Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: But correct != complete and fairly representat (Score 1) 148

by Anonymous Brave Guy (#48476615) Attached to: Google Told To Expand Right To Be Forgotten

If that's your argument, go after the people publishing the information: newspapers and commercial databases.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can go after the original source with a direct defamation action if they're within the same jurisdictions. All this law means is that just because the original source has escaped to a different jurisdiction, that doesn't give everyone else a free pass to propagate and amplify incorrect or misleading information about someone.

But preventing Google from returning those search results is only intended to hurt Google and to make it difficult for regular folks to get at information.

That's a very cynical viewpoint. One plausible alternative is that it's meant to stop people from missing out on say a job or a mortgage they would otherwise have had just because someone once accused them of doing something inappropriate that they did not in fact do.

Comment: Re:But correct != complete and fairly representati (Score 1) 148

by Anonymous Brave Guy (#48476595) Attached to: Google Told To Expand Right To Be Forgotten

Ok, so we have nailed your point of view down to "we can't control the content of the book, but we do control the table of content".

That's not so much my point of view as the entire point of the court ruling.

Don't you think that's a bit like shooting the messenger? Furthermore, don't you think that you're now placing an undue burden on a company that has nothing to do with the content that is being indexed?

No, I really don't. The existence of services like Google's dramatically amplifies the damage that would otherwise be done by sites that publish incomplete or misleading information about people. Google may not be the original source of the problem, but it is still contributing to it, and as such I don't see why it should get a free pass when it has been explicitly notified that it is doing so.

They won't go after the one they need to go after, so they go after the one they can go after.

That's a false dichotomy. In law, you can only ever go after someone within your jurisdiction, and in this case either or both of the original source and a search engine that directs people to it would be required by law to comply if they are within that jurisdiction.

Comment: Re:not a lot of use for most (Score 1) 176

by drinkypoo (#48476477) Attached to: Consortium Roadmap Shows 100TB Hard Drives Possible By 2025

I'm pretty sure he's dead.

So you can agree that being raised by his own parents didn't work out so well, right? He destroyed his face out of low self-esteem in spite of being one of the best-loved entertainers in history, and died of a prescription drug overdose. Now, can you prove that being raised by someone else wouldn't have been better for him?

Comment: Re:This is clearly futile... (Score 1) 148

by Anonymous Brave Guy (#48476067) Attached to: Google Told To Expand Right To Be Forgotten

And if you were guaranteed to be provided with complete information and somehow constrained to read through every Google result for your search term to make sure you were fully informed before acting and somehow constrained to act fairly and without unjustified discrimination based on that information, this whole "right to be forgotten" idea wouldn't be relevant.

Unfortunately, that isn't very practical, so we have to look for another solution to the problem of people being damaged by, collectively, those who present incomplete or otherwise misleading information about the victim, those who allow others to find that information, and those who then act unfairly in light of that information. Keep in mind that this can and does happen even if there is good faith on the part of all concerned, because in general no party other than the victim necessarily knows enough to prevent the damage alone.

Comment: Re:trillions of bits, why one head per platter? (Score 2) 176

by drinkypoo (#48475821) Attached to: Consortium Roadmap Shows 100TB Hard Drives Possible By 2025

Alignment isn't an issue - there's no alignment on a modern drive. Instead, at the factory, they write a set of servo tracks all over the platters which do the aligning for you - basically the head seeks to approximately the right position and starts reading, and the servo track tells it where it actually is, so feedback gets the head to the right track.

Sigh. Alignment is an issue, because each platter has its own alignment. That means that when you're reading/writing one platter, you're not aligned for the other platters. That's why you can't have multiple heads on one armature (which has multiple arms, all fixed together) and read/write multiple platters at once.

the bigger reason why two actuators didn't work is far simpler - think multiprocess programming. Both actuators could read or write data to the platters (of which there was one set) and if you screwed up the order of the accesses, you could easily write the wrong thing

You're being ridiculous. That's true no matter how many actuators you have — if you screw up, you write the wrong thing. Even if you only have one actuator, if you write the data to the wrong sectors, you're gonna have a bad time. But both actuators have the same job: write some data to someplace. The two don't have the job to write the same data. If the drive gets a command to write data to a sector to which it already has cached data waiting to write, then hopefully it just throws away the first command anyway. This is something we would hope any drive with queuing would do whether it has 1 actuator or a dozen.

think you do a read then a write of a sector - and the sector happens to be under the actuator doing the write

HDD sectors are either 512 bytes or 4kb. In the former case they are often smaller than filesystem blocks and there is no need to read them before writing. You just run right over them. In the latter case, they are typically the same size as filesystem blocks (we use bigger blocks on larger filesystems, and we use 4k blocks on multi-TB drives) and again, there is no need to read them before wrtiting. You only have to find them, which means waiting the seek and then for some fraction of the time it takes the spindle to go around once. Then you can write. This is true no matter how many armatures are reading/writing the same disk.

Comment: Re:Cholesterol (Score 1) 29

by drinkypoo (#48475797) Attached to: Interviews: The Hampton Creek Team Answers Your Questions

It would have been more interesting to have more of the responses from the scientists that work there rather than some droid in the marketing department.

I think that will have done them more damage here than good, by far. What's funny is that really nobody wants to hear a line of bullshit any more. Kawasaki just sent a clueless flack to be on Leno's Garage and show off their new bike and a good portion of the comments were about what a lame he was. That's at least half of what people will take away from the experience. Send someone who knows what they're talking about and can handle being on camera, or don't send anyone at all. Just send the bike and a brochure.

Comment: Re:Not humane? (Score 1) 29

by drinkypoo (#48475783) Attached to: Interviews: The Hampton Creek Team Answers Your Questions

I'm not sure that's actually true. What would have to happen is that the production of chickens and eggs would have to become more distributed, and you would need more human labor. There's lots of places where the chickens can get free food, but they do need to range for that, so you're going to have to spend a lot more time and effort managing your chickens.

On the other hand, integrating chickens into more agricultural scenarios has the potential to improve them in a variety of ways. Chickens can be mixed in with most plants once they reach a certain size that makes them less appealing than the pests that they attract, and the weeds growing up around them. The chickens help with both of these problems. If we move to a more integrated food production model in which we do sensible things like compost our shit and put it back into the fields once it's become soil again, we'll want to move away from tilth and towards guilds anyway. Robotics is advancing on fruit-picking, and in the mean time, we have a lot of labor lying around to handle the substantial increase in labor currently demanded by such a change. We only don't do this now to maximize profits. We could pay people enough to pick vegetables, but then some of the vegetables which currently produce the most profit would fall by the wayside, and we can't disturb the status quo now, can we?

Comment: Re:I’m sorry, what are the nutritional benef (Score 1) 29

by drinkypoo (#48475773) Attached to: Interviews: The Hampton Creek Team Answers Your Questions

Ehhh, sounds good, we can use margin of error as an excuse then. I suppose it's just by margin of error that this company is too stupid to be able to figure out that not all birds are mistreated. And by margin of error, I'll not bother to do business with them.

Actually, you're both displaying ignorance, although yours is the more spectacular; it's a fact that the bread far outweighs the mayo, so caring about the carbs in the mayo is a jerkoff waste of time. Even a low-carb slice of bread will run you around 5g net carbs (carbs less fiber, which is indigestible.) The truth is that anything less than 1.0g can be reported as 0g by our nutritional guidelines, and otherwise the numbers are rounded. Therefore, something with 0.9g carbs is reported as having 0g carbs, while something with 1.1g carbs is reported as having 1g carbs.

Comment: Re:This is clearly futile... (Score 1) 148

by drinkypoo (#48475749) Attached to: Google Told To Expand Right To Be Forgotten

As the person initiating the search, I decide what is relevant.

Only to the extent that the law allows.

The law already included a solution to the problem of misleading information in at least some EU countries; you can have the material taken down, because it is already illegal there. Hell, even some non-misleading material is illegal in some of those countries, those in which the truth is not an absolute defense against libel. A new law seeking to hide the illegal information is not the solution. It only really seeks to do two things: one, let people hide their misdeeds, and two, attempt to hide the extent of the failure of laws against stupid people saying stupid shit on the internet.

Comment: Re:This is clearly futile... (Score 1) 148

by drinkypoo (#48475739) Attached to: Google Told To Expand Right To Be Forgotten

If you need to search for information about someone then by definition you are not fully aware of all the facts and cannot be in a position to make a fair judgement if you are presented only with partial, misleading information.

You are so right. That is precisely why I need to be provided with all of the search results, so that I can make up my own mind.

Thufir's a Harkonnen now.