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.
The word you are looking for is ...
Venal - Showing or motivated by susceptibility to bribery: "venal politicians".
Re: Re: Re: Re: Guilty until competitors are "convinced"
If you have "nothing to hide", why are you posting anonymously? LOL!
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."
Re: Re: Happened to me
Well, it was a bit more complex - with Angie's List being part of the problem. There are some battles that aren't worth it.
Happened to me
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.
Re: Vote for the good ones
The names that show up on the ballot are the evil ones.
More laws
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.
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.
Think of the children of terrorists!!
It used to be, when you wanted to slip some dodgy bit of legislation through, you'd always say "It's for the children!".
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
Re: Danger! Danger!
I hear terrorists use politicians to further their activities! Let's get rid of all politicians!
Wait, that actually works!
Porn!
I hereby declare that all comments on this article are "porn". Erase them all!
Re: "Rape"
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.
Who did what?
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.
(untitled comment)
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.
Re: WTF?
"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
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?
Horrible teaching
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!
Re: Re: Re: Ok - I'm confused.
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.
Re: Re: Re: Ok - I'm confused.
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.
Re: Ok - I'm confused.
1. Corporate income tax does serious harm to small businesses.
2. Large corporations, as a rule, do not pay any income tax anyway.
So corporate income tax is only harmful.