Except for the fact that doctors, firemen and policemen are given charge of life and/or death, while plumbers and barbers rarely have such a grave responsibility. Just because a person isn't paid entirely and directly by the government doesn't mean they don't owe the public a service. By becoming a doctor, one assumes the mantle of caretaker of the health of those around them. If someone doesn't want that responsibility, then they can choose some other profession which doesn't have such a weight upon it.
And yes, they do owe this service to those around them. There are only so many seats in med-school, and they decided they were enough of a good-Samaritan to occupy one of them. This makes them beholden to the public which grants them the right to hold the title of MD.
That's an interesting point, because if an able mechanic can repair a car but cannot identify the USA on a map, doesn't that mean that professional schools are better than the public education system?
Or, rather, does it mean that the mechanic had no motivation or desire to learn geography, but has a natural aptitude and inclination towards auto repair?
And just as they had refused to continue to have a full knowledge of God, so it was to utterly worthless minds that God gave them up, for them to do things which should not be done.
Wait, so a religious zealot wrote down that those who refuse to believe in his God have bad judgement, and will do things that his God doesn't approve of? Isn't it only logical that people who don't believe in your "God" won't follow the proclamations of the "apostles" of said divinity?
I don't believe in Allah either, do you think I'm wrong for not following the words of Muhammad as well?
Oh wait, that's right, only YOUR "God" is correct. All the other ones are misinformed. Why?
I clearly stated that the doctor should only be forced to perform the abortion if there are no other doctors available. For example, in a remote community that only has one doctor. In such a case, the doctor did in fact "sign-up" to be THE caretaker for the community, since the community can only support one doctor.
It's just like if a remote town only has one gas station. The owner should be required to sell gas to all comers, because there is no alternative. I grant that this makes things a little less "free", but it is obviously necessary.
you seem to have forgotten that "doctor" is a private profession. It is generally not run by the state, and the doctor has every right to perform a non-vital procedure for any reason he chooses.
"Doctor" is actually, even in the USA, heavily subsidized by the government.
Regardless, this whole argument only makes sense in a remote community with one doctor, so that the woman doesn't have the choice to simply go to another doctor for the abortion. In such a case, the doctor chose to be responsible for the medical services to the community, and should do his job, or step down. It's just like if there's only one gas station within 150 miles, and the owner refuses to sell you gas because he doesn't like you. The law should force them to sell you gas (even though there's no "right" to gas), because you have no alternative. It may not be the most "free" thing, but it's better than the alternative which allows blatant discrimination.
soldiers are DUTY-BOUND to refuse to follow orders that are illegal or immoral
This is a common misconception. Enlisted soldiers are duty-bound to follow orders, unless those orders violate the UCMJ or some other military regulation. Enlisted soldiers are under no circumstances allowed to decide that an order is "immoral" and disobey it. That sort of thing can get you thrown in the brig. Officers have more leeway, but still, if you disobey an order, you will be court-martialed, and they will decide if the order really was "immoral".
If a doctor is allowed to choose which patients they treat, where do you draw the line? Can a doctor refuse to provide care to a gay woman who is giving birth?
The world doesn't owe me, but firefighters, doctors, policemen etc do owe me to do the job they signed up to do. Doctors have an obligation to treat patients, and if they don't want to, that's fine. They just shouldn't be doctors anymore.
And is it "entitlement" to expect firemen to put out a fire, even if their religious views conflict with those of the homeowners? Doctors are public servants, they have obligations to their community.
Your draftee example is completely irrelevant. The doctor chose to provide health care to their community, they shouldn't be able to choose when not to provide the services just because they don't agree with the choice. Or rather, they can, but doing so should strip them of their position. Can firemen choose not to put out a fire because the homeowner is an atheist? Can servicemembers choose to disobey orders because they don't agree with them? Regardless, this is only an issue if the woman has no access to other doctors. Fortunately that is rarely, if ever, the case.
Well, if the mother asks for it, and the doctor is the only one available to perform the procedure, then he should be forced to, or forced to retire. The doc signed up to be the caretaker of health for the community, and must perform his duties, or step down. You seem to think the doctor's rights as the health professional of a community supersede the rights of a woman towards her body. The doc can't push his ethics on others, he has no right to force a woman to keep her baby. He can do his job, or he can do what everyone else does, and quit. Simply saying "no" is not an option, and sets a dangerous precedent. What happens when the doc declines to give gays treatment for STDs? Or any other of the myriad of times when an MD is forced to treat someone whos religious views clash with their own?
The countries of the citizens on the sea-launch vessel, and the flag it flies? Just because you're in international waters doesn't mean that others can shoot at you or board you... there's a word for that sort of thing; piracy. You know, the YARRR kind, not the digital kind.
I think that parent's argument was that "while also making it easier and more reliable for fast-moving satellites to send data back to earth" implies that the ground stations would have a ground link to one another. I could just be missing something, but that's the only way I see how ground stations could increase reliability and speed of the network.
pretty much any navy can put a stop to the launch without having the same sort of international incident if you were launching from land
I'm pretty sure that shooting at or boarding a vessel to stop a communications satellite launch in international waters would cause an international incident.
"We know the law, but Apple only offers one year warranty. Good luck trying, you will need a legally-valid exame by some specialist that states that the defect was in fact not caused by the user."
This is exactly correct. You would have to prove that the problem was there when the macbook was sold to you, ie that the macbook components could not withstand two years of "normal" use.
Another subtle difference is whether or not corporations are plural. In American English we tend to say "Apple is..." or "IBM has..." whereas I believe the Brits tend to use the plural version "Apple are..." etc
Or the US, where it's MM/DD/YYYY. Which, while confusing mathematically, makes perfect sense in spoken English, since that is how one says it.... Month Day Year.
Is the sun really a significant contaminant? I can see the dust being a problem, especially when illuminated by the sun...
On the other hand, if you're pointed away from the sun, without any significant dust in the way to reflect back the sun's light, I don't see how the sun would contaminate anything. I'm probably missing something...
Taking the law into your own hands is never the appropriate action unless you are defending your life from an IMMEDIATE risk.
I agree, but then again, one could make the argument that "endangering others by breaking the law is never the appropriate action unless you are defending your life from an IMMEDIATE risk". I agree that people who drive in the left lane at the speed limit are obnoxious, and are making the highway a more dangerous place to drive... but people who speed are just as culpable as people who intentionally drive the speed limit in the fast lane. Both are putting their personal desires above the general good.
Slashdot Mirror
And yes, they do owe this service to those around them. There are only so many seats in med-school, and they decided they were enough of a good-Samaritan to occupy one of them. This makes them beholden to the public which grants them the right to hold the title of MD.
Or, rather, does it mean that the mechanic had no motivation or desire to learn geography, but has a natural aptitude and inclination towards auto repair?
While I can find the US on a map, I don't know how to replace a serpentine belt. Does that make me dumb?
And just as they had refused to continue to have a full knowledge of God, so it was to utterly worthless minds that God gave them up, for them to do things which should not be done.
Wait, so a religious zealot wrote down that those who refuse to believe in his God have bad judgement, and will do things that his God doesn't approve of? Isn't it only logical that people who don't believe in your "God" won't follow the proclamations of the "apostles" of said divinity?
I don't believe in Allah either, do you think I'm wrong for not following the words of Muhammad as well?
Oh wait, that's right, only YOUR "God" is correct. All the other ones are misinformed. Why?
Because you said so, that's why.
It's just like if a remote town only has one gas station. The owner should be required to sell gas to all comers, because there is no alternative. I grant that this makes things a little less "free", but it is obviously necessary.
you seem to have forgotten that "doctor" is a private profession. It is generally not run by the state, and the doctor has every right to perform a non-vital procedure for any reason he chooses.
"Doctor" is actually, even in the USA, heavily subsidized by the government.
Regardless, this whole argument only makes sense in a remote community with one doctor, so that the woman doesn't have the choice to simply go to another doctor for the abortion. In such a case, the doctor chose to be responsible for the medical services to the community, and should do his job, or step down. It's just like if there's only one gas station within 150 miles, and the owner refuses to sell you gas because he doesn't like you. The law should force them to sell you gas (even though there's no "right" to gas), because you have no alternative. It may not be the most "free" thing, but it's better than the alternative which allows blatant discrimination.
soldiers are DUTY-BOUND to refuse to follow orders that are illegal or immoral
This is a common misconception. Enlisted soldiers are duty-bound to follow orders, unless those orders violate the UCMJ or some other military regulation. Enlisted soldiers are under no circumstances allowed to decide that an order is "immoral" and disobey it. That sort of thing can get you thrown in the brig. Officers have more leeway, but still, if you disobey an order, you will be court-martialed, and they will decide if the order really was "immoral".
I find it scary that you think doctors shouldn't be public servants. How is a doctor any different than a policeman, fireman, public defender, etc...?
If a doctor is allowed to choose which patients they treat, where do you draw the line? Can a doctor refuse to provide care to a gay woman who is giving birth?
The world doesn't owe me, but firefighters, doctors, policemen etc do owe me to do the job they signed up to do. Doctors have an obligation to treat patients, and if they don't want to, that's fine. They just shouldn't be doctors anymore.
And is it "entitlement" to expect firemen to put out a fire, even if their religious views conflict with those of the homeowners? Doctors are public servants, they have obligations to their community.
Your draftee example is completely irrelevant. The doctor chose to provide health care to their community, they shouldn't be able to choose when not to provide the services just because they don't agree with the choice. Or rather, they can, but doing so should strip them of their position. Can firemen choose not to put out a fire because the homeowner is an atheist? Can servicemembers choose to disobey orders because they don't agree with them? Regardless, this is only an issue if the woman has no access to other doctors. Fortunately that is rarely, if ever, the case.
Well, if the mother asks for it, and the doctor is the only one available to perform the procedure, then he should be forced to, or forced to retire. The doc signed up to be the caretaker of health for the community, and must perform his duties, or step down. You seem to think the doctor's rights as the health professional of a community supersede the rights of a woman towards her body. The doc can't push his ethics on others, he has no right to force a woman to keep her baby. He can do his job, or he can do what everyone else does, and quit. Simply saying "no" is not an option, and sets a dangerous precedent. What happens when the doc declines to give gays treatment for STDs? Or any other of the myriad of times when an MD is forced to treat someone whos religious views clash with their own?
The countries of the citizens on the sea-launch vessel, and the flag it flies? Just because you're in international waters doesn't mean that others can shoot at you or board you... there's a word for that sort of thing; piracy. You know, the YARRR kind, not the digital kind.
I think that parent's argument was that "while also making it easier and more reliable for fast-moving satellites to send data back to earth" implies that the ground stations would have a ground link to one another. I could just be missing something, but that's the only way I see how ground stations could increase reliability and speed of the network.
pretty much any navy can put a stop to the launch without having the same sort of international incident if you were launching from land
I'm pretty sure that shooting at or boarding a vessel to stop a communications satellite launch in international waters would cause an international incident.
I think you're going to need a pretty powerful antenna to be using an uplink that's in geo orbit...
"We know the law, but Apple only offers one year warranty. Good luck trying, you will need a legally-valid exame by some specialist that states that the defect was in fact not caused by the user."
This is exactly correct. You would have to prove that the problem was there when the macbook was sold to you, ie that the macbook components could not withstand two years of "normal" use.
Another subtle difference is whether or not corporations are plural. In American English we tend to say "Apple is ..." or "IBM has ..." whereas I believe the Brits tend to use the plural version "Apple are..." etc
Or the US, where it's MM/DD/YYYY. Which, while confusing mathematically, makes perfect sense in spoken English, since that is how one says it.... Month Day Year.
Apple uses NAND which sues some of this technology
Freudian slip much? ;)
You could make the same argument about factory workers... but even if that's true all it leads us to is a 10k sponsored by Logan.
On the other hand, if you're pointed away from the sun, without any significant dust in the way to reflect back the sun's light, I don't see how the sun would contaminate anything. I'm probably missing something...
Taking the law into your own hands is never the appropriate action unless you are defending your life from an IMMEDIATE risk.
I agree, but then again, one could make the argument that "endangering others by breaking the law is never the appropriate action unless you are defending your life from an IMMEDIATE risk". I agree that people who drive in the left lane at the speed limit are obnoxious, and are making the highway a more dangerous place to drive... but people who speed are just as culpable as people who intentionally drive the speed limit in the fast lane. Both are putting their personal desires above the general good.
No agreement is needed. All that is needed is a copyright notice somewhere in the file. Which there definitely is.