I want a remote that I can continuously hold easily in my hand and that I can learn to use common functions on (e.g., volume up) without looking at. This requires real physical buttons at this point. I would never ever buy a TV that could be controlled only with a relative large and heavy control that I had to look at every time I wanted to even bump the volume up or down a touch. I would consider such a control to have hideously poor usability.

I teach Computer Science at a public university in the US. Support for students using Linux from university IT is virtually non-existent. However, IT does now provide a Linux VPN client (Juniper), which is required to make use of the university-wide wireless network. This is a big step up from when the wireless network was first deployed, when they had a Linux client that basically said: "here's some software we found on the web that may or may not work for you--good luck!" One reason for the change is that most of the university's computing infrastructure is now Linux based, and many of the IT personnel have Linux laptops that must function around the university. So IT here supports Linux for itself and to a lesser extent for faculty, but effectively not at all for students. From what I have seen looking at other universities in the US (since my daughter was applying to colleges this year), this is the norm.

I have taught our CS 2 class (in Java) and our third programming course (C and Linux/UNIX system programming). While it is reasonable to think that perhaps "the problem" is that some people just need more than 15 weeks to pick up basic programming, I have seen absolutely no evidence that this is true. For example, I have never become aware of even a single student at our school that has gotten a C in the CS1 class, but then by the CS3 class ended up with even a B let alone an A. What typically happens is that those that make it through CS1 with a C, will fail the CS3 class (two semesters later). The requirements to pass the CS1 class are frankly extremely minimal these days (due to enrollment issues). If you cannot end up with even a C in that class after 15 weeks, I believe there is effectively no hope that you can ever be taught how to program well enough to make it through a CS program. Even if it might be possible for some such people to gain these skills, it would probably require a level of intense, personal instruction that universities do not pay faculty for (and students do not pay universities for).

I certainly agree there are multiple causes, but the effects of religion are profound. When my daughter took freshman level honors biology in high school a few years back, the teacher asked the class how many of them "believed in evolution." Only two out of the twenty plus kids raised their hands. They get to HS and they are already indoctrinated by religion to disbelieve one of the cornerstones of modern biology. Yes, you can argue that a "good" science teacher should be able to convince them they are wrong, but I have had plenty of discussions with people raised in religion from birth, and it is clear to me that facts and logic generally have no effect on what these people believe.

So you apparently believe things would be better for US citizens with an "intelligent" dictator or a few wise men. Can you provide me some examples in history of where that has worked out well for a population? Democracy means government is "directed by the whims of the majority" to a very large extent.

Politicians who wonder why the US is losing its competitiveness in science and technology need look no further than these sorts of moves.

I smell a Fox News viewer...http://www.alternet.org/story/149193/study_confirms_that_fox_news_makes_you_stupid

First off, the way the term hypocrisy is typically defined these days does not limit its application to purely moral issues, rather it simply means espousing beliefs one does not actually hold. Now generally I would consider somebody who claims that, say, open source and Linux is great because it is reliable and saves money (as Netflix does claim), would believe that Linux should be more widely used. This does not appear to be the case with Netflix, though, since not only have they not done anything to support Linux desktop use, they have in fact actively inhibited its use by their failure to provide a Linux client (I say this knowing several people that have specifically avoided using Linux on their machines due to the lack of a Netflix client). So, yes, I guess you are correct that they are not being "hypocritical." Rather, they apparently believe Linux use is great for corporations to have more reliable and cheaper computers, but they do not care at all about helping to extend these benefits for most computer users. Not exactly an untypical corporate position, obviously. Not in any way a noble one either though.

I certainly see hypocrisy in companies using Linux for their servers and talking about how great it is, but then making it impossible for many people to use Linux for their desktops because they refuse to provide Linux client software.

Are you saying you believe most people have been praising KDE4? I don't think so.