If you want information hidden, have the site that is hosting the information remove it.
You missed the point. It can well be that the site hosting the information presents a balanced view, showing both your (to stay in my example) arrest as well as your acquittal.
But Google will show only parts of it because arrests simply tend to make more headlines, and thus more links, and thus higher page-rank.
Can't tell (not telepathic), but I'm in support of this right and I can tell you what I think: The Internet is full of half-truths and outright lies. Search engines do not deliver results based on the truth value of sites, but on popularity, page ranking and such. If, 10 years ago, you were arrested for child porn, with headlines in the newspapers. Three months later, charges were dropped, everyone apologized profoundly to you for the mistake, the government paid a ton of money for your troubles and the prosecutor who go your arrested lost his job.
Which part of this, do you think, will show up on Google, today?
We can do nothing about people remembering things wrong. But we can do something about search engines creating false impressions.
Maybe in the future, semantic web and intelligent agents will be able to show you the relevant context information and solve the problem. But until then, people's lives are being ruined and that problem needs a solution before they're dead, wouldn't you agree?
That's the whole point. Kim Dotcom is able to reach the masses that don't even know about slashdot.
Yes, that exactly is the problem. Every aspiring dicator learns in propaganda 101 to control the story. Having someone like Kimble be the "face" of file sharing is a smart move. He's an asshole, a criminal, he's rich out of touch with reality. He's not the guy that John and Jane feel close to. He's just another "celebrity" scandal.
A popular, public figurehead that takes on the Copyright MAFIAA openly and that can't be "crushed like a bug"
Oh, please. Kimble will sell out his friends to cut a deal. That's not an assumption - he's done it before. He will not fight this fight for you. He'll bail out at the first good opportunity.
I've yet to see any other rich people show an interest in Kimbles fate. They're not stupid, and if they care at all they've had someone check this guy and tell them he's just a slimeball whose time is up. In fact, he should've been caught years ago, he avoided prison time more than once by changing country.
That's not how rich people work. They don't have to flee their countries, it would be too uncomfortable.
So, as soon as you start to realize they skirted around the laws for something expedient, the amount of distrust around all of the rest of it goes up quite a bit.
Yeah, you'd almost think it was intentionally blundered so it would make for a great show while at the end none of the actors are harmed too much.
I agree with you, but I also agree with his idea that information should be set free.
In a dialog with two extreme positions, invariable both sides are full of shit.
You need to define "information" better. I'd not like all information about my private life be free. Nor am I interested in yours. And some information can cost lives, not because of evil government spies, but because not everyone in the world is well-meaning.
What he didn't evaluate was the risk that the MPAA et al had bought off/co-opted the US government, who decided they were going to go into the business of strong-arming people when they don't have an applicable law.
You can't plan for stuff like that.
Bullshit.
After the Pirate Bay was seized the 1st time, everyone in a similar business should've expected it, especially when he's a career criminal with several previous convictions, including for copyright violations, like Kimble is.
At that point, it's just a show trial.
And he's playing his role perfectly. What, you think he's the victim here? Please, get a grip. Actual victims of the government don't phone in their press conference from their mansion. They sit in Gitmo or some overcrowded federal prison with their assets seized through forfeiture laws. Yes, I know he's in NZ and those laws don't apply, I don't mean it literally. Everyone with three working brain cells will realized that if they wanted to, they could make his life less comfortable.
Kimble isn't "one of us", and never was. He's a career criminal, just like the MPAA and most politicians. He's not the Robin Hood his PR agency tries to create, he's just the sheriffs jealous brother. Same breed, same morality, and given half the chance, he'll fuck you over the same way for a quick buck.
I wish/. would spend less time on these celebrity spectacles and more on the people who actually make a difference, who actually are on our side, whose interest goes beyond having a mansion and a private helicopter.
Troll someone else. Your first sentence I just debunked, no need to repeat the effort. Your 2nd sentence is proving my point - MS spent tons of money, they're a great example for the barrier being quite high. Your 3rd sentence is self-referential.
It's a good troll posting, actually, when I think of it. At first glance it seems just completely stupid, but looking more closely reveals a few nice gems that make it clear it was crafted as a joke on itself. Well done. I'm taking back my 1st sentence, high-quality trolling is rare these days.
Why so focussed on human life? By the time a ship entered another galaxy, we wouldn't be humans anymore anyway. It's called evolution. What you and me consider human would be somewhere in the biology text books under "primitive ancestors of our race".
I wondered about this as well. Who in their right mind would use Facebook without an adblocker? I've seen it on a friends computer once, and couldn't even find the content that's supposedly hidden somewhere between the 300 layers of crap.
Because of the many advantages it offers. Linking to jquery on a CDN, for example, not only reduces the load on your server, and the number of connections, there is also a really good chance the visitor already has it cached because many sites do it and thus share a URL. And even if not, at least that part of your site will come from a localized node.
China's gated internet will become more isolated from the rest of the world.
And you think they care very much?
What we in the west fail to understand is how isolated non-western countries already are. I know some inside views from Russia through personal contacts. Russia has its own Facebook (vk), it's own Google (yandex) and so on. For pretty much every popular service, it has its own version, usually much more popular than the western variant.
I can imagine it's the same for China. They could be isolated and for most people not much would change.
Isn't the EU shoving it down the people's throats what the person was arguing?
The GP claimed the EU is shoving laws down nation states' throats, but that's only a dangerous half-truth. The fact that typically the same politicians who claim "bad EU makes us do evil things" are the ones behind the EU doing said things is a critical part of the puzzle the GP either wasn't aware of or omitted intentionally.
and the EU is a conglomeration of thugs who makes a lot of their money by suing big companies for free money.
If I had a dollar for everytime someone posts these 100% predicatable pieces of hogwash, I'd put Warren Buffet to shame.
The EU is so crazy corporation-friendly, claiming they're in any way treating corporations badly is like saying the oceans are evil bastards because they're trying to drown all the fish.
What you are referring to while calling it "barrier to entry" is actually "barrier to becoming the top player".
You failed telepathy class, I assume?
No, I meant barrier to entry. You may think that if you put up a website on a free webhosting site that returns results from that MySQL database your single-threaded Perl crawler is filling, you've somehow entered the search market, but I'm pretty sure everyone who's stopped laughing will explain that's not what entering a market means.
You've not entered the furniture megastore market either when you're selling your old sofa on ebay, you know?
What part of this is not true? The EU is operating like a socialist federation these days: they shove EU laws (up to and including a constitution) through their member states' throat and enforce them
You have no idea how EU politics works.
What's being "shoved down member states throats" are almost all laws that the national politicians wanted, but couldn't get through locally because of popular resistance and the media eating them alive. So they push it up to the EU, it comes back a few year later, thanks to short public memory they now claim they have no choice, it's an EU mandate, and they get the laws they wanted.
What is happening here is that a bunch of politicians are interfering in the legitimate business of a private enterprise.
Without this naster "interference", those private enterprises wouldn't exist. The government provides the stability, regulation and occasional enforcement of the rules that enables the business world to function at all. Without contract law and courts, do you really think the stock market, stock ownership of corporations and the whole investment sector would exist?
Funny how one kind of "interference" is taken for granted, as long as it benefits you, but as soon as you don't like it, it's evil nasty mafia-style badness.
Not as a result of violating any laws
It's called anti-trust, and yes there are laws about it.
Yugoslavia was no threat to EU, ever. It was a civil war, and within Europe many people consider it a mistake to become involved.
As for Putin - you can think what you want, he's never expressed any desires to expand into Europe. That he got nervous about Ukraine - well, after Kuba you americans shouldn't be talking. What would you do if there was a revolution in Mexico or Canada and the new government is strongly pro-Russia with open, direct and very vocal russian support? Or chinese. Or both. You'd sit on your asses and say "let the people decide", yes?
The EU has become so fucking corporation friendly over the past two decades, we have rising poverty in all developed EU countries, falling real wages, unemployment, high percentages of temporary employment and are busy destroying the middle class that kept Europe stable for six decades. All in the name of protecting banksters and corporate profits, who are breaking records yearly.
Accusing the EU of shaking down corporations is orwellian.
There is no barrier to entry other than excellence in search.
Your entire argument is based on a false assumption. It's like saying that there's no barrier to entry in the space mining business other than excellence in technology.
"Excellence in search" is not very easy, and given the Internets size requires a massive infrastructure by itself. In addition, you can have the best search engine in the world, as long as nobody knows about it, it's worthless. And since a large percentage of Internet users are only dimly aware that they're using a search engine when they type some words into the address bar, it's not as easy as you assume it to be.
All regulations will do in a situation like this is break the functioning market.
You missed the main part, I figure. Nobody is trying to break up the search market. Anti-trust is all about preventing a dominant player in one market from leveraging its dominance to become a dominant player in other markets where it would not prevail on merits alone.
The search market, for all this regulation, would be unchanged.
European regulations should be focusing on the edges of the market where Google is trying to manipulate things, such as forcing them to randomize product listing instead of always listing their own first.
Slashdot Mirror
I may not have been clear enough.
The news websites in question may all have put up all the information, including - in my example - your acquittal.
But due to the way Google page rank works, only the "arrest for child porn" headlines show up on the first 20 pages for your name.
That is a problem of Google's making, not of the news sites.
If you want information hidden, have the site that is hosting the information remove it.
You missed the point. It can well be that the site hosting the information presents a balanced view, showing both your (to stay in my example) arrest as well as your acquittal.
But Google will show only parts of it because arrests simply tend to make more headlines, and thus more links, and thus higher page-rank.
What's going through the EU's mind right now?
Can't tell (not telepathic), but I'm in support of this right and I can tell you what I think: The Internet is full of half-truths and outright lies. Search engines do not deliver results based on the truth value of sites, but on popularity, page ranking and such. If, 10 years ago, you were arrested for child porn, with headlines in the newspapers. Three months later, charges were dropped, everyone apologized profoundly to you for the mistake, the government paid a ton of money for your troubles and the prosecutor who go your arrested lost his job.
Which part of this, do you think, will show up on Google, today?
We can do nothing about people remembering things wrong. But we can do something about search engines creating false impressions.
Maybe in the future, semantic web and intelligent agents will be able to show you the relevant context information and solve the problem. But until then, people's lives are being ruined and that problem needs a solution before they're dead, wouldn't you agree?
That's the whole point. Kim Dotcom is able to reach the masses that don't even know about slashdot.
Yes, that exactly is the problem. Every aspiring dicator learns in propaganda 101 to control the story. Having someone like Kimble be the "face" of file sharing is a smart move. He's an asshole, a criminal, he's rich out of touch with reality. He's not the guy that John and Jane feel close to. He's just another "celebrity" scandal.
A popular, public figurehead that takes on the Copyright MAFIAA openly and that can't be "crushed like a bug"
Oh, please. Kimble will sell out his friends to cut a deal. That's not an assumption - he's done it before. He will not fight this fight for you. He'll bail out at the first good opportunity.
I've yet to see any other rich people show an interest in Kimbles fate. They're not stupid, and if they care at all they've had someone check this guy and tell them he's just a slimeball whose time is up. In fact, he should've been caught years ago, he avoided prison time more than once by changing country.
That's not how rich people work. They don't have to flee their countries, it would be too uncomfortable.
So, as soon as you start to realize they skirted around the laws for something expedient, the amount of distrust around all of the rest of it goes up quite a bit.
Yeah, you'd almost think it was intentionally blundered so it would make for a great show while at the end none of the actors are harmed too much.
Not everyone here is 12 years old and still lives with his mother. :-)
I was wrong. Do go troll elsewhere. EOT.
I agree with you, but I also agree with his idea that information should be set free.
In a dialog with two extreme positions, invariable both sides are full of shit.
You need to define "information" better. I'd not like all information about my private life be free. Nor am I interested in yours. And some information can cost lives, not because of evil government spies, but because not everyone in the world is well-meaning.
What he didn't evaluate was the risk that the MPAA et al had bought off/co-opted the US government, who decided they were going to go into the business of strong-arming people when they don't have an applicable law.
You can't plan for stuff like that.
Bullshit.
After the Pirate Bay was seized the 1st time, everyone in a similar business should've expected it, especially when he's a career criminal with several previous convictions, including for copyright violations, like Kimble is.
At that point, it's just a show trial.
And he's playing his role perfectly. What, you think he's the victim here? Please, get a grip. Actual victims of the government don't phone in their press conference from their mansion. They sit in Gitmo or some overcrowded federal prison with their assets seized through forfeiture laws. Yes, I know he's in NZ and those laws don't apply, I don't mean it literally. Everyone with three working brain cells will realized that if they wanted to, they could make his life less comfortable.
Dotcom said via live video link from his mansion
No need to read any further.
Kimble isn't "one of us", and never was. He's a career criminal, just like the MPAA and most politicians. He's not the Robin Hood his PR agency tries to create, he's just the sheriffs jealous brother. Same breed, same morality, and given half the chance, he'll fuck you over the same way for a quick buck.
I wish /. would spend less time on these celebrity spectacles and more on the people who actually make a difference, who actually are on our side, whose interest goes beyond having a mansion and a private helicopter.
Troll someone else. Your first sentence I just debunked, no need to repeat the effort. Your 2nd sentence is proving my point - MS spent tons of money, they're a great example for the barrier being quite high. Your 3rd sentence is self-referential.
It's a good troll posting, actually, when I think of it. At first glance it seems just completely stupid, but looking more closely reveals a few nice gems that make it clear it was crafted as a joke on itself. Well done. I'm taking back my 1st sentence, high-quality trolling is rare these days.
Why so focussed on human life? By the time a ship entered another galaxy, we wouldn't be humans anymore anyway. It's called evolution. What you and me consider human would be somewhere in the biology text books under "primitive ancestors of our race".
How did she get a popup ad on facebook?
I wondered about this as well. Who in their right mind would use Facebook without an adblocker? I've seen it on a friends computer once, and couldn't even find the content that's supposedly hidden somewhere between the 300 layers of crap.
Nice trolling. Sadly, you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.
I want my old /. back, where people were not always easy, but at least not idiots.
Because of the many advantages it offers. Linking to jquery on a CDN, for example, not only reduces the load on your server, and the number of connections, there is also a really good chance the visitor already has it cached because many sites do it and thus share a URL. And even if not, at least that part of your site will come from a localized node.
China's gated internet will become more isolated from the rest of the world.
And you think they care very much?
What we in the west fail to understand is how isolated non-western countries already are. I know some inside views from Russia through personal contacts. Russia has its own Facebook (vk), it's own Google (yandex) and so on. For pretty much every popular service, it has its own version, usually much more popular than the western variant.
I can imagine it's the same for China. They could be isolated and for most people not much would change.
Isn't the EU shoving it down the people's throats what the person was arguing?
The GP claimed the EU is shoving laws down nation states' throats, but that's only a dangerous half-truth. The fact that typically the same politicians who claim "bad EU makes us do evil things" are the ones behind the EU doing said things is a critical part of the puzzle the GP either wasn't aware of or omitted intentionally.
and the EU is a conglomeration of thugs who makes a lot of their money by suing big companies for free money.
If I had a dollar for everytime someone posts these 100% predicatable pieces of hogwash, I'd put Warren Buffet to shame.
The EU is so crazy corporation-friendly, claiming they're in any way treating corporations badly is like saying the oceans are evil bastards because they're trying to drown all the fish.
What you are referring to while calling it "barrier to entry" is actually "barrier to becoming the top player".
You failed telepathy class, I assume?
No, I meant barrier to entry. You may think that if you put up a website on a free webhosting site that returns results from that MySQL database your single-threaded Perl crawler is filling, you've somehow entered the search market, but I'm pretty sure everyone who's stopped laughing will explain that's not what entering a market means.
You've not entered the furniture megastore market either when you're selling your old sofa on ebay, you know?
What part of this is not true? The EU is operating like a socialist federation these days: they shove EU laws (up to and including a constitution) through their member states' throat and enforce them
You have no idea how EU politics works.
What's being "shoved down member states throats" are almost all laws that the national politicians wanted, but couldn't get through locally because of popular resistance and the media eating them alive. So they push it up to the EU, it comes back a few year later, thanks to short public memory they now claim they have no choice, it's an EU mandate, and they get the laws they wanted.
They should go and re-read their history books and remember how close all of Europe was to speaking either German or Russian.
Funny historic fact: The USA was one vote away from speaking German. :-)
What is happening here is that a bunch of politicians are interfering in the legitimate business of a private enterprise.
Without this naster "interference", those private enterprises wouldn't exist. The government provides the stability, regulation and occasional enforcement of the rules that enables the business world to function at all. Without contract law and courts, do you really think the stock market, stock ownership of corporations and the whole investment sector would exist?
Funny how one kind of "interference" is taken for granted, as long as it benefits you, but as soon as you don't like it, it's evil nasty mafia-style badness.
Not as a result of violating any laws
It's called anti-trust, and yes there are laws about it.
Yugoslavia was no threat to EU, ever. It was a civil war, and within Europe many people consider it a mistake to become involved.
As for Putin - you can think what you want, he's never expressed any desires to expand into Europe. That he got nervous about Ukraine - well, after Kuba you americans shouldn't be talking. What would you do if there was a revolution in Mexico or Canada and the new government is strongly pro-Russia with open, direct and very vocal russian support? Or chinese. Or both. You'd sit on your asses and say "let the people decide", yes?
The EU uses a mafia style shakedown program
Get some help for your paranoia issues.
The EU has become so fucking corporation friendly over the past two decades, we have rising poverty in all developed EU countries, falling real wages, unemployment, high percentages of temporary employment and are busy destroying the middle class that kept Europe stable for six decades. All in the name of protecting banksters and corporate profits, who are breaking records yearly.
Accusing the EU of shaking down corporations is orwellian.
There is no barrier to entry other than excellence in search.
Your entire argument is based on a false assumption. It's like saying that there's no barrier to entry in the space mining business other than excellence in technology.
"Excellence in search" is not very easy, and given the Internets size requires a massive infrastructure by itself. In addition, you can have the best search engine in the world, as long as nobody knows about it, it's worthless. And since a large percentage of Internet users are only dimly aware that they're using a search engine when they type some words into the address bar, it's not as easy as you assume it to be.
All regulations will do in a situation like this is break the functioning market.
You missed the main part, I figure. Nobody is trying to break up the search market. Anti-trust is all about preventing a dominant player in one market from leveraging its dominance to become a dominant player in other markets where it would not prevail on merits alone.
The search market, for all this regulation, would be unchanged.
European regulations should be focusing on the edges of the market where Google is trying to manipulate things, such as forcing them to randomize product listing instead of always listing their own first.
Great idea!
Oh, wait...
That's exactly what they're thinking about.