Google runs the same operation in other countries as well. Based on the fact that all the "Get <Country> Online" campaigns have only Google as a common factor, I'd say they are driving it. See:
There's hundreds of other "Get * Online" that Google is running, so claiming that it's not a Google operation is flat out incorrect. Also, the Wall Street Journal reports that Google has already issued a statement and apology, so clearly they accept responsibility for the issue whether they or contractors authorised to act on their behalf were responsible.
Also, BP did nothing wrong in the Gulf of Mexico. It was BP AMERICA that caused billions of dollars in damages and ruined the gulf for decades to come! And Microsoft did nothing wrong in the 90s antitrust trials, it was the WINDOWS division that did it!
But Microsoft is a convicted criminal and it's perfectly reasonable to offer them less benefit of the doubt.
"Convicted criminal" is redundant. You were supposed to use that tired bullshit line "convicted monopolist". Boy am I sick of hearing that here.
Anyway, yes I guess it is reasonable to use less benefit of the doubt when talking about Microsoft, key word being: when talking about Microsoft. As opposed to offering Microsoft less benefit of the doubt when talking about Google doing something stupid and illegal. That just smacks of fanboy rationalisation (cognitive dissonance or something is the psychological term is it not?)
Google in fact does sell domains and hosting, as part of the the Get <Country> Online schemes. They have it going in India, Kenya, Ireland, and I think a few other countries. Hence the reference to GKBO, or "Getting Kenyan Businesses Online" - which is a Google scheme in partnership with one or more companies.
I guarantee you someone is going to spout the OOXML shit at you for that, despite that fact that it's unlikely Microsoft actually paid anyone to vote their way (I know we didn't get paid, even if we didn't vote, but they did mercilessly nag us at a conference).
Doesn't the US have Double Jeopardy laws though? The Constitution doesn't say that only applies to US citizens, nor does it specify that it only applies to double prosecution in the same jurisdiction, so they wouldn't be able to extradite him because he's protected by that amendment (or they could, but they couldn't legally charge him with anything), surely?
Windows 7 removed the prompting for a lot of tasks, such as attaching a debugger to a process spawned by the debugger itself (which kind of makes sense really, the debugger does technically own that process).
the only areas in which Windows shines are the direct result of years of monopoly abuse
I'm not convinced of this personally. I personally, and from observation of those around me, find that the areas where Windows shines are that it's easy to use (although there is inevitably some confusion each new release which changes things around for no real reason), and that software built for one version rarely breaks on a newer one. By contrast, OS X will tell you to piss off if you want to run old PPC software (I can still run the 25 year old Commander Keen on Windows 7. I cannot say the same for OS X), and Linux - well, let's just call it unpredictable and leave it at that. It may not refuse to run it, but it may not run correctly either.
It's quite likely that Google is more worried about Apple than Microsoft. Especially since every patent they transfer to another company for defensive purposes is one less patent they have - they can't do it forever.
Most folks simply contact groups like GPL-Violators.org, who apparently will help out to take out people violating GPL. They prosecute lots of companies for "pirating" Busybox for example.
More likely if Google and Microsoft went against each other, it would result in a cross-licensing agreement where each company lets the other use some of their patents, and maybe some token money goes from one to the other - everyone wins, except everyone else. I doubt either Microsoft or Google really wants to get into it though.
No, Microsoft-bashing is a long running subject at Groklaw. They're as fair and balanced as Fox News. I would take with a grain of salt anything lifted from Groklaw, Daring Fireball or WinSuperSite. They're all equally biased.
In New Zealand where I am, Customs will actually block and hold any package where the local Goods and Services Tax would exceed $50, and you have to go and pay the GST you would have paid if you bought it in a shop. Annoyingly, they include shipping in total value.
Yes, yes it is. Your constitution was not written in a time with things like Nuclear Energy, Mobile Telephones, Television, Radios, etc. Some regulation is needed, and it's much more efficient to regulate at the national level.
Quit being disingenuous. Calculating the taxes probably isn't the problem. Keeping track of changes when someone makes a last minute change for a natural disaster or a budget deficit, not so easy. Filling in the forms, one for each jurisdiction, also not so easy. Remitting the taxes to all of the jurisdictions, also not so easy. And then there's the problem that overseas retailers instantly get a leg up over local or even out of state retailers because they wont have to pay taxes.
Oh wait, you're the same guy I had this argument with last time. Hell if I'm bothering this time, your mind is as made up as a brick house.
Obfuscating shenanigans? My understanding is that Red Hat distributes RHEL source to the people who received it off them directly - as is their obligation under GPL, only provides support for it on servers for which a support contract fee has been paid - as is their right under GPL, and does not allow anyone who distributes RHEL to use the Red Hat trademarks - as is their right under law I don't see any shenanigans there.
Of course it is. Why would you even ask that? Like a Non-Disclosure Agreement, it's merely a contract saying "I agree that I will not release this otherwise perfectly legal information to a third party". Actually, no, it would be a Non-Disclosure Agreement. And those are held up all the time - much to the detriment of the victim.
It would also still be protected by Trade Secret laws regardless, and frankly Trade Secret laws are even more frightening than Copyright laws.
Without copyright there's no protection against someone reverse engineering something licensed under "GPL Contract" and then locking it up tight and reselling it. Actually, there would be nothing preventing someone taking the GPL source code alone - after all, they don't need to actually agree to the contract to get a copy of the code - and then locking it up and selling it.
While valid, that doesn't address the issue of P2P. If it's not OK to sell it, then why should it be OK to give it away to literally everyone?
I personally believe that while small-scale personal copying (i.e giving a mix CD to a single friend) should be decriminalised (I'm still not sure about legalised, but definitely decriminalised), sharing large scale on a P2P network should not be. It has the same net effect on the creator as a person mass-producing dodgy copies and selling it.
While true, do be aware of the small independents - the same ones that people on this very site tout as being the alternative to big-name label music/movies. They have precisely zero control over what the big label lobbyists do, and have as much input into and control over the legislature as you do - yet it seems you would advocate treating them with the same disdain as you would the big labels.
A regular old white or blue collar worker didn't work for $0 for months or years. You guys need to stop using salaried/wage workers, who get paid week by week or month by month to do their job, with creative artists, who receive no income while they work on their project.
In other words, it's very different. Quit being disingenuous.
(You must really hate Peter Pan by the way, the only work I know of with a literally permanent copyright term - even if the reason is simply because the author decreed that the royalties be gifted to a children's hospital).
Slashdot Mirror
Google runs the same operation in other countries as well. Based on the fact that all the "Get <Country> Online" campaigns have only Google as a common factor, I'd say they are driving it. See:
1. India Get Online
2. Getting Irish Business Online
3. Getting British Business Online
4. Getting Aussie Business Online
5. Canada Get Your Business Online
6. Texas Get Your Business Online
7. Get Nigerian Business Online (Isn't the problem with the internet that Nigerian "business" is already online?)
There's hundreds of other "Get * Online" that Google is running, so claiming that it's not a Google operation is flat out incorrect. Also, the Wall Street Journal reports that Google has already issued a statement and apology, so clearly they accept responsibility for the issue whether they or contractors authorised to act on their behalf were responsible.
Also, BP did nothing wrong in the Gulf of Mexico. It was BP AMERICA that caused billions of dollars in damages and ruined the gulf for decades to come! And Microsoft did nothing wrong in the 90s antitrust trials, it was the WINDOWS division that did it!
Most people were already condemning Rupert Murdoch. I don't think there's much opportunity to condemn him for even more.
But Microsoft is a convicted criminal and it's perfectly reasonable to offer them less benefit of the doubt.
"Convicted criminal" is redundant. You were supposed to use that tired bullshit line "convicted monopolist". Boy am I sick of hearing that here.
Anyway, yes I guess it is reasonable to use less benefit of the doubt when talking about Microsoft, key word being: when talking about Microsoft. As opposed to offering Microsoft less benefit of the doubt when talking about Google doing something stupid and illegal. That just smacks of fanboy rationalisation (cognitive dissonance or something is the psychological term is it not?)
Google in fact does sell domains and hosting, as part of the the Get <Country> Online schemes. They have it going in India, Kenya, Ireland, and I think a few other countries. Hence the reference to GKBO, or "Getting Kenyan Businesses Online" - which is a Google scheme in partnership with one or more companies.
I guarantee you someone is going to spout the OOXML shit at you for that, despite that fact that it's unlikely Microsoft actually paid anyone to vote their way (I know we didn't get paid, even if we didn't vote, but they did mercilessly nag us at a conference).
Doesn't the US have Double Jeopardy laws though? The Constitution doesn't say that only applies to US citizens, nor does it specify that it only applies to double prosecution in the same jurisdiction, so they wouldn't be able to extradite him because he's protected by that amendment (or they could, but they couldn't legally charge him with anything), surely?
Windows 7 removed the prompting for a lot of tasks, such as attaching a debugger to a process spawned by the debugger itself (which kind of makes sense really, the debugger does technically own that process).
the only areas in which Windows shines are the direct result of years of monopoly abuse
I'm not convinced of this personally. I personally, and from observation of those around me, find that the areas where Windows shines are that it's easy to use (although there is inevitably some confusion each new release which changes things around for no real reason), and that software built for one version rarely breaks on a newer one. By contrast, OS X will tell you to piss off if you want to run old PPC software (I can still run the 25 year old Commander Keen on Windows 7. I cannot say the same for OS X), and Linux - well, let's just call it unpredictable and leave it at that. It may not refuse to run it, but it may not run correctly either.
It's quite likely that Google is more worried about Apple than Microsoft. Especially since every patent they transfer to another company for defensive purposes is one less patent they have - they can't do it forever.
Most folks simply contact groups like GPL-Violators.org, who apparently will help out to take out people violating GPL. They prosecute lots of companies for "pirating" Busybox for example.
More likely if Google and Microsoft went against each other, it would result in a cross-licensing agreement where each company lets the other use some of their patents, and maybe some token money goes from one to the other - everyone wins, except everyone else. I doubt either Microsoft or Google really wants to get into it though.
Wow. You don't have a serious case of zealot fanboyism at all. Totally not spectacularly biased, nope.
No, Microsoft-bashing is a long running subject at Groklaw. They're as fair and balanced as Fox News. I would take with a grain of salt anything lifted from Groklaw, Daring Fireball or WinSuperSite. They're all equally biased.
In New Zealand where I am, Customs will actually block and hold any package where the local Goods and Services Tax would exceed $50, and you have to go and pay the GST you would have paid if you bought it in a shop. Annoyingly, they include shipping in total value.
Yes, yes it is. Your constitution was not written in a time with things like Nuclear Energy, Mobile Telephones, Television, Radios, etc. Some regulation is needed, and it's much more efficient to regulate at the national level.
Quit being disingenuous. Calculating the taxes probably isn't the problem. Keeping track of changes when someone makes a last minute change for a natural disaster or a budget deficit, not so easy. Filling in the forms, one for each jurisdiction, also not so easy. Remitting the taxes to all of the jurisdictions, also not so easy. And then there's the problem that overseas retailers instantly get a leg up over local or even out of state retailers because they wont have to pay taxes.
Oh wait, you're the same guy I had this argument with last time. Hell if I'm bothering this time, your mind is as made up as a brick house.
Meh, Kotick's in charge so it's all the same to me. That guy is like the anti-Midas, turning golden game franchises into shit with one touch.
Obfuscating shenanigans? My understanding is that Red Hat distributes RHEL source to the people who received it off them directly - as is their obligation under GPL, only provides support for it on servers for which a support contract fee has been paid - as is their right under GPL, and does not allow anyone who distributes RHEL to use the Red Hat trademarks - as is their right under law I don't see any shenanigans there.
Of course it is. Why would you even ask that? Like a Non-Disclosure Agreement, it's merely a contract saying "I agree that I will not release this otherwise perfectly legal information to a third party". Actually, no, it would be a Non-Disclosure Agreement. And those are held up all the time - much to the detriment of the victim.
It would also still be protected by Trade Secret laws regardless, and frankly Trade Secret laws are even more frightening than Copyright laws.
Without copyright there's no protection against someone reverse engineering something licensed under "GPL Contract" and then locking it up tight and reselling it. Actually, there would be nothing preventing someone taking the GPL source code alone - after all, they don't need to actually agree to the contract to get a copy of the code - and then locking it up and selling it.
No, GPL needs copyright.
While valid, that doesn't address the issue of P2P. If it's not OK to sell it, then why should it be OK to give it away to literally everyone?
I personally believe that while small-scale personal copying (i.e giving a mix CD to a single friend) should be decriminalised (I'm still not sure about legalised, but definitely decriminalised), sharing large scale on a P2P network should not be. It has the same net effect on the creator as a person mass-producing dodgy copies and selling it.
While true, do be aware of the small independents - the same ones that people on this very site tout as being the alternative to big-name label music/movies. They have precisely zero control over what the big label lobbyists do, and have as much input into and control over the legislature as you do - yet it seems you would advocate treating them with the same disdain as you would the big labels.
A regular old white or blue collar worker didn't work for $0 for months or years. You guys need to stop using salaried/wage workers, who get paid week by week or month by month to do their job, with creative artists, who receive no income while they work on their project.
In other words, it's very different. Quit being disingenuous.
(You must really hate Peter Pan by the way, the only work I know of with a literally permanent copyright term - even if the reason is simply because the author decreed that the royalties be gifted to a children's hospital).
Do you really think they don't?