genericuser

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.

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.

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.

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.

Take your PRN medication, press button.

Except that VW at somepoint quit using the transponder in question because of this issue so new cars made are no longer susceptible.

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 bill with a known serial number quits being tangible when you deposit it into an account because you are only owed a bill not that bill. If you had put the bill with a known serial number in your safety deposit box, for instance if it was your first dollar ever earned you could sue for that bill the same way the coin is sued for by stating its serial number, since the bank was storing it as a tangible good, and not simply as a product of its value.

While other people have correctly stated this point elsewhere in this topic. I think you have phrased it in a very simple and easy to understand way, which I feel anyone not able to understand would not be someone worth having a conversation on this topic with. Thank you for what I believe to be a correct and extremely dumbed down way of expressing the absurdity of anyone getting upset about this ruling. I will be stealing your analogy, as close to verbatim as I can remember, should I encounter a conversation on this topic in the future as it is much easier than trying to explain it in more abstract terms.