I don't think it matters if he was wrongly accused, convicted, or found innocent of the charges. It is still news that it all happened and i do not think yhe intent of this right to be forgotten was ever to hide entire rvents. Its purpose is so that when searching for kevreeduk, it doesn't show up prejudicing my opinion of you in our separate dealings whether it be in getting a loan, job, membership to a club or something or whatever.

Your right to be forgotten doesn't seem to be the right for events to disapear entirely. Just to stop the events from dominating attemps to ascertain your reputation. A lot a businesses make you disclose convictions before being hired so it is likely to benefit innocents more that guilty anyways but there are a lot of other aspect to it too.

Very interesting! I'll check with one of the old-timers to see if they remember if there were a lot of fiber failures after the flood. I'm wondering if they just blanked replaced everything afterwards to avoid the future maintenance problems.

Thanks!

Perhaps you don't understand how governments and large corporations structure themselves in order to save money: they use contractors instead of employees for exactly that reason.

Regardless of the disaster scenario, employee/employer rules stipulate they have to pay their employees during the time when they're normally expected to work, even if they can get no productive work from them. If they have extended downtime due to fire, construction, etc., They would have to lay off the unused workers, which means paying unemployment benefits. Contracts, on the other hand, can be written so they can be paused or terminated at will. It's up to the contracting firm to manage the pay when they're "sitting on the bench", and most of those contracts provide no compensation for periods of non-work.

On the flip side, when you are hired as a contractor, you explicitly sign up for those risks. Even though it may look like a regular job, it isn't. It's a contract.

The human side of the equation was carefully measured and surgically extracted back when the government decided to use contractors instead of employees. Employees cost too much.

Are you referring to the way we can't balance a budget, the way we can's secure the southern border, or the way we have completely soiled ourselves on international policy matters of late?

So you ARE espousing federalism, and not the collapse into a super-state?

Do you mean being buried under debt and unsustainable entitlements, or some other craven dependency on the capitol city of Xembibbi?
I have a hard time remembering that I am the ignorant one, since I woke up here in Zamboniland.

Given the level of dishonesty offered by this Administration, e.g. the "destruction" of Lerner's hard drive and emails (for one of a galaxy of examples) we can confidently suspect the worst.

Well, Gruber seems to think so, with his "speak-o" nonsense. But no, I'm talking about a nearly six year track record of wretched foolishness. Hardly a rush to judgement.

Others can still search for the information. They just need to use different terms.

For instance, suppose a fire was set on vacant property and it got out of control burning another property. Supposed the police accused the owner of arson for the insurance money. Now suppode that 20 years later, that owner wants it all to be forgotten. You could sesrch for yhe area, fire, time, statements made by witnesses and so on to find the information about it.

If their EU offices are incorporate in those countries and google otherwise operates outside thst subsidiary, only the portions operating in Europe needs to worry about it.

No word is open to interpretation. There is language and style that was in use at the time of writing the constitution and those are to be applied. Otherwise you could just redefine speech to mean a cracker and press to mean a candy bar and end up with Congress shall make no law: or abridging the freedom of crackers, or of the candy bars and do away with free speech altogether.

If you think that is a silly idea, you should because it is. You claiming it is open for interpretation is silly too.

Also, it doesn't specify that "free" is meant to be both, that is just your interpretation.

Only if you ignore logic, reason and have an inability to construct anything meaningful of either could you say as much. The US constitution grants and prohibits abilities to the federal government. When it prohibits the federal government from doing something, it prohibits it from doing all forms of that something. "free exercise thereof" can have only one meaning, that the federal government (and the states due to the 14th) cannot do anything that would make it non-free in that exercise.

There is nothing in the constitution open to interpretation. All of it is to be understood in the language of when it was written and applied to the times of present. Free in the context of the first amendment means both, the government cannot prohibit or charge for the beliefs and practice of religion. There is nothing ambiguous about it when looked at in context.

I do agree that the constitution can and should be amended instead of ignored or technicality'd away. If whatever that is currently unconstitutional cannot survive the amendment process, it should not be practiced until it does.