They are demanding to apply their laws to the entire world.
No they're not -- they're demanding that google.com doesn't keep pretending not to know that a user is based in the EU when they've already geolocated the user by IP address. It's like a club bouncer IDing an underager then suggesting he use the back door.
If Europe can regulate what the whole world sees on Google, why not China?
If they do go through with it, let's at least have a www.google.us without the censorship. (Probably a good idea anyway.)
No, Europe wants to regulate what Europeans see on Google. Google knows when users are based in Europe, yet still allows them to dodge the law. If I lived in a country/state with legal cannabis and knowingly posted it to someone in a country/state where cannabis was illegal, I'd probably be breaking their laws. Google has a corporate presence in Europe, so they have to respect European jurisdiction.
More seriously, is it possible under the law to replace "Right to be forgotten" links with a big red "THIS POST HAS BEEN BLOCKED IN YOUR COUNTRY, PURSUANT TO THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN"?
No, because the article has to be delinked from the search. Furthermore, there would be a risk of falling foul of defamation laws, as you could be interpreted as implying something about the subject of the search.
Consider also that while I personally would not be fussed if the world discovered the real name of "Half-pint HAL", but I post pseudonymously here so it doesn't become the first thing people see when they search for me. I use various pseudonyms (some unique, some repeated) on various different sites.
A search engine ruins your life not by merely "publishing" the false/outdated information, but by pushing it up to the top of the search results meaning that it's the first thing that people see. The right to be forgotten protects the subject from accidental discovery. That's a good thing.
The proposal / request / whatever is totally useless because it is not going after the content. The content is still there and it is TRIVIAL to find by using an uncensored search engine. All this is is a giant make-work project.
If you go back to the original case, the problem wasn't just that the data was available, but that it dominated the search results and was broadcast whenever anybody searched for him. This is why it isn't censorship -- the information is not destroyed and can still be found if actively sought, but it makes it unlikely that anyone will just stumble across it unexpectedly.
What's going through the EU's mind right now? "This is clearly futile, not working and doesn't stand a chance in hell of working......so let's do more!"?
No, it's "Google is deliberately flouting the law". I mean, seriously. They geolocate you, and direct you to a local service. That means that they know the law should apply. Then they actively offer to take you to another site that is "not in the jurisdiction". In many areas of law, once you prove yourself capable of doing something, not doing it is considered willful negligence.
If the company has sufficient influence to make the course concentrate on the how that is most relevant to the company then this would be bad. They might as well just take the people on and forget the degree.
Ah no... that would cost the companies more. Don't you know that in the UK we pay our taxes so that companies don't have to...?
When I was at school (proper) typing was probably the most valuable IT skill we were never taught - although I think most kids these days can type fairly efficiently.
Still plenty of room for improvement though. I suggest awarding academic credit for high scores in Typing of the Dead (the original, not the remake).
You would think that they would just run a script against some version control system to check if any of the submissions are too similar. It won't catch everyone, but it would at least catch the kids who can't even bother to cheat intelligently.
All current anti-plagiarism technology derives from prototypes made for Computer Science courses. When I was studying at Edinburgh, they were quite proud of their new technology, and rather than viewing it as "big brother" stuff, a lot of us students were more intriged by the idea of the tech.
And to expand on that: backtracking -- you can't roll back once you've destroyed your data. Right now, I'm engineering something using backtracking in Python, and any accidental mutation is a bloody bugger to track down.
I'm struggling to understand why this particular group of students should have such a heavily government subsidised education when they claim they can't afford it for the rest of us..
Isn't it obvious? We've got a general election in 6 months, and the guys currently in charge want to still be in charge in a year's time, so they want to be seen as the guys who did something to address the problem of unaffordable tuition fees, instead of the guys who caused the problem within months of the last election.
As for why computers, it's simply a way to give their regressive, exclusionist tactics an illusion of "progressivity". This is "real world" stuff rather than "ivory towers", so it's "economy". Yay for the world's oldest democracy.
It's also about people learning useful skills. Lots of universities are teaching web design using dreamweaver! The university curriculums are too slow to reflect the latest tech in an industry that changes completely every year. It might not be the perfect solution with regards to pay, but it's certainly a step towards graduates coming out of uni with useful skills.
And yet this is actually the industry's fault -- for two decades, they've been complaining that universities aren't teaching practical tools that have commercial use. As soon as a university tries to fill that demand, they find that whatever tool they're using is the "wrong" one, and they've drained a lot of value out of the curriculum by teaching vendor-specific rather than generalisable skills. The industry should stop trying to tell unis what to teach, and be prepared to put new grads through additional tools-specific training.
even without Rails, Ruby itself is just about the ultimate utility language. There's legitimately no reason to avoid learning short of "I hate Ruby for no apparent reason".
Really? No legitimate reason at all? Not even "I code embedded systems" or "I'm a carpenter"? Or less fascetiously, because typechecking makes debugging easier, so some people don't want to use a dynamically typed language.
The pope is a rich lazy joke along with all that elite crew..
That would be more "5 Year Old Non-News". The current pope is the first one in centuries who actually lives the sort of life the catholic church preaches.
You sound like an arsehole. I mean, seriously... a guy opens up about his mental problems in a thread where people are already making jokes about another schizophrenic - that's courage. Slagging him off as an AC - that's the opposite of courage.
Slashdot Mirror
They are demanding to apply their laws to the entire world.
No they're not -- they're demanding that google.com doesn't keep pretending not to know that a user is based in the EU when they've already geolocated the user by IP address. It's like a club bouncer IDing an underager then suggesting he use the back door.
If Europe can regulate what the whole world sees on Google, why not China?
If they do go through with it, let's at least have a www.google.us without the censorship. (Probably a good idea anyway.)
No, Europe wants to regulate what Europeans see on Google. Google knows when users are based in Europe, yet still allows them to dodge the law. If I lived in a country/state with legal cannabis and knowingly posted it to someone in a country/state where cannabis was illegal, I'd probably be breaking their laws. Google has a corporate presence in Europe, so they have to respect European jurisdiction.
More seriously, is it possible under the law to replace "Right to be forgotten" links with a big red "THIS POST HAS BEEN BLOCKED IN YOUR COUNTRY, PURSUANT TO THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN"?
No, because the article has to be delinked from the search. Furthermore, there would be a risk of falling foul of defamation laws, as you could be interpreted as implying something about the subject of the search.
Consider also that while I personally would not be fussed if the world discovered the real name of "Half-pint HAL", but I post pseudonymously here so it doesn't become the first thing people see when they search for me. I use various pseudonyms (some unique, some repeated) on various different sites.
A search engine ruins your life not by merely "publishing" the false/outdated information, but by pushing it up to the top of the search results meaning that it's the first thing that people see. The right to be forgotten protects the subject from accidental discovery. That's a good thing.
The proposal / request / whatever is totally useless because it is not going after the content. The content is still there and it is TRIVIAL to find by using an uncensored search engine. All this is is a giant make-work project.
If you go back to the original case, the problem wasn't just that the data was available, but that it dominated the search results and was broadcast whenever anybody searched for him. This is why it isn't censorship -- the information is not destroyed and can still be found if actively sought, but it makes it unlikely that anyone will just stumble across it unexpectedly.
What's going through the EU's mind right now? "This is clearly futile, not working and doesn't stand a chance in hell of working... ...so let's do more!"?
No, it's "Google is deliberately flouting the law". I mean, seriously. They geolocate you, and direct you to a local service. That means that they know the law should apply. Then they actively offer to take you to another site that is "not in the jurisdiction". In many areas of law, once you prove yourself capable of doing something, not doing it is considered willful negligence.
You claim that in spite of the bbc article we are discussing, plainly showing your ignorance while attempting to poison the well of this discussion.
You must have been reading a different article from the rest of us...
If the company has sufficient influence to make the course concentrate on the how that is most relevant to the company then this would be bad. They might as well just take the people on and forget the degree.
Ah no... that would cost the companies more. Don't you know that in the UK we pay our taxes so that companies don't have to...?
When I was at school (proper) typing was probably the most valuable IT skill we were never taught - although I think most kids these days can type fairly efficiently.
Still plenty of room for improvement though. I suggest awarding academic credit for high scores in Typing of the Dead (the original, not the remake).
You would think that they would just run a script against some version control system to check if any of the submissions are too similar. It won't catch everyone, but it would at least catch the kids who can't even bother to cheat intelligently.
All current anti-plagiarism technology derives from prototypes made for Computer Science courses. When I was studying at Edinburgh, they were quite proud of their new technology, and rather than viewing it as "big brother" stuff, a lot of us students were more intriged by the idea of the tech.
One more: immutable.
And to expand on that: backtracking -- you can't roll back once you've destroyed your data. Right now, I'm engineering something using backtracking in Python, and any accidental mutation is a bloody bugger to track down.
I'm struggling to understand why this particular group of students should have such a heavily government subsidised education when they claim they can't afford it for the rest of us..
Isn't it obvious? We've got a general election in 6 months, and the guys currently in charge want to still be in charge in a year's time, so they want to be seen as the guys who did something to address the problem of unaffordable tuition fees, instead of the guys who caused the problem within months of the last election.
As for why computers, it's simply a way to give their regressive, exclusionist tactics an illusion of "progressivity". This is "real world" stuff rather than "ivory towers", so it's "economy". Yay for the world's oldest democracy.
It's also about people learning useful skills. Lots of universities are teaching web design using dreamweaver! The university curriculums are too slow to reflect the latest tech in an industry that changes completely every year. It might not be the perfect solution with regards to pay, but it's certainly a step towards graduates coming out of uni with useful skills.
And yet this is actually the industry's fault -- for two decades, they've been complaining that universities aren't teaching practical tools that have commercial use. As soon as a university tries to fill that demand, they find that whatever tool they're using is the "wrong" one, and they've drained a lot of value out of the curriculum by teaching vendor-specific rather than generalisable skills. The industry should stop trying to tell unis what to teach, and be prepared to put new grads through additional tools-specific training.
Those words don't mean what you think they mean.
Ah yes. I see what you mean. Too long away from computing...
Two words: type safety.
even without Rails, Ruby itself is just about the ultimate utility language. There's legitimately no reason to avoid learning short of "I hate Ruby for no apparent reason".
Really? No legitimate reason at all? Not even "I code embedded systems" or "I'm a carpenter"? Or less fascetiously, because typechecking makes debugging easier, so some people don't want to use a dynamically typed language.
Ruby On Rails originated in 2003. The crash of the global economy followed.
So...RoR crashed the economy then?
I told you guys that dynamic typing was unstable....
Does it upset you that god's name is ELIZA [wikipedia.org]?
The pope is a rich lazy joke along with all that elite crew..
That would be more "5 Year Old Non-News". The current pope is the first one in centuries who actually lives the sort of life the catholic church preaches.
Did you think I was going to repe t and change my ways?
Did you think I wrote that post for your benefit? A hint: I didn't.
You sound like an arsehole. I mean, seriously... a guy opens up about his mental problems in a thread where people are already making jokes about another schizophrenic - that's courage. Slagging him off as an AC - that's the opposite of courage.
Indeed. Schizophrenia is a paranoid disorder and often involves the identification of an "other" as an enemy.
OK, I don't know what those funny animated ads are. I don't really care. One way or another, they're utterly annoying.
Machine code is like a fixie. Powerful when used in the appropriate setting, but hipsters use it in all the wrong places to try and look cool.