Except these aren't the same thing at all. You're comparing governments or companies covering for themselves, to individuals having search results removed (not the actual content) about themselves.
You know, this would be tragically funny if some seedy porn business with a subsidiary that was legally in the US had its primary operations in a country where the porn min age is 15 and it posted nude pictures of american girls age 15-17 against their will accessible for the whole world.
You bet your ass americans and the US would be up in arms and demanding it take the pictures down or else!
Except you are comparing what an individual legally requests about the persons own information, with sharia law and oppression.
Very convenient america not only controls the law, but also most of the prime services of the internet.
No it doesn't, this is nowhere near the same. You're comparing a private persons decision about his own information, to government oppression? That is like comparing fighting for a persons copyright to North Korea censorship. Just silly.
Americans have this funny system of giving as little rights they can to whoever is labelled "criminal", gladly ignoring that this label is out of their control and as such their vaunted rights are so easily removed and almost laughable.
None of these have anything to do with what a legal residence wants to do about search results in the persons name. (the information will still be there, so not censored)
jklovanc - You are completely missing the issue and comparing apples to toasters. This is about what their own citizens legally and willfully request about a company operating in that country about their own information, not government enacted censorship to protect itself or its interests.
And this has no real impact on internet openness.
How is it censorship if a person wants to have information about themselves not be in search results? The information is still there. Your example is stupid, you mean to say that search results should be used as public law enforcement?
So if European companies puts in damaging information about US citizens that would infringe on their rights permanently, you should just suck it up and take it?
That your opinion exists is an abomination. Truth can deal massive damage as well, combining truth and false accusations. I could post all data regarding an american kid with pictures, it would be the truth, but it would be huge risk to the kid. Combining truthful information about "Scoot O'Brian" to link you to certain sites might not be dangerous, but then combining it with false data/accusations of others and suddenly "Scoot O'Brian" gets publically known as a pedophile or a rapist.
How odd, we have a huge amount of critizism and way more freedom of speech/expression.
Again how does the EU factor into an individuals rights to be forgotten?
There's a huge difference between having a government enforce its law against individuals and individuals enforcing their rights against governments when they infringe on theirs. What good is a right, if you can just move or collect in another country. A european company that logs serious right information that could be used to harm americans against their will is ok?
I love it how you're comparing demanding a US company against China government censorship.
Search results aren't freedom of speech, nor is someone forgotten there a gateway to lies anymore than the search results themselves are.
I use several Windows Server 2013 daily and I have no problem with any "touch screen optimized" interface, despite no touch screen anywhere. Server 2013 is a vast improvement over 2008.
I have multiple backups in seperate locations and online redundancy (saving 50 past versions of the file, in case of damage, deletes or errors). One offsite backup is a passive one (in case of a systemwide hack) that cannot be accessed from the outside through the net.
And this is just for my personal stuff...I'd expect an important person like Linus Thorvald to have a minimum of a basic backup or at least a NAS or online storage.
You do know that you just have to multiply it up to the population of the nation to find total deaths. per 100.000 is the usual standard for country to country statistics.
Slashdot Mirror
Except these aren't the same thing at all. You're comparing governments or companies covering for themselves, to individuals having search results removed (not the actual content) about themselves. You know, this would be tragically funny if some seedy porn business with a subsidiary that was legally in the US had its primary operations in a country where the porn min age is 15 and it posted nude pictures of american girls age 15-17 against their will accessible for the whole world. You bet your ass americans and the US would be up in arms and demanding it take the pictures down or else!
Except you are comparing what an individual legally requests about the persons own information, with sharia law and oppression. Very convenient america not only controls the law, but also most of the prime services of the internet.
No it doesn't, this is nowhere near the same. You're comparing a private persons decision about his own information, to government oppression? That is like comparing fighting for a persons copyright to North Korea censorship. Just silly.
Americans have this funny system of giving as little rights they can to whoever is labelled "criminal", gladly ignoring that this label is out of their control and as such their vaunted rights are so easily removed and almost laughable.
None of these have anything to do with what a legal residence wants to do about search results in the persons name. (the information will still be there, so not censored)
jklovanc - You are completely missing the issue and comparing apples to toasters. This is about what their own citizens legally and willfully request about a company operating in that country about their own information, not government enacted censorship to protect itself or its interests. And this has no real impact on internet openness.
About its citizens sure, as it is the same company.
I am sure you campaign against "do not track" browsers then?
Sure, just as much as "Do not track" browsers is censorship.
Nope, you get an armed escort to a jail cell and thrown in prison.
So you're saying that any sort of serious investigation relies solely on google searched? Way to shit on law enforcement.
Maybe, but individuals won't do background checks.
How is it censorship if a person wants to have information about themselves not be in search results? The information is still there. Your example is stupid, you mean to say that search results should be used as public law enforcement? So if European companies puts in damaging information about US citizens that would infringe on their rights permanently, you should just suck it up and take it?
You mean like the US enforces laws protecting its citizens elsewhere?
That your opinion exists is an abomination. Truth can deal massive damage as well, combining truth and false accusations. I could post all data regarding an american kid with pictures, it would be the truth, but it would be huge risk to the kid. Combining truthful information about "Scoot O'Brian" to link you to certain sites might not be dangerous, but then combining it with false data/accusations of others and suddenly "Scoot O'Brian" gets publically known as a pedophile or a rapist.
How odd, we have a huge amount of critizism and way more freedom of speech/expression. Again how does the EU factor into an individuals rights to be forgotten?
There's a huge difference between having a government enforce its law against individuals and individuals enforcing their rights against governments when they infringe on theirs. What good is a right, if you can just move or collect in another country. A european company that logs serious right information that could be used to harm americans against their will is ok? I love it how you're comparing demanding a US company against China government censorship. Search results aren't freedom of speech, nor is someone forgotten there a gateway to lies anymore than the search results themselves are.
As a web server, *nix is awesome. But for any serious enterprise management. Windows Server 2012 beats it by miles.
Even Surface 2 Pro doesn't come with 3G, let alone 4G. Microsoft missed the bus.
I use several Windows Server 2013 daily and I have no problem with any "touch screen optimized" interface, despite no touch screen anywhere. Server 2013 is a vast improvement over 2008.
Its been banned here years ago and it has led to general improvements of health and the industry isn't harmed by it.
I have multiple backups in seperate locations and online redundancy (saving 50 past versions of the file, in case of damage, deletes or errors). One offsite backup is a passive one (in case of a systemwide hack) that cannot be accessed from the outside through the net. And this is just for my personal stuff...I'd expect an important person like Linus Thorvald to have a minimum of a basic backup or at least a NAS or online storage.
You do know that you just have to multiply it up to the population of the nation to find total deaths. per 100.000 is the usual standard for country to country statistics.
I've been running SSDs as both boot drives, server drives and RAID drives for some 2-4 years and only 1 has ever failed out of the dozens of drives.
Outlook is shit. I'll take gmail interface over that any day.