I agree that there are zealots on both sides. I started this thread with a tongue-and-cheek response to "lets restrict all abortions to two extreme cases" and it went off on a wild tanget.
I don't think that punishment of carrying a baby to term fits the crime of breaking a condom, but life can be even more unforgiving. Also I don't think that being born into this world makes a child better off if it is resented and thought of as a punishment. There are far worse fates than not being born. Like being beaten (or worse) the first 16 years of your life.
As far as having bearing on the issue, I believe that Roe Vs. Wade is pretty much the concensus, If the baby can support life on its own, it's a life. Until then, not. Ergo, no third trimester abortions.
I have always considered this a reasonable compromise, as if one would allow someone to grow in them for six months, then they should stick it out. But restricting them to only rape and heath of the mother is too prohibitive, and the "all life is precious" is a cop out as well, especially when made by the same zealots who support the death penalty.
Oh, what's next ? Do you also want to question an infants "right" to be fed and cared for, huh ?
In other words: What about the children?!? (blatant appeal to emotion)
Yep, killing someone just because he causes you some inconvenience is illegal.
No, It's not. It depends on the level of inconvenience. You can kill someone if they are about to chop a limb off, or rape you, or if they are about to do the same to someone else. If they are about to kill someone else (which doesn't really inconvenience you at all) you can still kill them.
It's called "justifiable homicide" and it happens pretty damn often.
Babies are either people or their not, you seem to want them to be elevated to have more rights than the humans that can support life on their own. One can infer from this that you believe in some type of higher moral purpose to protect the infant above the rights of the individual that will be forced to act like a life support system for it for nine months.
People who are anti-abortion aren't all religious zealots.
Not all, but what percentage of them would you say are? You must admit that there is certainly a strong correlation between people who are anti-abortion and people who are religious zealots.
And it's not just a question of when life begins. It is also a question if one human has the right to latch on to another and feed and grow off of another for nine months.
If someone was incapable of digesting food, but could put a tube in your neck and jump on your back, and live like that for nine months, should it be illegal for you to remove them?
Yeah, it's an extreme case, but do you believe that you should be legally obligated to let them do it?
I agree with you. But by making the science itself illegal makes a moral statement that the science is wrong. Making the profiteering directly from abortions illegal would make the moral statement that abortions for profit is wrong. I'm not saying that this isn't an extremely gray area, but if we follow your (correct) argument to it's inevitable conclusion, then money is going to subvert any process we put in place, so all we have left is what we choose to make a moral statement about.
There was no crime, because the secret police would carry you off and shoot you in the head if you were even suspected of a crime. Wiretaps were the norm and the government could do whatever it wanted. Privacy didn't exist. And they were safer from criminals for it. Well, safer if we define criminals as ones that weren't in the KGB.
Yeah, no "In Soviet Russia" Joke here.
This is frightening. It's like we're becoming the very thing we fought in the cold war. A totalitarian government.
And for about $14k. And $5k for the pickup truck. I'm posting this from the pod right now. Most RV parks have WiFi, well the good ones anyway, so latency isn't a problem.
You need to re-read it: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
And I seem to understand it better than you. Note it doesn't say anyting about "losing.", just at some point a Hitler/Nazi related comparison will be made given an infinite thread length.
I mentioned Godwin's law because you made a comparison to my so-called appeasement to the MPAA and the appeasement of Hitler. Is that not acomparison involving Hitler? It doesn't say the comparison must be to Hitler, just involve him.
I was trying to lighten the mood, but who knew you would be such a dick about it? My actual argument was this (for those of you on the short bus):
I simply meant that MythTV is one of the Linux applications that is easy to use, fully funtional, and has a professional look and feel. This would be one of the last projects I would like to see die under the weight of litigation. There are few linux applications that I can install on an x-box, put it in front of my mother, sister and brother, and hand them a remote and they can figure it out. It simply delivers. Now I understand all about "fighting the good fight," but I would like to see MythTV continue to grow. If lerhaupt wanted to pick a fight with the MPAA, he could have done it without causing collateral damage to a project I, and my family, love. And I would stand next to him and fight it. Now Isaac will have to spend time distancing himself from this work, which could have never been associated with MythTV in the first place, but still used as a separate application that MythTV could launch (MythTV can launch any app) so the integration/name association was completey unesscessary.
But rather than address my main point, you attacked the Godwin comment (straw man fallicy) while simultaenously calling me an idiot (ad hominem fallicy) Why don't you pick up a book on logic, and read it, a few times, as you have demonstrated poor reading comprehension on Godwin's Law.
Alternatively you could address my actual argument.
Actually the meta-Godwin's law was created by people who cannot debate with logic and must resort to emotional (invoking Hitler) rhetoric. As illustrated by your use of ad hominem arguments and straw man fallicies, you would be one of them.
So you couldn't have made your "appeasement" argument without using a Hitler/Nazi reference? Was this the only time in history that someone was appeased? No, you chose to use the emotional impact "Hitler" evokes in order to add punch to your argument, and insinuate that I would appease Nazis as I would appease the MPAA. This insinuation is what makes the invocation of Godwin's law appropriate, and therefore the meta-Godwin's Law is inapplicable. Unless you use Nazi/Hitler references casually, in all of your arguments/conversations like, "Hey will you pass the mashed potatoes or are you a Fascist?" I don't know, this might just be the way you talk. It reminds me of an old Saturday Night Live sketch where Jim Carrey uses the term "I'll see you in hell." so often that it becomes ingrained in his vernacular to the point of him using it as a standard greeting/goodbye, causing it to lose all meaning.
*Ugh* First an obligitory link to Godwin's law because you brought up the Hitler.
That being done, I simply meant that MythTV is one of the Linux applications that is easy to use, fully funtional, and has a professional look and feel. This would be one of the last projects I would like to see die under the weight of litigation. There are few linux applications that I can install on an x-box, put it in front of my mother, sister and brother, and hand them a remote and they can figure it out. It simply delivers. Now I understand all about "fighting the good fight," but I would like to see MythTV continue to grow. If lerhaupt wanted to pick a fight with the MPAA, he could have done it without causing collateral damage to a project I, and my family, love. And I would stand next to him and fight it. Now Isaac will have to spend time distancing himself from this work, which could have never been associated with MythTV in the first place, but still used as a separate application that MythTV could launch (MythTV can launch any app) so the integration/name association was completey unesscessary.
True, But in many of these cases, winning a suit can be every bit as damaging as losing, as it's the trial itself theat delays work and drains the developer will to code. So I'm worried about it going to trial not losing. I am pretty certain the MPAA wouldn't win. But that won't stop them from making Isaac's, and anyone else associated with mythtv, life miserable.
I kept hoping no one would do this. I'd seen requests for something like it on mythtv-users. Now that MythTV will be indistinguishable from "Movie Pirates" in the MPAA's eyes. It's probably only a matter of time before the whole project gets litigated, albeit unjustly, into oblivion. Well I hope Isaac can file legal paperwork and code at the same time, but I'm guessing not. And don't bother telling me this is a separate plug-in for MythTV, I know that. What I'm saying here is that the MPAA's lawyers don't know or won't care.
Oh my God, Are you saying that if something hasn't hapened yet, then it can't happen? That's some great logic buddy.
The reason professional system hackers do not release malicious worms is because they are to busy stealing data and selling it. Writing a worm would let people know about the exploit (which, for a time, only they have knowledge) so I guess you would let them continue to exploit systems indefinately. Worms are not the worst thing that can come from an exploit. But you seem to think they are.
Uh... do you really thing that CDC, CIA, FBI, DoD or any other similar organization has any of their sensitive information on computers that are connected to the net?
Yes they do. Do you honestly belive these organizations do not use the internet backbone to share data, Do you think they use the pony express or something? Or do they just not talk to each other? Or do they use some other internet? Because they don't. They use the same infastructure we (general population does) their networks have better security as a rule, but there on here with us.
The parent post is absolutely unbelieveable in it's naivete.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that there are zealots on both sides. I started this thread with a tongue-and-cheek response to "lets restrict all abortions to two extreme cases" and it went off on a wild tanget.
I don't think that punishment of carrying a baby to term fits the crime of breaking a condom, but life can be even more unforgiving. Also I don't think that being born into this world makes a child better off if it is resented and thought of as a punishment. There are far worse fates than not being born. Like being beaten (or worse) the first 16 years of your life.
As far as having bearing on the issue, I believe that Roe Vs. Wade is pretty much the concensus, If the baby can support life on its own, it's a life.
Until then, not. Ergo, no third trimester abortions.
I have always considered this a reasonable compromise, as if one would allow someone to grow in them for six months, then they should stick it out.
But restricting them to only rape and heath of the mother is too prohibitive, and the "all life is precious" is a cop out as well, especially when made by the same zealots who support the death penalty.
Oh, what's next ? Do you also want to question an infants "right" to be fed and cared for, huh ?
In other words: What about the children?!? (blatant appeal to emotion)
Yep, killing someone just because he causes you some inconvenience is illegal.
No, It's not. It depends on the level of inconvenience. You can kill someone if they are about to chop a limb off, or rape you, or if they are about to do the same to someone else. If they are about to kill someone else (which doesn't really inconvenience you at all) you can still kill them.
It's called "justifiable homicide" and it happens pretty damn often.
Babies are either people or their not, you seem to want them to be elevated to have more rights than the humans that can support life on their own. One can infer from this that you believe in some type of higher moral purpose to protect the infant above the rights of the individual that will be forced to act like a life support system for it for nine months.
So what church did you say you went to again?
People who are anti-abortion aren't all religious zealots.
Not all, but what percentage of them would you say are? You must admit that there is certainly a strong correlation between people who are anti-abortion and people who are religious zealots.
And it's not just a question of when life begins. It is also a question if one human has the right to latch on to another and feed and grow off of another for nine months.
If someone was incapable of digesting food, but could put a tube in your neck and jump on your back, and live like that for nine months, should it be illegal for you to remove them?
Yeah, it's an extreme case, but do you believe that you should be legally obligated to let them do it?
In that case tighten up rules on abortions. Timit them only to situations such as rape, or where a continued pregnancy would harm the mother or child.
Or better yet, only allow them if the local pastors agree (or a bishop decrees) that Jeebus would be ok with them.
I agree with you. But by making the science itself illegal makes a moral statement that the science is wrong. Making the profiteering directly from abortions illegal would make the moral statement that abortions for profit is wrong. I'm not saying that this isn't an extremely gray area, but if we follow your (correct) argument to it's inevitable conclusion, then money is going to subvert any process we put in place, so all we have left is what we choose to make a moral statement about.
Then any form of payment for an abortion to a pregnant (or recently pregnant) woman should be what is illegal, not the science that comes after it.
There was no crime, because the secret police would carry you off and shoot you in the head if you were even suspected of a crime. Wiretaps were the norm and the government could do whatever it wanted. Privacy didn't exist. And they were safer from criminals for it. Well, safer if we define criminals as ones that weren't in the KGB.
Yeah, no "In Soviet Russia" Joke here.
This is frightening. It's like we're becoming the very thing we fought in the cold war. A totalitarian government.
But at least we have 37 types of cereal.
And the latest gas prices are due completely to the rise in price of a barrel of oil.
Oh, and by price of a barrel of oil, I mean CEO salaries and bonuses.
mmmmm executive greed mmmmmmmm
Google's design philosophy is based on end-user loyalty - not money.
When you sell ad space alongside your applications, end-user loyalty is money.
I've found that the separate vehicle makes it easier to commute, and go to the grocery store.
And the Airstream hull acts like a faraday cage. We wouldn't want anyone to van-eck phreaking...
But it is a pain to use a cell phone. I have to open the door.
I've been doing this for over a Year.
And for about $14k. And $5k for the pickup truck.
I'm posting this from the pod right now.
Most RV parks have WiFi, well the good ones anyway, so latency isn't a problem.
It's option one.
http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm
We have several Indian consultants at our organization doing an oracle setup. I get several emails each day containing gem's like:
server broke? It fail me for many times.
I started replying to them in haiku to save my sanity.
Who are in the majority by at least 3 million, according to a survey conducted a couple of days ago.
You were probably going for "+5 Funny" Here, but really you should get a "+5 Informative"
Note the 2000 Election correlation link at the bottom as well.
Debian has been weeding out incompetent users with its "impossible to use" installer for years.
It keeps the "Mandrake Crew" off of the debian-users lists.
What version of CE did you use? Was it before 3?
Just curious if GGparent's theory still holds.
You need to re-read it:
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
And I seem to understand it better than you.
Note it doesn't say anyting about "losing.", just at some point a Hitler/Nazi related comparison will be made given an infinite thread length.
I mentioned Godwin's law because you made a comparison to my so-called appeasement to the MPAA and the appeasement of Hitler.
Is that not acomparison involving Hitler? It doesn't say the comparison must be to Hitler, just involve him.
I was trying to lighten the mood, but who knew you would be such a dick about it? My actual argument was this (for those of you on the short bus):
I simply meant that MythTV is one of the Linux applications that is easy to use, fully funtional, and has a professional look and feel. This would be one of the last projects I would like to see die under the weight of litigation. There are few linux applications that I can install on an x-box, put it in front of my mother, sister and brother, and hand them a remote and they can figure it out. It simply delivers. Now I understand all about "fighting the good fight," but I would like to see MythTV continue to grow. If lerhaupt wanted to pick a fight with the MPAA, he could have done it without causing collateral damage to a project I, and my family, love. And I would stand next to him and fight it. Now Isaac will have to spend time distancing himself from this work, which could have never been associated with MythTV in the first place, but still used as a separate application that MythTV could launch (MythTV can launch any app) so the integration/name association was completey unesscessary.
But rather than address my main point, you attacked the Godwin comment (straw man fallicy) while simultaenously calling me an idiot (ad hominem fallicy)
Why don't you pick up a book on logic, and read it, a few times, as you have demonstrated poor reading comprehension on Godwin's Law.
Alternatively you could address my actual argument.
Actually the meta-Godwin's law was created by people who cannot debate with logic and must resort to emotional (invoking Hitler) rhetoric. As illustrated by your use of ad hominem arguments and straw man fallicies, you would be one of them.
Why not just learn logic, or not argue?
So you couldn't have made your "appeasement" argument without using a Hitler/Nazi reference? Was this the only time in history that someone was appeased? No, you chose to use the emotional impact "Hitler" evokes in order to add punch to your argument, and insinuate that I would appease Nazis as I would appease the MPAA. This insinuation is what makes the invocation of Godwin's law appropriate, and therefore the meta-Godwin's Law is inapplicable. Unless you use Nazi/Hitler references casually, in all of your arguments/conversations like, "Hey will you pass the mashed potatoes or are you a Fascist?" I don't know, this might just be the way you talk. It reminds me of an old Saturday Night Live sketch where Jim Carrey uses the term "I'll see you in hell." so often that it becomes ingrained in his vernacular to the point of him using it as a standard greeting/goodbye, causing it to lose all meaning.
Ok then, See you in hell...
*Ugh* First an obligitory link to Godwin's law because you brought up the Hitler.
That being done, I simply meant that MythTV is one of the Linux applications that is easy to use, fully funtional, and has a professional look and feel. This would be one of the last projects I would like to see die under the weight of litigation. There are few linux applications that I can install on an x-box, put it in front of my mother, sister and brother, and hand them a remote and they can figure it out. It simply delivers. Now I understand all about "fighting the good fight," but I would like to see MythTV continue to grow. If lerhaupt wanted to pick a fight with the MPAA, he could have done it without causing collateral damage to a project I, and my family, love. And I would stand next to him and fight it. Now Isaac will have to spend time distancing himself from this work, which could have never been associated with MythTV in the first place, but still used as a separate application that MythTV could launch (MythTV can launch any app) so the integration/name association was completey unesscessary.
True, But in many of these cases, winning a suit can be every bit as damaging as losing, as it's the trial itself theat delays work and drains the developer will to code. So I'm worried about it going to trial not losing. I am pretty certain the MPAA wouldn't win. But that won't stop them from making Isaac's, and anyone else associated with mythtv, life miserable.
I kept hoping no one would do this. I'd seen requests for something like it on mythtv-users. Now that MythTV will be indistinguishable from "Movie Pirates" in the MPAA's eyes. It's probably only a matter of time before the whole project gets litigated, albeit unjustly, into oblivion. Well I hope Isaac can file legal paperwork and code at the same time, but I'm guessing not. And don't bother telling me this is a separate plug-in for MythTV, I know that. What I'm saying here is that the MPAA's lawyers don't know or won't care.
Oh my God, Are you saying that if something hasn't hapened yet, then it can't happen? That's some great logic buddy.
The reason professional system hackers do not release malicious worms is because they are to busy stealing data and selling it. Writing a worm would let people know about the exploit (which, for a time, only they have knowledge) so I guess you would let them continue to exploit systems indefinately. Worms are not the worst thing that can come from an exploit. But you seem to think they are.
Remind me to NEVER hire you in a security role.
Uh... do you really thing that CDC, CIA, FBI, DoD or any other similar organization has any of their sensitive information on computers that are connected to the net?
Yes they do. Do you honestly belive these organizations do not use the internet backbone to share data, Do you think they use the pony express or something? Or do they just not talk to each other? Or do they use some other internet? Because they don't. They use the same infastructure we (general population does) their networks have better security as a rule, but there on here with us.
The parent post is absolutely unbelieveable in it's naivete.
I'm just accepting the limited number of crackers using the exploit as a lesser evil
How many crackers do you think it takes to write a self-replicating and self propagating worm?
The answer is one, not "a limited number" plus one.