The Streisand Effect is quite overrated; I have serious doubts that even one percent of cases would actually invoke it, and suspect the fraction is even smaller than that. Same goes for 4chan and, actually, the news media in general; they find a couple of things and blow those up into huge scandals using creative storytelling, and let the rest slip past.

The Streisand Effect and 4chan are risks, but they're so unpredictable that it's probably not worth considering them as much of a factor in your decision to try and hide information.

Further, if you read Google's document they indicate that in the case of data protection removals they inform the webmaster of the URL that has been de-listed, with no information about the details of the request or the requester. This seems like a sensible and serious attempt to balance the right of the webmaster to know that his content is no longer being indexed (for some searches) with the right of privacy of the person requesting removal.

It also seems to be the cause of the hoopla a few weeks back which put Google in the crosshairs of many who claimed the company was trying to sensationalize the removals. Google had removed the link when the searched topic was the name of a commenter on the article (who asked for it to be removed), but not when the searched topic was person the article was about, or other relevant terms. The webmaster saw that the URL had be de-listed for some searches and the paper wrote an article about how the URL had been removed entirely, even though it was obviously in the public interest, asserting that Google was intentionally removing things that weren't justified under the law in order to provoke a backlash against it. The assumption that it had been removed entirely was incorrect, of course, but Google couldn't provide information about the rationale or scope of the removal without violating the privacy of the requester.

I, personally, think the "right to be forgotten" is ridiculous, but it appears to me that Google is trying very hard to comply with it, letter and spirit.

(Disclosure: I'm a Google employee, but I have nothing to do with any of this and know nothing about it beyond what I read in the press. Also, I'm not a company spokesperson of any sort; they pay me to sit at a desk and pound out code.)

Just open your eyes. The only issue without Java would be a lot more unemployment.

It was replaced by the old system it was supposed to replace. (Not Java.) There is no upgrade path at this time. It may just fail completely some day and when it does you will be reading about it in the news. For the moment they keep it running by throwing insane hardware at it. And no, "we" did not replace it. We were the external consultants that found out and demonstrated just how completely and utterly borked this thing was. Again, the reviewers/auditors MUST NEVER BE the coders. (Code walk-throughs and code peer review are not "reviews". They are just QA.) Conflict of interest kills all result quality and everybody except the most incompetent avoid it like the plague.

Just a choice example to demonstrate the skill level of "quality" Java programmers: A quadratic (!) sorting algorithm, implemented manually (!) to remove duplicates form a database query result (!) that could have an arbitrarily large (!) response. In Java, that has hash-tables (!) and n log(n) sorting (!) in the standard library, with a database that you just could have told (!) to make the results unique. It really does not get any more incompetent than this. Oh, and this code went through per-review several times, some of them because performance was so incredibly bad as soon as the test-data got realistic. Nobody found anything. So this is not a single programmer messing up, it is a whole team of about 20 people messing up, all "qualified" Java programmers.

This was not the only thing we found of this quality level. And we have found things of similar "quality" in other Java projects done at other places. The problem with Java is that it is a) incredible easy to do the most stupid things and b) all the tools make sure you can still compile and typically even run them. This leads to the average Java programmer just being a completely clueless hack. In C, these people would just produce non-compilable or always segfaulting messes and be given the boot pretty quicky. In Java, they can successfully pretend to be coders, and since more likely than not all other Java coders they work with are just as stupid, nobody sees the problem.

+1 Insightful.

Given the German peoples' repeatedly demonstrated ability to be an economic powerhouse even against severe odds, that's a really telling point.

Nothing is wrong with me. NOBODY, except the terminally incompetent, does code security reviews on their own code. That you assumed we could be doing it just shows that you really, really have no idea how these things are done. Go away. You have a big mouth and no actual understanding of things.

Even if it is criminal (or rather looks criminal), look the other way. You are not a cop. Except for rare exceptions in some fascistoid states, you are not required to report crimes. If you think you need to report something, consult a lawyer first. Really, do it, and not the company lawyer. Pay for one yourself.

Typically, there is no duty to to report serious crimes or any crimes at all, except for police officers. (They are not human beings in that regard, just functional elements. Their personal morality has been removed.) Some limitations apply, especially in states with fascistic tendencies. But there basically is no way to commit a serious crime via email or files, so in most cases you have zero obligations to report anything even if you know. Of course, it is better not to know ad the very act of snooping could put you into jail as well, and rightfully so.

Nice! Of course I am an atheist, so I am not an expert on any elaborate fantasy people cook up to explain reality, but still.

There is only one advice here: Do not. Unless you are a police officer (or live in certain fascist states), you have no obligations to report suspected crimes. And if you make a point of not reading the data you have access to (and you decidedly have no obligation to read it), you cannot be tempted anyways. And then you can always say honestly that you were being professional and did not look if it hits the fan.

Exactly. You are not an enforcer. You will always get to see things like that with enough access, just too many human beings are scum. But unless you have the power to do bad things to people (and you want to do that), walk away.

Don't ever use that information (except to decide to resign your position _without_ giving honest reasons). While the moral thing might be to act on it, the practical thing is that you do not have the position/role to do so and it will always be to your detriment.

^^ This.
The new name has nothing to do with XBMC or what it stands for. They may of well as called it Cloud, oh hail the buzz word that means fuck all and everything thats networked, at the same time.

Kodi seems like a bit of a joke when the char Name[0] went +1;

Xtra Bananas Monkies Claim

Nano.

It shows text, programmers "should be" able to edit text. Job done. Why overcomplicate it?

Breakage:
No. Everything works.
I've been running this setup for over 2 years. I finally decided to share my installation with a guide. Not everyone is out to get you and your "security".

Schoolboy mistakes:
Everyone makes mistakes. Even you.
By all means, find a issue and i'll gladly fix it in my free time.

Security Problems:
If you have "security concerns", you shouldnt be using any distro, unless you make it to your own "security" requirements.
These debian images are aimed at home users, who just want a fast Pi doing their daily stuff.

Your welcome.