Well, he's only on that slope because of inaccurate definition. I disagree with both of you; him for trying to define humanity by the ability to do "good" or "evil" (which are subjectively defined to begin with) and you for arguing based on the same.
I've always tried to define the issue by detemining what makes a human, well, human. By scientific definition (which is the only point I can argue without degenrating into religious or moral opinion), we've got the following:
Self Awareness. Is the fetus aware of itself and its surroundings? This is not a simple term, but there are expected norms for it, and a late term fetus exhibits most of the characteristics, while embryos (first trimester) mostly don't. Point conceded on late term fetuses.
Self Sufficiency. Can the fetus live without being in utero? In the last trimester, mostly that's a "yes", but before that, a strong "maybe" and the closer you get to the fourth month, the stronger the "no", so, again, I concede the point for last-trimester fetuses. As a side note, your argument about paraplegics isn't a valid argument, since virtually all paraplegics were at one point self-sufficient, and external or environmental damage that doesn't affect all members of a class are ignored for the argument. As I've stated before, "can't live without water" isn't a good argument against self-sufficiency, but "can't breathe without a respirator" counts (most of us don't need such things), and since (for example) Christopher Reeve could at one point breathe on his own, his loss is scientifically considered an anomaly.
That's just about it for science. The whole argument of soul is outside the scope of science, and so any such arguments must be made from a religious (or at least philosophical) point of view. Since this country is based on freedom of religion, I'd have to say that, except in cases where termination of the pregnancy would result in a medically viable child, it's got to fall to the mother to decide, and that's the central tenet of pro-choice.
The short form is that since you and I likely do not agree on whether the fetus can be considered separate from the mother (and when), you and I aren't going to be able to agree on whether it's right or wrong to terminate the pregnancy.
> Why is it that the debate of abortion is always
> turned into a religious thing, or a "Pro Choice"
> thing. It's all bullshit! It has nothing to do
> with religion (to the non-religious), or choice
> (just as much as the right to murder is about
> choice).
I can agree with the point, if not the wording, so far.
> What it boils down to is whether or not an
> unborn baby is a living human being that has a
> right to live.
Still with you.
> The obvious answer is yes. Fairly early on in
> pregnancy the baby has measurable brainwaves, a
> beating heart, etc. It even appears to be aware
> of itself. When it's killed it struggles and kicks.
Well, here you lose me. It's only obvious to those who have made the decision, and then justify it by what means are most convenient. One of the larger definitions that people on both sides of the issue tend to avoid is "self-sustaining." Can the fetus live without being in utero? Most definitions of life (scientific definitions, at least) require this at some level. Side note to the "coma victims and Christopher Reeve don't fit this definition" team: in virtually all cases that people have presented to me to support this, their example was at one time self-sufficient, and then through accident or illness lost it. By scientific definition, external or environmental damage that doesn't affect all members of a class don't change the definition. Thus, "can't live without water" can be ignored in the self-sufficiency argument, but "can't breathe without a respirator" qualifies.
> The way I see it, an unborn baby has as much
> right to live as you or I. Some people say that
> a mother has the right to stop something from
> growing inside her body. Bullshit, the baby
> didn't choose to be there, it's there because
> the stupid bitch/asshole wasn't responsible
> enough to use birth control. Abortion is the
> absolute epitome of the irresponsible nature of
> our society today.
Wow, an opinion, a factual error, and a social commentary, all in one. I'll skip the opinion, except to add "...or the doctors listed on this website" to the end of the first sentence. As to factual inconsistency, are you saying that birth control never fails? What if the bitch/asshole was responsible, but the condom leaked? Keep in mind that "the person is responsible for carrying the baby to term if the chosen cotraception fails" is either a religious issue (which you contraindicated in your discussion from the beginning) or a logic failure (if the person's responsible enough to try to prevent the pregnancy to begin with, and it doesn't work, logically she should then terminate the pregnancy as an effective second-line responsible action). Lastly, your argument about what abortion is assumes that all abortions are the result of lazy people taking the easy way out of pregnancy. Since you seek to prevent all abortions, your argument fails in cases where abortion isn't the lazy way out.
> With my (admittedly arrogant) opinion out of the
> way, I disagree with the decision.
Actually, your opinion isn't really arrogant. Arrogance means you think you're great. You argument is egocentric, which means you argue from personal experience, even when it's not appropriate to do so, and that you cannot get outside yourself (or consider it unimportant to do so) to better understand the opposing viewpoint.
> These people were encouraging others to kill
> these doctors. That's not free speech any more
> than hiring a hitman is.
Most certainly it is. To say that " want you dead" equals "I'm going to have you killed" is to make thinking about a crime a criminal act. Thoughtcrime is something I like to read about in satirical novels, not the newspaper.
> They have shown that they are no better than
> their enemies. I say make a website and
> encourage people to kill them...
...and show that you're no better than them. A really good plan to perpetuate that cycle.
You've taken the example to a ridiculous extreme to prove your point (which is referred to as "straw man" tactics), and made a factual error. To prove my point, try taking your 16-year-old's car keys away so he loses his after school job. Do you think the police will care about that? Of course not. How about telling your child he can't watch television, or go to the library, or leave the house? No, no and no. Take away any possession not deemed a "necessity" by law? Not a problem. Tell him how to dress, or force him to go to a particular church? Does your argument stand up to this? Not likely. To say that anyone under 18 has the same rights as an adult is just silly. If you think that the right to physical safety is the only right afforded to you, try going next door and telling your neighbor what he can watch on TV tonight.
There are few laws designed to protect kids' rights, because there are so few rights afforded to kids by the law. The V-chip is designed to make parental control of TV content easier (which is all too much a demonstration of my point to begin with), based on the assumption that parents will do this limiting with their children's best interests in mind. Note that the law doesn't care (and doesn't check) whether the parent really does have that best interest in mind, except in cases of gross abuse (like your example).
Next time, try making a valid argument instead of using foolishness to back up your point.
> It's not like after playing you're going to
> suddenly go grab a knife and kill someone or
> something wierd like that. Its just that you
> don't want Satan to have any door of opportunity
> in your life
I do have to question your idea of what's really involved with D&D in particular, and with RPGs in general. Playing such a game does not tend to pull the player into the role (the point you made), but, to take it one step further, it also doesn't offer Satan any better entrance into your life than is already available. To extend the example presented by the original poster, that would be comparable to saying that playing the part of Macbeth in a stage production would offer the Devil a way into your life.
> Furthermore, there's plenty of real spiritual
> battles to be fought in real life. Why waste
> time on a fantastical game with twisted notions
> of these battles.
Well, for the same reason I'd go see a movie or read a book in the fantasy genre. I don't tend to fight real spiritual battles for fun, but in a session of D&D, I can face off against such beasts as suits my fancy, and then walk away from the table at the end of the night. In short, I waste time in the fantastical game for the same reason I'd go see a movie, or read a book. I do it for the entertainment value.
As a side note, you should be aware that not all D&D games are full of magic and the occult, anyway. My last long campaign was set in Historical Rome, with no (real) magic available to the characters at all. We spent most of our time (we were playing the part of centurions) in combat against other mundane humans, with the occasional fight against the (real world) elements and sometimes the hunt for lost items and relics. Even if I agreed with your original premise, you'd still be guilty of overextending your idea to call such a D&D game "satanic".
The simple idea is that it is, after all, just a game. As a wise man once said, Satan is in the heart.
Your basis has a rather large flaw in it. Just because a community doesn't fit your definition of "community" doesn't mean that the same holds true for everyone. I used to run a BBS in the "good old days", and you're quite right that it was very tightly knit. But, I am today a member of a Moot (a discussion list) that has a very large population and addresses a huge range of topics, and I feel as much a part of that community as I did with my subsrcribers, and I've never even met half of them in meatspace. The intimacy of the group needs not have anything to do with geographic or ideological proximity. What it requires is a venue for communication and willingness to participate by its membership, and the Internet as it stands is quite sufficient to allow that.
Be more careful in the future in assuming that your definitions and experiences are all-defining.
Just as a side note, it's not the CD that you'd return if you wanted to return the software. In fact, most EULAs specify that you should destroy the medium if you wish to terminate the license. I found this when I returned a copy years ago of Microsoft Word. I had accidentally acquired two copies issued by Microsoft (they sent out OEM "free" copies back then) and when I told them I had two and needed to return one to stay in license, they had me send back the certificate of authenticity only. They didn't care what I did with the disks. So, having only a backup CD doesn't preclude your returning the software for a refund as long as you have your cert (or cert sticker, recently). The practice of sending out a recovery CD only was an OEM agreement that M$ put together in an attempt to make it harder to pirate Windows.
Of course, this is all a moot point anyway, as M$ won't honor the return clause anyway. I bought a Dell PC recently. I was not allowed to buy it without an OS (specifically, Dell isn't allowed by their contract with M$ to sell a machine without a Microsoft OS preinstalled), and when I declined the EULA and tried to get my money back, neither Microsoft nor Dell would give it to me. I was forced to pay for Windows Me if I wanted a Dell computer. Period.
>...how far down can we be knocked before we lose
> the ability to climb back up? Our industrial
> civilisation was built on easily accessible
> deposits of coal, iron, oil etc. most of which
> no longer exist. If we lose a significant chunk
> of resource mining capacity, then we lose
> civilisation for ever.
I'm sorry, but your logic doesn't follow. Civilization does not directly equate to mechanization, although the Industrial Revolution did certainly allow for advances in other unrelated fields that couldn't happen in a simpler society. The fact is that civilization is defined by the knowledge base of its civilians, not in the technology of the era. To put it more simply, I understand the concepts of electricity, and if some disaster came along that eliminated electronics and other such things, I could still use that knowledge to my benefit by, for example, building a wind- or water-powered generator out of materials already at hand (which wouldn't require mining or refining skills to do). The average farmer from the 1700's could not perform the same feat, even given the same materials, because the knowledge base just wasn't there. Once the knowledge exists, the means of implementation just requires time. Civilization cannot therefore be "lost forever" unless the people who make up the civilization all die, and then what's the point of this discussion?
> Second point: with the loss of machine-readable
> data, a vast amount of information would be lost
> -not even preserved on paper. Forget your
> (rather unlikely) info-disaster scenario
> - even losing the world satellite fleet would
> probably knock civilisation back (although not
> irrecoverably).
Again, non sequitur. Your assumption is that if communication is removed, the ability to communicate will disappear. All your satellite destruction scenario will do is slow down communications until those in the know rebuild the infrastructure.
> That's the problem with survivalism - any
> disaster that big leaves us no hope of recovery,
> whether it's WWIII, meteor impact, plague or
> whatever. The surviving remnants of humanity
> would be forced to live in harmony with nature.
> Than which there is no worse fate. So the answer
> is: in a sufficiently bad disaster, no-one would
> be any good.
Actually, the problem with survivalism is that most survivalists are notoriously narrow of focus. They assume they know the form the apocalypse will take, and prepare for that event, only to find that if something else happens, they're not going to be very self-sufficient after all. The best example is the large number of Rocky Mountain survivalists in the 50's that thought they knew how to protect themselves from nuclear war, only to discover that their plans didn't compensate for things like nuclear winter or radioactive contamination of their land when the fallout came, or the possibility that the apocalypse would take the form of disease or climate change, because such knowledge simply didn't exist at the time.
> Sidepoint: what makes you think most doctors
> would be any good? Without their X-ray machines,
> their antibiotics, anaesthetics, lab tests...
> you'd be better off with a Chinese 'barefoot
> doctor'. Or an army medic.
Um, a doctor without all of the fancy equipment is a medic, goof. Again, it's the knowledge of the human body that counts here. A surgeon can (and until the later part of this century did) work without any gear fancier than a bone saw and a scalpel.
Ignoring that someone else said this (in a very unkind way, I may add), the skinny is this. Blizzard established the trademark on a movie named "Diablo", so that they could make such a film related to the game. That's the entire scope of the trademark. It's very specific (they're not trying to trademark the word itself, just the movie title "Diablo"), and so when New Line decided to use "Diablo" for a movie title, Blizzard took umbrage. In simple (and legal) terms, they have the right to do that. As to the other part, an Hispanic author publishing a book entitled "Diablo" (or containing the word) would have no worries with this case, as the book isn't a movie (or a screenplay) entitled "Diablo", and so falls outside the scope of this trademark. Blizzard isn't being as evil as everyone thinks in this case. They're just trying to cash in on the movie rights to their game, which they have the right to do.
In Not-the-USA, 1,000,000 (10^6) is a million. 1,000,000,000 (10^9) is a milliard. 1,000,000,000,000 (10^12) is a billion. Their billion is equivalent to our trillion.
Let's try this, since it's relevant to the case at hand. Let's add "Johnny said" to all of your truths. After all, these truths come to the attention of school officials through the informant.
1) Johnny said, "Adam has a gun in his backpack."
2) Johnny said, "Bob said he was going to kill Clarice tomorrow."
3) Johnny said, "David has been selling drugs to other kids."
4) Johnny said, "Ethan comes to school everyday with huge bruises all over his body."
Now, I defy you to hang something as important as your child's future on the assumption that all of these statements are "truths". In a court of law, they're called "hearsay". Did you forget that your "truths" come from informants (not observation), and that your informants are children?
You seem hellbent on turning insults into injury. To take the context, here's the original line, and your response:
> > Being able to call someone else by vulgar
> > expressions is guaranteed (at least to
> > Americans) by the first ammendment.
> In fact, nowhere does the first amendment grant
> anyone the right to use intimidating behaviour
> against another.
Do you see the discrepancy? You cannot assume that every insult is a threat. To wit, someone disagreed with one of my posts, and replied calling me an idiot. Should I feel insulted? Of course, since that was the intent. Should I feel intimidated? Not unless I have a badly deranged sense of personal space. This person didn't threaten me in any way, other than bruising my ego. Your statement doesn't follow from his.
And in response to your other statement:
> It is high time we brought the constitution up
> to date for the new millenium. I'd like curtail
> the more excessive amendments, basically to try
> and bring America back to some semblance of sanity.
Firstly, what right have you (or anyone else individually) to decide which amendments are excessive? Second, why do you assume that there was some semblance of sanity in colonial America? If I recall correctly, women weren't allowed to vote. Most minorities weren't considered citizens, and some weren't even considered people. Beating one's wife and children to elicit obediance was allowed, as was killing someone for calling you names. One could be denied work, access to public places, and health care based on one's nationality or religion.
Every one of these things was allowed well after the establishment of the Constitution. What of this list do you consider sane? It's easy to look at abuses of Constitutional rights and say, "we need to change the Constitution", but that ignores the fact that it works very well, and invisibly, most of the time. Perhaps a review of the legal precedents that spring from Constitutional cases is warranted, but that's an entirely different approach than trying to change what works for a huge percentage of cases to avoid potential abuse. Eliminating rights is the easy way to fix things in the short run, but it's the wrong answer because it fails in the long run.
Sorry again, but that's a swing and a miss. Calling someone an asshole on the street cannot by law be construed as intent to violence without supporting statements, according to my attorney. For example, saying, "you're an asshole, and I'm gonna rid the world of all assholes" contains enough of a supporting statement for the target to construe a threat, but a simple insult, no matter how rude or nasty, is just that, and unless it's in a larger context like your boss saying it (creating a hostile workplace) or a judge (judicial bias) or slander/libel (telling someone a CPA is embezzling without being able to prove it, for example), there are no legal grounds for recourse. Notwithstanding your site reference, your example falls flat.
To play Devil's advocate (sorry, I couldn't resist), if you say we're meant to be in this orbit, and therefore meant to die, (I know you didn't specifically say that, but I'm Devil's advocate, remember?) then I say that we were put here to test our ability to survive, and by figuring out how to move the Earth we get the prize of longer survival. That's not immoral at all.
> I can't see why anyone would be opposed to
> moving the Earth when the alternative is letting
> ALL LIFE DIE.
Well, my hat goes in the "waste of resources" ring. If we as a race (assuming we're still around) haven't long grown past this planet in a billion years, we deserve to die. By the time it becomes an issue I hope that humanity or whatever we've developed into has no need for the planet. The thought that not moving the Earth will cause the DEATH OF ALL LIFE seems a bit shortsighted to me.
> This will NOT cause major tidal forces. It won't
> change the Earth's gravity (anyone who thinks
> changing the Earth's orbit could affect it's
> gravity must still not have completed high
> school physics).
Right on the second point, but your high school physics need brushing up with the first. Flying a large asteroid by the Earth will indeed cause enormous tidal forces for a short while. It won't change things permanently, but it will cause some short term destruction in the form of flooding and increased tectonic activity (more the first then the second).
Lastly, the problem isn't as simple as just moving the Earth, since we're not alone in this orbit. Most people who talk about moving the Earth fail to consider that we also must move the Moon, lest we move out of its center of orbit and sling it off into space, or worse, get in its way when it comes around. This changes the complexity of the problem by several orders of magnitude, and takes me back to the "waste of resources" point. We'd be better off just leaving this rock behind before then.
You got modded down because you didn't pay attention as you read the article. These scientists aren't talking about a collision. They're talking about a close pass to pull the Earth to a different orbit via gravity.
> Huh? They saw Novell, OS/2 and the Mac as a > threat, too, and acted accordingly. I think we
> know how those turned out. Someone seeing you as
> a threat doesn't mean that you beat them. Maybe
> it means that the only reason you got as far as
> you did was because potential enemies didn't pay
> attention until now.
Well, there's a huge difference between these products and Linux, which is the core of both Microsoft's and the OSS community's arguments. All of your cited examples were products produced by companies that needed to turn a profit to survive. Novell, IBM's PC OS division and Apple needed to make money to continue. For the most part, Linux suffers under no such requirement. Most of the core work for Linux to date has been done free of charge by people willing to donate huge amounts of time and expertise to the project. In this case, unlike the others cited, Microsoft isn't fighting a company, it's fighting a concept. Besides, despite the ludicrously incorrect statement by Mr. Miller that "There really isn't much value in free" (Note to Mr. Miller: isn't your company giving away IE?) once people in the mainstream get familiar with Linux or any other UNIX, the learning curve advantage starts to dissipate and the "get your OS and applications for no money and change it any way you like to suit your needs" starts to take hold. I agree with you that Linux hasn't "taken over the serverroom", but considering the position it has, and the economic drive of the Linux and open source software model, I suspect it'll displace a lot of Win200X machines. Microsoft has long been known for saying things like this just to support an agenda, and I believe that's all they're doing now.
Hey, considering your school, just be happy they don't shoot the rebellious types any more. I suspect your policy has to do with illegal MP3s, since having legal ones isn't against any law and the school would have a very hard time coming up with a legitimate reason for banning them. My opinion is that you should avoid posessing any MP3s to which you don't have rights. It seems harsh, but that's the law (and the school's rule), and so if you choose to bust it you choose to risk trouble.
> I also don't understand why people tell me that
> it's easier to download an album off of napster
> that they already own compared to just creating
> the mp3s themselves. Can somebody please
> enlighten me?
The formula is simple. For those with low processing power/high bandwidth, getting MP3s from the Net is easier. For those with high processing power/low bandwidth, it's easier to roll your own (making MP3s takes a lot of processing juice). For those with low brain power/access to the Net, it's easier to download than learn how to rip MP3s from a CD.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, he's only on that slope because of inaccurate definition. I disagree with both of you; him for trying to define humanity by the ability to do "good" or "evil" (which are subjectively defined to begin with) and you for arguing based on the same.
I've always tried to define the issue by detemining what makes a human, well, human. By scientific definition (which is the only point I can argue without degenrating into religious or moral opinion), we've got the following:
Self Awareness. Is the fetus aware of itself and its surroundings? This is not a simple term, but there are expected norms for it, and a late term fetus exhibits most of the characteristics, while embryos (first trimester) mostly don't. Point conceded on late term fetuses.
Self Sufficiency. Can the fetus live without being in utero? In the last trimester, mostly that's a "yes", but before that, a strong "maybe" and the closer you get to the fourth month, the stronger the "no", so, again, I concede the point for last-trimester fetuses. As a side note, your argument about paraplegics isn't a valid argument, since virtually all paraplegics were at one point self-sufficient, and external or environmental damage that doesn't affect all members of a class are ignored for the argument. As I've stated before, "can't live without water" isn't a good argument against self-sufficiency, but "can't breathe without a respirator" counts (most of us don't need such things), and since (for example) Christopher Reeve could at one point breathe on his own, his loss is scientifically considered an anomaly.
That's just about it for science. The whole argument of soul is outside the scope of science, and so any such arguments must be made from a religious (or at least philosophical) point of view. Since this country is based on freedom of religion, I'd have to say that, except in cases where termination of the pregnancy would result in a medically viable child, it's got to fall to the mother to decide, and that's the central tenet of pro-choice.
The short form is that since you and I likely do not agree on whether the fetus can be considered separate from the mother (and when), you and I aren't going to be able to agree on whether it's right or wrong to terminate the pregnancy.
Virg
> Why is it that the debate of abortion is always
...and show that you're no better than them. A really good plan to perpetuate that cycle.
> turned into a religious thing, or a "Pro Choice"
> thing. It's all bullshit! It has nothing to do
> with religion (to the non-religious), or choice
> (just as much as the right to murder is about
> choice).
I can agree with the point, if not the wording, so far.
> What it boils down to is whether or not an
> unborn baby is a living human being that has a
> right to live.
Still with you.
> The obvious answer is yes. Fairly early on in
> pregnancy the baby has measurable brainwaves, a
> beating heart, etc. It even appears to be aware
> of itself. When it's killed it struggles and kicks.
Well, here you lose me. It's only obvious to those who have made the decision, and then justify it by what means are most convenient. One of the larger definitions that people on both sides of the issue tend to avoid is "self-sustaining." Can the fetus live without being in utero? Most definitions of life (scientific definitions, at least) require this at some level. Side note to the "coma victims and Christopher Reeve don't fit this definition" team: in virtually all cases that people have presented to me to support this, their example was at one time self-sufficient, and then through accident or illness lost it. By scientific definition, external or environmental damage that doesn't affect all members of a class don't change the definition. Thus, "can't live without water" can be ignored in the self-sufficiency argument, but "can't breathe without a respirator" qualifies.
> The way I see it, an unborn baby has as much
> right to live as you or I. Some people say that
> a mother has the right to stop something from
> growing inside her body. Bullshit, the baby
> didn't choose to be there, it's there because
> the stupid bitch/asshole wasn't responsible
> enough to use birth control. Abortion is the
> absolute epitome of the irresponsible nature of
> our society today.
Wow, an opinion, a factual error, and a social commentary, all in one. I'll skip the opinion, except to add "...or the doctors listed on this website" to the end of the first sentence. As to factual inconsistency, are you saying that birth control never fails? What if the bitch/asshole was responsible, but the condom leaked? Keep in mind that "the person is responsible for carrying the baby to term if the chosen cotraception fails" is either a religious issue (which you contraindicated in your discussion from the beginning) or a logic failure (if the person's responsible enough to try to prevent the pregnancy to begin with, and it doesn't work, logically she should then terminate the pregnancy as an effective second-line responsible action). Lastly, your argument about what abortion is assumes that all abortions are the result of lazy people taking the easy way out of pregnancy. Since you seek to prevent all abortions, your argument fails in cases where abortion isn't the lazy way out.
> With my (admittedly arrogant) opinion out of the
> way, I disagree with the decision.
Actually, your opinion isn't really arrogant. Arrogance means you think you're great. You argument is egocentric, which means you argue from personal experience, even when it's not appropriate to do so, and that you cannot get outside yourself (or consider it unimportant to do so) to better understand the opposing viewpoint.
> These people were encouraging others to kill
> these doctors. That's not free speech any more
> than hiring a hitman is.
Most certainly it is. To say that " want you dead" equals "I'm going to have you killed" is to make thinking about a crime a criminal act. Thoughtcrime is something I like to read about in satirical novels, not the newspaper.
> They have shown that they are no better than
> their enemies. I say make a website and
> encourage people to kill them...
Virg
You've taken the example to a ridiculous extreme to prove your point (which is referred to as "straw man" tactics), and made a factual error. To prove my point, try taking your 16-year-old's car keys away so he loses his after school job. Do you think the police will care about that? Of course not. How about telling your child he can't watch television, or go to the library, or leave the house? No, no and no. Take away any possession not deemed a "necessity" by law? Not a problem. Tell him how to dress, or force him to go to a particular church? Does your argument stand up to this? Not likely. To say that anyone under 18 has the same rights as an adult is just silly. If you think that the right to physical safety is the only right afforded to you, try going next door and telling your neighbor what he can watch on TV tonight.
There are few laws designed to protect kids' rights, because there are so few rights afforded to kids by the law. The V-chip is designed to make parental control of TV content easier (which is all too much a demonstration of my point to begin with), based on the assumption that parents will do this limiting with their children's best interests in mind. Note that the law doesn't care (and doesn't check) whether the parent really does have that best interest in mind, except in cases of gross abuse (like your example).
Next time, try making a valid argument instead of using foolishness to back up your point.
Virg
> It's not like after playing you're going to
> suddenly go grab a knife and kill someone or
> something wierd like that. Its just that you
> don't want Satan to have any door of opportunity
> in your life
I do have to question your idea of what's really involved with D&D in particular, and with RPGs in general. Playing such a game does not tend to pull the player into the role (the point you made), but, to take it one step further, it also doesn't offer Satan any better entrance into your life than is already available. To extend the example presented by the original poster, that would be comparable to saying that playing the part of Macbeth in a stage production would offer the Devil a way into your life.
> Furthermore, there's plenty of real spiritual
> battles to be fought in real life. Why waste
> time on a fantastical game with twisted notions
> of these battles.
Well, for the same reason I'd go see a movie or read a book in the fantasy genre. I don't tend to fight real spiritual battles for fun, but in a session of D&D, I can face off against such beasts as suits my fancy, and then walk away from the table at the end of the night. In short, I waste time in the fantastical game for the same reason I'd go see a movie, or read a book. I do it for the entertainment value.
As a side note, you should be aware that not all D&D games are full of magic and the occult, anyway. My last long campaign was set in Historical Rome, with no (real) magic available to the characters at all. We spent most of our time (we were playing the part of centurions) in combat against other mundane humans, with the occasional fight against the (real world) elements and sometimes the hunt for lost items and relics. Even if I agreed with your original premise, you'd still be guilty of overextending your idea to call such a D&D game "satanic".
The simple idea is that it is, after all, just a game. As a wise man once said, Satan is in the heart.
Virg
Your basis has a rather large flaw in it. Just because a community doesn't fit your definition of "community" doesn't mean that the same holds true for everyone. I used to run a BBS in the "good old days", and you're quite right that it was very tightly knit. But, I am today a member of a Moot (a discussion list) that has a very large population and addresses a huge range of topics, and I feel as much a part of that community as I did with my subsrcribers, and I've never even met half of them in meatspace. The intimacy of the group needs not have anything to do with geographic or ideological proximity. What it requires is a venue for communication and willingness to participate by its membership, and the Internet as it stands is quite sufficient to allow that.
Be more careful in the future in assuming that your definitions and experiences are all-defining.
Virg
The idea is to go only part of the way around, and let the next generation complete the loop.
.sig, because there are so many smart, rich parents.
And, in answer to your
Virg
Just as a side note, it's not the CD that you'd return if you wanted to return the software. In fact, most EULAs specify that you should destroy the medium if you wish to terminate the license. I found this when I returned a copy years ago of Microsoft Word. I had accidentally acquired two copies issued by Microsoft (they sent out OEM "free" copies back then) and when I told them I had two and needed to return one to stay in license, they had me send back the certificate of authenticity only. They didn't care what I did with the disks. So, having only a backup CD doesn't preclude your returning the software for a refund as long as you have your cert (or cert sticker, recently). The practice of sending out a recovery CD only was an OEM agreement that M$ put together in an attempt to make it harder to pirate Windows.
Of course, this is all a moot point anyway, as M$ won't honor the return clause anyway. I bought a Dell PC recently. I was not allowed to buy it without an OS (specifically, Dell isn't allowed by their contract with M$ to sell a machine without a Microsoft OS preinstalled), and when I declined the EULA and tried to get my money back, neither Microsoft nor Dell would give it to me. I was forced to pay for Windows Me if I wanted a Dell computer. Period.
Virg
> Yea such a thing is against the DMCA, let em
> find me and sue me. I call it fair use.
That's odd. Most people call that "theft".
Virg
> ...how far down can we be knocked before we lose
> the ability to climb back up? Our industrial
> civilisation was built on easily accessible
> deposits of coal, iron, oil etc. most of which
> no longer exist. If we lose a significant chunk
> of resource mining capacity, then we lose
> civilisation for ever.
I'm sorry, but your logic doesn't follow. Civilization does not directly equate to mechanization, although the Industrial Revolution did certainly allow for advances in other unrelated fields that couldn't happen in a simpler society. The fact is that civilization is defined by the knowledge base of its civilians, not in the technology of the era. To put it more simply, I understand the concepts of electricity, and if some disaster came along that eliminated electronics and other such things, I could still use that knowledge to my benefit by, for example, building a wind- or water-powered generator out of materials already at hand (which wouldn't require mining or refining skills to do). The average farmer from the 1700's could not perform the same feat, even given the same materials, because the knowledge base just wasn't there. Once the knowledge exists, the means of implementation just requires time. Civilization cannot therefore be "lost forever" unless the people who make up the civilization all die, and then what's the point of this discussion?
> Second point: with the loss of machine-readable
> data, a vast amount of information would be lost
> -not even preserved on paper. Forget your
> (rather unlikely) info-disaster scenario
> - even losing the world satellite fleet would
> probably knock civilisation back (although not
> irrecoverably).
Again, non sequitur. Your assumption is that if communication is removed, the ability to communicate will disappear. All your satellite destruction scenario will do is slow down communications until those in the know rebuild the infrastructure.
> That's the problem with survivalism - any
> disaster that big leaves us no hope of recovery,
> whether it's WWIII, meteor impact, plague or
> whatever. The surviving remnants of humanity
> would be forced to live in harmony with nature.
> Than which there is no worse fate. So the answer
> is: in a sufficiently bad disaster, no-one would
> be any good.
Actually, the problem with survivalism is that most survivalists are notoriously narrow of focus. They assume they know the form the apocalypse will take, and prepare for that event, only to find that if something else happens, they're not going to be very self-sufficient after all. The best example is the large number of Rocky Mountain survivalists in the 50's that thought they knew how to protect themselves from nuclear war, only to discover that their plans didn't compensate for things like nuclear winter or radioactive contamination of their land when the fallout came, or the possibility that the apocalypse would take the form of disease or climate change, because such knowledge simply didn't exist at the time.
> Sidepoint: what makes you think most doctors
> would be any good? Without their X-ray machines,
> their antibiotics, anaesthetics, lab tests...
> you'd be better off with a Chinese 'barefoot
> doctor'. Or an army medic.
Um, a doctor without all of the fancy equipment is a medic, goof. Again, it's the knowledge of the human body that counts here. A surgeon can (and until the later part of this century did) work without any gear fancier than a bone saw and a scalpel.
Virg
Ignoring that someone else said this (in a very unkind way, I may add), the skinny is this. Blizzard established the trademark on a movie named "Diablo", so that they could make such a film related to the game. That's the entire scope of the trademark. It's very specific (they're not trying to trademark the word itself, just the movie title "Diablo"), and so when New Line decided to use "Diablo" for a movie title, Blizzard took umbrage. In simple (and legal) terms, they have the right to do that. As to the other part, an Hispanic author publishing a book entitled "Diablo" (or containing the word) would have no worries with this case, as the book isn't a movie (or a screenplay) entitled "Diablo", and so falls outside the scope of this trademark. Blizzard isn't being as evil as everyone thinks in this case. They're just trying to cash in on the movie rights to their game, which they have the right to do.
Virg
What he's talking about is this:
In Not-the-USA, 1,000,000 (10^6) is a million. 1,000,000,000 (10^9) is a milliard. 1,000,000,000,000 (10^12) is a billion. Their billion is equivalent to our trillion.
Virg
Let's try this, since it's relevant to the case at hand. Let's add "Johnny said" to all of your truths. After all, these truths come to the attention of school officials through the informant.
1) Johnny said, "Adam has a gun in his backpack."
2) Johnny said, "Bob said he was going to kill Clarice tomorrow."
3) Johnny said, "David has been selling drugs to other kids."
4) Johnny said, "Ethan comes to school everyday with huge bruises all over his body."
Now, I defy you to hang something as important as your child's future on the assumption that all of these statements are "truths". In a court of law, they're called "hearsay". Did you forget that your "truths" come from informants (not observation), and that your informants are children?
Virg
Flatpack:
Your lesson for today is that you can be right and still be a dick. Grow up.
Virg
When firewalls are programmed by clueless suits, "porn" gets blocked but pr0n doesn't. It's probably not the original reason, but it works here.
Virg
So how much less than the common people are you for not knowing the difference between "your" and "you're"?
Virg
You seem hellbent on turning insults into injury. To take the context, here's the original line, and your response:
> > Being able to call someone else by vulgar
> > expressions is guaranteed (at least to
> > Americans) by the first ammendment.
> In fact, nowhere does the first amendment grant
> anyone the right to use intimidating behaviour
> against another.
Do you see the discrepancy? You cannot assume that every insult is a threat. To wit, someone disagreed with one of my posts, and replied calling me an idiot. Should I feel insulted? Of course, since that was the intent. Should I feel intimidated? Not unless I have a badly deranged sense of personal space. This person didn't threaten me in any way, other than bruising my ego. Your statement doesn't follow from his.
And in response to your other statement:
> It is high time we brought the constitution up
> to date for the new millenium. I'd like curtail
> the more excessive amendments, basically to try
> and bring America back to some semblance of sanity.
Firstly, what right have you (or anyone else individually) to decide which amendments are excessive? Second, why do you assume that there was some semblance of sanity in colonial America? If I recall correctly, women weren't allowed to vote. Most minorities weren't considered citizens, and some weren't even considered people. Beating one's wife and children to elicit obediance was allowed, as was killing someone for calling you names. One could be denied work, access to public places, and health care based on one's nationality or religion.
Every one of these things was allowed well after the establishment of the Constitution. What of this list do you consider sane? It's easy to look at abuses of Constitutional rights and say, "we need to change the Constitution", but that ignores the fact that it works very well, and invisibly, most of the time. Perhaps a review of the legal precedents that spring from Constitutional cases is warranted, but that's an entirely different approach than trying to change what works for a huge percentage of cases to avoid potential abuse. Eliminating rights is the easy way to fix things in the short run, but it's the wrong answer because it fails in the long run.
Virg
Sorry again, but that's a swing and a miss. Calling someone an asshole on the street cannot by law be construed as intent to violence without supporting statements, according to my attorney. For example, saying, "you're an asshole, and I'm gonna rid the world of all assholes" contains enough of a supporting statement for the target to construe a threat, but a simple insult, no matter how rude or nasty, is just that, and unless it's in a larger context like your boss saying it (creating a hostile workplace) or a judge (judicial bias) or slander/libel (telling someone a CPA is embezzling without being able to prove it, for example), there are no legal grounds for recourse. Notwithstanding your site reference, your example falls flat.
Virg
> From the people who brought you Thalidomide,
...and antibiotics, Kevlar and the Internet. Just because a scientist proposed it doesn't necessarily make it a bad idea.
> Chernobyl, and Bopal (sic), a new and "improved" earth orbit.
Luddite.
Virg
To play Devil's advocate (sorry, I couldn't resist), if you say we're meant to be in this orbit, and therefore meant to die, (I know you didn't specifically say that, but I'm Devil's advocate, remember?) then I say that we were put here to test our ability to survive, and by figuring out how to move the Earth we get the prize of longer survival. That's not immoral at all.
So there.
Virg
> I can't see why anyone would be opposed to
> moving the Earth when the alternative is letting
> ALL LIFE DIE.
Well, my hat goes in the "waste of resources" ring. If we as a race (assuming we're still around) haven't long grown past this planet in a billion years, we deserve to die. By the time it becomes an issue I hope that humanity or whatever we've developed into has no need for the planet. The thought that not moving the Earth will cause the DEATH OF ALL LIFE seems a bit shortsighted to me.
> This will NOT cause major tidal forces. It won't
> change the Earth's gravity (anyone who thinks
> changing the Earth's orbit could affect it's
> gravity must still not have completed high
> school physics).
Right on the second point, but your high school physics need brushing up with the first. Flying a large asteroid by the Earth will indeed cause enormous tidal forces for a short while. It won't change things permanently, but it will cause some short term destruction in the form of flooding and increased tectonic activity (more the first then the second).
Lastly, the problem isn't as simple as just moving the Earth, since we're not alone in this orbit. Most people who talk about moving the Earth fail to consider that we also must move the Moon, lest we move out of its center of orbit and sling it off into space, or worse, get in its way when it comes around. This changes the complexity of the problem by several orders of magnitude, and takes me back to the "waste of resources" point. We'd be better off just leaving this rock behind before then.
Virg
You got modded down because you didn't pay attention as you read the article. These scientists aren't talking about a collision. They're talking about a close pass to pull the Earth to a different orbit via gravity.
Virg
> Huh? They saw Novell, OS/2 and the Mac as a
> threat, too, and acted accordingly. I think we
> know how those turned out. Someone seeing you as
> a threat doesn't mean that you beat them. Maybe
> it means that the only reason you got as far as
> you did was because potential enemies didn't pay
> attention until now.
Well, there's a huge difference between these products and Linux, which is the core of both Microsoft's and the OSS community's arguments. All of your cited examples were products produced by companies that needed to turn a profit to survive. Novell, IBM's PC OS division and Apple needed to make money to continue. For the most part, Linux suffers under no such requirement. Most of the core work for Linux to date has been done free of charge by people willing to donate huge amounts of time and expertise to the project. In this case, unlike the others cited, Microsoft isn't fighting a company, it's fighting a concept. Besides, despite the ludicrously incorrect statement by Mr. Miller that "There really isn't much value in free" (Note to Mr. Miller: isn't your company giving away IE?) once people in the mainstream get familiar with Linux or any other UNIX, the learning curve advantage starts to dissipate and the "get your OS and applications for no money and change it any way you like to suit your needs" starts to take hold. I agree with you that Linux hasn't "taken over the serverroom", but considering the position it has, and the economic drive of the Linux and open source software model, I suspect it'll displace a lot of Win200X machines. Microsoft has long been known for saying things like this just to support an agenda, and I believe that's all they're doing now.
Virg
Hey, considering your school, just be happy they don't shoot the rebellious types any more. I suspect your policy has to do with illegal MP3s, since having legal ones isn't against any law and the school would have a very hard time coming up with a legitimate reason for banning them. My opinion is that you should avoid posessing any MP3s to which you don't have rights. It seems harsh, but that's the law (and the school's rule), and so if you choose to bust it you choose to risk trouble.
Virg
> I also don't understand why people tell me that
> it's easier to download an album off of napster
> that they already own compared to just creating
> the mp3s themselves. Can somebody please
> enlighten me?
The formula is simple. For those with low processing power/high bandwidth, getting MP3s from the Net is easier. For those with high processing power/low bandwidth, it's easier to roll your own (making MP3s takes a lot of processing juice). For those with low brain power/access to the Net, it's easier to download than learn how to rip MP3s from a CD.
See? Simple.
Virg
> Would you rather put your life into the hands of
> the cops or Microsoft ?
Well, I'd choose Microsoft. They at least have a vested interest in keeping me alive.
Virg