This is, quite literally, an attempt by Congress to make a law limiting the Freedom of Speech: prohibiting them from telling others something they've learned... Learned without any prior promise not to tell others...
Her crime is, at least, identifiable — unlike "collusion", the gross negligence in handling classified information is a felony.
And we know, it was gross negligence — even if her buddies at the FBI have changed it to "extreme carelessness" to help her avoid prosecution. A prosecution she richly deserved even if a certain FBI director concluded, that "no reasonable prosecutor" would pursue it...
In other words, that some people are prosecuted unfairly for "crimes" imagined by their enemies, does not absolve other people of actual felonies. Nor does it reflect poorly on those, who insist, the felons be properly punished.
Although unproven — indeed, unprovable, because there is no such crime — the "collusion" allegations must be repeated on the daily basis until they become accepted by the mainstream. To the point, where the low information voter just says: "Well, everyone knows it — just google it or something".
You were trying to make some kind of point, of that I am sure. But you didn't... Could you try again, maybe? Are you arguing in support of censoring somebody else's memories? Because it can now be done by "the people" instead of by tyrants?
To assert the "right to be forgotten" is to assert power over other people's memories. There is no such thing — and there should not be.
If you insist on creating one — for the "evil KKKorporations" — one day your ex will have the power to insist, your memories of the time together be wiped out. It is already possible.
What argument is there in support of "net neutrality", which would not apply to "road neutrality" and "parking neutrality": abolishing all laws and road-signs treating trucks, as well as business-owned vehicles, apart from cars and personal pleasure-vehicles?
"We believe that Google should not be in the business of war,"
Because we have no enemies — only friends, whose grievances we've failed to address so far. Let's elect another Obama to make the entire world love us once again.
uses artificial intelligence to interpret video imagery and could be used to improve the targeting of drone strikes
That means a growing number of people lack employer-sponsored benefits like paid leave, health care, and retirement assistance.
Actually, no, it does not mean that at all. I've had my own corporation for over 10 years, and always carried health insurance as well as contributed to by own Keogh Plan.
Doing business as your own corporation is enormously liberating, in fact — in a very real sense. You can change a clients, but you don't have to change your retirement plan arrangements, nor your insurer, for example.
What really worries the Illiberals at Brookings is that people working for themselves do not hate "corporations" and are harder to control and less reliant on the benevolent and omniscient government bureaucrats (a.k.a. "the swamp"). Stalin forced peasants into collective farms for the same reasons — independent ones tend to obtain a few things to lose other than their "chains"...
Those robber barons also profited (immensely!!) from our communications, and cared not, if terrorists benefited from the ease of communication along with the billions of others!
Boycott and divest from all of the communication companies!
gravewax also didn't say that the Registry "has to" do anything
His comment was in defense of the EU action from the OP's and mine accusations of pettiness and petulance.
The defense amounted to a claim, that the threatened domain-cancellation is, somehow, required by some law, bylaw, or procedure. His words, which you just repeated, alluded to it being necessary because the affected companies and persons will no longer reside in the EU hence no longer "under EU trading regulations".
A request to cite a law, bylaw, or procedure, that requires such an action, remains unsatisfied.
This controls, who may become an accredited Registrar. It has nothing to do with revoking an earlier-issued accreditation. Issued in good faith to a then-qualified organization.
The Registry may revoke a domain name at its own initiative and without submitting the dispute to any extrajudicial settlement of conflicts, exclusively on the following grounds:
[....] (b) holder's non-fulfilment of the general eligibility criteria pursuant to Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) 733/2002;
This says may — it is up to the Registry. That it chooses to exercise this option is just that: petty and petulant.
I didn't say, it is illegal for them to do — I only disputed the assertion by gravewax, that they have to do it.
.EU means that the company or person resides in the EU and hence is under EU trading regulations.
Does it? I do not see any such language in the domain's governing document, but I may be tired and just not seeing it.
But I doubt, it is there, because, when the document was written in 2004, nobody could even imagine a country leaving the EU.
The meaning you propose is too limiting — being registered under.EU may also mean, that the company or person used to reside in the Union.
Just as the number of companies and persons used to reside in the Soviet Union, which no longer exists.
This looks more like spouses divorcing and threatening each other's items out of sheer spite. Hence "petty" and "petulant".
In return Britain should try to banish the use of English language on the.EU domains — when they leave, there will no countries left in the EU, where English is a national language:)
Slashdot Mirror
This is, quite literally, an attempt by Congress to make a law limiting the Freedom of Speech: prohibiting them from telling others something they've learned... Learned without any prior promise not to tell others...
If the Amendment protects the right of newspapers to publish state secrets , why wouldn't it also protect "social media" companies' right to publish our private little ones?
Who is Ajit Pai's peer at the FTC? We need to start piling up the hate on him too for choosing KKKorporate interests over those of the People!!!
Oh, wait...
Her crime is, at least, identifiable — unlike "collusion", the gross negligence in handling classified information is a felony.
And we know, it was gross negligence — even if her buddies at the FBI have changed it to "extreme carelessness" to help her avoid prosecution. A prosecution she richly deserved even if a certain FBI director concluded, that "no reasonable prosecutor" would pursue it...
In other words, that some people are prosecuted unfairly for "crimes" imagined by their enemies, does not absolve other people of actual felonies. Nor does it reflect poorly on those, who insist, the felons be properly punished.
Although unproven — indeed, unprovable, because there is no such crime — the "collusion" allegations must be repeated on the daily basis until they become accepted by the mainstream. To the point, where the low information voter just says: "Well, everyone knows it — just google it or something".
A giant multinational KKKorporation controlling — or attempting to control — US Government.
The so called "Liberals" side with the corporation...
You were trying to make some kind of point, of that I am sure. But you didn't... Could you try again, maybe? Are you arguing in support of censoring somebody else's memories? Because it can now be done by "the people" instead of by tyrants?
Yet, the write-up claims, the did... Hence my question...
To assert the "right to be forgotten" is to assert power over other people's memories. There is no such thing — and there should not be.
If you insist on creating one — for the "evil KKKorporations" — one day your ex will have the power to insist, your memories of the time together be wiped out. It is already possible.
Is it Ok to hate certain white hood-wearers? How about those with red stars and hammer-and-sickle?
Stop-signs are neutral. I was talking about laws, that ban certain cars from certain traffic lanes and parking spots.
Try again...
No, we do not. There are entire roads off-limits to business-owned vehicles. There are parking spots for commercial cars only. On many highways trucks and buses aren't allowed in the left-most lanes.
You were saying?..
What argument is there in support of "net neutrality", which would not apply to "road neutrality" and "parking neutrality": abolishing all laws and road-signs treating trucks, as well as business-owned vehicles, apart from cars and personal pleasure-vehicles?
If you wanted to present some horrible nightmare scenario, you failed...
Because we have no enemies — only friends, whose grievances we've failed to address so far. Let's elect another Obama to make the entire world love us once again.
Precise weapon is a human weapon.
Nothing I said argues against calling 911.
Only that you better be prepared to defend yourself — because no one else has to. Somebody else still might, you see, but no one else has to.
Arm yourself — police have no obligation to defend you and even if they choose to do it, you may not be their top priority.
Self-defense is an inalienable human right — which also happens to be recorded in America's 2nd Constitutional Amendment.
Actually, no, it does not mean that at all. I've had my own corporation for over 10 years, and always carried health insurance as well as contributed to by own Keogh Plan.
Doing business as your own corporation is enormously liberating, in fact — in a very real sense. You can change a clients, but you don't have to change your retirement plan arrangements, nor your insurer, for example.
What really worries the Illiberals at Brookings is that people working for themselves do not hate "corporations" and are harder to control and less reliant on the benevolent and omniscient government bureaucrats (a.k.a. "the swamp"). Stalin forced peasants into collective farms for the same reasons — independent ones tend to obtain a few things to lose other than their "chains"...
Those robber barons also profited (immensely!!) from our communications, and cared not, if terrorists benefited from the ease of communication along with the billions of others!
Boycott and divest from all of the communication companies!
The rule of thumb is, if one has to explicitly call it "prestigious" when describing, there is no prestige gained by getting it...
Ok, what's your reading of it?
His comment was in defense of the EU action from the OP's and mine accusations of pettiness and petulance.
The defense amounted to a claim, that the threatened domain-cancellation is, somehow, required by some law, bylaw, or procedure. His words, which you just repeated, alluded to it being necessary because the affected companies and persons will no longer reside in the EU hence no longer "under EU trading regulations".
A request to cite a law, bylaw, or procedure, that requires such an action, remains unsatisfied.
An impartial observer would conclude, that he was not. Do we have any such observers here, though?
This controls, who may become an accredited Registrar. It has nothing to do with revoking an earlier-issued accreditation. Issued in good faith to a then-qualified organization.
This says may — it is up to the Registry. That it chooses to exercise this option is just that: petty and petulant.
I didn't say, it is illegal for them to do — I only disputed the assertion by gravewax, that they have to do it.
Please, site the clause you are referring to. Thanks!
Does it? I do not see any such language in the domain's governing document, but I may be tired and just not seeing it.
But I doubt, it is there, because, when the document was written in 2004, nobody could even imagine a country leaving the EU.
The meaning you propose is too limiting — being registered under .EU may also mean, that the company or person used to reside in the Union.
Just as the number of companies and persons used to reside in the Soviet Union, which no longer exists.
This looks more like spouses divorcing and threatening each other's items out of sheer spite. Hence "petty" and "petulant".
In return Britain should try to banish the use of English language on the .EU domains — when they leave, there will no countries left in the EU, where English is a national language :)