Europe spent 4 years investigating Google's practices. What did they come up with? Not a damn thing. There was no evidence of abuse of market position, so a new law is now being created for the sole purpose of enforcing against Google. It would be very different if Google was actually disrupting other markets using their dominance in search, but that's not what's happening here.

The world-wide web is most definitely not under their jurisdiction either. Europe has no authority to censor the internet on behalf of the rest of the world.

Here's an old podcast from last year, that sums up the problem pretty well in Connecticut...sorry for the length but it's pretty interesting and still relevant: http://ctmirror.org/truth-behi...

My first 3D accelerator was a Voodoo, and shortly after that a Riva TNT, which wasn't anything special at the time. Back then, I remember there were many more consumer GPU manufacturers, and almost all of them were bringing new features to GPU's. The naming of OGL extensions reflected that. Years before everyone else, 3DFX was doing SLI, ATI had primitive hardware tessellation and the first unified shader arch, and Savage created gpu texture compression. The modern GPU wasn't invented by NVidia, but by contributions by many GPU designs.

Isn't that why a law this this should address the source, rather than the index? In your example, the original article should be updated with an addendum in the title or header, just as print news often publishes a clarifying piece. Hyperlinks to the article would immediately make it clear what the truth is. Because the Right to be Forgotten targets search engines instead, it's being used (and abused) by people who actually did something wrong and want it erased. People should be left to determine for themselves what information is relevant, not what you or I demand them to believe. It's like the old adage that respect is earned. I can't force you to respect me, but I have a lot of control about what you think about me. Maybe that's still not enough for some people, but I'll say this: nothing good has ever emerged from censorship of the truth.

Question: Does this law prevent someone from declaring a "spent conviction" on an application and an employer from asking about it or using it against the applicant? Or does it require the conviction records to be expunged from public records? Even in the US, there are laws addressing equal opportunity and employee discrimination. Even if an employer discovers a past arrest or conviction through a background, that cannot be used against the applicant to deny them a job. There are exceptions, for example a repeat child sex offender probably wouldn't get a job in a day care center, but even in that circumstance, the employer could still get dragged into court in a challenge.

You're wrong. This law isn't about slanderous claims, defamation, or copyright infringement. There have been laws that address that already. This law involves the removal of factual information--censorship of the truth. That's the key difference.

Microsoft and Yahoo are affected too, they were at the meeting. It's not an attack on Google, it's an attack on the freedom of the truth.

"6. Do you notify website publishers of delisting? In that case, which legal basis do you have to notify website publishers?" Laws are restrictive not permissive. The response from the search engines should be "by what legal basis do you have to prevent us from notifying website publishers?"

The best argument I've read is that the complex characters in the Korean, Japanese, and Chinese languages really benefit from higher density screens, even over what the G2 was providing last year.

I just don't follow this reasoning. We're talking about truthful, factual, and legitimate content. If you were a reporter reporting facts, why should I have the "God-given right" to determine what you write about me? Why should I be able to take down a link to an article that I don't hold the copyright to? I shouldn't, because I (or anyone else) don't own "facts" about you. This is a really slippery slope, my friend.

You're not far off the mark. For short OR procedures, fentanyl is preferred because the onset is faster and the duration is shorter, but hydromorphone can be used. Midazolam is used in conjunction for it's sedative and amnetic properties. This is also still a common combination when patients are mechanically vented. Patients lose complete orientation to what's happening to them before they lose consciousness. The observers' perception that he "suffered" is very unlikely to be the case.

All Androids by now have native Vorbis decoding libraries. It's software-based, but if I recall correctly, the battery life is about the same for mp3 and vorbis. Neither codec is ideal though, because podcasts are mainly speech. Speex or Opus (ideally) would be better and VLC will play those just fine.

If bandwidth caps become reality, can we also get usage-based billing for cable and satellite too?

This is absolutely not true. The varicella vaccine was developed in the last 20 years, with widespread vaccination occuring in the last 10 years. The vast majority of patients suffering from shingles are patients over the age of 55. Chickenpox is the acute infection caused by the initial exposure, and shingles occurs as the flareup of the latent virus, caused by the natural weakening of the aging immune system. The pediatric varicella vaccines have significantly decreased mortality rates--by something like 95%, decreased missing days of school, scarring, and secondary infections. The shingles vaccine prevents the debilitating and potentially permanent neuropathy--which requires lifelong treatment with medications to control symptoms. These vaccines have provided an immeasurable benefit to public health, and one which you will eventually gain an appreciation for.