If people want to die, they should be calling an executioner, not a doctor. I agree partially, if there would be executioners that would do the job profesionally and w/o inflicting pain, but since doctors know more about human body they could help better, actually it would be nice to have some good poison available at farmacies if there would be a guarantee that it wouldn't be used on other people.
How will we ever know if these people actually wanted to commit suicide - or that they wouldn't have changed their minds later? It's very easy to know what people want, just ask them. Only because people have to hide it's not easy to know what they wanted. As for if they'd changed their mind afterwards, it's kind of useless to ask, they should think before they do something irreversible.
If your friend wanted to die, would you hand him a 12-gauge? Would you pull the trigger for him? Wouldn't you? What kind of friend would you be if you could not help a friend in need? If he wasn't even able to pull a trigger I'd imagine that he would be in terrible shape. If he could pull the trigger I imagine that he would not ask you to do it for him.
Assisted suicide is helping people to die no matter how you turn the definition around. If you want to die and someone assist you it means that he helps you to die.
"killing" is a loaded word -- if you say that someone killed another person you immediately think that that person didn't want to die. The one who kills is not considered automatically "killer" just because "killer" is a loaded term, for example solders are not called "killers" (only by peace activist) although they do kill, also people that execute convicted criminals are not called killers. So apparently it matter what is the cause and what is the situation in which someone "kills" or helps someone to end his life... Anyway, I would say that there is a big difference between killing and helping someone to end his life.
I happen to believe that people should be free to pursue their happiness and be free to act, even hire help to end their life no matter what is the reason for their wish, you happen to believe that people should not be allowed freedoms and to have limited freedom when it comes to such a basic private decision: to live or die. We disagree, that's perfect -- I only wished you'd not try to impose your moral (or whatever you call it) view on other people, for example I don't think it should be your business at all if I want to die or not, nor the reason why I'd want it. You should understand that you don't have a vote in that, you don't get to decide my future. (BTW, if you were to take this kind of decision would you like me to or somebody else to have a sayin in it?) Moreover, if I wanted to die, I'd wish to be helped by someone who knows what is doing and not suffer unnecessarily -- doctors are probably the best for this purpose, but I wouldn't mind if there would be specialized people and not medics (if it's against their principle) who would do this kind of job.
You cling to a technicality "the promise to do whatever to save patient life". Human beings have the duty (or at least the right) to help each other and no technicality or vow, not matter how ancient should stop them.
Why would I trust a doctor that doesn't want to help people in need? Why would I trust a doctor that would let other people suffer phisically or mentally without helping them when they asked him for help?
I really don't know his story, he might have killed people that didn't want to die just to get their money, but assuming that's not the case I don't have anything to reproach to people that help other people in their wish to die. It's written even in American Constitution although people don't want or don't know to interpret it: "right to pursue happiness": people in pain have the right to pursue happiness even if that means that they want to end their phisical or mental pain by suicide.
Again, I hope neither of us to get into this situation, but if you do you that might change your view about what you want, about doctor promises and in general about right and wrong, it's funny how people change their "principles" when THEY are the ones that need/want something.
I don't know much about Dr. Kevorkian, but from what I read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Kevorkian (granted not the most accurate source) he seems like a perfect normal man. But of course in this country with so many loony religious people anybody that doesn't have their principles is deranged.
"Why isn't Opera raising next to Firefox? Extensions (and the implied features) are really all what I can think about."
I highly doubt it.
First of all we don't know if that's true or not, I know that when Opera become free ther were millions of downloads in the first couple of days, I think even more than Firefox got.
Secondly, Opera doesn't get by far as much coverage as Firefox. That's linked to politics not to technical issues. The issue is that Firefox is open sources while Opera is not. Opera is better quality program, if it were open sourced (and it might be one day) I would be curious if there will still be so many Opera detractors. It's one thing to say: "I don't use Opera because of my ideology" and it's a totally different thing to say "Opera sucks" because of your ideology.
Thirdly, I don't think extensions are that important. By the way I need to install 15 extensions or so in Firefox to make it work as Opera (and its still slower and not as crispy as Opera). Now if someone really can't live without one extesion I can understand that they want to use Firefox, but that's valid only for people that used Firefox before not for IE users. And if someone who uses IE wants to get a better browser they would get the one that get more press (firefox) not the one that's better (Opera)... extensions will be the last thing to be considered since they don't even know what are those or which one they would need or like to use.
And finaly, I don't give a damn if Opera is going to have more users or not, some people even say it's better to be like this because of security issue, I only reacted to the initial poster that was marked as "+5 insightful" where I didn't consider that really insightful, later on I saw his post marked "0 redundant" so I guess in a sense some other people agreed with me... so I feel vindicated.
On the other hand there are people that don't use some software because it's beta, so I guess there's a karma: you gain some customers that don't complain about the product and you lose some that will never try as long as the product is beta (depending on the product and customers there might be more won than lost, but in such a cases probably didn't matter from the beginning if the product was declared final or not).
I wonder what will people say when they will get a pasage from Hamlet from SETI... because they will... eventually... probably in the next 1,000,000,000 years or so.
If you want you can use whatever you want, you can use Fluxbox instead of KDE, xterm instead of konsole, and so on.
Most importantly, Linux is not Windows, if you don't use/run a program it doesn't slow down your system it can sit on your HD and occupy space but that's that, it doesn't slow down your OS. Nowadays when hard disks are >100GB, The "bloat" is probably less than 0.1% of your disk space, I wouldn't lose much sleep over that.
"Skype emphasizes that it will only incorporate such third party software or technology for the purpose of (a) adding new or additional functionality or (b) improving the technical performance of the Skype Software. Any such third party software or technology that is incorporated in the Skype Software falls under the scope of this Agreement. Any and all other third party software or technology that may be distributed together with the Skype Software will be subject to you explicitly accepting a license agreement with that third party."
That's totaly different from what the Gizmo User License says.
Also in my comment I was asking about GPL-ed software or free in general, which neither Skype or Gizmo are -- for what I know both might contain spyware.
I am all for open standards, actually I'm for open source too. I was just stating a fact..
I just downloaded Gizmo and I give up to install it, what stopped me was Gizmo User Agreement: it says that it doesn't guarantee that it doesn't contain viruses or other malicious code.. blah blah, I'm not going to install anything like that, if it were GPL code at least I would have known that somebody can take a look at it (if not myself). I'm sure others will not be bothered by that, but I am. It's one thing to get open source software that comes without any guarantee and it's totally different thing to get closed source software that comes without guarantee.
Isn't there any open source that does the same stuff just as well?
People that have broadband and are inclined to listen to music on computer and music player are going to be very reluctunt to buy CDs. Last CD that I bought was probably a year ago. It will be very hard to convince me to buy another CD.
"Don't be fooled, Linux has a long way to go before being a drop-in replacement for Windows on the desktop."
Of course, there's a long way till 50,000 viruses will be written for Linux.
Now being serious, I'm kind of tired of "Linux it's ready" or "Linux it's not ready" kind of posts. It has been ready for me 1 year ago, for some was even earlier and for some it will never be -- it depends on the usage, what are your needs and what programs you use taling generalities doesn't make much sense.
"I am not sure that I would come down too hard on Sony for this...
The GPL violations lie firmly on the shoulders of F4I. If Sony did not disassemble the code or inspect the source, they had no way of knowing."
That make a strong case for open source use in the corporate world (or at least open source between the companies that use one product of another).
I don't think that "no way of knowing" absolves Sony of the responsability in this case. They are responsible for their products. And if you think about it that's true in any industry -- producers are responsible for their product no matter if they use subparts from other companies.
Slashdot Mirror
If people want to die, they should be calling an executioner, not a doctor.
I agree partially, if there would be executioners that would do the job profesionally and w/o inflicting pain, but since doctors know more about human body they could help better, actually it would be nice to have some good poison available at farmacies if there would be a guarantee that it wouldn't be used on other people.
How will we ever know if these people actually wanted to commit suicide - or that they wouldn't have changed their minds later?
It's very easy to know what people want, just ask them. Only because people have to hide it's not easy to know what they wanted. As for if they'd changed their mind afterwards, it's kind of useless to ask, they should think before they do something irreversible.
If your friend wanted to die, would you hand him a 12-gauge? Would you pull the trigger for him?
Wouldn't you? What kind of friend would you be if you could not help a friend in need? If he wasn't even able to pull a trigger I'd imagine that he would be in terrible shape. If he could pull the trigger I imagine that he would not ask you to do it for him.
"Assisted suicide is not helping people to die
Assisted suicide is helping people to die no matter how you turn the definition around. If you want to die and someone assist you it means that he helps you to die.
"killing" is a loaded word -- if you say that someone killed another person you immediately think that that person didn't want to die. The one who kills is not considered automatically "killer" just because "killer" is a loaded term, for example solders are not called "killers" (only by peace activist) although they do kill, also people that execute convicted criminals are not called killers. So apparently it matter what is the cause and what is the situation in which someone "kills" or helps someone to end his life... Anyway, I would say that there is a big difference between killing and helping someone to end his life.
I happen to believe that people should be free to pursue their happiness and be free to act, even hire help to end their life no matter what is the reason for their wish, you happen to believe that people should not be allowed freedoms and to have limited freedom when it comes to such a basic private decision: to live or die. We disagree, that's perfect -- I only wished you'd not try to impose your moral (or whatever you call it) view on other people, for example I don't think it should be your business at all if I want to die or not, nor the reason why I'd want it. You should understand that you don't have a vote in that, you don't get to decide my future. (BTW, if you were to take this kind of decision would you like me to or somebody else to have a sayin in it?) Moreover, if I wanted to die, I'd wish to be helped by someone who knows what is doing and not suffer unnecessarily -- doctors are probably the best for this purpose, but I wouldn't mind if there would be specialized people and not medics (if it's against their principle) who would do this kind of job.
You cling to a technicality "the promise to do whatever to save patient life". Human beings have the duty (or at least the right) to help each other and no technicality or vow, not matter how ancient should stop them.
Why would I trust a doctor that doesn't want to help people in need? Why would I trust a doctor that would let other people suffer phisically or mentally without helping them when they asked him for help?
I really don't know his story, he might have killed people that didn't want to die just to get their money, but assuming that's not the case I don't have anything to reproach to people that help other people in their wish to die. It's written even in American Constitution although people don't want or don't know to interpret it: "right to pursue happiness": people in pain have the right to pursue happiness even if that means that they want to end their phisical or mental pain by suicide.
Again, I hope neither of us to get into this situation, but if you do you that might change your view about what you want, about doctor promises and in general about right and wrong, it's funny how people change their "principles" when THEY are the ones that need/want something.
I only hope you'll not get into condition to ask other people to help you to die.
I don't know much about Dr. Kevorkian, but from what I read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Kevorkian (granted not the most accurate source) he seems like a perfect normal man. But of course in this country with so many loony religious people anybody that doesn't have their principles is deranged.
"What I want to know is this: Without a virus scanner, how do you know they are not infected?"
So... do you need a doctor to tell you are sick?
"Why isn't Opera raising next to Firefox? Extensions (and the implied features) are really all what I can think about."
I highly doubt it.
First of all we don't know if that's true or not, I know that when Opera become free ther were millions of downloads in the first couple of days, I think even more than Firefox got.
Secondly, Opera doesn't get by far as much coverage as Firefox. That's linked to politics not to technical issues. The issue is that Firefox is open sources while Opera is not. Opera is better quality program, if it were open sourced (and it might be one day) I would be curious if there will still be so many Opera detractors. It's one thing to say: "I don't use Opera because of my ideology" and it's a totally different thing to say "Opera sucks" because of your ideology.
Thirdly, I don't think extensions are that important. By the way I need to install 15 extensions or so in Firefox to make it work as Opera (and its still slower and not as crispy as Opera). Now if someone really can't live without one extesion I can understand that they want to use Firefox, but that's valid only for people that used Firefox before not for IE users. And if someone who uses IE wants to get a better browser they would get the one that get more press (firefox) not the one that's better (Opera)... extensions will be the last thing to be considered since they don't even know what are those or which one they would need or like to use.
And finaly, I don't give a damn if Opera is going to have more users or not, some people even say it's better to be like this because of security issue, I only reacted to the initial poster that was marked as "+5 insightful" where I didn't consider that really insightful, later on I saw his post marked "0 redundant" so I guess in a sense some other people agreed with me... so I feel vindicated.
"Opera is and probably always will have a trivial userbase.."
Any particular reasons for that?
How the %#^$ is this insightful? Ok, we got it, you are a Firefox fanboy and you don't like Opera, so what?
On the other hand there are people that don't use some software because it's beta, so I guess there's a karma: you gain some customers that don't complain about the product and you lose some that will never try as long as the product is beta (depending on the product and customers there might be more won than lost, but in such a cases probably didn't matter from the beginning if the product was declared final or not).
I wonder what will people say when they will get a pasage from Hamlet from SETI...
because they will... eventually... probably in the next 1,000,000,000 years or so.
I found this "bloat" recurring theme silly.
If you want you can use whatever you want, you can use Fluxbox instead of KDE, xterm instead of konsole, and so on.
Most importantly, Linux is not Windows, if you don't use/run a program it doesn't slow down your system it can sit on your HD and occupy space but that's that, it doesn't slow down your OS. Nowadays when hard disks are >100GB, The "bloat" is probably less than 0.1% of your disk space, I wouldn't lose much sleep over that.
"Debian was far too heavy to pick up"
What exactly does that mean? And how is Ubuntu _that_ different than Debian?
"How can you stay neutral when one side is funding your research?"
Simple, you take a coin, you flip it, see the result, if it's head -- Microsoft loses, if it's tail -- Linux wins.
In short: no. Take a look:
"Skype emphasizes that it will only incorporate such third party software or technology for the purpose of (a) adding new or additional functionality or (b) improving the technical performance of the Skype Software. Any such third party software or technology that is incorporated in the Skype Software falls under the scope of this Agreement. Any and all other third party software or technology that may be distributed together with the Skype Software will be subject to you explicitly accepting a license agreement with that third party."
That's totaly different from what the Gizmo User License says.
Also in my comment I was asking about GPL-ed software or free in general, which neither Skype or Gizmo are -- for what I know both might contain spyware.
I am all for open standards, actually I'm for open source too. I was just stating a fact..
I just downloaded Gizmo and I give up to install it, what stopped me was Gizmo User Agreement: it says that it doesn't guarantee that it doesn't contain viruses or other malicious code.. blah blah, I'm not going to install anything like that, if it were GPL code at least I would have known that somebody can take a look at it (if not myself). I'm sure others will not be bothered by that, but I am. It's one thing to get open source software that comes without any guarantee and it's totally different thing to get closed source software that comes without guarantee.
Isn't there any open source that does the same stuff just as well?
the masses will NOT use Skype except as a novelty.
3,626,876 Users online -- I think that masses have decided otherwise...
People that have broadband and are inclined to listen to music on computer and music player are going to be very reluctunt to buy CDs. Last CD that I bought was probably a year ago. It will be very hard to convince me to buy another CD.
"Don't be fooled, Linux has a long way to go before being a drop-in replacement for Windows on the desktop."
Of course, there's a long way till 50,000 viruses will be written for Linux.
Now being serious, I'm kind of tired of "Linux it's ready" or "Linux it's not ready" kind of posts. It has been ready for me 1 year ago, for some was even earlier and for some it will never be -- it depends on the usage, what are your needs and what programs you use taling generalities doesn't make much sense.
"Who is more evil now? Sony or Microsoft?"
Microsoft installed more rootkits: Windows XP.
"Most folks don't review the sourcecode of software they purchase to determine if its license-tree is clean"
That would probably qualify as undue negligence.
"I am not sure that I would come down too hard on Sony for this... The GPL violations lie firmly on the shoulders of F4I. If Sony did not disassemble the code or inspect the source, they had no way of knowing."
That make a strong case for open source use in the corporate world (or at least open source between the companies that use one product of another).
I don't think that "no way of knowing" absolves Sony of the responsability in this case. They are responsible for their products. And if you think about it that's true in any industry -- producers are responsible for their product no matter if they use subparts from other companies.
Do people realize that THEIR money are paying those adds and studies?
This is where your money go! What can show more clearly that the money paid for free software are better spent.
I use GPLed software -- not "freeware" that takes care of the problem.
This is a good example of what you'll be able to listen to Cingular Radio. Talking about progress...