This "right to be forgotten" should be on a case-by-case court-ordered basis.
If you own a building with rental tenants, and one of them refuses to pay rent, you can't just kick them out. You have to go to the court and get an official eviction notice.
The same should be true here as well, if you want a link removed you should have to appear in front of a court, and get an official "forget-me" notice.
It's not the greatest example, but here is YouTube's policy on counter-notices (to get content put back up) https://support.google.com/you...
It basically says, if the DMCA takedown is filed on behalf of one of the major media companies, Google is contractually required to deny all counter-claims. If you want your content re-instated, you have to sue whoever made the DMCA complaint.
That is only the first step. The site owner then can make a counter claim and the information goes back up.
What really happens is that the site owner makes a counterclaim, the hosting company goes to the DMCA complainer and asks "are you sure this is your copyright?", the complainer autoreplies with a "yes", and the hosting company respond back to the site owner "sorry, we verified the complaint, your content stays down unless you sue in court"
The only time that content goes back up is when either the DMCA complainer says "oops, we made a mistake", or the hosting company actually does some investigating of it's own (which is rare)
If figure skating isn't a sport solely because it's not objective, then there are a lot of Olympic sports that aren't actually sports either (high-dive, gymnastics,etc) as well as most of the X-games (freestyle BMX, half-pipe, etc)
By your definition, any sport that is subjectively rated by technique, instead of objectively rated by pre-defined goals, isn't a sport.
"People think that I must be a very strange person. This is not correct. I have the heart of a small boy. It is in a glass jar on my desk." -Stephen King
What is the difference between "talking about murder fantasies" and "conspiracy to commit murder"?
"Honestly, I wasn't trying to get my wife killed, I was just really upset and venting steam, it's not my fault a professional hit-man decided to help me out"
Isn't this a regulation that retroactively reclassifies something sold as a toy into more than a toy?
If you can't retroactively ban old machine guns, then you can't retroactively ban old toys either. That's why we have grandfather clauses. (seat belt laws, for example, don't apply to cars made before a certain year, if the car had no belts from the factory)
If I had just spent big money on a fancy toy drone, and suddenly found out that the law had been changed (after the fact) to ban me from actually using it, I would be demanding that the FAA either reimburse me, or grant me a grandfathered exception.
My ex-roomate sent her phone in for warranty repair, and removed what she THOUGHT was the microSD card full of nude selfies.
When she got the new phone, she asked me for help because all the pictures were gone from the microSD
It turned out she had kept the (completely useless) sim card, and left the microSD card in the phone for everyone at the Verizon warehouse to look though.
Why is this system only usable on these two specific models of cars? Is there something special about the cars that makes them easier to automate, or does everyone at the company drive exclusively brand-new Audis and they have nothing else to test with?
It seems oddly specific for a system that should be pretty universal.
Even if the kit does have to be custom-made for each model of car, wouldn't it make sense to design the initial version for something with a wider market, like a Toyota Corolla or Ford Focus?
It's kinda funny how everyone read my comment, and the ONLY thought going through their head was "there's a clock on my dashboard, why does he need a watch?"
Maybe I'm riding my bike, maybe I'm riding a motorcycle, maybe I'm running, maybe I'm wearing a clown suit and riding a unicycle, IT DOESN'T MATTER.
The point was that it's easier to look at my wrist than dig in my pocket, when I'm are doing something that requires all my concentration.
If you are the kind of person who pulls their phone out just to check the time, then you aren't the type of person that would benefit from a smart-watch in the first place
I wear a basic timex digital watch, not because it's some sort of fashion statement, but because it's easier to look at my wrist (especially while driving) than it is to pull my phone out, without dropping it or getting it dirty.
It took this long before a judge was actually allowed to make a ruling on it.
In order for a judge to make a ruling, there has to be a court case first, the judges aren't allowed to initiate action on their own. In order for someone to bring a case against the list, they first have to prove that the list affects them (this is why the ACLU couldn't do anything on their own, because they themselves weren't on the list). The problem is that the list is completely secret, so there is no way of knowing someone is on the list until they actually try to fly somewhere and get stopped.
It's taken this long for someone to be officially stopped who had both the resources and the desire to challenge the list in court.
The only reason I wasn't sure was because I have met some pretty extreme libertarian science-deniers that really do think this way.
Their belief is that the government just makes up the science as an excuse to control the populace. (they also think jet contrails are full of mind-control poison)
I'm pretty sure even libertarianism doesn't allow you to lie about owning something that you don't actually own.
I get the feeling that a lot of libertarians aren't apposed to government because it's oppressive, they are opposed to it because it gets in the way of taking advantage of people. The Tea Party is a perfect example of this, wealthy people who are sick of the government getting in the way of even more wealth.
Wow, this is an impressive loophole that the NSA and BND have found. The BND can't spy on Germans, and the NSA can't spy on Americans, but they CAN spy on each other, and then share whatever they find.
The sharing doesn't even have to be official, the BND and NSA could just claim that the information was "leaked" to them by some anonymous 3rd party, allowing them to gain all the intelligence they wanted on their own citizens without actually spying on them directly.
Slashdot Mirror
How is the BBC "left wing"?
Why do people assume that if an organization is more "left" or "right" of their own beliefs, that organization must be on a "wing" of some sort.?
Having you ever considered that you might be so biased to the Right that ALL media (except fox news) looks like Leftist propaganda?
Also, I find it very hard to believe that the BBC would have supported this law.
This "right to be forgotten" should be on a case-by-case court-ordered basis.
If you own a building with rental tenants, and one of them refuses to pay rent, you can't just kick them out. You have to go to the court and get an official eviction notice.
The same should be true here as well, if you want a link removed you should have to appear in front of a court, and get an official "forget-me" notice.
It's not the greatest example, but here is YouTube's policy on counter-notices (to get content put back up)
https://support.google.com/you...
It basically says, if the DMCA takedown is filed on behalf of one of the major media companies, Google is contractually required to deny all counter-claims. If you want your content re-instated, you have to sue whoever made the DMCA complaint.
That is only the first step. The site owner then can make a counter claim and the information goes back up.
What really happens is that the site owner makes a counterclaim, the hosting company goes to the DMCA complainer and asks "are you sure this is your copyright?", the complainer autoreplies with a "yes", and the hosting company respond back to the site owner "sorry, we verified the complaint, your content stays down unless you sue in court"
The only time that content goes back up is when either the DMCA complainer says "oops, we made a mistake", or the hosting company actually does some investigating of it's own (which is rare)
Maybe jumping over Poles is a popular sport in Finland
I heard it was popular in Germany back in the 1940s....
If figure skating isn't a sport solely because it's not objective, then there are a lot of Olympic sports that aren't actually sports either (high-dive, gymnastics,etc) as well as most of the X-games (freestyle BMX, half-pipe, etc)
By your definition, any sport that is subjectively rated by technique, instead of objectively rated by pre-defined goals, isn't a sport.
"People think that I must be a very strange person. This is not correct. I have the heart of a small boy. It is in a glass jar on my desk." -Stephen King
That's because he wrote it in English. If he had written the book in Arabic, it would have been classified as a terrorist training manual.
What is the difference between "talking about murder fantasies" and "conspiracy to commit murder"?
"Honestly, I wasn't trying to get my wife killed, I was just really upset and venting steam, it's not my fault a professional hit-man decided to help me out"
Isn't this a regulation that retroactively reclassifies something sold as a toy into more than a toy?
If you can't retroactively ban old machine guns, then you can't retroactively ban old toys either. That's why we have grandfather clauses. (seat belt laws, for example, don't apply to cars made before a certain year, if the car had no belts from the factory)
If I had just spent big money on a fancy toy drone, and suddenly found out that the law had been changed (after the fact) to ban me from actually using it, I would be demanding that the FAA either reimburse me, or grant me a grandfathered exception.
My ex-roomate sent her phone in for warranty repair, and removed what she THOUGHT was the microSD card full of nude selfies.
When she got the new phone, she asked me for help because all the pictures were gone from the microSD
It turned out she had kept the (completely useless) sim card, and left the microSD card in the phone for everyone at the Verizon warehouse to look though.
And if you removed all the state and federal fuel taxes, gas wouldn't be so expensive (at the pump) either.
Why is this system only usable on these two specific models of cars? Is there something special about the cars that makes them easier to automate, or does everyone at the company drive exclusively brand-new Audis and they have nothing else to test with?
It seems oddly specific for a system that should be pretty universal.
Even if the kit does have to be custom-made for each model of car, wouldn't it make sense to design the initial version for something with a wider market, like a Toyota Corolla or Ford Focus?
The lack of quote tags makes it look like you are are arguing with yourself.
Even a regular non-solar LCD watch should get 5 years out of a single battery
And bluetooth earpieces are any better? At least it's clear he is talking into the watch, and not just staring off into space talking to the wall
It's kinda funny how everyone read my comment, and the ONLY thought going through their head was "there's a clock on my dashboard, why does he need a watch?"
Maybe I'm riding my bike, maybe I'm riding a motorcycle, maybe I'm running, maybe I'm wearing a clown suit and riding a unicycle, IT DOESN'T MATTER.
The point was that it's easier to look at my wrist than dig in my pocket, when I'm are doing something that requires all my concentration.
I drive a non-luxury car that is more than 10 years old. I'm lucky to have cup holders.
I'm not going to buy a new car just to get a dash clock.
If you are the kind of person who pulls their phone out just to check the time, then you aren't the type of person that would benefit from a smart-watch in the first place
I wear a basic timex digital watch, not because it's some sort of fashion statement, but because it's easier to look at my wrist (especially while driving) than it is to pull my phone out, without dropping it or getting it dirty.
It took this long before a judge was actually allowed to make a ruling on it.
In order for a judge to make a ruling, there has to be a court case first, the judges aren't allowed to initiate action on their own. In order for someone to bring a case against the list, they first have to prove that the list affects them (this is why the ACLU couldn't do anything on their own, because they themselves weren't on the list). The problem is that the list is completely secret, so there is no way of knowing someone is on the list until they actually try to fly somewhere and get stopped.
It's taken this long for someone to be officially stopped who had both the resources and the desire to challenge the list in court.
The only reason I wasn't sure was because I have met some pretty extreme libertarian science-deniers that really do think this way.
Their belief is that the government just makes up the science as an excuse to control the populace. (they also think jet contrails are full of mind-control poison)
I can't tell if you are being serious or sarcastic.
I'm pretty sure even libertarianism doesn't allow you to lie about owning something that you don't actually own.
I get the feeling that a lot of libertarians aren't apposed to government because it's oppressive, they are opposed to it because it gets in the way of taking advantage of people. The Tea Party is a perfect example of this, wealthy people who are sick of the government getting in the way of even more wealth.
Wow, this is an impressive loophole that the NSA and BND have found. The BND can't spy on Germans, and the NSA can't spy on Americans, but they CAN spy on each other, and then share whatever they find.
The sharing doesn't even have to be official, the BND and NSA could just claim that the information was "leaked" to them by some anonymous 3rd party, allowing them to gain all the intelligence they wanted on their own citizens without actually spying on them directly.