People need to get the fuck over the fact that life isn't going to be accident free. The only way to never have accidents is to never do anything.
Nobody said that, so don't use this ridiculous argument. It's a fact that you can minimize accidents, and if you didn't believe in this I want you to close your eyes every time you cross the street from now on.
The way I see it it's a slippery slope. If you aren't capable of driving with the minor distraction of holding a drink in your hand, you're probably not safe to drive.
So your suggestion is that we issue less drivers licenses. I won't object to that, good luck trying to push that though, in contrast to just prohibiting people from drinking coffee. If you do, I'll be right rooting for you. Until then I'll root for other suggestions which may also save my precious legs.
I find people talking on cellphones tend to be looking roughly straight ahead. Attention is diverted, but it's not as bad as a lot of other situations.
All my close calls involved other devices. One woman was putting on lipstick. Another guy was changing a CD. Another pulled into a 3-way intersection while looking for sunglasses.
I was able to swerve (slightly) into the wrong lane to avoid all three, but in busier locations that'd make the situation far worse. I happen to live in a small city in BC(<100k people), but in a large city of millions, with dozens of lanes of traffic, you just can't pull off the moves I did. It'd mean bad accidents, so I fully understand the desire to prevent it.
Regarding cellphones... many young people can operate them without looking at the screen or phone, and can drop them in an instant if necessary to grab the wheel. I'm really worried about other stuff more. Anything that takes your eyes off the road...
(Oh, and FYI - I'm responsible and pull over when making calls. You like to drink morning coffee huh, on the way to work? Well screw you!)
You're right. But really we're repeating what has been stated as plain fucking truth long ago: people think they are much better drivers than they actually are. So this means one thing, the responsibility (even though possible in the case of a few more intelligent people) cannot be put on the driver. The driver shouldn't be allowed to evaluate if "this is a good time to speak in the phone" or "this is a good time to drink my coffee" or "this is a good time to change the CD". It should simply be forbidden because the driver makes the common mistake of thinking he's safe because of his alleged awesome driving skills. Leaving the rest of us at danger, not only drivers but also pedestrians/cyclists and even property.
If you spilt hot coffee all over your groin while driving, could you get off the road safely to attend to it?
Perhaps something a bit cooler would be safer, regardless of your skills.
Sure but there's also the risk of driving with one hand. Basically I don't need to look far to find horrible drivers. Some of my family members and friends for example. If you ask me I wouldn't want neither of these people to drive with anything else than 100% focus and both hands on the wheel. It comes down to statistics though, if a significant number of people get in accidents because they were driving with one hand, then driving with one hand becomes significantly dangerous.
Though this was a good idea, it seems to have been taken a little too far.
Here's how I reason. Regardless if I can or cannot drive perfectly well while drinking coffee with one hand, for all I know this could be completely fatal in your case. And if keeping the right to drink my morning coffee while driving potentially means losing my legs or even my life simply because you also had those rights, then it's a very, very, very small price to pay.
Hey man, there needs to be competition to foster new innovations in a...fairly static and sedentary industry.
I mean come on, competition exists in health care since one provides service A and the other provides...the exact same service.
Alright, someone tell me exactly how insurance companies compete with each other to foster new innovations. Hell, internet providers have at least newly developing tech for new, faster internets (although not so much in the US of A) but what can insurance companies do? Patent drugs or new procedures so only insurance provider A can provide it?
Are you joking or just really fucking dumb? The comptetition does exist -- but in medicine -- where there are innovations. In hospitals however there are protocols and rules. Doctors don't "invent" anything. Denying people healthcare because they cannot afford it does not foster new innovations -- it fosters death and diseases. Diseases which later on are mutated and spread on to you, simply because the people around you couldn't afford the bill. You have to be one dumb motherfucker to not get this -- really.
In other news, say what you want about republicans or democrats, but to fight against a public healthcare system without realising how self destructive that is takes one ignorant fucker. Unfortunately in a democratic system that ignorant fucker could eventually be responsible for the state of my health -- no matter how rich or poor I am.
Li-ion batteries are not as durable as nickel metal hydride or nickel-cadmium designs,[citation needed] and can be extremely dangerous if mistreated. They may explode if overheated or if charged to an excessively high voltage.
A) Remove the battery. B) Place the battery inside a cold storage unit.
I was just stating that the cruising speed of the aircraft has nothing to do with this case or the outcome.
You stated, and you were wrong. You said:
Yes but cruising speed is only at high altitudes. A large aircraft doesn't go from runway to runway at top speed. It takes a long time to climb out, then to slow down, descend and land. A flight with a 12 minute cruise time will still take 45 minutes from push back to wheel stop.
And I quoted TFA:
In the case of Flight 188, “neither pilot was aware of the airplane’s position until a flight attendant called about five minutes before they were scheduled to land and asked what was their estimated time of arrival,” the report said. By that time, the plane, which should have begun its descent into Minneapolis about half an hour earlier, was still at 37,000 feet and more than 100 miles beyond its destination.
The pilots didn't even start their descent until they were way off course and had turned the plane around.
You're stating what I already stated when I quoted TFA.
Even if they made up time, they are still highly negligent pilots.
This is true, yet still irrelevant. I never claimed that they were or weren't negligent pilots. Only that the time/distance relationship doesn't add up.
Look -- you're not making any sense, and you're drawing very odd conclusions. And the very first sentence in the post that I'm replying to is clearly showing that you didn't even read TFS:
I'm not saying they *forgot* anything.
From TFS:
'Both said they lost track of time,' said an interim report from the National Transportation Safety Board countering theories in aviation circles that the two pilots might have fallen asleep or were arguing in the cockpit.
Really there is not point in me replying to your posts if you don't even read TFS as clearly that would get us absolutely nowhere when discussing the story.
A flight consists of three stages, take off/ascent, cruise and landing/descent. You're trying to push the nonsensical idea that when they hadn't yet gone for landing/descent, and obviously they were not in take off/ascent:
... the cruising speed of the aircraft has nothing to do with this case or the outcome.
Again, please understand that my intentions are not to be rude, but don't bother answering because you clearly didn't bother to read my post, the TFA, or draw a logical conclusion.
Here's a suggestion. Have people remove their batteries while using their laptops on the plane, and instead offer them an electric outlet next to your seat. There -- problem solved.
Yes but cruising speed is only at high altitudes. A large aircraft doesn't go from runway to runway at top speed. It takes a long time to climb out, then to slow down, descend and land. A flight with a 12 minute cruise time will still take 45 minutes from push back to wheel stop.
You're saying that they forgot the time while they were descending? If so then given the most logical scenario, that you would descend at a linear rate (it's a commercial flight so comfort is a factor to consider), wouldn't they ultimately crash if the flew longer than they should? In a more unprobable scenario they would descend with an exponential rate, which would explain it, but then TFA says:
In the case of Flight 188, “neither pilot was aware of the airplane’s position until a flight attendant called about five minutes before they were scheduled to land and asked what was their estimated time of arrival,” the report said. By that time, the plane, which should have begun its descent into Minneapolis about half an hour earlier, was still at 37,000 feet and more than 100 miles beyond its destination.
They hadn't even begun descending. So why would you slow down unless you're about to descend?
Look I don't intend to be rude but you're the fifth person to answer to my post and you're saying the same thing as 3 others. Can you please read the posts above and continue on one of those? I don't want to post the same thing three times as that is severely redundant.
or C) They should have started descent about 20 or so minutes prior to their destination.
Owning a calculator doesn't mean you get to stop using your brain. Last time I flew, we did not fly directly over the airport and then drop straight down 37,000 ft to the runway in zero time.
The only question going begging here is why are you so dense?
Look -- your rudeness isn't helping you case. But I'll be patient. I'm no pilot but I think it's fair to assume that take off and landing are more or less static intervals, at least for commercial flights, to avoid any nausea or even panic. The only way the math adds up is that they began descending 11-12 minutes too late. Do you not get this?
The impromptu tutoring session apparently caused Mr. Cole and Mr. Cheney to ignore air-traffic controllers for about 90 minutes on Wednesday night, and forget to begin preparations for landing in Minneapolis. Instead, the plane flew about 110 miles to the skies over Eau Claire, Wis., as more than a dozen air-traffic controllers in three locations serving Denver and Minneapolis tried to get the pilots' attention.
90 != 11 or 12. You don't land a plane at cruising speed.
Fair enough. If we assume, which I think is fair to do, that take off and landing are two static intervals, going to and from cruising that is. Then the only variable here is the cruising interval. I'm no pilot but I fail to see how 90 minutes in cruising speed is 110 miles. Unless the airtraffic controllers were trying to contact them long before even going to descent, as some routine check or something -- again I'm no pilot. Given this second scenario, they were still only flying for 11-12 minutes too long in cruising speed.
By that time, the plane, which should have begun its descent into Minneapolis about half an hour earlier, was still at 37,000 feet and more than 100 miles beyond its destination.
Fine. But tell me this: if they should have begun descending 30 minutes earlier than they did, they had cruised for 30 minutes too long. 593.7415/2 = 296.87075, which means they should have been closer to 300 miles off, instead they were 110 miles off. That means A) they must have flown at approximately one third of the cruising speed, or B) they were flying in spirals(?). Which begs the question: why?
Gosh, we are so impressed by your arithmetic skills.
The Airbus A320has a cruising speed of mach 0.78 and a max speed of mach 0.82. Mach 0.78 = 593.7415 mph and 110/593.7415 * 60 = ca 11,12 minutes. If they were going in cruising speed they missed the time by 11,12 minutes. Not so amazing now is it?
It is very different. This system uses a scanning system to disperse the light energy over the retinal display area. If the scanning system fails for any reason and the laser stays focused on one "pixel" for an extended period of time, all the energy will be focused in one spot. Result: instant scitoma.
Phew! Good thing I have eyelids. Never leave home without 'em!
To the OP: Were you able to upgrade xorg in the past few weeks without needing to read web pages and take manual steps? Have you had to change any use flags in the past 3 months because packages that once built now refused to build without changes to USE? I've had these problems, and I consider these "playing around with crap" well after an initial system installation.
If you're referring to 7.4 I'm still on 7.2. Since the community has shrunk vastly I accept that new packages take longer than usual to stabilize. I'm in no hurry to update my software, but I understand those who are. If the GP truly only wants to "do some work", I hardly see the need to upgrade to the latest packages continuously -- unless for security reasons.
It also didn't help that gentoo-wiki lost it database somewhere along the way.
And then packages.gentoo.org was down for *months* a while back. When it came back up, it had lost some of it functionality (searching).
I agree, this caused a lot of trouble for the community. I identify with a lot of your problems, but I guess I'm one of those who really believe in the Gentoo way. If only so many resourceful users weren't lost along the road, Gentoo would play a different tune. With the comeback and quick departure of Robbins there was a lot of value lost in the community and all because of politics. However there are still many devs in the community who keep the dist alive. I think Gentoo is just too clever to die, it might shrink for a while but as Linux grows larger, more people will try it out. After all it is a fun challenge for anyone, and in a weird way I kind of hope it stays that way.
He said we wants to get work done, not tweak or play around with crap. Any major distro would be better suited than Gentoo.
That's only the initial Gentoo installation. Once you have it up and running there's no tweaking or playing around -- unless you want to. He seems disatisfied with some choices of Ubuntu, if he switched from Debian my guess is that there was something he felt was better elsewhere. My point is if you run Gentoo you set up whatever you want, and after that if you want to change it to become something you want it to be -- there's simply no need to change dists. You'll do that with Gentoo. I know, I know, it's possible to do with any dist, but Gentoo is the one dist where it's encouraged -- and even a little bit forced.
Try Gentoo -- if you have the patience for it. Gentoo offers the, by far, best community with detailed HOWTO's on almost anything. It takes a little reading and practice but once you get the hang of it it'll be worth it.
Yes, I'm sure the revolution will start any second now. Tweet when it kicks off, will you?
Idiot. If people don't get basic healthcare they become disease spreading vessles who will eventually spread their diseases on to you. But you didn't bother to think that thoughrough -- did you?
Do you go out of your way to find the way in which you can legally give the government the most possible tax revenue?
It is absurd to suggest that any public company not do the maximum they can to minimize their tax liability. You obviously have an ax to grind with MS, and that's fine, but digging up this kind of garbage is ridiculous. The same statements that you have made about MS can probably be made about 95% of the Fortune 500.
I think the point here was that the system is broken. Not that MS takes advantage of it.
What the shit? Why are you blaming Android? Android was never meant to be run on a netbook. Blame Acer for doing something boneheaded as this. Android should not be run on netbooks for the same reason you don't put Windows 7 proper on a Phone. It doesn't mesh well with the intended interface. Acer has been really fucking stupid in the netbook market lately. First with that piece of shit distro Linpus (I mean really Linpus) and now with Android. Acer is acting less like a coherent company and more like a bunch of slashdotters experimenting on a netbook to see if Android could run. Sounds cool but is commercially insane.
Acer should have taken the easy road and just partnered with Ubuntu for a netbook remix integration. There's a huge community there already with enormous quanitities of contributions. Saying that Android was never meant to be run on a netbook means you have no idea how silly one entitys constrains are on FOSS code. It was bound to happen, unfortunately Acer is doing a really shitty move economically. Android doesn't sell itself, it has to be usable and good. Acer is just hoping for a free ride, which is just pathetic. And not because it's "business as usual", but because it's a plain bad move from all perspectives, including monetary. Ultimately people won't buy your product if it's bad.
Slashdot Mirror
People need to get the fuck over the fact that life isn't going to be accident free. The only way to never have accidents is to never do anything.
Nobody said that, so don't use this ridiculous argument. It's a fact that you can minimize accidents, and if you didn't believe in this I want you to close your eyes every time you cross the street from now on.
The way I see it it's a slippery slope. If you aren't capable of driving with the minor distraction of holding a drink in your hand, you're probably not safe to drive.
So your suggestion is that we issue less drivers licenses. I won't object to that, good luck trying to push that though, in contrast to just prohibiting people from drinking coffee. If you do, I'll be right rooting for you. Until then I'll root for other suggestions which may also save my precious legs.
I too would much prefer a more broad rule.
I find people talking on cellphones tend to be looking roughly straight ahead. Attention is diverted, but it's not as bad as a lot of other situations.
All my close calls involved other devices. One woman was putting on lipstick. Another guy was changing a CD. Another pulled into a 3-way intersection while looking for sunglasses.
I was able to swerve (slightly) into the wrong lane to avoid all three, but in busier locations that'd make the situation far worse. I happen to live in a small city in BC(<100k people), but in a large city of millions, with dozens of lanes of traffic, you just can't pull off the moves I did. It'd mean bad accidents, so I fully understand the desire to prevent it.
Regarding cellphones... many young people can operate them without looking at the screen or phone, and can drop them in an instant if necessary to grab the wheel. I'm really worried about other stuff more. Anything that takes your eyes off the road...
(Oh, and FYI - I'm responsible and pull over when making calls. You like to drink morning coffee huh, on the way to work? Well screw you!)
You're right. But really we're repeating what has been stated as plain fucking truth long ago: people think they are much better drivers than they actually are. So this means one thing, the responsibility (even though possible in the case of a few more intelligent people) cannot be put on the driver. The driver shouldn't be allowed to evaluate if "this is a good time to speak in the phone" or "this is a good time to drink my coffee" or "this is a good time to change the CD". It should simply be forbidden because the driver makes the common mistake of thinking he's safe because of his alleged awesome driving skills. Leaving the rest of us at danger, not only drivers but also pedestrians/cyclists and even property.
Apparently not.
But I pose a question for you.
If you spilt hot coffee all over your groin while driving, could you get off the road safely to attend to it?
Perhaps something a bit cooler would be safer, regardless of your skills.
Sure but there's also the risk of driving with one hand. Basically I don't need to look far to find horrible drivers. Some of my family members and friends for example. If you ask me I wouldn't want neither of these people to drive with anything else than 100% focus and both hands on the wheel. It comes down to statistics though, if a significant number of people get in accidents because they were driving with one hand, then driving with one hand becomes significantly dangerous.
Fine - lose your legs or your life but what if you crash into me and cause me to lose mine? Huh?
What? Did you even read my post?
Though this was a good idea, it seems to have been taken a little too far.
Here's how I reason. Regardless if I can or cannot drive perfectly well while drinking coffee with one hand, for all I know this could be completely fatal in your case. And if keeping the right to drink my morning coffee while driving potentially means losing my legs or even my life simply because you also had those rights, then it's a very, very, very small price to pay.
Hey man, there needs to be competition to foster new innovations in a...fairly static and sedentary industry.
I mean come on, competition exists in health care since one provides service A and the other provides...the exact same service.
Alright, someone tell me exactly how insurance companies compete with each other to foster new innovations. Hell, internet providers have at least newly developing tech for new, faster internets (although not so much in the US of A) but what can insurance companies do? Patent drugs or new procedures so only insurance provider A can provide it?
Are you joking or just really fucking dumb? The comptetition does exist -- but in medicine -- where there are innovations. In hospitals however there are protocols and rules. Doctors don't "invent" anything. Denying people healthcare because they cannot afford it does not foster new innovations -- it fosters death and diseases. Diseases which later on are mutated and spread on to you, simply because the people around you couldn't afford the bill. You have to be one dumb motherfucker to not get this -- really.
In other news, say what you want about republicans or democrats, but to fight against a public healthcare system without realising how self destructive that is takes one ignorant fucker. Unfortunately in a democratic system that ignorant fucker could eventually be responsible for the state of my health -- no matter how rich or poor I am.
Read.
Li-ion batteries are not as durable as nickel metal hydride or nickel-cadmium designs,[citation needed] and can be extremely dangerous if mistreated. They may explode if overheated or if charged to an excessively high voltage.
A) Remove the battery. B) Place the battery inside a cold storage unit.
Further reading.
And how do you remove a MacBook battery?
I'm not even going to bother to answer that question. Consume wisely next time.
I was just stating that the cruising speed of the aircraft has nothing to do with this case or the outcome.
You stated, and you were wrong. You said:
Yes but cruising speed is only at high altitudes. A large aircraft doesn't go from runway to runway at top speed. It takes a long time to climb out, then to slow down, descend and land. A flight with a 12 minute cruise time will still take 45 minutes from push back to wheel stop.
And I quoted TFA:
In the case of Flight 188, “neither pilot was aware of the airplane’s position until a flight attendant called about five minutes before they were scheduled to land and asked what was their estimated time of arrival,” the report said. By that time, the plane, which should have begun its descent into Minneapolis about half an hour earlier, was still at 37,000 feet and more than 100 miles beyond its destination.
The pilots didn't even start their descent until they were way off course and had turned the plane around.
You're stating what I already stated when I quoted TFA.
Even if they made up time, they are still highly negligent pilots.
This is true, yet still irrelevant. I never claimed that they were or weren't negligent pilots. Only that the time/distance relationship doesn't add up.
Look -- you're not making any sense, and you're drawing very odd conclusions. And the very first sentence in the post that I'm replying to is clearly showing that you didn't even read TFS:
I'm not saying they *forgot* anything.
From TFS:
'Both said they lost track of time,' said an interim report from the National Transportation Safety Board countering theories in aviation circles that the two pilots might have fallen asleep or were arguing in the cockpit.
Really there is not point in me replying to your posts if you don't even read TFS as clearly that would get us absolutely nowhere when discussing the story.
A flight consists of three stages, take off/ascent, cruise and landing/descent. You're trying to push the nonsensical idea that when they hadn't yet gone for landing/descent, and obviously they were not in take off/ascent:
... the cruising speed of the aircraft has nothing to do with this case or the outcome.
Again, please understand that my intentions are not to be rude, but don't bother answering because you clearly didn't bother to read my post, the TFA, or draw a logical conclusion.
Here's a suggestion. Have people remove their batteries while using their laptops on the plane, and instead offer them an electric outlet next to your seat. There -- problem solved.
Yes but cruising speed is only at high altitudes. A large aircraft doesn't go from runway to runway at top speed. It takes a long time to climb out, then to slow down, descend and land. A flight with a 12 minute cruise time will still take 45 minutes from push back to wheel stop.
You're saying that they forgot the time while they were descending? If so then given the most logical scenario, that you would descend at a linear rate (it's a commercial flight so comfort is a factor to consider), wouldn't they ultimately crash if the flew longer than they should? In a more unprobable scenario they would descend with an exponential rate, which would explain it, but then TFA says:
In the case of Flight 188, “neither pilot was aware of the airplane’s position until a flight attendant called about five minutes before they were scheduled to land and asked what was their estimated time of arrival,” the report said. By that time, the plane, which should have begun its descent into Minneapolis about half an hour earlier, was still at 37,000 feet and more than 100 miles beyond its destination.
They hadn't even begun descending. So why would you slow down unless you're about to descend?
Look I don't intend to be rude but you're the fifth person to answer to my post and you're saying the same thing as 3 others. Can you please read the posts above and continue on one of those? I don't want to post the same thing three times as that is severely redundant.
Removing that isn't so much privacy as logic. What would it say?
"Status: Dead"
"Status: Still Dead"
"Status: REAL Dead"
"Status: Excitedly Dead"
"Status: Dead Dead"
The Reaper likes this.
or C) They should have started descent about 20 or so minutes prior to their destination.
Owning a calculator doesn't mean you get to stop using your brain. Last time I flew, we did not fly directly over the airport and then drop straight down 37,000 ft to the runway in zero time.
The only question going begging here is why are you so dense?
Look -- your rudeness isn't helping you case. But I'll be patient. I'm no pilot but I think it's fair to assume that take off and landing are more or less static intervals, at least for commercial flights, to avoid any nausea or even panic. The only way the math adds up is that they began descending 11-12 minutes too late. Do you not get this?
FTFA:
90 != 11 or 12. You don't land a plane at cruising speed.
Fair enough. If we assume, which I think is fair to do, that take off and landing are two static intervals, going to and from cruising that is. Then the only variable here is the cruising interval. I'm no pilot but I fail to see how 90 minutes in cruising speed is 110 miles. Unless the airtraffic controllers were trying to contact them long before even going to descent, as some routine check or something -- again I'm no pilot. Given this second scenario, they were still only flying for 11-12 minutes too long in cruising speed.
You don't look at schedules during landing.
By that time, the plane, which should have begun its descent into Minneapolis about half an hour earlier, was still at 37,000 feet and more than 100 miles beyond its destination.
Fine. But tell me this: if they should have begun descending 30 minutes earlier than they did, they had cruised for 30 minutes too long. 593.7415/2 = 296.87075, which means they should have been closer to 300 miles off, instead they were 110 miles off. That means A) they must have flown at approximately one third of the cruising speed, or B) they were flying in spirals(?). Which begs the question: why?
Gosh, we are so impressed by your arithmetic skills.
Oh and thank you. I'm blushing.
The Airbus A320has a cruising speed of mach 0.78 and a max speed of mach 0.82. Mach 0.78 = 593.7415 mph and 110/593.7415 * 60 = ca 11,12 minutes. If they were going in cruising speed they missed the time by 11,12 minutes. Not so amazing now is it?
It is very different. This system uses a scanning system to disperse the light energy over the retinal display area. If the scanning system fails for any reason and the laser stays focused on one "pixel" for an extended period of time, all the energy will be focused in one spot. Result: instant scitoma.
Phew! Good thing I have eyelids. Never leave home without 'em!
But aren't all images we see the result of light beaming into our retinas?
That... is... kind... of the point...
To the OP: Were you able to upgrade xorg in the past few weeks without needing to read web pages and take manual steps? Have you had to change any use flags in the past 3 months because packages that once built now refused to build without changes to USE? I've had these problems, and I consider these "playing around with crap" well after an initial system installation.
If you're referring to 7.4 I'm still on 7.2. Since the community has shrunk vastly I accept that new packages take longer than usual to stabilize. I'm in no hurry to update my software, but I understand those who are. If the GP truly only wants to "do some work", I hardly see the need to upgrade to the latest packages continuously -- unless for security reasons.
It also didn't help that gentoo-wiki lost it database somewhere along the way.
And then packages.gentoo.org was down for *months* a while back. When it came back up, it had lost some of it functionality (searching).
I agree, this caused a lot of trouble for the community. I identify with a lot of your problems, but I guess I'm one of those who really believe in the Gentoo way. If only so many resourceful users weren't lost along the road, Gentoo would play a different tune. With the comeback and quick departure of Robbins there was a lot of value lost in the community and all because of politics. However there are still many devs in the community who keep the dist alive. I think Gentoo is just too clever to die, it might shrink for a while but as Linux grows larger, more people will try it out. After all it is a fun challenge for anyone, and in a weird way I kind of hope it stays that way.
Gentoo?
He said we wants to get work done, not tweak or play around with crap. Any major distro would be better suited than Gentoo.
That's only the initial Gentoo installation. Once you have it up and running there's no tweaking or playing around -- unless you want to. He seems disatisfied with some choices of Ubuntu, if he switched from Debian my guess is that there was something he felt was better elsewhere. My point is if you run Gentoo you set up whatever you want, and after that if you want to change it to become something you want it to be -- there's simply no need to change dists. You'll do that with Gentoo. I know, I know, it's possible to do with any dist, but Gentoo is the one dist where it's encouraged -- and even a little bit forced.
Try Gentoo -- if you have the patience for it. Gentoo offers the, by far, best community with detailed HOWTO's on almost anything. It takes a little reading and practice but once you get the hang of it it'll be worth it.
Yes, I'm sure the revolution will start any second now. Tweet when it kicks off, will you?
Idiot. If people don't get basic healthcare they become disease spreading vessles who will eventually spread their diseases on to you. But you didn't bother to think that thoughrough -- did you?
Do you go out of your way to find the way in which you can legally give the government the most possible tax revenue?
It is absurd to suggest that any public company not do the maximum they can to minimize their tax liability. You obviously have an ax to grind with MS, and that's fine, but digging up this kind of garbage is ridiculous. The same statements that you have made about MS can probably be made about 95% of the Fortune 500.
I think the point here was that the system is broken. Not that MS takes advantage of it.
What the shit? Why are you blaming Android? Android was never meant to be run on a netbook. Blame Acer for doing something boneheaded as this. Android should not be run on netbooks for the same reason you don't put Windows 7 proper on a Phone. It doesn't mesh well with the intended interface. Acer has been really fucking stupid in the netbook market lately. First with that piece of shit distro Linpus (I mean really Linpus) and now with Android. Acer is acting less like a coherent company and more like a bunch of slashdotters experimenting on a netbook to see if Android could run. Sounds cool but is commercially insane.
Acer should have taken the easy road and just partnered with Ubuntu for a netbook remix integration. There's a huge community there already with enormous quanitities of contributions. Saying that Android was never meant to be run on a netbook means you have no idea how silly one entitys constrains are on FOSS code. It was bound to happen, unfortunately Acer is doing a really shitty move economically. Android doesn't sell itself, it has to be usable and good. Acer is just hoping for a free ride, which is just pathetic. And not because it's "business as usual", but because it's a plain bad move from all perspectives, including monetary. Ultimately people won't buy your product if it's bad.