Everything in moderation on it own place. To say that all weak humans should be, at the very least, prevented from breading, is harsh and inhuman but it is also not any morally better to ignore the suffering of future generations.
If you could prevent all future human generations from having horrible debilitating genetic disorders from insisting that the current carriers adopt instead of procreating then is that not a completely selfless idea? It helps you in no way, it does not even help anyone in your current generation, is is about preventing future suffering and creating as much equality and fairness as possible.
And even if you are not talking about future generations you have to take into account the Spartan world. Back in that time with little helpful medicine and a harsh way of life no deformed individual could live to adulthood, in many instances post-birth aborting them could be and almost certainly was considered a mercy, because it is not like they were actually worried about competing and losing to a cripple and him propagating.
Correlation does not equal causation. Maybe they have it backwards, maybe short telomeres cause your genetically similar relatives to abuse you or causes you to act in such a way as to encourage or make possible bullying on yourself. Or any number of other less direct relationships.
We have seen its effect on the solar system but I don't think we have any really evidence for what exactly Dark Matter is? Is it matter? is it particles? We have theories on what Dark Matter is, but those theories could be completely wrong.
So dark matter, as we know it, might not exist, all we know is that something is causing the effects that we see.
Valve thinks it is OK to be a jerk if you are rich enough to afford $100? And they think that it is a good idea to game the multiplayer experience of everyone to make as little as $100?
This problem has already been solved. charge everyone the same and ban the jerks.
So you think that someone should not have to behave nice if he is a rich? Does it not make far more sense to charge everyone the same and ban the jerks? Is it really worth it to Valve to decrease their multiplayer experience for everyone for as little as $100 jerk tax?
I thought that E=mc^2 meant that E could me converted to M not that all it was both energy and mass at the same time. And that massless photons when shot in one direction actually push back in the other.
Because I do not think the oversight is any more likely to be right and do not believe in the superiority of the mob's decision, yes absolutely. Oversight it good when you have to make a decision, but you cannot just slap on oversight and say we now have (if not a perfect) a better more likely to be right system.
No one had a perfect decision making system, nothing is ever 100% right. So let individuals make their own decisions and their own mistakes, at least it will be theirs to make. And there are always benefits to diversity. You say no immunising puts people at risk, I say not immunising means that in case something goes wrong with it at least some people will not be effected.
And you would trust this flighty, irrational, easily swayed, herd of panicky monkeys to democratically make the decision to force you or me to take vaccines?
You cannot have it both ways. Either we are rational logical independent thinkers who can decide on important issues individually and both democracy is safe and we do not need to be mothered by our government OR We are not and the democratic government should not be trusted to mother us in the first place, my logical or illogical decision is just as valid as the mob's (and at least a individuals decision has a chance to be based on sound reasoning).
But is there not a useful philosophical link between gun ownership and vaccines choice? You believe in gun ownership if the owner is informed and competent. I believe in freedom to choose as long as the owner is informed and competent.
Diseases have been wiped out and largely mitigated, therefore we must give up free choice??? I think I missed the part where you offered even the slightest evidence for why one implies the other.
What do democrat elections have to do with scientific truth? A democratically elected group can decide that the best way to avoid plagues is prayer.
And what do they have to do with individual freedoms? Once upon a time someone invented vaccines, and people where able to take them to reduce their risk of infection. Now you are telling me that since forcing me to get a vaccine makes you.00001% less likely to get an infection you want the governmental to force it on me?
So no one should be allowed to own guns then I guess, because they just might be used to hurt your family? Everyone should be monitored and tracked to give you that.05% more safety? Take away whole swatches of rights to make your family minutely more safe?
I don't know why everyone blames the unvaccinated. If there is anything that this article shows it is that the infected unvaccinated are a tiny minority and as such not significant. It also shows that vaccination is not a perfect shield/solution to decease, so your all outbreaks are caused by the unvaccinated is illogical.
So because your bias that all vaccines all the time are good and doctors don't make mistakes is disproved by facts you view it as a bad thing? Let me guess, people should be forced to use whatever vaccines the governments thinks that they should and if science ever finds out that one of those vaccines actually did harm it should be covered up so that no one ever decides that personal choice is sometimes more important then blind obedience to what the government tells you is in your best interest?
That makes no sense. Early in Earth's life it was a molten ball of lava because it was just forming and it had a heavy atmosphere since volcanoes spit out green house gasses like crazy. As far as I knew early in Earth's life it was extremely hot, as even after life starting it was far far hotter then now and far too hot to have snow/ice.
OH, the UK might once of been important enough for a small country sized island group to be considered a continent but that is not true any longer. And besides it appears the UK is in Europe as far as academics are concerned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe), but even more surprisingly Iceland is as well.
But is there not a guaranty? Access to the internet itself at a high level is controlled by very few people. In Canada it is just Bell and Rogers who offer it to the public and then numerous resellers through them. Pass Bell and Rogers I am not sure what it is like, I think Rogers might even have to lease some end hookup off of bell, or maybe they both go to some other company themselves. But the point is that, just because there are hundreds of ISPs does not mean that it is easy to have root access to the internet, because they are just the resellers.
At some point all internet access has to either come through a company that has been selling land lines for decades or has been in business relationships with land line providers for a similar amount of time.
It sounds like this contract is not to make the company look good publicly so much as it is to provide a more reasonable and innovative environment for its workers. And while the possibly of bribery might make you not think that the contract will stop trolling it is still very good for the inventor (who gets the bribe).
That is not how a lot of teacher do it. Often it is the Most correct that is graded correct (you are lucky if you get 1/2 points for the other correct ones).
I have encountered similar situations in my University exams.
The most annoying thing in the word is having to take time out of a already harried exam to figure out if you should just put down the answer that you think that they want you to put, or if you should put the correct answer (and then sometimes you are just stuck in the situation of simply not having enough time/space to write down why the question is critically flawed and you cannot answer it).
I don't see what that has to do with. If the interrogator is set on getting a specific answer out of someone then he will likely get it eventually. torture is tool and like any other tool it is effective at accomplishing some tasks and ineffective at others. It can be used correctly or incorrectly, skilfully or incompetently.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything in moderation on it own place.
To say that all weak humans should be, at the very least, prevented from breading, is harsh and inhuman but it is also not any morally better to ignore the suffering of future generations.
If you could prevent all future human generations from having horrible debilitating genetic disorders from insisting that the current carriers adopt instead of procreating then is that not a completely selfless idea? It helps you in no way, it does not even help anyone in your current generation, is is about preventing future suffering and creating as much equality and fairness as possible.
And even if you are not talking about future generations you have to take into account the Spartan world. Back in that time with little helpful medicine and a harsh way of life no deformed individual could live to adulthood, in many instances post-birth aborting them could be and almost certainly was considered a mercy, because it is not like they were actually worried about competing and losing to a cripple and him propagating.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Maybe they have it backwards, maybe short telomeres cause your genetically similar relatives to abuse you or causes you to act in such a way as to encourage or make possible bullying on yourself.
Or any number of other less direct relationships.
We have seen its effect on the solar system but I don't think we have any really evidence for what exactly Dark Matter is?
Is it matter? is it particles?
We have theories on what Dark Matter is, but those theories could be completely wrong.
So dark matter, as we know it, might not exist, all we know is that something is causing the effects that we see.
Valve thinks it is OK to be a jerk if you are rich enough to afford $100?
And they think that it is a good idea to game the multiplayer experience of everyone to make as little as $100?
This problem has already been solved. charge everyone the same and ban the jerks.
So you think that someone should not have to behave nice if he is a rich?
Does it not make far more sense to charge everyone the same and ban the jerks?
Is it really worth it to Valve to decrease their multiplayer experience for everyone for as little as $100 jerk tax?
I thought that E=mc^2 meant that E could me converted to M not that all it was both energy and mass at the same time.
And that massless photons when shot in one direction actually push back in the other.
But if heat radiation does not have mass then why should it effect it?
Does it have mass?
Because I do not think the oversight is any more likely to be right and do not believe in the superiority of the mob's decision, yes absolutely.
Oversight it good when you have to make a decision, but you cannot just slap on oversight and say we now have (if not a perfect) a better more likely to be right system.
No one had a perfect decision making system, nothing is ever 100% right. So let individuals make their own decisions and their own mistakes, at least it will be theirs to make.
And there are always benefits to diversity. You say no immunising puts people at risk, I say not immunising means that in case something goes wrong with it at least some people will not be effected.
Bad and sexist priorities.
And you would trust this flighty, irrational, easily swayed, herd of panicky monkeys to democratically make the decision to force you or me to take vaccines?
You cannot have it both ways. Either we are rational logical independent thinkers who can decide on important issues individually and both democracy is safe and we do not need to be mothered by our government
OR
We are not and the democratic government should not be trusted to mother us in the first place, my logical or illogical decision is just as valid as the mob's (and at least a individuals decision has a chance to be based on sound reasoning).
But is there not a useful philosophical link between gun ownership and vaccines choice?
You believe in gun ownership if the owner is informed and competent.
I believe in freedom to choose as long as the owner is informed and competent.
Diseases have been wiped out and largely mitigated, therefore we must give up free choice???
I think I missed the part where you offered even the slightest evidence for why one implies the other.
What do democrat elections have to do with scientific truth? A democratically elected group can decide that the best way to avoid plagues is prayer.
And what do they have to do with individual freedoms? .00001% less likely to get an infection you want the governmental to force it on me?
Once upon a time someone invented vaccines, and people where able to take them to reduce their risk of infection.
Now you are telling me that since forcing me to get a vaccine makes you
So no one should be allowed to own guns then I guess, because they just might be used to hurt your family? .05% more safety?
Everyone should be monitored and tracked to give you that
Take away whole swatches of rights to make your family minutely more safe?
I don't know why everyone blames the unvaccinated.
If there is anything that this article shows it is that the infected unvaccinated are a tiny minority and as such not significant.
It also shows that vaccination is not a perfect shield/solution to decease, so your all outbreaks are caused by the unvaccinated is illogical.
So because your bias that all vaccines all the time are good and doctors don't make mistakes is disproved by facts you view it as a bad thing?
Let me guess, people should be forced to use whatever vaccines the governments thinks that they should and if science ever finds out that one of those vaccines actually did harm it should be covered up so that no one ever decides that personal choice is sometimes more important then blind obedience to what the government tells you is in your best interest?
That makes no sense. Early in Earth's life it was a molten ball of lava because it was just forming and it had a heavy atmosphere since volcanoes spit out green house gasses like crazy.
As far as I knew early in Earth's life it was extremely hot, as even after life starting it was far far hotter then now and far too hot to have snow/ice.
OH, the UK might once of been important enough for a small country sized island group to be considered a continent but that is not true any longer.
And besides it appears the UK is in Europe as far as academics are concerned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe), but even more surprisingly Iceland is as well.
Should they not first prove that porn is harmful to children?
And I thought that Europe was supposed to be less prudish then North America.
They simply would not opt in, theoretically.
But is there not a guaranty?
Access to the internet itself at a high level is controlled by very few people. In Canada it is just Bell and Rogers who offer it to the public and then numerous resellers through them.
Pass Bell and Rogers I am not sure what it is like, I think Rogers might even have to lease some end hookup off of bell, or maybe they both go to some other company themselves.
But the point is that, just because there are hundreds of ISPs does not mean that it is easy to have root access to the internet, because they are just the resellers.
At some point all internet access has to either come through a company that has been selling land lines for decades or has been in business relationships with land line providers for a similar amount of time.
It sounds like this contract is not to make the company look good publicly so much as it is to provide a more reasonable and innovative environment for its workers.
And while the possibly of bribery might make you not think that the contract will stop trolling it is still very good for the inventor (who gets the bribe).
That is not how a lot of teacher do it. Often it is the Most correct that is graded correct (you are lucky if you get 1/2 points for the other correct ones).
I have encountered similar situations in my University exams.
The most annoying thing in the word is having to take time out of a already harried exam to figure out if you should just put down the answer that you think that they want you to put, or if you should put the correct answer (and then sometimes you are just stuck in the situation of simply not having enough time/space to write down why the question is critically flawed and you cannot answer it).
I don't see what that has to do with.
If the interrogator is set on getting a specific answer out of someone then he will likely get it eventually.
torture is tool and like any other tool it is effective at accomplishing some tasks and ineffective at others. It can be used correctly or incorrectly, skilfully or incompetently.