I don't get this attachment to a specific unborn fetus. Ok, so maybe you have to abort one or two here or there. Where's the problem? Just have sex again. A woman has the potential to create 12 new fetus every year.
No one should be having more than two kids anyway. In fact, plenty of people should be self-limiting to one or none.
It's clear from your cavalier approach that I value potential life differently than you. IMO, the fetus is not part of the woman's body once the egg is fertilized. It is internal to the woman's body and dependent upon it to be sure, but the fetus is, at that point, genetically distinct and will generally, barring adverse action, come to be a unique human being.
As my story above illustrates, medical advice is often provided as unassailable fact with woefully inadequate understanding of the studies and statistics upon which it is based. See the false positive info from Muad'Dave above. In many cases, it's more a crap shoot in random gravity, than reliable fact.
I chose not to end a human life based on a recommendation that turned out to be based on flawed data. I am loathe to encourage anyone else to end a human life under uncertain circumstances. There exists reasonable doubt. And where reasonable doubt exists, we should not impose a death penalty.
Most Anthropomorphic Climate Change (ACC) deniers I've heard don't argue the observations of average temperature increases, but argue the root causes and/or significance of these observations. They also argue the projections offered by ACC promoters as scientifically unsound or overly dire (read: hand picked data).
The "anti-evolution" crowd is very diverse and hard to characterize. I'm part of the "anti-evolution as unassailable fact" crowd. For some, like myself, we simply prefer to allow the theory to be a prevailing theory without asserting that it is absolute truth and completely correct in it's current form. It is the best explanation that science can offer at the moment based on the data, but it does not lend itself to experimental verification. I expect the various theories which are generally grouped as "the theory of evolution" to be adjusted and rewritten as more data become available. I expect the DNA revolution to rewrite several prevailing theories as we gain even more insight in to human and animal genomes.
All or nothing approaches to dialog tend to leave one with the latter.
You might want to look around at your feet for something gray and roughly hemispherical.;-)
If you don't listen to others, despite their differing views, you'll never know if they have (or have stumbled) upon a substantive and salient point that deserves your attention. If you don't respect the "opposition" enough to listen, why should they respect you enough to listen to you? People are, in my experience, much more likely to listen to you if you are attentive, respectful and not dismissive while arguing your point of view. Civil dialog requires that you allow the conversation to go in both directions, even if you don't receive value every time. Lectures are not dialog.
This is not to say that you must "suffer fools," in an unlimited fashion. You might try one of my favorites, "I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this until more data comes in." Then change the subject.
Actually, I've observed that many (including not a few scientists) defending evolutionary theory tend to be more dogmatic and less open to discussion than the ACC crowd. Not that the ACC or other environmental activists are shrinking violets.
In math and physics, no matter how good it looks or works or fits with experimental data, a model is a representation, not exactly the real thing. As discovered when Newtownian physics were determined to be a special case of relativity where v << c. Models expand and change as experimentation breaks expectations.
In science, no matter how well supported by observations, a theory is a theory until proven by repeatable experiments. Understanding of observations is often changed by experimentation. Theories should then expand and change to encompass repeatable experimental results. Theories without expermimentation have real utility, but should not be considered as proven. Prevailing and widely accepted theory not withstanding.
If it's science, it should ALWAYS be open for reinterpretation as more data is collected and as analysis techniques improve or are replaced with better procedures.
What's wrong with that is the premature death of a potentially viable human. Our second daughter had an unusual protein count AFP in her amniotic fluid and the medical staff told us that she was very likely to have Down's syndrome. They asked us if we wanted to abort. We decided not to. Good thing too, because that medical advice has since been found to be invalid. She did not develop Down's and she's in college now.
So, of course, they will collect both angle of dangle (azimuth) AND degree of dangle (intensity), both of which vary over time and circumstances. I just don't want to know what they are using for the low-budget ground based simulator. "No Jim, lay back down. Your shift isn't over."
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but I refuse to "commoditize" human life. I have no wish to be treated primarily as a commodity. My labor, OK. My life, no way.
British for "Cue," Spanish for "What." Say what?
I'd say awesome -- having lasers mounted on several hundred sharks that can drive....
My users don't need MORE justification for never deleting anything!
First donut universes, now candy bars and pies. Just go to lunch, you insenitive clods.
Please see Genetic Distinction above. I'm all typed out.
It's clear from your cavalier approach that I value potential life differently than you. IMO, the fetus is not part of the woman's body once the egg is fertilized. It is internal to the woman's body and dependent upon it to be sure, but the fetus is, at that point, genetically distinct and will generally, barring adverse action, come to be a unique human being.
As my story above illustrates, medical advice is often provided as unassailable fact with woefully inadequate understanding of the studies and statistics upon which it is based. See the false positive info from Muad'Dave above. In many cases, it's more a crap shoot in random gravity, than reliable fact.
I chose not to end a human life based on a recommendation that turned out to be based on flawed data. I am loathe to encourage anyone else to end a human life under uncertain circumstances. There exists reasonable doubt. And where reasonable doubt exists, we should not impose a death penalty.That's my point. How often is medical advice given without a clear understanding of the statistical significance of the data behind it?
Most Anthropomorphic Climate Change (ACC) deniers I've heard don't argue the observations of average temperature increases, but argue the root causes and/or significance of these observations. They also argue the projections offered by ACC promoters as scientifically unsound or overly dire (read: hand picked data).
The "anti-evolution" crowd is very diverse and hard to characterize. I'm part of the "anti-evolution as unassailable fact" crowd. For some, like myself, we simply prefer to allow the theory to be a prevailing theory without asserting that it is absolute truth and completely correct in it's current form. It is the best explanation that science can offer at the moment based on the data, but it does not lend itself to experimental verification. I expect the various theories which are generally grouped as "the theory of evolution" to be adjusted and rewritten as more data become available. I expect the DNA revolution to rewrite several prevailing theories as we gain even more insight in to human and animal genomes.
All or nothing approaches to dialog tend to leave one with the latter.You might want to look around at your feet for something gray and roughly hemispherical. ;-)
If you don't listen to others, despite their differing views, you'll never know if they have (or have stumbled) upon a substantive and salient point that deserves your attention. If you don't respect the "opposition" enough to listen, why should they respect you enough to listen to you? People are, in my experience, much more likely to listen to you if you are attentive, respectful and not dismissive while arguing your point of view. Civil dialog requires that you allow the conversation to go in both directions, even if you don't receive value every time. Lectures are not dialog.
This is not to say that you must "suffer fools," in an unlimited fashion. You might try one of my favorites, "I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this until more data comes in." Then change the subject.
M$ is hoping for a "WinWin" kernel.
Actually, I've observed that many (including not a few scientists) defending evolutionary theory tend to be more dogmatic and less open to discussion than the ACC crowd. Not that the ACC or other environmental activists are shrinking violets.
In math and physics, no matter how good it looks or works or fits with experimental data, a model is a representation, not exactly the real thing. As discovered when Newtownian physics were determined to be a special case of relativity where v << c. Models expand and change as experimentation breaks expectations.
In science, no matter how well supported by observations, a theory is a theory until proven by repeatable experiments. Understanding of observations is often changed by experimentation. Theories should then expand and change to encompass repeatable experimental results. Theories without expermimentation have real utility, but should not be considered as proven. Prevailing and widely accepted theory not withstanding.
If it's science, it should ALWAYS be open for reinterpretation as more data is collected and as analysis techniques improve or are replaced with better procedures.
IMHO, an open mind should be, well, open.
What's wrong with that is the premature death of a potentially viable human. Our second daughter had an unusual protein count AFP in her amniotic fluid and the medical staff told us that she was very likely to have Down's syndrome. They asked us if we wanted to abort. We decided not to. Good thing too, because that medical advice has since been found to be invalid. She did not develop Down's and she's in college now.
Remember a cruller is a donut too. Does this mean that parallel universes may be donut holes?
Imagine the cost of producing adequate LOX for a bagel of that size.
And vodka, and borst, and potatoes.
White people also like Eddie Murphy, but that doesn't mean they want him as our next president.
Thank you for bringing us this "Telltale tale."
A weather vane requires a free moving bearing or bushing which would not do well in a dusty/gritty environment like Mars.
So, of course, they will collect both angle of dangle (azimuth) AND degree of dangle (intensity), both of which vary over time and circumstances. I just don't want to know what they are using for the low-budget ground based simulator. "No Jim, lay back down. Your shift isn't over."
There goes my retirement plan!
I must admit, I watched the live coverage as well.
The reason they chose a Navy man, was he was used to not retrieving the balls! Splash!
Not with a good bartender! Two jiggers of a smooth single malt on the rocks, and the ice is FREE! OK, no additional cost.