Your comments throughout this article have amounted to: she looks retarded; might as well use her for study like penicillin mold; there's nobody home (despite the article clearly stating that doctors estimate her to be functioning at roughly the level of a 9 month old); All of these factors, for you, suggest that her existence is a strong argument for 'post-birth abortion.'
No, you didn't come right out and say "she should be killed." But in continuing to attempt to justify yourself, your argument can be summed up as: Without any more details, euthanasia is probably the best course of action for this child who is a terrible burden & inconvenience on her family because she has "less potential than the family dog."
So don't condemn me for things I never wrote.
You've said all of the things I'm condemning you for. You've presumed to make a judgment about the value and quality of the child's life, while admitting that you have no idea what the full details of the situation are. If that's not arrogance, I'm not sure what would qualify.
As for your accusation that I am guided by he "level of inconvenience" when dealing with the infirm, the handicapped, etc., the fact is that I am guided by reality. If there's nobody home, taking extraordinary measures to preserve the flesh
Did you even watch the video or read the article? The child in question is not an inert, vegetative lump of flesh. Her brain has stopped developing, but that does not mean she's not active, as the video shows you. She may have limited "potential" for development, but she is quite certainly alive and aware of her surroundings, at least on a similar level to the "family pet" that you keep comparing her to.
That's not guided by reality - your arguments that she'll be a "burden on her family," and that euthanasia should be an option are a cold-blooded assessment & solution to the fact that this child is "inconvenient."
And don't wait until it's too late to tell people that you love them... they need to hear it while they're still alive, while they're still able to enjoy hearing it, and while they can reciprocate. On their deathbed, or after Alzheimers has stolen them away, is just too late.
This is about the only thing on the subject that you've said that I can agree with.
Now, how does this make me into someone who needs to "learn a lesson in empathy" or an "inconceivably arrogant, sociopathic prick"?
Because you have taken it upon yourself, as the "enlightened" person you seem to think you are, that killing someone is a solution for inconvenience - someone who is not related to you, who is not part of your family, and who you have absolutely no dealing with other than a 2 minute long ABCNews video.
The decision is not yours to make, and presuming to tell people that you know what's best for them makes you an arrogant prick. Efficiency is great in engineering. It *sucks* as a ruling principle in interpersonal relationships.
And how arrogant are YOU, to be prescribing such treatment to someone who, unlike Emily, is self-aware? Oh, and BTW, I've been through worse - and you lack imagination.
From where you're sitting, quite arrogant, I'm sure. But what the hell, I've got karma to burn on calling out a self-important sociopath who seems to feel that "level of inconvenience" is the guiding principle for dealing with the sick, infirm, and handicapped.
I'll close with this bit of arrogance: the mods who marked me flamebait are monumental morons who are probably as socially stunted as you are, and view the rest of the world as a bunch of interchangeable parts that should be disposed of if they're not in perfect working order.
All I'll say to this is that I hope you learn a lesson in empathy someday.
A big, nasty, walloping lesson that leaves you permanently pissing into a bag through a tube from your hospital bed, you inconceivably arrogant, sociopathic prick.
You kid, but this extreme case highlights the stupidity of using 'age' to determine someone's ability to make life-changing decisions.
Oh good, another "insightful" legal opinion, brought to you by Slashdot.
You cannot use the example of a child with diminished mental capacity - who is thus incapable of giving legal consent, no matter what her age is - to attack the laws that prevent you from having sex with all the 14 year olds in your neighborhood who "totally look old enough to be 18!"
So, Justice Holmes, what criteria should we use to determine someone's ability to make these decisions instead? Surely you have an alternative system we could consider?
You realize that APK, MEK_LoveBug, and the other AC's responding to you are all the same person right? I salute your stamina in bothering to try and talk sense to him.
He's an ill-informed troll, and his posts usually simply break down into pointless ranting about how you can't say anything because you're not an "expert" - as defined by him - whereas he is an expert based on a handful of online journal publications, and thus his statements are unassailable.
But I suppose you've worked that out for yourself already.:)
Nobody referred to Mr. Nielsen as a "genius" except you. They did refer to him as an "expert" in the field of usability, which it's quite clear that he is, if you read his biography, list of publications, and other credentials. You may not agree with his opinions on usability, but he certainly qualifies as "someone with special skill and knowledge" in that field.
If your definition of genius requires some level of renown, then the word you should be using is "celebrity," not "genius." Ability, intellect, and creative capacity need not be well-known to the public to be exceptional.
The issue is well known and generally mitigated either through various common deployment strategies or a module that comes with Apache. So while you can certainly deploy an Apache server that's susceptible to this - you don't have to. And even if you do, it's not going to be an avenue of attack for malware.
*cough*same-applies-to-Windows*cough*
I've deployed plenty of Windows XP systems for home use for family & friends, and with common sensible deployment strategies, a decent security package (a la AVG), and a few configuration changes, they've been remarkably secure and problem-free.
Your argument that you *can* deploy a secure Linux/Mac box or Apache server relies on "choosing secure settings and not doing dumb shit." Windows will work just fine for you if you do the same.
It is ludicrous either way. The author provided no reason why the existing citation formats for web sources weren't "good," he simply asserted he "couldn't find a good format." This suggests to me the author is:
Full of shit
Lazy
All of the above.
I find it hard to believe that the good folks at Hyperion Books - who sort of make a business of publishing books - couldn't provide him with a few samples of citation formats and wouldn't tell him, "just pick one - if you don't like it, it doesn't matter, you have to include SOME citation as due diligence."
When there are accepted & well-defined methods for citing web pages & other electronic resource - as have been pointed out all over this thread - it is ludicrous to say there is "no good way" to cite web pages, period, full stop.
So exactly which part of "assistive technologies designed to make hard work easy" did you not understand?
I never stated that ignorance of simple math, or inability to find your way around your home town was a good thing. Refusing to use a GPS or a calculator out of hand because it's somehow "purer" and "less of a crutch" to do it yourself is ludditism, and is retarded.
Do you walk to work because you refuse to use the "crutch" of a car, bicycle, or mass transit? Do you grow your own food because you refuse to use the "crutch" of modern agricultural practices? Do you refuse medicine because you refuse to use the "crutch" of modern sterile techniques? Do you live in a cave because you refuse to use the "crutch" provided by the building trades?
GPS, calculators, google maps, the road map, and the car you're driving are all conveniences - assistive technologies designed to make hard work easy. They're not always perfect, but for everyday use, they're reliable unless you seriously have trouble with simple instructions like "Turn left in 200 meters."
If you want to perform a geographical survey every time you leave the house, be my guest, but let's not pretend you're anything but a reactionary luddite in doing so.
Well, I suppose if some random analyst says they can do it, they better fire up the production line.
If you read that article, the analyst basically says, "They could offer the same hardware as an HP Mini 1000 XP, which sells for about $399, for $599!"
Apple has made it clear that they perceive the current round of netbooks as being sub-par. Why would they create a clone, slap an Apple label on it, and dilute their reputation?
If the choice comes down to being able to earn a living versus conforming to web standards, well, fuck web standards.
I'm fortunate enough to be able to run Firefox on my work system, but if I install things that are not on a very specific list of "okay things," I will incur the wrath of system administrators (and by extension, corporate security).
Actually, the factual matter of the statement is exactly what is in question when you spout off about expecting "truth" from a company. "It's better with windows," may hurt your delicate Linux-fan sensibilities, but it's not "false" or "a lie" any more than "Linux Rocks the EEE!" would be "false" or "a lie." They're entirely subjective marketing statements, and that is all they are.
Couple that with the fact that there's significant doubt about whether or not this site and "marketing" slogan is even legitimate, and not some elaborate hoax, and your whinging about Asus and Microsoft, and how your expectations of truth, honesty, and integrity have been violated seem a tad hysterical, don't you think?
Because I can smile when I read comments like this from ignorant fools who know nothing about libertarianism except what they've read on the DKos forums, or heard from their other similarly-illiterate friends who are all like, smart and shit.
"It's better with windows" is not a factual statement. It's not measurable in any way. Why would you place an expectation of "truth" on an subjective statement which is entirely based on perception?
No, it's an entirely subjective statement. It may not be "better with windows" for you. For other people, "it's better with windows" is absolutely correct.
Stop acting like it's a betrayal - ASUS is trying to make a buck, and figured they could make a buck by selling EEE's with Windows preinstalled as well. To do that they put together a marketing pitch to reassure users who choose Windows that they're making an *excellent* choice. Just like the Linux pitch will assure people choosing Linux that they're making an *excellent* choice.
If you like their Linux offerings, purchase them. If you don't like their Linux offerings, don't purchase them. It's really quite simple.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you didn't come right out and say "she should be killed." But in continuing to attempt to justify yourself, your argument can be summed up as: Without any more details, euthanasia is probably the best course of action for this child who is a terrible burden & inconvenience on her family because she has "less potential than the family dog."
You've said all of the things I'm condemning you for. You've presumed to make a judgment about the value and quality of the child's life, while admitting that you have no idea what the full details of the situation are. If that's not arrogance, I'm not sure what would qualify.
Did you even watch the video or read the article? The child in question is not an inert, vegetative lump of flesh. Her brain has stopped developing, but that does not mean she's not active, as the video shows you. She may have limited "potential" for development, but she is quite certainly alive and aware of her surroundings, at least on a similar level to the "family pet" that you keep comparing her to.
That's not guided by reality - your arguments that she'll be a "burden on her family," and that euthanasia should be an option are a cold-blooded assessment & solution to the fact that this child is "inconvenient."
This is about the only thing on the subject that you've said that I can agree with.
Ah, I see your problem. For it to be life-changing, there usually needs to be more than one person involved.
Because you have taken it upon yourself, as the "enlightened" person you seem to think you are, that killing someone is a solution for inconvenience - someone who is not related to you, who is not part of your family, and who you have absolutely no dealing with other than a 2 minute long ABCNews video.
The decision is not yours to make, and presuming to tell people that you know what's best for them makes you an arrogant prick. Efficiency is great in engineering. It *sucks* as a ruling principle in interpersonal relationships.
From where you're sitting, quite arrogant, I'm sure. But what the hell, I've got karma to burn on calling out a self-important sociopath who seems to feel that "level of inconvenience" is the guiding principle for dealing with the sick, infirm, and handicapped.
I'll close with this bit of arrogance: the mods who marked me flamebait are monumental morons who are probably as socially stunted as you are, and view the rest of the world as a bunch of interchangeable parts that should be disposed of if they're not in perfect working order.
Yep. That's what I said, and I don't believe I stuttered, so I guess you read me properly.
You are an ill-informed troll.
All I'll say to this is that I hope you learn a lesson in empathy someday.
A big, nasty, walloping lesson that leaves you permanently pissing into a bag through a tube from your hospital bed, you inconceivably arrogant, sociopathic prick.
Oh good, another "insightful" legal opinion, brought to you by Slashdot.
You cannot use the example of a child with diminished mental capacity - who is thus incapable of giving legal consent, no matter what her age is - to attack the laws that prevent you from having sex with all the 14 year olds in your neighborhood who "totally look old enough to be 18!"
So, Justice Holmes, what criteria should we use to determine someone's ability to make these decisions instead? Surely you have an alternative system we could consider?
You realize that APK, MEK_LoveBug, and the other AC's responding to you are all the same person right? I salute your stamina in bothering to try and talk sense to him.
:)
He's an ill-informed troll, and his posts usually simply break down into pointless ranting about how you can't say anything because you're not an "expert" - as defined by him - whereas he is an expert based on a handful of online journal publications, and thus his statements are unassailable.
But I suppose you've worked that out for yourself already.
Now here's a list of Mr. Nielsen's publications in the field of usability. Also a short biography of the man on wikipedia, listing some of his educational background & contributions.
Given all this, two points:
Curious how one's definition of "genius" and "expert" generally skew towards including oneself in the genius/expert category...
And the sudo method will not achieve wider adoption because it requires everybody to care.
*cough*same-applies-to-Windows*cough*
I've deployed plenty of Windows XP systems for home use for family & friends, and with common sensible deployment strategies, a decent security package (a la AVG), and a few configuration changes, they've been remarkably secure and problem-free.
Your argument that you *can* deploy a secure Linux/Mac box or Apache server relies on "choosing secure settings and not doing dumb shit." Windows will work just fine for you if you do the same.
I find it hard to believe that the good folks at Hyperion Books - who sort of make a business of publishing books - couldn't provide him with a few samples of citation formats and wouldn't tell him, "just pick one - if you don't like it, it doesn't matter, you have to include SOME citation as due diligence."
When there are accepted & well-defined methods for citing web pages & other electronic resource - as have been pointed out all over this thread - it is ludicrous to say there is "no good way" to cite web pages, period, full stop.
I see what you're saying. Rather than going to all the bother of attempting to identify your source, you'd prefer to just skip it.
Much cleaner solution there, I'm sure that'll catch on soon in all the trendy academic circles.
So exactly which part of "assistive technologies designed to make hard work easy" did you not understand?
I never stated that ignorance of simple math, or inability to find your way around your home town was a good thing. Refusing to use a GPS or a calculator out of hand because it's somehow "purer" and "less of a crutch" to do it yourself is ludditism, and is retarded.
This comment is mind-numbingly stupid.
Do you walk to work because you refuse to use the "crutch" of a car, bicycle, or mass transit? Do you grow your own food because you refuse to use the "crutch" of modern agricultural practices? Do you refuse medicine because you refuse to use the "crutch" of modern sterile techniques? Do you live in a cave because you refuse to use the "crutch" provided by the building trades?
GPS, calculators, google maps, the road map, and the car you're driving are all conveniences - assistive technologies designed to make hard work easy. They're not always perfect, but for everyday use, they're reliable unless you seriously have trouble with simple instructions like "Turn left in 200 meters."
If you want to perform a geographical survey every time you leave the house, be my guest, but let's not pretend you're anything but a reactionary luddite in doing so.
Well, I suppose if some random analyst says they can do it, they better fire up the production line.
If you read that article, the analyst basically says, "They could offer the same hardware as an HP Mini 1000 XP, which sells for about $399, for $599!"
Apple has made it clear that they perceive the current round of netbooks as being sub-par. Why would they create a clone, slap an Apple label on it, and dilute their reputation?
I always envisioned Ghengis Khan as more of a Toyota Sienna guy, myself. Plenty of room for the pillaging hordes to ride in comfort.
Maybe an El Camino for cruising on the weekends, because you know the ladies just can't resist that retro 70's chic.
And the standard Corporate Security response to your "Ultimate Response":
You're fired.
If the choice comes down to being able to earn a living versus conforming to web standards, well, fuck web standards.
I'm fortunate enough to be able to run Firefox on my work system, but if I install things that are not on a very specific list of "okay things," I will incur the wrath of system administrators (and by extension, corporate security).
Be honest: you're just looking for excuses not to leave the house, aren't you? :)
Actually, the factual matter of the statement is exactly what is in question when you spout off about expecting "truth" from a company. "It's better with windows," may hurt your delicate Linux-fan sensibilities, but it's not "false" or "a lie" any more than "Linux Rocks the EEE!" would be "false" or "a lie." They're entirely subjective marketing statements, and that is all they are.
Couple that with the fact that there's significant doubt about whether or not this site and "marketing" slogan is even legitimate, and not some elaborate hoax, and your whinging about Asus and Microsoft, and how your expectations of truth, honesty, and integrity have been violated seem a tad hysterical, don't you think?
Because I can smile when I read comments like this from ignorant fools who know nothing about libertarianism except what they've read on the DKos forums, or heard from their other similarly-illiterate friends who are all like, smart and shit.
L2Understand Libertarianism before you critique it. Otherwise, you look like a moron with nothing particularly interesting to say.
"It's better with windows" is not a factual statement. It's not measurable in any way. Why would you place an expectation of "truth" on an subjective statement which is entirely based on perception?
No, it's an entirely subjective statement. It may not be "better with windows" for you . For other people, "it's better with windows" is absolutely correct.
Stop acting like it's a betrayal - ASUS is trying to make a buck, and figured they could make a buck by selling EEE's with Windows preinstalled as well. To do that they put together a marketing pitch to reassure users who choose Windows that they're making an *excellent* choice. Just like the Linux pitch will assure people choosing Linux that they're making an *excellent* choice.
If you like their Linux offerings, purchase them. If you don't like their Linux offerings, don't purchase them. It's really quite simple.
(Emphasis mine)
I think you meant "cash cows". But the unexpectedly surreal turn of phrase made me chuckle anyway, so thank you.