Principle Skinner: Oh, licking envelopes can be fun! All you have to do is make a game of it. Bart: What kind of game? Principle Skinner: Well, for example, you could see how many you could lick in an hour, then try to break that record. Bart: Sounds like a pretty crappy game to me. Principle Skinner: Yes, well... Get started.
If the Simpsons were making fun of your idea 20 years ago, you might not want to build a career on it.
It's no longer fun once someone forces you to do it. Then it just becomes insulting. Doubly so if you already know what they're trying to convey and will be penalized for poor performance at the game despite mastery of the material.
Indeed. The general trend has been away from freedom. The same has occured in the free software community, as more and more development is primarily driven by for profit corporations. The move from GPL to BSD licenses is a blow for freedom, like we've seen in every other realm over the past decade.
So that's how it goes. When you meet an argument you can't refute you cry "troll". For the record, I mean everything I say here in earnest. If I'm wrong, show me how. That's the only way I'll learn. I promise I'll change my mind if you present an argument I can't refute. But you have to be prepared to question things you take for granted, because I don't take anything for granted.
Medication doesn't actually work for most people. A 2008 meta-analysis of all clinical trials involving SSRIs, including trials the author had to file FOIA requests to get, shows that SSRIs provide no clinically significant benefit to those with a Hamilton Rating below 23. That's "very severe" depression. Side effects of course occur no matter how depressed you are.
That was 4 years ago, no one has since refuted these findings. I've actually sought treatment for depression in the past couple years. I was given a score of 15 and was offered SSRIs. I asked the psychiatrist how she could ethically offer an addictive drug with many side effects when the best science available showed them to be no more effective than harmless glucose. She had no answer, except to say that in her experience they were effective. As if there was no reason to do blinded, placebo controlled studies.
The only conclusion I can reach from this is that psychiatric treatment for depression in all but the most severe cases is a con. If you can still feed yourself, get your ass to work, and sleep at night there's nothing psychiatry can do for you. You might as well rub a crystal on your forehead.
You lie. Forcing me to forget is demanding control of my brain.
Your argument would make it perfectly acceptable for me, as an employee of PayPal, for example, to post every bit of credit card information that I "observe". That includes your credit card information, should I happen to observe it. Or your bank account information, should I happen to work at your bank. Or your medical information, should I happen to observe it. This would all be my "freedom of thought" in action, using what I have "observed".
Yes, that is all completely acceptable. It is only problematic when that information is used for fraudulent purposes. Then, and only then, does it become negligence.
Authors rights are also unjust violations of the right to free speech and property rights. They are wrong for the same reason this right to be forgotten is. Real rights are about being free from coersion, not coercing others to do our will.
My brain is my property. My physical property. Information physically encoded in its synapses is my property, to the maximum extent that information can legitimately be owned. Our rights to free speech and free thought stem from our property interests in our own bodies (and therefore minds).
You can assert time and time again that you have the right to control what I do with my own brain. But you haven't given any sort of justification as to why you have that right. The closest you've come is saying that you don't like what I might do with my brain.
So put up or shut up. Explain to me where this right derives from. I don't think you can.
It's a proxy for violence. You don't think you are being violently aggressed upon when you are issued a speeding ticket? Just try refusing to pay and you will see how violent the government really is.
1. Reduce total number of people to match that required for production, more or less. That'd be great - but difficult to do politically (except if contraceptives became mandatory part of cheap food and beer).
That won't work. The fewer people you have, the less production you need. If you can sustain 10 billion people with the labor of 10 million, then you'll be able to sustain 10 million people with the labor of 10 thousand.
Some time later, I discover the picture, by chance. I don't want it to be there, please Facebook, remove it and forget about me. No no no sir, this would harm your privacy and take away freedom from the guy who posted it. Can't do that, sorry, you're on the Internet now. Forever.
Yes I'm taking away something from the guy who posted the picture, but I don't call it freedom.
If you're using the threat of government violence to enforce the removal of information from some third party's property then yes you are taking away their freedom. You might not like to call it that, but that is what you are doing.
I can, even if it is a very loong stretch to call it censoring.
It's not a long stretch at all. It is plainly censorship, by definition.
It isn't his information. He had no right to post about you.
If it's in my brain, it's my information. Arguing that you own information in my brain is an enormous overreach. The idea that you have rights over my brain is completley nonsensical.
the situations I presented are not you observing something, it is something you were told
Listening to something I am told is a form of observation.
Freedom of thought is not freedom to post every piece of information about other people whereever and whenever you feel like it.
Yes, yes it is. You just don't really respect free thought.
No, not at all. Corporations do not exist and have no natural rights. They can be regulated as the people see fit. If the people decide they are better off with restricted corporate speech that's fine.
If you want to make that argument then make it. You can make that argument without inventing a fictional right to be forgotten that is in direct conflict with free speech.
No, sorry, the "right of free speech" does not mean you have the right to speechify other people's information whenever or wherever you want.
Yes, yes it does. My brain is my own and I can divulge the contents however I see fit. You have absolutely no rights to the contents of my brain or to my papers or effects. That includes forcing me to delete or forget any information.
The most exciting area is new homebrew hardware being made for old systems. Today you can buy modern mass storage devices for pretty much any vintage PC. The Apple II has the CFFA3000. The Commodore 64 has the 1541-Ultimate. The Atari 8-bit has the SIO2SD. The Tandy CoCo has the Super IDE. The original IBM PC has the XT-IDE controller. All of these devices are great fun to work with.
Where do you derive a right to not be tracked? Is it any more complicated than "I don't like the idea of being tracked, so I'm going to claim I have a right to not be tracked."?
You say you have a right to be left alone? Well so do I. Where do you get the right to tell me to delete information that I've recorded? By doing so it is YOU who are violating my right to be left alone.
Which analogy holds really depends on who "owns" the information.
The problem is that information is not something that can be owned. It's a completely nonsensical idea with all sorts of problems, which we are seeing played out here.
Who's rights are more important? The puncher, or the punchee? Your right to remember me is secondary to my right to not be remembered
The party being passive gets precedence. Forcing me to delete information is not a passive act on your part. You are advocating the threat of government violence to get someone to delete information. That is much more analogous to punching than sitting quietly minding your own business.
We arent talking about censorship.
Yes, yes you are. Any time the government prohibits the transfer of any information it is censorship. You might argue that it is censorship that is worth the risk to you, but it is dishonest to call it anything other than censorship.
When done to one's physical person its called slavery.
Uh, wow. False equivalence much? Give me a fucking break.
I don't see how you can justify censoring your neighbor under those circumstances. I have every right to observe and make those observations public. This is what freedom of thought is all about.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not just you. From The Simpsons season 3:
If the Simpsons were making fun of your idea 20 years ago, you might not want to build a career on it.
It's no longer fun once someone forces you to do it. Then it just becomes insulting. Doubly so if you already know what they're trying to convey and will be penalized for poor performance at the game despite mastery of the material.
Dat's what you think? Unbelievable.
Indeed. The general trend has been away from freedom. The same has occured in the free software community, as more and more development is primarily driven by for profit corporations. The move from GPL to BSD licenses is a blow for freedom, like we've seen in every other realm over the past decade.
Learn to love Debian. It loves you back.
Just because something can be done doesn't mean everyone has the ability.
But everybody benefits from the few who are able.
I was at the time doing my degree in psychology, the consensus (at least here in the UK), was very clear - SSRIs can be very effective
That may be the consensus, but the science says otherwise.
I would take issue with your last statement though - I don't think your assertion is logically sound.
Please point out the fallacy. What honest explanation is there for the incongruity between the science and psychiatric practice?
So that's how it goes. When you meet an argument you can't refute you cry "troll". For the record, I mean everything I say here in earnest. If I'm wrong, show me how. That's the only way I'll learn. I promise I'll change my mind if you present an argument I can't refute. But you have to be prepared to question things you take for granted, because I don't take anything for granted.
Hey, AC - go get help, get medicated
Medication doesn't actually work for most people. A 2008 meta-analysis of all clinical trials involving SSRIs, including trials the author had to file FOIA requests to get, shows that SSRIs provide no clinically significant benefit to those with a Hamilton Rating below 23. That's "very severe" depression. Side effects of course occur no matter how depressed you are.
That was 4 years ago, no one has since refuted these findings. I've actually sought treatment for depression in the past couple years. I was given a score of 15 and was offered SSRIs. I asked the psychiatrist how she could ethically offer an addictive drug with many side effects when the best science available showed them to be no more effective than harmless glucose. She had no answer, except to say that in her experience they were effective. As if there was no reason to do blinded, placebo controlled studies.
The only conclusion I can reach from this is that psychiatric treatment for depression in all but the most severe cases is a con. If you can still feed yourself, get your ass to work, and sleep at night there's nothing psychiatry can do for you. You might as well rub a crystal on your forehead.
The US would still be the world's dominant military power if we cut the defense budget in half. We should do this, and give it all to science.
I have made no such assertion.
You lie. Forcing me to forget is demanding control of my brain.
Your argument would make it perfectly acceptable for me, as an employee of PayPal, for example, to post every bit of credit card information that I "observe". That includes your credit card information, should I happen to observe it. Or your bank account information, should I happen to work at your bank. Or your medical information, should I happen to observe it. This would all be my "freedom of thought" in action, using what I have "observed".
Yes, that is all completely acceptable. It is only problematic when that information is used for fraudulent purposes. Then, and only then, does it become negligence.
Authors rights are also unjust violations of the right to free speech and property rights. They are wrong for the same reason this right to be forgotten is. Real rights are about being free from coersion, not coercing others to do our will.
My brain is my property. My physical property. Information physically encoded in its synapses is my property, to the maximum extent that information can legitimately be owned. Our rights to free speech and free thought stem from our property interests in our own bodies (and therefore minds).
You can assert time and time again that you have the right to control what I do with my own brain. But you haven't given any sort of justification as to why you have that right. The closest you've come is saying that you don't like what I might do with my brain.
So put up or shut up. Explain to me where this right derives from. I don't think you can.
In county? Nah, it was probably the arresting officer sodomizing him with his taser.
It's a proxy for violence. You don't think you are being violently aggressed upon when you are issued a speeding ticket? Just try refusing to pay and you will see how violent the government really is.
1. Reduce total number of people to match that required for production, more or less. That'd be great - but difficult to do politically (except if contraceptives became mandatory part of cheap food and beer).
That won't work. The fewer people you have, the less production you need. If you can sustain 10 billion people with the labor of 10 million, then you'll be able to sustain 10 million people with the labor of 10 thousand.
Some time later, I discover the picture, by chance. I don't want it to be there, please Facebook, remove it and forget about me. No no no sir, this would harm your privacy and take away freedom from the guy who posted it. Can't do that, sorry, you're on the Internet now. Forever.
Yes I'm taking away something from the guy who posted the picture, but I don't call it freedom.
If you're using the threat of government violence to enforce the removal of information from some third party's property then yes you are taking away their freedom. You might not like to call it that, but that is what you are doing.
I can, even if it is a very loong stretch to call it censoring.
It's not a long stretch at all. It is plainly censorship, by definition.
It isn't his information. He had no right to post about you.
If it's in my brain, it's my information. Arguing that you own information in my brain is an enormous overreach. The idea that you have rights over my brain is completley nonsensical.
the situations I presented are not you observing something, it is something you were told
Listening to something I am told is a form of observation.
Freedom of thought is not freedom to post every piece of information about other people whereever and whenever you feel like it.
Yes, yes it is. You just don't really respect free thought.
No, not at all. Corporations do not exist and have no natural rights. They can be regulated as the people see fit. If the people decide they are better off with restricted corporate speech that's fine.
If you want to make that argument then make it. You can make that argument without inventing a fictional right to be forgotten that is in direct conflict with free speech.
No, sorry, the "right of free speech" does not mean you have the right to speechify other people's information whenever or wherever you want.
Yes, yes it does. My brain is my own and I can divulge the contents however I see fit. You have absolutely no rights to the contents of my brain or to my papers or effects. That includes forcing me to delete or forget any information.
The most exciting area is new homebrew hardware being made for old systems. Today you can buy modern mass storage devices for pretty much any vintage PC. The Apple II has the CFFA3000. The Commodore 64 has the 1541-Ultimate. The Atari 8-bit has the SIO2SD. The Tandy CoCo has the Super IDE. The original IBM PC has the XT-IDE controller. All of these devices are great fun to work with.
Where do you derive a right to not be tracked? Is it any more complicated than "I don't like the idea of being tracked, so I'm going to claim I have a right to not be tracked."?
You say you have a right to be left alone? Well so do I. Where do you get the right to tell me to delete information that I've recorded? By doing so it is YOU who are violating my right to be left alone.
Which analogy holds really depends on who "owns" the information.
The problem is that information is not something that can be owned. It's a completely nonsensical idea with all sorts of problems, which we are seeing played out here.
Who's rights are more important? The puncher, or the punchee?
Your right to remember me is secondary to my right to not be remembered
The party being passive gets precedence. Forcing me to delete information is not a passive act on your part. You are advocating the threat of government violence to get someone to delete information. That is much more analogous to punching than sitting quietly minding your own business.
We arent talking about censorship.
Yes, yes you are. Any time the government prohibits the transfer of any information it is censorship. You might argue that it is censorship that is worth the risk to you, but it is dishonest to call it anything other than censorship.
When done to one's physical person its called slavery.
Uh, wow. False equivalence much? Give me a fucking break.
Actually, requiring facebook to delete that information is an issue between you and the fundamental right to freedom of speech.
I don't see how you can justify censoring your neighbor under those circumstances. I have every right to observe and make those observations public. This is what freedom of thought is all about.