OI ... Common take it to social
Moderators: can we not move this thread, since the participants don't
seem inclined to??
/paul
On 10/16/05, Alexandro Colorado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 12:02:08 +0100, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Greg
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 12:02:08 +0100, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Greg Schmitz wrote:
Google is a huge corporation with some rather questionable practices
(IMHO). Google just might be the next Microsoft.
-g. schmitz
Not discussing the technical parts, just the po
Greg Schmitz wrote:
Google is a huge corporation
with some rather questionable practices (IMHO). Google just might be
the next Microsoft.
-g. schmitz
Not discussing the technical parts, just the political ones. Google may
be trying to became a monopoly in it's own area, but at least it is a
Le vendredi 14 octobre 2005 à 17:11 -0500, Randomthots a écrit :
> If the "crime" is filtering out information from the citizens in
> compliance with local laws, then that's just a price of doing business.
> What's the alternative? Not do business in China?
Yes.
Just because the store you're s
Hello
I have seen several requests for this discussion to go offlist or to
social. This message has been cross-posted to social@ so that any
further discussion may be followed up there.
For those of you have not read it before, I call it serendipity, but
this was part of my morning reading:
Bruce Byfield wrote:
>
You're right that being an accessory is usually considered less culpable
than actually committing a crime. However, that does not necessarily
mean that the accessory is innocent, either.
The problem I'm having with this discussion, aside from the fact that it
should
Chad Smith wrote:
On 10/14/05, Nicu Buculei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Steve Kopischke wrote:
Chad - you are intentionally misreading Jonathon's posts just to try and
get a rise out of him. If that is your intention, take it to e-mail.
Jonathon - your contentions would be easier to acknowledge
Chad Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "It is far more serious, as Wikipedia is free"???
>
> What does that mean? When was the last time Google charged you for search
> results? Since when does a lack of cost increase its seriousness?
Free as in speech.
-- Johan
--
