But in the case of the Asiana crash the biggest problem were the meat bags in the seats. They weren't talking to each other, they didn't understand the systems they were using (one of the systems was telling them they were off the glide path for the entire landing and in fact was showing bigger and bigger divergence) and the lead pilot had only spent something like 40 hours flying a 777.
You can't design around stupid. Stupid people are far to ingenious. The biggest recommendation out of the safety review of the Asiana crash was that the pilots needed better training, in particular talking to each other, questioning each others actions and more flight time with the new systems including simulators.
The pilots actually set the autopilot at one point, this autopilot has only one function, that of maintaining an elevation. They did this thinking the autopilot would control the approach speed for them and it took them minutes to realize it wasn't doing anything (because that's not what it did). On top of this they thought they could pull a huge airliner out of a dive in less than 100' vertical (they waited until they only had 100' (30m) of elevation before trying to gun it and "go around"). That's like trying to make a u-turn in bus on a one lane road. Those are simply not things you can design around and I suspect there is very little you could do to prevent stupidity like that.
IMO it's not that much different than the Atlantic crash in the airbus where one pilot was flying correctly, the co-pilot was pulling back on his stick constantly and the computer was set to average the inputs. They didn't talk to each other and ignored 77 audible warnings that the plane was in stall. The plane literally fell 50,000 feet before it disintegrated. In that case there is at least an argument that the planes systems should have given feedback to each pilot that the other was doing the opposite of what they were doing. But even that is a band-aid over a meat bag problem where two humans aren't telling each other what they are doing and they both have their hands on the controls. You can't anticipate stupid where you expect capable and intelligent operators. This isn't an automobile where we hand anyone with an IQ of 60+ a license and set of keys. This is a system that's supposed to require tens of thousands of hours of flight instruction before you're ever even let touch the controls of a commercial flight and decades spent in the assistant seat before you're ever allowed to be in charge.
I think all this heavy automation can be a disaster waiting to happen if we aren't careful and require pilots to routinely fly the plane without the automated systems. They should be there only to assist the pilot and help prevent errors, not to the fly the plane, because if we want automated systems to fly the plane we should just get rid of the pilots completely.
The transatlantic crash was blamed on lack of pilot/co-pilot communication. The co-pilot was pulling back on the stick endlessly.
777 was apparently due to a cultural issue of the co-pilot refusing to question the pilot.
These are all issues with people, not the electronic systems. Something that can be solved with training. Two crashes out of 100,000 flights is not a trend.
777 failed because the pilots ignored the warnings offered by the electronic systems, not because the electronic systems failed. The plane warned them a dozen times they were too low and they ignored it. This is just like the transatlantic flight that went down where the pilots listened to 77 warnings that they were in stall and did nothing to prevent it apparently because they thought they knew better than the electronic systems.
Pilots routinely fly on instruments these days anyway, this is particularly true and night and in bad weather where visibility is minimal to non-existent. Think of landing a plane in thick fog, an operation that is common these days. The scary thing would be loss of instruments and electronic control systems. That would require pretty much total failure of the electrical and hydraulic systems and the backup systems. Something I don't believe has happened in a commercial airliner in more than 20 years.
Though I agree with you, there should be windows for emergencies if they lose everything else and only have windows it's not going to be easy to land the plane because they'll have lost all instrumentation and hydraulic assist. That might be one of those times you just bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.
Don't be absurd, they can't smell the content but they CAN smell the circuits. Of course the dog can smell the circuit board. Whether it's the solder, the board itself, the IC's or the chemicals used to treat the board the dog can undoubtedly smell it. Hell I can smell new circuit boards and humans have terrible sense of smell.
You might smell a bouquet of flowers, the dog can smell every individual flower, everyone that touched the flowers and every insect that interacted with the flowers. There is no comparison for humans, we simply can't imagine a depth of smell that vast.
And the supreme court ruled that even if there is evidence that the dog was broken or the handler was lying (a case where a dog supposedly indicated on the same guy twice and no drugs were found either time) as long as there is some test in the past that indicates that the dog works that there is no evidence of misconduct on the part of either the dog or handler.
"Parallel construction" is illegal. Evidence collected illegally and the knowledge gained from that illegal act cannot be washed off and sanitized by giving it to someone not part of the illegal act.
The police are trying to use the supreme court exception for private citizens violating peoples rights not tainting a future police investigation. If the Supreme court allows this blatant violation of rights I'll be very disappointed because they've just allowed the state at will to violate people's rights as long as the one who violates the rights doesn't do the investigation. Now all you need is a group of cops that runs around violating everyone's rights but doesn't actually investigate anything. There should be law enforcement personal in jail for this parallel construction nonsense.
The numbers of watts from installed panels is growing at 400% per year. Yes, overall that number is small when compared against total US power output, but it's not small and it's currently displaced almost a dozen power plants.
Prices continue to fall, bulk PV panel prices are below $0.40 a watt. Installed panels in utility scale installations are now cheaper than nuclear without subsidy. If costs continue to fall they will be inline with coal with subsidies within a year or two and probably by the end of the decade will be at cost parity with coal by 2020. Investment in solar power generation has soared, solar city was turning down investment money last year because they couldn't spend what they'd already acquired. Right now you could contract to have solar installed on your house, under a system like solar city use, that installs and maintains the solar panels, finances the transaction over 10 years, and provides you a guaranteed monthly power rate that is lower than what you pay right now. And after 10 years you own the panels outright and are guaranteed another 15 years of power of at least 80% of the output (panel warranties are 25 years) for no additional money. There is someone in your local area right now offering the same deal.
We are on the cusp of a major revolution. We've finally hit the point where the research and industrial production has brought panel prices down exponentially. On top of this the same amount of silicon will buy you 20% more wattage in just the last 5 years and the research continues to accelerate. As prices fall more industrial production comes on line and more economics of scale come into play and prices will fall more. This is on top of research into PV modules using non-silicon base materials that are far cheaper to make such as the thin film silicon and the Cd-Te PV. First Solar for example use a cadmium-telluride PV module that has extremely cheap base materials and uses a roll to roll production process that is so cheap it has sold out their production for the next few years.
I don't disagree that fission is needed and that we need to use gas as a stop gap in getting rid of coal. But, we should be planning right now for an energy generation scheme that is post hydrocarbon because it's not that far off. If we want the full benefit of Solar we need to devote research dollars to developing real energy storage schemes because it's not going to be very long before we're producing more solar energy than we can use during the day. (Germany already see's summer days with negative power prices). Nuclear is a nice backstop but I don't believe we will need to double or triple the number of reactors as you suggest though that may depend on how cheap energy storage is in comparison to nuclear. I suspect storage will be magnitudes cheaper once we actually try to implement it.
With energy storage there is more than enough solar energy striking this planet every day that simply putting panels on the roof of every structure would generate 3-5x the amount of power we currently consume in the US.
The reason people always talk about solar not being capable is because it's assumed that storage is unworkable. IMO the assumption that storage can never work is a myth propagated by the hydrocarbon industry. We've never tried to build storage on the grid, California's requirement that a percent of the grid must be storage by 2020 will test just how silly the notion that storage can't work is. There are hundreds of promising energy storage mediums that could translate abundant solar energy into night time power with very little power lost and with a properly interconnected and managed grid this would work nationwide.
Solar, wind and hydro combined could easily replace all generation. Add in nuclear as a backstop and you wouldn't need a hydrocarbon again. Of course there are very powerful, connected and wealthy people with 80% of their money invested in hydrocarbons that will do anything to see that stopped, including pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into a takeover of one of the national political parties to ensure there is legislation that will prevent this transition.
How is asking you to do exactly the same as what you were asking of me a straw man?
The first reason would be it's Europe and not the US. Each state in Europe is a sovereign entity. The second would be that this is not a constitutional item, it's a court ruling that expands a constitutional issue and is vague on it's face with very few guidelines for application. The third reason is combining 1 and 2 you have an intentional vague ruling that will be interpreted differently in all sovereign member states based on their own common law. The fourth is that Europe has a loser pays system, if Google guesses wrong about the applicability of those 3 words they not only pay damages they cover the legal expenses of the victor and they don't get to claim their action was in good faith. And the fifth is that my question was an example intended to show how intentionally vague the court ruling was and didn't not expect a response. Yours was a sarcastic straw man about a completely unrelated issue.
Google would try to convince judges that it interpreted the judgement in a reasonable way simply because the alternative seriously threatens their business model.
You don't get it do you? It's not a threat to their business at all. No search engine is going to challenge these delisting requests and everyone will remove the same data (because no one is going to remove it from just one search engine, in no time there will be businesses offering to remove data for people, it will probably be the SEO companies). With every search engine removing the same data from their indexes there is no competitive disadvantage for them. These search results will disappear all over Europe whereas Google and other US engines won't remove the listings from their US indexes this puts all European search engine competitors at significant disadvantage to their US counterparts as the Europeans will likely just start using the US indexes for these searches.
Or in other words it's completely unworkable and stupid attempt to create the memory hole without the ability to filter the entire world.
You can go first by defining such a rule about the first, second, fourth,... amendment to the US Constitution. I'll even let you include all judgements by the Supreme Court on that particular amendment. Laws and judgements involving fundamental/inalienable (human) rights are never condensable into a simplistic rule.
Which is totally and completely irrelevant to this discussion and a rather poor attempt at a straw man.
The judge has to interpret the entire judgement by the ECHR, which is quite a bit more elaborate than that.
Even if it's more elaborate it's still vague and undefined and allows the person requesting the removal to ask for damages if Google guesses wrong.
And there is a very legitimate argument that it does not have to do that.
Not there isn't.
Given that Google strongly opposed the judgement and given the fact that the further interpretation of the judgement has not yet been set in stone, it's a bit silly to conclude that Google now doesn't have any choice, in particular since the judgement also explicitly mentions that search engine operators only have to act ‘within the framework of their responsibilities, powers and capabilities’.
Google has absolutely no idea how individual judges will interpret this rule because as you say there is no case law developed and each individual country could develop different rules about how it applies. They guess wrong and they get hit with damages, this is on top of facing potentially 5 or 6 digit numbers of lawsuits (50K requests in a couple days could be millions per year) all over the entire EU whose costs would be staggering even for a company as large as Google. Google is not a civil rights NGO. They have no obligation to throw all their profit to the wind trying to define what those three words mean. It would be beyond foolish for them to even get involved. Their only sensible option is to simply delist everything requested.
Maybe if you want to put YOUR money on the line and offer it to Google to challenge this bad ruling go ahead, but don't expect them to put their own ass on the line for it. No company is going to challenge any of these delisting requests, it's far too dangerous and costly. If they receive 100k requests and 1% are "bad" they'd face over 1000 lawsuits for guessing wrong. 1000 lawsuits would take at least 1000 lawyers for probably upwards of 100 billable hours at around $500 an hour which is 50 million dollars in just legal expenses. In reality each case would need 3-5 lawyers, a couple paralegals and a bunch of expert witnesses and probably more than 500 hours overall. If they get even half of them wrong and have to pay $50k in damages each time they will bankrupt their European divisions. The magnitude of this ruling makes it economically impossible for anyone to challenge any delisting request. Even having a lawyer review each request for validity would set them back hundreds of millions of dollars. Any attempt to argue otherwise is either willfully ignorant of the reality of business or a pigheaded stupidity that it's Google's job to defend free speech. It's not and they will do whatever is cheapest for them as they should. This is a European problem that can only be fixed at the legislative level by the people of Europe. This "right to be forgotten" is an unworkable mess that is impossible to police and it's going to absolutely gut the value of search engines in Europe when looking up individuals. That's the bed they made and now they get to lay in it.
Define "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant".
Keep in mind your definition must apply to every single situation and under no circumstance a judge will disagree with your assessment and assign damages. Because that is what Google is facing, people can have any search result that lists their name removed if it meets whatever arbitrary definition of those three words a judge wishes to interpret.
There is a very legitimate argument that those terms are so vague Google has no choice whatsoever but to simply delist every single thing they are asked to delist. The european listings are going to be swiss cheese and worthless in 6 months.
More importantly, properly timed signals have an all red phase. This phase is supposed to be long enough to accommodate a vehicle hitting the stop bar as the light turns red at the speed limit with sufficient time to clear the intersection plus a small buffer usually a second or two, IIRC the minimum is three seconds of all red. The signal does not meet national standards for timing if this all red time does not meet this criteria and whichever agency timed the signal is liable for it's incorrect timing with the exception that state law allows them to violate national standards.
The yellow phase should have sufficient time to also allow a driver that is going the speed limit from the moment the light turns yellow to clear the stop bar with their front tires without braking or speeding up before it turns red. Any driver further back than that distance can easily brake. This is the rough equivalent of the actual rule that involves perception reaction time and standard braking deceleration. The driver should under no circumstances have to slam on the brakes to stop after the light turns yellow. Again if you are having to slam on the brakes after the light turns yellow to stop because it will turn red before you hit the stop bar the light is improperly timed and the agency responsible is liable, baring state laws that limit liability.
Many cities have been adjusting the timing of signals to be lower than standard lengths required by national standards to increase ticket revenue. Those cities should be facing lawsuits. Improper length of yellow or red cycles can and will lead to very severe accidents.
The Iranians had documents from AK Khan on how to construct the fissible core of the weapon including blueprints. They've claimed they didn't request them and that they had no intention of using them but the fact remains they had plans for constructing a weapon. There have also been other documents that were provided by intelligence agencies such as the persian powerpoint presentation on how to build a reentry vehicle for an ICBM.
Durable goods are supposed to be durable. They are simple to be durable. Adding all these features means they will break more often, it's a foolish path IMO. I wouldn't trust a single circuit board in a oven that can reach 500F.
The Iranian nuclear plant is a power plant. But of course you are actually referring to the nuclear enrichment facilities which can be dual purpose civilian/military.
Would you believe an email from joe@hotmail.com? Their domains are gone, they could send email but without the DNS resolve a whole lot of email servers would refuse the email or trash the email, or feed it to a junk mail folder automatically. It would be treated as a forged header by your email because the DNS doesn't resolve correctly.
Everyone should know with absolute certainty that there are NOT 19,000 investigations of terrorism or threats to national security going on. This is evident proof that National security letters are not being used for national security.
The powers of the FBI and other federal law enforcement should be curtailed, NSL's are ripe for abuse of power.
The data center sits right in the flight path for commercial airliners landing at SLC international though because of the distance I doubt the height it was at was an issue.
The NSA facility sits on a hill directly to the west of I-15, it's visible to every driver traversing I-15 along with the entire population of Lehi, American Fork, Saratoga Springs, Orem and probably Provo as well.
The East India company was a bit different situation. It was officially a crown corporation and IIRC was an agent of the crown. This absolved it of all legal liability in any English legal sphere where the monarchy of England had legal sway. Because it was an agent of the crown it could raise armies and even still it's property would be defended by the British military forces.
It'll be interesting because they are going to be sued now for something they did and the lawyer is going to trot in the letter claiming they are a private corporation not subject to the government regulations. I have no doubt it's a very short countdown till that letter is used against them in a court case.
Actually this is quite interesting from a legal standpoint. Cops are protected from liability for actions as government employees by a legal doctrine known as qualified immunity. Their legal claim that they are in fact a private corporation IMO (INAL) would clear the officers of qualified immunity, if one of these teams was to make a mistake and kill someone the lawyers should be able to breach qualified immunity on the grounds that the officers are not agents of the state using their own rejection of records requests and pursue the personal assets of everyone involved.
I'm not entirely sure than the cops involved thought this through very clearly.
I'm a transportation engineer numbnuts I know the difference, I've designed them. Regardless of how the roundabout is supposed to be used, the fact is a vast majority of drivers treat them as stops. I've yet to see a roundabout that operates correctly and consistently in the US. Most of the states have begun to realize it's futile to try to educate US drivers about them because no matter how much information they've spread they still operate at less than 50% capacity because US drivers just don't understand how to use them.
Hell we still have drivers freaking out and driving the wrong way down the street on CFI's and DDI's and those aren't much different than standard intersections. There's a roundabout not more than a couple miles from me that is nothing more than a 4 way stop with sight obstructions that make it perform even worse, not because it's signed that way or even because it's designed or built wrong but because every driver stops at the yield sign for 3 seconds.
Lol, that's so laughable it's not even funny. I'd be willing to bet there are at least two other countries with more capabilities. The Russians and Chinese. Hell I bet even the Israelis are better because their country is so heavily into hi-tech.
Slashdot Mirror
But in the case of the Asiana crash the biggest problem were the meat bags in the seats. They weren't talking to each other, they didn't understand the systems they were using (one of the systems was telling them they were off the glide path for the entire landing and in fact was showing bigger and bigger divergence) and the lead pilot had only spent something like 40 hours flying a 777.
You can't design around stupid. Stupid people are far to ingenious. The biggest recommendation out of the safety review of the Asiana crash was that the pilots needed better training, in particular talking to each other, questioning each others actions and more flight time with the new systems including simulators.
The pilots actually set the autopilot at one point, this autopilot has only one function, that of maintaining an elevation. They did this thinking the autopilot would control the approach speed for them and it took them minutes to realize it wasn't doing anything (because that's not what it did). On top of this they thought they could pull a huge airliner out of a dive in less than 100' vertical (they waited until they only had 100' (30m) of elevation before trying to gun it and "go around"). That's like trying to make a u-turn in bus on a one lane road. Those are simply not things you can design around and I suspect there is very little you could do to prevent stupidity like that.
IMO it's not that much different than the Atlantic crash in the airbus where one pilot was flying correctly, the co-pilot was pulling back on his stick constantly and the computer was set to average the inputs. They didn't talk to each other and ignored 77 audible warnings that the plane was in stall. The plane literally fell 50,000 feet before it disintegrated. In that case there is at least an argument that the planes systems should have given feedback to each pilot that the other was doing the opposite of what they were doing. But even that is a band-aid over a meat bag problem where two humans aren't telling each other what they are doing and they both have their hands on the controls. You can't anticipate stupid where you expect capable and intelligent operators. This isn't an automobile where we hand anyone with an IQ of 60+ a license and set of keys. This is a system that's supposed to require tens of thousands of hours of flight instruction before you're ever even let touch the controls of a commercial flight and decades spent in the assistant seat before you're ever allowed to be in charge.
I think all this heavy automation can be a disaster waiting to happen if we aren't careful and require pilots to routinely fly the plane without the automated systems. They should be there only to assist the pilot and help prevent errors, not to the fly the plane, because if we want automated systems to fly the plane we should just get rid of the pilots completely.
The transatlantic crash was blamed on lack of pilot/co-pilot communication. The co-pilot was pulling back on the stick endlessly.
777 was apparently due to a cultural issue of the co-pilot refusing to question the pilot.
These are all issues with people, not the electronic systems. Something that can be solved with training. Two crashes out of 100,000 flights is not a trend.
777 failed because the pilots ignored the warnings offered by the electronic systems, not because the electronic systems failed. The plane warned them a dozen times they were too low and they ignored it. This is just like the transatlantic flight that went down where the pilots listened to 77 warnings that they were in stall and did nothing to prevent it apparently because they thought they knew better than the electronic systems.
Pilots routinely fly on instruments these days anyway, this is particularly true and night and in bad weather where visibility is minimal to non-existent. Think of landing a plane in thick fog, an operation that is common these days. The scary thing would be loss of instruments and electronic control systems. That would require pretty much total failure of the electrical and hydraulic systems and the backup systems. Something I don't believe has happened in a commercial airliner in more than 20 years.
Though I agree with you, there should be windows for emergencies if they lose everything else and only have windows it's not going to be easy to land the plane because they'll have lost all instrumentation and hydraulic assist. That might be one of those times you just bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.
Don't be absurd, they can't smell the content but they CAN smell the circuits. Of course the dog can smell the circuit board. Whether it's the solder, the board itself, the IC's or the chemicals used to treat the board the dog can undoubtedly smell it. Hell I can smell new circuit boards and humans have terrible sense of smell.
You might smell a bouquet of flowers, the dog can smell every individual flower, everyone that touched the flowers and every insect that interacted with the flowers. There is no comparison for humans, we simply can't imagine a depth of smell that vast.
And the supreme court ruled that even if there is evidence that the dog was broken or the handler was lying (a case where a dog supposedly indicated on the same guy twice and no drugs were found either time) as long as there is some test in the past that indicates that the dog works that there is no evidence of misconduct on the part of either the dog or handler.
"Parallel construction" is illegal. Evidence collected illegally and the knowledge gained from that illegal act cannot be washed off and sanitized by giving it to someone not part of the illegal act.
The police are trying to use the supreme court exception for private citizens violating peoples rights not tainting a future police investigation. If the Supreme court allows this blatant violation of rights I'll be very disappointed because they've just allowed the state at will to violate people's rights as long as the one who violates the rights doesn't do the investigation. Now all you need is a group of cops that runs around violating everyone's rights but doesn't actually investigate anything. There should be law enforcement personal in jail for this parallel construction nonsense.
The numbers of watts from installed panels is growing at 400% per year. Yes, overall that number is small when compared against total US power output, but it's not small and it's currently displaced almost a dozen power plants.
Prices continue to fall, bulk PV panel prices are below $0.40 a watt. Installed panels in utility scale installations are now cheaper than nuclear without subsidy. If costs continue to fall they will be inline with coal with subsidies within a year or two and probably by the end of the decade will be at cost parity with coal by 2020. Investment in solar power generation has soared, solar city was turning down investment money last year because they couldn't spend what they'd already acquired. Right now you could contract to have solar installed on your house, under a system like solar city use, that installs and maintains the solar panels, finances the transaction over 10 years, and provides you a guaranteed monthly power rate that is lower than what you pay right now. And after 10 years you own the panels outright and are guaranteed another 15 years of power of at least 80% of the output (panel warranties are 25 years) for no additional money. There is someone in your local area right now offering the same deal.
We are on the cusp of a major revolution. We've finally hit the point where the research and industrial production has brought panel prices down exponentially. On top of this the same amount of silicon will buy you 20% more wattage in just the last 5 years and the research continues to accelerate. As prices fall more industrial production comes on line and more economics of scale come into play and prices will fall more. This is on top of research into PV modules using non-silicon base materials that are far cheaper to make such as the thin film silicon and the Cd-Te PV. First Solar for example use a cadmium-telluride PV module that has extremely cheap base materials and uses a roll to roll production process that is so cheap it has sold out their production for the next few years.
I don't disagree that fission is needed and that we need to use gas as a stop gap in getting rid of coal. But, we should be planning right now for an energy generation scheme that is post hydrocarbon because it's not that far off. If we want the full benefit of Solar we need to devote research dollars to developing real energy storage schemes because it's not going to be very long before we're producing more solar energy than we can use during the day. (Germany already see's summer days with negative power prices). Nuclear is a nice backstop but I don't believe we will need to double or triple the number of reactors as you suggest though that may depend on how cheap energy storage is in comparison to nuclear. I suspect storage will be magnitudes cheaper once we actually try to implement it.
With energy storage there is more than enough solar energy striking this planet every day that simply putting panels on the roof of every structure would generate 3-5x the amount of power we currently consume in the US.
The reason people always talk about solar not being capable is because it's assumed that storage is unworkable. IMO the assumption that storage can never work is a myth propagated by the hydrocarbon industry. We've never tried to build storage on the grid, California's requirement that a percent of the grid must be storage by 2020 will test just how silly the notion that storage can't work is. There are hundreds of promising energy storage mediums that could translate abundant solar energy into night time power with very little power lost and with a properly interconnected and managed grid this would work nationwide.
Solar, wind and hydro combined could easily replace all generation. Add in nuclear as a backstop and you wouldn't need a hydrocarbon again. Of course there are very powerful, connected and wealthy people with 80% of their money invested in hydrocarbons that will do anything to see that stopped, including pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into a takeover of one of the national political parties to ensure there is legislation that will prevent this transition.
The first reason would be it's Europe and not the US. Each state in Europe is a sovereign entity. The second would be that this is not a constitutional item, it's a court ruling that expands a constitutional issue and is vague on it's face with very few guidelines for application. The third reason is combining 1 and 2 you have an intentional vague ruling that will be interpreted differently in all sovereign member states based on their own common law. The fourth is that Europe has a loser pays system, if Google guesses wrong about the applicability of those 3 words they not only pay damages they cover the legal expenses of the victor and they don't get to claim their action was in good faith. And the fifth is that my question was an example intended to show how intentionally vague the court ruling was and didn't not expect a response. Yours was a sarcastic straw man about a completely unrelated issue.
You don't get it do you? It's not a threat to their business at all. No search engine is going to challenge these delisting requests and everyone will remove the same data (because no one is going to remove it from just one search engine, in no time there will be businesses offering to remove data for people, it will probably be the SEO companies). With every search engine removing the same data from their indexes there is no competitive disadvantage for them. These search results will disappear all over Europe whereas Google and other US engines won't remove the listings from their US indexes this puts all European search engine competitors at significant disadvantage to their US counterparts as the Europeans will likely just start using the US indexes for these searches.
Or in other words it's completely unworkable and stupid attempt to create the memory hole without the ability to filter the entire world.
Which is totally and completely irrelevant to this discussion and a rather poor attempt at a straw man.
Even if it's more elaborate it's still vague and undefined and allows the person requesting the removal to ask for damages if Google guesses wrong.
Not there isn't.
Google has absolutely no idea how individual judges will interpret this rule because as you say there is no case law developed and each individual country could develop different rules about how it applies. They guess wrong and they get hit with damages, this is on top of facing potentially 5 or 6 digit numbers of lawsuits (50K requests in a couple days could be millions per year) all over the entire EU whose costs would be staggering even for a company as large as Google. Google is not a civil rights NGO. They have no obligation to throw all their profit to the wind trying to define what those three words mean. It would be beyond foolish for them to even get involved. Their only sensible option is to simply delist everything requested.
Maybe if you want to put YOUR money on the line and offer it to Google to challenge this bad ruling go ahead, but don't expect them to put their own ass on the line for it. No company is going to challenge any of these delisting requests, it's far too dangerous and costly. If they receive 100k requests and 1% are "bad" they'd face over 1000 lawsuits for guessing wrong. 1000 lawsuits would take at least 1000 lawyers for probably upwards of 100 billable hours at around $500 an hour which is 50 million dollars in just legal expenses. In reality each case would need 3-5 lawyers, a couple paralegals and a bunch of expert witnesses and probably more than 500 hours overall. If they get even half of them wrong and have to pay $50k in damages each time they will bankrupt their European divisions. The magnitude of this ruling makes it economically impossible for anyone to challenge any delisting request. Even having a lawyer review each request for validity would set them back hundreds of millions of dollars. Any attempt to argue otherwise is either willfully ignorant of the reality of business or a pigheaded stupidity that it's Google's job to defend free speech. It's not and they will do whatever is cheapest for them as they should. This is a European problem that can only be fixed at the legislative level by the people of Europe. This "right to be forgotten" is an unworkable mess that is impossible to police and it's going to absolutely gut the value of search engines in Europe when looking up individuals. That's the bed they made and now they get to lay in it.
Define "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant".
Keep in mind your definition must apply to every single situation and under no circumstance a judge will disagree with your assessment and assign damages. Because that is what Google is facing, people can have any search result that lists their name removed if it meets whatever arbitrary definition of those three words a judge wishes to interpret.
There is a very legitimate argument that those terms are so vague Google has no choice whatsoever but to simply delist every single thing they are asked to delist. The european listings are going to be swiss cheese and worthless in 6 months.
More importantly, properly timed signals have an all red phase. This phase is supposed to be long enough to accommodate a vehicle hitting the stop bar as the light turns red at the speed limit with sufficient time to clear the intersection plus a small buffer usually a second or two, IIRC the minimum is three seconds of all red. The signal does not meet national standards for timing if this all red time does not meet this criteria and whichever agency timed the signal is liable for it's incorrect timing with the exception that state law allows them to violate national standards.
The yellow phase should have sufficient time to also allow a driver that is going the speed limit from the moment the light turns yellow to clear the stop bar with their front tires without braking or speeding up before it turns red. Any driver further back than that distance can easily brake. This is the rough equivalent of the actual rule that involves perception reaction time and standard braking deceleration. The driver should under no circumstances have to slam on the brakes to stop after the light turns yellow. Again if you are having to slam on the brakes after the light turns yellow to stop because it will turn red before you hit the stop bar the light is improperly timed and the agency responsible is liable, baring state laws that limit liability.
Many cities have been adjusting the timing of signals to be lower than standard lengths required by national standards to increase ticket revenue. Those cities should be facing lawsuits. Improper length of yellow or red cycles can and will lead to very severe accidents.
The Iranians had documents from AK Khan on how to construct the fissible core of the weapon including blueprints. They've claimed they didn't request them and that they had no intention of using them but the fact remains they had plans for constructing a weapon. There have also been other documents that were provided by intelligence agencies such as the persian powerpoint presentation on how to build a reentry vehicle for an ICBM.
The evidence is hardly non-existent.
Durable goods are supposed to be durable. They are simple to be durable. Adding all these features means they will break more often, it's a foolish path IMO. I wouldn't trust a single circuit board in a oven that can reach 500F.
The Iranian nuclear plant is a power plant. But of course you are actually referring to the nuclear enrichment facilities which can be dual purpose civilian/military.
Would you believe an email from joe@hotmail.com? Their domains are gone, they could send email but without the DNS resolve a whole lot of email servers would refuse the email or trash the email, or feed it to a junk mail folder automatically. It would be treated as a forged header by your email because the DNS doesn't resolve correctly.
Everyone should know with absolute certainty that there are NOT 19,000 investigations of terrorism or threats to national security going on. This is evident proof that National security letters are not being used for national security.
The powers of the FBI and other federal law enforcement should be curtailed, NSL's are ripe for abuse of power.
The data center sits right in the flight path for commercial airliners landing at SLC international though because of the distance I doubt the height it was at was an issue.
The NSA facility sits on a hill directly to the west of I-15, it's visible to every driver traversing I-15 along with the entire population of Lehi, American Fork, Saratoga Springs, Orem and probably Provo as well.
The East India company was a bit different situation. It was officially a crown corporation and IIRC was an agent of the crown. This absolved it of all legal liability in any English legal sphere where the monarchy of England had legal sway. Because it was an agent of the crown it could raise armies and even still it's property would be defended by the British military forces.
It'll be interesting because they are going to be sued now for something they did and the lawyer is going to trot in the letter claiming they are a private corporation not subject to the government regulations. I have no doubt it's a very short countdown till that letter is used against them in a court case.
Actually this is quite interesting from a legal standpoint. Cops are protected from liability for actions as government employees by a legal doctrine known as qualified immunity. Their legal claim that they are in fact a private corporation IMO (INAL) would clear the officers of qualified immunity, if one of these teams was to make a mistake and kill someone the lawyers should be able to breach qualified immunity on the grounds that the officers are not agents of the state using their own rejection of records requests and pursue the personal assets of everyone involved.
I'm not entirely sure than the cops involved thought this through very clearly.
I'm a transportation engineer numbnuts I know the difference, I've designed them. Regardless of how the roundabout is supposed to be used, the fact is a vast majority of drivers treat them as stops. I've yet to see a roundabout that operates correctly and consistently in the US. Most of the states have begun to realize it's futile to try to educate US drivers about them because no matter how much information they've spread they still operate at less than 50% capacity because US drivers just don't understand how to use them.
Hell we still have drivers freaking out and driving the wrong way down the street on CFI's and DDI's and those aren't much different than standard intersections. There's a roundabout not more than a couple miles from me that is nothing more than a 4 way stop with sight obstructions that make it perform even worse, not because it's signed that way or even because it's designed or built wrong but because every driver stops at the yield sign for 3 seconds.
Lol, that's so laughable it's not even funny. I'd be willing to bet there are at least two other countries with more capabilities. The Russians and Chinese. Hell I bet even the Israelis are better because their country is so heavily into hi-tech.