What a laugh. They can certainly do so. All they need to do is ask Google and Google needs to agree to it in order for it to happen. DMCA requests to Google already expunge data from Google IN ALL COUNTRIES, not just the US.
any other help you need today moron?
at this point i have to conclude you're just trolling me
i'm not a nice person. and this is not couple's therapy
if someone says something stupefyingly dumb (on a "news for nerds" website no less), they deserve to be pilloried
i understand the concept of educating the ignorant patiently. but then there is stupidity so amazing there is no hope
prideful ignorance exists in this world. it resists logic reason and patience. such stupidity needs to be attacked for the cancer it is (irony intended). blind and dumb people actually cause real damage in this world
Um, no. I never said that. Read it again. And use caps.
i understand exactly what you said. and i additionally understand that your comment does not address the actual topic. i will use caps just as soon as you actually try to understand the fucking topic in front of you, and then commenting
furthermore, to actually follow you down your lame red herring topic change, just to completely show your idiocy (as if you confusing music sharing with "right to be forgotten" didn't do that effectively enough):
you don't think that all sorts of countries twist the arms of all sorts of multinationals for all sorts of lame reasons already? that's just corporate life. this isn't new or even noteworthy
the hard line, the important point, is that the sovereignty of a *country*'s laws is not subjugated to the fickle bullshit of another country's ignorant laws
of course governments often go into treaties and agree on limited exceptions to their sovereign laws. these situations are narrow and up for constant review. that's fine too
but i can guarantee you no US government is going to respect French requests to censor based on this useless "right to be forgotten" band aid, ever. the request will be laughed at and waved out of the room, as it should be
finally, if france does kick out google, the usa reciprocates against french companies operating in the usa for the fickle bullshit of a logically incoherent and invalid law. so france won't do it, or they will hear from their influential multinationals
any questions? any other remedial hand holding you need today on this topic?
and france has the wrong understanding of the topic and the immoral position
additionally, if france does kick out google, the usa reciprocates against french companies operating in the usa for the fickle bullshit of a logically incoherent and invalid law
news like this makes me so mad. because it demonstrates something wonderful we as a civilization have achieved time and again. something that should be applauded and celebrated and championed:
1. disease, unfair deaths
2. science, hard work by intelligent people
3. vaccine, innocent lives saved
it's obvious, straightforward, undeniable, a wonderful good
against that we have prideful ignorance, that continues to claim the lives of innocent children and others, simply because of their various paranoid conspiracy theories, lies, and petulant low iq
in a just world, those who don't vaccinate die from ebola
in the real world, those who do vaccinate protect those who do not, and when the herd immunity breaks down, because of the unvaccinated, the vulnerable innocent and the unlucky few who got a vaccine but it didn't take hold, also die
objectively, based on the content of what you just wrote, you are a moron. not a baseless insult, an accurate characterization of the content of your thoughts, to be someone who wrote what you just wrote
which is fine. but we're talking about the law of sovereign countries
you don't think that all sorts of countries twist the arms of all sorts of multinationals for all sorts of lame reasons already?
that's just corporate life
the hard line, the important point, is that the sovereignty of a *country*'s laws is not subjugated to the fickle bullshit of another country's ignorant laws
of course governments often go into treaties and agree on limited exceptions to their sovereign laws. these situations are limited, narrow, and up for constant review. that's fine too. nothing's perfect
but i can guarantee you no US government is going to respect French requests to censor based on this useless "right to be forgotten" band aid, ever. the request will be laughed at and waved out of the room, as it should be
we have different definitions of what is better and right then
there is no "rule by rumor". there are indeed weak minded and weak willed gossip victims who will judge people based on rumors. which will always exist. the proper response is to disregard such individuals. don't date someone who would judge you based on teenaged hijinks or don't work for a company that judges you based on nude pictures released against your authorization
the proper response to such weak individuals is to sue them because their "judgment" is invalid. of course you can't sue someone who doesn't want to date you (in fact, they are doing you a favor by removing themselves from consideration after judging you for stupid crap), but you can bring action against the company that wouldn't hire you for example for unsubstantiated crap
what is definitely not better or right, but you seem to support, is to elevate venomous gossip hounds to protected status, that their "judgments" have power and respect. for example, the vicious woman who would judge you and drop you because of something stupid you did as a teenager is now *NOT* removed from your dating pool, and you wind up dating or marrying them. now your life is hell. or you work for a petty vindictive and overly judgmental shallow boss. you've removed the real protection from such vile people by protecting their weak and invalid judgments, by giving them power and authority and saying you have to hide and run in shame about the foibles that are in everyone's life. rather than simply defying their cruel bullshit and disregarding or rejecting their presence in your life
why are you laughing? you're saying that a foreign government's request to censor news information about individuals ("right to be forgotten") will be legally enforceable in the USA. this is a different topic than sharing music or movies
if you don't understand the topic, don't comment on it
you mean: for any reason which violates the principle of free speech
now we have to make sure you understand what free speech means:
1. brain dead "anything that can ever be said is ok and is fair game"
2. free speech as limited by forms of speech that impinge on other basic freedoms (threats to murder, child porn, the proverbial shout of "fire" in a crowded theatre, etc.)
all freedoms exist in tension with other freedoms. your freedom is most frequently violated by morons around you, not big bad evil government out to destroy your freedom for shits and giggles like a cartoon villain (this doesn't excuse government free speech violations, it only puts it in context of the topic in this comment)
examples of freedoms in tension: my freedom to listen at music at 2 AM, your freedom to get a good night's sleep. your freedom to drive as fast as you want, my freedom not to die in a car crash. your freedom to take a piss right now, my freedom to grow petunias in my front yard
so now, once we have graduated from the airhead immature teenaged definition of freedom "i can do whatever the fuck i want, be damned the consequences," and we understand that true freedom means "i can do whatever the fuck i want, as long as i don't limit other people's freedoms" then we have a logically coherent and valid definition of free speech: speech which does not hurt other people's freedoms (incitement to murder, child porn, "fire" in theatre, etc.)
meanwhile, if you think something like child porn should be allowed, you simply do not understand what freedom or free speech is
you really don't. i am being 100% serious
if you think something like child porn should be allowed, you're playing with a simpleton's teenaged immature definition of freedom that is invalid and only marks you as a clueless idiot or a malicious douchebag
laws exist with philosophical and moral validity, like against murder, and without philosophical and moral validity, like against marijuana
history is replete with people disobeying stupid and useless laws, and forcing change. civil disobedience. just because a law exists you blindly follow it without thought?
"Well, the creeper took nude pics of me walking around home naked and posted them on the internet. I was pissed until I realized that information just wants to be free, so like whatever."
no: you sue the creeper asshole into oblivion and/ or have them arrested and thrown into jail. that's the solution. just like i said above. you completely misrepresent my point, you don't understand my point, or you replied without even reading it!
furthermore, yeah: the photos are out there. the genie is out of bottle. you can't put it back. just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can change reality. i don't like the fact i will die someday. can i pass a law against death and that solves the problem? you want to snap your fingers and magic happens? tell me: how do you catch all the copies of a picture that has gone viral on the internet. explain to me how you do that
you don't. you can't. i'm not happy about this, i merely understand reality. you either think i'm happy about that ugly truth or you think i'm saying you can't do anything about it (you can: punish the creeper). what you are doing is shooting the messenger because i am telling you an ugly truth and you don't like the ugly truth. that's fine, you don't have to like it. but you shouldn't be angry at me for simply explaining reality to you
did you read my allegory? if i break your leg, do you:
1. arrest/ sue me
2. snap your fingers and make your leg magically not broken
there are laws against murder for example. do the laws say:
1. punish murderers
2. make murdered people magically brought back to life
2. i'm not allowed to talk about the philosophical bankruptcy of the concept behind the law?
in which case, i apologize: i did not know you had conversation topic authority here. or maybe you don't and you should try contributing to the topic or ignoring my comment. but acting like you're my father just tells us you are probably compensating for some social deficit in real life, and that i want to borrow your car keys. your comment is without merit
it is a feel-good, empty band aid law for technologically illiterate people
1. you can easily circumvent it by accessing google with a vpn in another country, which is second nature for anyone vaguely aware. if that employer or possible date looks you up, it takes 15 seconds more effort. they will do it. they won't blindly accept and abide by the censorial coddling of the EU like good little citizens
2. any employer or date who will disregard you for stupid shit you did as a teenager is no one you want to date/ work for anyway. furthermore, those employers/ dates actually do have a right to know your sordid background if you are hiding actual real evil shit you once did
but the real problem is the philosophical concept behind the law
there is no such thing as a "right to be forgotten." this is not "information wants to be free dude" half bakes philosophical sophistry. this is the basic concept of reality that you can't control information. once it gets out there, it's out there, no take backs. so be careful who you tell your private shit. even if someone betrays your confidence, or records you without your authorization, you don't get to magically erase public information. what you do is sue or prosecute the person who wronged you
allegory:
if i push you out a window, you should have me arrested and jailed for assault. but what you can't do is go "pushing me out a window was wrong, so magically i want it to be like i never got pushed out a window and my leg broke" (*POOF* leg magically heals). reality does not work that way. and that's the same idiocy behind "right to be forgotten" magic unicorn wipe public information law
They would never prosecute the NSA, they don't want to lose those agreements.
The NSA spying on Merkel is a diplomatic faux pas, but it changes nothing. The German people get angry, German politicians say a few huffy words, and no one doers anything. Because Germany is playing the same game the NSA is in every capacity with the BND.
You are a fool if you think it will ever be otherwise and you are bigger fool if you are German and you think it should be otherwise. The point of spying is to gather vital intelligence. Every nation does it. Every nation always will. What kind of airhead thinks it will ever be otherwise or should be otherwise? To respect people's private information? Am I supposed to laugh?
Does anyone think a few idealistic naive bloggers is ever going to change the nature of espionage? Are there really people out there who think espionage can ever be respectful or honest or straightforward?
I agree they should not prosecute the bloggers, but exactly what the hell were these bloggers thinking? They were going to shut down or change the nature of spying? Make it respectful and transparent? What kind of quixotic cluelessness about reality is this?
1. if not by species, then maybe by subspecies, or some sublte variation within a species, that they could attach an area to where the wing developed the attached creatures
2. if there are variations in isotopes the marine species would absorb differentially by area, if that can be pinpointed to an area. that would probably be very subtle and not helpful. just an idea
it means they introduce programming to younger kids. you imagine kids chained in a classroom with their eyes propped open forced to watch bubble sort algorithms?
is learning music "forcing culturally objectionable content on our children"?
is learning math "forced march into the voodoo underlying antireligious science and anti free market economics?"
so i repeat: where the fuck do you low iq conspiracy theory morons come from?
it's actually a serious question. i have a serious difficulty understanding how a functioning human being can arrive at the deranged socially retarded concept you put forth in your comment. i'm 100% serious
Slashdot Mirror
thank you
perhaps
and here you are, reading and responding
you are what you hate
good, glad to entertain, that's the right attitude
usually, if someone is not nice to you, you avoid them. are you a masochist? do you crave social contact so badly abuse is acceptable?
if you see a comment of mine, don't read it. and don't respond to it. is this concept too complicated and confusing for you?
wow! really? did you read the fucking sentence right after the one you quoted genius?
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
any other help you need today moron?
at this point i have to conclude you're just trolling me
i'm not a nice person. and this is not couple's therapy
if someone says something stupefyingly dumb (on a "news for nerds" website no less), they deserve to be pilloried
i understand the concept of educating the ignorant patiently. but then there is stupidity so amazing there is no hope
prideful ignorance exists in this world. it resists logic reason and patience. such stupidity needs to be attacked for the cancer it is (irony intended). blind and dumb people actually cause real damage in this world
i understand exactly what you said. and i additionally understand that your comment does not address the actual topic. i will use caps just as soon as you actually try to understand the fucking topic in front of you, and then commenting
furthermore, to actually follow you down your lame red herring topic change, just to completely show your idiocy (as if you confusing music sharing with "right to be forgotten" didn't do that effectively enough):
you don't think that all sorts of countries twist the arms of all sorts of multinationals for all sorts of lame reasons already? that's just corporate life. this isn't new or even noteworthy
the hard line, the important point, is that the sovereignty of a *country*'s laws is not subjugated to the fickle bullshit of another country's ignorant laws
of course governments often go into treaties and agree on limited exceptions to their sovereign laws. these situations are narrow and up for constant review. that's fine too
but i can guarantee you no US government is going to respect French requests to censor based on this useless "right to be forgotten" band aid, ever. the request will be laughed at and waved out of the room, as it should be
finally, if france does kick out google, the usa reciprocates against french companies operating in the usa for the fickle bullshit of a logically incoherent and invalid law. so france won't do it, or they will hear from their influential multinationals
any questions? any other remedial hand holding you need today on this topic?
it is a moral issue
and france has the wrong understanding of the topic and the immoral position
additionally, if france does kick out google, the usa reciprocates against french companies operating in the usa for the fickle bullshit of a logically incoherent and invalid law
news like this makes me so mad. because it demonstrates something wonderful we as a civilization have achieved time and again. something that should be applauded and celebrated and championed:
1. disease, unfair deaths
2. science, hard work by intelligent people
3. vaccine, innocent lives saved
it's obvious, straightforward, undeniable, a wonderful good
against that we have prideful ignorance, that continues to claim the lives of innocent children and others, simply because of their various paranoid conspiracy theories, lies, and petulant low iq
in a just world, those who don't vaccinate die from ebola
in the real world, those who do vaccinate protect those who do not, and when the herd immunity breaks down, because of the unvaccinated, the vulnerable innocent and the unlucky few who got a vaccine but it didn't take hold, also die
objectively, based on the content of what you just wrote, you are a moron. not a baseless insult, an accurate characterization of the content of your thoughts, to be someone who wrote what you just wrote
which is fine. but we're talking about the law of sovereign countries
you don't think that all sorts of countries twist the arms of all sorts of multinationals for all sorts of lame reasons already?
that's just corporate life
the hard line, the important point, is that the sovereignty of a *country*'s laws is not subjugated to the fickle bullshit of another country's ignorant laws
of course governments often go into treaties and agree on limited exceptions to their sovereign laws. these situations are limited, narrow, and up for constant review. that's fine too. nothing's perfect
but i can guarantee you no US government is going to respect French requests to censor based on this useless "right to be forgotten" band aid, ever. the request will be laughed at and waved out of the room, as it should be
we have different definitions of what is better and right then
there is no "rule by rumor". there are indeed weak minded and weak willed gossip victims who will judge people based on rumors. which will always exist. the proper response is to disregard such individuals. don't date someone who would judge you based on teenaged hijinks or don't work for a company that judges you based on nude pictures released against your authorization
the proper response to such weak individuals is to sue them because their "judgment" is invalid. of course you can't sue someone who doesn't want to date you (in fact, they are doing you a favor by removing themselves from consideration after judging you for stupid crap), but you can bring action against the company that wouldn't hire you for example for unsubstantiated crap
what is definitely not better or right, but you seem to support, is to elevate venomous gossip hounds to protected status, that their "judgments" have power and respect. for example, the vicious woman who would judge you and drop you because of something stupid you did as a teenager is now *NOT* removed from your dating pool, and you wind up dating or marrying them. now your life is hell. or you work for a petty vindictive and overly judgmental shallow boss. you've removed the real protection from such vile people by protecting their weak and invalid judgments, by giving them power and authority and saying you have to hide and run in shame about the foibles that are in everyone's life. rather than simply defying their cruel bullshit and disregarding or rejecting their presence in your life
why are you laughing? you're saying that a foreign government's request to censor news information about individuals ("right to be forgotten") will be legally enforceable in the USA. this is a different topic than sharing music or movies
if you don't understand the topic, don't comment on it
please define how i am trolling, dear anonymous coward making a personal attack (the actual trolling here). justify your accusation
you mean: for any reason which violates the principle of free speech
now we have to make sure you understand what free speech means:
1. brain dead "anything that can ever be said is ok and is fair game"
2. free speech as limited by forms of speech that impinge on other basic freedoms (threats to murder, child porn, the proverbial shout of "fire" in a crowded theatre, etc.)
all freedoms exist in tension with other freedoms. your freedom is most frequently violated by morons around you, not big bad evil government out to destroy your freedom for shits and giggles like a cartoon villain (this doesn't excuse government free speech violations, it only puts it in context of the topic in this comment)
examples of freedoms in tension: my freedom to listen at music at 2 AM, your freedom to get a good night's sleep. your freedom to drive as fast as you want, my freedom not to die in a car crash. your freedom to take a piss right now, my freedom to grow petunias in my front yard
so now, once we have graduated from the airhead immature teenaged definition of freedom "i can do whatever the fuck i want, be damned the consequences," and we understand that true freedom means "i can do whatever the fuck i want, as long as i don't limit other people's freedoms" then we have a logically coherent and valid definition of free speech: speech which does not hurt other people's freedoms (incitement to murder, child porn, "fire" in theatre, etc.)
meanwhile, if you think something like child porn should be allowed, you simply do not understand what freedom or free speech is
you really don't. i am being 100% serious
if you think something like child porn should be allowed, you're playing with a simpleton's teenaged immature definition of freedom that is invalid and only marks you as a clueless idiot or a malicious douchebag
you completely miss the point
laws exist with philosophical and moral validity, like against murder, and without philosophical and moral validity, like against marijuana
history is replete with people disobeying stupid and useless laws, and forcing change. civil disobedience. just because a law exists you blindly follow it without thought?
no: you sue the creeper asshole into oblivion and/ or have them arrested and thrown into jail. that's the solution. just like i said above. you completely misrepresent my point, you don't understand my point, or you replied without even reading it!
furthermore, yeah: the photos are out there. the genie is out of bottle. you can't put it back. just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can change reality. i don't like the fact i will die someday. can i pass a law against death and that solves the problem? you want to snap your fingers and magic happens? tell me: how do you catch all the copies of a picture that has gone viral on the internet. explain to me how you do that
you don't. you can't. i'm not happy about this, i merely understand reality. you either think i'm happy about that ugly truth or you think i'm saying you can't do anything about it (you can: punish the creeper). what you are doing is shooting the messenger because i am telling you an ugly truth and you don't like the ugly truth. that's fine, you don't have to like it. but you shouldn't be angry at me for simply explaining reality to you
did you read my allegory? if i break your leg, do you:
1. arrest/ sue me
2. snap your fingers and make your leg magically not broken
there are laws against murder for example. do the laws say:
1. punish murderers
2. make murdered people magically brought back to life
figure it out
you believe espionage will go away someday? how or why?
the desire to know information someone else is hiding will pretty much always exist as long as human nature exists
I do know: the French can't pass a law that censors information in the USA. It's not going to happen. Ever. I will bet my life on that.
Which they should do, and is a completely unrelated topic.
1. that's never going to happen
2. i'm not allowed to talk about the philosophical bankruptcy of the concept behind the law?
in which case, i apologize: i did not know you had conversation topic authority here. or maybe you don't and you should try contributing to the topic or ignoring my comment. but acting like you're my father just tells us you are probably compensating for some social deficit in real life, and that i want to borrow your car keys. your comment is without merit
it is a feel-good, empty band aid law for technologically illiterate people
1. you can easily circumvent it by accessing google with a vpn in another country, which is second nature for anyone vaguely aware. if that employer or possible date looks you up, it takes 15 seconds more effort. they will do it. they won't blindly accept and abide by the censorial coddling of the EU like good little citizens
2. any employer or date who will disregard you for stupid shit you did as a teenager is no one you want to date/ work for anyway. furthermore, those employers/ dates actually do have a right to know your sordid background if you are hiding actual real evil shit you once did
but the real problem is the philosophical concept behind the law
there is no such thing as a "right to be forgotten." this is not "information wants to be free dude" half bakes philosophical sophistry. this is the basic concept of reality that you can't control information. once it gets out there, it's out there, no take backs. so be careful who you tell your private shit. even if someone betrays your confidence, or records you without your authorization, you don't get to magically erase public information. what you do is sue or prosecute the person who wronged you
allegory:
if i push you out a window, you should have me arrested and jailed for assault. but what you can't do is go "pushing me out a window was wrong, so magically i want it to be like i never got pushed out a window and my leg broke" (*POOF* leg magically heals). reality does not work that way. and that's the same idiocy behind "right to be forgotten" magic unicorn wipe public information law
They would never prosecute the NSA, they don't want to lose those agreements.
The NSA spying on Merkel is a diplomatic faux pas, but it changes nothing. The German people get angry, German politicians say a few huffy words, and no one doers anything. Because Germany is playing the same game the NSA is in every capacity with the BND.
You are a fool if you think it will ever be otherwise and you are bigger fool if you are German and you think it should be otherwise. The point of spying is to gather vital intelligence. Every nation does it. Every nation always will. What kind of airhead thinks it will ever be otherwise or should be otherwise? To respect people's private information? Am I supposed to laugh?
Does anyone think a few idealistic naive bloggers is ever going to change the nature of espionage? Are there really people out there who think espionage can ever be respectful or honest or straightforward?
I agree they should not prosecute the bloggers, but exactly what the hell were these bloggers thinking? They were going to shut down or change the nature of spying? Make it respectful and transparent? What kind of quixotic cluelessness about reality is this?
minus the votes denied by corrupt officials and republican statehouses that disenfranchise american citizens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
thank you
there's marine life attached to the wing
i was wondering two things:
1. if not by species, then maybe by subspecies, or some sublte variation within a species, that they could attach an area to where the wing developed the attached creatures
2. if there are variations in isotopes the marine species would absorb differentially by area, if that can be pinpointed to an area. that would probably be very subtle and not helpful. just an idea
it means they introduce programming to younger kids. you imagine kids chained in a classroom with their eyes propped open forced to watch bubble sort algorithms?
is learning music "forcing culturally objectionable content on our children"?
is learning math "forced march into the voodoo underlying antireligious science and anti free market economics?"
so i repeat: where the fuck do you low iq conspiracy theory morons come from?
it's actually a serious question. i have a serious difficulty understanding how a functioning human being can arrive at the deranged socially retarded concept you put forth in your comment. i'm 100% serious