Thank you for mentioning that. As an ISP owner who competes with cable, dsl, satellite and cell, my biggest obstacle is government regulations. The incumbents get exclusive rights to the resources, so it is almost impossible to compete against them.

If politicians are being bribed how is the government going to help? Seems like a contradiction. The government is part of the problem.

Its probably just a matter of time before they get rid of Picasa, so I am forced to move my albums to G+. And I pay for extra space too!

Hey GOOGLE! Its not the Quantity, its the Quality!

I don't see how it can cost more for me to use GR then Gmail, Calendar, Picasa, G+, Earth, Maps, etc, etc. It's already set up and probably takes very little to maintain. And they get the benefit of my user data across multiple apps and platforms.

I am so tired of companies trying to drive me to be more social. I almost unsubscribed to Wired Magazine because every other article is about facebook, twitter or some other useless social app. I get it already.

Maybe I'll go back to Yahoo...

I agree.
I barely heard anything when Arthur C Clarke, yet I believe he contributed way more to humanity then MJ.

The alleged purpose of the Antitrust laws was to protect competition; that purpose was based on the socialistic fallacy that a free, unregulated market will inevitably lead to the establishment of coercive monopolies. But, in fact, no coercive monopoly has ever been or ever can be established by means of free trade on a free market. Every coercive monopoly was created by government intervention into the economy: by special privileges, such as franchises or subsidies, which closed the entry of competitors into a given field, by legislative action. (For a full demonstration of this fact, I refer you to the works of the best economists.)

A "coercive monopoly" is a business concern that can set its prices and production policies independent of the market, with immunity from competition, from the law of supply and demand. An economy dominated by such monopolies would be rigid and stagnant.

The necessary precondition of a coercive monopoly is closed entryâ"the barring of all competing producers from a given field. This can be accomplished only by an act of government intervention, in the form of special regulations, subsidies, or franchises. Without government assistance, it is impossible for a would-be monopolist to set and maintain his prices and production policies independent of the rest of the economy. For if he attempted to set his prices and production at a level that would yield profits to new entrants significantly above those available in other fields, competitors would be sure to invade his industry.