I don't use OCR on a scanner all that often, but last time I did (atleast 5 years ago, probably more), it had no problem recognizing the pages full of text.
As far as I've tested it myself, OCR works great on scanners, so why wouldn't it work as well with cameras?

As a side note, take a minute to realize how amazingly good prosthetic limbs have become that using one has become an unfair advantage.

Not a network expert, but wouldn't some sort of internet proxy with caching be a simple way to help?

Other than that, the sad truth is that obsolete hardware is usually most productive when it's not using up valuable energy.

GCC had a bug that wasn't covered by their unittests.
Linux had a bug that wasn't covered by their unittests
According to Linus, only one of these two is retarded, can you guess which?

May well be, but nobody is using it to get incorrect information removed.
I've only heard of it being used to get correct but unflattering information removed.

I have yet to hear of a single case where a removal request revolved around incorrect information.

Mostly it's people who see their careers threatened by their own past illegal or immoral actions being known.

Agreed.
No more blackmail settlements, no more blanket anonymous lawsuits, no more copyright trolls.
Somebody needs to stop those freetard publishers running amok with other people's hard work.

Except math is almost never actually done that way in practice. Euclid was wonderful, but almost all modern math does not work that strictly (and Euclid really should have been more careful with the parallel postulate -- there's "more than one thing at a time" involved there). Yes, proofs are careful and detailed, but so is, say, technical writing in English. Except for a few cases (check out metamath.org, or Homotopy Type Theory) almost no-one actually pedantically lays out all the formal steps introducing "only one concept at a time".

I don't think you need math even to be a great programmer. I do think a lot of great programmers are people who think in mathematical terms and thus benefit from mathematics. But I also believe you can be a great programmer and not be the sort of person who thinks in those terms. I expect the latter is harder, but then I'm a mathematician so I'm more than read to accept that I have some bias in this topic.

Math is a language. Just because you can frame things in that language doesn't mean that that language is necessary. Recipes are often in English. English is sequencing (words are a serial stream after all). That doesn't mean English is necessary for programming (there seem to many competent non-english speaking programmers as far as I can tell).

Disclaimer: I am a professional research mathematician; I do understand math just fine.

Of course there was a time when college education was supposed to be education and not just vocational training.

The other part of the problem is that math is so diverse. There's calculus and engineering math with all kinds of techniques for solving this or that PDE; there's set theoretic foundations; there's graph theory and design theory and combinatorics and a slew of other discrete math topics; there's topology and metric spaces and various abstractions for continuity; there's linear algebra and all the finer points of matrices and matrix decompositions and tensors and on into Hilbert spaces and other infinite dimensional things; there's category theory and stacks and topos theory and other esoterica of abstraction. On and on, and all very different and I can't even pretend to have anything but cursory knowledge of most of them ... and I have a Ph.D. in math and work for a research institute trying to stay abreast of a decent range of topics. The people who actually study these topics in depth are all called "mathematicians", but if you're an algebraic geometer then sure, you're probably familiar with category theory and homological algebra; if you do design theory and graph theory then those seem like the most useful subject available.

Calculus is perhaps not the best measure however. Depending on where you go in the programming field calculus is likely less useful than some decent depth of knowledge in graph theory, abstract algebra, category theory, or combinatorics and optimization. I imagine a number of people would chime in with statistics, but to do statistics right you need calculus (which is an example of one of the directions where calculus can be useful for programming).

Of course the reality is that you don't need any of those subjects. Those subjects can, however, be very useful to you as a programmer. So yes you can certainly be a programmer, and even a very successful and productive one without any knowledge of calculus, or graph theory say. On the other hand, there may well be times when graph theory, or calculus, or statistics could prove very useful. what it comes down to is whether you are inclined to think that way -- and if so it can be a benefit; if not it won't be the way you think about the problem anyway.

Just to add my 2c. A while ago I was working on a project which could use data in WHOIS records. Ultimately this failed because the data is very unreliable and mostly unavailable, but I did come accross some laws.

Seems the U.S. is pretty much the only country that has a law on this, and it just says that it is illegal to have inaccurate information in a WHOIS record if and only if you're using that inaccurate information to scam people. So basically you can use inaccurate information all you want but if you're conficted of scamming people online, the use of inaccurate WHOIS information can be used to add some additional jailtime.

5 reams of carbon copy paper contains much less information than a single USB stick.
This is security by volume.