Actually, you specifically mentioned human-level intelligence which means that you consider humans to be the only life-form. I think your bias is showing!
More seriously, I don't think that capability of intelligence is a sensible way of determining whether something is alive. Firstly, measuring intelligence is notoriously difficult to do in any kind of non-biased fashion (e.g. visual tests won't work for blind people). Secondly, the vast majority of life-forms on Earth (plants, insects etc) are not considered intelligent.
FWIW, I think the term "pro-life" is very loaded. It's considering one particular life without looking at the wider picture. If a mother decides to abort a fetus due to medical reasons and then a couple of years later gets pregnant and gives birth to twins - then that would be a net increase in life. However, measuring life based on quantity is a particularly stupid and short-sighted way of thinking.
Life is not an easy word to define precisely. Being able to reproduce is one criteria and when a fetus is fully grown it is able to reproduce, whereas other cells taken from the body (e.g. skin cells) are not able to reproduce. Thus, a fetus is considered a life-form whereas skin cells are not.
Where this gets more complicated is when you examine edge cases like viruses. A full grown virus is not capable of reproducing, so is it alive?
Aside from the important aspect of deciding how to define life, I find myself very annoyed with pro-life/pro-abortion discussions. There's already enough pressure on dwindling resources like food and fresh water to ensure that hundreds/thousands/millions of people born will die due to lack of resources. Fat, wealthy people have no right to argue about what happens to an un-born fetus when there's obviously not enough caring about already born people.
Personally, I don't care about the ethics of what a woman chooses to do. To my mind, making a choice on behalf of someone else is unethical - especially when you phrase is as "allowing". Why should a woman have to ask your permission to do anything?
It'd be useful to get a good definition of life for scientific reasons. It's difficult to search for life on other planets if we don't actually know what we're looking for.
Nope - I at no point equated a fetus with a parasite. A parasite "feeds" from a different species, whereas a fetus tends to be the same species as it's mother.
I'm not sure whether a virus would be classified as alive as they don't have any reproduction machinery (without a host organism).
But, we're having a conversation about things that have no definition which you stated is impossible. (I'm not going to argue about "discussing" as that has a definition, as you rightly stated).
The problem is that life isn't easy to define. As the newly conceived bunch of cells isn't able to survive outside of it's mother's womb, it fails some definitions of "alive". Would you consider a tumour to be "alive"? Why is one bunch of cells alive and not the other?
I'm on Virgin Media and the first isn't blocked, despite it being a proxy for Pirate Bay, whereas the second is blocked. Looks like they've blocked the wrong one.
In Bangkok, they have timers on their traffic lights, but I think that's when the traffic is stationary at a red light so that they know how much longer they have to wait. I can't remember if they have a timer for when it's on green though. However, traffic in Bangkok is probably not a good example for anywhere else in the world.
You seem to have trouble reading as well as driving. I clearly defined the correct following distance as the distance in which you can stop when the driver in front does an emergency stop.
Obviously (to everyone except you), this will vary according to your vehicle, speed, road conditions, visibility etc.
My advice to you is that when you see a car violently swerve in front of you - brake so that you don't run into the back of them (then you can berate the driver for being an asshat).
It's simpler if everyone always uses the same following distance i.e. the distance in which you can stop if the other driver has to make an emergency stop. It sounds like you can't tolerate people stopping suddenly unless you're expecting it - you're a bad driver, please get off our roads.
I agree that testing is a valid reason to do multiple installs and deb/aptitude package management will let you install multiple versions providing they've got different names (e.g. libcap1 and libcap2).
I know that Oracle installs a specific version of java in an Oracle installation as quite a few tools use java and they don't want to be wasting support services on debugging java version problems. However, this specific version of java won't be used by other programs (unless you force them to) and you can install other versions of Oracle without them conflicting if you use different different ORACLE_HOMEs for them.
When moving stuff to production, you're much better off having Frobnitz running on it's own (virtual) machine. That way, Frobnitz can have exactly the version you want and you can put apache onto a different machine and there'll be no trouble with them conflicting. It then also becomes much easier to test as you can replace the Frobnitz or apache functions separately from each other (and you'll also have the luxury of rolling back to snapshots if/when a virtual machine gets broken).
Generally, system user accounts are not referred to as "users" - that's usually reserved for people. Software should be installed to be run as a system user with the minimum necessary permissions and the software binary should be installed as root so that no-one else can change the binary (obviously the config files may be writable by other accounts).
When people talk of installing software into a user directory, they're usually referring to installing all the binaries, configs and working files into their own home directory. Yes, you can relocate it when you find out what's happened, but you shouldn't be running production software that way.
Okay, but when would you *want* multiple apache installs? Surely you can accomplish almost everything by using either vhosts or by running the same apache binary multiple times with different settings?
Slashdot Mirror
So, how does the law come into play when a woman chooses to lawfully terminate or lawfully keep a fetus?
Actually, you specifically mentioned human-level intelligence which means that you consider humans to be the only life-form. I think your bias is showing!
More seriously, I don't think that capability of intelligence is a sensible way of determining whether something is alive. Firstly, measuring intelligence is notoriously difficult to do in any kind of non-biased fashion (e.g. visual tests won't work for blind people). Secondly, the vast majority of life-forms on Earth (plants, insects etc) are not considered intelligent.
FWIW, I think the term "pro-life" is very loaded. It's considering one particular life without looking at the wider picture. If a mother decides to abort a fetus due to medical reasons and then a couple of years later gets pregnant and gives birth to twins - then that would be a net increase in life. However, measuring life based on quantity is a particularly stupid and short-sighted way of thinking.
Life is not an easy word to define precisely. Being able to reproduce is one criteria and when a fetus is fully grown it is able to reproduce, whereas other cells taken from the body (e.g. skin cells) are not able to reproduce. Thus, a fetus is considered a life-form whereas skin cells are not.
Where this gets more complicated is when you examine edge cases like viruses. A full grown virus is not capable of reproducing, so is it alive?
Aside from the important aspect of deciding how to define life, I find myself very annoyed with pro-life/pro-abortion discussions. There's already enough pressure on dwindling resources like food and fresh water to ensure that hundreds/thousands/millions of people born will die due to lack of resources. Fat, wealthy people have no right to argue about what happens to an un-born fetus when there's obviously not enough caring about already born people.
That last line sounds like teenager lingo.
So, doesn't that imply that brain damaged fetuses aren't alive?
Personally, I don't care about the ethics of what a woman chooses to do. To my mind, making a choice on behalf of someone else is unethical - especially when you phrase is as "allowing". Why should a woman have to ask your permission to do anything?
It'd be useful to get a good definition of life for scientific reasons. It's difficult to search for life on other planets if we don't actually know what we're looking for.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Strawman alert!
Nope - I at no point equated a fetus with a parasite. A parasite "feeds" from a different species, whereas a fetus tends to be the same species as it's mother.
I'm not sure whether a virus would be classified as alive as they don't have any reproduction machinery (without a host organism).
But, we're having a conversation about things that have no definition which you stated is impossible. (I'm not going to argue about "discussing" as that has a definition, as you rightly stated).
Also, when they perfect artificial fetuses.
The problem is that life isn't easy to define. As the newly conceived bunch of cells isn't able to survive outside of it's mother's womb, it fails some definitions of "alive". Would you consider a tumour to be "alive"? Why is one bunch of cells alive and not the other?
I'm not sure that is true. Aren't we now discussing un-defined things?
Not being tied to Apple or any particular OS?
I'm on Virgin Media and the first isn't blocked, despite it being a proxy for Pirate Bay, whereas the second is blocked. Looks like they've blocked the wrong one.
I don't even know what an 'aposorophe' is.
Do you think that the Illuminati control Facebook?
In Bangkok, they have timers on their traffic lights, but I think that's when the traffic is stationary at a red light so that they know how much longer they have to wait. I can't remember if they have a timer for when it's on green though. However, traffic in Bangkok is probably not a good example for anywhere else in the world.
You seem to have trouble reading as well as driving. I clearly defined the correct following distance as the distance in which you can stop when the driver in front does an emergency stop.
Obviously (to everyone except you), this will vary according to your vehicle, speed, road conditions, visibility etc.
My advice to you is that when you see a car violently swerve in front of you - brake so that you don't run into the back of them (then you can berate the driver for being an asshat).
It's simpler if everyone always uses the same following distance i.e. the distance in which you can stop if the other driver has to make an emergency stop. It sounds like you can't tolerate people stopping suddenly unless you're expecting it - you're a bad driver, please get off our roads.
Are you sure? I'm pretty sure that Vista is still classed as crapware for anyone who has to use computers professionally.
You say you hate crapware and yet you're running Vista?
I agree that testing is a valid reason to do multiple installs and deb/aptitude package management will let you install multiple versions providing they've got different names (e.g. libcap1 and libcap2).
I know that Oracle installs a specific version of java in an Oracle installation as quite a few tools use java and they don't want to be wasting support services on debugging java version problems. However, this specific version of java won't be used by other programs (unless you force them to) and you can install other versions of Oracle without them conflicting if you use different different ORACLE_HOMEs for them.
When moving stuff to production, you're much better off having Frobnitz running on it's own (virtual) machine. That way, Frobnitz can have exactly the version you want and you can put apache onto a different machine and there'll be no trouble with them conflicting. It then also becomes much easier to test as you can replace the Frobnitz or apache functions separately from each other (and you'll also have the luxury of rolling back to snapshots if/when a virtual machine gets broken).
Okay, can anyone who *ISN'T* sgbett answer why someone would want to install multiple versions of Apache on the same machine apart from testing?
Generally, system user accounts are not referred to as "users" - that's usually reserved for people. Software should be installed to be run as a system user with the minimum necessary permissions and the software binary should be installed as root so that no-one else can change the binary (obviously the config files may be writable by other accounts).
When people talk of installing software into a user directory, they're usually referring to installing all the binaries, configs and working files into their own home directory. Yes, you can relocate it when you find out what's happened, but you shouldn't be running production software that way.
Okay, but when would you *want* multiple apache installs? Surely you can accomplish almost everything by using either vhosts or by running the same apache binary multiple times with different settings?