Not just a US problem. Edinburgh has a massive call centre outsourcer. Now we all know that call centres pay peanuts, because they don't really need skilled workers, but this one does, because it's a multilingual call centre. All of their staff are fluent in two, three or even four or more languages. They get about £500 more than the usual unskilled phone jockey per year, despite the huge efficiency savings made by not having to have individual call handlers on hand for each language even at slow times. And people say this is OK because of supply and demand.
Educated young oeople were flooding out of Greece long before the current government took over. The present government's rise is a reaction to the death of the Greek economy, not the cause of it.
"Gun rights" and "gun controls" are not mutually incompatible. For example, mandatory mental health checks for licensees seems emininently sensible as a control, and yet there are people who cry "freedom" and "rights" even when people try to establish checks of that sort. Do you really value the "freedom" of potentially homocidal individuals that much?
Most people at the very least would be happier with stricter background checks, and yet even reasonable moves to have mandatory mental health checks are decried as "taking our freedoms". Which is a bit much.
They're working for the extremely high number of Americans who want stricter gun controls that they're finding impossible to implement due to the vocal outrage of the Nutter Rambos of America, and they figure that even if they can't manage to close down the existing paths to firearms ownership, they should at least try to prevent opening up new ones.
I'm not blaming anyone for "espousing" anything -- I'm blaming them for telling religious people "this isn't for you", or even worse -- stating (unscientifically) that science disproves God. I went to a Catholic school. We studied just as much science as the kids in non-denominational schools, because nothing in Catholic dogma says science is bad -- in fact, university study in Europe was founded by the Catholic church to study "the mechanics of God's creation", and science was seen as a holy endeavour, similar to how the medieval Muslim scholars viewed it.
In the last 20 years, things have changed drastically. I no longer mix with as many catholics as I did when I was a believer, but it's clear that far more of them reject parts of science and believe in literal interpretations of the Bible, even though catholic dogma has not accepted biblical literalism for centuries. The influence comes from outside the church. It's also not about being "weak-minded", it's just about being uneducated. Thirty years ago, these people without the educational background to understand science would have just shrugged because science wasn't important to them.
The problem when you separate these people they will only be more extream, as well your side would get more extreme.
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. Do not underestimate the polarising effects of listening to people attack you. I try t be neutral and reasonable on debates on religion. This leads non-religious people to think I'm a religious person trying to corrupt hem, and it leads religious people to believe I'm an atheist trying to corrupt them. The internet isn't currently a place for reasoned debate as people are just too quick t assume any disgreement is an attack. It is possible (though maybe not likely) that such a site could become a "safe place" for debates. Extremism on either side is usually a result of polarisation, which really affects both sides equally.
And live in separate communities and have separate schools, right?
Oh, how cute. You are trying to imply that evangelicals are like the minorities that were persecuted through history and suffered segregation. Right, those poor Christians. They are so defenseless, so persecuted. How dare other people not let them tell everyone how to live their lives.
Oh, how cute -- you're making patronising statements and assumptions again. It could be that the AC GP is making a comment about integration. After all, isn't it one of the biggest concerns about immigrant communities that they fail to integrate? Perhaps the AC was trying to get the previous poster to think about the fact that segregation is never good for society.
In Scotland, segregation in the school system was sold as a means of protecting the Catholic (ie Irish and Italian immigrant) kids from bullying from the local (low Protestant) kids. In reality, it was a sticking-plaster that maintained a century of sectarianism by skirting around the need to preach tolerance and understanding.
Actually, that passage has been presented as being a doctrine for passive-resistance, bolstering the case that the historical Jesus was a sort of Gandhi figure in a country that was constantly bubbling with armed resistance against the Roman occupation. Turning the other cheek challenged the slapper to strike you the other way, and slapping with the front of the hand recognised you as a person of value, whereas the back of the hand was a dismissive gesture, devaluing you. if someone you're close to (eg your dad) slaps you with the palm, then you turn the other cheek, you're effectively saying "hit me again and you're disowning me", whereas if someone hits you with the back of their hand and you turn the other cheek, you're saying "I'm no less than you. Hit me again and prove it." Walking the extra mile was because Roman laws only permitted a legionnary to impune a subject for a mile at a time, and if you carry the pack for two miles, you might get him in trouble with his centurion. The goal was to make them too scared to demand assistance. There is no passive resistance in making two wedding cakes.
I used to be religious (catholic), and it worries me how much of a tendency there is towards fundaMentalism across the board. But I don't blame religious people for this -- I actually blame outspoken atheists who preach that science and rationality are the enemies of religion. It is them, ironically, who turn uninformed religious people into zealots.
Ask a Christian, and they will say they hate the sin, not the sinner.
They say that, yes. One of the hardest parts of Christian doctrine is actually living up to that ideal. It's a principle that I've tried to stick to even after I lost my faith - hate the actions, not the actor, or something like that.
That's because that's the satirical Discworld version of Death. The real-world figure employs different typographical conventions. Particularly when he's disguised as Santa Claus.
Yeah, but the need for spice was that foresight enabled high-speed travel. Interstellar travel was possible, but employing "traditional" methods, while still pissible, would have been "uncompetitive'. The workers were exposed to dangerous chemicals purely for commercial advantage.
Do you take your own ripubbish to the dump? Do you perform your own safety checks on roads? Do you get to choose the width of the vehicle you drive? Society only exists by removing individual freedom.
Further up the discussion, people were complaining about this ruling censoring the public record... and now your suggestion is that we should be going back and rewriting historical documents. That seems far more censorious to me.
why anyone thought forced delinking will ever work?
it just draws more attention to what you are trying to delink
Only in a handful of cases. I'm sure I said some things on Usenet way back when that would really embarass me if they ever bubbled up to the top of the search results. I'm sure I used some very un-PC terminology about homosexuals in my younger years, and while I am ashamed of my younger intolerance, there really would be nothing to gain from publically shaming me now. I am reformed. I am no longer homophobic. So yeah... If any such comments ever started appearing at the top of the search results, I'd certainly want to get the struck off the index.
There are some very nasty pieces of work on that list, rapists and murderers who presumably managed to get a removal order from within prison, but some are just weird, like "The news that lesbian couples in England and Wales who start a family through fertility treatment can now place both their names on the birth certificate has been welcomed by a gay couple with children. Eve Carlile describes the move as "practically really helpful, and ideologically great". "Why would they want that removed?
Probably something to do with children. Like maybe they gave up on fertility treatment and adopted, and don't want the kid to think he/she was "second choice".
Mind you others are pretty silly, like the hacker who recorded a rude phone message after being left on hold for too long. Not sure why posterity needs that little tidbit.
That's exactly what right-to-be-forgotten should be about -- stopping little embarassing moments defining you in other people's eyes.
Who has the greater right of protection, the criminal (with regard to published unchallenged news stories) or potential victims.
That's a question for the law of the land and is based on the severity of the crime and bakancing the desire for rehabilitation of offenders against fear of recedivism. Every country has its own laws on the disclosure of criminal offences, and these laws are carefully considered to achieve balance.
Now imagine if you googled your name, and you found that 6 years ago, someone from your hometown, who shares your name and approximate age had gone on a spree of sexual violence and murder fueled by illicit drugs. None of the articles had a photo of the offender. Would you want the article delisted, or would you be standing up for people's right to ostracise you in order to protect the safety of "potential victims"? (See also common Arabic names and the US no-fly list.)
I also think it's strange that somehow it's Google's job to remove pages.
Google is not a dumb index -- Google is a collection of cutting edge data-mining and artificial intelligence algorithms designed to provide data that is of direct relevance to the user's query. That is Google's job.
The European ruling was not about the deletion of information, it was a point about the relevance of information. A spent conviction is legally considered irrelevant, except in certain careers (particularly working with children) and therefore shouldn't be something that Google's algorithm returns. The immediate result was a headache for Google as they were flooded with requests, but this no doubt had an effect on their page ranking, increasing the bias towards recent information (fewer old hits should mean fewer right-to-be-forgotten requests in the long term).
As the internet gets older and bigger, Google's approach to search is starting to look too simple anyway. I can remember when I could find anything I wanted with a few clicks, but now the search resilts are full of amateur "Me too" pages, and the pages with the real information are lost in the noise. When I want to find old stuff I'm often crowded out with new stuff, and vice versa.
In future we will need to return tomore structured search, with date filtering etc to get any useful data out of our systems.
Slashdot Mirror
Not just a US problem. Edinburgh has a massive call centre outsourcer. Now we all know that call centres pay peanuts, because they don't really need skilled workers, but this one does, because it's a multilingual call centre. All of their staff are fluent in two, three or even four or more languages. They get about £500 more than the usual unskilled phone jockey per year, despite the huge efficiency savings made by not having to have individual call handlers on hand for each language even at slow times. And people say this is OK because of supply and demand.
Educated young oeople were flooding out of Greece long before the current government took over. The present government's rise is a reaction to the death of the Greek economy, not the cause of it.
"Gun rights" and "gun controls" are not mutually incompatible. For example, mandatory mental health checks for licensees seems emininently sensible as a control, and yet there are people who cry "freedom" and "rights" even when people try to establish checks of that sort. Do you really value the "freedom" of potentially homocidal individuals that much?
Most people at the very least would be happier with stricter background checks, and yet even reasonable moves to have mandatory mental health checks are decried as "taking our freedoms". Which is a bit much.
Yes, but you would need plans, and transmitting plans on te internet will be illegal.
They're working for the extremely high number of Americans who want stricter gun controls that they're finding impossible to implement due to the vocal outrage of the Nutter Rambos of America, and they figure that even if they can't manage to close down the existing paths to firearms ownership, they should at least try to prevent opening up new ones.
You are blaming people for espousing science
I'm not blaming anyone for "espousing" anything -- I'm blaming them for telling religious people "this isn't for you", or even worse -- stating (unscientifically) that science disproves God. I went to a Catholic school. We studied just as much science as the kids in non-denominational schools, because nothing in Catholic dogma says science is bad -- in fact, university study in Europe was founded by the Catholic church to study "the mechanics of God's creation", and science was seen as a holy endeavour, similar to how the medieval Muslim scholars viewed it.
In the last 20 years, things have changed drastically. I no longer mix with as many catholics as I did when I was a believer, but it's clear that far more of them reject parts of science and believe in literal interpretations of the Bible, even though catholic dogma has not accepted biblical literalism for centuries. The influence comes from outside the church. It's also not about being "weak-minded", it's just about being uneducated. Thirty years ago, these people without the educational background to understand science would have just shrugged because science wasn't important to them.
Builders don't soend their whole lives building. Painters don't spend their entire day painting. Why shouldn't evangelists get some "down time" too?
The problem when you separate these people they will only be more extream, as well your side would get more extreme.
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. Do not underestimate the polarising effects of listening to people attack you. I try t be neutral and reasonable on debates on religion. This leads non-religious people to think I'm a religious person trying to corrupt hem, and it leads religious people to believe I'm an atheist trying to corrupt them. The internet isn't currently a place for reasoned debate as people are just too quick t assume any disgreement is an attack. It is possible (though maybe not likely) that such a site could become a "safe place" for debates. Extremism on either side is usually a result of polarisation, which really affects both sides equally.
You souns quite unpleasant. If that's you as a better person, I hate t imagine what you were like before.
And live in separate communities and have separate schools, right?
Oh, how cute. You are trying to imply that evangelicals are like the minorities that were persecuted through history and suffered segregation. Right, those poor Christians. They are so defenseless, so persecuted. How dare other people not let them tell everyone how to live their lives.
Oh, how cute -- you're making patronising statements and assumptions again. It could be that the AC GP is making a comment about integration. After all, isn't it one of the biggest concerns about immigrant communities that they fail to integrate? Perhaps the AC was trying to get the previous poster to think about the fact that segregation is never good for society.
In Scotland, segregation in the school system was sold as a means of protecting the Catholic (ie Irish and Italian immigrant) kids from bullying from the local (low Protestant) kids. In reality, it was a sticking-plaster that maintained a century of sectarianism by skirting around the need to preach tolerance and understanding.
Actually, that passage has been presented as being a doctrine for passive-resistance, bolstering the case that the historical Jesus was a sort of Gandhi figure in a country that was constantly bubbling with armed resistance against the Roman occupation. Turning the other cheek challenged the slapper to strike you the other way, and slapping with the front of the hand recognised you as a person of value, whereas the back of the hand was a dismissive gesture, devaluing you. if someone you're close to (eg your dad) slaps you with the palm, then you turn the other cheek, you're effectively saying "hit me again and you're disowning me", whereas if someone hits you with the back of their hand and you turn the other cheek, you're saying "I'm no less than you. Hit me again and prove it." Walking the extra mile was because Roman laws only permitted a legionnary to impune a subject for a mile at a time, and if you carry the pack for two miles, you might get him in trouble with his centurion. The goal was to make them too scared to demand assistance. There is no passive resistance in making two wedding cakes.
I used to be religious (catholic), and it worries me how much of a tendency there is towards fundaMentalism across the board. But I don't blame religious people for this -- I actually blame outspoken atheists who preach that science and rationality are the enemies of religion. It is them, ironically, who turn uninformed religious people into zealots.
Ask a Christian, and they will say they hate the sin, not the sinner.
They say that, yes. One of the hardest parts of Christian doctrine is actually living up to that ideal. It's a principle that I've tried to stick to even after I lost my faith - hate the actions, not the actor, or something like that.
That's because that's the satirical Discworld version of Death. The real-world figure employs different typographical conventions. Particularly when he's disguised as Santa Claus.
Please fuck off.
-- a US veteran
Of course you are. And I am Santa Claus.
You sound more sinister than that. You're Death, right? I'd know that scythe anywhere.
Yeah, but the need for spice was that foresight enabled high-speed travel. Interstellar travel was possible, but employing "traditional" methods, while still pissible, would have been "uncompetitive'. The workers were exposed to dangerous chemicals purely for commercial advantage.
Do you take your own ripubbish to the dump? Do you perform your own safety checks on roads? Do you get to choose the width of the vehicle you drive? Society only exists by removing individual freedom.
PWN Squadron...?
Further up the discussion, people were complaining about this ruling censoring the public record... and now your suggestion is that we should be going back and rewriting historical documents. That seems far more censorious to me.
Google is suppose to rank pages by relevance. The European ruling was that Google was returning hits that are not relevant.
why anyone thought forced delinking will ever work?
it just draws more attention to what you are trying to delink
Only in a handful of cases. I'm sure I said some things on Usenet way back when that would really embarass me if they ever bubbled up to the top of the search results. I'm sure I used some very un-PC terminology about homosexuals in my younger years, and while I am ashamed of my younger intolerance, there really would be nothing to gain from publically shaming me now. I am reformed. I am no longer homophobic. So yeah... If any such comments ever started appearing at the top of the search results, I'd certainly want to get the struck off the index.
There are some very nasty pieces of work on that list, rapists and murderers who presumably managed to get a removal order from within prison, but some are just weird, like "The news that lesbian couples in England and Wales who start a family through fertility treatment can now place both their names on the birth certificate has been welcomed by a gay couple with children. Eve Carlile describes the move as "practically really helpful, and ideologically great". "Why would they want that removed?
Probably something to do with children. Like maybe they gave up on fertility treatment and adopted, and don't want the kid to think he/she was "second choice".
Mind you others are pretty silly, like the hacker who recorded a rude phone message after being left on hold for too long. Not sure why posterity needs that little tidbit.
That's exactly what right-to-be-forgotten should be about -- stopping little embarassing moments defining you in other people's eyes.
Who has the greater right of protection, the criminal (with regard to published unchallenged news stories) or potential victims.
That's a question for the law of the land and is based on the severity of the crime and bakancing the desire for rehabilitation of offenders against fear of recedivism. Every country has its own laws on the disclosure of criminal offences, and these laws are carefully considered to achieve balance.
Now imagine if you googled your name, and you found that 6 years ago, someone from your hometown, who shares your name and approximate age had gone on a spree of sexual violence and murder fueled by illicit drugs. None of the articles had a photo of the offender. Would you want the article delisted, or would you be standing up for people's right to ostracise you in order to protect the safety of "potential victims"? (See also common Arabic names and the US no-fly list.)
I also think it's strange that somehow it's Google's job to remove pages.
Google is not a dumb index -- Google is a collection of cutting edge data-mining and artificial intelligence algorithms designed to provide data that is of direct relevance to the user's query. That is Google's job.
The European ruling was not about the deletion of information, it was a point about the relevance of information. A spent conviction is legally considered irrelevant, except in certain careers (particularly working with children) and therefore shouldn't be something that Google's algorithm returns. The immediate result was a headache for Google as they were flooded with requests, but this no doubt had an effect on their page ranking, increasing the bias towards recent information (fewer old hits should mean fewer right-to-be-forgotten requests in the long term).
As the internet gets older and bigger, Google's approach to search is starting to look too simple anyway. I can remember when I could find anything I wanted with a few clicks, but now the search resilts are full of amateur "Me too" pages, and the pages with the real information are lost in the noise. When I want to find old stuff I'm often crowded out with new stuff, and vice versa.
In future we will need to return tomore structured search, with date filtering etc to get any useful data out of our systems.