Callipygous

i think i should intervene if i see someone being raped too. does that make me a bad person? what if i see a mother suffocating her child right after birth? would i be a bad, intrusive person for stopping that? while it is different for each person, the only thing you can do is what you see as right. if you have beliefs about what is right and what is wrong, but you do nothing to support them you might as well not have beliefs at all. its not taking control of someone elses life. its protecting another life from that person. i dont know about you, or anyone else, but in my mind logic has to do with everything. once again, showing your complete inablity to distinguish anything but the most literal meaning... "you" in that statement should be taken to mean anyone committing the act.

whoa! we agree on something (however, this is assuming the person is not mentally retarded) now we disagree again. if a person wants to end a human life, at a point where i consider the thing to have rights, and the best reason they have is "because its a tuesday" then i think its my moral obligation to step it. starting with trying to talk some sense into them, and then depending on the circumstances maybe taking further measures. "you seem to be suggesting that I should be far more critical of abortion. If that is your contention, then make it. " i think taking any life for trivial reasons is morally wrong, especial something sentient. if you want my opinion, yes, i do think you should be more critical of abortion than you seem to be, but that is not something i am going to tell you to do. what business is it of mine if you believe something that I think makes you immoral? that doesnt mean im not going to try to find holes in your logic and point them out though. think whatever you want, but if i think your wrong im going to try to convince you of that. (and if your going to try to kill something that i consider a person...) (reading over this post i think it may cause some confusion. im pro choice, up till the third trimester. you had 6 months to get it done, now you have a kid in you instead of a sack of cells, deal with it : P)

absolutely, from here on out i will assume the utmost stupidity in whoever im talking too. i will explain every aspect of everything i say, since obviously people cannot be relied upon to use their own minds to discover anything but the most literal meaning in my words. /sarcasm off there is no absolute. but when someone says something like "People can justify it in any way that they want, and one excuse is just as valid as another, in my opinion." that just reeks of someone who is refusing to use their head just for the sake of holding up their arguement. one excuse is just as valid as another? i guess "it was a tuesday" is just as good of an excuse as "it was in self defense."

while both the sentances above may somehow be considered opinions, both are without reason. (and you know what i mean about the sky)

its my opinion that the sky is red. its also my opinion that the dumbest person in the country should be made president and all checks and balances should be removed.

none of this means we cant still debate it. the flame wars only start up when people take it personally, as though they are being attacked by the person who is questioning what they believe. keep in mind this is a discussion of ideas and there shouldnt be a problem. as for not being able to change anyones mind, thats just hogwash. the only area that is true for is religion. with everything else you can show someone a new point of view(no one has considered all of them) which might cause them to reconsider and reach a different conclusion on their own. if nothing else you always learn something just from hearing what another person thinks.

ah... gotcha.

i think your assuming a little too much malice in microsofts actions. while windows 98 was definately a bug fix for 95 i dont believe that was intentional. i think it has more to do with the fact that they promised people a ship date, and when that ship date came around they said "oh no, were f'd" and shipped what they could. shipping nothing but garbage in all your products isnt what one would call a marketting scheme. thats a good way to throw away you customer base. you ship the best stuff you have available, reputation is the most valuable thing a company has.

plugging in random numbers will probably give you a hard time. does it have to be 320 and 360? aim for equal side lenghts, the closer to a sphere the better. if you dont have to have 320 and 360, and it just needs to be a difference of 40, then make it bigger.

im sorry, but which suburb is the little girl skinning taking place in? O.o

good god man! most the forums i have posted on wont ALLOW posts that long O.o i only really have time for one thing right now: "This coming from the person who told us to "try reading up on [microsoft's] story some time". Do the research." i have. i know how they did it. i was asking if he did. i gotta go get breakfast, to be discussed later : P

i couldnt help but laugh as i read this post. "i didnt choose windows, i wasnt given a choice" uh huh. you certainly couldnt have found ANY deal that didnt include a preinstalled os. you definately couldnt go to gateway or dell, and as you build your pc, tell them not to include an os. you definately couldnt have asked for a little help and then built if from parts (which takes all of about 15 minutes) and given that you installed any os other than windows on a machine (which pretty much narrows it down to LINUX) you definately arent computer savvy enough be able to build one. i didnt have a choice! never mind imacs.

considering the original statement was "windows sucks" in reference to windows xp, i think it would be perfectly reasonable to consider the systems we normally run windows on, or even just the personal computers, ignoring their server versions. the point of my statement is that the VAST majority of users choose Windows over any other system. and given that PCs FAR outway the number of servers and similar systems, the end result it that the majority of systems are running windows. windows is absolutely a triumph of marketting, try reading up on their story sometime. its nothing but marketting successes. (this part i got from "the barbarians lead by bill gates" a book by a couple of the key people when the company was starting up) whether or not its a triumph of technology also is not something i can compare, since i dont know most of the core level issues (like security holes and what linux does thats so special) however, when 90% of the computer using populations chooses windows you have to assume they arent ALL just sheep following the marketing. some of them have to be knowledgeable users who decided that it was worth their $300 to get windows instead of getting linux for free. it HAS to have something going for it. i honestly believe that my statistic is right even if you consider ALL systems, but i gaurantee its right for PCs.

*sigh* try to think big picture here, please... "a lot of servers" is basically nothing on any real kind of scale. were talking about billions of systems. yes, there are absolutely places where microsoft does not have a foot hold, i have actually heard that entire countries (germany was it?) are boycotting microsoft in the govt. because of digital rights management issues. but if you look at the numbers, the fact is the vast majority of systems are still running windows. i didnt say microsoft dominates everywhere, just everywhere but about 10%... (i should also probably note that microsoft is losing ground due to many issues, including the fact that almost all viruses are targeted at windows BECAUSE it is on the vast majority of systems, should be fun to see what happens when linux gets big enough that the hackers start attacking it)

simple misunderstanding... i thought you were referring to mac (which makes up around 5% btw)

yes, it is another line. its based on my personal beliefs about peoples rights(which is the real issue up for debate here), not necessarily whether or not they are actually human. i personally believe that when a creature is ENTIRELY dependant on someone else, not just for feeding, but for oxygen and all other functions, then the one providing the support, not the one living off of it, is the creature with the rights. as for how much support, as much as current medical technology will allow. if it is POSSIBLE for the "entity" to survive for a normal life...

actually i normally hear the complaint the other way around. most people i talk to seem to think mac is way to idiot friendly and thats why they use windows. unless you were talking about linux? which is far less friendly than either of them.

no... i mean 90% of the worlds computers. while linux may be very popular for running a server or similar functions, most of the computers people actually USE in business and at home are running one version or another of windows. how many servers are there? ("computers" may be too broad of a term, technically there is a computer in every microwave... but i think we all know thats not what were talking about)

strange that its the system running on 90% of the worlds computers...