One thing I discovered when I moved to 8.1 was that Microsoft has eliminated the "Easy Transfer" option (You can "Easy Transfer" to 8.1, but you cannot "Easy Transfer" FROM 8.1). As a result, when I get my next computer I am going to have to configure all of my settings all over again. The only other choice is to give Microsoft ALL of my personal information.

I don't like Windows 8.1, but I have yet to hear anyone say that Windows 10 actually fixes any of the things I don't like about it.

You really need to learn a bit more about how the real world works, because greenhouses do not use CO2 to capture heat. They use CO2 to stimulate plant growth. A greenhouse works because the translucent walls (whether glass, plastic, or some other material) allows light to pass through. When that light strikes an opaque surface some of it becomes heat. The walls do not readily allow that heat to escape.

As a matter of fact, CO2 does not work to capture heat in a greenhouse, there is just not enough room for CO2 to pay a significant role in capturing heat on the scale to which a greenhouse is built.

Except that I DO get something in exchange for rent. I get some place to live. I'm sorry, but your utopian plan is a disaster waiting to happen. What about those people who cannot get a loan to buy a house because they have mismanaged their money..or because they continue to mismanage their money?
I am done with this conversation because you do not appear to have sufficient understanding of how the world works to understand why your idea is a bad one.

So, basically what you are saying is that we should change the system so that it is better for you, you don't care about the people who get screwed over by the change, because it would be better for you (and everyone else who wants the same thing you do, even though it screws those who DON"T want the same thing you do).
You conveniently overlook the fact that there are a lot of people who do NOT want to own housing. In addition, there are those who are not going to be able to buy housing, even under your system, because they have been such bad managers of their money in the past.
The final point you overlook is that buying is not something which one undertakes on a casual whim. No matter what you do to the system, buying and selling a house is going to take a lot of effort. No one is going to want to buy a house when they will be moving again in six months to a year. If I get a job that I need to move for, I do not want to buy until I have been in the new area for long enough to figure out where I want to live in that area.

No, I mean oil companies. As a percentage of revenue oil companies have small profit margins. What distracts people is the fact that oil companies have huge revenues, which results in their profits begin very large when expressed as a dollar figure. However, when compared to the number of dollars they spend, their profit is not so large after all.

So basically, you want to turn landlords into house flippers, because that is what would result from your system. You would exchange "evil" landlords for "evil" speculators. Buying a house is an investment. If I relocate because of my job, I am going to want to spend several months renting on a short-term basis in the new area before I buy.
In addition, your scenario overlooks closing costs. People who relocate frequently would lose quite a bit of money on the closing costs...more than they would lose by renting. The fact you are overlooking is that there are a lot of people who do NOT want to buy, they prefer to rent.

Actually, there are two reasons that banks are sitting on foreclosed properties. The first is that the federal government has been pressuring them to do so in order to make it look like the housing market has fully recovered from the crash. The second is that if they sell all of those houses at what the market would bear, they would have to take the loss on their books. As long as they hold onto those houses they can pretend that they have not taken a loss on them --"We have 5,000 houses worth $200,000 each. Which means we have $1,000,000,000 in assets. " as opposed to "We have $500,000,000 in assets. (after selling those 5,000 houses for $100,000 each)."-- Of course if they put all of those foreclosed houses on the market, their return versus their booked value would be even less than that.
And that second scenario would likely result in their assets vs deposits falling below what they have to maintain to remain a FDIC insured institution. It might also lead to problems with SOX regulations as well.

You know who else gets crushed by your plan to subsidize home ownership by driving down the price of real estate? Those people who bought a property, which they then lived in, as an investment for when they needed to move into a retirement community. There is a better answer. Stop trying to manipulate the housing market. When banks make bad loans, let them go bankrupt...but don't pressure them to make bad loans either. Undoing the mess the government has made of the housing market will take time, but the first step is to get the government to stop making it worse.

You apparently are unaware that oil companies already have some of the smallest profit margins, as a percentage of revenue, of any industry. I believe that only the restaurant industry has a smaller profit margin.

Mainly because the commenter followed the reference to Sandusky with a comment about the subject of his comment being able to see an elementary school from his front door.

You are overlooking the key part of the statement, "Hadley is a Sandusky waiting to be exposed." Perhaps you are unaware that Jerry Sandusky was a long time assistant coach at Penn State who operated a charity for young, fatherless boys. It was revealed that he had been using his position for years to get into a position to rape some of those young boys.

I switched from Google because I began to notice that their results seemed to be skewed. Certain types of results were not coming up in my searches, even when that was specifically what I was looking for. While it mostly appeared in politically loaded searches (although the nature of the skew makes it hard for me to determine the nature of the bias...I found both "liberal" and "conservative" viewpoints dropped from results) it also occurred in some searches for answers on technical issues.

I would agree with you, but even with your reminder I cannot think of any of those. In order to be "forgetting" them, I would have to be aware of them. So, would you care to enlighten me?

You are sadly mistaken. There are a large bunch of people who care about the Internet of things because they recognize what a boon it will be to mining personal data for the corporations who get their stuff adopted first. The IoT is the smart TV which reports your viewing habits, and random videos of your living room (or wherever your TV is) to the company which made it (Samsung, and probably others). I am sure there are other such devices.