<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google vs. China</title>
	<atom:link href="http://robert.accettura.com/blog/2010/01/12/google-vs-china/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://robert.accettura.com/blog/2010/01/12/google-vs-china/</link>
	<description>Robert Accettura&#039;s Personal Blog on Web Development and Tech</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:31:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Walden</title>
		<link>http://robert.accettura.com/blog/2010/01/12/google-vs-china/comment-page-1/#comment-850662</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Walden</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 03:10:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robert.accettura.com/?p=3439#comment-850662</guid>
		<description>This is a rational decision which comports entirely with their original splitting of the baby, which I thought was reasonably justified, if not exactly a pleasant choice.  The understanding seemed to have been that actions arguably not tied directly to private affairs would be supported, while private actions like email and such wouldn&#039;t be offered.  If the latter is being trampled upon, that disrupts the previous fragile, agreed balance, so saying &quot;no deal&quot; is entirely justified, perhaps even an expected action.  However, all that doesn&#039;t change that I&#039;m a bit surprised they actually acted this way -- good for &#039;em to stick up for themselves.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a rational decision which comports entirely with their original splitting of the baby, which I thought was reasonably justified, if not exactly a pleasant choice.  The understanding seemed to have been that actions arguably not tied directly to private affairs would be supported, while private actions like email and such wouldn&#8217;t be offered.  If the latter is being trampled upon, that disrupts the previous fragile, agreed balance, so saying &#8220;no deal&#8221; is entirely justified, perhaps even an expected action.  However, all that doesn&#8217;t change that I&#8217;m a bit surprised they actually acted this way &#8212; good for &#8216;em to stick up for themselves.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

