Pretty much all? Clearly, if the NSA is doing something it impacts national security. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. Duh. Besides that, it's right there in their name. National Security Agency, see?
I don't want apps or wifi or cell network connectivity
Yeah, my phone does those.
I don't want large lcd panels
I do, and I want them to provide a larger, safer, more usable UI to my phone.
nagging proximity beepers either.
Proximity alarms are useful. Even better when they actually control the car to maintain following distance, etc.
Absolutely NO microcontroller driven functionality that might decide spurious negative values mean 'floor it', 'dont turn the radio on until the car is restarted', or 'the alternator needs replacing but really doesn't.'
Bah, I don't care how you make it work, just make it work. Odds are this can be done better with the flexibility offered by software than by purely mechanical systems. Just keep in mind that software is software, and must be managed with the methods devised for software. I want public bug databases, and strongly recommend releasing the source code (though it's fine to specify that alteration voids the warranty, and to maintain legal ownership so competitors don't steal your work; I'm not asking for Free Software and car hackability, just openness so that people can identify problems).
I want simple, tactile buttons and sliders instead of touch panels and tiered menus that require visual inspection.
For stuff that I shouldn't be fiddling with when I'm driving anyway, I don't care. There should be minimal controls for the things the driver needs to do to drive, possibly some simple voice controls for other things like navigation, and everything else should be impossible for the driver to mess with.
Actually, what I really want is a car that drives itself, so I'm free to focus my attention on what I want. Barring that, there's no reason to give me a zillion buttons, knobs and sliders for things that will just distract me.
The HVAC controls should only have three knobs for the fan speed, direction, heat level, and AC button.
No, the HVAC controls should have a single knob: temperature. All the rest should be automatic. If the system truly can't figure out when my windows need to be defrosted/defogged, I guess I can accept a button to turn that on.
I am willing to tolerate a certain amount of complexity for the radio/sound system, but that's it.
I'm not. The sound system should just connect to my phone. All of my music, etc., is there. On, off, volume and maybe a simple forward/next button is all I want. Everything else I can manage with voice controls.
Speaking of aesthetics, please stop overdoing it with the curves and folds and bubble look.
I don't give a damn about aesthetics. Give me interior space, organized for functionality, structural integrity (including in a collision) and other than that put it in a wind tunnel and optimize the hell out of the airflow to minimize resistance and wind noise. This probably means lots of curves, and maybe some bubbles. Probably no folds, though.
Also, I am an average height 5'11" male with medium/largish sized hands. Please stop modeling the ergonomics for a 5'2" soccer mom with tiny hands.
I'm a six-foot male with medium/largish hands. I haven't actually had any problems with modern vehicle ergonomics.
Google doesn't give, sell or otherwise provide user data to advertisers.
No need to - they are an advertising company.
Correct. The point, though, is that if you can trust Google not to spread your data around and not to leak it, then you only have to be concerned about what Google will do with it, not what the world will do with it. And if all Google will do is to show you some ads, that's not concerning to most people.
And all of it updates automatically and silently from Google on a regular basis. It's OK though, I'm sure they'd never silently ship a backdoored version to a specific target in compliance with a NSL...
I don't think an NSL could order that. And, if one tried, I'm quite confident the Google legal team would fight it.
That sort of thing would be pretty easy to detect. Google would be outed unless it were only done on a very small scale, and even then it would be risky.
Only the single intended victim would receive the specially modified Javascript from the NSA's MITM server,
As I said, it would be outed unless it were only done on a very small scale.
They could do like Hushmail and serve a specially crafted JavaScript file to users being targeted by law enforcement.
That sort of thing would be pretty easy to detect. Google would be outed unless it were only done on a very small scale, and even then it would be risky.
If you lay people off because the minimum wage is raised, who takes over the work those people did?
Robots.
We're right on the cusp of a sea change in how much of our work gets done; automation is about to become dramatically more effective for a larger portion of industry than it has ever been. This change is ultimately going to be beneficial, but it's going to hit the low-skilled really hard in the short term, and the faster it happens the harder it will be to deal with. Artificially boosting the cost of labor will accelerate that change.
Too much of the economy's lifeblood (i.e. money) is sequestered in the bank accounts of the ultra-wealthy
This is false, in at least two different ways.
First, the ultra-wealthy do not keep the vast bulk of their money in bank accounts. With very few (if any) exceptions, the wealth of the wealthy is in the form of ownership of companies. For example, Bill Gates is worth ~$75B, essentially all of which is due to his ownership of Microsoft stock. This is not money "sequestered" anywhere, it's value derived from the operations of a productive operation. Warren Buffet's wealth is in ownership of Berkshire Hathaway stock, and while BH isn't a company that makes anything in the typical sense of the word, it owns other companies in turn, which are productive -- meaning they buy materials, employ labor to turn them into goods, and sell the goods.
Second, even when money is in bank accounts, it is still not "sequestered", because cash in bank accounts is the basis for the loans banks make -- and if you want to point to any one thing as the "economy's lifeblood", it's exactly the availability of capital to establish and grow businesses, facilitate consumer purchases which would otherwise be out of reach (e.g. houses and cars), etc. In addition to direct lending, banks also do a lot of investment, particularly in bonds (essentially another form of loan).
Comments like yours betray a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of economics, which seriously calls into doubt the value of your opinion.
Certainly, experience has taught us that there's no market for sub-dollar applications.
You're missing the point.
It's well-known that iOS is often a more lucrative platform than Android, in spite of the fact that Android has far outstripped Apple in market share, because Apple targets the high end. This isn't because iOS apps are individually more expensive, it's because buyers of iOS devices are more willing to spend the 99 cents. So, what can developers for a platform that aims to eat into the low end of the Android market expect?
The problem is that there are not enough examiners. Apparently as an examiner you have about 2 minutes to look at a patent and say yay or nay.
Which means we either need more examiners... or fewer patent applications. What's really bad is that the current state is a vicious cycle. If any patent application is likely to be approved, then people will submit more applications, which increases the workload on patent examiners, reducing the time they have to look at a patent, and increasing the likelihood that any patent application that appears on its surface to be novel and to have referenced the appropriate prior art will be approved.
Further exacerbating the problem is the fact that patent portfolios so often do battle by "weight". If company A has 10,000 patents and company B only has 5,000 patents, it's much easier for B to pay A some money and both to enter a cross-licensing agreement than to actually determine which of the 15,000 patents has value and is relevant. So, companies incent their technical people to patent all sorts of silly crap. More applications, more applications per examiner, less time per application, lather, rinse, repeat.
IMO, we need to take a big step back and re-examine the whole system. I've been arguing for a long time that there's a very simple test we should be using to evaluate the effectiveness of the patent system which is supposed to be encouraging progress (not paying inventors, note. If that happens, well and good, but it's not the goal). The way patents are supposed to promote progress is by publishing details of the inventions so that other inventors can use the ideas and build upon them. The licensing fees patent owners can receive as a result are their incentive to publish, rather than keeping their ideas as trade secrets.
So, to see if the system is working well, we just need to look at how often the patent database is used by inventors as a resource when they're looking for solutions to problems they have. If the patent system were working, we'd see the database being mined for ideas, and companies happy to pay licensing fees for useful inventions that help them build their products more cheaply than if they'd had to invent it all themselves.
Uh yeah dude, I believe you just about as much as I believe anything Google says, which is exactly zero.
How about the Federal Trade Commission auditors? Do you believe them? Because Google is operating under a 20 year consent decree which includes regular audits of compliance with their published privacy policy.
This is the exact same shit Netflix pulled with "Super HD". It has nothing to do with the capability of the ISP to provide the connection to the user or to a peer. It has everything to do with whether or not the ISP has agreed to run caching servers for Netflix/Google within their network.
I know some of the engineers working on this, and what you say is not true. Google does offer (and provides and pays for) caching servers for ISPs who want them, but they actually don't do much to help achieve HD verified status, because Google is so heavily peered with everyone that that is almost never the bottleneck. This is all about getting ISPs to fix the last mile.
The US murder rate was 9X the UK murder rate when the UK banned guns. Since then, the gap has narrowed, not widened. If gun control were the answer, shouldn't it have gone the other direction, with guns becoming less available in the UK and remaining essentially unchanged (if not increasing) in the US?
Google's clear motive here is to push the ISPs to provide consistently high bandwidth, so that YouTube works better.
Consistency is the key.
Yeah, that's what this report is: measuring how consistently an ISP can deliver HD bandwidth.
I use FIOS and going back a year or two I can't say I was thrilled with Youtube performance. It would frequently pause/buffer. I got into the habit of preloading everything with youtube-dl and then just playing it back from my HD as a result, but that isn't so convenient if you're on a tablet/etc.
Things seem to have gotten a lot better since then. My plan hasn't really changed in that time.
What got better was YouTube. They've switched to an approach that dynamically adjusts playback quality based on bandwidth available. However, that's only a band-aid over the real problem, which is lousy ISPs that don't consistently deliver what they promise. What YouTube really wants is ISPs that can always deliver HD streams with low latency.
This initiative is clearly focused on enabling consumers to demand better from their ISPs.
ISPs love advertising bandwidth to the last mile, and then they inevitably oversubscribe everything above that to death so that about the only ISP-hosted content actually gets the advertised treatment.
If someone breaks into your house and is about to shoot your child, but you shoot them first, and they die, you have committed murder (or at least manslaughter).
Wrong, in that case you haven't committed murder or manslaughter.
But only because of the principle of justification. If you read the criminal code of a state, you'll find that the statutes covering murder and manslaughter don't make any allowances for such situations, but there is a separate statute that defines justification as a general concept that overrides all of the rest of the criminal code. Often there's also a statute that specifically addresses justification in the context of use of deadly force, but that's just to clarify the corner cases, and not all criminal codes bother with it.
NSA was clearly perpetrating a greater crime
That's not clear to me at all.
If you can't see that, then we probably have nothing to talk about.
And even if it was true, expanding on your analogy - I can't shoot someone outside my house who is trying to steal my car. Whether or not Snowden should have exposed questionable practices by the NSA, he should have stopped there.
You're presuming he had the option of picking and choosing what to reveal. He didn't. He took a mass of data and then had to decide what to do with it. He had no way of knowing that what he took wouldn't be discovered, so he had to act quickly to get out of the reach of the government. I mean, he could have just thrown himself on the government's mercy, but he was already proving that the government had been habitually violating the law, so that would have been stupid. So he didn't have time to go through the data himself before fleeing.
In escaping, though, it would also have been very unwise for him to retain possession of the data, particularly since he didn't want to simply hand it all over to the Chinese (not being a traitor). So, he took what I think was his only sensible course: He delivered the entire body of data to a reputable journalist -- one beyond the easy reach of government influence -- and then fled.
And, actually the Guardian has been responsible with their revelations. Although they published information about legal activities by the NSA which arguably didn't need to be published, they were careful not to reveal too much about methods and not to endanger any human assets.
So at the end of the day stuff was revealed that didn't need to be, but it was a relatively minor cost compared to the value obtained by revealing what we needed to know. I wrote more about that tradeoff in this post.
The only one who benefits from this is the ISP who will no doubt tout it in endless commercials.
They will if their rating is HD Verified. If they're not doing so well... not so much. And if your area has multiple providers (unfortunately not as common as it should be) you can click on the "compare providers" to see if there's someone who can do better for you.
Google's clear motive here is to push the ISPs to provide consistently high bandwidth, so that YouTube works better.
But Snowden unquestionably broke laws by revealing NSA operations that are clearly legal.
Only if his revelation was unjustified.
If someone breaks into your house and is about to shoot your child, but you shoot them first, and they die, you have committed murder (or at least manslaughter). But the law includes a general provision that lets you off the hook: justification. If you committed your crime in order to prevent a greater crime, the law does not hold you accountable.
The principle of justification is a general one, which can and does override absolutely any other statute.
The NSA was clearly perpetrating a greater crime upon the American people than Snowden did by revealing their crime.
Of course the school district has no control. I was talking about a much larger and farther-reaching societal dysfunction. Schools just have to work with what they have.
I thought the bundling argument was weak at best (and that what the DoJ really needed to go after MS for was the OEM agreements), but even if we grant their validity I don't see the parallel here. There's no way Chrome has anything like a monopoly share of the browser market, among other issues.
Slashdot Mirror
pretty much all of it impacts national security
Pretty much all? Clearly, if the NSA is doing something it impacts national security. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. Duh. Besides that, it's right there in their name. National Security Agency, see?
I don't want apps or wifi or cell network connectivity
Yeah, my phone does those.
I don't want large lcd panels
I do, and I want them to provide a larger, safer, more usable UI to my phone.
nagging proximity beepers either.
Proximity alarms are useful. Even better when they actually control the car to maintain following distance, etc.
Absolutely NO microcontroller driven functionality that might decide spurious negative values mean 'floor it', 'dont turn the radio on until the car is restarted', or 'the alternator needs replacing but really doesn't.'
Bah, I don't care how you make it work, just make it work. Odds are this can be done better with the flexibility offered by software than by purely mechanical systems. Just keep in mind that software is software, and must be managed with the methods devised for software. I want public bug databases, and strongly recommend releasing the source code (though it's fine to specify that alteration voids the warranty, and to maintain legal ownership so competitors don't steal your work; I'm not asking for Free Software and car hackability, just openness so that people can identify problems).
I want simple, tactile buttons and sliders instead of touch panels and tiered menus that require visual inspection.
For stuff that I shouldn't be fiddling with when I'm driving anyway, I don't care. There should be minimal controls for the things the driver needs to do to drive, possibly some simple voice controls for other things like navigation, and everything else should be impossible for the driver to mess with.
Actually, what I really want is a car that drives itself, so I'm free to focus my attention on what I want. Barring that, there's no reason to give me a zillion buttons, knobs and sliders for things that will just distract me.
The HVAC controls should only have three knobs for the fan speed, direction, heat level, and AC button.
No, the HVAC controls should have a single knob: temperature. All the rest should be automatic. If the system truly can't figure out when my windows need to be defrosted/defogged, I guess I can accept a button to turn that on.
I am willing to tolerate a certain amount of complexity for the radio/sound system, but that's it.
I'm not. The sound system should just connect to my phone. All of my music, etc., is there. On, off, volume and maybe a simple forward/next button is all I want. Everything else I can manage with voice controls.
Speaking of aesthetics, please stop overdoing it with the curves and folds and bubble look.
I don't give a damn about aesthetics. Give me interior space, organized for functionality, structural integrity (including in a collision) and other than that put it in a wind tunnel and optimize the hell out of the airflow to minimize resistance and wind noise. This probably means lots of curves, and maybe some bubbles. Probably no folds, though.
Also, I am an average height 5'11" male with medium/largish sized hands. Please stop modeling the ergonomics for a 5'2" soccer mom with tiny hands.
I'm a six-foot male with medium/largish hands. I haven't actually had any problems with modern vehicle ergonomics.
Google doesn't give, sell or otherwise provide user data to advertisers.
No need to - they are an advertising company.
Correct. The point, though, is that if you can trust Google not to spread your data around and not to leak it, then you only have to be concerned about what Google will do with it, not what the world will do with it. And if all Google will do is to show you some ads, that's not concerning to most people.
And all of it updates automatically and silently from Google on a regular basis. It's OK though, I'm sure they'd never silently ship a backdoored version to a specific target in compliance with a NSL...
I don't think an NSL could order that. And, if one tried, I'm quite confident the Google legal team would fight it.
Only the single intended victim would receive the specially modified Javascript from the NSA's MITM server,
As I said, it would be outed unless it were only done on a very small scale.
They could do like Hushmail and serve a specially crafted JavaScript file to users being targeted by law enforcement.
That sort of thing would be pretty easy to detect. Google would be outed unless it were only done on a very small scale, and even then it would be risky.
If you lay people off because the minimum wage is raised, who takes over the work those people did?
Robots.
We're right on the cusp of a sea change in how much of our work gets done; automation is about to become dramatically more effective for a larger portion of industry than it has ever been. This change is ultimately going to be beneficial, but it's going to hit the low-skilled really hard in the short term, and the faster it happens the harder it will be to deal with. Artificially boosting the cost of labor will accelerate that change.
Too much of the economy's lifeblood (i.e. money) is sequestered in the bank accounts of the ultra-wealthy
This is false, in at least two different ways.
First, the ultra-wealthy do not keep the vast bulk of their money in bank accounts. With very few (if any) exceptions, the wealth of the wealthy is in the form of ownership of companies. For example, Bill Gates is worth ~$75B, essentially all of which is due to his ownership of Microsoft stock. This is not money "sequestered" anywhere, it's value derived from the operations of a productive operation. Warren Buffet's wealth is in ownership of Berkshire Hathaway stock, and while BH isn't a company that makes anything in the typical sense of the word, it owns other companies in turn, which are productive -- meaning they buy materials, employ labor to turn them into goods, and sell the goods.
Second, even when money is in bank accounts, it is still not "sequestered", because cash in bank accounts is the basis for the loans banks make -- and if you want to point to any one thing as the "economy's lifeblood", it's exactly the availability of capital to establish and grow businesses, facilitate consumer purchases which would otherwise be out of reach (e.g. houses and cars), etc. In addition to direct lending, banks also do a lot of investment, particularly in bonds (essentially another form of loan).
Comments like yours betray a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of economics, which seriously calls into doubt the value of your opinion.
Certainly, experience has taught us that there's no market for sub-dollar applications.
You're missing the point.
It's well-known that iOS is often a more lucrative platform than Android, in spite of the fact that Android has far outstripped Apple in market share, because Apple targets the high end. This isn't because iOS apps are individually more expensive, it's because buyers of iOS devices are more willing to spend the 99 cents. So, what can developers for a platform that aims to eat into the low end of the Android market expect?
This has probably been brought up before, but typically companies will instruct their people to _not_ look at existing patents.
Yes. This is the strongest possible evidence that the system is broken and is retarding rather than encouraging progress.
The problem is that there are not enough examiners. Apparently as an examiner you have about 2 minutes to look at a patent and say yay or nay.
Which means we either need more examiners... or fewer patent applications. What's really bad is that the current state is a vicious cycle. If any patent application is likely to be approved, then people will submit more applications, which increases the workload on patent examiners, reducing the time they have to look at a patent, and increasing the likelihood that any patent application that appears on its surface to be novel and to have referenced the appropriate prior art will be approved.
Further exacerbating the problem is the fact that patent portfolios so often do battle by "weight". If company A has 10,000 patents and company B only has 5,000 patents, it's much easier for B to pay A some money and both to enter a cross-licensing agreement than to actually determine which of the 15,000 patents has value and is relevant. So, companies incent their technical people to patent all sorts of silly crap. More applications, more applications per examiner, less time per application, lather, rinse, repeat.
IMO, we need to take a big step back and re-examine the whole system. I've been arguing for a long time that there's a very simple test we should be using to evaluate the effectiveness of the patent system which is supposed to be encouraging progress (not paying inventors, note. If that happens, well and good, but it's not the goal). The way patents are supposed to promote progress is by publishing details of the inventions so that other inventors can use the ideas and build upon them. The licensing fees patent owners can receive as a result are their incentive to publish, rather than keeping their ideas as trade secrets.
So, to see if the system is working well, we just need to look at how often the patent database is used by inventors as a resource when they're looking for solutions to problems they have. If the patent system were working, we'd see the database being mined for ideas, and companies happy to pay licensing fees for useful inventions that help them build their products more cheaply than if they'd had to invent it all themselves.
Well, no, I think they expect developers will rush to develop apps for "such an obviously soon-to-be-successful platform".
Especially since this platform promises to be particularly appealing to cost-conscious people.
I read articles that said Google spent $500M advertising the MotoX.
Uh yeah dude, I believe you just about as much as I believe anything Google says, which is exactly zero.
How about the Federal Trade Commission auditors? Do you believe them? Because Google is operating under a 20 year consent decree which includes regular audits of compliance with their published privacy policy.
What's the benefit other than explicitly giving Google (and advertisers) your bookmark data?
Google doesn't give, sell or otherwise provide user data to advertisers.
This is the exact same shit Netflix pulled with "Super HD". It has nothing to do with the capability of the ISP to provide the connection to the user or to a peer. It has everything to do with whether or not the ISP has agreed to run caching servers for Netflix/Google within their network.
I know some of the engineers working on this, and what you say is not true. Google does offer (and provides and pays for) caching servers for ISPs who want them, but they actually don't do much to help achieve HD verified status, because Google is so heavily peered with everyone that that is almost never the bottleneck. This is all about getting ISPs to fix the last mile.
The US murder rate was 9X the UK murder rate when the UK banned guns. Since then, the gap has narrowed, not widened. If gun control were the answer, shouldn't it have gone the other direction, with guns becoming less available in the UK and remaining essentially unchanged (if not increasing) in the US?
Try comparing something more clear-cut: murder rates: it is 4x higher in the US.
The US murder rate was 9X the UK's before the UK banned guns. It's not the guns, it's the culture.
Google's clear motive here is to push the ISPs to provide consistently high bandwidth, so that YouTube works better.
Consistency is the key.
Yeah, that's what this report is: measuring how consistently an ISP can deliver HD bandwidth.
I use FIOS and going back a year or two I can't say I was thrilled with Youtube performance. It would frequently pause/buffer. I got into the habit of preloading everything with youtube-dl and then just playing it back from my HD as a result, but that isn't so convenient if you're on a tablet/etc.
Things seem to have gotten a lot better since then. My plan hasn't really changed in that time.
What got better was YouTube. They've switched to an approach that dynamically adjusts playback quality based on bandwidth available. However, that's only a band-aid over the real problem, which is lousy ISPs that don't consistently deliver what they promise. What YouTube really wants is ISPs that can always deliver HD streams with low latency.
This initiative is clearly focused on enabling consumers to demand better from their ISPs.
ISPs love advertising bandwidth to the last mile, and then they inevitably oversubscribe everything above that to death so that about the only ISP-hosted content actually gets the advertised treatment.
Indeed.
If someone breaks into your house and is about to shoot your child, but you shoot them first, and they die, you have committed murder (or at least manslaughter).
Wrong, in that case you haven't committed murder or manslaughter.
But only because of the principle of justification. If you read the criminal code of a state, you'll find that the statutes covering murder and manslaughter don't make any allowances for such situations, but there is a separate statute that defines justification as a general concept that overrides all of the rest of the criminal code. Often there's also a statute that specifically addresses justification in the context of use of deadly force, but that's just to clarify the corner cases, and not all criminal codes bother with it.
NSA was clearly perpetrating a greater crime
That's not clear to me at all.
If you can't see that, then we probably have nothing to talk about.
And even if it was true, expanding on your analogy - I can't shoot someone outside my house who is trying to steal my car. Whether or not Snowden should have exposed questionable practices by the NSA, he should have stopped there.
You're presuming he had the option of picking and choosing what to reveal. He didn't. He took a mass of data and then had to decide what to do with it. He had no way of knowing that what he took wouldn't be discovered, so he had to act quickly to get out of the reach of the government. I mean, he could have just thrown himself on the government's mercy, but he was already proving that the government had been habitually violating the law, so that would have been stupid. So he didn't have time to go through the data himself before fleeing.
In escaping, though, it would also have been very unwise for him to retain possession of the data, particularly since he didn't want to simply hand it all over to the Chinese (not being a traitor). So, he took what I think was his only sensible course: He delivered the entire body of data to a reputable journalist -- one beyond the easy reach of government influence -- and then fled.
And, actually the Guardian has been responsible with their revelations. Although they published information about legal activities by the NSA which arguably didn't need to be published, they were careful not to reveal too much about methods and not to endanger any human assets.
So at the end of the day stuff was revealed that didn't need to be, but it was a relatively minor cost compared to the value obtained by revealing what we needed to know. I wrote more about that tradeoff in this post.
The only one who benefits from this is the ISP who will no doubt tout it in endless commercials.
They will if their rating is HD Verified. If they're not doing so well... not so much. And if your area has multiple providers (unfortunately not as common as it should be) you can click on the "compare providers" to see if there's someone who can do better for you.
Google's clear motive here is to push the ISPs to provide consistently high bandwidth, so that YouTube works better.
But Snowden unquestionably broke laws by revealing NSA operations that are clearly legal.
Only if his revelation was unjustified.
If someone breaks into your house and is about to shoot your child, but you shoot them first, and they die, you have committed murder (or at least manslaughter). But the law includes a general provision that lets you off the hook: justification. If you committed your crime in order to prevent a greater crime, the law does not hold you accountable.
The principle of justification is a general one, which can and does override absolutely any other statute.
The NSA was clearly perpetrating a greater crime upon the American people than Snowden did by revealing their crime.
Of course the school district has no control. I was talking about a much larger and farther-reaching societal dysfunction. Schools just have to work with what they have.
I thought the bundling argument was weak at best (and that what the DoJ really needed to go after MS for was the OEM agreements), but even if we grant their validity I don't see the parallel here. There's no way Chrome has anything like a monopoly share of the browser market, among other issues.
Still no actual arguments.