It's true that there are some inherit limits to wireless technology, but just because there are limits doesn't mean that the limits apply in a given scenario. If the degree of throttling has nothing to do with the amount of congestion, than the mere fact that congestion may be physically possible doesn't mean we are actually experiencing it.
The norm is going to news articles. Most other stuff would be already well covered under slander law.
I know Santorum was Google bombed, but that was an ongoing, concentrated effort by a lot of people. Yes, it's possible that for people with interesting names but boring lives could piss off someone who is going to set up an offshore site and then get Google to put it on the front page, but having to have all of those factors means it probably hasn't happened yet even once.
Actually, it's more likely that the source is in the US (i.e. Facebook, Twitter,...). They might comply eventually, but it would remain in the search index of Google for a while.
If it's Facebook or Twitter, they both have European offices, so would probably comply fairly quickly, and something from ten years ago on either site probably wouldn't be on the first page of Google results.
Plus, if I really wanted to ruin someone's reputation, rest assured that the server I rent would be somewhere in Genericstan.
But why would Google point to your server? You are creating a ridiculous hypothetical here. You want a slanderous or insulting article based in a country unfriendly to yours on the first page of Google results. That is certainly not anywhere close to representative of the norm for these requests.
If the content is illegal, they can take down at the source, and it will be removed shortly from Google automatically. If the content is legal, then they aren't profiting off illegal content.
I suspect that the overwhelming majority of the requests are aimed at sites from domestic sources, with a large share of the remainder being in the EU. For most people, there aren't random Russian sites hosting slanderous articles about them, and even if there are, they probably aren't on the first page of a local Google search.
I would say that melting pot works better than multiculturalism, and it also happens at the genetic level. Most Americans are mutts, which isn't as common elsewhere AFAIK.
This guy has no clue what 'worse is better' actually means despite linking to a wikipedia article explaining it, hence why I'm calling him an idiot. One of the most commonly cited examples of worse is better design is Unix. Instead of having a few large, comprehensive programs, Unix systems and Unix-like systems have a ton of small programs that do one thing. cd is 'worse' than explorer.exe because it doesn't do as much, but it's better because if something is broken with cd, you just fix cd a lot easier.
Since the security of Microsoft systems became a significant factor in national security. Perhaps they could shift their efforts of illegally tipping off DEA agents into security audits of software vital to our infrastructure, since that would actually protect the security of the nation.
Okay, so it seems to be pretty much only in France, which would explain why I didn't hear about it. It's a shame, as it seems like a convenient way of handling cohabitating couples that are increasingly common here.
Unless, of course, you write a will. Granted, there's no solution for the tax issue. That's going to require the government to quit favoring certain lifestyles.
Oddly enough, they seem to ignore all the rules about constitutional limits to their powers, except perhaps for telling a lawyer so he can spin a way that it can be argued to not be breaking the law. Failing that, he'll find a way to pin it on somebody unimportant or already in hot water. And then there's just run of the mill corruption, abuse, and incompetence. They seem to select for a particular mindset far more than they select for moral superiority and genuine respect for law.
Our brains are very bad at handling big numbers, and it is quite often a limiting factor in our ability to grasp certain concepts. If your brain doesn't work correctly (which it doesn't with billions), then you might trick it into accepting the truth, or at least something closer than the truth. Whether or not marijuana or other drugs do that, and if they do, for which people, is a different story, but you are assuming that your sober state of mind is anywhere near rational, which suggests you've never actually been around a human being for an extended period of time.
Only if we come to the conclusion that consenting to a search implicitly means consenting to totally relinquishing control of the account, which is not the case for anyone ever. It's also assuming that the consent to search was actually consensual as well, which it likely was not.
There are two sides of this. How much you can make, and what you can buy with it. The latter has improved considerably for everyone, but when adjusted for inflation, the income of middle class and poor households have stagnated despite the fact that the potential workforce has expanded, while the income of the rich has rose considerably. So, if you could have a job today or an inflation adjusted job from the 60s, the latter would be preferable.
The problem is that we haven't made technological progress, but rather, that the average person is not keeping up with that progress. If weren't propping up the rich, we could have people working about as much as they did in the 60s, but having more awesome stuff.
The NSA is, for all practical purposes, a military organization, and it seems to have more or less invaded other parts of the federal government, so saying that there will be similar mindsets from the military is not unreasonable.
Increasing the standard of living decreases population growth, especially when women get a piece of that action. Despite your claims, most of the western world actually has sub-replacement birth rates. If your life is awesome, you don't want/need a bunch of kids to feel important and you've got better things to do with your life than just pump out kids.
It's worth keeping in mind the important differences, and that we've only wiped out smallpox and rinderpest, although hopefully polio will follow shortly. Also, the identification and degree of concern for Alzheimer's disease are fairly recent, as expanded lifespans make it a more relevant issue. Also, I would say that we are a lot further behind in regards to brain science/psychology than we are in regards to general immune function.
Slashdot Mirror
It's true that there are some inherit limits to wireless technology, but just because there are limits doesn't mean that the limits apply in a given scenario. If the degree of throttling has nothing to do with the amount of congestion, than the mere fact that congestion may be physically possible doesn't mean we are actually experiencing it.
The norm is going to news articles. Most other stuff would be already well covered under slander law.
I know Santorum was Google bombed, but that was an ongoing, concentrated effort by a lot of people. Yes, it's possible that for people with interesting names but boring lives could piss off someone who is going to set up an offshore site and then get Google to put it on the front page, but having to have all of those factors means it probably hasn't happened yet even once.
If it's Facebook or Twitter, they both have European offices, so would probably comply fairly quickly, and something from ten years ago on either site probably wouldn't be on the first page of Google results.
But why would Google point to your server? You are creating a ridiculous hypothetical here. You want a slanderous or insulting article based in a country unfriendly to yours on the first page of Google results. That is certainly not anywhere close to representative of the norm for these requests.
If the content is illegal, they can take down at the source, and it will be removed shortly from Google automatically. If the content is legal, then they aren't profiting off illegal content.
I suspect that the overwhelming majority of the requests are aimed at sites from domestic sources, with a large share of the remainder being in the EU. For most people, there aren't random Russian sites hosting slanderous articles about them, and even if there are, they probably aren't on the first page of a local Google search.
I would say that melting pot works better than multiculturalism, and it also happens at the genetic level. Most Americans are mutts, which isn't as common elsewhere AFAIK.
This guy has no clue what 'worse is better' actually means despite linking to a wikipedia article explaining it, hence why I'm calling him an idiot. One of the most commonly cited examples of worse is better design is Unix. Instead of having a few large, comprehensive programs, Unix systems and Unix-like systems have a ton of small programs that do one thing. cd is 'worse' than explorer.exe because it doesn't do as much, but it's better because if something is broken with cd, you just fix cd a lot easier.
Since the security of Microsoft systems became a significant factor in national security. Perhaps they could shift their efforts of illegally tipping off DEA agents into security audits of software vital to our infrastructure, since that would actually protect the security of the nation.
Worse is better is basically the KISS principle for software. C++ is not an example of that, but C is. This guy is an idiot.
If that were the case, I think everyone here would prefer to actually have that taken care of at the source, not through filtering Google..
Okay, so it seems to be pretty much only in France, which would explain why I didn't hear about it. It's a shame, as it seems like a convenient way of handling cohabitating couples that are increasingly common here.
Committed monogamy is not the same as marriage, though.
This is interesting, as it seems like something that might interest me more than a marriage. What exactly are PACS?
Unless, of course, you write a will. Granted, there's no solution for the tax issue. That's going to require the government to quit favoring certain lifestyles.
Oddly enough, they seem to ignore all the rules about constitutional limits to their powers, except perhaps for telling a lawyer so he can spin a way that it can be argued to not be breaking the law. Failing that, he'll find a way to pin it on somebody unimportant or already in hot water. And then there's just run of the mill corruption, abuse, and incompetence. They seem to select for a particular mindset far more than they select for moral superiority and genuine respect for law.
Our brains are very bad at handling big numbers, and it is quite often a limiting factor in our ability to grasp certain concepts. If your brain doesn't work correctly (which it doesn't with billions), then you might trick it into accepting the truth, or at least something closer than the truth. Whether or not marijuana or other drugs do that, and if they do, for which people, is a different story, but you are assuming that your sober state of mind is anywhere near rational, which suggests you've never actually been around a human being for an extended period of time.
You are assuming that there is a singular 'correct' perspective, when there can be benefits to taking in multiple perspectives.
It puts you in a different state of mind. You may or may not benefit from that state of mind, but there would generally not be a great risk of harm.
Only if we come to the conclusion that consenting to a search implicitly means consenting to totally relinquishing control of the account, which is not the case for anyone ever. It's also assuming that the consent to search was actually consensual as well, which it likely was not.
There are two sides of this. How much you can make, and what you can buy with it. The latter has improved considerably for everyone, but when adjusted for inflation, the income of middle class and poor households have stagnated despite the fact that the potential workforce has expanded, while the income of the rich has rose considerably. So, if you could have a job today or an inflation adjusted job from the 60s, the latter would be preferable.
If one person can take care of 4 people, carrying 20% of the population is pretty easy.
The problem is that we haven't made technological progress, but rather, that the average person is not keeping up with that progress. If weren't propping up the rich, we could have people working about as much as they did in the 60s, but having more awesome stuff.
The NSA is, for all practical purposes, a military organization, and it seems to have more or less invaded other parts of the federal government, so saying that there will be similar mindsets from the military is not unreasonable.
Increasing the standard of living decreases population growth, especially when women get a piece of that action. Despite your claims, most of the western world actually has sub-replacement birth rates. If your life is awesome, you don't want/need a bunch of kids to feel important and you've got better things to do with your life than just pump out kids.
It's worth keeping in mind the important differences, and that we've only wiped out smallpox and rinderpest, although hopefully polio will follow shortly. Also, the identification and degree of concern for Alzheimer's disease are fairly recent, as expanded lifespans make it a more relevant issue. Also, I would say that we are a lot further behind in regards to brain science/psychology than we are in regards to general immune function.