Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. (Score 1) 282

by sabri (#48442409) Attached to: The EU Has a Plan To Break Up Google

serves to remind everyone who is in charge here: voters rather than shareholders.

This. Exactly this. This is exactly my point. But quite the opposite.

If I own a loaf of bread, I get to choose whatever the F I want to do with it. I own it. No matter what my neighbor thinks, I own it and if I want to eat it, or let it sit, it is my property.

Google is private property. Private property with shareholders yes, but it is still private property. The moment a government, -any- government, starts to interfere, it is interfering with private property. And that is exactly the thing I don't want the government to do with very limited exceptions (such as an idiot owning a nuclear bomb). Simply being the best in their industry (search results), is not one of these exceptions.

The owner of the corporation is in charge of the corporation, not a voter (or a politician that nobody voted for).

And once more, you modding-morons can mod me down as much as you like because you disagree, it doesn't make my points any less valid.

Comment: Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. (Score -1) 282

by sabri (#48438643) Attached to: The EU Has a Plan To Break Up Google

Not only that, but the EUSSR doesn't seem to understand that an American corporation has nothing to do with European communists.

What part of this is not true? The EU is operating like a socialist federation these days: they shove EU laws (up to and including a constitution) through their member states' throat and enforce them. In some cases, their "constitution" was rejected in a direct referendum and they *still* passed it as law. You tell me how that does not constitute Soviet behavior.

They should go and re-read their history books and remember how close all of Europe was to speaking either German or Russian.

Again, totally nothing factually wrong with that. If it were not for the Americans, all of Europe would either suffer under the Nazis or under the Soviets.

My point is that the EU is a bunch of arrogant idiots who have no business telling an American company to split up.

They are arrogant (see point #1) and have no clue about technology. You tell me what's wrong with my assessment.

Sure, if you live in Greece and need the EU to fund your pension, I can understand that you'd downmod someone who confronts you with the truth. But, I'm far from a troll. Unless you want me to start lecturing you on the benefits of a hosts file... (but let's not go there).

Comment: Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. (Score 4, Insightful) 282

by sabri (#48438107) Attached to: The EU Has a Plan To Break Up Google

The EU commision can't tell US companies to do anything but they can set conditions for allowing them to operate within the EU. It's called sovereignty and the US does it too all the time. Having a beef with virtual or actual monopolies is not exactly a communist thing either. A monopoly is a direct attack on the free market and therefore upsets true free market believers.

Finally at least a reply that contains an actual argument. Thanks for that.

I actually agree with you. The EU can set conditions for allowing a company to operate within the EU. However, they EU should not be in a position to split up a privately owned enterprise. If they feel that Google has too big of a market share, than they should encourage competition. Which, BTW, there is a lot of. Bing, Yahoo, Duckduckgo, Ask.com (yikes) and many others.

In the case of Microsoft's anti-trust case, there was no such thing. Most people and business needed a Windows PC because (at the time) it was pretty much the only thing that would be compatible with your neighbor's PC. MS controlled the desktop. Switching required a installing a new operating system, and most people didn't even know how to do that let alone that they were even aware of alternatives.

Google does not control your search engine. Internet Explorer defaults to Bing, and soon Firefox will default to Yahoo. It is easy to switch default search engines, all you need is to change a bookmark. However, I prefer Google simply because it's better and a lot of people will do the same.

Having a better product than others doesn't necessarily mean you're an illegal monopoly. Google's perceived monopoly can be gone in six months, as soon as a competitor brings a better product.

Look at Myspace vs Facebook, for example.

Comment: Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. (Score 1) 282

by sabri (#48438043) Attached to: The EU Has a Plan To Break Up Google

This is an argument from a monolingual person.

Well, I hate to break the news to you but I'm far from monolingual. I speak English, Dutch, German, a bit of French (albeit so bad that even the waiters in Paris reply in English) and a bit of Albanian. And I've lived in the EU as well as the US.

Comment: Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. (Score 1, Interesting) 282

by sabri (#48438033) Attached to: The EU Has a Plan To Break Up Google

Like it or not, idiots or not, they do have such business, simply because your poor little "american company" is no such thing. It's an international corporation that was once founded in america, but now does business all over the world, including within the EU and actually quite a lot of it.

Fine, have it your way. Doesn't matter for the purpose of the discussion. Let's assume it is a worldwide company with no particular headquarters.

What is happening here is that a bunch of politicians are interfering in the legitimate business of a private enterprise. Not as a result of violating any laws (there are criminal courts for that), but as a direct result of the success of the company. That smells like what Mother Russia did with Gazprom and is one of the big reasons why I've started to hate the EU so much that I chose to leave it.

Oh and btw, modding me a troll just because you disagree with my opinion makes you a bad mod.

Comment: Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. (Score 1, Troll) 282

by sabri (#48437569) Attached to: The EU Has a Plan To Break Up Google

Google is where it is because a lot of companies are run by boards that are more interested in feathering their own nests instead of what they largely give lip-service to - "innovation"

Not only that, but the EUSSR doesn't seem to understand that an American corporation has nothing to do with European communists.

They should go and re-read their history books and remember how close all of Europe was to speaking either German or Russian.

Comment: Re:High security (Score 1) 112

by sabri (#48427311) Attached to: Blowing On Money To Tell If It Is Counterfeit

why would anyone trust an anti-counterfeiting method from the chinese... a country that thrives on stealing state and industrial secrets, theft of intellectual property and trademarks, the piracy of all kinds of products and media, and manufacturing of counterfeit goods?

Because unlike people living in the ghetto like you, science doesn't discriminate?

Association by nationality doesn't make someone a criminal.

Comment: Re:self-correcting problem (Score 1) 176

by sabri (#48355745) Attached to: The Disgruntled Guys Who Babysit Our Aging Nuclear Missiles

transmits to the booth as: Do it -static- do it -static- kill everyone!

Something vaguely similar actually happened, killing 500+ people. In 1977, two 747s collided on the runway in part due to miscommunication.

ICAO phraseology has since been changed to use separate terminology for positive and negative communications. For example, when an ATC controller asks whether or not your capable your aircraft is capable of maintaining straight and level flight at a speed of 80 knots, the pilot will not say "I don't think we can do that" or "we can not do that". He or she will say "Affirmative" or "negative".

Takeoff clearings are even more different. When ready to take off, a pilot will advice "ready for departure" and will only use the word takeoff when reading back a clearance (i.e. Delta 19 cleared for expedited takeoff rwy 19).

Comment: Re:News For Nerds Please (Score 1) 265

by sabri (#48303949) Attached to: Ferguson No-Fly Zone Revealed As Anti-Media Tactic

Wrong!

Where exactly am I wrong? A presidential TFR is issued by the FAA in a NOTAM, and so are all other TFRs (which is something completely different than a Restricted Area, like the airspace over camp pendleton).

A TFR always follows the President (TFR POTUS designation)

Total bullshit again. They are designated Temporary flight restrictions for VIP Movement.

Have a look at tfr.faa.gov.

Comment: Re:News For Nerds Please (Score 5, Informative) 265

by sabri (#48298221) Attached to: Ferguson No-Fly Zone Revealed As Anti-Media Tactic

Many cities already ban news flights over them and have done so for years

I call total bullshit on this.

First of all, cities are unable to ban anything, it is the FAA that sets up no-fly zones. Second, if there are no-fly zones, they would be documented as restricted areas on sectional charts. You show me any sectional FAA approved chart that specifically forbids news flights, and I shall eat the dust from underneath your shoes.

Even NYC has most of its airspace as open (class B and C). As long as flights maintain the proper altitude (usually at least 1000ft AGL), everyone holding a private pilot's certificate can fly there.

Lo! Men have become the tool of their tools. -- Henry David Thoreau

Working...