The law suit needs to be adressed to the right entity... But if Google were found guilty (I hope not), then all assets including those wholly or partially owned by the losing entity can be seized as part of the settlement
Thanks for that. That makes perfectly good sense and depending on the corporate structure of the offender, is probably not dissimilar to what would happen here.
In Aramaic maybe but not in Hebrew. The root GML in Hebrew can mean a camel, to recompense or to wean.
OK, thanks for that. My classical Hebrew is fairly rudimentary so I'll defer to a modern Hebrew speaker... I'm assuming the lack of that meaning in modern Hebrew reflects it's absence in the biblical corpus.
Once you take away the concept of Jesus being the son of God,, you do sort of undermine the whole point of the New Testament.... I'm an atheist, and don't care about the Bible other than for its cultural and literary influence, but it's silly to say that questins of historicity don't matter.
From the post you are responding to (from the bit you quoted even): And, unless you attach some theological significance [to] his historicity, it doesn't matter.
We can discuss whether either in the Greek text, or in some putative oral (or even textual) Aramaic source, there has been a confusion, (or an intentional pun) by which we now have the word 'camel' in place of 'rope.' We can discuss whether the origins of the myth that the "eye of the needle" referred to a gate in Jerusalem, &c, And in this discussion, I wrote above "the question of whether Jesus was an historical figure is a separate, and for present purposes, not a particularly relevant consideration".
Moreover we can discuss this whether we are believers or not. And as you say, non-believers will still be interested in the Bible "for its cultural and literary influence." But this discussion will quickly devolve once impertinences such as the existence of God, or the historicity of Jesus, --necessarily points of conflict --are injected into it. Raising them, where there serve no reasonable purpose, is "silly" to my mind.
Er, if Jesus didn't actually exist, then he couldn't have been the son of God... so of course it matters.
By now you'll be able to anticipate my response: Whether Jesus was or was not, the son of God has no bearing on whether 'camel' and 'rope' have been confused in the extant text, so this question in turn does not matter.
when were those verses actually written in the form that you know them? Oh thats right, years after jesus supposedly lived.. so there is significant doubt that they even came from 'his' mouth right there...
Again I don't really think the question of whether Jesus was an historical figure is terribly interesting or of much importance. As it happens, I feel that on the balance of probability, he did, at least this seems the most parsimonious explanation for the existence, not only of the text, but the historical fact of a large number of devotees existing in the centuries following his supposed death. But even assuming that Jesus really did live, we are left with no way of reconciling what is written in the NT with what an historical Jesus may or may not have actually said. And, unless you attach some theological significance his historicity, it doesn't matter.
What we have are texts. In these texts, at least in some of them, a character Jesus is developed who presents a somewhat coherent ideological position. As such the "rope [sic] through the eye of the needle" story is to be understood by reference to other related statements in that text. That's all. No need for anger. I'm guessing you were raised a Christian and this subject still holds more emotional charge for you than it does for me. Or?
It was only dismissed because they sued the wrong entity (a Spanish Google subsidiary rather than Google itself). The dismissal says nothing about the merits of the case, and it can be refiled against Google.
IAAL, not one who understands European, but issues of jurisdictional standing etc are very much part of what I would consider the merits of the case.
That Google's Spanish subsidiary could not be sued (apparently because it did not run the search engine, but only engaged in marketing) may turn out to be significant. Assuming Google has no other corporate presence in Spain, would the court enforce the judgment, nonetheless, against this subsidiary?! If not, and assuming a US court would not enforce such a judgment, that would rather limit the effect of this law as regards extra-national search engines, even where they have a Spanish corporate presence.
That makes as much sense as writing IF Claudius HAD killed Hamlet's father, Hamlet WOULD HAVE sought revenge. The author(s) of Matt 20 clearly has Jesus saying this, there simply is no IF about it.
The question of whether Jesus was an historical figure is a separate, and for present purposes, not a particularly relevant consideration.
You could be a great driver and habitually speed 5-10 mph above the limit. That is not, in of itself, a sign of sociopathic behavior.
Actually, it is.
You are going to diagnose me as a psychopath because I drive a few klicks above the speed limit. Really?!
Speed limits are set by people smarter than you are about the subject at hand. To sit there and say that you know better and that you will drive above the speed limit because you know better is pretty sociopathic in and of itself.
Huh? False confidence perhaps, but sociopathy?! C'mon.
Most people think they're "above average" drivers. Any trucker will tell you how few driver actually are above average...
Well I used to be a professional driver and my expert guess would be... umm... about half?
... and it has less to do with reflexes and more to do with courtesy.
Well courtesy never hurts (eg. get out of the way of someone travelling faster than you), and driving above the speed limit is certainly no excuse for discourteous driving. But a lot of bad driving is down to simple incompetence if not reflexes. Mind you, when you drive a few 12hr shifts you will find yourself doing some pretty stupid things as well.
The first of those is misunderstood, the 'eye of the needle' was a term that described that back door to a walled city - the door that would be used after dark when the main gate was closed.
Another version of this myth still being perpetuated upon the innocent by Sunday school teachers and holy land tour guides. It used to be said (as early as the C15th) that there was a gate in Jerusalem that was called the eye of the needle. Unfortunately the historical and archaeological record reveals no such gate (if memory serves me correctly there were 5 gates in Jerusalem in Jesus' time).
What you are actually dealing here is either a simple translation error or perhaps a pun and a pun which surprisingly works both in Aramaic (and Hebrew) as well as Greek. GML is both the name for the Hebrew letter (equivalent of G), for a camel and for rope. In Koine Greek the word for 'camel' is kamelos while the word for ship's rope is kamilos. Considering that vowel shift was occurring between iota and eta, the ambiguity was greater in speech.. See also here.
In Aramaic GML is pointed the same way for both as gamla, so when Jesus spoke he literally said "it is easier to thread a ship's rope through the eye of a needle" and "it is easier to force a camel through the eye of a needle," at the same time.
Moreover if we take this statement together with Luke 6:25; Matt 6:24 (also Luke 16:13); etc. there can be no doubting the import of Jesus' words: If you are rich, if you pursue wealth even, you are fucked for all eternity.... unless you're like Warren Buffet or something and leave the sweets for the little kids...
If ice storm knock down the power line, it will knock down the phone line too.
It just goes to show the cavalier attitude of the Labor government that they haven't adequately planned for vast tracts of Australia being taken out by ice storms.
Wishful thinking is incredibly powerful. Mix in a little love and you have an 80-proof irrational cocktail of self-delusion.
I agree that people's wishful thinking provides a powerful way to manipulate them, and what's more naivety plays as greater role here as outright "self-delusion." And if there's any doubt that love lowers critical thinking, consider the Australian physician who was fleeced for a cool A$3.5mill by local scamers. Ouch!
Successful scams abuse built-in human drives which of themselves (in the unabused state) tend to serve an individuals survival (which is perhaps why they have become built-in). The acquisition of material wealth is one such drive and clearly many scams capitalise on greed.
Similarly trust is a requirement for healthy social interaction and certainly for building a healthy reproductive relationship. Those of us who are not sociopathic need to trust and want to. Thankfully people are, more often than not, somewhat trustworthy. Otherwise our species probably would not have persisted till now.
This kind of scam especially (although by definition all scams do) abuse the drive to trust. I raise the issue of naivity, however, to stress that the rational response should not be not to trust at all, but rather to develop better smell tests before investing your trust (or money for that matter).
At this point I feel I have no choice but to dismiss you as an idiot.
You feel have no choice? You mean you can't even show (beyond merely stating it) why a slave has a "moral right to freedom?" You can't point to any ground for your moral rights; You can arrive at no criterion by which to rank the right to expression above below or equal to the right of privacy? You can do none of the things you've been asked beyond floating ever more ungrounded opinions. So the best you can do is dismiss someone whom you are unable to answer as an idiot?! What does that make you then?
But you're wrong Adrian. You DO have a choice. Rather than just spouting uncritically held opinions, you could actually think reflectively about them. Maybe even examine them against the background of some moral-philosophical frame (eg. Rawls' veil of ignorance might have relevance to the question of slave-holding and even speech and privacy). Perhaps you have one and are merely too timid to make it explicit, but it does rather seem that you regard as obvious those things you have never questioned and for no better reason than that you never have.
American plantation owners once had the legal right to own slaves. Once you understand why that is immoral, you will also understand the difference between a moral and a legal right. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to determine where a slave's moral right to freedom comes from.
Come on Adrian. don't be lazy. You were being asked where you thought these moral rights came from. You answer with merely another statement of personal opinion (in radical disagreement with Biblical authority for example), that a slave has a moral right to freedom. They do? Where does this moral right come from? Is this even relevant to the rights under discussion.
Let's run with that for a moment. Is the right to free speech so fundamental a right that, were it alone among all rights granted as a legal right to the slave, it would extinguish the putative immorality of slave holding?
Bob could just as easily claim that in most cases a person's right to shoot their mouth of is not a good enough reason to invade someone else's privacy. On what basis can I adjudicate between Adrian and Bob's opinion here?
On the basis of Bob's reasonable expectation of privacy and Adrian's right to speak.
When I look around the world and back through time I find it much more reasonable to expect to be left to live your life in privacy than it is to be left un-harassed for speaking one's mind. Except in the few places where freedom of speech is protected as a legal right and privacy is not, Bob's expectation of privacy would seem more reasonable than Adrian's expectation of freedom of speech. However, I'm not ready to find for Bob, since I doubt usefulness of reasonable expectation as a criterion here.
I do not have the right to enter Bob's home and reveal whatever I find there, but I do have the right to disseminate information that is legitimately available to me...
Because Bob has a legal right to the free use and enjoyment of his land, which includes the right at law to determine who may enter. Again your right, if you have it, is a legal right, such as the constitutional right in the US jurisdiction. You still haven't explained to me what grounds moral rights.
A so-called "right to be forgotten" is, for the most part, neither reasonable nor necessary.
It's necessity aside, the right to be forgotten is more than merely reasonable. It's the right almost all humans in all places and times have successfully enjoyed.;) Yes that's a joke, but the point here is that a state of affairs (even if it is not "right") that all except celebrities have hitherto enjoyed is being taken away by communications technology. If falls to those governing that technology, should their employers (ie. We the People) wish it, to consider what ought to be done to ameliorate against this. Different Peoples may come to different conclusions about this.
Protecting one person's perceived right to privacy is not, in most cases, a good enough reason to force another to keep quiet.
That's just a bold assertion of your personal opinion. Bob could just as easily claim that in most cases a person's right to shoot their mouth of is not a good enough reason to invade someone else's privacy. On what basis can I adjudicate between Adrian and Bob's opinion here? More importantly how do we resolve a conflict, should it ever occur, between your right to free speech (the right you regard as paramount), and Bob's right to privacy (the right he regards as paramount)?
Different cultures and jurisdictions will potentially strike a different balance.
But not necessarily a correct balance.
That depends on how we define the "correct balance." If you mean the correct balance as defined by Adrian Lopes, then no, obviously only Adrian Lopez can decree the right balance and that decision is inscrutable. If you prefer (as you clearly do not) accepting the messy outcome of the democratic process on the other hand, then it is "correct" almost by definition.
There's a right to kill if the law says there is. There's a right to discriminate against others if the law says there is. A legal right is not a moral right.
A legal right is (relatively) easy to apprehend and it's source is clear. What on earth though is a moral right?! And where, outside your personal predilections, does it come from?
Certain rights are important enough not to be left to the electorate. Such rights should never be subordinate to democracy.
But should instead be determined by Adrian Lopez alone?
Absolute privacy is not a human right. Construed as a human right, there's no such thing as a right to be forgotten.
Sure and absolute freedom of speech ain't a human right either. In fact in societies of 2 persons or more any personal right is necessarily limited vis-a-vis all potentially conflicting personal rights.
The question here is not whether the (non-absolute) right to privacy should give way to the (non-absolute) right of free speech, or vice versa, but as always, where the law ought to draw the line in balancing competing rights. Different cultures and jurisdictions will potentially strike a different balance. There is a right to be forgotten if the law says there is. I think it should be left to the people in the various jurisdictions, as electors of their lawmakers, rather than Adrian snatching absolute rights out of thin air, to determine what works best for them.
I wouldn't. Australia is a civilised country: we have judicial review (of administrative decisions). Still it makes an for an amusing story.
The Customs official probably had his fill of convict jokes for the day and decided to take wield his power...
Could you please point me to the provision of the relevant Act which gives a customs official the power to reject entry on the basis that "[said official] had his fill of convict jokes for the day." One suspects that entry would be lawfully be refused based on some defect of the applicant, rather than of the official. I can't imagine the AAT or the MRT looking too favourably on this kind of exercise of power.
... especially as the businessman didn't say "No, but" first...
Or even with "Yes, but..." Which is why in the real world the official would have replied something along the lines of "was that a 'yes' or a 'no' sir?"
As you guys keep outsourcing it won't be long before there isn't anything we want to buy from the USA.
We will be still importing billions of aussies worth of US intellectual property (regardless of which manufacturer in which country is collecting it from us). The US govt realised in the 1980s the their manufacturing exports were doomed. Their future would be software and entertainment. That is why the US govt has been so fussed about setting up an international IP regime which they control. That is what the US embassy is doing here trying to hijack Australian common law.
Very true, and it would be confrugulous to add the every neologism has that irredufable claim. Irrespective and regardless (sorry, I mean 'irregardless') of wissent the constambulantient grammar nazi's think!
That's because the talking point about "grant money" gets circulated because it tests well with focus groups.
And in fact it is one of the more disingenuous lines in the denier's armoury. In the real world telling funding bodies "the science here is (well established|settled)" is not going to attract funding anywhere near as well as stressing the uncertainties.
I guess you didn't see Suzuki's scare campaign come out today
And I guess, in your ardour to expose Suzuki's "scare campaign" you didn't read or comprehend the comment "Arctic temperatures are *not* rising..." which you originally, and so impertinently, responded to. Eh?
I remember hearing of one climate meeting a few years back that was held in Ottawa in winter; the weather didn't exactly provide an impression of global warming...
Copenhagen was another example of that It's pretty silly really... almost as if these egg-heads want us to make decisions based on the data and the maths!?
I think it's nonsense to group global warming skeptics in with the anti-cellphone, anti-vaccine nutjobs.
Their similarity is that they maintain their "skepticism" [choke] in defiance of all available evidence. What motivates them might sometimes be different, eg AIDS denialism is generally associated with left-wing nutjobs and AGW denialism with right-wing nutjobs, but I suspect there is psychological kinship in these anti-elitist movements.
The global warming skeptics might be wrong, but you can have severe doubts about the current state of climate knowledge without being a anti-science paranoid like the anti-vaccine nuts.
You can (you should) have doubts about the areas of climate science which remain doubtful. The problem is that the nutjob crowd focus their attention on areas where the scientific debate has long been settled, such as the temperature record and the statistical validity of the warming trend; the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations; the largely anthropogenic nature of that rise; and even the importance of carbon dioxide in the climate system. It would be an abuse of the word 'skeptic' to apply it to anyone so steadfastly opposed to the modern western evidence-based scientific tradition. We may as well be talking about Evolution Skeptics.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when did a bit of Capsaicin hurt? See it's not pain to us.
This is a bit disappointing, I always thought my ability to deal with pain was a personal strength, turns out to be my hair?!
You are correct.
Except as far as my placement of the apostrophe in its. :/
Dontcha just hate that!
The law suit needs to be adressed to the right entity ... But if Google were found guilty (I hope not), then all assets including those wholly or partially owned by the losing entity can be seized as part of the settlement
Thanks for that. That makes perfectly good sense and depending on the corporate structure of the offender, is probably not dissimilar to what would happen here.
In Aramaic maybe but not in Hebrew. The root GML in Hebrew can mean a camel, to recompense or to wean.
OK, thanks for that. My classical Hebrew is fairly rudimentary so I'll defer to a modern Hebrew speaker ... I'm assuming the lack of that meaning in modern Hebrew reflects it's absence in the biblical corpus.
Once you take away the concept of Jesus being the son of God,, you do sort of undermine the whole point of the New Testament. ... I'm an atheist, and don't care about the Bible other than for its cultural and literary influence, but it's silly to say that questins of historicity don't matter.
From the post you are responding to (from the bit you quoted even): And, unless you attach some theological significance [to] his historicity, it doesn't matter.
We can discuss whether either in the Greek text, or in some putative oral (or even textual) Aramaic source, there has been a confusion, (or an intentional pun) by which we now have the word 'camel' in place of 'rope.' We can discuss whether the origins of the myth that the "eye of the needle" referred to a gate in Jerusalem, &c, And in this discussion, I wrote above "the question of whether Jesus was an historical figure is a separate, and for present purposes, not a particularly relevant consideration".
Moreover we can discuss this whether we are believers or not. And as you say, non-believers will still be interested in the Bible "for its cultural and literary influence." But this discussion will quickly devolve once impertinences such as the existence of God, or the historicity of Jesus, --necessarily points of conflict --are injected into it. Raising them, where there serve no reasonable purpose, is "silly" to my mind.
Er, if Jesus didn't actually exist, then he couldn't have been the son of God ... so of course it matters.
By now you'll be able to anticipate my response: Whether Jesus was or was not, the son of God has no bearing on whether 'camel' and 'rope' have been confused in the extant text, so this question in turn does not matter.
when were those verses actually written in the form that you know them? Oh thats right, years after jesus supposedly lived.. so there is significant doubt that they even came from 'his' mouth right there ...
Again I don't really think the question of whether Jesus was an historical figure is terribly interesting or of much importance. As it happens, I feel that on the balance of probability, he did, at least this seems the most parsimonious explanation for the existence, not only of the text, but the historical fact of a large number of devotees existing in the centuries following his supposed death. But even assuming that Jesus really did live, we are left with no way of reconciling what is written in the NT with what an historical Jesus may or may not have actually said. And, unless you attach some theological significance his historicity, it doesn't matter.
What we have are texts. In these texts, at least in some of them, a character Jesus is developed who presents a somewhat coherent ideological position. As such the "rope [sic] through the eye of the needle" story is to be understood by reference to other related statements in that text. That's all. No need for anger. I'm guessing you were raised a Christian and this subject still holds more emotional charge for you than it does for me. Or?
It was only dismissed because they sued the wrong entity (a Spanish Google subsidiary rather than Google itself). The dismissal says nothing about the merits of the case, and it can be refiled against Google.
IAAL, not one who understands European, but issues of jurisdictional standing etc are very much part of what I would consider the merits of the case.
That Google's Spanish subsidiary could not be sued (apparently because it did not run the search engine, but only engaged in marketing) may turn out to be significant. Assuming Google has no other corporate presence in Spain, would the court enforce the judgment, nonetheless, against this subsidiary?! If not, and assuming a US court would not enforce such a judgment, that would rather limit the effect of this law as regards extra-national search engines, even where they have a Spanish corporate presence.
Fixed that for you
That makes as much sense as writing IF Claudius HAD killed Hamlet's father, Hamlet WOULD HAVE sought revenge. The author(s) of Matt 20 clearly has Jesus saying this, there simply is no IF about it.
The question of whether Jesus was an historical figure is a separate, and for present purposes, not a particularly relevant consideration.
You could be a great driver and habitually speed 5-10 mph above the limit. That is not, in of itself, a sign of sociopathic behavior.
Actually, it is.
You are going to diagnose me as a psychopath because I drive a few klicks above the speed limit. Really?!
Speed limits are set by people smarter than you are about the subject at hand. To sit there and say that you know better and that you will drive above the speed limit because you know better is pretty sociopathic in and of itself.
Huh? False confidence perhaps, but sociopathy?! C'mon.
Most people think they're "above average" drivers. Any trucker will tell you how few driver actually are above average ...
Well I used to be a professional driver and my expert guess would be ... umm ... about half?
Well courtesy never hurts (eg. get out of the way of someone travelling faster than you), and driving above the speed limit is certainly no excuse for discourteous driving. But a lot of bad driving is down to simple incompetence if not reflexes. Mind you, when you drive a few 12hr shifts you will find yourself doing some pretty stupid things as well.
I didn't know they had TV back in Timothy's time.
Obviously Timothy was making a prophesy: If we don't abandon our greedy ways, the day will come when all humanity is plagued by miniseries.
The first of those is misunderstood, the 'eye of the needle' was a term that described that back door to a walled city - the door that would be used after dark when the main gate was closed.
Another version of this myth still being perpetuated upon the innocent by Sunday school teachers and holy land tour guides. It used to be said (as early as the C15th) that there was a gate in Jerusalem that was called the eye of the needle. Unfortunately the historical and archaeological record reveals no such gate (if memory serves me correctly there were 5 gates in Jerusalem in Jesus' time).
What you are actually dealing here is either a simple translation error or perhaps a pun and a pun which surprisingly works both in Aramaic (and Hebrew) as well as Greek. GML is both the name for the Hebrew letter (equivalent of G), for a camel and for rope. In Koine Greek the word for 'camel' is kamelos while the word for ship's rope is kamilos. Considering that vowel shift was occurring between iota and eta, the ambiguity was greater in speech.. See also here.
In Aramaic GML is pointed the same way for both as gamla, so when Jesus spoke he literally said "it is easier to thread a ship's rope through the eye of a needle" and "it is easier to force a camel through the eye of a needle," at the same time.
Moreover if we take this statement together with Luke 6:25; Matt 6:24 (also Luke 16:13); etc. there can be no doubting the import of Jesus' words: If you are rich, if you pursue wealth even, you are fucked for all eternity. ... unless you're like Warren Buffet or something and leave the sweets for the little kids ...
If ice storm knock down the power line, it will knock down the phone line too.
It just goes to show the cavalier attitude of the Labor government that they haven't adequately planned for vast tracts of Australia being taken out by ice storms.
Wishful thinking is incredibly powerful. Mix in a little love and you have an 80-proof irrational cocktail of self-delusion.
I agree that people's wishful thinking provides a powerful way to manipulate them, and what's more naivety plays as greater role here as outright "self-delusion." And if there's any doubt that love lowers critical thinking, consider the Australian physician who was fleeced for a cool A$3.5mill by local scamers. Ouch!
Successful scams abuse built-in human drives which of themselves (in the unabused state) tend to serve an individuals survival (which is perhaps why they have become built-in). The acquisition of material wealth is one such drive and clearly many scams capitalise on greed.
Similarly trust is a requirement for healthy social interaction and certainly for building a healthy reproductive relationship. Those of us who are not sociopathic need to trust and want to. Thankfully people are, more often than not, somewhat trustworthy. Otherwise our species probably would not have persisted till now.
This kind of scam especially (although by definition all scams do) abuse the drive to trust. I raise the issue of naivity, however, to stress that the rational response should not be not to trust at all, but rather to develop better smell tests before investing your trust (or money for that matter).
At this point I feel I have no choice but to dismiss you as an idiot.
You feel have no choice? You mean you can't even show (beyond merely stating it) why a slave has a "moral right to freedom?" You can't point to any ground for your moral rights; You can arrive at no criterion by which to rank the right to expression above below or equal to the right of privacy? You can do none of the things you've been asked beyond floating ever more ungrounded opinions. So the best you can do is dismiss someone whom you are unable to answer as an idiot?! What does that make you then?
But you're wrong Adrian. You DO have a choice. Rather than just spouting uncritically held opinions, you could actually think reflectively about them. Maybe even examine them against the background of some moral-philosophical frame (eg. Rawls' veil of ignorance might have relevance to the question of slave-holding and even speech and privacy). Perhaps you have one and are merely too timid to make it explicit, but it does rather seem that you regard as obvious those things you have never questioned and for no better reason than that you never have.
American plantation owners once had the legal right to own slaves. Once you understand why that is immoral, you will also understand the difference between a moral and a legal right. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to determine where a slave's moral right to freedom comes from.
Come on Adrian. don't be lazy. You were being asked where you thought these moral rights came from. You answer with merely another statement of personal opinion (in radical disagreement with Biblical authority for example), that a slave has a moral right to freedom. They do? Where does this moral right come from? Is this even relevant to the rights under discussion.
Let's run with that for a moment. Is the right to free speech so fundamental a right that, were it alone among all rights granted as a legal right to the slave, it would extinguish the putative immorality of slave holding?
Bob could just as easily claim that in most cases a person's right to shoot their mouth of is not a good enough reason to invade someone else's privacy. On what basis can I adjudicate between Adrian and Bob's opinion here?
On the basis of Bob's reasonable expectation of privacy and Adrian's right to speak.
When I look around the world and back through time I find it much more reasonable to expect to be left to live your life in privacy than it is to be left un-harassed for speaking one's mind. Except in the few places where freedom of speech is protected as a legal right and privacy is not, Bob's expectation of privacy would seem more reasonable than Adrian's expectation of freedom of speech. However, I'm not ready to find for Bob, since I doubt usefulness of reasonable expectation as a criterion here.
I do not have the right to enter Bob's home and reveal whatever I find there, but I do have the right to disseminate information that is legitimately available to me...
Because Bob has a legal right to the free use and enjoyment of his land, which includes the right at law to determine who may enter. Again your right, if you have it, is a legal right, such as the constitutional right in the US jurisdiction. You still haven't explained to me what grounds moral rights.
A so-called "right to be forgotten" is, for the most part, neither reasonable nor necessary.
It's necessity aside, the right to be forgotten is more than merely reasonable. It's the right almost all humans in all places and times have successfully enjoyed. ;) Yes that's a joke, but the point here is that a state of affairs (even if it is not "right") that all except celebrities have hitherto enjoyed is being taken away by communications technology. If falls to those governing that technology, should their employers (ie. We the People) wish it, to consider what ought to be done to ameliorate against this. Different Peoples may come to different conclusions about this.
Protecting one person's perceived right to privacy is not, in most cases, a good enough reason to force another to keep quiet.
That's just a bold assertion of your personal opinion. Bob could just as easily claim that in most cases a person's right to shoot their mouth of is not a good enough reason to invade someone else's privacy. On what basis can I adjudicate between Adrian and Bob's opinion here? More importantly how do we resolve a conflict, should it ever occur, between your right to free speech (the right you regard as paramount), and Bob's right to privacy (the right he regards as paramount)?
Different cultures and jurisdictions will potentially strike a different balance.
But not necessarily a correct balance.
That depends on how we define the "correct balance." If you mean the correct balance as defined by Adrian Lopes, then no, obviously only Adrian Lopez can decree the right balance and that decision is inscrutable. If you prefer (as you clearly do not) accepting the messy outcome of the democratic process on the other hand, then it is "correct" almost by definition.
There's a right to kill if the law says there is. There's a right to discriminate against others if the law says there is. A legal right is not a moral right.
A legal right is (relatively) easy to apprehend and it's source is clear. What on earth though is a moral right?! And where, outside your personal predilections, does it come from?
Certain rights are important enough not to be left to the electorate. Such rights should never be subordinate to democracy.
But should instead be determined by Adrian Lopez alone?
Absolute privacy is not a human right. Construed as a human right, there's no such thing as a right to be forgotten.
Sure and absolute freedom of speech ain't a human right either. In fact in societies of 2 persons or more any personal right is necessarily limited vis-a-vis all potentially conflicting personal rights.
The question here is not whether the (non-absolute) right to privacy should give way to the (non-absolute) right of free speech, or vice versa, but as always, where the law ought to draw the line in balancing competing rights. Different cultures and jurisdictions will potentially strike a different balance. There is a right to be forgotten if the law says there is. I think it should be left to the people in the various jurisdictions, as electors of their lawmakers, rather than Adrian snatching absolute rights out of thin air, to determine what works best for them.
I would believe it.
I wouldn't. Australia is a civilised country: we have judicial review (of administrative decisions). Still it makes an for an amusing story.
The Customs official probably had his fill of convict jokes for the day and decided to take wield his power ...
Could you please point me to the provision of the relevant Act which gives a customs official the power to reject entry on the basis that "[said official] had his fill of convict jokes for the day." One suspects that entry would be lawfully be refused based on some defect of the applicant, rather than of the official. I can't imagine the AAT or the MRT looking too favourably on this kind of exercise of power.
Or even with "Yes, but ..." Which is why in the real world the official would have replied something along the lines of "was that a 'yes' or a 'no' sir?"
As you guys keep outsourcing it won't be long before there isn't anything we want to buy from the USA.
We will be still importing billions of aussies worth of US intellectual property (regardless of which manufacturer in which country is collecting it from us). The US govt realised in the 1980s the their manufacturing exports were doomed. Their future would be software and entertainment. That is why the US govt has been so fussed about setting up an international IP regime which they control. That is what the US embassy is doing here trying to hijack Australian common law.
Irregardless is absolutely a word.
Very true, and it would be confrugulous to add the every neologism has that irredufable claim. Irrespective and regardless (sorry, I mean 'irregardless') of wissent the constambulantient grammar nazi's think!
That's because the talking point about "grant money" gets circulated because it tests well with focus groups.
And in fact it is one of the more disingenuous lines in the denier's armoury. In the real world telling funding bodies "the science here is (well established|settled)" is not going to attract funding anywhere near as well as stressing the uncertainties.
Not true. I have had plenty of access to such information and have always avoided looking at it. It's immoral.
What's more, if TFA is to be believed more than 2/3rds of your peers agree with you.
I guess you didn't see Suzuki's scare campaign come out today
And I guess, in your ardour to expose Suzuki's "scare campaign" you didn't read or comprehend the comment "Arctic temperatures are *not* rising ..." which you originally, and so impertinently, responded to. Eh?
I remember hearing of one climate meeting a few years back that was held in Ottawa in winter; the weather didn't exactly provide an impression of global warming ...
Copenhagen was another example of that It's pretty silly really ... almost as if these egg-heads want us to make decisions based on the data and the maths!?
I think it's nonsense to group global warming skeptics in with the anti-cellphone, anti-vaccine nutjobs.
Their similarity is that they maintain their "skepticism" [choke] in defiance of all available evidence. What motivates them might sometimes be different, eg AIDS denialism is generally associated with left-wing nutjobs and AGW denialism with right-wing nutjobs, but I suspect there is psychological kinship in these anti-elitist movements.
The global warming skeptics might be wrong, but you can have severe doubts about the current state of climate knowledge without being a anti-science paranoid like the anti-vaccine nuts.
You can (you should) have doubts about the areas of climate science which remain doubtful. The problem is that the nutjob crowd focus their attention on areas where the scientific debate has long been settled, such as the temperature record and the statistical validity of the warming trend; the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations; the largely anthropogenic nature of that rise; and even the importance of carbon dioxide in the climate system. It would be an abuse of the word 'skeptic' to apply it to anyone so steadfastly opposed to the modern western evidence-based scientific tradition. We may as well be talking about Evolution Skeptics.