Obamacare is working fine. Millions of people now have health insurance who didn't have it before. Thousands of lives are being saved because of that.

The problem is with the blood sucking, heartless Republican bastards who pretend that a laissez-faire approach to healthcare is anything less than the whole sale negligent killing of the poor.

The civilized world (almost everywhere except for the United States) has figured out that a single payer approach to healthcare is cheaper and provides better healthcare than the crap ass system used in the United States of Exploitation.

Here is the most remarkable fact about Surface RT (Windows on Arm) in combination with the new Windows Store at BestBuy:

A significant amount of the floorspace of America's last remaining generic brick and mortar electronics vendor, is now devoted to a product that does not sell.

The Surface RT is product does not have a naturally won position in the market place. The product exists simply because Microsoft has the money, a long standing relationship with BestBuy, and the desperation to place the excess inventory in front of customers who do not want to buy it.

Microsoft and BestBuy are flogging a product (Windows on Arm) which is doomed. Everyone in the industry knows it is. I can only feel sorry for the unsuspecting customers who purchase Windows on Arm.

Microsoft and BestBuy are stealing money from people in a last gasp attempt at flogging a dead platform.

This is a serious question of Surface users. My laptop screen must stay pristine.

How do Surface users, when toggling the device back to desktop mode, deal with the finger grease?

- Battery life
- Disk space
- Decent keyboard
- Screen size

These all take second place to the chore of dealing with a smudged up screen on a machine that would seek to function as a tablet and a laptop.

Let's face it, Microsoft has recently seen a huge amount of innovation.

  - a completely new UI for Windows
  - gambling a couple billion dollars on Windows RT
  - locking down the XBox with draconian DRM

These were HUGE gambles, Ballmer had HUGE stones. They were really betting the company on this dynamic new strategic path.

It just so happens that this is innovation that really fscking sucked. They need a CEO who recognizes that Microsoft cannot innovate. It is not something that the company does well.

It could have something to do with the fact that I care so little about random posts on tech news sites that I type as fast as I can and don't bother to proofread.

But no, such a logical deduction is beyond you.

This post is a public plea for someone within Microsoft to come forward with documentation on the rationale behind the recent apparent loss of all reason and common sense by the company.

Please, please come forward now!

The actions of this company make no sense to us. We are bewildered by the illogically behavior of Microsoft's direction.

Everyone knows that to ruin the useability of Windows by the utter donkey skit that is the Metro Interface makes no sense. There must be some greater reason behind these mysterious decisions that Microsoft has recently under taken.

So give us an internal memo or two! There must have been voices of intelligence within Microsoft who argued against the self-destructive path that it has recently undertaken.

Let us know why Microsoft is committing public suicide.

Sorry, I got the email monitoring covered elsewhere. I got a web browser open, I got Outlook alerts in the lower right of the screen.

When I open the open the start menu to run some old program (the name of which I have probably forgotten because I installed in 2 year ago), I don't want to learn about my inbox, my facebook, the price of MSFT.

Combining these functional areas is brain damage.

No, no and no.

To all the Microsoft Shills who insist on listing 100 different windows key combinations to replicate what was available from the old start menu, or if you are going to advise me to start typing in program names to launch programs on my mouse operated graphical user interface:

YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG, AND STUPID IN THE HEAD.

No, the 'minimum effort' way to access programs is to put a Quick Launch Bar into the Windows task bar. One mouse flick, one click. I have 20 programs with icons there that I launch without the back-assward, 20th century methodology of typing in program names.

The old menu allows quick access to the majority of system functions. It did this with a minimum of clicks, mouse movement and extraneous information.

If I am working, I don't want to see weather information, stock quotes and baseball scores. Sure, you can remove those tiles from the start screen, but then that defeats the purpose of having that information available when I am not working.

I actually might enjoy the start screen when I am not working, but that goes back to the core malfunction of the start screen: it is mixing core functional areas:

(1) Program/System/Settings Launcher
(2) Information Provider

Why is so freaking difficult for the so-called User Interface experts at Microsoft to understand that this is a colossal fuck up to jam these two key functional areas onto the Start Screen?

Web apps have not destroyed the need for a Windows operating system. Smart phones and tablets are not winning/selling because they have web apps. They are winning because they have a innovative touch interface designed for the hardware, and a huge amount of non-web app software. The browser is just another application which is installed on the phone/tablet, an application which usually takes back seat to a custom app.

Gmail and Yahoo Mail were going to succeed if accessed via Internet Explorer or via Netscape.

In the battle to place the box under the desk, Microsoft still reigns supreme. And web apps have nothing to do with that market. The battle to place the phone in the pocket isn't being decided by which web browser is on the phone.

Microsoft gained nothing by destroying Netscape and limiting adoption of Java. They lost hundreds of millions in legal fees, and then billions went out door to the EU. Microsoft was going to make their money. They had the desktop monopoly. Apple will never gain much desktop market share with their pricing structure. Java was a joke, a complete user interface travesty. They could have fired everyone on the IE team, and licensed Netscape, and it wouldn't have affected one bit the Office and Windows money train that was coming down the tracks.

It doesn't matter one iota which web browser a windows machine is using. Microsoft already got paid. Browsers are commodities. Ballmer and Gates were such paranoid dicks, and non-technologists, that they couldn't see that.

Purely as an exercise in alternate reality, it is interesting to wonder how the computing landscape would have been different, most certainly superior to state of affairs now, if Ballmer and Gates had not been such conniving, backstabbing dicks.

The company would almost certainly be an order of magnitude wealthier, more respected and better positioned in the marketplace, if those two guys hadn't felt it necessary to throw the company's weight around by executing the many well known monopolistic and consumer-unfriendly practices that they are so well known for.

If anything, the strategic failure of Microsoft as a company to set itself against so many others in the industry, is missing from the debate about the good and bad aspects of Steve Ballmer's legacy.

Microsoft was consumed with a truly psychotic fantasy of Netscape (a fucking web browser company) rising and dominating the computing landscape. That is just one example where the mendacity-wrought Ballmer and Gates, helped in no way the financial bottom line of MS by just being dicks, almost just because they couldn't help it.

It is fairly easy to posit that a good amount of the effort behind the rise of Linux was simply due to a common reaction against the back alley tactics deployed by Microsoft. And if Linux is not as developed as it was in 2008, does Google have something upon which to build Android? Something which can be released and developed under the GNU license? And that is just one potential hypothetical.

You have a folder named Music, you have subfolders named A, B, C, D, ...

How exactly does that not scale?

I have many, many gigabytes of songs.

So obviously there were numerous plot holes in the movies, but the most egregious was the station's lack of defense systems.

So the super rich, who have enslaved the majority of humanity on hell earth, spend billions on a floating space station and they don't bother to defend the thing?