No, I don't think condoms will stop people from getting pregnant-- no birth control method is 100% (well, except for abortion of course). But there's a shocking number of people out there that forego condoms because they're inconvenient or, worse, "don't feel right". And until we develop mind-reading technology, the only way to treat people who get pregnant is equally-- yes it's saddening that the condom broke/didn't work and somebody got pregnant and now has to deal with the reality that they're about to have a child. But what's more sad? The mother/father forced to deal with having a child? Or the child being "aborted" so the mother/father don't have to be inconvenienced?
You're right though about it being an opinion: medical science isn't at a point where it can define where "life" begins. And even if it could, who's to say that the promise of life should be ignored?
I agree with what a lot of posters in this little sub-thread have said though: we need better education, better promotion of safe sex and abstinence, and we need to instill in youth that sex isn't just something fun that feels good-- it can have long lasting ramifications.
Now let's get back into reality where it's rare that a child needs a kidney donor let alone from their mother only.
What's scary here is that you're trying to justify women murdering unborn children because they're inconvenient. I guess she should have thought about that before the sex, huh?
Sure, same risk. But here's the major difference-- one occurs while the child is still in the womb, the other occurs after the child is born. It's a difference of time. Besides, the alternative to having the mother give birth is to kill the child. The alternative to the mother giving her kidney is to find an alternate donor kidney or allow the child to live out what remains of his/her life.
Then there's the issue of, is the child in the mothers womb when the kidney needs to be transplanted?
Then why wouldn't you force her to donate a kidney? Isn't she more responsible for maintaining life she volunterely concieved through sex now that this life is more self-aware and has more desire to live? If a fetus could survive by itself, without using other people's organs, I am sure nobody would purposly kill it.
I don't see the relation. If she's able to donate a kidney then the child is obviously already born. Is she still responsible as the mother? Sure, but is it still her child or was it put up for adoption? Parents are responsible for their children, but after they're born that responsibility diminishes as they reach their teenage years and early adulthood.
So no.. I don't see how you can go from forcing her to bring the child into the world to forcing her to give a kidney the child needs one. Sounds like an apples to oranges comparison to me.
this is the hands off approach -- which you just agreed with -- that the guy you support will now spend millions of your tax dollars and the next four years crushing.
Actually I voted for Kerry.
Neither candidate has a good position on gay marriage or abortion though. They're both extremists as far as I could tell (or, are part of a party of extremists and would likely let any extreme legislation that passed through unchallenged). Sure Kerry seemed to be against gay marriage, but do you think he'd have veto'd any legislation passed by the Democrats to make it legal?
Read my original post, I have a very reasonable approach to the issue of gay marriage, one that recognizes that the government shouldn't be in the business of defining "marriage" (which is largely a religious thing) but rather defining "civil unions", for heterosexuals and homosexuals. Leave it to individual churches/faiths to decide what defines "marriage". If some church out there wants to marry gays/lesbians, more power to them, but the government shouldn't call it a "marriage license".
Assuming you're first viewpoint in valid, how does it stop being murder in the second point? Oh, it's just your opinion that makes it alright. How convenient.
Was the rape right, in your mind? Would it be more of a crime to force the rape victim to carry the baby? This is just common sense, though I suppose it's also an opinion, as really my entire post was. Hell, this is an opinion too-- does the fact that we're all sharing opinions somehow devalue only my opinion because you disagree with it?
Here, I'll turn it around on you: do you think a rape victim should be forced to carry the baby to term and give birth? Do you think the victim should be forced to give birth to her assaulters child? How is this "right"?
Separation of Church and state should be absolute, but I don't think we need to go around blowing up our "Buddhist statues"... like the Taliban did to their's. That is, we shouldn't remove the "In God We Trust" and other such things from our history/culture. They are there, they have been there for a very long time, and trying to erase that past is silly.
I agree with the Buddhist statue statement-- it was stupid to go blowing those up. If they were on government owned land, either the land should have been sold to someone who would take care of the land (preferably someone interested in preserving them). But "In God We Trust" doesn't need to be on our currency-- taking it off would not make older currency invalid though. If anything, it'd give collectors something else to collect.
I don't see the relation though between blowing up Buddhist statues and removing "In God We Trust"-- the currency would still exist and still be legal tender, it would just be a recognition that endorsing a particular religion is wrong.
As far as I can see your position is indefensable under your own logic. If it's murder then you have no right to murder innocent person X just because guilty person Y commited a crime against you.
Two wrongs don't make a right? A woman got raped-- now you're suggesting it should be forced? The point is, we can't turn back time to before she was raped, the next best thing we can do is abort the pregnancy. Why should the victim/would-be mother be forced to risk going through pregnancy if she didn't willfully put herself in that position?
No sir, my logic is quite fine. You'll find it's roots firmly planted in accountability and responsibility-- people are responsible for their own actions, but in the case of the rape victim, they are not responsible for others actions. Nor should they be. That would be a crime in itself.
Is it unfortunate that a child would die? Sure, but maybe we should be charging the rapist with murder as well then, since it was his actions which lead to the childs death.
Hell, maybe the potential for being charged with murder if the rape victim gets pregnant would give any wannabe rapists the idea that maybe they don't wanna be in prison for the rest of their lives.
And about your nose being broken-- that's irrelevant. Rapes cause pregnancy. Someone breaking your nose doesn't make you pregnant does it?
Oh yeah? So you would support the right of a rape victim to kill her newborn, as I am sure often happened in old times? If not, you are recognizing there is a difference between a fetus and a child.
Er, I said I supported a woman getting an abortion if she was raped or if the pregnancy was the result of (forced) incest. I don't know what "old times" has to do with it-- we're not living in the past. And how am I recognizing a difference between a fetus and a child? I'm recognizing that if the sexual intercourse was forced that the mother should not be forced to also bear the burden of giving birth to the child. That would be cruel to rape/incest victims.
Also, the risk of a childbirth is close to one of donating a kidney. Would you forcibly drag his/her mother into surgery to donate one if needed for child's survival? Then why force her to risk a similar chance of death for a far less developed organism that is by every measure less sentinent than a cat?
I don't subscribe to the notion that a fetus is less developed (and therefore, less worthy) of life than something that's been born. I do subscribe to responsibility and accountability-- if a woman gets pregnant, and it wasn't forced (read: rape, incest), then the mother is accountable and responsible for the creation of that life. It is, at this point, no longer her choice to commit murder. If she didn't want to be responsible for a child she should not have had sex. It's just that simple.
The thing is, making it illegal would do more harm than good. Remember when we had that big "WAR ON DRUGS"? Man, that sure stopped people from doing drugs. You can even ask my ex-friends. Just try to catch them before 4:20 PM.
Yeah, heh, but the war on drugs wasn't about taking lives or murder. My opinion on drugs? Legalize it and standardize it. A big part of the problem with drugs isn't so much people abusing them but the quality of the drugs being so different from dealer to dealer. If the FDA could introduce standards of quality, I think people using drugs would be a lot less likely to hurt themselves. Right now if you get some bad weed or whatever, you can't go sue your dealer without getting yourself in trouble too. Also, part of the draw for drugs is no doubt that it's against the law-- people love to do things that are against the law, especially if the only person who might get hurt is themselves.
Instead, I propose mandatory counselling for the woman before and after the abortion. And it should be meaningful, with previous aborters there to share their experiences. Abortion is not easy on a woman, no matter how calloused she thinks she is. It has been well known to lead to suicide.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I don't believe the war on drugs is at all like making abortions illegal. A person doing drugs will rarely impact anyone else directly-- with abortion there will always be a loss of life if it is carried out. See the difference? It's an issue of severity. Legalizing abortion creatures the murky scenario of a mother and her unborn child being killed in an auto accident-- does the perpetrator face one murder charge or does he face two? How do you reconcile an unborn child being valuable in an auto-accident against the proposed legalized abortion where the value of the child is non-existant?
I just don't see how someone, anyone, can say the value of the life is less if the mother wants it dead.
The problem with the big two parties, Democrats and Republicans, is that they're so extreme with regard to their views. Democrats (seemingly) want abortions legalized in nearly all circumstances, even so-called "partial birth abortions". Republicans are the exact opposite, wanting to make illegal all forms of abortion, even abortion in the case of rape/incest or cases where the mothers life is threatened. Why is it they can't realize there's a reasonable center point on the issue where a woman can still get an abortion if the pregnancy is likely to kill her or if she's been raped/been the victim of incest, while making illegal abortions used as birth control?
And as far as kids go, you're right. Kids have sex, but I imagine this is a lot less to do with kids being kids and more to do with kids simply not getting the education up front that sex is, primarily, for pro-creation. Yeah it's fun and great and all that, but then we get into the issue of condoms in school and such, another issue that seems dead obvious to me, but still gets fought out time and again at the local level. As far as deterrants for kids to avoid having unprotected sex-- most states have laws on the books which dictate that whomever takes the child when it's born, the other partner must provide child support. I know that was a scary enough issue for me as a teen, the thought of spending my first 15 years out of school paying child support to some girl. Scaring kids with things like that won't work with all of them, but it ought to catch the majority-- and if some kids go and do it anyways and the female gets pregnant? Well, I guess one of them gets to own up for child support payments for another 18 years. They can serve as the warning to other teens that unprotected sex is an awful idea.
Heh, you had me up until you started hitting all the ethical issues. Especially this one--
Saying if it was up to him, woman have no right to control their own bodies
See, women do have control over their own bodies-- they can choose to not have sex. Abortion as a method of birth control is murder. Abortion for rape/incest victims or those where the life of the mother is threatened, that's fine. But just getting abortions because "Oops, hehe, I got pregnant again!", that's BS.
I hear that goddamned slogan, "A Woman's Right To Choose" being thrown around in the media and I instantly do a replace on "Choose" with "Murder". Because when it comes down to it, it's really just "A Woman's Right To Murder".
As for--
Trying to keep a couple in love from marrying in a civil ceremony, while divorced people re-marrying are no more in line with christianity
Well, see, marriage is between a man and a woman, it's been like that for thousands of years. But more importantly, to me, is this: should marriage even be dictated by the government? I mean, seperation of church and state and all, you'd think that, at the government level, all marriage would be called civil unions, and it'd be up to a church, after the fact, to tell you you're married.
Now, if they did that (made all government "marriages" into "civil unions"), people could go get their "civil union license" (be it for a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman), then have the ceremony completed by a minister (or whatever) which could call it whatever he/she wanted to, but in the end, as far as the government was concerned, it'd be a "civil union". Because I can actually imagine someone coming up with a new religion that doesn't call it "marriage" and getting pissed that the government is force-feeding the term down peoples throats.
BTW: I wouldn't have any problem with removing "under God" from the pledge of allegiance either. Or getting rid of the "In God We Trust" bit from our currency. Seperation of church and state should be absolute.
Anyways.. I predict I'll be modded flamebait or, heh, get flamed, or a combination of both!:P
Maybe you missed it or maybe you're trolling, but they're going after college students. If you don't think college students talk to one another, well, let me be the first to tell you, you're wrong. The more college students that get sued the more other college students are going to ask how and why is this is happening, and the more that are going to want to take it out on the RIAA.
No, it's not isolated to just us on Slashdot, it's very much something that will spread throughout the culture of college students today.
Doing this will bite them big time once those college students are working adults.
Well the point of that paragraph was, don't be indifferent this year (or any year) you're able to participate in an election-- bite the bullet and find the candidate that most matches your vision of where this country should go.
I know that a lot of complaints I've seen and heard have been that neither candidate is what someone wants: well set aside those ideals because whether you like it or not, we're getting one of those two November 2nd. Being indifferent isn't counted (or recounted).
FTR, I am a bit more positive about my choice than the "lesser of two evils" quote lets on.;) I'd just hate to think someone out there isn't voting, at all, because neither candidate fits their ideals/vision perfectly.
Unless you earn > $200,000 a year, you should be safe. In fact, according to Kerry, you could be getting even more tax breaks under his administration. From the second debate--
Question 11: Sen. Kerry, will you pledge not to raise
taxes on families making less than $200,000 during your first term?
GIBSON: Sen. Kerry, the next question will be for you, and it comes
from James Varner, who I believe is in this section.
Mr. Varner? You need a microphone.
QUESTIONER: Thank you.
Sen. Kerry, would you be willing to look directly into the camera and, using
simple and unequivocal language, give the American people your solemn pledge not
to sign any legislation that will increase the tax burden on families earning
less than $200,000 a year during your first term?
KERRY: Absolutely. Yes. Right into the camera. Yes. I am not going to
raise taxes.
I have a tax cut. And here's my tax cut.
I raise the child-care credit by $1,000 for families to help them be able to
take care of their kids.
I have a $4,000 tuition tax credit that goes to parents -- and kids, if
they're earning for themselves -- to be able to pay for college.
And I lower the cost of health care in the way that I described to you.
Every part of my program I've shown how I'm going to pay for it.
And I've gotten good people, like former Secretary of the Treasury Bob Rubin,
for instance, who showed how to balance budgets and give you a good economy, to
help me crunch these numbers and make them work. I've even scaled back some of
my favorite programs already, like the child-care program I wanted to fund and
the national service program, because the president's deficit keeps growing and
I've said as a pledge, I'm going to cut the deficit in half in four years.
Now, I'm going to restore what we did in the 1990s, ladies and gentlemen: pay
as you go. We're going to do it like you do it. The president broke the
pay-as-you-go rule.
Somebody here asked the question about, Why haven't you vetoed something?
It's a good question. If you care about it, why don't you veto it?
I think John McCain called the energy bill the No Lobbyist Left Behind
bill.
I mean, you've got to stand up and fight somewhere, folks.
I'm pledging I will not raise taxes; I'm giving a tax cut to the people
earning less than $200,000 a year.
Now, for the people earning more than $200,000 a year, you're going to see a
rollback to the level we were at with Bill Clinton, when people made a lot of
money. And looking around here, at this group here, I suspect there are only
three people here who are going to be affected: the president, me, and, Charlie,
I'm sorry, you too.
(LAUGHTER)
GIBSON: Mr. President, 90 seconds.
BUSH: He's just not credible when he talks about being fiscally
conservative. He's just not credible. If you look at his record in the Senate,
he voted to break the caps -- the spending caps -- over 200 times.
And here he says he's going to be a fiscal conservative, all of a sudden.
It's just not credible. You cannot believe it.
And of course he's going to raise your taxes. You see, he's proposed $2.2
trillion of new spending. And you say: Well, how are you going to pay for it? He
says, well, he's going to raise the taxes on the rich -- that's what he said --
the top two brackets. That raises, he says $800 billion; we say $600 billion.
We've got battling green eye shades.
Somewhere in between those numbers -- and so there's a difference, what he's
promised and what he can raise.
Now, either he's going to break all these wonderful promises he's told you
about or he's going to raise taxes. And I suspect, given his record, he's going
to raise taxes.
And what about performances over the radio or other mediums? I coulda swore that radios had to pay a nickel or something everytime they played certain songs. And as you say, those go on for years and years (if not on the latest teen top-40 station, then on "classics" stations, and so forth).
Its a negative campaign that'll end up hurting them.
Yeah really, if nothing else it's raising a whole new generation to hate and loathe the RIAA. I know when I was a kid I'd never even heard of the RIAA except, maybe, when Al Gore's wife (you know, Tipper) was trying to get music censored-- then I seem to recall the RIAA actually being out against that (hence the "explicit lyrics" labels). But todays young adults? I don't see them having any love for the RIAA.
So.. way to go guys, keep it up! Another 4-5 years of this and you'll have a nice chunk of the next generation totally hating you!
I'm more interested to learn what would happen if someone with an illegitamte copy of Corporate with a generated key would be detected as genuine or not.
Well, I have Windows XPSP2 installed on another boxen sitting here that is using the corporate edition and a VLK. Ran the Photo Story 3 for Windows "offer" and it didn't say anything (installed the ActiveX control, it ran for a second, then skipped ahead to the download instructions for Photo Story 3). So, either it's not reporting if you "passed" or "failed", or the corporate edition with a VLK is enough for it to think you're legit.
Probably dumb of me to do that, but bleh, I have a legit copy of WinXP but it's still packed in a moving box. It was easier to download an ISO and a keygen than it was to dig out that disc from who knows what box.
You sure do think there's a lot of cheap people out there. =) 5.1 surround setups are getting incredibly cheap, most can be had for far under $1000 (that's receiver, speakers and DVD-A/SACD player with all the cabling needed to install it all). FTR, DVD-Audio/SACD players (that play both) can be had for roughly $100-150 nowadays (see: Pioneer DV-578A-S, $130 or so). Is it as cheap as a discman or bookshelf system? No, but then those are meant for entirely different tasks.
As far as Blu-Ray/HD-DVD goes, it's a necessary format. As the HDTV adoption rate increases in the United States people will want a format that'll work on their new widescreen sets. Anamorphic editions only help a little bit-- the difference (visibly) between 1080i (which is what Blu-Ray/HD-DVD will provide) and the 720p DVD players output is practically night and day. And for people who bought non-anamorphic releases, well, the difference to them will be huge.
Backwards compatibility will be the clincher though. That's the problem with comparing DVD-A/SACD to MiniDisc-- MD wasn't backwards compatible with either tape or CD. And DAT? Like I said before, IIRC DAT came out after audio CD's, and as you say, there's not much of a perceptible difference between it and CD (no 5.1, and while you might notice a difference in the quality, not all people will, and it's certainly not worth going back to a magnetic media).
As far as I'm concerned DVD-Video is mostly a filler between VHS/Laserdisc and HDTV compatible media (be it Blu-Ray or HD-DVD). And if it receives the same marketing support DVD has (with Wal-Mart driving down prices) I think you'll be surprised at how fast it gets adopted. =)
Sampling Rate (multichannel): 44.1, 88.2 KHz or 48, 96 KHz
Sample Size (quantization): 12, 16, 20, 24 bits
Max Data Rate: 9.6 Mbps
CD Audio
Audio Format: PCM
Channels: 2
Frequency Response: 5-20 KHz
Dynamic Range: 96db
Sampling Rate (2 channels): 44.1 KHz
Sampling Rate (multichannel): n/a
Sample Size (quantization): 16 bits
Max Data Rate: 1.4 Mbps
DVD-Audio provides functionality for interactive menus and other album specific information, the closest CD audio came was CD+G which I believe was a universal flop due to it's limited functionality.
The problem is that there's no audio format out right now that can take advantage of peoples home theatre setups (the 5.1 discrete speakers, specifically), let alone also provide a boost in audio quality at the same time (DVD-Audio's MLP format is lossless, it's the closest consumers will likely ever come to studio quality audio in the home).
DAT, by comparison, is a totally different beast. It uses magnetic tape, a step backwards in convenience and durability from the optical discs people were buying (e.g. - CD's), and it doesn't support multi-channel audio or even the same quality as DVD-Audio (I forget exactly what the highest quality of DAT is, but I don't believe it can get to the same quality as DVD-Audio).
The only major problem I see with DVD-Audio is that it won't utilize the digital connections available today (TOS-link or coax digital connections)-- you must run 6 RCA audio cables from a DVD-Audio player to the back of your home theatre receiver (most newer receivers have inputs set aside for this). IIRC there are some newer DVD players that support HDMI and Firewire/IEEE 1394, but I don't recall if they actually transmitted the digital audio over these connections or not (part of the reason for using the analog audio connections was to, in theory, stop piracy of these near-perfect copies-- to date, there are no rippers for DVD-Audio discs).
I'd hardly call DVD-Audio a technology in search of a problem though, until you've gotten to listen to some of your favorite music in surround sound you can't really appreciate the improvement.
if not for apple, mp3 would probably continue to be the dominant format for another 5 years.
IMHO I think the lossless formats (such as APE or FLAC) will start to take hold as bandwidth increases for internet users and hard disk capacities continue to balloon. Why settle for quality loss when you can use Exact Audio Copy and get perfect copies you can listen to? You can already find APE/CUE and FLAC albums on P2P networks such as eMule, so it's only a matter of time before collectors force a lossless format to gain popularity.
Look, you guys just can't get it through your heads that the reason why Windows XP works so well is because it runs on such a wide array of hardware-- this allows the engineers coding XP to make assumptions THAT CANNOT BE MADE in the PPC world, where a machine could be using one of dozens of motherboards, network cards, graphics cards, sound cards, etc. Mac OS developers have to code for the lowest common denominator. Windows developers code for specific hardware. Even the version of Windows that ran on PPC hardware ran on a tiny subset of the available PPC hardware. If your CD-ROM drive and motherboard weren't on the "supported hardware" list that came with Windows, you were SOL.
That little fantasy you all have of buying "Windows for PPC", running it on some store-bought shitbox you purchased from the Apple store, and having it work as well as an x86 runs Windows XP today will NEVER come to pass. Apple has spent twenty years and untold millions trying to achieve that goal, and they still have quite a way to go.
Do you think Gates could just snap his fingers one day and a few months later have a product on the shelves that would run perfectly on every PPC capable of running OS X today? It's impossible. And even if it were possible, you wouldn't buy it. Why? Because Microsoft uses their software to sell their hardware, so a copy of Windows XP for PPC would have to be priced to ease the pain of a lost hardware sale-- you'd either do without it and bitterly bitch about the price here on/., or you'd pirate it-- either way, Microsoft would lose money on it.
You don't have an fucking clue about writing software let alone how hard it is to write an OS and drivers. How many example do you fanboys need before you get a fucking clue?
Look here fucktard, I know I'll get modded down to -1 Troll again for being factual (something you fanboys can never be), but I'll say it plain-- I have done driver development, and I know all about dipping into assembly language to work with proprietary hardware.
I was not speaking to the issue of whether or not Apple could survive as an OS entity, but I was responding to the great-grandparent post's idea that it simply wasn't possible for MacOS X to run on an x86 PC. That's the biggest line of bullshit I've ever fucking heard.
As far as PC's being "shitboxes" as you lovingly (and trollingly) put it-- you should keep in mind that the same G5 you use is also a "shitbox" then; it uses nearly identical components when you tear it apart, you just pay $50 for a screw instead of 5 cents like us PC users.
"Shitbox", God, if only you morons had half the clue you thought you did...
That little fantasy you all have of buying "Mac OS X for x86", running it on some homebuilt shitbox you cobbled together from spare parts, and having it work as well as a G5 runs Panther today will NEVER come to pass. Microsoft has spent twenty years and untold millions trying to achieve that goal, and they still have quite a way to go.
I just want to be the first person to tell you-- you're a complete moron and a dyed in the wool fanboy if I've ever seen one.
There's nothing overtly difficult about Apple releasing an x86 version of MacOS X, especially since it's based on a flava of *nix now. Hell, modern G4/G5's use ATI videocards not much unlike what you get for a PC, so that throws the most difficult device to account for out the window. As for those other devices in PC's? It'd just give device manufacturers a reason to target drivers for MacOS X on x86. Then Apple would only need to provide a bare minimum to get running (SVGA, detecting and utilizing common audio and networking hardware, etc).
It's not exactly like asking somebody to part the waters or anything...
The only reason Apple won't release an x86 version of OS X is because it'd totally decimate their hardware sales and put them in direct competition with Microsoft (you know, those nice gents in Redmond that put out 50% of the software that makes using a Mac worthwhile. Clue: The other 50% is written by Adobe).
I still think that the RIAA is crappy for not only bringing lawsuits to its own customers but also trying to make otherwise legitimate tools illegal simply because they can be used illegally.
Case in point: I can kill someone with a hammer-- should hammers be outlawed because of their ability to be used to commit murder?
And the lawsuits against "criminals" who download copyrighted music just highlights how copyright law is long overdue for an overhaul (in the consumers favor). The extensions to their duration and the changes made via the DMCA have done nothing to advance technology or help the arts.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's okay because the pregnancy should have never happened.
Or are you trying to bait me into being an insensetive jerk? Hint: It's not working.
No, I don't think condoms will stop people from getting pregnant-- no birth control method is 100% (well, except for abortion of course). But there's a shocking number of people out there that forego condoms because they're inconvenient or, worse, "don't feel right". And until we develop mind-reading technology, the only way to treat people who get pregnant is equally-- yes it's saddening that the condom broke/didn't work and somebody got pregnant and now has to deal with the reality that they're about to have a child. But what's more sad? The mother/father forced to deal with having a child? Or the child being "aborted" so the mother/father don't have to be inconvenienced?
You're right though about it being an opinion: medical science isn't at a point where it can define where "life" begins. And even if it could, who's to say that the promise of life should be ignored?
I agree with what a lot of posters in this little sub-thread have said though: we need better education, better promotion of safe sex and abstinence, and we need to instill in youth that sex isn't just something fun that feels good-- it can have long lasting ramifications.
You're trying to corner case this. Weak.
Now let's get back into reality where it's rare that a child needs a kidney donor let alone from their mother only.
What's scary here is that you're trying to justify women murdering unborn children because they're inconvenient. I guess she should have thought about that before the sex, huh?
Sure, same risk. But here's the major difference-- one occurs while the child is still in the womb, the other occurs after the child is born. It's a difference of time. Besides, the alternative to having the mother give birth is to kill the child. The alternative to the mother giving her kidney is to find an alternate donor kidney or allow the child to live out what remains of his/her life.
Then there's the issue of, is the child in the mothers womb when the kidney needs to be transplanted?
It's absolutely an apples to oranges comparison.
So no.. I don't see how you can go from forcing her to bring the child into the world to forcing her to give a kidney the child needs one. Sounds like an apples to oranges comparison to me.
Neither candidate has a good position on gay marriage or abortion though. They're both extremists as far as I could tell (or, are part of a party of extremists and would likely let any extreme legislation that passed through unchallenged). Sure Kerry seemed to be against gay marriage, but do you think he'd have veto'd any legislation passed by the Democrats to make it legal?
Read my original post, I have a very reasonable approach to the issue of gay marriage, one that recognizes that the government shouldn't be in the business of defining "marriage" (which is largely a religious thing) but rather defining "civil unions", for heterosexuals and homosexuals. Leave it to individual churches/faiths to decide what defines "marriage". If some church out there wants to marry gays/lesbians, more power to them, but the government shouldn't call it a "marriage license".
Here, I'll turn it around on you: do you think a rape victim should be forced to carry the baby to term and give birth? Do you think the victim should be forced to give birth to her assaulters child? How is this "right"?
I don't see the relation though between blowing up Buddhist statues and removing "In God We Trust"-- the currency would still exist and still be legal tender, it would just be a recognition that endorsing a particular religion is wrong.
No sir, my logic is quite fine. You'll find it's roots firmly planted in accountability and responsibility-- people are responsible for their own actions, but in the case of the rape victim, they are not responsible for others actions. Nor should they be. That would be a crime in itself.
Is it unfortunate that a child would die? Sure, but maybe we should be charging the rapist with murder as well then, since it was his actions which lead to the childs death.
Hell, maybe the potential for being charged with murder if the rape victim gets pregnant would give any wannabe rapists the idea that maybe they don't wanna be in prison for the rest of their lives.
And about your nose being broken-- that's irrelevant. Rapes cause pregnancy. Someone breaking your nose doesn't make you pregnant does it?
I don't subscribe to the notion that a fetus is less developed (and therefore, less worthy) of life than something that's been born. I do subscribe to responsibility and accountability-- if a woman gets pregnant, and it wasn't forced (read: rape, incest), then the mother is accountable and responsible for the creation of that life. It is, at this point, no longer her choice to commit murder. If she didn't want to be responsible for a child she should not have had sex. It's just that simple.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I don't believe the war on drugs is at all like making abortions illegal. A person doing drugs will rarely impact anyone else directly-- with abortion there will always be a loss of life if it is carried out. See the difference? It's an issue of severity. Legalizing abortion creatures the murky scenario of a mother and her unborn child being killed in an auto accident-- does the perpetrator face one murder charge or does he face two? How do you reconcile an unborn child being valuable in an auto-accident against the proposed legalized abortion where the value of the child is non-existant?
I just don't see how someone, anyone, can say the value of the life is less if the mother wants it dead.
The problem with the big two parties, Democrats and Republicans, is that they're so extreme with regard to their views. Democrats (seemingly) want abortions legalized in nearly all circumstances, even so-called "partial birth abortions". Republicans are the exact opposite, wanting to make illegal all forms of abortion, even abortion in the case of rape/incest or cases where the mothers life is threatened. Why is it they can't realize there's a reasonable center point on the issue where a woman can still get an abortion if the pregnancy is likely to kill her or if she's been raped/been the victim of incest, while making illegal abortions used as birth control?
And as far as kids go, you're right. Kids have sex, but I imagine this is a lot less to do with kids being kids and more to do with kids simply not getting the education up front that sex is, primarily, for pro-creation. Yeah it's fun and great and all that, but then we get into the issue of condoms in school and such, another issue that seems dead obvious to me, but still gets fought out time and again at the local level. As far as deterrants for kids to avoid having unprotected sex-- most states have laws on the books which dictate that whomever takes the child when it's born, the other partner must provide child support. I know that was a scary enough issue for me as a teen, the thought of spending my first 15 years out of school paying child support to some girl. Scaring kids with things like that won't work with all of them, but it ought to catch the majority-- and if some kids go and do it anyways and the female gets pregnant? Well, I guess one of them gets to own up for child support payments for another 18 years. They can serve as the warning to other teens that unprotected sex is an awful idea.
See, women do have control over their own bodies-- they can choose to not have sex. Abortion as a method of birth control is murder. Abortion for rape/incest victims or those where the life of the mother is threatened, that's fine. But just getting abortions because "Oops, hehe, I got pregnant again!", that's BS.
I hear that goddamned slogan, "A Woman's Right To Choose" being thrown around in the media and I instantly do a replace on "Choose" with "Murder". Because when it comes down to it, it's really just "A Woman's Right To Murder".
As for--
Well, see, marriage is between a man and a woman, it's been like that for thousands of years. But more importantly, to me, is this: should marriage even be dictated by the government? I mean, seperation of church and state and all, you'd think that, at the government level, all marriage would be called civil unions, and it'd be up to a church, after the fact, to tell you you're married.
Now, if they did that (made all government "marriages" into "civil unions"), people could go get their "civil union license" (be it for a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman), then have the ceremony completed by a minister (or whatever) which could call it whatever he/she wanted to, but in the end, as far as the government was concerned, it'd be a "civil union". Because I can actually imagine someone coming up with a new religion that doesn't call it "marriage" and getting pissed that the government is force-feeding the term down peoples throats.
BTW: I wouldn't have any problem with removing "under God" from the pledge of allegiance either. Or getting rid of the "In God We Trust" bit from our currency. Seperation of church and state should be absolute.
Anyways.. I predict I'll be modded flamebait or, heh, get flamed, or a combination of both!
Maybe you missed it or maybe you're trolling, but they're going after college students. If you don't think college students talk to one another, well, let me be the first to tell you, you're wrong. The more college students that get sued the more other college students are going to ask how and why is this is happening, and the more that are going to want to take it out on the RIAA.
No, it's not isolated to just us on Slashdot, it's very much something that will spread throughout the culture of college students today.
Doing this will bite them big time once those college students are working adults.
Well the point of that paragraph was, don't be indifferent this year (or any year) you're able to participate in an election-- bite the bullet and find the candidate that most matches your vision of where this country should go.
;) I'd just hate to think someone out there isn't voting, at all, because neither candidate fits their ideals/vision perfectly.
I know that a lot of complaints I've seen and heard have been that neither candidate is what someone wants: well set aside those ideals because whether you like it or not, we're getting one of those two November 2nd. Being indifferent isn't counted (or recounted).
FTR, I am a bit more positive about my choice than the "lesser of two evils" quote lets on.
Unless you earn > $200,000 a year, you should be safe. In fact, according to Kerry, you could be getting even more tax breaks under his administration. From the second debate--
And what about performances over the radio or other mediums? I coulda swore that radios had to pay a nickel or something everytime they played certain songs. And as you say, those go on for years and years (if not on the latest teen top-40 station, then on "classics" stations, and so forth).
Yeah really, if nothing else it's raising a whole new generation to hate and loathe the RIAA. I know when I was a kid I'd never even heard of the RIAA except, maybe, when Al Gore's wife (you know, Tipper) was trying to get music censored-- then I seem to recall the RIAA actually being out against that (hence the "explicit lyrics" labels). But todays young adults? I don't see them having any love for the RIAA.
So.. way to go guys, keep it up! Another 4-5 years of this and you'll have a nice chunk of the next generation totally hating you!
Well, I have Windows XPSP2 installed on another boxen sitting here that is using the corporate edition and a VLK. Ran the Photo Story 3 for Windows "offer" and it didn't say anything (installed the ActiveX control, it ran for a second, then skipped ahead to the download instructions for Photo Story 3). So, either it's not reporting if you "passed" or "failed", or the corporate edition with a VLK is enough for it to think you're legit.
Probably dumb of me to do that, but bleh, I have a legit copy of WinXP but it's still packed in a moving box. It was easier to download an ISO and a keygen than it was to dig out that disc from who knows what box.
You sure do think there's a lot of cheap people out there. =) 5.1 surround setups are getting incredibly cheap, most can be had for far under $1000 (that's receiver, speakers and DVD-A/SACD player with all the cabling needed to install it all). FTR, DVD-Audio/SACD players (that play both) can be had for roughly $100-150 nowadays (see: Pioneer DV-578A-S, $130 or so). Is it as cheap as a discman or bookshelf system? No, but then those are meant for entirely different tasks.
As far as Blu-Ray/HD-DVD goes, it's a necessary format. As the HDTV adoption rate increases in the United States people will want a format that'll work on their new widescreen sets. Anamorphic editions only help a little bit-- the difference (visibly) between 1080i (which is what Blu-Ray/HD-DVD will provide) and the 720p DVD players output is practically night and day. And for people who bought non-anamorphic releases, well, the difference to them will be huge.
Backwards compatibility will be the clincher though. That's the problem with comparing DVD-A/SACD to MiniDisc-- MD wasn't backwards compatible with either tape or CD. And DAT? Like I said before, IIRC DAT came out after audio CD's, and as you say, there's not much of a perceptible difference between it and CD (no 5.1, and while you might notice a difference in the quality, not all people will, and it's certainly not worth going back to a magnetic media).
As far as I'm concerned DVD-Video is mostly a filler between VHS/Laserdisc and HDTV compatible media (be it Blu-Ray or HD-DVD). And if it receives the same marketing support DVD has (with Wal-Mart driving down prices) I think you'll be surprised at how fast it gets adopted. =)
Had to steal a deviation of it. :P
Er, huh? DVD-Audio and Super AudioCD both do a couple of things current audio CD's cannot--
The problem is that there's no audio format out right now that can take advantage of peoples home theatre setups (the 5.1 discrete speakers, specifically), let alone also provide a boost in audio quality at the same time (DVD-Audio's MLP format is lossless, it's the closest consumers will likely ever come to studio quality audio in the home).
DAT, by comparison, is a totally different beast. It uses magnetic tape, a step backwards in convenience and durability from the optical discs people were buying (e.g. - CD's), and it doesn't support multi-channel audio or even the same quality as DVD-Audio (I forget exactly what the highest quality of DAT is, but I don't believe it can get to the same quality as DVD-Audio).
The only major problem I see with DVD-Audio is that it won't utilize the digital connections available today (TOS-link or coax digital connections)-- you must run 6 RCA audio cables from a DVD-Audio player to the back of your home theatre receiver (most newer receivers have inputs set aside for this). IIRC there are some newer DVD players that support HDMI and Firewire/IEEE 1394, but I don't recall if they actually transmitted the digital audio over these connections or not (part of the reason for using the analog audio connections was to, in theory, stop piracy of these near-perfect copies-- to date, there are no rippers for DVD-Audio discs).
I'd hardly call DVD-Audio a technology in search of a problem though, until you've gotten to listen to some of your favorite music in surround sound you can't really appreciate the improvement.
IMHO I think the lossless formats (such as APE or FLAC) will start to take hold as bandwidth increases for internet users and hard disk capacities continue to balloon. Why settle for quality loss when you can use Exact Audio Copy and get perfect copies you can listen to? You can already find APE/CUE and FLAC albums on P2P networks such as eMule, so it's only a matter of time before collectors force a lossless format to gain popularity.
(shamelessly translated from http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=125372&cid =10505702)
/., or you'd pirate it-- either way, Microsoft would lose money on it.
Look, you guys just can't get it through your heads that the reason why Windows XP works so well is because it runs on such a wide array of hardware-- this allows the engineers coding XP to make assumptions THAT CANNOT BE MADE in the PPC world, where a machine could be using one of dozens of motherboards, network cards, graphics cards, sound cards, etc. Mac OS developers have to code for the lowest common denominator. Windows developers code for specific hardware. Even the version of Windows that ran on PPC hardware ran on a tiny subset of the available PPC hardware. If your CD-ROM drive and motherboard weren't on the "supported hardware" list that came with Windows, you were SOL.
That little fantasy you all have of buying "Windows for PPC", running it on some store-bought shitbox you purchased from the Apple store, and having it work as well as an x86 runs Windows XP today will NEVER come to pass. Apple has spent twenty years and untold millions trying to achieve that goal, and they still have quite a way to go.
Do you think Gates could just snap his fingers one day and a few months later have a product on the shelves that would run perfectly on every PPC capable of running OS X today? It's impossible. And even if it were possible, you wouldn't buy it. Why? Because Microsoft uses their software to sell their hardware, so a copy of Windows XP for PPC would have to be priced to ease the pain of a lost hardware sale-- you'd either do without it and bitterly bitch about the price here on
~DarkEdgeX
Look here fucktard, I know I'll get modded down to -1 Troll again for being factual (something you fanboys can never be), but I'll say it plain-- I have done driver development, and I know all about dipping into assembly language to work with proprietary hardware.
I was not speaking to the issue of whether or not Apple could survive as an OS entity, but I was responding to the great-grandparent post's idea that it simply wasn't possible for MacOS X to run on an x86 PC. That's the biggest line of bullshit I've ever fucking heard.
As far as PC's being "shitboxes" as you lovingly (and trollingly) put it-- you should keep in mind that the same G5 you use is also a "shitbox" then; it uses nearly identical components when you tear it apart, you just pay $50 for a screw instead of 5 cents like us PC users.
"Shitbox", God, if only you morons had half the clue you thought you did...
I just want to be the first person to tell you-- you're a complete moron and a dyed in the wool fanboy if I've ever seen one.
There's nothing overtly difficult about Apple releasing an x86 version of MacOS X, especially since it's based on a flava of *nix now. Hell, modern G4/G5's use ATI videocards not much unlike what you get for a PC, so that throws the most difficult device to account for out the window. As for those other devices in PC's? It'd just give device manufacturers a reason to target drivers for MacOS X on x86. Then Apple would only need to provide a bare minimum to get running (SVGA, detecting and utilizing common audio and networking hardware, etc).
It's not exactly like asking somebody to part the waters or anything...
The only reason Apple won't release an x86 version of OS X is because it'd totally decimate their hardware sales and put them in direct competition with Microsoft (you know, those nice gents in Redmond that put out 50% of the software that makes using a Mac worthwhile. Clue: The other 50% is written by Adobe).
Case in point: I can kill someone with a hammer-- should hammers be outlawed because of their ability to be used to commit murder?
And the lawsuits against "criminals" who download copyrighted music just highlights how copyright law is long overdue for an overhaul (in the consumers favor). The extensions to their duration and the changes made via the DMCA have done nothing to advance technology or help the arts.