we are given the choice to lead our lives as God intended, or to try to create new life on our own
So, what did (does) God intend?
Do we really know what will happen generations down the line if there's a genetic defect that we've created?
If it's beneficial, it will probably spread alot. If it's harmful, it will find it's way out of the Genome (or at least be reduced to a small minority). Genetic defects are a very common occurance.
In my opinion this is something best left in God's hands.
I'm unclear on what is meant by leaving something in God's hands. What steps would one take towards that end? How would one know he was truely leaving the situation in God's hands?
Here in Denver, the spotlight swung over to the Christian Scientists recently because a kid died whose parents did not seek medical attention. Were they leaving it in God's hands? Or were God's hands waiting in the form of readily available medical treatment but were pushed away?
Most atheists (including myself) do not say, "God does not exist and I not only know this for a fact but can prove it as well".
That's silly. It is by definition supernatural and therefore outside of science, so there's no point in trying to use science.
However, I can say it like this: There is no reason to consider the possibility of a God as any more probable than any of the other infinite number of supernatural possibilities which also cannot be confirmed or ruled out.
Why do we focus on the monotheistic possibility? Just because the religious culture around where we live is monotheistic? What if the greek gods exist? Or the roman ones? Or both?
What if the scientologists are right? Are there any good reasons at all to give more consideration to one of these than to the others?
I'm willing to be that you don't believe that people always have sex out of love. So, is there a distinction for 'bastards' that makes them less than people as you imply clones would be?
Ok, fair enough. But just for pure curiosity's sake, I've got another question:
What is a soul? Is it like the concept of a zombie in philosophy? A zombie is not conscious and feels no emotions, but is indistinguishable from a human by any test you could devise. So as far as I know, everyone on the planet except me could be a zombie and as far as you know, I could be.
Perhaps I'm desensitized, but I just never even got squeamish. I liked the brain scene though, because it was just so cool. It was like, "how will they EVER top THAT one?!!!"
But most of the movie was boring. It was like you just kept waiting for Hannibal to do something, and he just kept keeping his cool. Every so often, he'd say something soaked in irony and the audience would give an appreciative laugh because hey, when Hannibal Lechter says "I'd love to have you over for dinner", heh heh heh, he doesn't mean what most people mean!!! Get it? Have you over for dinner? Ha Ha! He's a cannibal! You'd be the dinner!! Get it? Boy, that guy is creepy!
This movie had almost none of what made Silence of the Lambs so good - the phychological component. In that, Hannibal was scary because he seemed to gain an advantage over people even when he was locked in a straightjacket in a maximum security cell. He'd take small cues from people and sense their weakness with an alarming swiftness and move in to exploit it.
Someday soon, somebody is going to do it somewhere, legal or not. And it's not going to mean anything. We know exactly what we'll get (if done right) - the equivalent of an identical twin, but younger. Identically twins are fairly common, and of course they often turn out quite differently (nature/nurture and all that).
The only meaning in the event, when it happens, will be symbolic.
Somebody told me that there is a tax on recordable CDs which goes directly to the recording companies simply because the cds can be used to copy their material. Can anyone confirm/refute this?
If this is true, obviously we would have a green light to copy, since we're already paying.
his id is roughly yours/100, so who are you to speak for anyone?
hehe, that's a great idea. We should impose a caste system based on user id. People over 50000 can slave in the mud pits making bricks as people under 20000 mercilessly whip them.
And if you're good, you can be one of the guys who feed wine and grapes to those under 1000 and keep the fan moving.
I agree with most of what you say, but then there was this:
To me, this seems to paralell the ideals behind free software. Everyone is given equal acess to the finite software resiource (coders can only work so hard), and everyone can appreciate it, all in the sense of irony. And if a microsofty can be one over for Linux or BSD, everyone wins.
Now, I like free software as much as the next guy, but when the idea is stretched and diluted in such strange manners as this, it just makes me want to dig my fingers up into that space between my eyeballs and eyelids, reach way back there, grab some fistfuls of brain and yank it out as my eyeballs pop out to make way and then dangle by the optic nerves providing a dizzying view of the ground below.
Wow, sometimes it just feels good to rant. What I'm trying to say is that to express the idea of equal access, you need not reach for an analogy to source code - especially when the topic you are discussing has absolutely nothing to do with software.
It's my understanding that air conditioning systems have the useful side effect of also dehumidifying. This is why on many cars, choosing the 'defog' setting to direct air toward your windshield will also turn the air conditioner on, so this doesn't sound like it would be a huge problem. Of course, you'd also want some kind of filter.
This is a good method of steganography, but if it pretends to be good encryption by itself, that's bull.
What would really work well is a random spam generator that takes any random stream of bytes as input. Then you do the following:
Plaintext -> PGP/GPG -> cyphertext ->SpamMimic -> cyphertext which looks like spam
Then, it would be secure and would not attract attention. There are some interesting pitfalls tho:
o It could be deleted by a computer rejecting spam based on a text signature
o Your friend would have to know ahead of time to expect your message or he'd delete it. Of course, then he could no longer ignore any of his spam. If he automates the process, this could be avoided because normal spam would not decrypt to anything and the checksum would fail and it would be tossed automatically.
o Somebody could invoke an anti spam law to sue your ass when you were simply sending them a message. Then, you'd have to prove it wasn't spam.
Slashdot Mirror
You forget that clones will not fall into the laws of our Genome, because they are beyond the laws of nature.
I submit that they are in no way beyond the laws of nature.
we are given the choice to lead our lives as God intended, or to try to create new life on our own
So, what did (does) God intend?
Do we really know what will happen generations down the line if there's a genetic defect that we've created?
If it's beneficial, it will probably spread alot. If it's harmful, it will find it's way out of the Genome (or at least be reduced to a small minority). Genetic defects are a very common occurance.
In my opinion this is something best left in God's hands.
I'm unclear on what is meant by leaving something in God's hands. What steps would one take towards that end? How would one know he was truely leaving the situation in God's hands?
Here in Denver, the spotlight swung over to the Christian Scientists recently because a kid died whose parents did not seek medical attention. Were they leaving it in God's hands? Or were God's hands waiting in the form of readily available medical treatment but were pushed away?
because sex is fun, and feels good.
Most atheists (including myself) do not say, "God does not exist and I not only know this for a fact but can prove it as well".
That's silly. It is by definition supernatural and therefore outside of science, so there's no point in trying to use science.
However, I can say it like this: There is no reason to consider the possibility of a God as any more probable than any of the other infinite number of supernatural possibilities which also cannot be confirmed or ruled out.
Why do we focus on the monotheistic possibility? Just because the religious culture around where we live is monotheistic? What if the greek gods exist? Or the roman ones? Or both?
What if the scientologists are right? Are there any good reasons at all to give more consideration to one of these than to the others?
Ok, I'll throw this one at you:
I'm willing to be that you don't believe that people always have sex out of love. So, is there a distinction for 'bastards' that makes them less than people as you imply clones would be?
I can't believe this is even up for debate. Fox really showed something claiming it was a hoax? Has the world gone nuts?
This is several levels lower than any of those "ufo sightings" programs, though not as bad I suppose as claiming the Holocaust didn't happen...
um, the simpsons is the reason why Fox doesn't completely suck. That's one of the best tv shows ever.
Ok, fair enough. But just for pure curiosity's sake, I've got another question:
What is a soul? Is it like the concept of a zombie in philosophy? A zombie is not conscious and feels no emotions, but is indistinguishable from a human by any test you could devise. So as far as I know, everyone on the planet except me could be a zombie and as far as you know, I could be.
Is that kinda on the right track?
Perhaps I'm desensitized, but I just never even got squeamish. I liked the brain scene though, because it was just so cool. It was like, "how will they EVER top THAT one?!!!"
But most of the movie was boring. It was like you just kept waiting for Hannibal to do something, and he just kept keeping his cool. Every so often, he'd say something soaked in irony and the audience would give an appreciative laugh because hey, when Hannibal Lechter says "I'd love to have you over for dinner", heh heh heh, he doesn't mean what most people mean!!! Get it? Have you over for dinner? Ha Ha! He's a cannibal! You'd be the dinner!! Get it? Boy, that guy is creepy!
This movie had almost none of what made Silence of the Lambs so good - the phychological component. In that, Hannibal was scary because he seemed to gain an advantage over people even when he was locked in a straightjacket in a maximum security cell. He'd take small cues from people and sense their weakness with an alarming swiftness and move in to exploit it.
I'm a religious person, and I happen to believe that only God can reproduce the spirit.
Are you implying that if we have a 'spirit' (soul, whatever it might be called), a clone would not?
you just described what I see as the worst thing about cloning.
Someday soon, somebody is going to do it somewhere, legal or not. And it's not going to mean anything. We know exactly what we'll get (if done right) - the equivalent of an identical twin, but younger. Identically twins are fairly common, and of course they often turn out quite differently (nature/nurture and all that).
The only meaning in the event, when it happens, will be symbolic.
well, remember his paper last year, "Why the future doesn't need us"?
Not exactly a nerd point of view.
Of course, Joy is one of the smartest people ever to sit down at a computer.
unless he figured they wouldn't actually make the shoe but just get him some publicity.
damn longhaired commie open source liberal weenies, trying to mess with our precious bodily fluids...
Somebody told me that there is a tax on recordable CDs which goes directly to the recording companies simply because the cds can be used to copy their material. Can anyone confirm/refute this?
If this is true, obviously we would have a green light to copy, since we're already paying.
his id is roughly yours/100, so who are you to speak for anyone?
hehe, that's a great idea. We should impose a caste system based on user id. People over 50000 can slave in the mud pits making bricks as people under 20000 mercilessly whip them.
And if you're good, you can be one of the guys who feed wine and grapes to those under 1000 and keep the fan moving.
perhaps there's a differenc in potency?
If this is the new public image for programmers, I like it.
If I had an article like that written about me, my ego would probably pop. heh.
:-)
I agree with most of what you say, but then there was this:
To me, this seems to paralell the ideals behind free software. Everyone is given equal acess to the finite software resiource (coders can only work so hard), and everyone can appreciate it, all in the sense of irony. And if a microsofty can be one over for Linux or BSD, everyone wins.
Now, I like free software as much as the next guy, but when the idea is stretched and diluted in such strange manners as this, it just makes me want to dig my fingers up into that space between my eyeballs and eyelids, reach way back there, grab some fistfuls of brain and yank it out as my eyeballs pop out to make way and then dangle by the optic nerves providing a dizzying view of the ground below.
Wow, sometimes it just feels good to rant. What I'm trying to say is that to express the idea of equal access, you need not reach for an analogy to source code - especially when the topic you are discussing has absolutely nothing to do with software.
It's my understanding that air conditioning systems have the useful side effect of also dehumidifying. This is why on many cars, choosing the 'defog' setting to direct air toward your windshield will also turn the air conditioner on, so this doesn't sound like it would be a huge problem. Of course, you'd also want some kind of filter.
bwahahahahahaha
:-)
funniest thing I've read all day
This is a good method of steganography, but if it pretends to be good encryption by itself, that's bull.
What would really work well is a random spam generator that takes any random stream of bytes as input. Then you do the following:
Plaintext -> PGP/GPG -> cyphertext ->SpamMimic -> cyphertext which looks like spam
Then, it would be secure and would not attract attention. There are some interesting pitfalls tho:
o It could be deleted by a computer rejecting spam based on a text signature
o Your friend would have to know ahead of time to expect your message or he'd delete it. Of course, then he could no longer ignore any of his spam. If he automates the process, this could be avoided because normal spam would not decrypt to anything and the checksum would fail and it would be tossed automatically.
o Somebody could invoke an anti spam law to sue your ass when you were simply sending them a message. Then, you'd have to prove it wasn't spam.
gas powered with a two stroke engine? Seems like it would be annoyingly loud (notwithstanding the earlier comment about wastefulness).
I'd want one that runs whisper-quiet and doesn't put out fumes.