Except for messing up mailing lists, a neat way to limit spam would be to require the mail sender to factor a large number provided by the SMTP host. It wouldn't need to take too long - only 3 or so seconds on a decent computer, but it would really slow down spammers. If you need to send out an email to 20 hosts, it would take a minute, which isn't that bad. But if you were trying to spam 100000 addresses, that would require a good amount of time to crunch... Of course, the number to factor would need to be a good random number.
The Catholic Church is actually one of the MOST accepting of science! Amazing! I guess most of the other religions haven't burned enough heretics yet...
Well, I think you are right. Christian religions no longer believe that lightning comes from god, and that disease is not caused by witches' curses. Well, at least most of them... Who knows - maybe they'll catch onto evolution someday...
Well, then suddenly SBC doesn't seem like such a group of bozos. Multiple computers does not necessarily equal higher BW. For me, when my daughter comes home from college, my BW usage spikes. Now if I have 2 computers connected or 1 computer, it doesn't matter, the cause of the BW usage is not a function of the number of computers.
And I don't like your phrase 'bandwith hogs' anyway. Either commit to a level of BW or an amount of data to transfer, or don't bitch about a subset of users using more than 'their share'. To me, it sounds like a fitness club owner complaining about some of the members who actually come in and use the equipment! The nerve! And they stay for hours too!
If you are charged per KB, then charge your users per KB. McDonalds doesn't charge customers on their cholesterol level, they charge customers on the food that they order. I just don't see how multiple computers are the root cause of your problems.
Errr - typed it after a big lunch with blood suger dropping...
Of course, 7 lies isn't a large enough sample size to be useful anyway, come to think of it. But it still indicates to me that the technology is nowhere near what the article hyped it to be.
You know, I wish I could just keep you around for whenever I need an example.
First off- you are brave enough, and secure enough in your convictions to post as an anonymous coward.
Second, you are a lovely example of how the much maligned concept of 'politically correct' is actually a good thing. It used to be you could spout such gibberish anywhere, and nobody would mind. Now, excluding Fox News or Republician Conventions, your comments are considered racist, violent, ignorant, and not constructive to society.
Third, your belief in religion must be a source of strength for you. Other ignorant religious fanatics like you have flown planes into buildings, if you were not aware...
Finally, your approach probably not work. Maybe, just maybe, Arabs are not simply 'dirty arabs', but actually people! But you're not smart enough for that, are you?
I agree with a good chunk of what you are saying. HOWEVER (isn't there always a however? Anyway, moving right along) the last real defense of American liberties in war was WWII.
The Korean War, the Vietnam War, Desert Storm, and so on were not to 'ensure our freedom, and our way of life'. The main issue I have with the American military is neatly summed up in the old adage when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. Face it, the US overuses its military, partially due to its sucesses.
The US Military budget is larger than the next 5 largest military budgets, combined. And 3 of the five are close allies. And when was the last time there was a major US military action in more than 2 locations, anyway? Maybe the US should try less unilateral action, and rely on the resources (and advice) of our allies.
Think before you write. In fact, trying thinking at all. It's a lot of fun once you get used to it.
Thanks for the pointer. On another note, I'm so glad you only drive to save people. So your truck has what? - a total of 2000 miles on it? Over how many years?
And how many miles did you drive where it was just you in your car? Perhaps you should READ - as there is often useful information written in text format. I'm sure that if you were not available, a TOW TRUCK, or even a rental would solve many of those problems.
I do not disagree with your statement that an Escape is better for the environment than a big Caddy. To argue otherwise is to be a fool. If everyone who wanted an SUV choose an Escape and everyone who wanted a car choose a Caddy, then no doubt that SUVs would be 'better' for the environment (all other things being held equal). BUT that is not the case.
There is a difference between choosing an SUV and a CAR. WHY? In the current legal structure, when you choose to purchase an SUV, it is designed to fit a different efficiency structure. And, you cannot ignore current politics and laws - cause they define what cars are available on the market. I remember when Bill Gates was complaining about not being able to get his Porsche 959 legally registered in the US. You have a legally restricted choice of vehicles available to drive. So, all the SUVs are grouped together, and they have to meet a minimum efficiency. And all the cars are grouped together and meet a 30% more efficient standard.
So your escape/cadillac arguement is simply a straw man. There is a difference between a statistic and an isolated example. Let me go over the facts: 1) the fleet of new SUVs has a CAFE of 20.6MPG; 2) the fleet of new cars has a CAFE of 27.5MPG. Given those facts (and the definitions of CAFE, SUV, and car), the average new car is ~33% more efficient overall. Case closed. End of story.
So what if the average MPG of SUVs is worse, that doesn't make the guzzling little cadillac better than the 4cyl escape.
Well, you're missing the point. First off, maybe you were unaware that overall fuel economy of all the new cars bought in the USA has decreased in the last few years. That is a frightening trend. The accepted source of that trend is SUVs and light trucks. Americans are driving more than ever, and the average fuel economy is getting worse. That is why fuel economy matters.
Maybe you didn't know that light trucks are in a different CAFE calculation. The CAFE for light trucks is 20.6, vs. 27.5 for automobiles. The CAFE is the Corporate Average Fuel Economy each auto maker has to adhere to. The average fuel economy of all the vehicles sold has to be at least that level. So for every Cadillac that gets 18MPG, GM needs to sell enough Chevys to maintain the average fuel economy. The same with Ford for Expeditions and Escapes. And the auto manufacturers are very careful to toe that line.
SO, basically the SUV you see on the road is on average, 33% less efficient than the car you can't see that is behind it.
The Escape is 18/23MPG, while the civic is 32/38. From my calculations, 12000miles/18mpg = 667gals, while the civic with 20000miles/32mpg=625.
There is only one car that I can name that gets really crappy gas mileage - the Dodge viper. And they don't sell anywhere near as many Vipers as Durangos or Suburbans.
It's all a simple matter of physics: a larger, less areodynamic mass will use more energy to move . Both the average and weighted average automobile fuel economy is significantly better than light trucks.
Everyone always has a reason why they need an SUV. "I have to tow horses" or "I need to go into the mountains" or "I carry food and blankets for the poor homeless people".
But you know, 90% of the time, I see one person in a 3 ton vehicle, commuting 30miles, or driving over speed bumps in the mall. And I bet that most people could RENT one for those occasions where an SUV was really needed. But that's not the American way.
And SUVs are light trucks, so they don't have the same emissions requirements as cars. They aren't safer, either.
Last, I don't EVER want to hear anyone driving a fat gas hog complaining about gasoline prices.
Well, you trust RIAA, Blockbuster, MPAA, MS and other companies a lot more than I do, that's for sure.
As for not being able to send/receive email; I wouldn't discount that either. Basically, that annoying anonymonity will disappear. Of course, to you, that would probably be ok, since everyone knows the only people who have anything to hide are hackers and terrorists.
If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide? Hemmoroids, when (if you are a woman) your period is or if you are pregnant or if you had an abortion. Or who you are sleeping with (n/a to geeks - for geeks it would be the number of hit die that your barbarian has).
>Election Fraud: Multiple independant inquires and nothing has been found. Actually, it is well known there were serious issues with Florida's voter rolls. One particularly outrageous example was where one person had his voting rights removed for a felony committed in 2005.
>Terroist Attacks: You've GOT to be kidding.. Well, baby bush is sure not making the world any safer in the aftermath, that's for sure.
>Bankruptcies and economy, dept, etc..: Well, given his selection of cronies to run (e.g. Pitt at SEC), his upcoming record deficit, huge tax cuts for the rich. While Herbert Hoover didn't cause the Great Depression, he sure didn't fix it.
I would rather have his dog running the country than the current monkey, that's for sure.
Ok, let's review the results of when we 'did' something: The goal - Afganistan is a bastillion of democracy, religious freedom, and opportunity. Osama Bin Laden dead, and terrorism wiped out.
Actually, bush has not said Osama's name in public since July/02. The warlords control Afganistan, and you can go weeks between any mention of Afganistan on the news. We have had several other terrorist attacks across the world since then (Bali).
Why are focusing on Irag? Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. And North Korea is much more dangerous then Irag.
Look at the results of our actions. We've toppled the Taliban, and instead replaced them with the warlords. Osama Bin Laden used to RECEIVE U.S. aid against the USSR. Saddam received a huge amount of aid during the Iran/Iraq war. Our history is littered with helping out petty tyrants who turn on the United States.
Finally, to actually answer your question on what to do: First, stop jumping in with short term, high force solutions to issues. Instead of supporting a tyrant who will control the country in a way that pleases us, SUPPORT DEMOCRACY and freedom. If we consistantly act in the best interest of people of other countries, eventually they will, if not like us, at least not hate us. And the proposal that removing Saddam is in the best interest of the Iraq people neatly ignores the embargo that the US is holding over Iraq.
Or, if that is too difficult, leave the rest of the world alone. Become self sufficient.
You overstate the benevolence of the local phone companies. Guess what? CONSUMERS paid for the telephone network, ok?
Guess what else? The reason you can call anywhere - Anywhere - ANYWHERE - in the country is because of the Federal Gov't. It forced the phone company to string phone line to North Bumblecrap, Nowhere. If it weren't for the Feds, half the country wouldn't have phone service, lessening the value of the network for everyone.
If you think the Federal Government is so incompetent, how about talking to IBM and have them run the Military? The quasi-governmental Post Office is also underrated. Who else will take your letter anywhere in the country for 37cents? Sometimes it actually winds up where you wanted it too!
Yeah, I admit that there are a lot of inefficiences in the Government. But, Industry is barely better - remember Iridium, Zapmail, Enron,?
Well, no matter how you slice and dice it, richer people do not pay at a significantly larger tax rate then the middle class.
And the recent discussions on tax dividends being 'taxed twice' is bullshit - look at the effective tax rate that the corporations pay - didn't MS have no income tax the other year?
Some startling numbers - the top 1% had 20.8% of the income and paid 37.4% of the taxes.
Then you think about the numbers: First off, the figures are ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME. Retirement plan contributions, educator expenses, student loans, business losses, moving expenses, alimony, are all taken off of that figure.
A wonderful example is when Bill Simon (Rep candidate for California Gov) finally released his taxes, after much pressure. Gray Davis made an adjusted gross income of $193,155. He paid $44,177 in federal taxes - a 22.9% effective tax rate.
Bill Simon made $612,466 salary, $2,200,000 in interest income, and $7,170,000 in capital gains, a total of $9.98million for the year. I couldn't find his adjusted gross income, but it mentioned some various ways he reduced his taxable income down to $6.29million. He paid $1.36Million in taxes - a 21.6% tax rate!
So, to summarize - you make MORE money, your tax rate goes down. How could the rich oppose that?
Finally, from the IRS website, the rate that the top 1% of AGI is taxed has decreased by 21% in the last 15 years (in 1986, the top 1% had 11.30% of income and paid 25.75% of taxes. In 2000, the top 1% made 20.81% of income, and paid 37.42% of taxes). No matter how you slice it, in 15 years, the top 1% have doubled their part of the pie, while reducing the effective tax rate on that bigger slice.
I don't think that the TAX ACCOUNTANTS and TAX LAWYERS oppose a flat tax. They oppose a SIMPLE TAX. A progressive tax can be just as simple or just as complex as a flat tax, don't kid yourself.
So I need a different index for every type of file! I don't want an indexer for jpgs, a separate indexer for movies, another one for documents. What if I want to look for a common characteristic across several different types of documents? So I need to search through several little index programs. Not convinient.
Don't get me wrong - I still want to keep the HFS. But, I think an overlay with metadata would be significantly more effective.
Organizing a 120Gig drive is a chore. You have documents, music, pictures, movies, backups, notes, configuration files, and so on. HFS worked for 2Gig drives, but they are limited.
As for integration into the OS, lots of things are integrated into the OS now. Let me mention windows - thumbnails of pictures, web browsing, help functionality. KDE has sampling of audio files too. Just make an option to disable it, if you like it, use it. No arm-twisting either way.
This subject is a love-it/hate-it, that's for sure.
It's not a matter of . It is a matter of organizing. If a coworker comes and asks me for everything on project A and project B, I need to go to several different directories, and pull them together.
And no, don't try to say that I need to rearrange my directory structure. It is not an option - one of the main applications I use requires a certain directory structure.
Slashdot Mirror
Except for messing up mailing lists, a neat way to limit spam would be to require the mail sender to factor a large number provided by the SMTP host. It wouldn't need to take too long - only 3 or so seconds on a decent computer, but it would really slow down spammers. If you need to send out an email to 20 hosts, it would take a minute, which isn't that bad. But if you were trying to spam 100000 addresses, that would require a good amount of time to crunch... Of course, the number to factor would need to be a good random number.
The Catholic Church is actually one of the MOST accepting of science! Amazing! I guess most of the other religions haven't burned enough heretics yet...
Amazing! Just when you think the most ludicrious proposal comes along, they top it with ease...
While they're at it, they should count the number of compact florescents I installed and tax me on the amount of electricity I'm not using...
Well, I think you are right. Christian religions no longer believe that lightning comes from god, and that disease is not caused by witches' curses. Well, at least most of them... Who knows - maybe they'll catch onto evolution someday...
Now spam will say
"make cashless with your home pc!!"
Well, then suddenly SBC doesn't seem like such a group of bozos. Multiple computers does not necessarily equal higher BW. For me, when my daughter comes home from college, my BW usage spikes. Now if I have 2 computers connected or 1 computer, it doesn't matter, the cause of the BW usage is not a function of the number of computers.
And I don't like your phrase 'bandwith hogs' anyway. Either commit to a level of BW or an amount of data to transfer, or don't bitch about a subset of users using more than 'their share'. To me, it sounds like a fitness club owner complaining about some of the members who actually come in and use the equipment! The nerve! And they stay for hours too!
If you are charged per KB, then charge your users per KB. McDonalds doesn't charge customers on their cholesterol level, they charge customers on the food that they order. I just don't see how multiple computers are the root cause of your problems.
Doh!
Errr - typed it after a big lunch with blood suger dropping...
Of course, 7 lies isn't a large enough sample size to be useful anyway, come to think of it. But it still indicates to me that the technology is nowhere near what the article hyped it to be.
Hey - it missed 2/7 lies in the example that the article mentioned. That doesn't strike me as useful.
Used at an airport: 50000people/day * 28.57% false positives = a lot of messed up flights.
Maybe after they get to better than 99% will it really be useful.
You know, I wish I could just keep you around for whenever I need an example.
First off- you are brave enough, and secure enough in your convictions to post as an anonymous coward.
Second, you are a lovely example of how the much maligned concept of 'politically correct' is actually a good thing. It used to be you could spout such gibberish anywhere, and nobody would mind. Now, excluding Fox News or Republician Conventions, your comments are considered racist, violent, ignorant, and not constructive to society.
Third, your belief in religion must be a source of strength for you. Other ignorant religious fanatics like you have flown planes into buildings, if you were not aware...
Finally, your approach probably not work. Maybe, just maybe, Arabs are not simply 'dirty arabs', but actually people! But you're not smart enough for that, are you?
I agree with a good chunk of what you are saying. HOWEVER (isn't there always a however? Anyway, moving right along) the last real defense of American liberties in war was WWII.
The Korean War, the Vietnam War, Desert Storm, and so on were not to 'ensure our freedom, and our way of life'. The main issue I have with the American military is neatly summed up in the old adage when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. Face it, the US overuses its military, partially due to its sucesses.
The US Military budget is larger than the next 5 largest military budgets, combined. And 3 of the five are close allies. And when was the last time there was a major US military action in more than 2 locations, anyway? Maybe the US should try less unilateral action, and rely on the resources (and advice) of our allies.
Errr ...
The company said the mod chip was 55 OZ$, or ~$32US. Of course, you can't believe everything you read...
Think before you write. In fact, trying thinking at all. It's a lot of fun once you get used to it.
Thanks for the pointer. On another note, I'm so glad you only drive to save people. So your truck has what? - a total of 2000 miles on it? Over how many years?
And how many miles did you drive where it was just you in your car? Perhaps you should READ - as there is often useful information written in text format. I'm sure that if you were not available, a TOW TRUCK, or even a rental would solve many of those problems.
BTW - diesels have shitty emissions too...
I do not disagree with your statement that an Escape is better for the environment than a big Caddy. To argue otherwise is to be a fool. If everyone who wanted an SUV choose an Escape and everyone who wanted a car choose a Caddy, then no doubt that SUVs would be 'better' for the environment (all other things being held equal). BUT that is not the case.
There is a difference between choosing an SUV and a CAR. WHY? In the current legal structure, when you choose to purchase an SUV, it is designed to fit a different efficiency structure. And, you cannot ignore current politics and laws - cause they define what cars are available on the market. I remember when Bill Gates was complaining about not being able to get his Porsche 959 legally registered in the US. You have a legally restricted choice of vehicles available to drive.
So, all the SUVs are grouped together, and they have to meet a minimum efficiency. And all the cars are grouped together and meet a 30% more efficient standard.
So your escape/cadillac arguement is simply a straw man. There is a difference between a statistic and an isolated example. Let me go over the facts: 1) the fleet of new SUVs has a CAFE of 20.6MPG; 2) the fleet of new cars has a CAFE of 27.5MPG. Given those facts (and the definitions of CAFE, SUV, and car), the average new car is ~33% more efficient overall. Case closed. End of story.
So what if the average MPG of SUVs is worse, that doesn't make the guzzling little cadillac better than the 4cyl escape.
Well, you're missing the point. First off, maybe you were unaware that overall fuel economy of all the new cars bought in the USA has decreased in the last few years. That is a frightening trend. The accepted source of that trend is SUVs and light trucks. Americans are driving more than ever, and the average fuel economy is getting worse. That is why fuel economy matters.
Maybe you didn't know that light trucks are in a different CAFE calculation. The CAFE for light trucks is 20.6, vs. 27.5 for automobiles. The CAFE is the Corporate Average Fuel Economy each auto maker has to adhere to. The average fuel economy of all the vehicles sold has to be at least that level. So for every Cadillac that gets 18MPG, GM needs to sell enough Chevys to maintain the average fuel economy. The same with Ford for Expeditions and Escapes. And the auto manufacturers are very careful to toe that line.
SO, basically the SUV you see on the road is on average, 33% less efficient than the car you can't see that is behind it.
Actually, you are wrong.
The Escape is 18/23MPG, while the civic is 32/38. From my calculations, 12000miles/18mpg = 667gals, while the civic with 20000miles/32mpg=625.
There is only one car that I can name that gets really crappy gas mileage - the Dodge viper. And they don't sell anywhere near as many Vipers as Durangos or Suburbans.
It's all a simple matter of physics: a larger, less areodynamic mass will use more energy to move . Both the average and weighted average automobile fuel economy is significantly better than light trucks.
Everyone always has a reason why they need an SUV. "I have to tow horses" or "I need to go into the mountains" or "I carry food and blankets for the poor homeless people".
But you know, 90% of the time, I see one person in a 3 ton vehicle, commuting 30miles, or driving over speed bumps in the mall. And I bet that most people could RENT one for those occasions where an SUV was really needed. But that's not the American way.
And SUVs are light trucks, so they don't have the same emissions requirements as cars. They aren't safer, either.
Last, I don't EVER want to hear anyone driving a fat gas hog complaining about gasoline prices.
Don't give them any ideas....
Well, you trust RIAA, Blockbuster, MPAA, MS and other companies a lot more than I do, that's for sure.
As for not being able to send/receive email; I wouldn't discount that either. Basically, that annoying anonymonity will disappear. Of course, to you, that would probably be ok, since everyone knows the only people who have anything to hide are hackers and terrorists.
If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide? Hemmoroids, when (if you are a woman) your period is or if you are pregnant or if you had an abortion. Or who you are sleeping with (n/a to geeks - for geeks it would be the number of hit die that your barbarian has).
Well, let's review your response:
>Election Fraud: Multiple independant inquires and nothing has been found.
Actually, it is well known there were serious issues with Florida's voter rolls. One particularly outrageous example was where one person had his voting rights removed for a felony committed in 2005.
>Terroist Attacks: You've GOT to be kidding..
Well, baby bush is sure not making the world any safer in the aftermath, that's for sure.
>Bankruptcies and economy, dept, etc..:
Well, given his selection of cronies to run (e.g. Pitt at SEC), his upcoming record deficit, huge tax cuts for the rich. While Herbert Hoover didn't cause the Great Depression, he sure didn't fix it.
I would rather have his dog running the country than the current monkey, that's for sure.
Wow - so good at jumping to baby bush's answer.
Ok, let's review the results of when we 'did' something: The goal - Afganistan is a bastillion of democracy, religious freedom, and opportunity. Osama Bin Laden dead, and terrorism wiped out.
Actually, bush has not said Osama's name in public since July/02. The warlords control Afganistan, and you can go weeks between any mention of Afganistan on the news. We have had several other terrorist attacks across the world since then (Bali).
Why are focusing on Irag? Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. And North Korea is much more dangerous then Irag.
Look at the results of our actions. We've toppled the Taliban, and instead replaced them with the warlords. Osama Bin Laden used to RECEIVE U.S. aid against the USSR. Saddam received a huge amount of aid during the Iran/Iraq war. Our history is littered with helping out petty tyrants who turn on the United States.
Finally, to actually answer your question on what to do: First, stop jumping in with short term, high force solutions to issues. Instead of supporting a tyrant who will control the country in a way that pleases us, SUPPORT DEMOCRACY and freedom. If we consistantly act in the best interest of people of other countries, eventually they will, if not like us, at least not hate us. And the proposal that removing Saddam is in the best interest of the Iraq people neatly ignores the embargo that the US is holding over Iraq.
Or, if that is too difficult, leave the rest of the world alone. Become self sufficient.
You overstate the benevolence of the local phone companies.
Guess what? CONSUMERS paid for the telephone network, ok?
Guess what else? The reason you can call anywhere - Anywhere - ANYWHERE - in the country is because of the Federal Gov't. It forced the phone company to string phone line to North Bumblecrap, Nowhere. If it weren't for the Feds, half the country wouldn't have phone service, lessening the value of the network for everyone.
If you think the Federal Government is so incompetent, how about talking to IBM and have them run the Military? The quasi-governmental Post Office is also underrated. Who else will take your letter anywhere in the country for 37cents? Sometimes it actually winds up where you wanted it too!
Yeah, I admit that there are a lot of inefficiences in the Government. But, Industry is barely better - remember Iridium, Zapmail, Enron,?
Well, no matter how you slice and dice it, richer people do not pay at a significantly larger tax rate then the middle class.
And the recent discussions on tax dividends being 'taxed twice' is bullshit - look at the effective tax rate that the corporations pay - didn't MS have no income tax the other year?
Well, (add hominium attack on Rush excised)
Some startling numbers - the top 1% had 20.8% of the income and paid 37.4% of the taxes.
Then you think about the numbers:
First off, the figures are ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME. Retirement plan contributions, educator expenses, student loans, business losses, moving expenses, alimony, are all taken off of that figure.
A wonderful example is when Bill Simon (Rep candidate for California Gov) finally released his taxes, after much pressure. Gray Davis made an adjusted gross income of $193,155. He paid $44,177 in federal taxes - a 22.9% effective tax rate.
Bill Simon made $612,466 salary, $2,200,000 in interest income, and $7,170,000 in capital gains, a total of $9.98million for the year. I couldn't find his adjusted gross income, but it mentioned some various ways he reduced his taxable income down to $6.29million. He paid $1.36Million in taxes - a 21.6% tax rate!
So, to summarize - you make MORE money, your tax rate goes down. How could the rich oppose that?
Finally, from the IRS website, the rate that the top 1% of AGI is taxed has decreased by 21% in the last 15 years (in 1986, the top 1% had 11.30% of income and paid 25.75% of taxes. In 2000, the top 1% made 20.81% of income, and paid 37.42% of taxes). No matter how you slice it, in 15 years, the top 1% have doubled their part of the pie, while reducing the effective tax rate on that bigger slice.
I don't think that the TAX ACCOUNTANTS and TAX LAWYERS oppose a flat tax. They oppose a SIMPLE TAX. A progressive tax can be just as simple or just as complex as a flat tax, don't kid yourself.
So I need a different index for every type of file! I don't want an indexer for jpgs, a separate indexer for movies, another one for documents. What if I want to look for a common characteristic across several different types of documents? So I need to search through several little index programs. Not convinient.
Don't get me wrong - I still want to keep the HFS. But, I think an overlay with metadata would be significantly more effective.
Organizing a 120Gig drive is a chore. You have documents, music, pictures, movies, backups, notes, configuration files, and so on. HFS worked for 2Gig drives, but they are limited.
As for integration into the OS, lots of things are integrated into the OS now. Let me mention windows - thumbnails of pictures, web browsing, help functionality. KDE has sampling of audio files too. Just make an option to disable it, if you like it, use it. No arm-twisting either way.
This subject is a love-it/hate-it, that's for sure.
It's not a matter of . It is a matter of organizing. If a coworker comes and asks me for everything on project A and project B, I need to go to several different directories, and pull them together.
And no, don't try to say that I need to rearrange my directory structure. It is not an option - one of the main applications I use requires a certain directory structure.