Actually, what's true is that most software with malicious functionality is closed-source... but most software does not have any of that.
Most software, in fact, is not even connected to the internet, or at least is indifferent to whether the internet exists.
I've worked as a software developer for 4 different companies since the 1990's, and there are *NO* projects that I've ever worked on or were even in development by those companies that collected data about it users without *EXPLICIT* permission, and even then, it was always stated up front exactly what information was being collected, and how it was going to be used.
At no time was that information ever sold, traded, or given away... we used it only to make the software better... and in no case did we ever actually track "who" was proving the information. Effectively, it was anonymous for our purposes.
Or is my experience the exception, and not the rule?
This was kind of my point... Even at the edges of the solar system, you will still have a pretty good idea where earth is just by looking towards the sun, which will still be readily distinguishable from other stars in the sky even at that distance., and in fact much further out still than even that.
Because if nearly half of the 1.3 million signatures collected last time were disqualified and he was still short 100,000 signatures, that would mean that it requires at *LEAST* 750,000 signatures.
The article says over 600,000.... assuming that means between 600,000 and 700,000, that's not going to be enough.
Why were half the signatures from the last one disqualified anyways? What was wrong with them?
Ad hominems aside, what I want is for it to not be okay to censor factual information from the public just because it might make someone uncomfortable, even myself. Unlawful discrimination does not govern what people are allowed to think, it governs what they are allowed to *DO*. And it's not unlawful to discriminate against someone because of something that they did in the first place.
And where the fuck did you get the idea that I had conservative political leanings? I don't even live in the USA.
I don't dispute that....but that is *exactly* how implementation of "right to be forgotten" legislates what people are allowed to think about other people.
The only reason it increases the chances of those things is because it stops the public from being able to discover the bad stuff that he did which MIGHT cause them to perceive him in a negative light. Really, it's historical revisionism... in reality, if the crime was truly unimportant, he wouldn't be judged that harshly for it in the first place.... but if he *IS* judged harshly, then at least to those who would judge him so, the event *IS* still important enough to evaluate. Whether they are doing so even out of ignorance of the details or context is irrelevant.
It s nothing less than an attempt to legislate what people are allowed to think about other people by limiting their access to unfavourable information.
And in that respect, it's not altogether unlike the premise behind 1984's newspeak, actually.
I wasnt arguing about what is legal, I was arguing about what is right.
The entire "right to be forgotten" notion is predicated on the idea that one can somehow force people to treat each other more fairly when the powers that be limit the general public's access to information about the past that may predispose those people toward unfair beliefs and notions.
Whether this idea is true or not is irrelevant. In a nutshell, it tries to control what people are allowed to think, and that is what is wrong, even if the thoughts they are trying to limit happen to be unfair.
Of course, but that shouldn't give him the right to effectively remove any remaining evidence that the event ever happened in the first place.
The fundamental problem with the "right to be forgotten" bullshit is that it is an attempt to legislate what people are allowed to think about by censoring their access to information that will enable them to think about those things. It certainly isn't fair that society might judge a person who has adequately repaid his debt to society, but I would argue that it is far *LESS* fair to try and dictate what other people are allowed to believe or think about somebody else, even if those thoughts happen to be themselves, unfair.
Perhaps it's escaped your attention that those costs of a million and a half per year would have existed if he taken a salary anyways... so in the end, he's still giving up that salary.
Of course he might be doing it to impress certain people, but that means that impressing those people is more important to him than that money.
Which is my point... he clearly cares about other things than just making money for himself, even if the other things he cares about are no less self-serving.
I'm not disputing that... but that's still "chicken feed" he chose to not accept... in truth, if he were really only interested in getting as much money for trump as he could, he wouldn't have turned the salary down, because he'd still be getting all of those other benefits anyways, *PLUS* getting a salary on the side.
I'm not suggesting that Trump needs the salary in any way, or that it even represents a significant sacrifice on his part to give it up.... I'm saying that if all he actually care about was getting money for himself, then he clearly would not have declined to accept a salary, however small it might be compared to other revenue streams.
He doesn''t stand to make any *more* money than he already would have by refusing a salary, so the accusation that he's only doing this for the money doesn't make any sense.
The fact that he's otherwise a complete asshat whose arrogance and stupidity is unmatched by any president that I can ever recall seeing in my lifetime is beside the point.
That cost wouldn't come out of the presidential salary, so again... it's still money he's chosen to not get.
How much disregard he has for other people's money is beside the point... if all he really cared about was money, he'd still be drawing the president's salary in addition to all of the other benefits he receives as president.
The presidential salary, at over $400,000 a year, is still a pretty healthy salary. Whether he can make more by virtue of holding his office alone is irrelevant... that's still well over one and a half million dollars more that he could have chosen to accept for this term as president, but has chosen not to.
My point is that to assert that we don't have free will is meaningless, because we still have some notion of what free will is, and if that doesn't actually exist, then the term doesn't mean anything that corresponds to reality.
Essentially any illusion of free will that cannot be distinguished from a hypothetical real free will may as well be just called free will, and arguing that it's not because it doesn't live up to some hypothetical standard is meaningless, particularly since it's impossible to prove it in the first place (by definition, in fact, since the otherwise hypothetical definition would refer to something that doesn't exist, so no difference between what appears to be free will and what is supposedly really free will could be determined).
Consider that we appear, by most standards of observation, to have at least some measure of what we imagine free will to be, and we generally live our lives as if we were free willed. In fact, if we were not, the expression "free will" would not even mean anything, since it is the very term that we regularly use to describe the appearance of freely made choices. By extension, therefore, if free will did not exist, then it seems apparent that we should not be capable of imagining what we think that actual free will even is.
Therefore, free will exists.
Whether or not the universe is actually deterministic is immaterial to this, because you cannot use any the nature of a deterministic system to predict its own state in a way that the information cab be communicated to an agent within that system that has a potential to affect that state,
When did I suggest that people using such applications hadn't been interested in trying or researching any alternatives to them?
My point is that it can easily be the case that no such alternative exists, because the company is not reachable or otherwise has no interest in continuing to support the platform. Is it the end user's fault for failing to be precognitive enough to realize that the application developers would not adapt to the end user's changing OS when most do?
... if a person is still using a 32 bit version of an application on a 64-bit OS, then it might just be the case that the app itself is a legacy application for which no 64-bit version was created (possibly by a company that is no longer actively developing it), and the person using the app genuinely needs the functionality provided by that application for some purpose that no alternative software has ever been able to provide.
I can easily imagine that announcing support for 32 bit applications will be discontinued will cause no small number of people to retaliate to this by simply no longer performing or accepting any system updates, because they perceive that their need for that continued functionality is more important than having the latest and greatest that Apple puts out.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point... but then is it true that most closed source software is given away? I'm not so sure about that.
Actually, what's true is that most software with malicious functionality is closed-source... but most software does not have any of that.
Most software, in fact, is not even connected to the internet, or at least is indifferent to whether the internet exists.
I've worked as a software developer for 4 different companies since the 1990's, and there are *NO* projects that I've ever worked on or were even in development by those companies that collected data about it users without *EXPLICIT* permission, and even then, it was always stated up front exactly what information was being collected, and how it was going to be used.
At no time was that information ever sold, traded, or given away... we used it only to make the software better... and in no case did we ever actually track "who" was proving the information. Effectively, it was anonymous for our purposes.
Or is my experience the exception, and not the rule?
This was kind of my point... Even at the edges of the solar system, you will still have a pretty good idea where earth is just by looking towards the sun, which will still be readily distinguishable from other stars in the sky even at that distance., and in fact much further out still than even that.
There is nobody that is even alive today, nor probably for the next several centuries, that is going to need something like this.
Because if nearly half of the 1.3 million signatures collected last time were disqualified and he was still short 100,000 signatures, that would mean that it requires at *LEAST* 750,000 signatures.
The article says over 600,000.... assuming that means between 600,000 and 700,000, that's not going to be enough.
Why were half the signatures from the last one disqualified anyways? What was wrong with them?
Assuming that it can be made to run on home computers, that is.
Ad hominems aside, what I want is for it to not be okay to censor factual information from the public just because it might make someone uncomfortable, even myself. Unlawful discrimination does not govern what people are allowed to think, it governs what they are allowed to *DO*. And it's not unlawful to discriminate against someone because of something that they did in the first place.
And where the fuck did you get the idea that I had conservative political leanings? I don't even live in the USA.
I don't dispute that....but that is *exactly* how implementation of "right to be forgotten" legislates what people are allowed to think about other people.
The only reason it increases the chances of those things is because it stops the public from being able to discover the bad stuff that he did which MIGHT cause them to perceive him in a negative light. Really, it's historical revisionism... in reality, if the crime was truly unimportant, he wouldn't be judged that harshly for it in the first place.... but if he *IS* judged harshly, then at least to those who would judge him so, the event *IS* still important enough to evaluate. Whether they are doing so even out of ignorance of the details or context is irrelevant.
It s nothing less than an attempt to legislate what people are allowed to think about other people by limiting their access to unfavourable information.
And in that respect, it's not altogether unlike the premise behind 1984's newspeak, actually.
I wasnt arguing about what is legal, I was arguing about what is right.
The entire "right to be forgotten" notion is predicated on the idea that one can somehow force people to treat each other more fairly when the powers that be limit the general public's access to information about the past that may predispose those people toward unfair beliefs and notions.
Whether this idea is true or not is irrelevant. In a nutshell, it tries to control what people are allowed to think, and that is what is wrong, even if the thoughts they are trying to limit happen to be unfair.
Of course, but that shouldn't give him the right to effectively remove any remaining evidence that the event ever happened in the first place.
The fundamental problem with the "right to be forgotten" bullshit is that it is an attempt to legislate what people are allowed to think about by censoring their access to information that will enable them to think about those things. It certainly isn't fair that society might judge a person who has adequately repaid his debt to society, but I would argue that it is far *LESS* fair to try and dictate what other people are allowed to believe or think about somebody else, even if those thoughts happen to be themselves, unfair.
He'd be making that anyways, even if he took a salary.... you can't argue that he's actually making any *MORE* money by not taking a salary.
He's making less. Not much less perhaps, looking at it in comparison to other money which may be involved... but still less.
Which is my entire point.
Perhaps it's escaped your attention that those costs of a million and a half per year would have existed if he taken a salary anyways... so in the end, he's still giving up that salary.
Of course not.
But if he were actually out to make money for himself, he would still take the salary, because he'd still have all of the other benefits anyways.
Of course he might be doing it to impress certain people, but that means that impressing those people is more important to him than that money.
Which is my point... he clearly cares about other things than just making money for himself, even if the other things he cares about are no less self-serving.
I'm not disputing that... but that's still "chicken feed" he chose to not accept... in truth, if he were really only interested in getting as much money for trump as he could, he wouldn't have turned the salary down, because he'd still be getting all of those other benefits anyways, *PLUS* getting a salary on the side.
I'm not suggesting that Trump needs the salary in any way, or that it even represents a significant sacrifice on his part to give it up.... I'm saying that if all he actually care about was getting money for himself, then he clearly would not have declined to accept a salary, however small it might be compared to other revenue streams.
He doesn''t stand to make any *more* money than he already would have by refusing a salary, so the accusation that he's only doing this for the money doesn't make any sense.
The fact that he's otherwise a complete asshat whose arrogance and stupidity is unmatched by any president that I can ever recall seeing in my lifetime is beside the point.
That cost wouldn't come out of the presidential salary, so again... it's still money he's chosen to not get.
How much disregard he has for other people's money is beside the point... if all he really cared about was money, he'd still be drawing the president's salary in addition to all of the other benefits he receives as president.
The presidential salary, at over $400,000 a year, is still a pretty healthy salary. Whether he can make more by virtue of holding his office alone is irrelevant... that's still well over one and a half million dollars more that he could have chosen to accept for this term as president, but has chosen not to.
It's worth noting that Trump is has declined to accept a salary while being president.
So.... uhmmm... no.
No arguments agains your other points, however.
Essentially any illusion of free will that cannot be distinguished from a hypothetical real free will may as well be just called free will, and arguing that it's not because it doesn't live up to some hypothetical standard is meaningless, particularly since it's impossible to prove it in the first place (by definition, in fact, since the otherwise hypothetical definition would refer to something that doesn't exist, so no difference between what appears to be free will and what is supposedly really free will could be determined).
Consider that we appear, by most standards of observation, to have at least some measure of what we imagine free will to be, and we generally live our lives as if we were free willed. In fact, if we were not, the expression "free will" would not even mean anything, since it is the very term that we regularly use to describe the appearance of freely made choices. By extension, therefore, if free will did not exist, then it seems apparent that we should not be capable of imagining what we think that actual free will even is.
Therefore, free will exists.
Whether or not the universe is actually deterministic is immaterial to this, because you cannot use any the nature of a deterministic system to predict its own state in a way that the information cab be communicated to an agent within that system that has a potential to affect that state,
When did I suggest that people using such applications hadn't been interested in trying or researching any alternatives to them?
My point is that it can easily be the case that no such alternative exists, because the company is not reachable or otherwise has no interest in continuing to support the platform. Is it the end user's fault for failing to be precognitive enough to realize that the application developers would not adapt to the end user's changing OS when most do?
I can easily imagine that announcing support for 32 bit applications will be discontinued will cause no small number of people to retaliate to this by simply no longer performing or accepting any system updates, because they perceive that their need for that continued functionality is more important than having the latest and greatest that Apple puts out.
Sure, because we all know how everyone will always pass on their own savings to a consumer instead of just using it as a money-grab for themselves.
Costs won't go down... the rich will just get richer faster.