The problem is that fairness in society has been eroded in the name of profit and wholesale greed. This is in large part because those that had much to gain effectively took control of not only government, but also political discourse by controlling the media to hard sell the great supply-side and deregulation myth. I don't think you can interpret those numbers in any other way.
I'm not expecting much from you, however. If you saw the cluestick that hit you on the head, you still won't know what it is.
Wrong again. It's not that government is not effective.. actually it is too effective.. in furthering the military-industrial-financial establishment and transferring the wealth of the middle-classes to the rich...
Sigh... it wasn't about taxation - it was about lack of representation - the unfair taxation was only a symptom of the problem...
BTW, that's the same thing that the OWS protesters are on about. They are spot on, while your corporate masters would like you to blame everything on taxes and start your own TEA party chapter.
No, it's because Firefox's success has been tied to a web-centric, tech-savvy group of users that still makes up a large part of the user/fanbase. These users overwhelmingly use Google and switch to Bing will almost certainly alienate these users.
They were counting in Yahoo as well. Bing marketshare is essentially flat over the past few months. Yahoo marketshare is decreasing so overall Bing marketshare is shrinking. Don't be surprised if MS gives Firefox an offer they can't refuse, but that will be the end of Firefox if it happens.
Windows 7 defaults to Bing (If you try to change it, it gives you a choice of anyone but Google) in the search bar. Doesn't matter if any "Bing Bar" is installed.
So if market share is so important, then why is HP -- the worlds largest PC manufacturer --- trying to get rid if their PC business?
Because the PC market isn't growing, while the smartphone market is. The smartphone market now is the like the PC market back in the late 80s and early 90s.
Lassez-faire does not mean no rules. Otherwise, I can just come and take from you by force what I want. Lassez-faire mean minimal government intervention, and historically deals with market manipulation and tarrifs (mostly tarrifs).
That is disingenuous to the extreme. Wages stagnation followed crashes caused by deregulation and it is taking increasing longer to recover from recession in the ages of deregulation.
The free market is not the panacea that most purist make it out to be either. Every system has its benefits and drawbacks. However, although we may have our industrial and commerce sectors based on corporatism, our financial markets are very close to lassez-faire capitalism, which isn't exactly the shining example that free-market purists make it out to be.
What the GP is questioning is the criticism itself - it is not reasoned criticism, and reads like a hit job - not the fact that they are being criticized.
The only bug on my Nexus One is the touchscreen bug that I believe is hardware related and can't be fixed by software. The fact that they release new Android versions for the Nexus One frequently makes it better than most vendors really.
The "violence against the person" crime statistics you cited for the UK were not "violent" at all. They include stuff like harrassment and possession of knives.
Fiscal policy does not work that way. As long as you keep the economy growing, you will be able to outgrow your debt or at least manage your debt load.
It is analogous to if you take out a loan to start a business, as long as your business grows and you have sufficient revenue to meet operating expenses to service your debt, you are creating wealth.
However, the problem we have is that in the good times, no only did we not pay down our debt (which we were very close to during the Clinton years), we blew it on a few wars and on tax cuts/refunds.
Now times are bad and we are at a crossroads, but it is completely a manufactured crisis. The reason being is that what the markets are looking for is for the government to commit to a plan to close the fiscal deficit gap. This usually means passing some legislation to reduce spending and to increase revenue over X number of years. And anything can happen to the economy in the long term, this commitment through legislation is always really just an "understanding". However, we failed to pass this because we have obstructionists in government that mask their flawed esoteric agenda as the new populism.
Slashdot Mirror
And here is the original NYTimes article that presented the graph -
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/sunday/jobs-will-follow-a-strengthening-of-the-middle-class.html?_r=1
Here's the original source graph from the NYTimes if anyone is interested.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/04/opinion/04reich-graphic.html
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll117/sadloc/04reich-graphic-popup.jpg
The problem is that fairness in society has been eroded in the name of profit and wholesale greed. This is in large part because those that had much to gain effectively took control of not only government, but also political discourse by controlling the media to hard sell the great supply-side and deregulation myth. I don't think you can interpret those numbers in any other way.
I'm not expecting much from you, however. If you saw the cluestick that hit you on the head, you still won't know what it is.
Wrong again. It's not that government is not effective.. actually it is too effective.. in furthering the military-industrial-financial establishment and transferring the wealth of the middle-classes to the rich...
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1
The only people the benefited from the increase in productivity in the past 30 years are the rich. That's what the OWS protesters are angry about.
Sigh... it wasn't about taxation - it was about lack of representation - the unfair taxation was only a symptom of the problem...
BTW, that's the same thing that the OWS protesters are on about. They are spot on, while your corporate masters would like you to blame everything on taxes and start your own TEA party chapter.
Microsoft needed to tone down due to anti-trust investigations.. now that that has ended.....
No, it's because Firefox's success has been tied to a web-centric, tech-savvy group of users that still makes up a large part of the user/fanbase. These users overwhelmingly use Google and switch to Bing will almost certainly alienate these users.
http://www.winrumors.com/bing-u-s-marketshare-flat-at-14-7-during-september/
They were counting in Yahoo as well. Bing marketshare is essentially flat over the past few months. Yahoo marketshare is decreasing so overall Bing marketshare is shrinking. Don't be surprised if MS gives Firefox an offer they can't refuse, but that will be the end of Firefox if it happens.
Windows 7 defaults to Bing (If you try to change it, it gives you a choice of anyone but Google) in the search bar. Doesn't matter if any "Bing Bar" is installed.
As oppposed to Bing, which is even worse?
The forth estate has a special duty to the public, and also has special rights as well. This has been enshrined in case law for a while now.
So if market share is so important, then why is HP -- the worlds largest PC manufacturer --- trying to get rid if their PC business?
Because the PC market isn't growing, while the smartphone market is. The smartphone market now is the like the PC market back in the late 80s and early 90s.
Lassez-faire does not mean no rules. Otherwise, I can just come and take from you by force what I want. Lassez-faire mean minimal government intervention, and historically deals with market manipulation and tarrifs (mostly tarrifs).
That is disingenuous to the extreme. Wages stagnation followed crashes caused by deregulation and it is taking increasing longer to recover from recession in the ages of deregulation.
The free market is not the panacea that most purist make it out to be either. Every system has its benefits and drawbacks. However, although we may have our industrial and commerce sectors based on corporatism, our financial markets are very close to lassez-faire capitalism, which isn't exactly the shining example that free-market purists make it out to be.
There is no way that Samsung sold only 20,000 of the original Galaxy Tab. There are more than that number sold in the UK alone.
What the GP is questioning is the criticism itself - it is not reasoned criticism, and reads like a hit job - not the fact that they are being criticized.
"Reactionary socialist BS"
Do you happen to live in a formerly socialist country (that is now capitalist and prosperous by creating millions of minimum wage jobs)?
The only bug on my Nexus One is the touchscreen bug that I believe is hardware related and can't be fixed by software. The fact that they release new Android versions for the Nexus One frequently makes it better than most vendors really.
WinMo 6.5 would have completely dominated the iPhone! Only if it was given the chance.. oh wait.. it was and it sucked...
BTW, how's the shilling paying?
The "violence against the person" crime statistics you cited for the UK were not "violent" at all. They include stuff like harrassment and possession of knives.
Check out what gets counted here -
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/counting-rules/count-violence
- thoroughly de-bunked, again..
Bull. You don't have the facts to back that up and you know it.
The only reports that found comparable numbers were thoroughly discredited because they compared different measures of "violent crime".
How about we compare homicide rates instead, which is a lot more objective -
Most recent reports used:
UK - 1.28 per 100,000
US - 5.00 per 100,000
So it looks like it is the US which is 4 times as violent, or at least criminals are four times as good as killing.
Check out the numbers (comprehensively cited) yourself at -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Fiscal policy does not work that way. As long as you keep the economy growing, you will be able to outgrow your debt or at least manage your debt load.
It is analogous to if you take out a loan to start a business, as long as your business grows and you have sufficient revenue to meet operating expenses to service your debt, you are creating wealth.
However, the problem we have is that in the good times, no only did we not pay down our debt (which we were very close to during the Clinton years), we blew it on a few wars and on tax cuts/refunds.
Now times are bad and we are at a crossroads, but it is completely a manufactured crisis. The reason being is that what the markets are looking for is for the government to commit to a plan to close the fiscal deficit gap. This usually means passing some legislation to reduce spending and to increase revenue over X number of years. And anything can happen to the economy in the long term, this commitment through legislation is always really just an "understanding". However, we failed to pass this because we have obstructionists in government that mask their flawed esoteric agenda as the new populism.
Microsoft has some very dirty laundry in this area, and the GP just wanted to point out the similarities between those cases, and this specific case.
That's my objective reading of this thread, of course, you are free to add your own bias.
It looks like Google made a principled stance. Looking at their bidding history (Pi???) it seems to have been their strategy all along.