> This issue has nothing to do with the Chinese government and there is > no way Google will point the finger at them.
If the Chinese govt is doing the blocking, how can the blocking have nothing to do with the Chinese govt? > most of the diatribe you present here seems > aimed at China/Chinese Government. The following assumes that WallyDD is using the standard definition of "diatribe", namely, "a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism". http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Diatribe I note that WallyDD doesn't quote any such "diatribe". I'll point out why - I haven't written any. As I wrote before, the only thing that I've written about the Chinese govt's blocking is that folks who object to said blocking should address their concerns to the Chinese govt. That's not a diatribe aimed at China or the Chinese govt. I do assume that the Chinese govt implements its policies with a reasonable amount of technical competence and that blocking is part of said implementation. That assumption is not a "diatribe" aimed at China or its govt. Perhaps WallyDD will provide an example of said "diatribe" or the meaning of the word that he's using such that my actual statements qualify. On Apr 5, 3:16 pm, WallyDD <shaneb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Google is more or less obligated to solve this issue. > > No company is willing to be a pawn in the game of politics between > Google and China. > Name a single company (that has any international presence) who would > be willing to use GAE knowing full well that it is blocked in its > current form? > This issue has nothing to do with the Chinese government and there is > no way Google will point the finger at them. > > Perhaps google can also take on all the other countries that are > blocking GAE and while they are at it they can point fingers at > corporate america and their firewalls? > You have to remember that at the moment this is a "preview release". > > I don't really understand why you persist with this argument. You have > raised some valid points which should be looked at and considered in > the scheme of things but most of the diatribe you present here seems > aimed at China/Chinese Government. I have always found prejudices > cloud peoples judgement. > > To sumarise how this problem will probably be viewed; > Google created a dns based system (for GAE addressing) which puts > everything though ghs.google.com. This system works really well and > from my experience it was very clever and efficient. However it has an > issue with firewalls that got overlooked. Google has just recently > been made aware of this problem. > > On Apr 5, 12:53 pm, Andy Freeman <ana...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > > > Feel free to hair-split the word "obligation". > > > It's the plain meaning of the word. I apologise for not knowing that > > you didn't know what it meant when you wrote that Google had an > > obligation to make GAE available in China. Are there other statements > > that you made without understanding their meaning? > > > China availability issue is one of the few issues where folks claim > > that/act like Google has an obligation even though it's an issue where > > Google has very little capability to change things. > > > > That's why I want to hear from a Google representative on their plan. > > > I predict that if Google says anything, it will be roughly equivalent > > to "we're doing what we can". At that point, you'll have to decide if > > the results, which will vary with the whim of the Chinese govt, are > > adequate for your purposes. > > > Of course, if you're better at dealing with the Chinese govt than > > Google is.... > > > > Now just accept that fact and act accordingly. > > > And the basis for this order is... > > > On Apr 4, 6:11 pm, Andy <selforgani...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I'm someone who understands that obligations come from laws and > > > > contracts. Feel free to point to the relevant chapter and verse that > > > > > However, absent a contract and/or a law, Google isn't obligated to > > > > make GAE applications visible in China. > > > > Feel free to hair-split the word "obligation". > > > > Does Google have the legal obligation to solve this problem? No. Just > > > like Google doesn't have any legal obligation to improve this service > > > or add any new features. Does that mean users should stop posting any > > > thread that's about improving GAE? > > > > Does that mean you're going to start polluting every single thread in > > > this forum by posting your 'Google has no legal obligation to do this" > > > drivel? > > > > > Good for you. And Google may, or may not, offer such an option. Note > > > > "may not" - they're under no obligation to do so. (I don't presume to > > > > know the risks and costs of offering such an option. After all, China > > > > can block at the edge of the data centers, impose conditions, or even > > > > shut them down.) > > > > Another zero-value drivel. > > > > Yes Google may or may not offer that solution, just like they may or > > > may not offer any solution to any other problems raised in this forum > > > > That's why I want to hear from a Google representative on their plan. > > > Your speculation on what Google may or may not do is just that, > > > worthless speculation that serves no purpose in this discussion. > > > > You're right to not "presume to know" though, seeing how you don't > > > know anything in this matter. > > > > Now just accept that fact and act accordingly.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
