Privacy Policies Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Privacy Policies - Essay Example For instances it could be the illustration of a website offering information regarding the exercise of personal information, mainly personal information gathered by means of the website by the website owner. Privacy policies frequently encircle facts of what personal information is gathered how the personal information probably will be utilized, the persons to whom the personal information may be revealed, the safety actions taken to defend the personal information, and whether the website employs cookies and/or web bugs.1 A number of websites as well identify their privacy policies by means of P3P or Internet Content Rating Association that is also acknowledged as ICRA, facilitating browsers to without human intervention appraises the level of privacy presented by the site. For this paper the first web site I have selected is the â€Å"www.attwireless.com.† is business website of the AT&T Wireless Inc. AT&T Wireless is the major independently traded wireless mover in the US. AT&T Wireless functions one of the biggest digital wireless networks in North America. AT&T has in the order of 18 million subscribers, and complete-year 2001 revenues of 13.6 billion dollars, AT&T Wireless is enthusiastic to being amongst the preliminary to bring the next generation of wireless goods and services. Nowadays, AT&T Wireless presents customers high-class wireless voice and data communications services and services in the United States, and globally. AT&T Wireless consumers’ gain is the companys declaration to make sure that customers have the exact equipment, the correct calling arrangement, and the correct customer services options these days and tomorrow. For additional services and information you can visit their web site: www.attwireless.com.2 This privacy policy tackles the privacy of AT&T family of company’s buy and sells consumers and web guests in the US, apart

The Problem Of Determinism And Free Will

The Problem Of Determinism And Free Will I will be concerned with the problem of determinism and free will. In particular, I will be addressing Ayers argument that we cannot be held morally responsible for our actions. Ayers argument can be summarised as: P1. All human actions are governed by causal laws, or they are not. P2. If they are, then they are necessary. P3. If they are not, then they must occur by chance. P4. If they occur by chance, we are not acting freely. C. We cannot act freely. (Ayer 1963, 255) I will argue that P2 and P3 are problematic as they do not acknowledge alternative positions on the subject. I will weaken his thesis by establishing the plausibility of compatibilism and libertarianism. I hold that we are morally responsible for our actions. In this paper, I will firstly adopt a compatibilist stance. Compatibilists hold that freedom is possible in a deterministic world. Adopting this conception of freedom will refute P2. I will secondly argue the plausibility of libertarianism. Libertarians believe that we are free agents and that the universe is not wholly deterministic. The issue of determinism and free will is important because it deals with the moral responsibility of our actions. Van Inwagen implied that free will will forever remain a metaphysical mystery (Van Inwagen 1998, 374). With this in mind, my endeavour will be a cautious one. I will not set out to prove anything; rather I will establish the possibilities of my theories. I will begin the discussion by introducing soft determinism. Subscribing to soft determinism will attack Ayers premise that determinism is not compatible with freedom. He assumes an incompatibilist stance by stating causal laws nullify freedom. An incompatibilist stance is one that asserts free will cannot exist in a deterministic world. I hold that by ignoring compatibilism, he has left P2 vulnerable. I will expose this by validating the possibility of compatibilism. This inquiry will be driven by Humes notion of soft determinism, as I believe it to be the most prominent compatibilist argument. Hume holds that freedom is possible in a deterministic world. He challenged his contemporary philosophers, believing they laid in a labyrinth of obscure sophistry (Hume 1748, 54). He believed part of the dispute stemmed from a common misunderstanding between determinists and libertarians. This could be resolved by marrying the two factions together. To be free, he argued, we require necessity (Hume, 66). A common view of liberty is the cessation of an act neither being caused nor necessitated. I find this grossly problematic. If an act is not determined, it is merely an act of randomness. By rejecting necessity, Libertarians are inflicting self-harm. If our actions were not determined, they could only have been derived from chance (Hume, 66). To Hume, this is a fatal flaw in libertarianism. While rejecting liberty, Hume also attacks hard determinism. He proposes that freedom should be defined as unimpeded actions that are guided by our desires. Even though our desires are determined, they are caused by our desires (Hume, 66). Acts are effects of will, thus we are morally responsible for willing the determined acts. This is contrary to Taylor (1963 43) who states that we should not be held responsible for our acts, as we could have willed differently. In short, we are free agents because we are free to act in the confines of determinism. If we grant Humes concept of freedom, P2 of Ayers argument can be rejected. The difficulty, however, is establishing how this weakened form of freedom permits moral responsibility. I will now critically assess criticisms to Humean compatibilism. Critics will contend that Humes conception of free will negates moral necessity. This view is widespread among incompatibilists (i.e. hard determinists and libertarians). They hold that freedom cannot suffice in a deterministic world. Granted determinism is true; our freedom is confined to a fate which we cannot avoid. We are free to act, but not to choose. For example, I fed my dog at 6:00pm tonight because of the antecedent variables that guided my decision at 6:00pm. What if, however, I asked myself at 6:00 my mind is telling me to feed the dog now, but I will deliberately feed her at 6:01, as to avoid making a determined choice? If I did that, it would have already been antecedently calculated into the determined variables in guiding my decision. Hard determinists also like to ascribe a logical precondition to determinism. If a past event showed Þ Ã ¢Ã¢â‚¬  Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ x, then Þ was always to be x (Aristotle Accessed 8/9/2010). This is like saying as I fed my dog at 6:00pm; I was always going to feed her at 6:00pm. This outcome was true tonight, just as it was true millennia ago or millennia from now. Looking back, granted determinism is true, was I still free even though it was logically impossible for me to feed her at different time? Hume would argue that the decision at 6:00pm was an act of the will, therefore I did have freedom. Conversely, it seems irresistible to attack the fact that I was inexplicably fated to act the way I did. Nonetheless, I hold that I acted freely at 6:00pm. I will argue that incompatibilists undermine the importance of freedom of actions. They do this by granting undeserved authority to freedom of choice. Freedoms of actions, I hold, are the main protagonists of free will. To establish this point I will go against the external constraint hypothesis found in many incompatibilist arguments. As Campbell puts it, a robot would not be held morally responsible for its actions (Campbell 1957, 158). To him, the robot analogy is analogous to humans if determinism is true. This is because he believes necessity eliminates moral responsibility, because like robots, would be programmed to follow our antecedental path. I constructed this common incompatibilist argument as: P1. Determinism is true P2. If P1, all outcomes are products of antecedental causes P3. If P2, there is no freedom of choices P4. For moral responsibility to exist there must be freedom of choices C. There is no moral responsibility if determinism is true While this argument seems plausible, I believe that it is ignorant. Moral responsibility does not require the freedom of choices. It is problematic to ascribe this precondition to free will. The term freedom of choice looks to be an appealing prerequisite for free will but it is really quite a mischievous term. This term negates necessity, as the causal function would be disproved. Without necessity, the only plausible output is chance. Compared with necessity, chance is a far less consistent foundation to build moral responsibility. With determinism, our actions are based on our willings. Without determinism, our actions are based on randomness. This is why I hold P4 to be fallacious. I stand with Hume in the view that determinism actually privileges freedom. Proving it plausible to reject Ayers argument on P2, I will now attack P3. Interestingly, the villains in this previous passage are now the heroes. I will be concerned with the arguments for liberty. Ayer states that if human actions are not causally determined, then they must occur by chance (P3). Libertarians contend this by arguing that the universe is not wholly deterministic, thus there is a margin for freedom to exist. The difficulty, however, is establishing how there is a mechanism of freedom which operates in this margin. As Ayer implies, outcomes can only be a product of either necessity or chance (Ayer, 255). If we reject this, we must find a different input altogether. This input must be plausible and a source of responsibility. Though this seems like a daunting task, some have heroically taken this path. Libertarians hold that the world is not wholly deterministic. They also believe that Þ did not have to x. It is not because of chance that Þ did not have to x, but because of an effort of the will. Campbell coined the term moral effort in establishing that Þ does not always x (Campbell, 164). These inner acts, which are needed to extrapolate moral effort, are based on first-person experiences. Furthermore, they are derived from conscious awareness. According to Campbell, some situations necessitate moral effort. For example, if I told my mother a lie about my whereabouts last Saturday night, this would constitute an act dictated by my inner self. This is because I am theoretical agent as I am a practical one (Campbell, 169). Taking this approach, however, is questionable. Campbell also claims we only need a small metaphysical niche to obtain free will. This claim is also open for scepticism. I will deal with these objections next. One possible criticism of Campbell is how he distinguishes practical beings from theoretical ones. Using my lying analogy, the determinist could reject this by stating that the antecedental conditions made me lie. There was no need for me to possess a theoretical cognitive capacity. The determinist would argue that the reflective sense-making can be explained via antecedental means. This objection, however, is taken from a third-person stance. Campbell could respond by claiming that my decision was an act of my inner self, and only I could comprehend the moral effort contained in the act. There is no evidence to support Campbell but there are also no grounds to refute him on through empirical means. When I told the lie, I was the sole author, and, according to Campbell, I am the sole reader too (Campbell, 159). His claim that free will can be verified by a metaphysical entity is also debatable. Even if we grant the existence of such a thing, how could it escape predetermination and c hance? And why should we exhort moral effort rather than withhold it? Campbell concedes that the nature of making choices is inexplicable (Campbell, 169). The mysterious nature that he ascribes to choice is quite useful. Although Campbells argument is far from imposable, it is quite tricky to dismiss entirely. Its resistance to scientific scrutiny is why it can be deemed plausible at the very least. This being said, P3 of Ayers argument is certainly disputable. In conclusion, it can be seen that P2 and P3 of Ayers argument are open to objection. We have observed that compatibilism contends Ayers premise that necessity diminishes freedom. From a Humean perspective, we saw that the concept of freewill was actually privileged by existence of necessity. This was because the view of freedom without necessity was seen to be unintelligible. By redefining freedom, we can see how free will can exist in a deterministic world. Contrary to popular belief, I argued that this revised concept of freedom was not undermined in any significant way. This is because freedom of choice is an overrated and problematic phenomenon. My second attack was on Ayers premise that necessity and chance are the only possible inputs for outcomes. Guided by Campbells view of libertarianism, I established the possibility of actions being guided by my inner consciousness. This inexplicable concept is embellished in a mysterious metaphysical nature, which is difficult to compreh end. While the determinist may contend that these inner acts are really forecasted acts, it is possible that I am also a theoretical being thus I evade the principles of physicality. While it has been observed that both my endeavours were conflicting one another, my aim was to undermine Ayers argument by any means necessary. If we grant the plausibility of these theories, we grant the plausibility of moral responsibility.

Vitamins Facts :: essays research papers

VITAMINS Vitamins, a group of organic substances required in our diets in small amounts for growth and nutrition, are usually found in foodstuffs or taken as supplements. Yet vitamins probably present a wider gap between myth and reality in the layman's understanding than almost any other area of our diet. Surveys have found that while a majority of Americans do take vitamin supplements on a regular or occasional basis for reason of health concerns, there exists enormous confusion about the actual purpose and benefits of this practice ("Use of Vitamin and Mineral Supplements in the United States," 1990:161). Most people have a recognition that Vitamin C prevents scurvy, that Vitamin A is found in fish-liver oils, or that Vitamin D is found in dairy products; many people believe that Vitamin E preserves youth and prevents sterility, or that Vitamin C can present colds and cancer. Beyond this, however, there is still considerable ignorance and widespread myth. The reality behind the common practice of taking vitamin supplements is less dramatic, although vitamins do represent an important component of the necessary human diet. The word vitamin was formed from the Latin word for life, "vita," and the Greek word "amine", because 19th century scientists believed that they were formed only from amino acids. Amino acids are the twenty essential code elements which arrange themselves in varied sequences or chains to form complex proteins, the basic foodstuff of life. These organic acids (containing the essential ingredient NH2), in conjunction with the nucleic acids (DNA material being composed of the four bases adenine, guanine thymine and cytosine), "translate" the genetic instructions from the DNA of the chromosome to the RNA transcript, and in turn transfer these instructions from the transcript to proteins. If proteins are the building blocks of life, then amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. Plant cells form amino acids from the compounds which the plant draws up from the ground, such as the nitrates and ammonia salts. Animals, however, cannot perform this conversion of simple inorganic substances to amino acids, so they must ingest them in the form of food-- with herbivorous animals consuming plant proteins in vegetables and carnivorous animals consuming animal proteins in the bodies of their prey. Vitamins are essential aids in many body processes, converting food the energy, building and maintaining cells, and other functions. Vitamins can thus be looked at as a crucial ingredient in a the long-term maintenance of health.

Greek Mythology Newspaper Headlines

Hello, this is the most exquisite goddess of love and beauty, here to do my beloved job of creating love. So, this week we have advice for the lovely queen of the gods as she requested, but as she would rather not have her true name revealed, she asked to be called CheatedWife1 instead. Now, CheatedWife1, you have come to me saying that your husband Zeus, king of the gods, is a cheater and is always fraternizing with other women, mortal and divine. I must say, this is quite a sad revelation! Well, my advice to you is to try to catch these consorts, and show them just who is queen of the gods and rightful consort of Zeus! That’s it for today so see you next week with another section of advice! May love find you quickly! -AphroditeOlympus NewsThis week on Olympus, we have visiting the mortal Hercules, who will be attending the company of Lady Hera, as he was summoned. Hercules has been a wonder to the mortals, and a source of revenge for the Lady Hera because her husband Zeus is his father, and she isn’t the mother. His many extraordinary feats include: slaying the Nemean Lion, slaying the Hydra, capturing the Erymanthian Boar, slaying the Stymphalian Birds, capturing the Cretan Bull, obtain the cattle of the monster Geryon, steal the apples of the Hesperides, capture and bring back Cerubus, and many more so make sure to respect this mighty hero! Mortal NewsThis week the mortals have been involved in yet another war, one they call the Trojan War because the opposing sides are the city of Troy and the Greeks. Troy had managed to hide behind its high and protective walls for a long while, but eventually the Greeks broke through by sending a small force in the guise of a large wooden horse that they hid inside, then from there allowed the rest of their army entry and took down Troy. It has been confirmed that divine interference was the base cause of this war, although names will not be said in order to avoid a godly war. In other news the demigod Pers eus has managed to slay the hideous gorgon Medusa and take her head, a marvelous victory, for a mortal.SportsAs many of us gods and goddesses are already aware, the Olympic Games are approaching. The mortals have made this a religious event, and will pray to us for our help, but just a reminder: we must not interfere with these games as they are dedicated to Mighty Zeus and so he has decreed such. These games started with finding a priestess for the Lady Hera, but eventually became the event that involves both the mortals and us deities.

Europe On The Eve Of World War I Essay

World War I, or The Great War, actually started on June 28, 1914 upon the assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, by a Serbian national. This led to a series of battles upon the eventual formation of the Central Powers made up of Germany, Austro-Hungary, the Turkish Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria, and they fought against the Entente Powers made up of Russia, France and Great Britain. However, since â€Å"Europe stumbled unexpectedly into war in the summer of 1914,†1 the question remains as to which of the major countries that fought the First World War were most prepared in terms of economy and military strength and which were not. Britain Among the Entente Powers during WWI, Britain was actually considered â€Å"the greatest colonial power [and] maintained the greatest navy. †2 However, it is also a fact that during that time Britain â€Å"was being increasingly challenged by France and Russia†3 and Germany. The British in fact â€Å"increased their warship production with the  William R. Griffiths and Thomas E. Griess, The Great War (2003): 1. 2. Ian Westwell, World War I Day by Day (1999): 7 3. Ibid. 4. Spencer Tucker, The Great War 1914-18 (1998): 3 intention of war†5 and in fact had a series of wars with Africa in 1899. Britain, along with the other great European powers, â€Å"embarked on an arms race that ran in tandem with the scramble for colonies,†6 which simply means that the reason they improved their armies and navies was because â€Å"they needed to protect far-flung colonies and maintain a balance of military power with their neighbors in Europe. †7 During the early 20th century, Britain launched â€Å"HMS Dreadnought, a Battleship incorporating several new technologies that was far superior to any vessel afloat in 1906†8 This was somehow the reason why other European powers especially Germany began improving and â€Å"building their own dreadnought-type battleships†9 because they saw â€Å"a sudden vulnerability of their costly fleets. †10 However, one rumor was that â€Å"the British recognized the naval competition from Germany as a threat to their existence,†11 though â€Å"the naval arms race between these two powers would continue until the eve of the war. 5. Westwell, 7. 6. Ibid, 8. 7. Ibid. 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid, 9. 10. Ibid. 11. Griffiths and Greis, 5. 12. Ibid. It is said that naval arms race between these two powers would continue until the eve of the war. †13 Nevertheless, â€Å"by 1914, Germany had a navy second only to England’s. †14 Economically, it is said that Britain, along with France and Germany, was ready for the Great War. The most important influence upon British and the rest of the European military during those times was in fact â€Å"the largess bestowed upon European societies by the Industrial Revolution. †15 It is said that â€Å"a wealth of goods, rising productivity, and material well-being†16 were brought about by the factories of the latter half of the 19th century. This period of economic growth all over Europe led to â€Å"the greater availability of education for the lower classes† and that â€Å"better and more widespread educational opportunities enabled citizens to comprehend more readily the†¦military affairs of the state. †17 This perhaps encouraged nationalism among the people of the various European nations. Consequently such feelings may have similarly encouraged rivalries with other nations. Thus, the soil for the war was fertile and all it needed was the seed – which was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. 13. Griffiths and Greis, 5. 14. Ibid. 15. Ibid, 6 16. Ibid. 17. Ibid. France As early as 1870, â€Å"France had considered itself – and had been considered by others – the leading military power of Europe. †18 It was defeated by Germany during the Franco-Prussian War in 1871 but it was not stated whether this war was really a showcase of the French military but rather it â€Å"meant a lasting antagonism†19 with Germany. Nevertheless, despite being a military power in the late 9th century, France had its â€Å"entire†¦province of Alsace [seized as well as] part of a second province, Lorraine. †20 Germany Since the empire became united in 1871, â€Å"imperial Germany had rapidly emerged as the dominant industrial and military power†21 in Europe and such â€Å"created a potentially explosive situation. It was also believed that â€Å"by the start of the twentieth century, Germany was creating a first-class navy,† which was in fact considered â€Å"the most obvious and dramatic illustration of Germany’s surging power in many spheres. †23 Such was the 18. Neil M. Heyman, World War I (1997): 5. 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid. 21. Ibid. 22. Ibid. 23. Ibid. greatness of the military strength of Germany in the early 20th century. In addition to that, Germany also had an economy that was emerging as one of the strongest in the whole of Europe. Since 1870, Germany’s â€Å"industry had grown so rapidly that this part of Europe, which had supplied immigrants to the Western Hemisphere for more than a century, now imported labor from Poland. †24 Twentieth century Germany was actually home to â€Å"higher education and scientific research [and] a system of social insurance for its working class† and in fact, the country â€Å"could pride itself on being a world leader. † Germany also prided itself with a great leader during that time. The ruler of Germany, Kaiser Wilhelm II, was often considered as â€Å"the embodiment and often the director of [Germany’s] restless energies. †25 By the late 19th century, Kaiser Wilhelm II earned the respect and friendship of a few ambitious military leaders who were against Britain and who would want to challenge it to war. One of these military leaders was Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz, the Secretary of State of the Imperial Naval Office of Germany at that time. Moreover, Kaiser Wilhelm II also had his own imperialist ambitions as well for he considered the German navy â€Å"a tool of external power†26 and even declared it to Prime Minister Arthur Balfour of Britain in 1902, many years before the outbreak of WWI. In fact â€Å"the Kaiser sought to play   24. Heyman, 5. 25. Ibid, 6. 26. Ibid. politics, and repeatedly declared that he was determined to make Germany not just dominant in European affairs but in the world† and had a â€Å"desire for a German-dominated central Europe. †27 Such was the measure of Wilhelm II’s ambition and resolve. The Kaiser’s biographer even wrote, â€Å"Only with a fleet could Germany be able to elicit from the British the esteem Wilhelm II believed to be his due. †28 Germany was indeed already a strong power in the early 20th century many years before the outbreak of the Great War. It is said that â€Å"the security of Austria-Hungary, the weaker of the Central Powers, was [even] guaranteed by Kaiser Wilhelm II [since] late 1912. †29 Such was the strength of Germany at that time that they could even guarantee the protection of the territory of another country in addition to their own. Conclusion On the eve of World War I, Britain, France and Germany were all ready for the war that was to ensue. However, among the three, Germany seemed to be the most prepared especially when it came to the military, specifically the development and advancement of its naval warships as well as powerful leadership in the person of Kaiser Wilhelm II. On the other hand, France, although a leading military power of Europe at that time, was in fact torn apart by Germany during the 1871 Franco-Prussian War, hence was not impressively strong compared to Britain and Germany. 27. Tucker, 3. 28. Heyman, 6. 29. Westwell, 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY Griffiths, Williams R. and Griess, Thomas E. The Great War. New York: Square One Publishers, Inc. , 2003. Heyman, Neil M. World War I. Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. , 1997. Tucker, Spencer. The Great War 1914-18. Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1998. Westwell, Ian. World War I Day by Day. New York: The Brown Reference Group, Plc. , 1999.