Basically, this is attempting to stop an accident by looking for what could contribute to an accident. People who have not been distracted and have not been driving badly are going to be made "guilty" because someone, somewhere using similar devices has been distracted.
Good old pre-crime. You haven't done anything to harm anyone but ... you are guilty, here's your ticket.
I'm sorry but, with today's voters being lied to, PR'd, manipulated and most politicians promising one thing and then doing whatever money has dictated they do, I don't think our problems are going to be solved by making voting faster and more prone to manipulation.
What we really need is better informed voters, and more transparency in government.
We don't need a mechanism to enable more ignorant people to vote on spur-of-the-moment-I-just-read-about-this-on-the-Internet whims.
A response from the commissioner is understood to be imminent, after Almunia’s office told Google in mid-December that it must convince its rivals that it competes fairly in the web search market or else it could – within months – face sanctions for alleged “abuse of dominance.
Apparently, Google isn't expected to prove they haven't broken any laws. Apparently the EU demands they "convince its rivals that it competes fairly."
Google: "Gee Microsoft, what would it take to convince you that we compete fairly?" Microsoft: "Die! Google! Die!" EU: "You didn't 'play fair' and die, Google, it looks like we'll have to sanction you."
I had an absolutely horrible experience with a contractor. I wrote up the experience on Angie's List.
I was hounded and hounded by the contractor who finally took me to small claims court. Warning others via Angie's List is just not worth the harassment. I just told Angie's List to remove my comment and I don't use Angie's List any more.
Not too bright, are you?
The "Internet" is concerned with Assange being extradited to the US and facing a possible death sentence for publishing (not stealing) information.
The alleged rape is not the point. Would it be proven in court? Probably not, Assange would likely be extradited to the US immediately and never go to court in Sweden.
For you to claim that the only reason people defend Assange is because he is accused of rape shows that you are incredibly stupid, a troll or your purpose is to shift the discussion away from the real, very important factors of all this.
How do you know it was "uploaded without permission or license"? Huh? Was it proven in court? Was any proof provided? No, it was just a takedown request, period. But you think accusing people of illegal activities without any proof at all is a good thing??? The statement that the video was removed because of a request by XXXXX is fully factual. Why do you think that's a bad thing? Why would XXXXX be ashamed of "protecting his or her precious IP??? I think you have the whole concept here backwards.