It has been upheld. As recently as 2009, the Delhi HC used privacy as a reason for the decriminalization of homosexuality.
To quote from the Delhi High Court:
"In the Indian Constitution, the right to live with dignity and the right of privacy both are recognised as dimensions of Article 21"
To quote again:
"It is not within the constitutional competence of the State to invade the privacy of citizens lives or regulate conduct to which the citizen alone is concerned"
How much stronger does this need to be stated before it's recognized that Indian courts protect privacy within the legal framework?
Recently the Supreme Court said that pre marital sex was no one else's business. The foundation for that is is a strong ideal of privacy.
Also, lease agreements do not need to be registered if it's less than a year.
Can you tell me in exactly which way the US looks at privacy differently?
What you say is scary, but it won't happen in India for a simple reason:
The Indian government is (luckily) incompetent and indisciplined. For tyranny to succeed, discipline is necessary which the Indian government doesn't have. An incompetent government is a gift to the people. Better than having competent fanatics. Undisciplined people can't do great irreversible damage!
1. Privacy is a legal right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution
2. The courts have repeatedly shown that they will uphold privacy
3. People fought and died for freedoms - not development. Losing privacy is one step towards losing freedoms that we have earned
You may not treasure your privacy and that's your right. But don't tell me that I mustn't care for it in the name of "Development." A person like you will probably applaud the Chinese government for development at the cost of privacy.
They weren't going anywhere in China and decided it was too much trouble staying there. Remember that Google pretty much stopped gaining market share from Baidu.
It's funny how often I hear this line being trotted out. So basically after Google shocked the world by saying they're pulling of China, pundits like you are claiming that it was a smart business move?
So how come no one suggested this super duper brilliant plan before they made the announcement? How come we never heard something like "You know what? I have this great business idea. Google should pull out of China!"
Basically no matter what Google does, people like you will never believe they're ethical. If they stay in China, they're evil and care only for their business. If they pull out, well then it's a great business idea too!
In my experience with these creatures, I have not seen any evidence of sentience. They have no ability to behave outside of instinct, and insofar as I can tell, memory is only established through repetition.
You do realize that at one time people used to say the same thing about their black slaves right? The white man used to feel that the ignorant savages were "less human" than they were - that they didn't feel pain, and that their response to their family members dying was merely a reflexive reaction!
Descartes was of the opinion that dogs didn't have sentience either and that their screams of pain were merely a reflex action. Read it up.
Human history is full of examples of people trying to justify their actions by claiming vehemently that others can't feel pain the way they do. You're just doing the same thing they did. In your quest to continue doing what you're doing, you're rationalizing your way out of feeling guilty.
Chickens have a central nervous system that makes them capable of feeling pain. It's simple - if they try and run away when you try and hurt them, they're capable of suffering and they value their life as much as you do yours. End of story.
I'm so confident of what I'm saying, that I challenge you to provide me just one piece of scientific evidence which shows that chickens or similar animals feel less pain than we do.
It's not a question of how intelligent they are or how much memory they have. There is just one relevant question here - can they suffer? If they can, then torturing a chicken is as bad as torturing a baby human.
Let me also clarify. I don't value life. I kill mosquitoes all the time and for me, killing a human and killing a mosquito is the same. So under the right circumstances, I would have no problems in snuffing out the life of a baby human either. But I wouldn't torture them. I don't torture mosquitoes either. I just smash them with my hand.
Perhaps I'm not understanding something here, but why should your neighbor care about your home's value? Of course, in the case of a shared resource like a water pipe, it's a different matter but if it's my house and I want to fill my front yard with grey paint, why should anyone object.
The whole "it's not aesthetic" argument is similar to the Taliban preventing women from wearing jeans because they don't like to see it. So where does it stop?
When I click on the link in the story, I go to a site that takes over the computer and says "I'm looking at gay porno" at full volume! T'was a bitch to regain control of the system. Any clues as to what's happening?
Agreed - this is never going to happen. I believe there was even a theoretical computation limit placed on calculating machines that would be reached in 20 years or so. These AI researchers are talking out of their rears.
I think you misunderstand. The carriers don't sell phones at all. They just provide service. Other companies sell the phone. Like one company selling you a computer and the another providing the Internet connection. Savvy?
Re:Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of contro
on
Google About Openness
·
· Score: 1
Is this claim of yours falsifiable? It seems that no matter what Gogole does, people like you are going to find something sinister in it. If so, then your arguments are just noise.
Wake me up when the US gets a muslim president. Or a female one. Actually, any non-christian one will do. Merely having the first non while president after 200 years in the US isn't an achievement. It's just one of those things that are way overdue. India has had it all long long ago.
You can also wake me up if it gets a president not born and brought up in the US.
I disagree with PETA that killing animals for meat is immoral.
I think PETA (and I) have a problem if animals are tortured before they die. I don't mind eating dead animals - they're tasty. But I can't condone or endorse gratuitous suffering. The animals live a life in hell before they die - cows, chickens etc etc.
but honestly, we’ve got bigger issues.
The way I see, that's like saying we shouldn't worry about the holocaust and that we've got bigger issues. Like what? There is literally no other problem on earth that is as big as torturing 11 billions of animals every year. You think global warming is a big problem? Just 6 billion humans. Peanuts compared to the number of animals we torture to death every year.
You think there are any more important problems if it were 6 billion humans being tortured to death every year?
Please. If you can't see the difference between the suffering you and I face and the sufferings the animals face in the slaughterhouse (they can't even kill themselves), then maybe you don't mind exchanging places with them?
Hmm you have a point there. Thanks for informing me about that.
But my point about decision making still stands. If an organism like a plant doesn't make decisions and reacts mechanically in all things, then they wouldn't have evolved a consciousness since it would provide no survival advantage.
So for me, they're not really living creatures, just biological machines.
Is a vegetarian diet really that awful that we need to market meat that doesn't come from animals to supplement it?
In the US, pretty much. In India, there's much more choice as a veggie since most people are hindus. But meat still tastes very good and I will definitely eat fake meat if an animal didn't suffer to produce it. (Mind I don't mind eating dead animals. I just have a problem if it suffered before dying).
Slashdot Mirror
It has been upheld. As recently as 2009, the Delhi HC used privacy as a reason for the decriminalization of homosexuality.
To quote from the Delhi High Court:
"In the Indian Constitution, the right to live with dignity and the right of privacy both are recognised as dimensions of Article 21"
To quote again:
"It is not within the constitutional competence of the State to invade the privacy of citizens lives or regulate conduct to which the citizen alone is concerned"
How much stronger does this need to be stated before it's recognized that Indian courts protect privacy within the legal framework?
Recently the Supreme Court said that pre marital sex was no one else's business. The foundation for that is is a strong ideal of privacy.
Also, lease agreements do not need to be registered if it's less than a year. Can you tell me in exactly which way the US looks at privacy differently?
Already posted this here once, but looks like you didn't read the earlier comments.
The Indian constitution does guarantee privacy and the courts have always upheld this principle.
In fact from what I understand, the US has less privacy controls in their constitution than India does.
What you say is scary, but it won't happen in India for a simple reason:
The Indian government is (luckily) incompetent and indisciplined. For tyranny to succeed, discipline is necessary which the Indian government doesn't have. An incompetent government is a gift to the people. Better than having competent fanatics. Undisciplined people can't do great irreversible damage!
Privacy concerns cannot be "outweighed" because:
1. Privacy is a legal right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution
2. The courts have repeatedly shown that they will uphold privacy
3. People fought and died for freedoms - not development. Losing privacy is one step towards losing freedoms that we have earned
You may not treasure your privacy and that's your right. But don't tell me that I mustn't care for it in the name of "Development." A person like you will probably applaud the Chinese government for development at the cost of privacy.
Make that "living and breathing" document!
They weren't going anywhere in China and decided it was too much trouble staying there. Remember that Google pretty much stopped gaining market share from Baidu.
It's funny how often I hear this line being trotted out. So basically after Google shocked the world by saying they're pulling of China, pundits like you are claiming that it was a smart business move?
So how come no one suggested this super duper brilliant plan before they made the announcement? How come we never heard something like "You know what? I have this great business idea. Google should pull out of China!" Basically no matter what Google does, people like you will never believe they're ethical. If they stay in China, they're evil and care only for their business. If they pull out, well then it's a great business idea too!
But isn't it up to the Chinese people to decide how they want to be governed?
No.
Yep - I wouldn't kill the baby only for fear of reprisal.
In my experience with these creatures, I have not seen any evidence of sentience. They have no ability to behave outside of instinct, and insofar as I can tell, memory is only established through repetition.
You do realize that at one time people used to say the same thing about their black slaves right? The white man used to feel that the ignorant savages were "less human" than they were - that they didn't feel pain, and that their response to their family members dying was merely a reflexive reaction!
Descartes was of the opinion that dogs didn't have sentience either and that their screams of pain were merely a reflex action. Read it up.
Human history is full of examples of people trying to justify their actions by claiming vehemently that others can't feel pain the way they do. You're just doing the same thing they did. In your quest to continue doing what you're doing, you're rationalizing your way out of feeling guilty.
Chickens have a central nervous system that makes them capable of feeling pain. It's simple - if they try and run away when you try and hurt them, they're capable of suffering and they value their life as much as you do yours. End of story.
I'm so confident of what I'm saying, that I challenge you to provide me just one piece of scientific evidence which shows that chickens or similar animals feel less pain than we do.
It's not a question of how intelligent they are or how much memory they have. There is just one relevant question here - can they suffer? If they can, then torturing a chicken is as bad as torturing a baby human.
Let me also clarify. I don't value life. I kill mosquitoes all the time and for me, killing a human and killing a mosquito is the same. So under the right circumstances, I would have no problems in snuffing out the life of a baby human either. But I wouldn't torture them. I don't torture mosquitoes either. I just smash them with my hand.
Killing is ok. Torture is not.
Dude, the largest IT company in India with over 100,000 employees switched from MS Office to Openoffice overnight without any warning and they just told the employees to get used to it.
So it can indeed happen!
Perhaps I'm not understanding something here, but why should your neighbor care about your home's value? Of course, in the case of a shared resource like a water pipe, it's a different matter but if it's my house and I want to fill my front yard with grey paint, why should anyone object. The whole "it's not aesthetic" argument is similar to the Taliban preventing women from wearing jeans because they don't like to see it. So where does it stop?
When I click on the link in the story, I go to a site that takes over the computer and says "I'm looking at gay porno" at full volume! T'was a bitch to regain control of the system. Any clues as to what's happening?
Agreed - this is never going to happen. I believe there was even a theoretical computation limit placed on calculating machines that would be reached in 20 years or so. These AI researchers are talking out of their rears.
Read the first post of the thread. He was talking about nordic countries.
Really? You don't even support phones you sell?
I think you misunderstand. The carriers don't sell phones at all. They just provide service. Other companies sell the phone. Like one company selling you a computer and the another providing the Internet connection. Savvy?
it tries to force upon users?"
Force on users?
Is this claim of yours falsifiable? It seems that no matter what Gogole does, people like you are going to find something sinister in it. If so, then your arguments are just noise.
Are you suggesting that no such thing has ever happened in India?
[Citation needed]
Wake me up when the US gets a muslim president. Or a female one. Actually, any non-christian one will do. Merely having the first non while president after 200 years in the US isn't an achievement. It's just one of those things that are way overdue. India has had it all long long ago.
You can also wake me up if it gets a president not born and brought up in the US.
I disagree with PETA that killing animals for meat is immoral.
I think PETA (and I) have a problem if animals are tortured before they die. I don't mind eating dead animals - they're tasty. But I can't condone or endorse gratuitous suffering. The animals live a life in hell before they die - cows, chickens etc etc.
but honestly, we’ve got bigger issues.
The way I see, that's like saying we shouldn't worry about the holocaust and that we've got bigger issues. Like what? There is literally no other problem on earth that is as big as torturing 11 billions of animals every year. You think global warming is a big problem? Just 6 billion humans. Peanuts compared to the number of animals we torture to death every year.
You think there are any more important problems if it were 6 billion humans being tortured to death every year?
Please. If you can't see the difference between the suffering you and I face and the sufferings the animals face in the slaughterhouse (they can't even kill themselves), then maybe you don't mind exchanging places with them?
What you said is beyond facetious.
Hmm you have a point there. Thanks for informing me about that.
But my point about decision making still stands. If an organism like a plant doesn't make decisions and reacts mechanically in all things, then they wouldn't have evolved a consciousness since it would provide no survival advantage.
So for me, they're not really living creatures, just biological machines.
Is a vegetarian diet really that awful that we need to market meat that doesn't come from animals to supplement it?
In the US, pretty much. In India, there's much more choice as a veggie since most people are hindus. But meat still tastes very good and I will definitely eat fake meat if an animal didn't suffer to produce it. (Mind I don't mind eating dead animals. I just have a problem if it suffered before dying).
If that's the case, we should genetically construct brainless cows and have them running off arduinos instead
Let me know when you've come up with that technology
The day this technology goes through is the day I start pigging out (no pun intended!) on meat again.