Bing probably won't win....

but that doesn't mean it can't, particularly if google are stupid.
I can think of a number of top tier companies, 3dfx for example, who were the absolute unquestioned masters of their market but who got wiped out because they didn't take their competition seriously and let their product stagnate.

Google almost certainly isn't running around in a panic over Bing, to wipe them out now would take a product which is measurably better in some important way(speed, ease of use, quality of results, etc) for anyone to even come close to toppling them. At the same time they'd be idiots to ignore new competition, inspiring the dominant market players to expend resources improving their products is one of the most common benefits of increased competition.

Google are just being sensible. Bing may be nothing in fact it almost certainly will be, but it may be something. Even if it only grabs 1% market share, if it grabs that share from google they lose money.

Only stupid companies blindly assume that their competition will fail and their dominance cannot be challenged, and Google are anything but a stupid company.

google susceptibility to SEO gaming is significant

On the one hand, the lack of a technologically compelling competitor to Google concerns me. As a consequence, google susceptibility to SEO gaming is significant, but Google doesn't have a sound business justification to change what is working unless a competitor outdoes them. Unfortunately, in business the only 'justifiable' time to fund improvements is when there is *something* to gain and Google simply has nothing to gain in this context without competition.

On the other hand, I don't think Microsoft should be the one to come in. They are another goliath that retains some good technical people, but strategically knows little more than brute force nowadays to get into markets. They bought their way into second place in game consoles, they are trying to buy their way into some niche markets where Linux currently leads (both in the server room and embedded spaces). They tend to offer generally 'mostly sufficient' technology that doesn't really stack up to their competition or blow them away on a technical level, but earns what ground it can by sheer force of money earned through the markets they did corner at the right time with the right technology (invented or purchased). Through dumping (and even further, sometimes essentially bribing customers to use their products) they pursue an obsessive need to take over new markets.

In other words, I want to see Google challenged by a competitor on the strength of the technology they offer, not on the strength of a massive marketing budget and the ability to blatantly lose money for future market share. I have tons of respect for Google for actually innovating and revolutionizing search while every major player languished. I want another google, not microsoft, to get Google back on its toes.

Why is there this talk about increasing the age of eligibility

Why is there this talk about increasing the age of eligibility when reintroducing the taxation surcharge has not been mooted?

John Key has been quoted that he considered suggesting an increase in the age of eligibility to obviate superannuation problems as being his most regretted political statement, but he is now testing the waters by way of these Right-wing stooges. He has said that he will resign as leader of the National Party if there is any change to superannuation rates or entitlement.

Altering the age of eligibility is definitely a change to entitlement, but changing the marginal rate of taxation on additional income is outside his undertaking.

Fred Hamer should not have received both his income (without a taxation surcharge) from working as well as full National Superannuation. There are people almost doubling their income overnight on their 65th birthday, while there is average 19.5% youth unemployment and up to 50% in some age-groups and areas.

There are jobs summit suggestions about encouraging early retirement at the same time as National Superannuation is totally unaligned.

Despite what Muldoon called it, National Superannuation is a welfare benefit. To say that there should be unconditional entitlement to receiving it is nonsensical. I have spoken to many retired, or near retired, persons and all see the receipt of National Superannuation without a surcharge on other income as an anomaly (perhaps the biggest anomaly) in New Zealand's social welfare system.

When Muldoon introduced National Superannuation for all, the top marginal rate of taxation was 66 per cent. In essence, this meant a significantly lower transfer payment to those receiving significant other income. Since then personal income taxation rates have been lowered (and a top rate of 30% is mooted) and GST has been imposed. Those continuing to work after reaching age 65 are receiving a much greater benefit than they would have when National Superannuation was first introduced.

My opinion is that a progressive surcharge should be applied. Investment income should be exempt so as not to discourage savings. An amount of supplementary business or employment income taking an individual's total income to the equivalent of an average wage should be tax exempt. Thereafter, a progressive marginal income tax rate should be applied, unless the individual opts out of receiving National Superannuation.

The "married rate" should go and National Superannuation should be paid only to individuals and the above regime be applied on an individual basis. The spouse of a Superannuitant who has not reached age 65 should be entitled to receive a single adult unemployment benefit without obligation to be work-tested.

There might be some loopholes (trusts, or something), but these would not be as anomalous in aggregate as the present system of receiving both National Superannuation and employment or business income free from taxation surcharge.

If this does not address forecast actuarial shortfalls in superannuation provisions, then a surcharge on some level of investment income should be the next option.

There's no TIME to lose....

To borrow from Captain Braxton. And, To borrow from /. and Terminator 2, and more from Trek you will need to start with:

-- 5 million sun-block,
-- super-mega tinfoil hat, polymorphic
-- Federation Timeship Aeon, mk IV
-- Subspace polarization inhibitor, non-time-domain-collapsing
-- Fluidic Gateway to unlimited supply of Ketracel White
-- Vidian anti-aging/anti-phaging cream

because one, more or all of the cogizant agencies may have reasons to knock your ass across 5 timelines, 27 dimensions, dozens of gender and species reassignments, and multiple states of matter...

GOOD LUCK!

Mathematica and A New Kind Of Science

Fifty years ago, people assumed that computers would quickly be able to handle all kinds of question. It didn't work out that way. But a few years ago, I realized that I was finally in a position to do it myself. As I'd always expected I#d have to, of course.

I had the crucial ingredients: Mathematica and A New Kind Of Science. And my truly massive intellect. With these, I had a language to compute anything and a paradigm for complexity from simple rules. And my spectacular brain, which is much more spectacular than anyone else's, as proven by me being rich as well as smart. Which is smarter: to be a professor, or to be the professor all the other professors pay tribute to? I think my net worth makes the answer clear.

But what about all the actual knowledge that we as humans have accumulated? I realized we needed to make all data computable as knowledge. Of course, natural language is incredibly difficult for computers. So we added the secret ingredient: my jaw-droppingly spectacular brain, undoubtedly the largest on Earth.

I'm happy to say that with a mixture of clever algorithms and heuristics, linguistic discovery and curation, and some casual Nobel-worthy theoretical breakthroughs in my spare moments, we've made it work. It's going to be a website with one simple input field that gives direct access to my superlative brain, in its planet-sized glory.

Our pre-launch testers have been at work as well, and I'm dealing with all manner of queries in spare thought cycles while I jetset around the world, wowing the pitiful minds of gorgeous international supermodels before impregnating them with my superior genetic material. Let's just have a look at the query stream:
"tits" "goatse" "mary whitehouse naked" "4chan" "tubgirl" "2girls1cup" "ITS OVER 9000 LOL" "desu desu desu desu"

launch a website

You can be pretty sure that this wasn't the idea of the engineers who built the website. The worst possible launch from an engineering standpoint is a high-profile one where your traffic spikes immediately on going live. The likely outcome is that your site goes down and all your PR effort results in nothing other than ridicule.
When I've been involved in launching websites I've always had to talk down the PR people from some kind of high-profile launch, to something as gradual as possible

try mac tell your friends

Tell your friends with the Macs to try and run the latest versions of some of the Mac software out there like iWorks 

or iLife 09 and see what the results will be. At a certain point, memory and processor will take over the OS and the 

OS used will make no difference what so ever. My brother has a 2007 MacBook that works like a snail when iMovie or 

Garageband (09 versions) are loaded on it. 

 

I have a PC at the house that is more than 7 years old (HP to be exact) and for my wife's web surfing, image 

printing, and checkbook apps, it works just fine and never had an issue. 

 

The concept that Macs are better and can last longer is a function of the fact that the latest and most advance 

software generally is not released to the Mac at the same rate that it is released for the PC. That is also a 

function of how many macs are really out there since a software producer will have to think hard about whether or 

not to develop for the Mac. 

 

So yes, Macs are more expensive, but they are not necessarily better. If you compared the hardware of the MBP 17″ 

to a Dell XPS 17″ with comparable hardware, the hardware is the same but the price is about $1000 less. That $1000 

is what people are paying for the OS and not the hardware. Most people do not realize that it is the software that 

crashes and not the hardware (most times). I paid that price for my MBP but I needed a Mac for iPhone development. 

My friends do not need to pay that tax and neither do the people in these ads or the average person.