why are you laughing? you're saying that a foreign government's request to censor news information about individuals ("right to be forgotten") will be legally enforceable in the USA. this is a different topic than sharing music or movies
if you don't understand the topic, don't comment on it
please define how i am trolling, dear anonymous coward making a personal attack (the actual trolling here). justify your accusation
you mean: for any reason which violates the principle of free speech
now we have to make sure you understand what free speech means:
1. brain dead "anything that can ever be said is ok and is fair game"
2. free speech as limited by forms of speech that impinge on other basic freedoms (threats to murder, child porn, the proverbial shout of "fire" in a crowded theatre, etc.)
all freedoms exist in tension with other freedoms. your freedom is most frequently violated by morons around you, not big bad evil government out to destroy your freedom for shits and giggles like a cartoon villain (this doesn't excuse government free speech violations, it only puts it in context of the topic in this comment)
examples of freedoms in tension: my freedom to listen at music at 2 AM, your freedom to get a good night's sleep. your freedom to drive as fast as you want, my freedom not to die in a car crash. your freedom to take a piss right now, my freedom to grow petunias in my front yard
so now, once we have graduated from the airhead immature teenaged definition of freedom "i can do whatever the fuck i want, be damned the consequences," and we understand that true freedom means "i can do whatever the fuck i want, as long as i don't limit other people's freedoms" then we have a logically coherent and valid definition of free speech: speech which does not hurt other people's freedoms (incitement to murder, child porn, "fire" in theatre, etc.)
meanwhile, if you think something like child porn should be allowed, you simply do not understand what freedom or free speech is
you really don't. i am being 100% serious
if you think something like child porn should be allowed, you're playing with a simpleton's teenaged immature definition of freedom that is invalid and only marks you as a clueless idiot or a malicious douchebag
you completely miss the point
laws exist with philosophical and moral validity, like against murder, and without philosophical and moral validity, like against marijuana
history is replete with people disobeying stupid and useless laws, and forcing change. civil disobedience. just because a law exists you blindly follow it without thought?
"Well, the creeper took nude pics of me walking around home naked and posted them on the internet. I was pissed until I realized that information just wants to be free, so like whatever."
no: you sue the creeper asshole into oblivion and/ or have them arrested and thrown into jail. that's the solution. just like i said above. you completely misrepresent my point, you don't understand my point, or you replied without even reading it!
furthermore, yeah: the photos are out there. the genie is out of bottle. you can't put it back. just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can change reality. i don't like the fact i will die someday. can i pass a law against death and that solves the problem? you want to snap your fingers and magic happens? tell me: how do you catch all the copies of a picture that has gone viral on the internet. explain to me how you do that
you don't. you can't. i'm not happy about this, i merely understand reality. you either think i'm happy about that ugly truth or you think i'm saying you can't do anything about it (you can: punish the creeper). what you are doing is shooting the messenger because i am telling you an ugly truth and you don't like the ugly truth. that's fine, you don't have to like it. but you shouldn't be angry at me for simply explaining reality to you
did you read my allegory? if i break your leg, do you:
1. arrest/ sue me
2. snap your fingers and make your leg magically not broken
there are laws against murder for example. do the laws say:
1. punish murderers
2. make murdered people magically brought back to life
figure it out
you believe espionage will go away someday? how or why?
the desire to know information someone else is hiding will pretty much always exist as long as human nature exists
You might not think it is going to happen, but you don't know.
I do know: the French can't pass a law that censors information in the USA. It's not going to happen. Ever. I will bet my life on that.
In fact Google today DOES censor results WORLDWIDE (like child porn).
Which they should do, and is a completely unrelated topic.
1. that's never going to happen
2. i'm not allowed to talk about the philosophical bankruptcy of the concept behind the law?
in which case, i apologize: i did not know you had conversation topic authority here. or maybe you don't and you should try contributing to the topic or ignoring my comment. but acting like you're my father just tells us you are probably compensating for some social deficit in real life, and that i want to borrow your car keys. your comment is without merit
it is a feel-good, empty band aid law for technologically illiterate people
1. you can easily circumvent it by accessing google with a vpn in another country, which is second nature for anyone vaguely aware. if that employer or possible date looks you up, it takes 15 seconds more effort. they will do it. they won't blindly accept and abide by the censorial coddling of the EU like good little citizens
2. any employer or date who will disregard you for stupid shit you did as a teenager is no one you want to date/ work for anyway. furthermore, those employers/ dates actually do have a right to know your sordid background if you are hiding actual real evil shit you once did
but the real problem is the philosophical concept behind the law
there is no such thing as a "right to be forgotten." this is not "information wants to be free dude" half bakes philosophical sophistry. this is the basic concept of reality that you can't control information. once it gets out there, it's out there, no take backs. so be careful who you tell your private shit. even if someone betrays your confidence, or records you without your authorization, you don't get to magically erase public information. what you do is sue or prosecute the person who wronged you
allegory:
if i push you out a window, you should have me arrested and jailed for assault. but what you can't do is go "pushing me out a window was wrong, so magically i want it to be like i never got pushed out a window and my leg broke" (*POOF* leg magically heals). reality does not work that way. and that's the same idiocy behind "right to be forgotten" magic unicorn wipe public information law
They would never prosecute the NSA, they don't want to lose those agreements.
The NSA spying on Merkel is a diplomatic faux pas, but it changes nothing. The German people get angry, German politicians say a few huffy words, and no one doers anything. Because Germany is playing the same game the NSA is in every capacity with the BND.
You are a fool if you think it will ever be otherwise and you are bigger fool if you are German and you think it should be otherwise. The point of spying is to gather vital intelligence. Every nation does it. Every nation always will. What kind of airhead thinks it will ever be otherwise or should be otherwise? To respect people's private information? Am I supposed to laugh?
Does anyone think a few idealistic naive bloggers is ever going to change the nature of espionage? Are there really people out there who think espionage can ever be respectful or honest or straightforward?
I agree they should not prosecute the bloggers, but exactly what the hell were these bloggers thinking? They were going to shut down or change the nature of spying? Make it respectful and transparent? What kind of quixotic cluelessness about reality is this?
minus the votes denied by corrupt officials and republican statehouses that disenfranchise american citizens
thank you
there's marine life attached to the wing
i was wondering two things:
1. if not by species, then maybe by subspecies, or some sublte variation within a species, that they could attach an area to where the wing developed the attached creatures
2. if there are variations in isotopes the marine species would absorb differentially by area, if that can be pinpointed to an area. that would probably be very subtle and not helpful. just an idea
For many software patents, I'd agree with you.
The problem with video compression is that many of the patents involved do represent real research, the expensive kind. They aren't one-click shopping patents. They're fundamentally pushing forward the state of the art. The people who do that work are expensive and need a lot of time, so, there has to be some way to pay for their efforts. Google's approach of subsidising all research via search ads is perhaps not as robust as one might hope for, even though it's convenient at the moment.
I don't know if DASH specifically is complex enough to deserve patent protection, but if you look at the massive efforts that go into the development of codecs like h.264, h.265 etc, the picture gets more complex. It's not pharmaceutical level research budgets but it's probably the closest the software world gets.
No, the issue is that it's open source and carriers customise the components. Android had a working online update infrastructure since day one, actually since before Apple did. But that's no use when the first thing OEMs do is repoint those mechanisms at their own servers and make huge changes to the code.
The comparisons with Linux are especially strange. Guess what? Upstreams who develop software for Linux and see it get repackaged by distributors are in exactly the same boat as Google. They see their software get packaged up, distributed, bugs possibly introduced and then upgrades may or may not make it to users. Yeah yeah, Debian say they backport security fixes. That's great when it's a popular package and a one liner. When the security fix in question is a major architectural upgrade, like adding a sandbox to an app, then users just get left behind on old versions without the upgrades because that's the "stable" version.
And of course many users are on Linux distros that stop being supported pretty quick. Then you're in the same boat as Android: old versions don't get updates.
You're using a keyboard! How quaint!
