This isn't a slippery slope, this is simply a cliff. There is no right to be forgotten, because it would mean I don't have a right to remember and thus share that memory.

Think about it, if I printed a memoir in the 1960s, and have, perhaps negative, anecdotes of various people, would that book have had to be recalled from the shelves a few years later just because the right to forget kicked in? Oh right, internet. Changes everything.

The human species is going to have to grow up a little. First as an audience and consumer of the net, and realize that just because it's on the internet (or even wikipedia) doesn't mean it's true. It also has to realize what people said in the past doesn't always pose a true reflection of their current selves - that people change and evolve. Especially from a younger age like 13.

Second, it will have to grow up as individuals and realize, when you put it out there, you put it out there. And no nanny state can fix it.

They can only provide the illusion of fixing it. Because search engines outside the EU are going to ignore this. And savvy people inside the EU will be able to access those with ease, while the heavy handed censorship will only provide the drones with comfort they are taken care of.

Guess what a person's right to be forgotten would turn into in the US? Corporations, who are people, would jump in it.

Why is this being pushed so hard now anyway? Well, Germany got it's hand caught in the cookie jar along with the NSA. It's BundesNachrichtenDienst (BND) works alongside with and is just as if not more invasive than the NSA.

Of course, Merkel gets to put on her show and dance about being outraged her phone is tapped, but she says nothing about how complicit she is in tapping everyone elses phones in her country.

And don't think the EU countries are any more innocent in this.

So instead of really protecting the right to privacy, by people who want privacy in the here and now, by pushing bulletproof encryption standards without backdoors and other actual net positives for their citizens, they just put up this debate of this none-issue that feels really good but does nothing except what government is typically good at - banning certain behaviors from private entities and censoring hot potatoes from public eyes. Ony it's third speciality, making a tax for this, is missing and probably coming. Perhaps an ISP tax that will "help monitor and enforce your privacy online", which is code for another 1000 workers at the BND trading people's naked selfies.

So putting this as some slippery slope is unhelpful. It implies that this is an actual issue that needs to be hammered out. No. It's just bullshit sand-in-the-face for those who don't see what's really going on.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/mean...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...

Ah, the economy makes a lot more sense now.

It seems the stereotype threat theory is a myth:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

I actually think the whole thing was a ruse to sell his Bustin' Jieber app.

1. Make 3D printing claim. (Bonus for wearing Google Glasses while doing so.)
2. People check you out.
3. ???
4. Profit!

Having a ready to buy shitty app fits neatly into #3. The fact is that the school seems to incentivize kids towards bullshit business lingo, innovating this and that. I doubt their math and science is that strong as the Bullshit Dept. I applaud them requiring kids to have a business though.

Smoke and mirrors, razzle and dazzle. Congrats kid, you have a bright future in this country.

People are going to do whatever they please with them. If some other activity isn't compatible, then it's that activity we'll have to restrict.

Great, you want every asshole with an RC drone to have unlimited freedom to burden/violate others.

Is google gonna have to run tech support everytime someone mistakenly sends an email?

Should the USPS intercept a letter upon request everytime someone made a mistake in sending it out?

No, it's not doggone reasonable. In fact, it's so unreasonable, that only a company with the pull of Goldman Sachs can demand it.

Do you think you go to google with the same request, they'll bow down to you? Do you think the courts would have granted it so fast?

Of course not, because it's a drain on their resource to help some dumbass rectify his own damn mistake.

By 1977, his bodyâ(TM)s radiation count had fallen by about 80 percent. When the worker returned home, friends and church members avoided him. His minister finally had to tell people it was safe to be around him.

What, wasn't their faith in god strong enough? It works wonders for children without vaccinations...

Germany already has the highest electric prices for a major 1st world industrialized country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

Obviously if wholesale electricity is now at 4.5 cents (usd) per kwh, there's a whole lot of other shit piled on there to bumb it to 36.x cents per kwh.

Really? I don't find the legitimate ones bad at all. Much better than the SAT for testing raw, innate intelligence.

IQ is like a brightness of a flashlight. It's potential. Brighter is better, but it doesn't guarantee you point it at a useful direction, or even use it for anything useful at all other than to study playboy under the bedsheets.

I would think if they took recent Nobel Prize winners in the hard sciences, they would be trending above average and by a margin.

Well if they won't make the beta programs today that will get discontinued tomorrow, who will?

Oh that's cute. You think hours = productivity.

That's what's killing the American worker. And the sad thing is, this was known to be false 100+ years ago.

Would this material make one possible?

Back in the day patents were put in the Constitution to advance the arts and sciences. Medieval guilds protected knowledge which held humanity/society back, so it was preferable to give limited government protection in exchange for opening up the knowledge (so the next generation can have at it, I guess).

Having patents for their own sake seems counterproductive in this regard, as a lot can be reverse engineered in the meantime.

In reality, everyone is told by legal not to look at previous patents ever, just in case they do infringe, it's not willful infringement.... patent portfolios protect the huge corps and the trolls, with very little in between, and the really lucrative stuff is kept proprietary anyway.

So it leads one to ask, while wasting time writing patents apps, what is the patent scheme good for really and is it beneficial for society?

It would be counter to purposes to "win" those wars, when fighting them enriches the special interests involved in pushing them in the first place.

Treatments bring money, cures do not.