Oh, it would simply be a more convenient way for the little people to issue DMCA takedown requests. We just trust them not to put a request for *.com/*

How long until someone makes a website specifically to track what stuff who wanted forgotten? I, for one, would be interested to know if my potential employee thinks he can call take-backs on the internet.

The web developers and users will quickly decide if people want this technology. The more options the better I say; the inferior ones will fade on their own.

Sounds like there's a simple solution to DMCA. Start a Kickstarter project for a system to send everyone DMCA requests for everything. Either a website takes their entire website offline, or they start ignoring DMCA requests.

Now don't be crazy... if a company can get $10,000 by successfully fighting a DMCA request, frivolous requests will vanish overnight. Instead of the one-sided way it is now (comply, or get nothing but liability). Also, if you did it based on % of revenue, you'd end up with penniless companies issuing takedown requests.

I regularly use graphene stacked in several layers so that the layers can slide off each other, with a little clay mixed in for harness. I use it to produce flexible, resilient optical communications devices that can be folded like paper, with a longer lifetime than most magnetic or charge-based storage devices.

Oh, there's all kinds of reasons that could account for the number of men who went for the shock. Men are more aggressive and confident (testosterone effects), and like "being macho". Depending on how exactly the alone time was described, it could really push some guys' buttons, eg "And now I'm going to make you sit here with nothing to do." vs "And now I'm leaving you alone with your thoughts.".

Since when is it sensationalist to understate the situation? I think the word you're looking for is "provocative", since most of the readers are android users.

I'm sure the creator of Virgin Galactic wouldn't think along those lines.

*Wonders how many slashdotters would buy a Model S, E, and X.*

When I read this study, I had considered posting something about how this relates to prison, eg "it would be more humane to occasionally shock prisoners than just keep them in a cage". I've long thought that prison was cruel and unusual punishment, albeit not because of how they were treated but because of how it removes them from society, ironically* replacing their social support network of family and friends with a society composed of criminals and being the single biggest predictor that they will go to jail in the future. Yet I get the feeling that occasionally giving prisoners a mild electric shock would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, even if it were in lieu of some jailtime, yet hardly anyone considers that jail itself is cruel and unusual (and mostly good for turning its victims into career criminals).

*ironically for the taxpayers and victims, good business sense for the for-profit jail managers. Gotta increase shareholder value!

Most people haven't experienced sensory deprivation, so it would be something interesting (at least briefly).

Oh yeah, and it was just the guys who'd rather get shocked than be alone with themselves. The ladies for the most part had no problem being alone with themselves.

*Cue slashdotter: "I'd have no problem being alone with her either"*

The study said that the subjects had previous experience with the button, and had said that they'd pay to avoid getting shocked again. It's not like the researchers were too stupid to account for the novelty factor (in this case).

Maybe they meant fixing the patent system, like people fix races.

They already did. And now they will also put it up in wikimedia, and it will have "uploaded by the US government" or something like that, rather than "uploaded by random stranger".