1. Don't volunteer (make them pay for every bit of effort) 2. Don't apologise (never admit mistakes in writing) 3. Don't resign (they have to fire you) 4. Always maximise outside options and minimise local effort
reproductive decisions are joint up to the point of fertilising the egg. After that point, I think that it is reasonable to hold the blanket belief that the woman is the residual claimant of all remaining reproductive aspects.
Let's take an extreme hypothetical. Sometime in the future an egg is fertilised outside a woman's body and grows for 8 1/2 months in a "test-tube" following the kind of growth patterns we know happens in the womb.
Someone comes along and chucks the tube in a bin killing the foetus. Should we charge him with murder. My answer is yes sure.
Similarly, the frozen fertilised egg in the fridge is as much a part of the woman's body as if it were in her womb. She can do as she pleases with it. It's her body and no one else's
Ethically eggs whether fertilised or unfertilised whether in the woman or outside is part of the woman's body. She has exclusive rights to do as she pleases with them regardless of the desires and opinion of the man who fertilised the eggs or paid to remove and incubate the eggs.
So the woman should equal able to implant, store, or toss the eggs into a bin. Just as she has the moral right when they are inside her to do as she pleases with the eggs (the pill, abort). It's her body regardless of any scientific innovation allowing part of her body to survive for brief periods in a test-tube in a fridge.
Men's rights to sperm really never plays a role here.
Basically, the fertilised egg ought to be seen as being part of the woman's body if it's inside the womb or outside. So it's her choice to do whatever she wants with it. The woman owns it.
Thinking is hard, but there is a kind of thinking that is harder. Rough order of thing (easiest to hardest).
1) lounging around doing nothing (easiest) 2) doing what you are told to do without physical exertion (menial white-collar work) 3) doing what you are told to do with physical exertion (menial blue-collar work) 4) independent thinking about things not involving organising other humans (programming, painting, composing music, solving systems of equations) 5) independent thinking about things involving organising other humans (managing programers) 6) independent thinking about things involving organising other humans who are in turn doing independent thinking involving organising other humans (hardest)
has been the domain of the rich. This is because sharing was moderated by expensive middle men. If you own a castle in Britain, you are likely to regularly share some of the rooms (short-term renting them out through an expensive agency). But it wasn't easy to rent out that extra room or your basement in your three bedroom suburban house, because there was no affordable way to efficiently access that market (the market structure was very thin for short term renting).
Now the rest of us can partake in the sharing economy, agency costs have dropped dramatically for the stuff that the rest of us own.
It may be a coincidence. After giving permission to this Ubisoft site, my poker account of facebook was banned. What gives? Is the page a ruse to gain access to your facebook account?
It is a great success in Australia. I graduated under the system. It was perfect for me, because I had no money to study but made some after and payed the loans through my taxes.
who would call himself Mo? I don't think an Iranian or any native Muslim would choose Mo. It's an insult to the name Mohammad, and a common American shortening of that name. I'd more happily expect that "Mo" to be a kid from Cleveland.
I work in an area where most of the top journals are owned by Elsevier. Also most of my publications are with Elsevier and I'm on several editorial boards for Elsevier journals.. I've been thinking of resigning from editorial boards on Elsevier journals and starting new arxiv based journals because of the cost of journals. This breaks the camel's back. Elsevier can bite me.
shares in a remittance company that is likely to take Western Union to Blockbuster territory. But valuing these assumes you are buying shares that will eventually pay dividends, and when not paying dividends will appreciate because profit was is reinvested.
But Bitcoins are not shares. When you buy a Bitcoin you are not buying equity in the Bitcoin environment. Wonder what model BoA valuers have in mind for this. It weirds me out.
RMS, I watched the interview on youtube, and I don't think that he understood the anonymity issues of Bitcoin. He's not on top of the issues or the technology.
He has in mind markets with one-sided-anonymity in which the seller is known (a big cooperation) to the buyer while the buyer is anonymous to the seller. Basically he's thinking about online shopping with Walmart on one side and an anonymous buyer on the buyers side. Bitcoin provides anonymity in both directions seller-buyer, which he did not seem to appreciate. Bitcoin allows for anonymous markets and not simply anonymous buying. Bitcoin has the potential to change how we conduct commerce and not simply to facilitate privacy in exiting market structures.
Also, I simply could not understand his statement that "we have had the anonymity technology (his kind of anonymity) for decades". I really don't think that he was thinking of zerocoin.
and "complete" solutions have been around for more than a decade.
The question that may be interesting, is why have people not adopted niche complete hosting providers. I don't know, but to tell the truth I need to wake up each morning knowing that my information is reliably accessible _me_, my credit card numbers haven't been sold, and that if my provider goes down I can read about it in the NYTIMES, that's all slightly more important to me than my worry that the US/German/French governments can read my crap.
"This was the week that changed the world, as what we have said in that Communique is not nearly as important as what we will do in the years ahead to build a bridge across 16,000 miles and 22 years of hostilities which have divided us in the past. And what we have said today is that we shall build that bridge"
I think that other corrupt president of the USA said that. Tricky Dick Nixon,
When did China become an enemy of the US?
As far as I know it's a competitor, it is a steadily growing economic giant. Yes, but hardly an enemy. Unless, of course, we're back to 1972 when everyone not in the English speaking world that is not a CIA run dictator is an enemy. Frankly, the US is too small and becoming too irrelevant to safely classify the large chunk of humanity called China as an enemy.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes that's odd. It should be at prevailing wage rates
1. Don't volunteer (make them pay for every bit of effort)
2. Don't apologise (never admit mistakes in writing)
3. Don't resign (they have to fire you)
4. Always maximise outside options and minimise local effort
reproductive decisions are joint up to the point of fertilising the egg. After that point, I think that it is reasonable to hold the blanket belief that the woman is the residual claimant of all remaining reproductive aspects.
He chose to pay child care when he fertilised the egg. It's like signing a contract.
The matter would have been entirely different had unfertilised eggs and his sperm been frozen separately.
Societies that allow abortion agree with me. Societies that don't, don't agree with me.
women own embryos, and lose ownership when they become life.
men own their sperm, and lose ownership when it fertilises an embryo
simple, no?
because he has no use for it without her and she has use for it without him.
But all in all, because women own their bodies exclusively.
Doesn't makes sense to be honest.
Let's take an extreme hypothetical. Sometime in the future an egg is fertilised outside a woman's body and grows for 8 1/2 months in a "test-tube" following the kind of growth patterns we know happens in the womb.
Someone comes along and chucks the tube in a bin killing the foetus. Should we charge him with murder. My answer is yes sure.
Similarly, the frozen fertilised egg in the fridge is as much a part of the woman's body as if it were in her womb. She can do as she pleases with it. It's her body and no one else's
Ethically eggs whether fertilised or unfertilised whether in the woman or outside is part of the woman's body. She has exclusive rights to do as she pleases with them regardless of the desires and opinion of the man who fertilised the eggs or paid to remove and incubate the eggs.
So the woman should equal able to implant, store, or toss the eggs into a bin. Just as she has the moral right when they are inside her to do as she pleases with the eggs (the pill, abort). It's her body regardless of any scientific innovation allowing part of her body to survive for brief periods in a test-tube in a fridge.
Men's rights to sperm really never plays a role here.
You're right, on second thought.
Basically, the fertilised egg ought to be seen as being part of the woman's body if it's inside the womb or outside. So it's her choice to do whatever she wants with it. The woman owns it.
intellectual property. Two artists record song but don't release it. They split, who owns the tune?
Thinking is hard, but there is a kind of thinking that is harder.
Rough order of thing (easiest to hardest).
1) lounging around doing nothing (easiest)
2) doing what you are told to do without physical exertion (menial white-collar work)
3) doing what you are told to do with physical exertion (menial blue-collar work)
4) independent thinking about things not involving organising other humans (programming, painting, composing music, solving systems of equations)
5) independent thinking about things involving organising other humans (managing programers)
6) independent thinking about things involving organising other humans who are in turn doing independent thinking involving organising other humans (hardest)
has been the domain of the rich. This is because sharing was moderated by expensive middle men. If you own a castle in Britain, you are likely to regularly share some of the rooms (short-term renting them out through an expensive agency). But it wasn't easy to rent out that extra room or your basement in your three bedroom suburban house, because there was no affordable way to efficiently access that market (the market structure was very thin for short term renting).
Now the rest of us can partake in the sharing economy, agency costs have dropped dramatically for the stuff that the rest of us own.
It may be a coincidence. After giving permission to this Ubisoft site, my poker account of facebook was banned. What gives? Is the page a ruse to gain access to your facebook account?
called HECS.
http://studyassist.gov.au/site...
It began in the 1990's and was developed by the economist Bruce Chapman.
https://crawford.anu.edu.au/pe...
It is a great success in Australia. I graduated under the system. It was perfect for me, because I had no money to study but made some after and payed the loans through my taxes.
who would call himself Mo? I don't think an Iranian or any native Muslim would choose Mo.
It's an insult to the name Mohammad, and a common American shortening of that name.
I'd more happily expect that "Mo" to be a kid from Cleveland.
I work in an area where most of the top journals are owned by Elsevier. Also most of my publications are with Elsevier and I'm on several editorial boards for Elsevier journals.. I've been thinking of resigning from editorial boards on Elsevier journals and starting new arxiv based journals because of the cost of journals. This breaks the camel's back. Elsevier can bite me.
shares in a remittance company that is likely to take Western Union to Blockbuster territory. But valuing these assumes you are buying shares that will eventually pay dividends, and when not paying dividends will appreciate because profit was is reinvested.
But Bitcoins are not shares. When you buy a Bitcoin you are not buying equity in the Bitcoin environment. Wonder what model BoA valuers have in mind for this. It weirds me out.
RMS, I watched the interview on youtube, and I don't think that he understood the anonymity issues of Bitcoin. He's not on top of the issues or the technology.
He has in mind markets with one-sided-anonymity in which the seller is known (a big cooperation) to the buyer while the buyer is anonymous to the seller. Basically he's thinking about online shopping with Walmart on one side and an anonymous buyer on the buyers side. Bitcoin provides anonymity in both directions seller-buyer, which he did not seem to appreciate. Bitcoin allows for anonymous markets and not simply anonymous buying. Bitcoin has the potential to change how we conduct commerce and not simply to facilitate privacy in exiting market structures.
Also, I simply could not understand his statement that "we have had the anonymity technology (his kind of anonymity) for decades". I really don't think that he was thinking of zerocoin.
So the human player has no incentive to change away from the Nash equilibrium of 1/3,1/3,1/3.
and "complete" solutions have been around for more than a decade.
The question that may be interesting, is why have people not adopted niche complete hosting providers. I don't know, but to tell the truth I need to wake up each morning knowing that my information is reliably accessible _me_, my credit card numbers haven't been sold, and that if my provider goes down I can read about it in the NYTIMES, that's all slightly more important to me than my worry that the US/German/French governments can read my crap.
is "network" in Arabic. Not web.
"This was the week that changed the world, as what we have said in that Communique is not nearly as important as what we will do in the years ahead to build a bridge across 16,000 miles and 22 years of hostilities which have divided us in the past. And what we have said today is that we shall build that bridge" I think that other corrupt president of the USA said that. Tricky Dick Nixon,
When did China become an enemy of the US? As far as I know it's a competitor, it is a steadily growing economic giant. Yes, but hardly an enemy. Unless, of course, we're back to 1972 when everyone not in the English speaking world that is not a CIA run dictator is an enemy. Frankly, the US is too small and becoming too irrelevant to safely classify the large chunk of humanity called China as an enemy.
snark. humour. of course, it's ridiculous. But I guess it is far harder to detect humour aimed at US exceptionalism when it is so engrained.