at the "The Thinker" answered differently. That's it.
Oh sorry, there was one other experiment. As best I can tell, they tried to write similar questions in two different ways - one set of questions using "analytical language" and the other set using "emotive language". Then they found that people answered the two sets of questions differently. Wow.
What "Corporate Drone" is pointing out is that the actual experiments conducted would lead a rational person to a rather-less-sensational-headlinish conclusion.
Lied about import duty? One of the most interesting things about this whole process has been how upfront and transparent they've been. When they discover some new roadblock or detail that they weren't aware of (such as the status of the Pi wrt import duties, or the requirement for CE testing), they've been quick to post to their blog and tell the world about it.
As for "and market them badly"... really? How much do you suppose they've spent on marketing, exactly? Are you aware of how much publicity they're getting, worldwide, for free? Even my local newspaper, which is absolutely dreadful for tech news, has carried very positive (and nearly accurate!) stories on the Raspberry Pi. Seems to me that, if there's one thing they've done extremely well, it's creating a huge buzz around their concept, WITHOUT blowing a huge pile on marketing.
Of course, if you're looking to spend $25 each (to get 8 for $200), you're going to get the version with no Ethernet... the Model B with Ethernet is $35...
"Card readers? We don't need no stinking card readers." -- Peter da Silva (at the National Academy of Sciencies, 1965, in a particularly vivid fantasy)