Except that in this particular case, Google did obey those laws. It was Microsoft that had the moral objection. (Or our VP did, anyway.)

The right and wrong on this one is very muddy.

--Greg

Actually, at least when it comes to Search Engine censorship, China always gave Microsoft a pass. I was responsible for the team inside MSN Search (now Bing) that developed the software to filter "objectionable content". (The "safe search" feature.) In places like the US, customers can turn it off, but in places like Germany and China, where there are laws, the customers cannot. I was uneasily expecting to have to incorporate a list of banned sites from the Chinese government, and while I didn't like it, I didn't see any way around it, and I spoke to our VP privately about it to make sure he understood my position. That my loyalty was to the company and I'd do what had to be done, even if I didn't like it.

Much to my surprise, he was upset with me. He had VERY strong feelings about this issue, and he insisted China wasn't going to make us do it. That was the same month when China's president visited Microsoft before he visited George Bush, and in his speech on campus, he said, "China is a friend of Microsoft because Microsoft has always been a friend of China." Sure enough, whatever China made Google do, they didn't make US do anything special. Germany was a much bigger headache.

So I guess I'd say, that, no, you actually don't have to go by those laws if you're in a country that puts personal relationships above the law. Apparently they really don't think of the law the same way we do, and that was a real eye-opener. For me, anyway.

Or maybe the real truth was that the Chinese government figured out that our poor little search engine couldn't find the objectionable stuff anyway except by accident, and they just felt sorry for us. :-)

--Greg (happily retired from it all now)

Bill Gates made this comment at the new hire party I attended when I joined Microsoft in 1994, so I can vouch for its authenticity. I heard him say it with my own ears. However, it's worth noting that what he said, in full, was "As long as they're pirating software, we want them to be pirating ours. Sooner or later, as their economy develops, they'll switch to paying, and when that happens, ours will be what they'll want to buy."

I think China is developed enough to pay for software now, and I'm very sure Microsoft's anti-piracy efforts are genuine -- even though I haven't worked for Microsoft for two years now.

--Greg

US: Astronauts; Russia: Cosmonauts; China: Taikonauts; India: ?

--Greg

From TFA (quoting an anonymous administration official) ". . . it's time members of Congress recognize that NASA can't design space programs to create jobs in their districts."

The US Manned Space Program has been in sad shape for decades. The reusable shuttle that costs 3x as much per pound of payload as an expendable. (Why? The salaries of the staff needed to prepare it for each trip dominate the costs.) The ISS is the most expensive thing every constructed by man (by far), yet it produces little or no real science. (Why? Design tradeoffs again. Vibrates too much, too noisy, etc.) Given these programs have failed so badly, why weren't they cancelled ten or twenty years ago? Because of all the jobs they provide in countless congressional districts around the country.

We have thus arrived at a situation where most of NASA's money is spent on manned programs that just don't work, with just a pittance allocated to unmanned programs that do virtually all of the real science. That's a shame, because there are things people (and only people) can do. For example, a manned base on Phobos operating unmanned probes on the surface would be vastly cheaper than a manned mission to the surface of Mars, but vastly more productive than trying to operate probes from Earth. (With due respect to the fantastic accomplishments of the two Mars Rovers.) Scientists don't have to go to the sea floor to study it, but they do have to get their feet wet.

So I'm all for killing the current manned program, perhaps entirely, provided some planning is made to replace it with something sensible. I've long feared that if Congress cut the manned program, rather than give more money to unmanned missions, they'd probably cut those too. I'm still waiting to hear what the sensible replacement would be. The Augustine report was a step in the right direction, but I think it tried too hard to work inside the existing framework.

--Greg (the best thing about hitting yourself in the head with a hammer is that it feels so good when you stop)

As others have mentioned, the Wall Street Journal makes money even requiring people to pay for online access. So does the Economist. I think the real issue here is the quality of the content.

Read a regular newpaper story in an area where you're an expert. Notice how sloppy they are? How careless with the facts? People have complained about this for ages, but there wasn't much you could do about it. Most communities only had one or two papers to choose from.

Today, though, there's a huge market in online news, and, for the most part, the market seems to have set the price at "free." (That's free as in beer, of course.) It is difficult for me to believe that the market has got the price wrong. (Again, with a few exceptions.)

--Greg

On our planet, people ARE made of flesh and bone. But greetings from us!

--Greg :-)

Ahhhh! It's working already!

--Greg :-)

This item makes me feel better about Microsoft AND Google! :-)

Seriously, it really does make a lot more sense. How could anyone at Google still be running IE 6?

--Greg (Now I just need to find something to make me feel better about our government)