Send the request to be forgotten to the site that actually hosts the information. That way it will disappear in all search engines.

That wouldn't cover sites outside of EU jurisdiction, which the EU not unreasonably thinks makes it a poor solution.

What's going through the EU's mind right now? "This is clearly futile, not working and doesn't stand a chance in hell of working... ...so let's do more!"?

It's absolute stupdity. I'm not even against the underlying idea but this implementation has been a complete clusterfuck since the start. Expecting service providers to judge this is insane, and forcing people to contact dozens of different providers if they want to be removed from them all is stupid.

If we are going to have some kind of right to be forgotten then it should be judged by independent specialists, pages that should be 'forgotten' should be added to a public blacklist used by ISPs so that it can be checked for abuses.

Doesn't stop them with a Supreme Court that will not hear cases involving price-fixing and fictitious advertising.

British Telecoms is an American ISP as well now?

I really can't see why anyone who is downloading material that they could be sued for in the UK isn't using a proxy or VPN. Given how low the cost is of using a reputable one doing anything less seems like a very naive gamble.

However, on the topic at hand: It's completely unacceptable for ISPs to be limiting what websites users can visit when they aren't legally obliged to. Not only is it an even more dangerous precedent than the current government restrictions but it makes a mockery of protecting them from prosecution for the information they transmit if they are deciding what users can or can't do.

I like being an American, but I can't pretend that I like all Americans. Not when they do stupid shit like this.

Versus doing what? If they genuinely believe that the state has conspired to allow a murder to be unpunished because the victim was black and the murderer was a policeman, and that this kind of thing has gone on for centuries and will carry on, what were they supposed to do which would be more effective? Some sit ins, and a pithy chant would have achieved nothing, these riots are at least bringing the antipathy between some communities and the police to the front pages and maybe they'll be addressed.

2/3rds of Ferguson is black, and you want to use the fact that 1/6th of the grand jury was black to dismiss the argument that there wasn't a potential bias issue...

Just because you can't see most of the infrastructure it doesn't mean that you shouldn't manage it wisely like any other infrastructure, be it water/sewer pipes or power distribution lines

Gettings tens of billions of dollars for it may be the best way to manage it ;) It's not like setting up a new, or negotiating a deal with an established, company in a contract that encourages them to invest while stopping them making 'unreasonable' profits is either easy or guaranteed to work as intended. The auction process is handing the government billions, putting multiple competitors into the market and they'll have to pay for their own infrastructure. The auction model for spectrum worked pretty well in the UK, though I do wish they'd sold off some of the spectrum in smaller blocks at regional levels to allow smaller players to get into the market as well.

If that is the most important thing you took from his talk, I have to say, you don't sound like a team player or a valuable employee

If you can't see why British people, or people from any other country, might mock someone who flew into their home country and called them American then you don't sound like a valueable lifeform ;)

What do you suggest? That we leave the spectrum unregulated and whomever can put out the most powerful signal in an area gets, degraded by competiting transmissions, control of it? That sounds great, we're all looking for solutions that generate no money for citizens and are virtually unworkable right ;)

It's reprehensible that they leverage this incredibly popular brand to teach girls to code when they could be using it to sell Happy Meals and next year's landfill fodder. Shame, shame!

Although I think it's a trade worth making, I don't think the concern should be dismissed in such an out of hand manner. Just because children are being bombarded with branding everywhere else doesn't mean that it's a non-issue putting it somewhere else.

Consider Philae - if it had landed a few meters in another direction it would still be working. If it had been a manned expedition, that wouldn't have been an issue.

For the cost of getting humans to and from an asteroid on a decade long mission (in anything approaching a functional state) we could have sent thousands of unmanned landers. Sending people adds a gigantic cost premium. It's nonsense to suggest the rover mission would have been better with people, it wouldn't have happened with people due to cost, and if we could afford the cost of sending people we could do hundreds of unmanned missions for the same cost as one manned one.

If you're getting something in return, it's NOT a donation. In this case, it is prepayment for early access to a product. Of course, when you get nothing, or something below your expectations, it's more like a ripoff.

It's a crowdfunding platform. Perpetuating the falsehood that it is more than that just encourages more people to put money into the platform expecting more than they should.

Save me the "When Good Men Do Nothing," I have family and other considerations outside Slashdot idealism.

It's a shame you don't see the irony in that statement. If anyone can afford to throw some money at Tor it is the people who don't do anything overly contentious, it's a shame that your cowardice is stopping you from doing relatively safe things now that could protect your freedoms later, at which point doing something about it would be far more dangerous.

Perhaps you'd like to share some, with a reasonable analysis of why they are fake. Seriously, stop imagining the kind of obvious bullshit that works with some in Russia and the odd person elsewhere is going to have any influence. When one side is so obviously wrong, so obviously lying and doing it so incredibly badly even a good attempt to muddy the water would fail and that was a poor attempt at best.

If you were the Ukrainian equivalent of the CIA, and the Russians had started to swat down your military planes like flies, how far would you be willing to go to stop them?

Anythings possible, but given the strong circumstantial evidence against the rebels/Russians I really don't see the need to imagine up implausible conspiracies. Have you see any western news showing blatantly faked evidence that Russia did it? Why is Russian state media so keen to muddy the water that it would put stuff like this out? We know the answer: It suits them to confuse the half informed, ignorant and those wanting to believe it wasn't Russia.