I know some people who still use Slashdot

From the article

It does not say "prevent" heart-failure, anywhere in the article. It is implied in the article that treatment could be greatly improved by this therapy, however, I'm not sure where the line in the summary about prevention comes from.

This is not unexpected, but each revelation just makes the whole situation seem more and more hilarious. The following scenario is probably playing itself out somewhere right now.

NSA Agent 1: "Sir, we've intercepted a French transmission that I think you should take a look at"

NSA Agent 2: "Why, what does it say?"

(Transcript of translated Transmission reads) "Sir, we've intercepted an American transmission that I think you should take a look at"

Worthy idea. Just did that. Turned this up. Friday night, and I'm on a thread about standards. Makes me want to pound myself and tear things limb from limb.

Not yielding an inch, are they? Imagine the impact it would have on Subway.

Not just the headline, the summary is rather unclear too. The summary states that

However, the actual article states that

The missing word, in the summary, of course, is TOP, without which the summary makes very little sense, statistics and common-sense wise.

Agreed, there are ethics courses in Business Schools. However, it's also firmly drilled into students that the bottomline is the bottomline, and that it's best not to put your bottom on the line.

Talk about misleading, I read it as solar erection the first time round

Look, I agree that it takes courage to stuff that's considered 'ground-breaking' by others, I do give the guys at Ubuntu respect for that. However consider the following

1) They went the Unity way and alienated all the users like me who use Linux because every single fucking thing is customizable. Not that Unity is not customizable at all, it's just that in terms of customizability it was a horrible, horrible regression. Also, for some insane reason, Ubuntu has become increasingly slow and bloated, I realized this when I made the switch to Arch Linux, on the recommendation of a friend.

2) They make decisions that increasingly cater to users who have just switched over from windows, hoping to give them a similar experience in order to enable painless migration. WAIT. "The same experience?" Seriously? They're running away from the windows experience for heaven's sake. Blow their minds, that's what you're supposed to do.

3) This is my personal belief, I may be wrong, but I think Linux will always remain an OS for the 2%, maybe at most the 5%. Why? Because most people don't want to spend time tweaking their OS, they see it as a waste of time. If Ubuntu keeps trying to cater to these users, trying to make them "switch-over" and thereby alienate their "power-users", I don't see them surviving. I've tried all the latest releases from the Ubuntu stable, I quadruple boot with Arch as my main OS, I've got Windows 7, OpenSuse and Ubuntu lying around on the other partitions. I currently prefer Ubuntu the least, I'm not kidding, I even like Win7 more. I've been using linux for over 8 years now. I loved Ubuntu at around the time of Hardy Heron. I hate to see the general direction in which they're headed at the moment.

I know you're trolling, but anyway, I've got a galaxy S2 running on Cyanogenmod and I charge it only twice in 3 days. Like c0mpliant, I use my phone to play games, and listen to music quite a lot. When it comes to battery life, this "feature phone" makes any iPhone look bad.

At least, that's what I heard

Granted. What I should have said was, perhaps we'll become extinct in as short a timespan as the doomsayers predict. Perhaps it'll take a while longer. Either of those two events would bear little significance in light of the Earth's long history. The not becoming extinct option, as you've pointed out, is clearly significant.

s/scale/scheme

Does this mean that we may never get to see the year of the Linux Desktop?

Perhaps we'll become extinct. Perhaps we won't. In the grand scale of things, either outcome, in light of the Earth's roughly 5 billion year lifespan bears less significance than we'd like to believe