It was ordered by a court, a weary giant of flesh and steel, to remove from its index all articles that anyone wants removed.
The articles themselves are not removed. That would be impossible. This is the internet.
The articles in question can no longer be found with Google. They can still be found with Bing, Duck Duck Go, Baidu, or your own toy web-crawler. This is the internet.
Is it poor judgement by Google to obey the law?
Or is it poor judgement by the people to publish things they don't want to be public? Or to draw attention to the things they don't want you to know about?
We should also keep in mind that Linux itself, as a monolithic kernel, defies the concept.
It does not. Not only is the Linux kernel itself customizable at compile time to fit the needs of globally distributed supercomputers as well as wrist watches. In Debian you have the choice between Linux kernels, a FreeBSD kernel, and the Hurd. (Unless your software requires systemd.)
Is it really so far out of line to define systemd's one job as interfacing with every service provider in the OS?
No, and if that was all systemd was doing, there wouldn't be a problem.
But when you say "to prevent detection," that implies there is something to "detect," or something that you're deliberately trying to hide or avoid someone finding out.
Generation ships docking in space is an interesting concept.
Before ships couple their docking ports and become as one, they should first make sure that the other ship is trustworthy, it's intentions sincere, their expectations compatible. They should spend some time communicating to get to know each other before physical contact. There is also the magnetic potential to consider.
Once engaged, there will certainly be a lot of transfers between the ships: data, crew, atmosphere, maybe even liquids, but there is also the potential of communicable diseases spreading from ship to ship, that one crew or the other might not have built an immunity to yet.
The U.S. didn't benefit from the Iraq vote (most of the oil contracts went to non-US companies).
Saddam Hussein wanted to trade the oil in Euros. With the new government, Iraq's oil is still traded in Dollars. In which country the oil is traded is immaterial; it is exported mostly to the USA anyway.
I think the U.S. was wrong to invade without UN approval
In fact, it was a war crime, violating article 2.4 of the UN charta, and public international law.
Russia did benefit from the Crimea vote - they annexed a huge amount of territory.
And Crimea's debt, which they now must help pay off. At least in the short term, the annexation of Crimea was a loss for Russia.
If Russian had simply stood by the sidelines
Their naval base in Sewastopol made it impossible for them not to be involved in some way.
demanding secession from Ukraine
The Autonomous Crimean Republic had existed since 1921. It was put under Ukrainian governance in 1954. When the Ukraine seceded from Russia in 1992, Crimea became an autonomous republic again, albeit as part of the Ukraine.
the results are indistinguishable from if they invaded and held a rigged election.
Crimea invited international observers to the elections because of these concerns. There is no evidence of vote rigging.
The spyware was installed on a computer in Iran. If installing spyware is illegal in Iran (as it would have been in the USA absent a warrant), then the FBI has commited a crime.
if war is a necessity, it will be because of crazy leaders in Iran more then anything else.
What does that say about the leaders in the USA that they went to war with Afghanistan because of a crime commited in the USA?
Installing software that exposes the location of a computer used in violation of a country's laws should not be an act of war under any sane interpretation of any country's sovereignty.
As long as the interpretation is sane: In 2011, the USA have declared that they might retaliate against cyberattacks with a nuclear strike (though to be fair the cyberattack would have to be on the scale of Stuxnet).
The FBI is a police organisation, not a spy organisation (though catching spies is also part of their duties). So everything you said about spying is not relevant in this context.
You have a point in that they first needed to find out what country the person of interest was in. When they found out it was Iran, it should have become the responsibility of Iranian police.
Whether Iran would have to hand over one of their citizens for crimes comitted in the USA depends on whether Iran and the USA have a mutual extradition agreement. It is possible (IANAL) that the FBI violated Iranian laws by installing spyware on someone elses computer in Iran. (They didn't have a warrant from an Iranian judge.) Would the USA be willing to deliver those responsible, or would they rather harbour criminals within their borders and make war "a necessity"?
The point of the article is that if you are not American, you have no rights. Even if you did nothing illegal in your own country, the FBI will still get you. If you are American, don't leave the motherland if you know what's good for you.
The other point is that having to get a warrant hampers police investigations, so let police do whatever they want to whoever they want whereever they want already.
If America was a civilized country, they would colaborate with foreign police in foreign countries, the way police in civilized countries does, rather than ignore the laws of other countries and treat them like lawless territories.
You'll find it harder to drop a nuke on the accessible part of the Pentagon than targeting Shub-Internet, somewhere deep within the bowels of the Pentagon's basement, with a Low Orbit Ion Cannon or two.
Nowhere does it say that the attack needs to be successful to be considered an act of war.
(DO NOT wake the Beast That Must Not Be Pinged, Eater Of Packets, from its slumber! It is said that it will launch an ICBM towards the location of whoever dared disturb it. Or it might eat your internet connection. Either way, don't.)
I know quite a few girls who get turned on by "gay action". But I guess it's not the same reason a lot of guys enjoy "lesbo" flicks, it's simply that she could be part of it without having to really participate.
Sound exactly like the reason why guys enjoy lesbo flicks.
No icky phallus to disturb the picture of beauty of women in love.
(Be the stallion for women who don't want or need a stallion is appealing? Well, some people seem to enjoy rape fantasies; people like Pauline Reage.)
(Threesomes are a different beast. Girl getting it on with two straight men is a frequent women's fantasy, completely unlike men's threesome fantasies involving two women.)
Rarely do I meet a woman who talks to men she doesn't want to sleep with. And if one does, her peers have usually branded her a slut - while men enjoy her company for completely non-sexual reasons.
Likewise, rarely do men talk to women they wouldn't want to sleep with. And if one does, he has usually a reputation of being gay - among his peers, not necessarily among the women.
what the nature of [conscious experience] actually is.
It is an illusion. It doesn't exist.
People flatter themselves thinking they have a property they call "consciousness", that sets them apart from lesser things like rocks and machines and animals. They use this concept to obscure the fact that they only react to external stimuli, like everything else.
Brains keep an internal state that allows people to make predictions about themselves and their environment, including other people. This state is built - informed - from external stimuli, and modified by external stimuli, and just because it informes their actions, some which they observe, further modifying their brain's state, some people think they are somehow special.
The machina carnis is just that. There is no helmsman driving it. Consciousness is a myth, a convenient lie.
With all DNS root servers under US jurisdiction, any domain can be modified by the US. The system can not reliably determine automatically if a domain or hostname was revoked/redirected because of cencorship or anything else, and the changes affect the entire net per default.
In addition, most web content is hosted in the US, and therefore subject to US law as well as the users' local law(s). Most people that post on Facebook or have a site at Yahoo (in their own native language) don't realize that. When such content is taken offline at US discretion (which may be perfectly legal), people might perceive this as cencorship by a foreign power.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever watched someone play Minecraft?
Yes. Some people stage passable comedy and drama that way, making fun of movies and what not.
For the same reasons I don't get "e-sports" by the way. Playing a shooter is fun. But why the fuck would I want to watch someone do it?
I feel the same way about football.
Google did not decide to remove anything.
It was ordered by a court, a weary giant of flesh and steel, to remove from its index all articles that anyone wants removed.
The articles themselves are not removed. That would be impossible. This is the internet.
The articles in question can no longer be found with Google. They can still be found with Bing, Duck Duck Go, Baidu, or your own toy web-crawler. This is the internet.
Is it poor judgement by Google to obey the law?
Or is it poor judgement by the people to publish things they don't want to be public?
Or to draw attention to the things they don't want you to know about?
The wild west had a lot of advantages over "civilization", you did not have to suffer fools.
I posit instead that fools did not have to suffer you.
We should also keep in mind that Linux itself, as a monolithic kernel, defies the concept.
It does not. Not only is the Linux kernel itself customizable at compile time to fit the needs of globally distributed supercomputers as well as wrist watches.
In Debian you have the choice between Linux kernels, a FreeBSD kernel, and the Hurd. (Unless your software requires systemd.)
Is it really so far out of line to define systemd's one job as interfacing with every service provider in the OS?
No, and if that was all systemd was doing, there wouldn't be a problem.
But when you say "to prevent detection," that implies there is something to "detect," or something that you're deliberately trying to hide or avoid someone finding out.
Like, say, your identity.
If native life on Mars is found, they will say: "But it was created here."
it's probably more important to give accurate information so people who might try it don't in advertently poison themselves
the way it's presented in Breaking Bad you'd go right down the wrong path
Basically the producers of the show want people to poison themselves when they try something illegal. Technically it is not captial punishment.
Generation ships docking in space is an interesting concept.
Before ships couple their docking ports and become as one, they should first make sure that the other ship is trustworthy, it's intentions sincere, their expectations compatible. They should spend some time communicating to get to know each other before physical contact. There is also the magnetic potential to consider.
Once engaged, there will certainly be a lot of transfers between the ships: data, crew, atmosphere, maybe even liquids, but there is also the potential of communicable diseases spreading from ship to ship, that one crew or the other might not have built an immunity to yet.
Why would any generation born and raised on a starship ever want to colonize a planet?
The U.S. didn't benefit from the Iraq vote (most of the oil contracts went to non-US companies).
Saddam Hussein wanted to trade the oil in Euros. With the new government, Iraq's oil is still traded in Dollars. In which country the oil is traded is immaterial; it is exported mostly to the USA anyway.
I think the U.S. was wrong to invade without UN approval
In fact, it was a war crime, violating article 2.4 of the UN charta, and public international law.
Russia did benefit from the Crimea vote - they annexed a huge amount of territory.
And Crimea's debt, which they now must help pay off. At least in the short term, the annexation of Crimea was a loss for Russia.
If Russian had simply stood by the sidelines
Their naval base in Sewastopol made it impossible for them not to be involved in some way.
demanding secession from Ukraine
The Autonomous Crimean Republic had existed since 1921. It was put under Ukrainian governance in 1954. When the Ukraine seceded from Russia in 1992, Crimea became an autonomous republic again, albeit as part of the Ukraine.
the results are indistinguishable from if they invaded and held a rigged election.
Crimea invited international observers to the elections because of these concerns. There is no evidence of vote rigging.
The spyware was installed on a computer in Iran. If installing spyware is illegal in Iran (as it would have been in the USA absent a warrant), then the FBI has commited a crime.
What does that say about the leaders in the USA that they went to war with Afghanistan because of a crime commited in the USA?
As long as the interpretation is sane: In 2011, the USA have declared that they might retaliate against cyberattacks with a nuclear strike (though to be fair the cyberattack would have to be on the scale of Stuxnet).
The FBI is a police organisation, not a spy organisation (though catching spies is also part of their duties). So everything you said about spying is not relevant in this context.
You have a point in that they first needed to find out what country the person of interest was in. When they found out it was Iran, it should have become the responsibility of Iranian police.
Whether Iran would have to hand over one of their citizens for crimes comitted in the USA depends on whether Iran and the USA have a mutual extradition agreement.
It is possible (IANAL) that the FBI violated Iranian laws by installing spyware on someone elses computer in Iran. (They didn't have a warrant from an Iranian judge.) Would the USA be willing to deliver those responsible, or would they rather harbour criminals within their borders and make war "a necessity"?
The point of the article is that if you are not American, you have no rights. Even if you did nothing illegal in your own country, the FBI will still get you. If you are American, don't leave the motherland if you know what's good for you.
The other point is that having to get a warrant hampers police investigations, so let police do whatever they want to whoever they want whereever they want already.
If America was a civilized country, they would colaborate with foreign police in foreign countries, the way police in civilized countries does, rather than ignore the laws of other countries and treat them like lawless territories.
What happens to military officers and personnel who follow and carry out illegal orders?
Eventually this mentality demands a broader and broader definition of who the "oppressors" are.
-- crush all humen --
Why would you expend all the effort and expense to do all of that? As it stands now, all you'd have to do is leave them to their own devices.
Yes, their own devices shall have this effect.
You'll find it harder to drop a nuke on the accessible part of the Pentagon
than targeting Shub-Internet, somewhere deep within the bowels of the Pentagon's basement, with a Low Orbit Ion Cannon or two.
Nowhere does it say that the attack needs to be successful to be considered an act of war.
(DO NOT wake the Beast That Must Not Be Pinged, Eater Of Packets, from its slumber! It is said that it will launch an ICBM towards the location of whoever dared disturb it. Or it might eat your internet connection. Either way, don't.)
shub-internet.ims.disa.mil
I know quite a few girls who get turned on by "gay action". But I guess it's not the same reason a lot of guys enjoy "lesbo" flicks, it's simply that she could be part of it without having to really participate.
Sound exactly like the reason why guys enjoy lesbo flicks.
No icky phallus to disturb the picture of beauty of women in love.
(Be the stallion for women who don't want or need a stallion is appealing? Well, some people seem to enjoy rape fantasies; people like Pauline Reage.)
(Threesomes are a different beast. Girl getting it on with two straight men is a frequent women's fantasy, completely unlike men's threesome fantasies involving two women.)
Rarely do I meet a woman who talks to men she doesn't want to sleep with. And if one does, her peers have usually branded her a slut - while men enjoy her company for completely non-sexual reasons.
Likewise, rarely do men talk to women they wouldn't want to sleep with. And if one does, he has usually a reputation of being gay - among his peers, not necessarily among the women.
Eventually this mentality demands a broader and broader definition of who the "oppressors" are.
-- crush all humen --
what the nature of [conscious experience] actually is.
It is an illusion. It doesn't exist.
People flatter themselves thinking they have a property they call "consciousness", that sets them apart from lesser things like rocks and machines and animals. They use this concept to obscure the fact that they only react to external stimuli, like everything else.
Brains keep an internal state that allows people to make predictions about themselves and their environment, including other people. This state is built - informed - from external stimuli, and modified by external stimuli, and just because it informes their actions, some which they observe, further modifying their brain's state, some people think they are somehow special.
The machina carnis is just that. There is no helmsman driving it. Consciousness is a myth, a convenient lie.
Does it matter?
Someone will know someone who knows.
With all DNS root servers under US jurisdiction,
any domain can be modified by the US.
The system can not reliably determine automatically if a domain or hostname was revoked/redirected because of cencorship or anything else, and the changes affect the entire net per default.
In addition, most web content is hosted in the US, and therefore subject to US law as well as the users' local law(s). Most people that post on Facebook or have a site at Yahoo (in their own native language) don't realize that. When such content is taken offline at US discretion (which may be perfectly legal), people might perceive this as cencorship by a foreign power.
1945, but I think it was not intentional.
China censors the internet in China,
Europe censors the internet in Europe,
and America censors the internet for the world.
Chinese can protest against Chinese censorship,
Europeans can vote against European censorship,
and neither can stop American censorship.
How wrong am I?
I see there's a "Mount chroot"... Why is chroot a mountain?
It's a pun, about as clever and funny as the rest of the map.