Re:Even schools don't deserve Windows for free.
on
Linux Win In Schools
·
· Score: 2
> Sorry, if they want free software they can use Linux, but they are
> rightfully expected to pay for commercial
software. Why should government
> agencies (which schools are) have software free that the public pays for.
I agree with the point, but question its relevance to the discussion. Nobody said Windows should be free to schools.
> How long before local governments decide commercial software must
> be made free for the benefit of the
people (but only to governments,
> businesses can pay full price)
Still not relevant.
> I cannot see how its backfired for MS, they are a corporation,
> and corporations are supposed to make
money. If the schools don't
> want to pay they have a choice.
The backfiring works like this: Microsoft wants to make money from Windows, so it cracks down hard on licensing, including licensing in schools. As a result, schools are forced to pay full price for software, when in the past MS "let them slide" on licensing. As a result of that, they now cannot afford Windows like they could, and so move to lower-cost alternatives. They install Linux, and the kids learn to compute on Linux, and when they graduate, they take that Linux skill out into the marketplace. Some of these people (who would have used Windows if they'd had more exposure to it in school) are going to run Linux in business. The licenses they would have bought are now not going to get bought. So:
1.) Microsoft doesn't get money from the school, because they install Linux.
2.) Microsoft loses market share when these Linux-trained kids get out of school and some of them stay with Linux.
3.) In the process of driving down sales and market share, they take a PR hit from putting the squeeze on schools.
I'm just astonished that in a multi-level posting with no fewer than three participants that addresses the use of English, every single post exhibits spelling, grammatical or usage errors. To cite:
Post one: Here's a little lesson for you in a form that may be easier
> to remember. (Sung to the tune of Mary had a little lamb).
To use a parenthetical, include it before the ending punctuation. Don't make it a new sentence.
Post two: You see the purpose of words is to communicate an idea.
The "you see" part is a separative, and should therefore be separated from the rest of the sentence by a comma. words have no inate meaning
Ahem.
Post three: Shaekspeare
Who? The spelling of the bard's name isn't that hard to check.
Post four: Yes, you are correct, that is what I meant.
While creating three sentences with one period may be economical, it's not correct.
Come on, folks, let's pull it together a little better next time.
> Of these scientists, only less than 5 per cent believed in a supreme being.
> I think this is an issue where selecting an unbiased sample is very important.
Definitely something to consider, although I don't think that "Nobel Laureates in Physics and Chemistry" necessarily represents an unbiased sample. It would be interesting to run the numbers by field, say, or by "level of achievement", insofar as that term could be defined.
> Another thing I would like to comment on is that religious
> belief does not always contain a belief in a
higher being.
Good point. I consider atheism to be a religious belief as well, in that atheists believe in the absence of a higher being (as opposed to agnostics, who do not choose one way or the other). So, I will concede that although I didn't mean to connect religion to supreme beings, putting the sentence together the way I did had that effect. And in answer to your last question, I consider the Dalai Lama to be one of the best examples of how reverence need not be tied to a diety.
> After reading this article I'll be re-thinking my
> values. Are you a man enough to do that?
Man enough to rethink values, but not enough to post under your real nick?
Anyway, first off you're confusing relying on the scientific method versus relying on any particular result of applying the scientific method. It's easy to make mistakes using the scientific method. The point is to reapply it to your conclusions to ferret out the erroneous results.
Secondly, you're also confusing reliance on the scientific method (science) with scientific humanism, or atheism, both of which are philosophical beliefs. Since philosophy and science seek to answer different questions, you're comparing apples and angels. There's no conflict between the scientific method and most religious beliefs; in fact, percentage-wise most scientists believe in a higher being. The only time they come into conflict is when someone tries to apply the scientific method to a philosophical idea, or tries to apply belief to an experiment. As said above, science and philosophy can be mixed, but cannot be substituted.
Perhaps, then, rethinking your values merely means expanding your mind to encompass both sides of the issue, thereby finding that there's not really a contradiction between them.
Virg
P.S.: I must take issue with your calling science a human creation. The scientific method is application of simple logic and experiment, and the results can describe things within or outside of human influence For example, the way electricity behaves has been experimentally defined by scientists, but none would argue that those scientists created the phenomenon just because they came up with rules to describe its behavior.
> There is no terminal velocity when there's no air resistance.
Well, the original discussion was about a high-velocity bomb, where the bomb supposedly gains extra speed by falling from a greater height. Since "bomb" usually means "must hit the ground", who cares how fast it gets going at 85,000 feet? When it reaches zero feet, I suspect there'll be some air resistance to contend with.
> Wouldn't it be even lighter to fill an airship with empty space?
Well, that wouldn't work, or your head would have lifted you into orbit by now.
In case you're really serious about this, filling an airship with vacuum would cause it to collapse, like a deflated balloon. To counter this you'd need to make the envelope awesomely strong, and the added weight needed for that would keep it on the ground.
> How 'bout we strap some 802.11 access points to these things
> and run a giant free wireless network from low earth orbit.
Maybe I'm not cognizant of 802.11 technology, but does it work from sixteen miles out? (85,000 / 5280 = 16+) That seems like it would require far too powerful a transmitter to be worth it.
> A bomb is going to be considerably more aerodynamic,
> so it's terminal velocity is higher.
You're quite right, but in your own statement you also prove his point. No matter that the terminal velocity of the bomb is higher than a skydiver, it's still going to reach that terminal velocity at some point in the fall. Assuming it reaches terminal within 5,000 feet instead of 1,666, it's still going to be moving at that speed if you drop it from 6,000 feet or 85,000 feet. So, as he stated, there's no point in terms of velocity to carrying it nearly into orbit before dropping it.
> t's been my experience that people who think that online etiquette
> is not required are usually young, immature, and undereducated boys.
> Tell me, do those traits fit you? I bet so.
Over 30, college degree, father of two. You decide whether to pay up on the bet. You should also realize that "not required" and "never appropriate" are not one and the same thing by my argument.
> Tell me, if this discussion had taken place in, say, a business
> board room, and I had suggested that the lack
of accountability online
> could be olved by identification trackers, would you have stood up and called me a moron?
Why do you assume that all communications on the Internet needs to conform to business standards of etiquette? If you made such a claim on a street corner, and I resonded by calling you a rude name, would you ask me my name or other personal information? Would you ask me to prove myself if I told you my name? Would you have the right to force me to do so? The simple answer is that accountability in real life is not nearly as complete as you suspect, and identification online is subject to the same limitations as real life. If I want to lie about my identity online, I need only make sure I am careful about how my avatar presents itself, just as I could carry a fake ID in meatspace. Your solution of forcing proof of identity online smacks of the police stopping people on the street with "papers, please" requests, just to be sure everyone is polite enough to suit you.
> If a loud-enough, sharp-enough sound is pumped through your speakers,
> however, they will blow. While I'm certain that it's not common, no it's
> *not* impossible for 'Cactus' scheme to damage your audio equipment.
While you're technically correct, the big complaint stems from the spreading of the idea that the Cactus CP scheme can do damage to your set the the data stream itself can't. There are many non-technical people that come to me with concerns that Cactus will use some secret juju to destroy the system, not just by producing a noise level capable of damaging the system, and that's why the story annoyed me. If they had said something like, "Cactus causes interference noise on copied CDs, and if your volume level is set high enough, this noise can overload the speakers" I would have found the story informative. As it was, it seemed calculated to misinform.
>...but what about going to some more powerfuly software
> such as video editing, digital video production or audio editing
> and production - which is what i'm into myself.
If you've got high-end hardware and high-end video editing needs, and no Linux native applications fit the need, you might want to give Wine or VMWare a look. They are both very good at running Windows apps under Linux, and Wine at least is free.
> The success of linux on the office desktop is irrelevant. What
> really matters is the success of linux on the
home desktop.
Not even close. The corporate world spends more by factors than the home market, and so Linux must find its way into the corporate world if it's to get widespread acceptance. I agree that soul-killing business apps aren't the best way to use Linux, but those business apps are a necessary step in the process.
> Sod Linux in the office, it is a stupid idea. Linux on the home
> front is all that matters. The rest follows
naturally.
Actually, by history you've got it backwards. Familiarity is what most people aim for in a home PC, not "cool" features. People who got familiar with Windows at work, using lifeless applications, then went out and began buying Windows PCs for home use because it's what they knew. As an example, many users who started out with Macintoshes at home, then worked with Windows PCs, switched to Windows for home systems, for compatibility and familiarity reasons. For this reason, Linux needs to find its way on to the corporate desktop, where users will not be able to choose to avoid it. Then, when their enforced use breeds familiarity, they'll be more comfortable getting it for home use. The increase in home use then drives the demand for the cool features for which you're longing.
> If you believe women should have the right to choose abortion,
> you are pro-abortion -- every bit as much as I am pro-Linux because
> I believe everyone should have the right to choose Linux.
You've got a really bad logic flaw going on here, extending acceptance to encouragement. Your analogy breaks down in that you are pro-Linux because you think everyone should be running Linux, not just because it's available as a choice (if you think of Windows users as lesser users because of their choice of OS, you understand the difference). You're pro-abortion when you have or encourage an abortion, not just because you don't force people not to do it. I am pro-choice, but the last time I was in a position to encourage or discourage an abortion, I talked the mother out of it, because that situation warranted it. I still maintain, however, that it was (and should be) her choice in the end.
> "...it seems utterly selfish and inhumane given the number of children
> waiting for adoption. It's the hight of narcissism on the part of these parents."
Even if you were right about the number of children available for adoption (see the other reply by AC), by this line of reasoning, anyone having a child by biological means is a narcissist.
Mostly, I find that the people most opposed to cloning as a method of having children are people who have no difficulties procreating normally, and I find that telling. When you can tell me the difference between wanting to make a child by cloning and wanting to make a child by traditional sex, I'll consider your argument more seriously. Until then, I can only consider it biased based on biological functionality.
> Most adults today have the perception that it's ok to just be
> a member of society, work, save, have a family,
and die, and that's it!
I understand completely the point you're trying to make with this, which is that there are those who feel that going through life while avoiding any unnecessary effort to truly grasp the wisdom that falls to them is acceptable, and that they deserve respect even though they've learned nothing worthy of it, and I agree that it's a crying shame. You need to consider, however, that there are those who do the things you describe, and little more, and still manage to amass great wisdom in the doing of them. My grandfather is one such person, and I'll warrant your sensei is another. The things you listed are not things that prevent one from learning, and in fact most of them can be sources of profound insight. The point is that you should be more clear in stating to whom your message applies. To imply a lack of wisdom based only on a simple life is disrespectful, often of people who deserve that respect highly.
> If someone comes into my house and wants to take all my stuff,
> I'm going to shoot him and let the D.A. decide whether to prosecute.
And I certainly hope that DA decides to have you arrested. See below for my reasoning.
> In this country, as a wise man said, we have a right to "life,
> liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
Requiring law-abiding citizens
> to allow any brigand to boldly stroll into a person's house and demand
> all their posessions denies me my rights. If pointing a loaded weapon at
> him doesn't make him realize the error of his ways, then that's not my problem.
This is a straw man argument in the extreme. Firstly, when a brigand "strolls into a person's house and demand[s] all their posessions", we've gone beyond criminal trespass into assault or robbery. This is a credible threat to safety, which is grounds for justifiable homicide, so it's outside the scope of my original argument (and, it's a ridiculous extension of my argument to say that I think people should be allowed to steal from you with impunity because I accept that proof of justifiable homicide is necessary).
Secondly, you don't specify what happens when you confront the assailant but again, if he doesn't "see the error of his ways", then it's assault and therefore falls outside the scope of my original argument. The real question is what happens if, for example, the burglar's reaction is to run? As I stated in another post, shooting someone for threatening your safety is justifiable, but shooting someone for stealing your stuff is not, nor is shooting someone who is trying to escape when confronted while stealing your stuff. So, as I said before, if your justification for shooting the invader is, as you stated, "someone comes into my house and wants to take all my stuff", then you deserve to be incarcerated. You should consider lethal force as a last resort, only if your personal safety is endangered, and then only if and when other possible alternatives have been exhausted. As I said in the other post, letting the thief get away is inconceivable to most vigilantes, but that's a much better answer than killing someone when you don't have to do it because you're indignant about being burgled.
> I have the right to self defense, and if someone is in my home
> on some unknown mission I'm not interested in letting him do whatever
> and then let the law take care of it. I'm going to stop him, doing
> whatever it takes to do that.
This is the very essence of why vigilantism is bad. If someone is in your home on an unknown mission, you seem to assume that your only recourse is to kill him. You don't even consider the possibility that anything less than murder is possible or even desirable.
Consider this: you hear someone in your house, rummaging through your stuff. You stand at the top of the stairs (or around a corner from said stairs) and shout, "I hear you, and I have a gun. If you don't leave, I'll shoot!" The burglar runs out the door and into the night. Now, if you consider this approach to be unacceptable because the burglar will get away, but you don't consider it unacceptable to shoot him rather than give him the opportunity to run, then you have a horrendously deranged sense of personal property.
So the question becomes not whether you consider it within your rights to shoot someone in your house, but whether you consider the sanctity of your things more important than a human life. Consider that the next time you argue about your "right" to kill someone because of your indignation.
> Colorado (for positive) and many other states have a "make my day" law.
This doesn't contradict my original statement. Note that my example describes a breakin when the homeowner isn't home (the MMD law doesn't apply) and that when he/she is, that the burden of proof for threat rests with the homeowner (MMD laws relax that burden considerably, but they do not remove it).
> Ethics is religion. Faith is not a Religion. You must understand the difference.
I'm going to have to disagree on this point. Ethics and religion are very different things. They are actually not even directly related to each other. The link between the two is morality, to which both are related. To give an example, it's possible for an agnostic person to act in an ethical manner. Actually, it's possible for any person to act in an ethical manner. It's also possible for someone with a religious ideal to act in an unethical manner without violating his/her religious convictions (the Inquisition is an old example, but it fits, so I'll use it for ease). Religion is a belief system. Morality is a rule set based on the belief system. Ethics is adherence to generally accepted codes of behavior.
And, in response to your second sentence, religion is specifically a belief system. So, while linguistically your statement is correct (one can have faith without a directed religion, such as "faith in the goodness of mankind"), by definition one cannot have a religion without faith.
> Yes, but criminal trespass (a crime to which an American citzen
> can respond with deadly force) and cracking a webserver are of the same magnitude.
Even if I agreed that criminal trespass and cracking a webserver are the same (they're not, in either a legal or ethical sense), you're way off on the justification for deadly force, at least in the laws of most U.S. jurisdictions. First, cracking a web server is like picking the lock on your front door, which is breaking and entering, not criminal trespass. Second, you're not legally allowed to use deadly force against someone unless they are threatening your life or well-being. Since someone can commit criminal trespass when you're not present, if you drilled someone just because they broke into your house while you were at work, you'd be guilty of second-degree murder. In fact, if you shoot someone who breaks into your house while you're at home, the burden of proof for threat still rests with you (basically, you get "convicted" of justifiable homicide) or you're still going up the river.
> There's no difference between light and
heat radition, and
> there should be no difference in using such tools.
I fully agree. So does the Supreme Court. They stated that the rules of appropriate search must apply to thermal radiation measurements in the same way they apply to visible light. In the same way they can't plant a camera outside your house without a warrant, they can't monitor your thermal emissions without a warrant.
> If a cop walks up and puts his hand on my wall, and it feels
> warmer than my neighbors' walls, does this
violate my rights
> under the 4th Amendment? Of course not.
Fact Check required. If an officer walks up to your house and puts his hand against it to see if it's warmer than you neighbor's house, he/she has entered your private property for the express purpose of information gathering, and that is a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights, unless said officer has a warrant to check your house temperature or has probable cause to believe it should be warmer (which has to be compelling, like smoke pouring out a window; a "hunch" isn't good enough).
> Uh, don't you need a warrant to arrest someone? And just cause?
Actually, you're mixing two different concepts. The police need an arrest warrant or probable cause. If they want to go to your house and take you in, they need a warrant. If an officer observes something that, within specified rules, gives him/her cause to believe that there's a probable offense, that officer can arrest you based on that probable cause. However, once placed under arrest, you must be formally charged with a crime or released within (I think) 48 hours (legal types, please correct if necessary), as defined by habeas corpus (literally, "you have the body").
Slashdot Mirror
> Sorry, if they want free software they can use Linux, but they are
> rightfully expected to pay for commercial software. Why should government
> agencies (which schools are) have software free that the public pays for.
I agree with the point, but question its relevance to the discussion. Nobody said Windows should be free to schools.
> How long before local governments decide commercial software must
> be made free for the benefit of the people (but only to governments,
> businesses can pay full price)
Still not relevant.
> I cannot see how its backfired for MS, they are a corporation,
> and corporations are supposed to make money. If the schools don't
> want to pay they have a choice.
The backfiring works like this: Microsoft wants to make money from Windows, so it cracks down hard on licensing, including licensing in schools. As a result, schools are forced to pay full price for software, when in the past MS "let them slide" on licensing. As a result of that, they now cannot afford Windows like they could, and so move to lower-cost alternatives. They install Linux, and the kids learn to compute on Linux, and when they graduate, they take that Linux skill out into the marketplace. Some of these people (who would have used Windows if they'd had more exposure to it in school) are going to run Linux in business. The licenses they would have bought are now not going to get bought. So:
1.) Microsoft doesn't get money from the school, because they install Linux.
2.) Microsoft loses market share when these Linux-trained kids get out of school and some of them stay with Linux.
3.) In the process of driving down sales and market share, they take a PR hit from putting the squeeze on schools.
This looks like bad business all around.
Virg
I'm just astonished that in a multi-level posting with no fewer than three participants that addresses the use of English, every single post exhibits spelling, grammatical or usage errors. To cite:
Post one: Here's a little lesson for you in a form that may be easier
> to remember. (Sung to the tune of Mary had a little lamb).
To use a parenthetical, include it before the ending punctuation. Don't make it a new sentence.
Post two: You see the purpose of words is to communicate an idea.
The "you see" part is a separative, and should therefore be separated from the rest of the sentence by a comma.
words have no inate meaning
Ahem.
Post three: Shaekspeare
Who? The spelling of the bard's name isn't that hard to check.
Post four: Yes, you are correct, that is what I meant.
While creating three sentences with one period may be economical, it's not correct.
Come on, folks, let's pull it together a little better next time.
Virg
> Of these scientists, only less than 5 per cent believed in a supreme being.
> I think this is an issue where selecting an unbiased sample is very important.
Definitely something to consider, although I don't think that "Nobel Laureates in Physics and Chemistry" necessarily represents an unbiased sample. It would be interesting to run the numbers by field, say, or by "level of achievement", insofar as that term could be defined.
> Another thing I would like to comment on is that religious
> belief does not always contain a belief in a higher being.
Good point. I consider atheism to be a religious belief as well, in that atheists believe in the absence of a higher being (as opposed to agnostics, who do not choose one way or the other). So, I will concede that although I didn't mean to connect religion to supreme beings, putting the sentence together the way I did had that effect. And in answer to your last question, I consider the Dalai Lama to be one of the best examples of how reverence need not be tied to a diety.
Virg
> After reading this article I'll be re-thinking my
> values. Are you a man enough to do that?
Man enough to rethink values, but not enough to post under your real nick?
Anyway, first off you're confusing relying on the scientific method versus relying on any particular result of applying the scientific method. It's easy to make mistakes using the scientific method. The point is to reapply it to your conclusions to ferret out the erroneous results.
Secondly, you're also confusing reliance on the scientific method (science) with scientific humanism, or atheism, both of which are philosophical beliefs. Since philosophy and science seek to answer different questions, you're comparing apples and angels. There's no conflict between the scientific method and most religious beliefs; in fact, percentage-wise most scientists believe in a higher being. The only time they come into conflict is when someone tries to apply the scientific method to a philosophical idea, or tries to apply belief to an experiment. As said above, science and philosophy can be mixed, but cannot be substituted.
Perhaps, then, rethinking your values merely means expanding your mind to encompass both sides of the issue, thereby finding that there's not really a contradiction between them.
Virg
P.S.: I must take issue with your calling science a human creation. The scientific method is application of simple logic and experiment, and the results can describe things within or outside of human influence For example, the way electricity behaves has been experimentally defined by scientists, but none would argue that those scientists created the phenomenon just because they came up with rules to describe its behavior.
> There is no terminal velocity when there's no air resistance.
Well, the original discussion was about a high-velocity bomb, where the bomb supposedly gains extra speed by falling from a greater height. Since "bomb" usually means "must hit the ground", who cares how fast it gets going at 85,000 feet? When it reaches zero feet, I suspect there'll be some air resistance to contend with.
Virg
> Wouldn't it be even lighter to fill an airship with empty space?
Well, that wouldn't work, or your head would have lifted you into orbit by now.
In case you're really serious about this, filling an airship with vacuum would cause it to collapse, like a deflated balloon. To counter this you'd need to make the envelope awesomely strong, and the added weight needed for that would keep it on the ground.
Virg
> How 'bout we strap some 802.11 access points to these things
> and run a giant free wireless network from low earth orbit.
Maybe I'm not cognizant of 802.11 technology, but does it work from sixteen miles out? (85,000 / 5280 = 16+) That seems like it would require far too powerful a transmitter to be worth it.
Virg
> A bomb is going to be considerably more aerodynamic,
> so it's terminal velocity is higher.
You're quite right, but in your own statement you also prove his point. No matter that the terminal velocity of the bomb is higher than a skydiver, it's still going to reach that terminal velocity at some point in the fall. Assuming it reaches terminal within 5,000 feet instead of 1,666, it's still going to be moving at that speed if you drop it from 6,000 feet or 85,000 feet. So, as he stated, there's no point in terms of velocity to carrying it nearly into orbit before dropping it.
Virg
> t's been my experience that people who think that online etiquette
> is not required are usually young, immature, and undereducated boys.
> Tell me, do those traits fit you? I bet so.
Over 30, college degree, father of two. You decide whether to pay up on the bet. You should also realize that "not required" and "never appropriate" are not one and the same thing by my argument.
Virg
> Tell me, if this discussion had taken place in, say, a business
> board room, and I had suggested that the lack of accountability online
> could be olved by identification trackers, would you have stood up and called me a moron?
Why do you assume that all communications on the Internet needs to conform to business standards of etiquette? If you made such a claim on a street corner, and I resonded by calling you a rude name, would you ask me my name or other personal information? Would you ask me to prove myself if I told you my name? Would you have the right to force me to do so? The simple answer is that accountability in real life is not nearly as complete as you suspect, and identification online is subject to the same limitations as real life. If I want to lie about my identity online, I need only make sure I am careful about how my avatar presents itself, just as I could carry a fake ID in meatspace. Your solution of forcing proof of identity online smacks of the police stopping people on the street with "papers, please" requests, just to be sure everyone is polite enough to suit you.
Asshole.
Virg
> If a loud-enough, sharp-enough sound is pumped through your speakers,
> however, they will blow. While I'm certain that it's not common, no it's
> *not* impossible for 'Cactus' scheme to damage your audio equipment.
While you're technically correct, the big complaint stems from the spreading of the idea that the Cactus CP scheme can do damage to your set the the data stream itself can't. There are many non-technical people that come to me with concerns that Cactus will use some secret juju to destroy the system, not just by producing a noise level capable of damaging the system, and that's why the story annoyed me. If they had said something like, "Cactus causes interference noise on copied CDs, and if your volume level is set high enough, this noise can overload the speakers" I would have found the story informative. As it was, it seemed calculated to misinform.
Virg
> ...but what about going to some more powerfuly software
> such as video editing, digital video production or audio editing
> and production - which is what i'm into myself.
If you've got high-end hardware and high-end video editing needs, and no Linux native applications fit the need, you might want to give Wine or VMWare a look. They are both very good at running Windows apps under Linux, and Wine at least is free.
Virg
> The success of linux on the office desktop is irrelevant. What
> really matters is the success of linux on the home desktop.
Not even close. The corporate world spends more by factors than the home market, and so Linux must find its way into the corporate world if it's to get widespread acceptance. I agree that soul-killing business apps aren't the best way to use Linux, but those business apps are a necessary step in the process.
> Sod Linux in the office, it is a stupid idea. Linux on the home
> front is all that matters. The rest follows naturally.
Actually, by history you've got it backwards. Familiarity is what most people aim for in a home PC, not "cool" features. People who got familiar with Windows at work, using lifeless applications, then went out and began buying Windows PCs for home use because it's what they knew. As an example, many users who started out with Macintoshes at home, then worked with Windows PCs, switched to Windows for home systems, for compatibility and familiarity reasons. For this reason, Linux needs to find its way on to the corporate desktop, where users will not be able to choose to avoid it. Then, when their enforced use breeds familiarity, they'll be more comfortable getting it for home use. The increase in home use then drives the demand for the cool features for which you're longing.
Virg
> If you believe women should have the right to choose abortion,
> you are pro-abortion -- every bit as much as I am pro-Linux because
> I believe everyone should have the right to choose Linux.
You've got a really bad logic flaw going on here, extending acceptance to encouragement. Your analogy breaks down in that you are pro-Linux because you think everyone should be running Linux, not just because it's available as a choice (if you think of Windows users as lesser users because of their choice of OS, you understand the difference). You're pro-abortion when you have or encourage an abortion, not just because you don't force people not to do it. I am pro-choice, but the last time I was in a position to encourage or discourage an abortion, I talked the mother out of it, because that situation warranted it. I still maintain, however, that it was (and should be) her choice in the end.
Virg
> "...it seems utterly selfish and inhumane given the number of children
> waiting for adoption. It's the hight of narcissism on the part of these parents."
Even if you were right about the number of children available for adoption (see the other reply by AC), by this line of reasoning, anyone having a child by biological means is a narcissist.
Mostly, I find that the people most opposed to cloning as a method of having children are people who have no difficulties procreating normally, and I find that telling. When you can tell me the difference between wanting to make a child by cloning and wanting to make a child by traditional sex, I'll consider your argument more seriously. Until then, I can only consider it biased based on biological functionality.
Virg
> Most adults today have the perception that it's ok to just be
> a member of society, work, save, have a family, and die, and that's it!
I understand completely the point you're trying to make with this, which is that there are those who feel that going through life while avoiding any unnecessary effort to truly grasp the wisdom that falls to them is acceptable, and that they deserve respect even though they've learned nothing worthy of it, and I agree that it's a crying shame. You need to consider, however, that there are those who do the things you describe, and little more, and still manage to amass great wisdom in the doing of them. My grandfather is one such person, and I'll warrant your sensei is another. The things you listed are not things that prevent one from learning, and in fact most of them can be sources of profound insight. The point is that you should be more clear in stating to whom your message applies. To imply a lack of wisdom based only on a simple life is disrespectful, often of people who deserve that respect highly.
Virg
> If someone comes into my house and wants to take all my stuff,
> I'm going to shoot him and let the D.A. decide whether to prosecute.
And I certainly hope that DA decides to have you arrested. See below for my reasoning.
> In this country, as a wise man said, we have a right to "life,
> liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Requiring law-abiding citizens
> to allow any brigand to boldly stroll into a person's house and demand
> all their posessions denies me my rights. If pointing a loaded weapon at
> him doesn't make him realize the error of his ways, then that's not my problem.
This is a straw man argument in the extreme. Firstly, when a brigand "strolls into a person's house and demand[s] all their posessions", we've gone beyond criminal trespass into assault or robbery. This is a credible threat to safety, which is grounds for justifiable homicide, so it's outside the scope of my original argument (and, it's a ridiculous extension of my argument to say that I think people should be allowed to steal from you with impunity because I accept that proof of justifiable homicide is necessary).
Secondly, you don't specify what happens when you confront the assailant but again, if he doesn't "see the error of his ways", then it's assault and therefore falls outside the scope of my original argument. The real question is what happens if, for example, the burglar's reaction is to run? As I stated in another post, shooting someone for threatening your safety is justifiable, but shooting someone for stealing your stuff is not, nor is shooting someone who is trying to escape when confronted while stealing your stuff. So, as I said before, if your justification for shooting the invader is, as you stated, "someone comes into my house and wants to take all my stuff", then you deserve to be incarcerated. You should consider lethal force as a last resort, only if your personal safety is endangered, and then only if and when other possible alternatives have been exhausted. As I said in the other post, letting the thief get away is inconceivable to most vigilantes, but that's a much better answer than killing someone when you don't have to do it because you're indignant about being burgled.
Virg
> I have the right to self defense, and if someone is in my home
> on some unknown mission I'm not interested in letting him do whatever
> and then let the law take care of it. I'm going to stop him, doing
> whatever it takes to do that.
This is the very essence of why vigilantism is bad. If someone is in your home on an unknown mission, you seem to assume that your only recourse is to kill him. You don't even consider the possibility that anything less than murder is possible or even desirable.
Consider this: you hear someone in your house, rummaging through your stuff. You stand at the top of the stairs (or around a corner from said stairs) and shout, "I hear you, and I have a gun. If you don't leave, I'll shoot!" The burglar runs out the door and into the night. Now, if you consider this approach to be unacceptable because the burglar will get away, but you don't consider it unacceptable to shoot him rather than give him the opportunity to run, then you have a horrendously deranged sense of personal property.
So the question becomes not whether you consider it within your rights to shoot someone in your house, but whether you consider the sanctity of your things more important than a human life. Consider that the next time you argue about your "right" to kill someone because of your indignation.
Virg
> Colorado (for positive) and many other states have a "make my day" law.
This doesn't contradict my original statement. Note that my example describes a breakin when the homeowner isn't home (the MMD law doesn't apply) and that when he/she is, that the burden of proof for threat rests with the homeowner (MMD laws relax that burden considerably, but they do not remove it).
Virg
> Ethics is religion. Faith is not a Religion. You must understand the difference.
I'm going to have to disagree on this point. Ethics and religion are very different things. They are actually not even directly related to each other. The link between the two is morality, to which both are related. To give an example, it's possible for an agnostic person to act in an ethical manner. Actually, it's possible for any person to act in an ethical manner. It's also possible for someone with a religious ideal to act in an unethical manner without violating his/her religious convictions (the Inquisition is an old example, but it fits, so I'll use it for ease). Religion is a belief system. Morality is a rule set based on the belief system. Ethics is adherence to generally accepted codes of behavior.
And, in response to your second sentence, religion is specifically a belief system. So, while linguistically your statement is correct (one can have faith without a directed religion, such as "faith in the goodness of mankind"), by definition one cannot have a religion without faith.
Virg
> Yes, but criminal trespass (a crime to which an American citzen
> can respond with deadly force) and cracking a webserver are of the same magnitude.
Even if I agreed that criminal trespass and cracking a webserver are the same (they're not, in either a legal or ethical sense), you're way off on the justification for deadly force, at least in the laws of most U.S. jurisdictions. First, cracking a web server is like picking the lock on your front door, which is breaking and entering, not criminal trespass. Second, you're not legally allowed to use deadly force against someone unless they are threatening your life or well-being. Since someone can commit criminal trespass when you're not present, if you drilled someone just because they broke into your house while you were at work, you'd be guilty of second-degree murder. In fact, if you shoot someone who breaks into your house while you're at home, the burden of proof for threat still rests with you (basically, you get "convicted" of justifiable homicide) or you're still going up the river.
Virg
Well spoken. Your call for individualized consideration is one of the most cogent arguments I've seen yet in this topic.
And, as should be evident, I agree. The level of ability to handle the "Real World" does vary with the child (or even the adult).
Virg
> There's no difference between light and heat radition, and
> there should be no difference in using such tools.
I fully agree. So does the Supreme Court. They stated that the rules of appropriate search must apply to thermal radiation measurements in the same way they apply to visible light. In the same way they can't plant a camera outside your house without a warrant, they can't monitor your thermal emissions without a warrant.
Virg
> If a cop walks up and puts his hand on my wall, and it feels
> warmer than my neighbors' walls, does this violate my rights
> under the 4th Amendment? Of course not.
Fact Check required. If an officer walks up to your house and puts his hand against it to see if it's warmer than you neighbor's house, he/she has entered your private property for the express purpose of information gathering, and that is a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights, unless said officer has a warrant to check your house temperature or has probable cause to believe it should be warmer (which has to be compelling, like smoke pouring out a window; a "hunch" isn't good enough).
Not much to discuss here.
Virg
> Uh, don't you need a warrant to arrest someone? And just cause?
Actually, you're mixing two different concepts. The police need an arrest warrant or probable cause. If they want to go to your house and take you in, they need a warrant. If an officer observes something that, within specified rules, gives him/her cause to believe that there's a probable offense, that officer can arrest you based on that probable cause. However, once placed under arrest, you must be formally charged with a crime or released within (I think) 48 hours (legal types, please correct if necessary), as defined by habeas corpus (literally, "you have the body").
Virg