Why would I want a square picture of what is broadcast in a decidedly un-square format? You've substituted your so-called square view for glare from many angles. And you've further reduced the acceptable viewing angle.

As for not having seen anyone watching 3D in their home, I suspect you aren't
invited into those homes that have a 3D telly. That hardly is a standard by which to judge.

My neighbor down the street does, and he subscribes to Comcast 3D service.
It does work. Its nice. Not all that much of an improvement, if you ask me, just a novelty.

Is it a fad? Sure.

But just because your small outlook on the world doesn't include something, its no in indication that something doesn't exits, or that it doesn't work.

I've never met a single normally sighted person who failed to get a 3D effect from Movies or TV to work.
So this large majority of which you speak doesn't seem to exist unless this group also includes all those who have never been to a 3D movie.

Further you can subscribe to 3D channels on Comcast if you were so inclined. Its not that hard to find content in 3D.

The odd bit is at the end of TFS where they say that curved TVs are a gimmick like 3D TVs. There is a big difference, 3D TVs actually give an appearance of 3D when viewing 3D content, (all the brain-and-eye confusing tricks and deception notwithstanding). Every reasonably normal sighted person can see the 3D effect, most just don't think its worth the price (or the headaches).

Curved TVs on the other hand provide a picture that is indistinguishable from normal flat screens, EVEN when you see them side by side in the store.

Bullshit.
Draconian rules from the EU are only trotted out against american companies.

The EU does not care about its citizens privacy at all, until there is a foreign company involved.
Half the EU countries have pernicious government spying even more deeply than the NSA.

This privacy a fiction trotted out only against off shore interests.

A court does not always require two sides.
And even if they do insist on a deposition from Google, an automated routine in the search engine can spit out Google's grounds for rejection.

The courts made this mess, and they can deal with it.

In that case, Google doesn't have to review it. No standards for review was provided.

They shouldn't review any of these, they should simply reject all of them.

(Or at best have a computerized review, that is programmed to deny in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases. After all, if a computer algorithm was what got these links into the search engine, another algorithm can be used to reject claims that don't meet an excruciatingly tight set of criteria.)

Until the complainant comes back with a ruling from a court of competent jurisdiction, THEN and ONLY THEN, should Google review them, and they should still err on the side of rejection to force an even higher court to review.

The court made this bed - the courts can sleep in it.

And different to should only be used in Australia.

Yeah, you can still find things on line. Bill Gates's mug shot for a traffic violation sufficiently serious to get him hauled into custody. (Which is rare in the US, so I'm guessing DWI).

Somehow it didn't seem to harm him much.

These situations are trifling details, which do not justify the re-write of history, and do not justify the forced de-cataloging of public information. Everybody in the US knows somebody who lost their house in the recent downturn. If anything those people are more likely to be given a break than denied employment.

The penalty for the excesses of youth is really not significant. Caught with weed and booze while joy riding in someone else's car at 16? You dog, you! Can you start next Monday, we really need another mechanic as soon as possible.

The arguments are bogus. You live with what you've done.
Allowing people to erase their past is exceedingly dangerous. What deterrent remains against repeat offenders if simply paying a fine, and then forcibly erasing all evidence gets you a clean bill? People have a right to evaluate who they are hiring as a camp counselor for the Girl Guides summer camp, or who they rent an apartment to.

But they can force Google to remove the link to the news media's site.

I read the entire ruling from the EU court. Have you?

It is NOT sufficiently explained. They don't address the fact that names are common AT ALL.

Do they really expect every single search engine hit to now be adjudicated in court?

I agree, AC 6763-of-93742234.

Half of slashdot disappears the minute Anonymous Coward contacts Google from a EU country.

Almost Nobody has a unique name.
I could be running for office, running a business, or selling my artwork, and have someone with the same name demand all link be removed when his name is keyed into the search engine.

How is Google to know which individual is being searched?

Unless you can find a written policy forbidding it, just do it.

Its easier to get forgiveness than permission.

Chances are you won't find any policy, unless you work for a big bureaucratic compartmentalized organization. Even then, in the absence of a written prohibition, cost savings can sell the day as long as you provide a support contract. (Some how bean counters become blind to expenditures on support contracts that never ever get exercised).

More likely we will just change. We were born as a country in a revolution, and only a ballot box stands between us and another one.