Selective reading. How about "As someone stated above, if advertising didn't work nobody in their right mind would dump the hundreds of billions into advertising year after year after decade.. (you get the point). It works, they do dump the money. ".
Psychological manipulation trumps your freewill more often than you probably know.
"Dr. Oz is a quack" is not a fact, it's an opinion. It's pretty frightening that you seem to lack the ability to differentiate fact from opinion. That is what the site does over and over, as do you. You, and those sites are spending so much time poisoning the well and attacking that there is no fact, except that you appear to be a bunch of jealous juveniles without the ability for rational thought.
I am not passing judgement on him, because I lack the facts. I can however point out how irrational you are in your opinion.
It is impossible to argue with irrational people, come back after you mature and can present a fact bases opinion.
Look, it's really simple: we live in the Surveillance Age now, there's absolutely nothing we can do about it, might as well find a few upsides. You know the old saying "when rape is inevitable, relax and try to enjoy it"?
Another "downside" to pervasive surveillance: a disturbing degree of fatalism.
Are you so mentally deranged that you claim a blog post is evidence? No, it's not! Instead of wallowing in your pathetic OPINION step back and review FACTS.
Was he reprimanded in any way by any medical board? NO
Was he found guilty of any form of malpractice? NO
If the doctors want to claim he is a quack they must provide evidence. If you claim he's a quack YOU must provide evidence. No evidence == delusional opinion.
No, you're just part of the gender which is a minority in positions of power like government, CEO's, etc.
The word "minority" has a pretty well established definition, and that isn't it. I think you mean "protected group", which is something altogether different.
If you offer a viable alternative, look for "something really, really unfortunate" to arrive with an innocuous name like "Net Neutrality", or something.
Since you brought up Net Neutrality: can you give me one example of a small, innovative startup in the ISP business in the last 10 years?
No? Why not?
I'll tell you why not: it is not a competitive market. It's a de facto oligopoly, with barriers to entry that are far to high for the little guy to vault.
That's where government's legitimate role begins: by regulating or breaking up oligopolies and monopolies, so that there can be competition in the marketplace.
Don't expect market forces to fix a problem when there isn't a real competitive market in the first place. That's not very realistic.
And I'll answer my own question: the only "new" broadband ISP to make a name for itself in many years now is Google, and they can hardly be called a "little guy". They are one of the few groups that has the money and muscle to elbow its way in to a business that is very hostile to outsiders.
Oh, you mean like the Tungsten C?
No, I mean like the Treo, exactly as I wrote before. The screen was 320x320, it had a chiclet keyboard, and did not come with Graffiti.
So I looked it up, and the highest-resolution Tungsten device was at 320 x 480 and now median phones are 720p, the display was only TFT and now phones are starting to be OLED, and the screen was 3.7" while modern phones are 4-5". The specs of the best Tungsten phone were beaten by feature phones some years ago.
Yes. I didn't say it was high-resolution did I? But it has only been a relative few years that smartphones have had screens bigger than about 3.5". THAT'S MY POINT. Where's the argument?
We did, and no, Palm's 3.7 inch display with almost no dots and also very few colors by modern standards was not comparable to a modern smartphone display. Not even a cheap one.
No, we didn't. Not until a few years ago. Nothing you are saying (except that) has contradicted my point in any way. Size of the screen does matter, even if the resolution was not stellar.
I'll repeat my point since you don't seem to have gotten it: they shrunk the screen (compared to most Tungstens), added the Blackberry-style keyboard, and ditched the handwriting input. In other words, they were competing with THE OTHER CELL PHONE MAKERS of the day, rather than marketing the things that made Palm unique. They could have simply added a phone and left everything else alone.
I didn't try to claim the resolutions were the same as today. That would be ridiculous.
And here's where you go straight off the rails. See, space curved there. In specifics, the PDA market went away, and was replaced by the smartphone market.
Nonsense. Palm had the Tungsten. It was a perfectly good color handheld, with color touchscreen as big as a modern smartphone. I used to play Bejeweled on my Tungsten and IMO it was just about as good as Bejeweled 3 is on the desktop now.
Then came the Treo... their smartphone. They reduced the size of the screen to 1/2 or even less of what it had been before, added chicklet-style keyboard ala Blackberry, and dropped the Graffiti written input.
In other words, they were trying to copy Blackberry. They dropped the things that made them truly unique: a full-size color touchscreen, and Graffiti.
Now, finally, we have smartphones that match or best the Tungsten's color screen in size and resolution. We could have had that many years ago, if Palm had simply added a phone to their existing device, and left the rest alone.
I see, they have added it as yet another app in the app store, not open source, and I guess requiring to have google apps installed. I don't need shit like that.
Wow! We're back to what Palm did quite well 15 years ago! How wonderful!
Fact is, Palm had it made. The OS had shortcomings but they had a mini-computer in a handheld device, with adequate handwriting recognition.
They threw it all away to compete in the "mainstream" cell phone business, and producing "mainstream" cell phones, giving up all that made them unique at the time. What a waste.
Hint to future Palms: don't give up what you're good at, in order to compete in a market that is already doing all that other stuff, better.
Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky
