Another example. Coincidentally, I discovered this week that Apple Mail will run a Mac application thta has been attached to an email directly out of Mail. It will warn you, twice, about this, but Windows warns you about new apps as well that hasn't stopped millions of clueless end users ignoring the warnings and just clicking away. I did a few tests on users at work and they *all* opened the app. An app, combined with the applescript ARDAgent exploit would be an excellent way for an attacker to install a trojan for phishing or zombie purposes. I just tried this under Mac OS X Leopard, but I cannot reproduce this.
Maybe it's just me, but I think that movements such as PETA are a sign of deep issues within our society. We have people who are so completely satiated and content with their lives, that they are willing to spend vast amounts of their time, effort, and money, in order to achieve something so truly inane. It is not only a happing in "our" society. According to the 2006 Hindu-CNN-IBN State of the Nation Survey, 31% of Indians are vegetarians.
Not very likely (but possible). I read that the engines also didn't respond to manually moving the throttles. But it could be that they did respond, but the SFO thought they didn't respond, because the engines were spooling up, which may appear to take centuries in such a situation.
Thanks for your reply, I found it very insightful.
You said:
We have awareness and a desire to live, to achieve things for another day beyond that of most other animals. This brings me to another thought: someone under anaesthesia is unconscious, so unaware and has no desire to achieve things. Of course, this person will have awareness and a desire to achieve things in the future (after anaesthesia), but so will an embryo in the future (once developed). You also talked about the desire to live. This is a bit more difficult, because what should one define as the desire to live? Is it that an animal will breathe, that it functions to stay alive, or the higher conscious will to stay alive? If you apply the last definition, a person under anaesthesia has no desire to stay alive. Again, the person will have after anaesthesia, but so will an embryo once developed. If you apply the first definition of desire to live, as far as I can see, it will indeed be ethical to kill an embryo, but it will be unethical to kill an animal and perhaps also to kill a tree.
[quote]Because 14-day-old embryos have such well-developed nervous systems that they can appreciate (nevermind even "experience") pain?[/quote]
This has always interested me. If you continue your reasoning, will that mean that you can kill someone under anaesthesia? (I know it's absurd, but just for discussing)
Slashdot Mirror
Regulation sounds like a better option.
And this soy isn't used by the meat industry? Come on!
The only problem with this setup remains 24/7 guaranteed availability.
That's the problem: DSLRs use a better auto focus system than compact cameras. DSLRs use phase detection, while compacts focus based upon contrast. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_focus#Passive_autofocus
You're going to be responsible for the care of a living being
And a rat isn't?
Sounds interesting. Do you have some sources?
Not very likely (but possible). I read that the engines also didn't respond to manually moving the throttles. But it could be that they did respond, but the SFO thought they didn't respond, because the engines were spooling up, which may appear to take centuries in such a situation.
[quote]Because 14-day-old embryos have such well-developed nervous systems that they can appreciate (nevermind even "experience") pain?[/quote] This has always interested me. If you continue your reasoning, will that mean that you can kill someone under anaesthesia? (I know it's absurd, but just for discussing)