But Google (or any other search engine) is not the source of this information. Why not go to the source? Google (and I'm assuming other search engines) update their index quite frequently, if the source is gone then so will be the search result. And WRT the article, yes, he might be found innocent. But the fact that he's on trial for multiple cases (and these are of the more severe kind - I don't know what the official term is in English, felony fraud? at any rate a charge that is not placed easily) I have hard time believing that he's innocent at all. Especially given his actions with the newspaper.

Uhh, no we don't have jurors. Nor do I think the results should be hidden, too much of MiniTruth for me.

I'm European and do think that privacy is very valuable. I also think the decision was utterly retarded, ripe for abuse and obviously made by people who have no idea about technology.

So, what is Google supposed to erase from the web? An example is here - in Finnish, I'm sorry, but I'll try to paraphrase a bit (you can run it through the translation service of your choice, if you wish). A person approached Helsingin Sanomat, a major Finnish newspaper, offering to be interviewed about why he wants his info removed from the web. He had committed some felonies a decade ago. He felt that he had already served his punishment (given how lenient our sentencing is, he most certainly has) and wanted a fresh start.

But the reporters dug a bit deeper into his life - turns out that there are ongoing court cases against him for both attempted fraud and fraud. After this was pointed out to him, he refused to be interviewed or his name associated with the article.

In this case, it was the reporters who found out about this. But they had only a single person to process. Should Google themselves figure out individually which claims have merit? Or should Google just automatically censor everything on request (let's face it, that's what this really is)? And most importantly, Google does not host the content. If there is an issue with the content, shouldn't one contact the content provider?

Where did I imply I want to get into partisan bickering, or that I'm 'murican for that matter? I just find it very odd that such laws have existed so recently, enforced or not.

Oh I don't know. The fact that the law was struck down in 2008, as per you link, is just like... wow.

I guess the Internet ate my <sarcasm>-tag - I laughed as well at the time, and still as a web developer IE gives me the most headaches. I just found it amusing at the time that they were so proud that they're able to support a subset of a standard that had been around for quite some time. Oh well, at least with IE6 finally out of the picture (or rather, I don't have to support it), my job is a little bit easier.

You're not quite right, wasn't it when CSS 2.1 was released that MS was bragging that they're fully compliant?

Although, CSS 2.1 was actually a subset of 2.0.

Previously I might have agreed with you, but isn't a PS4/Xbone just a bog-standard x64 with AMD graphics? (granted, the ESRAM on Xbox complicates things a bit, but still) Most of the customisations they make there should be pretty much portable to the PC realm as well. Not going to get into the "PC master race" pissing contest, sorry.

Which are all AMD when it comes to graphics?

Apparently the game runs at 900p on PS4 (and 720P on Xbone). I can't say I really can tell the resolution difference from 1080p at least while playing, but graphically (especially facial animations) Infamous is much more pleasing.

Yeah, about that... first of all, it is also available on 360/PS3. And after a few hours of gameplay, looks much worse than Infamous.

But your assumption is wrong, Spotify is from Sweden.

Or rather, my Facebook account to Spotify. Anyway.

Rewriting history there - the Facebook "integration" came later, when it was released here in the Nordic countries it was just a login/pass. I don't think it was ever mandatory though? At least, as an existing customer, I've never needed to link my Spotify account to Facebook.

Or perhaps they should not run over four people while drunk. But oh wait, no harm done, guilty as rich!