They've actually been doing this for a while, and it is hurting my search experience. I prefer to read content in English, but I live in Germany, which means that if I want to buy something online, I want to buy it from a German (or at least European) company to avoid having to go in to the customs office to pay taxes on everything I buy (and so as to receive the products in 1-3 days instead of 2-4 weeks).
I used to be able to achieve this very easily by using the German name for what I needed, and if that name was the same as the English term, adding "kaufen" (buy) to the search. But with the translation technology, that means that I get all the first results in English, wanting to sell me products out of the U.S.A. I haven't found a really good way around this. Admittedly, I could change the settings for what language I want every time I do such a search, but that is a lot of trouble for me. If there were an option to turn this behavior off, I would do so.
I think that the horrors of autoraise can only be understood by someone who has used focus follows mouse (click to raise) for a while. At least on an X-based system, it is really heaven. I am constantly running things in multiple windows and overlapping, and it makes me very happy and productive. But I have had time to learn to work with it. I now have the problem that I am almost paralyzed when I have to use Windows on a small monitor (especially the versions with application grouping in the status bar). However, I do know that my feelings on this are not universal.
More and more, though, we have developers deciding that their opinions are universal. OpenOffice is the big offender in this in the Linux world. They decided at some point to override the window manager, forcing raising on focus, which makes it pretty much impossible to work with severe OOo windows open. I have not yet come up with a good alternative, though. So I am forced to minimize all the OOo windows to prevent them from blocking out what I'm actually trying to do. To be more on topic, I managed to use Gnome 3 for about a day and a half before I gave up and went to XFCE.
The lists are interesting in that this year's list includes an item of required reading for my English classes (Brave New World), and last years includes a book that I required for English, even though it wasn't formally required by the government (To Kill a Mockingbird). [I'm teaching in Germany, where there are centralized exams to graduate from High School, so that everybody has to read at least some of the same books.]
I suppose that it is censorship in a certain way, since the libraries typically receive government monies; on the other hand, the publication and purchase of the books was in no way suppressed, so in that sense, censorship isn't exactly the right word here, as it would be, say, in Iran when the controversy over The Satanic Verses came out.
The solution in Fedora is to just install the rpmfusion repo (there are others, but this is the most likely to keep you stable). There you can get everything you need.except for libdvdcss, which requires installation of the rpm.livna.org repository.
As to the question at hand, I just switched 2 minutes ago to XFCE, and it is looking likely that I am going to stay here I couldn't take the Gnome 3 "You are currently working on application A, therefore all other applications are distractions and I must make it difficult for you to access them" attitude. I spend far too much time translating texts or composing on the basis of something in another window, and so on, to live with that.
I really think that a lot of the problem is that both sides are missing the distinction between science and philosophy. The "evolutionist" side for acting like they can scientifically prove the non-existence of God (this is actually just a hypothesis that exists under their scientific activities) and the "creationist" people for wanting to teach their philosophy (that there is a creative intelligence behind the universe) as science.
As scientists, both sides should really be doing the same thing -- the "evolutionist" side is looking for the mechanisms that drive evolution and for the intermediate types in the fossil record, while the "creationists" should be looking for the mechanism by which the Creator did his work. There's no reason that they have to be at each other's throats, really.
That said, it might be useful to have a couple of days at the beginning of the chapter on evolution where both philosophies are presented, thus calming fears of both sides that their views are not being taught. The actual scientific content should try to avoid (as is generally done in textbooks) any bias toward either of the philosophies.
This argument only works for "intelligent design" type creationists. The "Young Earthers" and the like might be mentioned in the introduction, but then no further attention should be paid to them in science class, because they are simply not doing science.