Sorry, but UNISYS actually invoked the court system. This doesn't. Not until you've make yourself liable for "willful infringement". And the accuser doesn't need to show ANYONE any evidence, so you don't know what the grounds for their complaint are. With UNISYS you knew it was the GIF file format.

This *IS* much worse. There are similarities, but it's sure not the same.

Additionally, IIUC, if the accuser acts through legal agents (lawyers) then even clearly fraudulent takedown notices don't have ANY risk. The lawyer is entitled to have a "good faith" trust in his client, and the client isn't filing the takedown notice.

Technically easy. That doesn't mean inexpensive, or that they can't make your case so expensive that you lapse into bankruptcy before they have to prove their case. And THAT's assuming that the judge is honest and not confused by computer technicalities.

Yeah, but find a keyboard to type it on.

OTOH, the "succesor" (J?) didn't do so well either, even after becoming easier to use on a standard keyboard.

The problem with APL is that it was aimed at a subset of the problem of computing that is vanishingly small. Like any decent computer language you CAN do nearly anything computable in it, but it's target was mathematical matrix manipulation in cases where an interpreter is fast enough. Unfortunately, MathLab came out before it was in common use among the target population, and MathLab was a lot easier to learn. And can more easily import libraries from other languages.

Still, if the early keyboards had been a bit more flexible, and APL had been a bit easier to adapt to business use cases, it might have become a dominant language. It would still have both the problems and the benefits of Chinese, however.

Just use bablefish.

Was it a stupid ruling, or an inappropriate law? There *IS* a distinction. Perhaps the court decision was accurately upholding the law. Perhaps not. I don't know. I do know that the predictable repercussions are merely starting.

Can you define "public figure" in such a way that a program will understand it and a court will be guaranteed to agree with the program? If not, then expect Google to remove from European display LOTS of public figures.

One way is to make it easy and cheap to get rediculous suits dismissed at a preliminary hearing. Another is to penalize lawyers that file rediculous suits. (You need to do both. Many suits are not filed by lawyers.)

A good step would be to have various levels of hearing, with cheap ones at the bottom, that handle cases, such that simple obvious cases are dealt with quickly and cheaply, and cases that aren't simple and obvious enough are passed up to a higher level quickly, cheaply, and automatically. Naturally the higher you need to go, the more expensive it will be, but if you are obviously not-at-fault you should get off quickly and cheaply. (Sort of like having a "small claims court" for a preliminary screening.)
N.B.: I'm not talking about an appeals process. I'm talking triage.

And you think this is right or just? That's truly amazing.

I will admit that you probably are describing the situation accurately, but to claim that it is just and proper it... well, frankly difficult to believe.

Especially given the way that they are presented with carefully doctored evidence, and they way other relevant evidence is excluded. And the way they aren't allowed to ask questions when they are uncertain about what something means.

Well....perhaps the fault isn't strictly that of the jury.

Up until the income tax was federalized, the states had much more adequate finances. Admittedly, the taxpayers often refused them access to it.

*I* suspect that they're testing some sort of automated filter that has quite conservative ratings of articles.

You don't expect Google to rate all the articles by hand do you?

OTOH, if the filter were intentionally designed to also be irritating to those who have the power to affect changes in that particular law, I wouldn't be at all surprised. I tend to expect that when people request to be forgotten they will, as far as Google is concerned, become non-persons. The problem will be those other people with the same name.

Well, in this case a data cap seems like a good idea. Without it he wouldn't have noticed the problem. Now it can be fixed.

OTOH, the TERMS under which the data plans are sold are often quite obscene. Yes, connection is not an unlimited resource, so it needs to be limited. That doesn't mean it should cost an arm and a leg to get a little more than you normally need.

Sorry, but they had a lot to hide. What you really mean is that government rules about what's prohibited are often extremely evil. And I agree with that.

I think that practically everyone knew that it was unsustainable, but the bankers were gambling with other people's money, and getting a commission. And nobody knew just WHEN it would collapse. Nobody had any incentive to behave responsibly. If you behave responsibly a bit too early it can cost you a lot.

It's very like "gambling addiction", but for many of the players there wasn't even the element of risk that comes from gambling with your own money.

I can't understand how even at this late date you can think the government unaware of what the effects of their policy were. They saw it in action and didn't act to change it. Does any more really need to be said?