...a few dozen women died every year because some miniscule 0.1% of formerly-legal abortions had been rendered illegal...
Yeah, because a few dozen women would never die if abortions were legal.
Now that I've matched your inflammatory statement with my own, let's get back to what seems to be the issue: the theocratic leanings of this administration's supporters. Several times, posters on Slashdot will paint Pro-Lifers as religious people wanting to force their view on the world. Although there are many of them, not all Pro-Lifers advocate an end to contraceptive abortion for theological reasons. They have looked at the issue from a scientific view and can see that the embryo/fetus is a separate living organism from the human female. It is also scientifically proven that this embryo/fetus is human, too.
Many Pro-Choicers feel comfortable making value judgments on other human's lives, despite that being a throwback to many of the dark times in human history. (Nazi's "master race" ideals, slave owners' views that black people weren't really human, etc.) Objectively, though, Pro-Choicers have little justifications for keeping abortion legal.
The argument that pregnant women will harm themselves by seeking illegal abortions holds as much water as saying that "no trespassing" signs & high fences harm trespassers because those would-be trespassers can fall while climbing over the high fences. Advocating killing the embryo/fetus (a human being) to guard against the harm the mother (another human being) might do to herself is a trade off of evils. Instead, women need equality and the power in their relationships to keep from being `stuck` with a pregnancy to begin with.
Not if you download them from Microsoft! That's perfectly legal.
Though, actually I just copy mine from my windows partition. Also legal, AFAIK.
I asumme that you mean "download Windows Media Player" from Microsoft, and extract the CoDec DLLs from it. Would you please list which DLLs you get from this download, and where you put them on your GNU/Linux machine for your media plyaer to use? Thanks.
Valid point. I should have written "human person", which has the proper legal and ethical overtones.
That's OK. My comment was really directed more to the other replies to your e-mail. I suspected many of them would argue that one's religious belief/practices shouldn't be forced upon another. (A stance I agree with.)
Many of those same people, however, will argue that since society cannot agree that an embryo or fetus is a person, there should therefore be no restrictions. What they forget is that they are making just as much as a subjective judgment that shouldn't be forced upon others, either. At least when Pro-Lifers say using embryonic stem cells kills a human being, they are scientifically/medically correct.
The debate then properly becomes "should society judge the worth of individual human beings?" and, if so, "at what level of benefit (to us) should we approve the killing of innocent human beings?"
If embryos are considered human beings, which at least according to statistics of religious affiliation...
"Consideration" and "belief" shouldn't enter into the discussion. It is an objective fact that embryos are human beings. One needs only look at the embryo's genetic make up.
Deciding if embryos are human or not via statistics of beliefs or opinion polls of the populace is subjective to the whims of the day. It is like 1850's United States southern farmers `deciding` if blacks were people or 1930's German citizens `deciding` if non-Aryan peoples were sub-human.
So while it isn't true that you have no obligation to help feed the children, it is evolutionarily advantageous.
Shotgun never said in his/her comment that it wasn't his/her obligation to help feed the children. He/She rightfully pointed out that it wasn't the Federal United States government's obligation. He/She also rightfully pointed out that feeding children is primarily the responsibility of (those children's) parents. Of course, if those parents are unable to fulfill their responsibility, then help should come from the city, county, or perhaps the state.
Shotgun doesn't want the children to starve -- he/she just wants local problems to be solved on a local level. It is all about limiting the power to `fix` a problem to those closest to the situation.
Do you really think it is a "crackpot" idea to disallow the intentional creation of human life for experimentation & use by other humans? Have you no concept of human rights?
Is that the final nail? I am still working with W2K - and I see no reason to upgrade.
I felt the same way, but it appears Windows 2000 users still have 2 more years of security updates.
W2k is leaving the "mainstream support" on June 30, 2005 and entering "extended support". According to question #17 of Microsoft Support Lilfecycle Policy FAQ:
Security updates will be available through the end of the extended support phase (five years mainstream phase plus five years extended support phase) at no additional cost for most products. Security updates will be posted on the Windows Update Web site during the mainstream support phase, and during the first two years of extended support. In the final three years of the extended support period, Microsoft will continue to post important and critical security updates on the Microsoft Download Center Web site.
The caveat is that the above is for "Business and Development software" and not for "Consumer, Hardware, Multimedia, and Business Solutions products". I would assume W2k is business software, but I'm not 100% sure.
Speaking of the "web of trust" concept - I've always
viewed it as trusting keys that you've personally verified with the
owner, trickling out slowly as networks grow.
PGP uses the word "trust" to mean two different things, which has
caused me (and I suspect others) some confusion. The first
definition is "trusting" that they public key you received is actually
the public key of the person whom you wish to communicate with.
I've seen this type of trust referred to as the key's
verification/validation, as in
"Yes, this has been verified as being Alice's public key" or "This is
Alice's valid public key." Although I don't think
"verified/validate" is the best way to describe this, but I think it is
better
that
"trust" since that gets confused with the second definition.
A key's verification/validity is marked by you digitally signing it
(with your
private key).
The second definition of "trust" is in how much you trust another
person to declare third person keys as being valid. How much do
you "trust" someone else to verify another's public key? "Alice
has signed Bob's public key. I know Alice is very security conscious, and is
adamant about personally verifying key fingerprints before she will
digitally sign a key. I trust her, so if she says this is Bob's
key, it must be!"
The amount of trust one can hold in a person's key can vary between
"not at all" to trusting it as much as their own private key.
When I submitted my key to this story's server, though,
I got a message at the end telling me to trust the server's
verification key, and thus all keys verified by the server.
I don't really have a good concept of how this stuff works, so I'm
wondering - is that a good (safe) idea?
If what you wrote is true, then no, it is not a good/safe
idea. In fact, I'm very surprised that the PGP people would post
such a message.
After reading the PGP
Global Directory description and the Key
Verification Policy, it is clear PGP Corporation is not
verifying/validating who the people are behind the e-mails.
("...PGP Global Directory allows users to manage lost keys...")
For example, I can setup the e-mail address "LinusT@hotmail.com",
create a PGP keypair with that e-mail address and "Linus Torvalds" in
it, and send it to the server. Although the server will verify
that that e-mail address is the owner of the key, it does not verify I
am really Linus Torvalds.
Since no true verification/validation is going on, it would be
inappropriate to "trust" the server keys as having verifying/validating
all those user keys. I am very surprised, especially in light of
that Key Verification Policy, that the server would give you that
message after you submitted your key.
>Our genetic make-up, even at the embryonic stage
clearly mark us as human.
Yes, but so what? Every single cell in my body is also human.
Yes, but every single cell in your body is not a human being.
Those are cells from a human, not in and of themselves a human
being. A fetus, embryo or zygote is a separate human --
genetically different than the mother who is carrying it
(him/her). If we as a society truly believe in human rights, then
we must truly act that way.
Maybe you'll say that those cells will
never become a full-grown person, but there is no reason to think that
human cloning won't be accomplished soon.
Person-hood does not matter. Again, this is about human
rights, not person rights. Also, the future ability to bring
about another human being through cloning does not negate the humanity
of the cloned being. Human beings deserve human rights.
Maybe you'll say something
about the unique genetic makeup of those cells, but cancer cells are
also unique.
I am not educated enough about cancer cells to speak about
that. However, if you are implying that since the cancer cells
are uniquely different than the human being they are growing in, I
don't see how that advances an argument. The cancerous cells are
not another human being; the natural course of cancer is to kill the
human being it is growing in. I am unaware of any untreated
cancer ever resulting in the production of a new human being.
Face it, the only thing that makes human cells any more
valuable than
other animals is their ability to support our level of consciousness,
and no single cell can do anything like that.
To judge the value of human beings on the amount of consciousness
one can support is a dangerous one. I believe pre- and postnatal
specialists have studied newborns' brains and determined that they have
little capability
for conscious thought or self-awareness. Surely you wouldn't
advocate killing newborns, yet your criteria would certainly allow
it. (As it would also allow some humans with brain damage or
senior citizens with extreme cases of mental deficiencies.)
Even so, judging one's level of consciousness is a tricky
act. How does one measure it? Brain wave activity?
What happens 10 years from now when better equipment is invented and we
discover that all the humans we were killing because we thought they
had no brain activity really just had brain activity below the
threshold of the old equipment?
I fear that many would just shrug their shoulders and say,
"Well, we didn't care about them anyway." Not caring is the same
thing that has happened to other humans (Jews, homosexuals, blacks,
mentally-retarded or the disabled) throughout history.
Human beings are human at each stage of development, and all
humans deserve human rights.
you may as well regress to egg/sperm, proteins, atoms,
protons/electrons, quarks, & strings. They all have the potential
for life, so don't move or you might disturb them.
I'm not sure if you are meaning this as a whimsical joke or if you
are serious. Surely you know the difference between an living,
human infant and things like protons/electrons.
Human beings at each stage of development are genetically unique
beings separate from their mother & father. This is not true
of the ovum or sperm. "Potential" for life has nothing to do with
it.
There is no question, however, whether the human fetus,
embryo or zygote is alive. (One may make theological and or
philosophical arguments whether that human being is a "person" or "has
a soul", but I choose to rely on reason. Arguing about "person
hood" is just a rehash of the U.S. Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision.)
It's nice to know that for all it's faults (lol! I made
a pun), California is still using it's brains on this. Stupid neo-cons.
California is in debt up to their eyeballs, and they approve
spending $3 billion just for the pleasure of waving their political
middle finger to those who value all human life. You must have a
different definition of "using it's brains" [sic] than I do.:-)
I'd argue an embryo becomes a human when a recognizable brain forms, and detectable brain activity occurs.
The problem with that suggestion is that the definition of "human" becomes subjective. As our ability to detect brainwaves and brain formation changes, so also does who is labeled "human" or not.
This is the same problem with the old practice of saying the human was alive at quickening -- i.e. when the movement of the fetus could be felt. Science definitely shows the signs of life long before that stage.
Prior to that point, the embryo is a clump of cells indistinguishable from any other mamal's embryo. Humans are still animals- the only thing separating us is brain functionality/capability.
You are incorrect about the cells being indistinguishable from other mammals' cells. Our genetic make-up, even at the embryonic stage clearly mark us as human. Supporters of human rights must defend those rights at all stages of human development: zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, child, adolescent, adult and senior citizen. Anything less smacks of eugenics, which your comment about separating humans via "brain functionaility" [sic] hints at.
Think about that. It is impossible, by our current knowledge of physics, to count up to nothing more than a 256-digit number...
Want something that will really blow your mind? Think about this: your computer monitor can display anything someone can take a picture of with a digital camera. Anything that is visible, can have its picture taken and thus can be displayed in your 1024x768 32-bit color monitor.
Now, one would normally think that there is an infinite number of possible pictures that one can take in our universe. Heck, just using a paper clip on a table could result in thousands of unique pictures considering the different angles, lighting, etc. Every situation, every person, place or thing you see during your lifetime could have its picture taken and displayed on that monitor! The near-infinite amount of photos that could be displayed on your computer monitor would encompass every visible event from the past, things going on right now, and events in the future. Some of these photos would be real, most would not be.
Above, I assume our computer monitor is 1024x768 & 32-bit color. To see all these pictures -- here & now, in the future on Mars, in a pretend past where Julius Caesar isn't murdered -- all one needs to do is program their computer to serially go through every pixel & color combination. Although it would take a very, very, very long time, eventually every pixel & color combination will be shown, thus showing everything that can ever be seen. A photograph of everything that could ever be seen, and even many situations that didn't/won't happen will be shown on that computer monitor. EVERYTHING.
Of course, many more times that in just random pixels & colors will be shown, too.
Not wanting to register to read the New York Times editorial, I searched on Google to see what I could find. I was surprised to find many news articles about how this is a real issue withing the League Of Women Voters. [google.com]
You're wrong. The farmer knew he was saving seed and replanting roundup-ready Monsanto Canola. It's NOT a question of simple cross-pollination and innocent intent. Try reading the fucking decision, granola-eater. It's right here At Lexum
Thanks for providing that link. I read it, and the details of what happen appear to be halfway down the page at paragraphs 59 through 67. After reading that, I see a little behind the Mr. Schmeiser's (the defendent's) intent, but not all of it.
It appears that Mr. Schmeiser's 1997 crop may have been polluted by Monsanto's patented Canola. After he sprayed a patch of his crop with the Roundup herbacide, approimately 60% lived on. He then did what farmers have been doing since intelligent farming began: he took the best of his 1997 crop and saved it for future planting.
Monsanto tested plants growing in public road allowances bordering Mr. Schmeiser's fields in 1997. In March of 1998 Monsanto told Mr. Schmeiser that they thought he was was growing their patented plants. Despite this notice, Mr. Schmeiser still used the seed he had saved from his 1997 crop in his 1998 planting. Those fields, when tested by independent authorities, were shown to be 95% to 98% "Roundup resistent". (I bothers me that the the decision uses that term instead of "contains the Monsanto-patented gene". It pre-supposes [maybe rightfully, I don't know] that this resistence could not possibly come from a different gene or natural process.)
Now, you speak of "innocent intent". Even assuming Monsanto offered to compensate Mr. Schmeiser for polluting his 1997 crop, what kind of a position would that have put him in if he accepted it? He would be setting the precident of having Monsanto approving or disapproving of his seed he harvested from his land. One could reasonably assume that if this pollution occured in 1997, it may very well occur in future years. Would Monsanto compensate him each year this happened? Or, would they eventually say they don't care if he cannot use his own crop the way he sees fit, and he'll just have to sue them for compensation.
That is assuming, of course, Monsanto offered to compensate him in 1997 for polluting his crop. If they did not, can you blame him for telling them to bugger off? If they cannot keep their seed/pollen on the land of the farmers to whom they sold their seed, I think it is tough. That's part of the problem with patenting genes & lifeforms compared to physical inventions: life finds a way to spread, whereas a better mouse trap doesn't replicate itself.
IshanCaspian wrote: This is no different [...] having an email program that alerts the department of homeland security
totatis wrote: Actually, it is VERY VERY different. This piece of code won't alert anyone. It won't phone home.
True, but do you find an e-mail program that automatically censors 'bad thoughts' any better? Although they say the anti-counterfeiting plug-in doesn't phone-home (and I believe them), do you think it will always be that way?
However, if you remove this piece of software AND if you print counterfeit money, then it's perfectly clear that you WANTED to counterfeit, and you'll go to jail. This piece of software is here to prevent "accidental" counterfeiting.
"Accidental" counterfitting? Oh, please! Maybe the government ought to require speed regulators in all our cars to prevent "accidental" speeding.
I do not think a person's property -- which they bought & paid for -- should be crippled at the request or demand of government based on what they might do with it. Although Section 474 may be applicable, I often see the phrase "intent to defraud" used in the U.S. Code dealing with counterfeiting. Thus, many of those codes do not apply to a person who does not try to pass their work (or another's) off as real money. Hence, your example of a party guest taking their party invitation that was made to look somewhat like a $5 bill would be the guilty one, since he/she tried to defraud another.
Now, I admit that making items that were really good replicas of currency -- even if one never intends to pass them off as real money -- is not the smartest thing to do. But, I find it offensive that so many people want big-brother to make these decisions for them by (for now) requesting or (later) demanding such limits be put upon them.
Although the Windows 2000 runas command is a step in the right direction, it is a far cry from the ease of "su - root" and "sudo...". Take, for instance, if I want to change the IP address in Windows 2000, but I'm logged on as a non-admin user. To do this, I have to kill my user's explorer.exe process before starting up a new one (by typing it into Task Manager's "Create New Task" dialog box) as the administrator. Only then can I get to the Network Properties in the Control Panel with the privledges necessary to change the IP address.
The applause you heard when he said "the PATRIOT act is due to expire soon" was not coming from the pro-Bush side of the room.
I was amused (in a sad way) with what happened immediately after that. The Pro-Patriot Act supporters must have been seething over the usurping of attention. Something had to be done! They have to show their support! President Bush continued with his speech, "The terrorist threat
will not expire on that schedule." And, without thinking, the Patriot
Act supporters applauded.
Yes, that's right. They applauded that the terrorist threat will not go away! They cheered that U.S. citizens' lives would continue
to be in danger! They celebrated that there were still those out to harm us!
That is the same kind of knee-jerk, 'gotta do something' mindset that got us the Patriot Act in the first place.
In case you're interested in verifying the above, read President Bush's State Of The Union speech. I'm
slightly surprised that the publisher has noted the applause at both the points mentioned above. I thought they might have 'edited' that out to avoid embarrasment to the administration. I'm glad I'm wrong on that count.
Congress adopted the DMCA......without [the DMCA's] protection, American companies would unfairly lose technology advantages to companies in other countries through piracy...
I know many people joke about how U.S. laws are being applied outside its jurisdiction, but it appears that Mr. McBride actually believes it! How does a U.S. law stop (for example) Chinese citizens from doing something in China?! The only thing it could do would be to stop the importation of certain goods (like region-free DVD players). There is no technological advantages 'lost', though, and definately not from 'piracy'.
What is new about this? I thought Microsoft long ago told the OEMs that they could no longer include full-blown Windows CDs with the computer. Instead, OEMs could only include a "restoration" CD that restored the computer to its original configuration. In fact, I think/. had an article about it when it 1st happened.
I cannot find it in the/. archives, but here is an InfoWorld column about it.
Something I've wondered about the benchmark EULA clauses is how effective they are. The worst that can happen is that they revoke your 'license' to use that particular copy of the product.
So, let's say I go out and buy Microsoft Doodad 5.5 and it has that "no publishing benchmarks" in its EULA. Well, I've not violated that clause until I publish my benchmarks. Thus, on the day of publication, I am no longer allowed to use the Microsoft Doodad 5.5 I purchased.
So what? I guess I'm 'legally' obligated to chuck the CD and manuals into the landfill. That doesn't matter to me, as I got what I really wanted: the publication of my benchmarks. If I really wanted to keep using Microsoft Doodad 5.5, I just go out and buy another boxed set, which comes with another license (which I don't violoate).
Unless Microsoft Doodad 5.5's EULA says they can sue me for those benchmarks, all I'm loosing is the 'priveledge' of using their software. (I would argue that I only loose the 'priveledge' of using that copy of the software I purchased; I still can go out, purchase another copy, and use that.)
The problem is that many of these issues are not fixed in the 1.3 JVM...
Yes, that is a shame, as version 1.3.1 is the only version I feel comfortable using in a production system. The standard edition of their Java 2 runtime environment 1.4 and above have some Microsoft-esque terms in their license agreement that allows the runtime environment to automatically update itself. That's the last thing I need on a tested, configuration management approved system -- having the software decide by itself that it "needs updating".
I haven't checked to see if the other editions of their 1.4 J2RE have the same terms. The funny thing is that in my e-mails with Sun, they see no problem with these license terms!
Hi there. I never checked back last week to see if my post was responded to, and tonight I see that it was. You wrote a very well reasoned reply, and I am sorry I didn't notice it sooner.
Since the national government was more of a loose federation of states at that point, I would lean away from Point #1 (as their original intent). And since the Constitution and Bill of Rights were meant to be more explicit rather than flowery language (barring a few places), I would lean away from the third interpretation.
Those are intelligent thoughts. I would pose these two questions, though:
The rest of the Bill of Rights outline rights that the populace as a whole, have. What evidence supports the theory that the framers broke that pattern and intended the 2nd Amendment to only apply to the subset of the populace in the state militia?
The Constitution and its amendments are the supreme law of the land. States can pass laws, but if they run afoul of the U.S. Constitution, then they are null & void. If the intent was to tell "each individual state to keep a militia", then why isn't that spelled out? The way the founders left it, a state could disband its militia and that would be totally constitutional. They couldn't, however, restrict the citizens from keeping & bearing arms. (But they still do.)
Please don't misundertand me, I don't think the only interpretation of "free state" is #3 in your list. I tend to think of the founders meaning it broadly to mean the United States being free from other nations, the states being free from civil unrest and individuals being free from tyranny.
(By the way, I looked up the National Guard FAQ that you wrote about in your comment. All I could find was this small blurb that mentions the authority for the creation of the Guard. Their use of the 2nd Amendment does not exclude citizens from owning firearms. There can be both a militia [National Guard] and citizens who keep and bare arms. The two are not exclusive in my mind.)
In light of these real-world interpretations of other amendments, why do many members/supporters of the NRA (*cough*AshcroftnBush*cough*) feel that the second amendment should have no limitations whatsoever?
Well, I don't believe the NRA advocates the idea that each citizen has a right to keep bazookas and anti-aircraft missles.:-) The limitations I see them fighting (and I support them in this) is gun registrations and incremental encroachments on the types of guns we can keep.
I support them in fighting gun registrations because history has shown that gun registrations are usually a prelude to gun confiscation. (See Canada, the United Kingdom, South Africa, California and New York.) I also support them in stopping the gradual encroachment on the types of guns we can own because there are many like you, who if they had their wish, "all guns would vanish tomorrow." (They don't have the where-with-all to admit it, though, like you do. They would use small bans to advance that agenda and settle for banning hand guns here, semi-automatic rifles there, until they reach their goal.) There is no good reason for law abiding citizens to be barred from having hand guns or semi-automatic rifles. (The only reasons I've ever heard boil down to what amounts to emotional security of those who have little experience with guns or the belief that citizens have no responsibility to protect themselves [i.e. it is the exclusive power of the government to protect the individual].)
The NRA does support keeping felons from owning/possessing firearms, which would be a "real-word interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment, no? See the NRA FAQ for what their views are. I appreciate you honestly sharing your views in such a well-reasoned manner. Again, I apologize for not seeing your comment for over a week. Take care.
I think you and I disagree on the meaning of "free state". I believe you are interpretting it to mean other coutries invading the United States. I do not believe that is the sole (or even primary) meaning the U.S. founding fathers had. I believe that they mainly used "free state" to refer to the state of the citizens -- i.e. if a government became tyrannical enough, the citizens must be able to revolt. (Consider this in the light of them just finishing a war with their former British government.)
I do not believe I am advocating an absurdly strict reading of the Constitution. (I agree with you that an absurd strict reading would be like the "900 years of copyright meets the 'limited time' cluase".)
It appears to me that some, who may have valid reasons, would rather ignore the plain reading of the U.S. Constitution and invent alternative interpretations that better fit their idealogy. If the U.S. constitution doesn't fit the way we want our nation to be, then change it -- don't ignore it or misrepresent it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because a few dozen women would never die if abortions were legal.
Now that I've matched your inflammatory statement with my own, let's get back to what seems to be the issue: the theocratic leanings of this administration's supporters. Several times, posters on Slashdot will paint Pro-Lifers as religious people wanting to force their view on the world. Although there are many of them, not all Pro-Lifers advocate an end to contraceptive abortion for theological reasons. They have looked at the issue from a scientific view and can see that the embryo/fetus is a separate living organism from the human female. It is also scientifically proven that this embryo/fetus is human, too.
Many Pro-Choicers feel comfortable making value judgments on other human's lives, despite that being a throwback to many of the dark times in human history. (Nazi's "master race" ideals, slave owners' views that black people weren't really human, etc.) Objectively, though, Pro-Choicers have little justifications for keeping abortion legal.
The argument that pregnant women will harm themselves by seeking illegal abortions holds as much water as saying that "no trespassing" signs & high fences harm trespassers because those would-be trespassers can fall while climbing over the high fences. Advocating killing the embryo/fetus (a human being) to guard against the harm the mother (another human being) might do to herself is a trade off of evils. Instead, women need equality and the power in their relationships to keep from being `stuck` with a pregnancy to begin with.
I asumme that you mean "download Windows Media Player" from Microsoft, and extract the CoDec DLLs from it. Would you please list which DLLs you get from this download, and where you put them on your GNU/Linux machine for your media plyaer to use? Thanks.
That's OK. My comment was really directed more to the other replies to your e-mail. I suspected many of them would argue that one's religious belief/practices shouldn't be forced upon another. (A stance I agree with.)
Many of those same people, however, will argue that since society cannot agree that an embryo or fetus is a person, there should therefore be no restrictions. What they forget is that they are making just as much as a subjective judgment that shouldn't be forced upon others, either. At least when Pro-Lifers say using embryonic stem cells kills a human being, they are scientifically/medically correct.
The debate then properly becomes "should society judge the worth of individual human beings?" and, if so, "at what level of benefit (to us) should we approve the killing of innocent human beings?"
"Consideration" and "belief" shouldn't enter into the discussion. It is an objective fact that embryos are human beings. One needs only look at the embryo's genetic make up.
Deciding if embryos are human or not via statistics of beliefs or opinion polls of the populace is subjective to the whims of the day. It is like 1850's United States southern farmers `deciding` if blacks were people or 1930's German citizens `deciding` if non-Aryan peoples were sub-human.
Shotgun never said in his/her comment that it wasn't his/her obligation to help feed the children. He/She rightfully pointed out that it wasn't the Federal United States government's obligation. He/She also rightfully pointed out that feeding children is primarily the responsibility of (those children's) parents. Of course, if those parents are unable to fulfill their responsibility, then help should come from the city, county, or perhaps the state.
Shotgun doesn't want the children to starve -- he/she just wants local problems to be solved on a local level. It is all about limiting the power to `fix` a problem to those closest to the situation.
Do you really think it is a "crackpot" idea to disallow the intentional creation of human life for experimentation & use by other humans? Have you no concept of human rights?
I felt the same way, but it appears Windows 2000 users still have 2 more years of security updates.
W2k is leaving the "mainstream support" on June 30, 2005 and entering "extended support". According to question #17 of Microsoft Support Lilfecycle Policy FAQ:
The caveat is that the above is for "Business and Development software" and not for "Consumer, Hardware, Multimedia, and Business Solutions products". I would assume W2k is business software, but I'm not 100% sure.
PGP uses the word "trust" to mean two different things, which has caused me (and I suspect others) some confusion. The first definition is "trusting" that they public key you received is actually the public key of the person whom you wish to communicate with. I've seen this type of trust referred to as the key's verification/validation, as in "Yes, this has been verified as being Alice's public key" or "This is Alice's valid public key." Although I don't think "verified/validate" is the best way to describe this, but I think it is better that "trust" since that gets confused with the second definition.
A key's verification/validity is marked by you digitally signing it (with your private key).
The second definition of "trust" is in how much you trust another person to declare third person keys as being valid. How much do you "trust" someone else to verify another's public key? "Alice has signed Bob's public key. I know Alice is very security conscious, and is adamant about personally verifying key fingerprints before she will digitally sign a key. I trust her, so if she says this is Bob's key, it must be!"
The amount of trust one can hold in a person's key can vary between "not at all" to trusting it as much as their own private key.
If what you wrote is true, then no, it is not a good/safe idea. In fact, I'm very surprised that the PGP people would post such a message.
After reading the PGP Global Directory description and the Key Verification Policy, it is clear PGP Corporation is not verifying/validating who the people are behind the e-mails. ("...PGP Global Directory allows users to manage lost keys...") For example, I can setup the e-mail address "LinusT@hotmail.com", create a PGP keypair with that e-mail address and "Linus Torvalds" in it, and send it to the server. Although the server will verify that that e-mail address is the owner of the key, it does not verify I am really Linus Torvalds.
Since no true verification/validation is going on, it would be inappropriate to "trust" the server keys as having verifying/validating all those user keys. I am very surprised, especially in light of that Key Verification Policy, that the server would give you that message after you submitted your key.
Yes, but every single cell in your body is not a human being. Those are cells from a human, not in and of themselves a human being. A fetus, embryo or zygote is a separate human -- genetically different than the mother who is carrying it (him/her). If we as a society truly believe in human rights, then we must truly act that way.
Person-hood does not matter. Again, this is about human rights, not person rights. Also, the future ability to bring about another human being through cloning does not negate the humanity of the cloned being. Human beings deserve human rights.
I am not educated enough about cancer cells to speak about that. However, if you are implying that since the cancer cells are uniquely different than the human being they are growing in, I don't see how that advances an argument. The cancerous cells are not another human being; the natural course of cancer is to kill the human being it is growing in. I am unaware of any untreated cancer ever resulting in the production of a new human being.
To judge the value of human beings on the amount of consciousness one can support is a dangerous one. I believe pre- and postnatal specialists have studied newborns' brains and determined that they have little capability for conscious thought or self-awareness. Surely you wouldn't advocate killing newborns, yet your criteria would certainly allow it. (As it would also allow some humans with brain damage or senior citizens with extreme cases of mental deficiencies.)
Even so, judging one's level of consciousness is a tricky act. How does one measure it? Brain wave activity? What happens 10 years from now when better equipment is invented and we discover that all the humans we were killing because we thought they had no brain activity really just had brain activity below the threshold of the old equipment?
I fear that many would just shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, we didn't care about them anyway." Not caring is the same thing that has happened to other humans (Jews, homosexuals, blacks, mentally-retarded or the disabled) throughout history.
Human beings are human at each stage of development, and all humans deserve human rights.
I'm not sure if you are meaning this as a whimsical joke or if you are serious. Surely you know the difference between an living, human infant and things like protons/electrons.
Human beings at each stage of development are genetically unique beings separate from their mother & father. This is not true of the ovum or sperm. "Potential" for life has nothing to do with it.
There is no question, however, whether the human fetus, embryo or zygote is alive. (One may make theological and or philosophical arguments whether that human being is a "person" or "has a soul", but I choose to rely on reason. Arguing about "person hood" is just a rehash of the U.S. Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision.)
California is in debt up to their eyeballs, and they approve spending $3 billion just for the pleasure of waving their political middle finger to those who value all human life. You must have a different definition of "using it's brains" [sic] than I do. :-)
The problem with that suggestion is that the definition of "human" becomes subjective. As our ability to detect brainwaves and brain formation changes, so also does who is labeled "human" or not.
This is the same problem with the old practice of saying the human was alive at quickening -- i.e. when the movement of the fetus could be felt. Science definitely shows the signs of life long before that stage.
You are incorrect about the cells being indistinguishable from other mammals' cells. Our genetic make-up, even at the embryonic stage clearly mark us as human. Supporters of human rights must defend those rights at all stages of human development: zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, child, adolescent, adult and senior citizen. Anything less smacks of eugenics, which your comment about separating humans via "brain functionaility" [sic] hints at.
Want something that will really blow your mind? Think about this: your computer monitor can display anything someone can take a picture of with a digital camera. Anything that is visible, can have its picture taken and thus can be displayed in your 1024x768 32-bit color monitor.
Now, one would normally think that there is an infinite number of possible pictures that one can take in our universe. Heck, just using a paper clip on a table could result in thousands of unique pictures considering the different angles, lighting, etc. Every situation, every person, place or thing you see during your lifetime could have its picture taken and displayed on that monitor! The near-infinite amount of photos that could be displayed on your computer monitor would encompass every visible event from the past, things going on right now, and events in the future. Some of these photos would be real, most would not be.
Above, I assume our computer monitor is 1024x768 & 32-bit color. To see all these pictures -- here & now, in the future on Mars, in a pretend past where Julius Caesar isn't murdered -- all one needs to do is program their computer to serially go through every pixel & color combination. Although it would take a very, very, very long time, eventually every pixel & color combination will be shown, thus showing everything that can ever be seen. A photograph of everything that could ever be seen, and even many situations that didn't/won't happen will be shown on that computer monitor. EVERYTHING.
Of course, many more times that in just random pixels & colors will be shown, too.
Not wanting to register to read the New York Times editorial, I searched on Google to see what I could find. I was surprised to find many news articles about how this is a real issue withing the League Of Women Voters. [google.com]
sudog, in message #9220976, wrote:
Thanks for providing that link. I read it, and the details of what happen appear to be halfway down the page at paragraphs 59 through 67. After reading that, I see a little behind the Mr. Schmeiser's (the defendent's) intent, but not all of it.
It appears that Mr. Schmeiser's 1997 crop may have been polluted by Monsanto's patented Canola. After he sprayed a patch of his crop with the Roundup herbacide, approimately 60% lived on. He then did what farmers have been doing since intelligent farming began: he took the best of his 1997 crop and saved it for future planting.
Monsanto tested plants growing in public road allowances bordering Mr. Schmeiser's fields in 1997. In March of 1998 Monsanto told Mr. Schmeiser that they thought he was was growing their patented plants. Despite this notice, Mr. Schmeiser still used the seed he had saved from his 1997 crop in his 1998 planting. Those fields, when tested by independent authorities, were shown to be 95% to 98% "Roundup resistent". (I bothers me that the the decision uses that term instead of "contains the Monsanto-patented gene". It pre-supposes [maybe rightfully, I don't know] that this resistence could not possibly come from a different gene or natural process.)
Now, you speak of "innocent intent". Even assuming Monsanto offered to compensate Mr. Schmeiser for polluting his 1997 crop, what kind of a position would that have put him in if he accepted it? He would be setting the precident of having Monsanto approving or disapproving of his seed he harvested from his land. One could reasonably assume that if this pollution occured in 1997, it may very well occur in future years. Would Monsanto compensate him each year this happened? Or, would they eventually say they don't care if he cannot use his own crop the way he sees fit, and he'll just have to sue them for compensation.
That is assuming, of course, Monsanto offered to compensate him in 1997 for polluting his crop. If they did not, can you blame him for telling them to bugger off? If they cannot keep their seed/pollen on the land of the farmers to whom they sold their seed, I think it is tough. That's part of the problem with patenting genes & lifeforms compared to physical inventions: life finds a way to spread, whereas a better mouse trap doesn't replicate itself.
I do not think a person's property -- which they bought & paid for -- should be crippled at the request or demand of government based on what they might do with it. Although Section 474 may be applicable, I often see the phrase "intent to defraud" used in the U.S. Code dealing with counterfeiting. Thus, many of those codes do not apply to a person who does not try to pass their work (or another's) off as real money. Hence, your example of a party guest taking their party invitation that was made to look somewhat like a $5 bill would be the guilty one, since he/she tried to defraud another.
Now, I admit that making items that were really good replicas of currency -- even if one never intends to pass them off as real money -- is not the smartest thing to do. But, I find it offensive that so many people want big-brother to make these decisions for them by (for now) requesting or (later) demanding such limits be put upon them.
Although the Windows 2000 runas command is a step in the right direction, it is a far cry from the ease of "su - root" and "sudo ...". Take, for instance, if I want to change the IP address in Windows 2000, but I'm logged on as a non-admin user. To do this, I have to kill my user's explorer.exe process before starting up a new one (by typing it into Task Manager's "Create New Task" dialog box) as the administrator. Only then can I get to the Network Properties in the Control Panel with the privledges necessary to change the IP address.
I was amused (in a sad way) with what happened immediately after that. The Pro-Patriot Act supporters must have been seething over the usurping of attention. Something had to be done! They have to show their support! President Bush continued with his speech, "The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule." And, without thinking, the Patriot Act supporters applauded.
Yes, that's right. They applauded that the terrorist threat will not go away! They cheered that U.S. citizens' lives would continue to be in danger! They celebrated that there were still those out to harm us!
That is the same kind of knee-jerk, 'gotta do something' mindset that got us the Patriot Act in the first place.
In case you're interested in verifying the above, read President Bush's State Of The Union speech. I'm slightly surprised that the publisher has noted the applause at both the points mentioned above. I thought they might have 'edited' that out to avoid embarrasment to the administration. I'm glad I'm wrong on that count.
The article didn't have it, but here is Dan Lyon's response to the outcry about his column.
What is new about this? I thought Microsoft long ago told the OEMs that they could no longer include full-blown Windows CDs with the computer. Instead, OEMs could only include a "restoration" CD that restored the computer to its original configuration. In fact, I think /. had an article about it when it 1st happened.
I cannot find it in the /. archives, but here is an InfoWorld column about it.
Something I've wondered about the benchmark EULA clauses is how effective they are. The worst that can happen is that they revoke your 'license' to use that particular copy of the product.
So, let's say I go out and buy Microsoft Doodad 5.5 and it has that "no publishing benchmarks" in its EULA. Well, I've not violated that clause until I publish my benchmarks. Thus, on the day of publication, I am no longer allowed to use the Microsoft Doodad 5.5 I purchased.
So what? I guess I'm 'legally' obligated to chuck the CD and manuals into the landfill. That doesn't matter to me, as I got what I really wanted: the publication of my benchmarks. If I really wanted to keep using Microsoft Doodad 5.5, I just go out and buy another boxed set, which comes with another license (which I don't violoate).
Unless Microsoft Doodad 5.5's EULA says they can sue me for those benchmarks, all I'm loosing is the 'priveledge' of using their software. (I would argue that I only loose the 'priveledge' of using that copy of the software I purchased; I still can go out, purchase another copy, and use that.)
I haven't checked to see if the other editions of their 1.4 J2RE have the same terms. The funny thing is that in my e-mails with Sun, they see no problem with these license terms!
Hi there. I never checked back last week to see if my post was responded to, and tonight I see that it was. You wrote a very well reasoned reply, and I am sorry I didn't notice it sooner.
OWJones wrote:Those are intelligent thoughts. I would pose these two questions, though:- The rest of the Bill of Rights outline rights that the populace as a whole, have. What evidence supports the theory that the framers broke that pattern and intended the 2nd Amendment to only apply to the subset of the populace in the state militia?
- The Constitution and its amendments are the supreme law of the land. States can pass laws, but if they run afoul of the U.S. Constitution, then they are null & void. If the intent was to tell "each individual state to keep a militia", then why isn't that spelled out? The way the founders left it, a state could disband its militia and that would be totally constitutional. They couldn't, however, restrict the citizens from keeping & bearing arms. (But they still do.)
Please don't misundertand me, I don't think the only interpretation of "free state" is #3 in your list. I tend to think of the founders meaning it broadly to mean the United States being free from other nations, the states being free from civil unrest and individuals being free from tyranny.(By the way, I looked up the National Guard FAQ that you wrote about in your comment. All I could find was this small blurb that mentions the authority for the creation of the Guard. Their use of the 2nd Amendment does not exclude citizens from owning firearms. There can be both a militia [National Guard] and citizens who keep and bare arms. The two are not exclusive in my mind.)
Well, I don't believe the NRA advocates the idea that each citizen has a right to keep bazookas and anti-aircraft missles.I support them in fighting gun registrations because history has shown that gun registrations are usually a prelude to gun confiscation. (See Canada, the United Kingdom, South Africa, California and New York.) I also support them in stopping the gradual encroachment on the types of guns we can own because there are many like you, who if they had their wish, "all guns would vanish tomorrow." (They don't have the where-with-all to admit it, though, like you do. They would use small bans to advance that agenda and settle for banning hand guns here, semi-automatic rifles there, until they reach their goal.) There is no good reason for law abiding citizens to be barred from having hand guns or semi-automatic rifles. (The only reasons I've ever heard boil down to what amounts to emotional security of those who have little experience with guns or the belief that citizens have no responsibility to protect themselves [i.e. it is the exclusive power of the government to protect the individual].)
The NRA does support keeping felons from owning/possessing firearms, which would be a "real-word interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment, no? See the NRA FAQ for what their views are. I appreciate you honestly sharing your views in such a well-reasoned manner. Again, I apologize for not seeing your comment for over a week. Take care.
I do not believe I am advocating an absurdly strict reading of the Constitution. (I agree with you that an absurd strict reading would be like the "900 years of copyright meets the 'limited time' cluase".)
It appears to me that some, who may have valid reasons, would rather ignore the plain reading of the U.S. Constitution and invent alternative interpretations that better fit their idealogy. If the U.S. constitution doesn't fit the way we want our nation to be, then change it -- don't ignore it or misrepresent it.