IP packet orgin is different- if it's TCP protocol anyway instead of UDP. TCP/IP *requires* handshaking, which means at worst you might get a syn flood or an ack flood, but unless all addresses are correct you won't get the syn/act in the correct order to produce a complete connection to let the VOIP call through. IPV4 implements this quite nicely. It doesn't stop all attacks- but it does stop any attack that has information in it. I haven't messed around with IPV6- but I imagine it's similar. Of course, the other problem is with NAT routers and DHCP, an IP address does not match a given computer anymore, just a given bank of maybe 256 computers- but it's closer.
I wonder how hard it would be to build a better phone, one that could "ring" silently, until it got the caller id, and then if the id says "O" or if it's not on your whitelist or if it's on your blacklist (however you choose to set it up), it would just keep ringing silently until the machine at the other end gave up.
These days- not to hard. You can do it with software and a voice modem. My only problem is getting it to *intercept* the call before it gets to other phones in the house or the fax machine. I do have it to the point where it pops up a cartoon character on a computer screen in the living room and tells me who is calling or if I should screen the call using the answering and fax machines ( using Microsoft Agent Voice Synthesis, since that's a Windows 98 box).
Same way I deal with spam. My whitelist is now at the point where if it does go into my "junkmail" box, I likely didn't ask for it to be sent to me.
And the phone system is over 100 years old. All the phone company cared about in the early days was one-way- they cared that you accessed the long distance line, they didn't record who the call was TO. Besides, when these mechanical switches were created- long distance operators were still *manual* switches. You'd call the operator and ask her to connect you and she'd write down the connection. No computer records at all- and at best tracing backwards you might find that five or six people on a given exchange were using the trunk line at the time.
Anyway, you'd think the phonecos (the major ones at least) would want to be able to track the phone calls coming in, otherwise who would they bill for those long distance calls? I can't believe the phoneco's wouldn't care who was using their phone-lines.
They simply charge the next phone company up the line- who charges the phone company up the line from them. It's basically a huge game of "not my problem", until you get to the final one- and even then the system that records long distance billing information is likely *NOT* the same company as the local phone comany. This is what we get from the breakup of AT&T back in the early Reagan administration.
As for the trace having to come *during* a phone call, don't the phoneco's (the ones that don't use mechanical switches anyway) keep logs of calls passing through? Seeing as you can't just hack the phone switch to spoof your phone #, as some email spam does, *somebody* must have records...
The logs are pretty much on an old punch tape, and but only list that a long distance call was made, for this many minutes, not what circuit it was on. Of course, with more modern computerized switches you CAN always hack the switch to spoof your phone number temporarily. It's amazing how many telespam companies have caller ID information that goes to a currently disconnected number. Of course that way you can call out, but nobody can call *in*.
The one I really like is the phone systems where a less-than-fully-trained receptionist answers the phone and you ask them to transfer your call to extension 9+ the area code you really want to call. Then you can fax spam somebody by merely dialing the last 7 digits of the phone number and you'll avoid both the long distance charges AND any ability of anybody to trace the call AT THE SAME TIME (yes, people really fall for that one).
But the profit potential is still there! In spades!
What I find interesting is left-vs-right brain scores for autistic people. My left brain is a total idiot (scoring ~60 on left brain only tests)- but my right brain is enough of a genius (scoring ~175 on right brain IQ tests) that it makes up for the difference- combined my IQ measurs between 130-150, depending on the test.
"Probably" is not "Actually"- and we have the technology today. Hard to find sure- but actually by 3 weeks the cells already number in the millions and begin to differentiate. Not only that- my son seemed to be quite ticklish at that age, he loved to swim away from the ultrasound.
The thing is that children, even after birth, don't and can't have the same rights as adults. As I understand it (I'd welcome correction here if I am wrong), children cannot own property as such - their parent/guardian owns their property. Children can't enter in to legal contracts. Children do deserve though to have rights but I would not apply these to an unborn child.
Where I'd follow our treaty first- apply every right the born child has to the unborn child. Basic human rights should be applied to every human, regardless of age. Where our legal system fails in this, means that we are violating the human rights of children.
Article 3 does not say everybody, it says everyone although this may vary between translations. Even if it did say everybody, I wouldn't take this as an attempt to deliberately cover fertilised eggs/foetuses. Article 2 uses the terms 'everyone' and 'person' in an interchangeable way. Look at article 10.
I see article 2 as extending the right to fetuses and fertilized eggs (see the language about circumstances of birth). Article 3 just covers a basic right of everybody/everyone in article 2. I agree that it's just writing convention in article 3 and 10.
Yeah, I agree that mothers should get all the support they need. Nutrition and check-ups need to be covered because it'll only be more expensive in the long-run if their child is born disabled or unhealthy due to neglect while they were in the womb.
I'd even go so far as to say that there is emotional value to such support for women in poverty- and that the lack of such support in the United States is the #1 cause of abortion. The lack thereoff seems to take 4 major forms: 1. Lack of support from the father- which may even include domestic violence to encourage the abortion. 2. Lack of support from the employer- which has in the past included firing women for getting pregnant (federally illegal now, but that's rather recent and took the Family Medical Leave Act from the right wing to do it). 3. Lack of support from the grandparents, which may also include a domestic violence situation. 4. Lack of support from society- we don't seem to want to give free medical care to even the most vunerable of us.
If this support was there from these four groups- no woman would ever abort unless her life was threatened, and would probably even argue with the doctor then. 2% of abortions are of this last group- and I just can't see any way around an ecoptic pregnancy or cancer, can you?
Um, because of lack of education on the topic, power issues, and emotions?
That's my point- can't claim to be pro-choice unless you give the lady a choice- and a choice can't be made without proper eductation.
Appreciated, but does not work today without fundamental changes in society that are so unforseeable that one can not meaningfully discuss them
What's so hard with sending city kids to a boarding school farm for one year out of their educations?
Funny, I once argued a lot (and still think) a similar thing, namely that a visit in a slaughterhosue should be required education in school. We had that in my school.
Mine too- it was called the 4-H program and we also had to raise the animals that we took to the slaughterhouse. Basic cycle of life info- amazing that we fail to train normal children in this these days.
Oh yeah, I forgot to take the US into account. Well, my condolences, you really should get yourself a real health system over there;)
Exactly my point- and the current administration's myoptic focus on abortion gives us a GREAT opening to do so.
You argue from an extremely rational position that I just don't find valid. I agree that the woman should have all info.
Funny- makes it look like you're against rationality- but that's not the case I know. Of course, the end point of my rationality doesn't support making abortion illegal either- just a hell of a lot more rare with the choice based on reality instead of myth.
However one does not preclude the other, i.e., a woman can be well-educated about the subject and still choose not to be confronted with all she knows in that particular moment.
True- though I've never been able to compartmentalize what I know. It's quite a burden at times.
It's part of how we (most of us anyway) function. If you have to fire someone, you -know- that will impact his/her family, but do you need to explore it in detail in this particular moment?
By urging my employer to make sure we have a year's salary banked in advance for every employee for severance pay. It will still impact his/her family, but less severely.
Of course, that's the RATIONAL position as you point out, and most people are somewhat less than rational. I really don't understand how the average person is able to function at all- I depend on my knowledge and take pride in it, far too much to understand how the sheeple can possibly do what they do.
But that all doesn't matter anyway, it's simply her choice to see it or not.
Depending on your equipment, there are three possibilities for any given caller ID record data: O, P, and an up to 32 char string. The first is Out of Area, the second is Privacy Mode, the third of course is just the standard caller ID data. How your machine interprets it is up to the manufacturer- Unknown # could be either an O or a P. You can look at it raw with any caller-ID aware modem.
O calls are by defintion coming from a different exchange than your local phone company- a different town, say, or sometimes a different country- and are just another anonymous call coming in on the trunk line, just one that doesn't happen to have any callerID info acompanying it.
There IS a way to trace an O call- but it takes a MINIMUM of about 30 seconds, sometimes as long as an hour and a half, and the call has to be CURRENTLY connected when you do it.
You can find a good discussion on the technical aspects in Clifford Stoll's "The Cookoo's Egg", which is something I encourage anybody researching computer security to read (it's rather outdated now- but there ARE still a few mechanical exchanges out there).
Basically, the answer on why an O call can't be traced easily is because it's an anonymous call comming in on a long-distance trunk line- and thus doesn't HAVE a local phone number, nor need one, to be connected to your phone. While it is connected, a simple lookup on a computer can give you which line it's coming in on- which will lead you to the original switching station, requiring a call to there to do the same database lookup. If they really want to get messy, there can be as many as 256 switching stations in this line, and if they REALLY don't want to be found, the originating call will be from a town like Chiloquin OR, which still has a mechanical switch. For tracing a call through a mechanical switch, you need to get a technician with a multimeter to open up the switch- and read the states of the relays one digit, in binary, at a time.
In other words- it's not a legal issue, it's a technical issue. And your average 14.4kbaud fax call doesn't last long enough to do it.
I think they'd be MUCH better off returning to paying scientists a wage equivalent to their education- perhaps gained from, say, a surtax on stockbrokers or some other useless parasitical industry that we'd be better off without.
Very easy- and the standard caller ID system (my phone company doesn't include *67- but others do) is pretty easy to spoof also, all you have to do is program a computer to count the rings and send a burst of static at RE6 voltage down the line at the proper second after the 2nd ring, at which point all the recieving phoneco's computers (and any other caller ID equipment) recieves is "O" for "Out of Area". I know this because I keep a database log of all phone calls recieved at my house.
From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, written by a rather famous American feminist and signed into law as a treaty under the UN's original charter in 1948- both the woman and the child have EQUAL rights in this situation. Article 2 states we can't discriminate just because the fetus hasn't been born yet. Article 3 states every *body*, not every *person* has a right to life. And Article 26 requires that mothers and children be given a separate economic structure to insure that children have their rights. It's that last one I disagree with the traditional right wing on, AND with the pro-choicers. I say, we need to expand WIC to cover the 9 months before birth, all prenatal care, regardless of income. We need to insure not only ultrasounds, but also proper nutrition and medical care for fetuses. We need to have a true *birthright*- that the federal government pays for birth costs in US hospitals. I think that if we did so, you'd see an instant 50-75% reduction in abortion- and a slow reduction down to the 2% of abortions that should be legal and we can't avoid.
I have a tendency to disagree with that as well- my pictures of my son at 3 weeks along were most certainly that of a human, the few we had (his embryonic nickname was "Tadpole" for a reason- he had a tendency to swim AWAY from ultrasound vibrations, making it incredibly hard in the first 3 months to even FIND him on an ultrasound, or even an ultrasonic heart monitor). I see no reason to delay the ultrasound AT ALL.
Uhm, because it could/would be used to pressure the woman?
That's the claim- but if what you say is the truth (that the fetus is nothing more than a clump of cells) how could a picture of a clump of cells be considered to be pressuring the woman? A rediculous claim on it's face- regardless of what either side believes.
And because it is actually contradictory to what you do and people in general just might have to do when dealing with things in life?
Speak for yourself, when it comes to eating beef, I stick to what I get off the family farm- it's the only way to avoid GM foods these days.
You shouldn't be stopped from looking at a photo of the cute calf before downing that veal, but you shouldn't be forced to either.
I completely disagree with that concept. I think that EVERY American, should, as a part of their basic education, have to spend a year raising a farm animal, killing it, butchering it themselves, and eating it. Anybody who doesn't do that and chooses to still eat meat is missing a vital part of their education. Just as any woman who chooses abortion without understanding *all* of the medical data isn't really making a choice- she's going on myth rather than fact.
And there is a difference between "not being allowed to see scans" and "being required to see scans". I'm sure that the woman will have little trouble seeing a scan if she wants to. But if not, that should be her decision.
If she's poor- read the article I linked- and her only choice is a Planned Parenthood clinic where they charge for the scans- then she is being prevented from even having a scan done *at all* merely on the fact that she's poor. Of course, this is completely in keeping with the original purpose of Margret Sanger (the woman who started Planned Parenthood) who felt that poor people shouldn't be allowed to breed, and if they did, their children should be killed rather than raised in poverty.
Good luck trying to find out who sent the spam though- if the station ID information is spoofed and the 1-800 number denies sending the spam, who do you collect FROM? Who do you SUE?
There have been several attempts in recent years to *require* ultrasounds before abortion (as much for the woman's safety as anything, since having an ultrasound *before* abortion increases the chances that the abortion will actually be a success). Some anti-abortion activists are behind the push and Planned Parenthood is very much against it, recommending that women *NOT* be allowed to see the ultrasound results before abortion. If it wasn't routine, why would they fight against a law requiring that women be shown their ultrasound information before an abortion?
Yep- that's the picture. Why would anybody want to shield women from that information? (I'd link to my son's 3-week-old ultrasound, which is more clear than that one, but I can't remember the URL off hand, and I apparently never got around to linking it into the family website, it's been a busy 4 years). Yet both sides, Planned Parenthood and Operation Rescue, fight against women having that basic bit of information.
Considering that most human beings have non-temporal consciousness until about age 3, I'd say that would be correct.
Exactly right! Go to the head of the class. On your last point though- it would only work if all the IQ test companies got together on a regular basis and actually DID recalculate the scores to be the same, based on a mean of 100.
Just because somebody is against the death penalty does NOT mean that they are for "releasing murderers back into society". There are other options. Technological ones. Pharmaceutical ones. Psychological ones. All of which are MUCH more terrifying and thus a much better deterant than the death penalty.
Here are three examples: 1. Technological: Weld a 10'x10'x10' steel box with toilet, drain, sink, and no roof. Drop in prisoner. Weld on a roof with a 3" hole in the top. Drop in food every day for 100 years. You've succeeded in building the ultimate escape-proof jail; and God decides when the prisoner dies of old age or his own stupidity. When the prisoner dies, dump in a few cubic yards of concrete, and move on to the next cell. 2. Pharmaceutical- we now know that overdoeses of certain narcotics wipe out the human memory completely- atrophying and blocking the connections between neurons. Wipe the prisoner's memory, retrain him to do manual labor with the family of his victim getting the money for the rest of his life. 3. Psychological- remand him to an insane asylum for the rest of his life, and throw in shock adversion treatment for weapons while you're at it.
All of these are reasonable alternatives to the death penalty for a technically advanced society.
Last I saw, the way you deal with a squatter is to go to court, give him 2 weeks to find another home, go back to court, get an eviction notice, wait 6 months for the Sheriff to find time to come by and evict him. Killing him is NOT an option in a civilized society.
Because the woman is lied to and not allowed to see her own ultrasounds. No woman who has actually *seen* the ultrasound of a 3 week old human fetus can go through with a non-medically-neccessary abortion.
The sad thing is, some of the same pro-life people who believe in killing murderers also want to keep ultrasounds out of the womb- for fear that a seriously deformed infant WILL be aborted by the mother.
I'm an intellectually honest slashdotter who believes in "free as in beer" information, even though I make money off of my information. However, I don't believe in privacy- and I also don't believe in royalties. Once paid for what I create, it becomes either the property of the person who paid me to create it, or if Open Source, it becomes the property of the world- I've already been paid.
As for privacy- you have no reasonable expectation of privacy for anything you do in the public sphere. And given the nature of TCP/IP networking- your hard drive in your house is actually just as much the public sphere as if you blabbed out the same information over a cell phone.
Unless she was raped, she's not innocent. She choose to have sex just as much as the boy did. Of course- I'd point out that the boy isn't innocent either and deserves to have his life "ruined" just as much. There are of course cases where having a child young and raising it does not result in financial ruin (see JK Rowling) and of course there is the point that if we gave women their Article 26 rights from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights treaty that we signed in 1948, this wouldn't be a problem at all.
Slashdot Mirror
IP packet orgin is different- if it's TCP protocol anyway instead of UDP. TCP/IP *requires* handshaking, which means at worst you might get a syn flood or an ack flood, but unless all addresses are correct you won't get the syn/act in the correct order to produce a complete connection to let the VOIP call through. IPV4 implements this quite nicely. It doesn't stop all attacks- but it does stop any attack that has information in it. I haven't messed around with IPV6- but I imagine it's similar. Of course, the other problem is with NAT routers and DHCP, an IP address does not match a given computer anymore, just a given bank of maybe 256 computers- but it's closer.
I wonder how hard it would be to build a better phone, one that could "ring" silently, until it got the caller id, and then if the id says "O" or if it's not on your whitelist or if it's on your blacklist (however you choose to set it up), it would just keep ringing silently until the machine at the other end gave up.
These days- not to hard. You can do it with software and a voice modem. My only problem is getting it to *intercept* the call before it gets to other phones in the house or the fax machine. I do have it to the point where it pops up a cartoon character on a computer screen in the living room and tells me who is calling or if I should screen the call using the answering and fax machines ( using Microsoft Agent Voice Synthesis, since that's a Windows 98 box).
Same way I deal with spam. My whitelist is now at the point where if it does go into my "junkmail" box, I likely didn't ask for it to be sent to me.
Yep- basically the same idea.
And the phone system is over 100 years old. All the phone company cared about in the early days was one-way- they cared that you accessed the long distance line, they didn't record who the call was TO. Besides, when these mechanical switches were created- long distance operators were still *manual* switches. You'd call the operator and ask her to connect you and she'd write down the connection. No computer records at all- and at best tracing backwards you might find that five or six people on a given exchange were using the trunk line at the time.
Anyway, you'd think the phonecos (the major ones at least) would want to be able to track the phone calls coming in, otherwise who would they bill for those long distance calls? I can't believe the phoneco's wouldn't care who was using their phone-lines.
They simply charge the next phone company up the line- who charges the phone company up the line from them. It's basically a huge game of "not my problem", until you get to the final one- and even then the system that records long distance billing information is likely *NOT* the same company as the local phone comany. This is what we get from the breakup of AT&T back in the early Reagan administration.
As for the trace having to come *during* a phone call, don't the phoneco's (the ones that don't use mechanical switches anyway) keep logs of calls passing through? Seeing as you can't just hack the phone switch to spoof your phone #, as some email spam does, *somebody* must have records...
The logs are pretty much on an old punch tape, and but only list that a long distance call was made, for this many minutes, not what circuit it was on. Of course, with more modern computerized switches you CAN always hack the switch to spoof your phone number temporarily. It's amazing how many telespam companies have caller ID information that goes to a currently disconnected number. Of course that way you can call out, but nobody can call *in*.
The one I really like is the phone systems where a less-than-fully-trained receptionist answers the phone and you ask them to transfer your call to extension 9+ the area code you really want to call. Then you can fax spam somebody by merely dialing the last 7 digits of the phone number and you'll avoid both the long distance charges AND any ability of anybody to trace the call AT THE SAME TIME (yes, people really fall for that one).
Just to pull the "Not a True Scottsman" fallacy for a second- who ever said that TEXAS was CIVILIZED?
But the profit potential is still there! In spades!
What I find interesting is left-vs-right brain scores for autistic people. My left brain is a total idiot (scoring ~60 on left brain only tests)- but my right brain is enough of a genius (scoring ~175 on right brain IQ tests) that it makes up for the difference- combined my IQ measurs between 130-150, depending on the test.
"Probably" is not "Actually"- and we have the technology today. Hard to find sure- but actually by 3 weeks the cells already number in the millions and begin to differentiate. Not only that- my son seemed to be quite ticklish at that age, he loved to swim away from the ultrasound.
The thing is that children, even after birth, don't and can't have the same rights as adults. As I understand it (I'd welcome correction here if I am wrong), children cannot own property as such - their parent/guardian owns their property. Children can't enter in to legal contracts. Children do deserve though to have rights but I would not apply these to an unborn child.
Where I'd follow our treaty first- apply every right the born child has to the unborn child. Basic human rights should be applied to every human, regardless of age. Where our legal system fails in this, means that we are violating the human rights of children.
Article 3 does not say everybody, it says everyone although this may vary between translations. Even if it did say everybody, I wouldn't take this as an attempt to deliberately cover fertilised eggs/foetuses. Article 2 uses the terms 'everyone' and 'person' in an interchangeable way. Look at article 10.
I see article 2 as extending the right to fetuses and fertilized eggs (see the language about circumstances of birth). Article 3 just covers a basic right of everybody/everyone in article 2. I agree that it's just writing convention in article 3 and 10.
Yeah, I agree that mothers should get all the support they need. Nutrition and check-ups need to be covered because it'll only be more expensive in the long-run if their child is born disabled or unhealthy due to neglect while they were in the womb.
I'd even go so far as to say that there is emotional value to such support for women in poverty- and that the lack of such support in the United States is the #1 cause of abortion. The lack thereoff seems to take 4 major forms:
1. Lack of support from the father- which may even include domestic violence to encourage the abortion.
2. Lack of support from the employer- which has in the past included firing women for getting pregnant (federally illegal now, but that's rather recent and took the Family Medical Leave Act from the right wing to do it).
3. Lack of support from the grandparents, which may also include a domestic violence situation.
4. Lack of support from society- we don't seem to want to give free medical care to even the most vunerable of us.
If this support was there from these four groups- no woman would ever abort unless her life was threatened, and would probably even argue with the doctor then. 2% of abortions are of this last group- and I just can't see any way around an ecoptic pregnancy or cancer, can you?
Um, because of lack of education on the topic, power issues, and emotions?
;)
That's my point- can't claim to be pro-choice unless you give the lady a choice- and a choice can't be made without proper eductation.
Appreciated, but does not work today without fundamental changes in society that are so unforseeable that one can not meaningfully discuss them
What's so hard with sending city kids to a boarding school farm for one year out of their educations?
Funny, I once argued a lot (and still think) a similar thing, namely that a visit in a slaughterhosue should be required education in school. We had that in my school.
Mine too- it was called the 4-H program and we also had to raise the animals that we took to the slaughterhouse. Basic cycle of life info- amazing that we fail to train normal children in this these days.
Oh yeah, I forgot to take the US into account. Well, my condolences, you really should get yourself a real health system over there
Exactly my point- and the current administration's myoptic focus on abortion gives us a GREAT opening to do so.
You argue from an extremely rational position that I just don't find valid. I agree that the woman should have all info.
Funny- makes it look like you're against rationality- but that's not the case I know. Of course, the end point of my rationality doesn't support making abortion illegal either- just a hell of a lot more rare with the choice based on reality instead of myth.
However one does not preclude the other, i.e., a woman can be well-educated about the subject and still choose not to be confronted with all she knows in that particular moment.
True- though I've never been able to compartmentalize what I know. It's quite a burden at times.
It's part of how we (most of us anyway) function. If you have to fire someone, you -know- that will impact his/her family, but do you need to explore it in detail in this particular moment?
By urging my employer to make sure we have a year's salary banked in advance for every employee for severance pay. It will still impact his/her family, but less severely.
Of course, that's the RATIONAL position as you point out, and most people are somewhat less than rational. I really don't understand how the average person is able to function at all- I depend on my knowledge and take pride in it, far too much to understand how the sheeple can possibly do what they do.
But that all doesn't matter anyway, it's simply her choice to see it or not.
True enough- she can always shut her eyes.
Depending on your equipment, there are three possibilities for any given caller ID record data: O, P, and an up to 32 char string. The first is Out of Area, the second is Privacy Mode, the third of course is just the standard caller ID data. How your machine interprets it is up to the manufacturer- Unknown # could be either an O or a P. You can look at it raw with any caller-ID aware modem.
O calls are by defintion coming from a different exchange than your local phone company- a different town, say, or sometimes a different country- and are just another anonymous call coming in on the trunk line, just one that doesn't happen to have any callerID info acompanying it.
There IS a way to trace an O call- but it takes a MINIMUM of about 30 seconds, sometimes as long as an hour and a half, and the call has to be CURRENTLY connected when you do it.
You can find a good discussion on the technical aspects in Clifford Stoll's "The Cookoo's Egg", which is something I encourage anybody researching computer security to read (it's rather outdated now- but there ARE still a few mechanical exchanges out there).
Basically, the answer on why an O call can't be traced easily is because it's an anonymous call comming in on a long-distance trunk line- and thus doesn't HAVE a local phone number, nor need one, to be connected to your phone. While it is connected, a simple lookup on a computer can give you which line it's coming in on- which will lead you to the original switching station, requiring a call to there to do the same database lookup. If they really want to get messy, there can be as many as 256 switching stations in this line, and if they REALLY don't want to be found, the originating call will be from a town like Chiloquin OR, which still has a mechanical switch. For tracing a call through a mechanical switch, you need to get a technician with a multimeter to open up the switch- and read the states of the relays one digit, in binary, at a time.
In other words- it's not a legal issue, it's a technical issue. And your average 14.4kbaud fax call doesn't last long enough to do it.
I think they'd be MUCH better off returning to paying scientists a wage equivalent to their education- perhaps gained from, say, a surtax on stockbrokers or some other useless parasitical industry that we'd be better off without.
Very easy- and the standard caller ID system (my phone company doesn't include *67- but others do) is pretty easy to spoof also, all you have to do is program a computer to count the rings and send a burst of static at RE6 voltage down the line at the proper second after the 2nd ring, at which point all the recieving phoneco's computers (and any other caller ID equipment) recieves is "O" for "Out of Area". I know this because I keep a database log of all phone calls recieved at my house.
From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, written by a rather famous American feminist and signed into law as a treaty under the UN's original charter in 1948- both the woman and the child have EQUAL rights in this situation. Article 2 states we can't discriminate just because the fetus hasn't been born yet. Article 3 states every *body*, not every *person* has a right to life. And Article 26 requires that mothers and children be given a separate economic structure to insure that children have their rights. It's that last one I disagree with the traditional right wing on, AND with the pro-choicers. I say, we need to expand WIC to cover the 9 months before birth, all prenatal care, regardless of income. We need to insure not only ultrasounds, but also proper nutrition and medical care for fetuses. We need to have a true *birthright*- that the federal government pays for birth costs in US hospitals. I think that if we did so, you'd see an instant 50-75% reduction in abortion- and a slow reduction down to the 2% of abortions that should be legal and we can't avoid.
I have a tendency to disagree with that as well- my pictures of my son at 3 weeks along were most certainly that of a human, the few we had (his embryonic nickname was "Tadpole" for a reason- he had a tendency to swim AWAY from ultrasound vibrations, making it incredibly hard in the first 3 months to even FIND him on an ultrasound, or even an ultrasonic heart monitor). I see no reason to delay the ultrasound AT ALL.
Uhm, because it could/would be used to pressure the woman?
That's the claim- but if what you say is the truth (that the fetus is nothing more than a clump of cells) how could a picture of a clump of cells be considered to be pressuring the woman? A rediculous claim on it's face- regardless of what either side believes.
And because it is actually contradictory to what you do and people in general just might have to do when dealing with things in life?
Speak for yourself, when it comes to eating beef, I stick to what I get off the family farm- it's the only way to avoid GM foods these days.
You shouldn't be stopped from looking at a photo of the cute calf before downing that veal, but you shouldn't be forced to either.
I completely disagree with that concept. I think that EVERY American, should, as a part of their basic education, have to spend a year raising a farm animal, killing it, butchering it themselves, and eating it. Anybody who doesn't do that and chooses to still eat meat is missing a vital part of their education. Just as any woman who chooses abortion without understanding *all* of the medical data isn't really making a choice- she's going on myth rather than fact.
And there is a difference between "not being allowed to see scans" and "being required to see scans". I'm sure that the woman will have little trouble seeing a scan if she wants to. But if not, that should be her decision.
If she's poor- read the article I linked- and her only choice is a Planned Parenthood clinic where they charge for the scans- then she is being prevented from even having a scan done *at all* merely on the fact that she's poor. Of course, this is completely in keeping with the original purpose of Margret Sanger (the woman who started Planned Parenthood) who felt that poor people shouldn't be allowed to breed, and if they did, their children should be killed rather than raised in poverty.
Good luck trying to find out who sent the spam though- if the station ID information is spoofed and the 1-800 number denies sending the spam, who do you collect FROM? Who do you SUE?
There have been several attempts in recent years to *require* ultrasounds before abortion (as much for the woman's safety as anything, since having an ultrasound *before* abortion increases the chances that the abortion will actually be a success). Some anti-abortion activists are behind the push and Planned Parenthood is very much against it, recommending that women *NOT* be allowed to see the ultrasound results before abortion. If it wasn't routine, why would they fight against a law requiring that women be shown their ultrasound information before an abortion?
Yep- that's the picture. Why would anybody want to shield women from that information? (I'd link to my son's 3-week-old ultrasound, which is more clear than that one, but I can't remember the URL off hand, and I apparently never got around to linking it into the family website, it's been a busy 4 years). Yet both sides, Planned Parenthood and Operation Rescue, fight against women having that basic bit of information.
Considering that most human beings have non-temporal consciousness until about age 3, I'd say that would be correct.
Exactly right! Go to the head of the class. On your last point though- it would only work if all the IQ test companies got together on a regular basis and actually DID recalculate the scores to be the same, based on a mean of 100.
Just because somebody is against the death penalty does NOT mean that they are for "releasing murderers back into society". There are other options. Technological ones. Pharmaceutical ones. Psychological ones. All of which are MUCH more terrifying and thus a much better deterant than the death penalty.
Here are three examples:
1. Technological: Weld a 10'x10'x10' steel box with toilet, drain, sink, and no roof. Drop in prisoner. Weld on a roof with a 3" hole in the top. Drop in food every day for 100 years. You've succeeded in building the ultimate escape-proof jail; and God decides when the prisoner dies of old age or his own stupidity. When the prisoner dies, dump in a few cubic yards of concrete, and move on to the next cell.
2. Pharmaceutical- we now know that overdoeses of certain narcotics wipe out the human memory completely- atrophying and blocking the connections between neurons. Wipe the prisoner's memory, retrain him to do manual labor with the family of his victim getting the money for the rest of his life.
3. Psychological- remand him to an insane asylum for the rest of his life, and throw in shock adversion treatment for weapons while you're at it.
All of these are reasonable alternatives to the death penalty for a technically advanced society.
Last I saw, the way you deal with a squatter is to go to court, give him 2 weeks to find another home, go back to court, get an eviction notice, wait 6 months for the Sheriff to find time to come by and evict him. Killing him is NOT an option in a civilized society.
3. Take advantage of the Morons with shiny gadgets and of course, time share rentals.
Come on- you really don't see the profit potential in a society when the majority of the population has IQs under 110?
Because the woman is lied to and not allowed to see her own ultrasounds. No woman who has actually *seen* the ultrasound of a 3 week old human fetus can go through with a non-medically-neccessary abortion.
The sad thing is, some of the same pro-life people who believe in killing murderers also want to keep ultrasounds out of the womb- for fear that a seriously deformed infant WILL be aborted by the mother.
I'm an intellectually honest slashdotter who believes in "free as in beer" information, even though I make money off of my information. However, I don't believe in privacy- and I also don't believe in royalties. Once paid for what I create, it becomes either the property of the person who paid me to create it, or if Open Source, it becomes the property of the world- I've already been paid.
As for privacy- you have no reasonable expectation of privacy for anything you do in the public sphere. And given the nature of TCP/IP networking- your hard drive in your house is actually just as much the public sphere as if you blabbed out the same information over a cell phone.
Unless she was raped, she's not innocent. She choose to have sex just as much as the boy did. Of course- I'd point out that the boy isn't innocent either and deserves to have his life "ruined" just as much. There are of course cases where having a child young and raising it does not result in financial ruin (see JK Rowling) and of course there is the point that if we gave women their Article 26 rights from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights treaty that we signed in 1948, this wouldn't be a problem at all.