That said, ChromeOS isn't useful for me. It might be useful for my mother, though. All she does is read email and browse the Internet. The only reason her machine, an HP laptop, isn't a reeking virus-infested spyware-riddled useless pile of plastic is because my brother does all the administrative stuff for her. Otherwise it'd be useless.
OK, I'll bite: All my 82 year old dad does with his WinXP HP desktop is read email and browse the Internet, and he's virtually Windows illiterate (sorry, Dad!) Yet the only administrative stuff I've ever done for him is install a free auto-updating anti-virus program. Yet somehow his computer isn't a "reeking virus-infested spyware-riddled useless pile of plastic." In fact it runs fine. (I know because I use it on occasion when I'm at his house.)
ChromeOS may take care of more things automagically than does Windows (backups, etc.) or it may not; I really don't know, never having investigated ChromeOS. But to suggest that any Windows box will crash and burn into an unusable mess without Extreme Admin Intervention is a bit beyond the pale.
And yes, I realize I'm talking issue with the comment of someone with a three digit user ID.
Animal cruelty charges should be brought, they allowed 4 pets to die...frankly I would be more pissed about that than losing my stuff.
I wonder if you're joking. Frankly I don't much care if his house and all his possessions burn, but as a somewhat stereotypical pet lover I think it is wrong to let the animals die in the fire. I mean they wouldn't just stand there and let a *person* die... I wonder what Peter Singer would say.
Of course that raises the question of which animals they should be required to save. Other primates? Yes. Dogs and cats? Sure. Iguanas? Cockatoos? Ant farms?
See? It's just easier all around if the fire department puts out the fire without question in the first place.
because the question there is whether the US federal government has lawful authority under the Constitution to order people to buy things.
Huh? I believe that I'm "forced" to pay for Interstate Highways, Federal Police, the Military, and plenty of other things which are of only indirect benefit. If you don't like the health care proposal, do us all a favor and dislike it for a real reason, ok?
Yes, but you are "forced" to make payments to the government itself for those services. The new health care mandate forces us to pay *private companies* for services they render. Has this ever been the case before in the U.S.?