I am a non-native Australian and hence things like a 'Fair Go' http://www.theage.com.au/news/..., supporting the 'Battler' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., cause me some problem with regard to the treatment of the 'adjective' people of Australia (adjective as the Australian government refers to them via an adjective rather than the names of their appropriate nations) and just like other countries their culture and religion are somehow considered foreign to Australian religion and culture. So it is not the question of a particular cultural or religious element but how it is refereed to as not being part of that countries culture and religious elements.

You are being purposefully obtuse. They are American hence their culture and religions are also American, not my definition of what is or is not American culture, theirs. They are American hence their culture and religions as also American. It is obvious that the only American culture celebrated in America is immigrant culture and native culture is excluded from public recognition and celebration. Every time they challenge actions based upon their native culture and religion, it is emphatically rejected by the majority of Americans and the American government as not being American. Nothing to do with what I define as being elements of American but everything to do with 'ALL' immigrant nations and how native culture, religion and history are not accepted as being the countries culture, religion and history but being separate from it.

So you could demand clarification in the article and request an image of the person described be included. What you are really asking for is the exact opposite of the right to be forgotten ie the right for others to ensure the individual is accurately identified and not confused with others.

From the article the grandparent obviously did not read "Glantz showed a simple one-line Linux command and then jokingly walked away from the podium stating "That's it, thanks for coming," as the audience erupted into boisterous applause.". So in fact top notch people skills.

Also if people are actually serious about a solution to global warming, sea level rise and the collapse of property values for underwater front properties, we are going to need loads of energy. So what to do with all that energy, desalinate sea water and pump the fresh water inland to irrigate the worlds deserts. With cheap energy, you get cheap water and with that you turn dust bowls into carbon vacuums, plus of course benefits of albedo affects and water retention away from the sea. Green ex-deserts can of course produce an income to subsidise the cost of the water but the key is lots of cheap energy, so nuclear is required to fix the current problem.

At least it is now recognised that the key to better management of energy requires better energy storage. Renewable require better batteries to really make a difference. So likely more targeted funding is required in association with governments and an international treaty. Patent free research into battery technology, so researchers can grab information from every source free of charge and attempt to apply it to the best possible solution. Once the solution is obtained, they can commence production whilst patent issues are resolved via a specific government/industry body established for this key purpose.

Augmented reality glasses with a simple connection to a smart phone, smart phone does all the processing and supplies power, are very much more likely to be on the scene before they sort out insurance on automated vehicles. Most likely around the time it is legislated that only licensed opticians can fit and supply augmented reality glasses. It should not be up to tech companies to finalise the design of that particular bit of kit but up to Ophthalmologists and Optometrists.

What the hell is wrong with that, hmm, doctors, dentists, school teachers, road laws, aeroplane laws, ship laws, gun laws (in sane countries) just some that spring to mind with regards to doing what ever you like but you are responsible. So hmm, whom do you sue when they blow themselves up as well as others?

The price of taxi licences comes about from not what you implied, "Drivers spent their entire life's saving enough to buy their own license", a wildly false claim but the from the reality of companies buying up all the licences, limiting availability and lobbying to prevent more licences being issued, so they can pay minimum wage to new immigrants to drive those taxis whilst charging a fortune to customers. Higher insurance comes about because the poor wage slave gives not one crap about the taxi.

So want cheaper more accessible licences, simple law change, ONE PER CUSTOMER (the customer being an operator who must operate that licence and vehicle at least some of the time), get em while their hot. Set a minimum price on that licence and auction them off, when the bids drop below the minimum price no more licences are issued, say $5,000 (used in an industry fund to pay for victims of bad operators). When you no longer want you licence you return it for a refund at the minimum price and it goes up for auction again (you have an initial allocation and more are added every year in set blocks as long as the minimum price is achieved).

Here are some statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., clearly the current methods are pretty sucky because they are not doing enough to limit deaths, let alone ten times that in major injuries and hundreds of times that in lesser injuries. You know what, no matter how many people, scream 'IF ONLY' and, no matter how many times they say it, it will have absolutely zero impact on the consequence that results in the 'IF ONLY'. Solutions have to be actual solutions not just empty complaints. Likely smarter solutions, slower more boring ego less cars (the vehicles first priority should be safe driving and not maximum horse power nor highest speed possible or loudest exhaust, the more boring they are the less they will be used), lower speed limits, vehicle location awareness with warnings for exceeding posted limits.

How about over other people's property without their permission. How about around public roads, keep in mind to penalise people for poor behaviour, you need to go through all the legal gymnastics of defining exactly what is illegal versus the simple expedient of it all is illegal (this up to clarification for manslaughter and homicide should a drone crashing into a vehicle cause the driver to lose control and crash).

Next up public parks. Now consider the sound principle of law for a public recreational spaces, those who have the least impact have the greatest priority. Easy example, take a lake, a popular swimming lake. Now up turns a douche ski boat operator on the once swimming only lake, no law bans his boat screaming around the lake driving all the swimmers from the water and deafening all nearby residents. Ski boat douche expects to clean up renting rides as the only operator on the lake, public park lake, why should the one ski boat operator be denied their chance for profit ahead of say a thousands swimmers, swimming for free. America of course, yeah profit, screw the swimmers and residents. Rest of the world, well, no, those who have the least impact when using the 'SHARED' resource get the priority because others can still readily use it versus the ski boat operator who presence actively denies access to others.

So for drones in public parks, well, there use will interfere with the people's uses of the park. In terms of noise, annoyance and risk of injury. So drone parks, basically use only in parks where it is specifically allowed versus non-drone parks as in all parks where the use of drones have not been specifically allowed and sign posted. Public roads absolutely not. Over other peoples property without their permission, again, logically strictly forbidden. Use over your own property, no problem at all. These are not high altitude devices like planes they are low altitude devices, hence huge restrictions.

Coral cores prove, coral reefs are destroyed by changes in sea level. The last big change being a few hundred metres up. So they likley will suffer this time round to. Not really the biggest problem. All that stuff on land going through a rising surf zone will wash huge quantities of debris and pollutants into the sea, now that is the real problem.

Want change, easy, target people's greed. Start running around tagging builds with "UNDERWATER FRONT - PROPERTY VALUE ZERO" stickers and signs, all for sales signs in at risk locations. Bring the real message home, to their rapidly devaluing home and they will start clamouring for real solutions to the problem and not empty treatment of the symptoms of the problem. When they start feeling the pain of falling property values they will start screaming for change to current policies.

Let's be honest that selfie stick rule has absolutely nothing to do with what happened on the ride, that is the excuse. The real problem with selfie sticks is a little more subtle. New digital cameras, unlike old film cameras, can take shot, after shot, after shot with bad ones deleted not costing quite a bit of money each and every time the button is pushed. So old film camera, near enough, good enough. New camera, hmm, didn't like that one, lets try again and again and again, how about trying this or this or etc.. Now if you ask someone else to take the photo, gain limits on how many tries and near enough is good enough.

Basically people taking shot after shot are causing traffic flow problems are around the park. People are blocked from seeing popular places or cough taking their own photograph there. Flows to concessions stands are slowed because people are in the way. It is not one shot with a selfie stick it is hundreds be each selfie stick aficionado.

Realistically the park wants selfie sticks, free advertising as the photos travel around (millions of dollars worth), problem is, they are causing real traffic flow problems as people are not stopping for a say around a minute for a single shot, they are being awkward repeating that shot again and again and again until they get it right and they are not doing just at a couple of locations but all over the place. Also I am sure the park could or already has photo taking concessions. You know pay a buck and get a quick photo emailed to your phone (sneaky huh, money for the concession and email and contact details and photographs on record, taking that into account the can really, really squeeze down the price of the shot).

You can do some smart stuff with the photo taking. Fixed point photo spots, linked to a pre-registered phone. Walk around the park offer of a 10 cent auto shot from a fixed well sited camera, based upon phone proximity (again other revenue opportunities). Toss in a 10 second video for a buck.

You host the ad, you promote the product and basically earning a percentage of revenue from that sale, then you should be liable for the message. You get paid to promote the message, you are liable for the message. A lot more civil suits need to start targeting those who promote false messages and think they are free to tell any lie imaginable, in fact an infinite numbers of lies because 'er' 'um' they are greedy and do not want to take any responsibility at all for their actions.

Flip side. What if someone who had the history of crime obtained de-listing from search results. Another person used search to make sure that person was safe, you know idle quick search. They appeared safe, so they established a relationship. The person with the hidden history then committed the same crime again, who does the victim sue, if they are still living from information that would have saved them from becoming a victim. Who has the greater right of protection, the criminal (with regard to published unchallenged news stories) or potential victims.

Clearly search de-listing should never occur without consultative regard to the publisher of the story and it's accuracy. Technically speaking they are also unfairly devaluing that page, the cost of the effort to research and create has been stolen because otherwise that page with it's adds would have shown up.

Basically this is not about hiding slander pages, that is a fallacy, this is about hiding perfectly accurately pages because the person in question fully intends to engage in activity that other people would reject based upon that persons past behaviour. That is those other persons right. If it is a false slander page, delist it after consultation. You could do a fiscal balancing thing, get both parties the publisher and the person who wants to hide what was published, to put down some money to pay for an adjudication, say $1,000 dollars. The value of the article worth and truth is properly arbitrated and the winner gets their money back and the loser loses all round.

So publisher can let it slide, costs nothing. The publisher demands a challenge and the person wanting to hide their history can change their mind and nothing happens. Else the challenge progresses and the losers pays (most often the person seeking to hide their past behaviour because they know the story is true and accurate and people upon fair basis are not trusting them).

Want faster weight loss add an electric shock to the game ie munching game, eat the healthy food and avoid the bad food, accidentally eat the bad food and not only lose points but get an electric shock. Where you attack those electrodes, your choice but repeated painful negative reinforcement will guarantee pretty fast weight loss and a healthier diet. Of course it might cause public problems if people start screaming when they walk past a cake shop.