Maybe the question would be, given the growth of the Internet, are NT sales figures lower than they would be if Linux wasn't an option? From my (admittedly limited) experience it has to have made a dint - I've seen enough Linux boxes used in place of NT ones. I don't think their sales figures have decreased as a result of Linux because the market has been increasing (and a lot of the newbie PHBs see "Microsoft" and think they are buying a "premium product *snort*). Someone ask if Linux has had "a negative effect" on NT sales.:-)
I'd be interested in the actual study - but lets face it, that article stacked up a lot of commercial vested interests and gave them a platform to slam a competitor - and they got a critical response! Well Duh!
I think you've brought up a few of the points that I perhaps should have pointed to in my own post (one of the many mentioning the "s" word). People are being somewhat lax in their view of what entails severely disabled with people having minor problems being mentioned as candidates for Singer's euthanasia. Perhaps this is a symptom of the way our societies tend to result is a socio-cultural segregation of disabled people:(
My interpretation was intended to the *severely* disabled - not simply fitting the severely disabled medical "category" but the extremely severe cases where the person's capacity for interaction, etc is almost non-existent. I've also helped out at a couple of the "sheltered workshops" with the "severely disabled" and these was with people with little-to-no interaction capabilities or body control and only primitive reflexes. My job was to feed them (the people I was feeding had only early suckling reflexes) and move their limbs to maintain their joint/muscle flexibility. It is the more extreme cases such as these (and others that are "allowed" to die already in the medical system) that I was referring to - and I am not sure if I would support it/not. These comments about near-sightedness/blindness, etc are just adding to the noise - which I guess indicates the success of Singer in his goal of getting people to discuss and think about issues. I think he's great. I agree with some of his points and disagree with others but he always promotes rigorous "debate".
I'd also like to add that a point of view being emotional should discount it and should be counted in any balanced view of an issue - It just shouldn't be the whole basis:)
As always, with ethical issues people all too often resort to knee-jerk responses. There are "rational" arguments for both "sides". That is what qualifies it as an ethical debate.
We ignore so much of the bad stuff (tm) that happens - people dying and starving all over the world (including 1st world streets), people suffering and dying from easilly prevented diseases, the large-scale killing of animals (also capable of suffering/pain) in our animal produce industries and yet people foam at the mouth at the idea that parents of children _severely_ disabled be allowed to decide their child's euthanasia.
I have mixed feelings on the subject but I think part of the "pro" rationale would be that 1) surely the parents are in the better position to make a caring-based decision, and 2) we need to remember that we are talking severely disabled to the point that the child will suffer and has no chance of an interactive life with "acceptable" suffering. My take on the statements are that it would need to be an incapacitating level of disability. Is it ethical to force the child and parents to go through such suffering because we, who aren't involved/affected, are uncomfortable with such difficult issues?
On a side note, this already does happen to some extent in the system but just isn't acknowledged. I have certainly heard of enough cases where children who were incapable of surviving without medical intervention had that intervention stopped. If the prescription of analgesics, etc to ease the suffering hastens the person's death isn't this then euthanasia? There are also a number of cases each year where "loved ones" have assisted family members/partners with debilitating illnesses to die.
Its already happening and there is no right answer (tm). There is no black/white, just shades of grey and I don't think I am in a position to force my personal opinion on anyone with anything other than debate/discussion of the issues.
:/ Okay, I'm not up on the latest figures (I was going reports from last year and earlier this year). I also would like to point out that this doesn't mean that this isn't a sustainable business model (there are enough examples of businesses making losses in the traditional models:)
I perhaps used the wrong example (based on current figures) though this is also debatable depending on what that loss is based on. There are companies out there being very successful on the OS/FS model - their profits are simply derived from related services/products (CDs, books, etc).
I look at the products coming out of the various software development camps and see most of the innovation coming out of the FS/OS models (although the large corporations dominate on the smaller distribution mammoth specialized programs).
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the question would be, given the growth of the Internet, are NT sales figures lower than they would be if Linux wasn't an option? From my (admittedly limited) experience it has to have made a dint - I've seen enough Linux boxes used in place of NT ones. I don't think their sales figures have decreased as a result of Linux because the market has been increasing (and a lot of the newbie PHBs see "Microsoft" and think they are buying a "premium product *snort*). Someone ask if Linux has had "a negative effect" on NT sales. :-)
I'd be interested in the actual study - but lets face it, that article stacked up a lot of commercial vested interests and gave them a platform to slam a competitor - and they got a critical response! Well Duh!
Isi
I think you've brought up a few of the points that I perhaps should have pointed to in my own post (one of the many mentioning the "s" word). People are being somewhat lax in their view of what entails severely disabled with people having minor problems being mentioned as candidates for Singer's euthanasia. Perhaps this is a symptom of the way our societies tend to result is a socio-cultural segregation of disabled people :(
:)
My interpretation was intended to the *severely* disabled - not simply fitting the severely disabled medical "category" but the extremely severe cases where the person's capacity for interaction, etc is almost non-existent. I've also helped out at a couple of the "sheltered workshops" with the "severely disabled" and these was with people with little-to-no interaction capabilities or body control and only primitive reflexes. My job was to feed them (the people I was feeding had only early suckling reflexes) and move their limbs to maintain their joint/muscle flexibility. It is the more extreme cases such as these (and others that are "allowed" to die already in the medical system) that I was referring to - and I am not sure if I would support it/not. These comments about near-sightedness/blindness, etc are just adding to the noise - which I guess indicates the success of Singer in his goal of getting people to discuss and think about issues. I think he's great. I agree with some of his points and disagree with others but he always promotes rigorous "debate".
I'd also like to add that a point of view being emotional should discount it and should be counted in any balanced view of an issue - It just shouldn't be the whole basis
Isileth
As always, with ethical issues people all too often resort to knee-jerk responses. There are "rational" arguments for both "sides". That is what qualifies it as an ethical debate.
We ignore so much of the bad stuff (tm) that happens - people dying and starving all over the world (including 1st world streets), people suffering and dying from easilly prevented diseases, the large-scale killing of animals (also capable of suffering/pain) in our animal produce industries and yet people foam at the mouth at the idea that parents of children _severely_ disabled be allowed to decide their child's euthanasia.
I have mixed feelings on the subject but I think part of the "pro" rationale would be that 1) surely the parents are in the better position to make a caring-based decision, and 2) we need to remember that we are talking severely disabled to the point that the child will suffer and has no chance of an interactive life with "acceptable" suffering. My take on the statements are that it would need to be an incapacitating level of disability. Is it ethical to force the child and parents to go through such suffering because we, who aren't involved/affected, are uncomfortable with such difficult issues?
On a side note, this already does happen to some extent in the system but just isn't acknowledged. I have certainly heard of enough cases where children who were incapable of surviving without medical intervention had that intervention stopped. If the prescription of analgesics, etc to ease the suffering hastens the person's death isn't this then euthanasia? There are also a number of cases each year where "loved ones" have assisted family members/partners with debilitating illnesses to die.
Its already happening and there is no right answer (tm). There is no black/white, just shades of grey and I don't think I am in a position to force my personal opinion on anyone with anything other than debate/discussion of the issues.
:/ :)
Okay, I'm not up on the latest figures (I was going reports from last year and earlier this year).
I also would like to point out that this doesn't mean that this isn't a sustainable business model (there are enough examples of businesses making losses in the traditional models
I perhaps used the wrong example (based on current figures) though this is also debatable depending on what that loss is based on. There are companies out there being very successful on the OS/FS model - their profits are simply derived from related services/products (CDs, books, etc).
I look at the products coming out of the various software development camps and see most of the innovation coming out of the FS/OS models (although the large corporations dominate on the smaller distribution mammoth specialized programs).