The EU is not complaining that Google is a monopoly. This seems to be a basic misunderstanding here. The EU is okay that Google is a monopoly. The EU is complaining that Google is using its dominant position in search to favor its other products, and that's illegal in the US also.
Neither the Times nor Macy's are anywhere near monopolies, and sports coverage is part of the Times newspaper and the jewelry department part of Macy's department store. Google apparently has a comparison shopping site that is not a general search site, so Google search should not preferentially list Google's comparison shopping site.
You're missing the point. Google is a near-monopoly. That isn't a problem. Google is using its near-monopoly position in search to push another one of its products to the expense of its competitors. That's a problem.
As it happens, the EU is not saying Google can't provide a link to the closest CVS. Apparently, Google has a comparison shopping service that I haven't noticed. Google is biasing its search to present that above other comparison shopping sites.
There's nothing novel about this. Companies can have effective monopolies, but they can't use them to push their own products in other areas. The EU is saying that Google dominates Internet search, and is using that to push its own products more than competitor's products. That, if true, is enough reason to go after Google.
It doesn't matter how stuck people are on Google, only that they use it predominantly. For the purpose of anticompetitive acts, it doesn't matter if people can switch to something else at a moment's notice, pay a subscription fee, have deeply enmeshed network effects, or have a literal gun to their heads held by a Google employee. What matters is that people use Google a whole lot.
What would get grant money flowing in would be publishing a theory that explains the observations well without AGW. That would attract a great deal of attention. You don't seem to understand how science works.
I don't think you know how climate change (no quotes) is dragging us closer to war. It will make areas significantly less habitable. It will destroy food and cash crop production in many places, with lots of farmers not having the ability to substitute something of roughly equal value. This will leave a lot of hungry and sick people without their previous ability to feed themselves and stay healthy. This means refugee flow, and that can lead to war.
You've always got excuses, but the fact is that mining is shitty, and uranium mining is extra-shitty.
We mine a lot more coal than uranium, and we mine various other things.
we never seem to actually bother to clean up the toxic mine tailings adequately.
Which is an argument for better regulation of uranium mining, not an argument directly against nuclear power.
Expecting an environmentalist to endorse open pit mining with radioactive tailings is not realistic
As a fan of civilization, I have to endorse mining Mines have tailings, which are often dangerous in some way. Radioactive tailings are dangerous in one more way than non-radioactive tailings, and I don't see that as a big deal. Are you saying that an environmentalist can't support civilization?
Considerably fewer than 90% of the people in the world are Christian, Muslim, or Jewish. Many of them are not particularly devout (in fact, I'd suspect that a good many people listed under those headings are not actual believers).
Religious texts omit a lot of things, and people realize this. I don't know of any major one that claims that Earth is the only planet with intelligent life (if you know of one, please correct me). Religious science fiction writers like C.S. Lewis, R.A. Lafferty, and James Blish had no problems with writing about extraterrestrial intelligent life.
There are people who would freak, but not, I believe, primarily for religious reasons.
Assuming that Special Relativity holds, FTL travel is time travel. If you can travel faster than light in two different reference frames, you can go backwards in time.
The move to the right is a little askew. Civil rights for minorities have made great strides since I was young, while income inequality and exploitation are way up. War has become less acceptable. We're a different society now, arguing about different things.
Last time I read a Libertarian platform it combined some ideas I like with some that would be horribly unworkable in practice (regulating pollution with private lawsuits, for example). I'm not going to support a political party that has no clue about what it would do if in power.
There's actually a lot of stuff in the Bible that looks like hate and a manual for death. Whether the New Testament obsoletes the Old is a difficult question, since Jesus said two different things at two different times.
Second, the author of the article that you cite has written a paper in which *he* decided that "hate crimes" and "terrorism" were basically the same thing
Got a problem with that? Hate crimes, in the US, are crimes that are intended to cause fear in certain groups. In what way is that not terrorism?
I know people who will do best on a tablet rather than a laptop. A tablet is perfectly good for mail. My wife pretty much gave up email on anything but her tablet, and she's computer-savvy. My mother-in-law doesn't really know how to use her computer, but can use a tablet. (We got her a cheap Android as an experiment, figuring we could get her a better tablet if it seemed like a good idea. So far, she's happy with what she has.) A tablet is well suited for the sort of person I would have recommended Ubuntu or Mint to earlier.
Slashdot Mirror
The EU is not complaining that Google is a monopoly. This seems to be a basic misunderstanding here. The EU is okay that Google is a monopoly. The EU is complaining that Google is using its dominant position in search to favor its other products, and that's illegal in the US also.
Neither the Times nor Macy's are anywhere near monopolies, and sports coverage is part of the Times newspaper and the jewelry department part of Macy's department store. Google apparently has a comparison shopping site that is not a general search site, so Google search should not preferentially list Google's comparison shopping site.
You're missing the point. Google is a near-monopoly. That isn't a problem. Google is using its near-monopoly position in search to push another one of its products to the expense of its competitors. That's a problem.
A real monopoly is one that everybody goes to, no matter what the reason. Barriers to entry really don't matter.
As it happens, the EU is not saying Google can't provide a link to the closest CVS. Apparently, Google has a comparison shopping service that I haven't noticed. Google is biasing its search to present that above other comparison shopping sites.
There's nothing novel about this. Companies can have effective monopolies, but they can't use them to push their own products in other areas. The EU is saying that Google dominates Internet search, and is using that to push its own products more than competitor's products. That, if true, is enough reason to go after Google.
It doesn't matter how stuck people are on Google, only that they use it predominantly. For the purpose of anticompetitive acts, it doesn't matter if people can switch to something else at a moment's notice, pay a subscription fee, have deeply enmeshed network effects, or have a literal gun to their heads held by a Google employee. What matters is that people use Google a whole lot.
Windows would be a lot less popular if we just banned glass and other transparent materials.
What would get grant money flowing in would be publishing a theory that explains the observations well without AGW. That would attract a great deal of attention. You don't seem to understand how science works.
Is there a good reason to think Erwin is right on this? He may be an eminent paleontologist and still be wrong on this stuff.
Except that that's already happening. We're putting more fossil carbon into the air than remains there, so we know something is absorbing some of it.
I don't think you know how climate change (no quotes) is dragging us closer to war. It will make areas significantly less habitable. It will destroy food and cash crop production in many places, with lots of farmers not having the ability to substitute something of roughly equal value. This will leave a lot of hungry and sick people without their previous ability to feed themselves and stay healthy. This means refugee flow, and that can lead to war.
So, tell me, how do solar panels lead to war?
Chernobyl isn't going to happen again. Fukushima might, but it's really not that bad compared to what harm other power sources have caused.
We mine a lot more coal than uranium, and we mine various other things.
Which is an argument for better regulation of uranium mining, not an argument directly against nuclear power.
As a fan of civilization, I have to endorse mining Mines have tailings, which are often dangerous in some way. Radioactive tailings are dangerous in one more way than non-radioactive tailings, and I don't see that as a big deal. Are you saying that an environmentalist can't support civilization?
[Waves hand in the air] "Me! Call on me, teacher!"
Considerably fewer than 90% of the people in the world are Christian, Muslim, or Jewish. Many of them are not particularly devout (in fact, I'd suspect that a good many people listed under those headings are not actual believers).
Religious texts omit a lot of things, and people realize this. I don't know of any major one that claims that Earth is the only planet with intelligent life (if you know of one, please correct me). Religious science fiction writers like C.S. Lewis, R.A. Lafferty, and James Blish had no problems with writing about extraterrestrial intelligent life.
There are people who would freak, but not, I believe, primarily for religious reasons.
Assuming that Special Relativity holds, FTL travel is time travel. If you can travel faster than light in two different reference frames, you can go backwards in time.
Much like G.K. Chesterton's "The Man who was Thursday".
The move to the right is a little askew. Civil rights for minorities have made great strides since I was young, while income inequality and exploitation are way up. War has become less acceptable. We're a different society now, arguing about different things.
Last time I read a Libertarian platform it combined some ideas I like with some that would be horribly unworkable in practice (regulating pollution with private lawsuits, for example). I'm not going to support a political party that has no clue about what it would do if in power.
The description sounds much too nice to be my ex.
You're contradicting yourself. We can deal with stone-age terrorists.
I never read about Henry Ford being arrested in 1941.
Fighting a "war" is not necessarily the best way of winning it.
There's actually a lot of stuff in the Bible that looks like hate and a manual for death. Whether the New Testament obsoletes the Old is a difficult question, since Jesus said two different things at two different times.
Got a problem with that? Hate crimes, in the US, are crimes that are intended to cause fear in certain groups. In what way is that not terrorism?
I know people who will do best on a tablet rather than a laptop. A tablet is perfectly good for mail. My wife pretty much gave up email on anything but her tablet, and she's computer-savvy. My mother-in-law doesn't really know how to use her computer, but can use a tablet. (We got her a cheap Android as an experiment, figuring we could get her a better tablet if it seemed like a good idea. So far, she's happy with what she has.) A tablet is well suited for the sort of person I would have recommended Ubuntu or Mint to earlier.