What is the deal with State Attorney's fees? This action was brought by officials of the State Attorney General's office, their salaries are paid by taxpayers.
The taxpayers have (directly or through their representatives) chosen to have certain wrongdoers pay them (the taxpayers) back for those salaries and other expenses in certain cases when the expenses are devoted to dealing with those wrongdoers' wrongdoing; essentially, this money will go to the state's general fund, to offset expenses (both personnel expenses that would have been made anyway but devoted to other purposes, and additional expenses, personnel and otherwise, that are directly attributable to the case.)
Sure the State has a right to recover their expenses in this lawsuit, but this seems like an awfully high dollar figure, and seems like double-dipping at the taxpayers' expense.
As explained, its not double dipping, and its not at the taxpayers' expense. Also, $725,000 in legal expenses to deal with 1,145 claims isn't all that much (the fact that its much bigger than the claims themselves is one reason why laws like this create a state right of action rather than forcing victims to sue on their own in the first place.)
...remember that one reason that laws like this create a state right of action on behalf of the victims is because they address cases where the cost of litigation is prohibitive for private plaintiffs given the uncertainty of success and the work required to make the case and the small amount of damages, but when claims are aggregated, even though it is still expensive to litigate. Aggregating the claims mitigates somewhat the imbalance between the cost of litigation and the available damages, but often not that much; what it mainly does is make the action more tenable because the probability of success on some significant number of the claims becomes greater, and by making the claim viable at all increases the deterrent to wrongdoers.
Anyway, $725,000 in attorneys' fees is a lot less than 1,145 plaintiffs suing on their own would probably have to pay.
I wonder if its not more direct and less abstract than that: VR experience is shallower than real reality, so its a lot easier for a suggestion to "fit" as a memory of a VR experience, since the shallow impression created by the suggestion won't be as easily distinguishable from the memory of the shallow VR experience as it would be from an experience outside of VR.
Except this isn't about remembering things that actually happened in VR as "real", its about remembering things that didn't happen at all simply because they were suggested in questioning.
When you get them studying so many languages, they'll never become competent with any of them.
I don't think that's true; most people I've known that are even moderately good programmers were exposed to lots of languages either in or before college; I'd say the breadth helps or at least doesn't hurt. I think a Computer Science curriculum ought to involve broad exposure to the breadth of programming paradigms, both in terms of techniques and implementations in different languages.
That being said, I'm not sure in the current context, even as a high-school level introductory language, Pascal really has all that much to offer, though its certainly what I grew up on when I "graduated" from BASIC.
It may be true about Oz (and Common Lisp, for that matter) but the sad fact is that people will believe it about C or Java or Perl or whatever language they're comfortable with, simply because it gives them an excuse not to learn another language.
I certainly would agree that computer science students should have a curriculum that encourages them to recognize the diversity of different approaches in language design and syntax and have some practical experience with the advantages and limitations of different approaches, and that it is therefore important for people to be exposed to many languages with different syntax (and substantially different kinds of syntax.) Oz/Mozart allows studying different paradigms in the context of one language (its largely designed for that), and I think it would be quite good as a vehicle for a survey of programming paradigms. But at the same time, I think that it would be good for a CS curriculum to expose students to languages that do things differently. Throughout the curriculum, it would be good to have people exposed, in appropriate contexts, something like Lisp, C and C++, Prolog, Smalltalk, Java, JavaScript, Python, and SQL as well as a couple varieties of assembly language (not necessarily those exact languages, but something like that range.)
One of the biggest hurdles to using Lisp is its libraries. You know, all none of them.
There are substantially greater than zero libraries for Common Lisp, likewise for Scheme.
If Lispers really wanted people to use Lisp they'd push harder for support in Microsoft.NET or Mono.
Or just write a Common Lisp implementation in Python, and then get.NET (via IronPython) and and Java (via Jython) support for free on top (actually, there are several Lisp implementations in Python already.) And there are already at least two.Net Lisp implementations (DotLisp and L Sharp.Net), though neither is Common Lisp or Scheme, but instead different dialects; there are also.Net interfaces for Common Lisp on Windows (allowing Lisp to call.Net without running on it).
I'm not sure how much "harder" you think the Lisp community ought to be working...
A good reason to use some older language like Pascal or FORTRAN would be to avoid the pre-built classes problem.
Yeah, because its so hard to find, on the internet, implementations of well-studied algorithms in languages that have been heavily used for decades longer than Java has existed.
OTOH, if a class has controlled examinations, the student that downloads -- whether in Java or otherwise -- components to get projects to work without understanding what they are doing is going to be shown up for a fraud. Now, its been almost a decade since I graduated from college, and more than a decade since I switched out of CS, but I would imagine that they still have examinations in CS classes that involve written, discursive responses, and not just banging away at computing projects.
It's better not to encourage the belief that one language can be good for everything.
(1) I don't see that using Oz/Mozart to teach a year-long sequence covering programming paradigms necessarily encourages that belief to any extent not justified by reality. Further, it avoids teaching the equally misguided belief that one language = one programming paradigm. Nor does it prevent, in the course of the overall CS curriculum, forcing students to be exposed to multiple languages with different syntax, and the strengths and weaknesses of particular syntax structures in expressing particular programming paradigms.
(2) Inasmuch as, e.g., Oz/Mozart does support declarative, imperative, functional, and OO paradigms (and concurrent programming in the context of those paradigms), why is it necessary to artificially instill the idea that one well-designed tool cannot be broadly applicable merely because most programming languages are, by either deliberate design or design failure, more narrowly focussed?
Uh. yeah, I've read that exact argument before. I took it into account. I never argued that an S-expressions should or was likely to replace XML, I said an S-expression based syntax that was representationally-equivalent to XML and more concise and cleaner for some uses (particularly, applications where the "marked-up text" is not a good description of what is being transmitted, which are not all that uncommon for XML now that it has become a common generic data interchange format as much as a "markup" language) could be developed.
Also, that Common Lisp and Scheme languages "predate" Unicode says absolutely nothing about the utility of S-expressions as a basis for a markup/data-interchange language, though certainly it is (one of many) arguments against the position (which I've specifically stated is wrong previously in this thread) that Lisp-as-is is suitable as drop-in replacement for XML (a bigger argument is that Lisp is the wrong "level" of solution, anyway, being an too-specific application of S-expressions.)
But, anyhow, thanks for cut-and-pasting, without comment or application to the discussion at hand, an argument against a position that wasn't even the one being discussed, but only tangentially relevant.
Which is why some people don't consider string "theory" to be a real theory.
At least from a little googling around, it seems that various versions of string theory predict axions, and different versions of string theory seem to predict different properties of axions, which suggests that searching for axions and determining their properties is, indded, a test of string theory.
"String theory" does the same thing every other field of science does: it makes models, generates predictions from those models, and if they are refuted, goes back and makes new models, with new predictions. String theory isn't a theory, its a related group of hypotheses which make (conceptually) testable predictions (though generating practical tests is often hard, but "science" isn't just what is easy.)
And those predictions are tested, and models are refined. Just as everywhere else in science.
I don't get the bizarre string-theory hate. Sure, its counterintuitive. So is the relation of space and time in relativity.
Actually, Netscape got pwned because developing for their DOM model sucked. Also, they tried to make a play at becoming the Netscape portal, splitting their war chest in two and leaving them underfunded on the browser front.
Also, IIRC, they made the dumb move of starting from scratch after version 4.x, which left them for a couple of years with no new releases while they reinvented the wheel for Netscape 6, by which time they'd been pounded into the dirt.
TFA states that the axion supports the standard model.
That it is "critical to the Standard Model", as TFA states, does not mean that it is somehow decisive between string theory and the standard model. AFAICT, axions are predicted by string theory as well, and the particular properties they are determined to have in practice may help determine which versions of string theory are tenable and which are less so. So there is no need to "change" string theory to "accommodate" the axion.
Exactly. Google is in no way obligated to sell advertisement space to their competitors.
And yet, they do. Check the ad results for "search engine" or "online calendar" or "web-based email" (the first sponsored result I get for that last one is for AOL's service), or lots of other possibilities.
Nope, because that requires action on the surfer using a 3rd party tool.
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
The entity that serves the ad controls the share, not viewership of that ad.
It doesn't matter who controls the share, the fact is the share of ads, whether measured (as marketshare usually is for a paid product) by $, or whether measured by number of page views with which ads are served, or the number of ads served, or any other measure, is not guaranteed to have any particular relationship to the number of searches served, or any other measure of search market share.
Unless someone else can serve ads to Google search results, they have equal share on their advertising as in their search market.
Wrong, they may have an equal "share" of the number of opportunities to supply advertising to their search market, which is not the same thing as having the same share of the advertising market, by any metric by which advertising marketshare is measured. By your apparent standard, a TV station that shows no ads whatsoever and one that is 24/7 paid advertising have equal advertising marketshare if they have equal ratings, simply because they have the attention of the same number of eyeballs for the same time. Unfortunately for your argument, that's not what advertising marketshare is.
Also, the frequency of a particular ad has no bearing on the ownership of all opportunities for that ad to show. Just because your ad shows 2 more times than mine doesn't mean that google doesn't serve ads to all 73% of its market share.
Nor did I say anything about how often a particular advertiser's ads show; what I did say was something about the differing frequency with which search results are accompanied by ads. The fact that some searches produce no advertising results (e.g. flying panda bears on Google, the first thing I thought of as a test, which performed exactly as expected) despite producing results ("about 799,000" in this case) means that Google doesn't serve ads to all 73% of its marketshare. And those searches that do have ads don't all have the same number of ads (if you are referring to marketshare by impression) or the same cost of ads (if you are referring to marketshare by $). Certainly, other services also have ad-free searches (though not, in Yahoo!'s case, flying panda bears, which produced two top, and four sidebar advertising links when I tried it.) The distribution of advertising on each service is one variable which makes it invalid to assume that the search advertising marketshare is equal to any measure of the search marketshare.
Once again you are refering to its effectiveness, which has nothing to do with share.
No, once again I'm referring to its marketshare by any meaningful measure of advertising marketshare. You are confusing "audience" with "advertising marketshare", and they aren't the same thing.
Your perspective on this is flawed based on your lack of understanding of search marketing.
Au contraire, your perspective is flawed due to your lack of understanding of what advertising marketshare is.
If you have dominant share of the market in search, you have dominant share on the market for search advertising.
While if you choose appropriate definitions of "dominant" you can certainly construct scenarios in which this is most probably true, and certainly having search marketshare makes it easier to get search advertising marketshare, there is no necessary, 1:1 relationship between the two in the way you have suggested.
Google frequently raises the rate of certain key terms it deems "underperforming", even if there is no competition for that term.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
One market is inextricably attached to the other.
To a certain extent, that's true. That does not mean that X% marketshare in one implies X% marketshare in the other, as you have (falsely) claimed.
You can't have search advertising without someone searching.
But you can use a search engine without being exposed to any, or the same share as another user making the same number of searches, of ads. Which invalidates the equivalence you have asserted between shares of the two different markets.
A monopoly can also be defined as control of supply.
Control of supply can be a source of monopoly power, particularlyl if it is absolute (100%), but control of some large share of supply in circumstances which do not provide monopoly, that is, price-setting, power does not make a monopoly.
Its invalid since search engine use is not the same receiving search engine ads.
Show me an example of something that invalidates it.
The availability of means to use search engines without receiving ads invalidates it. The fact that different uses of the same search engine may expose one to more or less of the ads it serves also invalidates it, since the share of ads does not equal the share of searches, in either case.
NO search engine shows other providers advertisements.
Perhaps true, but in any case irrelevant.
Monopoly on search traffic = monopoly on search advertising.
That was not the argument, though that too is invalid. The earlier false argument was that X% marketshare in search traffic = X% marketshare in search advertising. Monopoly is price-setting power, which Google doesn't have in search to start with, whatever marketshare it has there.
And setting your own price for key placement of certain advertisements at zero is not price setting power how?
Price setting power is the ability to control the overall prices in the industry, usually the monopolists ability to raise the prices it charges without fear of losing its dominant market position because of barriers to competition associated with its market position (not mere marketshare.) Every participant in every market has the ability to set the price it charges for services to itself at "$0", that is not the price-setting power that defines a monopoly.
Also, monopoly is defined by many more facets other than price setting power.
Monopoly power is precisely price-setting power; price-setting power may not always be clear directly, and other factors that may be more easily directly analyzed can be looked at to determine if monopoly power exists.
In the US at least, there is no marketshare threshold for being a monopoly. To be an illegal monopoly you only have to have the power to distort the market,
Specifically, you have to have price setting power.
No one has given any reason to believe Google has this in the search market.
Further, 73% of search "marketshare" does not mean 73% of search advertising marketshare.
Show me a search engine that shows another providers advertising and that will be true. Since it doesn't exist, the argument is semantic.
Um, no. The share of the two "markets" is not the same. Search and search advertising are different markets, and marketshare in one is not the same as marketshare in the other. In fact, most search engines can be, and are, used in ways which do not involve serving ads at all, which affects search marketshare, but clearly detaches it from search advertising.
monopoly power is principally the ability to set prices without concern for competition
You mean like showing advertisements for your products on top regardless of what anyone else bids for the spot?
Nope, I mean the ability to set the prices that you will charge others for the good or service in question without concern for competition. If you don't have the power to do that, you don't have a monopoly to leverage. What you are talking about is something that might be leveraging a monopoly if it existed, but you've done nothing to establish that the monopoly exists in the first place. A monopoly is not defined marketshare. A monopoly is defined by price-setting power; now, overwhelming marketshare is usually a prerequisite to price setting power, and it is a common consequence of having that power, but it can exist without that power. Having lots of marketshare, alone, is not having a monopoly.
While the intentions of OLPC program are commendable it really ignores the fact that basic education and literacy - a prerequiste for computer use, and power are fundamental components that are not readily available in developing areas of the world.
Er, no, actually its aimed at exactly the problems of basic education and literacy (content aimed at that is as much part of the project as the hardware), and a big part of the design was aimed at making it usable independent of power infrastructure.
Your charges show complete ignorance of the OLPC project.
Google has almost 73% world market share [hitslink.com] in search. That gives you 73% world market share in search advertising. That is a monopoly.
73% marketshare is not, in and of itself, a monopoly. A monopoly is defined by monopoly power; having a substantial majority of the market without the ability to exercise monopoly power is not a monopoly: monopoly power is principally the ability to set prices without concern for competition, which is something which you only get when there are considerable barriers for people switching to competing offerings on top of (though perhaps resulting from) your existing marketshare—interoperation needs that affect Windows and Office, for instance—or the fact that there are genuinely no other suppliers in the case of the old steel, oil, and railroad trusts.
Further, 73% of search "marketshare" does not mean 73% of search advertising marketshare. The two are separate things. Its also dubious whether search advertising, as opposed to online advertising more generally with which it is arguably fungible, is legitimately a component of the market in which there can be a monopoly—the availability of alternative venues for online advertising makes it harder for substantial search advertising marketshare to translate into monopoly power.
Back to the 73% search advertising market share. If you have that much of the market captured, AND you leverage it to get placement for your OTHER services - you are manipulating a monopoly unfairly.
No, antitrust law does not define "monopoly" by what percentage of the market you have captured, but by the existence of monopoly power.
So what your saying is that there are probably 22K new linux desktop environments running god knows what distro and probably full of known expliots and missing infinite number of kernel patches? No windows update to bail it out.
Yeah, its too bad there is no such thing as automatic updates for any Linux systems.
Slashdot Mirror
The taxpayers have (directly or through their representatives) chosen to have certain wrongdoers pay them (the taxpayers) back for those salaries and other expenses in certain cases when the expenses are devoted to dealing with those wrongdoers' wrongdoing; essentially, this money will go to the state's general fund, to offset expenses (both personnel expenses that would have been made anyway but devoted to other purposes, and additional expenses, personnel and otherwise, that are directly attributable to the case.)
As explained, its not double dipping, and its not at the taxpayers' expense. Also, $725,000 in legal expenses to deal with 1,145 claims isn't all that much (the fact that its much bigger than the claims themselves is one reason why laws like this create a state right of action rather than forcing victims to sue on their own in the first place.)
...remember that one reason that laws like this create a state right of action on behalf of the victims is because they address cases where the cost of litigation is prohibitive for private plaintiffs given the uncertainty of success and the work required to make the case and the small amount of damages, but when claims are aggregated, even though it is still expensive to litigate. Aggregating the claims mitigates somewhat the imbalance between the cost of litigation and the available damages, but often not that much; what it mainly does is make the action more tenable because the probability of success on some significant number of the claims becomes greater, and by making the claim viable at all increases the deterrent to wrongdoers.
Anyway, $725,000 in attorneys' fees is a lot less than 1,145 plaintiffs suing on their own would probably have to pay.
They keep 30 days of pictures right? My guess is Thailand doesn't usually experience night for quite that long at a time.
I wonder if its not more direct and less abstract than that: VR experience is shallower than real reality, so its a lot easier for a suggestion to "fit" as a memory of a VR experience, since the shallow impression created by the suggestion won't be as easily distinguishable from the memory of the shallow VR experience as it would be from an experience outside of VR.
Except this isn't about remembering things that actually happened in VR as "real", its about remembering things that didn't happen at all simply because they were suggested in questioning.
I don't think that's true; most people I've known that are even moderately good programmers were exposed to lots of languages either in or before college; I'd say the breadth helps or at least doesn't hurt. I think a Computer Science curriculum ought to involve broad exposure to the breadth of programming paradigms, both in terms of techniques and implementations in different languages.
That being said, I'm not sure in the current context, even as a high-school level introductory language, Pascal really has all that much to offer, though its certainly what I grew up on when I "graduated" from BASIC.
I certainly would agree that computer science students should have a curriculum that encourages them to recognize the diversity of different approaches in language design and syntax and have some practical experience with the advantages and limitations of different approaches, and that it is therefore important for people to be exposed to many languages with different syntax (and substantially different kinds of syntax.) Oz/Mozart allows studying different paradigms in the context of one language (its largely designed for that), and I think it would be quite good as a vehicle for a survey of programming paradigms. But at the same time, I think that it would be good for a CS curriculum to expose students to languages that do things differently. Throughout the curriculum, it would be good to have people exposed, in appropriate contexts, something like Lisp, C and C++, Prolog, Smalltalk, Java, JavaScript, Python, and SQL as well as a couple varieties of assembly language (not necessarily those exact languages, but something like that range.)
There are substantially greater than zero libraries for Common Lisp, likewise for Scheme.
Or just write a Common Lisp implementation in Python, and then get
I'm not sure how much "harder" you think the Lisp community ought to be working...
Yeah, because its so hard to find, on the internet, implementations of well-studied algorithms in languages that have been heavily used for decades longer than Java has existed.
OTOH, if a class has controlled examinations, the student that downloads -- whether in Java or otherwise -- components to get projects to work without understanding what they are doing is going to be shown up for a fraud. Now, its been almost a decade since I graduated from college, and more than a decade since I switched out of CS, but I would imagine that they still have examinations in CS classes that involve written, discursive responses, and not just banging away at computing projects.
(1) I don't see that using Oz/Mozart to teach a year-long sequence covering programming paradigms necessarily encourages that belief to any extent not justified by reality. Further, it avoids teaching the equally misguided belief that one language = one programming paradigm. Nor does it prevent, in the course of the overall CS curriculum, forcing students to be exposed to multiple languages with different syntax, and the strengths and weaknesses of particular syntax structures in expressing particular programming paradigms.
(2) Inasmuch as, e.g., Oz/Mozart does support declarative, imperative, functional, and OO paradigms (and concurrent programming in the context of those paradigms), why is it necessary to artificially instill the idea that one well-designed tool cannot be broadly applicable merely because most programming languages are, by either deliberate design or design failure, more narrowly focussed?
Uh. yeah, I've read that exact argument before. I took it into account. I never argued that an S-expressions should or was likely to replace XML, I said an S-expression based syntax that was representationally-equivalent to XML and more concise and cleaner for some uses (particularly, applications where the "marked-up text" is not a good description of what is being transmitted, which are not all that uncommon for XML now that it has become a common generic data interchange format as much as a "markup" language) could be developed.
Also, that Common Lisp and Scheme languages "predate" Unicode says absolutely nothing about the utility of S-expressions as a basis for a markup/data-interchange language, though certainly it is (one of many) arguments against the position (which I've specifically stated is wrong previously in this thread) that Lisp-as-is is suitable as drop-in replacement for XML (a bigger argument is that Lisp is the wrong "level" of solution, anyway, being an too-specific application of S-expressions.)
But, anyhow, thanks for cut-and-pasting, without comment or application to the discussion at hand, an argument against a position that wasn't even the one being discussed, but only tangentially relevant.
My point is pointing out a potentially interesting fact. Not everything posted on Slashdot is part of a argument.
At least from a little googling around, it seems that various versions of string theory predict axions, and different versions of string theory seem to predict different properties of axions, which suggests that searching for axions and determining their properties is, indded, a test of string theory.
"String theory" does the same thing every other field of science does: it makes models, generates predictions from those models, and if they are refuted, goes back and makes new models, with new predictions. String theory isn't a theory, its a related group of hypotheses which make (conceptually) testable predictions (though generating practical tests is often hard, but "science" isn't just what is easy.)
And those predictions are tested, and models are refined. Just as everywhere else in science.
I don't get the bizarre string-theory hate. Sure, its counterintuitive. So is the relation of space and time in relativity.
Also, IIRC, they made the dumb move of starting from scratch after version 4.x, which left them for a couple of years with no new releases while they reinvented the wheel for Netscape 6, by which time they'd been pounded into the dirt.
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
It doesn't matter who controls the share, the fact is the share of ads, whether measured (as marketshare usually is for a paid product) by $, or whether measured by number of page views with which ads are served, or the number of ads served, or any other measure, is not guaranteed to have any particular relationship to the number of searches served, or any other measure of search market share.
Wrong, they may have an equal "share" of the number of opportunities to supply advertising to their search market, which is not the same thing as having the same share of the advertising market, by any metric by which advertising marketshare is measured. By your apparent standard, a TV station that shows no ads whatsoever and one that is 24/7 paid advertising have equal advertising marketshare if they have equal ratings, simply because they have the attention of the same number of eyeballs for the same time. Unfortunately for your argument, that's not what advertising marketshare is.
Nor did I say anything about how often a particular advertiser's ads show; what I did say was something about the differing frequency with which search results are accompanied by ads. The fact that some searches produce no advertising results (e.g. flying panda bears on Google, the first thing I thought of as a test, which performed exactly as expected) despite producing results ("about 799,000" in this case) means that Google doesn't serve ads to all 73% of its marketshare. And those searches that do have ads don't all have the same number of ads (if you are referring to marketshare by impression) or the same cost of ads (if you are referring to marketshare by $). Certainly, other services also have ad-free searches (though not, in Yahoo!'s case, flying panda bears, which produced two top, and four sidebar advertising links when I tried it.) The distribution of advertising on each service is one variable which makes it invalid to assume that the search advertising marketshare is equal to any measure of the search marketshare.
No, once again I'm referring to its marketshare by any meaningful measure of advertising marketshare. You are confusing "audience" with "advertising marketshare", and they aren't the same thing.
Au contraire, your perspective is flawed due to your lack of understanding of what advertising marketshare is.
While if you choose appropriate definitions of "dominant" you can certainly construct scenarios in which this is most probably true, and certainly having search marketshare makes it easier to get search advertising marketshare, there is no necessary, 1:1 relationship between the two in the way you have suggested.
Most
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
To a certain extent, that's true. That does not mean that X% marketshare in one implies X% marketshare in the other, as you have (falsely) claimed.
But you can use a search engine without being exposed to any, or the same share as another user making the same number of searches, of ads. Which invalidates the equivalence you have asserted between shares of the two different markets.
Control of supply can be a source of monopoly power, particularlyl if it is absolute (100%), but control of some large share of supply in circumstances which do not provide monopoly, that is, price-setting, power does not make a monopoly.
Its invalid since search engine use is not the same receiving search engine ads.
The availability of means to use search engines without receiving ads invalidates it. The fact that different uses of the same search engine may expose one to more or less of the ads it serves also invalidates it, since the share of ads does not equal the share of searches, in either case.
Perhaps true, but in any case irrelevant.
That was not the argument, though that too is invalid. The earlier false argument was that X% marketshare in search traffic = X% marketshare in search advertising. Monopoly is price-setting power, which Google doesn't have in search to start with, whatever marketshare it has there.
Price setting power is the ability to control the overall prices in the industry, usually the monopolists ability to raise the prices it charges without fear of losing its dominant market position because of barriers to competition associated with its market position (not mere marketshare.) Every participant in every market has the ability to set the price it charges for services to itself at "$0", that is not the price-setting power that defines a monopoly.
Monopoly power is precisely price-setting power; price-setting power may not always be clear directly, and other factors that may be more easily directly analyzed can be looked at to determine if monopoly power exists.
Specifically, you have to have price setting power.
No one has given any reason to believe Google has this in the search market.
Um, no. The share of the two "markets" is not the same. Search and search advertising are different markets, and marketshare in one is not the same as marketshare in the other. In fact, most search engines can be, and are, used in ways which do not involve serving ads at all, which affects search marketshare, but clearly detaches it from search advertising.
Nope, I mean the ability to set the prices that you will charge others for the good or service in question without concern for competition. If you don't have the power to do that, you don't have a monopoly to leverage. What you are talking about is something that might be leveraging a monopoly if it existed, but you've done nothing to establish that the monopoly exists in the first place. A monopoly is not defined marketshare. A monopoly is defined by price-setting power; now, overwhelming marketshare is usually a prerequisite to price setting power, and it is a common consequence of having that power, but it can exist without that power. Having lots of marketshare, alone, is not having a monopoly.
An argument which is invalid, to start with.
Which is, as stated, false as well, as a monopoly is defined by price-setting power, not marketshare.
Er, no, actually its aimed at exactly the problems of basic education and literacy (content aimed at that is as much part of the project as the hardware), and a big part of the design was aimed at making it usable independent of power infrastructure.
Your charges show complete ignorance of the OLPC project.
73% marketshare is not, in and of itself, a monopoly. A monopoly is defined by monopoly power; having a substantial majority of the market without the ability to exercise monopoly power is not a monopoly: monopoly power is principally the ability to set prices without concern for competition, which is something which you only get when there are considerable barriers for people switching to competing offerings on top of (though perhaps resulting from) your existing marketshare—interoperation needs that affect Windows and Office, for instance—or the fact that there are genuinely no other suppliers in the case of the old steel, oil, and railroad trusts.
Further, 73% of search "marketshare" does not mean 73% of search advertising marketshare. The two are separate things. Its also dubious whether search advertising, as opposed to online advertising more generally with which it is arguably fungible, is legitimately a component of the market in which there can be a monopoly—the availability of alternative venues for online advertising makes it harder for substantial search advertising marketshare to translate into monopoly power.
No, antitrust law does not define "monopoly" by what percentage of the market you have captured, but by the existence of monopoly power.
Yeah, its too bad there is no such thing as automatic updates for any Linux systems.