>Without the care of their parent(s), the child will die.
You would be surprised.
Yes, you're right. I would be surprised. I would be very surprised, if you dropped off a 1-year old anywhere on the planet, with no other people to help it, and it survived longer than a week.
Come on, admit this is crazy
Sentient decisions are based on being AWARE of the decision. Not on the "I know what this is." level. On the "oww that hurts level".Give a newborn something scalding hot they would drop it.
That is basic pain stimulus reaction. That isnt reasoning. and besides which, take the same stimulus a day before that baby was born, and it will react pretty much the same way.
babies are not immobile unthinking blobs inside the womb. They have *working brains*. They react to stimulus.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/psychtoday9809.htm l
I however will not stand around and let religion dictate law.
Hey, I'm making a 100% logical basis for "late term pregnancy fetuses meet the criteria for 'alive' just as well as a newborn", and you're the one having a blind reaction against it.
"[Well, I dont know how to respond to your logical arguments, but "I wont let religion dictate law"]"
You're saying that reguardless of logical backing for something, if it is something that "religious groups" want to see, you will oppose it.
That could be described as "a strongly held belief, without basic in rational fact". Which in itself is practically the definition of "religion", ironically.
I'm not a woman, however if I were I don't think I'd want the government stepping in to tell me that I HAVE to give birth to the fetus; regardless of the reasoning behind it.
"I dont like it, therefore it shouldnt be a law", is not a particularly good reason to make or not make a law.
counterpoint: "I dont LIKE having to waste money/time/effort feeding these children I have - I dont think there should be any law stopping me from abandoning or killing them. After all they're 'MY' children."
it is not a single organism until it is no longer dependant on the host and can make a sentiant decision.
Your first criteria of "dependant on the host" is ludicrous. It is circular logic: basically, "a mother can always kill a child attached to her, becuase it is a child attached to her".
A creature's right to life should be determined by intrinsic nature, not its means of nutrition. What intrinstic nature do you recognize, if any, that gives someone a right to life?
If you cant state any, yet still stick to a "abortion at any time" philosophy, then you are basically saying, "I dont CARE if its alive or not. I vote for convenience over life".
As far as "being dependant"... many, many *newborn babies* are completely dependant on the various hospital machines to live. By your logic, they are "dependant" on something, so it should be fine to kill them.
not to mention that most children *i* know are "dependant on their parents" for many years. Without the care of their parent(s), the child will die.
Similarly, your "make a sentiant decision" argument makes no sense either. Show how a baby 10 seconds outside the womb has any more "sentiant decision" making capacity, than 10 seconds before that.
Most babies probably arent capable of making rational decisions until LOONG after they are born.
There are different branches of the pro-life movement, just as there are different branches of "democrat" or "republican". Some "pro-life" people are undecided about what should be legally done within the first trimester of pregnancy.
However, most of the outspoken "pro-choice" people, are against all limitations on abortion, even the third-trimester-only "partial birth abortion ban".
My post was to point out how hypocritical that is. It is outragous to claim "a woman has a right to kill anything that happens to be 'inside her' or 'attached to her'", because of "reproductive rights", yet ignore the LIFE rights of another human merely becuase of geography.
What business is it of yours how I choose to execise my reproductive rights?
You are confusing "reproductive rights" (== right to reproduce or not reproduce == right to have sex/not have sex/use condoms, etc/self-sterilize) vs "right to kill babies". Your "reproductive rights" are unenfringed.
Hint: if an organism that is the product of 6 months of development from a human ova, has full human rights laying in a hospital crib, it should have full human rights anywhere else, reguardless of physical location, or connection to anything or anyONE else.
"Teaching the Test" is a huge injustice, it narrows the students' experience to the test's subject matter.
On the other hand, if the test is a reasonable test of "Can this person understand basic math? Can this person understand basic english well?" then the skills they learn "for the test", should serve them equally well on real life "tests" like,
"Can I fill out this job application properly?"
"Can I add up where all my montly paycheck money is going to?"
All that broadminded pie-in-the-sky thing about giving students a wider "range of experience" is nice in theory. but lets make sure they are competant at the basics first!
going by the numbers, american public schools are failing to teach the basics of Reading, wRiting, and aRithmetic properly to a majority of its students. Now that's an injustice!
It is impossible that any developed country's educational system could operate that way for more than a decade or two
Presumably, the topic is the country's public education system. The conspiracy theorists would presume that "the man" sends his children to private schools, which are supposedly not crippled in the same fashion.
This should work out just fine, for untold generations to come.
more commonly nowadays, limiting text to 72 colums, is for email, so that you can QUOTE people, and have more than 1 level of nesting, yet still keep the result within 80 columns.
Hence the rules about not masturbating and wasting life material by spilling it on the ground instead of where it could grow to become a person.
Actually, there is no such rule. That's a Roman Catholic reading, that as far as I can see, has no real scriptural basis. The actual offense in that case, (Genesis 38:9), was in not upholding the command to impregnate your brother's wife, if he dies without an heir.
[for the curious onlooker, the command presumably comes in concern for making sure the widow will have someone to take care of her in her old age]
Of course it is not "being born". "being born" is a natural process. Instead, this is essentially a forced miscarriage, as a result of violence against the mother.
A cesarean section isnt technicaly "being born" either, but the result is still incontrovertibly alive, if successful.
As far as "being alive" vs "being a person":
A human being can be in a vegetative state. They are still considered "a person" in most sense, and have all the legal rights thereof, last I checked. However, they are arguably less "alive" than your example of a cat.
Meaning that the fetus is property, not humanity. Injury to it is repaid like other property damages.
False reading.
Exodus, 21:22 indicates,
[if the child is born early, but _the child_ is undamaged, then there is merely punishment by a judge for the intended harm]. It's like an "assault" charge. aka "intent to cause bodily harm", today, even if no harm was done. THere is still a penalty for that.
This is in contrast to the case where the child is prematurely born, and there is injury to the child. Then it is life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, AS THE CHILD HAS SUFFERED.
Even with the poor translation, this is the only way the following verses 23-25 make sense.
There is no point in randomly adding "and if [the mother] loses an eye, the offender loses an eye", and so on and so forth. There already is an "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth" law that covers injury to the mother, whether pregnant, nursing, or not "with child" at all.
Those verses exist for the sole purpose of clarifying the otherwise ambiguous case of "but what about unborn children, and injury to them, compared to the existing law on injury to regular people?"
The mistake you are making, is seeing a penalty "life for life", and using your own biases to presume "an unborn child is not alive, therefore it must apply to the mother". However, an unbiased view indicates that since there are only two choices possible for the "life" mentioned (mother or child), and since the mother is already clearly covered, it must apply to the child.
There are other biblical verses that back this up. References to God knowing people "in the womb". If someone is not a person, it is not possible to "know them". But since the bible clearly indicates it is possible to know a person "in the womb", it follows that there is an actual life involved, "in the womb", from a biblical standpoint.
I didnt say all commercial software is good. The point is that, in theory, every piece of commercial software, (if it wants to do WELL in the market), is FORCED to consider all of the aspects of the project: features, user interface, documentation, etc, etc, etc.
Whereas there is no such constraint on open source software. Someone working for free, may or may not be motivated to spend hours and hours tweaking and improving the documentation. Most of the time, they are not.
You can argue, "but if they dont do a good job, then the next open source programmer can do a better one!" Only trouble is, the very existance of the first one, is a negative pressure on someone else going to all the trouble to write a second one.
And yes, in theory, the second programmer could volunteer to write documentation and a better UI for the first program. But that almost never happens in reality. Only projects that get major recognition, reach the stage where other people start joining in just to write better docs.
Consoles ALREADY DO THIS. the PS2 has an absolutely standard USB port. It's just a matter of convincing the game writers to code for it.
There are some games that support a USB mouse. All they have to do is code to the "HID standard" for a USB mouse, and (almost) any USB mouse will work. It's just that the writers dont do that.
It will actually HARM consumers since MS will just raise prices.
you're making the invalid assumption that people somehow just CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT microsoft.
Higher prices just give people bigger incentive to use something else. Remember, the cities,etc that were considering other things, and the only reason some went back to microsoft was that they lowered prices below what they are even now.
a. The windows drivers are "the theoretical maximum speed". This has already been disproven in other areas. Even DRI opensource drivers are faster than some windows 3d drivers, in areas.
Slashdot Mirror
You would be surprised.
Yes, you're right. I would be surprised. I would be very surprised, if you dropped off a 1-year old anywhere on the planet, with no other people to help it, and it survived longer than a week. Come on, admit this is crazy
Sentient decisions are based on being AWARE of the decision. Not on the "I know what this is." level. On the "oww that hurts level".Give a newborn something scalding hot they would drop it.
That is basic pain stimulus reaction. That isnt reasoning. and besides which, take the same stimulus a day before that baby was born, and it will react pretty much the same way.
babies are not immobile unthinking blobs inside the womb. They have *working brains*. They react to stimulus.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/psychtoday9809.htm l
I however will not stand around and let religion dictate law.
Hey, I'm making a 100% logical basis for "late term pregnancy fetuses meet the criteria for 'alive' just as well as a newborn", and you're the one having a blind reaction against it.
"[Well, I dont know how to respond to your logical arguments, but "I wont let religion dictate law"]"
You're saying that reguardless of logical backing for something, if it is something that "religious groups" want to see, you will oppose it. That could be described as "a strongly held belief, without basic in rational fact". Which in itself is practically the definition of "religion", ironically.
"I dont like it, therefore it shouldnt be a law", is not a particularly good reason to make or not make a law.
counterpoint: "I dont LIKE having to waste money/time/effort feeding these children I have - I dont think there should be any law stopping me from abandoning or killing them. After all they're 'MY' children."
Your first criteria of "dependant on the host" is ludicrous. It is circular logic: basically, "a mother can always kill a child attached to her, becuase it is a child attached to her".
A creature's right to life should be determined by intrinsic nature, not its means of nutrition. What intrinstic nature do you recognize, if any, that gives someone a right to life? If you cant state any, yet still stick to a "abortion at any time" philosophy, then you are basically saying, "I dont CARE if its alive or not. I vote for convenience over life".
As far as "being dependant"... many, many *newborn babies* are completely dependant on the various hospital machines to live. By your logic, they are "dependant" on something, so it should be fine to kill them.
not to mention that most children *i* know are "dependant on their parents" for many years. Without the care of their parent(s), the child will die.
Similarly, your "make a sentiant decision" argument makes no sense either. Show how a baby 10 seconds outside the womb has any more "sentiant decision" making capacity, than 10 seconds before that.
Most babies probably arent capable of making rational decisions until LOONG after they are born.
However, most of the outspoken "pro-choice" people, are against all limitations on abortion, even the third-trimester-only "partial birth abortion ban".
My post was to point out how hypocritical that is. It is outragous to claim "a woman has a right to kill anything that happens to be 'inside her' or 'attached to her'", because of "reproductive rights", yet ignore the LIFE rights of another human merely becuase of geography.
You are confusing "reproductive rights" (== right to reproduce or not reproduce == right to have sex/not have sex/use condoms, etc/self-sterilize) vs "right to kill babies". Your "reproductive rights" are unenfringed.
Hint: if an organism that is the product of 6 months of development from a human ova, has full human rights laying in a hospital crib, it should have full human rights anywhere else, reguardless of physical location, or connection to anything or anyONE else.
On the other hand, if the test is a reasonable test of "Can this person understand basic math? Can this person understand basic english well?" then the skills they learn "for the test", should serve them equally well on real life "tests" like,
"Can I fill out this job application properly?"
"Can I add up where all my montly paycheck money is going to?"
All that broadminded pie-in-the-sky thing about giving students a wider "range of experience" is nice in theory. but lets make sure they are competant at the basics first! going by the numbers, american public schools are failing to teach the basics of Reading, wRiting, and aRithmetic properly to a majority of its students. Now that's an injustice!
Presumably, the topic is the country's public education system. The conspiracy theorists would presume that "the man" sends his children to private schools, which are supposedly not crippled in the same fashion. This should work out just fine, for untold generations to come.
more commonly nowadays, limiting text to 72 colums, is for email, so that you can QUOTE people, and have more than 1 level of nesting, yet still keep the result within 80 columns.
Gee, that pretty much covers every cambat solder in the US military. Congratulations, you've just insulted [some thousand] trained killing machines.
Hence the rules about not masturbating and wasting life material by spilling it on the ground instead of where it could grow to become a person.
Actually, there is no such rule. That's a Roman Catholic reading, that as far as I can see, has no real scriptural basis. The actual offense in that case, (Genesis 38:9), was in not upholding the command to impregnate your brother's wife, if he dies without an heir.
[for the curious onlooker, the command presumably comes in concern for making sure the widow will have someone to take care of her in her old age]
Of course it is not "being born". "being born" is a natural process. Instead, this is essentially a forced miscarriage, as a result of violence against the mother.
A cesarean section isnt technicaly "being born" either, but the result is still incontrovertibly alive, if successful.
As far as "being alive" vs "being a person":
A human being can be in a vegetative state. They are still considered "a person" in most sense, and have all the legal rights thereof, last I checked. However, they are arguably less "alive" than your example of a cat.
False reading.
Exodus, 21:22 indicates, [if the child is born early, but _the child_ is undamaged, then there is merely punishment by a judge for the intended harm]. It's like an "assault" charge. aka "intent to cause bodily harm", today, even if no harm was done. THere is still a penalty for that.
This is in contrast to the case where the child is prematurely born, and there is injury to the child. Then it is life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, AS THE CHILD HAS SUFFERED.
Even with the poor translation, this is the only way the following verses 23-25 make sense. There is no point in randomly adding "and if [the mother] loses an eye, the offender loses an eye", and so on and so forth. There already is an "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth" law that covers injury to the mother, whether pregnant, nursing, or not "with child" at all. Those verses exist for the sole purpose of clarifying the otherwise ambiguous case of "but what about unborn children, and injury to them, compared to the existing law on injury to regular people?"
The mistake you are making, is seeing a penalty "life for life", and using your own biases to presume "an unborn child is not alive, therefore it must apply to the mother". However, an unbiased view indicates that since there are only two choices possible for the "life" mentioned (mother or child), and since the mother is already clearly covered, it must apply to the child.
There are other biblical verses that back this up. References to God knowing people "in the womb". If someone is not a person, it is not possible to "know them". But since the bible clearly indicates it is possible to know a person "in the womb", it follows that there is an actual life involved, "in the womb", from a biblical standpoint.
if spamassassin is your primary concern, then switch to postfix. it has spamassassin integration now, as far as I hear.
particularly with retirement planning.
But what I have never heard from any of these people is, "Where are all these commonplace investments that reliably return 10% year after year??!!"
I didnt say all commercial software is good. The point is that, in theory, every piece of commercial software, (if it wants to do WELL in the market), is FORCED to consider all of the aspects of the project: features, user interface, documentation, etc, etc, etc.
Whereas there is no such constraint on open source software. Someone working for free, may or may not be motivated to spend hours and hours tweaking and improving the documentation. Most of the time, they are not.
You can argue, "but if they dont do a good job, then the next open source programmer can do a better one!" Only trouble is, the very existance of the first one, is a negative pressure on someone else going to all the trouble to write a second one.
And yes, in theory, the second programmer could volunteer to write documentation and a better UI for the first program. But that almost never happens in reality. Only projects that get major recognition, reach the stage where other people start joining in just to write better docs.
That's "given time, motivation, and discipline".
The average open source coder tends to have a lot of time, but only limited motivation, and not much discipline.
[The missing pieces being, "motivated to put out a commercial quality product", and "enough discipline/knowlege to actually carry it out"
Consoles ALREADY DO THIS.
the PS2 has an absolutely standard USB port.
It's just a matter of convincing the game writers to code for it.
There are some games that support a USB mouse. All they have to do is code to the "HID standard" for a USB mouse, and (almost) any USB mouse will work. It's just that the writers dont do that.
There IS OpenFirmware (aka OpenBoot, aka IEEE 1275 standard) for x86 machines. It's just very very very rare.
you're making the invalid assumption that people somehow just CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT microsoft. Higher prices just give people bigger incentive to use something else. Remember, the cities,etc that were considering other things, and the only reason some went back to microsoft was that they lowered prices below what they are even now.
Better than sunfreeware.com, is blastwave.org
automatic package dependancy handling, bugtracking, and staffed by 30 volunteers instead of just 1 person.
Plus, 64bit versions of libraries, if you ever need that sort of thing.
You make two bad assumptions:
1. management can recognize the truely qualified, and keep them, while ditching the "bad" ones
2. truely qualified IT people, are also really good at selling themselves
Both are commonly false.
poor logical connection.
you assume that
a. The windows drivers are "the theoretical maximum speed". This has already been disproven in other areas. Even DRI opensource drivers are faster than some windows 3d drivers, in areas.
b. speed == "right". Bad, bad assumption.
What you are probably trying to say by that, is that, while throughput is the same, latency has been decreased.
http://docs.sun.com
more docs than you can shake a stick at
check out www.blastwave.org
packaged binaries for sparc AND x86, with dependancies. (and remarkably similar to debian: pkg-get install softwarename)