That is if all of the goods have a fair price. Here from Wikipedia about antitrust law:

It can't be more predatory by giving them away.

Who was it that said, "You haven't really succeeded until the Department of Justice comes knocking on your door"? I seem to recall having read that back in the 90s, regarding Microsoft.

Anyway, congratulations Google. You've really made it now.

Absolutely. The public should have access to the data. Public grants then also need to pay for curating the data. Libraries aren't free, archives aren't free, package data in an actually useful form takes precious time, which is scientists most precious resource. Having data in a form that is useful to the 25 people in your research group is very different than providing data that can be used by thousands of people. It's analogous to the difference between the quick bash script you have that backs up your movies to your external hard drive, and having something that you're willing to distribute to 1000 people and provide support.

India and Pakistan have drastically different resource levels and population levels though. So while culture and religion might play a part, I doubt they are the most important aspect. There are many factors that play into the rise of a nation/culture. You've probably read this, but if not, do so, great book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

You also need to take into account meddling by other countries. Look around the world. Many of the unstable countries in modern times are countries that have been "regime changed" one or multiple times in the past for various reasons. That leads to distrust, disruption of business, broken ties with foreign business, and usually decades upon decades before any western/modern country would consider investing again.

Which leads to a poor country, less education, desperate people, acts of violence, regime change, rinse repeat.

You might be right about both of these things, but considering that the people I'm mocking think that Teletubbies are part of a gay agenda and that commercials for fruit juice can make you gay, I think I'm allowed to read between the lines in their "holy book" when mocking them.

And to be honest, those people should really lighten up and not take the Bible seriously. It's just the Bible. It's not ... Gospel! (Apologies to Dara Ó Briain)

Ever consider the DoD may have been infiltrated by vagina/rectal-track-happy Martian's? Perhaps a change toward Martian's in government control is a positive thing? Just a thought...

I am not a Muslim, nor am I religious in any way (personally I find all religions to be backward, generally). That said...

Many posters in this thread have comments about how wacky, insane, stupid, backward, prehistoric, etc. all these Muslims are. Can we at least stop giving insightful mod points to folks providing blanket statements about one of the largest religious community's on earth? Such broad statements about any single large group of people is not intelligent let alone insightful, generally.

Not all Muslims are extremists and not all Muslims care about South Park and what they parody. Many of the blanket comments I've read here are akin to how "black people are" and other discriminatory comments. I am certain most of these comments are not intended to come of discriminatory, but it seems we need a little bit more care in choosing our words in these cases.

Violent Muslim extremists are the ones to be called out here, not the entire Muslim community. Violent Muslim extremists deserve to have parody's of Muhammad shoved up their arse's with their own AK's. Let's at least call out who deserves this kind of rhetoric and not discriminate against 1.57 billion of the world's population.

I'm pretty sure if all Muslim's are violent extremists there won't be much left of any society after Eric Cartman farts and claims Muhammad is speaking through him.

2 cents.

From a consumer perspective this feels right. Unfortunately its not that simple.

The purchased device (as in hardware) is yours perhaps but you certainly (and voluntarily) gave up freedom at time of purchase in regards to the software loaded on the device. The terms and conditions of your software purchase explicitly state you have a license and are bound by the terms of that license.

Don't like it? It's a free market! Vote with your wallet and don't purchase devices with software that limit you and/or make you a criminal. You say there isn't one? Well, sounds like a market waiting to be tapped... get on it!

No I'm not saying we shouldn't hire the people we assume are ignorant, I am saying we shouldn't hire the people we KNOW are ignorant. Save these jobs for people who aren't racist, sexist, etc.

And no I don't hate the ignorant, I just don't want to reward an ignorant person when I can reward an enlightened person instead.

looks like from TFA hat all they want the FDA to do is regulate these as drug delivery devices, like they do for inhalers, needles, insulin pumps, etc.

At least the phone company never tried to make it so that we all had to use just their phones on their lines and it was illegal to plug anything else in to their equipment. That would SUCK!

...Thousands of people caught at awkward moments now traumatized for life.

Oh wait a minute.. there's this gem.

Ah now I understand... The old I-want-sex-all-the-time trick to get men.

Too bad for her that almost every girl loves sex. I also rather date the women that are more discreet about it and act like a nice girl. They usually also tend to be the widlest regarding sex. From my teenager years and until now I've always loved cute and nice girls, and it was a real surprise to how open and playful they were. 69, hanging naked and touching and having sex every once in a while and having a remote controlled vibrator in their pants when we were outside - no problem.

I think she is just looking for a guy.

There's a straightforward way around security concerns - sandboxing (which is already avaliable on iPhone OS) together with Appstore admission process (which can easily make sure that the apps to which it might apply use sandboxing properly). Don't kid yourself why Apple put that limitation (and has taken it much further recently)

And what's with Facebook? It's consistently among the top pages viewed under Opera Mini... ( http://www.opera.com/smw/ )

Not a hippie: "Save on paper towels. The tree you save could be your next roll top desk" is one of my favorite woodworkers' expressions. : )

My point was more oriented toward fellow mammalia. The essence of your point "why people pretend they know what [other animals] feel like" could be applied between ever individual of the human race too, "why people pretend to know what other people feel like...", but then science shows us there's something built-in to the biology to do it: and the point isn't to do so exactly, precisely, just approximately, "accurately enough". Kick a dog in the ribs and see what happens, kick a human likewise and see what happens. Also, your use of "feel" is as amphorous as popular speech, so if we're going to be speaking of scientific matters, please define; when I say feel I'm speaking of physical sensation, not emotion or cognitive evaluation: most people muddle-up all these things and then speak without cognizance of any and it's something I'd like a law for, authorizing beatings for all such "thinkers". Some other animal creature--just because of the difficulties we'll stick to mammalia--may not evaluate a sensation of "pain" exactly as we, but that doesn't mean they don't sense it, or share such a sensation, and pretending that it's completely unknowable is a return to gnosis and is the sort of academic pretense and overprecision (in many cases) for which men get rightly mocked: especially the inevitable self-righteous-like responses, such as "pretending to be able to know what something else feels like" sort of "I'm better and more a thunker[1] than you" demonstrations, as you've just put on display.

Precision or equivalency is not the criterion for commonality or empathy, or mutual understanding: if such were, there would be no communication or interpersonal or cultural sensitivity or awareness; science deals with imprecision and precision alike, and if you've philophically bungled these you'll produce the sort of snarling non-starters and holier-than-thou "preaching" as that I've just critiqued.

[1] Yes, it's purposely spelled that way (just in case).