I don't think this is a matter of them deciding to go with comic books over anything else, but rather a matter of not being able to pay for anything else.
Would anyone want to be seen with one of these? Really? Plus, how much life are you going to get on a charge, thirty minutes? A laptop which has to be plugged in all the time sort of defeats the purpose of buying one in the first place. Ah well, MMORPG junkies need bling too, I guess.
Actually, I "failed" to see no such thing. I hadn't even touched on the ethics of cloning, instead looking at it from a technological perspective. Every new technology is bound to bring with it ethical concerns; this doesn't make the technology in itself more or less interesting, ethics only pertain to the way in which we choose to use said technology. In either case, shouting that clones are going to be treated like property is a bit of a stretch, as far as I'm concerned.
As for my example, I'm not entirely sure what your problem is with cloning Einstein; do our parents not have hopes and dreams for us when we're conceived? Are we not steered into professions and destinies we wouldn't have if it weren't for our parents? I don't see a huge difference between cloning Einstein and putting him in a family of, say, physicists, and then hope for the best, or two doctors having a kid who's more likely than not going to be a doctor himself when he grows up. It is no different furthermore from a couple where the male is infertile choosing the sperm of a successful (handsome, intelligent, athletic, etc) male to fertilise the female's egg.
The nature vs. nurture debate itself is interesting of course, but I doubt we'd get anywhere. It suffices to say that a clone of Einstein is more likely to be brilliant at what he does (be it physics or something else) than any regular Joe -- if genetics have any say in it at all.
I'm pretty sure an iceman's DNA wouldn't be salvageable.
Something I've always wondered, what's the huge deal about cloning? It'd be interesting to add a few Einsteins to the world, sure, but apart from that, what are the real advantages? Wouldn't harvesting organs, for instance, be better achieved by using stem cells?
Isn't it obvious? These assholes have mod points, so they post random retardo shit as AC, and then mod anyone who actually replies down. They do it, of course, for the -- and this is the technical term -- lulz.
(Yeah, fuckers, I replied. I'm not AC. Mod me down, make my day.)
Your "mate" built you a PC running Windows ME? I don't think the problem is with IT people watching World of Porncraft; I rather think you need to get some better friends.
It makes perfect sense; it's a lot easier to send an e-mail than it is to put a pen to paper, then send the letter -- you have to be really pissed off to go through that kind of trouble. I'd say it's highly likely that angry phonecalls aren't quite as "crazy" as angry letters, too -- in general.
No, it certainly doesn't, but you could at least make an honest attempt at proving me wrong. You could, for instance, mention just one civil law country in which the constitution is seen as being as big a deal as it is in the US. But you can't, and you won't. I don't think I've ever heard anyone speak as highly about constitutions as most Americans do; well, Hugo Chavez, perhaps.
Given that Dutch democracy is relatively young
Oh come on, guy. I'm not even going to argue. You have the entirety of the internet at your disposal; inform yourself.
and that EU courts can force the Netherlands to comply with EU requirements on human rights and other constitutional matters, I don't think that the Netherlands tells us much about the importance of constitutional law for a democracy.
Well, certainly you may pretend that this is the case, but considering that you pretty much admitted in the sentence above that apparently EU treaties can do the job just as well, I'd say you're not fooling yourself quite as effectively as you believe.
Actually, I would argue that in a civil law system, a constitution is much less important. Please inform yourself.
In the Netherlands, for instance, the courts aren't even allowed to constitutionally test legislature, and yet it hasn't managed to descend into complete anarchy quite yet.
Let us not forget that once every hundred-thousand years or so (when the sun doth shine and the moon doth glow and the grass doth grow), those who generally get fucked stand up and call for a bit of the old role-reversal. The fucking that ensues isn't your run-of-the-mill missionary position male-on-top tender fucking; heads roll in all directions, and I cannot in good conscience assert that skull-fucking doesn't occur under such circumstances.
So, perhaps it's time to break the cycle and start thinking about ways in which we -might- some day get to get along, before our dear old eye sockets have to pay the price?
That's a bit of a stretch, simply because birds do not need to become smarter to avoid wind turbines, and because wind turbines do not form a huge hazard to bird populations. Over time, in the event that wind turbine use undergoes extensive growth, birds that tend to fly at greater heights might survive relatively longer and produce more offspring; the same argument goes for, say, birds that are relatively more apprehensive of mid-air movement -- and so on. The evolutionary path towards intelligence is anything but obvious; this much is evident from the lack of intelligent species in an otherwise abundantly variable collection -- and it's not like environmental hazards to living things are a new phenomenon.
It's an interesting concept, but it also seems utterly impractical to me. Kilometer-long lines zipping around at high speeds would mean that no aircraft can pass through the area under 1000m, it'll wreak havoc on any birds passing through, and it seems to me that if you're going to have several of these, they'll need to be far enough apart to keep the lines from getting entangled -- which of course means a drastic increase in the required area for the windfarm. And yes, I know of course that normal wind turbines aren't exactly bird-friendly either, but at least they don't reach to the same heights.
Slashdot Mirror
A sci-fi nut with ADD, you forgot to add.
I don't think this is a matter of them deciding to go with comic books over anything else, but rather a matter of not being able to pay for anything else.
It is "ironic" because the comic book form received 0% of the vote in that poll, yet it's the only one we get.
Would anyone want to be seen with one of these? Really? Plus, how much life are you going to get on a charge, thirty minutes? A laptop which has to be plugged in all the time sort of defeats the purpose of buying one in the first place. Ah well, MMORPG junkies need bling too, I guess.
Yeah! Cocaine for everyone! Randians are pretty cute, sometimes.
Beagle II would like to have a word with you.
Yeah, well, the party they had afterwards cost twice as much as the research!
As for my example, I'm not entirely sure what your problem is with cloning Einstein; do our parents not have hopes and dreams for us when we're conceived? Are we not steered into professions and destinies we wouldn't have if it weren't for our parents? I don't see a huge difference between cloning Einstein and putting him in a family of, say, physicists, and then hope for the best, or two doctors having a kid who's more likely than not going to be a doctor himself when he grows up. It is no different furthermore from a couple where the male is infertile choosing the sperm of a successful (handsome, intelligent, athletic, etc) male to fertilise the female's egg.
The nature vs. nurture debate itself is interesting of course, but I doubt we'd get anywhere. It suffices to say that a clone of Einstein is more likely to be brilliant at what he does (be it physics or something else) than any regular Joe -- if genetics have any say in it at all.
Something I've always wondered, what's the huge deal about cloning? It'd be interesting to add a few Einsteins to the world, sure, but apart from that, what are the real advantages? Wouldn't harvesting organs, for instance, be better achieved by using stem cells?
(Yeah, fuckers, I replied. I'm not AC. Mod me down, make my day.)
And you're assuming that Symbian doesn't have non-competition clauses in its labour contracts why, exactly?
Ever been to a 9/11 truther site?
Your "mate" built you a PC running Windows ME? I don't think the problem is with IT people watching World of Porncraft; I rather think you need to get some better friends.
It makes perfect sense; it's a lot easier to send an e-mail than it is to put a pen to paper, then send the letter -- you have to be really pissed off to go through that kind of trouble. I'd say it's highly likely that angry phonecalls aren't quite as "crazy" as angry letters, too -- in general.
The responsibility for Knights of the Old Republic 2 being unfinished lies squarely on LucasArts' shoulders, not Obsidian's.
And how many people take everyday orbital flights? NASA does.
No, it certainly doesn't, but you could at least make an honest attempt at proving me wrong. You could, for instance, mention just one civil law country in which the constitution is seen as being as big a deal as it is in the US. But you can't, and you won't. I don't think I've ever heard anyone speak as highly about constitutions as most Americans do; well, Hugo Chavez, perhaps.
Given that Dutch democracy is relatively young
Oh come on, guy. I'm not even going to argue. You have the entirety of the internet at your disposal; inform yourself.
and that EU courts can force the Netherlands to comply with EU requirements on human rights and other constitutional matters, I don't think that the Netherlands tells us much about the importance of constitutional law for a democracy.
Well, certainly you may pretend that this is the case, but considering that you pretty much admitted in the sentence above that apparently EU treaties can do the job just as well, I'd say you're not fooling yourself quite as effectively as you believe.
In the Netherlands, for instance, the courts aren't even allowed to constitutionally test legislature, and yet it hasn't managed to descend into complete anarchy quite yet.
So, perhaps it's time to break the cycle and start thinking about ways in which we -might- some day get to get along, before our dear old eye sockets have to pay the price?
That's a bit of a stretch, simply because birds do not need to become smarter to avoid wind turbines, and because wind turbines do not form a huge hazard to bird populations. Over time, in the event that wind turbine use undergoes extensive growth, birds that tend to fly at greater heights might survive relatively longer and produce more offspring; the same argument goes for, say, birds that are relatively more apprehensive of mid-air movement -- and so on. The evolutionary path towards intelligence is anything but obvious; this much is evident from the lack of intelligent species in an otherwise abundantly variable collection -- and it's not like environmental hazards to living things are a new phenomenon.
What is this, the confessional booth all over again?
Oh boy.
Yeah, well, but, why can't we all just get along?
It's an interesting concept, but it also seems utterly impractical to me. Kilometer-long lines zipping around at high speeds would mean that no aircraft can pass through the area under 1000m, it'll wreak havoc on any birds passing through, and it seems to me that if you're going to have several of these, they'll need to be far enough apart to keep the lines from getting entangled -- which of course means a drastic increase in the required area for the windfarm. And yes, I know of course that normal wind turbines aren't exactly bird-friendly either, but at least they don't reach to the same heights.
Some download because it's cheaper. Others do it because they're not into the whole theatre experience.