he's irresponsibly pandering to ignorance to raise his profile

ignorant think he's informing them and giving them "choices"

but this is merely a logical fallacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

a choice between quackery and sound science is not a choice

it's preying on the science illiteracy of many and steering them to make uneducated bad choices that hurt their health. all to turn a quick buck and bask in the blessings of idiots

the nationmaster link clearly shows your statement to be a lie

moronic thread over

all markets degenerate into monopolies and oligopolies naturally. all of them

unless they are regulated, they stay that way. smaller competitors are unfairly treated (just undercut prices until the upstart goes bankrupt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... one of a thousand ways to abuse a market unfairly with no competition) and consumers are gouged

of course, there are corrupt regulations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

so the point is to remove the corruption

remove the regulations and what you have is far worse

the statement

is a religious belief (free market fundamentalism?)

there is zero evidence in reality for your statement

in fact, simple economic history proves the opposite

did the person who voted the lying moron up hover over his links?

the first is an unrelated bing advertisement come on and the second is an xls that no one security aware is going to click on

here are the real facts:

http://www.nationmaster.com/co...

great time to be a kiwi

then there is this assertion:

"They are no longer richer then most of Europe primarily because most of the region periodically insists on throwing the foreign corporations out."

any serious economist or historian would assert a couple dozen reasons for latin america's problems, nevermind the fact that the temper tantrums of venezuela over the past few decades is not germaine to 1900 nor can it be extrapolated to a dozen other countries, which is where this "fact" about "throwing foreign corporations out" seems to come from, some propaganda addled mind

this guy comes across as an alex jones HURR DURR blowhard spouting low iq "facts" and he gets modded up?

this guy is a moron, a liar, and a troll. and someone modded him up because he provided "links"

i can do the same

here is my link proving that fusion power has been blocked by the illuminati in the year 1970

fact!

pfffft

i stopped reading there. that's not history. that's not a remotely accurate or true statement. i don't know if you think you are a clever liar or if you mindlessly believe some ignorant crap shoveled at you, but you can't present a coherent and credible argument by saying such dumb shit. your words serve as a pretty good example of the kind of feeble ignorance some low iq types depend upon to defend the moronic pap they believe in

there doesn't even have to be any malice

abuse can happen simply as a function of market dynamics where one player is so suffocatingly dominant

the eu might want to make some corrections to that

it's their right. and they have a plausible case

yes, microsoft may have some obsessive grievances about google's dominance and might be cheer leading

and?

the real story here is microsoft just doesn't fucking matter. it's yahoo or aol. a geriatric has been puttering along to mediocrity and obsolescence

wang computer. sony. ibm. microsoft

middle age and elderly

oh they'll eke out a respectable slow fade for a long time. they should try to fade away with some dignity i suppose

the eu can do whatever the fuck it wants

in the eu

frankly, i admire a society that brings corporations to heel

rather than the sick pathetic american society where corporations buy the government, corrupt it, and then propagandized morons think that's actually ok. as the middle class shrinks more and they work harder for less. the morons think that's "capitalism". no it isn't, it's cronyism. healthy capitalism is a strictly regulated market, not the biggest players in the market buying the government, regulatory capture, and then abusing smaller players and consumers

i really don't know why there are so many americans so eager to suck plutocrat cock

exactly as they are robbed and raped by them. and think it's the governments fault. because the corporation controlled media channels tell them that. when it's the corporations corrupting their government

fucking morons

microsoft is eternal evil , it always does wrong, and google is eternal good, it can never do wrong

this might have made sense 15 years ago, but google has immense power ripe for abuse

google needs to be reigned in and bought to heel on issues where it's power is too complete

i'm glad someone is doing it. i don't really care if microsoft is along for the ride or not, and it doesn't really matter

i would be delighted to talk to you if you would agree to basic simple aspects of reality. but if you deny truth and persist with a belief that contradicts simple evidence, then to continue to deal with you is simply a form of insanity

god bless dawkins, because i don't have the stomach for dealing with wackjobs. this is what it is like dealing with someone like yourself who has beliefs in contradiction to simple reality:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

sorry dude, don't have the time

but you can persist like the guy who smells like urine, and thinks people back down because he's tough

pointing to corrections that haven't been done yet doesn't mean anything. if something is obscure and unimportant it can persist for years, with no impact. and then it's corrected. if it's important, it will probably be corrected in days or minutes

can anyone point to any other media that this isn't true about? (i'm not talking about corrections, that may never be made, simply that all media has a backlog of errors that need correcting)

and questioning wikipedia's veracity, alone, has no value

judge it against other options and their veracity

the traditional encyclopedia is subject to the editorial whims of professionals, and professionals can have agendas and are not automatically superior to a mass of impartial folk. emphasis on "mass." as thousands of editors, even if there's been a drop in participation, is superior to an overworked few with questionable biases

and please note we're talking about brief introductions to topics, not deep dives into esoteric academic specialties. wikipedia is never intended as a replacement for serious texts on topics. and if someone is relying on wikipedia alone for vital topics, that's the reader's fault, not wikipedia

wikipedia's innate superiority is the same reason we have juries instead of professional judges. professional judges can start deciding cases based on having something to prove: "i'm finding this guy guilty because i made the previous guy innocent" or "this guy is clearly innocent, but it's important to send a message, so i'm finding him guilty"

certainly, a million examples of bad juries can be found. we can find problems with the jury system that are truly horrible

as if that means anything. because all other options are worse

this is classic form of propaganda, half-truth, cognitive fallacy: criticism in a vacuum

outside of the context of other choices, anything can be made to look like shit

for example, we can criticize all sort so problems with democracy. there are many problems with democracy and they are real and major. it's just that our other options are clearly worse

likewise with wikipedia: you can list thousands of things wrong with wikipedia, some truly horrendous

but it's still superior to what came before and other current options

i really did. and i just did it again with this comment. because i mean this:

you can't have a useful conversation with someone who lies and denies really simple facts. you're in the same category as creationists and antivaxxers. you can't be taken seriously because your belief is predicated on denying truth

useless conversation over

i stopped reading here. i'm still trying to understand if you are being incredible stupid or malicious

you do understand that a large media buy can (well, no, they *do*, every day) flood a topic with lies, confusion, propaganda, right?

do you deny that?

if you do deny that, you're simply not a serious person on this topic and there is no value in talking to you

9/11 was an inside job, we never landed on the moon, chemtrails poison our mind, etc: that's the same quality of your words on this topic. on this topic, you're a kook. because you deny a very simple and obvious fact and construct a wackjob belief in direct contradiction to simple and obvious reality

the law says you can unfairly manipulate and dominate a conversation by flooding it with bought and paid for propaganda and lies. why are *you* lying?

really, your stunning naivete or malicious intellectual dishonesty on this topic is ridiculous

you want to assert that media buys by people with lots of money to serve corrupt financial influence is not real? you really want to assert that?

it's like dealing with a creationist or an antivaxxer: you can't continue to assert an insane and clearly false belief and expect to be taken seriously

unless of course you have a lot of money and flood and dominate the topic... then you are taken "seriously" by professional whores, aka corrupt politicians

the problem was what he did wasn't harmless

yes, he's a nonviolent person, but we don't know that

if i point a gun at you as a joke and you don't know me, you're going to react as if i am serious

likewise, anyone flying towards a government building could be a harmless protester, but we have to assume their intentions are violent. simply because we have to be responsible and protect people from harm

frankly, he's lucky to be a live. and i agree with him 100% ideologically. but i would have preferred he had been shot down. yes, he could be killed if shot down. so you shouldn't FLY AT A GOVERNMENT BUILDING. it's really not complicated to understand that's a threat

you cannot pull stunts that can easily be construed as malicious and be expected to get away with it. there are a million better ways to get your point across. the guy obviously was creative, he couldn't think of something else far less threatening?