If a guard or other authority wanted to know if someone was native to the town or a possible outside threat, he would have them pronounce the name of the city. If they could pronounce "Shibboleth" properly, they were in. If they couldn't, they were sent on their way.
In case you're curious, the way that they would mispronounce "Shibboleth" is "Frisco."
The second issue is the known crime caused by drug addicts. Because of the addiciton caused by stuff like heroin, addicts will do anything they can to obtain the drug. This includes theft, prostitution, or in the worst cases assault and murder for hire. In fact, a murder can occur simply because someone was attempted to get $20 for his next high. This is a public safety issue in general.
Every single one of my friends has, at some point, used illegal drugs. I'm sure many Slashdotters could say the same. None of them has ever been caught, prosecuted, or least of all done time for their crime. Several of them have been dealers.
What to my friends have over all the kids in jail? They're middle class and white. I have *never* had a friend go to jail.
I didn't think that spyware existed on MacOS X, but... my girlfriend came home from school last winter with something really odd. Internet Explorer would, no matter your user preferences, always go to a certain internet shopping site as a homepage. And would give you a barrage of popups constantly. I forget what shopping site, and back then I only had inbound firewalling, so I had no logs to check.
No toolbars installed. No plugins. I created a new user account for her, and that worked, so apparently it hadn't messed with the internals of the Internet Explorer.app (which seems like a vector they'll soon exploit). Crappy, though.
If Apple says publicly at the launch of Mac OS X 10.3, "We've got this excellent new switcher behavior, coopted entirely from the hard work of Proteron's LiteSwitchX utility," That might make Proteron feel good. It might even be a fair gesture. However... if Proteron then took Apple to court, they'd have a great big leg to stand on when they said Apple ripped them off.
I don't know if that kind of rip off is illegal or not, but Apple would have handed them at least a part of the court case. So they can't make that little gesture.
And if one of your friends or family gets a virus or sends you an e-card, your address is "contaminated" and you'll get junk.
Or if one of your friends or family puts you on a giant CC list, and one of those addys CCed is hosted by some fly-by-night free email service on the web, harvesting, harvesting, harvesting.
I am currently researching Spam Bots, and improving the methods by which they collect addresses. While doing my research, I have started to notice that people post their email addresses to fool spam filters (i.e. bob@hottroutmail.com - go fishing to mail me) What clever ways have you seen/done to fool spambots while still letting people know how to get in contact with you?
That's how life is if you make it so. But whatever.
If you draw that hard line for fetuses, I hope you similarly draw that hard line in all situations. I hope you do not advocate murder in self defense. I hope that you never advocate war in any case, defensive or otherwise.
If you hold those opinions as well, then... at least your position is logically consistent. No matter how much pain and suffering your opinions would cause, should they be followed.
I'd like your conscience to recognize the horror of just one D&X. While it is right for us to improve health, abortions should never be done because they involve taking the life of another human being.
What about the cases in which both the mother and the child are very likely to die? If the mother had diabetes and her health is rapidly declining, and in the most likely outcome without an abortion, she would die and so would the baby, what do you advocate?
Two deaths rather than one?
You keep dodging the point by echoing "first do no harm," but I'd like to hear you explain exactly what should be done in this situation. Don't defer to some vague doctrine. Tell me exactly.
(If your life depended on stomping my toes really hard, I might say thanks but go fuck yourself, and be perfectly well supported by the law.)
Your selfishness knows no end, does it?
You've gone and assumed a whole hell of a lot.
What if, driving to a nightclub, you came across me lying injured on the road, and my life depended on you ferrying me to a hospital (an imposition, you'd agree)? You reckon you'd be within your lawful rights to say, "no, thanks", and drive on to your original destination, do you?
That's a completely different example, now isn't it. Both examples describe an imposition, but that is not the only determining factor. Will you concede that in my example (stomping on feet) you'd be fucked? If so, I'll concede that in your example, it might be morally and legally required to dial 911 at the nearest phone I could find, and report the accident.
Some impositions are acceptable (morally, and legally too), and some aren't. Agreed?
And your comment about cutting your own arm off is a nonsequitor. I find your rhetoric lacking.
That was meant to illustrate that mother and child are two SEPARATE entities. Surely, you get it? If mum wants to chop her arm off - that's her arm. She does not have the right to chop off baby's arm.
Yeah. I got that part. It was still a nonsequitor. It certainly doesn't add anything to our discussion. I obviously feel that mum does have the right to kill the baby. So simply saying otherwise doesn't prove anything.
Sometimes your actions can have adverse effects on SEPARATE ENTITIES. Sometimes that's ok and sometimes it isn't. In the case of abortion, it's A-ok with me.
And if my mom didn't feel like doing it, then who the fuck am I to insist that she carry me to term?
A human being.
And I've already said: There are many times when killing a human being is fine with me (and probably you too). Obviously no one has an inalienable right to life.
You know, I think your "who am I to insist" phrases are just bluster and empty words. You don't have the capability of doing what you say.
If, this instant, you found yourself back in a womb, a sharp instrument snaking up your neck, your brains being sucked out... you'd want it stopped. I reckon you'd cry.
You'd cry like a baby.
Whatever. I wouldn't cry, I'd be dead. And still, how much I'd cry wouldn't change what's right or wrong. Your point has nothing to do with morality or legality. It's sensationalistic bullshit, and it's intentionally offensive. None of this is bluster and empty words. Without much cause, you have accused me of selfishness and lying.
If you actually wanted to convince me of the accuracy of your point of view, you'd take another tack. If you want to convince me that people who hold your opinions are antagonistic and do not respond to reason, then by all means continue with your ad hominem attacks. Your rhetoric is still lacking.
However I make it sound, that doesn't change the facts. The life of the baby depends on an imposition into the life of the mother. Just as I am not obligated to accept that imposition from you (If your life depended on stomping my toes really hard, I might say thanks but go fuck yourself, and be perfectly well supported by the law.) I see no reason that the mother should be obligated to accept that (much more extreme) imposition from the baby.
And... come to terms with my own selfishness? I feel pretty comfortable with my level of selfishness. I have come to terms with the fact that I was born in the same manner. And if my mom didn't feel like doing it, then who the fuck am I to insist that she carry me to term?
And your comment about cutting your own arm off is a nonsequitor. I find your rhetoric lacking.
I was trying to say I don't really care if it's sentient or not. I still see no problem with killing it if the mother would like. It's her genitals that have to explode bloodily.
If your life was dependent on exploding out of my genitals, I'd be all for killing you too. Even though you've committed no crime, and you are (somewhat likely) fully sentient.
Of course, in the case of most late-term abortions, it's not just my genitals that would be on the line. It'd be both our lives. So yeah. I'd be all for having you killed in order to save one of us.
Slashdot Mirror
If a guard or other authority wanted to know if someone was native to the town or a possible outside threat, he would have them pronounce the name of the city. If they could pronounce "Shibboleth" properly, they were in. If they couldn't, they were sent on their way.
In case you're curious, the way that they would mispronounce "Shibboleth" is "Frisco."
The second issue is the known crime caused by drug addicts. Because of the addiciton caused by stuff like heroin, addicts will do anything they can to obtain the drug. This includes theft, prostitution, or in the worst cases assault and murder for hire. In fact, a murder can occur simply because someone was attempted to get $20 for his next high. This is a public safety issue in general.
How come you aren't saying that about cigarettes?
Don't forget that the war on drugs is racist.
Every single one of my friends has, at some point, used illegal drugs. I'm sure many Slashdotters could say the same. None of them has ever been caught, prosecuted, or least of all done time for their crime. Several of them have been dealers.
What to my friends have over all the kids in jail? They're middle class and white. I have *never* had a friend go to jail.
Well, I didn't originally say it was radioactive. I thought it was cancerous. Which is wrong too. I meant carcinogenic.
But anyway.
Don't they coat those things in ultra-cancerous paint to cut down on the radar signature?
Yes, I did both of those issues.
(And yes, I make that kind of mistake all the time, so your point is totally welcome.)
I didn't think that spyware existed on MacOS X, but... my girlfriend came home from school last winter with something really odd. Internet Explorer would, no matter your user preferences, always go to a certain internet shopping site as a homepage. And would give you a barrage of popups constantly. I forget what shopping site, and back then I only had inbound firewalling, so I had no logs to check.
No toolbars installed. No plugins. I created a new user account for her, and that worked, so apparently it hadn't messed with the internals of the Internet Explorer.app (which seems like a vector they'll soon exploit). Crappy, though.
No, not morally. Legally.
If Apple says publicly at the launch of Mac OS X 10.3, "We've got this excellent new switcher behavior, coopted entirely from the hard work of Proteron's LiteSwitchX utility," That might make Proteron feel good. It might even be a fair gesture. However... if Proteron then took Apple to court, they'd have a great big leg to stand on when they said Apple ripped them off.
I don't know if that kind of rip off is illegal or not, but Apple would have handed them at least a part of the court case. So they can't make that little gesture.
Too bad. Whatever. Move on, whiny Proteron dude.
Well. I didn't think it was insightful exactly. Just kindof funny.
Offtopic or overrated would have been fine. It waren't no genius comment. But it waren't flamebait neither.
Someone doesn't know what flamebait is.
And if one of your friends or family gets a virus or sends you an e-card, your address is "contaminated" and you'll get junk.
Or if one of your friends or family puts you on a giant CC list, and one of those addys CCed is hosted by some fly-by-night free email service on the web, harvesting, harvesting, harvesting.
I am currently researching Spam Bots, and improving the methods by which they collect addresses. While doing my research, I have started to notice that people post their email addresses to fool spam filters (i.e. bob@hottroutmail.com - go fishing to mail me) What clever ways have you seen/done to fool spambots while still letting people know how to get in contact with you?
So we'll need to have someone rewrite the spec. GCJ cannot be shut down just because Sun doesn't allow them to quote the spec.
GCJ may have plenty of problems. Fair enough. But it's getting better, and Sun has nothing to do with it.
Admit it?
What licensing?
GCJ is GPL. That was my point.
Meet gcj, smart guy.
That $50 box might be the best way for them to get their game into the retail channel.
They've been doing this one for a long time now.
Implies, not infers.
It is to try to get you to listen to your conscience.
Well, I guess you've succeeded brilliantly on that point. I'm done listening to you, though.
That's how life is if you make it so. But whatever.
If you draw that hard line for fetuses, I hope you similarly draw that hard line in all situations. I hope you do not advocate murder in self defense. I hope that you never advocate war in any case, defensive or otherwise.
If you hold those opinions as well, then... at least your position is logically consistent. No matter how much pain and suffering your opinions would cause, should they be followed.
I'd like your conscience to recognize the horror of just one D&X. While it is right for us to improve health, abortions should never be done because they involve taking the life of another human being.
What about the cases in which both the mother and the child are very likely to die? If the mother had diabetes and her health is rapidly declining, and in the most likely outcome without an abortion, she would die and so would the baby, what do you advocate?
Two deaths rather than one?
You keep dodging the point by echoing "first do no harm," but I'd like to hear you explain exactly what should be done in this situation. Don't defer to some vague doctrine. Tell me exactly.
You've gone and assumed a whole hell of a lot.
What if, driving to a nightclub, you came across me lying injured on the road, and my life depended on you ferrying me to a hospital (an imposition, you'd agree)? You reckon you'd be within your lawful rights to say, "no, thanks", and drive on to your original destination, do you?
That's a completely different example, now isn't it. Both examples describe an imposition, but that is not the only determining factor. Will you concede that in my example (stomping on feet) you'd be fucked? If so, I'll concede that in your example, it might be morally and legally required to dial 911 at the nearest phone I could find, and report the accident.
Some impositions are acceptable (morally, and legally too), and some aren't. Agreed?
That was meant to illustrate that mother and child are two SEPARATE entities. Surely, you get it? If mum wants to chop her arm off - that's her arm. She does not have the right to chop off baby's arm.
Yeah. I got that part. It was still a nonsequitor. It certainly doesn't add anything to our discussion. I obviously feel that mum does have the right to kill the baby. So simply saying otherwise doesn't prove anything.
Sometimes your actions can have adverse effects on SEPARATE ENTITIES. Sometimes that's ok and sometimes it isn't. In the case of abortion, it's A-ok with me.
A human being.
And I've already said: There are many times when killing a human being is fine with me (and probably you too). Obviously no one has an inalienable right to life.
You know, I think your "who am I to insist" phrases are just bluster and empty words. You don't have the capability of doing what you say.
If, this instant, you found yourself back in a womb, a sharp instrument snaking up your neck, your brains being sucked out... you'd want it stopped. I reckon you'd cry.
You'd cry like a baby.
Whatever. I wouldn't cry, I'd be dead. And still, how much I'd cry wouldn't change what's right or wrong. Your point has nothing to do with morality or legality. It's sensationalistic bullshit, and it's intentionally offensive. None of this is bluster and empty words. Without much cause, you have accused me of selfishness and lying.
If you actually wanted to convince me of the accuracy of your point of view, you'd take another tack. If you want to convince me that people who hold your opinions are antagonistic and do not respond to reason, then by all means continue with your ad hominem attacks. Your rhetoric is still lacking.
However I make it sound, that doesn't change the facts. The life of the baby depends on an imposition into the life of the mother. Just as I am not obligated to accept that imposition from you (If your life depended on stomping my toes really hard, I might say thanks but go fuck yourself, and be perfectly well supported by the law.) I see no reason that the mother should be obligated to accept that (much more extreme) imposition from the baby.
And... come to terms with my own selfishness? I feel pretty comfortable with my level of selfishness. I have come to terms with the fact that I was born in the same manner. And if my mom didn't feel like doing it, then who the fuck am I to insist that she carry me to term?
And your comment about cutting your own arm off is a nonsequitor. I find your rhetoric lacking.
Venerable because of the whiteness of his beard; Inscrutable because he went to his grave without divulging the secret of his eleven herbs and spices.
I was trying to say I don't really care if it's sentient or not. I still see no problem with killing it if the mother would like. It's her genitals that have to explode bloodily.
If your life was dependent on exploding out of my genitals, I'd be all for killing you too. Even though you've committed no crime, and you are (somewhat likely) fully sentient.
Of course, in the case of most late-term abortions, it's not just my genitals that would be on the line. It'd be both our lives. So yeah. I'd be all for having you killed in order to save one of us.