I find certain features that are still missing from Linux (like system services), to be too much of a deal breaker for me to switch for my primary workstation.
System services? To what are you referring, exactly?
Fair enough. So where do we draw the line, because a human is also a cluster of cells.
Indeed, as was my point. Sheesh.
The criteria I put forward were:
Genetically human
A cluster skin cells or brain cells are human, is is the whole human organism
Alive
While the whole human is rather obviously alive, the skin or brain cells within the cluster may individually be alive, but arguably the whole is not an organism in and of itself (a failure of scope?). An embryo is also alive, as the cells are, and they also are the entire organism at its current stage of development.
easy answer to the whole where do we draw the line
P L A C E N T A
since the placenta is more or less a DMZ between the mother and baby (the baby's cells are used btw) that is where we draw the line
Interesting. Unfortunately, abortion would consist of killing the attached fetus, an invasion past the "DMZ" and hence a violation of the other side's rights. Also, why is attachment suddenly the differentiator? Is it a human after it attaches, but not before?!
[Note to slashdot: is the Definition List broken in your CSS?!
re-rereading my comment, I see your confusion. No, I was thinking more along the lines of child support and having to be there for children. Unfortunately, fathers can tecnically sire children and get off scot-free. I do not believe that this should be the case socially, unless abortion is allowed, in which case it becomes a thornier issue and I am heavily leaning towards it still being socially required. In fact, much more so, since in thinking about it, it should reduce male promiscuity (decreasing unwanted pregnancies), and it's not like the baby made itself, i.e. the man had a chance to make a decision to avoid having a child and still decided to go ahead with the procreative process anyway.
A cluster of skin cells or brain cells is living human tissue as well, but that doesn't qualify it as a human being.
Fair enough. So where do we draw the line, because a human is also a cluster of cells.
An embryo, or even a fetus in its early stages of development, does not possess any form of consciousness
Excellent. Now we're getting to some actual meat. Allow me to point out to immediately obvious objections: being unconscious, vegetative people are not people at all by your definition. Or at what point does consciousness count? Obviously, we're both conscious. Is a person unable to communicate with the outside world conscious, or non-human? Do we cease being human when we're knocked out or when we are just sleeping? How do you know how much consciousness a foetus does or does not possess? What is your metric?
You might as well say masturbation is mass murder because gametes have human DNA and demonstrate the characteristics of life as well.
Ah, but they don't. They have more or less half the full complement of DNA and do not reproduce in any stage of their cycle (save for the part where they form a zygote), hence do not have the full human gene complement, nor do they satisfy the criteria for life. So they are neither (individually) alive nor are they fully human.
And how is whether or not to bear a child not a medical decision that should be up to the woman?
If it can be shown to be a separate human life (which I currently belive to be the case) then it's obviously not solely up to the mother, no matter how inconvenient it may be. Nor may a mother kill her child once it's born.
Do you think a pregnancy has no effect on a woman's body?
Of course not. Are you daft, man?! Where did I claim such a thing?
An embryo/fetus is biologically attached to a woman,
So is any other parasite
s produced by her body
It most demonstrably is not, as women don't randomly get pregnant.
requires her body to sustain life
As does any other parasite
affects her health and vice-versa
As does any other parasite
You also forgot to mention that it should also necessarily affect the father's life as well, but somehow this often gets missed in the discussion. The father should be as integral a part of the baby's life as he was in her initiation. If not physically and emotionally there, then at least monetarily. IMHO, if fathers were forced to be more involved in things, I suspect that the unwanted baby problem would be much less of one.
how is it not a part of her
Because it's demonstably not, as discussed above.
Are the gametes living inside of you separate human beings also?
No, as discussed above.
Now, back to the question you attempted to side-step: How is the fetus the woman's body? It's certainly not genetically hers, nor would a worm living in her gut be considered her. You tried to turn it on its head, and now I've re-addressed your points (they were originally answered, no?) So, what are your criteria for claiming it to be a part of her body?
The fact that pro-lifers often equivocate abortion to murdering children
How is ending a pregancy by killing the fetus not the willful ending of a human life? It is definitely alive, and definitely human. What other attributes do you require for something to be considered human?
women who make a choice about what to do with their bodies
How is the fetus the woman's body? It's certainly not genetically hers, nor would a worm living in her gut be considered her.
Let's say that you come up with some novel, highly efficient form of the internal combustion engine. You put millions into research, mortgaged your house, everything. Without a patent, or equivalent legal means of protetion, some auto manufacturer could by 1 engine, tear it down, and due to the economies of scale begin producing it more cheaply than you almost immediately. So you've just pissed away years of effort and millions of dollars. That would be OK with you?
Nope. Particularly in the almost inevitible next step, where One or More Large Car Manufacturers sue you for patent infringement (because they have patents on the flanges, widgets, and doohickies that are necessary to build an engine nowadays. [What, you didn't hire a lawyer to look over your shoulder the entire time while reading each and every patent on engine technology (both past and newly submitted)?!] You're subsequently forced to cross-license your patent with theirs (or else face huge fines) and now you've lost all economic advantage that you might have had. On the other hand, now you're free to turn out a modern engine that other vendors can use, so if you can get your business running, you could sell engines to the car manufacturers, if they want your engines which are now exactly the same (if not less, since you don't have the other patents, just the ones you infringed on).
one of the huge problems with patents currently is that there are so many for so many common things that you're almost certain to infringe.
There is a reasonable expectation that you can download and install a single "package" of a program that will run on ANY 95/98/ME machine; or perhaps 95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP; or sometimes 2000/XP/2003. In most cases it will span an OS base of at least 5 years, often longer.
Do these installers not include copies of the library versions they need? IIRC, this was the source of DLL Hell.
According to this site, A4 envelopes are either C4 (folded in half) or DL (folded in thirds).
To print to an envelope, method 1:
Open a new Writer document
Format->Page
Click on the "Page" tab
Change the "Format" to "C4" or "DL" (if you want A4; #10 if you want US letter folded in thirds; there are other paper/envelope sizes available
You probably also want to set the page to "Landscape" mode
Click the "OK" button
Your envelope is now ready; type on it as you wish.
To print to an envelope, method 2 (or attach one to a document):
Open a new Writer document
Insert->Envelope
Click on the "Format" tab
As before, set the "Format" ("Size" sub-category) to the envelope type desired.
Click on the "Printer" tab and verify how your printer will be printing on the envelope
If desired, you can click on the "Envelope" tab to set sender/receiver addresse and you can even use the "Database" "Table" and "Field" lists to configure a list of addresses to print envelopes for. More information is available here and here (the second and first major results for a Google search for "a4 envelope openoffice" by the way)>
Click "New Doc" to create a new document consisting of your envelope, or "Insert" to insert it into an existing document
Enjoy!
(I understand that you're a troll and can't help but spread misinformation, but this is for those with an open mind who found your post "insightful".)
With free Linux, you get no guarantee wrt the future updates to the version you're using. It'll (generall) keep coming with security updates until the next version comes out. The reason you pay for Novell Linux Desktop or Red Hat or whatever is for guarantees to keep getting security and defect updates for a certain lifetime of the product.
In effect, you're paying for a warranty against defects for a certain period. You get something similar with Windows, except they can and do change the licensing agreement at any time (including notably with security/defect fixes!) and if you don't agree with it, you're out of luck.
No, Linux would be something for nothing. Windows is nothing for $200. Wait, that didn't come out quite right....
How about this: a warranty for Linux is something for nothing, and its lack is fine. A warranty for Windows is something for something, and its lack is kind of questionable.
I would argue that, even if legal (IANAL), fixing defects should not have an accompanying change in lease. E.g. you should not have to hope your radiator isn't going to quit and leave you stranded on the highway as opposed to paying $5/mo more.
Warranty isn't the same thing as EULA. A more enlightening comparison would likely be between security updates having a changed EULA and updating a rental agreement on your apartment if they fix a major (i.e. structurally compromising) crack in the wall that was there before you moved in.
Why the surprise? Slashdot in every copyright story posted has always argued that the digital domain. e.g software, music, etc falls under a different set of rules (from legal to economic)
Ignoring the fact that "Slashdot" includes a large number of opinions and not just one, and does not advocate just one, you raise an excellent point.
The basis of copyright is the idea that, while people can easily copy ideas, works of art, and software (particularly when in digital form, not just when it's digital), it's not in our collective interest to always do so. Thus, the government enforces a time-limited monopoly on the implementation of an idea, preventing its citezenry from exercising their natural rights in the hopes that the creators of idea implementations will find this good enough incentive to create more implementations of ideas. At is core, then, copyright is a tradeoff between our natural rights and the desire to have more art, literature, software, etc.
Copyright is entirely artifical--in the absence of copyright, anyone can copy anything at any time in any way they wish. This is possible because it's an idea, not a physical object. (If you could create matter without any energy or prior matter, then many things would have to be revisited.) As it stands, however, you cannot simply replicate a physical object--you must deprive someone else (if it has a prior owner) of that object (or, if matter compilers existed, then the precursors of creating that object). That is theft--obtaining an object by depriving someone else of that object. Breaching copyright--a time-limited monopoly on the specific implementation of an idea (as opposed to a patent, which is a time-limited monopoly on the idea itself--is categorically not theft, as the original author still possesses the original implementation.
So that gives you some background on why copyrighted idea implementations (here, software) is different from physical objects. Without knowing what specifically you believe "different set of rules" entails, I cannot be of more help with that side of things.
Now, given this context, what is the basis of believing that the software vendor isn't required to provide defect repairs (e.g. security updates) that fall outside of normal wear-and-tear (which obviously doesn't apply, since the defects have been present from the original creation of the software)?
This is an indicator that the company doesn't have a real product.
Not necessarily. I am interning for a Major Tech Company (they've been around a while, and most certainly do have products on the market), and my agreement with them states that they own all of my work, even if it's outside the office. Luckily, the state says basically what your company says--they can only own the stuff related to company projects or done with company resources, which I also find much more reasonable.
Without the state's requirement, I'd technically not be able to work on FOSS projects, nor would I be able to do much toward my dissertation beyond studying up for the comps this fall.
There seem to be a range of choices if I want Linux client OS, including Xen, VMWare, User-Mode Linux, etc., and some for BSD client OS, but is the VMWare server for Linux the only free choice if I want to support Windows clients?
At this level, it is because Microsoft VirtualPC doesn't support a Linux host, Xen requires modifications that (apparently) they can't legally use with a Windows client, UML is User Mode Linux (not Windows) and requires kernel-level modifications (obviously unavailable outside of Redmond, WA, USA), and Win4Lin has no free offering. (These are the only ones I'm familiar with) With Hypervisor, however, Xen no longer requires the legally-questionable mods, so there's hope for the future if you don't like VMWare. So, the answers seem to be: lack of support, lack of free, and lack of source.
Otherwise, there're technologies like Bochs, which emulate the actual chip, but are much slower.
Slashdot Mirror
System services? To what are you referring, exactly?
...and she's a tea drinker....
Indeed, as was my point. Sheesh.
The criteria I put forward were: Genetically human A cluster skin cells or brain cells are human, is is the whole human organism Alive While the whole human is rather obviously alive, the skin or brain cells within the cluster may individually be alive, but arguably the whole is not an organism in and of itself (a failure of scope?). An embryo is also alive, as the cells are, and they also are the entire organism at its current stage of development.Interesting. Unfortunately, abortion would consist of killing the attached fetus, an invasion past the "DMZ" and hence a violation of the other side's rights. Also, why is attachment suddenly the differentiator? Is it a human after it attaches, but not before?!
[Note to slashdot: is the Definition List broken in your CSS?!
re-rereading my comment, I see your confusion. No, I was thinking more along the lines of child support and having to be there for children. Unfortunately, fathers can tecnically sire children and get off scot-free. I do not believe that this should be the case socially, unless abortion is allowed, in which case it becomes a thornier issue and I am heavily leaning towards it still being socially required. In fact, much more so, since in thinking about it, it should reduce male promiscuity (decreasing unwanted pregnancies), and it's not like the baby made itself, i.e. the man had a chance to make a decision to avoid having a child and still decided to go ahead with the procreative process anyway.
How permanent of permanent? As evidenced by...?
Furthermore, the discussion wasn't permanent vegatative state but rather mere lack of consciousness.
Not at all what I was claiming, actually.
Fair enough. So where do we draw the line, because a human is also a cluster of cells.
Excellent. Now we're getting to some actual meat. Allow me to point out to immediately obvious objections: being unconscious, vegetative people are not people at all by your definition. Or at what point does consciousness count? Obviously, we're both conscious. Is a person unable to communicate with the outside world conscious, or non-human? Do we cease being human when we're knocked out or when we are just sleeping? How do you know how much consciousness a foetus does or does not possess? What is your metric?
Ah, but they don't. They have more or less half the full complement of DNA and do not reproduce in any stage of their cycle (save for the part where they form a zygote), hence do not have the full human gene complement, nor do they satisfy the criteria for life. So they are neither (individually) alive nor are they fully human.
If it can be shown to be a separate human life (which I currently belive to be the case) then it's obviously not solely up to the mother, no matter how inconvenient it may be. Nor may a mother kill her child once it's born.
Of course not. Are you daft, man?! Where did I claim such a thing?
So is any other parasite
It most demonstrably is not, as women don't randomly get pregnant.
As does any other parasite
As does any other parasite
You also forgot to mention that it should also necessarily affect the father's life as well , but somehow this often gets missed in the discussion. The father should be as integral a part of the baby's life as he was in her initiation. If not physically and emotionally there, then at least monetarily. IMHO, if fathers were forced to be more involved in things, I suspect that the unwanted baby problem would be much less of one.
Because it's demonstably not, as discussed above.
No, as discussed above.
Now, back to the question you attempted to side-step: How is the fetus the woman's body? It's certainly not genetically hers, nor would a worm living in her gut be considered her. You tried to turn it on its head, and now I've re-addressed your points (they were originally answered, no?) So, what are your criteria for claiming it to be a part of her body?
How is the fetus the woman's body? It's certainly not genetically hers, nor would a worm living in her gut be considered her.
Nope. Particularly in the almost inevitible next step, where One or More Large Car Manufacturers sue you for patent infringement (because they have patents on the flanges, widgets, and doohickies that are necessary to build an engine nowadays. [What, you didn't hire a lawyer to look over your shoulder the entire time while reading each and every patent on engine technology (both past and newly submitted)?!] You're subsequently forced to cross-license your patent with theirs (or else face huge fines) and now you've lost all economic advantage that you might have had. On the other hand, now you're free to turn out a modern engine that other vendors can use, so if you can get your business running, you could sell engines to the car manufacturers, if they want your engines which are now exactly the same (if not less, since you don't have the other patents, just the ones you infringed on).
one of the huge problems with patents currently is that there are so many for so many common things that you're almost certain to infringe.
Man, I was shocked when I totally failed my Purity Test. Turns out I didn't know it, but I'd been cut and cut and cut until I'm now 80% water!!
the real question is how many can uninstall IE?
According to this site, A4 envelopes are either C4 (folded in half) or DL (folded in thirds).
To print to an envelope, method 1:
To print to an envelope, method 2 (or attach one to a document):
(I understand that you're a troll and can't help but spread misinformation, but this is for those with an open mind who found your post "insightful".)
The better solution is...? [and links, please]
Dangit, I just realized something.
With free Linux, you get no guarantee wrt the future updates to the version you're using. It'll (generall) keep coming with security updates until the next version comes out. The reason you pay for Novell Linux Desktop or Red Hat or whatever is for guarantees to keep getting security and defect updates for a certain lifetime of the product.
In effect, you're paying for a warranty against defects for a certain period. You get something similar with Windows, except they can and do change the licensing agreement at any time (including notably with security/defect fixes!) and if you don't agree with it, you're out of luck.No, Linux would be something for nothing. Windows is nothing for $200. Wait, that didn't come out quite right....
How about this: a warranty for Linux is something for nothing, and its lack is fine. A warranty for Windows is something for something, and its lack is kind of questionable.
I would argue that, even if legal (IANAL), fixing defects should not have an accompanying change in lease. E.g. you should not have to hope your radiator isn't going to quit and leave you stranded on the highway as opposed to paying $5/mo more.
Warranty isn't the same thing as EULA. A more enlightening comparison would likely be between security updates having a changed EULA and updating a rental agreement on your apartment if they fix a major (i.e. structurally compromising) crack in the wall that was there before you moved in.
Ignoring the fact that "Slashdot" includes a large number of opinions and not just one, and does not advocate just one, you raise an excellent point.
The basis of copyright is the idea that, while people can easily copy ideas, works of art, and software (particularly when in digital form, not just when it's digital), it's not in our collective interest to always do so. Thus, the government enforces a time-limited monopoly on the implementation of an idea, preventing its citezenry from exercising their natural rights in the hopes that the creators of idea implementations will find this good enough incentive to create more implementations of ideas. At is core, then, copyright is a tradeoff between our natural rights and the desire to have more art, literature, software, etc.
Copyright is entirely artifical--in the absence of copyright, anyone can copy anything at any time in any way they wish. This is possible because it's an idea, not a physical object. (If you could create matter without any energy or prior matter, then many things would have to be revisited.) As it stands, however, you cannot simply replicate a physical object--you must deprive someone else (if it has a prior owner) of that object (or, if matter compilers existed, then the precursors of creating that object). That is theft--obtaining an object by depriving someone else of that object. Breaching copyright--a time-limited monopoly on the specific implementation of an idea (as opposed to a patent, which is a time-limited monopoly on the idea itself--is categorically not theft, as the original author still possesses the original implementation.
So that gives you some background on why copyrighted idea implementations (here, software) is different from physical objects. Without knowing what specifically you believe "different set of rules" entails, I cannot be of more help with that side of things.
Now, given this context, what is the basis of believing that the software vendor isn't required to provide defect repairs (e.g. security updates) that fall outside of normal wear-and-tear (which obviously doesn't apply, since the defects have been present from the original creation of the software)?
Just curious. Heard of AppArmor or SELinux?
Not necessarily. I am interning for a Major Tech Company (they've been around a while, and most certainly do have products on the market), and my agreement with them states that they own all of my work, even if it's outside the office. Luckily, the state says basically what your company says--they can only own the stuff related to company projects or done with company resources, which I also find much more reasonable.
Without the state's requirement, I'd technically not be able to work on FOSS projects, nor would I be able to do much toward my dissertation beyond studying up for the comps this fall.
At this level, it is because Microsoft VirtualPC doesn't support a Linux host, Xen requires modifications that (apparently) they can't legally use with a Windows client, UML is User Mode Linux (not Windows) and requires kernel-level modifications (obviously unavailable outside of Redmond, WA, USA), and Win4Lin has no free offering. (These are the only ones I'm familiar with) With Hypervisor, however, Xen no longer requires the legally-questionable mods, so there's hope for the future if you don't like VMWare. So, the answers seem to be: lack of support, lack of free, and lack of source.
Otherwise, there're technologies like Bochs, which emulate the actual chip, but are much slower.
Any word on Linux?