Chizzad you've got the same idea I do; think globally act locally. I drive my Honda 6 miles to work each way, and my girlfriend walks to work...HEY, wait a minute are you having an affair with my girl?
Just out of curiosity, how many miles are on your VW? We could get into a "I'm more eco-friendly than you" contest! Of course I will have to get rid of this 19" monitor, but it's probably cheaper (in the book's view) to keep it than to dispose of it in a landfill (or recycle it or whatever.)
When I read the back-and-forth debates in this article, I can't help but thinking of that line from Voltaire: "We are living in the best of all possible worlds" The fact that so many people zealously rush to defend the status quo, and so mnay others jump in to bash it, indicates to me that we need to take a nice, long look at the situation and assess the strengths and weaknesses. My guess is that about 20% of the people here are willing to do that. It's the same thing we see in the presidential elections every four years, most people's minds are already made up before the campaign even begins!
I don't know about the satellite-dish to paint correlation, but I've noticed that since the World Cup started my plants desperately need watering.
you write the passwords on a piece of paper, seal it in an envelope, and store it in the safety deposit box where you keep your off-site backups tapes.
Maybe MS has pushed too far. Better to have a few people actually pay for the SW and pirate it than the Govt. realize that they can't afford it, will get caught pirating, and thus are forced to look to alternatives.
(I remember my old man, back in the Glory Days of the Reagan Era, telling me how much pirated software was in use at the US Copyright office.)
Or maybe this sort of thing is just what MS wants. Bill Gates, in conjunction with the Bush Administration, will Release Microsoft Windows, Patriot Edition. Only Americans will be allowed to use it, and instead of phoning home to Microsoft, it will make your modem dial 1-800-ASHCROFT every night at 10PM.
Taiwan and that senator from Peru will be labeled "open source terrorists." RMS will be hung from his toenails atop the Space Needle, which is probably not such a bad thing after all. All Apache servers will be added to the target lists of Apache helicopters, as thousands of Dying FreeBSD admins learn another meaning of the term "firewall."
I don't know what to make of Microsoft's attempts to cash in on the mythical BSA "money lost due to pirates" revenue stream. Many dot-coms operated at a loss trying to establish market share, but MS already has that. Will their efforts to get everyone to pay up pay off?
Is Taiwan guilty of being an IP offender? Or are they simply willing to cop to the fact that most people can't quite see what's wrong with "borrowing" their friend's CD and installing like crazy.
Imagine how different the world would be today if Gutenberg and Martin Luther had "respected" The Church's IP claims to printing and literacy?
I believe we are living in a dark age, and that the IP revolution may bring us a new Renaissance.
Re:Can We Callanmge the SEC and FAASB?
on
Data Quality Act
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I agree with everything you've just said, except for this line:
The fact is that the US, like the other established, prosperous nations, is producing cleaner and cleaner all the time.
This statement, while arguably true, does not represent the "whole picture." Cars today pollute less than they did 20 years ago. But there is also an increase in the total number of cars! In a very general sense, it's like a stock split. Our cars pollute half as much, but there are twice as many of them. The net result is that total pollution from automobiles hasn't changed.
Now, I don't know the actual stats, and I'm not sure how we would come up with them, since there are so many oddities (like the hugely popular SUVs that aren't categorized as "cars" by certain gov't standards) but to simply say "Look, the average car is so much more efficient and less polluting than before, we're making great progress here" is only half the story.
The U.S. does deserve a pat on the back for having a decent environment and air quality. But the U.S. also needs to recognize there's still plenty of work to be done. Moreover, we should realize that the work will never be done, until we make it to the Rodenberry Utopian age. The article on SlashDot a month or so ago about computer waste is just one example of the new challenges we'll have to face as an ever-increasing American population continues to foul our own nest with the latest disposable plastic crap from Wal-Mart/China.
See, in the country I live in [www.gc.ca], we usually prosecute entities (people, companies) when they break the law.
You have discovered one of the fundamental truths of America. It's the same reason we bailed on Kyoto accords et. al. Big Business calls the shots. As such, the Evil Doers of the Board Rooms, out of Professional Courtesy, tend to let each other get away with it. And thus, one hand washes the other.
I'm not saying that's good or bad, but I do notice that Canadian currency is worth about a half penny less (in USD) each year. A bit of a paradox, really. If the US won't institue the Corporate Death Penalty, we have an unfair economic advantage over countries with stronger ethics. This tends to make other countries lower the bar in order to compete. Those that don't aren't as economically powerful as USA. But, it's also nice to live in a country where your health care isn't tied to your employment status.
To paraphrase Vince Lombardi: In America, money isn't everything. It's the only thing.
But, you know what? Its not Ford's fault either. Yes it is. You just explained why a paragraph ago: Ford was telling people to run the tires more than 25% below they're recommended inflation pressure
The ONLY reason Ford was able to aviod this one was because of screwball federal legislation which shifts accountability away from the auto manufacturer when the issue of tires come up. If Ford sells a car with a defective headlight, or crank shaft, or cup holder or muffler or door handle, the liability is on Ford's shoulders. If the TIRES are defective, that liability reverts to the tire manufacturer.
What happened with the Explorers and Firestone tires entered a convenient-for-Ford gray area because Ford could say "look, this law right here says the tire manufacturer is liable." It's utter bullshit, because Ford specifically requested tires from Firestone that were orignially inteded for Ranger pickups and were now running underinflated on heavier Explorers.
The entire thing is all Ford's fault but their lawyers and lackeys in Congress were able to generate enough FUD that the whole thing became "murky."
You're right, most drivers are total idiots. Most of 'em probably don't check their tire pressure anyway. That doesn't mean it's okay for Ford to not test their products before selling them.
VPN client, TS client. I guess I was getting the clients confused. I *knew* 640K wasn't enough memory!
If they have a 128-bit VPN client that should be a secure enough connection for Microsoft to allow it on the corporate network. I wonder if they have some other unknown-to-us security reason for keeping PocketPCs off...
Last I heard, the original poster is right; PocketPCs are not allowed to connect to the Coporate Network on the Microsoft Campus due to the insecurity of the connection.
That was a few months ago, maybe they've gotten their act together. From my conversations with the PocketPC groups at Microsoft, I got the impression that strong (128-bit) security for a wireless connection was not on the PocketPC roadmap.
When will Pocket PC get a bigger screen?
on
Toshiba e740 Pocket PC
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Yay, 400 MHz must mean it's twice as fast as my 206 MHz IPaq, right? Well, regardless my main problem with the PocketPC line is that the screens are so small, by which I mean they don't have enough pixels. There's that new Clie or whatever with a 480x320 screen, and this dinky little PocketPC has a screen half that size. I'm just not impressed, even if it does say Microsoft when you turn it on.
Porting your 640x480 app to a screen 1/4 the size is not easy!
The other problem that I have with PocketPC is that the PocketPC Terminal Services Client won't let you run 128-bit encryption. Strange, considering that the Citrix Client does 128-bit encryption just fine. Citrix figured it out but MS, who CODED THE POCKETPC OS can't get it to work. Not very reassuring.
And whoever said that PocketPC needs some kind of screen cover is right. And the OS itself is extremely difficult to work with from an installling-drivers-for-the-802.11-card perspective. Like to install software you have to have a Windows PC running ActiveSync. They should focus more on making the PocketPC a computer capable of standing on its own and not requiring constant trips to the cradle.
Before you mod me down, go talk on your goddam cell phone for a half an hour. Notice how one side of your head is all hot? That's the MICROWAVES COOKING YOU HEAD.
Or, if you have one of those belt clip things, it's only your OVARIES/TESTES that are being cooked.
Sure, I'm an alamrist. And no studies have ever shown that non-ionizing radiation poses a health risk. Well, how would you even conduct such a study in today's world? Find me a control group. In the early days of radio, a five watt signal from New York could be heard in Miami. Now you need 100,000 watts just to walk over your nearest competitor.
Yeah, it's off-topic. Especially if you have enough of a fucking life to play real pnp dnd with real people instead of over your cell phone.
That's just what I was thinking. I am rocking the house with 32 bits of athlon XP, what the hell am I going to do with 256 bits? Unless the CPU (which is a very kind term for the transmeta kludge, last I checked) (and no I didn't read the article) can partition itself into 8 seperate 32-bit machines, what's in it for me?
Hi neocon, just got back into town so I apologize for the delay.
The debate over "carpet bombing" is getting to the level of "That depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
You've said something else which strikes me as odd: "To pretend that the belief that America should be destroyed is morally equivalent to a belief that it should not is nonsense." I'm not trying to say that the two beliefs are equivalent. But which belief is "right" is going to depend on who you're talking to. Most Americans will tell you that the "right" belief is to defend America. Most Al Qaeda will tell you that the "right" belief is Death to America. Both sides have their convictions, their moral reasons for their beliefs. In their minds, they're both "right."
"That the attacks of September 11 were morally wrong is an objective fact" How can this be? Show me the morals that are writ in stone. Morals are incapable of being objective. As they exist only in the mind of an indivudial, they necssarily are going to be different from person to person.
Look, we're both seem pretty knowledgeable about this dirty business called War, and that one way or another many innocents die when they're in the wrong place at the wrong time. My lesser problem is that America peridoically chooses to defend herself by bombing the bejeezus out of [INSERT COUNTRY NAME HERE.] The greater problem is that these events are always couched in some moralistic framework of Us vs. Them, Good vs. Evil, and I'm not buying it. Like "Liberating Kuwait." Kuwait was never "free" (and still isn't) in the first place! Or remember when the USSR was "The Evil Empire." How silly is that? It's an immature comic-book view of foreign affairs. And then look around at our allies in the world, Pakistan is a military dictatorship, Saudi a repressive Kingdom and religious state. How come they aren't so morally objectionable?
That's what really galls me, it's SO OBVIOUS that if you are playing nice with the US it doesn't matter what kind of country you're running (witness Tinanamen Square, that same regime enjoys MFN Trade Status). So long as you play ball with the US, you'll never be Evil.
Doesn't that offend your sensibilites, just a little bit? There is such a difference between our rhetoric and the way the world works. I just wish that, for once, we would cop to it and say "We didnt' get rid of Saddadm because he's the Devil we know." or "We prefer to work with military dictatorships is the third world because their countries are more stable and thus more appealing to American business interests." We all know that's the way it works, how come noone is willing to come out and say it?
As for America's right to defend herself, I really don't have too much of a problem with routing the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It might reduce the threat 30% for the next five years. But it will not remove the threat. And I have problems when we take at face value the adivce of some Afghani informant with his own agenda providing the target list. I also have a problem with DU weapons, and with land mines and cluster bombs. But I'm an idealist:-)
One last thing: Let's say you had it in for the U.S. Would you send your military to invade the most powerful nation on Earth? Nope, you'd resort to terrorism. Not trying to say that it's right, or morally acceptable, but were you of the mindset that it's time to acutally attack America, terrorism would be your only viable option. Unless you can think of another, I certainly can't. Of course, we've been thinking the same thing for 50 years what with our stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and fascination with the rucksack nuke. Kinda makes the terrorists job easier; we already built the stuff, all they have to do is get their hands on it.
1. Perhaps we should define the term "carpet bombing." My first link included this RealVideo clip where Mr Pentagon Spokesman makes the following statement: "If the targets are large or widedespread, then it would seem logical that we might find largbe bombers with large loads are capable of attacking it just as effectively s a number of smaller tactical jets." That sounds like carpet bombing to me. What do you think carpet bombing means?
2. A B-52 would almost never be called upon to drop a single bomb within a 10-meter circle. If they are so accurate, then why did we invent cruise missiles? And even if we can, consitently and reliably, drop a single bomb within a 10-meter circle from altitude, a B-52 carries 30 tons of bombs, which, when all released over target, tend to product the "carpet" effect.
3. Did I complain that U.S. troops are too well equipped? No, I simply pointed out the disparaty. I suppose by your definition, I'm In Harm's Way when I drive to work because my little japanese car could potentially be crushed by that big truck. It rarely happens, though. Similarly, U.S. casualties rarely happen, last I checked there's more friendly fire deaths in combat than enemy fire deaths. Hmm, maybe you're right, anytime troops are deployed, they are In Harm's Way because you never know when some renegade National Guard pilot is going to ignore orders twice and decide to bomb the Canadians anyway.
If you're looking for someone who is complaining that U.S. troops are too well-equipped, that would be NATO.
4. Fine, we haven't caused 4,000 or 11,000 civilian deaths in Afghanistan. The numbers you provide are between 600 and 5,000. So, let me repeat my question? What about the civilian deaths in Afghanistan (and Yugoslavia?) Is 600 to 5,000 civilian deaths in Afghanistan accetpable? That'a a lot of bombs that missed the 10-meter circle if you ask me. What about use of cluster bombs in cities in Yugoslavia? Was that planned to minimize civilian casualties? Your non-response is that since my number was off (and who will ever know the exact number) then my argument is invalid. Unless you actually believe that air wars produce NO civilian casualties, in which case I would refer you to back to Dresden.
5. You are absolutely correct that WTC attacks were attacks on a civilian population. I was trying to make the point that it wasn't *just* an attack on a civilian population. It had deep symbolic significance. It was an attack on civilians, but also an attack on the perceived Excesses of the West.
6. I'm saying that the "dual use" standard knowingly puts civilians at risk. The attacks of 9/11 are just about as morally bankrupt as the destruction of Iraq's water supply in the Gulf War. Both led to tremendous civilian casualties, and had a much larger impact on the civilian populous than the military.
7. Believe it or not, I read that Atlantic article a few months ago. Post-Gulf War civilian deaths have nothing to do with the destruction of Iraq's drinking water, and that the "food for oil" program makes up for the medicine and technology which is banned by the sanctions. That must be why UN officials have resigned in protest over the sanctions. Maybe we would have finished the job in '91 if we actually cared about civilians. George Bush's post-War speech urging the Iraqi people to revolt, backed up with exactly 0 tanks, pretty much shows how little we cared.
8. We are a free nation which was brutally attacked by terrorists. So we don't have to concern ourselves with civilian casualties?
What about the many brutal regimes the U.S. has supported over the years, butchers like Pinochet and Suharto? Wake up, we have no moral high ground in the world. Neither does anyone else. Maybe Mother Teresa and Gandhi.
The problem with having the moral high ground is that your morals are unique to you and not really a basis for a rational foreign or military policy. Morally, Osama bin Laden is just as entitled to his belief of Death to America as I am to my belief that he should rot in a collapsed cave somewhere near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. None of that will ever convince us that the other is "right."
Now, clearly the 9/11 attacks were brutal and horrible. I submit that ANY TIME that civilians are killed it is a horrible thing. And the U.S. government does it ALL THE TIME. It's far easier and politically convenient to incur a few unfortunate foreigner civilian casualties (that our own military only barely acknowleges) than to send the boys home in body bags.
That, my friend is the definition of moral bankruptcy. But that's just my definition of moral bankruptcy, yours may be completely different.
The facts remain, though. We did carpet bomb Afghanistan. We did kill civilians in Afghanistan and Yugoslavia. To me that is an outrage; to you it's not.
First off, we have "carpet bombed" plenty in Afghanistan, you're just not hearing it on the news. Carpet bombing is pretty much all a B-52 is good for. Reference: here, halfway down the page under heading "B-52s begin carpet bombing." Watch the RealVideo if you don't believe me.
Second, U.S. troops are not particulary in harm's way. I back that statement up by the incredibly short casualty list. You're not really in harm's way when you've got night vision goggles and the Command, Control, and Communications infrastructure to call in air strikes on some guy launching mortars and broadcasting in the clear on a walkie-talkie.
I don't agree we designate targets to civilian deaths to a minimum; even if we did, what is that acceptable minimum? Are the at least 500 civilians killed in Yugoslavia acceptable? Like the time bombed the TV station? Or used cluster bombs in cities? References here and here. What about the thousands of civilian deaths in Afghanistan?
Do you think that the attacks on the World Trade Center were designed to maximize civilian casualties? I would argue that the World Trade Centers are a "dual use" target. Indeed bin Laden did want to kill Americans, but why not kill more by crashing a few big jets into sports stadiums? No, the WTC was also an icon of the West, and as such was an incredibly valuable target symbolically. Same for the Pentagon (not too many civilian deaths there) and the White House.
Don't like my "dual use" analogy? Then try reading the famous Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilites from the Defense Intelligence Agency. It very technically explains how, if their water treatment facilities are destroyed in the Gulf War (which we did), and UN sanctions kept in place,
"IRAQ WILL SUFFER INCREASING SHORTAGES OF PURIFIED
WATER BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF REOUIRED CHEMICALS AND DESALINIZATION MEMBRANES. INCIDENCES OF DISEASE, INCLUDING POSSIBLE EPIDEMICS,WILL BECOME PROBABLE..."
Casualties from that one eclipse 9-11, though it might not seem in since they occur over a generation, not in a single day.
So, you see, it's not all so cut-and-dry as The Evil One vs. Mom and Apple Pie.
My beef is people like you, who are ignorant about the fact that we have killed more of their civilians than they did on Sep. 11. Rationalize it all you want, civilians die in wars. We don't have any claim to the moral high ground just because we lost 3,000 civilians last year. Remember Dresden? Reference: Go read Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
How does all this relate to the X-45? Well, a couple times now a CIA "pilot" of a Predator fired off a Hellfire missile at someone he thought was an Al Qaeda rock star. Well, they missed . Now, with the X-45, when they miss, their misses will have far greater collateral damage. And what is the CIA doing pulling the trigger in the first place? They're not part of the Armed Forces. Who is going to fly these X-45s? Where is the accountability? When U.S. Marines accidentally bombed Canadian troops [link has summary of friendly-fire deaths too] there's a pilot we can hold accountable. Accountability will be a rarer commodity when X-45s hit the wrong targets.
But couldn't Sony just give away some of their movies for free with THEIR home theater system? And force MS to pay ridiculous licensing fee to bundle the latest Sony movies with their Xbox. That could be a nice Sony freebie, buy a Dreamcast and get a DVD of some latest release, or a special Director's Cut DVD that ONLY comes with the Dreamcast. (Sony will probably do this and I won't get any credit. Damn.)
I agree that MS has a lot of money but Sony has a very high reputation in the audio/video/home theater world. Heck they worked with Philips to develop the CD format.
Sony is not going to roll over so easily just because XBOX might be a little cheaper. Also, if XBOX is actually being illegally dumped (sold at a loss) then we might to see a lawsuit from Sony. More likely, though, Sony will just continue to develop and sell better consoles and be more innovative. XBOX on the other hand isn't very innovative, it's too much like my home PC without a HD.
Sony also has the "home field advantage" a.k.a. Japan.
I must take isse with the language used by so many of the anti-abortionists. For example, What did the baby do in those cases to deserve death?
It would seem that you are unwilling to accept that a fetus and a baby are two different things. This is probably a convenient thing to do if you are of the opinion that "life begins at conception." However, the belief that life begins at conception is not supported by anything other than your personal moral convictions.
Sperm is alive. It swims around, heads for the egg, which is alive too. They are both "life" before conception has occured.
Or perhaps you mean "Human life begins at conception." Unfortunately you consistently use the term baby to refer to what it is that's growing inside the womb. This is not an accurate portrayal. Once the egg and sperm have joined together to create a zygote, that is not a baby by any definition whatsoever.
Yes, it has the POTENTIAL to eventually become a full-fledged human being. That does not make it a baby the instant that two gametes have come together to produce a zygote.
You may strongly disagree with that statement; your moral, spiritual, or religious beliefs may dictate otherwise, but there is no evidentiary support for the conclusion that zygote or blastocyst is a synonym for baby. With the fetus, esp. as it becomes more developed, clearly it does approach "babyhood." In fact, it is for just this reason (couched in terms of viability outside the womb) that abortion is not allowed in the last trimester except where the woman's health is in danger.
On to another topic: I am interested to hear that you can support a total ban of abortion, even in cases where it is done to protect the life of the woman. Surprisingly, you later state that there are some moral dilemmas to which there is not right answer. Apparently your recognition of this dilemma doesn't do anything to stop you from desiring a strict ban; I can just hear you counseling a patient now: "Well Ms. Jones your ultrasound looks pretty bad. Fortunately we have this iron-clad law stating that you must carry this fetus to term even though it birth will surely cripple you, not to mention that you're baby surely wont' survive. It sure is a good thing we don't have any decision to make here, or else as a society we'd have a lot of hard questions to answer, such as why we're so insistent that this doomed fetus pass though your vagina even though it will surely maim you on the way out only to die soon after being delivered."
A final thought: The Declaration of Independence, with its inalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is not a legal document. It has *no bearing* on *any* aspect of the United States government. It remains an effective propaganda piece, as its original purpose was to provide a compelling argument into which the colonies could stake their claim of independence.
My point is that weblogs like Slashdot are only as democratic as the participants (and creators) allow them to be. Like the owner of FreeRepublic who won't allow any anti-George Bush posts since we need to stick together during a time of war.
YOU may moderate on quality, but is it really anyone's place to tell anyone else HOW to moderate??? It's so subjective, one man's quality may be another man's content.
I like the system, though, and I can't wait for the days of meta-meta-moderation. (Well hopefully it will never come to that.)
I don't have kids. A few of my friends do. You're right, they are expensive. I am fairly well paid as a computer guy and I am not sure I could afford to raise a kid by myself on my salary. Not that I have any plans to have kids soon.
I have heard of partial-birth abortion. You are correct that it can be done right up to the last minute. It is still illegal to perform an abortion in the last trimester except to protect the health of the pregnant woman.
There's an excellent discussion of D&X abotions at religioustolerance.org which lists the typical reasons for partial-birth abortion:
The fetus is dead.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed hydrocephalus.
In addition, some physicians violate their state Medical Association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed.
If you read the article you'll see that in cases of fetuses with hydrocephalus "It is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain...close to two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid." The passage of the fetus through the vagina would be extremely traumatic unless D&X is done, no?
make those arguments..out of desperation to have...murder ended
How desparate would you feel, knowing that the fetus you are carrying suffers from hydrocephalus, has no chance of survival after birth, and you will need to push an object 20 inches in diameter through your vagina because the procedure that would have removed it safely was outlawed by morality-driven religious zealots in Congress?
I hope that I have opened your eyes a little, especially regarding the issue of partial birth abortion. The women who are forced to remove a dead or unviable fetus via late-term D&X are usually EXTREMELY traumatized by the process; they wanted a child and things went horribly wrong towards the end of the pregnancy. Political grandstanding, complete with graphic depictions, rubs a lot of salt into those wounds.
I think of myself as a pretty tolerant person, and you seem quite rational. Unfortunately not everyone is capable of recognizing that, "freedom of choice" aside, there are legitimate medical reasons when abortion is warranted to protect the woman. Consider this statement by the National Council of Catholic Bishops, "We have received inquiries whether the National Conference of Catholic Bishops would lend support to a ban on partial-birth abortion that would include an exception for the health of the mother. We want to state again that such an exception is too broad. We look for the elimination of abortion, beginning with the banning of partial birth abortion, without reservation or exception."
UNLESS you are CmdrTaco, then you DO have the right to silence them. He can take his toys and go home if he wants, and I'm fine with that. Nice site, by the way, Taco.
I have no clue who is modding up or down the various arguments here, but it certainly would be interesting to know the opinions of Those Whose Ability To Moderate Shall Not Be Revoked...
This thread may be the one which pushes me over the edge to ignore the comments of ACs.
The issue revolves around whether or not that woman is harming someone else's body. The location of that body is immaterial. If that baby is human, she has no damn business killing it.
IF that baby is human...
Why does our society allow for late-term abortions in the events of incest or rape? It's still a "human baby," no? Do you think these exceptions should be scrapped?
Which life has more "rights" if the woman's health is at risk should she attempt a delivery? Should the woman be allowed to have an abortion to save her own life? Why?
It is truly encouraging to hear that you are tenacious enough to raise your kids while going to school and holding down a job. Unfortunately this world is full of people with less determination and character than yourself. Why saddle them with unwanted children that they're too lazy, ignorant, and selfish to raise properly?
What is society's compelling interest in seeing every pregnancy through to conception? If this were truly an accurate view of society's beliefs, why aren't we teaching issues such as prenatal care in schools? Why aren't pregnant women being charged with "fetus abuse" when they smoke or drink or eat unhealthy foods?
If fetuses are truly human beings, why don't we have funerals for miscarriages? Clearly society considers a fetus and a baby two very different things.
Slashdot Mirror
Chizzad you've got the same idea I do; think globally act locally. I drive my Honda 6 miles to work each way, and my girlfriend walks to work...HEY, wait a minute are you having an affair with my girl?
Just out of curiosity, how many miles are on your VW? We could get into a "I'm more eco-friendly than you" contest! Of course I will have to get rid of this 19" monitor, but it's probably cheaper (in the book's view) to keep it than to dispose of it in a landfill (or recycle it or whatever.)
When I read the back-and-forth debates in this article, I can't help but thinking of that line from Voltaire: "We are living in the best of all possible worlds" The fact that so many people zealously rush to defend the status quo, and so mnay others jump in to bash it, indicates to me that we need to take a nice, long look at the situation and assess the strengths and weaknesses. My guess is that about 20% of the people here are willing to do that. It's the same thing we see in the presidential elections every four years, most people's minds are already made up before the campaign even begins!
I don't know about the satellite-dish to paint correlation, but I've noticed that since the World Cup started my plants desperately need watering.
you write the passwords on a piece of paper, seal it in an envelope, and store it in the safety deposit box where you keep your off-site backups tapes.
You should check out Kyuss. They rocked. The "Blues for the Red Sun" album is my favorite.
Maybe MS has pushed too far. Better to have a few people actually pay for the SW and pirate it than the Govt. realize that they can't afford it, will get caught pirating, and thus are forced to look to alternatives.
(I remember my old man, back in the Glory Days of the Reagan Era, telling me how much pirated software was in use at the US Copyright office.)
Or maybe this sort of thing is just what MS wants. Bill Gates, in conjunction with the Bush Administration, will Release Microsoft Windows, Patriot Edition. Only Americans will be allowed to use it, and instead of phoning home to Microsoft, it will make your modem dial 1-800-ASHCROFT every night at 10PM.
Taiwan and that senator from Peru will be labeled "open source terrorists." RMS will be hung from his toenails atop the Space Needle, which is probably not such a bad thing after all. All Apache servers will be added to the target lists of Apache helicopters, as thousands of Dying FreeBSD admins learn another meaning of the term "firewall."
I don't know what to make of Microsoft's attempts to cash in on the mythical BSA "money lost due to pirates" revenue stream. Many dot-coms operated at a loss trying to establish market share, but MS already has that. Will their efforts to get everyone to pay up pay off?
Is Taiwan guilty of being an IP offender? Or are they simply willing to cop to the fact that most people can't quite see what's wrong with "borrowing" their friend's CD and installing like crazy.
Imagine how different the world would be today if Gutenberg and Martin Luther had "respected" The Church's IP claims to printing and literacy?
I believe we are living in a dark age, and that the IP revolution may bring us a new Renaissance.
I agree with everything you've just said, except for this line:
The fact is that the US, like the other established, prosperous nations, is producing cleaner and cleaner all the time.
This statement, while arguably true, does not represent the "whole picture." Cars today pollute less than they did 20 years ago. But there is also an increase in the total number of cars! In a very general sense, it's like a stock split. Our cars pollute half as much, but there are twice as many of them. The net result is that total pollution from automobiles hasn't changed.
Now, I don't know the actual stats, and I'm not sure how we would come up with them, since there are so many oddities (like the hugely popular SUVs that aren't categorized as "cars" by certain gov't standards) but to simply say "Look, the average car is so much more efficient and less polluting than before, we're making great progress here" is only half the story.
The U.S. does deserve a pat on the back for having a decent environment and air quality. But the U.S. also needs to recognize there's still plenty of work to be done. Moreover, we should realize that the work will never be done, until we make it to the Rodenberry Utopian age. The article on SlashDot a month or so ago about computer waste is just one example of the new challenges we'll have to face as an ever-increasing American population continues to foul our own nest with the latest disposable plastic crap from Wal-Mart/China.
See, in the country I live in [www.gc.ca], we usually prosecute entities (people, companies) when they break the law.
You have discovered one of the fundamental truths of America. It's the same reason we bailed on Kyoto accords et. al. Big Business calls the shots. As such, the Evil Doers of the Board Rooms, out of Professional Courtesy, tend to let each other get away with it. And thus, one hand washes the other.
I'm not saying that's good or bad, but I do notice that Canadian currency is worth about a half penny less (in USD) each year. A bit of a paradox, really. If the US won't institue the Corporate Death Penalty, we have an unfair economic advantage over countries with stronger ethics. This tends to make other countries lower the bar in order to compete. Those that don't aren't as economically powerful as USA. But, it's also nice to live in a country where your health care isn't tied to your employment status.
To paraphrase Vince Lombardi: In America, money isn't everything. It's the only thing.
But, you know what? Its not Ford's fault either.
Yes it is. You just explained why a paragraph ago: Ford was telling people to run the tires more than 25% below they're recommended inflation pressure
The ONLY reason Ford was able to aviod this one was because of screwball federal legislation which shifts accountability away from the auto manufacturer when the issue of tires come up. If Ford sells a car with a defective headlight, or crank shaft, or cup holder or muffler or door handle, the liability is on Ford's shoulders. If the TIRES are defective, that liability reverts to the tire manufacturer.
What happened with the Explorers and Firestone tires entered a convenient-for-Ford gray area because Ford could say "look, this law right here says the tire manufacturer is liable." It's utter bullshit, because Ford specifically requested tires from Firestone that were orignially inteded for Ranger pickups and were now running underinflated on heavier Explorers.
The entire thing is all Ford's fault but their lawyers and lackeys in Congress were able to generate enough FUD that the whole thing became "murky."
You're right, most drivers are total idiots. Most of 'em probably don't check their tire pressure anyway. That doesn't mean it's okay for Ford to not test their products before selling them.
VPN client, TS client. I guess I was getting the clients confused. I *knew* 640K wasn't enough memory!
If they have a 128-bit VPN client that should be a secure enough connection for Microsoft to allow it on the corporate network. I wonder if they have some other unknown-to-us security reason for keeping PocketPCs off...
Well, My call to Microsoft Product Support Services told me otherwise. Also, if you actually try it, it won't work.
Set TS encryption to require 128-bit, then try to connect. You can't. I can forward the emails between me and PSS if you don't believe me.
Last I heard, the original poster is right; PocketPCs are not allowed to connect to the Coporate Network on the Microsoft Campus due to the insecurity of the connection.
That was a few months ago, maybe they've gotten their act together. From my conversations with the PocketPC groups at Microsoft, I got the impression that strong (128-bit) security for a wireless connection was not on the PocketPC roadmap.
Yay, 400 MHz must mean it's twice as fast as my 206 MHz IPaq, right? Well, regardless my main problem with the PocketPC line is that the screens are so small, by which I mean they don't have enough pixels. There's that new Clie or whatever with a 480x320 screen, and this dinky little PocketPC has a screen half that size. I'm just not impressed, even if it does say Microsoft when you turn it on.
Porting your 640x480 app to a screen 1/4 the size is not easy!
The other problem that I have with PocketPC is that the PocketPC Terminal Services Client won't let you run 128-bit encryption. Strange, considering that the Citrix Client does 128-bit encryption just fine. Citrix figured it out but MS, who CODED THE POCKETPC OS can't get it to work. Not very reassuring.
And whoever said that PocketPC needs some kind of screen cover is right. And the OS itself is extremely difficult to work with from an installling-drivers-for-the-802.11-card perspective. Like to install software you have to have a Windows PC running ActiveSync. They should focus more on making the PocketPC a computer capable of standing on its own and not requiring constant trips to the cradle.
Before you mod me down, go talk on your goddam cell phone for a half an hour. Notice how one side of your head is all hot? That's the MICROWAVES COOKING YOU HEAD.
Or, if you have one of those belt clip things, it's only your OVARIES/TESTES that are being cooked.
Sure, I'm an alamrist. And no studies have ever shown that non-ionizing radiation poses a health risk. Well, how would you even conduct such a study in today's world? Find me a control group. In the early days of radio, a five watt signal from New York could be heard in Miami. Now you need 100,000 watts just to walk over your nearest competitor.
Yeah, it's off-topic. Especially if you have enough of a fucking life to play real pnp dnd with real people instead of over your cell phone.
Vacations on Tape
Instant Happiness
That's just what I was thinking. I am rocking the house with 32 bits of athlon XP, what the hell am I going to do with 256 bits? Unless the CPU (which is a very kind term for the transmeta kludge, last I checked) (and no I didn't read the article) can partition itself into 8 seperate 32-bit machines, what's in it for me?
Sooo...you transferred them to a secure storage location. :-)
Did you put them on ebay??
BSDL
There's a Blue Screen of Death License now?
Hi neocon, just got back into town so I apologize for the delay.
:-)
The debate over "carpet bombing" is getting to the level of "That depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
You've said something else which strikes me as odd: "To pretend that the belief that America should be destroyed is morally equivalent to a belief that it should not is nonsense." I'm not trying to say that the two beliefs are equivalent. But which belief is "right" is going to depend on who you're talking to. Most Americans will tell you that the "right" belief is to defend America. Most Al Qaeda will tell you that the "right" belief is Death to America. Both sides have their convictions, their moral reasons for their beliefs. In their minds, they're both "right."
"That the attacks of September 11 were morally wrong is an objective fact" How can this be? Show me the morals that are writ in stone. Morals are incapable of being objective. As they exist only in the mind of an indivudial, they necssarily are going to be different from person to person.
Look, we're both seem pretty knowledgeable about this dirty business called War, and that one way or another many innocents die when they're in the wrong place at the wrong time. My lesser problem is that America peridoically chooses to defend herself by bombing the bejeezus out of [INSERT COUNTRY NAME HERE.] The greater problem is that these events are always couched in some moralistic framework of Us vs. Them, Good vs. Evil, and I'm not buying it. Like "Liberating Kuwait." Kuwait was never "free" (and still isn't) in the first place! Or remember when the USSR was "The Evil Empire." How silly is that? It's an immature comic-book view of foreign affairs. And then look around at our allies in the world, Pakistan is a military dictatorship, Saudi a repressive Kingdom and religious state. How come they aren't so morally objectionable?
That's what really galls me, it's SO OBVIOUS that if you are playing nice with the US it doesn't matter what kind of country you're running (witness Tinanamen Square, that same regime enjoys MFN Trade Status). So long as you play ball with the US, you'll never be Evil.
Doesn't that offend your sensibilites, just a little bit? There is such a difference between our rhetoric and the way the world works. I just wish that, for once, we would cop to it and say "We didnt' get rid of Saddadm because he's the Devil we know." or "We prefer to work with military dictatorships is the third world because their countries are more stable and thus more appealing to American business interests." We all know that's the way it works, how come noone is willing to come out and say it?
As for America's right to defend herself, I really don't have too much of a problem with routing the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It might reduce the threat 30% for the next five years. But it will not remove the threat. And I have problems when we take at face value the adivce of some Afghani informant with his own agenda providing the target list. I also have a problem with DU weapons, and with land mines and cluster bombs. But I'm an idealist
One last thing: Let's say you had it in for the U.S. Would you send your military to invade the most powerful nation on Earth? Nope, you'd resort to terrorism. Not trying to say that it's right, or morally acceptable, but were you of the mindset that it's time to acutally attack America, terrorism would be your only viable option. Unless you can think of another, I certainly can't. Of course, we've been thinking the same thing for 50 years what with our stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and fascination with the rucksack nuke. Kinda makes the terrorists job easier; we already built the stuff, all they have to do is get their hands on it.
1. Perhaps we should define the term "carpet bombing." My first link included this RealVideo clip where Mr Pentagon Spokesman makes the following statement: "If the targets are large or widedespread, then it would seem logical that we might find largbe bombers with large loads are capable of attacking it just as effectively s a number of smaller tactical jets." That sounds like carpet bombing to me. What do you think carpet bombing means?
2. A B-52 would almost never be called upon to drop a single bomb within a 10-meter circle. If they are so accurate, then why did we invent cruise missiles? And even if we can, consitently and reliably, drop a single bomb within a 10-meter circle from altitude, a B-52 carries 30 tons of bombs, which, when all released over target, tend to product the "carpet" effect.
3. Did I complain that U.S. troops are too well equipped? No, I simply pointed out the disparaty. I suppose by your definition, I'm In Harm's Way when I drive to work because my little japanese car could potentially be crushed by that big truck. It rarely happens, though. Similarly, U.S. casualties rarely happen, last I checked there's more friendly fire deaths in combat than enemy fire deaths. Hmm, maybe you're right, anytime troops are deployed, they are In Harm's Way because you never know when some renegade National Guard pilot is going to ignore orders twice and decide to bomb the Canadians anyway.
If you're looking for someone who is complaining that U.S. troops are too well-equipped, that would be NATO.
4. Fine, we haven't caused 4,000 or 11,000 civilian deaths in Afghanistan. The numbers you provide are between 600 and 5,000. So, let me repeat my question? What about the civilian deaths in Afghanistan (and Yugoslavia?) Is 600 to 5,000 civilian deaths in Afghanistan accetpable? That'a a lot of bombs that missed the 10-meter circle if you ask me. What about use of cluster bombs in cities in Yugoslavia? Was that planned to minimize civilian casualties? Your non-response is that since my number was off (and who will ever know the exact number) then my argument is invalid. Unless you actually believe that air wars produce NO civilian casualties, in which case I would refer you to back to Dresden.
5. You are absolutely correct that WTC attacks were attacks on a civilian population. I was trying to make the point that it wasn't *just* an attack on a civilian population. It had deep symbolic significance. It was an attack on civilians, but also an attack on the perceived Excesses of the West.
6. I'm saying that the "dual use" standard knowingly puts civilians at risk. The attacks of 9/11 are just about as morally bankrupt as the destruction of Iraq's water supply in the Gulf War. Both led to tremendous civilian casualties, and had a much larger impact on the civilian populous than the military.
7. Believe it or not, I read that Atlantic article a few months ago. Post-Gulf War civilian deaths have nothing to do with the destruction of Iraq's drinking water, and that the "food for oil" program makes up for the medicine and technology which is banned by the sanctions. That must be why UN officials have resigned in protest over the sanctions. Maybe we would have finished the job in '91 if we actually cared about civilians. George Bush's post-War speech urging the Iraqi people to revolt, backed up with exactly 0 tanks, pretty much shows how little we cared.
8. We are a free nation which was brutally attacked by terrorists. So we don't have to concern ourselves with civilian casualties?
What about the many brutal regimes the U.S. has supported over the years, butchers like Pinochet and Suharto? Wake up, we have no moral high ground in the world. Neither does anyone else. Maybe Mother Teresa and Gandhi.
The problem with having the moral high ground is that your morals are unique to you and not really a basis for a rational foreign or military policy. Morally, Osama bin Laden is just as entitled to his belief of Death to America as I am to my belief that he should rot in a collapsed cave somewhere near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. None of that will ever convince us that the other is "right."
Now, clearly the 9/11 attacks were brutal and horrible. I submit that ANY TIME that civilians are killed it is a horrible thing. And the U.S. government does it ALL THE TIME. It's far easier and politically convenient to incur a few unfortunate foreigner civilian casualties (that our own military only barely acknowleges) than to send the boys home in body bags.
That, my friend is the definition of moral bankruptcy. But that's just my definition of moral bankruptcy, yours may be completely different.
The facts remain, though. We did carpet bomb Afghanistan. We did kill civilians in Afghanistan and Yugoslavia. To me that is an outrage; to you it's not.
Second, U.S. troops are not particulary in harm's way. I back that statement up by the incredibly short casualty list. You're not really in harm's way when you've got night vision goggles and the Command, Control, and Communications infrastructure to call in air strikes on some guy launching mortars and broadcasting in the clear on a walkie-talkie.
I don't agree we designate targets to civilian deaths to a minimum; even if we did, what is that acceptable minimum? Are the at least 500 civilians killed in Yugoslavia acceptable? Like the time bombed the TV station? Or used cluster bombs in cities? References here and here. What about the thousands of civilian deaths in Afghanistan?
Do you think that the attacks on the World Trade Center were designed to maximize civilian casualties? I would argue that the World Trade Centers are a "dual use" target. Indeed bin Laden did want to kill Americans, but why not kill more by crashing a few big jets into sports stadiums? No, the WTC was also an icon of the West, and as such was an incredibly valuable target symbolically. Same for the Pentagon (not too many civilian deaths there) and the White House.
Don't like my "dual use" analogy? Then try reading the famous Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilites from the Defense Intelligence Agency. It very technically explains how, if their water treatment facilities are destroyed in the Gulf War (which we did), and UN sanctions kept in place,
- "IRAQ WILL SUFFER INCREASING SHORTAGES OF PURIFIED
Casualties from that one eclipse 9-11, though it might not seem in since they occur over a generation, not in a single day.WATER BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF REOUIRED CHEMICALS AND
DESALINIZATION MEMBRANES. INCIDENCES OF DISEASE, INCLUDING
POSSIBLE EPIDEMICS,WILL BECOME PROBABLE..."
So, you see, it's not all so cut-and-dry as The Evil One vs. Mom and Apple Pie.
My beef is people like you, who are ignorant about the fact that we have killed more of their civilians than they did on Sep. 11. Rationalize it all you want, civilians die in wars. We don't have any claim to the moral high ground just because we lost 3,000 civilians last year. Remember Dresden? Reference: Go read Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
How does all this relate to the X-45? Well, a couple times now a CIA "pilot" of a Predator fired off a Hellfire missile at someone he thought was an Al Qaeda rock star. Well, they missed . Now, with the X-45, when they miss, their misses will have far greater collateral damage. And what is the CIA doing pulling the trigger in the first place? They're not part of the Armed Forces. Who is going to fly these X-45s? Where is the accountability? When U.S. Marines accidentally bombed Canadian troops [link has summary of friendly-fire deaths too] there's a pilot we can hold accountable. Accountability will be a rarer commodity when X-45s hit the wrong targets.
Dulce Et Decorum Est Pro Patria Morir
I thought Al Gore wrote snowcrash.
(Maybe if I add this line it will take 20 sec.)
But couldn't Sony just give away some of their movies for free with THEIR home theater system? And force MS to pay ridiculous licensing fee to bundle the latest Sony movies with their Xbox. That could be a nice Sony freebie, buy a Dreamcast and get a DVD of some latest release, or a special Director's Cut DVD that ONLY comes with the Dreamcast. (Sony will probably do this and I won't get any credit. Damn.)
I agree that MS has a lot of money but Sony has a very high reputation in the audio/video/home theater world. Heck they worked with Philips to develop the CD format.
Sony is not going to roll over so easily just because XBOX might be a little cheaper. Also, if XBOX is actually being illegally dumped (sold at a loss) then we might to see a lawsuit from Sony. More likely, though, Sony will just continue to develop and sell better consoles and be more innovative. XBOX on the other hand isn't very innovative, it's too much like my home PC without a HD.
Sony also has the "home field advantage" a.k.a. Japan.
I must take isse with the language used by so many of the anti-abortionists. For example, What did the baby do in those cases to deserve death?
It would seem that you are unwilling to accept that a fetus and a baby are two different things. This is probably a convenient thing to do if you are of the opinion that "life begins at conception." However, the belief that life begins at conception is not supported by anything other than your personal moral convictions.
Sperm is alive. It swims around, heads for the egg, which is alive too. They are both "life" before conception has occured.
Or perhaps you mean "Human life begins at conception." Unfortunately you consistently use the term baby to refer to what it is that's growing inside the womb. This is not an accurate portrayal. Once the egg and sperm have joined together to create a zygote, that is not a baby by any definition whatsoever.
Yes, it has the POTENTIAL to eventually become a full-fledged human being. That does not make it a baby the instant that two gametes have come together to produce a zygote.
You may strongly disagree with that statement; your moral, spiritual, or religious beliefs may dictate otherwise, but there is no evidentiary support for the conclusion that zygote or blastocyst is a synonym for baby. With the fetus, esp. as it becomes more developed, clearly it does approach "babyhood." In fact, it is for just this reason (couched in terms of viability outside the womb) that abortion is not allowed in the last trimester except where the woman's health is in danger.
On to another topic: I am interested to hear that you can support a total ban of abortion, even in cases where it is done to protect the life of the woman. Surprisingly, you later state that there are some moral dilemmas to which there is not right answer. Apparently your recognition of this dilemma doesn't do anything to stop you from desiring a strict ban; I can just hear you counseling a patient now: "Well Ms. Jones your ultrasound looks pretty bad. Fortunately we have this iron-clad law stating that you must carry this fetus to term even though it birth will surely cripple you, not to mention that you're baby surely wont' survive. It sure is a good thing we don't have any decision to make here, or else as a society we'd have a lot of hard questions to answer, such as why we're so insistent that this doomed fetus pass though your vagina even though it will surely maim you on the way out only to die soon after being delivered."
A final thought: The Declaration of Independence, with its inalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is not a legal document. It has *no bearing* on *any* aspect of the United States government. It remains an effective propaganda piece, as its original purpose was to provide a compelling argument into which the colonies could stake their claim of independence.
My point is that weblogs like Slashdot are only as democratic as the participants (and creators) allow them to be. Like the owner of FreeRepublic who won't allow any anti-George Bush posts since we need to stick together during a time of war.
YOU may moderate on quality, but is it really anyone's place to tell anyone else HOW to moderate??? It's so subjective, one man's quality may be another man's content.
I like the system, though, and I can't wait for the days of meta-meta-moderation. (Well hopefully it will never come to that.)
I have heard of partial-birth abortion. You are correct that it can be done right up to the last minute. It is still illegal to perform an abortion in the last trimester except to protect the health of the pregnant woman.
There's an excellent discussion of D&X abotions at religioustolerance.org which lists the typical reasons for partial-birth abortion:
The fetus is dead.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed hydrocephalus.
In addition, some physicians violate their state Medical Association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed.
If you read the article you'll see that in cases of fetuses with hydrocephalus "It is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain...close to two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid." The passage of the fetus through the vagina would be extremely traumatic unless D&X is done, no?
make those arguments..out of desperation to have...murder ended
How desparate would you feel, knowing that the fetus you are carrying suffers from hydrocephalus, has no chance of survival after birth, and you will need to push an object 20 inches in diameter through your vagina because the procedure that would have removed it safely was outlawed by morality-driven religious zealots in Congress?
I hope that I have opened your eyes a little, especially regarding the issue of partial birth abortion. The women who are forced to remove a dead or unviable fetus via late-term D&X are usually EXTREMELY traumatized by the process; they wanted a child and things went horribly wrong towards the end of the pregnancy. Political grandstanding, complete with graphic depictions, rubs a lot of salt into those wounds.
I also found this link (refreshingly free of banner ads depicting a partial birth aborion) Late Term Abortions: Legal Considerations which is worth a read.
I think of myself as a pretty tolerant person, and you seem quite rational. Unfortunately not everyone is capable of recognizing that, "freedom of choice" aside, there are legitimate medical reasons when abortion is warranted to protect the woman. Consider this statement by the National Council of Catholic Bishops, "We have received inquiries whether the National Conference of Catholic Bishops would lend support to a ban on partial-birth abortion that would include an exception for the health of the mother. We want to state again that such an exception is too broad. We look for the elimination of abortion, beginning with the banning of partial birth abortion, without reservation or exception."
UNLESS you are CmdrTaco, then you DO have the right to silence them. He can take his toys and go home if he wants, and I'm fine with that. Nice site, by the way, Taco.
I have no clue who is modding up or down the various arguments here, but it certainly would be interesting to know the opinions of Those Whose Ability To Moderate Shall Not Be Revoked...
This thread may be the one which pushes me over the edge to ignore the comments of ACs.
The issue revolves around whether or not that woman is harming someone else's body. The location of that body is immaterial. If that baby is human, she has no damn business killing it.
IF that baby is human...
Why does our society allow for late-term abortions in the events of incest or rape? It's still a "human baby," no? Do you think these exceptions should be scrapped?
Which life has more "rights" if the woman's health is at risk should she attempt a delivery? Should the woman be allowed to have an abortion to save her own life? Why?
It is truly encouraging to hear that you are tenacious enough to raise your kids while going to school and holding down a job. Unfortunately this world is full of people with less determination and character than yourself. Why saddle them with unwanted children that they're too lazy, ignorant, and selfish to raise properly?
What is society's compelling interest in seeing every pregnancy through to conception? If this were truly an accurate view of society's beliefs, why aren't we teaching issues such as prenatal care in schools? Why aren't pregnant women being charged with "fetus abuse" when they smoke or drink or eat unhealthy foods?
If fetuses are truly human beings, why don't we have funerals for miscarriages? Clearly society considers a fetus and a baby two very different things.