It's not only the woman who will be dealing with the ramifications of her choice, though.
Let's say I get married (hey, I've got a few years yet). My wife gets pregnant.
If she were to get an abortion, that would be immensly upsetting to me, for various reasons[1]. In other words, I would have to deal with the ramifications of her choice.
Your argument is flawed. Unilaterally giving the woman sole choice when her decision will affect others is irresponsible.
[1] Besides the fact that I like kids, I believe that, whenever a fetus might begin to think or look like a human being, at all stages it has potential to be a human being, and the destruction of that potential is innappropriate in most cases.
Where the mother or child is in risk of extreme suffering or death if an abortion is not carried out, it may be appropriate--but that should be dealt with on a case by case basis, with consultation with medical professionals.
Even worse, my representative publically stated that he would vote against renewing the provisions that were set to sunset (even though he originally voted for the Patriot Act), and then he voted to make them permanent. Lying scumbag is indeed how I feel about him at the moment.
Let me tell you, he had better have a very, very good explanation for his actions.
Otherwise, I wonder if there is any provision to impeach or otherwise remove a representative in the House?
My representative, who voted for the Patriot act, stated that he expected this bill to fail, and he did not think that the sunset provisions should be repealed or the rights renewed.
And then he goes and votes in favor of repealing 14 of the sunset provisions and extending the other two for 10 more years.
Doh!
Last time I trust him on his word.../waiting for an explanation from representative
My representative (a Republican) stated multiple times that he did not think the sunset measures should be changed or removed, and that the powers should be taken away.
Then he goes and votes in favor of making 14 of them permenent.
Great way to earn my trust, right?
I'm waiting for him to explain his irresponsible behavior.
My state (Utah) has three representatives in the House, all republicans. Two of them voted against the extension (the one which voted for it, sadly enough, was mine).
Having a defeatist attitude isn't going to help anything. Get your senators on the phone, and tell them you will be severly disappointed if they vote for this bill. Tell them that you will do everything in your power to help their opponent in the next election cycle.
And tell all your friends to do the same.
But don't just roll over and let them walk over you.
Actually, I've lived in Sweden the past year, and took the train and subway to and from school every day. Believe it or not, seeing the train coming up on the left side of the tracks was significantly disorienting the first few times I rode it.
Interestingly enough, the old way of driving on the left leaves a significant legacy. Trains, subways, etc. still ride on the left track rather than the right, which can be momentarily confusing to a newcomer to the country.
Re:happy slashdotting on you too my dear
on
Humanoid Robot HR-2
·
· Score: 1
Very interesting. I grabbed the last 10 visitors list...
1. 20 July 15:17 Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C., United States 2. 20 July 15:17 Rogers Communications Inc., Canada 3. 20 July 15:17 SAIC, United States 4. 20 July 15:17 Freedom To Surf plc, United Kingdom 5. 20 July 15:17 Air Force, United States 6. 20 July 15:17 Kansas State University, Manhattan, United States 7. 20 July 15:17 Space Telescope Science Institute, Washington, D.C., United States 8. 20 July 15:17 EarthLink, United States 9. 20 July 15:18 Nokia Group, Espoo, Finland 10. 20 July 15:18 MCI, United States
FAA, USAF, and... KSU, in Manhattan?
Still interesting.
Re:This is a little more advanced
on
Humanoid Robot HR-2
·
· Score: 2, Funny
They aren't all ready for prime time, though.
My brother-in-law did an internship at Honda, and they had a semi-humanoid robot running around the building that could run some basic errands and such. Like this one, it had voice and face recognition programs--unfortunately, it didn't recognize my brother-in-law's face, perhaps because it was programmed to recognize japanese/asian faces. It didn't recognize him as a person and wouldn't do anything for him.
And, of course, the advertisers are not going to throw a fit and have one of their pet congressmen outlaw it with a bill to Protect The Children! (TM).
I'm not worried about my longterm vision--it's already aweful, and was long before I started using computers--as you said, that's mostly about genetics. Rather, staring at a bright screen all day makes my eyes very, very tired. Switching the colors means that when I go home I feel like doing something other can dimming the lights and laying down with my eyes closed.
Which is why I keep my browser set to override all sites' colors with black backgroudn and white text.
People think I'm strange, and I come across a few sites here and there that have problems with images, but at the end of the day I'm the one laughing at all my colleagues' stressed eyes.
You are 100% right, and in this sense I think we can learn an important lesson from London, because they have--after a brief disruption--continued to go on with their daily lives.
Some might argue that 9/11 was much worse than 7/7, which is true; but look at how we reacted to the sniper shootings in VA, or the anthrax scare--the London bombings were far worse, in terms of # of people killed, than either.
I lived in VA at the time of the anthrax scare, and even my dad--who is generally a pretty calm guy--was acting on blind fear. When my sister got a rash, he decided it might be anthrax and promptly called to get an appointment with a doctor--but then he noticed the doctor's name was Arabic, so he cancelled the appointment and made a new one somewhere else.
In some sense, when the terrorists goad us into passing freedom-diminishing laws and invading other countries, they win--because they make us look like the Big Bad Wolf.
My brother in law worked with a professor at Stanford Unviersity (Koza or something...) who worked with mutating computer programs and the like. At one point his computers designed a circuit which always returned the cube of the number inputted, but he couldnt figure out why.
I don't get it--are municipal governments not subject to the same lack of copyright the federal government is subject to (i.e., everything the federal government produces is in the public domain)?
On this note, I recommend Stephen Jay Gould's book, The Mismeasure of Man, to absolutely everyone. He talks about many such studies, and why they are flawed and should not be trusted. I would not be surprised if some of them are included in this guy's analysis.
There's a slight difference between SpaceX and the Shuttle. SpaceX's current launch vehicle, the Falcon I, can carry only 580 kg--1,276 lbs--to the space station. Their Falcon V, which is supposed to fly sometime next year, is supposed to be able to carry 5,450 kg--nearly 12,000 lbs--to the space station. The space shuttle can carry, by comparison, 65,000 lbs--more than 5 times as much.
Call me when SpaceX has a comparable vehicle, and we can start talking.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not only the woman who will be dealing with the ramifications of her choice, though.
Let's say I get married (hey, I've got a few years yet). My wife gets pregnant.
If she were to get an abortion, that would be immensly upsetting to me, for various reasons[1]. In other words, I would have to deal with the ramifications of her choice.
Your argument is flawed. Unilaterally giving the woman sole choice when her decision will affect others is irresponsible.
[1] Besides the fact that I like kids, I believe that, whenever a fetus might begin to think or look like a human being, at all stages it has potential to be a human being, and the destruction of that potential is innappropriate in most cases.
Where the mother or child is in risk of extreme suffering or death if an abortion is not carried out, it may be appropriate--but that should be dealt with on a case by case basis, with consultation with medical professionals.
Even worse, my representative publically stated that he would vote against renewing the provisions that were set to sunset (even though he originally voted for the Patriot Act), and then he voted to make them permanent. Lying scumbag is indeed how I feel about him at the moment.
Let me tell you, he had better have a very, very good explanation for his actions.
Otherwise, I wonder if there is any provision to impeach or otherwise remove a representative in the House?
You know, I feel a bit of the same way.
/waiting for an explanation from representative
My representative, who voted for the Patriot act, stated that he expected this bill to fail, and he did not think that the sunset provisions should be repealed or the rights renewed.
And then he goes and votes in favor of repealing 14 of the sunset provisions and extending the other two for 10 more years.
Doh!
Last time I trust him on his word...
You know what really annoys me?
My representative (a Republican) stated multiple times that he did not think the sunset measures should be changed or removed, and that the powers should be taken away.
Then he goes and votes in favor of making 14 of them permenent.
Great way to earn my trust, right?
I'm waiting for him to explain his irresponsible behavior.
My state (Utah) has three representatives in the House, all republicans. Two of them voted against the extension (the one which voted for it, sadly enough, was mine).
Having a defeatist attitude isn't going to help anything. Get your senators on the phone, and tell them you will be severly disappointed if they vote for this bill. Tell them that you will do everything in your power to help their opponent in the next election cycle.
And tell all your friends to do the same.
But don't just roll over and let them walk over you.
Mine voted for it, to my great dismay.
My only comfort is that I was not yet old enough to vote in the last election, so there's not much I could have done.
Next time, though...
Heh ;-)
Actually, I've lived in Sweden the past year, and took the train and subway to and from school every day. Believe it or not, seeing the train coming up on the left side of the tracks was significantly disorienting the first few times I rode it.
Interestingly enough, the old way of driving on the left leaves a significant legacy. Trains, subways, etc. still ride on the left track rather than the right, which can be momentarily confusing to a newcomer to the country.
Very interesting. I grabbed the last 10 visitors list...
1. 20 July 15:17 Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C., United States
2. 20 July 15:17 Rogers Communications Inc., Canada
3. 20 July 15:17 SAIC, United States
4. 20 July 15:17 Freedom To Surf plc, United Kingdom
5. 20 July 15:17 Air Force, United States
6. 20 July 15:17 Kansas State University, Manhattan, United States
7. 20 July 15:17 Space Telescope Science Institute, Washington, D.C., United States
8. 20 July 15:17 EarthLink, United States
9. 20 July 15:18 Nokia Group, Espoo, Finland
10. 20 July 15:18 MCI, United States
FAA, USAF, and... KSU, in Manhattan?
Still interesting.
They aren't all ready for prime time, though.
My brother-in-law did an internship at Honda, and they had a semi-humanoid robot running around the building that could run some basic errands and such. Like this one, it had voice and face recognition programs--unfortunately, it didn't recognize my brother-in-law's face, perhaps because it was programmed to recognize japanese/asian faces. It didn't recognize him as a person and wouldn't do anything for him.
Alright, this is it.
I can handle the misuse of first and third world labels, but the misuse of second world simply takes it too far.
For the record, this is what the labels really mean:
1st world: capitalist, allied with USA during cold war
2nd world: communist, allied with USSR during cold war
3rd world: nonaligned.
The USA will never become a 2nd or 3rd world country, because it is 1st world by definition.
Now, we can talk about economic development... but that is a different matter.
And, of course, the advertisers are not going to throw a fit and have one of their pet congressmen outlaw it with a bill to Protect The Children! (TM).
Yes, and you'll be grateful it doesn't have a screen, because it will play the frames of the video in random order.
Nobody's forcing you to watch those channels.
The problem is, athiests want secularism to mean athiesm. It doesn't.
I'm not worried about my longterm vision--it's already aweful, and was long before I started using computers--as you said, that's mostly about genetics. Rather, staring at a bright screen all day makes my eyes very, very tired. Switching the colors means that when I go home I feel like doing something other can dimming the lights and laying down with my eyes closed.
Which is why I keep my browser set to override all sites' colors with black backgroudn and white text.
People think I'm strange, and I come across a few sites here and there that have problems with images, but at the end of the day I'm the one laughing at all my colleagues' stressed eyes.
You are 100% right, and in this sense I think we can learn an important lesson from London, because they have--after a brief disruption--continued to go on with their daily lives.
Some might argue that 9/11 was much worse than 7/7, which is true; but look at how we reacted to the sniper shootings in VA, or the anthrax scare--the London bombings were far worse, in terms of # of people killed, than either.
I lived in VA at the time of the anthrax scare, and even my dad--who is generally a pretty calm guy--was acting on blind fear. When my sister got a rash, he decided it might be anthrax and promptly called to get an appointment with a doctor--but then he noticed the doctor's name was Arabic, so he cancelled the appointment and made a new one somewhere else.
In some sense, when the terrorists goad us into passing freedom-diminishing laws and invading other countries, they win--because they make us look like the Big Bad Wolf.
Actually, there was a bill introduced into the House just days ago to let the DHS regulate sales of fertilizer.
i ?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h3197ih.txt.pdf
See http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cg
That's not mirror, that's the platonic ideal!
My brother in law worked with a professor at Stanford Unviersity (Koza or something...) who worked with mutating computer programs and the like. At one point his computers designed a circuit which always returned the cube of the number inputted, but he couldnt figure out why.
So, not so far-fetched, after all.
I don't get it--are municipal governments not subject to the same lack of copyright the federal government is subject to (i.e., everything the federal government produces is in the public domain)?
My uncle dropped out of college to become a plumber...
I'm starting to think that he was the wise one, after all. On-site services, after all, can never be offshored.
I just recommended this book in another post, so I'm glad to see someone else doing the same :-)
3 314251/
For the lazy, here's a referal-less amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/039
On this note, I recommend Stephen Jay Gould's book, The Mismeasure of Man, to absolutely everyone. He talks about many such studies, and why they are flawed and should not be trusted. I would not be surprised if some of them are included in this guy's analysis.
There's a slight difference between SpaceX and the Shuttle. SpaceX's current launch vehicle, the Falcon I, can carry only 580 kg--1,276 lbs--to the space station. Their Falcon V, which is supposed to fly sometime next year, is supposed to be able to carry 5,450 kg--nearly 12,000 lbs--to the space station. The space shuttle can carry, by comparison, 65,000 lbs--more than 5 times as much.
Call me when SpaceX has a comparable vehicle, and we can start talking.