So if someone dies, we should be able to harvest their organs even if they didn't volunteer them, because otherwise they'll just be thrown away and buried?
I think a lot of people would have ethical issues with that. Which is why we require consent for such things (and obviously an embryo can't consent itself, though maybe its parents could on its behalf)
Actually, now that you mention it, yes. Even though civilization might start with the way we treat our dead, getting all hung up about the sanctity of the human body once it's dead is really rather silly imo.
Then again, in my country we recently switched to opt-out wrt organ donorship...
That's only the case because we are doing this market thing backwards. Specifically, the corporations involved have more power than their customers. So instead of listening to what their customers want and creating products in response to this demand, they produce the products first that serve their own interests and use clever marketing (and take advantage of existing marketshare) to artifically create demand for them. The result is that things like IE are on a take-it-or-leave-it basis that is not open to negotiation.
You see pre SP2 you would get a new Windows XP machine and it would give you the "first run" screen, where it would ask you to come up with a username and password and advise you to turn on autoupdates.
Was this the same pre SP2 area where a fresh XP machine would be running Blaster anywhere between 30 and 60 seconds after the first time the network driver kicked in?;-)
Ehmm, no. It's what you get from bumping your head into a concrete wall a couple of times. Ofcourse if mummy then goes around and blames the concrete wall instead of telling you to fucking watch where you're going...you'll never learn.
Now...the truly wise learn by watching *other* people run into concrete walls, which is why the internet is so bloody useful;-)
If the EU decided to standardize power outlets, and picked one that your country doesn't currently use, would you support or oppose that?
Neither, until I see the hard numbers. If there's a good case to be made for the change...sure, go ahead. If it comes out of some sort of ideological pipe dream...forget it.
So they open a new tab, move to the little search thingy in the top right of their browser screen, type in "wiki kelvin", hit the first link and learn something new/remember physics class from when they were 14.
Indeed it is, but then again, considering the limited amount of ways for it to transfer, we might actually be able to bring it down quite a bit in the future.
Of course that won't help the millions that are already infected...
Makes sense, really. These days a lot of gamers are in their twenties, thirties and forties. We have money, we have the willingness to spend it, but what we have very little of is time to waste.
Make it convenient for me to give you money in exchange for your product and I will.
Should the government keep subsidizing wind and the infrastructure.
While I agree with gas as a "bridge" fuel, that makes me laugh. Why don't we stop subsidizing nukes, oil, gas and coal? We can start by forcing them to pay market prices for the mineral leases on Gov't. lands.
Let's just end all subsidies, let market forces come into play, and then see what the real winner would be.
Welcome to the human race. Most peoples' important life decisions are made emotionally, on a whim, or on a bet.
Hah, if only they'd restrict it to their lives. Yay for executives basing multi-million dollar/euro/currency of choice strategic corporate decisions on what their gut tells them or what is convenient for some buddy somewhere.
Homosexuality is a choice, not biology, regardless of what crank science says. Race is based off biology, not choice, and is readily observed. You cannot equate the two, sorry. Further,
Polls show that most people in America believe in #1, so get over it. Just because people believe in #1, doesn't mean they're going to beat down the doors of a homosexual and get violent with them. Nor, does it mean such people will argue against homosexuals carrying life insurance, holding various jobs, etc.
There are tons of evidence against the first statement. The fact that the majority of americans chooses to ignore this evidence and prefers to get their guidance from your invisible friend in the sky doesn't change that. Animals are incapable of choice, yet homosexuality has been observed and documented in more species than most people know even exist.
And how exactly is 2 men or 2 women choosing to make a more profound commitment to one another forcing you to accept anything at all?
I'll let you get back to (t)humping your bible now.
Apparently it does work, because you are clearly willing to change your way of life because you feel "under threat".
Yes, 9/11 was pretty grim. Several buildings destroyed, a couple thousand people dead. Ofcourse a little while later the US attacked Iraq and blew up a lot more buildings and people. So should I be worried about terruhrists or about the next crazy leader in the US deciding he doesn't like *my* country? Sound irrational? So does changing how you live your life on the teeny tiny chance that some guy with a beard tries to blow something up when you happen to be near it.
Go back to being the home of the brave instead of a country of crybabies. If you change your life, the terrorists have already won. And while you're at it, get back some of those freedoms the terruhrists allegedly hate you for.
Also, I can state from experience that there is a definite nanny-state feel to life in northern Europe.
Yes, definitely. I was saying the exact same thing only last night to a male prostitute who needed help with the taxes he pays for his legal profession while we were smoking some weed. I mean, the state even tells doctors how they're supposed to go about performing legal abortions or euthanasia. I'm sure in the US there's none of these nanny-state rules going on, ain't that right?
Oh well, I'm sure the right-wing nutjobs the people seem so eager to elect will change all that, starting with fucking headscarves of all things.
3) Many don't have jobs and/or are living with their parents and don't think about the fact that a large percentage of their paycheck is going to the government
Well, as it happens I do have a job and I am perfectly aware of the percentage of my income going towards the state. And no, it's nowhere near 60%, nor is it going towards "comfort". It's used to ensure everyone has access to healthcare and education, so that even if my neighbour is a fucked-up deadbeat drunk, his kids have every opportunity to succeed in life and thus won't have to rob my kids for a living.
And yes, the talking heads on US television that abuse the words socialism and terruhrists for all sorts of situations where they are simply not relevant are indeed spreading FUD to those who are ignorant.
A little melodramatic, maybe, but still somewhat apt I think.
Hmm, comparing the availability of software on a phone to the extermination of a couple of million human beings...I'd go so far as to say melodramatic doesn't quite begin to express it.
Slashdot. News for nerds. Stuff that only nerds give a shit about.
See, it's not about the 99.7% of people. They buy the game, whether it's easy to crack or not. To me, fucking them over isn't a good thing at all, you lose 99.7% of your revenue. Look at what happened with EA. They screwed consumers with Spore, they saw the outrage from the people who don't download, and changed tactics. I even recall an article a little while ago where EA were contemplating not locking pirates out of buying DLC.
And, speaking from anecdotal evidence, I had no reservations shelling out good money for Dragon Age and Mass Effect. Had EA kept up their old tricks I most likely wouldn't have done so.
So from this one geek gamer to the corps...make it convenient and enjoyable for me to give you money, and I will. Screw me over...and I'll be happy to reciprocate.
The only thing the lawyer can legitimately do with this conclusion is to decide that the prospective client is either too guilty/not guilty enough to take on the case, whichever his preference. This is a private decision, which again does not involve sharing.
If the lawyer determines that the evidence against his client is sufficient for the prosecution to get a conviction, the logical thing would be to suggest a plea bargain to the client, no?
What the OP had in mind (I assume) is that lawyers often defend people whom they know to be guilty to the bone, just for the buck. That's where this joke comes comes from: "How do you tell when a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving.".
So the OP wasn't saying that lawyers shouldn't defend people accused of murder, just those that are clearly (known to the lawyer himself) guilty.
I, for one, think his idea warrants some attention, at least.
Under US law anyone accused of a crime is entitled to an attorney. Attorneys are bound by an ethical code that they must do everything possible within the law to represent their clients to the best of their abilities. So what is an attorney supposed to do when the judge asks how the defendant pleas? "Not guilty your honor, even though you and I both know the sooner we strap him to the electric chair, the better off we'll be."
And another interesting part of US law...people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. So a lawyer, or anyone else for that matter, "knowing his client is clearly guilty" is an impossibility in itself.
It IS the responsibility of the readers of those journalists to identify their biases and accept or reject their reports accordingly- just like it always has been with reporting.
How about...you know, trying to keep the bias out altogether and just reporting the bloody facts so I can make up my own mind? Novel idea, I know...
Yup...somehow the 80's hairstyles haven't quite made it back yet though. I can't help but laugh each time I see a teen proudly wearing brightly colored legwarmers though;-)
Wow...really? And you know this how? Or are you merely projecting your own sentiments on others? Any room for compromise, such as being willing to forego certain luxuries for the greater good, or is this the typical all or nothing "the greens want us to go back to living in caves" kind of argument?
I work for a utilities company in the Netherlands(relatively cold, very few private swimming pools etc.) and as a rule of thumb we assume 50 cubic meters of water per member of a household, so 200 sounds very plausible.
Not sure I want know how you manage with less than 66 om a 4 person household...1 bathtub that everyone gets to use in turn?
Slashdot Mirror
So if someone dies, we should be able to harvest their organs even if they didn't volunteer them, because otherwise they'll just be thrown away and buried?
I think a lot of people would have ethical issues with that. Which is why we require consent for such things (and obviously an embryo can't consent itself, though maybe its parents could on its behalf)
Actually, now that you mention it, yes. Even though civilization might start with the way we treat our dead, getting all hung up about the sanctity of the human body once it's dead is really rather silly imo.
Then again, in my country we recently switched to opt-out wrt organ donorship...
That's only the case because we are doing this market thing backwards. Specifically, the corporations involved have more power than their customers. So instead of listening to what their customers want and creating products in response to this demand, they produce the products first that serve their own interests and use clever marketing (and take advantage of existing marketshare) to artifically create demand for them. The result is that things like IE are on a take-it-or-leave-it basis that is not open to negotiation.
Ehmm, it's a browser. It has to *just work*.
You see pre SP2 you would get a new Windows XP machine and it would give you the "first run" screen, where it would ask you to come up with a username and password and advise you to turn on autoupdates.
Was this the same pre SP2 area where a fresh XP machine would be running Blaster anywhere between 30 and 60 seconds after the first time the network driver kicked in? ;-)
Ahhh.....good times.
Ehmm, no. It's what you get from bumping your head into a concrete wall a couple of times. Ofcourse if mummy then goes around and blames the concrete wall instead of telling you to fucking watch where you're going...you'll never learn.
Now...the truly wise learn by watching *other* people run into concrete walls, which is why the internet is so bloody useful ;-)
If the EU decided to standardize power outlets, and picked one that your country doesn't currently use, would you support or oppose that?
Neither, until I see the hard numbers. If there's a good case to be made for the change...sure, go ahead. If it comes out of some sort of ideological pipe dream...forget it.
They probably have no idea what 3000 Kelvins is.
So they open a new tab, move to the little search thingy in the top right of their browser screen, type in "wiki kelvin", hit the first link and learn something new/remember physics class from when they were 14.
Really, do we have to dumb everything down?
Unless you also intend to do a complete cultural overhaul and ban the catholic church...it won't do all that much.
Sending condoms to africa has been attempted, the continent has been infected with HIV anyway.
Indeed it is, but then again, considering the limited amount of ways for it to transfer, we might actually be able to bring it down quite a bit in the future.
Of course that won't help the millions that are already infected...
Makes sense, really. These days a lot of gamers are in their twenties, thirties and forties. We have money, we have the willingness to spend it, but what we have very little of is time to waste.
Make it convenient for me to give you money in exchange for your product and I will.
Should the government keep subsidizing wind and the infrastructure.
While I agree with gas as a "bridge" fuel, that makes me laugh. Why don't we stop subsidizing nukes, oil, gas and coal? We can start by forcing them to pay market prices for the mineral leases on Gov't. lands.
Let's just end all subsidies, let market forces come into play, and then see what the real winner would be.
China?
Welcome to the human race. Most peoples' important life decisions are made emotionally, on a whim, or on a bet.
Hah, if only they'd restrict it to their lives. Yay for executives basing multi-million dollar/euro/currency of choice strategic corporate decisions on what their gut tells them or what is convenient for some buddy somewhere.
Homosexuality is a choice, not biology, regardless of what crank science says. Race is based off biology, not choice, and is readily observed. You cannot equate the two, sorry. Further,
Polls show that most people in America believe in #1, so get over it. Just because people believe in #1, doesn't mean they're going to beat down the doors of a homosexual and get violent with them. Nor, does it mean such people will argue against homosexuals carrying life insurance, holding various jobs, etc.
There are tons of evidence against the first statement. The fact that the majority of americans chooses to ignore this evidence and prefers to get their guidance from your invisible friend in the sky doesn't change that. Animals are incapable of choice, yet homosexuality has been observed and documented in more species than most people know even exist.
And how exactly is 2 men or 2 women choosing to make a more profound commitment to one another forcing you to accept anything at all?
I'll let you get back to (t)humping your bible now.
I put on my kevlar rob and reinforced wizard hat.
Apparently it does work, because you are clearly willing to change your way of life because you feel "under threat".
Yes, 9/11 was pretty grim. Several buildings destroyed, a couple thousand people dead. Ofcourse a little while later the US attacked Iraq and blew up a lot more buildings and people. So should I be worried about terruhrists or about the next crazy leader in the US deciding he doesn't like *my* country? Sound irrational? So does changing how you live your life on the teeny tiny chance that some guy with a beard tries to blow something up when you happen to be near it.
Go back to being the home of the brave instead of a country of crybabies. If you change your life, the terrorists have already won. And while you're at it, get back some of those freedoms the terruhrists allegedly hate you for.
Also, I can state from experience that there is a definite nanny-state feel to life in northern Europe.
Yes, definitely. I was saying the exact same thing only last night to a male prostitute who needed help with the taxes he pays for his legal profession while we were smoking some weed. I mean, the state even tells doctors how they're supposed to go about performing legal abortions or euthanasia. I'm sure in the US there's none of these nanny-state rules going on, ain't that right?
Oh well, I'm sure the right-wing nutjobs the people seem so eager to elect will change all that, starting with fucking headscarves of all things.
3) Many don't have jobs and/or are living with their parents and don't think about the fact that a large percentage of their paycheck is going to the government
Well, as it happens I do have a job and I am perfectly aware of the percentage of my income going towards the state. And no, it's nowhere near 60%, nor is it going towards "comfort". It's used to ensure everyone has access to healthcare and education, so that even if my neighbour is a fucked-up deadbeat drunk, his kids have every opportunity to succeed in life and thus won't have to rob my kids for a living.
And yes, the talking heads on US television that abuse the words socialism and terruhrists for all sorts of situations where they are simply not relevant are indeed spreading FUD to those who are ignorant.
A little melodramatic, maybe, but still somewhat apt I think.
Hmm, comparing the availability of software on a phone to the extermination of a couple of million human beings...I'd go so far as to say melodramatic doesn't quite begin to express it.
Slashdot. News for nerds. Stuff that only nerds give a shit about.
See, it's not about the 99.7% of people. They buy the game, whether it's easy to crack or not. To me, fucking them over isn't a good thing at all, you lose 99.7% of your revenue. Look at what happened with EA. They screwed consumers with Spore, they saw the outrage from the people who don't download, and changed tactics. I even recall an article a little while ago where EA were contemplating not locking pirates out of buying DLC.
And, speaking from anecdotal evidence, I had no reservations shelling out good money for Dragon Age and Mass Effect. Had EA kept up their old tricks I most likely wouldn't have done so.
So from this one geek gamer to the corps...make it convenient and enjoyable for me to give you money, and I will. Screw me over...and I'll be happy to reciprocate.
The only thing the lawyer can legitimately do with this conclusion is to decide that the prospective client is either too guilty/not guilty enough to take on the case, whichever his preference. This is a private decision, which again does not involve sharing.
If the lawyer determines that the evidence against his client is sufficient for the prosecution to get a conviction, the logical thing would be to suggest a plea bargain to the client, no?
What the OP had in mind (I assume) is that lawyers often defend people whom they know to be guilty to the bone, just for the buck. That's where this joke comes comes from: "How do you tell when a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving.".
So the OP wasn't saying that lawyers shouldn't defend people accused of murder, just those that are clearly (known to the lawyer himself) guilty.
I, for one, think his idea warrants some attention, at least.
Under US law anyone accused of a crime is entitled to an attorney. Attorneys are bound by an ethical code that they must do everything possible within the law to represent their clients to the best of their abilities. So what is an attorney supposed to do when the judge asks how the defendant pleas? "Not guilty your honor, even though you and I both know the sooner we strap him to the electric chair, the better off we'll be."
And another interesting part of US law...people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. So a lawyer, or anyone else for that matter, "knowing his client is clearly guilty" is an impossibility in itself.
It IS the responsibility of the readers of those journalists to identify their biases and accept or reject their reports accordingly- just like it always has been with reporting.
How about...you know, trying to keep the bias out altogether and just reporting the bloody facts so I can make up my own mind? Novel idea, I know...
Yup...somehow the 80's hairstyles haven't quite made it back yet though. I can't help but laugh each time I see a teen proudly wearing brightly colored legwarmers though ;-)
Personally I blame Rick Astley...
They would tell us that he gloriously wrote the entire Linux kernel, which he then selflessly shared with Linus Torvalds.
One Man.
One Mission.
Coming to you this summer: The Ultimate Showdown! Kim Jong-Il vs Darl McBride, battle for the kernel.
Wow...really? And you know this how? Or are you merely projecting your own sentiments on others? Any room for compromise, such as being willing to forego certain luxuries for the greater good, or is this the typical all or nothing "the greens want us to go back to living in caves" kind of argument?
I work for a utilities company in the Netherlands(relatively cold, very few private swimming pools etc.) and as a rule of thumb we assume 50 cubic meters of water per member of a household, so 200 sounds very plausible.
Not sure I want know how you manage with less than 66 om a 4 person household...1 bathtub that everyone gets to use in turn?