A large number (most?) of people who buy a computer are never going to repair or upgrade it. Of those machines that are opened up, a large number will be repaired or upgraded by a technician or support staff and even then, the vast majority are only going to have RAM increased. Gamers and people with a technical bent like to be able to access their machines, but for almost everyone else, they are appliances and accessibility just adds space and cost.
I'd also love to see something between the mini and the Pro in a tech-friendly format, but both of us belong to a very small market sector and one that Apple has no interest in.
Macs used to remain useful for longer than Windows PCs. Part of that was OSX, part of it was different users and use cases. AIOs made no sense in the PC world, where you'd need to be throwing the whole thing away every couple of years, rather than upgrading components. It was a better proposition on the Mac side of things. These days, however, a 5 year old mid-level PC is still useful. A Windows/PC AIO isn't as bad a choice as once it was. Microsoft can make decent hardware, but suffers from coming late to markets with products that are as good as _but_no_better_ than those already in the field. If it can avoid playing catch-up with Apple and the iMac a Microsoft AIO isn't necessarily a bad concept.
Lot's of 'ifs'.
The use of the term 'cop' or 'copper' to refer to the police has a number of possible roots. From the Latin 'capere' meaning to catch, perhaps. Maybe from the Dutch 'kapen'. From the French or even Anglo Saxon. There's evidence of the use of the modern form 'cop' meaning to catch in the 1700s and the use of 'copper' as 'one who catches' about the same time. Suggestions that the term has to do with copper buttons or helmets, or that a copper-a-day was the wage of a policeman are fanciful, as are backronyms like 'Constable on Patrol' and 'Civilian Officer of the Peace'.
The word 'civilian' has meant different things at different times. The link Bruce66423 so thoughtfully provides gives a number of these, and being the OED, provides a history of examples of usage. I'm not sure what you mean by 'revisionist history'? 'Civilian' has variously meant someone who practices civil law, someone who is moral without being christian, someone who is not in the military and someone who is not in a specified professional group. That last, the definition you are objecting to, has examples that are all informal. I consider it a stylistic fault for an article to use a police/civilian split, but it's not incorrect. I think that in an environment of increased militisation of police that it's tasteless, but it's still not incorrect.
I'm not sure what you are getting at with insisting that the police are under 'civil law'. Certainly in my country (Australia) police have certain rights that differ from non-police as well as certain restrictions and obligations. I think the militarisation of police is a concern; I think that movements away from Peel's 'policing by consent' towards increased use of force, decreased transparency etc. are concerning. To the degree that you seem to be saying something similar, I agree.
Snopes quotes sources and gives reasons for the conclusions that are drawn. While that may not be a terribly high bar, it's usually more than those who "bring[s] up any of the 'holes in the matrix'".
I love how people quote that bullshit site like it's the fucking Encyclopedia Britannica
It's a starting point. Usually conversations run something like "Outrageous Claim!", "Counterpoint - link to Snopes"
You seem to be claiming that people use Snopes as an appeal to authority, and then attack Snopes 'authority'. Which is kind of an ad hominem. I read the Zero Hedge link and then the Snopes link. One quotes similar sites, the other references court documents, interviews officials and attempts to show why and how misinformation was used to create the 'story'. Clear 'win' to Snopes. Burden of proof back to original claim.
it's a webpage run by some guy
Yup. It's credibility would
Now, would you mind telling me why I should believe the claims of Zero Hedge (that Ashe was killed as part of a Clinton coverup) when Snopes pretty clearly (to me) explains how the cause of death was misreported and how that was used to create the accusation the Zero Hedge promotes? If you could also address the discrepancy between the claims Zero Hedge makes (that Ashe was due to testify in a case against Clinton) and the court documents and clarification from the US District Attorney's office, with a similar (or better) standard of evidence, then I'll happily concede the point. Until then, your assertion that Snopes is garbage seems unfounded.
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely 1 bananosecond.