>>on the plus side, I'm only a few hundred km away from a country that would take me in (due to my heritage)
Don't you think it's kind of disappointing that in 2008 the only place you can find sanctuary is based on your _heritage_? I mean, it's just such a foreign concept to me. I can't imagine placing value on a person based on who their grandparents were and where they lived.
>>If enough computers are sold in this way, compatibility with Linux will have much more value to them, and the hardware they buy will reflect this. This, in turn, will encourage more hardware vendors to be compatible with Linux.
This could backfire. As the numbers grow increasingly accurate, hardware makers might actually cut back on linux support. The vocal linux fanbase might make it seem popular enough to support now, but wait until Dell reports 176 linux boxes sold per year. I'm not trying to slam linux, but it's good to take a step back for perspective.
>>Since it's very easy to make mediocre pop music and distribute it for free, the old ways of producing that will be competed out of existence.
Now that is an entirely different argument, and one that I agree with. Once, just for giggles, I fired up garageband for a friend of mine with, say, pop sensibilities, and showed her how easy it was to make a 4-minute track with a catchy refrain and a danceable beat. She was surprised by how easy it was, but she still wanted it (the pop music). If pop could be generated by computers (like the auto-generated motel art website, I can't find the link), and this could be done by privately-owned radio stations, then I would be all for it. I guess I would support it because I like to create the least entropy for any given goal...
But that's the point here- there is a demand for the stuff (music/games). If you want to create it yourself, or write a program to do it, then I think that's great. But if you want to listen to Neil Young, then you need to buy his music from his distributors. I don't think it's fair to say that pop music is really easy to make and then 'pirate' a Pink Floyd album; that is some serious rationalization. If you want cheaply-made independent music, then more power to you, and I could recommend a few talented bands. But if you want Alice Cooper, then you have to play Alice Cooper rules.
I think it should be a two-sided arrangement: They have the right to create shitty music, and you have a right to turn it down; They have a right to make great music, and expect to be paid by people who own private copies of it, and if you decline to pay for it then they can turn you down (however that might be).
If your zeal for the subject of IP rights is really strong, then you will not listen to the Neil Youngs of RIAA-land. I think it's the only honest thing to do. If you want to beat them at their own game, you come off a lot stronger by actually doing it better rather than finding rationalizations for stealing it. And we should differentiate here between just 'music', which there will always be a demand for, and individual bands, which vary considerably on their stance re: big distributors and music labels.
I also don't like the RIAA/MPAA business model, and I show my feelings by supporting independent artists. 'Pirating' popular albums only shows the RIAA that there is a strong demand for their product and that they need to make efforts to recoup their expenses. I don't like the RIAA and I listen to free music or I buy music from artists that I really like. That is how I show the RIAA that I am not interested in their product.
Wow I think I might have gone off on a tangent there, sorry. But WRT your middle line, that raises some complex questions: is music a means or an end? If it is only a means, then what is the end? Background noise? Is that what this is all about, background noise? Somehow I don't think so, at least not entirely.
Now you might say, "CDs are a means to listen to music. I have found a better means to listen to music in MP3/AAC/OGG/etc." And someone might say, "Artists are payed for live performances; that should be enough." And I would point out that the commenter would then have to listen to the stooges only live, or the beatles only live, or bob marley only live. After all, musicians get paid for live gigs, right? Then it only makes sense that if the only money you pay is to see live gigs, then the only music you get to listen to is live gigs. Right?
I dunno. I'm tired. I welcome your thoughts; please don't take any of this personally- I enjoy the discussion.
I guess my point is that in your example, the original car maker put forth the capital for R&D and manufacturing, and then your neighbor just presses a button to make a duplicate (and I know it's a nonsensical situation that would change the market irreversibly if such a device were to exist).
Ok let me change gears. I also don't cry for buggy-whip makers, but they lost their jobs because of changing technology, not because someone came up with a cheaper way to make whips.
Actually, I just don't think _any_ car analogy will work here. Ok, here's one: Your neighbor comes over with his micrometer and contour gage and recreates *plans* for your car. Then he goes out and buys the steel and plastic and makes it himself. He can try to sell it, but then people should know that they have a choice between a toyota Corolla and bob's garage Corolla. Maybe there isn't a difference; if not, then the market will probably shift towards bob. And in this situation, I would still have to side with the car makers. Your argument doesn't really work when you *want* the car but buy the copy when your defense (the buggy whips) is that you no longer want the car and that is why you shouldn't have to pay them. You still do want a car. You still do want to play games. You are just looking to circumvent the costs that other people have payed for centuries (i.e., paying someone else to do something for you, like programming a game).
I think that in the real world if everyone made cheap copies of toyotas, then toyota would go out of business. Then you would either be stuck with 2008 toyotas forever, or someone would come up with something new. They would invest the capital to create something new. They would become the new toyota and the cycle repeats.
Like I said, I don't think that you can equate music/games/movies with buggy whips. People WANT music/games/movies whereas buggy whips and steam engineers are simply not NEEDED anymore. There is a world of difference there- Mars, Inc. going out of business because no one eats Snickers anymore vs. Mars, Inc. going out of business because no one pays for snickers anymore, even though they are taking and eating snickers like wildfire.
>>Insurance works best when the risks aren't ascertainable in an individual case but are ascertainable in the aggregate.
It has been demonstrated (notably in Dr. Crick) in cases where the entire genome was decrypted that mutations existed that should have caused disease but didn't. We still don't know why this is the case; the genome is such a mindbogglingly complex network of interactions that it will be decades at least before we can reliably say, "if we do this to this gene, then X trait is expressed". And I mean that we need to be able to do this with certainty every time, not just know how to make certain genes fluoresce in simple organisms. Very, very few people have had their genomes completely sequenced as of yet, and a great deal of research remains to be done before we truly understand the implications of mutations.
What I believe we will find is that genetic makeup makes a poor determiner of health risk _when compared_ to existing techniques, e.g., family history, symptoms, and plain, old-fashioned DSM-style diagnoses based on physical/mental indicators. Debilitating genetic defects (fragile X syndrome) are too rare to throw the balance, and common genetic defects (myopia) are too common for gene testing to change anything.
I guess that what I'm saying is that the perturbations you predict would happen will actually be very minor- insurance companies are uncannily adept with their statistics, and people in general tend to already have a good feeling about how healthy they are. Certain types of cancer run in my family, but not often enough to warrant higher premiums for me (yet). Having a genetic assay to know for sure that I carry such-and-such mutation would really not change my outlook on things; it is very likely that I also carry mutations for a host of other diseases that will never manifest themselves.
Personal behavior and risky activities: now there is where the brave new insured world will be concerned. That is what bugs me more than this genetic testing. "Minority Report" will be played out by the insurance companies, not the government. "Mr Smith, you were about to drink one more beer than you should have and then drive into a fencepost. This cannot happen. Your premium will now rise.5%"
So are you saying that the only 'legitimate' diseases are congenital? Because, you know, you caused your own chronic neck pain when you made the decision to get in that car and get hit by a drunk driver. How about diabetes? Some people are predisposed to it, while other people get it from piss-poor diets. And that reminds me, how do you deal with people who have poor diets and make poor decisions based on the way they were raised?
This whole thing comes down to some unanswerable determinism/free-will kinds of arguments. IMO, sick people should be taken care of and healthy people should do whatever the hell they want with their bodies. End of story. The whole argument about any substance 'abuse' comes down to some kind of sick puritanical moralizing and it makes me sad that in this day and age my actions are ruled by the same people who won't let actors say 'poop' on tv.
I may be biased since I didn't see Alien when it was first released, but upon watching the whole series within a few years, it seemed to me to work well (at least 1 and 4). Sometimes changing directors can be a good thing.
I am too tired to think of other series where the sequels were as good as the original, but there are a few. I think the drop in quality is a result of a money grab more than it being due to our unrealistic perceptions. FX2 really was just a terrible movie, for example.
>>making the most boring movies look exciting and fun.
Let me preface this by saying that I watch a lot of movies. Seriously, a lot.
I noticed something a few years back about trailers: depending on the movie you were trying to watch, the intro trailers would spin the advertised movies to match the genre. Let me just pick a movie that might work for this, since I can't remember a specific example right now.
Let's say you're watching, um... Meet the Fockers. Stupid movie, right? Stupid, slapstick, sitcom-type jokes. In the intro trailers, you see School of Rock. The scenes are all the wacky Jack Black screaming and dancing around, etc.
Now you go to watch Hope Floats with your imaginary girlfriend. In the intro trailers, you see School of Rock- and they turned it into a romantic, touching comedy about a couple who are lost and trying to find love as well as a coming of age story about a 13-year-old saxophonist who is angry at his absentee father.
This happens ALL the time. It can be frustrating, too- Oftentimes I will recommend a good movie to a friend and as soon as they say, "wellll... I don't really like that kind of movie," I know that they saw the 'wrong' trailer.
>>we are supposed to believe that "stuff" can exist outside of our minds, which to me doesn't seem any more reasonable than believing in a God who lives in the sky who we can't see, or aliens in space, or angels, or the devil.
If you actually believed yourself, you wouldn't be posting here on slashdot. You'd be utterly confused among the (fake?) sensory inputs and your own imagination. Random thoughts, dreams, emotions, etc. would be just as real to you as what your nerves told you. Instead of posting to slashdot, you'd be catatonic while you dreamed yourself to death.
Of course you can just say that I am you and I am saying this as some sort of gedanken experiment that your mind felt like performing, but I'd disagree. I'm actually in Minnesota, and it's pretty hard for me to not notice that.
>>The thing that's really funny to me is how die-hard atheists are so religious.
I hear this a lot these days. The reason that many of them seem (to you) so rabid is because they place their lack of belief in god in the same category as their lack of belief of unicorns, Xenu, perpetual motion devices, 'free' energy, etc. To them, knowing that something isn't true is just as powerful a belief as knowing that something _is_ true: "Not B" is just as valid to most logical-minded people as "A".
So what you might expect an atheist to do- basically ignore religion and think about other stuff- doesn't really happen because to an atheist (especially a nerdy atheist), "Not God" is as much a fact worthy of discussion as "Linux ftw" or whatever. It is very much a logic/programming way of looking at the world, and you see a lot of it here on slashdot, for better or worse: If A is true, then the inverse of A is not true. If the Inverse of A is true, then A is not true.
Finally, I think the difference between the nerdy atheists and religious people is that while the nerds place disbelief in the same category as facts, religious people place the belief in god in a different category as other facts. You are familiar, I'm sure, with basic laws of physics and believe as a fact that certain actions will cause certain reactions (e.g., dropping a ball on the ground). Yet your belief in God, I would assume, falls in a different category of fact, one that can sometimes be very ambiguous and unreliable- the ball will always act the same way in the same conditions, but God is very unpredictable (I mean answered prayers, good things happening to bad people, vice versa, babies dying, etc).
So religious people have some leeway in their beliefs and maybe that is why they can tolerate other people's different beliefs (although I have not found that to be the case). Atheists like their facts cut-and-dried. Maybe most atheists have type-A personalities; I don't know.
And of course, there are stubborn, ignorant atheists who just like to argue, just like some religious people are like that.
In the end, I don't think it's fair to say that atheists should tolerate other beliefs, as though it were a matter of choosing target or walmart, or cherry or strawberry candy or something and that it comes down to taste. Atheism is the complete denial of all supernatural belief systems; it is not within atheism's definition to tolerate religion any more than an astronaut could tolerate the flat earth society.
I don't want to start an argument or anything- I just thought I'd throw in my two cents.
I'm sorry, but I get up in arms any time people talk down to me as though they are vested with a moral authority that I somehow lack. If you have _ever_ passed by a beggar without handing him some money, than you have committed a far greater misdeed than joking about a situation that you are completely powerless to do anything about. So get off your high horse and get on with being human, strengths and weaknesses both, just like the rest of us.
-b, who has not posted any jokes about this disaster but reserves the philosophical right to do so.
I've been in similarly horrifying situations and I actually reflected on this while I was enduring them. I'd think, "right now my friends are probably playing some war game on their computer while I am here actually getting shot at."
You know how it made me feel? It made me feel happy for them that they were OK. It didn't change anything about how I felt about my own situation at all. No matter what terrible situations befall me, there will be people on the other side of the world who will carry on unconcerned and will continue making stupid jokes, watching cartoons, having sex, and just generally enjoying life.
Why should my misfortunes cause pain for others?
I have sympathy for the victims of this disaster, but I don't have the visceral, gut reaction that I would have if my mother was killed in front of me. I don't see how you can conflate the two very different reactions.
You want everyone to shed tears over every bad thing that happens, ever? People will just stop watching the news.
I'm not a christian and I might be wrong, but I seem to recall a concept called 'original sin' which implies that we are all, from conception to death, sinners.
There are also certain christians who believe that you would go to hell if you died before being baptized. And there are some christians who believe that a cracker is the body of christ (actual, not symbolic) so it's hard for me to care one way or the other what they think.
Christians are no more qualified to debate morality than a tv viewer is qualified to debate which camera is best for studio work.
>>We generally place more importance on human life, above other forms of life, but on what basis?
It is a biological imperative that we respect human life and eat everyone else. It is hardwired into us the same way we are forced to care for our children, lust after women, seek food and shelter when we need it, etc. We can temporarily overcome all of these instincts, but only at the cost of our mental well-being (and ostracism from fellow humans).
I for one am not happy about being a puppet to evolution, but I'll get over it.
>>Don't you want your offspring to be the very best they could possibly be?
Oh good heavens, no. My offspring will grow up and learn to accept living in their father's long, dark shadow. If there is anything that history has taught me, it is that you must always be aware of your children's dark plots to kill you and steal your honorable name.
>>If it cannot remember when developed, nor express that pain before it has, how is this in any way, shape, or form, an ethical issue?
The people who think that it is wrong think it is wrong for the same reason they think it would be wrong to rape someone in their sleep even if they would never know it happened, or look through people's bedroom windows even if they never knew you were doing it.
I think that, for these people, it boils down to a Kantian kind of principle- Your actions are ethical if you would be ok with everyone else doing the same thing. Or two change it up a little, an action on a person is ethical if you would be ok with it being done on you in the same circumstances. This is why I don't believe in torture or prison sentences for simple drug possession. People with this viewpoint would consider it wrong to experiment on embryos or fetuses because they would not have wanted it to happen to them.
I am perfectly OK with this research because these aren't embryos that are being experimented on. They are I believe blastocysts or basically tiny blobs of undifferentiated cells. You could say that I am skirting the real issue, which is that life is still being prevented since the blastocyst requires an egg and a sperm, but I'd respond that life doesn't begin at conception, not in any substantial sense. I might go so far as to say that life doesn't begin until the fetus could reasonably be expected to stay alive if born, and that would be sometime in the third trimester.
Or you could say that they aren't sentient until they understand algebra, which is OK by me.
You took the words out of my mouth. One thing I'd add is that we as parents already choose almost everything for our children- arguments about free will and nature vs nurture aside, you have to admit there is a striking correlation between parents and children in terms of: religion, socioeconomic status, language, personality, etc.
When two short-sighted people have a child, they must be aware on some level that the child they produce will most likely also be shortsighted, but they do it anyways. If we are OK with casually causing genetic harm to our children, why do we have a problem causing good genetic changes?
It gets pretty darned frustrating to be around parents- parents aren't like me anymore. They seem human, but their mind has been taken over by their children. Subjects that wouldn't have piqued their interest before they were parents are now cause for federal hearings. I guess what I'm saying is that parents annoy me by reminding me that we are, as a species, still very much animals- I hate thinking that I am under the control of ancient instincts and chemical processes. I hate thinking that most of my emotionally-based decisions were decided on the whims of whatever hormone was dominant in my brain at the time, or that there are a huge number of decisions that I could have made rationally had I simply not been so emotional at the time without even realizing it.
Maybe one of their experiments could be removing that emotional hardwiring and seeing what happens.
Slashdot Mirror
>>on the plus side, I'm only a few hundred km away from a country that would take me in (due to my heritage)
Don't you think it's kind of disappointing that in 2008 the only place you can find sanctuary is based on your _heritage_? I mean, it's just such a foreign concept to me. I can't imagine placing value on a person based on who their grandparents were and where they lived.
-b
>>If enough computers are sold in this way, compatibility with Linux will have much more value to them, and the hardware they buy will reflect this. This, in turn, will encourage more hardware vendors to be compatible with Linux.
This could backfire. As the numbers grow increasingly accurate, hardware makers might actually cut back on linux support. The vocal linux fanbase might make it seem popular enough to support now, but wait until Dell reports 176 linux boxes sold per year. I'm not trying to slam linux, but it's good to take a step back for perspective.
-b
>>Since it's very easy to make mediocre pop music and distribute it for free, the old ways of producing that will be competed out of existence.
Now that is an entirely different argument, and one that I agree with. Once, just for giggles, I fired up garageband for a friend of mine with, say, pop sensibilities, and showed her how easy it was to make a 4-minute track with a catchy refrain and a danceable beat. She was surprised by how easy it was, but she still wanted it (the pop music). If pop could be generated by computers (like the auto-generated motel art website, I can't find the link), and this could be done by privately-owned radio stations, then I would be all for it. I guess I would support it because I like to create the least entropy for any given goal...
But that's the point here- there is a demand for the stuff (music/games). If you want to create it yourself, or write a program to do it, then I think that's great. But if you want to listen to Neil Young, then you need to buy his music from his distributors. I don't think it's fair to say that pop music is really easy to make and then 'pirate' a Pink Floyd album; that is some serious rationalization. If you want cheaply-made independent music, then more power to you, and I could recommend a few talented bands. But if you want Alice Cooper, then you have to play Alice Cooper rules.
I think it should be a two-sided arrangement: They have the right to create shitty music, and you have a right to turn it down; They have a right to make great music, and expect to be paid by people who own private copies of it, and if you decline to pay for it then they can turn you down (however that might be).
If your zeal for the subject of IP rights is really strong, then you will not listen to the Neil Youngs of RIAA-land. I think it's the only honest thing to do. If you want to beat them at their own game, you come off a lot stronger by actually doing it better rather than finding rationalizations for stealing it. And we should differentiate here between just 'music', which there will always be a demand for, and individual bands, which vary considerably on their stance re: big distributors and music labels.
I also don't like the RIAA/MPAA business model, and I show my feelings by supporting independent artists. 'Pirating' popular albums only shows the RIAA that there is a strong demand for their product and that they need to make efforts to recoup their expenses. I don't like the RIAA and I listen to free music or I buy music from artists that I really like. That is how I show the RIAA that I am not interested in their product.
Wow I think I might have gone off on a tangent there, sorry. But WRT your middle line, that raises some complex questions: is music a means or an end? If it is only a means, then what is the end? Background noise? Is that what this is all about, background noise? Somehow I don't think so, at least not entirely.
Now you might say, "CDs are a means to listen to music. I have found a better means to listen to music in MP3/AAC/OGG/etc." And someone might say, "Artists are payed for live performances; that should be enough." And I would point out that the commenter would then have to listen to the stooges only live, or the beatles only live, or bob marley only live. After all, musicians get paid for live gigs, right? Then it only makes sense that if the only money you pay is to see live gigs, then the only music you get to listen to is live gigs. Right?
I dunno. I'm tired. I welcome your thoughts; please don't take any of this personally- I enjoy the discussion.
-b
I guess my point is that in your example, the original car maker put forth the capital for R&D and manufacturing, and then your neighbor just presses a button to make a duplicate (and I know it's a nonsensical situation that would change the market irreversibly if such a device were to exist).
Ok let me change gears. I also don't cry for buggy-whip makers, but they lost their jobs because of changing technology, not because someone came up with a cheaper way to make whips.
Actually, I just don't think _any_ car analogy will work here. Ok, here's one: Your neighbor comes over with his micrometer and contour gage and recreates *plans* for your car. Then he goes out and buys the steel and plastic and makes it himself. He can try to sell it, but then people should know that they have a choice between a toyota Corolla and bob's garage Corolla. Maybe there isn't a difference; if not, then the market will probably shift towards bob. And in this situation, I would still have to side with the car makers. Your argument doesn't really work when you *want* the car but buy the copy when your defense (the buggy whips) is that you no longer want the car and that is why you shouldn't have to pay them. You still do want a car. You still do want to play games. You are just looking to circumvent the costs that other people have payed for centuries (i.e., paying someone else to do something for you, like programming a game).
I think that in the real world if everyone made cheap copies of toyotas, then toyota would go out of business. Then you would either be stuck with 2008 toyotas forever, or someone would come up with something new. They would invest the capital to create something new. They would become the new toyota and the cycle repeats.
Like I said, I don't think that you can equate music/games/movies with buggy whips. People WANT music/games/movies whereas buggy whips and steam engineers are simply not NEEDED anymore. There is a world of difference there- Mars, Inc. going out of business because no one eats Snickers anymore vs. Mars, Inc. going out of business because no one pays for snickers anymore, even though they are taking and eating snickers like wildfire.
-b
>>Insurance works best when the risks aren't ascertainable in an individual case but are ascertainable in the aggregate.
.5%"
It has been demonstrated (notably in Dr. Crick) in cases where the entire genome was decrypted that mutations existed that should have caused disease but didn't. We still don't know why this is the case; the genome is such a mindbogglingly complex network of interactions that it will be decades at least before we can reliably say, "if we do this to this gene, then X trait is expressed". And I mean that we need to be able to do this with certainty every time, not just know how to make certain genes fluoresce in simple organisms. Very, very few people have had their genomes completely sequenced as of yet, and a great deal of research remains to be done before we truly understand the implications of mutations.
What I believe we will find is that genetic makeup makes a poor determiner of health risk _when compared_ to existing techniques, e.g., family history, symptoms, and plain, old-fashioned DSM-style diagnoses based on physical/mental indicators. Debilitating genetic defects (fragile X syndrome) are too rare to throw the balance, and common genetic defects (myopia) are too common for gene testing to change anything.
I guess that what I'm saying is that the perturbations you predict would happen will actually be very minor- insurance companies are uncannily adept with their statistics, and people in general tend to already have a good feeling about how healthy they are. Certain types of cancer run in my family, but not often enough to warrant higher premiums for me (yet). Having a genetic assay to know for sure that I carry such-and-such mutation would really not change my outlook on things; it is very likely that I also carry mutations for a host of other diseases that will never manifest themselves.
Personal behavior and risky activities: now there is where the brave new insured world will be concerned. That is what bugs me more than this genetic testing. "Minority Report" will be played out by the insurance companies, not the government. "Mr Smith, you were about to drink one more beer than you should have and then drive into a fencepost. This cannot happen. Your premium will now rise
Sorry for rambling, it's been a long day.
-b
The bill states that genetic information found by other means (family history, for example) is fair game.
-b
So are you saying that the only 'legitimate' diseases are congenital? Because, you know, you caused your own chronic neck pain when you made the decision to get in that car and get hit by a drunk driver. How about diabetes? Some people are predisposed to it, while other people get it from piss-poor diets. And that reminds me, how do you deal with people who have poor diets and make poor decisions based on the way they were raised?
This whole thing comes down to some unanswerable determinism/free-will kinds of arguments. IMO, sick people should be taken care of and healthy people should do whatever the hell they want with their bodies. End of story. The whole argument about any substance 'abuse' comes down to some kind of sick puritanical moralizing and it makes me sad that in this day and age my actions are ruled by the same people who won't let actors say 'poop' on tv.
-bah
Your post reminded me of a funny quote by Mitch Hedberg-
"Alcoholism is the only disease that you get yelled at for having"
-b
You do see why the auto maker might be upset about that arrangement, though, right?
-b
If your story is true, why do you continue shopping there? A power trip?
-b
>>sudo sceince
Password:
sudo: sceince: command not found
-b
I love this argument. It's like saying that women are not shorter than men on average since you know one woman who is taller than one man you know.
For every obese person driving a prius there are 10 more driving suburbans, just like any other americans.
-b
I may be biased since I didn't see Alien when it was first released, but upon watching the whole series within a few years, it seemed to me to work well (at least 1 and 4). Sometimes changing directors can be a good thing.
I am too tired to think of other series where the sequels were as good as the original, but there are a few. I think the drop in quality is a result of a money grab more than it being due to our unrealistic perceptions. FX2 really was just a terrible movie, for example.
-b
>>making the most boring movies look exciting and fun.
Let me preface this by saying that I watch a lot of movies. Seriously, a lot.
I noticed something a few years back about trailers: depending on the movie you were trying to watch, the intro trailers would spin the advertised movies to match the genre. Let me just pick a movie that might work for this, since I can't remember a specific example right now.
Let's say you're watching, um... Meet the Fockers. Stupid movie, right? Stupid, slapstick, sitcom-type jokes. In the intro trailers, you see School of Rock. The scenes are all the wacky Jack Black screaming and dancing around, etc.
Now you go to watch Hope Floats with your imaginary girlfriend. In the intro trailers, you see School of Rock- and they turned it into a romantic, touching comedy about a couple who are lost and trying to find love as well as a coming of age story about a 13-year-old saxophonist who is angry at his absentee father.
This happens ALL the time. It can be frustrating, too- Oftentimes I will recommend a good movie to a friend and as soon as they say, "wellll... I don't really like that kind of movie," I know that they saw the 'wrong' trailer.
And that's what I have to say about that.
-b
>>we are supposed to believe that "stuff" can exist outside of our minds, which to me doesn't seem any more reasonable than believing in a God who lives in the sky who we can't see, or aliens in space, or angels, or the devil.
If you actually believed yourself, you wouldn't be posting here on slashdot. You'd be utterly confused among the (fake?) sensory inputs and your own imagination. Random thoughts, dreams, emotions, etc. would be just as real to you as what your nerves told you. Instead of posting to slashdot, you'd be catatonic while you dreamed yourself to death.
Of course you can just say that I am you and I am saying this as some sort of gedanken experiment that your mind felt like performing, but I'd disagree. I'm actually in Minnesota, and it's pretty hard for me to not notice that.
-b
>>The thing that's really funny to me is how die-hard atheists are so religious.
I hear this a lot these days. The reason that many of them seem (to you) so rabid is because they place their lack of belief in god in the same category as their lack of belief of unicorns, Xenu, perpetual motion devices, 'free' energy, etc. To them, knowing that something isn't true is just as powerful a belief as knowing that something _is_ true: "Not B" is just as valid to most logical-minded people as "A".
So what you might expect an atheist to do- basically ignore religion and think about other stuff- doesn't really happen because to an atheist (especially a nerdy atheist), "Not God" is as much a fact worthy of discussion as "Linux ftw" or whatever. It is very much a logic/programming way of looking at the world, and you see a lot of it here on slashdot, for better or worse: If A is true, then the inverse of A is not true. If the Inverse of A is true, then A is not true.
Finally, I think the difference between the nerdy atheists and religious people is that while the nerds place disbelief in the same category as facts, religious people place the belief in god in a different category as other facts. You are familiar, I'm sure, with basic laws of physics and believe as a fact that certain actions will cause certain reactions (e.g., dropping a ball on the ground). Yet your belief in God, I would assume, falls in a different category of fact, one that can sometimes be very ambiguous and unreliable- the ball will always act the same way in the same conditions, but God is very unpredictable (I mean answered prayers, good things happening to bad people, vice versa, babies dying, etc).
So religious people have some leeway in their beliefs and maybe that is why they can tolerate other people's different beliefs (although I have not found that to be the case). Atheists like their facts cut-and-dried. Maybe most atheists have type-A personalities; I don't know.
And of course, there are stubborn, ignorant atheists who just like to argue, just like some religious people are like that.
In the end, I don't think it's fair to say that atheists should tolerate other beliefs, as though it were a matter of choosing target or walmart, or cherry or strawberry candy or something and that it comes down to taste. Atheism is the complete denial of all supernatural belief systems; it is not within atheism's definition to tolerate religion any more than an astronaut could tolerate the flat earth society.
I don't want to start an argument or anything- I just thought I'd throw in my two cents.
-b
>>Broadcast TV is free to the public only because advertisers pay for airtime.
The funny thing is that TV we PAY for, like cable TV, has just as many ads as 'free' TV. Hmmm.
-b
>>And now the Tibet cyclone & Chinese earthquake.
Your moral outrage comes off sounding tawdry when you don't even know what country the major cyclone hit.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iy-MfhLN9Q7MwtQ1VlrvexLjr2dAD90KQ9083
I'm sorry, but I get up in arms any time people talk down to me as though they are vested with a moral authority that I somehow lack. If you have _ever_ passed by a beggar without handing him some money, than you have committed a far greater misdeed than joking about a situation that you are completely powerless to do anything about. So get off your high horse and get on with being human, strengths and weaknesses both, just like the rest of us.
-b, who has not posted any jokes about this disaster but reserves the philosophical right to do so.
I've been in similarly horrifying situations and I actually reflected on this while I was enduring them. I'd think, "right now my friends are probably playing some war game on their computer while I am here actually getting shot at."
You know how it made me feel? It made me feel happy for them that they were OK. It didn't change anything about how I felt about my own situation at all. No matter what terrible situations befall me, there will be people on the other side of the world who will carry on unconcerned and will continue making stupid jokes, watching cartoons, having sex, and just generally enjoying life.
Why should my misfortunes cause pain for others?
I have sympathy for the victims of this disaster, but I don't have the visceral, gut reaction that I would have if my mother was killed in front of me. I don't see how you can conflate the two very different reactions.
You want everyone to shed tears over every bad thing that happens, ever? People will just stop watching the news.
-b
I'm not a christian and I might be wrong, but I seem to recall a concept called 'original sin' which implies that we are all, from conception to death, sinners.
There are also certain christians who believe that you would go to hell if you died before being baptized. And there are some christians who believe that a cracker is the body of christ (actual, not symbolic) so it's hard for me to care one way or the other what they think.
Christians are no more qualified to debate morality than a tv viewer is qualified to debate which camera is best for studio work.
-b
>>We generally place more importance on human life, above other forms of life, but on what basis?
It is a biological imperative that we respect human life and eat everyone else. It is hardwired into us the same way we are forced to care for our children, lust after women, seek food and shelter when we need it, etc. We can temporarily overcome all of these instincts, but only at the cost of our mental well-being (and ostracism from fellow humans).
I for one am not happy about being a puppet to evolution, but I'll get over it.
-b
>>Don't you want your offspring to be the very best they could possibly be?
Oh good heavens, no. My offspring will grow up and learn to accept living in their father's long, dark shadow. If there is anything that history has taught me, it is that you must always be aware of your children's dark plots to kill you and steal your honorable name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricide
-b
>>If it cannot remember when developed, nor express that pain before it has, how is this in any way, shape, or form, an ethical issue?
The people who think that it is wrong think it is wrong for the same reason they think it would be wrong to rape someone in their sleep even if they would never know it happened, or look through people's bedroom windows even if they never knew you were doing it.
I think that, for these people, it boils down to a Kantian kind of principle- Your actions are ethical if you would be ok with everyone else doing the same thing. Or two change it up a little, an action on a person is ethical if you would be ok with it being done on you in the same circumstances. This is why I don't believe in torture or prison sentences for simple drug possession. People with this viewpoint would consider it wrong to experiment on embryos or fetuses because they would not have wanted it to happen to them.
I am perfectly OK with this research because these aren't embryos that are being experimented on. They are I believe blastocysts or basically tiny blobs of undifferentiated cells. You could say that I am skirting the real issue, which is that life is still being prevented since the blastocyst requires an egg and a sperm, but I'd respond that life doesn't begin at conception, not in any substantial sense. I might go so far as to say that life doesn't begin until the fetus could reasonably be expected to stay alive if born, and that would be sometime in the third trimester.
Or you could say that they aren't sentient until they understand algebra, which is OK by me.
-b
You took the words out of my mouth. One thing I'd add is that we as parents already choose almost everything for our children- arguments about free will and nature vs nurture aside, you have to admit there is a striking correlation between parents and children in terms of: religion, socioeconomic status, language, personality, etc.
When two short-sighted people have a child, they must be aware on some level that the child they produce will most likely also be shortsighted, but they do it anyways. If we are OK with casually causing genetic harm to our children, why do we have a problem causing good genetic changes?
It gets pretty darned frustrating to be around parents- parents aren't like me anymore. They seem human, but their mind has been taken over by their children. Subjects that wouldn't have piqued their interest before they were parents are now cause for federal hearings. I guess what I'm saying is that parents annoy me by reminding me that we are, as a species, still very much animals- I hate thinking that I am under the control of ancient instincts and chemical processes. I hate thinking that most of my emotionally-based decisions were decided on the whims of whatever hormone was dominant in my brain at the time, or that there are a huge number of decisions that I could have made rationally had I simply not been so emotional at the time without even realizing it.
Maybe one of their experiments could be removing that emotional hardwiring and seeing what happens.
-b
I share P.K. Dick's view on sentience: Until a 'person' can demonstrate an understanding of algebra, they can be aborted.
(yeah yeah I know the real point of that story, I just think it's funny)
-b