I used to work for an Israeli woman who had a cousin named Doodi, which in Hebrew evidently is a nickname for "David", and does not have any fecal connotations.
Remember: "Woo Suk-Hwang" might sound/read funny to an English reader, but it probably doesn't mean "Who sucks cock" in Korean... Same with "Doodi".
Then again, maybe it DOES mean "poop". Ask him!
Uhh, WMF is used by more than just CAD programs...
on
Two New WMF Bugs Found
·
· Score: 4, Informative
This quote is severely misleading, to the point where it makes me wonder if they are trying to purposely understate the scope of the problem.
MS Office reads WMF files. Some of the clip art available from office.microsoft.com comes in WMF format. I don't use ANY CAD programs at all, and I have dozens of WMF files on my Windows machine's hard drive (I just checked. It's Word clip art.)
It seems like they're simply trying to get people to say "Well, ah don't know what that CAD thang is, so ah guess it dun' affect me none."
Scientist: "Over billions of years, bees evolved from simpler lifeforms to fly."
Christian Sunday School textbook: "God created bees, using His infinite wisdom, to fly."
"Intelligent Design" school textbook: "God^H^H^HThe Intelligent Designer created bees, using His infinite wisdom, to fly."
Orthodox Jew: "HaShem created bees, and bees fly."
Islamic fundamentalist: "Allah gave bees to the prophet Mohammad (PBUH), so that we could use them to create flying bee-bombs in the name of the holy jihad! Allahu ackbar!"
Pat Robertson: "Bees fly because they're fleeing sodomites. The same reason God brought 9/11 upon America!"
Extreme pro-life Christian: "Bees don't actually fly! Those intellectual scientists say they do, but they don't really! And even a zygote can feel pain!"
Christian layman #1: "I don't know how, but I do know God did it, and that's enough for me!"
Christian layman #2: "Maybe Satan makes bees fly! They do sting people, you know, and that's evil."
Christian layman #3: "Without the power of Jesus and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, bees could not fly. Bees flying is a testament to Our Lord."
Christian in a guilt-tripping mood: "You know, Jesus suffered so greatly upon the Cross at Calvary so that bees could fly. Don't you feel sorry for Jesus? How much he hurt for all those little bees?"
Scientologist: "Xenu engineered bees to fly during the development of his space planes. Bees sting us because they are attracted to our residual body thetans."
Jack T. Chick: "Beloved, bees fly because of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who shed His Precious Blood on the cross at Calvary. Be not deceived! Have YOU accepted Jesus into your life? ___ Yes ___ No"
SlashBot #1: "In Soviet Russia, bees fly YOU!"
SlashBot #2: "I want a Beowulf cluster of petrified flying bees with hot grits!"
SlashBot #3: "In Korea, only old bees fly."
SlashBot #4: "NetCraft confirms: Bees are dying."
Apple: "iBee. Just $99.95. Buy it now at the Apple Store."
CAPTAIN: "TAKE OFF EVERY 'BEE'. YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DOING. MOVE 'BEE'. FOR GREAT NECTAR."
Borg: "'Why' is irrelevant. Flying is irrelevant. The bees will be assimilated. Their culture will adapt to service us."
Star Wars (classic): "The Bees fly because the Force flows through them."
Star Wars (prequels): "Bees fly because of elevated midichlorian counts."
President George W. Bush: "Ah believe that bees fly because of the nukular terrists. We must maintain vigilance and stay the course against these and all other enemies of freedom and democracy."
Homsar: "I was raised by a cup of coffee."
It will be selectively enforced, and used primarily by the strong and sneaky (politicians, corporations, the wealthy) against the weak and powerless (ordinary citizens).
E.g.: "Your Honor, we at Sony have traced this anonymous complaint about an alleged bug in our Playstation 3 to this individual, John Q. Public; we believe Mr. Public has seriously damaged our rights and devalued our intellectual property, and according to [law], he should be jailed for up to [x] years."
Are you sure that your 'bug' isn't really just your inability to understand how to use the software properly, a lacking not just in the documentation but in your patience to read said documents or to learn how to use the software properly?
I'm waiting for your documentation of the feature by which Microsoft Word alters the spacing below the header on the last two to three pages of a section in an apparently unchangeable way, without leaving any hidden markup characters which would cause such a change, and without altering the margins or other information in the Page Setup dialog. I'm certain your response will be quite enlightening.
If you feel so strongly about this... oh high and mighty Caspian, master of English... as your wordy post suggests, then the question really is why are you not spending every waking hour of your life contributing to the documentation of open source projects such as OpenOffice?
Because I haven't got the time. Would you please stop trolling me? Ever since I attempted to correct your use of "loose" instead of "lose", you've had a bug up your ass about me. If you feel so strongly against the concept of advocating proper writing, I'd suggest that you devote your life to starting the "righting wryte suxx" movement. I'm sure three quarters of the High School population and half of SlashDot would join.
I did not say that open-source software is "innovative". In practice, I find that it's mostly derivative. However, one [almost always] does not pay for open-source software. One doespay for Microsoft Office. With that payment comes the expectation of not only superior (to free solutions) documentation, but documentation that is constantly improving.
I see the Microsoft fanboys and astroturfers are out in full swing today.
My parent post is the truth. The truth is not flamebait, it simply is.
Disagree with it if you must, but don't moderate it down simply because I fail to treat Bill Gates with kid gloves. I've noticed that any post that criticizes Microsoft or Gates in unapologetically harsh language gets modded down as "(-1, Flamebait)" or "(-1, Troll)". This is a very dangerous (and more than slightly suspicious) pattern.
A large part of things that frustrate users are easily fixable.
For example, how about an online help system that doesn't suck? I've pretty much given up on most help systems, since they are never updated and rarely answer any question more complex than "what is the hotkey combination to copy/paste"? (e.g. search for 'hotkeys' or 'copy paste' or 'keyboard shortcuts').
The people who maintain large, complex software packages (e.g. Windows, MS Word, OpenOffice.org) should constantly monitor the relevant newsgroups, bug report systems, and customer service lines, adding any and every pertinent question users have to the help system. Sure, this might involve making online help systems truly "online", having them query from a database on some server somewhere-- but doesn't MS Office's help system already do that?
Capsule example: I have a MS Word document in which, for no apparent reason, the computer has decided to increase the spacing below the Header, but only on the last few pages of a given section. Adding or removing text from those pages further alters this spacing. I suspect that this is a bug and/or that my document is ever-so-mildly corrupted. I can virtually guarantee you that somewhere, deep within the bowels of the MS bug-reporting/customer service system, is a document pertaining to this particular situation. But I can also virtually guarantee you that, if I hit F1 and entered "header spacing changing", or "header spacing bug", or any other query which should turn up information on this situation, I won't find squat.
If MS knows about a question a user has had, a problem a user has reported, or a known bug they have found in their software, the online help system should know about it too. Furthermore, it should be well-indexed, under every possible synonym a user might realistically use to search for it. (e.g. "header, heading, space, spacing, after, bug, changing, altering, alter, change, corrupt, document, corrupted, unfixable, mysterious, etc."), and a well-chosen "expert system" algorithm should be used to figure out the most likely thing(s) the user is asking for help on. (e.g. "Are you: * Asking about a bug where header spacing changes as you add or remove text?").
Another example of things that badly need changing: Greyed-out menu items. I cannot tell you how many times I've gotten incredibly frustrated at greyed-out menu items. Why are they greyed out? How can I get them un-greyed out? I've said for a long while that there should be a UI standard whereby, if a user hovers their mouse cursor over a greyed-out control (or if a blind user tabs over to a given greyed-out control and leaves it there for a few seconds), the computer should tell you why said item is greyed out. This would save people from countless hours of combined aggravation.
But no one does it.
Also, whenever online help systems refer to "the such-and-such button", or "the such-and-such tab", or even "the such-and-such menu", hovering over (or clicking on) the name (e.g. "the Accessories tab" on a printer setup dialog, which I had to dig around to find; despite being referred to in the context-sensitive help accessed from the printer-specific 'Properties' dialog accessed from 'File, Print', it turned out to be completely inaccessible from said dialog, and to find it one had to actually go to the Printers control panel, right-click on the printer's icon, and go to Properties there) should provide you with [A] a screenshot of said item, with an arrow pointing to it, and [B] sample instructions on how to find it.
We don't need Counselor Troi algorithms telling us when they're "sensing great anger". We need Commander Data algorithms that actually answer our fucking questions.
If I robbed a bank of $10,000,000, then gave $9,000,000 to charities, am I suddenly warm and fuzzy?
Bill Gates earned his billions through illegal, immoral, anticompetitive, ruthless business tactics that have arguably set back the state of "innovation" (to use Microsoft's favorite term) in multiple fields by years, if not decades. His actions have created chilling effects across virtually every field connected even tangentially with computing. The fact that he is now giving much, most, or even all of his arguably ill-gotten money to charitable causes does not erase the source of those funds.
Given the chance to "do it all over again", I do not believe Gates would play by the rules on a second run-through. His core character hasn't changed. From the beginning, he was a megalomaniacal character, who seemed to honestly believe that he-- and only he-- knew what was best for computing. It's rumored that in the '70s, at a meeting of computer software makers, he prophecized that in the future, there would be only one computer software company. He's now doing his best to ensure that his is that company. From all that I've read of him, despite all his very real importance, he has an exaggerated sense of his own self-importance; he sees himself as a sort of king or messiah of the digital world, and he's willing to do anything and everything in his power (legal, illegal, moral, or immoral) to maintain his position as dictator of all things software.
The man isn't some sort of loveable Robin Hood who robs from the rich and gives to the poor. He's stunted the competition and innovation of the very technology industry he insists upon shepherding, and in the process he's broken laws-- both those of countries and those of basic morality. Giving away the money (much of which arguably isn't rightfully his in the first place) does not erase this.
I have no patience any more for reactions like this. I didn't sit through years of boring and repetitive schooling to have highly intelligent computer professionals and hobbyists-- who also sat through the very same sort of mind-numbing training-- criticize me as a "Nazi", a "pedant", or "having a stick up my ass" for merely expecting a basic standard of writing ability.
Have some fucking self-respect, and use the correct words.
I did them a favour of informing them of how a significant percentage of gamers could not play the game because of brutal bugs that get worse as the game progresses. And I warned them that if they ignored it, they'd loose me as a reader as well as everyone else I could pass the word on to. They obviously didn't care.
The word you wanted is "lose".
Mod me down if you must, but it's important that intelligent people understand basic English vocabulary.
If you have some of the same problems dealing with things as Ellen
Yeah, I've also had major problems with fundamentalist organizations nationwide lambasting me as an evil influence on the culture after I came out on national television as a lesbian.
A "person" is generally taken to be "a human being"; what distinguishes humans from other animals is their sentience. Take away the sentience and what you have left is not a human being. Remove my brain and the rest of my body is not a human being; it is a corpse. (Even if you keep it alive via a heart-lung machine, it is still a corpse, albeit an animated one.)
By this (my) logic, thus, a fetus is not a "human being", and therefore not a "person". Fetuses aren't sentient. Kill a fetus and it experiences pain less acutely and on a lower level of consciousness than, say, an adult cow. And few would argue that killing an adult cow for its meat is immoral (PETA notwithstanding).
The argument of the anti-abortion crowd is completely emotional in nature. To them, because a fetus looks similar to a baby, it is in fact a baby. This is not so; a newborn baby's brain is infinitely more highly developed than, say, a first-term fetus. The argument that a fetus looks human and has human DNA, and thus that killing it is comparable to killing a baby or even an adult human, reminds me in a sense of the old argument that the Sun revolves around the Earth because that's how it appears.
Sometimes, appearances can be deceiving. A fetus looks human, but it lacks what makes humans human-- a highly-developed brain. Until the brain is developed and functioning, what you have is not a human. It is a proto-human, a pre-human, a potential human. Similarly, Terri Schiavo was not a human after her accident. She was an ex-human, a destroyed human, a broken human. Even retarded people exhibit mental abilities that are unique to humans, but fetuses (or people in Persistent Vegetative States) do not.
Thus, the only moral issues involved in killing a fetus or a Terri Schiavo are [1] issues of respect for the family's wishes and [2] issues of respect for the person's potential future status as a human being (in the case of a fetus) or for their former status as a human being (in the case of Terri Schiavo). These issues are comparable to the moral issues surrounding the concept of "respect for the dead", and I place debates over the "rights" of fetuses or PVS patients into that same sphere. Killing a fetus is comparable on a biological level to killing an animal with equivalent neurological capabilities. On the evidence of more advanced neurological development, I submit that cows feel pain more acutely than fetuses, and thus that killing a fetus does not inflict as much pain as killing a cow. Nevertheless, any killing should be carried out in as swift and painless a method as possible.
Logic, not "beliefs", should guide issues like this. It is illogical to equate a first-term fetus to a baby, and supremely illogical to equate them to an adult.
All true morality stems from concern for the well-being and contentedness of other people. Altruism, in other words. The Golden Rule all over again.
A law is immoral if it denies a person their right to conduct their life as they see fit, with no exceptions except where their actions would harm another.
In other words, you should be allowed to do anything except for intentionally, knowingly or maliciously harming another human being without a valid cause (e.g.: self-defense, the defense of others, etc.).
A.k.a.: The Golden Rule, The Wiccan Rede, etc. etc.
E.g.: Killing another person is wrong, except when in self-defense or defending another. Spreading lies about another person is wrong. Spreading someone's secrets is wrong except where necessary for the protection of the public (e.g.: spreading "Joe Smith is gay" is wrong; spreading "Joe Smith is a convicted child molestor" (assuming it's true) is alright).
This really isn't complex.
Someone else brought up the concept of alcohol; they don't think people should drink, so they said [paraphrasing] "but that doesn't mean I can burn down bars". This is true. However, the morality of drinking really isn't that difficult to discern: It's not immoral to drink except where it would harm another person. Example: It's immoral to drink before driving, because then your driving could harm another person. It's immoral to drink excessively (to the point of drunkenness, poor job performance, etc.) if you are supporting a family, because then your drunkenness could impact your ability to earn a living and feed your kids. But it is not immoral (although it is arguably incredibly stupid) for a single, non-driving individual to get completely piss-drunk, pass out in a bathroom, and puke their guts out into a toilet.
Although there is a strong emotional element to morality, at its core-- if you remove the arbitrary superstitious elements introduced by various religions-- I believe morality can be wholly logical. The Wiccans have it right-- "An it harm none, do as thou wilt" is a nice capsule summary of morality.
When the law is immoral, it is the duty of any moral individual to ignore the law.
There was a time when slavery was legal, and helping another person's slaves escape to freedom was theft.
China's laws regarding freedom of speech (or, specifically, the lack thereof) are not moral; thus, no, MS should not obey them (nor should anyone else).
Of course, this is all philosophical. Corporations don't care about what's moral or immoral, they care about what makes them money (and/or "market share"/power). This is true not only of Microsoft, but of essentially every other for-profit corporation.
$1.5 billion, divided by-- what-- around 280,000,000 USians? That's five bucks a head.
If everyone takes an average of one (you KNOW some cheaters will take more than one), that's five bucks per.
If 10% of the population takes one, that's $50 per.
If 5% of the population takes one, that's $100 per.
If 1% of the population takes one, that's $500 per.
Ah, but this is naive math. That's $1.5 billion for the whole program. I'm sure at least half will get gobbled up by the elaborate system they set up to distribute these things. Retraining, printing forms, programming databases, printing vouchers, negotiating with retailers...
Any bets on how this $1.5 billion will actually filter down to the little guy?
Slashdot Mirror
What, me? RTFA? Isn't that a violation of SlashDot Code? ;)
It might not mean "Doodie" (i.e. "poop").
I used to work for an Israeli woman who had a cousin named Doodi, which in Hebrew evidently is a nickname for "David", and does not have any fecal connotations.
Remember: "Woo Suk-Hwang" might sound/read funny to an English reader, but it probably doesn't mean "Who sucks cock" in Korean... Same with "Doodi".
Then again, maybe it DOES mean "poop". Ask him!
Scientist: "Over billions of years, bees evolved from simpler lifeforms to fly."
Christian Sunday School textbook: "God created bees, using His infinite wisdom, to fly."
"Intelligent Design" school textbook: "God^H^H^HThe Intelligent Designer created bees, using His infinite wisdom, to fly."
Orthodox Jew: "HaShem created bees, and bees fly."
Islamic fundamentalist: "Allah gave bees to the prophet Mohammad (PBUH), so that we could use them to create flying bee-bombs in the name of the holy jihad! Allahu ackbar!"
Pat Robertson: "Bees fly because they're fleeing sodomites. The same reason God brought 9/11 upon America!"
Extreme pro-life Christian: "Bees don't actually fly! Those intellectual scientists say they do, but they don't really! And even a zygote can feel pain!"
Christian layman #1: "I don't know how, but I do know God did it, and that's enough for me!"
Christian layman #2: "Maybe Satan makes bees fly! They do sting people, you know, and that's evil."
Christian layman #3: "Without the power of Jesus and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, bees could not fly. Bees flying is a testament to Our Lord."
Christian in a guilt-tripping mood: "You know, Jesus suffered so greatly upon the Cross at Calvary so that bees could fly. Don't you feel sorry for Jesus? How much he hurt for all those little bees?"
Scientologist: "Xenu engineered bees to fly during the development of his space planes. Bees sting us because they are attracted to our residual body thetans."
Jack T. Chick: "Beloved, bees fly because of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who shed His Precious Blood on the cross at Calvary. Be not deceived! Have YOU accepted Jesus into your life? ___ Yes ___ No"
SlashBot #1: "In Soviet Russia, bees fly YOU!"
SlashBot #2: "I want a Beowulf cluster of petrified flying bees with hot grits!"
SlashBot #3: "In Korea, only old bees fly."
SlashBot #4: "NetCraft confirms: Bees are dying."
Apple: "iBee. Just $99.95. Buy it now at the Apple Store."
CAPTAIN: "TAKE OFF EVERY 'BEE'. YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DOING. MOVE 'BEE'. FOR GREAT NECTAR."
Borg: "'Why' is irrelevant. Flying is irrelevant. The bees will be assimilated. Their culture will adapt to service us."
Star Wars (classic): "The Bees fly because the Force flows through them."
Star Wars (prequels): "Bees fly because of elevated midichlorian counts."
President George W. Bush: "Ah believe that bees fly because of the nukular terrists. We must maintain vigilance and stay the course against these and all other enemies of freedom and democracy."
Homsar: "I was raised by a cup of coffee."
It will be selectively enforced, and used primarily by the strong and sneaky (politicians, corporations, the wealthy) against the weak and powerless (ordinary citizens).
E.g.: "Your Honor, we at Sony have traced this anonymous complaint about an alleged bug in our Playstation 3 to this individual, John Q. Public; we believe Mr. Public has seriously damaged our rights and devalued our intellectual property, and according to [law], he should be jailed for up to [x] years."
...uhh, never mind ;)
I'm waiting for your documentation of the feature by which Microsoft Word alters the spacing below the header on the last two to three pages of a section in an apparently unchangeable way, without leaving any hidden markup characters which would cause such a change, and without altering the margins or other information in the Page Setup dialog. I'm certain your response will be quite enlightening.
Because I haven't got the time. Would you please stop trolling me? Ever since I attempted to correct your use of "loose" instead of "lose", you've had a bug up your ass about me. If you feel so strongly against the concept of advocating proper writing, I'd suggest that you devote your life to starting the "righting wryte suxx" movement. I'm sure three quarters of the High School population and half of SlashDot would join.
I did not say that open-source software is "innovative". In practice, I find that it's mostly derivative. However, one [almost always] does not pay for open-source software. One does pay for Microsoft Office. With that payment comes the expectation of not only superior (to free solutions) documentation, but documentation that is constantly improving.
I see the Microsoft fanboys and astroturfers are out in full swing today.
My parent post is the truth. The truth is not flamebait, it simply is.
Disagree with it if you must, but don't moderate it down simply because I fail to treat Bill Gates with kid gloves. I've noticed that any post that criticizes Microsoft or Gates in unapologetically harsh language gets modded down as "(-1, Flamebait)" or "(-1, Troll)". This is a very dangerous (and more than slightly suspicious) pattern.
A large part of things that frustrate users are easily fixable.
For example, how about an online help system that doesn't suck? I've pretty much given up on most help systems, since they are never updated and rarely answer any question more complex than "what is the hotkey combination to copy/paste"? (e.g. search for 'hotkeys' or 'copy paste' or 'keyboard shortcuts').
The people who maintain large, complex software packages (e.g. Windows, MS Word, OpenOffice.org) should constantly monitor the relevant newsgroups, bug report systems, and customer service lines, adding any and every pertinent question users have to the help system. Sure, this might involve making online help systems truly "online", having them query from a database on some server somewhere-- but doesn't MS Office's help system already do that?
Capsule example: I have a MS Word document in which, for no apparent reason, the computer has decided to increase the spacing below the Header, but only on the last few pages of a given section. Adding or removing text from those pages further alters this spacing. I suspect that this is a bug and/or that my document is ever-so-mildly corrupted. I can virtually guarantee you that somewhere, deep within the bowels of the MS bug-reporting/customer service system, is a document pertaining to this particular situation. But I can also virtually guarantee you that, if I hit F1 and entered "header spacing changing", or "header spacing bug", or any other query which should turn up information on this situation, I won't find squat.
If MS knows about a question a user has had, a problem a user has reported, or a known bug they have found in their software, the online help system should know about it too. Furthermore, it should be well-indexed, under every possible synonym a user might realistically use to search for it. (e.g. "header, heading, space, spacing, after, bug, changing, altering, alter, change, corrupt, document, corrupted, unfixable, mysterious, etc."), and a well-chosen "expert system" algorithm should be used to figure out the most likely thing(s) the user is asking for help on. (e.g. "Are you: * Asking about a bug where header spacing changes as you add or remove text?").
Another example of things that badly need changing: Greyed-out menu items. I cannot tell you how many times I've gotten incredibly frustrated at greyed-out menu items. Why are they greyed out? How can I get them un-greyed out? I've said for a long while that there should be a UI standard whereby, if a user hovers their mouse cursor over a greyed-out control (or if a blind user tabs over to a given greyed-out control and leaves it there for a few seconds), the computer should tell you why said item is greyed out. This would save people from countless hours of combined aggravation.
But no one does it.
Also, whenever online help systems refer to "the such-and-such button", or "the such-and-such tab", or even "the such-and-such menu", hovering over (or clicking on) the name (e.g. "the Accessories tab" on a printer setup dialog, which I had to dig around to find; despite being referred to in the context-sensitive help accessed from the printer-specific 'Properties' dialog accessed from 'File, Print', it turned out to be completely inaccessible from said dialog, and to find it one had to actually go to the Printers control panel, right-click on the printer's icon, and go to Properties there) should provide you with [A] a screenshot of said item, with an arrow pointing to it, and [B] sample instructions on how to find it.
We don't need Counselor Troi algorithms telling us when they're "sensing great anger". We need Commander Data algorithms that actually answer our fucking questions.
If I robbed a bank of $10,000,000, then gave $9,000,000 to charities, am I suddenly warm and fuzzy?
Bill Gates earned his billions through illegal, immoral, anticompetitive, ruthless business tactics that have arguably set back the state of "innovation" (to use Microsoft's favorite term) in multiple fields by years, if not decades. His actions have created chilling effects across virtually every field connected even tangentially with computing. The fact that he is now giving much, most, or even all of his arguably ill-gotten money to charitable causes does not erase the source of those funds.
Given the chance to "do it all over again", I do not believe Gates would play by the rules on a second run-through. His core character hasn't changed. From the beginning, he was a megalomaniacal character, who seemed to honestly believe that he-- and only he-- knew what was best for computing. It's rumored that in the '70s, at a meeting of computer software makers, he prophecized that in the future, there would be only one computer software company. He's now doing his best to ensure that his is that company. From all that I've read of him, despite all his very real importance, he has an exaggerated sense of his own self-importance; he sees himself as a sort of king or messiah of the digital world, and he's willing to do anything and everything in his power (legal, illegal, moral, or immoral) to maintain his position as dictator of all things software.
The man isn't some sort of loveable Robin Hood who robs from the rich and gives to the poor. He's stunted the competition and innovation of the very technology industry he insists upon shepherding, and in the process he's broken laws-- both those of countries and those of basic morality. Giving away the money (much of which arguably isn't rightfully his in the first place) does not erase this.
I have no patience any more for reactions like this. I didn't sit through years of boring and repetitive schooling to have highly intelligent computer professionals and hobbyists-- who also sat through the very same sort of mind-numbing training-- criticize me as a "Nazi", a "pedant", or "having a stick up my ass" for merely expecting a basic standard of writing ability.
Have some fucking self-respect, and use the correct words.
The word you wanted is "lose".
Mod me down if you must, but it's important that intelligent people understand basic English vocabulary.
Yeah, I've also had major problems with fundamentalist organizations nationwide lambasting me as an evil influence on the culture after I came out on national television as a lesbian.
Have you tried the MoleStation, the hot new video game console?
This also reminds me of the stories of a shrink who has "PSYCHO THE RAPIST" written on his door.
I'm sure I can't be the only one here who finds the continual blurring of lines between "state"/"country" and "corporation" a bit unnerving.
The editors have too little grasp on English than they should have.
Yeah, that obvious euphemism stood out to me as well.
A "person" is generally taken to be "a human being"; what distinguishes humans from other animals is their sentience. Take away the sentience and what you have left is not a human being. Remove my brain and the rest of my body is not a human being; it is a corpse. (Even if you keep it alive via a heart-lung machine, it is still a corpse, albeit an animated one.)
By this (my) logic, thus, a fetus is not a "human being", and therefore not a "person". Fetuses aren't sentient. Kill a fetus and it experiences pain less acutely and on a lower level of consciousness than, say, an adult cow. And few would argue that killing an adult cow for its meat is immoral (PETA notwithstanding).
The argument of the anti-abortion crowd is completely emotional in nature. To them, because a fetus looks similar to a baby, it is in fact a baby. This is not so; a newborn baby's brain is infinitely more highly developed than, say, a first-term fetus. The argument that a fetus looks human and has human DNA, and thus that killing it is comparable to killing a baby or even an adult human, reminds me in a sense of the old argument that the Sun revolves around the Earth because that's how it appears.
Sometimes, appearances can be deceiving. A fetus looks human, but it lacks what makes humans human-- a highly-developed brain. Until the brain is developed and functioning, what you have is not a human. It is a proto-human, a pre-human, a potential human. Similarly, Terri Schiavo was not a human after her accident. She was an ex-human, a destroyed human, a broken human. Even retarded people exhibit mental abilities that are unique to humans, but fetuses (or people in Persistent Vegetative States) do not.
Thus, the only moral issues involved in killing a fetus or a Terri Schiavo are [1] issues of respect for the family's wishes and [2] issues of respect for the person's potential future status as a human being (in the case of a fetus) or for their former status as a human being (in the case of Terri Schiavo). These issues are comparable to the moral issues surrounding the concept of "respect for the dead", and I place debates over the "rights" of fetuses or PVS patients into that same sphere. Killing a fetus is comparable on a biological level to killing an animal with equivalent neurological capabilities. On the evidence of more advanced neurological development, I submit that cows feel pain more acutely than fetuses, and thus that killing a fetus does not inflict as much pain as killing a cow. Nevertheless, any killing should be carried out in as swift and painless a method as possible.
Logic, not "beliefs", should guide issues like this. It is illogical to equate a first-term fetus to a baby, and supremely illogical to equate them to an adult.
All true morality stems from concern for the well-being and contentedness of other people. Altruism, in other words. The Golden Rule all over again.
Have you tried Anus Laptops? Or maybe a nice P-P-P-Powerbook?
A law is immoral if it denies a person their right to conduct their life as they see fit, with no exceptions except where their actions would harm another.
In other words, you should be allowed to do anything except for intentionally, knowingly or maliciously harming another human being without a valid cause (e.g.: self-defense, the defense of others, etc.).
A.k.a.: The Golden Rule, The Wiccan Rede, etc. etc.
E.g.: Killing another person is wrong, except when in self-defense or defending another. Spreading lies about another person is wrong. Spreading someone's secrets is wrong except where necessary for the protection of the public (e.g.: spreading "Joe Smith is gay" is wrong; spreading "Joe Smith is a convicted child molestor" (assuming it's true) is alright).
This really isn't complex.
Someone else brought up the concept of alcohol; they don't think people should drink, so they said [paraphrasing] "but that doesn't mean I can burn down bars". This is true. However, the morality of drinking really isn't that difficult to discern: It's not immoral to drink except where it would harm another person. Example: It's immoral to drink before driving, because then your driving could harm another person. It's immoral to drink excessively (to the point of drunkenness, poor job performance, etc.) if you are supporting a family, because then your drunkenness could impact your ability to earn a living and feed your kids. But it is not immoral (although it is arguably incredibly stupid) for a single, non-driving individual to get completely piss-drunk, pass out in a bathroom, and puke their guts out into a toilet.
Although there is a strong emotional element to morality, at its core-- if you remove the arbitrary superstitious elements introduced by various religions-- I believe morality can be wholly logical. The Wiccans have it right-- "An it harm none, do as thou wilt" is a nice capsule summary of morality.
When the law is immoral, it is the duty of any moral individual to ignore the law.
There was a time when slavery was legal, and helping another person's slaves escape to freedom was theft.
China's laws regarding freedom of speech (or, specifically, the lack thereof) are not moral; thus, no, MS should not obey them (nor should anyone else).
Of course, this is all philosophical. Corporations don't care about what's moral or immoral, they care about what makes them money (and/or "market share"/power). This is true not only of Microsoft, but of essentially every other for-profit corporation.
Apple is about to release a new generation of iBooks and/or Powerbooks, most likely including Intel iBooks at least. This month. So hold your horses.
...I don't know if that sounds more like the name of a posix-compliant operating system, a sandwich cookie, or a part of a lady's nether-regions...
$1.5 billion, divided by-- what-- around 280,000,000 USians? That's five bucks a head. If everyone takes an average of one (you KNOW some cheaters will take more than one), that's five bucks per.
If 10% of the population takes one, that's $50 per.
If 5% of the population takes one, that's $100 per.
If 1% of the population takes one, that's $500 per.
Ah, but this is naive math. That's $1.5 billion for the whole program. I'm sure at least half will get gobbled up by the elaborate system they set up to distribute these things. Retraining, printing forms, programming databases, printing vouchers, negotiating with retailers...
Any bets on how this $1.5 billion will actually filter down to the little guy?