I think we agree on the end result that the woman has rights to use the pre-embryo to become pregnant, but I think we differ on how we get there.
First a note: it's not an embryo until a week or so after fertilization. I'm writing this on the assumption that you meant to say a woman owns her eggs and men own their sperm up until it fertilizes an egg.
If, in this case, the man and the woman jointly signed up for this service "no explicit contract in place" as the article says, they should both have access to the eggs. If the woman alone signed up for the service and the man was only involved to contribute his sperm (as seems to be the case), again "with no explicit contract in place", then the property is hers. In either situation, she should be able to use the pre-embryoes to become pregnant.
I don't think the deciding factor should be if it were an egg or sperm. Again, if we reverse the situation and it was the man who was going for chemo and the healthy woman who donated her eggs to be fertilized (with the expectation that the man would find a surrogate willing to accept the eggs [it's not a perfect comparison, I know]), should the healthy egg-donor be able to claim those eggs simple because the eggs trump the sperm? I should hope not, but, legally, I just don't know.
I can't speak for ALL western nations, but according to WebMD, the third trimester begins at week 27. According to WhatToExpect.com, in the US, "if the pregnancy is farther than week 24, abortion is no longer an option".
I looked this up to sate my own curiosity and not to feed into your flamebait post.
Should sperm not be seen as part of a man's body then? And what if the situation was reversed? What if the man began a new relationship with a woman who couldn't have children. Should the man then be given rights to have the eggs he fertilized with girlfriend 1 transferred to girlfriend 2's uterus?
I don't think your analogy fits. It's more like one artist doesn't want the song to be played ever. And if he thought he wouldn't want it played, then he shouldn't have written it in the first place.
I guess I'm confused as to why they chose to froze her fertilized eggs instead of the eggs alone. Is there a scientific reason for choosing to freeze a fertilized egg over a non-fertilized egg?
Since she was only with her boyfriend for five months and she was the one going through chemo, they should have had no reason to think his sperm would need to be preserved. I won't judge them though as I can imagine a cancer diagnosis can impact judgement, but I'm curious if one option was better than the other.
It's a bit premature to suggest that the breach was a result of negligent security. Look at the Hannaford's Supermarket breach a few years back: they had just had (and passed) their PCI review but being PCI Compliant didn't prevent their breach. To use your analogy, your son may be held accountable if he brought his 3DS to school and it was stolen, but the consequences are different if the 3DS was stolen from his desk compared to having it stolen from his locked school locker.
I'm not sure the elimination of all private health insurance companies is required. Something I've learned by watching Healthcare Triage's International Health Care Systems playlist on YouTube is that a lot of countries have great government health care systems available to the vast majority of the public plus private insurance options with which they can supplement what the government supplies. I don't see why the same sort of system couldn't work here in the US.
Depending on where the camera is pointed, it could capture a mother breastfeeding. Plus, if we assume the camera also has a mic, there's a lot of information that could be picked up audibly.
That's okay. Just take some time to call the candidate you ARE going to vote for and let them know how you feel about this. If enough voters take this effort, your candidate will change their stance.
I can definitely imagine situations where email forwarding isn't the best answer. My company has a lot of interaction with outside businesses and if John Doe leaves the company, any businesses he has a relationship with still need to be able to communicate with my company. Whether that means that John Doe's manager has John's email forwarded to him or simply adds it as a secondary inbox within Outlook is a matter of company preference.
Regarding your example of criticizing your manager to another employee via company email, that is a terrible idea and you can be fired for it so please be careful. Make sure you're absolutely clear on your company policy and any EULA you accept before you end up in a position you don't want to be in. In the case of communication to HR, my advice would be to use email only to ask HR to set up a meeting so you can discuss your issue and leave the details to an in-person meeting. Your manager should not get access to view those complaints nor should they hold it against you if they did, but this is hardly a perfect world.
If your manager makes the case that they have a business need to access your email (either auto-forwarding or another method), the Legal, HR, and InfoSec teams I've worked with won't bat an eye at granting that access just as easily as they can get a list of websites you're visiting at work if your company uses any sort of web filter.
I can't speak to other countries, but in the US it's not illegal. Employers will put a section right in their Employee Handbook or contract that states the company owns all of the data that employee creates, their work email, their work documents, etc. In InfoSec, we're often called to perform an investigation on what a user has been accessed and what they're doing, and we can do legally this because having that ability is noted in the employee handbook.
I think it's a poor comparison. An earthquake, hurricane, or tornado is magnitudes more destructive than a little bit of snow even with black ice on the roads (I'd say we are prepared, as Boston was hit with all three over the course of 2012). However, unlike the snowy, icy situation where my in-laws live outside of Raleigh, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes and volcanic eruptions are just as dangerous if you drive 20mph instead of 70 on the highway. With snow, it's often the difference between arrive home safely and a serious car accident.
Here in Eastern Massachusetts, we do get hit by hurricanes as well. And admittedly, they're hardly the strength that hits Florida or the Outer Banks, but they can still cause significant damage to the area. If your town's infrastructure isn't designed to handle the ice and snow, I both understand and offer my sympathy. However, I do look in amazement at scenes of the roadside carnage in the south caused by what I perceive as a dusting of snow. It's the same look I get when I complain to my store managers in Florida about it being oppressively hot in Boston when it's 'only' 96 degrees in August.
You're definitely correct about most of your references, but I want to mention that, while some of the characters in Borderlands 2 are typical of the male power fantasy, there are a number of important characters who are gay but not defined by their sexual orientation: something the other games you list can't also claim. Also, I might also argue that most of the male characters are showed as flawed or inferior to their female counterparts. Compare the stories in Borderlands 2 of BL's male playable characters to Lillith or the one-sided Scooter and Marcus to Ellie. I would even go so far as to say that the game does more to parody and mock the male power fantasy (see Mr. Torque) than to perpetrate it.
I may be acting nit-picky here, but if I had the mod points, I would have just modded you up instead.
I don't want to get too deep into spoiler territory, but the person who orders the torture works for a parody of the real life US Government Agency that uses torture (or "used" torture, I suppose these days it's just "enhanced interrogation techniques"). I haven't gotten much further in the story than that scene, but I assume that the people who order the torture get what's coming to them. But regarding the Trevor driving the victim to the airport while talking about how torture is a useless interrogation tool, Trevor mentions he that did that because he was instructed to kill the victim and refused to be their hired gun. (I believe the government guys who ordered the torture threatened the main characters if they *didn't* torture the victim)
We could have a discussion on that scene and its effects on the player, but I doubt many people played through that scene and felt good about what they were forced to do. Assuming that's true, I think the game just had a more powerful effect on behavior than any Red Cross warning could.
of course in GTA if you kill a civilian then you get his money and his car, although that's not a war crime so much as a regular crime.
And a wanted level. In GTA V, I believe murder gives you a two star wanted level which means the police come after you with force and will open fire to stop you. You could argue that evading the cops and getting them to forget about you is difficult, but having a crime witnessed in the GTA games does come with a consequence.
Even then, you're often given an choice to have your billing information different than your account information. If you don't want the transactions on your credit card tied to your purchases, there are ways around that as well.
I thought the same thing. My phone can already tell what I'm looking at. Wouldn't it make more sense to expand that technology? You may still need a button interface to distinguish something you're looking at and something you want to click on, but at least then you open up computer access to more accessibility-challenged people than hand waving.
I hope you're right. I'll just add that I believe the most successful games on the 360 and PS3 had strong online multiplayer features. I hope this is the console where Nintendo gets online multiplayer right because I don't think they'll attract serious gamers until they do.
If they can bring the first party Nintendo games I love and the cross platform games I picked up the other two consoles to play, they'll have won me back. Until we see some details, though, I remain pessimistic.
I have to say that I'm not thrilled about this. The next Nintendo console will come out in 2012 as the 360 and PS3 are reaching the end of their lifecycles. But even if this system is set up to compete with the other two consoles, I don't foresee developers flocking to develop on the console and then down rez for the PS3 and 360. If anything, this new console will get imports designed for one of the other two systems.
This also means that when the next Microsoft and Sony systems come out (rumors point to 2014), the Nintendo console will be behind in hardware again.
And if their market are the casual gamers and families? I get the feeling that they're going to lose out more and more to the mobile and web markets much in the way that the DS and PSP are. Games that require the motion controls of the Wii such as Just Dance do well, but as with the Rock Band/Guitar Heroes of the past, there will be a point where no one will want to buy a new game just for new songs.
I wish Nintendo the best of luck, but I see a long uphill battle in their future that they just can't win unless they evolve agressively.
I'd recommend checking out the April 15th episode of Weekend Confirmed or the Extra Credits episode "Consoles are the new Coin-op" for insight on where I'm coming from.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we agree on the end result that the woman has rights to use the pre-embryo to become pregnant, but I think we differ on how we get there.
First a note: it's not an embryo until a week or so after fertilization. I'm writing this on the assumption that you meant to say a woman owns her eggs and men own their sperm up until it fertilizes an egg.
If, in this case, the man and the woman jointly signed up for this service "no explicit contract in place" as the article says, they should both have access to the eggs. If the woman alone signed up for the service and the man was only involved to contribute his sperm (as seems to be the case), again "with no explicit contract in place", then the property is hers. In either situation, she should be able to use the pre-embryoes to become pregnant.
I don't think the deciding factor should be if it were an egg or sperm. Again, if we reverse the situation and it was the man who was going for chemo and the healthy woman who donated her eggs to be fertilized (with the expectation that the man would find a surrogate willing to accept the eggs [it's not a perfect comparison, I know]), should the healthy egg-donor be able to claim those eggs simple because the eggs trump the sperm? I should hope not, but, legally, I just don't know.
I can't speak for ALL western nations, but according to WebMD, the third trimester begins at week 27. According to WhatToExpect.com, in the US, "if the pregnancy is farther than week 24, abortion is no longer an option". I looked this up to sate my own curiosity and not to feed into your flamebait post.
Should sperm not be seen as part of a man's body then? And what if the situation was reversed? What if the man began a new relationship with a woman who couldn't have children. Should the man then be given rights to have the eggs he fertilized with girlfriend 1 transferred to girlfriend 2's uterus?
I don't think your analogy fits. It's more like one artist doesn't want the song to be played ever. And if he thought he wouldn't want it played, then he shouldn't have written it in the first place.
I guess I'm confused as to why they chose to froze her fertilized eggs instead of the eggs alone. Is there a scientific reason for choosing to freeze a fertilized egg over a non-fertilized egg? Since she was only with her boyfriend for five months and she was the one going through chemo, they should have had no reason to think his sperm would need to be preserved. I won't judge them though as I can imagine a cancer diagnosis can impact judgement, but I'm curious if one option was better than the other.
It's a bit premature to suggest that the breach was a result of negligent security. Look at the Hannaford's Supermarket breach a few years back: they had just had (and passed) their PCI review but being PCI Compliant didn't prevent their breach. To use your analogy, your son may be held accountable if he brought his 3DS to school and it was stolen, but the consequences are different if the 3DS was stolen from his desk compared to having it stolen from his locked school locker.
I'm not sure the elimination of all private health insurance companies is required. Something I've learned by watching Healthcare Triage's International Health Care Systems playlist on YouTube is that a lot of countries have great government health care systems available to the vast majority of the public plus private insurance options with which they can supplement what the government supplies. I don't see why the same sort of system couldn't work here in the US.
Depending on where the camera is pointed, it could capture a mother breastfeeding. Plus, if we assume the camera also has a mic, there's a lot of information that could be picked up audibly.
That's okay. Just take some time to call the candidate you ARE going to vote for and let them know how you feel about this. If enough voters take this effort, your candidate will change their stance.
We already know they're robots. You, we're not so sure of.
I can definitely imagine situations where email forwarding isn't the best answer. My company has a lot of interaction with outside businesses and if John Doe leaves the company, any businesses he has a relationship with still need to be able to communicate with my company. Whether that means that John Doe's manager has John's email forwarded to him or simply adds it as a secondary inbox within Outlook is a matter of company preference. Regarding your example of criticizing your manager to another employee via company email, that is a terrible idea and you can be fired for it so please be careful. Make sure you're absolutely clear on your company policy and any EULA you accept before you end up in a position you don't want to be in. In the case of communication to HR, my advice would be to use email only to ask HR to set up a meeting so you can discuss your issue and leave the details to an in-person meeting. Your manager should not get access to view those complaints nor should they hold it against you if they did, but this is hardly a perfect world. If your manager makes the case that they have a business need to access your email (either auto-forwarding or another method), the Legal, HR, and InfoSec teams I've worked with won't bat an eye at granting that access just as easily as they can get a list of websites you're visiting at work if your company uses any sort of web filter.
I can't speak to other countries, but in the US it's not illegal. Employers will put a section right in their Employee Handbook or contract that states the company owns all of the data that employee creates, their work email, their work documents, etc. In InfoSec, we're often called to perform an investigation on what a user has been accessed and what they're doing, and we can do legally this because having that ability is noted in the employee handbook.
this lizard, the worst since '78
Ah, I see what you did there.
I think it's a poor comparison. An earthquake, hurricane, or tornado is magnitudes more destructive than a little bit of snow even with black ice on the roads (I'd say we are prepared, as Boston was hit with all three over the course of 2012). However, unlike the snowy, icy situation where my in-laws live outside of Raleigh, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes and volcanic eruptions are just as dangerous if you drive 20mph instead of 70 on the highway. With snow, it's often the difference between arrive home safely and a serious car accident.
Here in Eastern Massachusetts, we do get hit by hurricanes as well. And admittedly, they're hardly the strength that hits Florida or the Outer Banks, but they can still cause significant damage to the area. If your town's infrastructure isn't designed to handle the ice and snow, I both understand and offer my sympathy. However, I do look in amazement at scenes of the roadside carnage in the south caused by what I perceive as a dusting of snow. It's the same look I get when I complain to my store managers in Florida about it being oppressively hot in Boston when it's 'only' 96 degrees in August.
You might be thinking of an opinion piece last month about terrorists laundering money through Online Gambling. It was a Schneier Movie-Plot Threat article.
You're definitely correct about most of your references, but I want to mention that, while some of the characters in Borderlands 2 are typical of the male power fantasy, there are a number of important characters who are gay but not defined by their sexual orientation: something the other games you list can't also claim. Also, I might also argue that most of the male characters are showed as flawed or inferior to their female counterparts. Compare the stories in Borderlands 2 of BL's male playable characters to Lillith or the one-sided Scooter and Marcus to Ellie. I would even go so far as to say that the game does more to parody and mock the male power fantasy (see Mr. Torque) than to perpetrate it.
I may be acting nit-picky here, but if I had the mod points, I would have just modded you up instead.
While you might have been joking, they have been caught trying. http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/29/5045076/russia-denies-using-poisoned-flash-drives-to-spy-on-g20-attendees
Doesn't every country already have blackjack and hookers?
The glorious Islamic Republic of Iran has no blackjack, hookers, gays, women who disagree with their husbands, or crime.
**GTA V SPOILERS**
I don't want to get too deep into spoiler territory, but the person who orders the torture works for a parody of the real life US Government Agency that uses torture (or "used" torture, I suppose these days it's just "enhanced interrogation techniques"). I haven't gotten much further in the story than that scene, but I assume that the people who order the torture get what's coming to them. But regarding the Trevor driving the victim to the airport while talking about how torture is a useless interrogation tool, Trevor mentions he that did that because he was instructed to kill the victim and refused to be their hired gun. (I believe the government guys who ordered the torture threatened the main characters if they *didn't* torture the victim)
We could have a discussion on that scene and its effects on the player, but I doubt many people played through that scene and felt good about what they were forced to do. Assuming that's true, I think the game just had a more powerful effect on behavior than any Red Cross warning could.
of course in GTA if you kill a civilian then you get his money and his car, although that's not a war crime so much as a regular crime.
And a wanted level. In GTA V, I believe murder gives you a two star wanted level which means the police come after you with force and will open fire to stop you. You could argue that evading the cops and getting them to forget about you is difficult, but having a crime witnessed in the GTA games does come with a consequence.
Even then, you're often given an choice to have your billing information different than your account information. If you don't want the transactions on your credit card tied to your purchases, there are ways around that as well.
I thought the same thing. My phone can already tell what I'm looking at. Wouldn't it make more sense to expand that technology? You may still need a button interface to distinguish something you're looking at and something you want to click on, but at least then you open up computer access to more accessibility-challenged people than hand waving.
I hope you're right. I'll just add that I believe the most successful games on the 360 and PS3 had strong online multiplayer features. I hope this is the console where Nintendo gets online multiplayer right because I don't think they'll attract serious gamers until they do.
If they can bring the first party Nintendo games I love and the cross platform games I picked up the other two consoles to play, they'll have won me back. Until we see some details, though, I remain pessimistic.
I have to say that I'm not thrilled about this. The next Nintendo console will come out in 2012 as the 360 and PS3 are reaching the end of their lifecycles. But even if this system is set up to compete with the other two consoles, I don't foresee developers flocking to develop on the console and then down rez for the PS3 and 360. If anything, this new console will get imports designed for one of the other two systems.
This also means that when the next Microsoft and Sony systems come out (rumors point to 2014), the Nintendo console will be behind in hardware again.
And if their market are the casual gamers and families? I get the feeling that they're going to lose out more and more to the mobile and web markets much in the way that the DS and PSP are. Games that require the motion controls of the Wii such as Just Dance do well, but as with the Rock Band/Guitar Heroes of the past, there will be a point where no one will want to buy a new game just for new songs.
I wish Nintendo the best of luck, but I see a long uphill battle in their future that they just can't win unless they evolve agressively.
I'd recommend checking out the April 15th episode of Weekend Confirmed or the Extra Credits episode "Consoles are the new Coin-op" for insight on where I'm coming from.