Slashdot Mirror

Even in the last couple of months, there have been lots of school shootings.

The only thing that's changed is you're not hearing about them.

Here's what a pumpkin can do to your car.

This is simply not what he said.
True, he allows for parental choice, but only as a "concession" of sorts. He says, "We should distinguish between preventing people from becoming disabled from preventing the existence of disabled people." Meaning, as a society, we should prevent "inferior" (tm) people from being born. It's 'mandatory' in the sense that he is saying it is the ethical thing to do to prevent disabled people from existing. I know plenty of disabled people who would disagree.

You stand as one of the many that completely misinterpret Nietzsche
Debateable. What is not debateable is many do take the stand I refered to, and cite Neitchze to back it up. Luke Woodham, who started the rash of school shootings in the late 1990s is an example: Live by your own laws. For now, truly, you should be at peace and your own true self. Live your life in a bold, new way. For you, dearfriend, are a superman. I would say that "live by your own laws" is a sentiment echoed by Neitchze and many nihilist & naturalist philosophers. I would also say that what Luke did is the "logical conclusion" of that philosophy.

The Nazis are coming! The Nazis are coming! Get a grip.
I don't think the Nazi's are coming, or that Atomic Zombie Supermen are coming. I'm saying that a logical conclusion of removing morals from science, medicine, etc. is genocide, that it has happened before, and that it is feasible that the same mentality could arise again. Especially in a situation where those with moral objections are silenced, ridiculed, etc.

Stem cell research will be used to develop effective treatmets
So could wierd expirements on live humans. Pluck out enough eyes, and I'm sure we could figure out how to replace them. Just because something could have positive results doesn't make it morally acceptable. There would also be positive effects of simply killing people with diseases, but morals prevent us from doing that. However, you can hold certain morals and still cure disease. Believing that it is unethical to kill embryos for research does not prevent one from supporting adult stem cell research, implants, etc.

The real objections to human cloning are based on the currently extremely low success rate.
But isn't that just you applying YOUR morals to the situation? I mean, suppose I think that it is morally acceptable to test out cloning on as many human people as necessary. If they turn out to have problems when they're 3, I'll just kill them. What do you base the criteria "easily and routinely" on? Why is it wrong to test it out on humans before then?

According to the Louisville Courier-Journal: A Jefferson Circuit Court judge has turned back Insight Communications' effort to block the Louisville franchise given to a competing cable company, KnologyCQ, of West Point, Ga.

According to the Louisville Courier-Journal: A Jefferson Circuit Court judge has turned back Insight Communications' effort to block the Louisville franchise given to a competing cable company, KnologyCQ, of West Point, Ga.

Here's what happenned to one local provider. I have several clients who are using their wireless solution, and they were having serious latency issues for a while that I could tell were occuring over the wireless link. What I later found out, was that there was another wireless provider with equipment on the buildings roof and their frequency ranges were bleeding into one another or something like that. It sounds a little bit like the wild west, insofar as I'm not sure who's going to be there to regulate that stuff. Also, note that in Louisville, where spring can bring some fairly ridiculous storms, foul weather is know to adversly affect the wireless link quality, as well. I think it's most due to the wireless equipment being tossed around. At this point, I'm WAY more comfortable recommending traditional connectivity solutions.