I've bought two System76 laptops, both Serval Professionals (models serp3 and serp6). I've been fairly pleased with both and I've also been very happy with the company's support the few times I needed it. I plan on ordering two more laptops from them in the coming months.

Director M. Night Shyamalan stopped by a McDonalds and offered 30 patrons an advance screening of his next film but the popular response seemed to be "Just tell me what happens."

The Social Network 2: Zuckerberg Silences the Lambs

I believe he's a sociopath. He's killing under the guise of it being some kind of humanitarian act because it's socially acceptable for CEOs to spend their free time killing, like the Go Daddy CEO who announced that hunting elephants is the most rewarding thing he's ever done. It's rewarding to them because murder is the only thing that gets their dopamine production going.

These people just have an irresistible urge to snuff out life. Zuckerberg tried to screw people in business when he thought nobody could prove anything. He called people dumb fucks for trusting him with their personal information. The only time he's sorry about anything is when he gets caught. And now he's slitting animal throats, [sarcasm]what an awesome guy.[/sarcasm]

I wouldn't be surprised if there are prostitutes in the woods somewhere with his fingerprints on them; having to revert back to things that can't beg isn't going to satisfy him for long.

To all the CEOs who think that killing things is your best possible contribution to society, do us all a huge fucking favor and don't bother getting out of bed in the morning.

I've fished, crabbed, and slaughtered chickens on my grandmother's farm. In the end it's just nourishment to me, I don't derive any sense of fulfillment from being personally involved in the killing.

People have the same philosophy about every aspect of life. Stitch your own clothes, make your own soap, build your own house, grow your own weed, program your own operating system... of course there's value in experiencing everything in life, but I don't find it to be more true of one thing than another.

I think the philosophy of kill it yourself comes from the passive guilt associated with meat consumption without the emotional baggage imparted by the physical act of slaughter. I don't have any problem at all letting other people kill and prepare my food for me. Most of my life is designed to take advantage of the distribution of labor in society.

I really prefer the Industrialist approach; more money means more automation, to the end of eventually never needing to think about tasks related to basic biological maintenance.

I am 100% opposed to it, because it's not practical to build an a la carte menu of faults. If we're going to put a price tag on being fat or being a smoker then we need to put a price tag on a thousand other things. Even talking about this kind of thing marginalizes the involved groups. It's fucking pathetic that humans are so petty. Everyone is deathly afraid that they might arrive at the pearly gates and find out they split the bill and paid $0.01 more than their fair share.

It's a fucked up world. People will pay hundreds of dollars for tickets to a sporting event, but won't pay $10 to save someone's life because they made bad choices. There's nothing humans hate more than other humans.

It's a low hanging fruit. Many states burned through their tobacco winnings extremely fast by re-purposing the money (and never actually creating the resources and support programs to help people quit like they claimed they needed the money for).

In all fairness, the people who are now upset weren't even in office when the state got the settlements. It's not fair that they should have to deal with barren coffers when the smoking problem affects them too. Should they lose out just because their predecessors spent it all? And what about the next governor? Is he supposed to make do with no money?

Well, until the states get a second bite at the tobacco apple, bullying smokers and fat people who are obviously too weak-willed to defend themselves anyway, is probably the most lucrative option. If they were smart they'd go after Linux users next. Those assholes don't even pay sales tax when they get their operating system, it's time to wake them up from their "everything is free" fairy tale.

I know the FSF's mission is an ideal or a puritanical vision, but there are real important and pragmatic issues they address. I really have to agree with this idea of a "Javascript Trap". We've gotten very comfortable with free and open web services that it's easy to forget, the code that handles your sensitive data isn't open to review.

It's simple really, in the spirit of free and open software, code hiding in any form should ALWAYS be a red flag. There just shouldn't be a point where people say "...and, for the rest of the application, trust us, it just works somehow."

'We're seeing the scientific method playing out in real time.'

What the hell is that supposed to mean? In what other time frame does the scientific method normally play out? Dealing with computers, we watch the scientific method play out in real time right before our eyes every day. We can watch the scientific method play out every time someone buys a remote control and goes through the process of setting it up. Hypothesis of which brand/model and entry code match up, test the hypothesis, record the results and form a new hypothesis based on the conclusion.

I dunno why, that sentence just bugged me. it makes it seem like discovering an error while presenting the results is somehow a rare event.

I think of our supercomputing systems as primitive in an analogous way as cavemen wouldn't end up with a rocket thruster if they just throw enough logs on a fire.

Without more advanced software designs and some type of revolutionary system architecture, more cores ends up only being slightly better than linear progression. They're primitive in that our supercomputers are seldom more than the sum of their parts.

It's not just CNN. Almost every company wants a Myspace page, twitter, facebook, blog, texting service, user accounts and registration, among other tech toys. The problem is that these tools were clearly intended to empower individuals to connect with other individuals. The companies using these things usually don't have any concerted reason to do so.

Corporations might be legal individuals, but they're not people, and they gain little to no benefit (perhaps even detriment) from attempting to employ socialisation. If you look at corporations as sociopathic, narcissistic, and single-mindedly self-interested individuals, it's clear they see these things as just another manipulation mechanism. They're not socialising; the conversation is unidirectional. They don't absorb, process, and react on the information, they gather and retransmit with absolutely no transformation. They're not talking WITH us, they're just talking AT us.

CNN doesn't do anything with the tweets. It's as useful as going to a Starbucks and having the employees stare blankly at you and repeat to you, verbatim, something a previous customer said while standing in line. "Welcome to Starbucks, Shelly said: I'll have a cafe mocha, damn I shouldn't have stopped in here, I'm gonna be late for work."

The people running companies need to realize that their company isn't one of our pals. They can't talk to us in our social circles, they can't hang out with us at a pub, and they can't sit in on our D&D sessions. They're product and service providers, nothing more. The fact that they desperately try to extend themselves into our social space borders on triggering the uncanny valley feeling.

Too many people think of their vehicle in too personal a way. It's not a freedom chamber or mobilized entertainment center. It's a method of conveyance. More people should worry about using their car to get from Point A to Point B instead of worrying about all the things they don't want to be interrupted doing during travel time. In the U.S. alone, 100+ people will die TODAY primarily because people don't regard driving as a serious responsibility. Why is it not enough that the miracle of modern locomotion enables us to shoot across a city in a matter of minutes? People worry about not being entertained or out of touch for the duration of the trip. The only thing that should concern us as drivers of lethal travel machines is getting to our destination safely. If you die, or kill someone, en-route, who called/texted you or which one of your favorite songs was playing will be the least of your concerns.

Before you even take a job, get clear on how often you'll be expected to work overtime and exactly how you're going to be compensated. If I need to have an "always on" mentality, the company needs to have an "always paying" mentality.

I realize that crunch time is the thing to do in the IT industry, but get clear up front so that kind of work cycle is something you understand when you accept the company's offer. If I need to put in an extra 10 hours every week or be on-call, I'm going to factor that into my salary negotiations. Once the deal is brokered, I'm left with a sense of satisfaction because I have the peace of mind in knowing I'm not being taken advantage of, I'm doing exactly what I signed up for.

Frankly, Oracle makes me nervous too as a programmer who has focused on Java for the last few years. Oracle isn't providing anyone any assurances, so everything just feels like it's up in the air right now. Sure, OpenJDK feels like a decent safety net but the waters haven't really been tested without Sun, so if Oracle/Sun withdraws the whole thing could crumble overnight.

When the company you're with gets bought out, their reluctance to paint a concrete picture as to the future of your project speaks louder than any half-hearted assurances they might give you.

LOL! In 1998 I was looking for a job as a web developer. I had about 2 years experience, and I saw ads for 10+ years HTML experience. I explained to an interviewer it wasn't even possible for anyone to have 10 years of HTML experience, that the language didn't exist 10 years ago and anyone who tells you they have 10+ years experience is lying. I explained that even Tim Berners Lee doesn't have 10 years experience. The interviewer just shrugged and said "Well, that's one of the job requirements. We're not looking for anyone with less than 10 years experience."