Several reasons come to mind:

• There is a lot more diversity in end product in the automobile industry today than there has ever been in the PC industry. A Hyundai Sonata is a lot different from a Chevrolet Suburban and neither is similar to a Ford Mustang in any meaningful way beyond they all have four wheels and run on gasoline.
• The OS as a deciding factor was important to PCs because it dictated how users interacted with their PC and how software and hardware was developed for the same. There is no unified "OS" for a car, nor is there reason for one to exist.
• The closest that Apple and Google can actually get to changing how people interact with cars is through the touch screen multimedia interfaces - which are often the most problematic parts of cars. Even through those though there are not that many avenues for selling more stuff to most users, so the potential gain there is not that great.
• As cities grow, more people use public transportation on a regular basis and interact directly with cars on a less frequent basis. A new car "OS" matters almost not at all to the millions who don't have cars.

Good point, for my own experience, it is nice to have a working iPlayer on the panny Viera—it makes it feel "modern"—but craptastic to keep seeing a "Myspace" ad on the home screen—makes it feel ancient. They seem to think you can just dump an "ecosystem" on these things and make it feel "smart", but it is a fine line between "useful" and feeling instead that you've just driven into a run down small town in the middle of nowhere. Talk about making your shiny gadget feel like it is obsolete on day one.

I haven't seen any indication of them violating his second or third amendment rights.

No more so than any other brand

There's your problem. Distilling the work of thousands of people collaborating together over the course of literal decades into a 'brand' just because it has some narrative and authorial connections to previous works isn't doing you any favours when you've had to degenerate to a 'no true scotsman' argument.

For anything other than a keyboard that is generally true. In the case of the keyboard though the people who hate the sound of a mechanical key (and even more so the buckling spring) are almost always the younger set who don't appreciate them because they have only typed on domes and chiclets their entire lives.

I actually watched this video. It appears about 1/4 of the video is the guy saying "um" or otherwise stammering through his statements. Everyone would look better with a little trimming of the fat in this video.

Car key, house key, mailbox key, office key and my parents house key and a token for shopping karts. There is a USB key on it too, but I never think of it when I need a USB key... That's about it, it's already too heavy with all that crap.

..the possibility of malware infection of voters' computers.

You need to either be ok with that (i.e. botnet owners should have more votes than normal people, because the whole reason that people give their computers over to botnets, is that they want to personally have less power) or else you need to give up on the idea of online voting.

And since nobody sane is going to be ok with that (I think people will disagree with my above parenthesized assertion), then: give up on the idea online voting. By the time you "solve" the compromised-user-agent problem, you'll have lost 100% of the reason for online voting, as we see with the amusing idea of making people use multiple computers which are hopefully on competing botnets and therefore unable to reach enough consensus to vote the same way.

Just keep having people go to polling locations. Really, it's ok to do that.

"Here we are, born to be kings, we're the princes of the universe!"

Intel is lucky that Apple appears to have a barely concealed desire to kill the mac mini,

You could just as easily say "Gigabyte is lucky that Intel appears to have a barely concealed desire to kill the NUC."

I guess this is progress. People used to argue about which vendors offer the best values, but now they argue about which vendors hate themselves and their users to the least suicidal degree. Instead of "Apple sucks," it's now "Apple hates itself, second only to how much they hate you, the customer." Instead of "Intel's machines are a bit expensive compared to the OEMs who use the same Intel CPUs," it's "Intel sure is lucky that they aren't the most self-loathing computer builder out there," and so on.

I always knew psychology played a big role in branding, but now we're admitting it even to ourselves, while we buy their stuff. It just goes to show that whoever said "knowing is half the battle," was wrong.

How do they classify calls as Legitimate Emergencies? It is known that plenty of people call 911 for things that are not significant regardless of how they are placing the call. Is 30% lower than the rate for land lines? Of the remaining 70% are they all kids calling to ask the operator if their refrigerator is running or are they mostly people calling because of non-emergency matters that they don't realize don't warrant a 911 call?

Ok, but how did it become fashionable to tie an onion to your belt?

Are either of those like Plutonian Niborg?

You almost created an argument there, too bad you posted AC which will prevent us from being able to tell if the person who posted it ever returns to see the response.

Nevertheless, it does warrant some exploration. The point I was after is that merely saying something doesn't work is not at all the same as actually doing something about it. Your electrician example is pretty good for this; just about anyone can tell when they have plugged something in to a faulty outlet, but not everyone is capable of fixing the wiring. With the education system, we have a lot of people who recognize that something is wrong, but very few people who are proposing any kind of solution. We also have a few people who want to call in plumbers (educational equivalents of venture capitalists) when we need electricians (people with experience in education), apparently under the notion that wiring is pretty similar to plumbing.

The other problem though is that it is really hard to tell if common core has actually failed. Someone else pointed out there are three main components to common core; they really should be evaluated independently. Another thing is that at the start of the experiment no criteria were laid forth to evaluate success (or failure) which makes it that much more difficult to score. Finally, without having comparable control schools to compare to common core schools, it is that much more difficult to show what kind of "failure" this has brought on. Any time you change the system there will be turbulence.