Good, hand-egg is for pussies; it is a bunch of obese men tackling each other. You want athletic, go football.
Fixed that for you.
What North-Americans call "football" is nothing more than a bunch of men holding an egg-shaped object in their hands, hence the term hand-egg. The rest of the world calls the game where 2 opposing teams of 11 men touch a ball-shaped object with primarily their feet football.
The living case of "I'll format him when we get married".
Between the time of engagement and the wedding, I behaved like an absolute baboon. I farted, burped, left my dirty socks (and worse) everywhere around the house. Every time I got a complaint, I smiled and asked her "Are you sure you want to marry me? I'm not going to change after we're married".
The "idiot"* still married me, and the few times when she does complain, I'll point her to our engagement period.
* idiot because she was the only person of womankind stupid enough to marry me
There seems to be a double standard where people are expected to make all sorts of completely unnecessary sacrifices to appease some control freak partner, but the partner doesn't take into account the other person's feelings, as if their own are any more important.
This is the type of thing you keep in mind before getting married...
Consider that most 'drones' are very tiny light weight items more akin to a good old fashion toy R/C model airplane than what people think of as 'DRONES' as in war planes. When a real drone gets hit by a full size airplane, such as the 767 mentioned in the article, the real drone is destroyed and the 767 will not even notice the gnat with the possible exception being if a big drone went through the engine which would possibly cause damage but be unlikely to disable the large aircraft.
I've seen (and reported to ATC) a drone flying at 3500ft over Palo Alto. I was flying a 172 at the time. Do you have any idea what happens if I would hit that thing at 140mph? It could severely damage flight controls (image the tail being hit), engine, prop or air intake. Not to mention the damage if it somehow got through the windscreen (they're not bulletproof, you know).
As far as I am concerned, drones are aircraft and should be regulated as such. Manned or unmanned. If someone is flying an aircraft (whether the pilot is on the ground or inside) s/he should know the rules of the sky.
Dji phantoms won't let you fly near airports, the onboard gps knows the location of every airport and will not allow it. The app even displays a message saying restricted airspace and will not allow flight into it.
If they're that smart, why not do it for class A (IFR only), B (PPR), C (2 way communication and transponder required) and D (2 way communication required) airspace as well?
I'm pretty sure those things won't be carrying transponders (or ADS-B as required in a few years), nor will they be able to talk to ATC.
Yes, of course. And domain names are utterly irrelevant to this.
A state can only impose sanctions against a business to the extent that the business falls within its jurisdiction, but otherwise no business has any power to override national laws in nations where it operates, so it has to play by the rules or accept the consequences. It really is as simple as that.
I think you have just proven my point. Google operates in Germany with its google.de domain name and its own Google legal entity for Germany. Google operates in The Netherlands with its google.nl domain name and its own Google legal entity for The Netherlands. Google operates in Belgium with its google.be domain name and its own Google legal entity for Belgium. Google operates in the US with its google.com domain name and Google Inc.
Why would some local I-feel-important politician that hasn't even been chosen directly in The Netherlands be in the position to dictate a foreign entity what to do? Let them have jurisdiction of google.nl.
Lawmakers need to simply accept the consequences that connecting to a global network (the internet) means that there are boundaries with regards to their legal jurisdiction. If the EU does not want to deal with American companies, they should choose to disconnect. If China can do it, then the EU can do it as well. And I honestly, honestly do not see a difference between the censorship in China and the censorship of the EU. Well, maybe one thing: at least China does it openly.
In law, you can only ever go after someone within your jurisdiction, and in this case either or both of the original source and a search engine that directs people to it would be required by law to comply if they are within that jurisdiction.
Ok, so your point is that as long as Google operates within a certain country, it should comply with all laws in that country? Take this one step further. Google operates in China, do you expect Google to comply with all Chinese laws, including censorship, as well? No of course you don't. Chinese law is applied on google.cn, not on google.com.
And this is exactly what's going on here, according to TFA, or even the summary:
Google currently de-lists results that appear in the European versions of its search engines, but not the international one.
This would imply that China (or the EU for that matter) is now forcing its own laws on the international version of Google. Which means that they would be grossly overstepping the bounds of their own jurisdiction.
And for what it's worth: there is no such thing as EU law. There are EU directives, which have to be implemented into local law by its member states. Which means that, assuming you agree with me on the China analogy, Google would only have to censor individual country-specific TLD search results such as google.nl, google.de, google.be etc. And what is happening now is that the EU tries to force Google to change the international version of Google, meaning it is attempting to shove EU directives through the rest of the world's throats.
I'm arguing that because of human nature search engines should be required not to promote misleading or inaccurate information that may lead to unfair inferences being drawn about innocent people, once the search engines are explicitly made aware that they are doing so.
Unfortunately from this point of view, there are plenty of places in the world where they will tell you to go hang, because their right to mislead people about you is more important than your right to be treated fairly. This law is the closest we have right now to routing around that problem.
Ok, so we have nailed your point of view down to "we can't control the content of the book, but we do control the table of content". Don't you think that's a bit like shooting the messenger? Furthermore, don't you think that you're now placing an undue burden on a company that has nothing to do with the content that is being indexed?
I find this a typical case of where governments go wrong. They won't go after the one they need to go after, so they go after the one they can go after.
For example, there was an infamous case in the UK a few year ago when a paediatrician -- a doctor who specialises in helping children -- was run out of their home by vigilantes who were too stupid to know the difference between a paediatrician and a paedophile.
So, you're arguing that due to English schtupidity (pronounce as Clarkson), Google should conceal factually correct data from being discovered while it is perfectly visible elsewhere on the web?
in reality the people accessing information on the Internet are only human, and in reality even well-meaning people may come across incorrect or misleading information and make judgements based on it without realising they were in error. That means sometimes it does make sense to conceal information, at least partially or for a limited period of time, in order to protect other humans from unfair harm.
No disagreement there.
I believe everyone has a basic moral right to fair treatment in this respect, particularly because the damage to a wronged individual if that right is violated will be far greater than the damage to someone who just didn't trivially find out about some possibly incorrect allegations.
And this is the part where it becomes interesting. Remember what is happening here. Google is a search engine, an indexer of information that is readily available elsewhere. If the Guardian reports about child-abuse allegations against John Doe, and Mr Doe is acquitted in court, the report about the allegations are still correct. You're arguing that Google should no longer be allowed to produce search results that link to the original allegations. I'm arguing that this is a silly way of handling things. If one would really want to protect the acquitted, the law should mandate that the article be amended with information regarding the acquittal.
Obscuring the fact that the original allegation was made by passing laws against an indexing service smells like Chinese Censorship to me, and I find that to be a dangerous slippery slope.
I also note that the justice systems in almost every civilised country take a similar view, often such that even actual criminal convictions become "spent" after a time and no longer need to be disclosed. It turns out that sometimes people do change and that encouraging the successful rehabilitation of past offenders makes that much more likely than leaving them with some minor infraction hanging over them for the rest of their lives.
Totally agree there. But my point remains valid: in such a case the origin of the information should be affected, not the indexer. And also, most criminal convictions will stay on the record (especially in the case of felonies), but won't be taken into account (or to a lesser extent) when performing a background check. In my former home country (The Netherlands) that usually means 4 years for infractions, 8 years for felonies. The record itself stays and the individual can go to the courthouse to see the rapsheet, but it will not be disclosed to anyone.
I assume that in yours my freedom of movement also extends to the right to enter your home and my freedom of expression extends to the right to spray paint abusive comments all over it?
You have the freedom of movement that extends to the border of my properties. Your freedom of expression extends to the right to say whatever you want. Spray painting is not free speech, that would be infringement on my property rights. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who once said:
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
The problem is you can't anymore, without forgetting to use the web in its entirety.
Bullshit. You name me one Google service that you can't live without. Last time I checked, Google Beating Heart or Google Breathing Air were not available yet.
The Internet has the bad habit of not forgetting anything, hence laws are necessary to purge incorrect, or out of date information pertaining to people.
There are already existing laws that cover incorrect information. Correct information itself is never out of date. If someone has been charged with a crime, that fact stays, even if s/he was found not guilty. Information on the second world war is out of date as well, shall we just erase that from history?
If the OP shouts communism or socialism it just shows how idiot you really are.
On the contrary, it shows how socialistic nanny-states try to force companies founded in free countries to adhere by their standards. The EU doesn't want American laws to apply to Europe, but they do want EU law to apply to US companies? They can fsck themselves.
You can have mirrored ram. you can have battery backed-up ram.
Yes you can. Now name me one vendor that actually offers that today....
Any wear levelling worth its salt will not do what the grandparent wrote.
Yes, which is where the smarter controllers come in, and where you have the process of "garbage collection". There was a piece a while ago on TRIM not being support on some Apple gear, if I'm not mistaken.
If that's the case, then why are they not copying the data to ram contained on the drive itself? Seems like an awful waste of cycles with a relatively simple fix. Is it just a cost issue?
Cost and reliability/latency. If you copy it to RAM and get a power outage, data is gone. So that will ruin your reliability. Which means that you have no choice but to ack the write after it's written to the actual block itself. Which in turn increases the latency between receiving the data and ack'ing it.
Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny. -- Frank Hubbard
