Linux won't became a desktop standard for one simple, unavoidable reason:

Because we (as in the users) want to use our computers to get what we need to done with the software with which we are familiar/have been trained on/are given to use. We do not want to administer our system/workstation(s) and go searching for the appropriate application(s) to mimic what we already know to work under Windows or OSX.

Ubuntu and Mint were a move in the right direction, but even still... far too much of the Linux environment and software is designed by and for IT enthusiasts and hobbyists. Far too much of it assumes a fairly deep knowledge of how both a computer and an operating system work under the hood. Far too many things still require just a "little tweaking" to get to work smoothly. Too many of the applications are geared around system management and maintenance. The list goes on and on.

I use Linux running in a VM at home when I need it. Some of what I need, I can run on either side. Some I absolutely need windows (financial software, Reference/Citation manager, etc), because truly comparable software isn't available on Linux. Most of my stats and some GIS, I do on the Linux side, for the same (reversed) reason.

The simple reason is that, to almost everyone that is not directly involved in IT - a computer is a tool or an appliance to get a task done. Nothing more. It is, quite often, an unpleasant and frustrating tool that seems to always be inconveniently temperamental at that... and that is just with the heavily supported, thoroughly developed, heavily investment backed commercial software! Perpetually developed, volunteer-based, "good enough if you squint" software on Linux scares the bejeebus out of people who can barely stand the stuff that's supposed to be "off the shelf" ready.

You are, to a great extent, correct.

However, one of the biggest problems US ISPs (Comcast, Time Warner) are getting hammered on and what is causing much of the public outcry is that the actual disparities are far outside any reasonable interpretations of the agreements.

For example, my current home ISP's service description is for up to 5mbps downstream, 256kbps upstream. Typical basic residential service, but should adequate for web browsing/email/online gaming/etc. I live in a rural area so housing density is low, but even still I don't expect to be getting max figures.

What I really didn't expect, however, was that my downstream would be closer to 1400kbps and upstream would consistently be in the range of 16-32kbps!!!

There is no reasonable argument there that my ISP is providing service at levels advertised and paid for even accounting for network congestion and throttling. The disparity is just too great, but still the company insists there is nothing wrong with the equipment or service and hides behind the "up to" clause. I am quite certain there is nothing wrong with my rig, router, or software... I'm just not getting what I'm paying for.

Whether the 13th Baktun is on the 21st or 23rd is pretty much irrelevant anyway as far as the "doomsday" nuts are concerned, though.

You are correct, however, that while the 13th baktun holds some minor significance it was not in any way associated with an "end of the world" scenario... and it's only referenced in one incomplete text that I can think of.

Best & simplest explanation of the "end" of the cycle that I've heard is simply to compare it to a numerical placeholder... i.e. why we don't write the current date as 26th October 02009 - does just saying 2009 mean we believe that the world will end in the year 9999?

I suspect they were imagining some sort of firmware lockout cap for the radiation dosage. Still technically software, but not something readily modified by the end-user to bypass safety tolerances.

Sounds like the doctors didn't anticipate the machine's implementation of the new scan's program, but a firmware safety more likely might have caught the production of overdose range radiation amounts?

They've likely had little experience with the female of the species. We are talking about a group of AI researchers at RPI, after all.

Disclaimer: I have been using Vista for over a year. Despite it's flaws I do like like it. I would love to move to linux full time, but frankly the UI is still just not ready for primetime and I have to many needed apps that only run on Windows (and yes I know about and use wine, but there are still too many gaps).

For all it's faults, I have only one real killer complaint about windows - I want an operating system that defaults to not running as root WITHOUT having to jump through an enormous number of hoops and constant tweaking to get transparent usability!

Granted this is also partly the fault of lazy programmers who consistently refuse to use the file structure and permissions policies that MS has actually put in place. The problem is that it isn't the default config, MS enables these bad practices by not forcing the issue, and I should not have to be the one to tweak things around to get things properly secured.

Linux has always done this well. Apple finally managed to do it pretty well. All the right elements are in place somewhere in Windows, but they've left far too many loopholes available in the interest of "compatibility" for developers to simply be lazy.

Programs should not place user or config files in the Program Files directory... there is no good need.

ALL user and user config files should be in their proper user directory. The kludge of sticking them into a "virtualized" clone directory that is ridiculously buried in hidden folders is asinine.

The default should not be to an administrator account for new users... nor should you ever need such privileges just to run your software.

It's all there. Come on MS... get it together this time around.

Yes, but how would that properly be expressed in the Future Semi-Conditionally Modified Subinverted Plagal Past Subjunctive Intentional form?

.

I've noticed this pretty consistently for a while in Ubuntu (8.04 currently) running both Gnome and KDE... was thinking it was either an X or nvidia driver thing. Happens quite a bit, not just opening pictures like they're doing... happens starting up firefox sometimes, every time I run a game with a graphic startup screen, basically anytime something is loading and doing anything mildly graphics "intensive"...

Those are those little bits of "polish" that the linux community has never gotten quite right. May not be a technical issue or affect the performance, but it looks "broken" so people shy away.

SO... what you are telling me is that something you have never seen is slightly less blue than something else you have never seen!

Someone had to say it :-)

Any time a non-specialist is writing in or about a highly specialized field there are going to be *cringe* moments. If the story is actually good you either don't notice, don't care, or get a chuckle.

I'm an archaeologist (yes, not everyone reading slashdot is an IT person). The "forensic anthropology" drivel of that show "Bones" drives me to distraction. The Indiana Jones movies were ridiculous but highly entertaining. Tomb Raider - utter drivel, but still entertaining. Apocalypto - excruciatingly painful drivel. Stargate - amusing drivel, but entertaining. Et cetera.

A good writer researches enough so that those gotchas don't drag you out of the story, but unless they happen to be an expert on the subject it's guaranteed that someone somewhere is going to be grinding their teeth about it.

A better analogy, IMHO, is the decline of the British empire...

Americans need to take a close look at what has happened to British influence and economy over the last 50-60 years, and decide if we really want to follow that path.

With the US system, we can either be an effective republic or an effective empire. It would be tough to do both under the election system we have, and I don't think we have the stomach anymore to do what it takes to be an effective empire. Not necessarily a bad thing...