anton zuykov

clemynx said:

It's just a matter of perspective. 

You think that the American dream is real and that customers have a choice. I think you are naive, that the American dream has been shown to be a lie, that the US are a big scam, that consumers only have the illusion of a choice and that big companies prey on their consumers. 

It is indeed a matter of perspective. But saying something does not automatically make it real.
In other words, the fact that you CAN HAVE an opinion, does not make that opinion valid/reasonable/fact.

Free market is not a scam, and it does work in the US. Whether you like that or not, is another topic.

"that consumers only have the illusion of a choice". So, when I choose to use Google or Bing or another engine, it is just an illusion? When I choose to buy a Lexus vs Ford, it is just an illusion of choice even if I do have that choice? That makes no sense, because when I make that choice, it is real. When you say, there is no choice, that is only in your head.....

foregoneconclusion said:

Uh, that's actually the point of the ruling: Google was intentionally subverting competition by giving their own shopping links the priority within a general search. 

1. Google never promised that their searches will be "fair".
2.  Access to a search engine is not a human right.

 

rotateleftbyte said:

You could not be more wrong. Google has a virtual monopoly of search (>80%) so they have to play fairly.

       Isn't it the case that Google achieved that 80%+ through hard work? So, what is wrong with them using their tools to their advantage?
What you arguing for, is that if a small company competes against Boeing for building airplanes, then the gov-t should tell Boeing what to do in order to make it fair.
And if Boeing has an advantage (of course they do - in terms of knowledge and R&D done), then, they should lay it off, since they are competing unfairly and by using their tools, they create an "unfair advantage" for themselves when they compete against that small company.

gatorguy said:

They won't be allowed to put Google Shopping at the top of the results page, which I'm sure was an effort to address eBay and Amazon product searches. Understandable Google would wish to do so, but also understandable that it could be seen as affecting competitors unfairly.

Yes, from now on, all those who have IQ higher than 100, should take special medications that slows them down so that they could compete with the rest of us "fairly". /s
UE bureaucrats have a really weird notion of what a fair competition is.
It should be level playing field, not "level" player clones with the same skills/abilities, you bureaucratic idiots.... (sigh).

elijahg said:

It would be pretty difficult for a 10w supply to cause a fire that spread as quickly as the one on the aircraft did. As reported before, the avionics bay has halon extinguishers, which would easily overcome a small fire such as one caused by electronics

Avionics bay sits below the flight deck, though, hence, an iPhone/iPad would not be part of the avionics bay in any way. Do they imply that the phone has caused one of the units in the bay to overheat and catch fire?