Potential is irrelevant to me. If you want to account for potential, any couple has the potential to pump out 1.3 humans a year, but we don't encourage them to do so.
And no, that fetus won't develop if "left to its own". It needs quite a bit of help from the mother. This is exactly why I don't see conception as being such a special moment; the continuing aid from the mother's body is just as important in effecting the fetus' life.
Got some proof -- or evidence -- to suggest I'm wrong? No? Good job. Most evidence suggests that in the first three months, the embryo/fetus has nothing that could be called "sentience" by any stretch of the imagination. After three months I personally don't care if you make it illegal.
The exact moment is obviously debatable. I think we can be reasonably certain, though, that no sentience exists in the first three months (probably much later, even). Personally I would have no problem with a law saying that, if you're going to have an abortion, you gotta make up your mind and do it in those first three months.
That's not true at all. There's around 400 different girls on the site and I'd describe very few of them as "goth". There are more girls with tatoos and unusual piercings than you'd find in the general population, but by no means are they all like that. They are, in fact, far more diverse than what you'd find on just about any other porn site on the net.
Really, the one thing I think almost all of the girls have in common is that they look like real girls that you might actually, you know, meet. That is to say, not wearing excessive makeup and not chosen for absurd body proportions. Furthermore, the contexts of their shoots are a lot more varied than the standard "girl on bed" porn you get everywhere else. The stuff on SG is a hell of a lot more creative and artistic than any other porn you'll find.
Personally, I find all this rather refreshing. Obviously it's a matter of opinion, but I see a lot more beauty in these girls than I do in supermodels and similarly made-up women who all look pretty much the same (and completely unrealistic).
Presumably why there's no code to download from your game site, right?
Entirely moot point. Fate of Io, in its charter, states that it is not serious and will most likely never produce an end product. That has nothing to do with its originality and everything to do with my available free time. Another of my projects -- Evlan, the programming language -- is equally original and is very much serious. In fact, I'll have the first usable version of it done in the next week.
I have a hobby... I write software and design games for fun. The difference is that I always make an effort to create something completely new rather than copy someone else. Not only do I find it more fun, but the results are more interesting and rewarding. Honestly, I never understood why someone would want to create an exact clone of some other person's work, but apparently it's just me.
Irrelevant. Copying the graphics, tile layout, user interface, etc. by hand is still copying, and counts as copyright infringement. There is no clause in copyright law that says only machine-based copying is illegal. Try retyping a book letter-for-letter then selling your retype; you won't get very far.
That's great. I am glad that they included an editor, and that people are creating somewhat-more-original games with it. But why not create an original gameplay system with an editor, rather than a copy of Zelda with an editor? As I understand it, quests made with ZClassic all use Zelda-style gameplay mechanics (correct me if I'm wrong).
And the answer I see is this: By copying Zelda, they can capitalize on the Zelda name, saying "Hey look! You can make your own Zelda with this!", thus drawing attention. Whereas, if they created something original, it would be much harder to get attention. I'm sure there is some sort of original gameplay system out there with an editor that Slashdot could be reporting on, and it would be nice if they did. (I'm sort of working on one myself, but sadly I don't have enough time to be serious about it.)
Er. On further inspection I'm not sure if this thing is even open source. Not that that was a central part of my argument, though. Should have used the term "amateur", I guess.
Honestly. Why re-make Zelda when you could be creating something completely original? I mean, if people want to remake Zelda, copyright violations aside (and yes, they are violating copyrights), it's up to them how to spend their time. But, honestly, the tendency for open source game developers to spend massive amounts of time simply copying something we already have disappoints me. I would be far more interested if someone had created an entirely original gameplay engine and an entirely original game to go with it. And really, it isn't that hard. In my experience, inventing your own gameplay mechanics is far easier and more fun than implementing them.
Personally, I consider requiring the CD in the drive unacceptable. I own lots of games, and the first thing I do with any new game I buy is make a CD image of it. It is far easier to mount an image with Daemon Tools than to rummage around for the CD.
John Kerry is not the kind of person who will take strong and decisive action when faced with a threat
So what do you base that statement on? Do you base it on the time when, as his force travelled up the Dong Chung River, "all units came under intense automatic weapons and small arms fire from an entrenched enemy force less that fifty-feet away. Unhesitatingly, Lt. Kerry ordered his boat to attack as all units opened fire and beached directly in front of the enemy ambushers. This daring and courageous tactic surprised the enemy and succeeded in routing a score of enemy soldiers."? Or shortly after than, when "the boats were again taken under fire from a heavily foliated area" and "with utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only 10 feet from the Viet Cong rocket position and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy."? That's from his Silver Star citation, which adds, "The extraordinary daring and personal courage of Lt. Kerry in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission." No, wait. That would totally go against your statement. Hmm.
Maybe you base the statement on the time when, after being wounded in the arm by an exploding mine, and while "receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the riverbanks" he realized that a man had gone overboard. In response, he turned his boat around and "returned upriver to assist. The man in the water was receiving sniper fire from both banks. Lt. Kerry directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain, and with disregard for his personal safety he pulled the man aboard. Lt. Kerry then directed his boat to return and assist the other damaged boat to safety." That's from his Bronze Star citation, which ends with "Lt. Kerry's calmness, professionalism, and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service." Oh, crap. That also totally contradicts your statement.
What do you base your statements on, anyway? Seriously, have you ever come across evidence of this that was not in the form of an absurd claim made by the Bush campaign? Just because Bush says John Kerry is weak and indecisive doesn't make it true. As Karl Rove always says, "Attack your opponent's strength, not his weakness.". So no wonder they want to paint Kerry this way: they know the opposite is true, and that it is one of this strengths. And in succeeding in convincing the public otherwise, they have greatly hurt his chances of being elected.
And please don't cite SBVT because we all know they're full of shit. (And again, right in line with Rove's strategy. And their funding came from Rove's good buddy Bob Perry. Hrm.)
And I'm really sorry to use Vietnam war references in my argument, because I really think this race has focused way too much on things that happened 30 years ago when they should have been focusing on today's issues. But, obviously, the above quotes are the ideal counter-argument to your ridiculous claim. He's been resolute and such in the senate too, but hearing about how he boldly broke with his party to support a balanced budget just doesn't have the same effect.
Based on deego's math, it doesn't look like the probability is so close to 100%, though it is high. 2000 years should be enough for even distribution.
My assumption that it was very near 100% was based on an example problem in my highschool stats textbook, which showed that the probability that any breath you take contains molecules from Ceasar's last breath is, in fact, very close to 100%. Like, 99.999999% or something. Looking at the numbers again, though, it looks like the expected number of shared molecules between any two breaths -- given time for complete diffusion in between -- is only 1. So maybe I'm remembering wrong. The chance is still well over 50%, though.
In fact, statistically, the chances are nearly 100% that any glass of water you drink contains molecules that were part of Ceasar's last piss. (Or, for that matter, any piss of any human ever, provided enough time has passed for that piss to be distributed equally around the world.)
Let me get this straight... Your logic is, we were already using massive amounts of money we didn't have, and therefore using more money we didn't have was no problem? Do you think we should just increase spending as much as we want and not worry about where the money comes from? I think it's the other way around; because we have such a large deficit already, we need to make extra effort to avoid making it worse.
John Kerry has been very consistent in advocating a pay-as-you-go policy in government spending. When you create new spending, you create a way to pay for it. No exceptions. Kerry was not using the spending package as a "bargaining chip" in any broader campaign to raise taxes. He was simply adhering to his principle of fiscal responsibility.
Look, I think there are two things you fail to understand here: (1) Even if Kerry got his way, the bill would eventually have passed. Kerry never said that the funding was unnecessary. (2) There was no urgent need for these funds. If the bill had taken another month or two to work out it wouldn't be any big deal. It's not like the military is suddenly going to run out of money and shut down. The money was for the long term. Hell, last I read, they hadn't even spent $2 billion of the reconstruction money so far. And don't tell me "Every month delayed was a month soldiers didn't have body armor!" because that would be entirely [i]Bush's[/i] fault for not fucking giving them body armor [i]before[/i] he sent them to war.
I hardly think the "despicable" act of trying to find a way to pay for spending is worse than rushing our troops to war without the necessary equipment, without an exit plan, based on inconclusive evidence, and with an attitude of arrogance that alienated most of our allies who might otherwise have helped us. Or the despicable act of using deficit spending to pay for tax cuts and claiming this helps the economy when it has the opposite effect.
Actually, recursion can be pretty cool when used correctly, in a language designed for it (i.e. functional languages). But, yeah, in C it's a bad idea.
Excuse me? Kerry supported a version of the bill in which we paid for the costs with real money. Bush threatened to veto this version of the bill -- yes, even the parts about body armor -- if it had been sent to him. Then who would you have blamed for "opposing" body armor?
Deficit spending is worse for the economy than taxes. Deficit spending causes inflation and increases interest rates, both of which discourage lending, which slows the economy. Bush wanted to pay for the bill with monopoly money and Kerry objected to that. Sadly, the Republican congress voted to go with the monopoly money, sending the economy just that much further into the tank.
To characterize Kerry's vote as a vote against body armor for troops -- which was, I would like to note, a point championed by Democrats -- is nothing short of blatant dishonesty. He was all for the funding. The only difference is he wanted to find a way to pay for it.
Interesting. I received three "offtopic" mods more or less at the same time, over 12 hours after the original post, after receiving four insightful mods spread out before that. Not that I care; my karma has been maxed out for years. But it amazes me when people make active efforts to censor reasonable arguments based in fact.
And, no, I won't pretend that only Republicans do it. Democrats or any other group are just as bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Potential is irrelevant to me. If you want to account for potential, any couple has the potential to pump out 1.3 humans a year, but we don't encourage them to do so.
And no, that fetus won't develop if "left to its own". It needs quite a bit of help from the mother. This is exactly why I don't see conception as being such a special moment; the continuing aid from the mother's body is just as important in effecting the fetus' life.
Got some proof -- or evidence -- to suggest I'm wrong? No? Good job. Most evidence suggests that in the first three months, the embryo/fetus has nothing that could be called "sentience" by any stretch of the imagination. After three months I personally don't care if you make it illegal.
The exact moment is obviously debatable. I think we can be reasonably certain, though, that no sentience exists in the first three months (probably much later, even). Personally I would have no problem with a law saying that, if you're going to have an abortion, you gotta make up your mind and do it in those first three months.
Says you, but that's your opinion only. Many people say that they are children.
They aren't sentient. That's not opinion.
It's not bullshit. It's anybody's business who thinks that killing for perceived convenience has no place in a civilized society.
We kill all sorts of animals for lesser reasons. But that's ok because they're not sentient.
I don't expect you to agree with this point of view, but I do think it is at least logical and consistent.
Don't try to argue, it is a perfectly valid comparison and you know it.
No it isn't. Kids are sentient. Fetuses are not.
Slaves were sentient. Fetuses are not.
That's not true at all. There's around 400 different girls on the site and I'd describe very few of them as "goth". There are more girls with tatoos and unusual piercings than you'd find in the general population, but by no means are they all like that. They are, in fact, far more diverse than what you'd find on just about any other porn site on the net.
Really, the one thing I think almost all of the girls have in common is that they look like real girls that you might actually, you know, meet. That is to say, not wearing excessive makeup and not chosen for absurd body proportions. Furthermore, the contexts of their shoots are a lot more varied than the standard "girl on bed" porn you get everywhere else. The stuff on SG is a hell of a lot more creative and artistic than any other porn you'll find.
Personally, I find all this rather refreshing. Obviously it's a matter of opinion, but I see a lot more beauty in these girls than I do in supermodels and similarly made-up women who all look pretty much the same (and completely unrealistic).
Presumably why there's no code to download from your game site, right?
Entirely moot point. Fate of Io, in its charter, states that it is not serious and will most likely never produce an end product. That has nothing to do with its originality and everything to do with my available free time. Another of my projects -- Evlan, the programming language -- is equally original and is very much serious. In fact, I'll have the first usable version of it done in the next week.
I have a hobby... I write software and design games for fun. The difference is that I always make an effort to create something completely new rather than copy someone else. Not only do I find it more fun, but the results are more interesting and rewarding. Honestly, I never understood why someone would want to create an exact clone of some other person's work, but apparently it's just me.
Irrelevant. Copying the graphics, tile layout, user interface, etc. by hand is still copying, and counts as copyright infringement. There is no clause in copyright law that says only machine-based copying is illegal. Try retyping a book letter-for-letter then selling your retype; you won't get very far.
That's great. I am glad that they included an editor, and that people are creating somewhat-more-original games with it. But why not create an original gameplay system with an editor, rather than a copy of Zelda with an editor? As I understand it, quests made with ZClassic all use Zelda-style gameplay mechanics (correct me if I'm wrong).
And the answer I see is this: By copying Zelda, they can capitalize on the Zelda name, saying "Hey look! You can make your own Zelda with this!", thus drawing attention. Whereas, if they created something original, it would be much harder to get attention. I'm sure there is some sort of original gameplay system out there with an editor that Slashdot could be reporting on, and it would be nice if they did. (I'm sort of working on one myself, but sadly I don't have enough time to be serious about it.)
Er. On further inspection I'm not sure if this thing is even open source. Not that that was a central part of my argument, though. Should have used the term "amateur", I guess.
Honestly. Why re-make Zelda when you could be creating something completely original? I mean, if people want to remake Zelda, copyright violations aside (and yes, they are violating copyrights), it's up to them how to spend their time. But, honestly, the tendency for open source game developers to spend massive amounts of time simply copying something we already have disappoints me. I would be far more interested if someone had created an entirely original gameplay engine and an entirely original game to go with it. And really, it isn't that hard. In my experience, inventing your own gameplay mechanics is far easier and more fun than implementing them.
I guess the Yankees don't have anything better to do this week, do they?
Personally, I consider requiring the CD in the drive unacceptable. I own lots of games, and the first thing I do with any new game I buy is make a CD image of it. It is far easier to mount an image with Daemon Tools than to rummage around for the CD.
Also, John McCain says SBVT is full of shit, and I tend to think John McCain is someone that can be trusted by members of both parties.
All 200+ people that didn't serve with John Kerry are full of shit, yes. The people who actually served on his boat all support him.
John Kerry is not the kind of person who will take strong and decisive action when faced with a threat
So what do you base that statement on? Do you base it on the time when, as his force travelled up the Dong Chung River, "all units came under intense automatic weapons and small arms fire from an entrenched enemy force less that fifty-feet away. Unhesitatingly, Lt. Kerry ordered his boat to attack as all units opened fire and beached directly in front of the enemy ambushers. This daring and courageous tactic surprised the enemy and succeeded in routing a score of enemy soldiers."? Or shortly after than, when "the boats were again taken under fire from a heavily foliated area" and "with utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only 10 feet from the Viet Cong rocket position and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy."? That's from his Silver Star citation, which adds, "The extraordinary daring and personal courage of Lt. Kerry in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission." No, wait. That would totally go against your statement. Hmm.
Maybe you base the statement on the time when, after being wounded in the arm by an exploding mine, and while "receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the riverbanks" he realized that a man had gone overboard. In response, he turned his boat around and "returned upriver to assist. The man in the water was receiving sniper fire from both banks. Lt. Kerry directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain, and with disregard for his personal safety he pulled the man aboard. Lt. Kerry then directed his boat to return and assist the other damaged boat to safety." That's from his Bronze Star citation, which ends with "Lt. Kerry's calmness, professionalism, and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service." Oh, crap. That also totally contradicts your statement.
What do you base your statements on, anyway? Seriously, have you ever come across evidence of this that was not in the form of an absurd claim made by the Bush campaign? Just because Bush says John Kerry is weak and indecisive doesn't make it true. As Karl Rove always says, "Attack your opponent's strength, not his weakness.". So no wonder they want to paint Kerry this way: they know the opposite is true, and that it is one of this strengths. And in succeeding in convincing the public otherwise, they have greatly hurt his chances of being elected.
And please don't cite SBVT because we all know they're full of shit. (And again, right in line with Rove's strategy. And their funding came from Rove's good buddy Bob Perry. Hrm.)
And I'm really sorry to use Vietnam war references in my argument, because I really think this race has focused way too much on things that happened 30 years ago when they should have been focusing on today's issues. But, obviously, the above quotes are the ideal counter-argument to your ridiculous claim. He's been resolute and such in the senate too, but hearing about how he boldly broke with his party to support a balanced budget just doesn't have the same effect.
Based on deego's math, it doesn't look like the probability is so close to 100%, though it is high. 2000 years should be enough for even distribution.
My assumption that it was very near 100% was based on an example problem in my highschool stats textbook, which showed that the probability that any breath you take contains molecules from Ceasar's last breath is, in fact, very close to 100%. Like, 99.999999% or something. Looking at the numbers again, though, it looks like the expected number of shared molecules between any two breaths -- given time for complete diffusion in between -- is only 1. So maybe I'm remembering wrong. The chance is still well over 50%, though.
In fact, statistically, the chances are nearly 100% that any glass of water you drink contains molecules that were part of Ceasar's last piss. (Or, for that matter, any piss of any human ever, provided enough time has passed for that piss to be distributed equally around the world.)
Let me get this straight... Your logic is, we were already using massive amounts of money we didn't have, and therefore using more money we didn't have was no problem? Do you think we should just increase spending as much as we want and not worry about where the money comes from? I think it's the other way around; because we have such a large deficit already, we need to make extra effort to avoid making it worse.
John Kerry has been very consistent in advocating a pay-as-you-go policy in government spending. When you create new spending, you create a way to pay for it. No exceptions. Kerry was not using the spending package as a "bargaining chip" in any broader campaign to raise taxes. He was simply adhering to his principle of fiscal responsibility.
Look, I think there are two things you fail to understand here: (1) Even if Kerry got his way, the bill would eventually have passed. Kerry never said that the funding was unnecessary. (2) There was no urgent need for these funds. If the bill had taken another month or two to work out it wouldn't be any big deal. It's not like the military is suddenly going to run out of money and shut down. The money was for the long term. Hell, last I read, they hadn't even spent $2 billion of the reconstruction money so far. And don't tell me "Every month delayed was a month soldiers didn't have body armor!" because that would be entirely [i]Bush's[/i] fault for not fucking giving them body armor [i]before[/i] he sent them to war.
I hardly think the "despicable" act of trying to find a way to pay for spending is worse than rushing our troops to war without the necessary equipment, without an exit plan, based on inconclusive evidence, and with an attitude of arrogance that alienated most of our allies who might otherwise have helped us. Or the despicable act of using deficit spending to pay for tax cuts and claiming this helps the economy when it has the opposite effect.
Actually, recursion can be pretty cool when used correctly, in a language designed for it (i.e. functional languages). But, yeah, in C it's a bad idea.
Posting anonymously just in case she developed a latent ability to read, and might be embarrased if she could figure out I was talking about her...
Translation: She's hot and I don't want to ruin my chances of banging her.
Excuse me? Kerry supported a version of the bill in which we paid for the costs with real money. Bush threatened to veto this version of the bill -- yes, even the parts about body armor -- if it had been sent to him. Then who would you have blamed for "opposing" body armor?
Deficit spending is worse for the economy than taxes. Deficit spending causes inflation and increases interest rates, both of which discourage lending, which slows the economy. Bush wanted to pay for the bill with monopoly money and Kerry objected to that. Sadly, the Republican congress voted to go with the monopoly money, sending the economy just that much further into the tank.
To characterize Kerry's vote as a vote against body armor for troops -- which was, I would like to note, a point championed by Democrats -- is nothing short of blatant dishonesty. He was all for the funding. The only difference is he wanted to find a way to pay for it.
Interesting. I received three "offtopic" mods more or less at the same time, over 12 hours after the original post, after receiving four insightful mods spread out before that. Not that I care; my karma has been maxed out for years. But it amazes me when people make active efforts to censor reasonable arguments based in fact.
And, no, I won't pretend that only Republicans do it. Democrats or any other group are just as bad.