We could also ban political contributions because that's like bribery.

In all seriousness I do remember an argument against this type of crap in congress that basically said this was a regulation of taste, and if you ban things that are similar to child pornography couldn't you also ban images of women with small breasts because they evoke thoughts of children? (paraphrase)

The more I see this kind of stuff about Google being forced to modify search results based on dumb things like 'right to be forgotten' the more I can't help but feel that Google's results just might not be reliable enough anymore. I know that right to be forgotten is only a European thing but I still can't help but get the feeling that I am no longer getting the best results for my search.

Although it brings bile to the back of my throat I think it may be time to see how Bing lines up against Google.

It is not true that you need sugars or you will die. Your body can function without any intake of carbohydrates because the only organ in the body that requires glucose to function is the brain. Every other part can power itself off of fatty acids, and the liver can turn fatty acids into glucose.

If I was to just start drinking water and intake no carbs my blood sugars would drop to about 60 where it would stabilize as the body starts converting its fats into glucose.

In practice this can be rather dangerous because depending on the person you can go into keytone acidosis, but the food pyramid with the carbs at the bottom is a myth. you can function just fine with tiny amounts of carbs every day.

"click here for a bigger penis"

"CAST Research on Application Software Health (CRASH)"

Is this what computer science has come to? Nested acronyms?

For fucks sake keep your names short and to the point.

A long history of jurisprudence that existed long before the internet was invented or even widely adopted. When that happens I think instead of trying to force modern technology to conform with outdated laws we should instead look at why our founding fathers fought a bloody revolution.

The government having the ability to unreasonably search your information of any kind allows them to build a narrative about your behavior using cherry picked evidence. At the drop of a hat your entire history, and every little mistake along the way can be used to demonize even the greatest saint. It was by using tactics like this that corrupt governments would silence dissent. Kings would craft a narrative to discredit opposition and lock them away never to be seen again.

This is the behavior that our country has engaged in, and regardless of whether your "papers and effects" are emails, downloads, or letters the consequences of a government spying on those communications are the same: that the government can use your entire life to criminalize you when you are not in fact a criminal. That is what you should be looking at, not jurisprudence from judges that are mostly tech illiterate or that predated the technology that it is being used as precedent to rule on.

I wonder what being able to say you are wired to google fiber does to the resale value of your home? Being able to advertise google fiber access must be a huge incentive for certain home buyers and I bet you could recoup that $300 instantly just in resale value.

It's a trend in our lawmakers that make them so sensitive to being anti anything that they come up with weird circuitous laws to ban things that they don't like or have donations to eliminate.

In this case lawmakers were attempting to protect small mom and pop style dealerships from the Detroit auto industries shady business practices, but I bet they didn't want to seem "anti capitalism" for regulating the pricing of cars to ensure that the dealers weren't dumping cars to drive out the competition. So instead we get a crazy law that bans direct sales. Because its much harder to construe that as anti something, and the politicians can always fire back with a similar "anti mom and pop stores" nonsense.

For a more modern example look at abortion laws. In my great state the politicians are too afraid to go one way or the other so they come up with bullshit like waiting times. In order for a woman to get an abortion she has to wait three days. No reason. She just has to. This is because someone couldn't get an anti abortion law passed so they settled for attempting to shame the woman into keeping the child with arbitrary regulations and rules.

Same across every regulatory statute as well. We rarely ban any activity out right, but instead mire in a quicksand of impenetrable regulations and taxes.

That makes a lot of sense. I completely forgot the historical context with the Detroit auto industries push for direct sales being the impetus for this kind of legislation in the first place.

Still, one would think that a city famous for their auto city would be in favor of passing laws that would benefit the auto industry.

I don't know what GamerGate was when it started. It may have been a positive movement, it may have been a staged attack by a small minority, it might have been about boiling discontent against games journalism which has been corrupt since 1970.

What it is now is the worst dregs of the internet and their corrupt counterparts having a shit slinging match to see who can hit the bottom of the barrel fastest. There are no good actors here. They have moved on to other things, and left the garbage to rot.

Wonder how much the dealer franchises had to pay in bribes for a unanimous vote. Seems a bit overkill when you only need a majority.

I'm sure that in the middle ages the same thinking was used to justify not teaching peasants how to read. The only book that they needed to read was the Bible and you had your priest that could handle that for you. It was only when reading became common that we learned how dumb it was to let other people read for us.

Personally I believe that not everyone needs to know how to code, but they do need to be familiar with how code works, and how they interact with it. How many problems occur because people are just ignorant of what their devices are doing? Just look at the celebrity nude photo scandal. Do you think that if the majority of those people understood how their information was stored and what protections were used that they would have been so quick to create and store such photos? To say nothing of how laws surrounding software and computers are thoroughly borked due to judges and politicians having -2 clues between them on how a computer works and how their laws impact computer use.

Once it became possible for books to be distributed on a large scale, and the written word became a ubiquitous way to transfer information it no longer became possible to live in a modern society without learning to read. The same will be true of computers and code. We try to abstract the difficult parts behind GUIs, but you can no more automate good software design than you can automate the creation of a novel. Understanding of software will be critical to having an advantage in the coming years.

There were two high profile security flaws in Open Source software that garnered a lot of news attention. Once the vulnerabilities were noticed the community quickly moved to patch them. How is this worse than proprietary software developers who pray that no one exploits their dodgy code until they have the business will and manpower to patch the bugs? Or perhaps we should turn to our proprietary secure software paragons: Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, Flash to provide secure alternatives to Open Source software....oh wait.

I would be really interested in a link for something like this because on the surface it seems intuitive that people why go to church may be exposed to more societal pressure to maintain an unhappy marriage than risk social shame for going through a divorce.

The point that I was trying to get at wasn't that the amount was exorbitant, far from it. My point was that if an average user is confronted by a pay wall there first reaction is to leave the site and find what they were looking for elsewhere, which creates a disincentive for users to explore new content as there is a barrier to entry. If Facebook had opened as a pay walled service could it have effectively competed against Myspace if Myspace was free?

Also I believe the data I cited was also based of the average internet users usage of non-pay walled sites. It was asking the hypothetical question: 'how much would we have to pay if advertisements where not a source of revenue?'