This is the link: the sheer horror of marketing the stuff

This is the method, but it's the sheer horror of marketing the stuff that makes it the bible.

“The closer you get to (or the farther you get from) your thirtieth birthday, the more likely you are to develop things like taste and discernment, which render you such an exhausting proposition in terms of selling a movie that, well, you might as well have a vagina.”

See, you shoulda got Andrew writing for you. Just imagine the page hit counts!

Sort of. I've been researching stuff recently in the tech press, and was surprised how different the "same" story could be in Heise and The H.

And tablets. Microsoft's been pushing shitty tablet computers for twenty years. Surface is them finally giving up and making them themselves, but it's not like they're new to the field.

Bill was right: tablet computers are the future! I bet he was pleased when Apple finally got them right.

Same problem as Windows Phone. I know a few people with Windows phones and they love them ... the only thing they lament is the utter lack of apps.

Unfortunately, it seems that "Microsoft" and "Windows" are tainted brands. No-one wants to spend personal money to be reminded of Monday morning 9am at work.

How many records can you say that you in fact love deeply that you've played a total of four times?

That's evading the question. I'm seeking solid numbers (having trouble finding current ones on radio performance royalties), but as far as I can tell Spotify and Pandora pay slightly better per listener-play than the radios they substitute for.

This is a number the Spotify/Pandora whiners will never give you. They keep fraudulently comparing it to sales.

Literally thousands of people are nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize every year. Nominating just means someone has sent in a letter suggesting them. Nomination is not in any way noteworthy.

The standard text is The Tyranny Of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman.

tl;dr: if a visible hierarchy isn't allowed, an invisible one will form and bite you in the ass.

That's not an "ask Slashdot", that's internal advertising for your article.

The meat of which is advertorial for people paying you to mention them.

Fucking grow a spine.

This is why it's interesting that the people who pay the bills are finally calling "bullshit" on the devs' idiot ideas. Red Hat largely didn't care because their market is basically command-line; but GNOME 3 sucked hard enough that their paying customers were displeased.

If it is possible for a new desktop to be better than its predecessor, then it is possible for it to be worse.

The users largely hate GNOME 3. Therefore, it has failed user acceptance testing. It is worse than its predecessor.

In this case, it's Red Hat - who pay many of the remaining GNOME devs - saying "dunno what you're here for, but we're here to serve our users." It's nice someone is.

"We've received your test reports. Your drug intake is well below industry standards. Here's some techno CDs, remedy this immediately."