The point that is being missed on most sides is that the subjects of the story are not the issue, it is an unknown commenter on the blog article.
You're probably right. They're moving in this direction a bit with the introduction comments, which I have found invaluable at times. Duolingo is also effective because it gamifies learning, producing tiny chunks and repeating them over and over.
The theory is that you are being taught as a child learns - we don't go round telling toddlers, no, Johhny, that's the dative case, not the genitive case, you silly little sausage. We just correct them by example.
In the UK, you can take the plate number and make a report of careless driving to the police. Although they almost certainly won't prosecute with no evidence, they will speak to the driver and frankly for many people just having a cop knock on the door is sobering enough. In my experience it's never worth attempting to deal with it on the scene; people aren't willing to admit they're wrong, ever.
My problem with it is that most of the time range rate with respect to a moving vehicle isn't of interest, because the driver of that vehicle is controlling his position with respect to you and can manoeuvre easily. The only time it is of interest is when it crosses the boundary to "too late to act", by which point, it is in fact too late to react. I really struggle to see what I would do differently based on the information this thing would give me.
Yes, he did, but at the same time none of those actions show any sort of planning process. Essentially the information he found was just fuel for his fantasies. Of course you're right, there is going to be a grey area between enthusiastic fantasy and clear intent to act, but this case doesn't seem to have approached this zone.
It appears he had a very strongly developed paraphilia; but the long and short of it is there was no evidence that he ever intended to take practical steps and there was no psychological evidence of risk. This is one that really shouldn't have gone to trial to start with; however, it's easy to understand why the jury convicted.
They almost certainly have a contractual relationship with Google on other matters that would involve a human. From there it's a matter of a few phonecalls.
These disclaimers are worthless (legally), as you can't accept conditions just by receiving something; none of the heads of contract are satisfied. However, if they motivate the receiving party to do what you want them to then they serve their purpose.
The thing that puzzles me is why Google is not charging for link removal. In the EU, if you want a copy of your personal data, you have to pay a reasonable fee for it. Likewise, if you want data removed, I don't see why you shouldn't pay a reasonable fee either. That in turn would at least pay for better scrutiny of these results.
Yeah, but you're *still* statistically more likely to have a serious accident.
I take it you don't believe in atom decay either?
While in general I agree with you - you are talking about a group of people here who do their life's work at the junction of the earth and the air. It is true they may be misguided or misinformed. But their opinions were not arrived at through talk radio.
I see it using the
.co.uk, but not the .com.