Yeah, and they might not even get to host it. We could probably spend their money better. That gives me an idea...

I'm more optimistic. We reached peak oil in the 19th century, but then we figured out we could also get oil out of the ground. I agree with your point, I just want to point out that the unforseen is... But as far as the middle class having a lower standard of living, could you expand upon that? Are you talking about real estate or what? I ask because I am a relatively poor person, but I think my standard of living is higher than my parents (at my age) simply because of technological innovation. If you want a McManshion and fancy cars, my standard of living doesn't look so hot; if you measure my standard of living based on what I care about, I'm doing great.

I had new users in mind. I don't think my grandma would assume her searches would be online.

I think 'opt-in' would be better than 'opt-out'. When you radically change the way something works, you should do your best to make sure that the user understands what changes are being implemented. I think there would be much less backlash if there was, for instance, an option during installation/upgrade with an info bubble explaining the feature.

Yeah, I think I'll ditch Ubuntu soon. I used to upgrade every six months, but that stopped after 10.04. Between GNOME 3 and Unity, I've just decided to stay where I am - until now. Upgrading to 12.04 as we speak, but I wouldn't be surprised if I migrate to another distro soon. I figure I'll give 12.04 a chance before I commit to something else. The direction that Ubuntu has been going for the past couple of years just isn't a direction I'm comfortable with. That has become very clear with this whole Amazon deal. Even if you can opt-out, the very fact it exists demonstrates Canonical's priorities. Ubuntu set me free from Microsoft in 2008 and I hate to disavow it now, but there's no sense in being loyal to a product for the sake of what it used to be.

I think you've got to have land to have territorial waters and whatnot, so I'd think they would at least want to keep a few bits peeking above the surface. Otherwise I suppose they could either go the route of the Knights Hospitaller see Wikipedia and still have recognition without a jurisdiction, or they could just let their country dissolve.

It seems that some of you missed the title of the article. Before you reply to a post, ask yourself, "Does this post sound like its coming from some one with strong climate change opinions?" Chances are, if its a post on slashdot, its a post from one of the highly-engaged Americans who's "highly motivated to disregard anything that says otherwise".

Sorry internet! I see in retrospect that I failed. I only meant to say that I feel humbled by my ignorance. I shouldn't have made the peasant remark. I meant to say that just as the medieval peasant (who likely didn't know his/her own age) did well to look to his intellectual betters (e.g., Peter Abelard and Avicenna), that is often the best that we can hope for for ourselves. Ideally we should have a firm grasp of science but, by in large (myself included), we don't. Wasn't trying to dispute evolution or anything, especially not the verification principle, just saying I think we should endeavor to educate ourselves as directly as we can with empirical evidence as we can.

I don't know if I'm a conservative or a liberal, but I know one thing for sure: most arguments I make are arguments from authority. I only believe in evolution and relativity because of what I've read in books. Never looked at a fetus, never danced with the stars... I don't have a lot of money, so I basically rely on the scientific community in the same way that a pre-modern peasant relied on the church.

I know people who have gotten around 10% off for paying in cash. It is very possible that a better negotiator could have gotten a similar rate without the cash, but I think we should allow for the possibility that paying in cash might be beneficial in some circumstances. Lets get some grants and see.

Don't hate. The Labour Party (not that they're alone) communicates in a dialect that speaks to its constituency. Just because you find it incoherent doesn't mean that they're making mistakes.

Communism doesn't kill people, physics kills people.

I think they've always been rather authoritarian. Segregation, anti-sodomy laws...