Mass societal regression where only a self chosen elite lives well. Looking at the U.S. political scene, such a scenario is just a bit too plausible. From my slight bit of reading of Stephenson's latest, that might well be our future, however, his book focuses upon the distant reawakening of human intellect.

I disagree, the wider public should be informed that the News Corporation could easily stop nearly all indexing by simply barring Google and most others by name. Since, they persist in making loud noises about their property , their inaction should be cited exposing their disingenuous posturing. Perhaps Google wishes to avoid a public fight with a bully, however, opinion could tilt against them. If, for example, the News Corporation were to highlight a perceived misstep by Google along with some ready cash to buy the legislation and legal precedent of their choice. Thus, being too timid now, could be very costly in the future.

Regarding the BBC article, they could have checked in-house easily to be told that Murdoch's bluff and bluster had no factual basis. While I tend to give greater credibility to the BBC, I have found their obvious failing really baffling. So I sometimes suspect they ignore the obvious purposely.

You neglect the effect of the close call that MS experienced that tempered, somewhat its proclivity for using the Mafia business model. Remember even under the W, supposedly MS was under judicial restraint. Those factors had to play a role in allowing competition to reappear*.

* However, if you look at the netbook experience where Linux suddenly vanished (supposedly completely) from its initial dominance one can see hints that MS is probably back to its old game, but the environment has altered in the interim.

pricing is reduced by the number and duration of the confirmed number of advertisements you watch per month*.

What could be more fair?

Rupert Murdoch/hc
News Corp**

* provided you have a sufficiently attractive consumer profile

** aka News Corporation for You

Since most of the News Corporation's output is propaganda, why should the reader be forced to pay to read the self interested drivel from either those that Murdoch serves or those that propagate his own views. It's cheaper for him to get his own site and let him blog / spew his content and even charge for the privilege that his few best friends will surely oblige. At that time he can decide too whether or not to allow Google the right to scan and index his out content.

It's a Win-Win for everybody, no pretense at research, no talking heads or key pounders. Just screams of out rage might make a watchable comic routine.

if your interest is limited to a B&W printer for desktop use, from our experience* I would recommend Samsung laser printers as a good choice. Indeed despite my printer having been unused for a period, my daughter is now using it for her printing off a Mac without problems. Works well using Linux, Windows and the Mac, but some configuration tools may not be fully available under Linux and perhaps the Mac.

Now this portion is a bit more problematical when I researched buying a color printer. I ended up with a networked, laser printer that seemed to be an excellent choice though beyond the then current needs**. However, I have had to shut it down due to misuse of one user that has been thoughtless and wasteful (Not my daughter). While I think the research is necessary, you have to set priorities on the individual importance of desired features. Here was some of my experience when I was pushed to make a quick purchase: http://bst-softwaredevs.com/howto/articles/Hardware-buy-laser-print.html

Best of luck with your search.

* models 1210 (mine) and a 1710 or later (his)

** the desktop model would have sufficed at a lower cost

Apples vs MS quality in hardware is not that easily characterized. The Zune (though I would never buy one) is not per se inferior. We may argue about style, however, please recognize that the latter perception is tightly coupled to the current cultural milieu NOT a verity of nature. Apple sells a limited number of products that may themselves be of deficient quality, but at a premium.

MS's problem is greed and the visceral need to own all significant fractions of a market completely.

Apple's forte is greed coupled with the careful selection of high return market niches (some of which may balloon) entirely that they can command (aka "own") without significant competition.

Yes: the sole rights to "innovate".

While snide, there is truth in both my riposte and your assertion of seeming slant in favor of Apple. Yes raises and covering moving expenses used to be standard when one accepted a new position, those are standard recruiting tools plus the vision of professional advancement whether it is ever realized or not.

There will be many missteps, before or even if the promise is realized.

Turning on a gene to start antibody production could have the unintended consequence of starting an autoimmune attack of the patient's own body. Moreover, as others have observed Cancer is neither a single disease nor do the same or similar uncontained growths in differing individuals arise from the same cause.

Be optimistic, but expect failures and less than the full promise to appear. And quickly is even more unlikely, when we have too little experience and too little factual basis to fully predicate those hopes.

for the dinosaurs, they were dying out before it hit and others survived well beyond the collision. Moreover, one cannot state with certainty that a similar event might mean to humans. It would depend where it hit and the response. In some sense it might stop us from our dangerous current course where significant opinion welcomes easily seen disaster. Some blinded by myopic short term interests and others believing, at least some humans, are special and will be protected by their deity of choice. A cosmic event might cause some to rethink was is really important not just for themselves, but for the species. But perhaps not, the survivors may just believe some strayed enough that wholesale punishment has been inflicted upon nearly all. Therefore, their deity (and their's alone) must be placated.

If the latter becomes the predominant voice, at least we can be consoled the planet might not go the way of Venus.

You can fool some of the people All the Time ...

"And that's our target market", said the marketing droid.

Impressive an AC calling a billionaire an idiot. Now say that with a straight face if he beats the inside trading charge (if it even can be made). At very least you will have to agree he is smart enough to hire top notch legal talent should a court case seem possible. Or you will, at minimum, assert he knows whose palms to grease to avoid some potentially damaging PR and to avoid possible financial loss from a levied fine. Even the "W" was not an idiot, intellectually disinterested, yes - idiot no.

You see he got a tip, but he is not one of the founding members of the company, so he cashed out his 6 to 8 % and made a few hundred thousand. That's peanuts to a Billionaire, so don't mix him up with the petty cash Martha supposedly gained. See the difference? If so do I have a business deal for you.

Keep investing in the stock market, your well heeled friends need funds when it tanks. Remember they have a life style to protect. They are not peons, like you or even Martha.

Murdoch must be fairly financially compensated in step with the effort he has expended. It takes talent and exertion to write about the world that has a barely discernible connection to reality. Were these screeds written into book form one could not argue the authors should not be justly compensated for their efforts. Look at Ann Coutler's offerings where many were listed as best sellers upon their release. Therefore, the outpourings of Murdoch ventures should be compensated in the same manner.

Consider to the expense needed to create such a parallel world that has the ring of reality when the minds of the viewers are rightly heated. One prime example is the need for protection for Fox's top performance artists, where were there not sufficient funds a star or two might be bankrupted defending themselves against frivolous lawsuits. For example, alleging ridiculous charges of sexual harassment, of invasion of privacy and of the lack of uniform enforcement of the drugs laws. Think how these tender souls might be tormented and too distracted to attain their top form. So these creative people's efforts would be brought down by simple diversion of the attacks of the rabidness mob. This would be an irretrievable loss we cannot afford. Thus, Murdoch must charge whatever the market will bear, so that he can continue to take the burden of supporting his publishing and entertainment empire.

There is one discordant note, the WSJ must be dispensed with if it continues to strive for journalistic excellence. While we can safely ignore its demented editorial, columnists and arts critic sections, the other journalists still working for this paper must be brought to heel. In my view, the Journal covered some topics in greater depth and quality than the other paper with the greater reputation, based upon past performance and an ethic long gone, the NYT. That cannot be allowed to continue. Murdoch does face one minor barrier, in the contract he promised to uphold the WSJ reputation of excellence. Nonetheless, he has signed similar contracts for other publications and none survived his deft hand as he gutted the beast. Given Murdoch's usual modus operandi this will be a trifling worry, unworthy of the time spent to discuss it. Therefore, I fully expect the WSJ to join the Patheon of Murdoch properties having exactly the same quality assignable it as to all other members and for that he must be rewarded.

Remember, Murdock knows things you do not. He anoints those that govern and he knows that whatever holds the office: Tory, Liberal, Labor or staunch Communist they are already bought off or are simply buyable. Therefore, rest assured he will be rewarded handsomely, if not justly. That is, unless the mob stops being so pliable and compliant. Should that happen - all bets are off.