Zoidberg

I think that's the point.

It's almost midnight. You just got out of your job, a restaurant in a somewhat seedy location in old downtown. You leave through the backdoor into an alley and suddenly notice you're not alone. The metal door just closed shut behind you.

You look to your right. There's a guy with a knife. He's looking at you and smiling in a weird manner. He starts walking towards you menacingly.

You look to your left. There's a well known old drunk there. He smells bad and likes to hug people who are passing by. If you go that way, you will be hugged by him.

What do you do?

If you go right, you'll get stabbed and killed. If you do nothing and stay put, you'll get stabbed and killed. If you go left, you will be hugged by the stinky guy. It's disgusting and not ideal, but you'll not be stabbed and survive.

What do you choose?

I see people all the time with the dumbest arguments to not vote. "He's not progressive enough", or "he's part of the system", or even "he didn't do enough for X" (insert your favorite minority here).

It's all true. But the universe is not a perfect or ideal place. Not voting for the imperfect guy gets us a true horrible alternative. It's a choice between bad and awful.

Please vote bad and keep the awful away.

It's a bit more complicated than that, unfortunately.

What happens when Microsoft adds something to their web building tools that forces all visitors to websites using these tools to use IE? Or when your bank (or even worse, utilities) start requiring Windows and IE?

Odd consideration, but... I use 16Gb of ram and I have zero swap space and I've never seen a freeze in the three years this system has been assembled.

You won't see big problems until you use most of the ram, then you're toast. Also Linux (if that's what you're using) prefers to have more cache at the expense of swapping out pages. There's a lot of rarely used code on many apps that can be safely swapped out to get you more cache.