You've never owned the music. At best, you owned physical media (that were subject to theft, degradation, or destruction) with a license to play the content for yourself only. Additionally, that content was limited to the format in which it was recorded. Through streaming services you have access to the entire library for which the service is licensed, in the most current format, without risk of loss due to theft or physical damage. You can play that content on any supported media device; for example, Pandora is supported on smart tvs, Android, iOS, OSX, Windows, and Linux. Some services even allow you to purchase (licenses to) digital copies of individual songs for offline play...and all this for a nominal fee that is approximately half the cost of a full album.

How is that a bad thing? If all music is available on demand, it pushes ISPs to roll out high-speed wireless in all areas due to customer demand. Pay your reasonable fee and have access to any music you want at any time. Granted, with the death of Net Neutrality it opens up the possibility of ISPs favoring their own streaming services...but we can at least be hopeful that the market will prevent this in the potential extreme.

Now where are all the poor people who can't afford healthcare and educations going to get jobs?

I can dive right into the numbers because I've been immersed in tech for 25 years. Put in the time to learn it or lean on someone who already has and compensate them fairly. If it's a friend or family member, do them a favor; if not, then buy the parts from whoever you talk to, or compensate them monetarily. You can't trivialize this...you can't boil it down to some simple number to describe all types of components.

The average user never valued the features that the technically-minded bemoan losing. Strong(er) privacy control, opt-out availability, clear diagnostic information....I mean, these are the people who expose their lives to the world in exchange for free entertainment, who never bother to learn about what they use (or how it uses them!), and who were tired of having to deal with people like us directly to get their stuff fixed. They just don't care...but their dollars speak louder than our words. They blindly accept what the big corps tell them because everybody else is doing it, so why shouldn't they? Resistance is futile...

Probably still running Windows XP or Windows 7...at least those gave diagnostic codes when they failed.

What? Do you want to speak to the manager, too? There was NO discrimination. You're generalizing about prejudices when the OP was talking about their specific circumstance AND trying to accommodate these seniors. I'm sorry to know that you're probably in pain all the time, and the world is changing faster than you can handle...but that's no excuse for misplaced blame.

(that was part of the jab)

There should definitely be full transparency about the returns on invested time. Arbitrary changes to the reward system are unacceptable, especially if there was no mention of the changes in patch notes.

yields progressively less experience for each repetition. Shocker. Anyone who didn't realize that lives in a fantasy world.

Perform a mass uninstall of Symantec products and see how many remnants are left. It's not uncommon for software to leave behind traces when it's removed. This is based on 20 years of experience...I've seen it countless times.

Yeah...it sure is pretty obvious.

Abstract thought: Consider that at young ages, children think in concrete terms; it's only when instructed by a mature thinker that they being to understand abstract concepts. In the same way, we give instructions to computers, "teaching" them more and more abstract concepts. This is not generally an automatic process. Generally, guidance is necessary, though "a-ha!" moments do occur. Review this and reconsider: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Efficient communication: Quoted from the Snopes article refuting the claim that the Facebook AI program was shut down due to fears: "We gave some AI systems a goal to achieve, which required them to communicate with each other. While they were initially trained to communicate in English, in some initial experiments we only reward them for achieving their goal, not for using good English. This meant that after thousands of conversations with each other, they started using words in ways that people wouldn’t. In some sense, they had a simple language that they could use to communicate with each other, but was hard for people to understand. This was not important or particularly surprising, and in future experiments we used some established techniques to reward them for using English correctly. There have also been a number of papers from other research groups on methods for making AIs invent simple languages from scratch."

Evolution: Would you say that genetically modified foods or specially bred animals are not evolved? I'm not claiming that the process is automatic. Sure, transistors, binary, processors, coprocessors, bla bla, etc. ...they're effectively the same, though smaller and more efficient. Arguably, this is an evolution of sorts; however, the software is our focus here. Would you argue that the software and how it's written is unchanged? Perhaps all that's left is for us to assign the task of writing better code. Maybe that will be the tipping point.

Consider some abstract concepts...it's much more fun that remaining wholly concrete at all times. I promise.

You seem not to be up to speed on AI...or perhaps your definition of AI requires "living" machines with emotions. We already have machines that think abstractly, testing their limits and learning to perform actions. Maybe you want them to define their own actions...? Make requests? You want a perfect system, but we just don't have the processing power yet to support that. What we do have is machines that have invented their own languages just because it was more efficient. They are evolving, and dramatically faster than carbon-based life.

Yes, enlightenment is good. Single-payer in CA isn't dead; it's tabled until it's done correctly - http://www.latimes.com/politic...

Judicial Watch, Inc. appears to be rather biased, as evidenced by the below:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...
http://www.snopes.com/dhs-quie...
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
I'd take their filings with a grain of salt...or two or three.

The intelligent argument is not that the government should be in charge of health care, but that the government should be the single-payer for health care. Numerous payers require numerous negotiations and often-unfair rates in the interest of profit. No one should profit off the health of another, and no one should be unhealthy due simply to the fact that they are poor. No one should be bankrupted by a health issue, especially when they have health insurance. Besides the obvious fact that healthier citizens are more productive, there are relatively unseen and often-ignored effects of concern over health, and guaranteed health coverage for all would eliminate those issues.