So you are basically advocating preselecting people at birth who must become researchers? That is basically reverse eugenics and quite antagonistic to personal liberty.
Those in power do what they want while the rest of us put up with what we can. That's not right.
This has nothing to do with what attitudes are desirable for the powerful to hold, but with Justice and Liberty. Neither of which are served by selfishness such as yours.
Because the potential benefits outweigh the costs.
For who? Not for most people if the treatment is expensive, which it can almost be guaranteed to be, at least at first. And what is this new human supposed to be better at? Living a healthy and happy life? Physics? I can imagine several situations where creating GMO human populations would be bad for humanity as a whole, and not any particular reason it would be good for humanity as a whole, or even a majority of us.
One point: we already can see the effects of such memetic viruses as racism, classism, eugenics, etc. What will happen when a group can say without a doubt they are "better" than another group? Not everyone will be able to afford for their progeny to be enhanced. I imagine it would be astronomically expensive at first, and perhaps for a very long time afterward (perhaps many generations - imagine poverty's recursive effects on generations of impoverished families, but instead they are genetically impoverished).
P.S. The mind is made up of particles quite smaller than even the Higgs boson. (LOL)
there are still millions of estimated viewers that are unprepared
For what it's worth, some of us just don't give a fuck about broadcast TV and are looking forward to our signals being cut off. There're always Hulu and torrents, not to mention DVD rentals. So... don't forget about all two of us who aren't "unprepared," but are in fact awaiting a time when we won't be able to receive broadcast video! Vive la revolution!
It's better than hackers not having any voice in government. I commend him. If he is able to turn around even one asinine governmental security policy, it's a step forward at least. Who knows? Maybe the US government will come to recognize us as the valuable resource we are because of our intimate knowledge of the systems that make up the modern world. Maybe hell will freeze over, pigs will fly, and the cows will come home. Well we can hope anyway!
Hey clone. I get grumpy when I don't have my coffee. When I have to much I'm more like: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Like others have said, that's not what elitist means. Specifically, look at definition 2.a. By the way, get out. You're not welcome at Slashdot anymore. We don't need the likes of you. You don't even know. what. elitist. means!! Do you even understand how to use a computer? Give us all a break. Leave the commenting to the big boys.
(This has been an in situ definition of "elitism" brought to you by the letter "E" and a lack of morning coffee. Viva la guapo!)
If you're unemployed for more than six months to a year, you're probably either unusually unfortunate or you're not trying very hard.
I don't buy that. There are plenty of reasons including raising children, working a job that doesn't earn you enough to be above the poverty line, pursuing an education, caring for elderly parents, physical or mental illness, injury, mental disability, caring for a disabled family member, etc. Anyway, I don't think this discussion is going to get much further if one of us can't dredge up some more statistics. I seriously would be very interested if you know of any. I really haven't had much luck finding that kind of info whether it is pro- or anti-welfare.
I see now. Yeah, I didn't word that one sentence very well. Had to LOL at the "(less vile) men who cheat on their wives." What I do mean, though, is that we would be better off without government (and corporate!) leaders anywhere near that very, very, very large spectrum of corruption.
Do you have any figures on that though? It seems to me that if ~80% of people are on welfare for less than 5 years and ~45% are on it for less than two, that it's not working so poorly (it's not like you get a whole lot to live on from welfare). On the other hand that page I linked is about the only place online that I could find that has any figures or statistics... I haven't checked out the sources it quotes either...
(PS Are you really saying there has never been ANY corruption nor ANY immorality in the US presidency?)
Slashdot Mirror
So you are basically advocating preselecting people at birth who must become researchers? That is basically reverse eugenics and quite antagonistic to personal liberty.
Those in power do what they want while the rest of us put up with what we can. That's not right.
This has nothing to do with what attitudes are desirable for the powerful to hold, but with Justice and Liberty. Neither of which are served by selfishness such as yours.
Because the potential benefits outweigh the costs.
For who? Not for most people if the treatment is expensive, which it can almost be guaranteed to be, at least at first. And what is this new human supposed to be better at? Living a healthy and happy life? Physics? I can imagine several situations where creating GMO human populations would be bad for humanity as a whole, and not any particular reason it would be good for humanity as a whole, or even a majority of us.
On the other hand, why make the problem worse? Why not fix the problems we already have before "creating new ones?"
One point: we already can see the effects of such memetic viruses as racism, classism, eugenics, etc. What will happen when a group can say without a doubt they are "better" than another group? Not everyone will be able to afford for their progeny to be enhanced. I imagine it would be astronomically expensive at first, and perhaps for a very long time afterward (perhaps many generations - imagine poverty's recursive effects on generations of impoverished families, but instead they are genetically impoverished).
P.S. The mind is made up of particles quite smaller than even the Higgs boson. (LOL)
Can't we all just forget about this?
Yeah, why not nukes?
indeed. fuck disney.
there are still millions of estimated viewers that are unprepared
For what it's worth, some of us just don't give a fuck about broadcast TV and are looking forward to our signals being cut off. There're always Hulu and torrents, not to mention DVD rentals. So... don't forget about all two of us who aren't "unprepared," but are in fact awaiting a time when we won't be able to receive broadcast video! Vive la revolution!
Keep thy friends close and thy enemies closer.
It's better than hackers not having any voice in government. I commend him. If he is able to turn around even one asinine governmental security policy, it's a step forward at least. Who knows? Maybe the US government will come to recognize us as the valuable resource we are because of our intimate knowledge of the systems that make up the modern world. Maybe hell will freeze over, pigs will fly, and the cows will come home. Well we can hope anyway!
I haven't laughed that loud at something on the internet in a very, very long time.
IINM the Japanese have paperless toilets that wash your butt with a water spray and dry it with hot air.
It's called a bidet. The French invented it in the early 18th century.
Slashdot, Slashdot, home to so many misogynists :(
Wooooooooooooooooorcestershire
Recursion is the essence of pure evil.
Hey clone. I get grumpy when I don't have my coffee. When I have to much I'm more like: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do tell us more. Also, what's a good book about the contemporary understanding of the Big Bang/origin of the universe? Or maybe I'll just Google it :-)
If you didn't laugh just ignore it. It was meant to be funny :-)
Yes. Yes, I do ;-)
It all sounds very interesting and important and technical, but what does it all mean? Dammit! What does it all mean, man?
Like others have said, that's not what elitist means. Specifically, look at definition 2.a. By the way, get out. You're not welcome at Slashdot anymore. We don't need the likes of you. You don't even know. what. elitist. means!! Do you even understand how to use a computer? Give us all a break. Leave the commenting to the big boys.
(This has been an in situ definition of "elitism" brought to you by the letter "E" and a lack of morning coffee. Viva la guapo!)
If you're unemployed for more than six months to a year, you're probably either unusually unfortunate or you're not trying very hard.
I don't buy that. There are plenty of reasons including raising children, working a job that doesn't earn you enough to be above the poverty line, pursuing an education, caring for elderly parents, physical or mental illness, injury, mental disability, caring for a disabled family member, etc. Anyway, I don't think this discussion is going to get much further if one of us can't dredge up some more statistics. I seriously would be very interested if you know of any. I really haven't had much luck finding that kind of info whether it is pro- or anti-welfare.
I see now. Yeah, I didn't word that one sentence very well. Had to LOL at the "(less vile) men who cheat on their wives." What I do mean, though, is that we would be better off without government (and corporate!) leaders anywhere near that very, very, very large spectrum of corruption.
Do you have any figures on that though? It seems to me that if ~80% of people are on welfare for less than 5 years and ~45% are on it for less than two, that it's not working so poorly (it's not like you get a whole lot to live on from welfare). On the other hand that page I linked is about the only place online that I could find that has any figures or statistics... I haven't checked out the sources it quotes either...
(PS Are you really saying there has never been ANY corruption nor ANY immorality in the US presidency?)
Hey, you brought up welfare in the first place ;-)