You could actually factor out 3^3, which would give you 1 + 2^3 = 3^2 (1 + 8 = 9), so it would be in the right form. Not sure what point that makes. Just wanted to let you know you were wrong.
I am pretty sure there was a law passed relatively recently (maybe a year ago) that requires airlines to show the full price including all taxes and fees. Before that I remember it being quite difficult to comparison shop between airlines (because their fees, which were not shown with the price, were different).
I pay $100 ($117 w/ taxes and fees) for unlimited talk, text, and web on 2 phones (through Tmobile). I get 2.5 GB of high-speed data and free tethering. It is also a no-contract plan (so if they try to charge me BS fees, I can vote with my wallet). I can get a new phone and pay for the phone over 2 years so, if the phone is $480, I pay $20 per month for the next 2 years (which would bring my total to the same as yours). But, I am happy with my current phone, so I get to pay $20 per month less than you. I do not think you are getting a good deal. I just think you are getting ripped off less than most of their other customers.
And even if they did lobby extensively (which they don't) perhaps we should be faulting our Congresscritters for maintaining a status quo where corporate money buys influence? Don't you think that maybe the fault lies there?
Congresscritters are reflections of the American people who elect them. The people is where the fault lies. We allow corporations to get away with writing laws that privatize their profits and socialize their losses. We allow money, not people, to be the biggest driver in our elections. We maintain the status quo. You can use our elected officials as scapegoats if it makes you feel better, but if you want to know where the true fault lies then look in a mirror. I do my part to change the status quo by pointing out to the people (the problem) that they are allowing corporations to control their government (mainly because they are too lazy to care) and that they are being hurt by what those corporations do with their place in government. Government is a reflection of the politicians. Politicians are a reflection of the people. If the people allow themselves to be controlled by other entities (corporations), then it follows that the politicians and government will be controlled by them as well.
I do not have a problem with them not paying more than they are legally required to, but only to a certain extent. And that extent is when they start pumping money into lobbyists and political donations to KEEP those laws unfairly in their favor. If businesses stay out of politics, then they cannot be blamed when they get advantages from it. But, when they essentially buy our politicians and laws, I have a lot less tolerance for the "I was just following the law" excuse.
For example, I had a big problem with Mitt Romney's tax rate, but not necessarily because it was low. The rate was so low because there is a preferential tax rate for carried interest. I had a problem with it because he was on owner of Bain Capital and they had spent millions of dollars lobbying Washington to keep "carried interest" at a preferential rate. When you have bought and paid for a law, then you become responsible for whether it is fair or not.
Or the power companies can do more load balancing. They are already talking about using electric cars to feed power back into the grid. Imagine an electric car with super capacitors. The power company could charge it up in 20 seconds (or 5 minutes, or at whatever rate best balances their grid) in the morning, and then discharge it whenever necessary during the day. And, if they screw up their scheduling (or you need to run an errand during peak hours) and your car is not fully charged when you need it, then you are just delayed a minute or two while your car charges before you leave. And this ignores the fact that the power companies can buy the super capacitors and use them for load balancing.
But it is all what-ifs. I am currently not negatively affected by how they currently using my data. And I have no reason to believe that they are waiting until they have "enough" data to then do something that will negatively affect me. So, my point is that I am happy with their current business model. Like any changes in business or technology, there is the possibility of abuse and our government will need to catch up and act when abuses do happen. But, we shouldn't just stop all progress because there is the possibility of abuse. And we should do what we can to make it profitable for companies that choose not to be abusive.
Also, I think that Google realizes that faith in them is important for them to keep making money. If they did start abusing the information they gathered from me, then I would stop using gmail, stop using google search, and install plugins that make me hard to track. But, as it is, I appreciate the useful services they provide and trust that they will not abuse my information, so I have no problem "paying" for it by allowing them to track me.
The only real problem that I have with the google products that I have used is that they put ads at the top of the search that, while it does have a box around it indicating that it is an ad, the box is intentionally colored to be hard to see. I feel that is somewhat dishonest, but it is in a grey area. If I see similar practices extend to a lot of other areas of google, then I might start to reconsider my faith in them. But, currently it is just one negative against a lot of positives so I will, while still continuing being unhappy about it, let it slide for now.
My point is that it asked me to agree to their terms and conditions that allowed them to send personal information on my searches back to Microsoft (which should not be necessary because it was for a "Bing Bar" or something). And, if I didn't agree to their terms, then I would not be able to use Windows. (This was with the Asus version of Windows) But, when I installed a vanilla version of Windows (would have done this anyways since I did not want all the Asus bloatware), I did not have to agree to send by private search information to Microsoft. There is a difference between having a choice to either opt in or opt out, and being forced to "opt-in" to their search product while trying to use their operating system (opt-out was not an option, it was either opt-in or no windows).
I was talking about the products in the ads (e.g. the RC airplanes). If the ads provide no value, then why would rc airplane manufacturers (who are not a monopoly) buy the ads instead of simply not buying the ads and selling the product for cheaper (or the same price and make more profit)? That is capitalism at work. If you disagree that RC airplanes (or tampons if you really want) are not in a capitalistic market, then please enlighten me as to why you think that is the case.
Not that I am agreeing with you that the search market is communism. I am pretty sure that Google is not commonly owned (i.e. owned by everyone) and that they do make a profit for their owners. You might be trying to say that the search market is an oligopoly. If so, you would have a better argument, but the fact is that this article shows that there is pretty cut-throat competition in the market, so it seems unlikely that Google and Microsoft are colluding to fix prices and reduce competition.
Uh... you might want to read my post closer. I said that I do not get tampon ads, and am happy about that fact (I am male).
But, back to your original point, are you trying to say that all advertising is wasted money?
I have never understood the mindset that ads force you to buy products. Maybe I am a particularly strong-willed individual, but I have no problem comparison shopping after I see an ad to make sure I am getting a good product. For instance, I was looking at getting flying lessons, and came upon an ad for an RC airplane for a very decent price. I still wanted flying lessons, but I would not mind also having an RC airplane. I looked online (Amazon reviews, forums, ect.) and that RC airplane was rated pretty well and the consensus was that it was a good starter model. So, I bought it. It was more than worth the cost (it is a lot of fun to fly). Looking back, it is a product that I wanted, but I did not know it because I did not think that there was an RC airplane in my price range that would provide enough performance to be worth it. Google helped me to find out that there was. Do you feel like I was bamboozled or ripped off? Because I feel like Google provided a good value to me, and I am more than happy with any commission they got off of providing that value.
If Google does not provide a valuable service, then people will buy the cheaper products that do not have the advertising cost built in. Capitalism has its limitations, but that is where it works well. The only reasons that I can think of that would support your assertion that Google does not provide value to the customer (not Google's customer, i.e. the company doing the advertising, but the end customer, i.e. you and me ) is that either you think that capitalism does not lead to efficient markets in this case, or you think that people are naturally weak willed and will buy the inferior product because the see an ad. Or, is there a different reason I did not think of? I would really like to know why you have this view that ads are evil.
And that is perfectly fine. As long as I maintain the right to take the package (which for me provides a value many times its cost), then I have no problem with your right to "leave" it.
How is Google going to use this creepy information? As far as I know, they are only going to show you ads that could possibly show you things like doctors that specialize in pancreatic cancer, researchers looking for volunteers with pancreatic cancer, pancreatic cancer medicines, etc. Are they going to tell any of your friends or family (or any companies for that matter) that you have (or think you have) pancreatic cancer? Not that I have ever heard about. And the ads might actually help you find a doctor or a solution that you would not have found otherwise (or a support group to help you to be prepared to tell your loved ones).
People complain that it is "creepy", but I don't see the harm. If you have some moral or religious objection, then don't use their services (search with bing; I am sure they would NEVER think of tracking your search history ). But, nothing in life is free. I personally like Google's business model (I don't think that the cost to me of google getting information is anywhere near the value that google provides me), and would not want them to change it.
I recently bought a computer with Windows 7. While I was going through the setup dialog, it asked me to agree to allow the computer to send search data to Microsoft (and Bing). But, the decline option had in parenthesis next to it that if I declined then I basically was not going to be able to use Windows. So, I had to agree to be opted in, and then go behind it and opt out (by uninstalling the Bing bar or whatever it was). But, I ended up installing a vanilla Windows 7 installation which didn't have the phone home ridiculousness.
Please elaborate. I don't see how Google tracking me (or anything else they have done) has cost me money or negatively impacted my life in any way. I could go on and on about how Microsoft has cost me money or negatively impacted my life. And I don't think the fact that I don't get shown tampon ads (targeted advertising) harms me. I actually consider it a positive.
It was the people who practice Christianity who bombed a government building in Oslo (killing 8) and then went on a killing spree on a youth camp (killing 69).
See... I can do it too.
I see why you do it. It is fun to let the actions of a few wackos condemn a whole religion.
Also, if you hate freedom of religion so much, why don't you move to Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Egypt (or China)?
So, you are really trying to say that Google is an EVIL corporation because they do not police other corporations and FORCE them to be good companies? I am starting to believe that you are just trolling. You have a very broad view of evil. What does this make the phone vendors? Extra-strength Evil? Super Evil? Mega-Evil? It would also be nice if Google would bring about world peace, but I don't think that they are Evil because they haven't done it.
I find it interesting that because a company publicly says that they are going to try not to be "Evil", people come out and say that everything that they do that is not exactly what the person wants them to do falls into the "Evil" category. Discontinuing Google Reader -> Evil. Targeted Ads -> Evil. Tracking your behavior (but not selling it to anyone or allowing anyone to see your personally identifiable information) -> Evil. Google has not forced anyone to do anything. If you don't want them to know what you do, then just disable your cookies. Where companies start to be "evil" in my book is when they start pushing around consumers because they can. Because they have a monopoly or have you locked in so they know that you can't vote with your money. From everything I have seen, Google is a good company that tries to make their consumers (the average joe) happy, even though their real customers are the companies they sell ads to. If you want to be a hater, then I can't stop you. But know that you are hating only because you want them to fail, because you believe that people cannot succeed at being good so when someone tries to do it you look for anything that can prove that they aren't, and ignore anything that shows that they are.
I believe their (unofficial) corporate motto is "Don't be evil", not "Be good". You are suggesting that it is Google's job to restrict the freedoms of others so that they can be a corporate policeman and enforce their idea of what level of support a company should offer. And, I am assuming that you would want them to then sue said company if they violated the license terms by not updating the OS on their customer's phone. While you may think this is "good", it sounds a little big-brothery and controlling and a little like how patent trolls operate. Which would seem closer to "evil" to me than what they are currently doing.
But, if you have one year of -7.6% growth, should that be weighed equally with 19 years of 2.4% growth? Or, should you weigh it by time so that the 2.4% is 19 times more significant than the one year of -7.6%?
The government wasn't trying to "increase access to healthcare". Their goal is universal access to healthcare. The difference is that they aren't trying to "increase access" for people who already have and can afford it. They are trying to increase access for people who don't have/can't afford healthcare. Now, these people tend to be people with lower incomes. Maybe you don't follow politics, but this past year Republicans talked a lot about the "49% who don't pay federal income taxes" who tend to be lower income families. I would posit that most of the people who don't have health insurance are also probably in the group that don't pay federal income taxes. So, your solution would do almost nothing to solve the problem that they were trying to solve. All it would do would be to put the government further in debt, mostly to the advantage of people who already have health insurance.
Another problem that they were trying to solve is the rising cost of healthcare which is putting our healthcare system on an unsustainable path. They focused on trying to incentivize results instead of actions (spending). Your proposed solution would incentivize healthcare spending, so would be doing the opposite (encouraging healthcare providers to provide more care i.e. spending instead of focusing on making that care unnecessary).
In conclusion, the answer to your (rhetorical) question as to why Obamacare did not "simply and immediately cease collecting income taxes on that portion of income spent on healthcare related expenses" is thus. Because it is a fucking stupid idea. I see why you said it was rhetorical. Because the answer makes you look like an idiot.
When I read the title, I expected it to be an error in the way the user used excel (which it was). Those are much more common "excel errors" than excel actually making a mistake. If it were actually a bug in excel, I would have expected the title to say an "error in excel". So, I believe that the title did a reasonable good job at conveying its message.
Is the white house saying that we are on the precipice of war? If so, I haven't heard it. And it would also be a terrible idea to have the Secretary of State (the TOP diplomat) in the war zone where he could get blown up. The fact that Kerry is in South Korea means that the white house does NOT think we are on the precipice of war. NK is just being NK, and the white house is keeping a close eye on them.
The question is why are they doing this? Is it because Google is forcing them to? Or because Google provides a stable and reliable marketplace and they don't want to have to worry about supporting others? If it is because Google provides a superior product, then Google is not being monopolistic. It is just being a superior company.
Slashdot Mirror
You could actually factor out 3^3, which would give you 1 + 2^3 = 3^2 (1 + 8 = 9), so it would be in the right form. Not sure what point that makes. Just wanted to let you know you were wrong.
I am pretty sure there was a law passed relatively recently (maybe a year ago) that requires airlines to show the full price including all taxes and fees. Before that I remember it being quite difficult to comparison shop between airlines (because their fees, which were not shown with the price, were different).
I pay $100 ($117 w/ taxes and fees) for unlimited talk, text, and web on 2 phones (through Tmobile). I get 2.5 GB of high-speed data and free tethering. It is also a no-contract plan (so if they try to charge me BS fees, I can vote with my wallet). I can get a new phone and pay for the phone over 2 years so, if the phone is $480, I pay $20 per month for the next 2 years (which would bring my total to the same as yours). But, I am happy with my current phone, so I get to pay $20 per month less than you. I do not think you are getting a good deal. I just think you are getting ripped off less than most of their other customers.
And even if they did lobby extensively (which they don't) perhaps we should be faulting our Congresscritters for maintaining a status quo where corporate money buys influence? Don't you think that maybe the fault lies there?
Congresscritters are reflections of the American people who elect them. The people is where the fault lies. We allow corporations to get away with writing laws that privatize their profits and socialize their losses. We allow money, not people, to be the biggest driver in our elections. We maintain the status quo. You can use our elected officials as scapegoats if it makes you feel better, but if you want to know where the true fault lies then look in a mirror. I do my part to change the status quo by pointing out to the people (the problem) that they are allowing corporations to control their government (mainly because they are too lazy to care) and that they are being hurt by what those corporations do with their place in government. Government is a reflection of the politicians. Politicians are a reflection of the people. If the people allow themselves to be controlled by other entities (corporations), then it follows that the politicians and government will be controlled by them as well.
I do not have a problem with them not paying more than they are legally required to, but only to a certain extent. And that extent is when they start pumping money into lobbyists and political donations to KEEP those laws unfairly in their favor. If businesses stay out of politics, then they cannot be blamed when they get advantages from it. But, when they essentially buy our politicians and laws, I have a lot less tolerance for the "I was just following the law" excuse.
For example, I had a big problem with Mitt Romney's tax rate, but not necessarily because it was low. The rate was so low because there is a preferential tax rate for carried interest. I had a problem with it because he was on owner of Bain Capital and they had spent millions of dollars lobbying Washington to keep "carried interest" at a preferential rate. When you have bought and paid for a law, then you become responsible for whether it is fair or not.
Or the power companies can do more load balancing. They are already talking about using electric cars to feed power back into the grid. Imagine an electric car with super capacitors. The power company could charge it up in 20 seconds (or 5 minutes, or at whatever rate best balances their grid) in the morning, and then discharge it whenever necessary during the day. And, if they screw up their scheduling (or you need to run an errand during peak hours) and your car is not fully charged when you need it, then you are just delayed a minute or two while your car charges before you leave. And this ignores the fact that the power companies can buy the super capacitors and use them for load balancing.
But it is all what-ifs. I am currently not negatively affected by how they currently using my data. And I have no reason to believe that they are waiting until they have "enough" data to then do something that will negatively affect me. So, my point is that I am happy with their current business model. Like any changes in business or technology, there is the possibility of abuse and our government will need to catch up and act when abuses do happen. But, we shouldn't just stop all progress because there is the possibility of abuse. And we should do what we can to make it profitable for companies that choose not to be abusive.
Also, I think that Google realizes that faith in them is important for them to keep making money. If they did start abusing the information they gathered from me, then I would stop using gmail, stop using google search, and install plugins that make me hard to track. But, as it is, I appreciate the useful services they provide and trust that they will not abuse my information, so I have no problem "paying" for it by allowing them to track me.
The only real problem that I have with the google products that I have used is that they put ads at the top of the search that, while it does have a box around it indicating that it is an ad, the box is intentionally colored to be hard to see. I feel that is somewhat dishonest, but it is in a grey area. If I see similar practices extend to a lot of other areas of google, then I might start to reconsider my faith in them. But, currently it is just one negative against a lot of positives so I will, while still continuing being unhappy about it, let it slide for now.
My point is that it asked me to agree to their terms and conditions that allowed them to send personal information on my searches back to Microsoft (which should not be necessary because it was for a "Bing Bar" or something). And, if I didn't agree to their terms, then I would not be able to use Windows. (This was with the Asus version of Windows) But, when I installed a vanilla version of Windows (would have done this anyways since I did not want all the Asus bloatware), I did not have to agree to send by private search information to Microsoft. There is a difference between having a choice to either opt in or opt out, and being forced to "opt-in" to their search product while trying to use their operating system (opt-out was not an option, it was either opt-in or no windows).
I was talking about the products in the ads (e.g. the RC airplanes). If the ads provide no value, then why would rc airplane manufacturers (who are not a monopoly) buy the ads instead of simply not buying the ads and selling the product for cheaper (or the same price and make more profit)? That is capitalism at work. If you disagree that RC airplanes (or tampons if you really want) are not in a capitalistic market, then please enlighten me as to why you think that is the case.
Not that I am agreeing with you that the search market is communism. I am pretty sure that Google is not commonly owned (i.e. owned by everyone) and that they do make a profit for their owners. You might be trying to say that the search market is an oligopoly. If so, you would have a better argument, but the fact is that this article shows that there is pretty cut-throat competition in the market, so it seems unlikely that Google and Microsoft are colluding to fix prices and reduce competition.
Uh... you might want to read my post closer. I said that I do not get tampon ads, and am happy about that fact (I am male).
But, back to your original point, are you trying to say that all advertising is wasted money?
I have never understood the mindset that ads force you to buy products. Maybe I am a particularly strong-willed individual, but I have no problem comparison shopping after I see an ad to make sure I am getting a good product. For instance, I was looking at getting flying lessons, and came upon an ad for an RC airplane for a very decent price. I still wanted flying lessons, but I would not mind also having an RC airplane. I looked online (Amazon reviews, forums, ect.) and that RC airplane was rated pretty well and the consensus was that it was a good starter model. So, I bought it. It was more than worth the cost (it is a lot of fun to fly). Looking back, it is a product that I wanted, but I did not know it because I did not think that there was an RC airplane in my price range that would provide enough performance to be worth it. Google helped me to find out that there was. Do you feel like I was bamboozled or ripped off? Because I feel like Google provided a good value to me, and I am more than happy with any commission they got off of providing that value.
If Google does not provide a valuable service, then people will buy the cheaper products that do not have the advertising cost built in. Capitalism has its limitations, but that is where it works well. The only reasons that I can think of that would support your assertion that Google does not provide value to the customer (not Google's customer, i.e. the company doing the advertising, but the end customer, i.e. you and me ) is that either you think that capitalism does not lead to efficient markets in this case, or you think that people are naturally weak willed and will buy the inferior product because the see an ad. Or, is there a different reason I did not think of? I would really like to know why you have this view that ads are evil.
And that is perfectly fine. As long as I maintain the right to take the package (which for me provides a value many times its cost), then I have no problem with your right to "leave" it.
How is Google going to use this creepy information? As far as I know, they are only going to show you ads that could possibly show you things like doctors that specialize in pancreatic cancer, researchers looking for volunteers with pancreatic cancer, pancreatic cancer medicines, etc. Are they going to tell any of your friends or family (or any companies for that matter) that you have (or think you have) pancreatic cancer? Not that I have ever heard about. And the ads might actually help you find a doctor or a solution that you would not have found otherwise (or a support group to help you to be prepared to tell your loved ones).
People complain that it is "creepy", but I don't see the harm. If you have some moral or religious objection, then don't use their services (search with bing; I am sure they would NEVER think of tracking your search history ). But, nothing in life is free. I personally like Google's business model (I don't think that the cost to me of google getting information is anywhere near the value that google provides me), and would not want them to change it.
I recently bought a computer with Windows 7. While I was going through the setup dialog, it asked me to agree to allow the computer to send search data to Microsoft (and Bing). But, the decline option had in parenthesis next to it that if I declined then I basically was not going to be able to use Windows. So, I had to agree to be opted in, and then go behind it and opt out (by uninstalling the Bing bar or whatever it was). But, I ended up installing a vanilla Windows 7 installation which didn't have the phone home ridiculousness.
Please elaborate. I don't see how Google tracking me (or anything else they have done) has cost me money or negatively impacted my life in any way. I could go on and on about how Microsoft has cost me money or negatively impacted my life. And I don't think the fact that I don't get shown tampon ads (targeted advertising) harms me. I actually consider it a positive.
Honeybees also switch tasks as they age, similar to ants. The bees that go outside the hive tend to be the oldest.
are famous for bombings.
It was the people who practice Christianity who bombed a government building in Oslo (killing 8) and then went on a killing spree on a youth camp (killing 69).
See... I can do it too.
I see why you do it. It is fun to let the actions of a few wackos condemn a whole religion.
Also, if you hate freedom of religion so much, why don't you move to Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Egypt (or China)?
Incidentally, in Alabama the same app is used to find dates.
So, you are really trying to say that Google is an EVIL corporation because they do not police other corporations and FORCE them to be good companies? I am starting to believe that you are just trolling. You have a very broad view of evil. What does this make the phone vendors? Extra-strength Evil? Super Evil? Mega-Evil? It would also be nice if Google would bring about world peace, but I don't think that they are Evil because they haven't done it.
I find it interesting that because a company publicly says that they are going to try not to be "Evil", people come out and say that everything that they do that is not exactly what the person wants them to do falls into the "Evil" category. Discontinuing Google Reader -> Evil. Targeted Ads -> Evil. Tracking your behavior (but not selling it to anyone or allowing anyone to see your personally identifiable information) -> Evil. Google has not forced anyone to do anything. If you don't want them to know what you do, then just disable your cookies. Where companies start to be "evil" in my book is when they start pushing around consumers because they can. Because they have a monopoly or have you locked in so they know that you can't vote with your money. From everything I have seen, Google is a good company that tries to make their consumers (the average joe) happy, even though their real customers are the companies they sell ads to. If you want to be a hater, then I can't stop you. But know that you are hating only because you want them to fail, because you believe that people cannot succeed at being good so when someone tries to do it you look for anything that can prove that they aren't, and ignore anything that shows that they are.
I believe their (unofficial) corporate motto is "Don't be evil", not "Be good". You are suggesting that it is Google's job to restrict the freedoms of others so that they can be a corporate policeman and enforce their idea of what level of support a company should offer. And, I am assuming that you would want them to then sue said company if they violated the license terms by not updating the OS on their customer's phone. While you may think this is "good", it sounds a little big-brothery and controlling and a little like how patent trolls operate. Which would seem closer to "evil" to me than what they are currently doing.
But, if you have one year of -7.6% growth, should that be weighed equally with 19 years of 2.4% growth? Or, should you weigh it by time so that the 2.4% is 19 times more significant than the one year of -7.6%?
I will answer your rhetorical question.
The government wasn't trying to "increase access to healthcare". Their goal is universal access to healthcare. The difference is that they aren't trying to "increase access" for people who already have and can afford it. They are trying to increase access for people who don't have/can't afford healthcare. Now, these people tend to be people with lower incomes. Maybe you don't follow politics, but this past year Republicans talked a lot about the "49% who don't pay federal income taxes" who tend to be lower income families. I would posit that most of the people who don't have health insurance are also probably in the group that don't pay federal income taxes. So, your solution would do almost nothing to solve the problem that they were trying to solve. All it would do would be to put the government further in debt, mostly to the advantage of people who already have health insurance.
Another problem that they were trying to solve is the rising cost of healthcare which is putting our healthcare system on an unsustainable path. They focused on trying to incentivize results instead of actions (spending). Your proposed solution would incentivize healthcare spending, so would be doing the opposite (encouraging healthcare providers to provide more care i.e. spending instead of focusing on making that care unnecessary).
In conclusion, the answer to your (rhetorical) question as to why Obamacare did not "simply and immediately cease collecting income taxes on that portion of income spent on healthcare related expenses" is thus. Because it is a fucking stupid idea. I see why you said it was rhetorical. Because the answer makes you look like an idiot.
When I read the title, I expected it to be an error in the way the user used excel (which it was). Those are much more common "excel errors" than excel actually making a mistake. If it were actually a bug in excel, I would have expected the title to say an "error in excel". So, I believe that the title did a reasonable good job at conveying its message.
Is the white house saying that we are on the precipice of war? If so, I haven't heard it. And it would also be a terrible idea to have the Secretary of State (the TOP diplomat) in the war zone where he could get blown up. The fact that Kerry is in South Korea means that the white house does NOT think we are on the precipice of war. NK is just being NK, and the white house is keeping a close eye on them.
So, does that mean that CNN is not a mouthpiece?
The question is why are they doing this? Is it because Google is forcing them to? Or because Google provides a stable and reliable marketplace and they don't want to have to worry about supporting others? If it is because Google provides a superior product, then Google is not being monopolistic. It is just being a superior company.