How can you so easily separate religion and politics? Many religions have people that are supposed to act as conduits for gods wisdom. So if they order you to do something then those orders are definitely a religious matter.
Take the crusades for example. Popes might have called for them for political reasons, but once they did, didn't the crusade become a religious cause for the people involved?
The same can be said for suicide bombers and other terrorists. If they believe that blowing people up is according to their religion, then their actions are a religious matter.
You can't just decide that, since you feel that a persons actions aren't how YOU understand their religion, they aren't following their faith.
It's not the teachings that are wrong. It's the people.
But what if the teachings themselves include, for example, orders to kill heretics? If religious leaders admit that parts of their holy texts no longer apply, and that they were written by man in the first place, why not change them? It's been done many times in the past.
Why even hitch a ride? If you get to a point in an asteroids orbit, with your craft moving at the same speed/direction as the asteroid, why do you even need to land? Won't gravity have the same effect on your craft as it would on the asteroid, meaning that your craft is ALREADY in orbit.
At least being able to prove that a nurse made an extra effort to make a mistake will give you grounds to fire him/her.
Injecting something into the wrong tube in a bundle of 10 identical tubes can be forgiven. Taking 5 minutes to force incompatible tubes together can't.
I could see such a system leading to patient deaths because of their complicated color system. If a locking head needs to attach to a patient line now, i'm sure that comparing colors could add unneeded time to compare and contrast a color scheme.
Giving patient something NOW won't help you if you put it in the wrong part of the patient, and that's exactly what this article is about. Even if a drug and the time to administer is crucial, injecting it into the patients breathing tube instead of IV will likely not help the patient survive.
My thinking is that it shouldn't be considered as human until it can survive without it's mother. So of course once science advances enough that a 2 month fetus can survive outside the womb, that's when that fetus gets human rights.
But that does pose a different problem. What happens when you can let a fetus develop completely without a womb. Let's say that in 50 years that will be possible. Will the government be obligated to let all of those 4 cell frozen humans develop to maturity?
You don't sacrifice one person's life for another (though they may choose to sacrifice their own life, but I don't think anyone is going to argue that an embryo can choose that sacrifice). And that's the basic objection.
Of course we do. If there are life or even health-threatening complications from a pregnancy the mother will often choose to terminate it. And I doubt there are many sane people that have a problem with that.
A fetus isn't shouldn't be considered a human being until it's viable outside the womb. Until then it's just a 'potential' human being. If we start giving the same rights to a 1 day fetus that we do to a human, where does it stop? Will a man having a wet dream be accused of genocide for the murder of millions of potential humans? Or a woman who menstruates?
I have a better idea, how about you and war profiteers go earn his pay? By earn, I mean do his work, and get his paycheck. I'll bet he would trade you for a few weeks.
Not thank you. I don't support this war on terror so I won't fight in it.
AFAIK the only US soldiers fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan are professional ones. So it was their choice to make their living fighting their countries wars. So why do they get to complain when other people also want to profit from a war their taxes are paying for?
In a way, the soldiers are the ones making these wars possible. How many politicians do you think would be willing to vote for continuing the war if it meant bringing back the draft?
Don't forget the soldiers. They also profit from the was (as long as they survive). I somehow doubt that the person complaining about people profiteering will give his entire combat pay to charity.
Change 5. to 'You nearly loose your mind, form a rebellion against the invaders and carry out raids against them until you get sufficient foreign funding so that you can carry out one last great attack against their country.'
Why exactly is telling people MORE about the product they are buying a bad thing?
Sure just writing how many watts each phone emits might not reveal the whole picture, but the manufacturer can always include the frequency of the emissions and any other relevant information in the product description. It's not like the law prevents you from revealing anything except the power.
The manufacturer could also try to *gasp* educate the public - You have a study that shows the frequency of your phones emissions is not harmful while another phone will cause you to grow an extra ear within the next 2 years? Publish it, include it in your add campaign,... It might actually give you a bigger market share.
I don't see why any court should limit the amount of information customers have about products they are buying.
I'm sure the grandma you just framed for murder deserved it. I mean she DID fail to set a password on her wireless router, enabling her neighbor, who bought your laptop at a yard sale, to accidently connect through her router instead of his own.
Funny how law is the one profession everybody thinks they know, even without training.
In most other fields, people are constrained by certain pre-existing laws and facts, such as biology and physics. But they still try to simplify things as much as possible - Newtons laws can still be used in most situations, no need for relativity.
It's only in the field of law that things are made as difficult to understand as possible and people are told they can't be expected to understand anything about the law since they are not lawyers. That is until they are sued, when they are expected to know and understand and follow every law there is.
Are they sterile in the way of not producing pollen or do other plants polenated by them not producing any seeds?
If it's case 2 then it could cause quite a few problems for neighboring farmers.
Another good question would be, why don't the estates of ALL authors deserve income from their works. If we're talking about a moral right then why should there be a difference between authors that worked in the last century and those that came before?
If we insist that never ending copyright is something sacred then let's extend it to ALL works in history. I'm sure the estate of the author of the alphabet will be more then happy to start collecting royalties.
Slashdot Mirror
More like collective punishment. Because some people don't like the game, all soldiers will have to drive out of their way if they want to play it.
How can you so easily separate religion and politics? Many religions have people that are supposed to act as conduits for gods wisdom. So if they order you to do something then those orders are definitely a religious matter.
Take the crusades for example. Popes might have called for them for political reasons, but once they did, didn't the crusade become a religious cause for the people involved?
The same can be said for suicide bombers and other terrorists. If they believe that blowing people up is according to their religion, then their actions are a religious matter.
You can't just decide that, since you feel that a persons actions aren't how YOU understand their religion, they aren't following their faith.
It's not the teachings that are wrong. It's the people.
But what if the teachings themselves include, for example, orders to kill heretics? If religious leaders admit that parts of their holy texts no longer apply, and that they were written by man in the first place, why not change them? It's been done many times in the past.
We don't want to stoop to the same level as the religious.
As I said, just check The Ten Commandments. Especially those saying that you should not kill, rape or steal.
As long as the one you're killing, raping or stealing from isn't one of the hundreds of exceptions also listed in the bible.
responsibility: more details on this is needed, but about the same deal as the family one if I understood you correctly.
You can do anything you want, as long as you confess it to a priest later and say you're sorry. If you do that all the consequences go away.
Why even hitch a ride? If you get to a point in an asteroids orbit, with your craft moving at the same speed/direction as the asteroid, why do you even need to land? Won't gravity have the same effect on your craft as it would on the asteroid, meaning that your craft is ALREADY in orbit.
At least being able to prove that a nurse made an extra effort to make a mistake will give you grounds to fire him/her.
Injecting something into the wrong tube in a bundle of 10 identical tubes can be forgiven. Taking 5 minutes to force incompatible tubes together can't.
I could see such a system leading to patient deaths because of their complicated color system. If a locking head needs to attach to a patient line now, i'm sure that comparing colors could add unneeded time to compare and contrast a color scheme.
Giving patient something NOW won't help you if you put it in the wrong part of the patient, and that's exactly what this article is about. Even if a drug and the time to administer is crucial, injecting it into the patients breathing tube instead of IV will likely not help the patient survive.
My thinking is that it shouldn't be considered as human until it can survive without it's mother. So of course once science advances enough that a 2 month fetus can survive outside the womb, that's when that fetus gets human rights.
But that does pose a different problem. What happens when you can let a fetus develop completely without a womb. Let's say that in 50 years that will be possible. Will the government be obligated to let all of those 4 cell frozen humans develop to maturity?
And they should be ignored just as much as the people that don't want their tax dollars spent for wars.
Treating human life as something that should be nurtured and not harvested is not something that is exclusive to religion.
Why does this nurturing end with birth? Why not make free health-care available to everyone, even for the most expensive and experimental treatments?
From what I've seen and heard, most 'nurturing' by the religious and politicians ends at birth. After that it's every man for himself.
You don't sacrifice one person's life for another (though they may choose to sacrifice their own life, but I don't think anyone is going to argue that an embryo can choose that sacrifice). And that's the basic objection.
Of course we do. If there are life or even health-threatening complications from a pregnancy the mother will often choose to terminate it. And I doubt there are many sane people that have a problem with that.
A fetus isn't shouldn't be considered a human being until it's viable outside the womb. Until then it's just a 'potential' human being. If we start giving the same rights to a 1 day fetus that we do to a human, where does it stop? Will a man having a wet dream be accused of genocide for the murder of millions of potential humans? Or a woman who menstruates?
My guess is that people will just start dumping all of their trash in the recycle trash cans.
That way they don't have to worry about sorting the trash + they avoid the fine.
This is not limited to Geek heroes. Just look at Roman Polanski and the support got from his peers.
I have a better idea, how about you and war profiteers go earn his pay? By earn, I mean do his work, and get his paycheck. I'll bet he would trade you for a few weeks.
Not thank you. I don't support this war on terror so I won't fight in it.
AFAIK the only US soldiers fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan are professional ones. So it was their choice to make their living fighting their countries wars. So why do they get to complain when other people also want to profit from a war their taxes are paying for?
In a way, the soldiers are the ones making these wars possible. How many politicians do you think would be willing to vote for continuing the war if it meant bringing back the draft?
Don't forget the soldiers. They also profit from the was (as long as they survive). I somehow doubt that the person complaining about people profiteering will give his entire combat pay to charity.
Now that doesn't sound like a fun (or long) game.
Change 5. to 'You nearly loose your mind, form a rebellion against the invaders and carry out raids against them until you get sufficient foreign funding so that you can carry out one last great attack against their country.'
That would be a much better game IMHO.
The strange part is that just the investors (some of whom were probably mislead into buying Dell) are being punished.
Why not spread the blame around and fine the CEO and other executives that knew about this?
If they can take credit for the success of a company in the form of bonuses, they should also be liable for any fines.
Well at least we'll have fewer idiots talking on their cellphones in public.
Why exactly is telling people MORE about the product they are buying a bad thing?
Sure just writing how many watts each phone emits might not reveal the whole picture, but the manufacturer can always include the frequency of the emissions and any other relevant information in the product description. It's not like the law prevents you from revealing anything except the power.
The manufacturer could also try to *gasp* educate the public - You have a study that shows the frequency of your phones emissions is not harmful while another phone will cause you to grow an extra ear within the next 2 years? Publish it, include it in your add campaign,... It might actually give you a bigger market share.
I don't see why any court should limit the amount of information customers have about products they are buying.
I'm sure the grandma you just framed for murder deserved it. I mean she DID fail to set a password on her wireless router, enabling her neighbor, who bought your laptop at a yard sale, to accidently connect through her router instead of his own.
Funny how law is the one profession everybody thinks they know, even without training.
In most other fields, people are constrained by certain pre-existing laws and facts, such as biology and physics. But they still try to simplify things as much as possible - Newtons laws can still be used in most situations, no need for relativity. It's only in the field of law that things are made as difficult to understand as possible and people are told they can't be expected to understand anything about the law since they are not lawyers. That is until they are sued, when they are expected to know and understand and follow every law there is.
Are they sterile in the way of not producing pollen or do other plants polenated by them not producing any seeds? If it's case 2 then it could cause quite a few problems for neighboring farmers.
Another good question would be, why don't the estates of ALL authors deserve income from their works. If we're talking about a moral right then why should there be a difference between authors that worked in the last century and those that came before? If we insist that never ending copyright is something sacred then let's extend it to ALL works in history. I'm sure the estate of the author of the alphabet will be more then happy to start collecting royalties.