axanoeychron

There is an element of truth in what you call hyperbole.

Gordon Brown (in the treasury) produced a report to see how UK could integrate with the EU. The output was basically that the UK economy is not flexible enough.

A very large portion of the UK's GDP is based on housing and housing services. The amount of debt on UK housing is astronomical.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/europe/03/euro/pdf/fin... Page 55 onwards

"mortgage debt 60% of gdp"

http://www.ft.com/fastft/309012/how-would-uk-housing-correct...

http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2001/121101.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_economic_tests

People might not always agree with you dude and that is okay. Overuse of the wink smiley is patronising.

Perhaps but that does not invalidate what he said.

I do not think it is a problem that some people are not willing to charge something that you want to charge for.

That is, for you to be profitable, you rely on someone else not doing something.

That is the nature of competition.

The answer is to make your adverts fast, lightweight and battery efficient. This is competition at its finest - those with the fastest and most compact adverts do not get blocked.

Claiming your business model will be harmed by progress in technology is depressing and a cop out. I would like to see resource quotas enforced by browsers. Like billboard space, you have a scarce resource to fill that is prime. How about you fit your advert resource usage into a well defined slot of time that my browser can manage for you? If you're fast and respectful, I see you. Otherwise you get torn down for vandalism like illegal posters.

Nope but I can see how you can read it that way. The important part is after the 'but'.

More that I am paying for the same services but doing the right thing costs me far more in excess of the benefit to myself.

I am a UK taxpayer too but my building has no recycling. I live at home for one or two days a week and no personal transport.

Why should I suffer all the costs of recycling?

I hate adverts.

My problem with adverts is that they are not information, they are selective truths or downright lies. I cannot trust adverts.

Bitcoin is technically interesting and awesome. My problem with Bitcoin and why it does not completely solve the problem described in the article - it is a social problem.

Like land, a lot of Bitcoin is landed wealth. It has an inherent inequality in who starts with it. This is what makes me uncomfortable with it. If you transact two goods or services to obtain Bitcoin, that eliminates the inequality.

For an unbanked person to obtain this digital currency, they would have to provide services in exchange for BitCoin. They would have to 'serve' someone else. A bit like land rent.

I completely agree with this article. I would like to share a story of my own journey in this.

For a long time I had wanted to lose some weight and to remove some bad habits. It dawned on me that I could eliminate the habit altogether by scaling back to extreme levels. For example, I completely stopped eating sugary foods such as chocolate for 8 months. I stopped buying coffee from coffee shops every day. I replaced my meals with crazy simple meals such as rice, tamago kake gohan, potatos, eggs and vegetables. It is surprisingly easier to just cut something out of your life and then add things back as necessary.

It occurred to me if you can do this, you can do anything. You're replacing daily motivation - which can be depleted (ego depletion) - with a unwavering commitment everyday - to eat simple things or forego things you did not even think twice about before. You just don't do X. There is no way for you to self justify any more.

It is surprising how after a while, you do not really even miss the daily coffee or chocolate because you feel happy that you were disciplined enough to give it up. You're strong.

In my case, my journey cross fertilised another goal: to cut down on expenses. It is shocking how much money we all spend for very little benefit!

I am sure someone will reply saying 'life is for living' and all that. The question is, are they strong enough to do the same?

You cannot defend frontrunning of a market.

If I ask for X at Y. Someone else shouldn't have the facility to buy it based on my own trade signal and try sell it back to me.

It is mindblowingly simple theft. The arguments for liquidity do not hold. There is some fascinating cognitive dissonance when it comes to the HFT industry.

This is an interesting hack: a host script can communicate with scripts in an iframe via the postMessage API and relying on the fact that a script running in the frame can make same-domain requests.

I am worried that people will choose this option just because it is easier rather than use what is technically the right thing to do. (CORS) Please don't use this unless you really have to. The arguments against CORS in the Readme aren't really compelling. The web is messy enough as it is.

Aww. This is unfortunate - I frequently visit Freecode.

> I find the general "Main Street" sentiment toward the profession to be misguided.

> I won't say HFT is the most valuable thing that its practitioners can be doing. I think the (trading) world would operate just fine without all these micro-second level transactions. But they are NOT the next subprime mortgage, and I just hope folks stop commenting on stuff they have no clue about.

Your post is interesting and I learned from it. However you admit that HFT is not the most valuable thing smart people could be doing - this is the reason that many dislike it. HFT provides little value to humanity or society. I do not think this makes me 'misguided' or 'have no clue' and I don't like how this makes it okay for advocates to sweep away concerns about it. We could easily say the same thing: algorithmic trading in itself is misguided: it does not use technology to solve socially useful problems such as global distribution, food production or folding proteins to better understand drug interaction and find cures for disease.

This makes me think of TempleOS.

TempleOS [1] 'shell' operates as a programming environment - what you write is compiled and inserted into the same process that the OS is running as. It's a single address space.

[1] http://www.templeos.org/Wb/Accts/TS/Wb2/TempleOS.html

These submissions make me feel like I am on LifeHacker.

I have a question regarding the type and amount of conflict between different organisations. I ask this because the kinds of issues in this article seem like common courtesy and respect to me.

What kind and how severe is the conflict at traditionally professional occupations such as legal professions, accountancy or medical? Does anyone have any first hand experience? What about industry? (chemical engineering, mechanical engineering and civil architects?)

How does it compare to tech startups?

My theory: 1) conflict in traditional industry is power struggle: who is the one who will tell everyone else what to do 2) office politics can get severe where there are alliances and empires 3) offence is caused by making other people's decisions look bad

In startups: 1) conflict is based on the perceived competence of others 2) offence is caused by the implied lack of knowledge, direct derision and ridicule

I believe that one is more common than the other. I'm saying that conflict in the technical community feels more like a frat competition than that of professional negotiation: young people not necessary secure in themselves.

It would seem that applying a law in spirit is incompatible with human nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law

For the EU requirement to check if information is in the public interest, we have to have guards against the system being abused, such as wealthy people removing information about themselves.

This implies some sort of public record - to provide transparency of the requests and check for abuse. This could not be indexed either because it would reveal the information that people were trying to stop being revealed.

Dilemma.

Good question.

While the right to forget is socially beneficial for society, there are technical problems that make it inconvenient. There is the problem of whether it is censorship to force a neutral party whose mandate is merely to store historical copies of data to remove it. Or is it Google's responsibility to just 'forget' that the copy exists in the web archive?

Do defaced websites get indexed by the internet archive? Does illegal information get removed from the internet archive?

This is a strawman argument.

It's blatantly obvious that a historically significant event such as a dictator needs to be kept as part of the history books because of the impact it had on many different people.

At the end - the argument that anything that is published and is true as a reason why we should not allow people to delete things about themselves is deeply disturbing and sets a dangerous precedent. Just because something is true does not mean it should be broadcast for everyone to hear and see. If you go to the toilet and leave a big dump - not everyone needs to know this, when you did it, its mass.

Lossless public record is something that people do not understand the full implications. I am predicting a collision course with the precedence from this case with anonymous gossip sharing applications like Secret. No good comes from allowing people to publish things about others with the intention to harm and no recourse for victims.

What the forgetting laws is for is to help a young person delete embarrassing content from the modern day equivalent of Geocities or Bebo. People are screened for employment online - why should a child whose transgressions in a previous generation would have been transient be stored for eternity? What utility does that provide?

EDIT: If you disagree - use the reply button.

Why is it no longer relevant?

I don't think that is true.

I find it deeply concerning that a Klout score would be used for anything. Klout is not a measure of value.

That is a contrived example. In your example, the information would be kept, the fact the property was foreclosed would probably be stored in a cabinet or computer system in an office somewhere. You would make an effort to seek out and obtain that information legally and with justifiable cause. (To prove your ownership.) It would not be publicly accessible for the world to see for there is no reason for it to be. It would be a bit like medical records.

The core part of the argument to the right to be forgotten is to treat some pieces of information as medical information, i.e, private or not your concern. Things that you would rather not be known for they bestow little benefit to you except for you to profit at my expense. A lot of people find this uncomfortable, for good reason.

Should divorce cases be completely public?

Does this mean we should accept and ignore character smears, witness protection, cyberbullying and libel? Is it okay for someone to surrender the arbitrary association of content to their name which may not be true?

The solution might not be beautiful or scalable but removing search results could seriously improve some people's lives'.

I'm not talking about allowing people to remove information pertaining to trying to hide poor behaviour online or bad reviews online. I'm talking about the life ruining things.

The person who wants the information is the one causing the removal of the content - not the government. It is not about the government trying to suppress information. The government (or court system) is acting on behalf of the individual.

Like anything involving people, it is merely a cost of society that makes us better off if we accept it as the cost of doing business. There are many costs like this in society. For example; your neighbours are outrageously noisy and unwieldy and are making it difficult for you to sleep. You have tried asking them to keep the noise down. Our society has has a slow and expensive process to come to some sort of resolution. Rather unnecessary since your local government and police have better things to do. It's not really their fault, you just happen to live in their catchment area.

Rather than just accept that people can do what they want or without regard to others, a pleasant society provides solutions to social issues like this. Without it, life would be less smooth.

Google has many engineers and big datacentres, I am sure they will manage.

The article and discussion is not about what you yourself put online, it is what others put online about you which is then indexed. The cost of removing from an index is insignificant compared to the personal cost to the person.

What if your statement is false?

I am not sure what to make of this argument.

A number on a calculator is data, not information.

Do you want a perfect search algorithm that knows no bounds? Would you be okay with it finding a webcam stream into your home? Or phone or your GPS? Would you be okay with making searching everything you have ever visited online or said to someone? Would you be okay with this search algorithm to allow finding your political allegiances?

No? There has to be some limit then. That comes from people and enshrined by the actions of people, constituting common courtesy.

This really is not the same as censorship, equating it does not make an argument.

Your example uses a robbery - a crime which is very much in everyone's interest to be public. It's useful to know where the crime was committed and what kind of crime it was.

My personal life does not concern you. You gain nothing and lose nothing by losing access to it for you should never have had access to begin with. The negative consequences of it being public fall on me, not on you. You have an asymmetric imbalance of power and social obligation with this information.

If you really do not care about your information being public, post something damaging. Someone would probably publicly mirror it to avoid it being removed. If you don't want to post, why not?

Social conduct is a real thing.

Forcing someone else to hide information is an interesting part of this dilemma. That someone else should have no interest in the data either - it does not cost them to remove it.

If there is a wall owned by a landlord and someone graffitis on that wall with some hurtful truth about someone. The graffiti can be considered unnecessary and should never have occurred to begin with. The landlord would have no qualm with removing it.