America is where you go to sell stocks, easiest place to to part people from their money.
Google won the search wars because it ignored what content providers thought should be top of the listings (but let them buy ads), and put what search USERS should be top of the listings. That's how it got where it is and why it's stayed where it is. That's why there are entire businesses based around trying to get your site to the top of Google without getting chucked off their listings - because it's not as easy as just asking, or paying, or tricking Google.
Hence, if ".buy" suddenly starts getting to tops of listings where you have no reason or interest of it being there, then Google will suffer - as well as ".buy"
Decent search made domain names obsolete. I don't even know the domain of many of my favourite sites, but I know an exact Google search that will list them in the top 10 if I ever need them (e.g. I lose my bookmarks). That's why I don't get why people still are buying anything more than a single, relevant domain for themselves.
Seriously, what difference do you get in search rankings if you search from a mobile? Google knows you're on mobile. You can search for mobile terms. Now how many of those results are actually of ".mobi" sites?
TLD's and domain names are money-grabs. They only have any effect on "dumb" search engines that are already selling your entire front page to the highest bidder.
Killing a non-competitive industry
What's non-competitive about it? You think other tax jurisdictions aren't playing the same game?
But in the long-term, a more competitive and stronger industry will emerge.
Or it will nestle somewhere else where it can squeeze the local government for some concessions. I'd rather the jobs be in Canada than elsewhere. The candian content regulations provide some unique leverage over the industry. The tax breaks are the carrot... and the canadian content regulations (that they qualify under if its produced significantly within canada) is the stick.
Just as the US and Canada should never have rescued the auto-makers when they imploded
I agree they handled it pretty poorly, but letting it collapse would have been stupid too. The country would not be better if all those jobs, and supply chains, and the service industries supported by that industry had all collapsed like a string of dominoes. Sure the market would have corrected itself and sorted itself out after a 'great depression', but millions of people still have to eat in the meantime. That's a huge drain on the economy, and an incubator for crime and even real civil unrest. Far better to prop up the industry up with bridge financing then to put them all on various welfare programs.
They handled it poorly though. Those who were responsible for manufacturing the crisis should have been reduced to poverty.
Hmmm, thats a long way from Finland.
Not according to iMaps
Go into the bankruptcy paper-work business. If you ever have to file bankruptcy, you'll be ready.
<spooky music> That's what the NSA wants you to think </spooky music>
2075: "A tab? How quaint"
not be long until your genome is tracked from birth to death. I am sure we do not want to have genome objects hacked or changed via silent corruption
Wakes up, "WTF? I have a....Vagina!? Hoooneeeyyy!"
Hooray, getting more plastic knockoff versions of things, produced by slaves (hint: Communism doesn't treat people kindly), with zero regard for the environment, and shipped halfway across the planet.
No, all consumer x86 should have that ability.
Yes, as specified by Microsoft themselves. They shouldn't have to say it, but you know the OEMs are lazy as shit and wouldn't offer the option if they could get away with it.
Not that they all actually work properly to the UEFI specs once you do.
But on an unlocked platform you should be able to add custom keys.
And you can, I have.
Anyways, some embeded x86 systems can be locked (beside intel allows it only on chips designed to go into DVR's and other embeded devices)
And locked down embedded systems are always a problem, but they don't require secure boot or UEFI to do so.
I block ads because I don't need to have every second of my life consumed with being fed advertisements (my adblocker on just one machine has blocked nearly one million ads in just 2014, so far). That it also prevents certain tracking and infection from nefarious advertisements and payloads is just a bonus.
Find a new model or find a new job, nutsacks.
secured the system against user violations such as overwriting the bootloader with one that isn't signed (like for instance, replacing or enhancing the BIOS with a signed EFI that prevents the user from installing alternative OSes such as OSX onto a commodity x64 or GNU/Linux onto a MS-subsidised laptop
Which has not happened. Seriously. All x86 systems have the ability to turn off secure boot.
It's actually a good strategy for MS, I think, and I believe Ballmer screwed up by not following this strategy.
For other companies, it only works in the short term because their competitors win in the long term because without good employees, the company can't develop new products. However, for MS, this just isn't a concern. They're a monopoly in many markets, especially in business software; companies aren't going to suddenly stop buying Windows, Exchange, Office/Outlook, etc. MS can milk their existing customers for a couple of decades I think, and could easily jack up prices greatly.