And if it were a certainty that the "innocent fetus" would grow up to be a mass murder...?
These rhetorical questions always seemed pointless to my, like Shieldwolf's stupid "if all woman decided not to have children, would it be moral to rape them to propagate the species?" It's not going to happen, so there's no point in asking.
If you were about to kill me, but I could defend myself w/o killing you, would I still be justified in killing you in self-defense - "exercising that opportunity"?
If you could know for a certainty that you could disable me without killing me, you'd be morally obligated to take that route. However, you can't know anything for certainty.
If one is allowed to defend one's own life, then one must be allowed to protect one's own body - from external and internal threats
Which is why I'm fine with abortion in the case of rape/incest/non-consent. Unsure about other situations.
I'm pro-choice and my previous arguments that (1) I'm a male and (2) a woman has the right to control her own body are really the same argument - a person should have control over their own self and body
I agree, up to a point. Sex though, that's a choice. Once you make a choice, I'm unsure whether it can be revokable.
Please tell me why it is o.k. to execute a innocent person who has committed not crime.
The AC isn't interested, but I'll bite. The classic reason is that there can be no moral justification to use my body against my consent to give another life. If someone needs the use of my kidneys to life for nine months, I cannot be hooked up to him or be forced to donate an organ. I might agree to do so willingly, but that would be my choice. Abortion is fairly similar. It's immoral to forcibly use someone's body to create/sustain life against their will.
Note that naturally this gets a lot murkier when the sex was consensual, since they made the choice in the first place.
This is about personal demonization, personal public shaming and subsequent public debasement, the same sort of thing that goes on in totalitarian regimes, esp. Marxist regimes.
So the personal demonization lobbied against gays (they make bad families, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids, gay relationships are just bad, etc) is ok, but speaking out again such nonsense is not, and the hallmark of a Marxist regime?
This, just like the White reactions to the "racism" of Speedy Gonzalez and the Washington Redskins, is nothing but bullshit is all organized by faggots and other limousine liberals from San Francisco. Chances are they never interact with lower and middle-class minorities unless they accidentally drive into the wrong neighborhoods, and even then they never lower their windows or unlock their doors.
Boy, you've clearly not been to San Francisco. Must be nice to bask in all that privilege, isn't it?
Odds are relatively high you are not going to win life. Rather, you will likely age, die, and disappear without having any lasting impact. That is all right though - you will join the majority of the worlds population in that. And that is fitting.
Who is to say that's not winning? Why would I care if anyone knew my name or who I was in 200 years? I'll be gone, it makes no difference to me now. What does matter to me is that I enjoy life and work doing what I enjoy, and have enough savings to not go broke in my old age. That's winning life, and it's far better than hating existence and gaining infamy.
Homosexuals reject procreation. That's not an intellectual position to take. People have both a civic and moral duty to procreate
No you don't. These days you have the civic and moral duty to not procreate too much. We have far too many people now to fear some sort of depopulation.
Well 'homo' has developed two separate unrelated definitions. One would be the genus we belong to, and this seems to come from Latin, where homo was one word for man. The other definition comes from the related Greek homos, which meant "one and the same." We get the words homogamous and homonym from that, and naturally, homosexual.
Certainly it's not respecting that right. I think if your employer stopped paying you because you promoted homosexuality you'd be lisping a different tune.
"Free speech" just means that one is allowed to speak freely without fear of arrest. It does not entitle your speech to be respected, nor does it in any protect you from the consequences of the decisions of private individuals.
Your free speech may sway and motivate people, just not in the way you hoped.
Bullshit. Stopping doing the things that cause climate change results in investment and innovation because you invent new things to do to accomplish the same goals without the harmful side-effects.
Maybe in the long term, not in the short thing. It is energy and resources that have allowed the population to grow so large in the first place.
Though in some cases in gnome this is set in gconf now instead of XF86Config:/desktop/gnome/peripherals/keyboard/kbd/options, setting terminate to terminate:ctrl_alt_bksp . So... hidden but not removed.
only switched between modelines specified in the config file. Yes handy, but they essentially redrew the screen but since most window managers couldn't handle it, things got messy quick.
You're confusing desktop resolutions and viewports (or panning areas). Control-Alt-Plus/Minus switched the viewport to different modeline resolutions, and you could pan around the whole desktop resolution with that lower-resolution panning domain. This didn't affect the window manager, in fact the window manager had no idea anything had happened since the desktop resolution had not changed (and until recent Xorgs, there was no way to change the desktop resolution). It was an easy cheap way to zoom in on an area without having a resolution change affect where windows were placed or anything like that.
Are You Being Facetious? How is clicking the scroll wheel inconvenient? And if it was indeed inconvenient to you, how is the complete removal of the capability an improvement?
I'm guessing he meant that he accidentally middle-clicked when intending to scroll. That means he either has a terrible mouse or he presses down with his whole hand on the scroll wheel. Either way, he probably should have remapped the wheel click to button 0.
My sample of Two is 200% more than your sample of one so it makes it more better.
*pushes taped glasses up his nose after they'd slid down a bit* Accctttuuually, your sample of two is 100% more than his sample of one, or your sample of two is 200% of his sample of one.
Sssssshhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!! Don't say that or some idiot Gnome UX designer will try to take away the CLI "becauses it confuses new users."
I got annoyed when they removed the "open terminal" option from the context menu brought up by right-clicking the empty desktop. And they've really tried to hide it in the few menus they allow now.
I remember this effect the first few times I used a wheel mouse. It didn't take long to learn to press in a certain way (angle) so there's no scrolling. Is there something in more recent mice that makes this harder?
Some modern mice come with a completely free wheel, where there is almost no effort at all needed to cause it to scroll just a bit. My Logitech mouse has a wheel that feels little more granular, there's a tiny bit of resistance in the wheel so that it has to move a certain distance before it clicks into scroll mode. Doesn't make scrolling any harder, and reduces the chances of accidental scrolling.
I like the Logitech Mouseman series myself. I agree with you about the terrible ultra-sensitive wheels most mice have, but Logitech makes some good ones. It still takes more effort to click the wheel though, which is an ergo no-no.
So still, I configure the "thumb" button to be my middle-click anyway.
Shocking, I know, but all scroll wheel mice are three button mice. If you click down on that scroll wheel instead of scrolling it, you get the third button click.
But the scroll wheel is usually good as a scroll wheel, but most of them make for a very poor quality mouse button. Half the newer MS mice I've used feature a super-sensitive scroll, and it's almost impossible to click the button without scrolling at the same time. And many of them require more force to generate a click than other mouse buttons, and that's an ergonomic disaster.
Most good mice I've used have a thumb button which I remap to middle-click.
It's really not any more crazy to believe the earth is 6000 years old than it is to believe in the Bible and that Jesus was the son of God. In fact I would say it's orders of magnitude more likely that the Earth is 6000 years old than the idea that Jesus was anything more than a regular human being if he even existed at all.
You... wait, what? We have evidence that that the Earth is over 6000 years old. We have no evidence that Jesus was the son of God or not. It seems that believing in Jesus is a little more rationally justifiable than the earth being 6000 years old.
The claim that the Earth is 6000 years old is at least a falsifiable claim, even if it is wrong. Wolfgang Pauli was known to offer the following criticism of some unfalsifiable claims "It is not only not right, it is not even wrong"
This seems an especially foolish stance. It's more crazy to believe in what we can prove to be false than in something that we can't prove either way? How does that make sense?
How does perfect knowledge of one's choices stop them from being one's free choices?
Because you have already set up all the input conditions. If I input a program to print Hello World into a computer, the computer might think that it was printing it out of its own free will, but it was the only option available to it.
In a fully deterministic universe, one with an entirely omniscient and all-powerful God, there are no branches. Everything is set in motion and will happen exactly in a foreseen order.
So first you blame the plant's design "plain cruddy designs that any newly graduated nuclear engineering student could have designed better". And then when someone points out there's dozens of plants in the US using the exact same design, suddenly the design has nothing to do with it?
Something tells me that Fukushima's disaster had something to do with where it was physically located. I don't worry about flooding in my home since I'm in an area that isn't prone to such events (I have a hard time working out how it would even be possible..). If I lived in the lower sections of New Orleans, though?
Slashdot Mirror
And if it were a certainty that the "innocent fetus" would grow up to be a mass murder...?
These rhetorical questions always seemed pointless to my, like Shieldwolf's stupid "if all woman decided not to have children, would it be moral to rape them to propagate the species?" It's not going to happen, so there's no point in asking.
If you were about to kill me, but I could defend myself w/o killing you, would I still be justified in killing you in self-defense - "exercising that opportunity"?
If you could know for a certainty that you could disable me without killing me, you'd be morally obligated to take that route. However, you can't know anything for certainty.
If one is allowed to defend one's own life, then one must be allowed to protect one's own body - from external and internal threats
Which is why I'm fine with abortion in the case of rape/incest/non-consent. Unsure about other situations.
I'm pro-choice and my previous arguments that (1) I'm a male and (2) a woman has the right to control her own body are really the same argument - a person should have control over their own self and body
I agree, up to a point. Sex though, that's a choice. Once you make a choice, I'm unsure whether it can be revokable.
Please tell me why it is o.k. to execute a innocent person who has committed not crime.
The AC isn't interested, but I'll bite. The classic reason is that there can be no moral justification to use my body against my consent to give another life. If someone needs the use of my kidneys to life for nine months, I cannot be hooked up to him or be forced to donate an organ. I might agree to do so willingly, but that would be my choice. Abortion is fairly similar. It's immoral to forcibly use someone's body to create/sustain life against their will.
Note that naturally this gets a lot murkier when the sex was consensual, since they made the choice in the first place.
This is about personal demonization, personal public shaming and subsequent public debasement, the same sort of thing that goes on in totalitarian regimes, esp. Marxist regimes.
So the personal demonization lobbied against gays (they make bad families, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids, gay relationships are just bad, etc) is ok, but speaking out again such nonsense is not, and the hallmark of a Marxist regime?
Haha, "gay mafia." You're cute.
This, just like the White reactions to the "racism" of Speedy Gonzalez and the Washington Redskins, is nothing but bullshit is all organized by faggots and other limousine liberals from San Francisco. Chances are they never interact with lower and middle-class minorities unless they accidentally drive into the wrong neighborhoods, and even then they never lower their windows or unlock their doors.
Boy, you've clearly not been to San Francisco.
Must be nice to bask in all that privilege, isn't it?
Odds are relatively high you are not going to win life. Rather, you will likely age, die, and disappear without having any lasting impact. That is all right though - you will join the majority of the worlds population in that. And that is fitting.
Who is to say that's not winning? Why would I care if anyone knew my name or who I was in 200 years? I'll be gone, it makes no difference to me now.
What does matter to me is that I enjoy life and work doing what I enjoy, and have enough savings to not go broke in my old age. That's winning life, and it's far better than hating existence and gaining infamy.
Homosexuals reject procreation. That's not an intellectual position to take. People have both a civic and moral duty to procreate
No you don't. These days you have the civic and moral duty to not procreate too much.
We have far too many people now to fear some sort of depopulation.
Well 'homo' has developed two separate unrelated definitions. One would be the genus we belong to, and this seems to come from Latin, where homo was one word for man. The other definition comes from the related Greek homos, which meant "one and the same." We get the words homogamous and homonym from that, and naturally, homosexual.
Certainly it's not respecting that right. I think if your employer stopped paying you because you promoted homosexuality you'd be lisping a different tune.
"Free speech" just means that one is allowed to speak freely without fear of arrest. It does not entitle your speech to be respected, nor does it in any protect you from the consequences of the decisions of private individuals.
Your free speech may sway and motivate people, just not in the way you hoped.
if you're a CEO, your customers are your partners
They are, just... not in a gay way.
Bullshit. Stopping doing the things that cause climate change results in investment and innovation because you invent new things to do to accomplish the same goals without the harmful side-effects.
Maybe in the long term, not in the short thing. It is energy and resources that have allowed the population to grow so large in the first place.
Though in some cases in gnome this is set in gconf now instead of XF86Config: /desktop/gnome/peripherals/keyboard/kbd/options, setting terminate to terminate:ctrl_alt_bksp .
So... hidden but not removed.
only switched between modelines specified in the config file. Yes handy, but they essentially redrew the screen but since most window managers couldn't handle it, things got messy quick.
You're confusing desktop resolutions and viewports (or panning areas). Control-Alt-Plus/Minus switched the viewport to different modeline resolutions, and you could pan around the whole desktop resolution with that lower-resolution panning domain. This didn't affect the window manager, in fact the window manager had no idea anything had happened since the desktop resolution had not changed (and until recent Xorgs, there was no way to change the desktop resolution). It was an easy cheap way to zoom in on an area without having a resolution change affect where windows were placed or anything like that.
Are You Being Facetious? How is clicking the scroll wheel inconvenient? And if it was indeed inconvenient to you, how is the complete removal of the capability an improvement?
I'm guessing he meant that he accidentally middle-clicked when intending to scroll. That means he either has a terrible mouse or he presses down with his whole hand on the scroll wheel. Either way, he probably should have remapped the wheel click to button 0.
My sample of Two is 200% more than your sample of one so it makes it more better.
*pushes taped glasses up his nose after they'd slid down a bit* Accctttuuually, your sample of two is 100% more than his sample of one, or your sample of two is 200% of his sample of one.
I have never met in person a Red Hat or Fedora user.
So you've never met Linux corporate users? There's a lot of RHEL stuff in those circles.
Sssssshhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!! Don't say that or some idiot Gnome UX designer will try to take away the CLI "becauses it confuses new users."
I got annoyed when they removed the "open terminal" option from the context menu brought up by right-clicking the empty desktop. And they've really tried to hide it in the few menus they allow now.
I remember this effect the first few times I used a wheel mouse. It didn't take long to learn to press in a certain way (angle) so there's no scrolling. Is there something in more recent mice that makes this harder?
Some modern mice come with a completely free wheel, where there is almost no effort at all needed to cause it to scroll just a bit. My Logitech mouse has a wheel that feels little more granular, there's a tiny bit of resistance in the wheel so that it has to move a certain distance before it clicks into scroll mode. Doesn't make scrolling any harder, and reduces the chances of accidental scrolling.
I like the Logitech Mouseman series myself. I agree with you about the terrible ultra-sensitive wheels most mice have, but Logitech makes some good ones. It still takes more effort to click the wheel though, which is an ergo no-no.
So still, I configure the "thumb" button to be my middle-click anyway.
Shocking, I know, but all scroll wheel mice are three button mice. If you click down on that scroll wheel instead of scrolling it, you get the third button click.
But the scroll wheel is usually good as a scroll wheel, but most of them make for a very poor quality mouse button. Half the newer MS mice I've used feature a super-sensitive scroll, and it's almost impossible to click the button without scrolling at the same time. And many of them require more force to generate a click than other mouse buttons, and that's an ergonomic disaster.
Most good mice I've used have a thumb button which I remap to middle-click.
It's really not any more crazy to believe the earth is 6000 years old than it is to believe in the Bible and that Jesus was the son of God. In fact I would say it's orders of magnitude more likely that the Earth is 6000 years old than the idea that Jesus was anything more than a regular human being if he even existed at all.
You... wait, what? We have evidence that that the Earth is over 6000 years old. We have no evidence that Jesus was the son of God or not. It seems that believing in Jesus is a little more rationally justifiable than the earth being 6000 years old.
The claim that the Earth is 6000 years old is at least a falsifiable claim, even if it is wrong. Wolfgang Pauli was known to offer the following criticism of some unfalsifiable claims "It is not only not right, it is not even wrong"
This seems an especially foolish stance. It's more crazy to believe in what we can prove to be false than in something that we can't prove either way? How does that make sense?
How does perfect knowledge of one's choices stop them from being one's free choices?
Because you have already set up all the input conditions. If I input a program to print Hello World into a computer, the computer might think that it was printing it out of its own free will, but it was the only option available to it.
In a fully deterministic universe, one with an entirely omniscient and all-powerful God, there are no branches. Everything is set in motion and will happen exactly in a foreseen order.
If God did create us, how bad an engineer do you have to be to put a sewage outlet right in the middle of a recreational area?
I like Anne McCaffrey and think the Pern books were great and all, but that was not one of her smarter moments.
I'm thinking that there's probably a higher chance of a devastating meteor impact... launched by giant space-bugs.
I think I saw a documentary on that once.
Surprising amount of tits featured for an astrophysics documentary.
So first you blame the plant's design "plain cruddy designs that any newly graduated nuclear engineering student could have designed better". And then when someone points out there's dozens of plants in the US using the exact same design, suddenly the design has nothing to do with it?
Something tells me that Fukushima's disaster had something to do with where it was physically located.
I don't worry about flooding in my home since I'm in an area that isn't prone to such events (I have a hard time working out how it would even be possible..). If I lived in the lower sections of New Orleans, though?