Microsoft, if they wanted to, could distribute Arora under GPL and IIS under their own license in one software package - one has nothing to do with the other, besides both of them using the HTTP protocol.

Because GPL is not violated if all you share with the GPLed program is a protocol.

Exactly. I don't understand the issue. It will look like this:

[ (GPL library) - > (GPL program) ] (protocol) (non-GPL program that doesn't use the GPL library)

What protocol is doesn't matter. It can be a standard I/O, local socket, or a network protocol like FTP/HTTP/etc. Can a GPL web browser like Arora communicate with a proprietary web server like IIS? Of course it can!

If you asked RMS, he would have you offer everything under GPL, but that's the choice you can make on your own. It has pretty much nothing to do with the GPL library.

Russia gave out Russian passports like candy to South Ossetians, then declared most of them were Russians - well... Duh.

Here's how to do it if you are the U.S.:

1. Hand out U.S. passports to Mexicans on the U.S. border regions (they'll gladly take them)
2. Create/subsidize pro U.S. movement in those areas (easy)
3. Once the "movement" gains ground, have the movement elected into government forcefully - kick out and burn down every Mexican's house who doesn't agree with it; then ask the "elected" government to declare independence
4. "Protect" them when Mexicans try to secure their border

It's not a rocket science really.

Besides, I didn't see anyone coming to rescue for Chechnya when Russia "invaded" it for similar (and many other worse) reasons.

They obviously changed the stuff after the story became public and was posted everywhere. You can probably still find screenshots if you search for them.

Getting rid of the "so" yields only 2 relevant results that relate to MS Windows on the first page on #7 and #8 spots, putting several results about Macs being expensive above them. Either the "decision engine" is so poor that it can't search for the terms user typed in, or it uses an algorithm to demote search results that reference MS products as being costly.

Hmm... I wonder which one.

Also, I just tried "why windows costs a lot" on bing - the results are similar in that there are no results about MS Windows costing a lot. Mac, Linux games, additional RAM, etc. are all fair game, however.

Not really. Ignoring all "news" results, searching Bing for "why is windows so expensive" on the first page I get:

1. Why are Mac's so expensive

2. Why so expensive - games for Windows Live
This actually talks about why Macs are so expensive - because Apple controls all the hardware, etc.

3. Why are vinyl windows so expensive
Has nothing to do with software, OK

4. Why are windows hosting providers so expensive

5. Why are macbooks so expensive

6. WikiAnswers - why are Apple Macs so expensive

7. Windows Embedded Blog: Why is commercial OSS software so expensive

8. Why are macs so expensive

9. Why are macs so expensive

10. Why fish is so expensive

Using Google search for the same on the first page I get:

1. Why Windows Vista and Office 2007 are so expensive

2. Is Windows getting more expensive? CNET news

3. Windows 7 to be "more expensive" than Vista, XP

4. Writing on the wall: why Windows is so expensive

5. Why are vinyl windows so expensive?
- same non-software result as on Bing, which is OK

6. Omfg Vista Is So Expensive - Windows Vista and Windows 7

7. Why is the IBM thinkpad x301 laptop so expensive with mediocre

8. Why are Macs so expensive? | News | TechRadar UK

9. Gizmodo - The World's Most Expensive Copy of Windows XP - XP

10. FAQs - City of Port Phillip Website
- why is double glazing windows so expensive?

So, while Google mixed in one result for Macs being expensive at the #8 spot, most results are actually about Windows being expensive and relevant to the search query.

In contrast, there are no results from Bing that talk about Windows being expensive - only one about Windows hosting providers being expensive, but most results are about Macs being expensive, and one about commercial OSS being expensive.

This is actually a pretty good job by a "decision engine" - taking the negative search terms about their products and applying them to their competitors products. Cute.

You'd be surprised how many people in the U.S. watch Fox News. In fact, they are very successful here. My personal theory is that U.S. is just like many other countries with large populations (Russia, China, Indonesia come to mind) where people are hungry and very susceptible to be told how to think.

Let me give you a brief overview: this is how it works - everything is deduced and painted in black and white for you; you identify the side you don't like and associate yourself with the other side - everything has 2 sides, you see.

By associating yourself with one side you inherit all labels (e.g. conservative, capitalist, patriotic, etc.) associated with it and are told how the people under the labels on the other side (democrats, liberals, socialists, etc.) are bad. In fact media like Fox News, or radio stations need not provide any factual news for you - all they have to do is spoon-feed you the negative opinions about the other side which is supposed to give you warm fuzzies listening to the guys on your side.

God forbid someone provide a third or fourth point of view on any political subject - that would not easily be allowed on TV. People are taught there are 2 sides to every coin - can you imagine what would happen if there was another point of view that didn't fit the 2-sided theme?! The "news" channels would be losing their audience. On a very rare occasion it happens, they sometimes call it "oh, an interesting angle" and dismiss it as that, continuing their propaganda programming.

Yeah, that's pretty much how it works.

Twitter has money. They are not turning a profit, but that's not the same thing as not having money.

Is anybody really fooled by that? There is a difference between a user-initiated local program that deletes a file; and an Amazon-initiated remote delete command without any user interaction or knowledge.

The "feature" gives Amazon more power than they need to process a return. If they have it they will abuse it, and they did. In fact, they do not need the quiet remote delete capability to allow book returns. I'm not sure how it currently works, but there are 2 simple ways to do returns that I thought of in all of 30 seconds:

Using Kindle:
- user requests return and refund from Kindle device using software running on the device
- Kindle local program sends message to Amazon server to initiate return
- Amazon server confirms the availability and OKs transaction to Kindle
- Kindle local program confirms with the user, then deletes file and sends message back to Amazon server that file has been deleted
- Amazon server refunds money to customer

Using website:
- user requests refund via Amazon website
- Amazon server sends message to Kindle device to start return program/function
- Kindle alerts the user of a new message, which when engaged starts the local refund program
- if user verifies, program deletes file and sends message back to Amazon server
- Amazon server refunds money to customer

If at any time user does not complete the process, transaction is timed out in X hours/days, and the money is not refunded. If user refuses to confirm refund on the device, return transaction is canceled and money is not refunded.

Want to be have it more automatic? OK, allow users to specify whether remote deletes need confirmation on the Kindle device or not; always default to need confirmation. But this shouldn't even be needed - there's nothing wrong with requiring access to the device to do a return/refund. The only reason they would need the remote delete functionality without user interaction/consent is to abuse it. And, obviously, it's now a fact that they've abused it.

That sounds OK and everything but consider that you can own a property that's connected to the grid, but not occupy it and not have to pay a dime to the power company. They'd still have to repair the grid if there's a storm damage, and otherwise maintain it as necessary.

What should really happen is that part of property taxes should go towards maintaining public utilities - don't they already anyway in many places? If so, charging for the same thing again is double-dipping and should not be legal.

Umm... how about removing the remote delete capability from users' devices? Or, do you just blindly trust them they won't do it in the future just because they "promised?"

The whole thing that's "wrong" here is the fact that Amazon is selling the devices with those capabilities built in and their customers buying those devices knowing those capabilities are in there. If the above wasn't the case, then your proposed answer would have been the only logical and practical answer. And that would have been the right answer then.

I don't understand what is so surprising and wrong - if people believed Amazon never intended to activate the "remote delete" feature then why did they spend the time and money developing the feature and shipping the product with it? And, why should anyone trust them now that they have already exercised that power that they'll never do it again?

If Amazon really intends to keep the promise of never doing this again, they will need to remove the feature that modifies program/data on the device without user's consent. Otherwise, they will keep the feature, and they will do this again when it suits them. So, hopefully this incident brings people closer to understanding and voting with their wallets, and not buying into any DRM scheme, and remotely activated software "features." Demand Free software without DRM - that's the first important step to guaranteeing you own what you buy.

I don't think that would be fair. If you are an employee of the company and you are doing your job, you should be immune from these things. Bear in mind that large companies have legal departments that they route their decisions through. There is no way to make each blue collar employee individually be the judge and the jury and the legal decision-maker for every single corporate action that takes place. There is a gray line somewhere in there - if your company asks you to commit a murder, that's one thing; but if the management makes the decision to remotely activate a feature of a product that was designed to be activated that way, that's an area where you hold your case against the company, not John the business analyst, or Judy the programmer.

That's what happens when you don't/can't read, even if the information is put right in front of your nose.

Not really. Just replied with the same choice words just for fun.

Hmm... I remember saying XP licensing period was extended for netbooks. Nowhere did I say it was impossible to get. If that's how you took it, that is your problem. Feel free to go back and read again.