They may have known they were dealing with Ebola, but they didn't have the equipment or facilities to take all the steps necessary to prevent transmission.
The EU ruling is not about publishing, so your comment is a non sequitur. The EU ruling concerns Google's search index. That's something completely different.
> It appears the overwhelming (?) majority of young American internet users, who have come of age in the post 9/11 USA are disturbingly willing to relinquish as many freedoms and rights, as is demanded of them.
I see Google's censorship as an attack on "freedoms and rights".
> HNers to fall into knee-jerk behavioral patterns of vociferously defending all that is Google
I personally hate Google, and avoid their products whenever possible. I've used Bing for a number of years, and recently switched most of my searching to DuckDuckGo.
> European little guy has scored an important victory that gives them the tools to improve their quality of life
I don't think this is an "important victory", but rather an attack on the freedom of information.
> I see Google's censorship as an attack on "freedoms and rights".
Have I misunderstood something, but isn't this exactly about giving people a right to choose about the online visibility of their name?
If that is the case, isn't it a good thing that people get to have control over what is being shown and what is not? Or is full disclosure of personal details, the full personal transparency online the Right Thing to go with?
I thought a year ago during the NSA diclosures the consensus was that people should have the right to control the information collected, stored and shown about them. I see this paralleling that indirectly.
For what it's worth and to give someone something to grab onto, I am from Europe.
>I personally hate Google, and avoid their products whenever possible.
You took my quote out of context and ran with that. I said many HNers. Not all HNers.
There is no censorship involved here. Read the EU ruling. The ruling does not prevent Google from indexing personal information. It prevents Google from permanently indexing personal information if it is irrelevant or no longer relevant. Even after said information has been removed from Google's database, it will still be available at the source that Google previously linked too. It's fallacious to pretend that information is being surpressed.
No it doesn't.
It is only returning that because you have the q=%3Cblink%3C in your url followed by #q=%3Cflash%3C. ( so basically it is loading the blink page and querying for the flash keyword).
"the Nokia X smartphone achieving top-selling status in Pakistan , Russia , Kenya and Nigeria,3 while earning the third-best-selling smartphone spot in India ," said Timo Toikkanen , head of Mobile Phones, Microsoft Devices Group.
This phone is not aimed at people who a power users. This phone is aimed at emerging economies where people are buying their first smartphones. Nokia X has all the basics (music, free messaging, email, Instagram, Facebook, Whatsapp), all running on some reasonable hardware.
>This phone is not aimed at people who a power users.
I think we have started confusing "power user" with "power app purchaser". A Pakistani cab driver that runs his business off multiple cell phones or a dual simmed phone is probably more of a "power user" in the context of a mobile communication device than your average 1st world iPhone wielding instagram-aholic that happens to have extra disposable income that can be trifled away on an IAP in Angry Birds.
"The documentary follows U.S. Marines as they train Afghan security forces, showing their ineptitude, drug abuse, sexual misconduct, and corruption as well as the reduced role of US Marines due to the troop withdrawal."
A reddit discussion on looking at the documentary critically.
