The article started off okay, but then when he suggested requiring licences to use a computer and removing infected machines from owners by court order it got completely ridiculous. We should be working towards making it even easier to get people online, not constructing more artificial barriers to prevent it. If someone choses to remain ignorant and not learn about their computer (leading to an infected machine) this is not a legal problem. Getting more people access to the largest information medium in human history is the goal, sure some will use it for trivial purposes, but that isn't our concern and certainly not our prerogative to regulate it. This article incorrectly assumes there is no future for both the computer as an 'appliance' and as a more powerful tool and I think we can be assured there is.
Desktops, laptops, tablets, and smartphones exist along a continuum of preference, price, and individual desires. It's not that desktops don't get respect—it's that the market for them is saturated and unlikely to grow, so few manufacturers focus much on them.
Look, I use an iMac and like desktops enough for their advantages (price, power, etc.) to have written a whole post on the subject: http://jseliger.com/2008/12/26/computer-post-desktop-or-lapt... . But that doesn't mean desktops should "get more respect" or that because most apps are dumb tablets and smartphones are any less useful.
I've recently been thinking about whether there is a genuine role for serious computing ability at "home" (even if accessed over the air via an iPad-like device) and clicked on this article .. and was utterly disappointed. The article doesn't present any valid arguments for the value of the desktop.
If people want to use phone apps as conversation starters, so what? .. and how many really want to fool around with Illustrator? .. and a licence to use computers? really?
