Hidden censorship is worse than obvious censorship. Shame on Google for hiding China's shame.

That is, if you didn't play it 10 years ago on the Xbox. Also, Psychonauts left me with a "hm, that was neat" feeling more than a "wow, that was amazing" feeling. But that's just me.

That's just marketing. Business as usual.

The threat is that if phone makers perceive a significant legal risk in using Android, they may opt instead for Microsoft's Windows Phone software."

What part of this is illegal? Isn't this how patents are supposed to work?

No sympathy. The greeks made their bed , well its time to lie down.

No, the Greek elite made the bed, with the help of Goldman Sachs to keep it all secret. Make the elite pay, leave the Greek people alone.

These "concerns" are all bunk. Just supply an html directory tree of all the pending laws, with each law signed with GPG. You're done. I bet it would cost them less to implement this than to keep Thomas running.

You don't even really need the GPG signatures. If someone edits a law for propaganda purposes, the original version should always be there for reference.

There are no legitimate concerns here. Only stonewalling.

Listening to Ellison's interview the other day was quite hilariously different from reading this.

Guess we now have "Ellison's distortion field". It only covers the man himself and his close circle.

... do it on a dedicated server farm. Cheaper and more reliable.

Yes, I got the joke.

The reason these giant IT projects almost always cost more than the original bid is that the purchasing entity (NYC in this case) frequently either hides or isn't aware of some of the items that will affect the cost.

Whose job is it to ensure that contracts are properly specced out? Who manages that person? Fire the manager.

Ok, if I have to spell it out from you, the DOJ used an entirely legitimate complaint against Microsoft as an excuse to shake them down. You can tell the DOJ wasn't really serious about protecting consumers, because in the end they did nothing at all to protect consumers. All they did is send Microsoft a message that they are not above paying the piper. Microsoft apparently heard that message loud and clear.

Since the previous antitrust actions were not intended to help consumers, then it would be unlikely for the DOJ to attempt to help consumers in the future. Therefore, you can expect no DOJ action on this issue.

Does that make sense now? I still don't see how anyone who speaks English could interpret my previous post to mean that Microsoft wasn't guilty of antitrust abuse.