Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:The one consistant thing I've seen. (Score 1) 188

by lgw (#48475591) Attached to: Health Advisor: Ebola Still Spreading, Worst Outbreak We've Ever Seen

I'm sure you're right. Government can print infinite money with no negative consequences down the line. The only reason everyone isn't a millionaire already is the greed of evil bankers. Why didn't anyone realize this before in all of history?

I mean, it's clear as day: you just spend more money that you make, and life is therefore better. I can see no flaw in this plan.

Comment: Re:But correct != complete and fairly representati (Score 1) 120

by sabri (#48475589) Attached to: Google Told To Expand Right To Be Forgotten

For example, there was an infamous case in the UK a few year ago when a paediatrician -- a doctor who specialises in helping children -- was run out of their home by vigilantes who were too stupid to know the difference between a paediatrician and a paedophile.

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?

in reality the people accessing information on the Internet are only human, and in reality even well-meaning people may come across incorrect or misleading information and make judgements based on it without realising they were in error. That means sometimes it does make sense to conceal information, at least partially or for a limited period of time, in order to protect other humans from unfair harm.

No disagreement there.

I believe everyone has a basic moral right to fair treatment in this respect, particularly because the damage to a wronged individual if that right is violated will be far greater than the damage to someone who just didn't trivially find out about some possibly incorrect allegations.

And this is the part where it becomes interesting. Remember what is happening here. Google is a search engine, an indexer of information that is readily available elsewhere. If the Guardian reports about child-abuse allegations against John Doe, and Mr Doe is acquitted in court, the report about the allegations are still correct. You're arguing that Google should no longer be allowed to produce search results that link to the original allegations. I'm arguing that this is a silly way of handling things. If one would really want to protect the acquitted, the law should mandate that the article be amended with information regarding the acquittal.

Obscuring the fact that the original allegation was made by passing laws against an indexing service smells like Chinese Censorship to me, and I find that to be a dangerous slippery slope.

I also note that the justice systems in almost every civilised country take a similar view, often such that even actual criminal convictions become "spent" after a time and no longer need to be disclosed. It turns out that sometimes people do change and that encouraging the successful rehabilitation of past offenders makes that much more likely than leaving them with some minor infraction hanging over them for the rest of their lives.

Totally agree there. But my point remains valid: in such a case the origin of the information should be affected, not the indexer. And also, most criminal convictions will stay on the record (especially in the case of felonies), but won't be taken into account (or to a lesser extent) when performing a background check. In my former home country (The Netherlands) that usually means 4 years for infractions, 8 years for felonies. The record itself stays and the individual can go to the courthouse to see the rapsheet, but it will not be disclosed to anyone.

I assume that in yours my freedom of movement also extends to the right to enter your home and my freedom of expression extends to the right to spray paint abusive comments all over it?

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. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who once said:

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.

Comment: Re:some sharp knives in that European drawer (Score 1) 120

by sabri (#48475015) Attached to: Google Told To Expand Right To Be Forgotten

The Internet has the bad habit of not forgetting anything, hence laws are necessary to purge incorrect, or out of date information pertaining to people.

There are already existing laws that cover incorrect information. Correct information itself is never out of date. If someone has been charged with a crime, that fact stays, even if s/he was found not guilty. Information on the second world war is out of date as well, shall we just erase that from history?

If the OP shouts communism or socialism it just shows how idiot you really are.

On the contrary, it shows how socialistic nanny-states try to force companies founded in free countries to adhere by their standards. The EU doesn't want American laws to apply to Europe, but they do want EU law to apply to US companies? They can fsck themselves.

Comment: Re:The one consistant thing I've seen. (Score 1) 188

by lgw (#48474975) Attached to: Health Advisor: Ebola Still Spreading, Worst Outbreak We've Ever Seen

Also, the economy can't recover because the same problem that keeps dragging it down still remains: people don't get paid enough to create enough demand to buy up everything the workforce can produce. As long as this situation persists, the only way to keep the economy even somewhat functional is to pump demand by flooding the market with cheap credit, with all the problems and risks that causes.

Every single economic recession in history looked like that. But we're already well on the upswing. Certainly everywhere around me (in the Seattle area) is hiring, from the minimum wages jobs to the construction sites to the tech companies.

The usual cycle starts up when people start buying durable consumer goods again: you put off buying that replacement car or washing machine or whatever when the future looks bleak, preferring to limp along with a somewhat-broken one. That demand broke out of the doldrums in early 2012, went back down for a year, and now has taken off like crazy. That's usually the spark that ignites recovery (or, questions of causation aside, it's reliably the sector that comes back first in a recovery).

As long as this situation persists, the only way to keep the economy even somewhat functional is to pump demand by flooding the market with cheap credit

There's just no evidence that actually works. Many nations have been trying that for decades without success. Once demand is booming, interest rates have proven a good tool to limit growth and pop bubbles, but the reverse doesn't seem to be true. Supply of money can curtail demand, but it can't create demand. When people are scared stability is all-important. Even when things are bad, people will adjust eventually and start spending again, and companies will adjust and start hiring again, if only the government doesn't keep changing the landscape.

Comment: Re:beyond the realm of plausibility (Score 1) 99

by lgw (#48474779) Attached to: Australia Elaborates On a New Drift Model To Find MH370

Turns out the conspiracy theorists underestimated the NSA. Check the links in my reply to AC. Storing all US phone calls for a month is just a handful of PB, assuming reasonable compression.

Seriously, just scroll through this list of programs detailed on Bruce's page. Just the scope of programs is astonishing.

Comment: Re:Personal social media accounts (Score 1) 57

by lgw (#48474453) Attached to: Sony To Offer Partial Refunds For PS Vita

It still astonishes me that people do personal stuff in the internet using their real name. I still can't get my head around that.

It's not like anyone's successfully hiding their identity from the NSA these days, sure, but from a casual search of your name by your boss? I don't even show up, except for my LinkedIn account.

Comment: Re:Are they the same? (Score 1) 93

by jythie (#48474433) Attached to: Wikipedia's "Complicated" Relationship With Net Neutrality
One of the big problems in the discussion of net neutrality is there are many ways to implement it and individuals usually have one way or another in mind.

For instance, I am a proponent of classifying the physical layers at common carriers while ISPs would not be, so consumers would be locked into their local carrier but then could chose any ISP endpoint they wished. Under this setup data caps would be fine since you could always switch to another ISP. Other solutions however keep the two bundled so data caps become a major issue.

Comment: Re:Are they the same? (Score 2) 93

by PopeRatzo (#48473849) Attached to: Wikipedia's "Complicated" Relationship With Net Neutrality

Or, imagine that the websites espousing certain political views do not count against your cap, but those with opposing political views do.

Which messages are more likely to be heard?

Net Neutrality is about whether or not we are going to trust corporate gatekeepers with no requirement of fairness to set the narrative about our society.

And how will this affect how companies that provide hosting services work, if some of them get caps and others don't? What will happen to the cost of hosting (which is basically the cost of speech on the internet)?

Comment: Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? (Score 1) 400

by lgw (#48473761) Attached to: Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina Considering US Presidential Run

So the top 1% can afford to have a political voice individually, without forming corporations, while the rest of us need some way to pool the money of thousands in order to accomplish that. Explain again how restricting corporate speech hurts that 1%? Would you have the government regulate the political speech of newspapers and cable news channels?

Comment: Re:beyond the realm of plausibility (Score 1, Funny) 99

by lgw (#48473737) Attached to: Australia Elaborates On a New Drift Model To Find MH370

strangely conspiracy theorists are the first ones to jump on and believe such things (along with the "acres of datacentres listening to every call" junk)

Hey, welcome back to civilization, how did your 2 years without the internet go? While you were away, you missed some news (it was everywhere): turns out the US government was actually recording every voice call in a datacenter somewhere, and a lot more too! I know; crazy, huh? The truth was actually more extreme than the conspiracy theorists feared.

Maybe Computer Science should be in the College of Theology. -- R. S. Barton