1/16th of a pound is 1 ounce. 1/16th of a kg is.0625 kg. Which is easier? even if you say 62.5 grams, that's a lot more difficult to remember than 1 ounce.
But you specifically said "...without...changing the unit of measurement" so why are you changing your argument now? Besides, your argument still makes no sense since there is no common fraction in Imperial for different types of units (or usually even with a type of unit). Sure, 1/16 of a pound is an ounce, and 1/16 of a foot is 3/4 in, and 1/16 of a yard is 3/16 feet. Now those are some useful and easy to remember values!
Actually, yes. Imperial is very useful in some situations. For example, when dealing with fractions. Imperial measurements are more easily divisible by more numbers than metric is. A pound, for example, can be easily broken up into halves, thirds, quarters, eights and 16ths. Metric can be easily broken up into Halves, and Fifths without resorting into decimals or fractions of fractions or changing the unit of measurement (which is really the same thing as a decimal).
What are you talking about? Why can't you have 1/3 of a kg, or 1/8 of a cm? What exactly is stopping you, and why is a pound or inch any more amiable to this? Sure, I don't have any 3/32 cm wrenches in my toolbox, but that's a matter of convention, not any "fractional superiority" of inches or Imperial units in general.
And besides, preference is important. It's called choice.
Spoken like someone who's never attended engineering school in the US, and had to constantly switch between or convert formats. It's not good at all, it's a royal pain. Or spoken like someone who hasn't had to purchase two sets of expensive, redundant tools. Or spoken like someone who's never lost a Mars spacecraft.;)
Also, software is already covered by copyright, so protecting it with patents also is overkill.
Even worse, software can (and frequently is in the US) protected by copyright, trade secret, and patents, all at the same time. In addition, vendors try to restrict your rights even further by draconian licenses. Overkill indeed.
Having the AC on, at 40mph, engages the clutch and puts more load on the engine and results in high fuel consumption than not having the AC on.
The parent's point was that rolling down the windows drastically reduces the aerodynamics of the vehicle, causing the engine to use more gas to push the car forward. Over a certain speed (the parent said 40 mph, I haven't bothered to check his number), the aerodynamic losses outweigh the A/C load increase, and it is more efficient to just use the A/C.
This really is getting far too long, so I'll just make a few points.
After reading the Wiki, I still have the problem I often do with these "interpretations" of religious statements.
There is nothing religious about the golden rule, although most religious incorporate it in some form (for the record, I'm a weak atheist). Besides, I think you're being unreasonable in demanding that a single idea be a complete moral system in itself. As I said, it is just part of the basis for a moral system. There are other assumptions and ideas involved as well, such as that all people should have equal rights, and the concept of empathy.
The words are very clear.
What words? As the wiki made abundantly clear, the ethic of reciprocity has been stated in many, many different forms. However, like most things it requires some thought to use it properly.
The way people use them is frequently based exactly on those words- not on handy external interpretations that say they mean something different.
What about my analysis was external? As I clearly stated, I want people to respect my wants/preferences/desires, and so the golden rule, in any form, states that I should respect theirs in turn. This is clearly addressed in the "Not a 'rule' in specifics" and "tolerance" section of the wiki. Besides, I already made the point that just because some people misuse a tool or turn it into a weapon, doesn't mean that the tool is flawed. The flaws usually lie in the person, not the tool.
My reasoned morality needs less interpretation.
Huh? "Voluntary consent by an informed rational person" doesn't needs less interpretation? How about the huge gaping holes of "rational" and "informed"? Sorry, but this just doesn't hold up.
I don't consider them moral situations. Lots of things are really not moral situations.
Way to dodge the question. Morality encompasses basic right and wrong. I asked where your basic concepts for right and wrong come from. Observed behavior is a poor basis for morality. This is easily shown by looking at cultures that treat minorities or women far worse than majority men. By just observing behavior you would conclude that this was absolutely moral.
No. This cuts back to your requirement of "perfection" which is impossible and which you do not enforce on your own preferred moral basis. I do not agree that a moral system has to be perfect. If it was possible to have a perfect moral system, it would have happened.
I never made any requirement of "perfection," so don't put it in quotes if you're not actually quoting me. That's called a strawman. Your moral system is, and I quote: "Voluntary consent by an informed rational person". I have repeatedly asked how you determine if someone is rational or informed on a certain topic in a certain situation, and you have repeatedly dodged the issue. Since I do not impose this requirement in my moral system, I do not have to defend it.
Bull. Society has all kinds of morals and they are subject to change. Don't be obtuse.
Really? Where can I go look up a list of society's morals? How can it possibly be true that a society made up of millions of people, each with their own individual moral systems, has a common moral system?
You were not part of the negotiations of how many pieces of rat dropping can be in your chocolate either. You don't have enough lifespan to negotiate all the rules that keep you safe and healthy. Some people spend their entire lives enforcing obscure rules that keep you alive. In return, you grant that other people will negotiate rules that you don't like so much.
That may be, but your statement that "Societies morals are based on a negotiation between all members" is patently false. Laws are made
You have given the answer yourself. Your own example (a database file) illustrates the usage perfectly. You want to grant modify access to the file so that they can modify or delete records, and even drop tables. But you do not want to allow someone to delete the entire database itself. It makes a mockery of the permission system within the database if you have the god-like powers to wipe every single thing in it.
If you have file permissions to edit the file, can't you just open it up in a hex editor, delete everything, and save it as a 0 byte file? How do the database permissions protect you against this?
Okay, it looks like in your example giving the user permission to edit but not delete is a good solution, however I still say a program that needs to write to the root of the system drive or the Windows system folders is seriously broken, and a bad example to use to justify this feature.
A very short perusing of your posting history tells me that you are a Linux user.
Actually I use both.
One of the great strengths of UNIX is that it gives you the power to do stupid things, because taking away that power would not allow you to do clever things. Why the double-standard when Windows comes into the picture?
This is a classic example of a strawman. I am in favor of having more choices, but I am against making things needlessly complex, especially by default. In my opinion, the ability to edit but not delete falls in the latter category. At the very least it should only be available in the advanced section. Of course, as I said earlier I think that NTFS ACLs are just needlessly complex for most cases, especially for home users. What I would really like is choice, i.e. give me traditional, simple, time-tested UGO permissions if I want them, and fine-grained ACLs if I need that level of power and control. Linux does this by having POSIX ACLs available if you want them.
But how in the world is the golden rule based on personal interests?
Try researching game theory, starting with the iterated prisoner's dilemma and the tit for tat strategy. This may show you that there is actually quite a bit of personal benefit involved in following a similar strategy, which the golden rule is a key part of. Another argument rests on consistency and fairness. Do you want other people to respect your personal desires? Why should they, if you are not willing to do the same for them? Therefore it is in your personal interest to follow the golden rule in order to encourage others to do likewise.
Point 1:
How dare a person assume that because they don't like something, I shouldn't like it.
This is a mis-application and mis-understanding of the golden rule. Every tool can be abused or turned into a weapon, the golden rule is no exception to this. As I originally said, the golden rule is the basis for my moral system, it is not a complete system in itself. I.e. some thinking is required too. For example:
1. Everyone has different wants, desires, preferences, etc.
2. I want people to respect my wants/desires/preferences, at least regarding my own person, in lieu of their own wants/desires/preferences.
3. Therefore, by the golden rule, I should respect others wants/desires/preferences regarding their own person, ahead of my own wants/desires/preferences.
4. If another's wants/desires/preferences are unknown (for example, you just met them), then using my own wants/desires/preferences as an approximation for theirs (using the golden rule here again) is a reasonable assumption until their wants/desires/preferences are known. Obviously this is inferior to using their own wants/desires/preferences, so an effort should be made to determine their wants/desires/preferences as early as possible.
Maybe I want to be be beaten with a whip- the pain of people rejecting this need tortures me and makes me want to commit suicide while I am completely happy if someone fulfills that need.
So by your moral system you go around asking everyone that you meet if they would like to be beaten with a whip? The golden rule doesn't fall down here either (actually, its more like the silver rule in this case). Since I don't believe that someone else has the right to make arbitrary demands upon me (i.e. to whip them), then I also don't believe that it is right for me to make arbitrary demands upon them. I also do not believe that everyone else in the world has an obligation to try to make me happy or fulfill my every want/need/desire. There is a big difference between respecting someone else's wants, and having an obligation to fulfill them.
Maybe I like and can handle drugs.
That's fine with me and my moral system.
Maybe I don't WANT to be noticed and applauded. God I've seen two very shy people in the last six months absolutely TORTURED by people who used golden rule logic to push these people until they were on the verge of tears.
Again, this is a mis-application of the golden rule. The people should have asked the shy people if they would like to be formally recognized and applauded, and likewise the shy people should have made it clear ahead of time if possible that they do not welcome this kind of attention.
It's so "simple and obvious" by the values you were brought up by your parents.
No, it is so simple and obvious that it was thought up independently by many different cultures many thousands of years ago. I'll leave additional research to you.
Do your best to determine what the people need and want and let them do that unless it injures you or someone else involuntarily.
Aha! How, exactly, do you "determine what the people need and want", especially if you have never met them before? How does your moral system handle cases where you cannot get "voluntary consent" on all issues?
Point 2:
Then I'm not sure you are not practicing the golden rule- but you are instead practicing my reasoned.
No, see my above analysis. As I said, your reasoning appears to be a subset of the golden rule, however your limited reasoning misses out on the larger benefits and applications of the golden rule. In addition, my reasoning makes no exceptions for those who are "irrational" or "uninformed", however you are supposed to determine those qualities in another human being.
Giving regular users permissions to create files in the root of the system drive or the Windows system folders is a possible privilege escalation vulnerability.
Isn't giving a user permission to edit files in these folders a possible security vulnerability as well? In addition, I'm a little fuzzy on Windows' permissions, but if they are allowed to edit the file, aren't they also allowed to rename it? If so, wouldn't that muck up your program just as much as if they had deleted the file outright?
Regardless, if the best example of the use of this "feature" that anyone can come up with is to work around broken and insecurely written programs, they I remain unconvinced of its general usefulness and utility.
Hmm, you seem to have ignored the vast majority of what I said. I suspect that you have not really thought out your moral system.
If i want to ram their cards (odd compulsion)
Why is it an odd compulsion according to your morality? What about your morality says that non-cart ramming is better than cart ramming?
But it seems more reasonable than "a big imaginary guy said it is bad".
That's a strawman in this discussion, who mentioned a big imaginary guy? I said that the golden rule (not my golden rule by the way, it was thought up thousands of years before Christ, by many different cultures) was the best basis for morality I've yet found. You derided this, and proposed your own superior (in your view) alternate basis for morality, however you have yet to explain how it is superior, or even generally useful.
Because it's their stuff?
"Theirs" in what sense? It is quite impossible to own an idea once it is shared. It is like a candle flame, I can light my candle from your flame, and yours is not diminished in the slightest. I could then pass on my flame, without diminishing either of ours. Of course, society could pass laws forbidding the passing on of flames by anyone but the original candle lighter, however this artificial monopoly is not the same thing as that person owning all flames. Besides, I asked how it follows from your morality that it is wrong to pass on a copy without the creator's consent, and I asked many other qualifying questions as well, all which are unanswered.
just as a creator could create something and NEVER EVER share it - and in fact destroy the creation before they died. You could argue that they have a right to their creation period.
You have hit upon the one scenario where a creator actually owns their creation: when they never share it with anyone and keep it only to themselves. Then (and only then) can they be said to own it. However, once they pass it on to even one person, they lose that complete control. I also mentioned before that no one creates in a vacuum. For example, several Disney motion pictures are based on older fairy tales, and there have been numerous motion pictures made from Shakespeare's plays. Do these "creators" fully, unequivocally, and morally "own" their creations?
However, "society" says, "we will spend resources to protect you from theft and in exchange you don't hold on to this forever." Just like "society" says, "Pay taxes and we will have people protect you from being murdered in your sleep"
And I asked you, how is this moral according to your stated moral system? I know the answer for my moral system, however I wanted to hear your moral justification. For example, I pointed out that according to my understanding of your moral system, taxes are immoral (not being a matter of voluntary consent).
We are mostly born into the social contract-- if we break it, we will probably be punished. Up until a couple hundred years ago, we had the "option" to leave society and go elsewhere.
Nonsense, people break laws they don't agree with all the time, such as speeding, copyright infringement, recreational drug use, sex statutes (is it illegal in your state to get a blowjob?), and yes, even tax laws, and these frequently go uncaught and unpunished. Besides, I wasn't asking if you think we have a choice to follow society's rules, I was asking if societies rules are moral and if so, why? Hint: following rules because you will be punished if you don't is not morality.
A filesystem *is* a type of database. I'll let you draw the lines...
Did you actually read what I said? I know that filesystems are a type of database, yet there is still a humongous difference between a single value in a database and an arbitrary file on a filesystem.
By 'advanced' I meant advanced as compared to you. You don't see the need for that permission, whereas some folks need it.
And yet you still haven't told me who these people are or given me a single example of how this feature would be useful on a filesystem, let alone how it is common and not "advanced." That hasn't stopped you from being needlessly condescending though.
Many folks don't see any need at all for any type of permissions, so they would consider all of them 'advanced' and might wonder why they aren't all under the advanced tab where they don't have to look at them.
Nice strawman, but it doesn't do a thing to refute my point.
Just because you don't see the use, doesn't mean there isn't one for more advanced users.
I see the use in databases, but not in general filesystem usage. There is a big difference between a single database value and an entire file, which could be a database itself. Besides, if this is an "advanced" permission, why isn't it in the "advanced" file security settings where it is less likely to be selected by accident?
Oh the golden rule can lead to some horrible abuses if you want to be treated in a way that is horrific to others. For example, you want to be heroically saved by doctors regardless of how much pain you are in.
I didn't say it was perfect, just that I hadn't yet found anything better. The golden rule is fantastic because it is simple and obvious, you can quickly determine a course of action, and live your life. For more complex scenarios, the golden rule may fall down, but in those cases you also usually have more time to mull it over. However, in your example case, I think the golden rule still works. Personally, I want people to respect my decisions, particularly regarding my own fate, and I believe that most people feel likewise. Therefore, if I was a doctor, and a patient had told me ahead of time that they do not want some specific procedure performed, even if it would otherwise mean death, then I believe it would be immoral for me to perform the procedure anyway against the patient's wishes. This is actually seen all the time in actual practice. Now, if it is an emergency situation and you have not had time to communicate with the patient ahead of time regarding their wishes, then you just have to use your best judgment, based on what you would want in that situation. Obviously, anytime you try to guess someone else's wishes it is fraught with peril (and potential lawsuits), which is why doctor's are usually ultra-conservative, and try to save the person's life, regardless of it's a good idea or if they would personally want that.
My morality is based on: Voluntary consent by an informed rational person.
My god, how do you ever get anything done? Are you constantly questioning people over the simplest things in order to get their consent? For example, how do you decide not to ram your cart into other people at the supermarket? Do you ask each and every person that you come to whether they would consent to a cart-ramming? Or do you instead make assumptions on what you think their answer will be, possibly based on what you yourself would want in similar circumstances (i.e. the golden rule)? For that matter, how do you decide that no-cart-ramming is preferable to cart-ramming? Is it again based on your own preferences? How in the world can you decided if someone else is "rational" and "informed"? Doesn't that preclude you from dealing with most people that you encounter? If you decided that someone is not rational or informed enough, do you go ahead and ram them with your cart? If not, why not? How else do you deal with those who are not rational or informed? Can you never do anything "nice" for them? How does your morality determine what is nice or not-nice (right and wrong)?
If you and another "rational, informed" person voluntarily consent that it is okay to throw rocks at squirrels for fun, does that make it moral?
If you don't have voluntary consent, you are probably doing evil to them.
Interesting assertion, do you have any arguments to back it up? What about the case where you need to do things without someone's consent in order to prevent harm to others? Is it moral for the government to collect taxes from its populace? Most people do not voluntarily consent to pay taxes, they do it under threat of severe penalties.
People are not really rational until a certain age.
And usually not even then (besides, who chooses what age?). Humans aren't rational, they are rationalizing. Can you prove to me that you are rational? At all times, on all subjects?
In the case of file infringing: You don't have the consent of the creator to hand out free copies to other people just because you bought one copy from them.
Under your morality, why do you even need the creator's consent? There seems to be an assumption on your part that the creator has more r
NTFS ACLs are more powerful, but are also much more complex & confusing. For example, I just pulled up a file & looked at it's permissions. What the heck is the difference between "modify" & "write" permissions? How am I, as an ordinary user, supposed to understand the difference? Besides, like I said, many times you don't need the extra power, and simplicity wins out.
I think there's also finer-grained control of particular permissions (edit but not delete, instead of just write) under NTFS
Yes, I've come across that exact scenario before, and as a user it seems kinda stupid. I can open up a shared word doc, delete everything inside, and re-save it, but I can't be trusted to just delete the file outright. Brilliant.
NTFS uses ACLs... Much easier to customize/detail permissions in than the typical UNIX owner/group/world.
I consider the typical UNIX permssions much easier to grasp and understand, and therefore use, especially in a home environment. For example, UNIX boxes can show you the file permissions right in the file manager, you don't need to go to a special "properties" page for each and every file. I've also seen far more borked up Windows file permissions than UNIX in my time. Besides, Linux has POSIX ACLs available, although they are rarely used since the UGO permissions really are sufficient for most cases, and are much simpler. I really wish Windows gave you the option of using POSIX UGO permissions, choice is good.
I'm stuck.
Use DVDdecryptor & DVDshrink to remove all the annoyances & re-burn to a blank DVD. Yes, it's a bit of work, but yields a far superior product.
Going out and capping everyone I can find would violate my personal interests, none of which have to do with morality.
Interesting statement, too bad you didn't back it up with any sort of an argument. To me, personal interest is the basis for morality, quite possibly the only valid basis. To date I have found no better source for moral behavior than the golden rule, and what is that based on other than personal interest? Of course, most people also extend this concept of of morality beyond simple personal interest, to family, tribe, country, etc. How high you go is a very personal decision, but nearly everyone goes at least to the family level.
One, Apple is not a software company, they are a hardware company.
No, they're both. It would probably be more accurate to just say that they are a systems company, they sell you the complete hardware+software system, nicely packaged together. Sun and IBM are also systems providers, although in the enterprise space.
Did you even read that link? NT is only POSIX compliant when using Microsoft Services for Unix, which is hardly the out of the box configuration. Anyone who has used SFU knows its limits, regular Windows apps and SFU apps don't interact very well together, if at all.
Konqueror is a straight up rip-off of windows explorer.
I find it hard to believe that you've ever even used both if you can say this. Explorer doesn't have a tenth of the features of Konqueror. Do you even have (what I consider) the basic feature of spit panes in Explorer? How about the option to open a console window inside Konqueror? How about extensive document preview features? No, the only thing that Konqueror & Explorer have in common is that they're both file managers, and therefore do some similar things. The resemblance ends there.
i have a Dell 20-something inch flatscreen monitor. I can tell a BIG difference watching DVDs and watching HD trailers / rips. It's not even close. Do you have any facts beyond your opinion to back up your statement?
That monitor of yours doesn't happen to be 1.5-2 feet away from you, as opposed to the 6-8 feet distance that people normally watch TV at, does it? Is the difference still as striking from normal TV viewing distance?
Not true. ReactOS uses some of Wine's codebase, but many key areas (window management, memory management, thread support, etc.) are rewritten from scratch to be more compatible with Windows own implementations of these. I've seen Wine fail to run applications before because of some subtle difference in how Linux handles these tasks to Windows. ReactOS can eliminate these issues.
Do you have any proof that this is the case, i.e. is there currently an example of ReactOS running an application that Wine cannot? According to the slides, many of these functions are currently implemented very differently in ReactOS than in Windows as well, so the programs still won't run. Sure, ReactOS can re-write these parts, but I'm sure there are additional tricks that the Wine guys can pull to improve compatibility in these areas as well.
Yes. Unfortunately NdisWrapper doesn't really work very well (my limited experiments suggest only about half of the cards out there work with it), CaptiveFS is slow, and no other projects have produced useful results in this field.
Well, currently ReactOS doesn't really work all that well either. My point was to show that it is possible to run windows drivers in Linux, if enough people are motivated. I think the primary problem is that except for a few specific cases (wireless drivers and NTFS drivers), there isn't all that much interest in running Windows drivers since Linux has native drivers available for that type of hardware.
This is because running a Windows device driver without a Windows kernel is quite tricky.
It's also quite tricky to write a complete, near exact clone of the NT kernel just to get your wireless card working (or whatever other hardware you can't find a supported Linux version of).
Frankly, there are a lot of us who have become fed up waiting for working open source drivers for our hardware and would rather just plug a black box in and be done with it.
If you want a black box, then just run Windows. I'm not sure how this is an argument in favor of using ReactOS. In addition, it's unlikely that running binary drivers written for a different OS inside of ReactOS will improve reliability & stability, the opposite is far more likely to be true. Did you read in the slides about the hard coded kernel hooks that are in some drivers (such as nVidia's)?
Actually, there are very substantial differences that can be deeply annoying because they're about the way the basic system works.
And the differences between Win 9x (DOS based) and Win XP (NT based) are not differences between how the basic system works? Win NT is far more similar to Linux in its system design then it is to DOS/Win 9x.
Details like which control panel applet you use to start or stop services (e.g.) aren't as annoying (to me) as the lack of feedback when a program is starting (KDE does have some feedback, but it doesn't show if the program wasn't started from the window manager, whereas Windows will show it however you start your program).
Not true, I've had Windows not give any indication, or a significantly delayed indication, that programs are starting. One example: try using CTRL-ALT-DEL & selecting the task manager while the system is pretty busy. It will just sit there, with no indication that you successfully launched task manager, until it finally appears.
I think a lot of people have missed the real point of ReactOS. Including the developers, by all appearances. Windows won't run under Xen paravirtualization. There's no reason ReactOS couldn't be ported to it, however.
Yes, that'd be cool, however:
- Driver compatibility would not be very important, since you would likely be using virtualized hardware, not the actual hardware.
- The new extensions to Intel & AMD chips let you run Windows in Xen unmodified.
So still, if ReactOS doesn't have significantly better application compatibility (which remains to be seen), you would probably still be better off with Linux+Wine, or even just Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you filed a bug report for this behavior?
There is nothing religious about the golden rule, although most religious incorporate it in some form (for the record, I'm a weak atheist). Besides, I think you're being unreasonable in demanding that a single idea be a complete moral system in itself. As I said, it is just part of the basis for a moral system. There are other assumptions and ideas involved as well, such as that all people should have equal rights, and the concept of empathy.
What words? As the wiki made abundantly clear, the ethic of reciprocity has been stated in many, many different forms. However, like most things it requires some thought to use it properly.
What about my analysis was external? As I clearly stated, I want people to respect my wants/preferences/desires, and so the golden rule, in any form, states that I should respect theirs in turn. This is clearly addressed in the "Not a 'rule' in specifics" and "tolerance" section of the wiki. Besides, I already made the point that just because some people misuse a tool or turn it into a weapon, doesn't mean that the tool is flawed. The flaws usually lie in the person, not the tool.
Huh? "Voluntary consent by an informed rational person" doesn't needs less interpretation? How about the huge gaping holes of "rational" and "informed"? Sorry, but this just doesn't hold up.
Way to dodge the question. Morality encompasses basic right and wrong. I asked where your basic concepts for right and wrong come from. Observed behavior is a poor basis for morality. This is easily shown by looking at cultures that treat minorities or women far worse than majority men. By just observing behavior you would conclude that this was absolutely moral.
I never made any requirement of "perfection," so don't put it in quotes if you're not actually quoting me. That's called a strawman. Your moral system is, and I quote: "Voluntary consent by an informed rational person". I have repeatedly asked how you determine if someone is rational or informed on a certain topic in a certain situation, and you have repeatedly dodged the issue. Since I do not impose this requirement in my moral system, I do not have to defend it.
Really? Where can I go look up a list of society's morals? How can it possibly be true that a society made up of millions of people, each with their own individual moral systems, has a common moral system?
That may be, but your statement that "Societies morals are based on a negotiation between all members" is patently false. Laws are made
This is a mis-application and mis-understanding of the golden rule. Every tool can be abused or turned into a weapon, the golden rule is no exception to this. As I originally said, the golden rule is the basis for my moral system, it is not a complete system in itself. I.e. some thinking is required too. For example:
1. Everyone has different wants, desires, preferences, etc.
2. I want people to respect my wants/desires/preferences, at least regarding my own person, in lieu of their own wants/desires/preferences.
3. Therefore, by the golden rule, I should respect others wants/desires/preferences regarding their own person, ahead of my own wants/desires/preferences.
4. If another's wants/desires/preferences are unknown (for example, you just met them), then using my own wants/desires/preferences as an approximation for theirs (using the golden rule here again) is a reasonable assumption until their wants/desires/preferences are known. Obviously this is inferior to using their own wants/desires/preferences, so an effort should be made to determine their wants/desires/preferences as early as possible.
So by your moral system you go around asking everyone that you meet if they would like to be beaten with a whip? The golden rule doesn't fall down here either (actually, its more like the silver rule in this case). Since I don't believe that someone else has the right to make arbitrary demands upon me (i.e. to whip them), then I also don't believe that it is right for me to make arbitrary demands upon them. I also do not believe that everyone else in the world has an obligation to try to make me happy or fulfill my every want/need/desire. There is a big difference between respecting someone else's wants, and having an obligation to fulfill them.
That's fine with me and my moral system.
Again, this is a mis-application of the golden rule. The people should have asked the shy people if they would like to be formally recognized and applauded, and likewise the shy people should have made it clear ahead of time if possible that they do not welcome this kind of attention.
No, it is so simple and obvious that it was thought up independently by many different cultures many thousands of years ago. I'll leave additional research to you.
Aha! How, exactly, do you "determine what the people need and want", especially if you have never met them before? How does your moral system handle cases where you cannot get "voluntary consent" on all issues?
No, see my above analysis. As I said, your reasoning appears to be a subset of the golden rule, however your limited reasoning misses out on the larger benefits and applications of the golden rule. In addition, my reasoning makes no exceptions for those who are "irrational" or "uninformed", however you are supposed to determine those qualities in another human being.
Regardless, if the best example of the use of this "feature" that anyone can come up with is to work around broken and insecurely written programs, they I remain unconvinced of its general usefulness and utility.
Why don't you just give them permission to create files in that directory instead?
I didn't say it was perfect, just that I hadn't yet found anything better. The golden rule is fantastic because it is simple and obvious, you can quickly determine a course of action, and live your life. For more complex scenarios, the golden rule may fall down, but in those cases you also usually have more time to mull it over. However, in your example case, I think the golden rule still works. Personally, I want people to respect my decisions, particularly regarding my own fate, and I believe that most people feel likewise. Therefore, if I was a doctor, and a patient had told me ahead of time that they do not want some specific procedure performed, even if it would otherwise mean death, then I believe it would be immoral for me to perform the procedure anyway against the patient's wishes. This is actually seen all the time in actual practice. Now, if it is an emergency situation and you have not had time to communicate with the patient ahead of time regarding their wishes, then you just have to use your best judgment, based on what you would want in that situation. Obviously, anytime you try to guess someone else's wishes it is fraught with peril (and potential lawsuits), which is why doctor's are usually ultra-conservative, and try to save the person's life, regardless of it's a good idea or if they would personally want that.
My god, how do you ever get anything done? Are you constantly questioning people over the simplest things in order to get their consent? For example, how do you decide not to ram your cart into other people at the supermarket? Do you ask each and every person that you come to whether they would consent to a cart-ramming? Or do you instead make assumptions on what you think their answer will be, possibly based on what you yourself would want in similar circumstances (i.e. the golden rule)? For that matter, how do you decide that no-cart-ramming is preferable to cart-ramming? Is it again based on your own preferences? How in the world can you decided if someone else is "rational" and "informed"? Doesn't that preclude you from dealing with most people that you encounter? If you decided that someone is not rational or informed enough, do you go ahead and ram them with your cart? If not, why not? How else do you deal with those who are not rational or informed? Can you never do anything "nice" for them? How does your morality determine what is nice or not-nice (right and wrong)?
If you and another "rational, informed" person voluntarily consent that it is okay to throw rocks at squirrels for fun, does that make it moral?
Interesting assertion, do you have any arguments to back it up? What about the case where you need to do things without someone's consent in order to prevent harm to others? Is it moral for the government to collect taxes from its populace? Most people do not voluntarily consent to pay taxes, they do it under threat of severe penalties.
And usually not even then (besides, who chooses what age?). Humans aren't rational, they are rationalizing. Can you prove to me that you are rational? At all times, on all subjects?
Under your morality, why do you even need the creator's consent? There seems to be an assumption on your part that the creator has more r
I'm stuck. Use DVDdecryptor & DVDshrink to remove all the annoyances & re-burn to a blank DVD. Yes, it's a bit of work, but yields a far superior product.
- Driver compatibility would not be very important, since you would likely be using virtualized hardware, not the actual hardware.
- The new extensions to Intel & AMD chips let you run Windows in Xen unmodified.
So still, if ReactOS doesn't have significantly better application compatibility (which remains to be seen), you would probably still be better off with Linux+Wine, or even just Windows.