to clairify my position: I believe that life really doesn't start until the child is born. Until then, it's very survival is based on the direct actions of the mother. I.E. the health and well being of the featus is based on the mothers actions. Granted, the child post birth is equally suseptible to the environmental surroundings, however, it's just so much more feasable for the child to be protected. Also, in a social aspect, I would much rather have somone abort than bring a child into this world and not care for it, abuse it, abandon it, or just generally not care... I don't think it's possible to come to a middle ground here because you will have the people who belive that life begins when the sperm enters the egg, and then you will have those who believe that life doesn't begin until birth. I won't pretend to know the answer to this question, all I know is what I feel is right. And let me just say thank you for the debate, you have some good points, I will give you that. But I just have a hard time when it comes to things like this...
well, first of all, how does science distinguish an abstract concept of innocence? Second of all, by your very argument, could not a mother who drinks? smokes? engages in sexual intercourse past the acceptable time frame? then be charged with risk of injury to a minor? Are we to control the mothers of un-born children to the point where they will be locked in a room where no harm can come to their fetus at great restraint to their own personal freedoms? I think that such an abstract form of thought as to when is a fetus considered a living being is not something that can be easily answered. One needs to ask themselves, "what's right for me?". I'm willing to conseed if an argument sufficient in detail can be presented to me in a clear way. Your argument, all be it well thought out, wasn't proof enough for me. Also, when I said "kind of anarchist" I was refering to the statement I made, not me personally.
I am an organ doner. And if I die, I would hope that my organs would be taken to keep somone else alive. So let's not be hastey. The least you could be is a little civil instead of being extremely accaustive and instigating because I'm not going to bite. You believe what you want and I'll believe what I want.
People need to step back from their pre-disposition to hate devorak and look at this article as a convorsation starter. Sure it's way out from left field, however, it does good to look at other options to plan for rather than burrying your head in the sand saying "nope, not going to happen" caus' even if cygwin or vmware hasn't killed linux. Something, some time might... Especially if Microsoft is behind it. So look at it analytically and objecively instead of hastily and subjectively...
The answers to these questions are all arbitrary. A million different people can come up with a million different answers. Which leaves us to a few making the distinction for us, which inevitably will alienate a vast majority who don't believe the same thing. You're right, it's more than a womans choice and a medical decision. However, it is not our place to judge or deside for people as to what they can and can not do in this regard. I think that put into any other terms other than "womans choice" or "medical decision" is imposing a belife onto somones person. I just think that people are entirely too quick to pick up the flame of moral superiority instead of just letting people live their lives. I guess I'm kind of an anarchist in that sense. And my opinion doesn't matter to anyone but myself. So I won't voice my opinions here. All told, I agree with you that there's more to it, however, I think people should be left to make their own decisions instead of having them imposed on them. Also, I sit corrected on the state of the stem cell research area in this country. The point I was trying to make wat that the Bush administration (not bush bashing here) won't fund new line stem cell research due to religious beliefs, rather than scientific reasoning. That is all...
This is why there should be no ban on stem cell research. Peoples own personal beliefs getting in the way of science. But such evidence should persuade lawmakers (sorry to those not in the US) to promote MORE research, instead of cutting back on the types of research that can be done...
I'm glad they ruled against her... Granted, I would be tempted to do the same. However, what ever happened to being human and TALKING about it? If it came down to it. Do it, but don't try to use it in court. It's a very hard thing to deal with, but invading anyones privacy is against any ethical code there possiby is... But that's just my opinion
Well, my question to you is: Did you buy a support contract to go with the purchased product? There are too many roads to go down when arguing this point. The first being that it is almost like a car company being forced to do recalls and fix severe problems on your car for free (durring the cars life cycle). Or, you could look at it as buying an extended warrenty, where you PAY for the right to bring your broken car to the dealer for repair. For a patch to be released, something must be broken. I propose that they break up the patches into two catagories. 1) Update patches and 2) security flaw and bug patches. If this were the case, I'd say you are spot on in demanding the updates provided they are security flaw/bug updates... However, if they improve uppon the useability of the software, you are no more entitled to that update than someone who hasn't bought the software. It's up to their descression. And again, until the distinction is made, it's impossible to argue.
If your panties are in that much of a twist, why don't you just have a friend dl and burn to a cd? Or, go to your nearest windows machine, then share out the file? It's not the end of the world.
Options are key in continuing the advance of the handheld environment. I think it's great that they're porting "mozilla" over. I look forward to using it.
I was just writing a response just like this. Last I knew it was a states rights issue. Not to mention the fact that it's a mandate that's going to cost MANY under funded and less affluent states a LOT of money to impliment. And if they don't? They lose MORE money. Good. Great. Grand. What's the next step? Corporate sponsorship of a state just so they can stay afloat? "The Nextel province of Mississippi" And let's not even think about putting our tin foil hats on with the possibilities of a nation wide ID system...
don't care how they deside. As long as they keep coming out with more usefull tools that will make my life easier, that's all I care about. Keep up the good work google!
This is very true. I didn't look at it that way. When it comes time for me to buy any new games, I try to give them a "test drive" before hand. I have friends who tend to be early adapters for games and buy as soon as they come out so I'll borrow or play over to their place and deside for myself. But you do bring up a very good point about the other factors. But as the parent submission stated that some of these details may be lost on them. I wouldn't mind seeing game reviews by teams. Your gamers and audio visual people... But that's probably not too reasonable either...
there are inherant issues in having a super gamer reviewing games is that the challange rating for them may be MUCH lower than it would be for your casual gamer. Which may caus frustrations or misconseptions and caus' otherwise great games to fall through the cracks becaus of the super gamer saying that the game was too easy and a waste of time... But that's just my $0.02
Microsoft has tried to go this rout by trying to stifle any release of "known" vulnerabilities so that they can't be exploited by the masses. See how well THAT worked? They should work at faster release of updates instead of waiting for it to become a serious issue... Especially with something THIS severe...
Is this microsofts attempt to corner the FPS market in the console gaming industry? First Halo now this? I'm not big on console gaming so I'm not sure what's available for the others but this seems to be a huge thing for the xbox that the other consoles don't have yet...
I think your missing the point here. When insurance rates go up, they go up per unit. In other words, they don't break it down on an individual basis. They say you have 1000 employees and one is a smoker, so you're going to pay the increased rate for all 1000 employees, not just the one that smokes. So it's not so simple to just make the smoker pay more. There really has to be something effective done about the epidemic of smoking, however, I agree with you that firing should be an absolute last resort. But in all fairness, IPods and cash should have done the trick... But then again, I'm not a smoker...
Like Ann Coulter is to Democrats and
Michael Moore is to Republicans
Maureen O'Gara is to Open Source
Only the weak minded, lazy, and easily led will beleave a word she says. But, unfortunately, the majority of the populace is one of the above...
OH SWEET JESUS! WON'T SOMONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?
Yet another game for people to boycott and claim is deconstructing the fabric of society. *shakes head*
Agreed. We all know he has monkeys working for him, but they are highly educated and trained monkeys, and they'd much rather throw themselves on a bomb than to make him look foolish. Nor, would you want to risk something like that in such a largely viewed public, and LIVE setting... There's bound to be a logical explanation... Shocking I know.
Slashdot Mirror
why don't they just sue for the ammount of $ they have stolen (i.e. the average cost of a CD) instead of charging these OUTRAGEOUS fees? Any body?
to clairify my position: I believe that life really doesn't start until the child is born. Until then, it's very survival is based on the direct actions of the mother. I.E. the health and well being of the featus is based on the mothers actions. Granted, the child post birth is equally suseptible to the environmental surroundings, however, it's just so much more feasable for the child to be protected. Also, in a social aspect, I would much rather have somone abort than bring a child into this world and not care for it, abuse it, abandon it, or just generally not care... I don't think it's possible to come to a middle ground here because you will have the people who belive that life begins when the sperm enters the egg, and then you will have those who believe that life doesn't begin until birth. I won't pretend to know the answer to this question, all I know is what I feel is right. And let me just say thank you for the debate, you have some good points, I will give you that. But I just have a hard time when it comes to things like this...
well, first of all, how does science distinguish an abstract concept of innocence? Second of all, by your very argument, could not a mother who drinks? smokes? engages in sexual intercourse past the acceptable time frame? then be charged with risk of injury to a minor? Are we to control the mothers of un-born children to the point where they will be locked in a room where no harm can come to their fetus at great restraint to their own personal freedoms? I think that such an abstract form of thought as to when is a fetus considered a living being is not something that can be easily answered. One needs to ask themselves, "what's right for me?". I'm willing to conseed if an argument sufficient in detail can be presented to me in a clear way. Your argument, all be it well thought out, wasn't proof enough for me. Also, when I said "kind of anarchist" I was refering to the statement I made, not me personally.
I am an organ doner. And if I die, I would hope that my organs would be taken to keep somone else alive. So let's not be hastey. The least you could be is a little civil instead of being extremely accaustive and instigating because I'm not going to bite. You believe what you want and I'll believe what I want.
People need to step back from their pre-disposition to hate devorak and look at this article as a convorsation starter. Sure it's way out from left field, however, it does good to look at other options to plan for rather than burrying your head in the sand saying "nope, not going to happen" caus' even if cygwin or vmware hasn't killed linux. Something, some time might... Especially if Microsoft is behind it. So look at it analytically and objecively instead of hastily and subjectively...
The answers to these questions are all arbitrary. A million different people can come up with a million different answers. Which leaves us to a few making the distinction for us, which inevitably will alienate a vast majority who don't believe the same thing. You're right, it's more than a womans choice and a medical decision. However, it is not our place to judge or deside for people as to what they can and can not do in this regard. I think that put into any other terms other than "womans choice" or "medical decision" is imposing a belife onto somones person. I just think that people are entirely too quick to pick up the flame of moral superiority instead of just letting people live their lives. I guess I'm kind of an anarchist in that sense. And my opinion doesn't matter to anyone but myself. So I won't voice my opinions here. All told, I agree with you that there's more to it, however, I think people should be left to make their own decisions instead of having them imposed on them. Also, I sit corrected on the state of the stem cell research area in this country. The point I was trying to make wat that the Bush administration (not bush bashing here) won't fund new line stem cell research due to religious beliefs, rather than scientific reasoning. That is all...
This is why there should be no ban on stem cell research. Peoples own personal beliefs getting in the way of science. But such evidence should persuade lawmakers (sorry to those not in the US) to promote MORE research, instead of cutting back on the types of research that can be done...
I'm glad they ruled against her... Granted, I would be tempted to do the same. However, what ever happened to being human and TALKING about it? If it came down to it. Do it, but don't try to use it in court. It's a very hard thing to deal with, but invading anyones privacy is against any ethical code there possiby is... But that's just my opinion
Well, my question to you is: Did you buy a support contract to go with the purchased product? There are too many roads to go down when arguing this point. The first being that it is almost like a car company being forced to do recalls and fix severe problems on your car for free (durring the cars life cycle). Or, you could look at it as buying an extended warrenty, where you PAY for the right to bring your broken car to the dealer for repair. For a patch to be released, something must be broken. I propose that they break up the patches into two catagories. 1) Update patches and 2) security flaw and bug patches. If this were the case, I'd say you are spot on in demanding the updates provided they are security flaw/bug updates... However, if they improve uppon the useability of the software, you are no more entitled to that update than someone who hasn't bought the software. It's up to their descression. And again, until the distinction is made, it's impossible to argue.
If your panties are in that much of a twist, why don't you just have a friend dl and burn to a cd? Or, go to your nearest windows machine, then share out the file? It's not the end of the world.
Options are key in continuing the advance of the handheld environment. I think it's great that they're porting "mozilla" over. I look forward to using it.
I was just writing a response just like this. Last I knew it was a states rights issue. Not to mention the fact that it's a mandate that's going to cost MANY under funded and less affluent states a LOT of money to impliment. And if they don't? They lose MORE money. Good. Great. Grand. What's the next step? Corporate sponsorship of a state just so they can stay afloat? "The Nextel province of Mississippi" And let's not even think about putting our tin foil hats on with the possibilities of a nation wide ID system...
Yes, in fact I am. I know my spelling is horrid at times and I'm comfortable with that. I get it right when it counts and that's all that matters...
don't care how they deside. As long as they keep coming out with more usefull tools that will make my life easier, that's all I care about. Keep up the good work google!
This is very true. I didn't look at it that way. When it comes time for me to buy any new games, I try to give them a "test drive" before hand. I have friends who tend to be early adapters for games and buy as soon as they come out so I'll borrow or play over to their place and deside for myself. But you do bring up a very good point about the other factors. But as the parent submission stated that some of these details may be lost on them. I wouldn't mind seeing game reviews by teams. Your gamers and audio visual people... But that's probably not too reasonable either...
there are inherant issues in having a super gamer reviewing games is that the challange rating for them may be MUCH lower than it would be for your casual gamer. Which may caus frustrations or misconseptions and caus' otherwise great games to fall through the cracks becaus of the super gamer saying that the game was too easy and a waste of time... But that's just my $0.02
Microsoft has tried to go this rout by trying to stifle any release of "known" vulnerabilities so that they can't be exploited by the masses. See how well THAT worked? They should work at faster release of updates instead of waiting for it to become a serious issue... Especially with something THIS severe...
Is this microsofts attempt to corner the FPS market in the console gaming industry? First Halo now this? I'm not big on console gaming so I'm not sure what's available for the others but this seems to be a huge thing for the xbox that the other consoles don't have yet...
I think your missing the point here. When insurance rates go up, they go up per unit. In other words, they don't break it down on an individual basis. They say you have 1000 employees and one is a smoker, so you're going to pay the increased rate for all 1000 employees, not just the one that smokes. So it's not so simple to just make the smoker pay more. There really has to be something effective done about the epidemic of smoking, however, I agree with you that firing should be an absolute last resort. But in all fairness, IPods and cash should have done the trick... But then again, I'm not a smoker...
I agree fully... I read 2 of her three books and it scares me to think people actually listen to her...
Like Ann Coulter is to Democrats and Michael Moore is to Republicans Maureen O'Gara is to Open Source Only the weak minded, lazy, and easily led will beleave a word she says. But, unfortunately, the majority of the populace is one of the above...
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, gasohol... A little for you, a little for me... A little for you, a little for me....
I tend to agree, there being little distinction between the two. I'm interested to hear more on the subject when I go to linux world in Feb.
OH SWEET JESUS! WON'T SOMONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN? Yet another game for people to boycott and claim is deconstructing the fabric of society. *shakes head*
Agreed. We all know he has monkeys working for him, but they are highly educated and trained monkeys, and they'd much rather throw themselves on a bomb than to make him look foolish. Nor, would you want to risk something like that in such a largely viewed public, and LIVE setting... There's bound to be a logical explanation... Shocking I know.