That's not even remotely true.
The US has, for most of its history, levied taxes for the explicit purpose of paying for wars.
The Federal Government didn't exist during the Revolution, so the individual states raised taxes.
I'm not going to get into the nitty gritty of pre-20th century war taxes, because they were on things like slaves, carriages, sugar, and whiskey.

Just remember, every dollar you spend for something you don't need, is a dollar spent to help the Axis
To pay for the Korean War, Congress heaped taxes on top of the already high WWII rates.
President Johnson cut domestic spending and created surtaxes specifically to pay for Vietnam.
AFAIK, George W. Bush was the first President to categorically refuse to raise any taxes to pay for his wars.

Aside from price, which makes accepting multiple monitors rather compelling(you can get physically big ones for relatively small amounts of money, because of TVs; but if you want resolution the cost goes up fast and things really start to misbehave if you go high enough that DP MST or the like is required to drive the thing), it mostly comes down to how good your windowing system is at tiling and how well applications that expect 'full screen' can handle playing with others.

A good window manager makes carving up a single large monitor into chunks suitably sized for your various programs easy and painless. If you are enduring a less obliging one, it can be a fairly ugly business, actually less pleasant than getting some help from multiple physical displays, which are more widely respected even by poorly behaved programs.

That said, the 'two side by side, giant bezel in the middle' configuration is not my favorite. A larger primary screen, with ancillary screens on one or both sides gives you plenty of room for assorted lesser windows; but also avoids annoying bezels in the center of your field of view.

You don't choose between workspaces and physical screens, you just have multiple physical screens so that each workspace can be even larger and more pleasant to use...

You do eventually run into diminishing returns; but being able to display more than one monitor worth of stuff simultaneously definitely has its uses, and is something that being able to switch between workspaces, be the transition ever so elegant, cannot replace.

Given that 8 was the "Just because it's called 'Windows' doesn't mean it needs a functional windowing system!" release, It's pretty hard to argue with them.

Maybe some of that works on touchscreen laptops; but 'metro' is a tragicomedy on any monitor configuration worth using.

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

You seem to misunderstand the CO2 cycle.
You see, in an ideal world, the cycle is neutral. It runs at 100%.
IE, what gets created gets pumped back into the system.

We could create 4% of what's atmosphere, 50%, or 0.02%.
It doesnt matter, cause what matters is that what we create is NOT PART OF THE CYCLE. IT'S IN ADDITION TO THE CYCLE.
That's what causes the problems. We add CO2 without removing it, increasing hte overall concentration over time, increasing hte ability of hte atmosphere to trap heat over time.

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Also: http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Short version: you're full of shit.

Long version:
1: Nope. What you said is just gibberish covered bullshit, with a side of ignorance.

2: Ah yes! The "secret data set no one has ever seen" myth. Actually try a few dozen different and separate lines of evidence, each with multiple scientists studying it, each with multiple data sets, NONE OF IT SECRET.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

3: Nope. The models are good.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

No, temps have not stalled or declined.
No, you have nothing coherent, factual, or worthwhile to say.
Yes, you are an ignorant buffoon just spreading more BS.

the only thing false here is everything you spew.
Increased CO2 is NOT a response to global warming caused by something else.

http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

bullshit.
nothing you just stated is true.

Increased CO2 is NOT a response to global warming caused by something else.

http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

It depends on your design goals.

In Asimov's story universe, the Three Laws are so deeply embedded in robotics technology they can't be circumvented by subsequent designers -- not without throwing out all subsequent robotics technology developments and starting over again from scratch. That's one heck of a tall order. Complaining about a corner case in which the system doesn't work as you'd like after they achieved that seems like nitpicking.

We do know that *more* sophisticated robots can designed make more subtle ethical systems -- which is another sign of a robust fundamental design. The simplistic ethics is what subsequent designers get when they get "for free" when they use an off-the-shelf positronic brain to control a welding robot or bread-slicing machine.

Think of the basic positronic brain design as a design framework. One of the hallmarks of a robust framework is that easy things are easy and hard things are possible. By simply using the positronic framework the designers of the bread slicing machine don't have to figure out all the ways the machine might slice a person's fingers off. The framework takes care of that for them.

Ever since WSJ became part of the Fox noise/BS/disinformation machine, nothing the WSJ says is relevant.

If they say the sky is blue, I recommend checking first.

I don't think you've really grasped Apple's design sensibility. Job one for the designers is to deliver a product that consumers want but can't get anywhere else.

The "camera bulge" may be a huge blunder, or it may be just a tempest in a teapot. The real test will be the user's reactions when they hold the device in their hand, or see it in another user's hand. If the reaction is "I want it", the designers have done their job. If it's "Holy cow, look at that camera bulge," then it's a screw-up.

The thinness thing hasn't been about practicality for a long, long time; certainly not since smartphones got thinner than 12mm or so. They always been practical things the could have given us other than thinness, but what they want you to do is pick up the phone and say, "Look how thin the made this!" The marketing value of that is that it signals that you've got the latest and greatest device. There's a limit of course, and maybe we're at it now. Otherwise we'll be carrying devices in ten years that look like big razor blades.

At some point in your life you'll probably have seen so many latest and greatest things that having the latest and greatest isn't important to you any longer. That's when know you've aged out of the demographic designers care about.

troll be trolling.
or troll needs to learn to read a graph:
http://static.skepticalscience...
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/...

Courtesy: http://www.skepticalscience.co...

and yet you missed the part where it rated it "false", and gave the background on it.

Emphasis added.

He was one of the early visionaries to see the potential of these projects.
He did secure the passage of key legislature (ie, they were his bills) that led to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
He is one of the key figures in its history, such that even the fathers of the internet acknowledge his role:
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/L...