Well, obviously removing the index removes the content
Why are we surprised that British politicians think Google is the Internet? After all, this is the country that created the "right to be forgotten" by getting Google to remove a link. So what if the original story is still on the original website and so what if every other search engine can find it- if it's not listed on Google, then it must be gone from the Internet.
What makes people think this way? Why do they not realize that Google is like the card catalog in the library and removing the card from the catalog doesn't mean the content is removed from the library shelves.
I never understood the purpose of pop-under ads. I can understand pop-up ads since they block the browser window to get the user's attention, but pop-under windows are (by design) under the current window. So how exactly does this help advertisers if people aren't seeing the ads?
Does anyone know if there were any studies that looked at the display rate of pop-under windows versus the number of clicks? Or do advertisers only care about their "unique impressions" and "number of eyeballs" rather than actually getting people to buy the product?
Not necessarily- people could be arrested for something minor, such as being drunk in public. The police will arrest them, hold them overnight until they sober up, and release them the next morning. The DA probably won't file charges unless it's worth prosecuting over.
Unfortunately, we seem to live in a country where money comes first. It's no longer a case of "how can we make a profit in this business" but "how can we make an even larger profit, preferably without delivering a product or service". There's no reason to have data caps like there's no reason to charge a $5 ATM fee to access your own money or a $35 fee to carry luggage on an airplane or charge $50 to choose a seat on an airplane.
And I think it may only be a matter of time until other industries figure out ways to charge for things that were previously free.
Re: Shoot first, ask questions only if it makes it to court
I agree. Wasn't there a story a while back about how HBO hired an automated takedown company that filed takedown notices against its own HBOGo service? Well, sorry, you got a takedown notice so you have to take it down and keep it down.
My kid's got a track and field event later this month. What are the chances that the 100m dash get raided? It depends if the winner is paid via check with a note saying "For the 100m dash". The banks will read this as funding 100 meters worth of Daesh supplies, which is worse than the dog-walker!
I hope you don't mind if I re-word this into Trump-speak:
"What we need here is a big, beautiful, multi-billion dollar firewall. Firewalls are big and beautiful, you know? I've met some and they're beautiful, those firewalls. Hey, look at all the pretty people on this panel. Can we introduce each other? I don't think I've met some of you guys. You know, my wife is pretty, but not as pretty as Cruz's wife because she's not pretty, you know? And you want to elect someone with a pretty wife, you know? Not someone who's not pretty."
All this talk about how terrorists might use burner phones overlooks the obvious: telemarketers that use burner phones. You know, the ones that call you at 9:00pm even though you're on the Do Not Call List to tell you you're eligible for a credit card fee reduction. Sure, you can report their current number to the Do Not Call list again, but nothing's going to happen if they simply toss the phone after a few hours of use.
Re: What about the City of Moutainview's share of the blame?
I was just about to say this. While we're quick to blame Comcast for this issue, what about the city? Did it drag it's feet? Did it not allow Comcast to get the proper permitting? However, if this was true, it would put Comcast in a no-win situation: 1) If they didn't say anything, the customer would think Comcast wasn't communicating. 2) If they told the customer that the city was dragging its heels, they'd be accused of shifting the blame.
But that's still no reason to try to bill the customer over $60,000... and then only backpedal when tech sites apply pressure. What about all the other companies who are in a similar situation but who didn't contact the media?
I was just about to say this. If Google stopped all its services in France, who would lose more: Google or the French people? Imagine if the entire country was locked out of GMail or search because Google wouldn't put up with the regulations from the government? And remember, French people are known for rioting over causes.
Like a commenter in the Ars article said, people could be reasonably confused if they saw a package named "Kik" that didn't come from the Kik company. And like a commenter here said, it would be like if you made a namespace called "walmart". How can you justify getting upset and pulling all your code when the real Walmart sends you a letter saying you're confusing people by using their name? It doesn't matter if Kik or Walmart make similar code since people will recognize the name and assume the code comes from these companies.
This proves two principles: 1) When all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail. In this case, everything must be watched in case anyone is a terrorist. This means innocent drawings and toddler-speak are now terrorist acts in the making. 2) Occam's Razor: how did the authorities twist, warp, and bend the information to make it fit their story of a terrorist in training? Yet the simplest answer is correct: a toddler makes a poor drawing and then doesn't have the vocabulary to explain it. If he can't pronounce "cucumber", why does anyone think he can pronounce "terrorism"?
But unofficial creations harm no one, whether or not they make money. Let's look at a few facts: Paramount is releasing "Star Trek Beyond", an offical Star Trek movie with the director of "Fast and Furious". This movie looks like it will be full of action, which may or may not appeal to Stra Trek fans. "Prelude to Axanar" has raised over a million dollars on Kickstarter. This shows that Star Trek fans want and support this kind of movie.
To put on a conspiracy cap for a minute... Who's being harmed? I would think Paramount is jealous that this fan film is getting more acceptance in the fan community than their official movie. AND the "Anaxar" people are showing that it's possible to make a quality movie for a fraction of the cost of a studio production. How much is it costing to make "Star Trek Beyond"? $100 million? $150 million? So, yes, I think Paramount thinks it's being harmed by the publicity for "Axanar"... though Paramount is creating more publicity with the lawsuit and the now silly list of words they think are copyrighted.
So explain how this is different from renting a movie from Redbox? If I only want to see a movie once, Netflix (streaming or DVD rental) or Redbox rental works fine. If I want to own the movie, I'll buy the DVD.
It would be interesting to see how people like this sheriff react to safes, such as those found in banks. Would he arrest the CEO of the Smith Safe Company for making a bank vault that the police couldn't break into? Them why is it any different for electronic devices? The whole point is that people want privacy and security. What would he tell banks if they said they didn't want a safe for $5 million worth of jewels?
Like many people are saying (myself included) is that many websites lost the "you're stealing our content" argument when they started serving annoying ads, video ads, and malware. And like so many people are saying, I wouldn't mind seeing ads if they were trusted or relevant.
Exactly. Why isn't this point getting more attention? It seems like everyone enjoys debating whether Apple should or shouldn't do what the FBI asks yet no one's really talking about how Apple got into this position in the first place.
Maybe if the FBI did its job at the beginning and didn't wipe the crime scene or tell the San Bernadino School Board to change the password then they could have gotten a good backup and they wouldn't be in this position.
But is it a net win? What happens to the plastic containers that the fruit is in? If the store is removing the skin because people throw the skin in the trash (instead of composting), won't these same people simply throw the plastic containers in the trash instead of recycling them? Or are we singling out Whole Foods buyers because they're more environmentally friendly? :)