Don't worry, you're on the forefront of slashdot's latest trend: not even reading the headline. After the long-held tradition of no one reading the article, we migrated in recent years to no one reading the summary, and now we are finally achieving are long-awaited goal.
It's called "the singularity", and I for one welcome our new quippy overlords!
Repeating an italicized catch phrase doesn't make a cohesive argument.
Oh yeah, Mr. Smarty Pants? Then when haven't you been able to answer the question of what year it is??? If you don't know, you should just not post a response.
I'm kind of surprised that Earth's magnetic field is stable enough for this to work well. Or if nothing else, wouldn't local magnetic field disturbances goof it up?
I think you're missing the point. They can probably give an answer, but regardless of whether it's yes or no, that will be contrary to someone groups' definition of evil.
Which means Google is in denial that they must either (a) admit that some world views are wrong, or (b) limit their actions to those which are considered non-evil by every worldview, an intersection which is probably the empty set.
The fact that they're not willing to admit that, in my view, makes their "Do no evil" claim at the very least disingenuous or naive.
Without an agreed upon definition of "evil", their slogan was basically meaningless.
And actually, it should have been annoying to everyone who holds a worldview whose definition of evil was met by Google's actions. Because then Google was basically saying, "Evil is not what your {religion | moral philosophy | etc. } defines it as." Basically, it's either (a) Google giving a big middle finger everyone holding contrary definitions of evil, or (b) to everyone who assumed Google was sincere in its "Do no evil" slogan.
So at the very best, whoever came up with that slogan was naive and unthoughtful.
Yeah, that's what came to my mind as well. I bought the PS3 primarily as a way to tinker with Cell programming.
IIRC, U.S. courts somewhat stunningly say that Sony was under no obligation to not destroy advertised functionality post-purchase. Perhaps the OP would fare better in the UK.
It's fine by me if someone wants every mention of him/herself removed from a search engine.
I'm not sure that's practically feasible. What about persons who have a commonly used name? If Google strived to avoid showing results with the person in question, they'd either (a) have an insane amount of human-executed research to do for every query, or (b) omit every result with that name even if it referred to someone else.
To make it worse, suppose a newspaper ran a story on "Fred, who lives at the north end of 23'd Street in Duluth" (a contrived example). Is Google supposed to know whether or not that's the Fred they're supposed to omit? Or even worse, suppose Fred lived with his Father and son, all at the same address at the same time, and all named (for example) Fred Smith. How's Google supposed to sort out who's who?
If a past conviction or legal ruling is available as a matter of public record at a courthouse or in a newspaper, I don't see how it becomes "private" just because Google provides a link to said newspaper / courthouse document.
From what I know of the European court's decision, it really seems to me like they didn't think this one through.
You didn't give a principled reason or argument as to why being forgotten online is a right. Maybe you mean that, in your humble opinion, it should be a right?
I think the "is" vs. "should" distinction is very important in this case, because it affects whether or not the courts are obligated to rule a certain way.
I sense this will have the same life of its own as the "chances of a woman getting married after 40 are worse than that of her getting killed by a terrorist" meme that went around a decade or so ago,
So that's why so many women perked up when 9/11 happened!
Queue the legion of people who will insist that Seattle companies be forced to hire less-qualified people who happen to be women.
If this bothers you: stop telling little girls that they're pretty, and instead tell them that they're smart. Don't ask them their favorite princess, ask them what they want to be when they grow up.
So now we're making up an imaginary race of creatures in which most women don't want to be pretty and don't care about looking attractive to men?
If we're no longer talking about humans, then there's a lot of things we might do differently.
A queen and the worker bees, although they are all female with actual bees. I propose cage fights and sting matches for the singles to prune out the unfit individuals.
Well, yeah. Let's see you try finding office space for those huge Amazonian women!
As a woman I think this must be great news! But as a foreigner - should I aim for Seattle or San Fransisco?
If you're a foreigner, I'd recommend treating the world as your oyster. Personally, I can vouch for the rogueish good looks, sense of humour, and alcohol tolerance of Irish men.
But if you're in a pinch, I guess there are a few expats in Seattle and San Francisco.
The Bible is a collection of 66 different books, some of which appear to have been intended as allegory (parts of Genesis; Job; etc.), poetry and wisdom literature (Psalms), history (1st and 2nd Kings), etc.
My understanding is that the allegorical and poetical books are not considered as such simply because a literal interpretation would be problematic. My understanding is that the Hebrew writing style flags them as such. I think you're making the mistake of interpreting non-literal books as having been intended as literal, and thus get a mistakenly tainted view of the Bible, and of the persons whose beliefs are rooted in it.
As far as bringing a dead person back to life: the Bible's authors certainly aren't claiming that's something that normally happens, nor that it's a natural even. The whole point of those resurrections was to confirm that Jesus wasn't merely a lying or deluded human.
Regarding analytical thinking vs. rationality: If you're depending on the differences in their meanings / connotations, I'm all ears, but you need to clarify your meanings. But in normal conversation, the two terms generally go hand-in-hand.
And I agree that the topic will probably go no where. Not because it's on the wrong/. thread, but because it generally takes more than an exchange over the internet to make someone change his position on this topic.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry, you're on the forefront of slashdot's latest trend: not even reading the headline. After the long-held tradition of no one reading the article, we migrated in recent years to no one reading the summary, and now we are finally achieving are long-awaited goal.
It's called "the singularity", and I for one welcome our new quippy overlords!
Dude, working at a Mobil station doesn't really make you an expert...
Well, that sure answers why people don't want it on their roofs.
Oh yeah, Mr. Smarty Pants? Then when haven't you been able to answer the question of what year it is??? If you don't know, you should just not post a response.
Um, I think you'd better see a neurologist, mate.
I'm kind of surprised that Earth's magnetic field is stable enough for this to work well. Or if nothing else, wouldn't local magnetic field disturbances goof it up?
(Please don't let him spell it "dead" reckoning. Please don't let him spell it "dead" reckoning. Please don't let him spell it "dead" reckoning. ...)
I think you're missing the point. They can probably give an answer, but regardless of whether it's yes or no, that will be contrary to someone groups' definition of evil.
Which means Google is in denial that they must either (a) admit that some world views are wrong, or (b) limit their actions to those which are considered non-evil by every worldview, an intersection which is probably the empty set.
The fact that they're not willing to admit that, in my view, makes their "Do no evil" claim at the very least disingenuous or naive.
Do no evil
Without an agreed upon definition of "evil", their slogan was basically meaningless.
And actually, it should have been annoying to everyone who holds a worldview whose definition of evil was met by Google's actions. Because then Google was basically saying, "Evil is not what your {religion | moral philosophy | etc. } defines it as." Basically, it's either (a) Google giving a big middle finger everyone holding contrary definitions of evil, or (b) to everyone who assumed Google was sincere in its "Do no evil" slogan.
So at the very best, whoever came up with that slogan was naive and unthoughtful.
Yeah, that's what came to my mind as well. I bought the PS3 primarily as a way to tinker with Cell programming.
IIRC, U.S. courts somewhat stunningly say that Sony was under no obligation to not destroy advertised functionality post-purchase. Perhaps the OP would fare better in the UK.
Also, it would be against Geneva convention
Well, at least MS can count on a big CIA purchase then.
Civil forfeiture is even more terrifying.
+1 Funny
Uh... who's going to tell @macson_g that that's not how modding works?
I don't have the time to respond to all of those issues, but if you want to pick one, I'd be happy to keep chatting.
I'm not sure that's practically feasible. What about persons who have a commonly used name? If Google strived to avoid showing results with the person in question, they'd either (a) have an insane amount of human-executed research to do for every query, or (b) omit every result with that name even if it referred to someone else.
To make it worse, suppose a newspaper ran a story on "Fred, who lives at the north end of 23'd Street in Duluth" (a contrived example). Is Google supposed to know whether or not that's the Fred they're supposed to omit? Or even worse, suppose Fred lived with his Father and son, all at the same address at the same time, and all named (for example) Fred Smith. How's Google supposed to sort out who's who?
That might be a workable solution, until courts start awarding damages.
If a past conviction or legal ruling is available as a matter of public record at a courthouse or in a newspaper, I don't see how it becomes "private" just because Google provides a link to said newspaper / courthouse document.
From what I know of the European court's decision, it really seems to me like they didn't think this one through.
You didn't give a principled reason or argument as to why being forgotten online is a right. Maybe you mean that, in your humble opinion, it should be a right?
I think the "is" vs. "should" distinction is very important in this case, because it affects whether or not the courts are obligated to rule a certain way.
So that's why so many women perked up when 9/11 happened!
That seems questionable. The last think you want her interested in anytime soon is erections.
Queue the legion of people who will insist that Seattle companies be forced to hire less-qualified people who happen to be women.
If this bothers you: stop telling little girls that they're pretty, and instead tell them that they're smart. Don't ask them their favorite princess, ask them what they want to be when they grow up.
So now we're making up an imaginary race of creatures in which most women don't want to be pretty and don't care about looking attractive to men?
If we're no longer talking about humans, then there's a lot of things we might do differently.
A queen and the worker bees, although they are all female with actual bees. I propose cage fights and sting matches for the singles to prune out the unfit individuals.
Well, yeah. Let's see you try finding office space for those huge Amazonian women!
As a woman I think this must be great news! But as a foreigner - should I aim for Seattle or San Fransisco?
If you're a foreigner, I'd recommend treating the world as your oyster. Personally, I can vouch for the rogueish good looks, sense of humour, and alcohol tolerance of Irish men.
But if you're in a pinch, I guess there are a few expats in Seattle and San Francisco.
Will it have 13 men per 10 women? 26 men per 20 women?
Will it even have... 30% more men than women???
The Bible is a collection of 66 different books, some of which appear to have been intended as allegory (parts of Genesis; Job; etc.), poetry and wisdom literature (Psalms), history (1st and 2nd Kings), etc.
My understanding is that the allegorical and poetical books are not considered as such simply because a literal interpretation would be problematic. My understanding is that the Hebrew writing style flags them as such. I think you're making the mistake of interpreting non-literal books as having been intended as literal, and thus get a mistakenly tainted view of the Bible, and of the persons whose beliefs are rooted in it.
As far as bringing a dead person back to life: the Bible's authors certainly aren't claiming that's something that normally happens, nor that it's a natural even. The whole point of those resurrections was to confirm that Jesus wasn't merely a lying or deluded human.
Regarding analytical thinking vs. rationality: If you're depending on the differences in their meanings / connotations, I'm all ears, but you need to clarify your meanings. But in normal conversation, the two terms generally go hand-in-hand.
And I agree that the topic will probably go no where. Not because it's on the wrong /. thread, but because it generally takes more than an exchange over the internet to make someone change his position on this topic.