Facebook is nothing more than a newspaper company. Their interface is the paper and printer and the users who post content are the writers and editors. The big difference (business wise) is that the writers never get paid, and Facebook takes *all* of the money for their content, with the bonus of taking all of the money for selling their users' personal information...

I've been making this point for years, so it's interesting to see Wozniak and other big names coming late to the party in getting on the bandwagon and pointing these issues out. It would be fun to write a bit about Apple's (and other massive tech companies) transgressions, but I'll keep it short.

Money is only the tip of the iceberg of the problems Facebook causes. I deactivated my account just over a year ago now, and will delete it once I stop being lazy and get in there to d/l my pictures. Sucks not being able to participate in group convos or using the events to RSVP or invite people to things, but hopefully from FB's ashes, a more moral system will eventually arise to take its place.

Zuckerberg uses our data to incessantly nag us into buying things we probably shouldn't, or straight up gives away / sells our data without telling us to who, for how much, or for what use. Users have no good way of getting this data back or having it deleted.

Cook uses cheap poor foreign laborers to manufacture Apple phones and other tech, locks people into Apple tech, uses IP protections to control competition, takes a massive cut of all software sales, charges ridiculous prices for minor hardware/software upgrades, forces people into upgrading using battery throttling that he doesn't tell customers about, and stashes hundreds of billions in tax havens. In other words, Apple uses the work of poor people and every shady business practice he can muster to create a massive transference of wealth upwards from the many customers to the few shareholders / executives / high level developers.

Both companies are awful.

I think they mean poor people in other nations... which begs the question; If the very poor can't afford a tiny monthly membership fee (less than $1 a month), then how could they possibly afford to purchase anything being advertised to them? Therefore, I guarantee FB makes much less money per ad in poorer foreign nations than they do in wealthier nations like NA or EU countries.

No no no... what Zuck *actually* means is that if people have to make a conscious decision to give FB their credit card information (presuming any of the childrens or super poor have credit cards) and pay a membership fee, rather than getting a 'free' service, then those people would probably choose to spend their money elsewhere.

People knew Facebook was tracking and using their data. What they may not have known is to what extent FB was using it, who they were giving / selling it too, and what those entities were using that data for.

It seems Leonardo DiCaprio, who differs from most in that he's filthy rich, represents all human beings that are concerned with the environment.

That's true. It also makes trucks very dangerous since the majority of drivers aren't in trucks. If a car is an accident with a truck, they will be on the opposite end of that equation and will have a much worse time during that accident.

Then of course trucks block sight lines, making it much harder to see what's ahead. They take up more space. Are more sluggish to respond. And my personal favorite, have large tires and high backends that allow them to pickup things/rocks in the road and fling them at the cars behind them... since... you know.. there's no mudflap requirement for trucks.

One of my least comfortable positions on the road is behind a pickup truck. I'd rather drive behind a semi with big fat mudflaps than a pickup truck / SUV / jeep without.

The real problem is that if someone were to get admin access, they could plant the malware where there was no way of finding it.

Still though, this was clearly a hit piece by CTS Labs in hopes of capitalizing on the fall out. The shorts must be crapping themselves. With how quickly AMD responded with fixes, my bet is that they already knew about it. For something this serious, you not only want to fix the problem, but test the living hell out of it to make sure you're not inadvertently breaking something else.

Actually, the US is to blame for trade agreements without any consideration for environmental regulation of our trade partners. We are a major consumer of the goods whose production was shifted from the US to those foreign nations. The corporations that sourced their goods from China are fully capable of reviewing their manufacturing and energy generation practices to ensure they're meeting a high standard. We may not be physically throwing garbage over the fence, but it's in our closing our eyes, plugging our ears, and holding our mouths shut that we ensure the same result.

As the consumer, we are just as responsible for ensuring that our goods are sourced from those using environmentally sound methods. Instead we decided price is the only thing that matters. Yet, ironically, it's the market forces that determine prices, not the price of production. Cheap labor, cheap manufacturing processes, and cheap energy generation do not lead to a proportional reduction in price.

In effect, the consumers have gladly handed over their money for a small savings, watched it filter up to the wealthiest individuals and businesses and stagnating there, while the workers didn't get paid for the value they produced and we destroyed our environment in the process.

Go us!

They'll be piloting a zero CO2 emission natural gas plant that has the potential to be cost comparative to other fossil fuel plants. The tech may also be usable for coal. Look into Net Power and the Allam cycle. Not proven yet, but could be a big deal if it works. It effectively produces, heats, and pressurizes CO2 as it burns fuel/oxygen, then uses the heated CO2 to turn the turbine. This instead of heating water and using the steam to turn the turbine. Since the CO2 is already at high pressure, the excess CO2 in the system can be captured, transported, and sequestered. The only thing vented is water vapor.

The real question is where the CO2 would be sequestered to... and of course whether the tech actually works without the heated / pressurized CO2 corroding / destroying the machinery.

Interesting point. If the employees were all to attempt to buy property en masse within 20 minutes of the office, property prices would go up even more, increasing the specified percentage of monthly income.

With that said, owning property isn't just a good investment when prices go up. As long as the home maintains its value (or only loses some of its value), it's a good investment since the money going to the principal is building equity... aka savings. Long term, the only money you're out is for the property tax, mortgage interest, and maintenance costs. That doesn't even take into account that the full monthly mortgage/tax prices is typically lower than the monthly price for renting.

I've always loved the "300 mile re-charge barrier" problem with electric cars. I wonder what the percentage of total days driven includes a person driving over 200 miles, much less 300 miles? (excluding taxis / shipping)

Most people I know go on one, maybe two road trips a year and could easily borrow / rent a car on those days. Don't get me wrong, i'm sure there is that psychological barrier for a lot of people... even if it actually has little impact on their lives.

Because these particular companies have climbed faster and further than any other company in any other industry ever? Sure, there are problematic companies in other industries as well, but these particular companies are leading to serious problems in competition and innovation, and are leading to a massive upwards transference of wealth in our economy/society.

I like to pick on Zuckerberg. The man, one man, made about $30 billion in less than 10 years. That alone was a big warning sign that we had a serious imbalance in a market where there was a lot of demand for this type of product, but no real competition. Adding to the issue, the network itself became very difficult for any competition to exist at all; a single user can't just up and leave if that's the network that their entire social network uses. A person who joins another network can't communicate with someone through the facebook network and vice versa. Facebook pushed to lock-in the user bases of competitive software, capitalizing on the inability for people to switch to competing platforms as the network grew. People bring up Myspace as a counterpoint of competition, but Myspace was very flawed and came in the beginning of the social network craze. Now that Facebook has had years to grow out its software, it's just about impossible for any company to make headways into competing.

Making matters worse is *how* Facebook makes money. It isn't the GUI that makes money, or the software itself. The software is comparable to a newspaper, but a blank newspaper isn't in demand. It's when you put words and pictures on the paper. Facebook made its money by capitalizing on the work of millions of users posting their content on the site. Without this content, no one would ever go on the site to read the ads. On top of this, the experience is clearly addicting. Being that they're monopolizing the industry, the content producers don't have a leg to stand on in negotiations with Facebook. I used to post all the time and my social group spent time on facebook reading my content... but I never got paid. I read friends' content, but they never got paid.

In effect, it's a newspaper, where the journalists don't get paid, there are far more advertisements served on the pages, and the newspaper company that prints the words and distributes them makes all the money. Except print and distributing the words is much much much cheaper... but the ads pay the same if not more...

So between these two massive companies, you don't see serious anti-competitive behavior? One problem I see is that people only think a monopoly effect occurs when a single company is in a market. However, in this case we're talking about one behemoth that's competing with a second behemoth in the market. The fact is that the competition between these companies isn't as fierce as necessary to drive prices down and innovation up... as we can see from the massive margins the handset makers are making on each sale, and with no stopping the rising handset prices.

Clearly the OS / handset makers are more than happy to put out modest annual improvements in their software/hardware without overtaking one another and ride the wave of profits.

Plus, it's not just that these companies *only* make handsets, or *only* make software. They're buying up all related technology company IP, their patent portfolios, their user bases, and under the immense umbrella of wealth that these companies maintain, making it absolutely impossible for competition to flourish. For those software companies that they don't buy, the apps are sold on *their* marketplaces anyways, where they take a significant cut of the proceeds.

In effect, these behemoth companies are capable of throwing massive loads of money at smaller innovative companies that hold IP that they need in their software/hardware to maintain a firm grip on the market.

Shorten their patents, tax higher margins at a higher rate, tax overall profits at a higher rate as they increase... etc. Use said taxes to fund start ups (tax incentives). These things weaken their hold on the industry by increasing their prices the more powerful they get, and strengthening the up and comers.

There's no problem with a company having success. The problem is that success usually results in more success and anti-competitive behavior. Let it go for long enough without control, and we get these anti-competitive, cash-hoarding, overseas capital stashing, loophole creating/using, behemoths that are bad for the economy and society and lead to massive transference of wealth upwards from *everyone* to the hands of the wealthiest few.

There are two... TWO... major phone brands. Samsung and Apple. There are two... TWO... major phone software platforms... Android and Apple. There are two... TWO... major phone software marketplaces. Itunes and Play Store.

This is about as close as you can come to a monopoly; and is absolutely leading to higher prices and a problematic distribution of wealth. These companies don't need to go behind the curtain to price fix. Samsung can simply let Apple lead the way in setting astronomical prices on their handsets, components, and software sales because fanbois and those fearing change will continue buying them at those prices. As people lock themselves into a given phone platform (Apple / Android) they tend to stick with it. Not simply out of loyalty, but out of not having to understand the opposing software. It's effectively a free line of profit for the company where they won't lose customers. Samsung just follows Apple's lead and price their handsets at a slightly cheaper price.

Smart phone prices are way over the top... how much profit is Apple making per iPhone X? 50-60% margins?

Once a person has a smart phone in hand, Apple absolutely is monopolizing the software sales end of their hardware, just as Google is absolutely monopolizing the software end of their OS.

Add to this that ALL companies are employing cheap Chinese laborers to manufacture the phones, while continuing to raise the prices of the handsets, leading to a direct transfer of wealth from the many to the few. This alone should result in a penalty for the company. If the manufacturing workers were paid based on the market the phones were sold in, there would be a much better distribution of the revenue from the phone sale. That isn't happening, money is transferring upwards. Apple's now approaching $300 billion in *cash* with no sign of a slowing of its cash hoarding, and is approaching a $1 trillion market cap.

We need them to spend that money back into the economy... the kicker is that if they do, they'll likely buy up even more talent than they already have, buy up more companies that are potentially their competitors, and make it even more impossible than it already is for new real competition to enter the market.

On the contrary, consider the solar panel industry where there are MANY companies and substantial competition. With each new and improved panel, the prices go down per watt.

It doesn't take a genius to realize something's wrong. Just look at the profit margins. It's a very easy sign that there simply isn't enough competition in the market, and it's resulting in a massive transfer of wealth from the many to the few. Horrible for the economy, horrible for innovation, and horrible for society.

Well, just to add to this, we had a cellular industry in the US that was pushing for 2 year upgrades; claiming they were either free or very cheap, but then they were subsidizing the phone cost through the expensive cellular plans. In that case, people didn't need to give much consideration to battery life. They could get screwed over in total, blissful, ignorance.

Now that cell plans are moving to a non-subsidized model; it makes holding on to a phone for more than 2 years more attractive. In doing so, battery life is absolutely critical; for both retaining a phone for longer, and in re-sale value. During the subsidized model, you would return your phone, they would cheaply refurbish it, and then re-sell it for a good chunk of change. That was lost value to the owner and more profits for the network providers / phone companies.