They aren't. However, but if it is still surviving by nutrients given by the mother then it would still be a parasite wouldn't it? It is still absorbing nutrients from the mother that otherwise would be used by her. Add the time, sleep, finances required to support a newborn and its even more of a parasite. Eliminate breast feeding and you're going to need some sort of modern technology (ie, formula) to support it. The point is that a newborn is no more independent than the fetus was.
Its pretty easy not to notice the many thousand charitable programs and organizations funded by religious groups all over the world from your moms basement window isnt it?
Sorry to break it to ya, but for many years after it leaves the host (mother) it can not live independently without modern medical technology. By your reasoning then any parent has the legal permission to murder their children anytime in childhood before they become fully independent and call it "abortion". Not all parasites are internal.
So since infants are unable to process logic and reason, use their opposite thumbs, walk errect, communicate with a complex speech system then they aren't worthy of the protection afforeded to humans? All of these are characteristics of humans that set us apart from the rest of the beasts, but dont actually develop until several years after birth.
At the moment of birth, there is very little physiological change to the baby. What little there is is strictly related to the respiratory/circulatory system and the umbillical cord. It is a very poor landmark to use when determining "viability" or "humanity". A baby in the womb about to pop out is no more nor less human than one born 5 minutes ago.
Well for starters there have been a lot of breakthroughs in making stem cells via other routes. Guess its already time to remove this method of acquiring stem cells...
In one of my anatomy classes the professor likes to get on his soap box occasionally. One of his particular pet peeves is his passion against bottled water. He saw someone drinking in class once then gave us all the lecture about how he is preparing a presentation for the dean to try and ban the sale of all bottled water on campus. Then he talked about how he wanted to expand to the city, state and nation.
I'm gonna have to disagree on that about WoT. In my first reads I never felt that there was any intentional dragging out just to sell more books, I loved each of them and I think they all add something important to the story.
I do agree that it is a very common phenomenon now to drag everything out. I dont read much anymore, but usually have the TV going while doing homework and recently I've been going through Heroes season 3. The first was good, the second was okay, the third is showing obvious signs of stretch. Just kill the bad guys when you have them so they dont escape for the 10th time!
Comparing an envelope to encryption is plain stupid. An envelope serves many other purposes besides concealing information, such as keeping multiple objects/papers together without getting separated or lost (which encryption has no comparative function), protects the letter from damage, (which encryption has no comparative function), reduces the total space taken up by compressing the contents (which encryption has no comparative function), and provides a uniformly sized object for automated counting/sorting machines (again, encryption has no comparative function).
If the post office would accept papers of any size/shape for delivery then people may very well just start sending full sheets of paper without envelopes if it had any practical benefit such as only paying the postcard rate (about half that of a letter). As it is, postcards have to fit within set dimensions (http://www.usps.com/send/preparemailandpackages/measuringtips.htm) meaning you can only fit a very small amount of information on them at a time making them only suitable for the purpose of saying "Hey, we are here. Miss you. Good bye"
The only similarity is that an envelope is a *weak* protection against unauthorized access to information while traveling though public/unsecured channels.
Further, I never said encryption likely means you are a criminal. I said that about the pursuit of an encryption basis that is not only uncrackable, but that also hides the presence of data. Are you sending invisible postage? Encryption in and of itself is useful for many things, such as making online purchases or protecting a copy of your will you wrote up. (Note that neither of those would be sent on a postcard even if possible)
Further still, text only takes up a minute space on a computer. So you could encrypt every sensitive document you have and still come up as at most a few mb. When you start geting gbs and tbs of encrypted data, that screams of audio/visual data. To use your analogy, that would be like trying to send a semi-trailer through the mail but not letting them know what is inside. Good luck.
Notice the usage of the words "need" and "necessary". Sure you can want to encrypt your laundry list uber-secure, but why? Doing so raises justifiable suspicion.
Imagine a guy wearing a heavy trench coat, sunglasses and a hat with his hands under his goat and trying to hide in the corner, in Las Vegas with 100 degree weather. Its legal, but it is sure going to draw attention. Not only that, but it is going to draw suspicion. He might not be doing anything, but I wouldn't stake my life on it by ignoring him.
The snail mail/postcard analogy just doesnt make sense to anything that I said.
Dissenting is relative. If you are in the minority then the majority is dissenting. "Dissenting opinion" means nothing without a clarification to what it is dissenting from.
You conveniently left out the courts ruling on that case:
"Because the consent directive is not testimonial in nature, we conclude that the District Court's order compelling petitioner to sign the directive does not violate his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. "
Why try to facilitate them? For 99% of the honest population, encryption isnt necessary. For 99% of the remainder, a minor encryption is necessary. For 99% of that remainder, a strong encryption is necessary. For 99% of the last remainder, they need encryption that is not only unbreakable, but also untraceable. 100% of the uses of unbreakable, untraceable encryption I can think of are illegal.
"because I can" isnt a good enough reason for going way out of your way to make your photo album of your last vacation to disneyland super super encrypted. If you have that worried about it that much, then you are up to something. Period.
Supplying the password to encryption under warrant is no different from supplying keys to a safe under warrant. Keys are not protected by the 5th, and neither are passwords. Testimony is. If they were to demand that he confess, THEN the 5th comes into play.
Testimony is not the same as evidence. The 5th does not mention anything about evidence. It is about witness, ie testimony.
So if you admit that its okay to give a warrant on keys, you admit it is okay to give a warrant on passwords.
The difference is that anyone expressing any thing against a minority usually doesnt have the benefit of freedom of speech to hide behind. If you were to get a loudspeaker and start shouting on the corner about the benifits of being gay, its doubtful that many would have the guts to argue with you because they would be labeled as bigots. Do the same thing, opposite direction and you are going to get some lawsuits headed your way.
Actually no, you see the finding of offense in saying "i am gay" is offensive to gays, thus it is wrong to be offended by that statement because gays have the right not to be offended by your offense, but the offense given to straights with the original statement is okay because the gays have the right to "express" themselves which overpowers the right of the majority not to be offended by them.
The game of playing the victim regardless of what actually happened. This case is not in any way equatable to real discrimination. She wasnt kicked because she IS a lesbian. She was kicked because she was flaunting it and refused to stop.
I personally do not like homosexuality at all (BTW, where is my freedom of speech to say that without being flamed for it?), but I agree that certian things just dont matter. For example, in job hiring then there should be no difference between white/black straight/gay for most jobs. ( Going back to the game reference, it can actually be better to be some minority a lot of the time because you can complain you were discriminated against and the media is automatically on your side, affirmative action anyone?
In an elective setting where you are there of your own choice (like a live account) then the owner/manager of that setting has the right to say what they will or will not allow, especially when something is known to be disruptive for no reason other than to be disruptive.
Slashdot Mirror
They aren't. However, but if it is still surviving by nutrients given by the mother then it would still be a parasite wouldn't it? It is still absorbing nutrients from the mother that otherwise would be used by her. Add the time, sleep, finances required to support a newborn and its even more of a parasite. Eliminate breast feeding and you're going to need some sort of modern technology (ie, formula) to support it. The point is that a newborn is no more independent than the fetus was.
Its pretty easy not to notice the many thousand charitable programs and organizations funded by religious groups all over the world from your moms basement window isnt it?
Sorry to break it to ya, but for many years after it leaves the host (mother) it can not live independently without modern medical technology. By your reasoning then any parent has the legal permission to murder their children anytime in childhood before they become fully independent and call it "abortion". Not all parasites are internal.
So since infants are unable to process logic and reason, use their opposite thumbs, walk errect, communicate with a complex speech system then they aren't worthy of the protection afforeded to humans? All of these are characteristics of humans that set us apart from the rest of the beasts, but dont actually develop until several years after birth.
At the moment of birth, there is very little physiological change to the baby. What little there is is strictly related to the respiratory/circulatory system and the umbillical cord. It is a very poor landmark to use when determining "viability" or "humanity". A baby in the womb about to pop out is no more nor less human than one born 5 minutes ago.
Well for starters there have been a lot of breakthroughs in making stem cells via other routes. Guess its already time to remove this method of acquiring stem cells...
* Health Care.....
You did notice that its not about the USA right? We are bashing the French here.
In one of my anatomy classes the professor likes to get on his soap box occasionally. One of his particular pet peeves is his passion against bottled water. He saw someone drinking in class once then gave us all the lecture about how he is preparing a presentation for the dean to try and ban the sale of all bottled water on campus. Then he talked about how he wanted to expand to the city, state and nation.
At least not in the news. Personally is a different issue.
Watched 64,000 hours of spongebob? Seriously, consider the population that plays this.
I'm gonna have to disagree on that about WoT. In my first reads I never felt that there was any intentional dragging out just to sell more books, I loved each of them and I think they all add something important to the story.
I do agree that it is a very common phenomenon now to drag everything out. I dont read much anymore, but usually have the TV going while doing homework and recently I've been going through Heroes season 3. The first was good, the second was okay, the third is showing obvious signs of stretch. Just kill the bad guys when you have them so they dont escape for the 10th time!
Comparing an envelope to encryption is plain stupid. An envelope serves many other purposes besides concealing information, such as keeping multiple objects/papers together without getting separated or lost (which encryption has no comparative function), protects the letter from damage, (which encryption has no comparative function), reduces the total space taken up by compressing the contents (which encryption has no comparative function), and provides a uniformly sized object for automated counting/sorting machines (again, encryption has no comparative function).
If the post office would accept papers of any size/shape for delivery then people may very well just start sending full sheets of paper without envelopes if it had any practical benefit such as only paying the postcard rate (about half that of a letter). As it is, postcards have to fit within set dimensions (http://www.usps.com/send/preparemailandpackages/measuringtips.htm) meaning you can only fit a very small amount of information on them at a time making them only suitable for the purpose of saying "Hey, we are here. Miss you. Good bye"
The only similarity is that an envelope is a *weak* protection against unauthorized access to information while traveling though public/unsecured channels.
Further, I never said encryption likely means you are a criminal. I said that about the pursuit of an encryption basis that is not only uncrackable, but that also hides the presence of data. Are you sending invisible postage? Encryption in and of itself is useful for many things, such as making online purchases or protecting a copy of your will you wrote up. (Note that neither of those would be sent on a postcard even if possible)
Further still, text only takes up a minute space on a computer. So you could encrypt every sensitive document you have and still come up as at most a few mb. When you start geting gbs and tbs of encrypted data, that screams of audio/visual data. To use your analogy, that would be like trying to send a semi-trailer through the mail but not letting them know what is inside. Good luck.
In summary, you're an idiot.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
Notice the usage of the words "need" and "necessary". Sure you can want to encrypt your laundry list uber-secure, but why? Doing so raises justifiable suspicion.
Imagine a guy wearing a heavy trench coat, sunglasses and a hat with his hands under his goat and trying to hide in the corner, in Las Vegas with 100 degree weather. Its legal, but it is sure going to draw attention. Not only that, but it is going to draw suspicion. He might not be doing anything, but I wouldn't stake my life on it by ignoring him.
The snail mail/postcard analogy just doesnt make sense to anything that I said.
Dissenting is relative. If you are in the minority then the majority is dissenting. "Dissenting opinion" means nothing without a clarification to what it is dissenting from.
I do. Especially when the term in question isn't especially uncommon and has meanings outside of legal speak.
Um, sure. His opinion there dissents from mine. That doesnt mean it necessarily dissents from anything else; namely, the ruling of the case in point.
Without saying what exactly, "his dissenting opinion" could dissent from anything and the implication is that it is from my previous statement.
You conveniently left out the courts ruling on that case:
"Because the consent directive is not testimonial in nature, we conclude that the District Court's order compelling petitioner to sign the directive does not violate his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. "
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=487&invol=201
So, you and Justice Stevens might agree, but it seems the rest of the Supreme Court Justices have already ruled the other way.
Why try to facilitate them? For 99% of the honest population, encryption isnt necessary. For 99% of the remainder, a minor encryption is necessary. For 99% of that remainder, a strong encryption is necessary. For 99% of the last remainder, they need encryption that is not only unbreakable, but also untraceable. 100% of the uses of unbreakable, untraceable encryption I can think of are illegal.
"because I can" isnt a good enough reason for going way out of your way to make your photo album of your last vacation to disneyland super super encrypted. If you have that worried about it that much, then you are up to something. Period.
I thought the solution was dont be a pervert.
Id imagine Vietnamese prisons are even less comfortable than American...
Supplying the password to encryption under warrant is no different from supplying keys to a safe under warrant. Keys are not protected by the 5th, and neither are passwords. Testimony is. If they were to demand that he confess, THEN the 5th comes into play.
Testimony is not the same as evidence. The 5th does not mention anything about evidence. It is about witness, ie testimony.
So if you admit that its okay to give a warrant on keys, you admit it is okay to give a warrant on passwords.
The difference is that anyone expressing any thing against a minority usually doesnt have the benefit of freedom of speech to hide behind. If you were to get a loudspeaker and start shouting on the corner about the benifits of being gay, its doubtful that many would have the guts to argue with you because they would be labeled as bigots. Do the same thing, opposite direction and you are going to get some lawsuits headed your way.
Actually no, you see the finding of offense in saying "i am gay" is offensive to gays, thus it is wrong to be offended by that statement because gays have the right not to be offended by your offense, but the offense given to straights with the original statement is okay because the gays have the right to "express" themselves which overpowers the right of the majority not to be offended by them.
The game of playing the victim regardless of what actually happened. This case is not in any way equatable to real discrimination. She wasnt kicked because she IS a lesbian. She was kicked because she was flaunting it and refused to stop.
I personally do not like homosexuality at all (BTW, where is my freedom of speech to say that without being flamed for it?), but I agree that certian things just dont matter. For example, in job hiring then there should be no difference between white/black straight/gay for most jobs. ( Going back to the game reference, it can actually be better to be some minority a lot of the time because you can complain you were discriminated against and the media is automatically on your side, affirmative action anyone?
In an elective setting where you are there of your own choice (like a live account) then the owner/manager of that setting has the right to say what they will or will not allow, especially when something is known to be disruptive for no reason other than to be disruptive.