teh downloaders ARE bad. Do it all you want, I'm not saying I don't (or do!), but it's pretty ridiculous to try to justify it. If making your music free was actually a good way to make money, maybe we'd see people do it. To a certain degree it can be, but you can't just give it all away. How do you expect to have music if no one pays the people producing it? Shouldn't the musicians have the right to determine what songs (if any) they allow you to download for free? This kid spends his life producing music, and it's our right to do with it as we please? I don't understand why immaterial things get this rap. Can I steel a painting if I reimburse the artist for the cost of paint?
Just calling someone greedy doesn't make you right. What right do you have to force me to pay for someone's health care? It's not the government's responsibility to provide everything for everyone. The point of having a government is to protect its citizens from each other and from other countries. If liberals had it their way, you'd have the option of doing nothing at all and forcing America to pay for everything you need through welfare and communist medical care. I would rather not have to pay for someone to do nothing with their life. If, however, someone is just in a bad situation and can't afford medical care, I would gladly help. There is such a thing called charity.
What keeps prices high is government intrusion on the free market. I have chronic bronchitis, meaning it comes around about once a year. The same medication always fixes it, yet every time I come down with bronchitis, I have to go to the doctor (which can vary depending if I'm at school or not), pay them whatever ridiculous fee to get the first medication that doesn't work, come back again to get the second medication that doesn't work, and then finally get the same fucking medication I always get that always works.
Canadian health care doesn't work very well, but it works somewhat ok because it largely benefits from America's (somewhat) capitalist health industry. Foreigners scoff at our system yet consume our medication.
Everyone is rejoicing that the state of Massachusetts is FORCING you to get health insurance? Is this a joke? What fucking right do you have to tell me I have to pay for health insurance? What's next, forcing me to eat right and get daily exercise? Outlaw any dangerous activity, like physical sports? How about making it illegal to live in a city that's below sea level? All of this will come with national health coverage.
It seems to me that the lawyer made it clear enough why it is illegal. He made it so you can access features that the terms of service clearly say cost money and is not allowed. Just because he used public code to do this doesn't make it OK.
MS is asking this guy to stop costing them money by stealing their code and making it available to everyone in addition to making them waste money on lawyers. And they won't even sue if he just takes it down.
Blind MS haters, as usual.
Say I buy a pair of gloves that are randomly separated in two boxes. I keep one box and send the other to the moon. If I open my box and find a right-handed glove, I instantly know that the other box contains the left-handed glove. No information is transfered from the moon to me, it's knowledge that is instantaneous. In another example, it is possible that a theory could be developed (maybe it already has) using knowledge of nuclear physics to predict the current state of a star based on the light we are receiving now. Again, no information, just knowledge.
To communicate, SOMETHING must actually move from the source to the destination, and as far as we know, nothing can move faster than light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation
As a libertarian, I admit that there are good arguments for both sides. Why should someone have to fork over a cure that they discovered? Why should someone get multiyear rights to a cure that someone else probably would have discovered soon after? Like all great debates, you can't argue conclusively either way, you have to choose what works best. I think it's been demonstrated that a capitalist society works best for the majority of people, even in medicine. Greed, as sadly as it may sound, may be our strongest motivation and I don't think it helps to deny that. But it's not just about that. Sure, a lot of rich men spend lavishly on themselves and that in itself does not help the public. But more often that not, businesses that make good decisions, that earn money by helping people, reinvest that money in helping us more. Money in a capitalist society is really like voting in a communist society except that it is not evenly distributed. That, to me, is a good thing; people who have proven themselves should have more say in society. I think it feels unethical to most people in the case of medicine because you can't put a price on life. Unfortunately, you have to. I would be pissed off if a million dollars of tax money was spent on a risky operation for a 94 year old man.
Bill Gates will still do more total good to humanity than probably all the people listed combined.
Yes, it's very impressive for someone such as Mother Teresa to dedicate their lives to help a lot of people. However, when you don't have resources, theres only so much you can do. Bill Gates took a smarter route. Perhaps it was not his intention all along, maybe it was, but regardless it is a better way to do things. He raised a rediculous fortune and now is going to dedicate his life to doing good with that fortune. And it is HIS fortune. Whatever illegal things he has done, he has paid fines for and settled for. His employees are extremely well paid, why would it be better to give them more money instead of people in need?
So instead of spending his entire life in dedication to the well being of people, he'll only spend half of it that way. But the first half is what makes it count. It's like saying the girl scouts are evil by selling cookies and giving away some of the profits (some of it goes to amusement park trips and such). And it would be hard to give everything away to everyone instead of ensuring your heirs a wealthy life for centuries to come or building a moon base.
Last I checked, buying a roughly equivalent mac is more expensive than a PC with Windows. Do you really think Windows is expensive? A videogame costs $50, Windows is like the cost of a few videogames. In terms of how much you get and what it took to develop, it's a pretty damn good deal. Did you ever think that maybe that's why it's so popular? Walmart is still the cheapest place to buy just about everything. They can charge whatever they want. You are free to shop somewhere else and employees are free to work somewhere else.
The obscenely rich don't deserve credit for philanthropy. Don't forget that it's the rest of society they took such huge masses of wealth from in the first place.
People GIVE their money to microsoft, no ones putting a gun to your head. Please tell me what is wrong with selling a product that people like and then turning around and giving away all the money you make back to the people. Seriously, I wanna know. Buffet's life may be ending, but Gates' isn't, and it's still admirable to share the money with all of mankind instead of guaranteeing your family tree is well off.
Surely you naysayers are joking. A regular man creates possibly the most important industry in our history and donates nearly all the profit he makes. What more can he do? You're angry that he didn't take all directions in computing you wish he did? You're fucking insane. When you buy a Microsoft product, you are supporting advances in technology, jobs for thousands of people, and the well being of mankind. I can think of no other human being who has/is going to change the world in such a positive way as Bill Gates.
Exactly. We have a pretty good safety record considering what we're doing. It gets more and more expensive and takes more and more time to reach slightly higher safety levels when we're as high as we are. I think it might be safer in the long run to try to reach a reasonable safety level of around 90% and actually get some experience. We've been doing the same stuff for decades, if it was acceptable then, why isn't it acceptable now?
What more can we do to eliminate the bad apples? We have laws that cover pretty much everything, and police to enforce them. But if someone truly wants to do something bad, it's going to be extremely hard to stop them without turning into 1984.
I'm not sure religious people, politicians, corporations, and anyone else non-liberal are as evil as you'd like them to be. Religious people may be misguided, but I certainly don't see them as evil. Name some specific examples of evil that you see every day. Either you live in a horrible place, or the best you will say is that people support attacking other countries and global warming. And those Enron guys were bad. The first two are quite debatable; to claim either side is evil is just wrong.
So what evil is running amok? Do you really think we'd screw up the rest of the galaxy? Out of the billions of species to exist, only one ever uses its resources to help other species, even if it means lowering it's own prosperity. We may not be perfect, but maybe we're the only species with the moral capacity to do good in the universe. Nature doesn't typically create altruism.
"Objectively viewed, there's nothing particular to recommend humanity as opposed to any other hypothetical sentient life, barring some species-specific traits or subjective societal constructs."
Hypothetical? Yeah, if I'm allowed to think of perfect, selfless hypothetical life then we wouldn't stack up. I doubt that's how it works in reality. Obviously we are the only species on Earth capable of space travel, technologically, but I would also argue we are the most capable morally. Out of the billions of species to exist on Earth, we get along with other species like nothing ever has. Maybe intelligence does this, but maybe not. Theres no real reason to care for other species beyond maintaining food.
Theres really only one legitimate way we would kill ourselves, and that's with an engineered virus. Which is scary because it would only take one person to do it. I wonder how any civilization intelligent enough could protect itself when it only takes one bad apple out of billions to kill everyone.
I hate it when people say stuff like "man's self destructive nature" and "we need to protect the galaxy from ourselves." It's such an elitist attitude. It says I'm better than everyone else, or if it doesn't, then try to do the right thing and kill yourself. Man is primarily good. What other species species cares like we do for other species?
Is there any reason to believe that there is even enough untapped natural energy to cause enough global warming to end our species?
I will grant you that if you know for certain that it will die, it's not murder to end it.
Yes, I do consider the death penalty murder. War can be murder, but ideally it is self defense.
I wouldn't call it physically traumatizing, but nonetheless I was an ass and for that I apologize. If you know for sure that it wouldn't survive, then I guess I have no problem. In my defense, this wasn't made perfectly clear to me (and still hasn't exactly), but with words like "amorphous blob of tissue" and "tumor," I suppose I should take that as 0% survivability.
We could go on about Yosemite for a while if you'd like, but I'm not sure it's on topic. Like you said, I acknowledged we live in a democracy, but I think there are things we can't vote on.
Cheapen life by giving it simplistic definitions? So then are you cheapening life by saying it needs a brain compared to someone who holds even higher standards, such as the ability to speak? I can budge in certain situations. But I see no reason to budge for someone who just wants guaranteed birth control. As far as stem cells, I think more research needs to be done with what we have, find out exactly what we can do, and look further into adult stem cells. Four to six months is awfully high. The neural tube begins forming at 16 days, the brain at 27 days. By six weeks, the brain permits basic movement.
Do you disagree that the fetus is alive and human? I believe that human life starts at conception, you believe it starts when more recognizable features emerge. I don't think either one of us can prove that we are right. I just think we should be as prudent as possible and that is when the DNA is formed, creating a unique code that has never been seen before. What attributes do you believe the fetus needs until it has rights?
Yes, we are a democracy. However, there are fundamental laws that cannot be changed by voting. Murder is one of them.
There are private campgrounds and such too. I cannot fathom a business NOT running a large park more efficiently. Their incentive would be to make money if they are a business, or maybe they'd just be a private orgainzation who does it simply because they want to. Even at state parks you usually pay for parking and such, it basically is run as a business, just not as well because they have no incentive.
There was another category marked "other" at about 4%. I guess if you wanted to be specific you could put your wife in "fear of embarrasment" and/or "insufficient funds to clean/replace panties"? You haven't told me enough about the situation to know anything about the outcome.
The pill is admitadly a moral conundrum. I doubt that I would call it murder, maybe manslaughter? It's difficult to say. It would depend on how often the pill causes fertilized eggs to fail to bond. I guess the more it causes this, the more wrong it is.
I'm really not a fundie, at least in the traditional sense. I reject Christianity and all other religions, but I do believe that all life is so incredible that we should have the utmost regard for it. Just in case you were curious.
Ok, then what is the cutoff point?
Pain has nothing to do with it. Please explain to me why the ability to feel pain should be criteria for having the right to live.
"Deal with it." Yeah, great logic there. You can't vote to legalize murder. What has happened is that people have tried to pass things off as not murder by changing definitions. Do you really think you have the right to make everyone pay money for something when nearly half the population considers it murder? By the way, there are private roads and parks that you could can access at even lower costs than the taxes you pay.
murder- premeditately ending human life
The fetus is alive. The fetus is human.
Abortion IS about carefree sex in the majority of cases! It is primarily a method of birth control. Under 10% of abortions are for rape, incest, health of the mother, and health of the baby.
I fail to see why you couldn't wait a few weeks to find out.
Pain has nothing to do with it. Am I allowed to kill you as long as I give you some anesthetic first? Is it ok to kill something if it feels no pain, but then not ok if it feels pain for a fraction of a second before dying?
I think the development of consciousness is a continuous spectrum. You can't just pick an abstract point and say it's ok to end the life. What's the cutoff point? Your definition of human life is different and you can't prove that you're right. Neither can I. It is very unclear, I just prefer to be as prudent as possible. It's questionable that you should even be allowed to do it, but force me to pay for it? Do you really think you have the right to make me pay for something that I legitimately think is wrong?
I will say that I'm not completely sure about the ethics of stem cell research. I do think people on both sides want what is best for humanity. Abortion is what really irritates me. People want to enjoy sex without having to worry about the consequences. I think it's pretty disgusting that so many would rather kill the fetus than spend 9 months incubating it and giving it up for adoption.
I don't think so. Let me just say that I am no fundie; I approach this logically (unlike the majority of people who claim to be proponents of logic). The fetus is alive and a member of the human species. There is no way to deny that. Murder is intentionally killing a member of the human species. It's really that simple.
Arguments for killing the fetus are stupid. You cannot try to guess when consciousness develops. Even if it were true that there is a single point where the fetus becomes conscious (which is probably not true), the burden of proof is on you. Just because something is in your body doesn't mean it is your body. You'd have an argument if it just crawled up inside you, but it's different when you put it there.
Logic is on my side. You're lucky that it's even legal. You want to kill a baby to keep you alive and have me pay for it? That's three times wrong.
The cause of global warming has in now way been proven to be us. Not even close. It is probably impossible to tell if it'd even be a good thing or a bad! So we're supposed to radically change our energy supply and economy for something that:
a) we're not sure is our fault
b) we're not sure we can stop it
c) we're not sure if we want to stop it
Here's my computer simulation for our weather over the next decade:
cin:: tempIncrease
cout:: "you will have ":: tempIncrease:: "less crops this decade. Plus or minus 10 orders of magnitude"
Those that don't think it would hurt the economy...are all these countries not doing it just evil? I don't think I can think of a single factor more important to the economy than energy costs. Kyoto would cost us a fortune. We'll be running off nuclear and hydrogen in the coming decades anyway. Shouldn't we spend our money on something practical, say feeding the millions of people who are starving now, instead of something that we'd probably have little effect on and we can't even say if it'd be good.
How is this a good thing? Microsoft is a successful company with a lot of cash. They have the power to make competitive gaming popular and will cover a ton of the cost. Where's the bad news? There won't be less games, there'll just be more Xbox games.
What's so bad about Microsoft anyway? Almost all the money you spend on their products goes to a good thing: either into making the products or cool things like SpaceShipOne and donations.
Far as I can tell from the website, the only console games they've had in the past have been from Microsoft: Halo and PGR. If you're into the world cyber games, this will probably just improve their popularity. This is a good thing, ya'll are just blind Microsoft haters as usual.
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe demand won't change and we'll just save fuel, thereby less global warming. As for the rest of your post: What?
Seriously, how can you be financially liberal with conservative ideals? It's like an inverse libertarian.
teh downloaders ARE bad. Do it all you want, I'm not saying I don't (or do!), but it's pretty ridiculous to try to justify it. If making your music free was actually a good way to make money, maybe we'd see people do it. To a certain degree it can be, but you can't just give it all away. How do you expect to have music if no one pays the people producing it? Shouldn't the musicians have the right to determine what songs (if any) they allow you to download for free? This kid spends his life producing music, and it's our right to do with it as we please? I don't understand why immaterial things get this rap. Can I steel a painting if I reimburse the artist for the cost of paint?
What keeps prices high is government intrusion on the free market. I have chronic bronchitis, meaning it comes around about once a year. The same medication always fixes it, yet every time I come down with bronchitis, I have to go to the doctor (which can vary depending if I'm at school or not), pay them whatever ridiculous fee to get the first medication that doesn't work, come back again to get the second medication that doesn't work, and then finally get the same fucking medication I always get that always works.
Canadian health care doesn't work very well, but it works somewhat ok because it largely benefits from America's (somewhat) capitalist health industry. Foreigners scoff at our system yet consume our medication.
Everyone is rejoicing that the state of Massachusetts is FORCING you to get health insurance? Is this a joke? What fucking right do you have to tell me I have to pay for health insurance? What's next, forcing me to eat right and get daily exercise? Outlaw any dangerous activity, like physical sports? How about making it illegal to live in a city that's below sea level? All of this will come with national health coverage.
It seems to me that the lawyer made it clear enough why it is illegal. He made it so you can access features that the terms of service clearly say cost money and is not allowed. Just because he used public code to do this doesn't make it OK. MS is asking this guy to stop costing them money by stealing their code and making it available to everyone in addition to making them waste money on lawyers. And they won't even sue if he just takes it down. Blind MS haters, as usual.
Say I buy a pair of gloves that are randomly separated in two boxes. I keep one box and send the other to the moon. If I open my box and find a right-handed glove, I instantly know that the other box contains the left-handed glove. No information is transfered from the moon to me, it's knowledge that is instantaneous. In another example, it is possible that a theory could be developed (maybe it already has) using knowledge of nuclear physics to predict the current state of a star based on the light we are receiving now. Again, no information, just knowledge. To communicate, SOMETHING must actually move from the source to the destination, and as far as we know, nothing can move faster than light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation
As a libertarian, I admit that there are good arguments for both sides. Why should someone have to fork over a cure that they discovered? Why should someone get multiyear rights to a cure that someone else probably would have discovered soon after? Like all great debates, you can't argue conclusively either way, you have to choose what works best. I think it's been demonstrated that a capitalist society works best for the majority of people, even in medicine. Greed, as sadly as it may sound, may be our strongest motivation and I don't think it helps to deny that. But it's not just about that. Sure, a lot of rich men spend lavishly on themselves and that in itself does not help the public. But more often that not, businesses that make good decisions, that earn money by helping people, reinvest that money in helping us more. Money in a capitalist society is really like voting in a communist society except that it is not evenly distributed. That, to me, is a good thing; people who have proven themselves should have more say in society. I think it feels unethical to most people in the case of medicine because you can't put a price on life. Unfortunately, you have to. I would be pissed off if a million dollars of tax money was spent on a risky operation for a 94 year old man.
Bill Gates will still do more total good to humanity than probably all the people listed combined.
Yes, it's very impressive for someone such as Mother Teresa to dedicate their lives to help a lot of people. However, when you don't have resources, theres only so much you can do. Bill Gates took a smarter route. Perhaps it was not his intention all along, maybe it was, but regardless it is a better way to do things. He raised a rediculous fortune and now is going to dedicate his life to doing good with that fortune. And it is HIS fortune. Whatever illegal things he has done, he has paid fines for and settled for. His employees are extremely well paid, why would it be better to give them more money instead of people in need?
So instead of spending his entire life in dedication to the well being of people, he'll only spend half of it that way. But the first half is what makes it count. It's like saying the girl scouts are evil by selling cookies and giving away some of the profits (some of it goes to amusement park trips and such). And it would be hard to give everything away to everyone instead of ensuring your heirs a wealthy life for centuries to come or building a moon base.
Last I checked, buying a roughly equivalent mac is more expensive than a PC with Windows. Do you really think Windows is expensive? A videogame costs $50, Windows is like the cost of a few videogames. In terms of how much you get and what it took to develop, it's a pretty damn good deal. Did you ever think that maybe that's why it's so popular? Walmart is still the cheapest place to buy just about everything. They can charge whatever they want. You are free to shop somewhere else and employees are free to work somewhere else.
People GIVE their money to microsoft, no ones putting a gun to your head. Please tell me what is wrong with selling a product that people like and then turning around and giving away all the money you make back to the people. Seriously, I wanna know. Buffet's life may be ending, but Gates' isn't, and it's still admirable to share the money with all of mankind instead of guaranteeing your family tree is well off.
Surely you naysayers are joking. A regular man creates possibly the most important industry in our history and donates nearly all the profit he makes. What more can he do? You're angry that he didn't take all directions in computing you wish he did? You're fucking insane. When you buy a Microsoft product, you are supporting advances in technology, jobs for thousands of people, and the well being of mankind. I can think of no other human being who has/is going to change the world in such a positive way as Bill Gates.
Exactly. We have a pretty good safety record considering what we're doing. It gets more and more expensive and takes more and more time to reach slightly higher safety levels when we're as high as we are. I think it might be safer in the long run to try to reach a reasonable safety level of around 90% and actually get some experience. We've been doing the same stuff for decades, if it was acceptable then, why isn't it acceptable now?
I'm not sure religious people, politicians, corporations, and anyone else non-liberal are as evil as you'd like them to be. Religious people may be misguided, but I certainly don't see them as evil. Name some specific examples of evil that you see every day. Either you live in a horrible place, or the best you will say is that people support attacking other countries and global warming. And those Enron guys were bad. The first two are quite debatable; to claim either side is evil is just wrong.
So what evil is running amok? Do you really think we'd screw up the rest of the galaxy? Out of the billions of species to exist, only one ever uses its resources to help other species, even if it means lowering it's own prosperity. We may not be perfect, but maybe we're the only species with the moral capacity to do good in the universe. Nature doesn't typically create altruism.
Hypothetical? Yeah, if I'm allowed to think of perfect, selfless hypothetical life then we wouldn't stack up. I doubt that's how it works in reality. Obviously we are the only species on Earth capable of space travel, technologically, but I would also argue we are the most capable morally. Out of the billions of species to exist on Earth, we get along with other species like nothing ever has. Maybe intelligence does this, but maybe not. Theres no real reason to care for other species beyond maintaining food.
Theres really only one legitimate way we would kill ourselves, and that's with an engineered virus. Which is scary because it would only take one person to do it. I wonder how any civilization intelligent enough could protect itself when it only takes one bad apple out of billions to kill everyone. I hate it when people say stuff like "man's self destructive nature" and "we need to protect the galaxy from ourselves." It's such an elitist attitude. It says I'm better than everyone else, or if it doesn't, then try to do the right thing and kill yourself. Man is primarily good. What other species species cares like we do for other species? Is there any reason to believe that there is even enough untapped natural energy to cause enough global warming to end our species?
Yes, I do consider the death penalty murder. War can be murder, but ideally it is self defense.
I wouldn't call it physically traumatizing, but nonetheless I was an ass and for that I apologize. If you know for sure that it wouldn't survive, then I guess I have no problem. In my defense, this wasn't made perfectly clear to me (and still hasn't exactly), but with words like "amorphous blob of tissue" and "tumor," I suppose I should take that as 0% survivability.
We could go on about Yosemite for a while if you'd like, but I'm not sure it's on topic. Like you said, I acknowledged we live in a democracy, but I think there are things we can't vote on.
Cheapen life by giving it simplistic definitions? So then are you cheapening life by saying it needs a brain compared to someone who holds even higher standards, such as the ability to speak? I can budge in certain situations. But I see no reason to budge for someone who just wants guaranteed birth control. As far as stem cells, I think more research needs to be done with what we have, find out exactly what we can do, and look further into adult stem cells. Four to six months is awfully high. The neural tube begins forming at 16 days, the brain at 27 days. By six weeks, the brain permits basic movement.
Yes, we are a democracy. However, there are fundamental laws that cannot be changed by voting. Murder is one of them.
There are private campgrounds and such too. I cannot fathom a business NOT running a large park more efficiently. Their incentive would be to make money if they are a business, or maybe they'd just be a private orgainzation who does it simply because they want to. Even at state parks you usually pay for parking and such, it basically is run as a business, just not as well because they have no incentive.
There was another category marked "other" at about 4%. I guess if you wanted to be specific you could put your wife in "fear of embarrasment" and/or "insufficient funds to clean/replace panties"? You haven't told me enough about the situation to know anything about the outcome.
The pill is admitadly a moral conundrum. I doubt that I would call it murder, maybe manslaughter? It's difficult to say. It would depend on how often the pill causes fertilized eggs to fail to bond. I guess the more it causes this, the more wrong it is.
I'm really not a fundie, at least in the traditional sense. I reject Christianity and all other religions, but I do believe that all life is so incredible that we should have the utmost regard for it. Just in case you were curious.
Ok, then what is the cutoff point? Pain has nothing to do with it. Please explain to me why the ability to feel pain should be criteria for having the right to live. "Deal with it." Yeah, great logic there. You can't vote to legalize murder. What has happened is that people have tried to pass things off as not murder by changing definitions. Do you really think you have the right to make everyone pay money for something when nearly half the population considers it murder? By the way, there are private roads and parks that you could can access at even lower costs than the taxes you pay. murder- premeditately ending human life The fetus is alive. The fetus is human. Abortion IS about carefree sex in the majority of cases! It is primarily a method of birth control. Under 10% of abortions are for rape, incest, health of the mother, and health of the baby. I fail to see why you couldn't wait a few weeks to find out.
Pain has nothing to do with it. Am I allowed to kill you as long as I give you some anesthetic first? Is it ok to kill something if it feels no pain, but then not ok if it feels pain for a fraction of a second before dying?
I think the development of consciousness is a continuous spectrum. You can't just pick an abstract point and say it's ok to end the life. What's the cutoff point? Your definition of human life is different and you can't prove that you're right. Neither can I. It is very unclear, I just prefer to be as prudent as possible. It's questionable that you should even be allowed to do it, but force me to pay for it? Do you really think you have the right to make me pay for something that I legitimately think is wrong?
I will say that I'm not completely sure about the ethics of stem cell research. I do think people on both sides want what is best for humanity. Abortion is what really irritates me. People want to enjoy sex without having to worry about the consequences. I think it's pretty disgusting that so many would rather kill the fetus than spend 9 months incubating it and giving it up for adoption.
Arguments for killing the fetus are stupid. You cannot try to guess when consciousness develops. Even if it were true that there is a single point where the fetus becomes conscious (which is probably not true), the burden of proof is on you. Just because something is in your body doesn't mean it is your body. You'd have an argument if it just crawled up inside you, but it's different when you put it there.
Logic is on my side. You're lucky that it's even legal. You want to kill a baby to keep you alive and have me pay for it? That's three times wrong.
Lol, yeah you're parents should totally use Linux.
a) we're not sure is our fault
b) we're not sure we can stop it
c) we're not sure if we want to stop it
Here's my computer simulation for our weather over the next decade:
cin :: tempIncrease :: "you will have " :: tempIncrease :: "less crops this decade. Plus or minus 10 orders of magnitude"
cout
Those that don't think it would hurt the economy...are all these countries not doing it just evil? I don't think I can think of a single factor more important to the economy than energy costs. Kyoto would cost us a fortune. We'll be running off nuclear and hydrogen in the coming decades anyway. Shouldn't we spend our money on something practical, say feeding the millions of people who are starving now, instead of something that we'd probably have little effect on and we can't even say if it'd be good.
How is this a good thing? Microsoft is a successful company with a lot of cash. They have the power to make competitive gaming popular and will cover a ton of the cost. Where's the bad news? There won't be less games, there'll just be more Xbox games.
What's so bad about Microsoft anyway? Almost all the money you spend on their products goes to a good thing: either into making the products or cool things like SpaceShipOne and donations.
Far as I can tell from the website, the only console games they've had in the past have been from Microsoft: Halo and PGR. If you're into the world cyber games, this will probably just improve their popularity. This is a good thing, ya'll are just blind Microsoft haters as usual.