Interestingly, that is fairly similar to the relationship between Bing and Google, as Bing uses "many methods" but part of that is cribbing off of Google results. Just Google "Bing using Google results". Or Bing it:)
Chrome:
Right click the address bar
Click Edit Search Engines...
Mouse-over the one you want (there is a short list of popular ones including Bing, and any search engine you've visted in your history appears further down the list) and click "Make Default"
3 clicks total (4 counting the mouse-over).
You can also do the exact same process as with Firefox in the parent, however, this does not make it the default, it only adds it to the short list.
Doesn't excuse Google from taking duck.com though.
They might have some good programs, but I watched it live after the election projections were in. They were whiny to the point that I wouldn't have believed it if I wasn't watching it, and also complained about "the system" (this was before it was clear who won the popular vote) which they probably didn't do back in 2000 as a guess. Bill O'Reilly is all right as a conservative pundit overall, though the classroom feel of his show is a bit much.
But the (unavoidable) taxes would have to be much much higher before they would do that. As long as they make an appreciable profit in a country after taxes and risk\opportunity costs, they have a responsibility to their shareholders to stay. They also have a responsibility to their shareholders to evade as much tax as possible as long as it is legal. National governments have a responsibility to their citizens to make sure everyone is paying their fair share; closing tax loopholes is part of that, and a complicated process.
That's a contrived scenario though; more likely Alice will only want fashion for up to $.30 and Bob will only want Sports for up to $.30, rather than them wanting the other section for cheap. They waste a bunch of paper because they both need to buy a full newspaper they don't want.
Society found this acceptable because dividing a newspaper by sections and letting people choose a la carte is trickier for the newspaper boy rather than just selling out full newspapers for one flat price. He would need to keep a separate pile of each section, etc etc. Since society by-and-large was fine with buying full newspapers, there was no gov't reason to bring in regulatory agencies to force section-by-section sales.
With cable, there is no newspaper boy and the computer systems would have no problem keeping tack of a la carte selections. But yes, the cable company does make more money with bundles.
Because they can't convince someone to pay $10 (or more) for one song. But $10 for a whole album that includes that song? I'll bet those other songs are awesome too, after all, they are in the same album as this awesome song. Then I'll get home and realize otherwise (or try to justify my purchase), but then it's too late.
Exact same thing with cable packages; one or two strategically placed good networks that you need to buy a bunch of lesser networks for. $10 for the Discovery channel? Outrageous. $10 for Discovery Channel and 4 other vaguely related channels I would never buy otherwise? Eh, they're probably good, sign me up! Meanwhile, the other 4 channels have no budget and are there to make someone feel good about paying $10 for Discovery (in an extreme scenario).
I just watch what I can streaming on the 'net (thanks, comedynetwork.ca!) and don't buy any T.V. at all. I don't even pirate it.
Slashdot Mirror
Possible correction: from the other comments, it sounds like Google got duck.com a long time ago as part of an unrelated acquisition.
Interestingly, that is fairly similar to the relationship between Bing and Google, as Bing uses "many methods" but part of that is cribbing off of Google results. Just Google "Bing using Google results". Or Bing it :)
Chrome:
Right click the address bar
Click Edit Search Engines...
Mouse-over the one you want (there is a short list of popular ones including Bing, and any search engine you've visted in your history appears further down the list) and click "Make Default"
3 clicks total (4 counting the mouse-over).
You can also do the exact same process as with Firefox in the parent, however, this does not make it the default, it only adds it to the short list.
Doesn't excuse Google from taking duck.com though.
They might have some good programs, but I watched it live after the election projections were in. They were whiny to the point that I wouldn't have believed it if I wasn't watching it, and also complained about "the system" (this was before it was clear who won the popular vote) which they probably didn't do back in 2000 as a guess. Bill O'Reilly is all right as a conservative pundit overall, though the classroom feel of his show is a bit much.
But the (unavoidable) taxes would have to be much much higher before they would do that. As long as they make an appreciable profit in a country after taxes and risk\opportunity costs, they have a responsibility to their shareholders to stay. They also have a responsibility to their shareholders to evade as much tax as possible as long as it is legal. National governments have a responsibility to their citizens to make sure everyone is paying their fair share; closing tax loopholes is part of that, and a complicated process.
Supersymmetry Theory would be a great name for a tech in Alpha Centurai 2 (if\when it gets made), so it'll be a shame if this gets disproven further.
That's a contrived scenario though; more likely Alice will only want fashion for up to $.30 and Bob will only want Sports for up to $.30, rather than them wanting the other section for cheap. They waste a bunch of paper because they both need to buy a full newspaper they don't want.
Society found this acceptable because dividing a newspaper by sections and letting people choose a la carte is trickier for the newspaper boy rather than just selling out full newspapers for one flat price. He would need to keep a separate pile of each section, etc etc. Since society by-and-large was fine with buying full newspapers, there was no gov't reason to bring in regulatory agencies to force section-by-section sales.
With cable, there is no newspaper boy and the computer systems would have no problem keeping tack of a la carte selections. But yes, the cable company does make more money with bundles.
Because they can't convince someone to pay $10 (or more) for one song. But $10 for a whole album that includes that song? I'll bet those other songs are awesome too, after all, they are in the same album as this awesome song. Then I'll get home and realize otherwise (or try to justify my purchase), but then it's too late. Exact same thing with cable packages; one or two strategically placed good networks that you need to buy a bunch of lesser networks for. $10 for the Discovery channel? Outrageous. $10 for Discovery Channel and 4 other vaguely related channels I would never buy otherwise? Eh, they're probably good, sign me up! Meanwhile, the other 4 channels have no budget and are there to make someone feel good about paying $10 for Discovery (in an extreme scenario). I just watch what I can streaming on the 'net (thanks, comedynetwork.ca!) and don't buy any T.V. at all. I don't even pirate it.