Ryan
No favorite files added yet
(May 9, 2006 - 2:15 AM)
the point that the politician is trying to make, in a round about sense, is that "if you are going to operate this niche, you have to be able to keep up our laws or get out."
(May 9, 2006 - 2:12 AM)
no, your right, they don't have to. However, from the standpoint of a theoretical mega-megamoral corporation, you still feel the obligation to. Google feels insulted by this, either insulted or shamed (if this was a case) and we should not shun a corporation capable of feeling insult or shame. Lets see how this pans out before we cry foul on on the corporate entity, or the political power player.
Refrain from absolutes like "is". They imply you know what is going to happen. You are making a prediction that google is not at fault. Say it as such and move on. Don't pretend "this" or "that" will happen, Make your predictions and give the reasons behind your opinions.
Besides, wouldn't you feel s***ty if you found out that this politician was not calling wolf? Crying wolf is exactly what You are doing. Given no particular personal knowledge of either of your characters, I my self have no real reason to believe on wolf calling over the others.
(May 7, 2006 - 12:09 AM)
i'm seriously going to have to post more often force people in line.
(May 7, 2006 - 12:07 AM)
yes yes, this is just a re-gurgitated version of the above story. From reading above we already know that google is the only one being charged.
(May 7, 2006 - 12:04 AM)
I'm sure that the feds have put some thought into this already. Since our tax dollars are now used to litigate google, doesn't this mean that our money is actually being put to need? This is either a good thing, or wastefulness.