Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: Blame Google. (Score 1) 238

But meat inspection includes objective measures (as I already said). There's also no penalty for overblocking, but significant costs if they miss even one block. Meat inspection is well regulated with documented procedures handed down by regulatory bodies, but you insist that Google write all their own rules and procedures and have no forgiveness if they get anything wrong (apparently in either direction).

Comment: Re:Blame Google. (Score 2) 238

Isn't "meat inspector" a job of the government, paid for by taxes? The EU didn't provide Google with a "forgotten person" inspector. When it comes to meat, there are clearly objective measurements to determine when it has gone bad. There are no objective criteria handed down to determine when this right applies and when it doesn't. You're asking a for-profit company to personally be responsible for the cost of evaluating every case before them. In fact, you don't even know whether or not they did evaluate this? Given their precedent setting loss, it's not unreasonable to assume that they've set the threshold higher than maybe you would have.

If you were to ask me, the only objective criteria should be as simple as "Was the event newsworthy?" (Yes, because it appeared in the news.) But that's clearly not enough. The information is still allowed to exist, so it's not libelous and the information itself is not illegal, only linking to it is. There is no "registered famous/public person" database (or even a definition of a "public" person). The problem is that you can't just smell this meat and decide if it's gone bad. Now, Google could decide, on its own, to declare that this particular case doesn't pass the undefined threshold, but they have to take on all the expense and risk.

You've come along and demanded that Google toss out all the bad meat (without defining it), and NOW you're complaining when they find it easier to also throw out some good meat. Everyone told you that's what they'd do. It's the ONLY sensible course of action.

Comment: Re:More detail diving down. (Score 1) 98

by Col. Klink (retired) (#46961955) Attached to: SpaceX Injunction Dissolved

Yup, the letters all agree that if Rogozin controls NPO Energomash, payments must be blocked, but Treasury must "make an affirmative determination" that this is the case. Nothing compels them to actually make that affirmative determination.

Yes, they know that NPO Energomash is owned and controlled by the Russian Government. And yes, they know that Rogozin is the head of their space agency. But you could show them a cancelled check from Treasury with Rogozin's signature on it, and they still wouldn't be compelled to "affirmatively declare" that he was in control.

Comment: Re:Misaaplication of the law (Score 1) 798

The judge lauded the school's behavior and expressed her complete confidence in the school first, then she allowed the defendant (victim) to present his defense. But still, she's a judge so I'm sure she knows what she's doing and she can't possibly be biased in any way. After all, if in her unbiased opinion, the school has never done wrong before, I can't see why she would even need to ever hear evidence to the contrary.

Comment: Re:Not imposing common carrier status (Score 2) 235

by Col. Klink (retired) (#46289509) Attached to: FCC Planning Rule Changes To Restore US Net Neutrality

No, I think it was the commission themselves, not Congress, that classified them as an "information service" when they COULD have called them a "telecommunications service." However, it is within the FCC's power to reclassify them and they don't need approval from Congress.

The court told the FCC:

Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such.

Basically, the court just told the FCC that if they want to treat them as common carriers, all they have to do is classify them properly.

"An open mind has but one disadvantage: it collects dirt." -- a saying at RPI