Sorry this is a worthless comment, but I have to give you props; perfectly said sir.

Why have they never tried to prevent the installation of competing OSes before in history since the release of the first "IBM clones?"

Use of the BIOS implementation has prevented this from happening. Replacement of BIOS with UEFI has been a long effort and is only now hitting critical mass.

Your question is too focused. The industry trend for all other device-types has certainly been towards being proprietery and locked down. That's despite the great potential if they weren't. Apple, Sony (PS3), US phone carrier releases.

and makes their built in advertisements go away

I totally agree with your statement, this just stands out to me as their only justifaction based on facts.

you can't do anything you want with it.

I think B&N is asserting the opposite of that, which
is Ardeaem's point.

If the person is not paying taxes, they are either too poor to pay anything, criminal (based on my assumption that tax dodgers are dealt with), or alien; that's another discussion.

But going with the smoker example, you already pay for this person whether it's in hidden costs or covered formally by UHC. If they get a smoking related sickness do you really think they're going to stalwartly endure it and not eventually go to an emergency room?

It is no one's place to dictate whether healthcare is provided or not. Doctors who are in the best position to judge, as I understand, try their damnedest to keep a person alive regardless of cause. Or would you rather we not provide healthcare to an athlete who might be at risk of getting a permanent injury, how about a soldier who went to war, an emergency professional who is exposed to toxic substances. All these life choices also have known and provable health risks. Should we also offer only claused coverage to them, because there is a good chance they're going to have related health problems from what they're doing.

Try another perspective: What if after 20 years of smoking the person quits, and another 20 years later still gets emphysema? What if the emphysema occurs from another cause all together, how would anyone know? Should would still judge that person unworthy, and watch them die?

God forbid anyone make a wrong decision in life, right?

Using healthcare as a system of sticks and carrots is plain stupid. I'm sorry, but you are a citizen, so am I, so is the poor person who doesn't perfectly network job connections and loses their health coverage with their job, so is the drunk who smokes. I am not willing to dictate who gets coverage, nor should you be. There's simply no logical or moral excuse of why we can't cover our citizens universally.

That person's cost of lung cancer treatment is spread across 250million people, not a smaller subset under any other "insurance" plan.

In the US there is nearly a 13% chance that Hobo Spaien doesn't have health coverage. What is your point with this question, and how does it counter his/her's?

That's a great outlook. Like you, I don't have cable, and don't really miss it. The more I watch DVD movies/series, the less patience I have for programming with commercials.

Like this dicussion questions, I despise the tepid service we receive for a premium price, and I think you're right we will bring about change. I just wish is could be sooner...