:::.enter@6.53p> _YOU (harpeet@149.99.97.190) ~ _YOU HAVE RECEIVED A FATAL ERROR, PRESS ALT + F4 TO REPAIR THIS IMMEDIATELY:::.signoff@6.53p> _YOU (harpeet@149.99.97.190);...:::.signoff@6.53p> BlueBold (me@tnt01dla202.winnipeg.escape.ca); Leaving:::.signoff@6.53p> ic3d (ic3d@64-59-140-156.ivideon.com); Leaving:::.signoff@6.53p> CoolJeff4 (LoKv70@anolas01-p88.mts.net); Leaving
Lol Dudes!11!1!! mE am brazil!11! well after twelve years on the emuscene my dream is making real here is the first screen shot of REAS the KILL OF ALL EMULATORS,WELL I HAVE TO CONGRATULATE THE GREAT BRAZILIAN CODER REGIS REZENDE TO AGREE JOINING THIS HARD PROJECT , he is the most experient coder in brazil, ONCE I WANT TO TELL ALL PEOPLE THAT HELP ME ABOUT THE REAS A GREAT HUGE,ACTUALLY THE EMU IS RUNNING ONLY FEW SYTEMS BUT WAIT VERY SOON GREAT PROGRESS,IF U ARE A CODER AND WANT TO COLOBORATE WITH REGIS CONTACT ME BECAUSE HE IS VERY BUSY . THE SOURCE DONT WILL BE PUBLIC. THE EMU IS RUNNING UNDER ASM WITH SOME THINGS IN ALEGRO,IS FOR WINDOWS , AND IS OPTIMIZED FOR A PENTIUM OR AMD 900 WITH 128 RAM AND GEOFORCE 2,BUT THIS SPEC IS ONLY TO RUN ALL SYSTEMS I WILL PUT HERE SOME ROMS TOO,I WANT DONATORS TO KEEP THE REAS ALIVE I SPENT MANY TIME AND REGIS TOO,IF U ARE AN EMULOVER DONATION SOME MONEY OR HOST THIS SITE AND GIVE BANNERS TO IT. PUT IN YOUR MINDS THAT THIS EMU ISNT FAKE,DONT BELIEVE IN SOME EMULATION SITE,TRUST ME AND WE WILL GET THE BEST EMU EVER. IF U HAVE ANY IDEA TO I MAKE CASH WITH THIS SITE TO CONTINUE SUPPORTING REAS TELL ME THE EMU LANGUAGE IS ENGLISH BUT I TOLD TO REGIS PUT A TRANSTALOR OUTPUT.THE REAS SUPPORT ZIP AND FUTURE NETPLAY VIA MODEM IP.
CPS2 ROMS
http://www.reir0m.hpg.ig.com.br/index.html
please in-form me good sire. exactly how 'iced out' is your bling bling this fine winter's evening?
In the United States one of the most controversial and emotional topics of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries has been abortion. "Pro-lifers" hurl accusations at those in favor of abortion, calling them baby-killers, while "pro-choicers" reply that to outlaw abortion would be to restrict the freedoms of the woman. Both sides often resort to hurling epithets at their opponents, asserting that their god would not allow it, or dismissing the issue by saying that they simply feel a proclivity toward one side or the other.
Reflecting this sentiment, abortion's legal history has been a tumultuous one. Prior to the twentieth century, abortion was uncommon because at the time it was dangerous, and a premarital pregnancy generally resulted in a couple's marriage. However, the public was tolerant of abortion, and it was often a practical solution to the hard times faced by any family who doubted whether they could financially support a child (Langum 5). At the beginning of the century, however, it became anathema to many, and with the emergence of the American Medical Association, many legislators were pressured to criminalize abortion (Langum 4). Although experts argue on the exact date that widespread abortions became common, during the 1960's women's rights groups began calling for the decriminalization of abortion (Pollitt). In 1973, the Supreme Court reached its verdict on the status of abortion, legalizing it in the monumental Roe v. Wade case (Mauro 1). Although it has been legally resolved, "pro-lifers" continue to bomb abortion clinics, and those in favor of abortion feel the need to qualify their position by supporting abortion "before the third trimester."
One may wonder why, after a century of quibbling, the populace has not yet reached a verdict on the issue. The answer is that one often dwells on the specifics, such as whether or not abortion is a safe practice. That abortion is safe for a mother is beyond dispute, given the medical advantages we enjoy. The issue is simplified if we take a more fundamental approach to it and ask whether or not abortion is morally permissible. Leaving behind our emotional predispositions, we can reach a logical conclusion. Abortion is morally permissible in all circumstances; therefore, it should remain legal.
So-called "pro-lifers" are quick to point out that a fetus looks like a human and performs some of the basic biological functions of a human being; it should be pointed out, however, that ninety percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester, meaning most fetuses can't even be considered biologically human (Back-Alley 2). I am willing to agree with them, but I stipulate that a fetus is not a person in morally relevant respects. According to philosopher Mary Anne Warren, a being must meet some basic criteria to be considered a person, such as "consciousness (of objects and events external...to the being);...the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems; self-motivated activity;...the capacity to communicate; and the presence of self-concepts" (4). Thus, there is a difference between being human and being a person. Some human beings aren't people, and some non-humans are people (Warren 4). It is reasonable to assume that if a being cannot satisfy any of these criteria, that being is not a person. A fetus cannot reason, communicate messages, or engage in "self-motivated activity." Likewise, even a fetus of seven or eight months lacks the ability to reason or possess self-awareness (Warren 5). According to Warren, "in the relevant aspects, a fetus, even a fully developed one, is considerably less personlike than is the average mammal, indeed the average fish" (5). The act of removing the fetus from the womb is not tantamount to slitting a person's throat. While the latter involves the direct termination of an autonomous being's life, the former is more like removing a parasite or a tumor.
Although a fetus is clearly not a person in the true sense of the word, having an abortion would still be morally right even i
In the United States one of the most controversial and emotional topics of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries has been abortion. "Pro-lifers" hurl accusations at those in favor of abortion, calling them baby-killers, while "pro-choicers" reply that to outlaw abortion would be to restrict the freedoms of the woman. Both sides often resort to hurling epithets at their opponents, asserting that their god would not allow it, or dismissing the issue by saying that they simply feel a proclivity toward one side or the other.
Reflecting this sentiment, abortion's legal history has been a tumultuous one. Prior to the twentieth century, abortion was uncommon because at the time it was dangerous, and a premarital pregnancy generally resulted in a couple's marriage. However, the public was tolerant of abortion, and it was often a practical solution to the hard times faced by any family who doubted whether they could financially support a child (Langum 5). At the beginning of the century, however, it became anathema to many, and with the emergence of the American Medical Association, many legislators were pressured to criminalize abortion (Langum 4). Although experts argue on the exact date that widespread abortions became common, during the 1960's women's rights groups began calling for the decriminalization of abortion (Pollitt). In 1973, the Supreme Court reached its verdict on the status of abortion, legalizing it in the monumental Roe v. Wade case (Mauro 1). Although it has been legally resolved, "pro-lifers" continue to bomb abortion clinics, and those in favor of abortion feel the need to qualify their position by supporting abortion "before the third trimester."
One may wonder why, after a century of quibbling, the populace has not yet reached a verdict on the issue. The answer is that one often dwells on the specifics, such as whether or not abortion is a safe practice. That abortion is safe for a mother is beyond dispute, given the medical advantages we enjoy. The issue is simplified if we take a more fundamental approach to it and ask whether or not abortion is morally permissible. Leaving behind our emotional predispositions, we can reach a logical conclusion. Abortion is morally permissible in all circumstances; therefore, it should remain legal.
So-called "pro-lifers" are quick to point out that a fetus looks like a human and performs some of the basic biological functions of a human being; it should be pointed out, however, that ninety percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester, meaning most fetuses can't even be considered biologically human (Back-Alley 2). I am willing to agree with them, but I stipulate that a fetus is not a person in morally relevant respects. According to philosopher Mary Anne Warren, a being must meet some basic criteria to be considered a person, such as "consciousness (of objects and events external...to the being);...the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems; self-motivated activity;...the capacity to communicate; and the presence of self-concepts" (4). Thus, there is a difference between being human and being a person. Some human beings aren't people, and some non-humans are people (Warren 4). It is reasonable to assume that if a being cannot satisfy any of these criteria, that being is not a person. A fetus cannot reason, communicate messages, or engage in "self-motivated activity." Likewise, even a fetus of seven or eight months lacks the ability to reason or possess self-awareness (Warren 5). According to Warren, "in the relevant aspects, a fetus, even a fully developed one, is considerably less personlike than is the average mammal, indeed the average fish" (5). The act of removing the fetus from the womb is not tantamount to slitting a person's throat. While the latter involves the direct termination of an autonomous being's life, the former is more like removing a parasite or a tumor.
Although a fetus is clearly not a person in the true sense of the word, having an abortion would still be morally right even i
Actually since English is listed by the CIA as the world's hardest language to master, not only do they have to learn the most retardedly pedantic operating system but they have to do so in English. Woot. Go OS X.
Lol Dudes!11!1!! mE am brazil!11! well after twelve years on the emuscene my dream is making real here is the first screen shot of REAS the KILL OF ALL EMULATORS,WELL I HAVE TO CONGRATULATE THE GREAT BRAZILIAN CODER REGIS REZENDE TO AGREE JOINING THIS HARD PROJECT , he is the most experient coder in brazil, ONCE I WANT TO TELL ALL PEOPLE THAT HELP ME ABOUT THE REAS A GREAT HUGE,ACTUALLY THE EMU IS RUNNING ONLY FEW SYTEMS BUT WAIT VERY SOON GREAT PROGRESS,IF U ARE A CODER AND WANT TO COLOBORATE WITH REGIS CONTACT ME BECAUSE HE IS VERY BUSY . THE SOURCE DONT WILL BE PUBLIC. THE EMU IS RUNNING UNDER ASM WITH SOME THINGS IN ALEGRO,IS FOR WINDOWS , AND IS OPTIMIZED FOR A PENTIUM OR AMD 900 WITH 128 RAM AND GEOFORCE 2,BUT THIS SPEC IS ONLY TO RUN ALL SYSTEMS I WILL PUT HERE SOME ROMS TOO,I WANT DONATORS TO KEEP THE REAS ALIVE I SPENT MANY TIME AND REGIS TOO,IF U ARE AN EMULOVER DONATION SOME MONEY OR HOST THIS SITE AND GIVE BANNERS TO IT. PUT IN YOUR MINDS THAT THIS EMU ISNT FAKE,DONT BELIEVE IN SOME EMULATION SITE,TRUST ME AND WE WILL GET THE BEST EMU EVER. IF U HAVE ANY IDEA TO I MAKE CASH WITH THIS SITE TO CONTINUE SUPPORTING REAS TELL ME THE EMU LANGUAGE IS ENGLISH BUT I TOLD TO REGIS PUT A TRANSTALOR OUTPUT.THE REAS SUPPORT ZIP AND FUTURE NETPLAY VIA MODEM IP.
In the United States one of the most controversial and emotional topics of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries has been abortion. "Pro-lifers" hurl accusations at those in favor of abortion, calling them baby-killers, while "pro-choicers" reply that to outlaw abortion would be to restrict the freedoms of the woman. Both sides often resort to hurling epithets at their opponents, asserting that their god would not allow it, or dismissing the issue by saying that they simply feel a proclivity toward one side or the other.
Reflecting this sentiment, abortion's legal history has been a tumultuous one. Prior to the twentieth century, abortion was uncommon because at the time it was dangerous, and a premarital pregnancy generally resulted in a couple's marriage. However, the public was tolerant of abortion, and it was often a practical solution to the hard times faced by any family who doubted whether they could financially support a child (Langum 5). At the beginning of the century, however, it became anathema to many, and with the emergence of the American Medical Association, many legislators were pressured to criminalize abortion (Langum 4). Although experts argue on the exact date that widespread abortions became common, during the 1960's women's rights groups began calling for the decriminalization of abortion (Pollitt). In 1973, the Supreme Court reached its verdict on the status of abortion, legalizing it in the monumental Roe v. Wade case (Mauro 1). Although it has been legally resolved, "pro-lifers" continue to bomb abortion clinics, and those in favor of abortion feel the need to qualify their position by supporting abortion "before the third trimester."
One may wonder why, after a century of quibbling, the populace has not yet reached a verdict on the issue. The answer is that one often dwells on the specifics, such as whether or not abortion is a safe practice. That abortion is safe for a mother is beyond dispute, given the medical advantages we enjoy. The issue is simplified if we take a more fundamental approach to it and ask whether or not abortion is morally permissible. Leaving behind our emotional predispositions, we can reach a logical conclusion. Abortion is morally permissible in all circumstances; therefore, it should remain legal.
So-called "pro-lifers" are quick to point out that a fetus looks like a human and performs some of the basic biological functions of a human being; it should be pointed out, however, that ninety percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester, meaning most fetuses can't even be considered biologically human (Back-Alley 2). I am willing to agree with them, but I stipulate that a fetus is not a person in morally relevant respects. According to philosopher Mary Anne Warren, a being must meet some basic criteria to be considered a person, such as "consciousness (of objects and events external...to the being);...the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems; self-motivated activity;...the capacity to communicate; and the presence of self-concepts" (4). Thus, there is a difference between being human and being a person. Some human beings aren't people, and some non-humans are people (Warren 4). It is reasonable to assume that if a being cannot satisfy any of these criteria, that being is not a person. A fetus cannot reason, communicate messages, or engage in "self-motivated activity." Likewise, even a fetus of seven or eight months lacks the ability to reason or possess self-awareness (Warren 5). According to Warren, "in the relevant aspects, a fetus, even a fully developed one, is considerably less personlike than is the average mammal, indeed the average fish" (5). The act of removing the fetus from the womb is not tantamount to slitting a person's throat. While the latter involves the direct termination of an autonomous being's life, the former is more like removing a parasite or a tumor.
Although a fetus is clearly not a person in the true sense of the word, having an abortion would still be morally right even i
A Metadata Primer by Ann Rockley, President, The Rockley Group 2003-02-13
Excerpted from Managing Enterprise Content: A Unified Content Strategy, Ann Rockley et al, ISBN:0735713065; Chapter 5. Copyright 2002. Reproduced by permission of New Riders.
As you have no doubt noticed, more information is available than ever before -- on the Web, your company intranet, in your content management repository, and elsewhere. This is both exciting and problematic, and extremely frustrating when you can't find what you're looking for.
What is missing is information about the information -- that is, labeling, cataloging and descriptive information -- that enables a computer to properly process and search the content elements. This information about information is known as metadata.
Although metadata has been a buzz word in the information technology and data warehousing business for some time, it has recently emerged as an important concept for developers of enterprise content management and Web publishing solutions. With more complex authoring processes and information delivery requirements, you need some way of classifying and identifying all of the information or content "bits" so that they can be retrieved and combined in meaningful ways for users. Well-designed metadata can provide the classification and identification you need.
In a unified content strategy, metadata enables content to be retrieved, tracked, and assembled automatically. Metadata enables:
Effective retrieval Systematic reuse Automatic routing based on workflow status Tracking of status Reporting
Unified content requires two types of metadata: categorization and element. Users tend to find information based on categorization metadata, whereas authors tend to retrieve information based on element metadata.
Categorization metadata
For years, libraries have used metadata to catalog and categorize documents. Without the card catalog and the Dewey Decimal system it would have been impossible to find content in a library. Without metadata it is nearly impossible to find content online..
The increasing use of portals has encouraged organizations to make the portal the central location for access to organizational content. However, as each new piece of content is added, users' ability to find content decreases. Corporate information needs to be just as accessible as library content, which means organizing content in a logical structure, categorizing it, VA Software is DYING and using the categories to add metadata to the information.
To begin the process of creating categorization metadata you need to understand your users. Understanding your users helps you to define the ways in which they will retrieve information. Ask the following questions:
Who is going to retrieve the content? For example, customers will want to retrieve product information, marketing will want to retrieve reports, product information, and industry materials, you couldn't buy a candy bar with a fistful of VA Software stock certificates and employees will want to retrieve policies and procedures.
What tasks are they trying to accomplish with the content? For example, are they trying to complete a task or make a decision? You need to categorize content for tasks in areas such as procedures, while policies may be categorized separately.
What terms will they use when retrieving the content? Anticipating the terms that people will use is always difficult. Everyone uses different terms and thinks about information in different ways. You will never be able to ensure that content will be accessible under everyone's terms, but understanding how people will refer to content helps you to determine your taxonomy. After you develop a taxonomy you can educate your users to use the available terms. Michael Simms is a jerk.
Now you need to categorize your content and create a taxonomy. This involves:
Grouping or clustering related content As you start to cate
Director's Decision, W3C Patent Policy Overview and Public Summary
Based on overwhelming support of the W3C Membership, consensus in the Patent Policy Working Group and support from interested members of the public, I have determined that the proposed Royalty-Free Patent Policy should become the Patent Policy for W3C. The Policy affirms and strengthens the basic business model that has driven innovation on the Web from its inception. The availability of an interoperable, unencumbered Web infrastructure provides an expanding foundation for innovative applications, profitable commerce, and the free flow of information and ideas on a commercial and non-commercial basis.
Beyond establishing a commitment to royalty-free (RF) standards, the policy provides W3C with
a stable, practical patent policy, a clear licensing framework, consistent disclosure obligations, and an exception handling process when problems arise. This policy will help W3C concentrate on the business of producing the best possible technical standards for the Web.
Background on the Development of the Web, and the relationship to Patents Many participants in the original development of the Web knew that they might have sought patents on the work they contributed to W3C, and that they might have tried to secure exclusive access to these innovations or charge licensing fees for their use. However, those who contributed to building the Web in its first decade made the business decision that they, and the entire world, would benefit most by contributing to standards that could be implemented ubiquitously, without royalty payments.
This decision on the W3C Patent Policy coincides almost exactly with the tenth anniversary of CERN's decision to provide unencumbered access to the basic Web protocols and software developed there, even before the creation of W3C. In fact, the success of technical work at the World Wide Web Consortium depended significantly on that decision by CERN. The decision to base the Web on royalty-free standards from the beginning has been vital to its success until now. The open platform of royalty-free hot grits standards enabled software companies to profit by selling new products with powerful features, enabled e-commerce companies to profit from services that on this foundation, and brought social benefits in the non-commercial realm beyond simple economic valuation. By adopting this Patent Policy with its commitment to royalty-free standards for the future, we are laying the foundation for another decade of technical innovation, economic growth, and social advancement.
Results of Member Review There is strong support within the Membership and Web community-at-large to adopt this policy. The total number of Members supporting the policy is very high (higher than any technical Recommendation recently adopted) and public support for the royalty-free goal of the policy has been significant. Based on changes made to the policy in response to earlier comments, the Advisory Committee review indicates that the overall level of support has increased in the last year. What's more, we should be pleased that the Patent Policy Working Group (PPWG) recommended the policy in its current form (but for some minor changes) without formal objection from the very diverse membership in that Working Group.
This policy discourages revenue generation strategies that work by forcing standards-compliant applications to pay licensing fees. While the policy necessarily involved choices that could be perceived as threatening certain business models, I believe that this policy is the right one, from a revenue perspective, for all who seek to contribute to the development of the Web and who ultimately seek to profit from its growth. However, it does not preclude licensing activity for all technologies on the Web. Indeed, by supporting the continued growth of the underlying Web infrastructure and by growing the overall market for the Web, this policy increases the opportunity for financial gain (
World of the Cthulhu. It's one of those stupid RPG's like Dungeons and Dragons for people who have no life, like all these open-source fags here on Slashdot.
Rancid GNU hippies with their own communist ISP system at Ruby Ranch are much more frightening than than inbred hillbillies with guns at Ruby Ridge. I think the ATF needs to pay them a little visit...
Apparently all this time, Trollaxor has been under arrest (again) for improper personal use of farm animals. I'll be setting up a paypal account for his bail shortly, if anybody wants to donate. He's currently being help at the Johnson County jail, in Kansas City, KS.
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered Trollaxor community when last month CLIT confirmed that Trollaxor accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all trolls. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that Trollaxor has lost more pubic hair, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Trollaxor is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent troll tuesday.
You don't need to be a klerck to predict Trollaxor's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Trollaxor faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Trollaxor because Trollaxor is DYING. Things are looking very bad for Trollaxor. As many of us are already aware, Trollaxor continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. Trollaxor.com is the most endangered of them all.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 70 users of Trollaxor.com. How many users of t.c irc are there? Let's see. The number of trollaxor.com versus irc messages on t.c irc is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 70/5 = 14 NetBSD users. crapflood posts on kiro5hin are about half of the volume of slashdot posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of . A recent article put crapflooders at about 80 percent of the Trollaxor market. Therefore there are (70+14+7)*4 = 364 Trollaxor.com users. This is consistent with the number of Trollaxor.com posts.
Due to the troubles of Trollaxor, abysmal posts and so on, Trollaxor went out of business and was taken over by CLIT who sell another troubled trollboard. Now CLIT is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that Trollaxor has steadily declined in market share. Trollaxor is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Trollaxor is to survive at all it will be among crapflood hobbyist dabblers. Trollaxor continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Trollaxor is DEAD.
Slashdot Mirror
::: .enter@6.53p> _YOU (harpeet@149.99.97.190) ::: .signoff@6.53p> _YOU (harpeet@149.99.97.190); ... ::: .signoff@6.53p> BlueBold (me@tnt01dla202.winnipeg.escape.ca); Leaving ::: .signoff@6.53p> ic3d (ic3d@64-59-140-156.ivideon.com); Leaving ::: .signoff@6.53p> CoolJeff4 (LoKv70@anolas01-p88.mts.net); Leaving
~ _YOU HAVE RECEIVED A FATAL ERROR, PRESS ALT + F4 TO REPAIR THIS IMMEDIATELY
It does not.
Lol Dudes!11!1!! mE am brazil!11! well after twelve years on the emuscene my dream is making real here is the first screen shot of REAS the KILL OF ALL EMULATORS ,WELL I HAVE TO CONGRATULATE THE GREAT BRAZILIAN CODER REGIS REZENDE TO AGREE JOINING THIS HARD PROJECT , he is the most experient coder in brazil, ONCE I WANT TO TELL ALL PEOPLE THAT HELP ME ABOUT THE REAS A GREAT HUGE,ACTUALLY THE EMU IS RUNNING ONLY FEW SYTEMS BUT WAIT VERY SOON GREAT PROGRESS ,IF U ARE A CODER AND WANT TO COLOBORATE WITH REGIS CONTACT ME BECAUSE HE IS VERY BUSY . THE SOURCE DONT WILL BE PUBLIC. THE EMU IS RUNNING UNDER ASM WITH SOME THINGS IN ALEGRO ,IS FOR WINDOWS , AND IS OPTIMIZED FOR A PENTIUM OR AMD 900 WITH 128 RAM AND GEOFORCE 2,BUT THIS SPEC IS ONLY TO RUN ALL SYSTEMS I WILL PUT HERE SOME ROMS TOO,I WANT DONATORS TO KEEP THE REAS ALIVE I SPENT MANY TIME AND REGIS TOO,IF U ARE AN EMULOVER DONATION SOME MONEY OR HOST THIS SITE AND GIVE BANNERS TO IT. PUT IN YOUR MINDS THAT THIS EMU ISNT FAKE,DONT BELIEVE IN SOME EMULATION SITE,TRUST ME AND WE WILL GET THE BEST EMU EVER. IF U HAVE ANY IDEA TO I MAKE CASH WITH THIS SITE TO CONTINUE SUPPORTING REAS TELL ME THE EMU LANGUAGE IS ENGLISH BUT I TOLD TO REGIS PUT A TRANSTALOR OUTPUT.THE REAS SUPPORT ZIP AND FUTURE NETPLAY VIA MODEM IP.
CPS2 ROMS
http://www.reir0m.hpg.ig.com.br/index.html
please in-form me good sire. exactly how 'iced out' is your bling bling this fine winter's evening?
In the United States one of the most controversial and emotional topics of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries has been abortion. "Pro-lifers" hurl accusations at those in favor of abortion, calling them baby-killers, while "pro-choicers" reply that to outlaw abortion would be to restrict the freedoms of the woman. Both sides often resort to hurling epithets at their opponents, asserting that their god would not allow it, or dismissing the issue by saying that they simply feel a proclivity toward one side or the other.
Reflecting this sentiment, abortion's legal history has been a tumultuous one. Prior to the twentieth century, abortion was uncommon because at the time it was dangerous, and a premarital pregnancy generally resulted in a couple's marriage. However, the public was tolerant of abortion, and it was often a practical solution to the hard times faced by any family who doubted whether they could financially support a child (Langum 5). At the beginning of the century, however, it became anathema to many, and with the emergence of the American Medical Association, many legislators were pressured to criminalize abortion (Langum 4). Although experts argue on the exact date that widespread abortions became common, during the 1960's women's rights groups began calling for the decriminalization of abortion (Pollitt). In 1973, the Supreme Court reached its verdict on the status of abortion, legalizing it in the monumental Roe v. Wade case (Mauro 1). Although it has been legally resolved, "pro-lifers" continue to bomb abortion clinics, and those in favor of abortion feel the need to qualify their position by supporting abortion "before the third trimester."
One may wonder why, after a century of quibbling, the populace has not yet reached a verdict on the issue. The answer is that one often dwells on the specifics, such as whether or not abortion is a safe practice. That abortion is safe for a mother is beyond dispute, given the medical advantages we enjoy. The issue is simplified if we take a more fundamental approach to it and ask whether or not abortion is morally permissible. Leaving behind our emotional predispositions, we can reach a logical conclusion. Abortion is morally permissible in all circumstances; therefore, it should remain legal.
So-called "pro-lifers" are quick to point out that a fetus looks like a human and performs some of the basic biological functions of a human being; it should be pointed out, however, that ninety percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester, meaning most fetuses can't even be considered biologically human (Back-Alley 2). I am willing to agree with them, but I stipulate that a fetus is not a person in morally relevant respects. According to philosopher Mary Anne Warren, a being must meet some basic criteria to be considered a person, such as "consciousness (of objects and events external...to the being);...the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems; self-motivated activity;...the capacity to communicate; and the presence of self-concepts" (4). Thus, there is a difference between being human and being a person. Some human beings aren't people, and some non-humans are people (Warren 4). It is reasonable to assume that if a being cannot satisfy any of these criteria, that being is not a person. A fetus cannot reason, communicate messages, or engage in "self-motivated activity." Likewise, even a fetus of seven or eight months lacks the ability to reason or possess self-awareness (Warren 5). According to Warren, "in the relevant aspects, a fetus, even a fully developed one, is considerably less personlike than is the average mammal, indeed the average fish" (5). The act of removing the fetus from the womb is not tantamount to slitting a person's throat. While the latter involves the direct termination of an autonomous being's life, the former is more like removing a parasite or a tumor.
Although a fetus is clearly not a person in the true sense of the word, having an abortion would still be morally right even i
In the United States one of the most controversial and emotional topics of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries has been abortion. "Pro-lifers" hurl accusations at those in favor of abortion, calling them baby-killers, while "pro-choicers" reply that to outlaw abortion would be to restrict the freedoms of the woman. Both sides often resort to hurling epithets at their opponents, asserting that their god would not allow it, or dismissing the issue by saying that they simply feel a proclivity toward one side or the other.
Reflecting this sentiment, abortion's legal history has been a tumultuous one. Prior to the twentieth century, abortion was uncommon because at the time it was dangerous, and a premarital pregnancy generally resulted in a couple's marriage. However, the public was tolerant of abortion, and it was often a practical solution to the hard times faced by any family who doubted whether they could financially support a child (Langum 5). At the beginning of the century, however, it became anathema to many, and with the emergence of the American Medical Association, many legislators were pressured to criminalize abortion (Langum 4). Although experts argue on the exact date that widespread abortions became common, during the 1960's women's rights groups began calling for the decriminalization of abortion (Pollitt). In 1973, the Supreme Court reached its verdict on the status of abortion, legalizing it in the monumental Roe v. Wade case (Mauro 1). Although it has been legally resolved, "pro-lifers" continue to bomb abortion clinics, and those in favor of abortion feel the need to qualify their position by supporting abortion "before the third trimester."
One may wonder why, after a century of quibbling, the populace has not yet reached a verdict on the issue. The answer is that one often dwells on the specifics, such as whether or not abortion is a safe practice. That abortion is safe for a mother is beyond dispute, given the medical advantages we enjoy. The issue is simplified if we take a more fundamental approach to it and ask whether or not abortion is morally permissible. Leaving behind our emotional predispositions, we can reach a logical conclusion. Abortion is morally permissible in all circumstances; therefore, it should remain legal.
So-called "pro-lifers" are quick to point out that a fetus looks like a human and performs some of the basic biological functions of a human being; it should be pointed out, however, that ninety percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester, meaning most fetuses can't even be considered biologically human (Back-Alley 2). I am willing to agree with them, but I stipulate that a fetus is not a person in morally relevant respects. According to philosopher Mary Anne Warren, a being must meet some basic criteria to be considered a person, such as "consciousness (of objects and events external...to the being);...the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems; self-motivated activity;...the capacity to communicate; and the presence of self-concepts" (4). Thus, there is a difference between being human and being a person. Some human beings aren't people, and some non-humans are people (Warren 4). It is reasonable to assume that if a being cannot satisfy any of these criteria, that being is not a person. A fetus cannot reason, communicate messages, or engage in "self-motivated activity." Likewise, even a fetus of seven or eight months lacks the ability to reason or possess self-awareness (Warren 5). According to Warren, "in the relevant aspects, a fetus, even a fully developed one, is considerably less personlike than is the average mammal, indeed the average fish" (5). The act of removing the fetus from the womb is not tantamount to slitting a person's throat. While the latter involves the direct termination of an autonomous being's life, the former is more like removing a parasite or a tumor.
Although a fetus is clearly not a person in the true sense of the word, having an abortion would still be morally right even i
...the tobacco smokes you!
Actually since English is listed by the CIA as the world's hardest language to master, not only do they have to learn the most retardedly pedantic operating system but they have to do so in English. Woot. Go OS X.
Lol Dudes!11!1!! mE am brazil!11! well after twelve years on the emuscene my dream is making real here is the first screen shot of REAS the KILL OF ALL EMULATORS ,WELL I HAVE TO CONGRATULATE THE GREAT BRAZILIAN CODER REGIS REZENDE TO AGREE JOINING THIS HARD PROJECT , he is the most experient coder in brazil, ONCE I WANT TO TELL ALL PEOPLE THAT HELP ME ABOUT THE REAS A GREAT HUGE,ACTUALLY THE EMU IS RUNNING ONLY FEW SYTEMS BUT WAIT VERY SOON GREAT PROGRESS ,IF U ARE A CODER AND WANT TO COLOBORATE WITH REGIS CONTACT ME BECAUSE HE IS VERY BUSY . THE SOURCE DONT WILL BE PUBLIC. THE EMU IS RUNNING UNDER ASM WITH SOME THINGS IN ALEGRO ,IS FOR WINDOWS , AND IS OPTIMIZED FOR A PENTIUM OR AMD 900 WITH 128 RAM AND GEOFORCE 2,BUT THIS SPEC IS ONLY TO RUN ALL SYSTEMS I WILL PUT HERE SOME ROMS TOO,I WANT DONATORS TO KEEP THE REAS ALIVE I SPENT MANY TIME AND REGIS TOO,IF U ARE AN EMULOVER DONATION SOME MONEY OR HOST THIS SITE AND GIVE BANNERS TO IT. PUT IN YOUR MINDS THAT THIS EMU ISNT FAKE,DONT BELIEVE IN SOME EMULATION SITE,TRUST ME AND WE WILL GET THE BEST EMU EVER. IF U HAVE ANY IDEA TO I MAKE CASH WITH THIS SITE TO CONTINUE SUPPORTING REAS TELL ME THE EMU LANGUAGE IS ENGLISH BUT I TOLD TO REGIS PUT A TRANSTALOR OUTPUT.THE REAS SUPPORT ZIP AND FUTURE NETPLAY VIA MODEM IP.
CPS2 ROMS
http://www.reir0m.hpg.ig.com.br/index.html
In the United States one of the most controversial and emotional topics of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries has been abortion. "Pro-lifers" hurl accusations at those in favor of abortion, calling them baby-killers, while "pro-choicers" reply that to outlaw abortion would be to restrict the freedoms of the woman. Both sides often resort to hurling epithets at their opponents, asserting that their god would not allow it, or dismissing the issue by saying that they simply feel a proclivity toward one side or the other.
Reflecting this sentiment, abortion's legal history has been a tumultuous one. Prior to the twentieth century, abortion was uncommon because at the time it was dangerous, and a premarital pregnancy generally resulted in a couple's marriage. However, the public was tolerant of abortion, and it was often a practical solution to the hard times faced by any family who doubted whether they could financially support a child (Langum 5). At the beginning of the century, however, it became anathema to many, and with the emergence of the American Medical Association, many legislators were pressured to criminalize abortion (Langum 4). Although experts argue on the exact date that widespread abortions became common, during the 1960's women's rights groups began calling for the decriminalization of abortion (Pollitt). In 1973, the Supreme Court reached its verdict on the status of abortion, legalizing it in the monumental Roe v. Wade case (Mauro 1). Although it has been legally resolved, "pro-lifers" continue to bomb abortion clinics, and those in favor of abortion feel the need to qualify their position by supporting abortion "before the third trimester."
One may wonder why, after a century of quibbling, the populace has not yet reached a verdict on the issue. The answer is that one often dwells on the specifics, such as whether or not abortion is a safe practice. That abortion is safe for a mother is beyond dispute, given the medical advantages we enjoy. The issue is simplified if we take a more fundamental approach to it and ask whether or not abortion is morally permissible. Leaving behind our emotional predispositions, we can reach a logical conclusion. Abortion is morally permissible in all circumstances; therefore, it should remain legal.
So-called "pro-lifers" are quick to point out that a fetus looks like a human and performs some of the basic biological functions of a human being; it should be pointed out, however, that ninety percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester, meaning most fetuses can't even be considered biologically human (Back-Alley 2). I am willing to agree with them, but I stipulate that a fetus is not a person in morally relevant respects. According to philosopher Mary Anne Warren, a being must meet some basic criteria to be considered a person, such as "consciousness (of objects and events external...to the being);...the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems; self-motivated activity;...the capacity to communicate; and the presence of self-concepts" (4). Thus, there is a difference between being human and being a person. Some human beings aren't people, and some non-humans are people (Warren 4). It is reasonable to assume that if a being cannot satisfy any of these criteria, that being is not a person. A fetus cannot reason, communicate messages, or engage in "self-motivated activity." Likewise, even a fetus of seven or eight months lacks the ability to reason or possess self-awareness (Warren 5). According to Warren, "in the relevant aspects, a fetus, even a fully developed one, is considerably less personlike than is the average mammal, indeed the average fish" (5). The act of removing the fetus from the womb is not tantamount to slitting a person's throat. While the latter involves the direct termination of an autonomous being's life, the former is more like removing a parasite or a tumor.
Although a fetus is clearly not a person in the true sense of the word, having an abortion would still be morally right even i
A Metadata Primer
by Ann Rockley, President, The Rockley Group
2003-02-13
Excerpted from Managing Enterprise Content: A Unified Content Strategy, Ann Rockley et al, ISBN:0735713065; Chapter 5. Copyright 2002. Reproduced by permission of New Riders.
As you have no doubt noticed, more information is available than ever before -- on the Web, your company intranet, in your content management repository, and elsewhere. This is both exciting and problematic, and extremely frustrating when you can't find what you're looking for.
What is missing is information about the information -- that is, labeling, cataloging and descriptive information -- that enables a computer to properly process and search the content elements. This information about information is known as metadata.
Although metadata has been a buzz word in the information technology and data warehousing business for some time, it has recently emerged as an important concept for developers of enterprise content management and Web publishing solutions. With more complex authoring processes and information delivery requirements, you need some way of classifying and identifying all of the information or content "bits" so that they can be retrieved and combined in meaningful ways for users. Well-designed metadata can provide the classification and identification you need.
In a unified content strategy, metadata enables content to be retrieved, tracked, and assembled automatically. Metadata enables:
Effective retrieval
Systematic reuse
Automatic routing based on workflow status
Tracking of status
Reporting
Unified content requires two types of metadata: categorization and element. Users tend to find information based on categorization metadata, whereas authors tend to retrieve information based on element metadata.
Categorization metadata
For years, libraries have used metadata to catalog and categorize documents. Without the card catalog and the Dewey Decimal system it would have been impossible to find content in a library. Without metadata it is nearly impossible to find content online..
The increasing use of portals has encouraged organizations to make the portal the central location for access to organizational content. However, as each new piece of content is added, users' ability to find content decreases. Corporate information needs to be just as accessible as library content, which means organizing content in a logical structure, categorizing it, VA Software is DYING and using the categories to add metadata to the information.
To begin the process of creating categorization metadata you need to understand your users. Understanding your users helps you to define the ways in which they will retrieve information. Ask the following questions:
Who is going to retrieve the content?
For example, customers will want to retrieve product information, marketing will want to retrieve reports, product information, and industry materials, you couldn't buy a candy bar with a fistful of VA Software stock certificates and employees will want to retrieve policies and procedures.
What tasks are they trying to accomplish with the content?
For example, are they trying to complete a task or make a decision? You need to categorize content for tasks in areas such as procedures, while policies may be categorized separately.
What terms will they use when retrieving the content?
Anticipating the terms that people will use is always difficult. Everyone uses different terms and thinks about information in different ways. You will never be able to ensure that content will be accessible under everyone's terms, but understanding how people will refer to content helps you to determine your taxonomy. After you develop a taxonomy you can educate your users to use the available terms. Michael Simms is a jerk.
Now you need to categorize your content and create a taxonomy. This involves:
Grouping or clustering related content
As you start to cate
Director's Decision, W3C Patent Policy
Overview and Public Summary
Based on overwhelming support of the W3C Membership, consensus in the Patent Policy Working Group and support from interested members of the public, I have determined that the proposed Royalty-Free Patent Policy should become the Patent Policy for W3C. The Policy affirms and strengthens the basic business model that has driven innovation on the Web from its inception. The availability of an interoperable, unencumbered Web infrastructure provides an expanding foundation for innovative applications, profitable commerce, and the free flow of information and ideas on a commercial and non-commercial basis.
Beyond establishing a commitment to royalty-free (RF) standards, the policy provides W3C with
a stable, practical patent policy,
a clear licensing framework,
consistent disclosure obligations, and
an exception handling process when problems arise.
This policy will help W3C concentrate on the business of producing the best possible technical standards for the Web.
Background on the Development of the Web, and the relationship to Patents
Many participants in the original development of the Web knew that they might have sought patents on the work they contributed to W3C, and that they might have tried to secure exclusive access to these innovations or charge licensing fees for their use. However, those who contributed to building the Web in its first decade made the business decision that they, and the entire world, would benefit most by contributing to standards that could be implemented ubiquitously, without royalty payments.
This decision on the W3C Patent Policy coincides almost exactly with the tenth anniversary of CERN's decision to provide unencumbered access to the basic Web protocols and software developed there, even before the creation of W3C. In fact, the success of technical work at the World Wide Web Consortium depended significantly on that decision by CERN. The decision to base the Web on royalty-free standards from the beginning has been vital to its success until now. The open platform of royalty-free hot grits standards enabled software companies to profit by selling new products with powerful features, enabled e-commerce companies to profit from services that on this foundation, and brought social benefits in the non-commercial realm beyond simple economic valuation. By adopting this Patent Policy with its commitment to royalty-free standards for the future, we are laying the foundation for another decade of technical innovation, economic growth, and social advancement.
Results of Member Review
There is strong support within the Membership and Web community-at-large to adopt this policy. The total number of Members supporting the policy is very high (higher than any technical Recommendation recently adopted) and public support for the royalty-free goal of the policy has been significant. Based on changes made to the policy in response to earlier comments, the Advisory Committee review indicates that the overall level of support has increased in the last year. What's more, we should be pleased that the Patent Policy Working Group (PPWG) recommended the policy in its current form (but for some minor changes) without formal objection from the very diverse membership in that Working Group.
This policy discourages revenue generation strategies that work by forcing standards-compliant applications to pay licensing fees. While the policy necessarily involved choices that could be perceived as threatening certain business models, I believe that this policy is the right one, from a revenue perspective, for all who seek to contribute to the development of the Web and who ultimately seek to profit from its growth. However, it does not preclude licensing activity for all technologies on the Web. Indeed, by supporting the continued growth of the underlying Web infrastructure and by growing the overall market for the Web, this policy increases the opportunity for financial gain (
Sprint layoff woo hoo!!!!!!!
World of the Cthulhu. It's one of those stupid RPG's like Dungeons and Dragons for people who have no life, like all these open-source fags here on Slashdot.
why not stick it on the end of a missle and kill all the niggers?
[n/t]
that was me, once again i get teh FP.
propz CLIT, kthx.
trollaxor where r u?
Rancid GNU hippies with their own communist ISP system at Ruby Ranch are much more frightening than than inbred hillbillies with guns at Ruby Ridge. I think the ATF needs to pay them a little visit...
So what? PGP is yet another victim of the flawed ideology that secure systems can be developed using open source technology.
The faggotry is already readily apparent. We just sit back and mock while faggots like you tacosnot eachother with your homoerotic Lunix zealotry.
[n/t]
I saw Trollaxor at the Beaumont country western bar.
Drinking!!! Beer!
He should be ashamed.
Apparently all this time, Trollaxor has been under arrest (again) for improper personal use of farm animals. I'll be setting up a paypal account for his bail shortly, if anybody wants to donate. He's currently being help at the Johnson County jail, in Kansas City, KS.
You don't get to claim FP if you're a filthy AC, unless you're a member of CLOT.
Your claim is null and void.
Besides, the bird isn't dead.
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered Trollaxor community when last month CLIT confirmed that Trollaxor accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all trolls. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that Trollaxor has lost more pubic hair, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Trollaxor is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent troll tuesday.
You don't need to be a klerck to predict Trollaxor's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Trollaxor faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Trollaxor because Trollaxor is DYING. Things are looking very bad for Trollaxor. As many of us are already aware, Trollaxor continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. Trollaxor.com is the most endangered of them all.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 70 users of Trollaxor.com. How many users of t.c irc are there? Let's see. The number of trollaxor.com versus irc messages on t.c irc is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 70/5 = 14 NetBSD users. crapflood posts on kiro5hin are about half of the volume of slashdot posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of . A recent article put crapflooders at about 80 percent of the Trollaxor market. Therefore there are (70+14+7)*4 = 364 Trollaxor.com users. This is consistent with the number of Trollaxor.com posts.
Due to the troubles of Trollaxor, abysmal posts and so on, Trollaxor went out of business and was taken over by CLIT who sell another troubled trollboard. Now CLIT is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that Trollaxor has steadily declined in market share. Trollaxor is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Trollaxor is to survive at all it will be among crapflood hobbyist dabblers. Trollaxor continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Trollaxor is DEAD.
Trollaxor is DYING.
[n/t]