As noted by the sibling post. Bing already does do this. And it's the right thing to do.

But that's the provider's problem, isn't it?

Google can't force providers to use AOSP, and unlocked bootloaders, and all that...

Wait... Google provides your cellphone directly? How did you get on their corporate plan?

Or are you talking about those Nexuses that are provided by a different carrier, and as such that carrier retains the right to do whatever they want to the OSS Android underneath?

You know... because Google can't just go on to the Verizon/T-Mobile/AT&T/Sprint network and update everyone's phone. The provider provides the specific Android build.

And that's why they can't update all the devices at once. Because everyone and their mother can develop their own kernel, and their own Android for their platform.

Now, if everyone just ran AOSP, then Google would be fine to update everyone at the same time.

deservedly*

But not only that, it's not like Google can infer intent to share the data... you put it out there, and Google said, "hey, this is publically available, obviously people want this to be indexed!"

There's no adequate way to fix this either, because if it's opt-in, then unknowing individuals will fail to opt-in for indexing... if it's opt-out, then unknowing individuals will fail to properly opt-out (robots.txt for example)

If you put up private data publically on the internet then you simply have to accept the fact that no one else could have known that you didn't want to share the data...

Indeed... Apple didn't make the first MP3 player... they just ended up making a new one that obsoleted all the others with features.

Some mothers also could run circles around you talking about the internet...

You've likely heard of Memegen, the internal Google meme forum?

Yeah, that comic is a template, and regularly gets rolled out for random things that we were told to focus on... like "self-driving cars" or "nest" or "ionosphere skydiving VPs"

Actual Executive Order

Nothing there says criminal penalties.

Also, it says that the actors must be outside of the United States. Remind me again, but Snowden did all of his stuff inside of the United States, right?

As usual, non-lawyers read something think it means something that makes them upset, and it spreads and no one actually sits down to read the actual law.

No link? [citation needed]

... hm... my next home purchase might just have to have a conditional clause that if I can't get broadband, the deal is off...

You know, like how you can back out once you get an appraisal and learn that there are termites.

The report does note that the public at large is unlikely to receive any particularly dangerous exposure... this is more just for the workers, which to be fair, should be limiting their exposure to it in the first place. It's well known that it can cause health effects if mixed without any respirator coveralls etc..

Just because it requires a respirator and "clean suit" to spray it and mix it, doesn't mean that it's dangerous to the consumer... it just means that those people are the most likely to experience chronic meaningful exposure.

http://tf.nist.gov/time/common...

Because NIST developed the "Common view time transfer using the GPS system"...

Because NIST has a finger in everything having to do with measurement?

Clearly, you'll never be a politician, son!

Except that people don't actually interpret the sentences that way.

You're bringing logic to a syntax fight... ;)

If it is intended to actually double negate, then emphasis is used, "I said, I don't have NO books." This lifts the word up for consideration of special usage. And it is used this way in users of both positive and negative Negative Agreement... "I don't have any books. I don't have NO books." "I don't have no books. I don't have NO books."

Otherwise, all negative words in a clause are just glomped all together. Which is why "I don't think, that he didn't do it." tends to still double negate, even without emphasis... Even people who use negative Negative Agreement, would likely say "I don't think he did it."

Oh, one can totally learn about English grammar just by studying English grammar. But in many ways as our native language we're "too close" to it. People find it difficult to learn the distinction of a noun and a verb, because we just use English grammar, we don't think ABOUT English grammar.

It's a lot like breathing. We can think about breathing, and study the way breathing works, but in the end, from our perspective we just breathe automagically.

The formal register. Which unlike colloquial English has a number of stupid rules like "no double negatives" that don't actually make sense linguistically, but if you're in formal writing, you better use it, because if someone comes across it, they will immediately recognize you as lacking proper education in the formal register.

Some others immediately jump from "lack of proper education in the formal register" to "stupid" or "half-witted" or "redneck", but I do not ascribe to that opinion.

Either way, you write to your audience, and the formal English register has determined these stupid rules to be distinguishing and defining features...