Google finally holding true to 'Don't be evil'

A reader commends Google for its threat to pull out of the Chinese market after allegations of censorship led the company to declare that it will no longer filter its results.

This is with reference to the article How Google changed the rules for dealing with China, January 15. The recent statement by Google that it is ready to pull out from China and will henceforth no longer filter search results from its Chinese web search engine is a smart business move and a real win-win decision for the internet search giant. On one hand, it allows Google to take the moral and ethical high ground and project itself as a conscientious global organization, while on the other hand it allows Google to exit the high potential but extremely difficult to tap Chinese internet search market.

Google's China operations contribute a paltry $300 million, a fraction of its more than $22 billion in global sales. By finally invoking its corporate motto "Don't be evil" - which was conveniently abandoned in 2006 due to the lure of the Chinese lucre - Google is now able to make a graceful and dignified exit. Amitabh Saxena, Dubai

Concerning Debt-ridden developers face prison or flight, January 16: I can understand why some people would be reluctant to be establishing their businesses in the UAE but such harsh rules really make this a better and a safer business environment, especially when there is a vast majority of the population who are expatriates. There are several developers who have mismanaged funds and over traded, thereby exposing their clients' funds paid against one project to high risks. By virtue of this action itself, the intention becomes fraudulent. Similar examples can be sighted in trades and logistics industries. Ikram Shaikh, Dubai

Thanks to The National for my winning tickets to a wonderful show (Stand-up and deliver: Hal Sparks, January 15). Jon Lovitz was funny and Hal Sparks was hilarious. It was like Jimi Hendrix opening for Eric Clapton. Sailesh Mendonca, Dubai

I always encourage children to express their thoughts more openly whenever they get a spoken or written opportunity (Why we don't need to put words into teenagers' mouths, January 16). I have even coined a terminology called "SMS - Short Message Syndrome" for this shortness happening amongst children these days. The two-pronged article highlights that it is restricted to social exchanges and its users know when and how to switch to conventional English and it is rather harmless. A great new year ahead for your thoughts on linguistic skills and usage, Mr Randall. Ramesh Menon, Abu Dhabi

In reference to Ministry faults slow driving by women, January 16: Perhaps authorities should delve into the archives of phrenology to measure how the smaller size of womens' brains affects their ability to drive. Since women are, as the ministry report says, "by nature less rushed and more deliberate," it might do well to explore a policy on shrinking the male brain in order to rid the Emirates of speeding drivers. Mae Magendie, Dubai

Over the last eight years of my driving in the UAE, 99 per cent of the bad driving I've seen on the roads was either by young men in fast sports cars or truck, bus and taxi drivers (who are all men by the way). As for driving slow, how can that cause an accident unless a fast driver is harassed because he/she has no patience and was bothered by the driver's slow pace? I agree that there is the concept of traffic flow and those who choose to drive cautiously should stick to the right lane. However, are there no men who drive too slowly? This is balant sexism and encourages negative attitudes towards women both on and off the roads. I am disappointed that an official body would publish such a report. Name withheld by request

Regarding Price of cigarettes may double to Dh14, January 15: I'm afraid that the proposal to ban smoking in cars occupied by children represents an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy and autonomy of parenthood.

The autonomy to make one's own decision about risks to subject a child to is not to be interfered with lightly. It should only be done in cases where there is a substantial threat of severe harm to the child. Interfering with parental autonomy in a case where there is only minor risk involved is unwarranted. Thomas Laprade, Thunder Bay