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.
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.
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.
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.