q2

>>> ...then what did they fought for?

In some cases "Dharma" and in some cases, just to show their power or get the titles such as "king of kings" ...etc.

Remember "time" is continuous spectrum and there may be dilution of the above in some cases but since history won't preserve every emotion/reason/circumstances behind every decision of every participant, we can just speculate in such diluted individual cases.

Also, just like modern day games which happen in a stadium, there used to be "war stadiums" where war is confined to that place only (e.g: Kurushetra). This is primarily to avoid loss of innocents/women/children unlike current practice of destructing whole opposite country including small children some times.

EDIT: Just added a new line.

If you are seeing past life of eastern countries (India or china ...etc) only through economic point of view, you will never get proper understanding. Infact, outside colonial Europe and America, money/economics was/is not the only pursuit.

1. Almost all colonial powers in the west fought across the world primarily for territory, gold, resources, spices ...etc. This pursuit of selfish economic interests at the expense of rest of the world, environment is still we see in the world. Amount of loot/destruction from East to support Britain is just gigantic even during world wars.

2. Wealth, GDP might be there in the past Eastern world but that was by product/side effect of something else. No one really pushed for efficieny/productivity just like we see now in the west. It was individual interest to earn but not enforced one as if whole world is in a race and we will fall behind if we do not compete ...etc. You won't see such insecurity/paranoid in the past Eastern world. Selfish economic pursuit was never a primary/sole criterion for past India at state level. Yes, there were rules/laws for finances (e.g: Artha Sastra ...etc) but that is part of bigger picture just enough to maintain state but not main one. Kings of India before Mughals/British fought too among themselves but not for resources/money/territory. Dominating world/make a dent on the universe/earth ...etc was never part of eastern thinking even when East was financially strong. Concepts like Yoga/Kama Sutra ...etc emerged which are not at all connected to Finance/economy.

So do not look at just financial parts to understand whole. You will miss many subtle/nuanced/implicit points and your understanding may not be correct/complete.

Note: Please do not downvote if you disagree. There may be several implicit facts which you may not aware because of cultural difference.

No it is not. I saw the profile of the person and based on that, this advice is ok, since we both appear from same country.

Do not be so much faithful and confident on only science/technology/human intelligence/effort ...etc.

Science is like a light which shows/highlights/brings out the already existing stuff. This does not mean that science created them, though latter discoveries depend on previous ones. They are there in nature before fundamentally and science pointed out to humanity.

Technology/engineering works on science's output to create products/services for humanity. Going by this logic, science and technology and human effort/intelligence are just harnessing/working on fundamental entities existed before.

So there exists an entity/constellation of entities which we call God which constantly churns out the activity which we all consume under various names,modify with intelligence/effort to suit our needs.

So there is nothing wrong in visiting temple/God who is basis for everything.

Why rational people should not believe in God and should not have beliefs? May be he has enough proof for the capabilities. Just because you do not have proof and just because that proof is not hyped/advertised, it does not mean that it does not exist.In Hindu Dharma, God is personal in the sense that each one connects to him in their own way unlike/in addition to monolithic set patterns visible to all.

Even Bhagavad Gita is based on rational discussion (Q&A), though it is spiritual too.

One personal comment: Based on the above comment, you appear young. I suggest you periodically to look inwards and read books in your language.

EDIT/APPEND: Unfortunately, there are various people/groups who mislead people on the subject of God. Some of them are/can be delusions. So you need to be careful but honest efforts on your own to connect to him/her (Hinduism is plural) can/may be possible.

At the end of the day, these decisions have to be taken at CEO level. Apple may be big but it has only one CEO. This may not be the only issue Tim Cook is paying attention. There will be several such issues in any big company. Reducing some or optimization will always be an option at CEO level.

Vendor relations are always based on cost, resources and so I guess, they will be in a flux always. So diversification away forever is not pragmatic choice, given the reliability of Samsung so far.

I never mentioned not to fight but I mentioned not through courts. Smart guys at Apple can think several options and I am novice there.

I read on the web that Steve Jobs wanted to go for full fledged war on Android ...etc, no matter of costs involved. But that was back when he was alive and both Android and ios are in fancy. It was an emotional burst. Steve Jobs was known for changing mind, if different options arise on horizon. So if he is alive, he may take different turn in this episode, rather than just fighting and fighting in the courts.

But since it is well publicized that Steve wanted to battle Android at any cost, Apple's current leadership may not have space to back down because if they back down, share holders, press, loyal fans may feel as going against Steve's last wishes...etc.

As article shows, Tim cook tried to caution multiple times, even when Steve was alive. In that sense, it is "reluctant war" on behalf of Tim cook and my guess is, he wants to settle the distraction/media glare and move on.

I read somewhere that Steve wanted Tim cook to make decisions not as what Steve would do ...etc but based on current reality. Ordered penalty is just a drop in Apple's revenue. But the constant media focus, important supplier relationship with Samsung, Tim Cook's own reluctance (despite public utterances), antipathy to patent fights in tech world means there will be gradual burial of this issue over time and focus on battle through new products/improvements.

I guess Steve also would do the same. He settled with Microsoft in the beginning to avoid distraction and focus on new products. There will be short term backlash but if they are right on roadmap, people see that as masterstroke ...etc.

Note: This is my view/guess as an outsider based on what I read about Steve Jobs, Apple ...etc.

If this is the standard boilerplate, then standard needs to be changed :). Why a "pure" storage service needs to do following?

1. "reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content."

2. Why they should have data even after we stop using their Services?

Users may want just storage but no integration/lock-in with their services. Google can offer "opt-in/opt-out" mechanism from their services. Is n't it?

Implicit expectation of any storage service is, data will remain private and when we remove data from there, it won't exist anywhere on Google systems in any form.

Unfortunately, Google terms and conditions says, http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/

"When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps). "

i.e. if we store data there, we are using their service and we are giving Google "rights of ownership" permanently even after we stop using their service in future. It is definitely not good.

How can anyone give license of their personal stuff to third party?

It will be better if there is a standalone storage service which just stores,backups securely and forgets us when we opt out of their service. As far as I understand, Google drive won't fit in there. Their appetite for our personal information for advertising is not comforting.

If I misunderstood their terms, I am willing to change.

India of 1977 is different to India in 2014. So I think, it is not worth to go back in the past.

Ikea is looking for space to start stores in India. Please search in Google. Your information seems to be outdated. https://www.google.co.in/#q=ikea+in+india India's FDI in retail policy wants to protect its SME's. Elected Govt. is supposed to do that to distribute wealth across society.

India is still good place for business. It is complex, slow moving compared to west, chaotic at first glance but any one can adapt easily.

Nonsense. Some one complained and CCI is investigating and Google will act as per the verdict. Where is bullying in this? What else Govt. is supposed to do? Do not investigate?

Many companies get investigated in the America/west/China for various reasons. We all see that in news. All of that is bullying?

Do not bring old cases into the current context. Also, Google know rules before operating in India. Do not they?

Context of this case is different to those of others appeared recently in the past (those are tax related).

CCI is independent arm of Govt. Let it investigate. So "Govt bullying companies" line of reasoning won't apply.

For a moment, it really appeared LISP is acronym: <L>anguage for <I>nternet <S>cripting and <P>rogramming rather than LISt Processing.