To be fair, I don't know that any of the problems are with the Metro (now called Modern) design language itself. Most UI complaints in Windows 8.1 fall into two categories:

1) usability problems such as auto-hiding UI elements, removing buttons in favor of gestures, moving right-click menus to the screen edge, and so on
2) dislike for the flat, clean, chrome-minimized theme

Metro/Modern only deals with #2, and for the most part that is user preference. Meaning, if #1 were fixed, then Metro can work right for many users, and might even be loved by many (such as myself). This is where I think Windows 10 is improving things in general, getting us back to almost Windows 7 levels of usability without completely sacrificing the clean, chromeless look of Windows 8.

Watch the videos I linked above, or at least the first one or two. Sure, third parties can and do win in a first-past-the-post system, but it gets more and more rare until it becomes practically impossible for them to have any chance of success.

When was the last time a third party had any real chance of winning the Presidency of the U.S.? Theodore Roosevelt took second place in the 1912 election running as the Progressive Party candidate. He was previously a very popular President of two terms, who decided not to run for a third immediately. Instead he tried to run for a third term later only to miss the Republican Party nomination. He formed his own party, and despite his popularity among Republicans, all he could do was spoil the election... he split the Republican vote, and Democrats walked away the victors with a relatively low plurality.

"small price of land" = "small piece of land"

I just love how /. mobile provides neither preview nor edit...

I wasn't thinking multiple governments that are sovereign over a small price of land, but rather multiple layers of government consisting of local representation and proper checks and balances.

The U.S. federal/state/local and executive/legislative/judicial partitioning is actually a pretty decent form of what I'm talking about (except that the state governments have de jure capability to place Constitutional restrictions over the federal government, but de facto the federal government always has the final say).

The main reason I'm neither Democrat nor Libertarian: I don't believe in either a big government or a small government.

I believe in multiple small governments, who together provide the necessary defense from external forces but which do not have the ability to concentrate (and thus corrupt) power absolutely.

The only thing obvious is that a third party has no chance of winning.

The most impact a third party has is to spoil the election for the closest of the two main parties.

I'd be ok if this were required learning material: http://www.cgpgrey.com/politic...

I highly doubt that. If they really are poor, meaning they only have enough money to provide the basic necessities, I doubt that energy efficient windows and HVAC units and such are higher priority than basic food, clothing, and shelter.

Sure, these things pay for themselves eventually, but the upfront cost is quite a bit of money that can better be used to eat this week.

A used gas guzzler might cost all of $1K, or less.

Not much for a rich person, but unattainable for a poor person.

The main problem here is forgetting why we do taxes the way we do.

Fairness takes a back seat to collection efficiency. If taxes were truly fair, the government would force you to pay on the spot for every tiny use of government services and infrastructure. Do the water pipes to your house go 90 ft. farther than your neighbor's? Then you have to pay for your share of wear on the common pipe, and additionally on the pipe that goes only to your house. Did your precinct need a recount in the last election? You need to come back and pay a little extra tax for that additional processing. Did you call the cops out because your car was broken into? You pay them on the spot for their services.

Similarly, driving distance and weight are fair ways to calculate road infrastructure taxes, but it's a lot easier to have people pay at the pump... which is one reason it's done that way.

This is why I think all this anger from the left about tax deductions is silly. The left pushed through energy efficiency deductions, and then were appalled when the only people who qualified for those deductions were the people rich enough to worry about energy efficiency.

See my response to aepervius below, the chosen baseline year simply appears to be the first year provided in the data set.

Doing 1975 as a comparison, using current dollars for FY2009... 1975 = $1232.7B, 2014 = $3238.9B, the federal government is currently spending 2.63 times as much as in 1975, adjusted for inflation.

Actually I think I found the source of the data tompaulco used: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...

Assuming that source is to be trusted*, his numbers are correct as he stated. $9.5 Billion in 1940 is equivalent to $135.8 Billion in FY2009, so the comparison between $135.8B and $3.2T ($3238.9B) is the proper comparison. That comes out to be 23.9 times as much spending in current dollars.

* if you believe the source is incorrect, feel free to find a reputable source that refutes it... as for me, I have to go to work

What does "so that her fruit depart from her" mean if not causing the child to be born prematurely?

Besides, I chose the NIV because it was the default on the website I happened to look up. If you don't like it, then look at some of the others. Young's Literal Translation (1862) for example uses the phrase "her children have come out".

Whose bank accounts and treasury bonds? I assume you are hinting at owners of companies who employ large numbers of minimum-wage workers, but what about the owners of companies who don't employ many minimum-wage workers? Increasing minimum wage doesn't make much of a difference for them, and certainly doesn't cause them to contribute more to the system that got them there.

This is one reason I don't care to jump on this bandwagon of raising the minimum wage. It puts the whole burden on low-skill industries.

Or you're in high school flipping burgers, still living with your parents and without much actual responsibility.

Oh really? Exodus 21 seems to disagree (emphasis mine):