No. I made the case that society can terminate the lease of the land's current tenant under terms that are considered fair by society as a whole.
Since you would consider it unfair to turf the old people out of their hovel, and I agree, I think we can speculate that most of society would. Therefore we can't do this without paying them just and fair compensation for the termination of their use of the land. The societal benefit of the shopping mall is fairly minor compared with the societal benefit of the hovel to the old people so typically we can't do this even if we do pay compensation.
The problem here is you considering the government to be your rulers rather than administrators. We are the state. Not them.
Is it completely impossible that there would be some rubber-like pitch that it could be coated with that would solve this problem?
Just to be clear, I don't want to prove that this did happen. I'm just not convinced by claims that such a vessel would never be possible not matter how good a shipright you are. At the very least, you could construct it as several independent self-contained watertight sections, and allow for any flex in the joins between the sections. The problem is engineering, but that's largely limited by imagination.
I really think basic income is a completely different issue from the right to be forgotten. But I think it is an excellent idea in its own right. And I do agree that it deals with a symptom.
I wonder if you could deal with #3 by only supplying a first name and a unique business-only identifier. It wouldn't be secure against a determined effort to break the law, but casual curiousity would be more difficult, and a company at least wouldn't be able to have a policy of doing this.
Your private property is merely extension of your time on this planet, extension of your living self.
No it isn't. That's a ridiculous claim. But really I'm talking about ownership of land. This is what I usually understand by private property.
If the society does not accept that people must have the right to own and operate property without government interference,
The government is just administrators of the state. I am part of the state. The state doesn't own people. The state is people. If the government isn't working for you then I propose you get rid of it and replace it with one that will. If you live ina democracy, then that's great! You can vote for a new one. Otherwise you'll need to arganise a revolution. If you do that I'll write to my MP urging my government to keep out of your national uprising, but I can't make any promises about how everyone else in my country feels.
I believe I have the right ot private property based on a consensus of opioon of society. That consensus also says I'm obliged to pay taxes.
Ownership of manufactured goods, I see a rationale for. What about land? I didn't create it. Nor did the person I bought it from. As far as I can see, any land belongs to society as a whole. We give some people exclusive rights to their land for indefinite periods, so in that sense it belongs to them, but we as a society have the right to charge them a reasonable amount for the use of it.
Now I'm confused. You're fine with people mooching off the state now?
It seems, your "starving" people are too stoned to realize they are hungry.
Well, they're not. They get government handouts. If we're giving handouts to those who don't work and can't work anyway, I see no reason this makes a difference.
Having been unemployed a few times myself, and not spent any money on pot, and not been able to get a job I was overqualified for, I kinda feel that your projudices aren't based on real world experience.
And yes, I realise that 99.9999 etc was an exageration. I just got a bit irked by your claim that the actual figure wouldn't be storable. This is Slashdot though; You should expect some pedantry:) Sorry.
4.6 billion, 46 billion - it's still only a few orders of magnitude we're talking about.
Give me reasonable estimated numbers for the size of the universe, and the habitable volume of the universe that makes your (100-10^-77)% instantly lethal even remotely accurate.
I addressed the volume of the universe. This is a value we have a reasonable accurate figure for. 4,600,000,000 ly or 440,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000m. That gives a total volume of 4/3.pi.r^3, which is 35 with another 79 zeroes after it. 1/(10^77)% of that is smaller than many buildings.
I have no idea how to do that, so my proposal is to accept that some people will sponge off the system.
So you are saying ther are plenty of jobs? Why does the unemployment rate fluctuate? Surely the number of lazy people is a constant. Are you seriously suggesting that there is nobody who can't get a job?
Your number would suggest that one part in 10^78 of the universe is instantly lethal.
Going by mass, given that there's an estimated upper limit of 10^82 atoms in the universe, you'd suggest that 10^4 (10,000) atoms are non-lethal. Going by volume, 3.4x10^80 m3 would mean that there are 340 cubic metres in the universe that aren't immediately lethal to humanity.
I may be out by a fctor of 10 here, but we're certainly way short of al the storage in the world.
Personally, I quite like living in a world where people who can't get a job don't die of starvation.
What's your view on the enthusiastic hard worker who can't get a job because they only jobs they are capable of doing are already being done by someone in Africa, who can work for a couple of dollars a day?
I agree with #1 but I don't think it's really dealing with the problem. Nor is #3. The employment thing is a tangible example, but the general principle is a philosophy that we should not be haunted by past mistakes.
#2 is where the real meat is. You are quite right that it shouldn't be down to Google. But should the "forgetting" be an automated process? There are various things on the internet that I'm quite proud of or at least happy to keep around. But then, having to explicitly request to be forgotten has its problems - for one thing, we shouldn't be able to censor relevant up to date information about ourselves. Part of that will be our right to be forgotten request. People who have made these demands so far have become pretty famous as a result.
I'm not sure why you feel you have the right to "private property".
As for water not being an entitlement - if you were literally dying of thirst, would you be tempted to steal some if there was no other way to acquire it?
If I understand the law, it's not actually illegal to ask. This is a simplification that the legal department tells HR. You can just use it as evidence that you were rejected based on your religious belief. Lawsuits are expensive even if you win.
Most employers will therefore not ask the question at all, because amongst other things, they usually don't care that much. Ken Ham may be more willing to take the risk.
The Chinese built treasure ships that were allegedly about that size. And a bit of warping and bending wouldn't be a big problem for a vessel like the ark.
I mean I know the whole thing is a fairly tale, and the entirety of Genesis is just a collection of Hebrew myths that they wanted to shoehorn into their historybut I'm a little sceptical of claims that it is inherently impossible to build a ship that large.
It was a book rather than a newspaper, and only he was prevented from boarding rather than the whole flight being cancelled, but on a stupidity scale, pretty much the same level as your hypothetical.
They're not goiung to be accepted until they're always better than human drivers. At the moment there are all sorts of minor issue that need to be addressed and dealt with, as well as a lot of real world issues that have yet to even be noticed.
It doesn't matter to the general public if the car is statistically safer. If a car *once* fails to spot a traffic light, even if no harm is done, this will be seen as a fundamental failure of the technology.
There does seem to be some inconsistency here. The UK and the Netherlands have both ruled against people for linking or embedding infringing material, under laws against facilitating copyright infringement.
It certainly does depend on whether the crime is the end result of deivering the material, or the process of duplication. Different courts seem to have different opinions on the matter.
The goal of the census wasn't to determine the number of Jedi in the country.
This is probaly the only question where anyone suggests a substantial number of respondents weren't genuine. Even then you can apply a common sense filter and eliminate all the Jedi and get reasonable numbers for other religions.
This is one of the costs of a minimum wage. We as a society are aware of it. But really the cost to society is not huge. There are many industries that need people, and would pay less than minimum wage if they could. The employer is in a much strong negotiating position.
Ultimately we see the benefit to these people - a pretty larg number - as greater than the disadvantage to those who are employed by inefficient businesses. Yes. It is a problem for them but a business thta can't afford to pay its employees a reasonable wage really isn't a huge benefit to the economy as a whole.
In practice, a minimum wage seems to cause a net benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
No. I made the case that society can terminate the lease of the land's current tenant under terms that are considered fair by society as a whole.
Since you would consider it unfair to turf the old people out of their hovel, and I agree, I think we can speculate that most of society would. Therefore we can't do this without paying them just and fair compensation for the termination of their use of the land. The societal benefit of the shopping mall is fairly minor compared with the societal benefit of the hovel to the old people so typically we can't do this even if we do pay compensation.
The problem here is you considering the government to be your rulers rather than administrators. We are the state. Not them.
Is it completely impossible that there would be some rubber-like pitch that it could be coated with that would solve this problem?
Just to be clear, I don't want to prove that this did happen. I'm just not convinced by claims that such a vessel would never be possible not matter how good a shipright you are. At the very least, you could construct it as several independent self-contained watertight sections, and allow for any flex in the joins between the sections. The problem is engineering, but that's largely limited by imagination.
I really think basic income is a completely different issue from the right to be forgotten. But I think it is an excellent idea in its own right. And I do agree that it deals with a symptom.
I wonder if you could deal with #3 by only supplying a first name and a unique business-only identifier. It wouldn't be secure against a determined effort to break the law, but casual curiousity would be more difficult, and a company at least wouldn't be able to have a policy of doing this.
No it isn't. That's a ridiculous claim. But really I'm talking about ownership of land. This is what I usually understand by private property.
The government is just administrators of the state. I am part of the state. The state doesn't own people. The state is people. If the government isn't working for you then I propose you get rid of it and replace it with one that will. If you live ina democracy, then that's great! You can vote for a new one. Otherwise you'll need to arganise a revolution. If you do that I'll write to my MP urging my government to keep out of your national uprising, but I can't make any promises about how everyone else in my country feels.
I believe I have the right ot private property based on a consensus of opioon of society. That consensus also says I'm obliged to pay taxes.
Ownership of manufactured goods, I see a rationale for. What about land? I didn't create it. Nor did the person I bought it from. As far as I can see, any land belongs to society as a whole. We give some people exclusive rights to their land for indefinite periods, so in that sense it belongs to them, but we as a society have the right to charge them a reasonable amount for the use of it.
Now I'm confused. You're fine with people mooching off the state now?
Well, they're not. They get government handouts. If we're giving handouts to those who don't work and can't work anyway, I see no reason this makes a difference.
Having been unemployed a few times myself, and not spent any money on pot, and not been able to get a job I was overqualified for, I kinda feel that your projudices aren't based on real world experience.
And yes, I realise that 99.9999 etc was an exageration. I just got a bit irked by your claim that the actual figure wouldn't be storable. This is Slashdot though; You should expect some pedantry :) Sorry.
4.6 billion, 46 billion - it's still only a few orders of magnitude we're talking about.
Give me reasonable estimated numbers for the size of the universe, and the habitable volume of the universe that makes your (100-10^-77)% instantly lethal even remotely accurate.
I addressed the volume of the universe. This is a value we have a reasonable accurate figure for. 4,600,000,000 ly or 440,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000m. That gives a total volume of 4/3.pi.r^3, which is 35 with another 79 zeroes after it. 1/(10^77)% of that is smaller than many buildings.
Georges Lemaître. Apparently his being a priest led to some accusations that he was using science to promote Christian dogma.
I have no idea how to do that, so my proposal is to accept that some people will sponge off the system.
So you are saying ther are plenty of jobs? Why does the unemployment rate fluctuate? Surely the number of lazy people is a constant. Are you seriously suggesting that there is nobody who can't get a job?
Your number would suggest that one part in 10^78 of the universe is instantly lethal.
Going by mass, given that there's an estimated upper limit of 10^82 atoms in the universe, you'd suggest that 10^4 (10,000) atoms are non-lethal. Going by volume, 3.4x10^80 m3 would mean that there are 340 cubic metres in the universe that aren't immediately lethal to humanity.
I may be out by a fctor of 10 here, but we're certainly way short of al the storage in the world.
The Vatican has accepted Evolution doesn't conflict with theology for decades now, and the Big Bang theory was was proposed by a Catholic Priest.
The problem is, most of the biblical literalists don't consider Catholicism to be a valid branch of Christianity.
Personally, I quite like living in a world where people who can't get a job don't die of starvation.
What's your view on the enthusiastic hard worker who can't get a job because they only jobs they are capable of doing are already being done by someone in Africa, who can work for a couple of dollars a day?
I agree with #1 but I don't think it's really dealing with the problem. Nor is #3. The employment thing is a tangible example, but the general principle is a philosophy that we should not be haunted by past mistakes.
#2 is where the real meat is. You are quite right that it shouldn't be down to Google. But should the "forgetting" be an automated process? There are various things on the internet that I'm quite proud of or at least happy to keep around. But then, having to explicitly request to be forgotten has its problems - for one thing, we shouldn't be able to censor relevant up to date information about ourselves. Part of that will be our right to be forgotten request. People who have made these demands so far have become pretty famous as a result.
I'm not sure why you feel you have the right to "private property".
As for water not being an entitlement - if you were literally dying of thirst, would you be tempted to steal some if there was no other way to acquire it?
If I understand the law, it's not actually illegal to ask. This is a simplification that the legal department tells HR. You can just use it as evidence that you were rejected based on your religious belief. Lawsuits are expensive even if you win.
Most employers will therefore not ask the question at all, because amongst other things, they usually don't care that much. Ken Ham may be more willing to take the risk.
The Chinese built treasure ships that were allegedly about that size. And a bit of warping and bending wouldn't be a big problem for a vessel like the ark.
I mean I know the whole thing is a fairly tale, and the entirety of Genesis is just a collection of Hebrew myths that they wanted to shoehorn into their historybut I'm a little sceptical of claims that it is inherently impossible to build a ship that large.
Remember this story from shortly after 9/11?
It was a book rather than a newspaper, and only he was prevented from boarding rather than the whole flight being cancelled, but on a stupidity scale, pretty much the same level as your hypothetical.
They're not goiung to be accepted until they're always better than human drivers. At the moment there are all sorts of minor issue that need to be addressed and dealt with, as well as a lot of real world issues that have yet to even be noticed.
MIT Technology review has some examples of this sort of issue.
It doesn't matter to the general public if the car is statistically safer. If a car *once* fails to spot a traffic light, even if no harm is done, this will be seen as a fundamental failure of the technology.
There does seem to be some inconsistency here. The UK and the Netherlands have both ruled against people for linking or embedding infringing material, under laws against facilitating copyright infringement.
It certainly does depend on whether the crime is the end result of deivering the material, or the process of duplication. Different courts seem to have different opinions on the matter.
The goal of the census wasn't to determine the number of Jedi in the country.
This is probaly the only question where anyone suggests a substantial number of respondents weren't genuine. Even then you can apply a common sense filter and eliminate all the Jedi and get reasonable numbers for other religions.
This is one of the costs of a minimum wage. We as a society are aware of it. But really the cost to society is not huge. There are many industries that need people, and would pay less than minimum wage if they could. The employer is in a much strong negotiating position.
Ultimately we see the benefit to these people - a pretty larg number - as greater than the disadvantage to those who are employed by inefficient businesses. Yes. It is a problem for them but a business thta can't afford to pay its employees a reasonable wage really isn't a huge benefit to the economy as a whole.
In practice, a minimum wage seems to cause a net benefit.
Seems they do have qualms. Sweden takes its international reputation on Human Rights seriously.
Nope. That's a myth
He's protected by treaty agreements; not territory.