But even if he did go bankrupt from the CoastJet business failing, should that be broadcast to everyone as soon as they even type in his name into Google?
Yes. Because that's what you'll find prominently in the articles mentioning his name.
Someone looking for a cancer surgeon is going to google his name and then cross it off without even reading beyond the autocomplete? Bullshit. This just a guy trying to turn the bad press his failing businesses generated into a payday.
you should be able to fill out a form saying "Google autocomplete is being mean to me
You should be able to ignore it and get on with your life. Google doesn't create the articles it indexes. It's not Google's responsibility to hide ones you find embarrassing. Quite the opposite. Maybe this doctor wants to borrow money from me and I want to know his business history. If Google hides that, and I loan him money and he stiffs me, should I then sue Googel?
Should people be able to buy billboard space around the world and declare to the world that you are pedophile?
"Well Bob, we've determined the spending habits of the demographic stupid-people-who-leave-their-wifi-enabled-and-set-to-auto-connect-to-any-public-hotspot."
"Great, 99% coverage then, everyone except for the tinfoil cap and wallet guys."
So why do that, when it's easy enough to use words that are still words, but not words in standard dictionaries? (i.e. names of fictional characters, words made up by the company you work for or that are specific jargon of your field, internet memes, etc.)
Because the "geekily obscure" words like that are the very first ones that will be checked. Geeks have been using words from Tolkien and such as logins and passwords from the dawn of time.I remember one guy who was mystified that his password "THX-1138" had been cracked by someone... I had a hard time not laughing.
It is a well known fact that choosing words you will find in a dictionary as your password is not a good idea.
It's a better idea than a single word, or name, which is what many people still do. Anyway, even if you use real words, with the English language having well over 100,000 words, a few words gives you a very, very large space. Using correct grammar cuts it down, of course. But TFA was about attacks trying billions of passwords. What kind of idiotic system allows someone to attempt to login billions of times at high speed?
Publish a map of handgun owners promotes criminal use of guns, by telling thieves where they should go to get handguns to sell on the black market. Criminals want handguns -- not rifles, not shotguns, handguns.
The list of gun owners WAS online for weeks before it was pulled. Was there a wave of break-ins to steal guns? We know it didn't happen so that argument is proven to be the bullshit it always was. As if any burglar without a gun is deliberately going to try to steal one from a house, not knowing anything about what kind of gun it is, where in the house it is concealed -- or locked up as the owner is supposed to do. Much simpler and safer to just steal a laptop, phone, car, jewellery, credit cards; fence them and buy a gun of your choice instead.
If the violation of ToS is due to an illegal action like posting things that are illegal both for the location of the site and the poster it should still land into the legal system
we don't want to be part of your World Communist Union,
Newsflash: the Cold War is over. 20 years ago. There aren't any communist states left in the world, let alone a "World Union" of them. (Yeah, there are a few "communist" parties" in power but they gave up the ideology long ago.)
And if it was halved, you'd be saying "Yeah, now it's only two times higher than Europe, instead of four."
Yes. Because that would be true. Sorry if facts contradict your "guns breed a polite society" fantasy, or whatever moonshine you subscribe to. No first world country has as many guns as the US, and all have a lower murder rate.
Funny how the "consequences" have been a steady drop in violent crime
Now you only have triple the murder rate of any country with civilised gun laws.
But still, you must have an assault rifle for you to defend yourself from the underclass.
Also, Mexico to the south of us has gun laws that are just as strict and draconian as any of the so-called European Utopias,
Except, unlike Europe, they aren't enforced. And Mexico has a huge supply of guns across a porous border, funded by the drugs you buy from them.
The reality is that there are far more dynamic factors involved in crime rate than simply the presence of guns.
"Crime rate", yes. But the presence of guns determines the murder rate.
History shows us that unarmed populations have a non-zero chance of being killed by their own governments.
History shows that people who talk about resisting the government with their guns are mostly full of hot air, and the few that put the idea into practice DO end up dead, usually taking their families and bystanders along with them.
And your government is now run by your worst nightmare -- a black Democrat -- and yet, there are no death squads breaking down your doors.
The factor that you ignore is that these countries with draconian gun controls had fewer per capita gun murders than the US when their people were armed.
Even before the "draconian gun controls", no other country in the world has ever had as many people with guns as the USA now. While other countries have tried to reduce the risks, Americans have only gotten more and more heavily armed and suffer the consequences.
But YOU wanting to control OUR guns is bullshit. Thats like me wanting to control your driving.
Preach it brother. No commie faggot is going to tell me what side of the road to drive on. How fast I can drive in a school zone. Make me have working brakes.
Slashdot Mirror
What an idiot.
Not if the aim of the suit is to get Google to pay him compensation, then the more bad press about him, the better.
But even if he did go bankrupt from the CoastJet business failing, should that be broadcast to everyone as soon as they even type in his name into Google?
Yes. Because that's what you'll find prominently in the articles mentioning his name.
Someone looking for a cancer surgeon is going to google his name and then cross it off without even reading beyond the autocomplete? Bullshit. This just a guy trying to turn the bad press his failing businesses generated into a payday.
you should be able to fill out a form saying "Google autocomplete is being mean to me
You should be able to ignore it and get on with your life. Google doesn't create the articles it indexes. It's not Google's responsibility to hide ones you find embarrassing. Quite the opposite. Maybe this doctor wants to borrow money from me and I want to know his business history. If Google hides that, and I loan him money and he stiffs me, should I then sue Googel?
Should people be able to buy billboard space around the world and declare to the world that you are pedophile?
So, you use the Chewbacca defence, then?
"Well Bob, we've determined the spending habits of the demographic stupid-people-who-leave-their-wifi-enabled-and-set-to-auto-connect-to-any-public-hotspot."
"Great, 99% coverage then, everyone except for the tinfoil cap and wallet guys."
Your reply generated another ad view.
Not one seen by me anyway. I put up with the ads here till they started to do animated flash.
I expect this means "predecessor". The editors are actually paid in money to click "submit" without reading or understanding the articles?
So why do that, when it's easy enough to use words that are still words, but not words in standard dictionaries? (i.e. names of fictional characters, words made up by the company you work for or that are specific jargon of your field, internet memes, etc.)
Because the "geekily obscure" words like that are the very first ones that will be checked. Geeks have been using words from Tolkien and such as logins and passwords from the dawn of time.I remember one guy who was mystified that his password "THX-1138" had been cracked by someone... I had a hard time not laughing.
It is a well known fact that choosing words you will find in a dictionary as your password is not a good idea.
It's a better idea than a single word, or name, which is what many people still do. Anyway, even if you use real words, with the English language having well over 100,000 words, a few words gives you a very, very large space. Using correct grammar cuts it down, of course. But TFA was about attacks trying billions of passwords. What kind of idiotic system allows someone to attempt to login billions of times at high speed?
There were quite a few incidences of break ins where when caught the offender admitted to using the list to do their shopping
Really? "I read in a 2nd Amendment blog" doesn't count. But if you have a real source, please cite it.
Publish a map of handgun owners promotes criminal use of guns, by telling thieves where they should go to get handguns to sell on the black market. Criminals want handguns -- not rifles, not shotguns, handguns.
The list of gun owners WAS online for weeks before it was pulled. Was there a wave of break-ins to steal guns? We know it didn't happen so that argument is proven to be the bullshit it always was. As if any burglar without a gun is deliberately going to try to steal one from a house, not knowing anything about what kind of gun it is, where in the house it is concealed -- or locked up as the owner is supposed to do. Much simpler and safer to just steal a laptop, phone, car, jewellery, credit cards; fence them and buy a gun of your choice instead.
If the violation of ToS is due to an illegal action like posting things that are illegal both for the location of the site and the poster it should still land into the legal system
Yes...and the sky is blue.
the customers without complains share the "good ip", and customers with some bad stains get degraded to other, partly blacklisted IPs.
You fascist! I'm sending a complaint to your ISP!
There is absolutely no way to put the gun genie back in the bottle. Any attempt to do so is foolishness.
Straw man. No one is trying to uninvent firearms. Just to make them less prevalent. Fewer guns = fewer deaths.
we don't want to be part of your World Communist Union,
Newsflash: the Cold War is over. 20 years ago. There aren't any communist states left in the world, let alone a "World Union" of them. (Yeah, there are a few "communist" parties" in power but they gave up the ideology long ago.)
On a national scale, it is that simple. Rural areas have lower crime rates than urban.
And, even if you were to repeal the 2nd Amendment tomorrow, you still couldn't wave your hand and make 300M guns disappear.
Damn, so much for that plan. I'll have to think of something else then.
And if it was halved, you'd be saying "Yeah, now it's only two times higher than Europe, instead of four."
Yes. Because that would be true. Sorry if facts contradict your "guns breed a polite society" fantasy, or whatever moonshine you subscribe to. No first world country has as many guns as the US, and all have a lower murder rate.
Funny how the "consequences" have been a steady drop in violent crime
Now you only have triple the murder rate of any country with civilised gun laws. But still, you must have an assault rifle for you to defend yourself from the underclass.
Also, Mexico to the south of us has gun laws that are just as strict and draconian as any of the so-called European Utopias,
Except, unlike Europe, they aren't enforced. And Mexico has a huge supply of guns across a porous border, funded by the drugs you buy from them.
The reality is that there are far more dynamic factors involved in crime rate than simply the presence of guns.
"Crime rate", yes. But the presence of guns determines the murder rate.
History shows us that unarmed populations have a non-zero chance of being killed by their own governments.
History shows that people who talk about resisting the government with their guns are mostly full of hot air, and the few that put the idea into practice DO end up dead, usually taking their families and bystanders along with them.
And your government is now run by your worst nightmare -- a black Democrat -- and yet, there are no death squads breaking down your doors.
more and more heavily armed and suffer the consequences
Such as the murder rate going down.
Yeah, now it's only three times higher than Europe, instead of four.
Sorry I didn't realise that your guns were a part of your religion. Makes sense though.
The factor that you ignore is that these countries with draconian gun controls had fewer per capita gun murders than the US when their people were armed.
Even before the "draconian gun controls", no other country in the world has ever had as many people with guns as the USA now. While other countries have tried to reduce the risks, Americans have only gotten more and more heavily armed and suffer the consequences.
Same rationale as now: Criminals used them in a few high-profile cases, so the statist authoritarians got the traction to restrict them for everybody.
The sad thing is that it takes dozens of children being murdered before politicians can discuss it.
But YOU wanting to control OUR guns is bullshit. Thats like me wanting to control your driving.
Preach it brother. No commie faggot is going to tell me what side of the road to drive on. How fast I can drive in a school zone. Make me have working brakes.
All of us who shoot really want to go out some day in a blaze of glory
SOME of you do, and the rest of you enable them to do it by making sure they have as many and as powerful guns as they want.
Its not the question, its the manner and tone in which he stated it. Making assumptions that everyone who owns guns is nuts,
I was talking about "gun nuts". If that's how you identify yourself .....
Gun nuts are not a major killer in todays world
Of, fine then. As long as they don't kill as many as cancer, we should just let them get on with it.