If Android tablet sales are so far ahead, why are Android tablet use figures so far behind?

They were all bought as gifts for baby boomers.

My guess is that many people who bought those are Android phone owners, and ended up using those instead.

Introduce a product near the top of what people pay for tablets, have some imperfections, incompatible with other market leaders, and plan to improve it over time.

You've got nowhere to go but up.

Then again, 6% market share is pretty good considering the above. MSFT's policy is to get an entry in the market and slowly improve it until it has everything the competitors do and innovations of their own. v1.0 is always bad, v2.0 chaotic, and v3.0 starts the war machine on its path to dominance.

IRC for people who like GUIs?

The internet age: giant companies with huge pots of money, searching for a direction.

Google wants to fix the world. So does Bill Gates. Yahoo wants to be Netflix. Netflix wants to be Amazon, and Amazon wants to be Google.

It seems the money came too easily and too abundantly, and there was never any plan past the basics: Microsoft, unify the desktop computer; Google, search engine; Netflix, streaming video; Amazon, tax-free products online.

Here's the full Bundy statement, in context:

http://disinfo.com/2014/04/une...

Here's the extended Sterling transcript which shows his lady friend attempting to bait him into saying something out of bounds -- note the leading questions and that she brings up race first:

http://deadspin.com/exclusive-...

westerner pretending the problem is poor people having babies

Our population is stable and has been for some time. Further, those statistics (and the source, the tape-doctoring NYT) are suspect.

Social Darwinism isn't going to make conservatives appear less sociopathic

It's not social Darwinism, it's just Darwinism.

Why do you deny science?

http://conservamerica.org/

If the voting base does not rise up and make its wishes known, billionaires take over political parties.

However, I don't know if I'd trust the NYT on anything. They lied about Cliven Bundy and whathisname Sterling by selecting editing the quotations. They're not a trustworthy news source any longer.

Try this:

http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/

As you know -- well, you didn't obviously -- LIberty GB is a new party composed of experienced people from older parties.

Not really - that sort of tripe is an insult to the intelligence of anybody and a disgrace to whoever utters it, be he ever so much a national icon.

The arrogance of the prole.

As opposed to the grand conservative vision where we just let people starve to death and die from lack of health care services because we're too selfish to think about anybody else.

Is that what you think it is?

The conservative vision is to keep around the useful people and make sure they're doing well.

The rest nature will sort out.

If they have a will to live, they'll make survival happen. It's not difficult.

Most of the places that are "starving" are in fact quite capable of supporting basic agriculture using plants which can be gathered from the wild.

Considering that the birth rate throughout damn near the entire developed world is neutral or declining and that the Chinese population is growing at the slowest rate in decades, I don't think overpopulation is the issue that a lot of people do.

Is that what they tell you? Seven billion today, nine billion soon, next stop fifteen billion.

Big media, illegal aliens, racism against white culture, public education, tyrannical government, the destruction of the middle class - basically the Democrat party platform.

They all seem to decline in the same way, which is roughly represented by the above.

It's as if there were some pathological mentality that makes people want to destroy their civilization at some point. Like lemmings marching over a cliff.

Grand liberal vision:

We stop eating meat, everyone has more to eat.

Actuality:

We stop eating meat, people breed until the damage is equivalent to what we're doing now.

Once upon a time many said that about the Irish, Italians, Jews, assorted Eastern Europeans, etc.

Ever notice how more complicated American life got after that time? At least those groups were related to the founding group of Western Europeans. The newer groups have nothing in common at all.

Do you think there's a lesson there?

Yes. What's mistaken for "evolution" is often decline and some people will say anything to avoid facing the bald truth in front of their faces.

Throughout history, diversity has only appeared when dying empires are trying to bolster their economies by importing labor.

They inevitably collapse soon after.

The reason is that when you destroy culture, you have only rules left, and rules are good at prohibiting certain behaviors but can't make people collaborate.

The result is a me-first kleptocracy which inevitably descends to third-world-levels of corruption, filth, disorder, etc.