Are you serious? Those are sales figures (sold new at retail stores in first quarter 2008 for over $1000), not usage figures. You're not talking about what's being used in the market, just what was sold during the first quarter - OF 2008! - and even then you're only considering retail stores and $1000+ computers, where the average PC cost is $650. So not only are your sales figures irrelevant to a discussion about usage share, but they're cherrypicked to such a ridiculous level that they're not even relevant as overall sales figures. That's like saying a large percentage of the cars on the road are Cadillacs because, in June of 2010, they sold the most domestic cars that cost more than $40k. Most cars cost less than that new, many cars aren't bought from domestic dealerships, and most of the cars on the road aren't new or weren't bought new in that time period. Likewise, most computers don't cost that much, many of them aren't bought from retail stores, and there are more computers out there than what was bought new in the first quarter of 2008.

The GP's point was that Mac's desktop OS market share is less than 10%. And that's not only true, but it's generous - as of 5/2012, they've got about 6.5%. Like it was mentioned earlier, less than Vista.

There's a long, long way to go there, outside of casual browsing. The role of PEDs right now is more or less about remote access to or portable copies of data stored elsewhere. They're media and communication devices, but not workstations or storage devices. Sure, there may come in time in the future where they're much more capable of heavy processing and multitasking, but not in the immediate future, and certainly not already - which is what your post was claiming. These devices are nigh useless for much more than simple apps, browsing the internet, syncing email and entertaining yourself. Especially in enterprise, they're just tools for accessing or carrying around work you've done on an actual computer. Even laptops didn't kill desktops. There's a long way to go, and there's a lot more to it than just having more processing power and memory.

Portable devices have more or less supplemented laptops and desktops, they really haven't made any big dent towards replacing them, let alone "trample" them. They've taken more away from the mobile phone market than desktop computing.

You know (U)EFI has been replacing BIOS slowly but increasingly for over a decade now, right? And that Linux was the first OS to support it? Anyone saying their solution is not to buy UEFI computers or motherboards probably already has one and doesn't know it.

I'd also say that there's probably a lot more people who install Linux on OEM computers than you seem to think.

Aside from limited options and general gaudiness, that does nothing to help you when you're taking the card out of the wallet at the checkout or an ATM. It's nice and all, but if you were able to opt-out of an unrequested "upgrade" to this feature like the GP's saying, you wouldn't have to waste money on cheap, ugly RFID-blocking wallets in the first place. That's a bandaid fix for a broken system that, in this case, wasn't even asked for.

Survival of the phattest?

How much of that "baseline of actual data" is actually about reasoning skills? This isn't a test of knowledge or aptitude.

That'd never work - people and companies would have to focus on one.

Oh, there are plenty of ways to get into debt without having credit. Personal debts, student loans, bills, unpaid taxes, medical bills (even if you have insurance, deductibles for things like even minor outpatient surgery are often 4-digits), fines, etc., etc. The only debts you can avoid by not having credit are loans/mortgages and credit card debt.

But even ignoring all of that, going into debt your way is the result of using credit irresponsibly. You might have needed credit as a factor, but it wasn't the direct and inherent cause of going into debt any more than you smashing your own thumb with a hammer was caused by the fact that you owned one. It's misuse and carelessness.

It'd be interesting, but trivial. They're just the networks, not the lenders or servicers - they're going to have little to nothing to do with business practice complaints and banks' policies. Most of those banks deal in both. It'd be like looking at customer service complaints of PC manufacturers and wanting to know how it broke down between Intel and AMD processors.

False dichotomy. Credit isn't debt, it's the amount of debt they would trust you with. You don't have to be in debt to have credit.

Because [that part of it] is about how much unused credit you've got, how low your debt:credit ratio is. They're looking at how you use revolving credit, not how fast you pay off a debt like a mortgage.

Yeah, he went back to 2004.

Simplifying is one thing, but miscrediting (or, in this case, mis-blaming) a person/organization is another. Saying FunnyJunk is suing The Oatmeal isn't the same thing as saying something that makes it clear Carreon is suing The Oatmeal personally. Maybe "Lawyer Sues The Oatmeal Over FunnyJunk Threat Reactions". You don't want to misstate who the story is about or who took what action.

Related but nonetheless separate issues. Conflict A was that FunnyJunk had Carreon inform The Oatmeal that they were threatening to sue. Conflict B is that Carreon is suing Inman because he believes The Oatmeal incited attacks against him personally (defamation, hacking) for his involvement in Conflict A.

To make the GP clearer, this development has nothing to do with FunnyJunk suing anyone.