I think the lesson would be that in jumping platforms, they elected to have Google as a competitor rather than a partner. They bet on MS hard, despite the market reality demonstrating a pretty bleak scenario for Windows Phone. So *if* you are going to finally jump platforms, don't jump to the last-place player.
The lesson in one word is: Innovation. If you are in an "active technology" based industry there can be no pause in your leadership of new and/or breaking technologies to maximize profits or focus elsewhere. By the time you recognize that things are starting to change it is too late to recover.
Whatever you think..taxes should not be used for behavioral manipulations.
Taxes are for funding the govt services we all need...that should be it...period.
People should be free to choose to drive and spend in the fashion they wish.
Taxes weren't passed to allow a 'chosen' few to dictate citizen behavior....
So you advocate rolling back tobacco taxes?
Speaking for myself, absolutely. Taxes used for social engineering are wrong. Period.
The purpose of taxes are to pay for the government. If the specific role of fuel taxes are to pay for the roads, then raising them with the idea of forcing 'economy' is wrong.
It is also amazing to me that some of the same people who will practically demand such taxes in the name of the environment will turn right around and argue that a flat tax is wrong because it hurts the poor. As if the higher fuel tax doesn't?
Grants & subsidies are another way the government manipulates things and allows people to buy homes, provide food through local farming, discover new science and create new technologies, provide access to education for the non-wealthy and yes, even provide energy for our country. To suggest that every part of modern society is not being manipulated in some form is naive; especially in these examples where their use is transparent and tend to be for the benefit of our collective well-being. I like keeping as much of my own money as the next guy, but if everything was left 100% to market forces we would be living in a toxic waste dump with less individual achievement and education. To some degree every society needs direction and taxes and subsidies are the current tools.
The purpose for patents is not to protect the invention any more. It's to protect against ANY invention. And that's not what patents are for.
Unfortunately patents have not protected inventions for a long time, they are designed to be used to exclude others from copying your exact methods and do not necessarily allow you to do something. "Law" Header -> "Effects" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
Since 99% of home users don't understand what is going on, all it would mean is more computers would be going to the shop for simple cleanings.
You say that like it is the users fault, however, poor documentation and complex UI design (although completely off topic) is equally, if not more at fault
"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds