The long-term GDP increase for the EU is estimated to +0.76% and +0.29% for Japan under a symmetrical scenario.
It's important to emphasize that this is "long-term": what this means is that the GDP could be higher by the percentages quoted after ten or more years. The average extra GDP growth per year is therefore an even smaller 0.08% and 0.03% for the EU and Japan respectively. That is, like TTIP and TPP, the predicted benefits that will accrue from JEFTA are likely to be very small, while the risks and possible losses in terms of ISDS fines, say, have been ignored completely.
With respect to the benefits, they might be small on a total % basis, but in absolute terms a tiny % of a really big number is still a big number.
And for Japan, it's 0.29% of a more modest $4.41trillion, ~$12billion.
Therefore if, for example, the EU manages to enter into 5 such treaties a decade, each only doing similar sub-1% increases, that could still be heading towards a cumulative trillion dollar extra per year.
Fake commenting would be to come on here and claim to have evidence that the President of the United States had illegally ordered electronic surveillance his potential successor, when, in fact, that evidence doesn't exist.
Of course the evidence doesn't exist of illegal spying. That's because I'm sure the President got some legal adviser to provide written, classified, legal advice that it is entirely within the President's power to spy on anyone, anywhere, anytime, thus making it legal spying.
(And just in case it's not obvious, this is an ironic reference to the John Yoo torture memo)
I think this ranking of results should be introduced as another filter, like they have a porn filter, so that the searcher can choose whether or not to see results affected by this.
I think they need to make 2 new filters.
1) Nanny State Filter - this would incorporate the existing porn filter and this new 'offensive' results filter.
2) Big Brother filter - this would do 2 things: a) filter out anything the local national government doesn't want you to see, pirate sites, electoral opposition, topics they don't want covered, i.e. a per-nation-tuned version of the Great Firewall. b) send every search query, and any resultant links clicked on, to the government, with identifying information, so the government can keep an eye on you.
3) this isn't really a filter, it's an easy way to disable all the other filters, it's called the Freedom Button. Pressing this will disable all the filters.
Then as a user you can choose, Freedom, Nanny Stage or Big Brother (or Nanny + Brother).
Custom firmware. Therefore it's not based on hardware detection.
However, there are things in the firmware that could give them away - e.g. the ISP could monitor for communications with the reporting servers if the firmware directly accesses these rather than using some obfuscation method (such as randomized proxies/VPNs etc.) or even DPI if the reporting doesn't use SSL (which I would hope it would).
The linked article stated that it took 3 weeks (usually 3-6 months, but they got a hurry-up) and he was released and charges dropped after that because there was no evidence of child-porn.
However, the long-term impact still existed, he worked as a counselor for abused teens - often sexual abuse. Therefore there was a cloud over him in this job as the police had informed his employer of the arrest. The arrest was public record, and therefore employers, especially those whose work was to do with children, counselors, teachers and so on - which is what his job was - would find that record in a police background check of him.
Not to mention that because of the arrest, social services got involved, and their records would have that he was arrested for child-porn, which could impact any future interactions that involved social services.
Beyond the initial mistake, another big issue here was that he never should have been arrested and charged in the first place.
The appropriate procedure is to serve a search warrant, take possession of any materials, examine them, and after the examination make a decision on whether he should be arrested or not. Which in this case would have been a 'not'.
It was completely inappropriate for the police to have sought out an arrest warrant prior to completing and reviewing the results of a search warrant.
If he had never been arrested, most of the issues caused would not have arisen, as it was because of the arrest that the follow-on issues occurred.