It's about being reasonable. Google already uses geolocation to provide different services to different parts of the world. It isn't perfect and can be circumvented, but a lot of big companies rely on it for things like blocking streaming to Europe or selecting the right version of Amazon to display.

Therefore it does not seem unreasonable to expect Google to present search results compliant with EU law to EU citizens, to the best of the its ability. To jump from there to global censorship is a bit of a leap.

And by "you" I assume you mean "Google", so not actually "you" at all. That's the point. No-one is required to forget anything, not even Google in fact. This isn't even the Right to be Forgotten that the EU proposed, it's just bog standard data retention laws. Don't forget that corporations are not people in the EU either.

When you type someone's name into Google, you are asking them to research and return relevant data on that person. This is a commercial service, run for a profit. Like any commercial service that supplies data about an individual it must comply with the law.

Only to the extent that the law allows. For example, as an employer you are not allowed to ask certain questions, even if you think they are relevant.

This actually increases people's freedom, because in the EU we have both positive and negative freedom. Negative freedom is freedom from interference and limits on your behaviour. Positive freedom is the freedom to have power over your destiny and resources to prosper, and one of the safeguards of that freedom is data protection law which prevents certain historical information being used to ruin your life.

You can pay an investigator to find information that isn't in a standard credit report. Most people don't though, they just do their job as instructed and use the credit report. Google changed things by making such information a few clicks away, but just because it's easy doesn't exempt them from data protection laws.

The law does not allow that. It would be censorship. The law only requires commercial companies who are not protected by things like public interest journalism handle your personal data in a certain way. For example, banks are not allowed to tell other banks about bankruptcies you had 20 years ago. Google is not exempt from these requirements.

Firstly, it's not the right to be forgotten. That is just a proposal. This is a request under data protection laws that have existed since 1995.

As for it not working, actually it seems to be working quite well. You make a request, if it is legal then Google stops associating certain results with your name. That's the entire scope and intent of the law, and it appears to work as advertised. There is no evidence of people using it to cover up unspent convictions, for example. There are attempts, but they are refused. You don't say that your firewall has failed because people still try to connect to machines protected by it, you say it is working as designed.

Continuous monitoring isn't an issue with EVs. When you have a 24,000Wh or larger battery remaining connected to a cellular network for weeks is no issue. Remember when your Nokia could run for a week on one charge? That's what the modem in the car is like, only it has a giant car sized battery to power it.

No matter how inefficient it is, as long as it's going to produce significant amounts of energy over its lifetime and doesn't pollute then it's worth doing. 20 year payback is fine, as long as the energy is clean.

Really? Wow, good job we had you to warn us that all those marine engineers who designed the thing are idiots. After all, you came to your conclusion from just a photo, so how could they possibly have missed it?!

The point of Bitcoin is to remove control from governments, and to make pseudo-anonymous transactions possible online. Sure, in real life cash is better, but if you want to transact over the internet you need something like Bitcoin.

Notice that I said pseudo-anonymous. An IP address does not identify an individual, it could be a shared connection, free public wifi, a VPN, or Tor. You need to take additional steps to become anonymous, but Bitcoin is still better than a credit card which conveys your name and billing address to the merchant, and informs the government for taxation/oppression purposes.

We want to know what happened so that we can prevent it happening again.

Everyone in the UK should be using a VPN as standard anyway now. Between site blockades and illegal spying they are a necessary part of connecting to the internet here. Look at it this way, if you went to China you would want to use one, right? Well the UK is at least as bad as China.