Isn't this flawed? Sorry if I'm way off track, but surely lack of measurement does not conclude non-existence?

Take two completely disconnected observers monitoring the same system. Given the layered nature of observations, one observer (A) sees X and measures Y, but the other observer (B) sees X and W so measures Z. The current definitions I see flying around would suggest that observer A can correctly conclude that W doesn't exist because they measured Y. However, observer B can correctly conclude that W and X exist because they measured Z.

How can we suggest that time doesn't exist outside entangled entities?

Apologies for the Reddit reference, but if you could explain it like I'm 5, then I'd be grateful.

...the irony.

advanced persistent threat. Just a buzz-word really. Just means you properly plan and execute a targeted attack.

....huh, the perfect opportunity was sitting there right in front of me and I didn't realize it!

Robbing from the bank is illegal and they'll hunt you down for it. BUT, robbing from their robbing - now if we do that, they can't go and whine to the feds about us. Huh!

Anybody want to join me in setting up an APT against a major bank's shadow transactions? You'll get wealthy, filthy wealthy. Even better - lets do the whole robin hood thing...

You've missed both the words 'newborn' and 'parent' (verb definition). Yes, they can experience more (cry, flap limbs {rarely}, poo, smell, see more, etc), but that does not meaningfully decrease the newborn child's net dependence on a parent to survive. Parent - as in someone who parents the child - without which no newborn would survive.

To bring it back to the point:

A newborn child still has no chance to survive as a separate individual . You've attempted to distinguish a child in the womb as unable to survive independently and a newborn child as able to survive independently. This is patently untrue.

I assume your reasoning is that this affords those willing to extinguish the life of an unborn child the mentality that it is just a 'parasite' - an attempt to cloud judgement on the core issue.

Desperate isn't the right word - I think 'frustrated' is more accurate. I blame aspergers for this tendancy, but it's no excuse.

Putting that aside, it does not diminish my point at all. A newborn child outside the womb is arguably just as dependent on a parent as inside the womb. Any perceived independence is merely nominal in nature.

Again, you've built a strawman. False premeses again. You remove the natural process, create some extreme situation and then point to it as some form of justification. I do have moral issues with the general IVF process. I also believe that children die due to unatural curcumstances during their growth - just as they do outside the womb. Also, were you really taught that a newborn child could survive as a separate individual? That's idiocy in the extreme.

No, that makes no sense. An ovum is one part of the puzzle needed before a life can grow. An ovum by itself will never turn into a growing human. Not difficult to conceptualize, it's not a growing human before fertilization.

And therein lies the point. Once fertilized, there is no denying that the "collection of cells" (which I reiterate, we all are) will become an adult human.

You're use of the word impose seems like an attempt to sully my position on this - especially given your past arguments, but yes - just like we 'force' people against their will to murder others in the street, I believe we should do the same for the innocent, defenceless, unborn child.

Turn the tables a bit. Given your thoughts on the subject, it seems that you would believe that it is fine to kill unborn children?

Huh, I haven't tried the honey porter. Thanks for the tip. I normally just drink the draught premium

It was a direct quote - not my own words, perhaps I should have mentioned that to help people that aren't aware of it. It's worth reading the Wikipedia article concerning it, it is well researched and authored (which you will find by searching for the exact quote I mentioned).

I most certainly wasn't quoting it without comprehending it. From the Wikipedia article:

It's worth noting that until you've covered all contributing variables and factors to a problem domain you cannot with certainty draw causation from correlation; something that this article (and sensationalised headline) lacks. That is the point.

This whole article seems like it's clutching at straws to me. Correlation does not imply causation.

I find it disgusting that you've had that conversation with your mother!

.....because everyone knows that no one on /. has a girlfriend! *ba-dum tsch*

I'm here until Thursday. Be sure to try the parma with chips.

LibreOffice wasn't even a twinkle in a developer's eye in 1997, so I'm not sure what you're going on about.

I happen to use LibreOffice every day at work without issue.

Yes, yes - and I drink Smirnoff double black. The point is it doesn't matter that you do - the vast majority of the Australian working class do not drink Fosters. For example, in Tasmania it's Boag's all the way.