I think I figured out your problem...

I guess I'm not experienced enough in UI design to be allowed to express an opinion either (at least, according to you), but I'll share my opinion anyway: I don't like the multi-column G+ design either, because I find it tiresome to shift my attention back and forth between columns, and keep track of where I am in each column.

I also find G+ slow (even on my fast CPU) and cluttered. I find the text is too small and if I zoom it two levels (to make it large enough to easily read), the rightmost column partially renders under the Hangouts column.

Page up and page down don't work quite right a large fraction of the time (try it), and I hate it when web sites pin content (if I scroll, I want everything to scroll).

I miss the old Google when UI designs were simple, intuitive, uncluttered, and fast. They seem to be junking up all their UIs (including Gmail).

Google Docs (Drive) replaced Microsoft Office on my computer and my wife's computer.

Yes, it couldn't possibly have been the result of time pressure the developer was under...

10" laptop when out-and-about, hook up to external keyboard / mouse / display when at home.

I can (and used to) carry around typical laptops (14" to 15") on business trips, and found their weight in my backpack was annoying. If the weight never annoys you, that's great! But it did annoy me.

In addition, you completely ignored the "bulky" part of my comment. As a sometimes-business-traveler, trying to operate a laptop on those tiny tray tables on airplanes where you can't even open your laptop display at usable angles sucks.

I was hoping netbooks would be the perfect compromise, and bought one for $250, but the user experience sucked so bad (thanks a lot, Microsoft) that I gave it away.

For now, I'll stick with the iPad. If and when I recognize a different compromise as the superior choice, I'll be happy to switch.

Nice troll. Let me know if you decide you want to discuss it like adults.

I've gotten burned by Microsoft enough times over the years (decades, actually) that I fundamentally don't trust them anymore.

That being said, next time I'll be more careful to research devices where I can reasonably expect they'll get updates for at least 5+ years.

Laptops are bulky and heavy. Netbooks offer a terrible user experience (mostly thanks to Microsoft forcing lousy specs on vendors as a prerequisite for Windows Starter licensing).

I've taken my iPad with me on my last few business trips. It was light and with a big enough display for comfortable use without being too big (or too small like smartphone displays). (Although I'm not happy Apple has already abandoned updates on my not-even-3-years-old iPad 1 -- might have to consider an Android tablet next time.)

Not sure where the market will go, but tablets aren't a fad for me, they're just the best compromise of all the alternatives (when traveling, at least).

Are you sure about that? I'm not advocating doom-and-gloom, but at the same time, the "don't bother worrying about it, it's always worked out in the past" optimism doesn't seem appropriate, either. I'd sure like something more solid than "past performance does predict future performance," which I think is just plain wrong in this context.

Sony doesn't make people buy a monthly subscription just to watch Neftlix, which is an important factor for me. I'll probably switch from Xbox to PS for the next generation for that reason alone. It'll save me hundreds of dollars over the life of the console, I can't ignore that huge savings.

The whole point is having two homes in case of an extinction level event happening (asteroid, nuclear war, plague, etc.).

I had both a CoCo and C64 (not at the same time) and found the C64 superior in every way, except for the CPU (the CoCo's 6809 was better than the C64's 6510).

The C64 had superior graphics, superior sound, more interrupt options (so you could have, e.g., a graphics mode terminal emulator with reasonable performance, since the CoCo had to poll for data, while the C64 waited on an interrupt), etc.

I would say the C64 was -- by far -- a better hacker's PC than the CoCo. It was a lot cheaper, too.

Language evolves, and it is my impression that the definition for atheist and agnostic has evolved, as well. Or perhaps better stated, there are multiple valid definitions for each.

Atheism can mean a lack of belief in god, or it can mean the belief that god does not exist. When I use the term atheist, I generally use the term that seems to be in more widespread use these days, which is the second one.

Agnosticism can mean the belief that it is unknowable whether or not god exists, or it can mean a lack of belief about god one way or the other. When I use the term agnostic, I generally use the term that seems to be in more widespread use these days, which is the second one.

And this is why I self identify as an agnostic, but I do not self identify as an atheist. By the way, your attitude towards me demonstrates nicely why I'm hesitant to join the "skeptical community" in any meaningful way.

I really liked your question. Thanks for asking it. Unfortunately, I didn't feel the answer fully addressed your question.

I started out as a Christian [1], and throughout my life have switched between generic (non-Christian) theist, agnostic, and atheist several times. I've kind of settled on agnostic as the most intellectually honest place to be. As an agnostic, I feel downright unwelcome in the "skeptical community" which, as you say, seems joined at the hip with atheism. Their position (spoken or unspoken) seems to be that if you're not an atheist, you're a dummy. As much as I enjoy and appreciate all the things the "skeptical community" does, I'm not really eager to join their ranks when they think I'm a dummy for being agnostic rather than atheist. Oh well...

[1] I was a child at the time, so it's probably more accurate to say that I was the child of Christian parents, and far too young to make my own decision about what I was or was not.