What you say is certainly true when you look at this issue from an economic standpoint. But look at this from the point of simple freedom: I have (off and on) run a Shoutcast station that consists mostly of Bill Hicks routines. Now, I can support up to a whopping 5 users on my home DSL line. I do this because I'm a passionate fan of Bill Hicks and want to spread those memes, not because I want to make any kind of money. But the restrictions that have been put in place prohibit me from doing so from a legislative standpoint, and that is where so many broadcasters have their problems.
The War on drugs, i dont agree with it, but it makes sense, you have to prevent the population from becoming a bunch of druggies, but the government isnt arresting people for using drugs, they arrest you for selling it.
That is absolutely untrue. Look at this and this. The majority of drug related arrests are for possession, not trafficking..
Of COURSE it's possible. If you have no balls whatsoever.
Taking a stand is meaningless without taking action. Bitching about Blizzard and then buying their product is about as ball-less as you can get. Placing personal pleasure above ideology is not only wrong, it's abhorant. "Oooh! I hate Blizzard! But LOOK AT THE SHINY NEW TOY!"
Whatever man. I ain't buying SHIT from Blizzard. See, I believe in acting on my beliefs, not just spouting off shit on/.
Software shouldn't have to be subject to the rule of this dichotomy, though.
Why not? There is plenty of room in the marketplace, and the demand to support it, for a wide range of software from the same category. Consider databases: You have your cheap-o MS Access, suitable for a few users. Then you have Oracle, suitable for enterprise applications. One is a consumer grade product, the other professional.
Intel tries to shove down an [engineer's] throat a RAM bus solution that they don't want. Slot A, nobody wanted, and AMD said, "You don't need that. We'll put a flip chip in a package." That's the K6. And [Intel] had to change. They didn't change on their own; they changed because competition made them change. So I'm proud of that.
In other words, Intel came up with some new technology they wanted to throw out there, and competition made them change their ways, in the process giving the consumer cheaper, better products. Kinda makes me wonder what would have happened if MS had a serious moneyed competitor. I can't help but believe that we'd all have HAL staring at us from the phones on our desks.
I have come to believe the following: No matter how technologically superior your product may be, if you compete directly with Microsoft you will lose (i.e. you will make less money, and have less market share). Why this is true for OS's and not for microprocessors I'm not sure.
Consoles have better specifications. Apples are toys.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Numbers do not tell the whole story.
I am a Java developer who has been looking for years for the perfect development environment from which to work on. Since I got my G4 I have without a doubt never been happier. I don't have to fuck with endless config files like I did on Linux, and yet I can use all the *nix tools I got used to. Windows made me want to choke: it was functional, but I prefer not to deal with Microsoft products if I can help it. Compared to OS X it is *Windows* that is the toy.
My G4 has helped me to do my job better. I can assure you it is *not* a toy, at least no more or less so than any other general purpose PC.
You're argument is well spoken and you are obviously an intelligent person. I would like to point out a few things, however:
Environmentalists are no more or less elitist than any other political group. They have just as many zealots as the NRA, the ACLU, or most others. Just because some members of the organization are more energetic than others does not invalidate the underlying philosophy. (I can assure you -- as an active former member -- that most Young Republican organizations are shockingly and frustratingly elitist.)
Saying "we [humans] are failing" is, again, no different from any other political group. All politics is based upon the belief that certain things need changing through the force of law.
Freedom is an ideal to be striven towards, not an absolute. There are no absolutes. A democratically elected government has every right (and in fact it has the duty) to step in and say "You cannot put lead into the ground water", whether the target is a business or an individual. To be sure, this can be viewed as a curtailment of freedoms. But these curtailments are in the interest of the common good, and are preventing actions that are clearly damaging to the community as a whole.
You said:
...therefore, we should be very careful about threatening the destruction of individual humans' property, freedom, and lives in the name of any global mission
With which I wholeheartedly concur. Strong property rights must be the basis for a republic such as ours to remain vibrant. But: "Your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins." The evidence that emissions from the burning of fossil fuels pollute the environment and cause harm to the community is fairly cut and dry; the primary focus of debate revolves around whether CO2 emissions are harmful in the long term.
I find much of the language of the environmentalists itself to be inherently anti-freedom, anti-individual, and quite elitist.
That's may be true. But that doesn't make them wrong.
We must also take into account the political pressure these scientists are under...
Do you want an example? In my lifetime Dinosaurs have gone from cold-blooded to warm-blooded and back. The accepted norm has been that they were big, slow scavengers, then that they were fast hunters. You know what finally settled it? In the movie _Jurasic Park_ Spielberg chose to make them fast agile warm blooded hunters. Now few people argue with that. "Dinosaurs moved fast. I saw it in a movie"
Your example doesn't prove your point. In fact, it is not even the same thing. The general population may think that dinosaurs moved fast, but that doesn't change the fact that theories constantly evolve and change, frequently *despite* political pressure.
In fact, there was a recent report about how some paleontologists now think that T. Rex was a rather slow mover. The general public might not be aware of this, but those who concern themselves with dinosaurs certainly are.
Wow, did you come up with all by your little self?
It's significant because I would like to continue fucking living, thanks very much. And while we're on the topic, I'd like my kids to be able to do so as well. AAAAND just outta the goodness of my heart, I'd kinda hope the same for everybody else. Not to mention the fact that it's hot enough in Texas as it is, and if it gets one degree hotter I WILL kick somebody's ass.
Anyway, I always view these chicken little reports as a communist "Lets screw the US!" ploy
First off:
BWAHAHAHAHA! What decade are you from, man?
Second, and hopefully less denegrating: I concern myself with US policies because I am first and foremost a US citizen. I want my drinking water and air to be clean so that me and mine can live healthy lives if we chose to do so. I would hope that our government and various NGO's would pressure whatever governments are polluting the environment to try and stop it, but when I bitch about the US it is because I live there.
Now, there is that little matter of the US's disproportionally large demand for energy. And most of that is being generated from coal powered plants, which are definately *not* clean, even if you discount CO2 as a factor. Russia and Japan haven't signed Kyoto because *combined* they consume less than half of the energy that the US does. If the world's major polluter refuses to play, why should they? (For the record, I do think that they should sign it regardless of what the US does.)
In any case, you seem to be saying that because other nation's sin that it is OK if we do so. In other words, that two wrongs make a right. They do not.
Rather than bathe in "human guilt", perhaps you should consider what role the three laws of thermodynamics might play?
Ok, I'll bite. It's much easier to drop a vase on a floor and break it than it is to construct one, or to put the pieces back together. Similarly, it requires much more energy to build a country than it does to destroy it with a nuclear weapon.
This has nothing to do with "human guilt" (although I must admit I am unsure what is meant by that phrase.) It's just a simple awareness of, as you said, thermodynamics.
You know, it's guys like you that make me keep coming back to Slashdot. There is that occasional gem shining in the piles of horseshit that makes it all worth it.
Unfortunately, I am frequently the one delivering the horseshit.
Well well well. I wonder hwo the FCC is going to rule on THIS little gem. There's money to be made, so I'm just a little bit convinced that the public is gonna get screwed. "Here, have this nice wireless spectrum for the betterment of your community. Oh wait! These guys wanna make some MONEY off of it! Well by all means let us bend over and let em do whatever the fuck they want!"
Call me cynical. Call me old fashioned. Hell, call me liberal. But I seem to remember a day when there were actually people in politically powerful positions who believed that promoting the common good and promoting industry were at times separate things, and that when they came into conflict they should be viewed as equally important. Now it seems that damn near everybody is of the belief that the promotion of industry *is* the promotion of the common good. Disney wants Mickey copyrighted for another 30 years? No problem! After all, it's in the public's best interest to keep Disney afloat! You want low power FM? Sorry! That might interfere with the profitability of Clear Channel, and that's not in the public's interest!
Fuck that. The broadcast industry just had $50billion worth of digital TV spectrum just handed to them on a silver platter. They can suffer whatever work arounds are necessary so that they don't interfere with 802.11b. Fuck em.
There are a couple of things to take into consideration here:
For the most part, web designers crave standards. The absolute number one bitch of web designers is having to code for the quirks in different browsers. By having one of the major players in the market switch over to standards compliance, a *huge* load is taken off of the development time. Developers have been clamoring for more compliance for years. (And face it: IE is a very standards compliant browser; making the switch will all not be that drastic.) While it might take some time to make the switch, it will be well, WELL worth it to do so because you can just code to the standard.
AOL is in the business of delivering content over the internet. Currently the tool used by their customers to view this content is controlled by a competitor: Microsoft. It just doesn't make business sense for AOL to be dependant upon MS for such a core element of their business model.
AOL is a huge entity with enough clout to pressure commercial sites to change their ways. If a significant percentage of your customer base are AOL users, and AOL has changed a few things, you will either change your site or lose the customer. Most businesses will change their site.
In short, I think this is absolutely a win-win situation for the industry and the consumer. AOL is less dependant upon MS, developers are (more) happy because they don't have to code for Nutscrape specific quirks, and the end user will get a more consistent browsing experience.
Just wait until you can only see AOL approved sites, wouldn't that be nice?
What are you talking about? The reason that people are so excited about this is that Gecko is just about 100% compliant with the relevant W3C standards. They're not throwing in proprietary tags in either HTML or CSS, JavaScript is based on the ECMA standard, and so forth. AOL might want to increase their marketshare, but they are going about doing it in the most professional possible (at least in this case.)
What AOL has to consider is its 34million users turning round and saying "the latest version of AOL is broke", if it's not rendering IE specific content correctly.
While this may be true, the number of sites that utilize MS specific technologies is actually fairly small. But regardless of the percentage that do use broken HTML, if AOL is going to move away from IE they have to do it sooner rather than later. *If* MS comes up with some new whiz-bang HTML "extension" and it catches on, AOL will have less room to maneuver.
I don't think AOL wants to be dependant upon MS for the browser. The sooner they break away from MS and start using Gecko the better not only for AOL, but the net as a whole.
...men in bad suits and dark sunglasses that smelled like pistachios.
This, class, is a perfect example of a "dangling participle." The numerous comments that follow it are themselves perfect examples of what paleontologists call "easy humor". Note how the monkeys almost instinctivly jump at the opportunity to mock the original poster's error, despire the fact that other such comments have already been made. It's almost as if they can't help themselves. But spring is approaching, so displays such as this are more common: even the lowly geek desires a mate. He therefore displays his prowess in the only way he knows how, specifically by ridiculing the intelligence of others, and, by contrast, promoting his own apparent intelligence.
Or you could up and fucking PAY for something. Wow. There's a novel idea. Instead of having the world hand you news for nerds on a silver platter, you actually recognize the time and effor that Rob, et. al., have put into this beast and give em some fucking MONEY in appreciation.
"But competition! Free! Information! BLAH!" Spoiled rotten little turds. You'll leech all day, but as soon as somebody wants compensation for what they've done, then they've sold out or some such nonsense. It's like you don't think people *deserve* to be paid for their work if it's online.
Christ. What is it with the internet, man? People have just no sense of common courtesy./. is worth 20 bucks a year. That's *nothing*, man. And they've been free for like 4 years now? Come ON.
Losers. I do not understand the libertarian/socialist dichotomy that is so prevalent among this community. Either it has value and is therefore worth paying for, or it doesn't. Even though free alternatives are available that doesn't make it any less heinous to ditch/. just because the management has to pay the bills.
The science behind that is pretty evidencial (especially for skin color.) However, we don't know for sure since there were no records kept and there is not a person alive today that can act a witness to the changes.
Well, science is based on "evidencial" evidence, so I'm not sure what you are saying here. However, in response to your comment about no records being kept, I point you towards your friendly neighborhood anthropologist or archaeologist; either will be able to give you some rather good unwritten records of the progress of human culture, and how almost all of it predates anything in the Bible.
Environmentalism is wrong because it holds nature, not man, as the standard of value.
Absoultely untrue. Environmentalism is fully compatible with humanism. Environmentalism is simply a recognition of the connectedness between man and nature. I believe the environment should be saved not only because it is the right thing to do, but primarily because I do not want to see mankind disappear due to his own greed and wastefulness.
There are some who place more importance on the environment than on man. But to say that this is a core or necessary belief is just incorrect. Such a view is no more necessary than being a Christian requires one to oppose abortion. There may be a correlation, but it is not an absolute requirement.
Slashdot Mirror
What you say is certainly true when you look at this issue from an economic standpoint. But look at this from the point of simple freedom: I have (off and on) run a Shoutcast station that consists mostly of Bill Hicks routines. Now, I can support up to a whopping 5 users on my home DSL line. I do this because I'm a passionate fan of Bill Hicks and want to spread those memes, not because I want to make any kind of money. But the restrictions that have been put in place prohibit me from doing so from a legislative standpoint, and that is where so many broadcasters have their problems.
The War on drugs, i dont agree with it, but it makes sense, you have to prevent the population from becoming a bunch of druggies, but the government isnt arresting people for using drugs, they arrest you for selling it.
That is absolutely untrue. Look at this and this. The majority of drug related arrests are for possession, not trafficking..
Must... resist... temptation.. to flame...
You said: "I don't like what they've done, but the good they have done outweighs it."
What good is that? And what, exactly, is that good outweighing? And on a separate note, do you think being an artist involves creating or consuming?
Of COURSE it's possible. If you have no balls whatsoever.
Taking a stand is meaningless without taking action. Bitching about Blizzard and then buying their product is about as ball-less as you can get. Placing personal pleasure above ideology is not only wrong, it's abhorant. "Oooh! I hate Blizzard! But LOOK AT THE SHINY NEW TOY!"
Whatever man. I ain't buying SHIT from Blizzard. See, I believe in acting on my beliefs, not just spouting off shit on /.
It looks like they post with an automatic -1. Ck their posting history.
Software shouldn't have to be subject to the rule of this dichotomy, though.
Why not? There is plenty of room in the marketplace, and the demand to support it, for a wide range of software from the same category. Consider databases: You have your cheap-o MS Access, suitable for a few users. Then you have Oracle, suitable for enterprise applications. One is a consumer grade product, the other professional.
Just because there have been bills passed that are heinous doesn't mean we should stop legislating in other areas.
At the close of the interview, Sanders says:
In other words, Intel came up with some new technology they wanted to throw out there, and competition made them change their ways, in the process giving the consumer cheaper, better products. Kinda makes me wonder what would have happened if MS had a serious moneyed competitor. I can't help but believe that we'd all have HAL staring at us from the phones on our desks.
I have come to believe the following: No matter how technologically superior your product may be, if you compete directly with Microsoft you will lose (i.e. you will make less money, and have less market share). Why this is true for OS's and not for microprocessors I'm not sure.
Consoles have better specifications. Apples are toys.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Numbers do not tell the whole story.
I am a Java developer who has been looking for years for the perfect development environment from which to work on. Since I got my G4 I have without a doubt never been happier. I don't have to fuck with endless config files like I did on Linux, and yet I can use all the *nix tools I got used to. Windows made me want to choke: it was functional, but I prefer not to deal with Microsoft products if I can help it. Compared to OS X it is *Windows* that is the toy.
My G4 has helped me to do my job better. I can assure you it is *not* a toy, at least no more or less so than any other general purpose PC.
Wow. Remember Plato's "Allegory of the Cave"? Everyone who did this would be voluntarily placing themselves in that cave. Scary thought.
Although, now that I think about it that doesn't sound all that different from Everquest.
- Rev.You're argument is well spoken and you are obviously an intelligent person. I would like to point out a few things, however:
Environmentalists are no more or less elitist than any other political group. They have just as many zealots as the NRA, the ACLU, or most others. Just because some members of the organization are more energetic than others does not invalidate the underlying philosophy. (I can assure you -- as an active former member -- that most Young Republican organizations are shockingly and frustratingly elitist.)
Saying "we [humans] are failing" is, again, no different from any other political group. All politics is based upon the belief that certain things need changing through the force of law.
Freedom is an ideal to be striven towards, not an absolute. There are no absolutes. A democratically elected government has every right (and in fact it has the duty) to step in and say "You cannot put lead into the ground water", whether the target is a business or an individual. To be sure, this can be viewed as a curtailment of freedoms. But these curtailments are in the interest of the common good, and are preventing actions that are clearly damaging to the community as a whole.
You said:
With which I wholeheartedly concur. Strong property rights must be the basis for a republic such as ours to remain vibrant. But: "Your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins." The evidence that emissions from the burning of fossil fuels pollute the environment and cause harm to the community is fairly cut and dry; the primary focus of debate revolves around whether CO2 emissions are harmful in the long term.
I find much of the language of the environmentalists itself to be inherently anti-freedom, anti-individual, and quite elitist.
That's may be true. But that doesn't make them wrong.
- Rev.We must also take into account the political pressure these scientists are under...
Do you want an example? In my lifetime Dinosaurs have gone from cold-blooded to warm-blooded and back. The accepted norm has been that they were big, slow scavengers, then that they were fast hunters. You know what finally settled it? In the movie _Jurasic Park_ Spielberg chose to make them fast agile warm blooded hunters. Now few people argue with that. "Dinosaurs moved fast. I saw it in a movie"
Your example doesn't prove your point. In fact, it is not even the same thing. The general population may think that dinosaurs moved fast, but that doesn't change the fact that theories constantly evolve and change, frequently *despite* political pressure.
In fact, there was a recent report about how some paleontologists now think that T. Rex was a rather slow mover. The general public might not be aware of this, but those who concern themselves with dinosaurs certainly are.
- Rev.Wow, did you come up with all by your little self?
It's significant because I would like to continue fucking living, thanks very much. And while we're on the topic, I'd like my kids to be able to do so as well. AAAAND just outta the goodness of my heart, I'd kinda hope the same for everybody else. Not to mention the fact that it's hot enough in Texas as it is, and if it gets one degree hotter I WILL kick somebody's ass.
- Rev.Anyway, I always view these chicken little reports as a communist "Lets screw the US!" ploy
First off:
BWAHAHAHAHA! What decade are you from, man?
Second, and hopefully less denegrating: I concern myself with US policies because I am first and foremost a US citizen. I want my drinking water and air to be clean so that me and mine can live healthy lives if we chose to do so. I would hope that our government and various NGO's would pressure whatever governments are polluting the environment to try and stop it, but when I bitch about the US it is because I live there.
Now, there is that little matter of the US's disproportionally large demand for energy. And most of that is being generated from coal powered plants, which are definately *not* clean, even if you discount CO2 as a factor. Russia and Japan haven't signed Kyoto because *combined* they consume less than half of the energy that the US does. If the world's major polluter refuses to play, why should they? (For the record, I do think that they should sign it regardless of what the US does.)
In any case, you seem to be saying that because other nation's sin that it is OK if we do so. In other words, that two wrongs make a right. They do not.
- Rev.Rather than bathe in "human guilt", perhaps you should consider what role the three laws of thermodynamics might play?
Ok, I'll bite. It's much easier to drop a vase on a floor and break it than it is to construct one, or to put the pieces back together. Similarly, it requires much more energy to build a country than it does to destroy it with a nuclear weapon.
This has nothing to do with "human guilt" (although I must admit I am unsure what is meant by that phrase.) It's just a simple awareness of, as you said, thermodynamics.
- Rev.Wow.
You know, it's guys like you that make me keep coming back to Slashdot. There is that occasional gem shining in the piles of horseshit that makes it all worth it.
Unfortunately, I am frequently the one delivering the horseshit.
- Rev.Well well well. I wonder hwo the FCC is going to rule on THIS little gem. There's money to be made, so I'm just a little bit convinced that the public is gonna get screwed. "Here, have this nice wireless spectrum for the betterment of your community. Oh wait! These guys wanna make some MONEY off of it! Well by all means let us bend over and let em do whatever the fuck they want!"
Call me cynical. Call me old fashioned. Hell, call me liberal. But I seem to remember a day when there were actually people in politically powerful positions who believed that promoting the common good and promoting industry were at times separate things, and that when they came into conflict they should be viewed as equally important. Now it seems that damn near everybody is of the belief that the promotion of industry *is* the promotion of the common good. Disney wants Mickey copyrighted for another 30 years? No problem! After all, it's in the public's best interest to keep Disney afloat! You want low power FM? Sorry! That might interfere with the profitability of Clear Channel, and that's not in the public's interest!
Fuck that. The broadcast industry just had $50billion worth of digital TV spectrum just handed to them on a silver platter. They can suffer whatever work arounds are necessary so that they don't interfere with 802.11b. Fuck em.
- Rev.There are a couple of things to take into consideration here:
For the most part, web designers crave standards. The absolute number one bitch of web designers is having to code for the quirks in different browsers. By having one of the major players in the market switch over to standards compliance, a *huge* load is taken off of the development time. Developers have been clamoring for more compliance for years. (And face it: IE is a very standards compliant browser; making the switch will all not be that drastic.) While it might take some time to make the switch, it will be well, WELL worth it to do so because you can just code to the standard.
AOL is in the business of delivering content over the internet. Currently the tool used by their customers to view this content is controlled by a competitor: Microsoft. It just doesn't make business sense for AOL to be dependant upon MS for such a core element of their business model.
AOL is a huge entity with enough clout to pressure commercial sites to change their ways. If a significant percentage of your customer base are AOL users, and AOL has changed a few things, you will either change your site or lose the customer. Most businesses will change their site.
In short, I think this is absolutely a win-win situation for the industry and the consumer. AOL is less dependant upon MS, developers are (more) happy because they don't have to code for Nutscrape specific quirks, and the end user will get a more consistent browsing experience.
Just wait until you can only see AOL approved sites, wouldn't that be nice?
What are you talking about? The reason that people are so excited about this is that Gecko is just about 100% compliant with the relevant W3C standards. They're not throwing in proprietary tags in either HTML or CSS, JavaScript is based on the ECMA standard, and so forth. AOL might want to increase their marketshare, but they are going about doing it in the most professional possible (at least in this case.)
- Rev.What AOL has to consider is its 34million users turning round and saying "the latest version of AOL is broke", if it's not rendering IE specific content correctly.
While this may be true, the number of sites that utilize MS specific technologies is actually fairly small. But regardless of the percentage that do use broken HTML, if AOL is going to move away from IE they have to do it sooner rather than later. *If* MS comes up with some new whiz-bang HTML "extension" and it catches on, AOL will have less room to maneuver.
I don't think AOL wants to be dependant upon MS for the browser. The sooner they break away from MS and start using Gecko the better not only for AOL, but the net as a whole.
- Rev.This, class, is a perfect example of a "dangling participle." The numerous comments that follow it are themselves perfect examples of what paleontologists call "easy humor". Note how the monkeys almost instinctivly jump at the opportunity to mock the original poster's error, despire the fact that other such comments have already been made. It's almost as if they can't help themselves. But spring is approaching, so displays such as this are more common: even the lowly geek desires a mate. He therefore displays his prowess in the only way he knows how, specifically by ridiculing the intelligence of others, and, by contrast, promoting his own apparent intelligence.
- Rev.Here's an idea: LIGHTEN THE FUCK UP. It's a cat. Being hit by rubber bands. Whaa. Whaa. Whaa.
Or you could up and fucking PAY for something. Wow. There's a novel idea. Instead of having the world hand you news for nerds on a silver platter, you actually recognize the time and effor that Rob, et. al., have put into this beast and give em some fucking MONEY in appreciation.
/. is worth 20 bucks a year. That's *nothing*, man. And they've been free for like 4 years now? Come ON.
/. just because the management has to pay the bills.
"But competition! Free! Information! BLAH!" Spoiled rotten little turds. You'll leech all day, but as soon as somebody wants compensation for what they've done, then they've sold out or some such nonsense. It's like you don't think people *deserve* to be paid for their work if it's online.
Christ. What is it with the internet, man? People have just no sense of common courtesy.
Losers. I do not understand the libertarian/socialist dichotomy that is so prevalent among this community. Either it has value and is therefore worth paying for, or it doesn't. Even though free alternatives are available that doesn't make it any less heinous to ditch
- Rev.
The science behind that is pretty evidencial (especially for skin color.) However, we don't know for sure since there were no records kept and there is not a person alive today that can act a witness to the changes.
Well, science is based on "evidencial" evidence, so I'm not sure what you are saying here. However, in response to your comment about no records being kept, I point you towards your friendly neighborhood anthropologist or archaeologist; either will be able to give you some rather good unwritten records of the progress of human culture, and how almost all of it predates anything in the Bible.
Environmentalism is wrong because it holds nature, not man, as the standard of value.
Absoultely untrue. Environmentalism is fully compatible with humanism. Environmentalism is simply a recognition of the connectedness between man and nature. I believe the environment should be saved not only because it is the right thing to do, but primarily because I do not want to see mankind disappear due to his own greed and wastefulness.
There are some who place more importance on the environment than on man. But to say that this is a core or necessary belief is just incorrect. Such a view is no more necessary than being a Christian requires one to oppose abortion. There may be a correlation, but it is not an absolute requirement.