Because Dell sucked from day one. It was always a cheap, so-so computer...

That's what they all say...

...or at least that seems to sum up the message of these sites. In other news, a related site is still open for business.

Nonsense. While the United States may have been founded on capitalism, there's nothing in capitalism that requires "fair competition." For example, John D. Rockefeller was certainly a capitalist, but he also stated on several occasions that competition was wasteful and that well-meaning, privately-owned monopolies could best deliver products and services to society. (Whether that's true or not is another matter.)

In a broader context, there's nothing in capitalism that is inherently opposed to cartels or monopolies--the former is simply the free association of individuals or corporations to determine the "rules" of an industry (particularly with regard to pricing) and the latter is the natural end-state of an industry in which one company has outmaneuvered all others. Both are certainly anti-competitive by definition, however, and most capitalist countries have laws to prevent or regulate such entities.

From the looks of him, his contribution to the pizza budget may have also had something to do with it...

First off, your archaic use of capitalization is interesting.

Animal testing is certainly cruel to the animals involved. Whether that cruelty to animals is justified by the savings in cruelty to humans is a matter of debate.

The argument can also be made, though, that some human beings' lives are more valuable than others. Certainly every society practices this, no matter what beliefs they profess, as some members of every society (e.g., chieftans, priesthood, nobility, aristocrats, "party members") receive a disproportionate allocation of that society's resources. So, we could just go down that route. Already done that, of course.

A better argument against animal testing would be that a society that practices cruelty to animals is one step closer to practicing cruelty to its fellow humans. A society that respects animal life, on the other hand, is more likely to respect human life.

Finally, your oft-stated argument that "better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer" is specious. The ten guilty men will almost certainly victimize other innocents, which is why we incarcerate them in the first place. An argument of "better that a guilty man go free than an innocent man suffer" would carry more water.

They are...into your pockets.

Actually, he'd refuse it on the basis that he'd have to shower, shave and wear a suit to accept it.

Richard Stallman is bristling with righteous indignation that this proposal was not for a co-nomination!

The Ubuntu Foundation announces, "We feel the keyboard is too complex and powerful for most users, so the next version of Ubuntu will support only a mouse by default." Meanwhile, in a boardroom at Infinite Loop, Steve Jobs asks, "Why didn't I think of that?" iPhone users everywhere say, "You already did, Steve. Welcome to our world, Linux users."

Not all federal prisons involve surprise butt sex. The one Bernie got sent to has been described as "like a college campus" (in which case there might still be butt sex, but it would hardly be a surprise).

The universe is, as far as we know, nondeterministic at some levels. Radioactive decay, for example, is a process for which there does not seem to exist anything beyond a statistical model. There is evidence that such nondeterminism extends to the neural level, with implications for free will.

Yes, atheism and personal responsibility are compatible. First off, atheism does not equal determinism. Even if it does, and a person is just a complex biochemical machine, society still benefits from having consequences for actions that are considered undesirable. For most people, those consequences (along with other biological impulses, such as a sense of fairness) lead them to behavior that is not directly harmful to others. For those people for whom the consequence be damned (i.e., for criminals), removal from mainstream society is the current best practice. "Blame" is irrelevant. Criminals are simply defective people who need to be warehoused until their impulses subside with age or the consequences of their actions become apparent enough to overcome their inability (or reluctance) to heed those consequences.

...we've still got 75 years left!

Yeah, and while you're at it, you might want to point out that a lot of those rich folks are Jews. Throw in a few references to the ZOG, and the whole diatribe against the rich and Goldman Sachs could easily be mistaken for a posting on Stormfront.