Saturday, July 5, 2014

People Wanting to Remove Google Search Results?

     An article in Brussels came out stating that there has been an increase of requests for Google to have certain search results removed. As of July 3, 2014 over 70,000 requests have been made for the removal of these results, according to Google.

     Each request asks for the removal of almost four links, meaning Google has to evaluate more than a quarter million requests.

     Since Google must adhere to strict privacy rulings made in May, we may see the search giant having to comply with some, if not all, of these demands.

     What search results may Google have to remove from the internet? Embarrassing personal information of individuals when their names are searched.

     So don't worry, people can still search for cute kitty pics or what stage prop Miley Cyrus is dry humping this week. But I wonder if this would even be fair to Google. 

     When someone does a search on Google, or any search engine, key words from the search field are matched with words found in articles, photos, videos, etc., and are then displayed as search results. So it's not like Google is trying to show the world "embarrassing information" about these people. If anything, it is the fault of the people for posting their information on the internet. 

     Sure, sometimes a company may post some information about you on their website as far as what your role is in the company, or someone can find your Facebook page just by searching for your name. But we all know that whatever we post on social media sites can be easily found in a Google search. With that in mind, why would anyone post something embarrassing anywhere on the internet, and then get pissed when it shows up in a Google search?

     It's like putting your hand in fire and then getting mad at the fire for burning your hand. 

     I suppose there is one thing to consider: angry exes. No one can really control what someone else does, but it can still be argued that it is the fault of the individuals and Google shouldn't have to remove anything from their database of search results..

     I would appreciate any thoughts on this matter.


Thursday, July 3, 2014

China's Leaders Begin to Notice Pollution...or do They?

     Well, it's about damn time. According to a report on my News Republic app, on Thursday,  "China's Supreme Court has set up a special tribunal to deal with environmental cases..."

     Over the last three decades China has seen a rapid industrial expansion that has taken a heavy toll on the environment, and the Communist leaders  are becoming  "concerned by an increasing number of angry protests over the issue."

     That last bit is what got me. They're concerned about the protests but don't mention any concern about the general well being of the populace? Do China's leaders not know that no matter how high ranking they become, they remain human? What's hazardous to the peasant is hazardous to the king.

     They, China's leaders, make no mention of being concerned about health, but only about the "angry protests" that are becoming more and more frequent. 

     According to recent studies, approximately two-thirds of China's soil is polluted, and 60 percent of underground water is too contaminated to drink. Studies have also show that people in cities such as Beijing are regularly exposed to hazardous levels of air pollution. 

     These levels of contamination don't happen over night and China's pollution levels have been an issue for as long as I can remember, but it wasn't until March that Premier Li Keqiang "declared war" on pollution. 

     My question is, what the hell took so long for these people to wake the fuck up?

     China has made an amendment to its environmental protection laws, "imposing tougher penalties and pledging that violators will be 'named and shamed'." The report goes on to explain that enforcing these new laws will be more difficult in practice, especially for a country focused on driving growth. 

     "Fewer than 30,000 environment cases a year were accepted by Chinese courts from 2011 to 2013, said Zheng, out of an average 11 million total cases annually."

     I'm not sure why so few cases on this monumentally important matter have been addressed by the courts. My only guess is that the pollution levels are indicative of growth, and the most effective way to lower pollution levels would be to slow growth, at least until a cleaner for of energy can be used. But as stated in the report, China is bent on growth.

     Eventually, it's going to boil down to money, and if the world knows anything about China (or any other super power, for that matter), they love their money. China will have to make less money by slowing down production, while at the same time spending their beloved currency on cleaning up their country. 

     We'll see if this is just rhetoric, or if China is really going to step up and take care of the important things in life.

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Twitter-Incited Rant About "Theory"

     "Evolution is just a theory, it's not a fact." 

*Unless otherwise specified, I will be using 'theory' in the scientific sense for the remainder of this post*

     I cannot tell you how many times I've addressed this statement. The only way I've been able to get through to some people is by telling them to replace the word "theory" with "explanation". Evolution is a fact. No matter how much you want to believe it's not true, it is. It's been proven through genetics and supported by the fossil record. Micro-evolution, which leads to macro-evolution, has been observed in numerous species. Evolution is a FACT.

     The Theory of Evolution is different from the fact of evolution. The Theory explains how and why evolution occurs. 

     Think about the Law of Gravity vice the Theory of Gravity. The Law states that objects with mass attract each other. The Theory explains WHY the attraction exists. 


  A theory is an explanation of facts. Key word: EXPLANATION. Even if the theory of evolution was proven to be wrong, the facts of evolution would remain! The theory would just have to change.

     You can also think of theory as the plot to a story. As you read about events and characters' actions in a story, you can then formulate a plot. You can use what you've learned so far in the story to make predictions about what may happen later in the book. If you get a new piece of information that goes against what you thought the plot was, then the plot changes. But everything else remains! The past events and actions of the characters will have not gone away, but new information can change the plot.

     A theory and a fact are two different things. A theory does not become a fact, and a fact is not the next step up from theory. A theory is the highest graduated level an idea can achieve.