OK, I see what you're saying. That there's really little reason for the operating system on a home computer to look and work exactly like the one at work.

I agree. I think as computer users, we're mature enough not to need this level of familiarity. This is one reason that at some point down the road, I hope to be able to use both Windows for my digital audio workstation in my home studio, and some form of "SteamOS" for playing games. Of course, with companies like EA/Origin and Ubisoft using their own game store platforms, I don't see all PC games being compatible with a SteamOS for some time to come.

Only if the DoJ continues to look the other way in the face of continuing flagrant Sherman act violations

If you're a fan of any current computing tech, either mobile or on the desktop, you really don't want to be bringing up Sherman Act violations.

I can't think of a single major manufacturer of PCs, mobiles, or commercial operating systems for PCs or mobiles that isn't guilty of anti-trust violations.

How do I turn all this crap off? I do not want "charms" or active notifications or dancing paper clips.

Just run all my programs fast and don't make me notice your interface. Why is that so hard?

Sure there's always a few garage developers/wanna-be entrepreneurs/SOHO users, but they're a niche.

But certainly, you don't consider all the people who have PCs on their desks at work to be a "niche", do you?

Is it "pro-science" to want to keep the provenance of consumers' food a secret?

Yes retard.

The pro-GMO argument distilled to its essence.

"Safe" doesn't even have to be the issue. The issue is, why are these people so keen to make sure consumers don't know where their food comes from? Even more important, why are they so keen to make sure that consumers don't know where their food money is going?

When I buy a bag of rice or an ear of corn, I want to know whether or not my money is going to pay for a license fee for intellectual property covering a basic foodstuff. Because I would rather it did not. And for some strange reason, there is a group of people out there who believe I should not have that choice as a consumer, and they use "science" as their reason.

It's "anti-science" to be opposed to the application of intellectual property laws to basic foodstuffs? It's "anti-science" to be opposed to putting ownership of that IP in the hands of companies like Monsanto?

Is it "pro-science" to want to keep the provenance of consumers' food a secret?

The problem with you pro-GMO people is that for some reason, you appear desperate to promote something for which there is no benefit to consumers and that may cause serious harm to the economics and politics of our food supply.

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.