Please show me how Google has the ability to fix prices in the Search market, AND how they grow their market share in that market through means other than normal business operation.... Note that being dominant in an area has very little to do with being a monopoly, and even less to do with monopolization of your market position.
Google is able to provide for their many web services for free from all the advertising revenue that they earn with Google Adwords, DoubleClick and AdMob. They've pretty much cornered the advertising market with their dominate share of the search engine market and web applications. They secured their top spot with their purchases of Sprinks (2003), Applied Semantics (2003), dMarc Broadcasting (2006), YouTube (2006), AdScape(2007), DoubleClick (2007), AdMob (2009), Teracent (2009), Invite Media (2010), and Admeld (2011). This doesn't include all the other purchases of search technology companies, review sites (including Zagats), web applications, voice of IP providers, social media analytic services, and shopping sites.
They are basically buying out potential competitors, potential technology that they can use for their advantage, or high traffic websites that would suddenly use one or more Google advertising subsidiaries.
This is similar to the tactics used by Microsoft in the late 80's early 90's to secure their dominate position.
Don't let the fact that the main reason this topic is in the news is because Apple released its audit of worker conditions to the public get in the way of a good Apple hate. No to mention they released the list of their major suppliers or that they increased their number of audits by 80% from the previous year to 229.
Also Apple will grant access to an independent auditing team from the Fair Labor Association in an effort to overcome criticism regarding working conditions at factories in its supply chain.
Sure let's boycott the tech company that IS doing everything in their power to correct worker conditions in their supply chain. I'm sure the alternative device manufactures, who happen to use Foxconn too, are just as open and spending just as much money as Apple. Oh wait... maybe not. We don't know because they aren't as open.
I wouldn't feel as bad if it was something done by the National Science Foundation (NSF) or NASA. However having the DoD do it where their emphasis is security and not science makes me worry. There is also the feeling that this will teach our children that it is okay for the government to spy on its citizens with drones and robots. At least with NSF and NASA there is the pretext that this could be done for science in a grand scale like remote sensing (drones) or in hostile environments like deep sea exploration or vulcanism (robots).
More like 66% (2005-2008 = 4 out of 6 years). I think OakDragon meant one-term as meaning did not seek a second term.
There were 16 presidents (including Obama) that were formally senators. According to senate.gov, "Three senators, Warren G. Harding, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama moved directly from the U.S. Senate to the White House."
Also there were 20 Presidents who were former governors, and 3 Presidents (Washington, Arthur, and Eisenhower) that never held political office prior to becoming President.
Republicans considered Mitch Daniels Jr. as a viable candidate. In fact, he gave the republican response to the state of the union address this week. Another one that republicans considered was Mike Huckabee. Both *may* run in 2016.
Your implication the Ron Paul is a serious candidate just shows how weak the republican playing field is.
I didn't imply Ron Paul is a serious candidate. In fact I said "Ron Paul is not running to win"
I actually recommend reading the following to refresh your memory of what actually happened regarding those ethics violations
Actually he was only exonerated for the alleged tax fraud involving the courses he taught, this portion of his reprimand was left to the IRS for prosecution. The ethics committee did find that Gingrich supplied inaccurate information to investigators which represented "intentional or . . . reckless" disregard of House rules." You may want to refresh your memory about a certain president that was impeached for a similar charge of lying to congress just three years later. Only to be acquitted by the senate. My point being that this is a serious charge for which Gingrich was found guilty by his peers.
As for the other charges:
"The House ethics committee dropped the three remaining ethics charges against Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) yesterday, despite finding that Gingrich repeatedly violated one rule by using a political consultant to develop the Republican legislative agenda.
The ethics panel decided to take no further action because there is no evidence that "Rule 45" violations are continuing in the speaker's office, a post Gingrich has held since 1995. Consultant Jeffrey Eisenach's work took place while Gingrich was the GOP minority whip in 1990-91." - Washington Post, January 18 1997 (emphasis mine)
Not exactly a glowing endorsement of character.
Leaving the actual tax-fraud portion of the charges to IRS for prosecution, Gingrich was reprimanded and fined $300,000 by an overwhelming 395-28 House vote.
"In January 1997, Gingrich said "I did not manage the effort intensely enough to thoroughly direct or review information being submitted to the committee on my behalf. In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee, but I did not intend to mislead the committee." But he also apologized, saying "I brought down on the people's house a controversy which could weaken the faith people have in their government."" - Wikipedia
Winning a case against the IRS due to a technicality doesn't equate to full exoneration for violating house rules as its speaker.
Coincidentally today is NASA's day of remembrance for all those who lost their lives during the pursuit of space.
Tomorrow (Jan 27) marks the 45th anniversary of the Apollo 1 fire that killed Command Pilot Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Senior Pilot Edward H. White and Pilot Roger B. Chaffee.
Saturday (Jan 28) marks the 26th anniversary of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster that killed Greg Jarvis, Christa McAuliffe, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka
Judith Resnik, Michael J. Smith and Dick Scobee.
Next Wednesday (Feb 1) marks the 9 anniversary of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster that killed Rick D. Husband, William McCool, Michael P. Anderson, David M. Brown, Kalpana Chawla, Laurel B. Clark, and Ilan Ramon.
Also the following were killed during astronaut training: Theodore Freeman, Elliot See, Charles Bassett, Clifton "C.C." Williams, and Robert Lawrence.
The following are were killed during space flight or cosmonaut training: Vladimir Komarov, Georgi Dobrovolski, Viktor Patsayev, Vladislav Volkov, Valentin Bondarenko, Yuri Gagarin, and Sergei Vozovikov.
It's expensive to run for president and the viable republican candidates decided to wait until 2016. The people running as republicans now are only taking advantage of the void left by all the serious candidates not running. Ron Paul is not running to win and not spending much money campaigning. He is trying to garner representation of libertarians in the Republican National Convention. Others were in it for publicity, and the rest actually want to be President and saw this as the only chance they had.
Actually there is nothing wrong with a one term Senator.
I don't see how only serving one term as senator equates to losing "speaker of the house" due to ethics violations ( book deal that he himself accused his predecessor Jim Wright of doing), cheating on two different wives while pretending to defend the sanctity of marriage, and pretending to be a Washington outsider when he lobbied for Freddie Mac with possible legal ramifications due to not registering as a lobbyist (BTW Newt Gingrich abstained from voting on the HR 2564 "Lobbying Disclosure act of 1995").
Did the original author get a cut of their purchase price? That's an entirely different question which would be relevent to the discussion, but which you don't know the answer to.
You're correct, I do not know if the original author got a share but that wasn't the point. Jafafa Hots created a strawman and then went off topic. I just provided counter examples. My point was that he only assumed that man was altruistic all these thousands of years, and I provided evidence that this may not have been the case.
It actually IS a relatively new idea.
I mean, it is a bit over 100 years old which may SEEM old, but it's a newborn compared to the system it replaced.
Actually it's a bit over 300 years old, the earliest copyright law that comes to mind is the British Statute of Anne 1709.
The system that IP law replaced, which gave us all art, all music, all culture, all language, all technology right down to bows and arrows and rock hammers and agriculture and the loin cloth - everything that got us out of caves and which separates us from the other great apes, is over 100,000 years old.
You only assume this to be true. Aristotle and Plato purchased books. The Code of Hammurabi (1772 BC) is the earliest recording of laws that included trade. You only assume that man was altruistic when in fact we owned slaves (or were slaves). For all we know an individual disgruntled over someone claiming his work as their own was dispatched quickly with a rock, club, or bow and arrow.
Besides societies evolve...
Seems oddly counterintuitive, I know. I mean, who WOULDN'T want to work long abusive hours locked into a factory for pennies until you are driven to suicide so you can make some other guy rich?
Yea because the Egyptian slaves constructing the pyramids were better off.
How is that not a great deal?
There's even the possibility that if you save for a few years before jumping off the factory roof, you might be able save up enough to buy a used, outdated version of the product you've personally made tens of thousands of!
Again let me introduce you to a very very old concept called slavery.
When you drive an SUV, you get a little more safety for yourself at the cost of a little safety for everybody on the road near you. Everybody would be more safe if everybody drove small cars than if they all drove SUVs.
I believe the you actually get a little more safety for yourself at the detriment of others on the road near you. The false sense of security that the SUV provides make people drive a little more aggressively than they should. Not to mention the substantially lower amount of visibility these SUVs have. You could back over a pedestrian in a parking lot and not realize what has happened until the harm is done. Basically it's up to the pedestrian to get out of the way of the unobservant driver.
If you can create the mythical brick in the road capable of killing someone when hit then I see nothing wrong with him bringing up rollover accidents. It's not exactly cherry picking data when you both are just bringing up possible scenarios out of no data in particular. Besides if this brick is lethal because it's thrown by the vehicle in front of you then it's more of a matter of the safety of the windshield than the size of the car. With this in mind, If we consider that an SUV can reach a much higher speed than one of these urban vehicles then the SUV could actually be less safer for its passengers in the flying brick scenario.
I don't think this car is actually "folding" instead it's the equivalent of a full-size smart car than can stand on it front wheels by articulating the rear ones forward. With the rear wheels in the normal driving position, I don't think this vehicle is any more dangerous than the current smart cars.
It has everything to do with what Mozilla is doing. They believe they can make an language that better suits their needs, in the process they waste time and effort creating a language that may only be marginally better than the language they already have (or already exist) and to make matters worse has a significantly less number of developers that know how to use it.
Go for something like 01:23:45:67:89:AB. That way even if the logs get nabbed it'll save a lot of headache for both the open network admin and others involved. It makes it obvious that further tracking is pointless (good for you) and does a nice turn for anyone kind enough to leave open bandwidth for public use by (presumably) ending their harassment by investigators.
Unless you happen to be the only person using that fake MAC address.
This is not existing tech at all. Just to test I am in Chrome on Linux right now with Gnome3.
I think "at all" is too strong of a modifier. I can do it now in (and for as long as I can remember) OS X. I'm in Chrome and I press CMD+SHIFT+? and type "bookmark" and it gives me the following actions to perform:
Import Bookmarks...
Always show bookmark bar
Bookmark Manager
Bookmark this page...
Bookmark All tabs..
Followed by various help topics related to bookmarks.
I'm sure it has more to do with how easily power can be routed to these spots and the marketing value that these spots may possess. If your trying to appear to be trendy and "green" you want to make sure people have to walk by your charging stations. You don't want to hide them at the back of the parking lot.
Also, I think it is meant to incentivize buying an electric vehicle. Power companies usually sponsor these sites and want to entice people to buy electric.
Driving an EV does not make you more worthy of a parking spot than anyone else.
It may. Speaking as someone who drives gasoline powered vehicles, I see nothing wrong with rewarding people for making choices that benefit our environment AND our (lackluster) energy policy. Similar to bus stops being at the mall entrances, EV charging stations can be more convenient than regular parking places.
Personally I don't place a high value on a parking place being close to the store. I like to take any opportunity to walk since I spend too much time at work behind a desk. I don't want to walk 6 miles each way to the store, so I drive there and walk a more manageable distance in the parking lot. Including the shopping itself, it's surprising how much distance you'd walk.
Slashdot Mirror
Google is able to provide for their many web services for free from all the advertising revenue that they earn with Google Adwords, DoubleClick and AdMob. They've pretty much cornered the advertising market with their dominate share of the search engine market and web applications. They secured their top spot with their purchases of Sprinks (2003), Applied Semantics (2003), dMarc Broadcasting (2006), YouTube (2006), AdScape(2007), DoubleClick (2007), AdMob (2009), Teracent (2009), Invite Media (2010), and Admeld (2011). This doesn't include all the other purchases of search technology companies, review sites (including Zagats), web applications, voice of IP providers, social media analytic services, and shopping sites.
They are basically buying out potential competitors, potential technology that they can use for their advantage, or high traffic websites that would suddenly use one or more Google advertising subsidiaries.
This is similar to the tactics used by Microsoft in the late 80's early 90's to secure their dominate position.
Why spend money? Just withhold rescue services and patiently wait for the next big storm.
Don't let the fact that the main reason this topic is in the news is because Apple released its audit of worker conditions to the public get in the way of a good Apple hate. No to mention they released the list of their major suppliers or that they increased their number of audits by 80% from the previous year to 229.
Also Apple will grant access to an independent auditing team from the Fair Labor Association in an effort to overcome criticism regarding working conditions at factories in its supply chain.
Sure let's boycott the tech company that IS doing everything in their power to correct worker conditions in their supply chain. I'm sure the alternative device manufactures, who happen to use Foxconn too, are just as open and spending just as much money as Apple. Oh wait... maybe not. We don't know because they aren't as open.
I thought it was funny.
I wouldn't feel as bad if it was something done by the National Science Foundation (NSF) or NASA. However having the DoD do it where their emphasis is security and not science makes me worry. There is also the feeling that this will teach our children that it is okay for the government to spy on its citizens with drones and robots. At least with NSF and NASA there is the pretext that this could be done for science in a grand scale like remote sensing (drones) or in hostile environments like deep sea exploration or vulcanism (robots).
Damn between getting old and auto correct... I don't know who to blame for that. s/formally/formerly/
More like 66% (2005-2008 = 4 out of 6 years). I think OakDragon meant one-term as meaning did not seek a second term.
There were 16 presidents (including Obama) that were formally senators. According to senate.gov, "Three senators, Warren G. Harding, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama moved directly from the U.S. Senate to the White House."
Also there were 20 Presidents who were former governors, and 3 Presidents (Washington, Arthur, and Eisenhower) that never held political office prior to becoming President.
Republicans considered Mitch Daniels Jr. as a viable candidate. In fact, he gave the republican response to the state of the union address this week. Another one that republicans considered was Mike Huckabee. Both *may* run in 2016.
I didn't imply Ron Paul is a serious candidate. In fact I said "Ron Paul is not running to win"
Actually he was only exonerated for the alleged tax fraud involving the courses he taught, this portion of his reprimand was left to the IRS for prosecution. The ethics committee did find that Gingrich supplied inaccurate information to investigators which represented "intentional or . . . reckless" disregard of House rules." You may want to refresh your memory about a certain president that was impeached for a similar charge of lying to congress just three years later. Only to be acquitted by the senate. My point being that this is a serious charge for which Gingrich was found guilty by his peers.
As for the other charges:
"The House ethics committee dropped the three remaining ethics charges against Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) yesterday, despite finding that Gingrich repeatedly violated one rule by using a political consultant to develop the Republican legislative agenda.
The ethics panel decided to take no further action because there is no evidence that "Rule 45" violations are continuing in the speaker's office, a post Gingrich has held since 1995. Consultant Jeffrey Eisenach's work took place while Gingrich was the GOP minority whip in 1990-91." - Washington Post, January 18 1997 (emphasis mine)
Not exactly a glowing endorsement of character.
Leaving the actual tax-fraud portion of the charges to IRS for prosecution, Gingrich was reprimanded and fined $300,000 by an overwhelming 395-28 House vote.
"In January 1997, Gingrich said "I did not manage the effort intensely enough to thoroughly direct or review information being submitted to the committee on my behalf. In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee, but I did not intend to mislead the committee." But he also apologized, saying "I brought down on the people's house a controversy which could weaken the faith people have in their government."" - Wikipedia
Winning a case against the IRS due to a technicality doesn't equate to full exoneration for violating house rules as its speaker.
Coincidentally today is NASA's day of remembrance for all those who lost their lives during the pursuit of space.
Tomorrow (Jan 27) marks the 45th anniversary of the Apollo 1 fire that killed Command Pilot Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Senior Pilot Edward H. White and Pilot Roger B. Chaffee.
Saturday (Jan 28) marks the 26th anniversary of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster that killed Greg Jarvis, Christa McAuliffe, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka Judith Resnik, Michael J. Smith and Dick Scobee.
Next Wednesday (Feb 1) marks the 9 anniversary of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster that killed Rick D. Husband, William McCool, Michael P. Anderson, David M. Brown, Kalpana Chawla, Laurel B. Clark, and Ilan Ramon.
Also the following were killed during astronaut training: Theodore Freeman, Elliot See, Charles Bassett, Clifton "C.C." Williams, and Robert Lawrence.
The following are were killed during space flight or cosmonaut training: Vladimir Komarov, Georgi Dobrovolski, Viktor Patsayev, Vladislav Volkov, Valentin Bondarenko, Yuri Gagarin, and Sergei Vozovikov.
It's expensive to run for president and the viable republican candidates decided to wait until 2016. The people running as republicans now are only taking advantage of the void left by all the serious candidates not running. Ron Paul is not running to win and not spending much money campaigning. He is trying to garner representation of libertarians in the Republican National Convention. Others were in it for publicity, and the rest actually want to be President and saw this as the only chance they had.
Actually there is nothing wrong with a one term Senator.
I don't see how only serving one term as senator equates to losing "speaker of the house" due to ethics violations ( book deal that he himself accused his predecessor Jim Wright of doing), cheating on two different wives while pretending to defend the sanctity of marriage, and pretending to be a Washington outsider when he lobbied for Freddie Mac with possible legal ramifications due to not registering as a lobbyist (BTW Newt Gingrich abstained from voting on the HR 2564 "Lobbying Disclosure act of 1995").
You're correct, I do not know if the original author got a share but that wasn't the point. Jafafa Hots created a strawman and then went off topic. I just provided counter examples. My point was that he only assumed that man was altruistic all these thousands of years, and I provided evidence that this may not have been the case.
Actually it's a bit over 300 years old, the earliest copyright law that comes to mind is the British Statute of Anne 1709.
You only assume this to be true. Aristotle and Plato purchased books. The Code of Hammurabi (1772 BC) is the earliest recording of laws that included trade. You only assume that man was altruistic when in fact we owned slaves (or were slaves). For all we know an individual disgruntled over someone claiming his work as their own was dispatched quickly with a rock, club, or bow and arrow.
Besides societies evolve...
Yea because the Egyptian slaves constructing the pyramids were better off.
Again let me introduce you to a very very old concept called slavery.
I believe the you actually get a little more safety for yourself at the detriment of others on the road near you. The false sense of security that the SUV provides make people drive a little more aggressively than they should. Not to mention the substantially lower amount of visibility these SUVs have. You could back over a pedestrian in a parking lot and not realize what has happened until the harm is done. Basically it's up to the pedestrian to get out of the way of the unobservant driver.
If you can create the mythical brick in the road capable of killing someone when hit then I see nothing wrong with him bringing up rollover accidents. It's not exactly cherry picking data when you both are just bringing up possible scenarios out of no data in particular. Besides if this brick is lethal because it's thrown by the vehicle in front of you then it's more of a matter of the safety of the windshield than the size of the car. With this in mind, If we consider that an SUV can reach a much higher speed than one of these urban vehicles then the SUV could actually be less safer for its passengers in the flying brick scenario.
I don't think this car is actually "folding" instead it's the equivalent of a full-size smart car than can stand on it front wheels by articulating the rear ones forward. With the rear wheels in the normal driving position, I don't think this vehicle is any more dangerous than the current smart cars.
It has everything to do with what Mozilla is doing. They believe they can make an language that better suits their needs, in the process they waste time and effort creating a language that may only be marginally better than the language they already have (or already exist) and to make matters worse has a significantly less number of developers that know how to use it.
In my state the water has to be navigable before it is considered state property.
Unless you happen to be the only person using that fake MAC address.
Sounds like a familiar trap: Inner-Platform Effect
I think you gave him too much credit. Let's wait and see.
I think "at all" is too strong of a modifier. I can do it now in (and for as long as I can remember) OS X. I'm in Chrome and I press CMD+SHIFT+? and type "bookmark" and it gives me the following actions to perform:
Import Bookmarks...
Always show bookmark bar
Bookmark Manager
Bookmark this page...
Bookmark All tabs..
Followed by various help topics related to bookmarks.
This is standard behavior supported in OS X.
I agree. Don't forget about "Gnome Do", Launchy for windows, or spotlight in OS X.
The video reminds me of something that I can already do in OS X.
Nothing wrong with HUD, except that HUD usually refers to displaying information not a search function; So I was expecting something else.
I'm sure it has more to do with how easily power can be routed to these spots and the marketing value that these spots may possess. If your trying to appear to be trendy and "green" you want to make sure people have to walk by your charging stations. You don't want to hide them at the back of the parking lot.
Also, I think it is meant to incentivize buying an electric vehicle. Power companies usually sponsor these sites and want to entice people to buy electric.
It may. Speaking as someone who drives gasoline powered vehicles, I see nothing wrong with rewarding people for making choices that benefit our environment AND our (lackluster) energy policy. Similar to bus stops being at the mall entrances, EV charging stations can be more convenient than regular parking places.
Personally I don't place a high value on a parking place being close to the store. I like to take any opportunity to walk since I spend too much time at work behind a desk. I don't want to walk 6 miles each way to the store, so I drive there and walk a more manageable distance in the parking lot. Including the shopping itself, it's surprising how much distance you'd walk.