I don't see how they have a monopoly on the search engine market. It is definitely the most popular and probably the best search engine, but there is definitely no limit on other adequate alternatives. A monopoly occurs when a company controls a product or service significantly enough to significantly control the terms people must follow access it. Google hardly does this. Most people might choose them, but they don't need to in order to access a search engine. For example, if tomorrow Google decided to start charging a buck a search, 99.9% of their users would instantly switch search engines with very little ill effects.
Heh, try this for size: "I don't see how they have a monopoly on the operating system market. It is definitely the most popular and probably the best operating system, but there is definitely no limit on other adequate alternatives"
Microsoft got into trouble because they leveraged the popularity of one product (Windows) to push another (IE). Google will be fine provided they never release a feature on their website that requires Chrome. At that point, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
But IIRC, windows/IE was different: how easy was it for the typical person to run a computer without windows as their operating system? Not very, unless they bought one brand of product (Apple). However, for every service google offers, there are multiple and easily accessible alternatives. With most ISPs, Google isn't even the default search engine out of the box.
Google wouldn't make a Chrome-only feature, simply because then it wouldn't be available to the massive user base which doesn't use Chrome. Which is most people right now, and will probably continue to be most people.
I think that depends. If Chrome actually enabled features otherwise impossible, they might. At least they'd have a rational reason too (as would all developers). Maybe Gears is more of a candidate for this.
But I love newspapers. I can't think of anything else that would make a more convenient and effective covering for the bottom of my bird's cage. And a supply that lasts me several months only costs a buck! Now that's what I call technology.
The thing is that lowering the drinking age doesn't dramatically raise the availability of alcohol for 18-year-olds. I know that when I was underage, I had no problem getting booze. And I work with teenagers now: they still don't have problems getting booze. What the higher drinking age does do is drive the drinking underground. So 18-year-olds have to drive more so that they can drink at bush parties. Or when a friend gets alcohol poisoning, they are afraid to get help.
Also, I would say that 80+% of people have their first drink before they legally can. This means that their parents usually have no clue they are drinking, and so they are less able to give their children guidance.
I don't deny that 18 year-olds have access to alcohol. I did plenty of drinking well before I was 18. It would be hard to argue however, that lowering the drinking age to 18 wouldn't give them more and easier access to alcohol.
There are tons of laws that I disagree with in this country but this isn't one of them. In fact, I think penalties for selling to under age kids should be much more harsh than they are now.
You have your head in the sand. I have been on both sides of a crash, my brothers best friend lost his fiancée after she was hit by a drunk driver and a guy I grew up with killed 2 people drinking and driving about a month ago - he saw a cop and was worried about getting pulled over so he sped away and hit two people walking down the road. One was over 21, one under, either way they were still dumb enough to drink and drive. When I was under 21 I didn't drink and drive, and now that I'm over 21 I don't do it.
No doubt that lowering the drinking age would increase access and alcohol consumption. I'm just saying that I would think it would raise these too dramatically.
I do think that the negative effects that driving drinking underground are greater than the effects that increasing drinking would have.
Late 80s is pretty close to 1990, and I'd bet MADD USA was active in Canada before they actually created a formal organization. Not that I really know that for sure.
In general (I was around in the late eighties) I'd say that that's the time when drunk driving basically became socially unacceptable in Canada. I think it's still acceptable in the US to a much greater extent. Whether that was because of MADD or not, I don't know.
social acceptability is the big problem. driving is the only activity most people commonly engage in that routinely kills people. It needs to be taken more seriously and the step towards that isn't legislation it's making it socially unacceptable for people to drive recklessly.
I don't think they are really against Drinking and Driving. They are against Drinking. Period. And they are also largely about inflating their own reputation and salaries.
I live in Canada, where the Olympics are broadcast by the CBC, which is a government-owned networks. I too was frustrated by there being commercials every two minutes. However, I got a stopwatch and timed how many commercials there were in an hour: there were 13 minutes, which is actually slightly less than "normal" television. My guess is that they have very frequent but short commercial breaks to better fit in between races, events, or whatever. Also, this makes sure that people who are just taking a few minutes to check in see atleast one commercial. Has anybody made any observations about NBC- do they really have more commercials than other TV?
Now I just wish Canada would win a medal: frankly, it is embarrassing that tiny little Georgia which is in the middle of a freaking war is currently beating us.
Swimming also puts you in better shape IMO. I used to run plenty, but my knees started hurting, so now I only run if I am actually playing a sport. I took up swimming for my exercise. I'd never taken a swimming lesson in my life, but I just went to the pool and started doing it. A few times I asked the life guards for some tips, and I also chatted up some of the good swimmers and got tips from them.
I went for a 2k run the other day just to see what it was like after swimming but not running for a couple months. It was about the same as when I ran everyday (maybe even a bit easier), and I have a slightly more toned upper body now.
I didn't know how to swim efficiently: if you threw me in the pool, I wouldn't drown, and I could maybe do one continuous lap (50m) if I pushed myself.
The issue with targeted ads isn't the targeted ads, but the information collected and stored to generate them. AFAIK, Ad Block does nothing to help with this. Also notice that opting out likely doesn't help either.
