You think there is only one company by the name of "Lush" in the whole wide world? Or even in America?
Who decides which company gets this nice short URL and which doesn't?

This is usually solved on the first come first served basis, and Google should to the same.
And since this guy was the first and has the right to us his name (he didn't go for "lushcosmetics" nor "whitehousegov") he should keep it.

This decision by Google is stupid and sets a bad precedent.
Not counting the fact that their argument that this can not be reversed is certainly an outright lie.

Insufficiently protecting the data of their users (iCloud).
Collecting wifi data without consent.
Just two examples that come to mind immediately.

Google and Apple are pretty much the same.
But Apple pretends not to be like Google way to much, when is clear they do the same stuff.

Apple does not only sell hardware but also digital goods and ads. And to target said goods and ads they need what? A good profile of the user.

Apple does pretty much the same Google does. But Tim Cook dares to go on stage and pretend they don't. That makes him a liar in my book.

Over the years there were enough cases where we could see that apple does in fact collect data from their users without telling them (and without protecting said data properly).
Apple is neither better or worse than Google in that respect.

And neither of them is very interested in giving the information about their users to third parties. Their advantage in the ad/targeting business is that THEY have the profile of their users and the third parties do not.

No. The ruling expressively said that it only applies to this specific case.

And the ruling does NOT say that you have to moderate every post. Only that if you have an option for users to report offensive content and if you are known to moderate comments on your own (as this website did) then you can be expected to do it fast.

BS. Given the attention that this whole situation has been given, they can not just disappear Assange. Not anymore.

If the British police put him in a plane and the Swedish police doesn't receive him, that would be a real problem for Sweden.

Also, they can not extradite him anymore silently, but if the US wants him they have to officially ask Sweden and Sweden has to go trough the whole legal process.
The situation is way to public for Sweden to risk being seen cutting corners.

Nobody keeps Assange in some dungeon.
He was free on bail awaiting trial (or extradition), he could have lived in some spacey condo or whatnot.

But he decided, on his own himself, to run and go to the embassy. (Thereby forfeiting the money of the sponsor who posted bail. Real classy move.)

And even there he is free to leave 'the dungeon' at any time.
It is his decision to stay there.

You implying that the UK government is to blame is ignoring the facts.

Sure, consent is rarely explicitly given. But the other person needs to be in a position to make a decision. They need to be able to voice their objection, if they so desire. Somebody who sleeps can neither consent nor object.

Or let me put it differently: Consent needs to be given explicitly (using words or actions) or implicitly (by being able to object, but not doing so).
But lack of consent because the other person can not make any decision means you're entering rape territory.

In the situation described here the woman awoke before/during sex and did not seem to have voiced any complaint. That fact saves Assange from going to trial for rape: She was in a position to voice complaint and seemingly didn't.

Ugh. What cave did you come out of?

Yes, and directives are the basis for national laws, meaning that national laws have to at least reach that level.

Also, please explain to us how Facebooks interest in collecting data from people that are not Facebook members is more legitimate than the interest of said people not having their data collected by a company they have no contractual relationship with?

How should they ban the people?
From what I understand, you can easily create new accounts.
And banning IP addresses can affect both other people who happen to share the same IP and not affect the user targeted because they might easily get a new IP.

The claims against her husband seem to be from 2012. She filed the lawsuit against Kleiner Perkins in 2012.
So, you're saying that she knew a year in advance that her husband would need money and filed the lawsuit to get it? Or does she have a time machine? Or what?

Now, let's look at this pragmatically:
What do people want when they open the software center? They want to find software (probably do to some specific task).
And they want to know if they can download it for free or if it costs them anything.
The vast majority of people using the software center don't care about licences or source code, as they only want to use the software.

So the pragmatic solution is do make a distinction between free (as in beer) and pay-for software.

Making a distinction between closed source and open source or between limiting and less limiting licences doesn't add anything for the vast majority of users.

Do you have any proof for this statement (that Europe recognizes ISIS)?
If not: Stop spreading such BS.

Because Uber wants to provide a taxi service in everything but the name, but doesn't want to play by the same rules as the regular taxis.
Why should Uber get special treatment? Because they're new and hip?

If everyone who wants to provide a taxi service has to pay the same price for a license, it's fair.
of, on the other hand, somebody would try to enter the market without paying for taxi licenses *cough* Uber *cough* then they would not be competing fairly.

Nope. The taxi drivers would compete for too few passengers by trying to undercut each other, skimming on costs thus reducing the safety for passengers etc.

Free markets do work practically never on scale, as the ideal conditions necessary for a working free market are never met. There is always some imbalance.

I can not talk for GP, only for myself. But you are oversimplifying the situation.

I'm a man. I'm against the mens rights groups that I know of. Not because I believe there are no problems. But because I believe that those mens rights groups I know about do their cause a disservice. Instead of pointing out rationally the existing problems, they pretty much always exaggerate, go off on tangents and generally come about as weirdos and nutters.

This, by the way, is also true for at least some of the more extreme feminists.
But there are not only extreme feminists, but also moderate one. Yet with mens rights activists there doesn't seem to be a middle ground.