"they even sounded really crisp, whether they actually were or not." Hilarious. The "crispness" of a speaker is defined by how it sounds, unless you were eating it. But even then sound generally plays a role in that determination.
"There is no such right, except in your imagination." Only an idiot could possibly imagine a world where people do not have the right to gather information. Learning is a fundamental human right. I know that many Marxist and Mohammed based dictatorships disagree but that does not change the fact.
Further, we can make a much better argument that the "right to be forgotten" is much more a figment of the imagination.
If it hinges on the fact that Google processed the data, then how is every indexer not affected? Do EU based indexes just magically work without the data being processed?
Yeah, I've heard of it. In the US it means that the separate branches of government don't have a DIRECT influence over each other. They still have an indirect influence. The legislative branch legislates (creates law), the executive branch has a chance to reject the law (veto) which can be overridden. The executive branch then enforces the law and the courts determine whether the executive overstepped. The executive also enforces court rulings.
So, in the US the court is a branch of government, not all that different than an "agency". Judges are acting on behalf of the government which is one definition of "agent" so saying that an agent works for an agency still fits.
"Recently several writers in France were sentenced in similar proceedings..." sort of sounds like the courts there are treating it as national policy and that is the only thing that matters.
Seriously, you think that because the Nazis said the Jews lived like rats in filthy houses that Jews started living like rats in filthy houses? You are seriously screwed up. Certain idiots (apparently thaylin included) may have begun to believe such statements "as if they were true" but they certainly did not become true statements just because they were oft-repeated.
And google does not hold the information, they index the information and point you to the site holding the information.
"Note that your personal right to remember is completely unaffected. You are not required to forgot or remove information from your personal web site." Which is very much affected when nobody can see that information because it cannot be indexed.
I've read comments suggesting that newspapers are exempt from this law. Every newspaper I've ever heard of is a commercial enterprise. Why are they not required to remove such information from their indexes? This really does seem to be the EU trying to hold back US based commercial enterprise while allowing EU commercial enterprises to continue on.
Oh, I think it should work exactly like that. Bring up a page that says that other results have been blocked because of local laws and a request from the search target.
I guess I've always viewed the contract period as the time during which things shouldn't change and, personally, would not be upset if they no longer wanted to continue providing a plan after the contract expired. I agree that it is completely wrong for them to alter the terms mid-stream. I live in a small town and have been served by only two carriers: a very small regional (Element Mobile, within Wisconsin only) and a larger regional (US Cellular, portions of surrounding states as well). Verizon just moved in and Element seems to be in the process of selling to AT&T. Element formed around 3 years ago when Alltel was sold to Verizon and took Alltel's customers. The majority of those customers left and went to US Cellular as soon as they could because Element's service was so bad. they couldn't even charge the ETFs because they were unable to fulfill their end of the contract for most data plan coverage and such. As the fixed some issues, they started offering unlimited plans to attract customers. I've talked to Element customers who were told they were free to leave without ETF because Element was terminating their unlimited plan less than a year into a 2-year contract. That is totally wrong. Terminating after a contract is over, not so much in my book.
How exactly do "local" EU laws affect what an American citizen accessing google.com from within the US? Exactly what gives the EU any jurisdiction over that?
Are you suggesting that because BMW sells cars in the US that the US government can require that the cars that BMW builds in Europe for sale in Europe be built to US standards instead of European standards?
Verizon no longer sells unlimited plans and probably doesn't have many unlimited plans still under contract. The complaint is that Verizon has recently started "pushing" those customers who have unlimited plans but are no longer under contract to get under contract on a plan suitable to their needs. Verizon does have another, more drastic, remedy they could just as legally and morally use: terminate service on the heavy users that Verizon is under no contractual obligation to serve.
Since the contract period expired, as stated in the summary, then they really aren't violating a contract are they? The summary mentions customer who had unlimited plans and are still off contract after the contract's expiration.
"especially if they're a woman or brown" because they are very afraid of being sued for not hiring every one of those that walks through the door because so few are walking through the door. you know, you are discriminating because only 25% of your workforce is x when in society the ratio is 50%. Never mind that they aren't hiring from the general population, they are hiring from those that apply. The problem is that lawyers are stupid and expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
So they sell at a 50% discount?
"they even sounded really crisp, whether they actually were or not." Hilarious. The "crispness" of a speaker is defined by how it sounds, unless you were eating it. But even then sound generally plays a role in that determination.
Correct. Searching is more about listening (learning) than speaking but it is still a fundamental human right.
"There is no such right, except in your imagination." Only an idiot could possibly imagine a world where people do not have the right to gather information. Learning is a fundamental human right. I know that many Marxist and Mohammed based dictatorships disagree but that does not change the fact.
Further, we can make a much better argument that the "right to be forgotten" is much more a figment of the imagination.
If it hinges on the fact that Google processed the data, then how is every indexer not affected? Do EU based indexes just magically work without the data being processed?
Yeah, I've heard of it. In the US it means that the separate branches of government don't have a DIRECT influence over each other. They still have an indirect influence. The legislative branch legislates (creates law), the executive branch has a chance to reject the law (veto) which can be overridden. The executive branch then enforces the law and the courts determine whether the executive overstepped. The executive also enforces court rulings.
So, in the US the court is a branch of government, not all that different than an "agency". Judges are acting on behalf of the government which is one definition of "agent" so saying that an agent works for an agency still fits.
Has the EU privatized their judicial branches?
"Recently several writers in France were sentenced in similar proceedings..." sort of sounds like the courts there are treating it as national policy and that is the only thing that matters.
Seriously, you think that because the Nazis said the Jews lived like rats in filthy houses that Jews started living like rats in filthy houses? You are seriously screwed up. Certain idiots (apparently thaylin included) may have begun to believe such statements "as if they were true" but they certainly did not become true statements just because they were oft-repeated.
Google and Bing are not listing people by any criteria. They are listing "news article[s] or blog posts[s]".
And google does not hold the information, they index the information and point you to the site holding the information.
"Note that your personal right to remember is completely unaffected. You are not required to forgot or remove information from your personal web site." Which is very much affected when nobody can see that information because it cannot be indexed.
I've read comments suggesting that newspapers are exempt from this law. Every newspaper I've ever heard of is a commercial enterprise. Why are they not required to remove such information from their indexes? This really does seem to be the EU trying to hold back US based commercial enterprise while allowing EU commercial enterprises to continue on.
That argument is about as stupid as "if a tree falls and nobody is around." If the information is not indexed it won't be found.
Oh, I think it should work exactly like that. Bring up a page that says that other results have been blocked because of local laws and a request from the search target.
I guess I've always viewed the contract period as the time during which things shouldn't change and, personally, would not be upset if they no longer wanted to continue providing a plan after the contract expired. I agree that it is completely wrong for them to alter the terms mid-stream. I live in a small town and have been served by only two carriers: a very small regional (Element Mobile, within Wisconsin only) and a larger regional (US Cellular, portions of surrounding states as well). Verizon just moved in and Element seems to be in the process of selling to AT&T. Element formed around 3 years ago when Alltel was sold to Verizon and took Alltel's customers. The majority of those customers left and went to US Cellular as soon as they could because Element's service was so bad. they couldn't even charge the ETFs because they were unable to fulfill their end of the contract for most data plan coverage and such. As the fixed some issues, they started offering unlimited plans to attract customers. I've talked to Element customers who were told they were free to leave without ETF because Element was terminating their unlimited plan less than a year into a 2-year contract. That is totally wrong. Terminating after a contract is over, not so much in my book.
Well they had to pass it before they could read it!
How exactly do "local" EU laws affect what an American citizen accessing google.com from within the US? Exactly what gives the EU any jurisdiction over that?
Are you suggesting that because BMW sells cars in the US that the US government can require that the cars that BMW builds in Europe for sale in Europe be built to US standards instead of European standards?
Verizon no longer sells unlimited plans and probably doesn't have many unlimited plans still under contract. The complaint is that Verizon has recently started "pushing" those customers who have unlimited plans but are no longer under contract to get under contract on a plan suitable to their needs. Verizon does have another, more drastic, remedy they could just as legally and morally use: terminate service on the heavy users that Verizon is under no contractual obligation to serve.
Oh, come n ow. They just have to use their time machine.
Since the contract period expired, as stated in the summary, then they really aren't violating a contract are they? The summary mentions customer who had unlimited plans and are still off contract after the contract's expiration.
Teachers absolutely are in a position to encourage students to take an optional, privately administered test. They talk to their students every day.
or Hugh Pickens = theodp
According to most of the political correct types, yes, Whitey is that bad.
Gender gap anywhere is a myth unless you fail to control for variables (such as you mentioned) or add in all kinds of extras to force it.
"especially if they're a woman or brown" because they are very afraid of being sued for not hiring every one of those that walks through the door because so few are walking through the door. you know, you are discriminating because only 25% of your workforce is x when in society the ratio is 50%. Never mind that they aren't hiring from the general population, they are hiring from those that apply. The problem is that lawyers are stupid and expensive.
Are you trying to say that Greenpeace is nothing more than a liberal protection racket?
Correct. The world should produce only the amount of fossil fuel use that Greenpeace needs to support Greenpeace's mission.