Using biological matter that otherwise would be thrown away or never exist has nothing to do with morality
Can you say, with a straight face, that you would apply that same line of reasoning to starving children somewhere that will be dead in 3 weeks? Just harvest their organs now?
If you cannot, then yes, there is indeed an issue of morals: are the embryos human or not? Many people, whose votes are just as valid as yours, seem to think they are.
You are making the assertion that the "its murder" claim can be easily disproven, which seems rather difficult given that there isnt a solid definition that everyone can agree upon for "when does humanity begin".
And, of course, if THAT is unimportant, if all that matters is preventing disease at any cost, then we might as well get started with eugenics right now.
While I am sorry to hear about your mother, and sincerely hope that you do not get alzheimers either, the fact is that there ARE moral implications, and you cannot get around them by looking at the benefits. The ends do not always justify the means, and bringing up what is indeed an unfortunate situation is not sufficient to get rid of the objections. Keep in mind, the moral objections basically amount to "we think this is murder".
Additionally, I have heard talk that embryonic cells are not necessarily superior to other forms of stem cell; any bio buffs want to clarify whether this is true, and if so why the push to use something so laden with moral qualms?
Comcast degrading BitTorrent traffic (that's protocol based, not "identity" based) was a Net Neutrality violation
Actually, no, they werent, for two reasons...
First, net neutrality isnt a law, or even a real thing yet, so its kind of hard to violate at the moment.
Second, net neutrality ISNT about protocol-- thats called QOS.
All that aside, the Comcast thing was different -- with real QOS,like is being discussed here, youre NOT degrading the speed of certain traffic-- youre just prioritizing. That is, until there is contention for router time, there is no difference between bulk traffic and priority traffic. Comcast was using Sandvine hardware to actually throttle torrent traffic by tampering with connections through the use of phony RST packets. This is COMPLETELY different than QoS, and is very much a problem, since you are paying comcast for a connection, not for them to insert bogus traffic and mess with both your connection and your availability.
Prioritization is not just for overselling your network either, would you want that page request for youtube to be given the same priority as that time-sensitive, connectionless UDP voice packet that MUST arrive within 200ms to be of any use whatsoever?
This prioritizing of gaming traffic would be illegal if Net Neutrality existed.
That is FUD. It entirely depends on the type of Net Neutrality legislation that passed, but if it were done in a sane way, QOS to make VOIP higher priority than HTTP is NOT a problem. Giving higher priority to HTTP to certain desinations is what Net Neutrality is designed to fix, not QOS by protocol.
I mean, I dont know of why you would even try to prevent honest-to-goodness by-protocol QOS....
Problem with your rebuttal: Whether or not other systems can get trojans, you should NOT be using Windows for anything that needs 100% uptime to guarentee safety of human lives, plain and simple. If the entire system can be locked up and made responsive by userland apps, then it isnt qualified to be responsible for the safety of human lives.
Its STILL not a high-availabilty OS, and should not be treated as such. Windows can be great for normal business use when properly set up, but it isnt designed for mission critical stuff-- if your graphical shell can bring down the OS, its probably not a good candidate for that kind of thing.
Arent there OSes designed specifically for mission critical applications out there, for just this kind of thing? Doesnt the list NOT include off-the-shelf OSes like Windows and OSX?
explicitly forbid running a "server" on the line in the contract.
Can you carefully define "server"? Would that include things like dropbox? What about reverse VNC? What about VNC? Does it include running Google Chrome with gears enabled? What about running a domain controller that is on the LAN, but does not accept connections from the WAN-- thats a server, does it violate the terms?
Just out of curiosity, can you name the part of the proposal you do not like, or are you just following the crowd?
As far as I have been able to discern the only reason people are upset is basically because the proposal doesnt really touch wireless-- ie, "its good, but it doesnt regulate enough." Well fine then, make your own additional regulation, but do SOMETHING and stop talking about it.
verizon wants to put tolls on all but one lane on the freeway, forcing anyone who doesn't pay through the nose to use the slow lane.
It honestly worries me that you got modded insightful when you seem to have no clue what the proposal was saying. It has NOTHING TO DO with forcing tolls, metaphorical or otherwise, onto competitors.
If you had actually read ANY of the recent articles on the subject, you would know that the proposal from verizon and google would PREVENT any "fast lane" tolls from being applied to wired internet, and ensure net neutrality. It would also give FCC power to enforce it, which it desperately needs given the comcast fiasco of a few years ago.
What everyone has their panties in a knot over is the fact that neither Verizon or Google want to impose regulation on wireless-- not that they are asking for a guarentee of no regulation, but simply that their bill imposes no additional restrictions on wireless.
Google gives the reasons that
A) the wireless market has PLENTY of competition, and as such regulation is unnecessary (we are capitalist, right?)
B) the wireless market is still "young" and growing rapidly, and regulations could hamper the growth (especially given point A above)
C) If ever there is a problem in the future, their proposal does nothing to prevent further regulation, and in fact asks for a periodic review to make sure everything is still gravy (IIRC)
Really, the only reason its become a big deal is because no matter WHAT google does, proposes, or says, people want to make a big deal of it and find conspiracy theories about how Google intends to steal your identity, your life, and who knows what else.
GP is using bad anecdotal evidence, there are PLENTY of hardware mixes that will throw windows for a loop, or where the only drivers are awful (ie, HP MFC printers, SoundMAX cards, anything eMachines).
GP has some points, but Ubuntu 10.04 actually has incredible support for hardware, working with 90% of devices without any downloads whatsoever. You can plug 3G usb modems in and have them "just work" without any 3rd party bull (appears in network manager and everything).
Im unclear what the relation between drunk driving and religion is. Or are you taking potshots just for the sake of taking potshots (and tenuous anecdotal occasions)?
So because there was a single defective card that you got from them, that you never tested for properly (by attempting to boot with a minimal configuration), which resulted in several unnecessary purchases... the vendor is to blame?
"Net neutrality" means regulation. No regulation is purely "good"; it comes with a price. For wired, the price is worth it. For wireless, Google seems to think that it is not, and that it is unnecessary at this point.
Strictly speaking, the actual cause is the demand for the drugs. Making it illegal exacerbates the problem, but one could envision a scenario where the drugs were legal but cartels still ruled. One cannot envision such a scenario where there is no demand.
Why is GP labeled troll? Simply because he has a different opinion?
Im wondering if at some point during writing your post it started to occur to you how weak your argument was. Get an envelope? Oh the horror. Parent's point stands, if you cant do this it must not be important.
Re:I Guess I Don't Exist Then ...
on
Why Wave Failed
·
· Score: 1
It was a glorified chat box
...Plus built in encryption / server identity.
Plus collaboration tools.
Plus the ability to embed in webpages, making old-skool forums and comments obsolete.
Plus easy extensibility.
So basically, no, not just a glorified chatbox, at all. Im glad that you spent all of 5 minutes passing your verdict on something you apparently know nothing about and used for all of 90 seconds, though (havent you seen the comments from people who actually used it, about how incredibly powerful it was?)
Slashdot Mirror
Using biological matter that otherwise would be thrown away or never exist has nothing to do with morality
Can you say, with a straight face, that you would apply that same line of reasoning to starving children somewhere that will be dead in 3 weeks? Just harvest their organs now?
If you cannot, then yes, there is indeed an issue of morals: are the embryos human or not? Many people, whose votes are just as valid as yours, seem to think they are.
You are making the assertion that the "its murder" claim can be easily disproven, which seems rather difficult given that there isnt a solid definition that everyone can agree upon for "when does humanity begin".
And, of course, if THAT is unimportant, if all that matters is preventing disease at any cost, then we might as well get started with eugenics right now.
While I am sorry to hear about your mother, and sincerely hope that you do not get alzheimers either, the fact is that there ARE moral implications, and you cannot get around them by looking at the benefits. The ends do not always justify the means, and bringing up what is indeed an unfortunate situation is not sufficient to get rid of the objections. Keep in mind, the moral objections basically amount to "we think this is murder".
Additionally, I have heard talk that embryonic cells are not necessarily superior to other forms of stem cell; any bio buffs want to clarify whether this is true, and if so why the push to use something so laden with moral qualms?
Wouldnt the use of aborted fetuses carry just as much baggage (if not more) than embryos? How does that allay any objections?
Further, if stem cell treatments take off in a big way, will miscarriages really be enough, or will be be back in this debate?
That's not neutral
That also has NOTHING to do with what the term "Network Neutrality" has come to mean. HINT: the "neutral" refers to how web-destinations are treated.
Comcast degrading BitTorrent traffic (that's protocol based, not "identity" based) was a Net Neutrality violation
Actually, no, they werent, for two reasons...
First, net neutrality isnt a law, or even a real thing yet, so its kind of hard to violate at the moment.
Second, net neutrality ISNT about protocol-- thats called QOS.
All that aside, the Comcast thing was different -- with real QOS,like is being discussed here, youre NOT degrading the speed of certain traffic-- youre just prioritizing. That is, until there is contention for router time, there is no difference between bulk traffic and priority traffic. Comcast was using Sandvine hardware to actually throttle torrent traffic by tampering with connections through the use of phony RST packets. This is COMPLETELY different than QoS, and is very much a problem, since you are paying comcast for a connection, not for them to insert bogus traffic and mess with both your connection and your availability.
Prioritization is not just for overselling your network either, would you want that page request for youtube to be given the same priority as that time-sensitive, connectionless UDP voice packet that MUST arrive within 200ms to be of any use whatsoever?
This prioritizing of gaming traffic would be illegal if Net Neutrality existed.
That is FUD. It entirely depends on the type of Net Neutrality legislation that passed, but if it were done in a sane way, QOS to make VOIP higher priority than HTTP is NOT a problem. Giving higher priority to HTTP to certain desinations is what Net Neutrality is designed to fix, not QOS by protocol.
I mean, I dont know of why you would even try to prevent honest-to-goodness by-protocol QOS....
Problem with your rebuttal: Whether or not other systems can get trojans, you should NOT be using Windows for anything that needs 100% uptime to guarentee safety of human lives, plain and simple. If the entire system can be locked up and made responsive by userland apps, then it isnt qualified to be responsible for the safety of human lives.
Its STILL not a high-availabilty OS, and should not be treated as such. Windows can be great for normal business use when properly set up, but it isnt designed for mission critical stuff-- if your graphical shell can bring down the OS, its probably not a good candidate for that kind of thing.
Arent there OSes designed specifically for mission critical applications out there, for just this kind of thing? Doesnt the list NOT include off-the-shelf OSes like Windows and OSX?
Or possibly TSA?
you can get a $50 video card that can display on an HDTV....
Just because someone cheats at a game doesnt mean the rules have changed.
explicitly forbid running a "server" on the line in the contract.
Can you carefully define "server"? Would that include things like dropbox? What about reverse VNC? What about VNC? Does it include running Google Chrome with gears enabled? What about running a domain controller that is on the LAN, but does not accept connections from the WAN-- thats a server, does it violate the terms?
Vague terms are vague.
Just out of curiosity, can you name the part of the proposal you do not like, or are you just following the crowd?
As far as I have been able to discern the only reason people are upset is basically because the proposal doesnt really touch wireless-- ie, "its good, but it doesnt regulate enough." Well fine then, make your own additional regulation, but do SOMETHING and stop talking about it.
verizon wants to put tolls on all but one lane on the freeway, forcing anyone who doesn't pay through the nose to use the slow lane.
It honestly worries me that you got modded insightful when you seem to have no clue what the proposal was saying. It has NOTHING TO DO with forcing tolls, metaphorical or otherwise, onto competitors.
If you had actually read ANY of the recent articles on the subject, you would know that the proposal from verizon and google would PREVENT any "fast lane" tolls from being applied to wired internet, and ensure net neutrality. It would also give FCC power to enforce it, which it desperately needs given the comcast fiasco of a few years ago.
What everyone has their panties in a knot over is the fact that neither Verizon or Google want to impose regulation on wireless-- not that they are asking for a guarentee of no regulation, but simply that their bill imposes no additional restrictions on wireless.
Google gives the reasons that
A) the wireless market has PLENTY of competition, and as such regulation is unnecessary (we are capitalist, right?)
B) the wireless market is still "young" and growing rapidly, and regulations could hamper the growth (especially given point A above)
C) If ever there is a problem in the future, their proposal does nothing to prevent further regulation, and in fact asks for a periodic review to make sure everything is still gravy (IIRC)
Really, the only reason its become a big deal is because no matter WHAT google does, proposes, or says, people want to make a big deal of it and find conspiracy theories about how Google intends to steal your identity, your life, and who knows what else.
GP is using bad anecdotal evidence, there are PLENTY of hardware mixes that will throw windows for a loop, or where the only drivers are awful (ie, HP MFC printers, SoundMAX cards, anything eMachines).
GP has some points, but Ubuntu 10.04 actually has incredible support for hardware, working with 90% of devices without any downloads whatsoever. You can plug 3G usb modems in and have them "just work" without any 3rd party bull (appears in network manager and everything).
religious fundie assholes
Im unclear what the relation between drunk driving and religion is. Or are you taking potshots just for the sake of taking potshots (and tenuous anecdotal occasions)?
So because there was a single defective card that you got from them, that you never tested for properly (by attempting to boot with a minimal configuration), which resulted in several unnecessary purchases... the vendor is to blame?
"Net neutrality" means regulation. No regulation is purely "good"; it comes with a price. For wired, the price is worth it. For wireless, Google seems to think that it is not, and that it is unnecessary at this point.
Strictly speaking, the actual cause is the demand for the drugs. Making it illegal exacerbates the problem, but one could envision a scenario where the drugs were legal but cartels still ruled. One cannot envision such a scenario where there is no demand.
Why is GP labeled troll? Simply because he has a different opinion?
You then have to get an envelope,
Im wondering if at some point during writing your post it started to occur to you how weak your argument was. Get an envelope? Oh the horror. Parent's point stands, if you cant do this it must not be important.
anyway, what else would you call it?
I'd like to interject for a moment...
It was a glorified chat box
...Plus built in encryption / server identity.
Plus collaboration tools.
Plus the ability to embed in webpages, making old-skool forums and comments obsolete.
Plus easy extensibility.
So basically, no, not just a glorified chatbox, at all. Im glad that you spent all of 5 minutes passing your verdict on something you apparently know nothing about and used for all of 90 seconds, though (havent you seen the comments from people who actually used it, about how incredibly powerful it was?)
While the subject is still recovering from being screamed at
...and the third party is recovering from being hit....