Ask instead why my ballot only essentially has a row A and row B. Why not row A through ZZZ with all possible combinations.
What would be the point? As it is now, you need to show at least enough support to be a viable candidate. If you don't have that support before election day, you're simply not going to win. I'd love to see more options, and I wouldn't weep at all if the idea of major political parties went away, but it does make sense to limit the ballot to declared candidates with actual support, rather than just hand people a phone-book sized ballot and saying "go crazy"
Right. Then you will guarantee the same results. No change. Without a plethora of parties, the usual games will go on in American politics. Even if ballot access were more inclusive, it is impossible to play with the two big parties, as they will always have the millions to support whomever they please. That's how it is. You start as a local hack, play the game (kiss babies, get on camera whenever possible, etc.), then if the respective party vets you clean, you'll have their permission to run for higher office. Move slightly toward an independent position, and you won't get supported any longer (reference Joe Lieberman). The only exception I know of is if the candidate is independently wealthy, in which case no law denies him/her the ability to fund the whole campaign (see M. Bloomberg, Mayor, NYC). Third party candidacies should not only be allowed, but encouraged. The major political parties are no longer relevant in the information age. Your point is well taken, but only in a time when candidates had to rely on newspapers, flyers, or word-of-mouth to garner votes. Today, the voters can and must vet the candidates, and have the ability to vote for whomever regardless of party. Take the $ from the DNC and RNC and spread it around. I'll take the phonebook, thanks.
Microsoft's Turner said that Linux netbooks are being returned at a rate 4 to 5 times higher than Windows netbooks. Dell hasn't disputed this fact at all. Linux netbooks *are* being returned at a very high rate, and Dell's Finch says so right in the article:
Where consumers have returned machines, Finch said, it wasn't because of technical problems but because they'd bought a low-priced machine expecting Windows and opened it to find a different interface.
The difference is that people are returning the Windows netbooks because of technical reasons (broken hardware) and Linux netbooks because they don't want Linux.
That's a win for Microsoft, no matter how you spin it.
Please don't tell us you believe anything/everything MS says. I doubt the figure, but fully understand from experience that Dell support blows, and Dell/Linux support blows harder. Most likely Dell is acting as a MS agent, so with hails of derisive laughter they can claim, with great audacity, that any version of windoze is superior for thin-client computing than Linux.
Marriage is the sole cause of divorce.