A response from the commissioner is understood to be imminent, after Almunia’s office told Google in mid-December that it must convince its rivals that it competes fairly in the web search market or else it could – within months – face sanctions for alleged “abuse of dominance.
Apparently, Google isn't expected to prove they haven't broken any laws. Apparently the EU demands they "convince its rivals that it competes fairly."
Google: "Gee Microsoft, what would it take to convince you that we compete fairly?" Microsoft: "Die! Google! Die!" EU: "You didn't 'play fair' and die, Google, it looks like we'll have to sanction you."
I had an absolutely horrible experience with a contractor. I wrote up the experience on Angie's List.
I was hounded and hounded by the contractor who finally took me to small claims court. Warning others via Angie's List is just not worth the harassment. I just told Angie's List to remove my comment and I don't use Angie's List any more.
It would be really, really good if, whatever "solution" our government comes up with, that it doesn't criminalize the innocent or criminalize innocent behaviors. Yeah, not likely.
Not too bright, are you?
The "Internet" is concerned with Assange being extradited to the US and facing a possible death sentence for publishing (not stealing) information.
The alleged rape is not the point. Would it be proven in court? Probably not, Assange would likely be extradited to the US immediately and never go to court in Sweden.
For you to claim that the only reason people defend Assange is because he is accused of rape shows that you are incredibly stupid, a troll or your purpose is to shift the discussion away from the real, very important factors of all this.
That statement contains unproven or immaterial information.
It has not been proven that user XXXXXX was the one who uploaded anything and, obviously, it isn't proven that they did anything wrong, so posting their name is just a bad idea.
Also, unless they were the author of the takedown request, the copyright holder hasn't done anything. Why include their name at all?
I don't see anything wrong with exactly what YouTube is doing, stating specifically what happened -- and not including anything unproven.
How do you know it was "uploaded without permission or license"? Huh? Was it proven in court? Was any proof provided? No, it was just a takedown request, period. But you think accusing people of illegal activities without any proof at all is a good thing??? The statement that the video was removed because of a request by XXXXX is fully factual. Why do you think that's a bad thing? Why would XXXXX be ashamed of "protecting his or her precious IP??? I think you have the whole concept here backwards.
"Youtube has phrased it in a manner that ..."
You can read whatever intention you want into a few words on a screen. That doesn't mean that was the actual intention behind those words.
You can believe in your amazing "mind reading" abilities but those words don't "mean" what you pretend they mean.
The message, "Sorry, the content you asked for isn't available because..." is not some secret, coded message to pirates.
What they want is for Google to just stop. No more searches (for illegal material!), no more hosting of (illegal!) content. Just shut down. And apologize for existing. Give the Internet back to those who know how to use it. Is that so hard?
As a parent, I discovered that the teachers no longer understand basic mathematics. Because they were not properly taught mathematics. What they are taught was "New Math". What is "New Math"? While I was helping my daughter with her math homework I was horrified to find out that "New Math" meant they'd removed multiplication and division from the basics. Multiplication was "just adding together that many times" and division had become "just guess and see how close you can get"! How can anyone handle Algebra when they don't understand basic mathematics? So, instead of actually teaching mathematics let's do away with Algebra? This is sick!
Not necessarily. If consumption is less but savings are more there is still, basically, the same benefit to the economy. I, for one, think this society could do with a lot less consumption. You don't need a new car every year or the latest and greatest gadget every month.
Huh? I don't get your logic. The officers of the corporation are individuals who, if you will, get the liability protection and who pay taxes. The corporation itself is still liable - not protected. Your "logic" is that the corporation (which is NOT getting the benefit you mentioned) should pay taxes because of the benefit -- that it doesn't get. I think YOU are confused.
On the post: How Much Does It Cost To Win Election To Congress?
The word you are looking for is ...
On the post: Do We Really Want EU Bureaucrats Deciding What Google Search Results 'Should' Look Like?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Guilty until competitors are "convinced"
If you have "nothing to hide", why are you posting anonymously? LOL!
On the post: Do We Really Want EU Bureaucrats Deciding What Google Search Results 'Should' Look Like?
Guilty until competitors are "convinced"
Google: "Gee Microsoft, what would it take to convince you that we compete fairly?"
Microsoft: "Die! Google! Die!"
EU: "You didn't 'play fair' and die, Google, it looks like we'll have to sanction you."
On the post: Contractors Lining Up Against Free Speech
Re: Re: Happened to me
On the post: Contractors Lining Up Against Free Speech
Happened to me
I was hounded and hounded by the contractor who finally took me to small claims court. Warning others via Angie's List is just not worth the harassment. I just told Angie's List to remove my comment and I don't use Angie's List any more.
On the post: ...And FISA Is Renewed, With All Its Problems Still Intact
Re: Vote for the good ones
On the post: NRA's Plan: If We Blame Video Games & Movies For Sandy Hook Massacre, Perhaps People Will Stop Blaming Guns
More laws
On the post: Why Do Both Major Parties Suck So Badly On Civil Liberties?
Re: Libertarian
LOL! Seriously? That only proves that you haven't actually looked at an unbiased reference about Libertarians as it exists today.
I'm not a Libertarian, but even I know better than that.
No wonder you decided to post anonymously.
On the post: UN: The Problem With The Internet Today Is It's Just Too Open & Terrorists Might Use It
Think of the children of terrorists!!
Now it's "Terrorists!"
Same ol' dodgy legislation, new the-sky-is-falling excuse.
Let's give them the ultimate excuse to ram through bad legislation, "It's for the children of terrorists!!"
Arty
On the post: UN: The Problem With The Internet Today Is It's Just Too Open & Terrorists Might Use It
Re: Danger! Danger!
Wait, that actually works!
On the post: GOP Platform May Include Internet Freedom Language... But Also Wants Crackdown On Internet Porn
Porn!
On the post: US, UK Betray Basic Values To Get Assange At Any Cost
Re: "Rape"
The "Internet" is concerned with Assange being extradited to the US and facing a possible death sentence for publishing (not stealing) information.
The alleged rape is not the point. Would it be proven in court? Probably not, Assange would likely be extradited to the US immediately and never go to court in Sweden.
For you to claim that the only reason people defend Assange is because he is accused of rape shows that you are incredibly stupid, a troll or your purpose is to shift the discussion away from the real, very important factors of all this.
On the post: More Anti-Youtube Whining: 'YouTube Complies With Our Takedown Requests Just To Make Us Look Bad'
Who did what?
It has not been proven that user XXXXXX was the one who uploaded anything and, obviously, it isn't proven that they did anything wrong, so posting their name is just a bad idea.
Also, unless they were the author of the takedown request, the copyright holder hasn't done anything. Why include their name at all?
I don't see anything wrong with exactly what YouTube is doing, stating specifically what happened -- and not including anything unproven.
On the post: More Anti-Youtube Whining: 'YouTube Complies With Our Takedown Requests Just To Make Us Look Bad'
But you think accusing people of illegal activities without any proof at all is a good thing???
The statement that the video was removed because of a request by XXXXX is fully factual. Why do you think that's a bad thing? Why would XXXXX be ashamed of "protecting his or her precious IP???
I think you have the whole concept here backwards.
On the post: More Anti-Youtube Whining: 'YouTube Complies With Our Takedown Requests Just To Make Us Look Bad'
Re: WTF?
You can read whatever intention you want into a few words on a screen. That doesn't mean that was the actual intention behind those words.
You can believe in your amazing "mind reading" abilities but those words don't "mean" what you pretend they mean.
The message, "Sorry, the content you asked for isn't available because..." is not some secret, coded message to pirates.
On the post: More Anti-Youtube Whining: 'YouTube Complies With Our Takedown Requests Just To Make Us Look Bad'
What they want
On the post: Would US Education Be Better If We Replaced Algebra Requirements With Stats & Logic?
Horrible teaching
What is "New Math"? While I was helping my daughter with her math homework I was horrified to find out that "New Math" meant they'd removed multiplication and division from the basics. Multiplication was "just adding together that many times" and division had become "just guess and see how close you can get"!
How can anyone handle Algebra when they don't understand basic mathematics?
So, instead of actually teaching mathematics let's do away with Algebra?
This is sick!
On the post: When Every Practical Economic Idea Is Political Suicide, Something's Wrong With Politics
Re: Re: Re: Ok - I'm confused.
I, for one, think this society could do with a lot less consumption. You don't need a new car every year or the latest and greatest gadget every month.
On the post: When Every Practical Economic Idea Is Political Suicide, Something's Wrong With Politics
Re: Re: Re: Ok - I'm confused.
Your "logic" is that the corporation (which is NOT getting the benefit you mentioned) should pay taxes because of the benefit -- that it doesn't get.
I think YOU are confused.
On the post: When Every Practical Economic Idea Is Political Suicide, Something's Wrong With Politics
Re: Ok - I'm confused.
2. Large corporations, as a rule, do not pay any income tax anyway.
So corporate income tax is only harmful.