Another Example: Now I'm all for gun control, why? because they will cause 'potential death and violence', there are many who are pro-life who completely disagree with the proceding statement
I probably disagree on different grounds (I'm pro-choice, by the way). Are you also for kitchen knife, hammer, chainsaw, shovel, and baseball-bat control?
You (and everyone else who has bothered to read or write in this thread) need to come over to talk-politics.com and chime in.
It's less asinine than many places on the net where such things are discussed, and you won't ever get modded "offtopic". You also don't have to submit anything to get a new topic started.
So, wouldn't a slightly better solution be to find a way to lower the incidence of unwanted pregnancies before the pregnancy starts?
I'm a pro-choice person, but my personal choice would just be to raise the kid (have 4 of my own). If I knew I couldn't afford to raise a child, I'd be as careful as possible not to start one growing. Why isn't that common wisdom more widespread?
And guy's "Going afk" in MMO's as they move slightly to get a good view of some persons chest... god... Sure guys gotta do what they gotta do... but it still takes away from the game:-/ people pay more attention to Teamates chests then what they are doing...
I agree...that tends to make the game a bit too much like real life.
Now, I can screw some chick off the street, get her pregnant, and refuse to support the kid.
You can? I'm not sure where you live, but where I live we have government-enforced child support. Granted, that doesn't take care of the part where the father is supposed to love the child, but money-wise, you can only refuse to support the child if you want to go to jail, and they'll garnish your wages before it gets to that point.
I must admit, the idea of abortion as a sexual "equalizer" makes me very uncomfortable. It's a medical procedure that terminates the development of a fetus, meaning you stop a person frmo getting a chance to exist. That (to me) seems like a crappy way to make things equal.
You could screw said chick, stay with her until the kid is a month old, and then say "Nope, I'm still leaving, cya". I'm guessing you wouldn't support post-term abortion, right?
It just doesn't make sense to me for abortion to be used when it's not for a medical reason. I'm not saying that other people shouldn't be allowed to make their own decisions about when an abortion is necessary, but the older I get, the less inclined *I* am to think that non-emergency abortions are necessary in many cases.
That said, though, what's a better solution: abortion or prevention?
Small parallel to something sufficiently geeky: Do you take steps to prevent viruses and spam on your computer with firewalls and anti-virus software, do you not bother and re-install windows when it gets too tough, or do you run Linux?
They are three solutions that work, but have different effects.
True...it gets more and more difficult to think about not having the baby. I understand what he was saying.
What I'm trying to point out is that the abortion shouldn't happen just because it's an easier decision. That's not a good reason to end a life or a potential life. A decision like that should be made because it's the *best* decision that can be made, and determining that should include the fate of the embryo or fetus.
I agree that mothers have a very strong emotional attachment to their children. I also agree that they would have a hard time giving a child up for adoption. I just think that choosing abortion *should* be an equally difficult decision, given that in both cases, you're deciding what will happen to a baby (or baby-to-be).
I don't want them to think about the decision that's easiest for them, I want them to think about the decision that is best for everyone concerned. Be that "I won't have sex without a condom" or "I'm not bringing a rapist's baby into the world because I will hate it, and that's not fair to the baby" or "Some family will want this baby, and I can't support it, so I'll give it away"...some degree of hard, painful, serious thought needs to be involved in a decision about someone's life...moreso when there is another potential someone's life involved.
Easily accepted decisions as the accepted norm are why abortions and unwanted pregnancies are so common in the first place. Let's try to push responsibility up to the forefront of what's important in America, and see if we do better than we are at present. No, they're not responsible members of society, and they may never be, but maybe that's because nobody expects it of them.
Ahh, of course. If the people are stupid, then it's better to let them choose abortion over adoption. That strong emotional bond will fare much better if the nascent infant is killed instead of given to someone else.
That just doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that it's more difficult to give a baby away than to terminate it? If you are saying that, should that be the compelling argument for abortion?
The day they get rid of Cliche' #4 will be a sad day for gaming indeed. Actually, I'm surprised all the G4-crowd isn't saying "but Morgan Webb looks like that, and *she* is lifelike"...
Which is exactly why NO software company depends on copyrite law.
I'm guessing that means you think software patents are a good idea. I don't. I think that if you want people to use your software/car/water purifier, you make it better in some way, you don't just say "okay. We have a patent on a device that provides better water by means of filtering out impurities...everybody back off."
The reason software companies don't depend on copyright law is that right now, they can avoid it and get a patent that helps them keep competition at bay. If they can get granted a sufficiently broad and obvious patent (as is often the case with software patents), they can pick competitors off one by one for daring to think that they could do the same thing better.
I have no problem with a company not wanting me to steal their work, but I do have a problem with *anyone* telling me what I may or may not think or concieve. If it's *my* work, then they can piss off. Just because I might be able to patent "a method for storing documents as XML" or some equally stupid idea doesn't mean I *should* be able to.
Copyrite law grants a narrow range of protection for a very long time (Mickey Mouse is still copyrighted, and every few years Disney gets the coverage of copyrite law extended). Plus it is even harder to determine copyright violation in code (think Perl's wonderful way to do the exact same thing 15 apparently diffent ways).
Actually, Doing something that produces the same output by using different code is exactly what copyright does *not* prohibit. Writing two books, where one begins "It was a dark and stormy night", and a second book begins "It was a lightless nocturnal cycle with high incidence of atmospheric electrostatic discharge" would not trigger a copyright violation investigation.
The act of *writing* software (key word there) is an act of creative expression. Creative works are protected by copyright so that someone can't come along, snatch up some of what you wrote, change two words, and call it theirs. Determining copyright violation in code is typically pretty easy, actually. Managing to prove that two pieces of software with the same functionality, but different implementations has copyright violations is typically difficult (and pointless, since doing a different implementation of a given idea is fine).
Ideas are not copyrightable, and never have been. Ideas are also not patentable, in and of themselves. Ideas that embody a process to govern the operation of some procedure or to produce some physical object that performs a physical function or has a physical effect (and, for now, in the US, pure software, via several loopholes) are patentable, if they are non-obvious. Expression that is fixed in a recorded form (written, audio, video) are copyrightable.
Google's patent fails right off the bat on the obviousness count, and the fact that they filed the patent application upsets me. It should upset you too, unless you have zero desire to design a similar service or use a service that offers the same functionality from someone other than Google.
I highly suggest that you visit Groklaw and read about copyrights, patents, and how they affect and impact software development.
Umm...this isn't about the way that Google advertises, this is about them patenting the process of serving up specific ads based on figuring out your location based on your IP address, etc.
I'm all for Google making things easier and doing cool stuff, but I'm not with them on this.
Of course, for those of us who have no desire to offer the same type of service for the next 20 years (or patents to cross-license, or deep pockets to pay licensing fees), it doesn't matter, I suppose.
Yet another example of why software should be firmly in the realm of copyright protection. That way, you can't copy what they wrote (unless given permission), but you're still free to offer a service based in the same *idea*.
Didn't much matter whether it was supressed or not. After a pretty short period of time, the characters only get written to the very center of the screen because of some random magic with the control characters.
No kidding about what they could fit in 8K (or even 64). The version of Battlezone for the C-64 that my cousin downloaded from some random Seattle BBS was pretty cool...
Good ol' "POKE 144,88" disables the "run stop" key on PET, CBM, VIC-20, C-64, and C-128 computers...not sure if it works on the various emulators out there.
Well, if there's an existing business relationship, I'd go along with the thinking that the person they're calling is still a potential customer.
If you already have a subscription to "American Fisting", and the publisher thinks "Gerbil Enthusiast" might be of interest to you, should they not be allowed to call you? I guess it gets tricky if you did business with them, but then decide you don't want to do business with them any more.
Say, if you thought "American Fisting" was a boxing-related magazine, but it turned out not to be...shifty ground, there...
Slashdot Mirror
I probably disagree on different grounds (I'm pro-choice, by the way). Are you also for kitchen knife, hammer, chainsaw, shovel, and baseball-bat control?
It's less asinine than many places on the net where such things are discussed, and you won't ever get modded "offtopic". You also don't have to submit anything to get a new topic started.
I'm a pro-choice person, but my personal choice would just be to raise the kid (have 4 of my own). If I knew I couldn't afford to raise a child, I'd be as careful as possible not to start one growing. Why isn't that common wisdom more widespread?
Damn you! You owe me a new keyboard and monitor, too...
I agree...that tends to make the game a bit too much like real life.
You can? I'm not sure where you live, but where I live we have government-enforced child support. Granted, that doesn't take care of the part where the father is supposed to love the child, but money-wise, you can only refuse to support the child if you want to go to jail, and they'll garnish your wages before it gets to that point.
I must admit, the idea of abortion as a sexual "equalizer" makes me very uncomfortable. It's a medical procedure that terminates the development of a fetus, meaning you stop a person frmo getting a chance to exist. That (to me) seems like a crappy way to make things equal.
You could screw said chick, stay with her until the kid is a month old, and then say "Nope, I'm still leaving, cya". I'm guessing you wouldn't support post-term abortion, right?
It just doesn't make sense to me for abortion to be used when it's not for a medical reason. I'm not saying that other people shouldn't be allowed to make their own decisions about when an abortion is necessary, but the older I get, the less inclined *I* am to think that non-emergency abortions are necessary in many cases.
Cure what? I agree that in the case of an illness, once you are sick, you need a cure.
That said, though, what's a better solution: abortion or prevention?
Small parallel to something sufficiently geeky: Do you take steps to prevent viruses and spam on your computer with firewalls and anti-virus software, do you not bother and re-install windows when it gets too tough, or do you run Linux?
They are three solutions that work, but have different effects.
What I'm trying to point out is that the abortion shouldn't happen just because it's an easier decision. That's not a good reason to end a life or a potential life. A decision like that should be made because it's the *best* decision that can be made, and determining that should include the fate of the embryo or fetus.
I don't want them to think about the decision that's easiest for them, I want them to think about the decision that is best for everyone concerned. Be that "I won't have sex without a condom" or "I'm not bringing a rapist's baby into the world because I will hate it, and that's not fair to the baby" or "Some family will want this baby, and I can't support it, so I'll give it away"...some degree of hard, painful, serious thought needs to be involved in a decision about someone's life...moreso when there is another potential someone's life involved.
Easily accepted decisions as the accepted norm are why abortions and unwanted pregnancies are so common in the first place. Let's try to push responsibility up to the forefront of what's important in America, and see if we do better than we are at present. No, they're not responsible members of society, and they may never be, but maybe that's because nobody expects it of them.
She does? They teach that in school or something these days?
Yep. Starting around 4th grade, unless mom and dad say "no sex ed for my kid."
How, exactly does that happen if the baby is given up for adoption?
That just doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that it's more difficult to give a baby away than to terminate it? If you are saying that, should that be the compelling argument for abortion?
The day they get rid of Cliche' #4 will be a sad day for gaming indeed. Actually, I'm surprised all the G4-crowd isn't saying "but Morgan Webb looks like that, and *she* is lifelike"...
I'm guessing that means you think software patents are a good idea. I don't. I think that if you want people to use your software/car/water purifier, you make it better in some way, you don't just say "okay. We have a patent on a device that provides better water by means of filtering out impurities...everybody back off."
The reason software companies don't depend on copyright law is that right now, they can avoid it and get a patent that helps them keep competition at bay. If they can get granted a sufficiently broad and obvious patent (as is often the case with software patents), they can pick competitors off one by one for daring to think that they could do the same thing better.
I have no problem with a company not wanting me to steal their work, but I do have a problem with *anyone* telling me what I may or may not think or concieve. If it's *my* work, then they can piss off. Just because I might be able to patent "a method for storing documents as XML" or some equally stupid idea doesn't mean I *should* be able to.
Copyrite law grants a narrow range of protection for a very long time (Mickey Mouse is still copyrighted, and every few years Disney gets the coverage of copyrite law extended). Plus it is even harder to determine copyright violation in code (think Perl's wonderful way to do the exact same thing 15 apparently diffent ways).
Actually, Doing something that produces the same output by using different code is exactly what copyright does *not* prohibit. Writing two books, where one begins "It was a dark and stormy night", and a second book begins "It was a lightless nocturnal cycle with high incidence of atmospheric electrostatic discharge" would not trigger a copyright violation investigation.
The act of *writing* software (key word there) is an act of creative expression. Creative works are protected by copyright so that someone can't come along, snatch up some of what you wrote, change two words, and call it theirs. Determining copyright violation in code is typically pretty easy, actually. Managing to prove that two pieces of software with the same functionality, but different implementations has copyright violations is typically difficult (and pointless, since doing a different implementation of a given idea is fine).
Ideas are not copyrightable, and never have been. Ideas are also not patentable, in and of themselves. Ideas that embody a process to govern the operation of some procedure or to produce some physical object that performs a physical function or has a physical effect (and, for now, in the US, pure software, via several loopholes) are patentable, if they are non-obvious. Expression that is fixed in a recorded form (written, audio, video) are copyrightable.
Google's patent fails right off the bat on the obviousness count, and the fact that they filed the patent application upsets me. It should upset you too, unless you have zero desire to design a similar service or use a service that offers the same functionality from someone other than Google.
I highly suggest that you visit Groklaw and read about copyrights, patents, and how they affect and impact software development.
I'm all for Google making things easier and doing cool stuff, but I'm not with them on this.
Of course, for those of us who have no desire to offer the same type of service for the next 20 years (or patents to cross-license, or deep pockets to pay licensing fees), it doesn't matter, I suppose.
Yet another example of why software should be firmly in the realm of copyright protection. That way, you can't copy what they wrote (unless given permission), but you're still free to offer a service based in the same *idea*.
Is Google finally turning evil?
Why not have a hybrid engine that begins running on air, and gradually switches over to LOX as the atmosphere thins?
...maybe, but probably not before he gets modded up +4 Informative.
That'll be going into my LEAF box tonight. Much appreciated.
Funnier still if John Cleese did the deed.
Seriously, I expected to see a bit more tempered response from a reasonably sensible user community.
Damn, you almost made me cry, I was laughing so hard!
No kidding about what they could fit in 8K (or even 64). The version of Battlezone for the C-64 that my cousin downloaded from some random Seattle BBS was pretty cool...
True enough...I just don't have a salesman mentality. It's hard for me to reach that kind of conclusion, although I know they do that.
Good ol' "POKE 144,88" disables the "run stop" key on PET, CBM, VIC-20, C-64, and C-128 computers...not sure if it works on the various emulators out there.
If you already have a subscription to "American Fisting", and the publisher thinks "Gerbil Enthusiast" might be of interest to you, should they not be allowed to call you? I guess it gets tricky if you did business with them, but then decide you don't want to do business with them any more.
Say, if you thought "American Fisting" was a boxing-related magazine, but it turned out not to be...shifty ground, there...