PCs have 2 major remaining market niches:

1) Enterprise(/educational) workstations (Like, for doing WORK on.)
2) PC Gaming)

What does it say about us that we now consider "doing work" to be a niche?

But I'd argue that elections in the US are designed to give people no real choice.

It's kind of the same thing. People don't vote because they can see through the charade and figure they have more important things to do, like sort their sock drawers alphabetically according to color.

that magical wall is sometimes called a paywall

And corporations are paying the bills. Just look at the names on the fancy new buildings in every Ag department at every major university.

Please explain how universities churn out paper after paper after paper sounding the alarm on climate change in the face of the multi-trillion dollar oil/gas industry that lobbies hard against said research,

Why do you think climate change became so "controversial"? It's because it wasn't supposed to happen. That's why you have enormous butthurt on the part of the oligarchs. They just can't believe that all these scientists went off the reservation.

You know the pro-GMO people must be right, because there arguments always include copious insults. That's the sure sign of a winning argument.

As far as bitcoin being nonsense, the New York Stock Exchange and a large bank just invested in a bitcoin company:

"The New York Stock Exchange and a large bank..."

They'd invest in tulip bulbs is there were sufficient suckers. Which in the case of Bitcoin, there most certainly are.

Good luck with your GaltBucks, boyo.

Not all of us are idiots.

If you have to say that, it's probably not true.

Or my electricity is part of my rent, or people in the military who live in base housing, or I can come up with 10 other examples

This may come as a shock to you, but if your electricity is part of your rent, you are still paying for your electricity.

No matter where you live, somebody is paying for your electricity. There is no free lunch (unless Mom and Dad are paying for the electricity, in which case, have at it because your John Galt Bucks are totally going to revolutionize the world economy).

Is there some fundamental property of Bitcoin that makes proponents silly?:

So what you are telling us is that the system is so rigged that in Oregon that it is able to suppress 40% of the population from voting for the labeling initiatives?

No. I'm saying the political system you find in the United States is designed to minimize participation by the public.

I'm curious, do you happen to know what the voter turnout was for that Oregon initiative? Let's say it was 1/2 of all registered voters. Since the election came down to a few hundred votes, that means 25% made policy for the state. This is by design. Even in blue states, universal suffrage is frowned upon.

Evolution is just a theory. I demand it be labeled on textbooks.

Um, it is labeled in textbooks. It's called the "theory of evolution".

A study once found a link between vaccines and autism. I demand that parents be informed prior to vaccinating their kids.

But a study is not a fact. If a food contains GMO product, it is an undeniable fact that the food contains GMO product. The study showing the link between autism and vaccines has been disproved, but you cannot make a food that contains GMOs not contain GMOs

Thing is, a fact taken out of context and presented to those without the basic background information is deceptive.

In that case, it is incumbent upon the person selling the product to provide that "basic background information" rather than simply hide the fact. No?

The food/chemical industry? This "survey" was done by a University.

It's funny that you think that makes a difference in the US. That you are so naive as to believe there is some magical invisible wall between corporations and the "research" they fund.

I haven't been keeping close watch, but I believe that every time a GMO labeling referendum has been put on the ballot, it has failed to pass.

Because elections in the US are designed to prevent people from voting.

A majority of voters in Oregon just voted down a GMO labelling law.

Now I bet if you thought about it, you could figure out why that statement is not true.

If it can only be used to discriminate in a particularly stupid way, then perhaps it should.

You understand that consumers get to discriminate regarding the products they buy, and for whatever reason they want.

If someone doesn't care for Apple laptops, but Apple laptops are better, should they not be able to "discriminate" between Apple and non-Apple products? Since I don't like green socks, should I not be allowed to see the color of the socks I'm buying because I might "discriminate" against green socks, even though they perform exactly the same function as blue socks?

Nobody, not even the most ardent supporter of GMO foods, can claim that the GMO plants are bio-identical to the non-GMO plants, because if that was the case, how the fuck can they be covered by intellectual property laws?

And who the fuck gets to decide what information a consumer may have and what they may not? You? Monsanto?

we believe we have a chance to win and break the political party stronghold for good

That'll last all of about 5 minutes after election, should he win. Then he realizes he has to spend all but about 1/2 hour a day asking rich people for money. One of the senior members of the state legislature will sit him down and explain how everything works and the next thing you hear from Mr Fark is how climate change is a hoax, coal is the cleanest form of energy and the Second Amendment was passed down to Moses direct from God. And how human life starts at the very moment the man's sperm endows the less-important woman's egg with the glory of Jesus, so STFU, you reproductive choice cows.

This is kind of a dishonest way for the food/chemical industry to try to push an agenda. Most people don't listen to the questions they're asked. They start thinking of an answer before the question has even been completely asked. I'll be most were really answering the question, "Do you support mandatory labeling of food that's been grown using intellectual property developed by companies that are famous for creating the world's most deadly products?" And the answer to that question about labeling of GMOs is always over 90% when the public is asked.

I can understand that faced with such overwhelming public sentiment for labeling that the chemical/food industrial complex would try anything to turn things around, but this is pretty underhanded. The fact is that consumers overwhelmingly want one little bit of information, as innocuous ask the little kosher "K" commonly on food labels. A simple yes/no to the question, "Does somebody own the intellectual property on the corn in this cereal?" is apparently so dangerous that the answer must be forbidden to consumers at all costs.

It can never be "pro-science" for information to be withheld from consumers. Even if that information is inconvenient to certain powerful corporations.