No, innovation happens with or without patents, especially tech patents. Innovation happens when one of two things happen.
A) There is a problem and I want to fix it, so I fix it and then later show/sell my way of fixing it to others who are having the same problem.
B) A company is faced with competition that they can't compete with on cost so they need to make something better.
The thing is with patents is that you have to be so forward thinking in the concepts for any non-troll idea that unless you are a huge corporation and can pay the $$$$ to maintain your patent and protect against potential infringer that most likely by the time it is commercially viable for your idea to come to market, the patents will have expired. As a perfect example, look at the guy who patented the digital media player, who, since his project wasn't commercially viable in the early '80s, wasn't able to raise the money needed to continue work on it and renew his patent application. By the time storage levels had increased so a decent level to make his project viable, the patent had already expired.
JavaScript makes sense because for a lot of sites, it is either JavaScript... or Flash for most interactive content. And yes, I know that HTML 5 will be the cure-all for JavaScript/Flash but it isn't out yet and JavaScript is the best we've got
And yes, research isn't a huge part of the budget, but if you ask -anyone- drowning in debt they don't make huge purchases most of the time but a lot of little things. A $3 coffee here, on Visa a $10 CD there on a mastercard, a $20 trip to the movies on the weekend on American Express, and it all adds up.
And no, we should not spend like mad, we should instead focus on not creating another bubble. Solidify our currency with a commodity so it actually makes sense to save again, cut taxes, end the wars, reduce our prison population, privatize whatever we can privatize and scale back the government.
When you can't pay your bills, yes, they should be cut.
We are 14.6 trillion dollars in debt with no way of paying it off other than letting our kids and grandkids pay for it somehow or devaluing the US dollar to nothingness (which is already happening).
Plus, whenever you have the government involved in giving out money left and right for research, without a clear, attainable goal, you end up with nothing but a request for... more money.
I don't know, but balloons just seem rather unsafe when compared to a jet. If the balloon (or Bloon) pops, you are screwed. If a jet loses power in its engines, it still is a decent enough glider to safely get you to the ground in most cases.
Sure they could "handle" using it, and for day to day tasks it works, but so would -any- phone. The problems with Android is that when they hear of a cool new app their friend got, they either can't find it or can't download it because of silly restrictions put in by the phone carrier or manufacturer. With the iPhone it is pretty simple, you go to the app store, type in a query and it comes up with the app. It is also incredibly easy to see when things are going to get updates and when end of life is. With Android phones, even the exact same hardware released on the different carriers will all be running different software at the same timeframe. It is even worse with phones that are essentially the same phone, just with small differences (look at the Backflip and the Cliq, both essentially the same phone internally but vastly different update schedules). You don't have to guess when buying a phone if this phone is going to be supported and have regular updates for three years or three months. Not to mention the quality of the hardware/software pairing. I'm not saying the iPhone is perfect, but the fact that you know what you are getting is a lot better than most of the Android phones.
An iPhone also gives you a consistent user experience between phones and lets you know you have an iPhone. While there are a huge amount of Android UI customizations out there that are not user removable (short of rooting) that make every phone, even on phones in the same brand, look completely different. Good luck supporting your friend's HTC phone with sense when all you have is a Samsung with TouchWiz to go by because nothing will be the same when it comes down to fixing problems. And don't even get me started with the random freezes and restarts on some of the Android phones...
Yes, Android is a great idea and could be a lot better than the iPhone if there was some company to fuse good hardware with great software and continued support. If Google manages to pull that off, they can easily dominate Apple.
And really, I've been seeing a lot more migration away from Android and to the iPhone with the iPhone's price drops and support on Verizon now.
The difference is that Apple is often unwilling to drop its price down to a level to get a more mainstream audience. For example, this post is typed out on a computer that cost less than $300, and while I'm not going to be doing a ton of gaming on it, it is perfect for browsing websites, watching DVDs, YouTube, etc. On the other hand, last time I checked, Apple's cheapest Mac is about $550, almost double what I paid for my computer.
I'm sure that if Apple sold cheap enough computers, their marketshare would increase beyond 10%. But when it comes down to it, when people buy computers they see that they can either buy a really cheap machine for $300, or buy what they view as the "mid-range" for $500, or the high-end for $800 or they could switch to a Mac and get the "really cheap machine" running OS X for $550, so most will either get the really cheap $300 or the medium end PC rather than a more expensive cheap machine.
Ask the average person what their Android phone was, a lot of them will compare it to the iPhone, often unfavorably. This is exactly the situation Linux was in back in 2007/8 and is heading the same way.
The status quo (Vista/iPhone) isn't that good for a number of small reasons (slowness of Vista, lack of multi-tasking for iPhone, high price of both). Because of this people are willing to try substitutes for the "real thing" but compete (at least in advertising) on an unsustainable advantage, mostly based on the flaws of their competition which would be later remedied, rather than on the strengths of Android/Linux. And then a mainstream embrace of the technology then it is all but abandoned once the competition improves. Like Dell's "open source" page (which, admittedly was rather hidden and discouraged people from trying Ubuntu) that disappeared soon after Windows 7 got widespread adoption.
Unless Google makes a mainstream phone that convinces the masses that Android is not just a cheap iPhone, we will see the exact same thing that happened with Ubuntu when Windows 7 came out. Yes, there will still be a few geeks like us using Android, but it will no longer be an OS for the masses when Apple drops the price or improves iOS and the iPhone, unless Google convinces people that Android is better than the iPhone, which so far they are doing a fairly terrible job. The first Droid commercials did a great job of emphasizing that Android was better, but now they no longer apply after Apple's updates.
Yes, but when it comes to what people view Android as, most people view it as a discount iPhone, which is very bad for Android's long term goals. Whenever Apple finally decides to release the iPhone for Sprint and T-Mobile, and eventually make the iPhone (or a previous generation) free on contract, Android's dominance will be over. It's like discount sodas, everyone views Dr. Thunder (or another Dr. X off-brand soda) as an off brand of Dr. Pepper, the moment Dr. Pepper drops its price to that lower of Dr. Thunder, what are people going to do? The vast majority of them will simply switch to "the real thing". Android, in the minds of many, is viewed as a cheap substitute to an iPhone, Windows Mobile (Phone 7) is viewed much the same way. As Apple expands, the cost per phone drops, allowing Apple, if it wanted to, to dramatically lower the price of its phones, particularly its older ones. Now, if Apple which has historically been a luxury brand wants to do this is a huge question, but the fact remains it -can- do it.
Google needs to transition Android from being a cheap smartphone to being the best smartphone. The iPhone used to be an easy target, no multitasking, a restrictive app store and tied to a single carrier. However, today the iPhone has multitasking, the Google App store has gotten nearly as restrictive as the Apple one, while the Apple app store has relaxed a bit, and the iPhone is available on the two biggest carriers in the US. About the only thing that Android has going for it with non-geeks is more customization of the hardware and price. And Apple can easily drop its price. Hardware is the only sustainable advantage Android has at the moment, for example, there will never be an iPhone with a physical keyboard or game-pad controls, both of which are available on Android phones.
Because, lets be perfectly honest for a moment, there is no Android phone that comes to the simplicity and ease of use as an iPhone. Now, while I prefer Android to an iPhone, it is because of the interesting, geeky things you can do with Android that you can't do with an iPhone (emulators, other app stores, no need to use iTunes, can use an SD card and get as much memory as you want, better multitasking, etc.). But when it comes to ease of use, the iPhone has Android beat in every way.
For example, if I'm trying to tell someone on an iPhone how to change settings, its pretty easy, hit the settings button, then go to X then go to Y then hit Z. With Android it is a mess, the settings that worked with 1.6 are different than with 2.2 and then what works on an HTC with sense is different than a phone running stock Android which is different than a Samsung with TouchWiz which is different than MotoBlur.
Not to mention that depending on the carrier, updates either happen delayed or not at all. For example, the exact same internals of a phone running on T-Mobile might get updated in August, while the Sprint counterpart might skip that update, and the AT&T phone might get the update in October.
All these silly things are keeping Android from being a serious competitor to the iPhone for a lot of people. Rather, Android is just an off-brand iPhone, for use until they can afford an iPhone or their carrier gets it. A mass-marketed Google phone could change that.
While patents are part of the deal, I can see a greater emphasis in Google branching out into hardware and making their own phones in a larger scale. Lets face it, hardware manufacturers and carriers ruin the Android experience in a lot of cases, by expanding into hardware, Google can do what Apple does and create hardware and software that "just works".
Product placement isn't bad when it works with the story. For example, a horror movie isn't ruined because at a party they have a box of Pizza Hut pizza and are playing on a PS3. On the other hand, bad product placement can ruin character development, for example, showing what is supposed to be a poor family having a top-of-the line Mac in their kitchen.
The difference is, most books/movies do not have a good story. Instead most are pretty typical and only have a single twist at the end to give it any life. Heck, most every story is a rip off of Shakespeare which in turn was a rip-off of folk tales.
Exactly. Someone driving recklessly is endangering someone no matter what. Someone who isn't driving recklessly isn't. Stop the root problem: driving recklessly. No one died because of a "distracted driver" or a "drunk driver" but they died because of a reckless driver, the person would still be dead if they were driving the same with in a completely silent car with a sober driver still driving the same way.
Errrr...because it would have incensed Muslims even more now that the U.S. whacked their secret hero?
....And would it really make any difference? Radical muslims are already mad at the US. What makes them successful or unsuccessful is based on their own planning and the thwarting of security, not if they are mad at the US or not.
So as not to create a memorial for a martyr. On the other hand, with the right CIA front company, the U.S. could have cleaned up on the Muslim equivalent of votive lights, and statuettes...with that timeless Muslim fanatical Index Finger Raised seen in every photo-op of a would be Muslim terrorist wannabe Big Banana.
...And how would that really made any difference if there was a "memorial" or not. All it does is raise questions on if he is actually dead or not. If they want to mourn him, they will mourn him, where his remains are at or at someplace else.
And let Dershowitz or some other slimeball lawyer realize the Deal of the Century and turn the trial into O.J. Simpson's trial but with nuclear powered steroids? Yep, Dershowitz is Jewish...and it wouldn't have prevented Osama from realizing how to use the dumbass for his own ends.
Right. Because we all know that happened to Hussein and the rest of them who were legally tried in their own countries, oh wait, the majority of them were sentenced to death. A legitimate trial would help to reverse the (quite justified) stereotype of America as a country that doesn't play by even the rules it created, as a country who invades other sovereign nations, even nations officially termed as "allies", and a country who has to resort to the assassination of an unarmed man rather than legitimate ways of getting things done.
Why? What did he ever do to Afghanistan other than supply shock troups for the Taliban? The same Taliban that were widely admired by the Pashtuns who thought that stealing the rest of Afghanistan from the Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Hazaras, and a host of smaller peoples was a fine thing...as long as the Taliban were winning. The fact that the Taliban were slaughtering thousands yearly was completely beside the point to the Pashtuns.
Then put him on trial in the other countries where has has also committed crimes also. Victims deserve a lawful trial with justice served, not an unverifiable assassination with no evidence.
The entire raid is one political step forward, and ten steps back when it comes to human rights and international relations.
While I'm not sure if I 100% agree with everything in your post, I will say that a lot of the circumstances around the raid are quite suspicious.
For example, why are there no photos of the body released? And why was the body dumped at sea? Also, why didn't the "best of the best" simply subdue him since all accounts say his was unarmed and put him on trial like Saddam was put on trial. Certainly that would be in the best interests of Afghanistan, being able to put him on trial.
Typical science news "ZOMG our predictions could be wrong, but we need $x million to do more research about if we are right or not". Everything is made into a crisis to get more funding. Just look at all the hyped up illnesses in the past decade, if all those "predictions" were right all of us would be dead with bird flu/swine flu/MERSA/SARs.
Most of us don't want change for the sake of change. Change for the sake of change is -never- a good thing and just pisses off users. And it seems like everything is changing for the sake of change such as GNOME, Facebook, and now Firefox. At least with Firefox the UI is customizable enough I don't have to deal with the hideous new UI which you can't change really fore GNOME 3 or Facebook.
Exactly, and you can still customize your browser. The fact that you can't even change basic history settings in Chrome, let alone all the about:config tweaks in Firefox, has made me stay loyal to Firefox. If Chrome actually let you have decent customization and decent extensions, I might switch. But the complete lack of customization has stopped me from using Chrome.
These taxes make -sense- though because they are based on how you use the services. Someone who drives on public roads for 5 hours a day should have to pay more than someone who drives on public roads for 15 mins a day. In the same way, people who do not have kids or do not send their kids to public schools should be exempt from paying taxes to support public schools. People who are on government assistance programs such as welfare should have to pay the money back over time once they are back on their feet when compared to someone who doesn't use welfare. Etc.
Regulation was what got us into this mess in the first place by providing government money to "modernize" the US, first with telephones and telegraphs, then into cell phones and ISPs. The lack of any real competition (the government isn't going to hand out money to start-ups) meant that power was concentrated in the hands of a handful of companies.
Regulation got us into this mess and regulation won't get us out of this mess.
How are they lying or thieving anymore than "Dr. Thunder" or "Mountain Thunder" sodas being sold at grocery stores? These are simply off-brand cell phones in the same way "Dr. Thunder" is an off-brand version of Dr. Pepper, only sold for a better price.
"Gamification" only works when there are appropriate rewards, something that won't happen in a stale corporate environment. For example, a typical reward is pride, but it has to be meaningful. For example, getting the high score on an arcade machine was a big reward because everyone would see your initials (or, your creative word such as ASS or SEX). Now, playing the same game that was addicting when the entire town was at the arcade on a deserted island is unlikely to have the same effect. Same thing with virtual rewards on MMOs, the bigger the MMO the more important the reward. For example, a one of a kind item in WoW is going to be a lot more rewarding than a one of a kind item in an MMO with only 100 users, or an MMO where no one can see your item. Another reward is getting to see the completion of a storyline, be it primitive in nature like Donkey Kong, or as fancy as the newest RPG, people want to see how it turns out. Other reasons are pure curiosity about what lies down the road and the fun of customizing and upgrading.
Chances are slim that a non-gaming corporation can actually pull off what makes gaming meaningful and make a fun game.
Slashdot Mirror
No, innovation happens with or without patents, especially tech patents. Innovation happens when one of two things happen.
A) There is a problem and I want to fix it, so I fix it and then later show/sell my way of fixing it to others who are having the same problem.
B) A company is faced with competition that they can't compete with on cost so they need to make something better.
The thing is with patents is that you have to be so forward thinking in the concepts for any non-troll idea that unless you are a huge corporation and can pay the $$$$ to maintain your patent and protect against potential infringer that most likely by the time it is commercially viable for your idea to come to market, the patents will have expired. As a perfect example, look at the guy who patented the digital media player, who, since his project wasn't commercially viable in the early '80s, wasn't able to raise the money needed to continue work on it and renew his patent application. By the time storage levels had increased so a decent level to make his project viable, the patent had already expired.
JavaScript makes sense because for a lot of sites, it is either JavaScript... or Flash for most interactive content. And yes, I know that HTML 5 will be the cure-all for JavaScript/Flash but it isn't out yet and JavaScript is the best we've got
Waste exists everywhere.
And yes, research isn't a huge part of the budget, but if you ask -anyone- drowning in debt they don't make huge purchases most of the time but a lot of little things. A $3 coffee here, on Visa a $10 CD there on a mastercard, a $20 trip to the movies on the weekend on American Express, and it all adds up.
And no, we should not spend like mad, we should instead focus on not creating another bubble. Solidify our currency with a commodity so it actually makes sense to save again, cut taxes, end the wars, reduce our prison population, privatize whatever we can privatize and scale back the government.
When you can't pay your bills, yes, they should be cut.
We are 14.6 trillion dollars in debt with no way of paying it off other than letting our kids and grandkids pay for it somehow or devaluing the US dollar to nothingness (which is already happening).
Plus, whenever you have the government involved in giving out money left and right for research, without a clear, attainable goal, you end up with nothing but a request for... more money.
I don't know, but balloons just seem rather unsafe when compared to a jet. If the balloon (or Bloon) pops, you are screwed. If a jet loses power in its engines, it still is a decent enough glider to safely get you to the ground in most cases.
Sure they could "handle" using it, and for day to day tasks it works, but so would -any- phone. The problems with Android is that when they hear of a cool new app their friend got, they either can't find it or can't download it because of silly restrictions put in by the phone carrier or manufacturer. With the iPhone it is pretty simple, you go to the app store, type in a query and it comes up with the app. It is also incredibly easy to see when things are going to get updates and when end of life is. With Android phones, even the exact same hardware released on the different carriers will all be running different software at the same timeframe. It is even worse with phones that are essentially the same phone, just with small differences (look at the Backflip and the Cliq, both essentially the same phone internally but vastly different update schedules). You don't have to guess when buying a phone if this phone is going to be supported and have regular updates for three years or three months. Not to mention the quality of the hardware/software pairing. I'm not saying the iPhone is perfect, but the fact that you know what you are getting is a lot better than most of the Android phones.
An iPhone also gives you a consistent user experience between phones and lets you know you have an iPhone. While there are a huge amount of Android UI customizations out there that are not user removable (short of rooting) that make every phone, even on phones in the same brand, look completely different. Good luck supporting your friend's HTC phone with sense when all you have is a Samsung with TouchWiz to go by because nothing will be the same when it comes down to fixing problems. And don't even get me started with the random freezes and restarts on some of the Android phones...
Yes, Android is a great idea and could be a lot better than the iPhone if there was some company to fuse good hardware with great software and continued support. If Google manages to pull that off, they can easily dominate Apple.
And really, I've been seeing a lot more migration away from Android and to the iPhone with the iPhone's price drops and support on Verizon now.
The difference is that Apple is often unwilling to drop its price down to a level to get a more mainstream audience. For example, this post is typed out on a computer that cost less than $300, and while I'm not going to be doing a ton of gaming on it, it is perfect for browsing websites, watching DVDs, YouTube, etc. On the other hand, last time I checked, Apple's cheapest Mac is about $550, almost double what I paid for my computer.
I'm sure that if Apple sold cheap enough computers, their marketshare would increase beyond 10%. But when it comes down to it, when people buy computers they see that they can either buy a really cheap machine for $300, or buy what they view as the "mid-range" for $500, or the high-end for $800 or they could switch to a Mac and get the "really cheap machine" running OS X for $550, so most will either get the really cheap $300 or the medium end PC rather than a more expensive cheap machine.
Ask the average person what their Android phone was, a lot of them will compare it to the iPhone, often unfavorably. This is exactly the situation Linux was in back in 2007/8 and is heading the same way.
The status quo (Vista/iPhone) isn't that good for a number of small reasons (slowness of Vista, lack of multi-tasking for iPhone, high price of both). Because of this people are willing to try substitutes for the "real thing" but compete (at least in advertising) on an unsustainable advantage, mostly based on the flaws of their competition which would be later remedied, rather than on the strengths of Android/Linux. And then a mainstream embrace of the technology then it is all but abandoned once the competition improves. Like Dell's "open source" page (which, admittedly was rather hidden and discouraged people from trying Ubuntu) that disappeared soon after Windows 7 got widespread adoption.
Unless Google makes a mainstream phone that convinces the masses that Android is not just a cheap iPhone, we will see the exact same thing that happened with Ubuntu when Windows 7 came out. Yes, there will still be a few geeks like us using Android, but it will no longer be an OS for the masses when Apple drops the price or improves iOS and the iPhone, unless Google convinces people that Android is better than the iPhone, which so far they are doing a fairly terrible job. The first Droid commercials did a great job of emphasizing that Android was better, but now they no longer apply after Apple's updates.
Yes, but when it comes to what people view Android as, most people view it as a discount iPhone, which is very bad for Android's long term goals. Whenever Apple finally decides to release the iPhone for Sprint and T-Mobile, and eventually make the iPhone (or a previous generation) free on contract, Android's dominance will be over. It's like discount sodas, everyone views Dr. Thunder (or another Dr. X off-brand soda) as an off brand of Dr. Pepper, the moment Dr. Pepper drops its price to that lower of Dr. Thunder, what are people going to do? The vast majority of them will simply switch to "the real thing". Android, in the minds of many, is viewed as a cheap substitute to an iPhone, Windows Mobile (Phone 7) is viewed much the same way. As Apple expands, the cost per phone drops, allowing Apple, if it wanted to, to dramatically lower the price of its phones, particularly its older ones. Now, if Apple which has historically been a luxury brand wants to do this is a huge question, but the fact remains it -can- do it.
Google needs to transition Android from being a cheap smartphone to being the best smartphone. The iPhone used to be an easy target, no multitasking, a restrictive app store and tied to a single carrier. However, today the iPhone has multitasking, the Google App store has gotten nearly as restrictive as the Apple one, while the Apple app store has relaxed a bit, and the iPhone is available on the two biggest carriers in the US. About the only thing that Android has going for it with non-geeks is more customization of the hardware and price. And Apple can easily drop its price. Hardware is the only sustainable advantage Android has at the moment, for example, there will never be an iPhone with a physical keyboard or game-pad controls, both of which are available on Android phones.
Because, lets be perfectly honest for a moment, there is no Android phone that comes to the simplicity and ease of use as an iPhone. Now, while I prefer Android to an iPhone, it is because of the interesting, geeky things you can do with Android that you can't do with an iPhone (emulators, other app stores, no need to use iTunes, can use an SD card and get as much memory as you want, better multitasking, etc.). But when it comes to ease of use, the iPhone has Android beat in every way.
For example, if I'm trying to tell someone on an iPhone how to change settings, its pretty easy, hit the settings button, then go to X then go to Y then hit Z. With Android it is a mess, the settings that worked with 1.6 are different than with 2.2 and then what works on an HTC with sense is different than a phone running stock Android which is different than a Samsung with TouchWiz which is different than MotoBlur.
Not to mention that depending on the carrier, updates either happen delayed or not at all. For example, the exact same internals of a phone running on T-Mobile might get updated in August, while the Sprint counterpart might skip that update, and the AT&T phone might get the update in October.
All these silly things are keeping Android from being a serious competitor to the iPhone for a lot of people. Rather, Android is just an off-brand iPhone, for use until they can afford an iPhone or their carrier gets it. A mass-marketed Google phone could change that.
While patents are part of the deal, I can see a greater emphasis in Google branching out into hardware and making their own phones in a larger scale. Lets face it, hardware manufacturers and carriers ruin the Android experience in a lot of cases, by expanding into hardware, Google can do what Apple does and create hardware and software that "just works".
Product placement isn't bad when it works with the story. For example, a horror movie isn't ruined because at a party they have a box of Pizza Hut pizza and are playing on a PS3. On the other hand, bad product placement can ruin character development, for example, showing what is supposed to be a poor family having a top-of-the line Mac in their kitchen.
The difference is, most books/movies do not have a good story. Instead most are pretty typical and only have a single twist at the end to give it any life. Heck, most every story is a rip off of Shakespeare which in turn was a rip-off of folk tales.
Exactly. Someone driving recklessly is endangering someone no matter what. Someone who isn't driving recklessly isn't. Stop the root problem: driving recklessly. No one died because of a "distracted driver" or a "drunk driver" but they died because of a reckless driver, the person would still be dead if they were driving the same with in a completely silent car with a sober driver still driving the same way.
Errrr...because it would have incensed Muslims even more now that the U.S. whacked their secret hero?
So as not to create a memorial for a martyr. On the other hand, with the right CIA front company, the U.S. could have cleaned up on the Muslim equivalent of votive lights, and statuettes...with that timeless Muslim fanatical Index Finger Raised seen in every photo-op of a would be Muslim terrorist wannabe Big Banana.
And let Dershowitz or some other slimeball lawyer realize the Deal of the Century and turn the trial into O.J. Simpson's trial but with nuclear powered steroids? Yep, Dershowitz is Jewish...and it wouldn't have prevented Osama from realizing how to use the dumbass for his own ends.
Right. Because we all know that happened to Hussein and the rest of them who were legally tried in their own countries, oh wait, the majority of them were sentenced to death. A legitimate trial would help to reverse the (quite justified) stereotype of America as a country that doesn't play by even the rules it created, as a country who invades other sovereign nations, even nations officially termed as "allies", and a country who has to resort to the assassination of an unarmed man rather than legitimate ways of getting things done.
Why? What did he ever do to Afghanistan other than supply shock troups for the Taliban? The same Taliban that were widely admired by the Pashtuns who thought that stealing the rest of Afghanistan from the Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Hazaras, and a host of smaller peoples was a fine thing...as long as the Taliban were winning. The fact that the Taliban were slaughtering thousands yearly was completely beside the point to the Pashtuns.
Then put him on trial in the other countries where has has also committed crimes also. Victims deserve a lawful trial with justice served, not an unverifiable assassination with no evidence.
The entire raid is one political step forward, and ten steps back when it comes to human rights and international relations.
While I'm not sure if I 100% agree with everything in your post, I will say that a lot of the circumstances around the raid are quite suspicious.
For example, why are there no photos of the body released? And why was the body dumped at sea? Also, why didn't the "best of the best" simply subdue him since all accounts say his was unarmed and put him on trial like Saddam was put on trial. Certainly that would be in the best interests of Afghanistan, being able to put him on trial.
Typical science news "ZOMG our predictions could be wrong, but we need $x million to do more research about if we are right or not". Everything is made into a crisis to get more funding. Just look at all the hyped up illnesses in the past decade, if all those "predictions" were right all of us would be dead with bird flu/swine flu/MERSA/SARs.
Most of us don't want change for the sake of change. Change for the sake of change is -never- a good thing and just pisses off users. And it seems like everything is changing for the sake of change such as GNOME, Facebook, and now Firefox. At least with Firefox the UI is customizable enough I don't have to deal with the hideous new UI which you can't change really fore GNOME 3 or Facebook.
Exactly, and you can still customize your browser. The fact that you can't even change basic history settings in Chrome, let alone all the about:config tweaks in Firefox, has made me stay loyal to Firefox. If Chrome actually let you have decent customization and decent extensions, I might switch. But the complete lack of customization has stopped me from using Chrome.
These taxes make -sense- though because they are based on how you use the services. Someone who drives on public roads for 5 hours a day should have to pay more than someone who drives on public roads for 15 mins a day. In the same way, people who do not have kids or do not send their kids to public schools should be exempt from paying taxes to support public schools. People who are on government assistance programs such as welfare should have to pay the money back over time once they are back on their feet when compared to someone who doesn't use welfare. Etc.
US economic system != capitalism.
Capitalism isn't the government giving money to corporations at taxpayer expense.
With true capitalism monopolies can only exist if they serve the consumer better than any other competitor.
Regulation was what got us into this mess in the first place by providing government money to "modernize" the US, first with telephones and telegraphs, then into cell phones and ISPs. The lack of any real competition (the government isn't going to hand out money to start-ups) meant that power was concentrated in the hands of a handful of companies.
Regulation got us into this mess and regulation won't get us out of this mess.
How are they lying or thieving anymore than "Dr. Thunder" or "Mountain Thunder" sodas being sold at grocery stores? These are simply off-brand cell phones in the same way "Dr. Thunder" is an off-brand version of Dr. Pepper, only sold for a better price.
Yes, and you can buy reproduction SNES consoles (and even NES/Mega Drive/SNES combo consoles) online for about $30-50.
"Gamification" only works when there are appropriate rewards, something that won't happen in a stale corporate environment. For example, a typical reward is pride, but it has to be meaningful. For example, getting the high score on an arcade machine was a big reward because everyone would see your initials (or, your creative word such as ASS or SEX). Now, playing the same game that was addicting when the entire town was at the arcade on a deserted island is unlikely to have the same effect. Same thing with virtual rewards on MMOs, the bigger the MMO the more important the reward. For example, a one of a kind item in WoW is going to be a lot more rewarding than a one of a kind item in an MMO with only 100 users, or an MMO where no one can see your item. Another reward is getting to see the completion of a storyline, be it primitive in nature like Donkey Kong, or as fancy as the newest RPG, people want to see how it turns out. Other reasons are pure curiosity about what lies down the road and the fun of customizing and upgrading.
Chances are slim that a non-gaming corporation can actually pull off what makes gaming meaningful and make a fun game.