That's why Linus uses Gnome, I suppose.

Not Debian stable.

This law does not ban indexing by libraries, by the legal system, and by a multitude of other means which have legitimate societal uses where there is a legitimate need for the information. The law does not advocate removal of information, only how and when it is indexed and presented.

This guy I replied to, who proposing the source be deleted does not understand the scope of the law. He proposes deletion of material, when that would countervene the intention of the law which is to allow proper and needed accees to historical record, not just up and deleting history.

If you can't see the difference between banning new creation and altering the historic record, I don't know what to tell you.

> If the article contains something to be forgotten it should be removed or redacted. This is the only correct way to do it.

I disagree. A search engine creating links is new creation. New publishing. Banning the creation of news links is WAY different from altering a historic record. Where does it stop? Do you delete history books? You have read 1984, right? Deleting historic records is pretty damned close to changing it in the style of 1984's dystopian future.

If you like your Ebola, you can keep your Ebola.

Yeah. By making sure the 150 flying people over from West Africa every day still can hop on a plane and get here. Because our economy would be devistated if those 150 could not get here.

Got ebola? Don't want to be cared for by pariahs in grass huts? Hop a flight to the USA and get a half million dollars worth of care for free.

I'm serious. You never know when you're going to have to deal with the fact that your IRS head is reaming the Tea Party a new one, or that you Attorney General just got done giving you a hummer and is asking what other parts of the Constitution you want him to piss on today. You can't just be 100% open about these things. You neck bearded basement dwellers have NO IDEA how the real world works.

They could, y'know, "pretend".

Write, compile and distribute code which bypasses integral security features in the software. What could go wrong?

"Prizes are for children." -- Charles Ives, upon being given, but refusing, the Pulitzer prize

> So they are re moving the rights of the government. Which is to be able to search you under some conditions.

They are not "removing the rights of the government" to search anybody. They still can. But the people are under no obligation to maintain their lives so as to be ready prepared for a government inspector to drop by at any time and say, "Let me take a look at your paperwork, citizen".

And the first time they take someone to court and reveal they can crack this encryption, the cat's out of the bag. Which is why they won't take someone to court if they have to reveal such a thing. Which means that, pratically speaking, in this case people are safe from worrying about the feebs getting into their iPhone.

One movie, coming up:

"Sling Blade".

You'll thank me later.

(I reckon I'll have me some of the bigguns. Ummmm hmmm.)

Well, that's swell. But it's still buggy, non-intuitive, and with tons of undocumented features.