Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamic (Score 2) 80

by Rei (#48476923) Attached to: Scientists Develop "Paint" To Help Cool the Planet

It's not the ambient temperature of air that's key here, it's the ambient temperature of space, which is about 2,7K.

All objects are constantly radiating energy and receiving energy back from other things that are radiating. When two objects in radiative exchange are roughly the same temperature, this balances out. But when one is hotter than the other, the hotter one loses more energy than it takes in, and vice versa. And it's not just a little difference - radiative heat loss is proportional to the absolute temperature to the fourth power, that's a pretty big exponent. So when you're exchanging energy with space, which is so cold that it takes very sensitive instruments to be able to measure *anything*, well, that heat is simply lost.

You can see this effect for yourself by noting how cloudy nights are usually warmer than clear nights. Clouds are cold, but they're not as cold as space!

The effect of the combination of radiation, absorption, and reflection, with different band peaks for each phenomenon, manifests itself in atmospheres as a greenhouse effect (positive or negative) versus the radiative equilibrium temperature.

Comment: Re:In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamic (Score 1) 80

by Rei (#48476869) Attached to: Scientists Develop "Paint" To Help Cool the Planet

This "modulation" happens all the time, few things in this universe are true blackbodies, most prefer to radiate in specific bands. They're apparently using a material that tends to radiate only on one narrow band at regular earth temperatures.

Not sure how much benefit this provides to the building owner, to the point that they'd be willing to cover their building in hafnium-and-silver coated panels, rather than just white paint...

Comment: The directive does not mention google. (Score 3, Informative) 102

by Whiney Mac Fanboy (#48476823) Attached to: Google Should Be Broken Up, Say European MPs

No Clue indeed. No clue from almost anyone reporting on this piece of news. (it is dissapointing that the BBC headline is so wrong)

Have a read of the Euro Parliament's Press release or (unbelievably better than the BBC) Tech Crunch.

Its a general resolution about online search engines bundling services & about the need to enforce European Competitions laws in the online space.

Comment: Re: But correct != complete and fairly representat (Score 1) 151

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) 151

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: haven't been following... (Score 1) 118

by Rei (#48476295) Attached to: Behind Apple's Sapphire Screen Debacle

Does anyone actually have problems with scratching of the latest generations of gorilla glass? I've had my Xperia Z2 for over half a year and because it has a glass back as well as front it makes it less risky to try scratch tests, so I've done it a number of times and let other people try to scratch it, and nobody has ever succeeded. I'm sure if you put a diamond to it you'd scratch it, but short of that, I can't see why more scratch resistance is needed.

Now, *crack* resistance, they could use good improvements in that. : But from reports the sapphire wasn't that crack resistant.

Comment: Re:This is clearly futile... (Score 1) 151

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:But correct != complete and fairly representati (Score 1) 151

by Anonymous Brave Guy (#48475693) Attached to: Google Told To Expand Right To Be Forgotten

That some people, or you, attributed an additional set of meaning to the results is your responsibility.

That's a lovely ivory tower you live in, but in the real world, your position is of little comfort to all the people who miss out on opportunities or suffer harm because someone did a quick web search and leapt to the wrong conclusions about the victim.

What next, I have a right to drive around at 90mph past the school down the road, and the law shouldn't stop be because I'm just exercising my freedom of movement and not necessarily doing any harm to anyone? Of course if I do hit a child, it will be my fault and the law will punish me, but that won't be any consolation to the dead child's parents.

Comment: Re:But correct != complete and fairly representati (Score 1) 151

by Anonymous Brave Guy (#48475663) Attached to: Google Told To Expand Right To Be Forgotten

So, you're arguing that due to English schtupidity (pronounce as Clarkson), Google should conceal factually correct data from being discovered while it is perfectly visible elsewhere on the web?

No, I'm arguing that because of human nature search engines should be required not to promote misleading or inaccurate information that may lead to unfair inferences being drawn about innocent people, once the search engines are explicitly made aware that they are doing so.

If one would really want to protect the acquitted, the law should mandate that the article be amended with information regarding the acquittal.

Ideally, yes. Unfortunately from this point of view, there are plenty of places in the world where they will tell you to go hang, because their right to mislead people about you is more important than your right to be treated fairly. This law is the closest we have right now to routing around that problem.

You have the freedom of movement that extends to the border of my properties. Your freedom of expression extends to the right to say whatever you want. Spray painting is not free speech, that would be infringement on my property rights.

Indeed. But if you apply the same logic from the other direction to cases like this, you see why it's important not to promote misleading or incorrect information about innocent people.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

I suppose the difference is that in the centuries since Jefferson said that, we have learned that the pen is mightier than the sword, the printing press is mightier than the pen, and the Internet gives anyone the power of a printing press that can reach an audience of billions in moments and at negligible cost.

Comment: Re:Untrue vs uncomfortable (Score 1) 151

by Anonymous Brave Guy (#48475601) Attached to: Google Told To Expand Right To Be Forgotten

But the law doesn't actually require that references be removed in the situations you described. Search engines may be removing them anyway, and maybe they are taking too cautious a line rather than risking legal action against them. However, they would be free to remove material even without this law, and they could be subject to legal actions in the usual suspect jurisdictions anyway, so I don't see how this is the fault of the law itself.

Comment: Re:some sharp knives in that European drawer (Score 1) 151

by Anonymous Brave Guy (#48475595) Attached to: Google Told To Expand Right To Be Forgotten

What on earth are you talking about? Nothing in the BBC article, nor the numerous other serious press reports on this subject so far this year, nor the original court ruling that started the whole debate, nor numerous comments from national data protection authorities within Europe, has ever claimed that the ruling and the various proposed and actual legal positions that have resulted since give anyone an arbitrary right to remove references to everything they don't like.

You don't need 17 sources and a sworn affidavit to prove this. Just consider that some requests for removal have been rejected, which is an existence proof for my position.

Comment: Re:You are in support of what??? (Score 1) 151

by Anonymous Brave Guy (#48475569) Attached to: Google Told To Expand Right To Be Forgotten

If you have issues with content on the web, you should be going after the host of the content, not search engines who just arbitrarily index.

And within the EU you can do that, too.

The "right to be forgotten" rule protects against circumvention of that law by hosting the material outside of the EU's jurisdiction and relying on search engines to make it readily accessible to people within the EU anyway. Given that if we're talking about a victim in the EU, the damage caused by someone reading misleading or inaccurate information is most likely to arise if the reader is also in the EU, this is actually quite a pragmatic solution to a real problem.

It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.