If you'd like to argue that laws aren't really moral codes I'd to hear your arguements. Just remember that if you claim that they're made for the common good be prepared to answer how can we define "good" without making a moral decision.
Laws exist to provide "peace", not "common good". They provide a way for people of disparate backgrounds, moral ideologies, religion, and so forth to live beside one another in peace, harmony, and prosperity. That is the sole purpose of law.
Now, my statement has plenty of holes in it as far as creating a government or other group of people to make and enforce law. I haven't addressed that at all, I've only provided a purpose of law, and not even a definition at that.:)
So first, lets do no harm -- lets treat it as human from the time of conception.
Whether you are for or against abortion is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Abortion, first of all, is legal, so there is a source of stem cells there.
In the larger view of things, there are plenty of other sources of stem cells.
In the even larger view of that, considering the potential value in the responsible application of knowledge gleaned from stem cell research, I think that even in the complete absence of sources of stem cells that scientists should look for ways to get them.
The basic question is: is stem cell research and/or cloning wrong?
I say no, because at this point it's not a question of morality. It's a question of fact-finding and development. The application of the knowledge that will be gleaned will be subject to morality. But consider this: every time we get better at cloning something, we bring a new life into this world. If life is sacred, does it matter how it got here?
stop threating on behalf of your favorite idol and stop warning people about how this idle idol is gonna kick ass on the last day?
All tell you one thing. IF them Christians are even half-right about what they're saying, then I sure in the fuck don't wanna be on the wrong side on Judgement Day.
So I've got me an old-style quill and some parchment, and a knife. I keep it handy just in case the Big Guy decides to pull Judgement Day while I'm still alive. I figger as soon as that happens, I'm gonna write out my contract and sign it in blood.
Jesus comes my way, I'm gon' shoot that mutherfucker.
Lets say you don't fear death - but what about God who judges after death? Your disbelief in him won't help a whit on the last day.
Great, then I'll go straight to hell where I will finally learn the truth of matters while you continue to pontificate in the clouds. Considering the fact that I don't want to spend eternity with the likes of you, and you are representative of what it takes to get into heaven, I can't think of any reason why I should really give a fuck what God thinks of me and how he'll judge me when I'm dead.
And that's all assuming he's really there. If he's not, then not only am I right in not giving a fuck, but you're wasting your entire life worrying about it. Ever think of that?
The issues with regard to cloning cannot be brought down to a single yes/no answer, they are legion and complex.
Um, no. It's a simple issue that has opponents that choose to make it appear complex. It really does boil down to a few simple things, which I'll get into in a moment.
The religious issues around cloning are for the most part also moral and ethical issues which would be of interest even to an atheist.
Provide a list. There are no ethical or moral issues involved with cloning, in my mind, and it pisses me off that people keep telling me that there should be.
Your suggestion that facts are somehow independant of ethical, moral and religous matters is ludicrous. Facts alone, without some kind of value context, cannot lead to a decision.
Facts + Morals = Truth. And as we are all aware of, truth leads to war.:)
The fact that there is an issue that is encouraging a debate about ethics, morals, and religion is actually an increadibly healthy thing for society. Science is a tool, and they [ethics, morals, and religion] are the hand that guides the tool. The more powerful the tool is, the more important that it be handled with skill.
Science isn't a tool. It's the way we generate facts about the world around us. Engineering is the discipline that takes the facts presented by science and turns it into tools. For this reason, scientific research into cloning is harmless. What we do with the technology after the research is done is where the moral and ethical debate should be taking place. But in the gathering of facts? No fuckin' way. THAT is why this whole thing is (to quote Jim Carey) "stupid-stupid-stupid".
What's there to disbelieve? Politics are real, and one of the longest-standing methods of making decisions for a group of people. How you can you deny the existence of politics?
But we could discuss forever and neither of us would convince himself to change his mind. The future shall show which path was correct...
Why wait 'till the future? Why not instead study Christianity's LONG HISTORY of disease management, control and curing.
Black death plague, anyone?
Rampant disease in Europe in the 1600s-1800s?
Hell, for that matter rampant disease through all of Christianity's history. Yep, let those Christians decide what to do next. Nevermind that it was Science that finally cleaned up disease and starting making serious inroads to eliminate it completely. With Christianity fighting it every step of the way.
Nope, I think History shows us quite clearly what our proper course should be at this time.
His sin was in not only not wanting this to happen, but still wanting to screw his sister-in-law anyway, under pretense of brotherly duty.
Heh. Even based on your explanation (not that I agree with the interpretation, but I'm hardly a christian, so who chares?) I still don't see how what he did was a sin. What's wrong with wanting to screw your brother's wife? And then he says "I'm going off to war, if I die, you can fuck my wife." So step up to the plate! And certainly don't screw up your own kids' shot at the inheritance. What's wrong with that?
It's that simple. If we live longer, there will be more people on this planet. The better medicine becomes at preventing death, the bigger will the population problem become - especially if it is applied in nations with high birth rates and high mortality rates.
Preventing death is research I'd prefer to encourage. Allocating resources is a related, but different problem entirely. The fact is, technology might well advance to the point where this planet will be capable of supporting trillions more than it has on it right now. I'm thinking "The Mark of Gideon" here. Seriously!
The problem of what to do with our population is simple. Throughout history exploring new lands and colonizing them has proved to be an excellent way to deal with population problems as well as provide incentive for the continuing advancement of the race as a whole. The question is, would the world be as advanced as it is today if the New World hadn't been settled? I'm not trying to say the US is responsible for it, but would it be like it is without the US? How much of a factor was the competition provided by the colonies?
Yeah, so, anyway. Obviously we need to find new lands to colonize to deal with this population problem. I suppose another world war would have the same over-all effect on the population, except it would also make it more conservative. (Why are "conservatives" responsible for consuming most of the resources in the world?)
You're assuming mass-cloning is the problem he's concerned with.
Well, if he's really the warmonger he acts like, then mass-cloning should be something he's in favor of, for the US at least. I'll bet he's got his military researchers working on cloning and cryogenics, so they can clone entire battalions and then freeze them until they're needed to reinforce the "real" army.
Consider the folks who came up with string theory, they were *ignored* for a decade, and now they are considered to be some of the most brilliant minds ever.
Well, I can say that I'm really sick of using char arrays for strings, myself. So I, for one, welcome our new string overlords.
Even if the egg isn't fertalized? It takes both an egg and sperm to make a living human being last time I checked.
That is the real "sin of Onan". I.e. while he was fucking his brother's wife's brains out, he got guilty, and instead of squirting into her pussy he squirted all over the floor.
In any case, I've made my own feelings on the matter clear. Stem cell research is the future of medicine, whether Bush and Co. like it or not. Got your arm chopped off? Here's a temporary prosthetic while we grow you a new one. Wait, just give us some bone marrow first. Lung cancer? Well, just live on one lung for awhile, while we grow you a new one. No, there won't be any of the side effects associated with organ transplant, because this isn't a transplant. Just give us some of your bone marrow first, and your lung will be genetically identical to the one you trashed.
Testicular cancer? Breast cancer? This is the holy grail of medical research. It is also part of the path to immortality (if there is such a thing). The worst possible thing Bush can do for the human race is to ban this type of research, or even curtail it.
But never forget that Christians like Bush have opposed every medical advance to come along, as well. Bacteria? No such thing, said the Christians. Organ transplant? You mean there would be a part of me that came from somebody else? Remember how much controversy that stuff generated? Religion and medicine have not peacefully co-existed for years. I suggest we eliminate one of them and let the other prosper. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out which one I want to get rid of.:)
All of your arguments are good, and certainly need to be considered. However, I have these additional things to say:
First, I was talking about consumer-level Windows, not business level. That's XP Home, Win98, win95. You know, the shit that Microsoft sells for cheap (if you consider $200 cheap, but you get huge discounts when you get it oem anyway).
Second, before you can deal with user's fears and education and whatnot (you know, all that stuff you were talking about), you have to have a strong package that will stand up and say "You can use me". We have that. We have solved the technical problem. Now, what we have left is a human problem. We always knew there would be a human problem. It's always been there. Back in the day I'd show people my Amiga 500 and they'd run home and beg their Mommy for a PC. It's what people know. And it's a problem that's always been there when you try to get people to use a superior platform.:)
Perhaps it'll work in reverse order? Don't you think maybe Microsoft did it before the porn popups did? Perhaps it's another one ploy to get a legal ground against popups, like AT&T did with spam.
.hta files have been used by Microsoft to define the Explorer interface since at least Win98, possible with Win95, "The Sequel". (OSR2?) Since IE was embedded in the OS, that is. You'll know when they started using it by when you had a choice of "Web View" for your explorer window.
Why they waited this long to patent it is probably because they thought it was so STUPID to patent it. I'll bet the only reason this happened is because some PHB at Microsoft got a wild hair up his ass.
This is however part of the way to place a Flash movie in your page for some browsers (Mozilla).
Why are you using Flash? What, are you STUPID? Why bother putting a doctype for the sake of standards if you're just gonna turn around and use Flash? WHY???
As a member of the public, I want you to know that I am offended by your use of the term "blacklist".
Reminds me of a time when I was flipping burgers, and one of the guys there hated me for some inexplicable reason (skin color, it turned out). He said I was something, some trait. I don't recall what it was. Arrogant? (True) I don't remember exactly, but my response was "You just called the kettle black". He fuckin' tripped! "Why does it have to be black, man? Why? You hate black people!"
Now guess what his skin color is. I started to make another pot and kettle comment, but my manager stopped me. She was genuinely afraid it was about to escalate to violence.
From what we know on earth, the tempature for life is something between 120 degrees (thermal vents) and 60 (surface stuff)
I'd like to point out a couple of glaringly obvious holes in your reasoning so far.:)
First, we don't know the conditions under which life appeared on earth. We have every reason to believe that the earth was never an ice-covered planetoid like Europa. Nevertheless, we don't know how life formed on earth, and until we do (or know more about the subject in general) anything we say about the conditions under which life can appear is based purely on conjecture.
Second, bacteria survived to the moon from the original moon missions and thrived afterwards, somehow. I don't know the surface temperature of the moon, but I recall it being significantly out of the range you cited. This puts a serious division in where we have to say "These conditions can result in life" and "In these conditions life can exist". Neither of these sets of conditions are required to exist at the same time. What I mean is, the conditions that can result in life may not be able to sustain life, and the conditions which can sustain life may not be able to result in life. We just don't know.
I hope I've given you some brainfood in here. But I'm certainly no biologist by any means.
I don't disagree with anything you say here, so I'll try to be more explicit with my point, which I realize I wasn't all that clear in my post.:)
The argument put forth that "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" more or less revolves around the difficulties in configuring Linux. Phrases like "lusers don't want to hack text files just to make their monitor change resolutions" and crap are pretty common in that argument, and frequently shut down, for good reason, which I'm getting into. The actual fact of the matter is that if you use a major distribution, like Mandrake or Redhat, possibly Debian, Linux is as easy if not easier to configure as Windows 98. In many ways, it's as easy to configure as Windows 2000, although it might fall down a little compared to Windows XP. I haven't spent enough time with XP to be able to say for sure.
Most configuration that people claim exists in Windows but doesn't exist in Linux is configuration that is handled by your desktop environment, and I can safely say that KDE is far more advanced in those areas than Windows XP even. And most of KDEs high amount of configuration is supported by the KDE Control Center. I don't know about Gnome, but I would expect Gnome to be a little behind KDE in this area in part because of their philosophy, and in part because of their relative age to KDE.
Most of the remaining configuration that exists in either OS, Windows or Linux (I realize I just called "Linux" an OS, and didn't call it GNU/Linux), is well-supported in the distributions' respective configuration tools. In both Mandrake's and Redhat's case, the configuration tools are also GPL (but not in SuSE's case, those fuckers). I don't know what Debian does in this area, but I do know that LinuxConfig isn't too far behind the distributions' config tools, and is probably the equal to anything Win98 had to offer.
All remaining configuration, in both Windows and Linux, requires hacking something. In Windows's case, it's a combination of the registry and a few undocumented text files scattered around your %WINDOWS% directory and your system drive root. In the case of Linux, it's all in a few well-documented text files, most of which exists in/etc, including your XFree86 config files. In fact, I can't think of a piece of Linux software that stores it's system-wide config outside/etc, but many user software stores it's config information in hidden directories in your user home directory.
None of this takes into account the fact that out-of-the-box Linux distributions provide more power in general than any consumer-level Windows distribution. In fact, to get the kind of performance and features out of Windows you frequently have to invest significantly into 3rd party tools (oracle comes to mind). Whether or not you can spend enough money on Windows stuff to beat Linux feature for feature is a point of hot debate that I won't go into.
So I say that Linux is ready for the desktop. But what I say doesn't change many peoples' attitudes on the matter.
But what you said about Windows 98 supported everything I just said, whether you wanted it to or not, and I was trying to point that out in a smart-ass fashion.
We can talk out-of-the-box appeal as well, if you like, and I can probably offer plenty of criticism on Mandrake and Redhat in that area, but one thing I will say, no matter what, is that perceived out-of-the-box Windows appeal is at least comprised of 80% of the OEM's actual appeal. Dell comes with software preinstalled, HP, Compaq, you name it. None of which are part of the basic Windows distribution. That same area is what Linux distributions specifically address. So any comparison between Windows and Linux out-of-the-box appeal has to take into account the extra work that OEM manufacturers and Linux distributors put into it.
How about the number of laws, "per capita"? We have many more laws now than we had back then. In fact, in spite of various repeals, we have 200+ years worth of laws that we didn't used to have. Drug laws haven't always existed, for one thing, and account for many of our existing prisoners. Now, I'm all in favor of reducing many of our drug laws and pretty much rewriting the rest (because you are right about the FDA), but that doesn't change the fact of our prison situation.
Unfortunately, the cell towers being erected in people's neighborhoods, back yards and apartment rooftops are allowed thanks to federal and state broadcast licensing and regulation. --As are cell phones themselves. But the government's stance is that the technology is safe and therefore does not need proper regulation. The U.S. Airforce is one of the largest debunkers of health concerns due to cellphone use.
Well, I'm not going to jump on the "cell phones are bad" bandwagon, even though I'm skeptical about them in general. I will point out that cell phones have been combatted ever since they were invented. For more theories on why this is, I refer you to a piece of fiction, a story by Robert Heinlein called "Let There Be Light", in the book The Man Who Sold The Moon. In any case, considering the constant fire cell phones have been under, and considering the considerable benefits they provide (in spite of my personal opinion of many users of cell phones), I am skeptical about research showing them to be harmful.
Responsible industry. Plain and simple. It is entirely workable, and there are hundereds of cheep and in many cases, more cost effective solutions available. Government regulation could do much to enforce clean, environmentally respectful industry. I find it strange that some people take direct offence to this kind of thinking. I've seen people get angry and stubborn if you suggest alternative, better methods. I've never managed to work out where this attitude springs from. Perhaps some sort of perceived connection to 'Flower Power' which they think is un-cool. . ? I've never figured it out.
Responsible industry has never existed without government intervention, and the fact that we have industry that is, in fact, more responsible than ever before is something for which you can thank your government. However, because of the size of our government, and various other flaws I'd be happy to point out (but suspect I don't need to), our government is a slow, bloated thing that is quite incapable of keeping up with technological advancement in this century, and demonstrated its failure to do so in the last. This is a limitation we have to accept for now, but that doesn't mean we have to like it or do nothing about it.
I don't agree with the invasion of Iraq precisely because it is 100% immoral.
As a matter of fact, I completely agree with you about the war in Iraq, and I wasn't happy about it happening in the first place. I don't know how you feel about our adventures in Afghanistan, but I was against those too. I think assassination is a perfectly valid way of dealing with problems of this sort, and that that is the best way to have done it. I understand why assassination is a bad idea politically, but morally I'm perfectly fine with it (and would be happy to pull the trigger myself, if needed). In any case, I view the so-called "war on terror" the same way I view the "war on drugs". The difference between the two is that it's pretty easy to see that the war on drugs is mostly hype, whereas it's more difficult to see that with the war on terror. I'm not saying anything about Bush specifically, but you might recall that Hitler's rise to power accompanied a similar "War on Terror", and the fact that conditions in the US now are very similar to conditions in Germany during the 20s and 30s is a pretty scary thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Larry Wall prays? That explains quite a bit about Perl, and why it's such a GODAWFUL pain in the ass.
I was with you, man, until this:
If you'd like to argue that laws aren't really moral codes I'd to hear your arguements. Just remember that if you claim that they're made for the common good be prepared to answer how can we define "good" without making a moral decision.
Laws exist to provide "peace", not "common good". They provide a way for people of disparate backgrounds, moral ideologies, religion, and so forth to live beside one another in peace, harmony, and prosperity. That is the sole purpose of law.
Now, my statement has plenty of holes in it as far as creating a government or other group of people to make and enforce law. I haven't addressed that at all, I've only provided a purpose of law, and not even a definition at that. :)
So first, lets do no harm -- lets treat it as human from the time of conception.
Whether you are for or against abortion is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Abortion, first of all, is legal, so there is a source of stem cells there.
In the larger view of things, there are plenty of other sources of stem cells.
In the even larger view of that, considering the potential value in the responsible application of knowledge gleaned from stem cell research, I think that even in the complete absence of sources of stem cells that scientists should look for ways to get them.
The basic question is: is stem cell research and/or cloning wrong?
I say no, because at this point it's not a question of morality. It's a question of fact-finding and development. The application of the knowledge that will be gleaned will be subject to morality. But consider this: every time we get better at cloning something, we bring a new life into this world. If life is sacred, does it matter how it got here?
stop threating on behalf of your favorite idol and stop warning people about how this idle idol is gonna kick ass on the last day?
All tell you one thing. IF them Christians are even half-right about what they're saying, then I sure in the fuck don't wanna be on the wrong side on Judgement Day.
So I've got me an old-style quill and some parchment, and a knife. I keep it handy just in case the Big Guy decides to pull Judgement Day while I'm still alive. I figger as soon as that happens, I'm gonna write out my contract and sign it in blood.
Jesus comes my way, I'm gon' shoot that mutherfucker.
Lets say you don't fear death - but what about God who judges after death? Your disbelief in him won't help a whit on the last day.
Great, then I'll go straight to hell where I will finally learn the truth of matters while you continue to pontificate in the clouds. Considering the fact that I don't want to spend eternity with the likes of you, and you are representative of what it takes to get into heaven, I can't think of any reason why I should really give a fuck what God thinks of me and how he'll judge me when I'm dead.
And that's all assuming he's really there. If he's not, then not only am I right in not giving a fuck, but you're wasting your entire life worrying about it. Ever think of that?
The issues with regard to cloning cannot be brought down to a single yes/no answer, they are legion and complex.
Um, no. It's a simple issue that has opponents that choose to make it appear complex. It really does boil down to a few simple things, which I'll get into in a moment.
The religious issues around cloning are for the most part also moral and ethical issues which would be of interest even to an atheist.
Provide a list. There are no ethical or moral issues involved with cloning, in my mind, and it pisses me off that people keep telling me that there should be.
Your suggestion that facts are somehow independant of ethical, moral and religous matters is ludicrous. Facts alone, without some kind of value context, cannot lead to a decision.
Facts + Morals = Truth. And as we are all aware of, truth leads to war. :)
The fact that there is an issue that is encouraging a debate about ethics, morals, and religion is actually an increadibly healthy thing for society. Science is a tool, and they [ethics, morals, and religion] are the hand that guides the tool. The more powerful the tool is, the more important that it be handled with skill.
Science isn't a tool. It's the way we generate facts about the world around us. Engineering is the discipline that takes the facts presented by science and turns it into tools. For this reason, scientific research into cloning is harmless. What we do with the technology after the research is done is where the moral and ethical debate should be taking place. But in the gathering of facts? No fuckin' way. THAT is why this whole thing is (to quote Jim Carey) "stupid-stupid-stupid".
i don't believe in politics!
What's there to disbelieve? Politics are real, and one of the longest-standing methods of making decisions for a group of people. How you can you deny the existence of politics?
But we could discuss forever and neither of us would convince himself to change his mind. The future shall show which path was correct...
Why wait 'till the future? Why not instead study Christianity's LONG HISTORY of disease management, control and curing.
Black death plague, anyone?
Rampant disease in Europe in the 1600s-1800s?
Hell, for that matter rampant disease through all of Christianity's history. Yep, let those Christians decide what to do next. Nevermind that it was Science that finally cleaned up disease and starting making serious inroads to eliminate it completely. With Christianity fighting it every step of the way.
Nope, I think History shows us quite clearly what our proper course should be at this time.
Send in the clones!
His sin was in not only not wanting this to happen, but still wanting to screw his sister-in-law anyway, under pretense of brotherly duty.
Heh. Even based on your explanation (not that I agree with the interpretation, but I'm hardly a christian, so who chares?) I still don't see how what he did was a sin. What's wrong with wanting to screw your brother's wife? And then he says "I'm going off to war, if I die, you can fuck my wife." So step up to the plate! And certainly don't screw up your own kids' shot at the inheritance. What's wrong with that?
people fucking is a a far greater problem.
As far as problems are concerned, fucking people are the greatest problem of all.
It's that simple. If we live longer, there will be more people on this planet. The better medicine becomes at preventing death, the bigger will the population problem become - especially if it is applied in nations with high birth rates and high mortality rates.
Preventing death is research I'd prefer to encourage. Allocating resources is a related, but different problem entirely. The fact is, technology might well advance to the point where this planet will be capable of supporting trillions more than it has on it right now. I'm thinking "The Mark of Gideon" here. Seriously!
The problem of what to do with our population is simple. Throughout history exploring new lands and colonizing them has proved to be an excellent way to deal with population problems as well as provide incentive for the continuing advancement of the race as a whole. The question is, would the world be as advanced as it is today if the New World hadn't been settled? I'm not trying to say the US is responsible for it, but would it be like it is without the US? How much of a factor was the competition provided by the colonies?
Yeah, so, anyway. Obviously we need to find new lands to colonize to deal with this population problem. I suppose another world war would have the same over-all effect on the population, except it would also make it more conservative. (Why are "conservatives" responsible for consuming most of the resources in the world?)
Give people a choice: immortality or fertility.
Well, seeing's how I've already got three kids, I know which I'd choose to. :)
You're assuming mass-cloning is the problem he's concerned with.
Well, if he's really the warmonger he acts like, then mass-cloning should be something he's in favor of, for the US at least. I'll bet he's got his military researchers working on cloning and cryogenics, so they can clone entire battalions and then freeze them until they're needed to reinforce the "real" army.
Consider the folks who came up with string theory, they were *ignored* for a decade, and now they are considered to be some of the most brilliant minds ever.
Well, I can say that I'm really sick of using char arrays for strings, myself. So I, for one, welcome our new string overlords.
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Whosoever lieth with the Beast shall surely be put to death.
Killed a witch lately? No? Then you must not be a Christian, since that's clearly been instructed of them.
Even if the egg isn't fertalized? It takes both an egg and sperm to make a living human being last time I checked.
That is the real "sin of Onan". I.e. while he was fucking his brother's wife's brains out, he got guilty, and instead of squirting into her pussy he squirted all over the floor.
In any case, I've made my own feelings on the matter clear. Stem cell research is the future of medicine, whether Bush and Co. like it or not. Got your arm chopped off? Here's a temporary prosthetic while we grow you a new one. Wait, just give us some bone marrow first. Lung cancer? Well, just live on one lung for awhile, while we grow you a new one. No, there won't be any of the side effects associated with organ transplant, because this isn't a transplant. Just give us some of your bone marrow first, and your lung will be genetically identical to the one you trashed.
Testicular cancer? Breast cancer? This is the holy grail of medical research. It is also part of the path to immortality (if there is such a thing). The worst possible thing Bush can do for the human race is to ban this type of research, or even curtail it.
But never forget that Christians like Bush have opposed every medical advance to come along, as well. Bacteria? No such thing, said the Christians. Organ transplant? You mean there would be a part of me that came from somebody else? Remember how much controversy that stuff generated? Religion and medicine have not peacefully co-existed for years. I suggest we eliminate one of them and let the other prosper. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out which one I want to get rid of. :)
All of your arguments are good, and certainly need to be considered. However, I have these additional things to say:
First, I was talking about consumer-level Windows, not business level. That's XP Home, Win98, win95. You know, the shit that Microsoft sells for cheap (if you consider $200 cheap, but you get huge discounts when you get it oem anyway).
Second, before you can deal with user's fears and education and whatnot (you know, all that stuff you were talking about), you have to have a strong package that will stand up and say "You can use me". We have that. We have solved the technical problem. Now, what we have left is a human problem. We always knew there would be a human problem. It's always been there. Back in the day I'd show people my Amiga 500 and they'd run home and beg their Mommy for a PC. It's what people know. And it's a problem that's always been there when you try to get people to use a superior platform. :)
Perhaps it'll work in reverse order? Don't you think maybe Microsoft did it before the porn popups did? Perhaps it's another one ploy to get a legal ground against popups, like AT&T did with spam.
.hta files have been used by Microsoft to define the Explorer interface since at least Win98, possible with Win95, "The Sequel". (OSR2?) Since IE was embedded in the OS, that is. You'll know when they started using it by when you had a choice of "Web View" for your explorer window.
Why they waited this long to patent it is probably because they thought it was so STUPID to patent it. I'll bet the only reason this happened is because some PHB at Microsoft got a wild hair up his ass.
This is however part of the way to place a Flash movie in your page for some browsers (Mozilla).
Why are you using Flash? What, are you STUPID? Why bother putting a doctype for the sake of standards if you're just gonna turn around and use Flash? WHY???
Hey man, I've got una amiga I like to poke my dick into every now and then.
Hmmm, you were talking about a computer weren't you. Damn that preview button!
As a member of the public, I want you to know that I am offended by your use of the term "blacklist".
Reminds me of a time when I was flipping burgers, and one of the guys there hated me for some inexplicable reason (skin color, it turned out). He said I was something, some trait. I don't recall what it was. Arrogant? (True) I don't remember exactly, but my response was "You just called the kettle black". He fuckin' tripped! "Why does it have to be black, man? Why? You hate black people!"
Now guess what his skin color is. I started to make another pot and kettle comment, but my manager stopped me. She was genuinely afraid it was about to escalate to violence.
Ya u gave me support for my theory since according to you it doesn't take as much atomsphere.
Why don't you brush up on your reading skills, dude? I never said anything except "What we don't know".
From what we know on earth, the tempature for life is something between 120 degrees (thermal vents) and 60 (surface stuff)
I'd like to point out a couple of glaringly obvious holes in your reasoning so far. :)
First, we don't know the conditions under which life appeared on earth. We have every reason to believe that the earth was never an ice-covered planetoid like Europa. Nevertheless, we don't know how life formed on earth, and until we do (or know more about the subject in general) anything we say about the conditions under which life can appear is based purely on conjecture.
Second, bacteria survived to the moon from the original moon missions and thrived afterwards, somehow. I don't know the surface temperature of the moon, but I recall it being significantly out of the range you cited. This puts a serious division in where we have to say "These conditions can result in life" and "In these conditions life can exist". Neither of these sets of conditions are required to exist at the same time. What I mean is, the conditions that can result in life may not be able to sustain life, and the conditions which can sustain life may not be able to result in life. We just don't know.
I hope I've given you some brainfood in here. But I'm certainly no biologist by any means.
I don't disagree with anything you say here, so I'll try to be more explicit with my point, which I realize I wasn't all that clear in my post. :)
The argument put forth that "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" more or less revolves around the difficulties in configuring Linux. Phrases like "lusers don't want to hack text files just to make their monitor change resolutions" and crap are pretty common in that argument, and frequently shut down, for good reason, which I'm getting into. The actual fact of the matter is that if you use a major distribution, like Mandrake or Redhat, possibly Debian, Linux is as easy if not easier to configure as Windows 98. In many ways, it's as easy to configure as Windows 2000, although it might fall down a little compared to Windows XP. I haven't spent enough time with XP to be able to say for sure.
Most configuration that people claim exists in Windows but doesn't exist in Linux is configuration that is handled by your desktop environment, and I can safely say that KDE is far more advanced in those areas than Windows XP even. And most of KDEs high amount of configuration is supported by the KDE Control Center. I don't know about Gnome, but I would expect Gnome to be a little behind KDE in this area in part because of their philosophy, and in part because of their relative age to KDE.
Most of the remaining configuration that exists in either OS, Windows or Linux (I realize I just called "Linux" an OS, and didn't call it GNU/Linux), is well-supported in the distributions' respective configuration tools. In both Mandrake's and Redhat's case, the configuration tools are also GPL (but not in SuSE's case, those fuckers). I don't know what Debian does in this area, but I do know that LinuxConfig isn't too far behind the distributions' config tools, and is probably the equal to anything Win98 had to offer.
All remaining configuration, in both Windows and Linux, requires hacking something. In Windows's case, it's a combination of the registry and a few undocumented text files scattered around your %WINDOWS% directory and your system drive root. In the case of Linux, it's all in a few well-documented text files, most of which exists in /etc, including your XFree86 config files. In fact, I can't think of a piece of Linux software that stores it's system-wide config outside /etc, but many user software stores it's config information in hidden directories in your user home directory.
None of this takes into account the fact that out-of-the-box Linux distributions provide more power in general than any consumer-level Windows distribution. In fact, to get the kind of performance and features out of Windows you frequently have to invest significantly into 3rd party tools (oracle comes to mind). Whether or not you can spend enough money on Windows stuff to beat Linux feature for feature is a point of hot debate that I won't go into.
So I say that Linux is ready for the desktop. But what I say doesn't change many peoples' attitudes on the matter.
But what you said about Windows 98 supported everything I just said, whether you wanted it to or not, and I was trying to point that out in a smart-ass fashion.
We can talk out-of-the-box appeal as well, if you like, and I can probably offer plenty of criticism on Mandrake and Redhat in that area, but one thing I will say, no matter what, is that perceived out-of-the-box Windows appeal is at least comprised of 80% of the OEM's actual appeal. Dell comes with software preinstalled, HP, Compaq, you name it. None of which are part of the basic Windows distribution. That same area is what Linux distributions specifically address. So any comparison between Windows and Linux out-of-the-box appeal has to take into account the extra work that OEM manufacturers and Linux distributors put into it.
About prisons: The numbers are per capita.
How about the number of laws, "per capita"? We have many more laws now than we had back then. In fact, in spite of various repeals, we have 200+ years worth of laws that we didn't used to have. Drug laws haven't always existed, for one thing, and account for many of our existing prisoners. Now, I'm all in favor of reducing many of our drug laws and pretty much rewriting the rest (because you are right about the FDA), but that doesn't change the fact of our prison situation.
Unfortunately, the cell towers being erected in people's neighborhoods, back yards and apartment rooftops are allowed thanks to federal and state broadcast licensing and regulation. --As are cell phones themselves. But the government's stance is that the technology is safe and therefore does not need proper regulation. The U.S. Airforce is one of the largest debunkers of health concerns due to cellphone use.
Well, I'm not going to jump on the "cell phones are bad" bandwagon, even though I'm skeptical about them in general. I will point out that cell phones have been combatted ever since they were invented. For more theories on why this is, I refer you to a piece of fiction, a story by Robert Heinlein called "Let There Be Light", in the book The Man Who Sold The Moon. In any case, considering the constant fire cell phones have been under, and considering the considerable benefits they provide (in spite of my personal opinion of many users of cell phones), I am skeptical about research showing them to be harmful.
Responsible industry. Plain and simple. It is entirely workable, and there are hundereds of cheep and in many cases, more cost effective solutions available. Government regulation could do much to enforce clean, environmentally respectful industry. I find it strange that some people take direct offence to this kind of thinking. I've seen people get angry and stubborn if you suggest alternative, better methods. I've never managed to work out where this attitude springs from. Perhaps some sort of perceived connection to 'Flower Power' which they think is un-cool. . ? I've never figured it out.
Responsible industry has never existed without government intervention, and the fact that we have industry that is, in fact, more responsible than ever before is something for which you can thank your government. However, because of the size of our government, and various other flaws I'd be happy to point out (but suspect I don't need to), our government is a slow, bloated thing that is quite incapable of keeping up with technological advancement in this century, and demonstrated its failure to do so in the last. This is a limitation we have to accept for now, but that doesn't mean we have to like it or do nothing about it.
I don't agree with the invasion of Iraq precisely because it is 100% immoral.
As a matter of fact, I completely agree with you about the war in Iraq, and I wasn't happy about it happening in the first place. I don't know how you feel about our adventures in Afghanistan, but I was against those too. I think assassination is a perfectly valid way of dealing with problems of this sort, and that that is the best way to have done it. I understand why assassination is a bad idea politically, but morally I'm perfectly fine with it (and would be happy to pull the trigger myself, if needed). In any case, I view the so-called "war on terror" the same way I view the "war on drugs". The difference between the two is that it's pretty easy to see that the war on drugs is mostly hype, whereas it's more difficult to see that with the war on terror. I'm not saying anything about Bush specifically, but you might recall that Hitler's rise to power accompanied a similar "War on Terror", and the fact that conditions in the US now are very similar to conditions in Germany during the 20s and 30s is a pretty scary thing.
Healthcare is one of the few things I would ha