If you look at a painting, or a work of prose, poetry - basically, it's a piece of structured data, designed to cause the viewer's mind to react in a certain way. Not as cut-and-dried as machine code instructions, but still, data goes into the eye or ear, is processed in the brain, compared to other data, and it evokes a response, emotional, intellectual, etc.
Even your standard basic Maplethorpe photo, or crucifix-in-urine, it's designed to elicit a response.
A strict basic definition of ART is anything man made. So Programming does, in fact qualify. In that sense, and in my opinion, the sense I elucidated above.
I'm not actually thinking like that - I'm trying to raise a spectre.
The fact is - there ARE some people out there with no humanity. In fact, a lot of those people have lots of money too, and will be the ones funding and implementing things like this. Which is why, repugnant as the idea is, we need to get the politicians on line, and educated, (and not lobbied) - so proper ethical guidelines can be applied.
I just questioned; without the notion of a "soul", what is the difference between a human and an animal? Really. Intelligence? Define intelligence? Define human.
And if you go that far, how would one justify the differential treatment of animals versus humans. I'm not talking about not killing your friends and coworkers because you like them or rely on them. I'm talking about how do you justify a code of ethics? We eat animals, we wear their hides. Why is any one individual human any different? Any more or less deserving of a life, or humane treatment, or "human rights"? As it relates to this discussion; how about a cloned human? Or what about a cloned human that was modified to not develop a brain, so as to make it a less guilt-inducing organ donor?
Some people believe that animals *should* be treated with the same respect and rights afforded humans - to which I respond, what about plants? Same old familliar slippery slope.
I believe that humans are different from animals *because* of my faith in the existence of a soul. That is why I believe it's wrong to screw over your fellow man, or kill or bribe politicians into passing overly restrictive copyright law. I'm not saying that athiests have no moral sense or base. I'm not pointing fingers at any individual atheists, in fact, I too have atheist friends, (heh, there's that i-before-e rule again!), and they're just as nice a people if not more so than some of the Christians I know (I know some real pieces of work in that department, let me tell you!).
I'm just saying that using atheism (the one *true* religion, yuk yuk) as a moral justification for cloning is a bit suspect.
And I wasn't intentionally trying to troll either - I'm sorry, I'm in counselling for my problem. I'm a compulsive troll, half the time, I don't even realize I'm doing it.;) The other half the time, I just say to myself, what the hell, it's only karma.
This is the most well stated, level headed opinion I've read so far.
However, it's not as simple as misanthropes vs. humanists. I think there are plenty of misanthropes out there who are all for human cloning, as in; "who are you to tell me I can't do whatever I want with my own genetic material?". The neoliberals.
Those are the ones we really need to worry about. Because those are the ones who are likely to abuse this new toy we've stumbled across.
"But those are violations of human rights, and could happen just as easily without clones"
er- they already ARE happening - it's just that clones would be oh so much more desireable because you lose that little rejection problem with a genetically identical donor (and hey, who are YOU to tell me what I can and can't do with my own genes?)
Hm - the whole identical twin issue raises that bar higher: whose genes are those?
Anyway, I think identical twins are a bit different, they happen mostly by chance. Cloning is something forged in man's furnace.
I read a web site somewhere years ago, a religious wacko who claimed that cloning was a secret plot by extremist pagan lesbian witches to eliminate men from the world, all people would be cloned women, and the Y chromosome would be eradicated from the gene pool like a disease.
Well, here's one that'll raise the dander of the conservatives. And likely the moderates.
For your scenario - growing a clone for the purpose of organ transplant. Assuming the application is for an organ that can be transplanted from an infant body - the clone could be treated surgically or hormonally during gestation to prevent the development of a brain. Hydroencephalic. Then at birth, you just harvest the needed organs, and dump the rest in a compost heap. Or maybe grind the remains up and mix it in with cattle feed.:)
See? Isn't that easy? You lose all those sticky issues of the clone being human, with feelings, thoughts, and rights. ..
one other question - if a clone is made to offer parents a child that they otherwise could not have had due to infertility - etc. That child, depending on it's genetic makeup, is likely (but not guaranteed - depending on the problem) to also be sterile. So what's the point? Okay, then THEY can have clone children too - and so on.
That may not be Darwin spinning in his grave, but it's somewhere in that neighborhood. . .
Oh yeah, just another smart gorilla. who gives a crap? - there's too many of them anyway. Inefficient, the way they just breed and breed with no regard to consequences. . . oughta kill bunch of em. Maybe license some hunters to curb the population periodically. Maybe allow natural predators to come back - yeah, that's it.
we have no idea what the ramifications will be for cloning. We still don't know what will be possible, and what wont be (though we know what things are likely, and what desirable spin-offs we'll be shooting for).
Likewise, we also cannot forsee what the political regimes will do with it. You can't go around saying "everything's permissible, because it's science". That's not just a simple lesson from a big-budged dinosaur movie. Early man though fire was cool, until they decided to see how cool it would be to burn-out the savannah to clear out the cover for predators. ..
profit-driven is fine and dandy. We all like to make a buck. But when, as a motivation for behavior, it becomes the SOLE factor, with no regard for ethics (other than fear of "getting busted") or human decency - long term, it's basically a bad thing for everyone on the planet.
This is the meaning and intent of the code-phrase "fiduciary responsibility".
Yeah, and when I post comments on articles about human cloning, you all call me a luddite, and say that I shouldn't worry, that we're all protected from weird abuses.
Right now, you and I have no idea what some profit-driven corporation will come up with next to screw us over.
$80? This would be fine if they'd actually let me copy the music - but since they bitch and moan and lobby and bribe to take away that right, AND they want to slap an $80 tax on every machine?
I say FUCK that. How 'bout NO tax, AND free copying?
Napster is dead. Past tense. Finished. Gone. Even if the court decision is reversed, the record companies have them in agreements, their nads are on the table.
If this was FUD, why wasn't it released while it was still relevant?
Well, since the camera can't focus on anything inside of 500 yards (it's designed for longer range viewing), maybe it would be nice to get this thing up and flying for a few days more, some more close-in pictures.
read the article. One guy already died down there (supposedly crushed when he tried to break off one of the crystals - I'm sure they covered-up the autopsy findings. . . _)
But remember back when only large corporations and universities had access to computing power? The mainframe days. There were very very few, very talented computer programmers out there.
Then came the PC.
Then came the Internet.
Now we have zillions of sckript kiddies, and VB programers (and HTML "programmers") - and a truly HUGE number of reasonably competent professional C++ programmers, who's careers have been built entirely on consumer-level equipment, or equipment within reach of a dedicated consumer. And the number of people who are very very good at this stuff is still HUGE compared with 3 decades ago.
Right now, every squirt with mommy's mastercard is out getting home studios and a PC. In 30 years, there will be THOUSANDS of people with talent, skill and experience, and they'll make a great living doing their thing. But there won't be a chokehold on talent anymore like there is today. These few guys work with a few record companies. Who will the thousands of tomorrow work for?
Poor, poor Courtney Love. Can't make millions of dollars - she has the RIGHT to, you know, because she was married to a very popular musician who made it big (due mostly to promotional efforts by the record company he signed with: Nirvanna wasn't especially great compared to other bands in the Seattle scene at the time).
Fuck these guys - they have a right to make a living , sure I agree with that, but do they have a god-given right to be billionaires just because the Stones and the Beatles were?
One example, Andy Partridge from XTC simply cannot perform in front of an audience. He gets severe anxiety attacks in front of crowds, which is not conducive to a good performance.
In fact, this was a major factor to the band XTC not getting as wide a popular acceptance as they SHOULD have had - because their music was totally fucking awesome.
Slashdot Mirror
If you look at a painting, or a work of prose, poetry - basically, it's a piece of structured data, designed to cause the viewer's mind to react in a certain way. Not as cut-and-dried as machine code instructions, but still, data goes into the eye or ear, is processed in the brain, compared to other data, and it evokes a response, emotional, intellectual, etc.
Even your standard basic Maplethorpe photo, or crucifix-in-urine, it's designed to elicit a response.
A strict basic definition of ART is anything man made. So Programming does, in fact qualify. In that sense, and in my opinion, the sense I elucidated above.
I'm not actually thinking like that - I'm trying to raise a spectre.
The fact is - there ARE some people out there with no humanity. In fact, a lot of those people have lots of money too, and will be the ones funding and implementing things like this. Which is why, repugnant as the idea is, we need to get the politicians on line, and educated, (and not lobbied) - so proper ethical guidelines can be applied.
So these musicians are crying "wah! big evil corporation made me sign a contract and now I'm getting screwed"
Read the fine print, and if you don't like it, don't sign it. If the deal sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Buyer beware, etc. . .
I never said that atheists were psychopaths.
;) The other half the time, I just say to myself, what the hell, it's only karma.
I just questioned; without the notion of a "soul", what is the difference between a human and an animal? Really. Intelligence? Define intelligence? Define human.
And if you go that far, how would one justify the differential treatment of animals versus humans. I'm not talking about not killing your friends and coworkers because you like them or rely on them. I'm talking about how do you justify a code of ethics? We eat animals, we wear their hides. Why is any one individual human any different? Any more or less deserving of a life, or humane treatment, or "human rights"? As it relates to this discussion; how about a cloned human? Or what about a cloned human that was modified to not develop a brain, so as to make it a less guilt-inducing organ donor?
Some people believe that animals *should* be treated with the same respect and rights afforded humans - to which I respond, what about plants? Same old familliar slippery slope.
I believe that humans are different from animals *because* of my faith in the existence of a soul. That is why I believe it's wrong to screw over your fellow man, or kill or bribe politicians into passing overly restrictive copyright law. I'm not saying that athiests have no moral sense or base. I'm not pointing fingers at any individual atheists, in fact, I too have atheist friends, (heh, there's that i-before-e rule again!), and they're just as nice a people if not more so than some of the Christians I know (I know some real pieces of work in that department, let me tell you!).
I'm just saying that using atheism (the one *true* religion, yuk yuk) as a moral justification for cloning is a bit suspect.
And I wasn't intentionally trying to troll either - I'm sorry, I'm in counselling for my problem. I'm a compulsive troll, half the time, I don't even realize I'm doing it.
This is the most well stated, level headed opinion I've read so far.
However, it's not as simple as misanthropes vs. humanists. I think there are plenty of misanthropes out there who are all for human cloning, as in; "who are you to tell me I can't do whatever I want with my own genetic material?". The neoliberals.
Those are the ones we really need to worry about. Because those are the ones who are likely to abuse this new toy we've stumbled across.
"But those are violations of human rights, and could happen just as easily without clones"
er- they already ARE happening - it's just that clones would be oh so much more desireable because you lose that little rejection problem with a genetically identical donor (and hey, who are YOU to tell me what I can and can't do with my own genes?)
Hm - the whole identical twin issue raises that bar higher: whose genes are those?
Anyway, I think identical twins are a bit different, they happen mostly by chance. Cloning is something forged in man's furnace.
I read a web site somewhere years ago, a religious wacko who claimed that cloning was a secret plot by extremist pagan lesbian witches to eliminate men from the world, all people would be cloned women, and the Y chromosome would be eradicated from the gene pool like a disease.
Well, here's one that'll raise the dander of the conservatives. And likely the moderates.
:)
.
For your scenario - growing a clone for the purpose of organ transplant. Assuming the application is for an organ that can be transplanted from an infant body - the clone could be treated surgically or hormonally during gestation to prevent the development of a brain. Hydroencephalic. Then at birth, you just harvest the needed organs, and dump the rest in a compost heap. Or maybe grind the remains up and mix it in with cattle feed.
See? Isn't that easy? You lose all those sticky issues of the clone being human, with feelings, thoughts, and rights. .
one other question - if a clone is made to offer parents a child that they otherwise could not have had due to infertility - etc. That child, depending on it's genetic makeup, is likely (but not guaranteed - depending on the problem) to also be sterile. So what's the point? Okay, then THEY can have clone children too - and so on.
That may not be Darwin spinning in his grave, but it's somewhere in that neighborhood. . .
athiest?
Oh yeah, just another smart gorilla. who gives a crap? - there's too many of them anyway. Inefficient, the way they just breed and breed with no regard to consequences. . . oughta kill bunch of em. Maybe license some hunters to curb the population periodically. Maybe allow natural predators to come back - yeah, that's it.
we have no idea what the ramifications will be for cloning. We still don't know what will be possible, and what wont be (though we know what things are likely, and what desirable spin-offs we'll be shooting for).
.
Likewise, we also cannot forsee what the political regimes will do with it. You can't go around saying "everything's permissible, because it's science". That's not just a simple lesson from a big-budged dinosaur movie. Early man though fire was cool, until they decided to see how cool it would be to burn-out the savannah to clear out the cover for predators. .
profit-driven is fine and dandy. We all like to make a buck. But when, as a motivation for behavior, it becomes the SOLE factor, with no regard for ethics (other than fear of "getting busted") or human decency - long term, it's basically a bad thing for everyone on the planet.
This is the meaning and intent of the code-phrase "fiduciary responsibility".
Yeah, and when I post comments on articles about human cloning, you all call me a luddite, and say that I shouldn't worry, that we're all protected from weird abuses.
Right now, you and I have no idea what some profit-driven corporation will come up with next to screw us over.
"dust off, and nuke em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure"
See? You're not really paranoid if they ARE really out to get you.
$80? This would be fine if they'd actually let me copy the music - but since they bitch and moan and lobby and bribe to take away that right, AND they want to slap an $80 tax on every machine?
I say FUCK that. How 'bout NO tax, AND free copying?
Napster is dead. Past tense. Finished. Gone. Even if the court decision is reversed, the record companies have them in agreements, their nads are on the table.
If this was FUD, why wasn't it released while it was still relevant?
Well, since the camera can't focus on anything inside of 500 yards (it's designed for longer range viewing), maybe it would be nice to get this thing up and flying for a few days more, some more close-in pictures.
nature already delivers free power to each and every home in the USA. It's called sunlight.
But I guess if we learned to take advantage of that, then there would be no use for bloated inefficient electricity utilities.
what I don't understand is, why this guy wasn't at least mentioned in the Darwin Awards. . .
it's not only possible, it's DEFINATELY true.
It's mostly the loss of moisture in the air, and the oils in the skins of people touching the rocks.
This is why the best caves are well-kept secrets by real spelunker orgs.
These caves will be "dead" in 20 years if they condition the air and bring tourists in.
read the article. One guy already died down there (supposedly crushed when he tried to break off one of the crystals - I'm sure they covered-up the autopsy findings. . . _)
oh, sure, that's the way it is RIGHT NOW.
But remember back when only large corporations and universities had access to computing power? The mainframe days. There were very very few, very talented computer programmers out there.
Then came the PC.
Then came the Internet.
Now we have zillions of sckript kiddies, and VB programers (and HTML "programmers") - and a truly HUGE number of reasonably competent professional C++ programmers, who's careers have been built entirely on consumer-level equipment, or equipment within reach of a dedicated consumer. And the number of people who are very very good at this stuff is still HUGE compared with 3 decades ago.
Right now, every squirt with mommy's mastercard is out getting home studios and a PC. In 30 years, there will be THOUSANDS of people with talent, skill and experience, and they'll make a great living doing their thing. But there won't be a chokehold on talent anymore like there is today. These few guys work with a few record companies. Who will the thousands of tomorrow work for?
Poor, poor Courtney Love. Can't make millions of dollars - she has the RIGHT to, you know, because she was married to a very popular musician who made it big (due mostly to promotional efforts by the record company he signed with: Nirvanna wasn't especially great compared to other bands in the Seattle scene at the time).
Fuck these guys - they have a right to make a living , sure I agree with that, but do they have a god-given right to be billionaires just because the Stones and the Beatles were?
Weird Al recorded his first hit; "another one rides the bus" in the bathroom of the radio station for Cal Poly.
that's fine, except some folks just CAN'T tour.
One example, Andy Partridge from XTC simply cannot perform in front of an audience. He gets severe anxiety attacks in front of crowds, which is not conducive to a good performance.
In fact, this was a major factor to the band XTC not getting as wide a popular acceptance as they SHOULD have had - because their music was totally fucking awesome.