"As for your second paragraph; that's a political thing, as to whether or not the state (or in the EU's case, the Union) should interfere, and to what degree. However, let's say you did think Google was abusing its position, unfairly, causing you (perhaps as a website operator who needed those search hits to function/generate revenue, but were being punished for not being a Google product, or Google-friendly), what are you alone going to be able to do about it? Nothing remotely effective."

Who cares? In your fictitious scenario with Google (which would never happen the way you describe), even if it could be true, Google earned that right to be that dominant. People chose to use Google en masse. Are you (the all-knowing government) going to punish all of the people who chose to use Google and give it the dominant position? What if such an action caused Google such irrevocable harm that it eventually led to it going out of business? Was "justice" served? Or did the most dominant gang (i.e. the prevailing government), exercise its unjust force over a lesser gang (i.e. Google), crushing it? I would say in such a scenario, the government owes a lot of damages to a lot of people.

What's to stop the EU from systematically only targeting U.S. companies since they seem to be the ones with a lot of money? At what point does it not become completely corrupt and a scheme to steal money from the productive sector into the unproductive sector? I say it is always corrupt.

"For that to happen people have to be free to choose the best search engine"

Uh...they did...80% of them in Canada did. Are you saying people don't know how to choose?

Absolutely disagree. The only monopolies that exist are governments. Governments are the only ones that can hand out true monopolies to companies. Microsoft in the late 90s early 2000's was a classic example of what was mislabeled a monopoly. Many claimed that IE was too dominant and nobody could shake that. Now look at it (and no, it didn't have anything to do with the US antitrust suit against Microsoft. It had everything to do with Firefox being a formidable competitor and Microsoft getting soft).

The most telling line of your statement is "Be thankful that this is happening. It's good for you in the end." Well in that case, why don't you give me all of your money because I know (trust me) that I will better manage your money, and even grow your total assets for you! Oh, and you don't have a choice, because after all, it's going to be good for you.

I'd have to say I don't think it's such a bad thing, nor does it set a new precedent by any means. This type of things happens in languages (human) all of the time. In English, we still use words and phrases such as "he is in the lime light." How many people actually know that that refers to what they used to light stages with back in the early 20th century? Should we replace this phrase because it refers to something most of us have never physically observed? Of course not. Yet, some things in language evolve, morph and turn into something completely new. I don't mind the evolutionary/hybrid approach to language, and I don't mind it for UIs either.

IMO, the controller should have been launched first as a standalone console.

Just about any multiplayer strategy game. Each user having a tablet would allow them to interact with the game in secret. For example, a football game would allow each player to draw their own detailed plays.

More like a cycle of life... the oil spill is eaten by the bacteria, and then the bacteria get eaten by something else, which then gets eaten by something else.

I'm wondering what the fishing boats in the Gulf are seeing, if there was a corresponding explosion of growth in populations of shrimp or such.

Absolutely well said. Also I might add, 100% health insurance coverage does not mean better (or 100%) healthcare goods and services. Also, one last point to add...the U.S. still has, by far, the best and most innovative healthcare system (and coverage) in the world. I suggest anyone interested to listen to this podcast, look at the links, and do some reading here: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/07/scott_atlas_on.html

The WHO report ranking the world's healthcare systems has been proven time and again to be a ridiculous, and very unbiased set of conclusions from their "scientific studies."

Oh, you want **TAX DOLLARS** to go to the church schools! Fuck that. If my tax dollars are going to be used educating children then I want them to learn actual facts that will be applicable in the real world. If you want your kids to learn that the gods commanded that non-virgin brides should be stoned to death use your own fucking money.

I never said to give private schools tax dollars. Where did I say that? Please don't put words in my mouth. I merely said some of the major negatives of public education funded by tax dollars. Tragedy of the commons.

That doesn't justify what the EU does. If the EU imposes a law (hypothetical law) that says all companies must hire 100 women to every man hired, that doesn't make it right even when companies around the world start having to do that same practice to do business in the EU. Just because something appears to be moral and then enacted through a law doesn't make it so. There are still plenty of people who disagree on the morality of any given subject, and to force them to do something they don't want to do on all but the most basic of things (the tenets of a society, do not kill, do not steal, etc), that removal of choice is the thing that is, in fact, immoral.

I have to reply to #7. The idea that getting enough people together to get a certain "majority" of a vote to enact something doesn't make it moral or just. It doesn't make it wise, nor does it make it good. It just means, some people want something, and they're too lazy to enact change through their personal spheres of influence (i.e. their daily relationships). No corporations are not people, but they are made up of people, just like governments are. However, here's the key differences. Assuming that a company has no special monopoly from a government, if they mess up, they cease to exist. If a government messes up, they will not cease to exist until a revolution happens. Let's review what a revolution is: it's a way, with people being killed, women and children being raped and pillaged, and other horrible things. So given that juxtaposition, doing things through the private realm versus doing it through government is morally preferable. You may see this as a giant leap, but there's not enough time or space to explain the entire libertarian philosophy of live and let live. Since you quoted Wikipedia, I suggest you spend some more time there learning about this concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Also, the next time you assume that rights can be taken away from groups or individuals just because you prefer something, I'll propose taking away one of your beloved rights and see how you like it. Mind your own business and live your own life without trying to change the lives of others.

The fact that this is even news and not just someone's uninformed personal decision is because of the nature of public education. If this was a private school making this decision, some parents who send their kids there might be upset, but the impact is much more isolated. Parents at such a private school could then choose (yes, choice...what a wonderful thing!) to take their money and their kids and go elsewhere, where they teach the scientific theory of evolution. This is one of many reasons why I am against public education out of principle and support a much more rigorous switch to private education of varying levels (cheap schools all the way to very expensive schools, online education to old-fashioned education).

"Wouldn't this make the long-term profit on more durable items larger?"

No, this is a tax and thus is a net drain on society. Morality can't be legislated, even if recycling is a good thing. This is nannying the general populous in a very large way and will result in more special treatment for special interests. When these companies can no longer compete with the rest of the world, they'll either move out of Europe or seek special favors from the EU politicians to help keep them afloat. This happens again, and again and is nothing new.

That's why the insurance lobby is going to get HEAVILY behind automated cars, and pushing legislation to make them required. Everyone will still be required to purchase insurance, but the incidence of traffic accidents will drop dramatically.

There's also the issue of cost.

Everyone will want an automated car. Hell, who wouldn't want to take a nap during their work commute, or watch TV or read a book?

New technology is always expensive at first. To reduce cost, I can see car manufacturers offering a budget car that has *no* manual controls. I think that first world countries will adopt automated driving very quickly, and that by the turn of the century, manually operated cars won't exist on public roads.