I won't respond to Anonymous Cowards. Show the courage to log in so I'll know you get responses. I'll not waste my time.
Looks like you just did there fella...
Point taken, perhaps I will change the sig to "reply", not respond to.The difference? If an AC's comment is highly rated and wrong, I will gladly set the record straight. If they want to reply to me and feel they must be a coward, then I am arguing with someone obviously inferior, at least in courage. If you don't have the courage, then it is most likely a troll. It could be a troll either way, but trolling while avoiding negative karma is not something I will enable.
The only thing I think Google is missing is a way to export all your Google information into a data file you can upload into someone else (or a way to give someone a "key" to your information to side load it)
If you read the article, they would agree with you. How do you like that? They are working on it and accomplished much already, but working toward more. See the Data Liberation Front (dataliberation.org)
This just reeks of the standard, "We have to be closed for security reasons." crap argument put out by proprietary whores all the time.
If you feel that way, why don't you explain to us how they could be more open about it, and make it work? I do not believe in security through obscurity myself, but I am not going to list the key-code next to my alarm either!
.' But are we likely to see Google open their search engine, advertising or the famous back-end system?
No, actually, we aren't. The email says so, in the fourth paragraph under Open Technology > Open Source:
Don't you love it when the submitter doesn't even read the article in question? Get mad all you want, yes I am looking at you CmdrTaco. You may not have submitted it, but you green-lit it.
Even if those currently making decisions at Google are sincerely committed to openness who's to say the next ones will be?
That is the beauty of it. Making these proclamations means they are now "Tiger Woods". The moment they get caught cheating over and over, then it will come crumbling down. Will they mistakes? Sure, they are human. I just hope the public (yea, I know) is wise enough to forgive them, where it is due. As long as they stay righteous, they shouldn't have any problems.
Re:Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of contro
on
Google About Openness
·
· Score: 1
to belittle anyone who doesn't take the plunge 110% is really small...
Perhaps we should hold everyone to the same standard. That seems to be what they are implying, and I agree. First, confidence must be built that it can be done, and Google is leading by example. That is why "I heart Google." They get it.
The reason we hold them to that standard in the first place is because they showed and claimed themselves to be at that standard. It is what we have come to expect. Claiming to be at that standard is bold, and smart. They are forcing themselves to live up to it, and in turn obliterate the competition. Ingenious.
"We engrave upon everyone our image with all action taken and words spoken, and press them into molds that shape others, just as they have done to us." - Villein
No reason they should have to, and it probably doesn't make business sense... but if they don't, their argument that *everybody else* needs to be open is at best unconvincing, at worst hypocritical and cynical.
That is not their argument, read the article, and please do not spread FUD!
From the article:
So as you are building your product or adding new features, stop and ask yourself: Would open sourcing this code promote the open Internet? Would it spur greater user, advertiser, and partner choice? Would it lead to greater competition and innovation? If so, then you should make it open source
Read the article, then bash them. It is obvious you haven't. Opening their search algorithm would do more harm than good. Do you not think there is competition for search already? Bing, Yahoo, or countless others fail to come to mind?
Re:"Openness" defines shift from 20th to 21st cent
on
Google About Openness
·
· Score: 1
I think Google Jonathan Rosenberg is talking about that when he says that it is becoming Rashoman-like.
We want systems to be open, so that we can freely use them, but we will keep our own system proprietary. Where Google makes Open Source, it does so to disrupt other people's business, so that Google can continue to use open infrastructure. Sure, it's good business sense, but spare us the "we are the good guys" bullshit.
How about you RTFA, oh yea this is Slashdot. Perhaps I have fallen hook line and sinker, but I think their actions speak louder than their words, and their words are merely clarification, which is spoken on as well. Since you are not likely to read it, allow me to quote:
"While we are committed to opening the code for our developer tools, not all Google products are open source. Our goal is to keep the Internet open, which promotes choice and competition and keeps users and developers from getting locked in. In many cases, most notably our search and ads products, opening up the code would not contribute to these goals and would actually hurt users. The search and advertising markets are already highly competitive with very low switching costs, so users and advertisers already have plenty of choice and are not locked in. Not to mention the fact that opening up these systems would allow people to "game" our algorithms to manipulate search and ads quality rankings, reducing our quality for everyone.
So as you are building your product or adding new features, stop and ask yourself: Would open sourcing this code promote the open Internet? Would it spur greater user, advertiser, and partner choice? Would it lead to greater competition and innovation? If so, then you should make it open source. And when you do, do it right; don't just push it over the wall into the public realm and forget about it. Make sure you have the resources to pay attention to the code and foster developer engagement. Google Web Toolkit, where we have developed in the open and used a public bug tracker and source control system, is a good example of this."
Tell me, who wants to exclude themselves from this lawsuit, and maybe hire one of those country type lawyers, say like one of those that live in New York for a "real" case that will not just be settled? I have had too much trouble with my Comcastic service, and tired of even my Internet being throttled. I can go to Speedtest.net and it automagically lets Google load up the page. Without it, even Google may have a hard time. I have actually resorted to having TabMixPlus reload the Speedtest.net tab about every minute and a half or so to attempt to thwart my surfing being interrupted. It isn't perfect, but I notice a difference. It's just ridiculous, and so is a $16 settlement!
The lawyers working this (I know, almost all of them) should be ashamed. How about this, in a class action lawsuit, instead of the lawyers getting the unclaimed payouts, everyone gets mailed a check at the same time for the their equal share out of the whole pot. More people would bother to claim, and fairer payouts would be had. Thoughts? Let make the politicos vote on this! (Yes we can? And if not, let us show them!)
Sorry, see SharpFang's quote for better clarification, I forgot exactly what I meant since it had been a few days:
It doesn't have to mean "lose all the software to the public".
More like "create a public open branch of whatever was created to this day". Also, "open source" doesn't have to mean "free as a beer". You can grab the code, tamper with it, compile it, but to use it for anything meaningful you have to purchase a license, and to redistribute your modified code you must purchase a redistribution license, sending a part of your profit upstream.
Though, I might would rather no redistribution license fees. But that is an interesting option. Perhaps if you use any open source software the fees would go to the original authors? (or a trust if author unavailable, for programming education or something)
Yes, that is what I was saying. They would get the employees, buildings and other assets. Remember this was a question, not an "opinion" so please don't attack me directly for trying to think outside of the box.
I like it, but I was looking for something that would kill 2 birds with one stone and curb bigger companies from just gobbling up smaller ones. This often does not make things better and I believe this idea would possibly help separate the wheat from the chaff more naturally.
Also, the original creator could be "paid" to lose the source. (Think big corps. wouldn't try it?) It would cost money to keep the source in escrow.
There are many legit reasons why something would no longer be available for sale, but still legitimately need to be copyrighted. I would agree (yes it hurts) that if XP was sold to another company and then they decided they wanted to move on to something better (XP2?) and no longer make XP for sale that it should not hurt Microsoft's Windows 7/8's sales because XP is now open source and therefore free.
Lastly, books are not the same as software, although similar. This may just work there, if E-Books count as for sale.
What about teenagers who, as shown by the laws against letting them smoke, drink, etc. aren't expected to know better?
What about them? So just because they make a bad choice that gives them the right to kill? (and not to mention make another one that may haunt them for life) Is that what you're saying?
Teenagers know better and that smoking is bad, etc. The laws are written because society believes they are not responsible enough to make that decision. Yet, we think teenagers are responsible enough to have an abortion without a parent even knowing. See anything wrong with that logic?
I very strongly disagree on two counts. First of all, I believe forcing women to work for society in that way is slavery. Second, I believe this might enlighten you a bit.
Force is kind of a strong word, I really meant if anything, not allowed to kill. Force is the words used by pro-choicers.
First count : Do you believe that a criminal who also made a bad choice and is made to work for society is slavery? Perhaps it is. I would rather criminals work of their debt instead of watch cable and learn how to be bigger criminals from their buddies anyway. More so, when she kills the child she is actually killing a bit of society. Even more, slavery is forcing me to pay taxes for your abortion and the "necessary" government oversight when so many families want to adopt. Perhaps you think outlawing suicide is slavery. I think that someone wanting to abort is as sick and needs as much help as someone who is considering suicide. There are better ways. But out of laziness we would rather not own up to our failures in society and try to use them to justify killing the unborn. That thinking is why we are in this situation in the first place, trying to justify killing.
Second Count: That was enlightening, if only to help me understand my own ideas even better. Thanks.
Summary: unwanted children are not loved by their parents, who treat them like crap, and they, unsurprisingly, tend to become criminals more often.
This should be I would think an obvious statement. I see in no way how this justifies killing "unwanted children". All it implies is that we need to get unwanted children out of the hands of those that do not want them and into the hands of those that do.
Michael Vick may not like his puppies very much, but that doesn't mean we should kill the puppies because he may mistreat them.
Parents who do not want kids are probably criminals more often and teach their children to be. So because you are a criminal we shouldn't let you have children? Oh, no we shouldn't say that, unless you do not want them, then it is ok. This is basically what you are saying. That is unless you think it is ok to keep criminals from having children. I am not sure if you really want to go toe to toe with me on that one. I am not sure that I do. I would hope you get why that is setting us up for to say the least... insanity.
So you'll support the mothers and children in these cases will you? Will you allow your tax dollars to go to a welfare state to keep these people fed and clothed?
I sure would, be a lot better than were many of my tax dollars are going now. To saves lives is the noblest cause...
What you call a simple 'choice' is a realistic view of a harsh world, in which if they tried to follow your view of the 'right thing' they would be damning themselves and their unborn child to a life of misery and most likely crime to survive. By making the hard choice they are in fact taking the responsible option of not dumping another unsupported (in many cases unsupportable by mother/family) person into a society that apparently doesn't care about their welfare beyond getting them into the world.
Sure it could be harder on them to raise the child. So is going to jail for a crime. Should they get out of jail because they kill something? No, they should have responsibility for their actions. Plus, having a child could cause them to not make other bad decisions since they value life so little. I will concede you just convinced me that it is the hard choice. Normally I would argue. And I still do except for this. Living with what you did is the hardest thing of all, much worse than raising that child. Not to mention the countless people willing to adopt that child from you.
Think about this one, how many STDs might be avoided (and lives saved?) if mothers avoided sex or used contraception because they might get pregnant? Probably more than the 4,000 abortions everyday in America.
That in itself is just a justification required for people that have a problem in stopping a life before its started.
All the justification they need is that it is there choice.(they don't want to "deal" with it) That is it. But you already knew that. Anyone against "the choice" doesn't need justification for doing something wrong. Come'on! - I don't like you therefore I am justified to kill you? Justification smustification.
We don't hear PETA droning on about animal abortions or the putting down of pets - because they're painless acts that are often done either for the welfare of the mother, or with respect for the quality of future life of the foetus.
No, because Peta would rather drown animals than make sure they get a good home. I would never use them in an argument again. Who gives them or you a right to kill so "they have a better life?" Are you even listening to yourself? You may, MAY not come out OK, it isn't like we've been wrong before. So, we are gonna kill you.
All that matters is the welfare of those that already exist - to consider any further would be madness and could be taken as far as the welfare of sperm or unfertilized eggs (potential for life means a hell of a lot of things).
That is just that, an unborn child does exist... again are you listening to yourself? And what is the problem with taking into the account the welfare of an egg or sperm? Nothing, and it sure isn't madness.
We have one person with rights and we have one potential person (who may or may not survive the process anyway) that is dependent on the person with rights, to live (and only that person, i.e. not the same as a child being dependent on a parent - could be anyone). The choice is simple - the person with rights exists now, the other doesn't - you can only make one choice that doesn't infringe their rights.
Just because you say it doesn't make it true. The unborn child does exist.. DOES EXIST, and has just as many rights. Why do you think we are upset with crap excuses to kill a child, unborn or not? Remember, your rights go as far as not infringing on mine. And like I said, just because they haven't taken a breath doesn't mean they are not alive. THAT is ludicrous.
What is actually going on there is the tacit assumption that a developing baby doesn't count as a human. If that's your argument, you should say it.
A fetus doesn't count as a human being. And even if it did, the adult counts more.
There. Happy?
No, not happy. What is a fetus, but an unborn human baby. (unless it is an alien fetus) So it does count.
And no, my feelings that everyone who believes in abortion should die (joking) does not count more than your's that you are right just because you hadn't been born yet. You would then argue that your opinion doesn't count at all, but then I would say please see above.
Slashdot Mirror
I won't respond to Anonymous Cowards. Show the courage to log in so I'll know you get responses. I'll not waste my time.
Looks like you just did there fella...
Point taken, perhaps I will change the sig to "reply", not respond to.The difference? If an AC's comment is highly rated and wrong, I will gladly set the record straight. If they want to reply to me and feel they must be a coward, then I am arguing with someone obviously inferior, at least in courage. If you don't have the courage, then it is most likely a troll. It could be a troll either way, but trolling while avoiding negative karma is not something I will enable.
The only thing I think Google is missing is a way to export all your Google information into a data file you can upload into someone else (or a way to give someone a "key" to your information to side load it)
If you read the article, they would agree with you. How do you like that? They are working on it and accomplished much already, but working toward more. See the Data Liberation Front (dataliberation.org)
This just reeks of the standard, "We have to be closed for security reasons." crap argument put out by proprietary whores all the time.
If you feel that way, why don't you explain to us how they could be more open about it, and make it work? I do not believe in security through obscurity myself, but I am not going to list the key-code next to my alarm either!
I think Google means having hardware YOU OWN be open. Their servers are their own property.
*Groan*, is right. I think too many people assume what other's mean and won't even bother to listen to the words they are trying to interpret.
From the OP:
.' But are we likely to see Google open their search engine, advertising or the famous back-end system?
No, actually, we aren't. The email says so, in the fourth paragraph under Open Technology > Open Source:
Don't you love it when the submitter doesn't even read the article in question? Get mad all you want, yes I am looking at you CmdrTaco. You may not have submitted it, but you green-lit it.
Even if those currently making decisions at Google are sincerely committed to openness who's to say the next ones will be?
That is the beauty of it. Making these proclamations means they are now "Tiger Woods". The moment they get caught cheating over and over, then it will come crumbling down. Will they mistakes? Sure, they are human. I just hope the public (yea, I know) is wise enough to forgive them, where it is due. As long as they stay righteous, they shouldn't have any problems.
to belittle anyone who doesn't take the plunge 110% is really small ...
Well said, MEEP MEEP! (Here, here!)
Perhaps we should hold everyone to the same standard. That seems to be what they are implying, and I agree. First, confidence must be built that it can be done, and Google is leading by example. That is why "I heart Google." They get it.
The reason we hold them to that standard in the first place is because they showed and claimed themselves to be at that standard. It is what we have come to expect. Claiming to be at that standard is bold, and smart. They are forcing themselves to live up to it, and in turn obliterate the competition. Ingenious.
"We engrave upon everyone our image with all action taken and words spoken, and press them into molds that shape others, just as they have done to us." - Villein
Except the Borg will not allow you to leave, and Google will. — the Data Liberation Front
No reason they should have to, and it probably doesn't make business sense... but if they don't, their argument that *everybody else* needs to be open is at best unconvincing, at worst hypocritical and cynical.
That is not their argument, read the article, and please do not spread FUD!
From the article:
So as you are building your product or adding new features, stop and ask yourself: Would open sourcing this code promote the open Internet? Would it spur greater user, advertiser, and partner choice? Would it lead to greater competition and innovation? If so, then you should make it open source
Read the article, then bash them. It is obvious you haven't. Opening their search algorithm would do more harm than good. Do you not think there is competition for search already? Bing, Yahoo, or countless others fail to come to mind?
I think Google Jonathan Rosenberg is talking about that when he says that it is becoming Rashoman-like.
We want systems to be open, so that we can freely use them, but we will keep our own system proprietary. Where Google makes Open Source, it does so to disrupt other people's business, so that Google can continue to use open infrastructure. Sure, it's good business sense, but spare us the "we are the good guys" bullshit.
How about you RTFA, oh yea this is Slashdot. Perhaps I have fallen hook line and sinker, but I think their actions speak louder than their words, and their words are merely clarification, which is spoken on as well. Since you are not likely to read it, allow me to quote:
"While we are committed to opening the code for our developer tools, not all Google products are open source. Our goal is to keep the Internet open, which promotes choice and competition and keeps users and developers from getting locked in. In many cases, most notably our search and ads products, opening up the code would not contribute to these goals and would actually hurt users. The search and advertising markets are already highly competitive with very low switching costs, so users and advertisers already have plenty of choice and are not locked in. Not to mention the fact that opening up these systems would allow people to "game" our algorithms to manipulate search and ads quality rankings, reducing our quality for everyone.
So as you are building your product or adding new features, stop and ask yourself: Would open sourcing this code promote the open Internet? Would it spur greater user, advertiser, and partner choice? Would it lead to greater competition and innovation? If so, then you should make it open source. And when you do, do it right; don't just push it over the wall into the public realm and forget about it. Make sure you have the resources to pay attention to the code and foster developer engagement. Google Web Toolkit, where we have developed in the open and used a public bug tracker and source control system, is a good example of this."
Tell me, who wants to exclude themselves from this lawsuit, and maybe hire one of those country type lawyers, say like one of those that live in New York for a "real" case that will not just be settled? I have had too much trouble with my Comcastic service, and tired of even my Internet being throttled. I can go to Speedtest.net and it automagically lets Google load up the page. Without it, even Google may have a hard time. I have actually resorted to having TabMixPlus reload the Speedtest.net tab about every minute and a half or so to attempt to thwart my surfing being interrupted. It isn't perfect, but I notice a difference. It's just ridiculous, and so is a $16 settlement!
The lawyers working this (I know, almost all of them) should be ashamed. How about this, in a class action lawsuit, instead of the lawyers getting the unclaimed payouts, everyone gets mailed a check at the same time for the their equal share out of the whole pot. More people would bother to claim, and fairer payouts would be had. Thoughts? Let make the politicos vote on this! (Yes we can? And if not, let us show them!)
Sorry, see SharpFang's quote for better clarification, I forgot exactly what I meant since it had been a few days:
It doesn't have to mean "lose all the software to the public".
More like "create a public open branch of whatever was created to this day".
Also, "open source" doesn't have to mean "free as a beer". You can grab the code, tamper with it, compile it, but to use it for anything meaningful you have to purchase a license, and to redistribute your modified code you must purchase a redistribution license, sending a part of your profit upstream.
Though, I might would rather no redistribution license fees. But that is an interesting option. Perhaps if you use any open source software the fees would go to the original authors? (or a trust if author unavailable, for programming education or something)
Actually he was sorta right, but I am glad the "thought experiment" for discussion going.
That is an even better clarification, and I like it.
Yes, that is what I was saying. They would get the employees, buildings and other assets. Remember this was a question, not an "opinion" so please don't attack me directly for trying to think outside of the box.
I like it, but I was looking for something that would kill 2 birds with one stone and curb bigger companies from just gobbling up smaller ones. This often does not make things better and I believe this idea would possibly help separate the wheat from the chaff more naturally.
Also, the original creator could be "paid" to lose the source. (Think big corps. wouldn't try it?) It would cost money to keep the source in escrow.
There are many legit reasons why something would no longer be available for sale, but still legitimately need to be copyrighted. I would agree (yes it hurts) that if XP was sold to another company and then they decided they wanted to move on to something better (XP2?) and no longer make XP for sale that it should not hurt Microsoft's Windows 7/8's sales because XP is now open source and therefore free.
Lastly, books are not the same as software, although similar. This may just work there, if E-Books count as for sale.
What about teenagers who, as shown by the laws against letting them smoke, drink, etc. aren't expected to know better?
What about them? So just because they make a bad choice that gives them the right to kill? (and not to mention make another one that may haunt them for life) Is that what you're saying?
Teenagers know better and that smoking is bad, etc. The laws are written because society believes they are not responsible enough to make that decision. Yet, we think teenagers are responsible enough to have an abortion without a parent even knowing. See anything wrong with that logic?
I very strongly disagree on two counts. First of all, I believe forcing women to work for society in that way is slavery. Second, I believe this might enlighten you a bit.
Force is kind of a strong word, I really meant if anything, not allowed to kill. Force is the words used by pro-choicers.
First count : Do you believe that a criminal who also made a bad choice and is made to work for society is slavery? Perhaps it is. I would rather criminals work of their debt instead of watch cable and learn how to be bigger criminals from their buddies anyway. More so, when she kills the child she is actually killing a bit of society. Even more, slavery is forcing me to pay taxes for your abortion and the "necessary" government oversight when so many families want to adopt. Perhaps you think outlawing suicide is slavery. I think that someone wanting to abort is as sick and needs as much help as someone who is considering suicide. There are better ways. But out of laziness we would rather not own up to our failures in society and try to use them to justify killing the unborn. That thinking is why we are in this situation in the first place, trying to justify killing.
Second Count: That was enlightening, if only to help me understand my own ideas even better. Thanks.
Summary: unwanted children are not loved by their parents, who treat them like crap, and they, unsurprisingly, tend to become criminals more often.
This should be I would think an obvious statement. I see in no way how this justifies killing "unwanted children". All it implies is that we need to get unwanted children out of the hands of those that do not want them and into the hands of those that do.
Michael Vick may not like his puppies very much, but that doesn't mean we should kill the puppies because he may mistreat them.
Parents who do not want kids are probably criminals more often and teach their children to be. So because you are a criminal we shouldn't let you have children? Oh, no we shouldn't say that, unless you do not want them, then it is ok. This is basically what you are saying. That is unless you think it is ok to keep criminals from having children. I am not sure if you really want to go toe to toe with me on that one. I am not sure that I do. I would hope you get why that is setting us up for to say the least... insanity.
So you'll support the mothers and children in these cases will you? Will you allow your tax dollars to go to a welfare state to keep these people fed and clothed?
I sure would, be a lot better than were many of my tax dollars are going now. To saves lives is the noblest cause...
What you call a simple 'choice' is a realistic view of a harsh world, in which if they tried to follow your view of the 'right thing' they would be damning themselves and their unborn child to a life of misery and most likely crime to survive. By making the hard choice they are in fact taking the responsible option of not dumping another unsupported (in many cases unsupportable by mother/family) person into a society that apparently doesn't care about their welfare beyond getting them into the world.
Sure it could be harder on them to raise the child. So is going to jail for a crime. Should they get out of jail because they kill something? No, they should have responsibility for their actions. Plus, having a child could cause them to not make other bad decisions since they value life so little. I will concede you just convinced me that it is the hard choice. Normally I would argue. And I still do except for this. Living with what you did is the hardest thing of all, much worse than raising that child. Not to mention the countless people willing to adopt that child from you.
Think about this one, how many STDs might be avoided (and lives saved?) if mothers avoided sex or used contraception because they might get pregnant? Probably more than the 4,000 abortions everyday in America.
That in itself is just a justification required for people that have a problem in stopping a life before its started.
All the justification they need is that it is there choice.(they don't want to "deal" with it) That is it. But you already knew that. Anyone against "the choice" doesn't need justification for doing something wrong. Come'on! - I don't like you therefore I am justified to kill you? Justification smustification.
We don't hear PETA droning on about animal abortions or the putting down of pets - because they're painless acts that are often done either for the welfare of the mother, or with respect for the quality of future life of the foetus.
No, because Peta would rather drown animals than make sure they get a good home. I would never use them in an argument again. Who gives them or you a right to kill so "they have a better life?" Are you even listening to yourself? You may, MAY not come out OK, it isn't like we've been wrong before. So, we are gonna kill you.
All that matters is the welfare of those that already exist - to consider any further would be madness and could be taken as far as the welfare of sperm or unfertilized eggs (potential for life means a hell of a lot of things).
That is just that, an unborn child does exist... again are you listening to yourself? And what is the problem with taking into the account the welfare of an egg or sperm? Nothing, and it sure isn't madness.
We have one person with rights and we have one potential person (who may or may not survive the process anyway) that is dependent on the person with rights, to live (and only that person, i.e. not the same as a child being dependent on a parent - could be anyone). The choice is simple - the person with rights exists now, the other doesn't - you can only make one choice that doesn't infringe their rights.
Just because you say it doesn't make it true. The unborn child does exist.. DOES EXIST, and has just as many rights. Why do you think we are upset with crap excuses to kill a child, unborn or not? Remember, your rights go as far as not infringing on mine. And like I said, just because they haven't taken a breath doesn't mean they are not alive. THAT is ludicrous.
The only thing here I think I can agree with is the headless/brainless baby issue; since that is basically just genetically unique tissue.
What is the sonogram is wrong, and you aborted a healthy baby?
What is actually going on there is the tacit assumption that a developing baby doesn't count as a human. If that's your argument, you should say it.
A fetus doesn't count as a human being. And even if it did, the adult counts more.
There. Happy?
No, not happy. What is a fetus, but an unborn human baby. (unless it is an alien fetus) So it does count.
And no, my feelings that everyone who believes in abortion should die (joking) does not count more than your's that you are right just because you hadn't been born yet. You would then argue that your opinion doesn't count at all, but then I would say please see above.
Now I am happy.
Then you believe a woman can eat her husband because animals and insects do it? Spoken like a true AC.
It is a terrible burden to bear that one could have a son or daughter right now, but they are dead.