Slashback: Google, China, Network Neutrality 143
Google's reasoning behind rejecting the DoJ motion. xandroid writes "Google's blog has an explanation of their response to the DoJ motion." They have also provided a link to the entire 25 page response [PDF] sent to the DoJ.
Chinese censorship continues to be a hot topic. Mercury News is running an interesting article about the recent scolding top tech companies received from Washington with regards to assisting in censoring the internet in China. However, the Washington Post also has an interesting article regarding a senior editor at the China Youth Daily who posted a 'blistering letter on the newspaper's computer system attacking the Communist Party's propaganda czars and a plan by the editor in chief to dock reporters' pay if their stories upset party officials.' And finally, Wikipedia remains blocked in China despite the continued efforts of fans to correct the problem.
1960's Digicomp toy computer back in production. Larry Groebe writes "With all the talk last week about "first computers" on Slashdot and around the net, I was surprised to see only one mention of the Digicomp. A group of us keep the memories alive on Yahoo's 'Friends of Digicomp' group, and one enterprising member has managed to reconstruct the computer and is now selling them again for the first time in three decades. Its' a nostalgia trip for some of us; an eye opener for people who never experienced it; and still carries more than a bit of educational value. After all, even in these days of MAKE magazine, how many other true build-it-from-scratch computer kits are there?"
New York Times backs network neutrality. joshdick writes "In a recent editorial, The New York Times voices strong support for legislation requiring network neutrality. From the article: 'Some I.S.P.'s are phone and cable companies that make large campaign contributions, and are used to getting their way in Washington. But Americans feel strongly about an open and free Internet. Net neutrality is an issue where the public interest can and should trump the special interests.'"
Hard drive death dance tracks. daithedragon writes "A while back Gizmodo awarded the prizes in a competition to make a dance tracks out of the recorded noises of hard drives dying."
Serenity enters the black. stuart1310 writes "According to sliceofscifi.com the DVD sales of Joss Whedon's Serenity have recently climbed out of the red and started making profit for Universal. Beware, these numbers are estimates and even if accurate we've still a sight to go before seeing Serenity on TV or in the theaters again. Here is to hoping we do."
USPTO issue final rejection in RIM patent case. tsalaroth writes "ABC News is reporting that the USPTO has officially rejected at least one of the patents in the Blackberry infringement case. From the article: 'The U.S. patent office on Wednesday issued its first of several anticipated final rejections of patents held by NTP Inc. related to Research in Motion's BlackBerry device, two days before a judge will hear arguments on an injunction on the wireless e-mail service.'"
Aren't spaceships always in the black? (Score:4, Funny)
Interesting math in the Serenity article (Score:2)
Clearly, the math used by the author is: $48M ~= $38M + $9M, but this ignores the previously stated fact that the studios only receive 55% of ticket sales (and presumably only some proportion of DVD sales).
Re:Interesting math in the Serenity article (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Interesting math in the Serenity article (Score:2)
It is still about $19M short of break even, even if you assume that the $9M is net to the studio.
Re:Interesting math in the Serenity article (Score:1)
Agreed. However, if you assume a DVD margin of 50% (reasonable, considering a 55% margin on box office revenue), with 2 million units sold at an average price of $20, that adds up to an additional $20 million in revenue, which would put the movie just in the black. I think the article is at least plausible.
Re:Interesting math in the Serenity article (Score:5, Interesting)
Serenity will never make a profit.
Why? Because no movie ever makes a profit. [wikipedia.org]
Just ask all the writers and so forth who were naive enough to sign contracts awarding them a percentage of the net profit, rather than a percentage of the gross intake--including one of my favorite fantasy novelists, Peter S. Beagle, who is still owed a great deal of money [conlanpress.com] for his work on the Rankin/Bass Lord of the Rings movie. It's questionable whether he'll ever see a penny of the $200 million that was paid to the rights-holder out of the Peter Jackson movies...
Good question. (Score:4, Informative)
And the answer is...
Last week. [slashdot.org]
Thank you for playing.
In fact, it appears to be have been quite some time [slashdot.org] since Serenity was mentioned.
Oblig (Score:2)
Re:Aren't spaceships always in the black? (Score:2)
I was disappointed in the extreme. I would have considered it good sci-fi for the SciFi Channel... anything is better than Frankenfish, Manticore etc... but really, it didn't seem to me like very good Sci-Fi (at least the movie, I haven't seen the series). The dialogue was ok, the special effects were defina
NTP Patent invalidated? (Score:2)
So is there a good legal reason why a judge would enforce an injunction against RIM if one of the patents has been rejected, and it looks like the others will be too?
Re:NTP Patent invalidated? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:NTP Patent invalidated? (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't imagine any lawyer worth his fees not making strained, vociferous arguments for an indefinite continuance (until the Patent Office releases its final reports on these patents) to rule on the motion for the injunction.
If the patents are all invalidated, (and there are indications that very well could happen) what needs to happen is for
Re:NTP Patent invalidated? (Score:2)
RIM also needs to sue the government for billions of dollars for its part in passing these fraudulent patents. The threat of enormous liability is the only thing that will instigate patent reform. Perhaps a class-action lawsuit could be brought against the government for trillions of dollars.
Re:NTP Patent invalidated? (Score:2)
Unfortunately, suing the Federal government is prohibited by the Constitution, although I suppose you could sue the government official in charge of the patent office personally...
Re:NTP Patent invalidated? (Score:2)
When the lawsuit started, the patents were valid. So the judge has to decide if the technology used by RIM is similar enough to those patents to rule that RIM did infringe on them. Unless the patent office and/or the judge say that the invalidations
Re:NTP Patent invalidated? (Score:2)
> enough to those patents to rule that RIM did infringe on them.
At this point "all" that is at issue is a preliminary injunction barring RIM from continuing the allegedly infringing activity until the trial is over and a final decision is issued. This requires that the judge determine if NTP is "likely to prevail" and if NTP is likely to suffer "irreparable harm" if the activity continues.
I think that the present situation -- with t
Google's next request for searchs response (Score:4, Interesting)
Just wondering what Google is going to do when the Chinese authorities ask for the same search information for which the US has asked.
Will they roll over and provide it, or will they actually resist?
Re:Google's next request for searchs response (Score:5, Interesting)
Google's responses so far in the congressional hearings about their China business indicate they obey all laws within the countries they operate, including China. So if Chinese officials can legally ask for search information for Chinese citizens, Google's current stance is that they will provide it.
Google is in a bind right now because China will be one of the world's largest markets for information technology in 20-30 years. If they do not participate in the Chinese market now, local companies like Baidu will take the bulk of search engine marketshare. And it's much easier to gain marketshare in an early market than a late market (e.g. Coke versus Virgin Cola). However, obeying China's current laws is becoming a public relations nightmare for Google (and Microsoft, Yahoo) and it is tarnishing Google's "do no evil" image.
China is too large of a market for Google to pass up, though, and therefore I believe it will continue to obey all Chinese laws including providing search information in order to have a presence in China's growing economy.
Re:Google's next request for searchs response (Score:5, Insightful)
From google's blog [blogspot.com]:
Re:Google's next request for searchs response (Score:2)
Re:Google's next request for searchs response (Score:5, Interesting)
Obeying the laws of the host country is simply the price of doing business. We expect visitors to the US to obey our laws when they're in our country, despite the fact that some of our laws (DMCA, PATRIOT Act, substance prohibitions) impose on the rights foreign travellers might enjoy in their home countries. There's no reason to expect otherwise when the situation is reversed. We can't have it both ways.
Re:Google's next request for searchs response (Score:2)
Re:so what about china? Who the **&&% care (Score:2)
Re:Google's next request for searchs response (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Google's next request for searchs response (Score:1)
Take Me Out Into the Black (Score:3, Insightful)
So I'm a Firefly nerd, sue me.
Re:Take Me Out Into the Black (Score:1)
The acting was sooo bad compared to the movie (particularly in the early episodes)!! It was obvious that as the series progressed, the acting improved heaps, and that was really interesting to watch. I also thought that the standard of the plot/storytelling in the movie was far better - again
Re:Take Me Out Into the Black (Score:2)
Your first exposure was to a well oiled movie in which the actors had had several years to become familiar with the subject matter and characters. They where comfortable, as was Joss. Then, you go back and look at the first episodes... it wasn't better acting per se, but more character to draw from.
Re:Take Me Out Into the Black (Score:1)
I remember cringing at the delivery of a few lines of the priest (can't remember his name!) in particular, in early episodes. It sounded like he was reading them from a screen!
But yeah, character familiarity definitely helped!
Sniff....I had a DigiComp....Sniff... (Score:5, Interesting)
I had mine for years but finally tossed it out because of missing parts. Now I can buy a new one.
Sniff.
Google's reasoning (Score:1, Interesting)
And need I remind you guys, Google does censor U.S. searc [webenglish.com.tw]
Re:Google's reasoning (Score:1)
Re:Google's reasoning (Score:1)
Clambake's on, BUT (Score:2)
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Axenu.net+sc
And I didn't say it was Clambake that was removed -- they were, but then were restored. But not ALL pages were returned to the database.
Re:Google's reasoning (Score:1)
Maybe they do, maybe they don't but the specific censorship you claim is occuring simply ain't true.
Your link is to a page of article complaining of googles supposed cenorship of anti scientology sites. The first such articles complains of the censorship of operation clambake but googling on "clambake": first result: "Operation Clambake - The Inner Secrets of Scientology" with a URL pointing dir
Re:Google's reasoning (Score:2)
Heck, Googling on "scientology" turns up Operation Clambake as the second result.
Re:Google's reasoning (Score:1)
Re:Google's reasoning (Score:2)
The Slashdot story had a set of search terms that would trigger the filter message:
site:xenu.net scientology
Trying it now reveals that it still works.
Re:Google's reasoning (Score:2)
What is the attitude of the average Chinese citizen towards that censorship?
Re:Google's reasoning - (Score:2)
Network Neutrality won't work (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Network Neutrality won't work (Score:2)
Corporations see the end of the rampent money making through selling to ISPs, the market is nearly full. SO they go afters corporations to continue making more money every year. More money meaning, more then the previous year, not just profit.
People will not be happy when they can't connect to various internet sites and get a responsive results.
Re:Network Neutrality won't work (Score:2)
Re:Network Neutrality won't work (Score:2)
The consumer is paying for a service. Theoretically, this service is for access to the internet "cloud," not isolated islands of
Re:Network Neutrality won't work (Score:1, Troll)
Idiots like you need to stay in school and learn something. In the beginning there were bbs and closed networks. prodigy compuserve, Aol, Each service provided everything on their own content in a tiered system. Most allowed limited connections with the outside As the Internet began to take off, and people realized what a neutral and open platform could do they flocked to it. prodigy is gone, compuserve is a shadow of it's former self. MS
Re:Network Neutrality won't work (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is not with current Internet services -- I don't think that my ISP ought to charge websites extra fee for, say, downloading music from iTunes or posting to Slashdot. After all, that's what I'm paying for now.
The bigger problem is that if ISPs roll out very-high-bandwidth networks, the are going to be opening up an entire new avenue of competition for their other services. Madison River, a telephone company tha
Re:Network Neutrality won't work (Score:2)
Do you know anything about the Telcom bust in 2001-2002
Re:Network Neutrality won't work (Score:2)
Pour out a little liquor for Pacific Gateway Exchange. [sigh] Began to die in July of 2000. By January 2001 it was delisted and bankrupt. By April 2001 it was on the auction block.
Re:Network Neutrality won't work (Score:5, Insightful)
So, instead of giving up more control of public utilities, give them less control and put it back in the hands of the public.
Require that these companies get out of the "content" business and stick to owning and operating the 'pipes.' After all, it is only the pipes that are a public resource (or really the right-of-way to lay the 'pipes' across private property) - content is not a public resource so companies that get a government granted monopoly should not be allowed to leverage that monopoly to unfairly compete in other markets. Once upon a time, that kind of abuse would have been considered a clear violation of the sherman anti-trust act, now it seems to be taken for granted, the public good be damned.
Re:Network Neutrality won't work (Score:2)
So you don't want network neutrality? Operating the pipes gets you zero revenue. You only get revenue for getting someone to subscribe to some service at the end of some pipe with the network neutrality model.
Re:Network Neutrality won't work (Score:3, Informative)
So what is my $50/month cable-modem bill? Chopped liver?
The service is IPv4 routing (Score:2)
You only get revenue for getting someone to subscribe to some service at the end of some pipe with the network neutrality model.
In the case of a network-neutral last-mile ISP, this "service" would be line maintenance and Internet Protocol routing. We don't want the IPv4 routing service to be tied to the purchase of other services offered by the same company.
Re:Network Neutrality won't work (Score:4, Informative)
So how is this handled in other countries? Do any other countries require network neutrality on the part of circuit providers (i.e., providers of raw pipes to the customer) or ISPs (who could be the same entity as the raw pipe provider, or could be somebody buying raw pipe capacity)? If so, how has that affected the rollout of broadband services?
Googling for
found this Toronto Star piece by Michael Geist [thestar.com], which argues in favor of Canada adopting a policy requiring network neutrality (and says that one telco, Telus, brieftly blocked access by its customers to a Web site set up by a union with which it was having a dispute), so I presume there was, at least at that time, no regulatory requirement for network neutrality in Canada.
Googling for
found other pieces by Michael Geist, which indicate that some European carriers are blocking VoIP traffic, so I assume there's no regulatory requirement for network neutrality in the countries in which they're doing that.
On the other hand, Googling for
found a piece by Lawrence Lessig [lessig.org] arguing that France and Japan offer better high-speed broadband than is available in the US (which might even be true in areas of comparable housing density) and required "strict unbundling", which Lessig describes as even more stringent than network neutrality.
However, it also found this blog item on the Progress and Freedom Foundation site [pff.org], citing arguments before congress that a key point, at least in the case of France, was that "France operated in a monopoly environment".
So a quick Google found no obvious single conclusion about this issue. I'd be curious to see what people who aren't strong advocates of either position have to say about the raw(er) data.
Re:Network Neutrality won't work (Score:3, Interesting)
Removing the neutrality requirement allows the ISP to avoid the risk that a competitor will use the ISP's increased bandwidth to compete with it.
Ideally this would work. The problem is that there's often not much competition, many people have only one choice of ISP.
I've been building IP netwroks for nearly ten years and IMHO ISPs (perhaps like the drug companies) greatly inflate the amount of their investments in infrastructure. The Internet is cheap, it's just a bunch of wires an
Re:Network Neutrality won't work (Score:2)
Right, so they should invest in fat pipe that generate no revenue under the network neutrality model. Why would they? They'll provide the last mile solution to get their subscribers and let someone else worry about the backbone, since it's free.
Re:Network Neutrality won't work (Score:2)
So, the problem with Network neutrality is that it opens up the DSL and Cable providers up to competition for their other service, and that'a a big disincentive for them to roll it out. I wrote an article about this at the Duke Law & Technology Review.
It seems to me that since the information superhighway is becoming increasingly as important to maintaining a vibrant healthy economy as concrete ones the government should start considering excercising eminent domain to ensure neutrality.
Re:Network Neutrality won't work (Score:2)
You're an idiot. The telephone companies have been "common carriers" for over 100 years now. What do you think would happen if the telephone companies decided that they were going to start charging $0.25 a call if any business transaction were discussed on their lines? People would rightfully be up in arms. Yet that is t
Too much irony to take (Score:5, Insightful)
Aside from the fact that it should be the job of the US poulation to do this, and the profound irony of a corporation
standing up for rights the ordinary individual is too apathetic and mentally lazy to deal with there is the
hilarious spectre of Washington chastising Google and Yahoo over their censorship. Could the irony be any richer? As if Washington had any moral weight left in this world whatsoever. High soap opera if you ask me. The USA just looks a little sadder and more lost with each passing day.
Re:Too much irony to take (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the US govt. wants anonymous data, but Google doesn't want to give up any data that might reveal how they do search algorithms. Google isn't looking out for your privacy. It's just a coincidence.
who comes up with that? (Score:1)
seriously, who comes up with that, and moreover how do you kill a hard drive without having the noise of it getting hit or something?
Re:who comes up with that? (Score:1)
Re:who comes up with that? (Score:1)
But I've learned how to track down in Linux what is on the sector that is bad. I'm getting pretty good at that.
Censorship Alive and Well in West (Score:2)
But every once in a while you get something that is just as messed up as in China:
http://www.nydailynews.com/02-21-2006/front/story
Re:Censorship Alive and Well in West (Score:1)
I think Irving is a very twisted man, and is unable to look at WW2, and the holocaust in an objective way. I think the things he says are bollocks. But I think he has the right to say them (and we have the right to call him a bloody idiot). It's a shame he's going to jail.
Having said that, it's a difficult issue. If the neo-nazis come to power, the first thing they'll do is take away free speach (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose [wikipedia.org])
Also, I think free speech _must_ be tempered by r
Re:Censorship Alive and Well in West (Score:2)
There is a logical flaw in the implied argument that, free speech empowers the neo-nazis (replace with generic bad-guy-meme). Making certain communications illegal, just pushes them underground. Above ground, it can be disputed, under ground it exists in a vacuum and people exposed to it there will hear no disputing arguments and are thus more likely to be swayed. One might consider the growing numbers of neo-nazis in aust
Re:Censorship Alive and Well in West (Score:1)
I guess what I was trying to say was that perhaps our education system should better emphasise the importance of exercising free speech with sensitivity and tolerance.
Saying [insert bigoted, hate-filled, unsubstantiated statement here], and then 'hiding' behind freedom of speech is just pathetic, in my opinion. I think we need a way to hel
Re:Censorship Alive and Well in West (Score:2)
You had me right up until "hate-speech and racism."
At the risk of thumping a bible, I'm a firm believer in "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." For example, when Irving was speaking here in Southern California, protest
Re:Censorship Alive and Well in West (Score:1)
(Although, I reckon a better commandment would be: 'do unto others as you think they would want done unto them'
Re:Censorship Alive and Well in West (Score:2)
By the way, as a laugh, I'm always reminded of a quote by George Will: "The Liberal Conundrum: What to do about graffiti on the free speech monument?" [greenmuseum.org]
Re:Censorship Alive and Well in West (Score:2)
And yet you link to a story about censorship that has nothing to do with free markets or property rights? The story you linked has to do with the censorship of "hate speech" that many European countries do; this censorship is really only "alive and well" in Europe -- hate speech is protected under the 1st Amendment here in
Re:Censorship Alive and Well in West (Score:2)
If you want to nitpick, here's the logic of my sentence: NOT("has to do with free markets" OR "has to do with property rights"). This is the logical equivalent of "has NOThing to do with free markets" AND "has NOThing to do with property rights." I don't see how my sentence was illogical. Anyway
That is a laugh - "hate crimes" laws are all over the books. Shoot a man, get 10 yea
Re:Censorship Alive and Well in West (Score:2)
Look at it this way - suppose a powerful Democrat gets murdered at a bar. Initially it appears as though the perpetrator and the victim just got into a tussle, and that the suspect should be charged with 2nd degree m
Re:Censorship Alive and Well in West (Score:2)
The differnce between your example and actual hate crime laws is that in your example additional punishment is for the premeditation, not for the expression of ideas. The expression may indicate premeditation, but the hate crime laws on the books are distinct and seperate from premeditation. Being a chocolate bunny fanatic and ultimately holding-up a candy store indicates just as much premeditation as hating indians and then holding
Re:Censorship Alive and Well in West (Score:2)
But the point is that murder is *not* free expression. Your "right" to murder someone because of your political beliefs and get the same sentence as someone else who murdered for other reasons is not protected by the 1st Amendment, if it's even p
Serenity probably not profitable (Score:3, Interesting)
($38 million in ticket sales*(55%) + $9 million in rentals*(55%) + ($10 per DVD * 2 million DVDs)) - $49 million production costs = $-3.15 million.
Surely the movie is close to being profitable, right? Well, not exactly. You also have to consider Universal's cost of capital, which is essentially the opportunity cost of making a risky investment. In layman's terms, Universal could have put their money elsewhere instead. Roughly (and with lots of guessing), let's say that the cost of capital was 15% (market average is 10.4% and movies are far riskier investments than the market).
Assuming the capital investments followed a pattern where the movie's costs came in year 0, the advertising in year 1, the ticket sales in year 2, and the DVD rentals in year 3, then the Net Present Value of this investment would now be:
(-39) + (-10)/(1.15) + ((25 + 13) * 0.55)/(1.15)^2 + (9 * 0.55)/(1.15)^3 + (10 * 2 million)/(1.15)^3 = -15.4 million
Based on some educated guess work, I think it's safe to say that Universal is still way in the hole on this one.
Re:Serenity probably not profitable (Score:1)
Austin Powers v Firefly (Score:2)
As someone who enjoyed Firefly and Serenity I hate to say this, but the analogy doesn't really fit.
Austin Powers [wikipedia.org] cost $16.5 million to make and grossed $53 million (box office) in North America. Serenity [wikipedia.org] cost $39 million and grossed $38.8 million (box office) worldwide.
While Austin Powers wasn't anything spectacular, it was cheap and solid in the box office, creating a base that could be
Re:Serenity probably not profitable (Score:2)
If they're admitting it made a profit, it was probably in the black from the box office alone.
Re:Serenity probably not profitable (Score:2)
Just go home and play with your little calculator buddy, nobody wants to hear you.
ha, ha, ha, just kidding, you are great, really!
China and Censorship (Score:2)
Firefly? Why didn't anyone tell me... (Score:2)
Re:Firefly? Why didn't anyone tell me... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Firefly? Why didn't anyone tell me... (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not saying there's a huge amount of hope for the show to be reborn, but Joss has never ruled it out.
Keep buying those DVDs!
Re:Firefly? Why didn't anyone tell me... (Score:2)
I had a similar experience (Score:2)
I had a similar experience. I thought it would suck because I think Buffy is terrible. I figured that if Whedon created crap like Buffy, then Firefly couldn't be all that his rabid fanbase made it out to be.
But I borrowed the box set from a friend, and it was great! Just utterly fantastic. (Ok, the second disc was a little weak.) Haven't seen Serenity, but I'll get around to it.
By the way, I suggest avoiding the Dark Horse comic based on the franchise. It's supposed to bridge the gap between the l
Why only question tech companies? (Score:3, Informative)
I see the reason why people are talking about Google, Yahoo, M$ and Cisco dealings in China. BUT it is sort of limited in scope. Why are the Republicans and Congress focusing on technology companies' business practices only. It is just another easy political game. US companies do billions of dollars of business in China and the congress is concerned that US tech companies are following the authorities of China on what they are allowed to do in their country. Could a foreign company operative in the US that did not follow restrictions that the US has laid out? So why do we expect US companies to go to China and operate in a way in which the government would not allow them, China could just pull the plug. The US likes the idea of the internet being another venue to expand the US culture around the world, the same way movies and tv already do; but not necessarily spreading freedom.
The US government only agitates in this when a government is in power that they do not agree with. I doubt they are asking for more real freedom in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Egypt. I wont get into all that right now.
I actually wish a deeper debate on US company ethics and practices around the world. Why are we jumping on Google. Have you seen what Walmart is doing in China; check out the Walmart movie. We should be discussing the "race to the bottom" mentallity occuring now by US companies. We should be asking what US oil companies are doing in Africa, clothing companies in East Asia, companies in Mexico and Central America. We should be talking about humane work conditions, fair wages, end to police state enforced sweatshops.
The tech companies pose a problem because they are actually undermining US policy toward China by allowing China to weed out Western influences. But the Republicans or Congress as a whole don't seem to care about the race to the bottom happening all over the world.
china and wikipedia (Score:1, Redundant)
A.a site that prides itself on being neutral whenever possible and presenting the facts only without presenting any opinion.
and B.Editable by anyone from anywhere.
Having the facts presented with no bias is the one thing that the chinese government DOESNT want because it might actually make enough chinese hate their government that we end up with a "peoples revolution" (ala the revolution in Yugoslavia that ousted Milosovitch)
And, given point B, it
What other build-it-yourself kits? (Score:2)
Umm, was it called the Altivec, or Altair? I can't remember.
The Altair... (Score:2)
Re:The Altair... (Score:2)
Serenity (Score:2)
I never noticed it watching the movie the first time, but one of the most beautiful things about the series was that even though it was a spaceship, everything was all mechanical and just a touch run-down and clunky. In the movie they made it all shiny - and not in a good way. The doors to the crew quarters actually went mechanical and got fluoresce
In other news... (Score:2)
A liberal newspaper backs a socialist system. In other news, the Pope is Catholic.
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
And does the liberality of the paper mean that
they will be an automatic dupe of this "socialist"
system, and endorse it without thought? Or could
it possibly be that they made up their own minds
on a reasonable ( to them ) principal ( that you
dont happen to agree with )?
Re:In other news... (Score:1, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Kits are not from scratch (Score:2)
Re:Kits are not from scratch (Score:1)
Re: Reassuring News about Google's arcane logs (Score:2)
It's rather reassuring that Google doesn't just have logs lying around. It being so hard to collate them might mean they don't really intend to use them.
Unfortunately, it only takes a week to put something together. More of an inconvenience than anything else. And if they lose this case, you can count on some clever Google engineer figuring out a faster way of doing this. There's also this thing about technology making formerly difficult processes into mundane day-to-day activities.I don't think Google would fold that easily... (Score:2)
"Sorry guys, it looks like a really nasty program wiped out everything. And then it melted the hard drives down. So there's nothing to give you access to or hand over any more. Have a nice day. And don't