One thing sorely lacking in this entire discussion is this distinction: "How should we treat genetically-modified people?" is a different question from "Should we allow parents to genetically modify their children?" I think all of us would agree that genetically-modified people should deserve the respect and rights that all human beings deserve: the right to life, freedom, the pursuit of happiness, education, and respect--not degradation.
Especially in the case of people who were modified as children, it wasn't their choice, why should we treat them with any less respect and dignity than someone who was born extremely intelligent or someone who was born with a birth defect? Fairness always has to be involved in sports, education, and other areas of society--that's why we have public education, food stamps, social security, and welfare. Because of this, in some circumstances, they might need to be treated differently, just as a 7'2" person must be given a longer bed or a gifted child should be given the choice to opportunities in a different class at school. People who choose to modify themselves without a medically or psychologically necessary reason, I have less patience for.
Genetic modification of children should be outlawed, though. Parents and doctors who modify children should be prosecuted and the children should be given to people who are not so self-important and selfish. Indeed, parents who want to enhance their children are being selfish. It's the same yuppie "I have a better car than you" one-upping that would be extended to children. Desiring blue eyes in your children or more intelligence is not an act of love or of care for your children; it's meant to make you feel better that your own life will be more meaningful, special, and fulfilling if you have these perfect children.
Happiness, what we all seem to want, does not come from a life without hardship. You don't have to be born in the technologically-elite first world to have a beautiful and happy life. (It does come from a life, however, so that can be a good-enough reason to cure disease by GM as well as medicine). Blue eyes, blonde hair, and great athletic ability will not necessarily make a child happy, and God forbid your child somehow turns out to be a "mistake." The willingness to risk a child's life and well-being because of her doctor's and her parent's vanity and/or greed is the most disgusting thing I can think of.
So, please, readers of Slashdot, remember that this isn't just about you! It's about children yet to be born and who deserve good lives without meddling that takes away their own choices.
In the article, the reporters talked about taking trash from two of the individuals and recycling from the mayor. I don't know about Oregon law, but where I'm from, it's the state (or whoever has the contract to pick up recycling) who legally owns the recycled material when it's put on the curb in the proper container. While it would be OK to take trash under any circumstances (as long as you don't dump it illegally), recycling is protected from individuals taking redeemable cans and from reporters. I'm not quite sure about police, since they probably would be given permission by the recycling company or by the state gov't to take the recycling too.
The reporters could indeed get in trouble for taking the recycled objects, but I don't know if tresspassing would apply. Probably more like petty larceny (all the paper material taken is probably worth about five cents).
P.S. Remember, never put anything related to drugs in the recycling, especially needles. It's usually people, not machines, who sort the bottles and stuff at the recycling plant, and you don't want them getting hurt in the process of doing their jobs.
Apparently, you are not familiar with the "Even-Odd" rule of Star Trek [ezboard.com] movies. This is an even-numbered movie, and thus, will rock.
We've all heard of how Star Trek episodes are just rehashes of previous episodes. I'd suggest that this pattern applies to the movies, in a predictable pattern:
The first movie established that Star Trek could make money in the theaters, thus we have the rest...
The second movie a good effort in reaction to the first so every movie that is a multiple of two will be above average
The third movie involved violating standing orders of the Federation so every multiple of three will involve the same theme.
Every fourth movie will involve time travel.
Every fifth movie will really, really, really suck!
So, as you can see, this new movie could really, really suck just as much as it could be new.
I go to a small liberal arts college in New England. About a fourth of the students here are from New York State and many of them have parents who work in NYC. Today has been complete hell here with many, many people desperately trying to call home to see if everything is OK.
There have been a few miraculous developments- one girl's father missed his train for the first time and wasn't able to get to his WTC office this morning. One of my friend's father was going to fly on one of the crashed Boston planes this morning, but got a cheaper tickets at the last minute. My own uncle had his 8:30am meeting next door to the WTC postponed at the last minute, and he saw the explosions from Staten Island instead.
At the same time, there has been great tragedy. The entire family of one student was on one of the doomed flights. Mass at 12 noon saw the Chapel completely packed, with a lot of teary faces, almost certain that they knew someone who died.
Today has been a surreal experience, like that directly out of some action flick starring Jean Claude VD. Let's just take this time to mourn.
As a constituent of Rep. Langevin, I feel I have to come to his defense. I think he was primarily concerned that the President would ban all fetal stem cell research and simply ignore stem cells from other adult and placenta sources.
Certainly, stem cell research could bring about some remarkable cures for diseases. The federal government should be funding more ethical research in this area and heavily regulate cloning and unethical research. The most dangerous situation is not heavy regulation (where reseachers claim they wouldn't have enough freedom- please!) Wouldn't it be better to work together towards a common line of research instead of in many tangential directions? It is the situation where everyone ignores the issue or sticks to their cubby holes that is more dangerous!
By the way, Rep. Langevin supports the Pesident's decision
There is in fact a HUGE difference in the morality of using stem cells from already-killed fetuses and killing more fetuses for their stem cells. It falls under the philosophic Principle of Double Effect.
An action that will have both good and bad consequences is morally allowable only if it meets the following criteria:
1. The action must be good or morally neutral - experimentation with simple cells is morally neutral
2. One must intend only a good effect - curing diseases using stem cell research is good!
3. Proportionality - The good brought about must be proportionally greater than the bad brought about by the action. In other words, experimenting on some cells from a dead fetus might be OK if millions could be cured of illness.
But here's the catch:
4. The bad effect can't be a means to the good. In other words, one can't kill a fetus (I take the position that a fetus DOES have moral worth) in order to bring out the good of saving others.
This principle of double effect shows why it's OK to use Nazi research because you're not doing an evil (just reading documents, not killing people) in order to produce a good (helping people). On the other hand, if you sponsor the killing of people even vicariously, you are doing a moral wrong!
We all know that Fox is not exactly known for their balanced view of anything, but anyone who saw this show would know that it didn't have one necessary journalistic aspect: impartiality. I watched the show just for kicks and left feeling that NASA had been given the shaft.
Fox put many so-called experts on camera calling the moon landing a hoax. Occasionally, they would interject a NASA spokesman giving vague rebuttals to the show's allegations. NASA looked even more devious for not responding to specific "proof". It seems that the show's producers either didn't tell the spokesman what he was supposed to be rebutting, or they cut out his specific answers!
By far, though, the most unforgivable thing the show's producers did was to interview Gus Grissom's family. They tried to turn the tragedy of Mr. Grissom's death in a pre-flight training accident into an insinuation that NASA didn't actually go to the moon. Sham on Fox for turning a family's grief to their own use!
Regardless of whether or not insurance companies deny coverage if you take the test or not, allowing them to use genetic information to determine insurance coverage turns genetic testing into a gamble. We should strive for decreased genetic ingnorance to better prepare for our future (to know whether we have a disease or not) and decide whether or not to have children (whether we should have children naturally or adopt). However, this ruling creates a deterrant to testing because you could be severely penalized if the test turns out to show something bad. All this ruling will do is to make people want to be ignorant of their own bodies.
As far as I can tell, MP3Board.com was founded before Gnutella was posted to the Internet by anyone at Nullsoft. Even if some court finds it illegal to link to or provide MP3s in the manner that MP3Board and Gnutella do, isn't MP3Board responsible?
AOL tried to stop Gnutella. MP3Board.com, on the other hand, not only provided MP3-related services before Gnutella, but also adopted Gnutella searching technology contrary to the wishes of AOL. AOL certainly isn't responsible for any action here since MP3Board.com was already "infringing" on copyrights. AOL didn't give MP3Board.com any ideas about infringing use here.
And remember, IANAL, butI wouldn't have to think like one if we weren't living in a legal never-never land.
Slashdot Mirror
Watch out. "NAL" is a trademark of Novell, the "Novell Applications Launcher." I'm sure that SCO will vouch for "IA" too: "Inane Assholes"
One thing sorely lacking in this entire discussion is this distinction: "How should we treat genetically-modified people?" is a different question from "Should we allow parents to genetically modify their children?" I think all of us would agree that genetically-modified people should deserve the respect and rights that all human beings deserve: the right to life, freedom, the pursuit of happiness, education, and respect--not degradation.
Especially in the case of people who were modified as children, it wasn't their choice, why should we treat them with any less respect and dignity than someone who was born extremely intelligent or someone who was born with a birth defect? Fairness always has to be involved in sports, education, and other areas of society--that's why we have public education, food stamps, social security, and welfare. Because of this, in some circumstances, they might need to be treated differently, just as a 7'2" person must be given a longer bed or a gifted child should be given the choice to opportunities in a different class at school. People who choose to modify themselves without a medically or psychologically necessary reason, I have less patience for.
Genetic modification of children should be outlawed, though. Parents and doctors who modify children should be prosecuted and the children should be given to people who are not so self-important and selfish. Indeed, parents who want to enhance their children are being selfish. It's the same yuppie "I have a better car than you" one-upping that would be extended to children. Desiring blue eyes in your children or more intelligence is not an act of love or of care for your children; it's meant to make you feel better that your own life will be more meaningful, special, and fulfilling if you have these perfect children.
Happiness, what we all seem to want, does not come from a life without hardship. You don't have to be born in the technologically-elite first world to have a beautiful and happy life. (It does come from a life, however, so that can be a good-enough reason to cure disease by GM as well as medicine). Blue eyes, blonde hair, and great athletic ability will not necessarily make a child happy, and God forbid your child somehow turns out to be a "mistake." The willingness to risk a child's life and well-being because of her doctor's and her parent's vanity and/or greed is the most disgusting thing I can think of.
So, please, readers of Slashdot, remember that this isn't just about you! It's about children yet to be born and who deserve good lives without meddling that takes away their own choices.
In the article, the reporters talked about taking trash from two of the individuals and recycling from the mayor. I don't know about Oregon law, but where I'm from, it's the state (or whoever has the contract to pick up recycling) who legally owns the recycled material when it's put on the curb in the proper container. While it would be OK to take trash under any circumstances (as long as you don't dump it illegally), recycling is protected from individuals taking redeemable cans and from reporters. I'm not quite sure about police, since they probably would be given permission by the recycling company or by the state gov't to take the recycling too.
The reporters could indeed get in trouble for taking the recycled objects, but I don't know if tresspassing would apply. Probably more like petty larceny (all the paper material taken is probably worth about five cents).
P.S. Remember, never put anything related to drugs in the recycling, especially needles. It's usually people, not machines, who sort the bottles and stuff at the recycling plant, and you don't want them getting hurt in the process of doing their jobs.
We've all heard of how Star Trek episodes are just rehashes of previous episodes. I'd suggest that this pattern applies to the movies, in a predictable pattern:
The first movie established that Star Trek could make money in the theaters, thus we have the rest...
The second movie a good effort in reaction to the first so every movie that is a multiple of two will be above average
The third movie involved violating standing orders of the Federation so every multiple of three will involve the same theme.
Every fourth movie will involve time travel.
Every fifth movie will really, really, really suck!
So, as you can see, this new movie could really, really suck just as much as it could be new.
FYI: Hasbro owns Parker Brothers.
There have been a few miraculous developments- one girl's father missed his train for the first time and wasn't able to get to his WTC office this morning. One of my friend's father was going to fly on one of the crashed Boston planes this morning, but got a cheaper tickets at the last minute. My own uncle had his 8:30am meeting next door to the WTC postponed at the last minute, and he saw the explosions from Staten Island instead.
At the same time, there has been great tragedy. The entire family of one student was on one of the doomed flights. Mass at 12 noon saw the Chapel completely packed, with a lot of teary faces, almost certain that they knew someone who died.
Today has been a surreal experience, like that directly out of some action flick starring Jean Claude VD. Let's just take this time to mourn.
As a constituent of Rep. Langevin, I feel I have to come to his defense. I think he was primarily concerned that the President would ban all fetal stem cell research and simply ignore stem cells from other adult and placenta sources.
Certainly, stem cell research could bring about some remarkable cures for diseases. The federal government should be funding more ethical research in this area and heavily regulate cloning and unethical research. The most dangerous situation is not heavy regulation (where reseachers claim they wouldn't have enough freedom- please!) Wouldn't it be better to work together towards a common line of research instead of in many tangential directions? It is the situation where everyone ignores the issue or sticks to their cubby holes that is more dangerous!
By the way, Rep. Langevin supports the Pesident's decision
An action that will have both good and bad consequences is morally allowable only if it meets the following criteria:
1. The action must be good or morally neutral - experimentation with simple cells is morally neutral
2. One must intend only a good effect - curing diseases using stem cell research is good!
3. Proportionality - The good brought about must be proportionally greater than the bad brought about by the action. In other words, experimenting on some cells from a dead fetus might be OK if millions could be cured of illness.
But here's the catch:
4. The bad effect can't be a means to the good. In other words, one can't kill a fetus (I take the position that a fetus DOES have moral worth) in order to bring out the good of saving others.
This principle of double effect shows why it's OK to use Nazi research because you're not doing an evil (just reading documents, not killing people) in order to produce a good (helping people). On the other hand, if you sponsor the killing of people even vicariously, you are doing a moral wrong!
We all know that Fox is not exactly known for their balanced view of anything, but anyone who saw this show would know that it didn't have one necessary journalistic aspect: impartiality. I watched the show just for kicks and left feeling that NASA had been given the shaft.
Fox put many so-called experts on camera calling the moon landing a hoax. Occasionally, they would interject a NASA spokesman giving vague rebuttals to the show's allegations. NASA looked even more devious for not responding to specific "proof". It seems that the show's producers either didn't tell the spokesman what he was supposed to be rebutting, or they cut out his specific answers!
By far, though, the most unforgivable thing the show's producers did was to interview Gus Grissom's family. They tried to turn the tragedy of Mr. Grissom's death in a pre-flight training accident into an insinuation that NASA didn't actually go to the moon. Sham on Fox for turning a family's grief to their own use!
Regardless of whether or not insurance companies deny coverage if you take the test or not, allowing them to use genetic information to determine insurance coverage turns genetic testing into a gamble. We should strive for decreased genetic ingnorance to better prepare for our future (to know whether we have a disease or not) and decide whether or not to have children (whether we should have children naturally or adopt). However, this ruling creates a deterrant to testing because you could be severely penalized if the test turns out to show something bad. All this ruling will do is to make people want to be ignorant of their own bodies.
As far as I can tell, MP3Board.com was founded before Gnutella was posted to the Internet by anyone at Nullsoft. Even if some court finds it illegal to link to or provide MP3s in the manner that MP3Board and Gnutella do, isn't MP3Board responsible?
AOL tried to stop Gnutella. MP3Board.com, on the other hand, not only provided MP3-related services before Gnutella, but also adopted Gnutella searching technology contrary to the wishes of AOL. AOL certainly isn't responsible for any action here since MP3Board.com was already "infringing" on copyrights. AOL didn't give MP3Board.com any ideas about infringing use here.
And remember, IANAL, butI wouldn't have to think like one if we weren't living in a legal never-never land.