I agree completely, but I think you and the GP may be confusing choice with freedom, which is a common mistake. Freedom by its very nature is limiting, because although there choice, there is also responsibility. Without the responsibility part, you have choice, but not freedom. BSD permits choice, but lacks protection of freedom. (not arguing the merits. Some people prefer this). I can choose to kill someone, but I cannot pretend that that is freedom.
The only problem is, that is Exactly what you are advocating in a capitalist nation by placing a value on something.
I don't think my point was clear. I haven't heard anyone preaching "get your abortions here for the sake of stem cells." Nor have I hear anyone say "I'm getting an abortion so I can give the tissue to science."
If someone gets knocked up and wants an abortion, more likely than not, they will want an abortion for personal reasons, not so they can donate the tissue. But one man's trash is another man's treasure. Since they are throwing the fetus away, why not harvest the organs? I'm pretty sure these stem cells are still good, despite another post. Maybe not same quality as embryonic stem cells, but still usable.
Results don't have anything to do with the moral argument. Proof that eating babies gives you laser vision would not lead to legalization of baby eating.
This is a straw man argument though. Not really talking to you, but rather, others who make this argument against fetal stem cells. The stem cells from fetuses are from already dead, aborted fetuses. No one, that I know of, is advocating killing fetuses for the sake of getting the stem cells. But since they are already dead, why not harvest them instead of throwing them in the trash? Kind of like harvesting organs from a dead guy, only aborted fetuses usually do not have funerals or viewings. I think the bigger question is "is abortion moral?" Talking about taking the stem cells seems to be just dancing around the topic. If abortion is immoral, then certainly taking the cells is too. If abortion is not immoral, then not sure why throwing the fetuses in the trash is an more moral than experimenting with them.
I think you may be taking the GP out of context. There may be no cable or local telco or whatever in NZ. The point is that with no competition, moving to another ISP, in whatever form, is not possible/reasonable. He was quoting the OP to make the point. They key word being monopoly. Cable was just an adjective. There might be a wrong fact, but the concept is still right, and the type of internet access was only secondary. If there is tons of competition in NZ for ISP's, then you could use your -1 wrong mod.
Sorry that I don't have any mod point to mod you up. So I'll go one further. Many people are claiming that Stallman is becoming a irrelevant and out of touch. The reality is that he is becoming less out of touch than he was in the 1980's. He was a MASSIVE radical back then, as the concept of Free software did not even exist. He was really a freak, with regard to his philosophies. As time is going by, he is becoming less radical despite not changing his principles all these years, just because his ideas of user Freedom is becoming more accepted by many. However, as many more people are moving to Free software, many of them are trying to push back with proprietary software, thinking that Stallman is something new. He's not. The rest of the world is just having a hard time meeting him where he was almost 25 years ago, and kicking and screaming along the way.
If I buy object "a", and create useful additions to that object, I bloody well should be able to profit from it.
I hope you don't mean that. If your rights interfere in a corporation's ability to make money in even a theoretical, possible, not necessarily plausible way, you no longer have any more rights. Now, if you were a multi-billion dollar corporation, then okay, your statement is accurate.
As a KDE fan, and Kubuntu user, I think your comment is not quite fair. I would mod you up if I had any points, because I like the concept, but not the way you ask. The question implies Canonical doing something actively bad to KDE, and that may automatically put Matt on the defense. So I would have preferred you stated it otherwise, such as "Does you have any plans or personal hopes to invest more into the KDE SC?" Just my opinion, and I hope he addresses this.
I have a blackberry, and the GPS application works well, but the reception sucks. Dropped calls = dropped GPS directions, at the worst possible time. That is why I need a stand along GPS. How is it for Nokia if the cell phone reception sucks? Do you get some dropped signals as well?
You're not seriously comparing asbestos to nuclear energy, are you?
No. That was just a joke, referring to an episode of the Simpsons when Bart was running for class president. It was a joke like the post above, saying he/she WANTED to live next to a nuclear power plant (he may have been serious if he said he didn't mind living next to a nuclear plant, but that's not what he said).
Can you name one person who has been hurt by a properly running nuclear plant that was a result of the plant being nuclear (as opposed to coal, ect.)?
And to insulate us from the heat, some people say we need to get rid of the asbestos. But I say we don't have ENOUGH asbestos. MORE ASBESTOS! MORE ASBESTOS!
Bottom line is that IE really has sucked all its life; and not just statistically.
Remember back in the days competing with Netscape, IE was actually good for the time. It wasn't until Microsoft held the browser monopoly that it remained stagnant, while the rest of the browsers moved ahead.
I think this is a joke, but just in case, he is stepping down as CEO of Cannonical, not as SABDL of Ubuntu. So far, it looks like he will remain self appointed benevolent dictator for life, as he has made no announcements to the contrary that I saw.
The study found an effect even among poor v. wealthy children with the same diagnosis, though, which none of 1/2/3 could explain. 1/2/3 could plausibly lead to more psychotic diagnoses among poor children, but not to more prescription of drugs within the same diagnosis.
What you may not be taking into account is a condition's severity. With the same diagnosis, major depression could cause suicide, or just difficulty with school activities. The more intense the severity, the more likely to prescribe medications. This is why I dislike studies based upon coded diagnoses: little insight into the individual cases leads to little insight as to the meaning of the study. I didn't RTFA since it is behind a paywall.
Ok. I'll buy that it's legal. But is it a requirement by the law for companies to provide this data? Hiring over 100 people for surveillance, which could piss off customers, and provides no profit doesn't sound like a good business model, especially for a company on the verge of bankruptcy. Do you know if there is a legal benefit to do this? Because it doesn't make financial sense to me. Maybe it is because of decisions like this that they are not doing so well.
I would also add that this concept of secrecy has not been solved by software patents, but rather has become worse. Code is secret. Patents are so numerous and vague, that they are essentially secret. Like finding a needle in a haystack. Right in front of you, but obscured by a lot of crap. I would argue that byears ago, knowledge was not easily disseminated, and harder to share, so inventions had more value in preservation and documentation. Now, given the spread of knowledge, many people are constantly independently invent the same thing. The value of documenting and preserving inventions is just no longer there, because if the inventor doesn't document and describe it, you better believe many other shlubs on the internet will. And if that inventor didn't think of the idea, you better believe 50 other people already wrote about the same thing. If you want to make a law to save a business model, then fine. Go patents! Copyrights should be forever in that case too. But if you are looking to benefit society, I just don't see the purpose of patents any more.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree completely, but I think you and the GP may be confusing choice with freedom, which is a common mistake. Freedom by its very nature is limiting, because although there choice, there is also responsibility. Without the responsibility part, you have choice, but not freedom. BSD permits choice, but lacks protection of freedom. (not arguing the merits. Some people prefer this). I can choose to kill someone, but I cannot pretend that that is freedom.
... the USPTO saves millions of dollars with their newly introduced 1-click patent approval process.
... but spent all of the saved millions on patent licensing fees.
The only problem is, that is Exactly what you are advocating in a capitalist nation by placing a value on something.
I don't think my point was clear. I haven't heard anyone preaching "get your abortions here for the sake of stem cells." Nor have I hear anyone say "I'm getting an abortion so I can give the tissue to science."
If someone gets knocked up and wants an abortion, more likely than not, they will want an abortion for personal reasons, not so they can donate the tissue. But one man's trash is another man's treasure. Since they are throwing the fetus away, why not harvest the organs? I'm pretty sure these stem cells are still good, despite another post. Maybe not same quality as embryonic stem cells, but still usable.
Results don't have anything to do with the moral argument. Proof that eating babies gives you laser vision would not lead to legalization of baby eating.
This is a straw man argument though. Not really talking to you, but rather, others who make this argument against fetal stem cells. The stem cells from fetuses are from already dead, aborted fetuses. No one, that I know of, is advocating killing fetuses for the sake of getting the stem cells. But since they are already dead, why not harvest them instead of throwing them in the trash? Kind of like harvesting organs from a dead guy, only aborted fetuses usually do not have funerals or viewings. I think the bigger question is "is abortion moral?" Talking about taking the stem cells seems to be just dancing around the topic. If abortion is immoral, then certainly taking the cells is too. If abortion is not immoral, then not sure why throwing the fetuses in the trash is an more moral than experimenting with them.
Also, since when did evolution stop? Who knows if in another 100 million years, the whales may evolve microscopic hairs.
I think you may be taking the GP out of context. There may be no cable or local telco or whatever in NZ. The point is that with no competition, moving to another ISP, in whatever form, is not possible/reasonable. He was quoting the OP to make the point. They key word being monopoly. Cable was just an adjective. There might be a wrong fact, but the concept is still right, and the type of internet access was only secondary. If there is tons of competition in NZ for ISP's, then you could use your -1 wrong mod.
Step 10: Fly plane into IRS building if audit occurs.
Sorry that I don't have any mod point to mod you up. So I'll go one further. Many people are claiming that Stallman is becoming a irrelevant and out of touch. The reality is that he is becoming less out of touch than he was in the 1980's. He was a MASSIVE radical back then, as the concept of Free software did not even exist. He was really a freak, with regard to his philosophies. As time is going by, he is becoming less radical despite not changing his principles all these years, just because his ideas of user Freedom is becoming more accepted by many. However, as many more people are moving to Free software, many of them are trying to push back with proprietary software, thinking that Stallman is something new. He's not. The rest of the world is just having a hard time meeting him where he was almost 25 years ago, and kicking and screaming along the way.
If I buy object "a", and create useful additions to that object, I bloody well should be able to profit from it.
I hope you don't mean that. If your rights interfere in a corporation's ability to make money in even a theoretical, possible, not necessarily plausible way, you no longer have any more rights. Now, if you were a multi-billion dollar corporation, then okay, your statement is accurate.
As a KDE fan, and Kubuntu user, I think your comment is not quite fair. I would mod you up if I had any points, because I like the concept, but not the way you ask. The question implies Canonical doing something actively bad to KDE, and that may automatically put Matt on the defense. So I would have preferred you stated it otherwise, such as "Does you have any plans or personal hopes to invest more into the KDE SC?" Just my opinion, and I hope he addresses this.
Never mind. I didn't read too well first time. Duh on my part.
Uhm. How is he supposed to download a distro when his computer is down? You should not assume that he has more than one!
You must be the slashdot moderator everyone is talking about!
BOOBS also combines OO and BBS. Whats your point?
BOOBS are more popular that ODF and OOXML. That was the GP's point.
I have a blackberry, and the GPS application works well, but the reception sucks. Dropped calls = dropped GPS directions, at the worst possible time. That is why I need a stand along GPS. How is it for Nokia if the cell phone reception sucks? Do you get some dropped signals as well?
You're not seriously comparing asbestos to nuclear energy, are you?
No. That was just a joke, referring to an episode of the Simpsons when Bart was running for class president. It was a joke like the post above, saying he/she WANTED to live next to a nuclear power plant (he may have been serious if he said he didn't mind living next to a nuclear plant, but that's not what he said).
Can you name one person who has been hurt by a properly running nuclear plant that was a result of the plant being nuclear (as opposed to coal, ect.)?
Yes. Bill Stevenson . . . that was a joke too.
And to insulate us from the heat, some people say we need to get rid of the asbestos. But I say we don't have ENOUGH asbestos. MORE ASBESTOS! MORE ASBESTOS!
Bottom line is that IE really has sucked all its life; and not just statistically.
Remember back in the days competing with Netscape, IE was actually good for the time. It wasn't until Microsoft held the browser monopoly that it remained stagnant, while the rest of the browsers moved ahead.
I thought it was a fox and a hound.
I think this is a joke, but just in case, he is stepping down as CEO of Cannonical, not as SABDL of Ubuntu. So far, it looks like he will remain self appointed benevolent dictator for life, as he has made no announcements to the contrary that I saw.
The study found an effect even among poor v. wealthy children with the same diagnosis, though, which none of 1/2/3 could explain. 1/2/3 could plausibly lead to more psychotic diagnoses among poor children, but not to more prescription of drugs within the same diagnosis.
What you may not be taking into account is a condition's severity. With the same diagnosis, major depression could cause suicide, or just difficulty with school activities. The more intense the severity, the more likely to prescribe medications. This is why I dislike studies based upon coded diagnoses: little insight into the individual cases leads to little insight as to the meaning of the study. I didn't RTFA since it is behind a paywall.
Not necessarily. He just doesn't have a brain. He could still be a lawyer.
F*** off! I'm a Bastard plus.
Ok. I'll buy that it's legal. But is it a requirement by the law for companies to provide this data? Hiring over 100 people for surveillance, which could piss off customers, and provides no profit doesn't sound like a good business model, especially for a company on the verge of bankruptcy. Do you know if there is a legal benefit to do this? Because it doesn't make financial sense to me. Maybe it is because of decisions like this that they are not doing so well.
I would also add that this concept of secrecy has not been solved by software patents, but rather has become worse. Code is secret. Patents are so numerous and vague, that they are essentially secret. Like finding a needle in a haystack. Right in front of you, but obscured by a lot of crap. I would argue that byears ago, knowledge was not easily disseminated, and harder to share, so inventions had more value in preservation and documentation. Now, given the spread of knowledge, many people are constantly independently invent the same thing. The value of documenting and preserving inventions is just no longer there, because if the inventor doesn't document and describe it, you better believe many other shlubs on the internet will. And if that inventor didn't think of the idea, you better believe 50 other people already wrote about the same thing. If you want to make a law to save a business model, then fine. Go patents! Copyrights should be forever in that case too. But if you are looking to benefit society, I just don't see the purpose of patents any more.