And what about abortions that happen past the point when the fetus actually is viable outside of its mother?
In that case it is strange to me, that is, the mother would most likely not care whether the fetus lives or not, so why not place the fetus is whatever device to keep it alive and then put it up for adoption or in state care.
Not a crime, but surely we can work towards a point where we reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
Not a problem for me. As long as abortion is an option in those cases where the pregnancy is unwanted.
at least give her time to decide and make the honest decision to kill her child rather than to "get rid of a few cells"
It probably is easier/safer to perform the procedure while the fetus is "just a few cells". If you remove the limit of when the fetus can be aborted, the mother most likely be persuaded to wait until the effects of the pregnancy become worse and think it over in the mean time.
I really don't believe that every abortive mother would have chosen to have an abortion if there were other/better options
Most likely.
, or if abortion wasn't as easy to obtain as the Sunday paper.
This borders on forcing her to do what she does not want. Also, making it very difficult to obtain the abortion would be a burden on the poorer/weaker women who might not be able to navigate the legal and bureaucratic mazes to get it. In my opinion they should be more able to get it.
based on the hunger of the surrounding population perhaps?
Didn't think of it.
Anyway, I am not against reducing abortions trough positive means (making better options available, education on safe sex, cheaper protection and so on) but against doing so trough negative means (banning, making it too expensive, hard to get and so on), because that still allows free choice.
Our well intentioned actions may actually be preventing the emergence of some incredibly benign and important species - we simply cannot accurately predict the effect of our interventions.
Yes, but it could also be worse, so, it is better to try to keep everything as-is, since we already know that is good enough for us. "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't".
I agree that some of those species are not important, especially if there are so few individuals left that we cannot really let them live in their natural place, since they will be extinct. So, whatever the effect the extinction would have on the environment it already has.
There is also the part that most likely because of human actions the species go extinct faster than new ones are emerging. Still, we do not know the effect in the long term, but some of the protections are ridiculous.
Until there is a way of transferring the fetus out of the woman to some device, it is my opinion that the woman has priority over her own body. If/when there is such a device then the fetus could be carried full term outside of the woman.
Or does the fact that there are rapists in the world mean that the fetus is not a child until it gets through the birth canal?
The fact that there are rapists in the world is one more reason for abortion. If the woman does not want to carry another lifeform inside her, wither the other lifeform should be taken out of her (even if it means that it will die) or the woman should be chained against her will until the lifeform comes out of her by itself (otherwise she will most likely try other ways of removing that lifeform). I do not like when somebody is made to do something against their will without a really good reason and making sure that there is one more human on this planet is not that reason. Unless you are willing to call "getting pregnant" a crime, then you could sentence the woman to 9 months of prison.
(can we start with the rapists, and not their by-products?)
The problem with death penalty for rape is that then there is not higher penalty for murder, which means that once the rapist did his deed he might as well kill the victim.
"hey, they're a fetus, kill them"
No, it's "hey, they're a fetus that the mother does not want. Even if they were born the society will have to take care of them because the mother won't. Also, making sure that they are born means restricting the freedom of the mother, which is worse".
Also, what "rational criteria"? Race (a few people already tried that), usefulness to society (then the fetus is not useful), what?
So? A disease is also natural, but natural does not mean good. It is natural that humans cannot live in space, but it does not mean that we cannot try and come up with ways to beat nature.
Extinction of a lot of species, while natural, would, in the long term, be bad for us. That's why we try to prevent a natural process or extinction.
A large meteor impacting Earth is also natural, still, we would not want that.
I do not understand those who say that anything that is "natural" is "good".
God does protect people's children that are prayed for. But let us say God never let babies get injured by any weapon known to man 100% of the time when they're prayed for.
Let's say that God protects 10% of babies that are prayed for. You can still select the "chosen ones" or strap enough of them on the battleship so that it is very likely that an incoming projectile would hit the "chosen one".
OK, let's say that God protects 10% of babies but only from some threats, then you cannot trust the effectiveness of the prayer and would still have to protect the baby by other means, basically rendering the prayer useless.
Also, how do you know that God actually protects the babies that are prayed for and not only the ones that are NOT prayed for (just for the lulz) or just does not care whether the baby is prayed for and protects/does not protect everyone equally?
Also, a way of making protected babies useless as armor - the whatever harm just passes trough them, so if the tank is hit, it would still get damaged, but the baby would be OK.
Anyway, how do you know that whatever you believe is the truth? For example, let's say that I believe that God (the creator) exists but does not interfere in our affairs (cannot or just does not want to) other than setting the initial conditions (the gravitational constant and others) and is now just watching how this version of the universe plays out (that is, we are in some kind of simulation). Maybe some day we will have the technology to simulate another (smaller) universe and be gods to the people in it (if sentient life evolves there). You most likely would disagree with me, but how would you prove me wrong and you right? Oh, I can also say that whatever event disagrees with the established laws of physics is just a glitch in the program, it was not intentional and is most likely patched up.
They believe that government programs for the poor and elderly are good, but taxes to pay for them are bad.
Where I live, taxes are not seen as "bad", just that the government spends more of the tax money to their own pockets than they do for things that should be paid for by taxes (road repair for example). Also, taxes should be in line with salaries - I can pay more if I earn more.
They believe in a right to life, but support the death penalty.
Because (in my opinion) someone who murdered an innocent human has no right to call himself human. It is also wrong that the murderer lives out his life in relative comfort while his victim(s) rot in their graves. At least make that life hell - bad conditions, forced labor to earn the money for food etc.
They believe in evolution, but want to preserve endangered species.
Evolution is a process, not some god. "Believing in evolution" means that I believe that the process is happening and/or has happened in the past. Evolution has no "plan", so it is not mutually exclusive to think that evolution is happening and wanting to preserve endangered species.
They believe in climate change, but they don't want it to change any more.
Same thing as with evolution. As another example, I believe that it is going to rain today, but I still do not want to get wet, so I take an umbrella or just not go anywhere.
yet those people fight for a woman's right to choose abortion because a child is inconvenient.
Yes, because otherwise we would have to chain the woman until she gives birth then either give the child up for adoption or put a gun to the woman's head and force her to care for that child. Even if she was raped.
Also, there are enough people on this planet already and we still do not have the technology to colonize other planets.
IIRC Dell also make the laptops work only with the approved Dell power supply, so they are in my black list already. As for HP, have they solved the reliability problems yet? I am not planning to buy an Apple device too.
But what about when you can get a 15 inch tablet (which is basically a mb and a screen) for say 50 bucks. Would you *bother* to upgrade it? Only if you are very frugal or just into that sort of thing and like playing with solder.
Then desktops will be quite cheap but much faster and most likely still upgradeable.
Is there a list somewhere of the brands/models that have this? Because if/when I want to replace my laptop I sure don't want to buy one that will only let me use overpriced RAM or hard drives.
I am not planning to buy a desktop (I'd rather built it myself), and I hope that not all server manufacturers start using this crap or I'll have to go back to "desktop as server" when my current servers become too slow.
62mph is almost 100km/h. In my country the maximum speed limit on a highway is 130, some are 100, most inter-city roads are 90 and inside the city/town/village it is 50. Some people go 10km/h over the limit but more than that and you risk getting your photo taken or getting stopped by the police and having to pay a fine.
Still, steam cars in the 1910s managed to get 100km/h, maybe one designed with modern tools and materials in mind could go faster? Steam is good that it can use anything that burns hot enough as a power source, so, wood could be used. Some people use wood to heat their houses (electricity is expensive and natural gas, while better, is not available everywhere).
OK, so, since the money will be saved by banning the $20 inhalers, how about the government pays the difference between whatever the new inhaler costs and the $20 that the old one did?
I wonder what steam car would be possible to build using modern materials/tools. I probably would be quite good, well apart from the 'takes x minutes to build up steam" part.
I don't know about Linux, but on Windows it is usually impossible to select and copy the text inside an error message. And I guess your users are too lazy to type it to the email.
Buy a SVHS VCR on ebay (or some other place where they sell used stuff). I still use VHS for recording stuff from TV (it is more convenient to me, so shut up) and I have spare VCRs, but if one breaks down and I can't fix it, I can always buy a new one.
Also, depending on what actually happened to your VCRs, you may be able to fix them easily, maybe it is as simple as a bad belt or a capacitor?
My internet connection is 300mbps up/down so I definitely need a gigabit local network. A gigabit internet connection would requite 10gig LAN (so I do not saturate it with the internet data), but would be fun to have, I'm sure various torrent trackers would like me even more than now (on the other hand, I would have to replace most of my non-main PCs since they can barely handle 300mbps).
I have some 1GB SDR DIMM sticks that have 36 chips and those chips are on top of each other in pairs (normally you could only fit 9 chips per side, this allows to fit 18 chips per side).
To wiretap the phone line you have to be physically near the line. Assuming the line is protected (a big assumption but still), the attacker has no way of doing it without working for the phone or your company. Even if he can do it, there is high chance that he will be detected. If you are detected, they will probably call the cops.
OTOH, to sniff a LAN you do not have to physically there, just send a virus to one of the dumber employees, wait for him to open it, then you can sniff at least part of the network or at least try to infect other computers. Bonus points if you managed to infect the computer that is used to send the email-faxes.
Slashdot Mirror
And what about abortions that happen past the point when the fetus actually is viable outside of its mother?
In that case it is strange to me, that is, the mother would most likely not care whether the fetus lives or not, so why not place the fetus is whatever device to keep it alive and then put it up for adoption or in state care.
Not a crime, but surely we can work towards a point where we reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
Not a problem for me. As long as abortion is an option in those cases where the pregnancy is unwanted.
at least give her time to decide and make the honest decision to kill her child rather than to "get rid of a few cells"
It probably is easier/safer to perform the procedure while the fetus is "just a few cells". If you remove the limit of when the fetus can be aborted, the mother most likely be persuaded to wait until the effects of the pregnancy become worse and think it over in the mean time.
I really don't believe that every abortive mother would have chosen to have an abortion if there were other/better options
Most likely.
, or if abortion wasn't as easy to obtain as the Sunday paper.
This borders on forcing her to do what she does not want. Also, making it very difficult to obtain the abortion would be a burden on the poorer/weaker women who might not be able to navigate the legal and bureaucratic mazes to get it. In my opinion they should be more able to get it.
based on the hunger of the surrounding population perhaps?
Didn't think of it.
Anyway, I am not against reducing abortions trough positive means (making better options available, education on safe sex, cheaper protection and so on) but against doing so trough negative means (banning, making it too expensive, hard to get and so on), because that still allows free choice.
Our well intentioned actions may actually be preventing the emergence of some incredibly benign and important species - we simply cannot accurately predict the effect of our interventions.
Yes, but it could also be worse, so, it is better to try to keep everything as-is, since we already know that is good enough for us. "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't".
I agree that some of those species are not important, especially if there are so few individuals left that we cannot really let them live in their natural place, since they will be extinct. So, whatever the effect the extinction would have on the environment it already has.
There is also the part that most likely because of human actions the species go extinct faster than new ones are emerging. Still, we do not know the effect in the long term, but some of the protections are ridiculous.
Until there is a way of transferring the fetus out of the woman to some device, it is my opinion that the woman has priority over her own body. If/when there is such a device then the fetus could be carried full term outside of the woman.
Or does the fact that there are rapists in the world mean that the fetus is not a child until it gets through the birth canal?
The fact that there are rapists in the world is one more reason for abortion. If the woman does not want to carry another lifeform inside her, wither the other lifeform should be taken out of her (even if it means that it will die) or the woman should be chained against her will until the lifeform comes out of her by itself (otherwise she will most likely try other ways of removing that lifeform). I do not like when somebody is made to do something against their will without a really good reason and making sure that there is one more human on this planet is not that reason. Unless you are willing to call "getting pregnant" a crime, then you could sentence the woman to 9 months of prison.
(can we start with the rapists, and not their by-products?)
The problem with death penalty for rape is that then there is not higher penalty for murder, which means that once the rapist did his deed he might as well kill the victim.
"hey, they're a fetus, kill them"
No, it's "hey, they're a fetus that the mother does not want. Even if they were born the society will have to take care of them because the mother won't. Also, making sure that they are born means restricting the freedom of the mother, which is worse".
Also, what "rational criteria"? Race (a few people already tried that), usefulness to society (then the fetus is not useful), what?
So? A disease is also natural, but natural does not mean good. It is natural that humans cannot live in space, but it does not mean that we cannot try and come up with ways to beat nature.
Extinction of a lot of species, while natural, would, in the long term, be bad for us. That's why we try to prevent a natural process or extinction.
A large meteor impacting Earth is also natural, still, we would not want that.
I do not understand those who say that anything that is "natural" is "good".
God does protect people's children that are prayed for. But let us say God never let babies get injured by any weapon known to man 100% of the time when they're prayed for.
Let's say that God protects 10% of babies that are prayed for. You can still select the "chosen ones" or strap enough of them on the battleship so that it is very likely that an incoming projectile would hit the "chosen one".
OK, let's say that God protects 10% of babies but only from some threats, then you cannot trust the effectiveness of the prayer and would still have to protect the baby by other means, basically rendering the prayer useless.
Also, how do you know that God actually protects the babies that are prayed for and not only the ones that are NOT prayed for (just for the lulz) or just does not care whether the baby is prayed for and protects/does not protect everyone equally?
Also, a way of making protected babies useless as armor - the whatever harm just passes trough them, so if the tank is hit, it would still get damaged, but the baby would be OK.
Anyway, how do you know that whatever you believe is the truth? For example, let's say that I believe that God (the creator) exists but does not interfere in our affairs (cannot or just does not want to) other than setting the initial conditions (the gravitational constant and others) and is now just watching how this version of the universe plays out (that is, we are in some kind of simulation). Maybe some day we will have the technology to simulate another (smaller) universe and be gods to the people in it (if sentient life evolves there). You most likely would disagree with me, but how would you prove me wrong and you right? Oh, I can also say that whatever event disagrees with the established laws of physics is just a glitch in the program, it was not intentional and is most likely patched up.
They believe that government programs for the poor and elderly are good, but taxes to pay for them are bad.
Where I live, taxes are not seen as "bad", just that the government spends more of the tax money to their own pockets than they do for things that should be paid for by taxes (road repair for example). Also, taxes should be in line with salaries - I can pay more if I earn more.
They believe in a right to life, but support the death penalty.
Because (in my opinion) someone who murdered an innocent human has no right to call himself human. It is also wrong that the murderer lives out his life in relative comfort while his victim(s) rot in their graves. At least make that life hell - bad conditions, forced labor to earn the money for food etc.
They believe in evolution, but want to preserve endangered species.
Evolution is a process, not some god. "Believing in evolution" means that I believe that the process is happening and/or has happened in the past. Evolution has no "plan", so it is not mutually exclusive to think that evolution is happening and wanting to preserve endangered species.
They believe in climate change, but they don't want it to change any more.
Same thing as with evolution. As another example, I believe that it is going to rain today, but I still do not want to get wet, so I take an umbrella or just not go anywhere.
yet those people fight for a woman's right to choose abortion because a child is inconvenient.
Yes, because otherwise we would have to chain the woman until she gives birth then either give the child up for adoption or put a gun to the woman's head and force her to care for that child. Even if she was raped.
Also, there are enough people on this planet already and we still do not have the technology to colonize other planets.
IIRC Dell also make the laptops work only with the approved Dell power supply, so they are in my black list already. As for HP, have they solved the reliability problems yet? I am not planning to buy an Apple device too.
But what about when you can get a 15 inch tablet (which is basically a mb and a screen) for say 50 bucks. Would you *bother* to upgrade it? Only if you are very frugal or just into that sort of thing and like playing with solder.
Then desktops will be quite cheap but much faster and most likely still upgradeable.
Is there a list somewhere of the brands/models that have this? Because if/when I want to replace my laptop I sure don't want to buy one that will only let me use overpriced RAM or hard drives.
I am not planning to buy a desktop (I'd rather built it myself), and I hope that not all server manufacturers start using this crap or I'll have to go back to "desktop as server" when my current servers become too slow.
62mph is almost 100km/h. In my country the maximum speed limit on a highway is 130, some are 100, most inter-city roads are 90 and inside the city/town/village it is 50. Some people go 10km/h over the limit but more than that and you risk getting your photo taken or getting stopped by the police and having to pay a fine.
Still, steam cars in the 1910s managed to get 100km/h, maybe one designed with modern tools and materials in mind could go faster? Steam is good that it can use anything that burns hot enough as a power source, so, wood could be used. Some people use wood to heat their houses (electricity is expensive and natural gas, while better, is not available everywhere).
So, bring back steam cars, just this time instead of coal they would be powered by wood.
OK, so, since the money will be saved by banning the $20 inhalers, how about the government pays the difference between whatever the new inhaler costs and the $20 that the old one did?
I wonder what steam car would be possible to build using modern materials/tools. I probably would be quite good, well apart from the 'takes x minutes to build up steam" part.
Thanks. I have been using Windows for a long time, but did not know that. The text cannot be selected, so I though that it could not be copied also.
I don't know about Linux, but on Windows it is usually impossible to select and copy the text inside an error message. And I guess your users are too lazy to type it to the email.
most people looking to euthanize themselves are elderly and too frail for a roller coaster.
You mean they could die in a roller coaster?
Buy a SVHS VCR on ebay (or some other place where they sell used stuff). I still use VHS for recording stuff from TV (it is more convenient to me, so shut up) and I have spare VCRs, but if one breaks down and I can't fix it, I can always buy a new one.
Also, depending on what actually happened to your VCRs, you may be able to fix them easily, maybe it is as simple as a bad belt or a capacitor?
So, ThePirateBay?
do not have flash installed in my primary browser because of flash based ads that adblock may not catch.
That's why I use Firefox and Flashblock. I have to click the "play" icon if I want to run the flash instance.
I am so glad Windows XP includes Adobe Flash player - otherwise I would have to (gasp) download a plugin to watch video on the internet.
My internet connection is 300mbps up/down so I definitely need a gigabit local network. A gigabit internet connection would requite 10gig LAN (so I do not saturate it with the internet data), but would be fun to have, I'm sure various torrent trackers would like me even more than now (on the other hand, I would have to replace most of my non-main PCs since they can barely handle 300mbps).
I have some 1GB SDR DIMM sticks that have 36 chips and those chips are on top of each other in pairs (normally you could only fit 9 chips per side, this allows to fit 18 chips per side).
You can also carry a bomb in your stomach, the trick would be in setting it off though, but maybe it is possible to think of something.
Have a pleasant flight.
To wiretap the phone line you have to be physically near the line. Assuming the line is protected (a big assumption but still), the attacker has no way of doing it without working for the phone or your company. Even if he can do it, there is high chance that he will be detected. If you are detected, they will probably call the cops.
OTOH, to sniff a LAN you do not have to physically there, just send a virus to one of the dumber employees, wait for him to open it, then you can sniff at least part of the network or at least try to infect other computers. Bonus points if you managed to infect the computer that is used to send the email-faxes.