So you run those crappy sites that totally aren't squatting domains but just have a useless collection of links using referrals and affiliate marketing and ads but no actual content on domains that are places people accidentally wind up either due to typos or clicking your link in search results for something you are linking to?
The rest of us call the people who run websites like that domain squatters, because they are adding zero value to the internet and simply tie up a domain which they would likely sell for the 'right' offer.
Yeah I feel like if he actually cared about things being fair and honest he would of become upset when he saw this obvious scam taking place, which he more or less recognizes as such.
However all he does is attempt to confirm is that he won't be the party to lose money in this scam. He does it thinking well either he will get shop.com and win (at the cost of the owners of shop.com), or it will be a scam and he will get his money back from Paypal and Paypal may or may not get the money back from the seller, in which case either Paypal loses money or everything is back where it began.
He try's to find a no-lose position in someone else's scam, basically trying to scam a scammer. You know what I could respect that, but whining about how you failed to scam the scammer is just annoying.
Eh I say if people honestly can't learn to accept that things about other people from a significant time ago might no longer be relevant, then have SEO become a more personal service, and if people want to have their search results managed, because of whatever, they can manage it themselves or hire a professional, much like they would a lawyer, accountant, plumber, electrician, realtor, or agent. I mean they are having to hire lawyers presumably to get forgotten.
It won't be hard to bury a 6 year old photo of a random person shitting on the beach under all the new content.
Yes, but it is effectively saying that the "right to be forgotten" means that the right extends to the topic/event covered on the pages as it relates to that person not the pages themselves.
Hopefully this will not extend to all new content created about the past events and the person, because there could at times be a reason for new content on an old topic to be relevant to the public and people should be able to find it then. I fear it will however.
Not really, is just sounds like you have a legal interest in what results from searches for your name. Google is running a de-facto background search service and they're being regulated like one.
I'd tie it more to the popularity of video games among adults(as I see adults, and younger people introduced to them by adults as the main driving force behind this board game resurgence), and the idea that there are always people looking to do things which are novel to them, and that things do not stay novel forever so there are people which shift to new or out of favor things which will be novel to them.
NBC I feel nailed it down with their tagline "If you haven't seen it, it's new to you"
I think of it like a band (Could well apply to a company too) which occasionally replaces members. So long as they replace few enough members each time that people can associate it with its previous roster, people will accept it as the same band.
Even if after 20 years of incremental changes to the band none of the original members are left it will still be considered by many to be the same band (although they will all likely lament the loss of such and such member) By being recognized as the same band it inherits many of the same rights such as performing the same songs as the previous incarnations of the band (assuming of course it owns, or pays royalties to the right holders, but that is an unrelated topic).
However if too many members change at once, or they lose a member whose presence independently defined the band then people will likely not consider it the same band.
The identity is a label applied to the set, as the set changes so does the definition of the label. For the most part assuming members of the original set do not get placed in different new sets all identifying as the original label, people will generally accept the label as applying to the new set which was formed.
I would chalk it up to people being stupid, or language being imprecise. The alternative seems to be to consider every change to the set to require a new label and be identified as a new set.
The Wikipedia article mentions a band, the Sugababes, that started with three founding members, but one by one all of them ended up leaving the band and being replaced. Is it still the same band?
An interesting twist is that the three founding members regrouped and formed a new band, with the Sugababes still in existence. Which is the real Sugababes?
A band isn't only defined by its members, though. They can have a distinct sound, a preferred genre, even various brandings and styles that make for a markedly different performance.
I've thought about this in the past. Companies get a reputation for doing certain things poorly or doing them well. For example, think of high profile games from a long time ago that have continued to release new versions to this day. How many of the people who worked on v1 have continued to work on the latest release?
On a larger scale, consider what happens when the oldest person in the world dies. Every person born before them is gone. How did we manage to perpetuate all of the ideas, culture and values through to an entirely new set of people? The mechanics are easily observable, but the scale is boggling.
This gets very interesting in terms of long-lived companies. Should we boycott, say, IBM for aiding the Holocaust? Even if no one in the management is alive or working for the company anymore? Hard to say. It's still the same company, but run by different people.
So why were the researchers willing to publish a redacted version now, but were not willing to publish the redacted version 3 years ago when they were researching the issue?
I am actually curious because this is the only part of this whole thing that does not make sense to me. Even if I disagree with Volkswagon's decision to not notify existing owners that there was a vulnerability known or eventually provide them with a fix, the decision at least makes sense because it probably was deemed more profitable for VW.
"The scientists wanted to publish their paper at the well-respected Usenix Security Symposium in Washington DC in August, but the court has imposed an interim injunction. Volkswagen had asked the scientists to publish a redacted version of their paper – Dismantling Megamos Crypto: Wirelessly Lockpicking a Vehicle Immobiliser – without the codes, but they declined."
It sounds like the same thing was redacted from this version that they asked be redacted from that version as this one doesn't have the specific codes necessary to make it work.
Not everyone buys only new cars. Besides, in a world in which research was not censored, do you really expect that VW would have been slower to fix the issue?
No but I don't think they would of been faster either was my point.
Hence, to answer to the question posed "So how many vulnerable cars are on the roads of the world right now because the UK High Court wanted to "protect consumers""
I would answer 'possibly zero, BECAUSE of that' and once they are manufactured and sold they exist regardless of the owner, till they are destroyed.
I personally have never gotten that sense, but as both of us are too lazy to check, to each their own.
If you bought an $80k Porshe you knowingly bought something you know will be a target for theft, and probably have enough money to have anti-theft insurance and be able to afford the inconvenience which would be your car vanishing. Yes apparently the ease of it being stolen is slightly greater than you thought when you bought it. But if not having your car stolen was a top priority for you then you would not of bought a car which people would want to steal as much.
As they mention in the article this would of been a difficult thing to fix on existing models, they did however change the system so it doesn't apply to new models.
The rest of us call the people who run websites like that domain squatters, because they are adding zero value to the internet and simply tie up a domain which they would likely sell for the 'right' offer.