So why are companies treating it as one? I do not know about the American Constitution, but I know privacy is guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is so because privacy is a fundamental requirement to democracy and free will.
So why should people pay for privacy? Companies are getting patents and charging people for privacy. If privacy is no longer free, what's next? You need to pay a subscription fee to vote in the next election?
I live in Vancouver, where University of British Columbia is. And I knew some of the students who played a part in the prank. Frankly, the university doesn't mind it, since this event is great publicity for it.
And I don't mind either, since now every Slashdot member knows Canada and Vancouver and what it's known for:-) Who says anything about Canadians being polite anyway? Canada rules!
I agree with the adoption idea. We have enough people in the world as it is. Why do we need more from cloning? I can see why couples would want to give birth to a child, but thinking that sperm donors or adopted children are inferior to one's own genes is simply arrogant.
Cloning also raises the debate whether the "parents" will treat a clone child in the same manner as a child today. Logically there should be no difference. But humans are not logical creatures, and cloning will dramatically change what birth and parenting means culturally.
Do we need cloning? No! So why risk irreversible and unknown consequences just to satisfy our virtuosity? Such behavior, above all, is irresponsible at best.
Imagine a country at war where the leaders have the technology to clone humans. War and battle would be nothing more than a game of Risk. If people die, they simply clone more humans and send them out to fight. And precisely because cloning is and will be too expensive for the average citizen, they have no say in the direction and development of the technology.
And if you think countries will never fight one another anymore after World War II, you are really living in a dream world.
There is no doubt that Microsoft has made some great software. But never forget that the.NET initative is not only Microsoft's "revenge fantasy having been denied the right to 'embrace, extend and exterminate' Java," it is also Microsoft's cunning plan to effectively nullify the anti-trust lawsuit should the company be split up. Once.NET becomes a standard, Microsoft is no longer reliant on the sales of its Windows OS. Therefore having Windows and the rest of the company split apart will make little difference to Microsoft.
Also, as moral and responsible citizens, we should not embrace a product simply because it is efficent. As consumers we vote with our or our employer's dollar on companies and what they stand for. If what they stand for, in terms of ethics, is not in the interest of citizens, then we should seriously reconsider our investments. Therefore other factors must be considered as well.
Given the potential political ramifications of.NET, I would strongly fellow Slashdot readers to not simply weight its programming and efficiency benefits, but its politicial and ethical ramifications as well.
Mr. Black is known for extreme right wing ideas. But that's not what scares me about him. He has a history of taking over the editorial department to match his ideologies. Having said that, I am rather surprised that he would even let such an article published.
Mind you, there was another article published in the Vancouver Sun (another Conrad Black newspaper) about Napster and anti-free market issues a couple of months ago. Wish I knew the references.
Superficially, it does seem that Metallica is standing up for themselves. That's why this lawsuit can hold up for so long in the first place. However, laws must follow ethics, not the other way around. And there is little doubt that Metallica and the Recording Industry is unethical by suing Napster. It is impossible to point out all the arguments, but I will say one thing. Metallica's lawsuit is never about helping artists. In fact, many artists, such as Limp Buskit and Public Enemy, support Napster because they know that Napster would help independent artists get publicity without having to slave for greedy recording companies. Only big, multi-millionaire artists and companies benefit from current copyright laws. Furthermore, recently the court ruled against the recording companies for wrongful price-fixing to increase the cost of CDs. For years, recording companies, thanks to copyright, has been able to scam us millions of dollars due to their unlawful and unethical practices. It wouldn't even surprise that the Napster debate played a significant role in influencing the court's decision.
In a litigious society, it is necessary to play by rules dictated by the courts. If a lawyer allows us to play the game better and take advantage, whether he or she is filthy or not (BTW, I agree that lawyers are filthy), then why not? Let the lawyer contribute something back to the public for a change.
Slashdot Mirror
So why are companies treating it as one? I do not know about the American Constitution, but I know privacy is guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is so because privacy is a fundamental requirement to democracy and free will. So why should people pay for privacy? Companies are getting patents and charging people for privacy. If privacy is no longer free, what's next? You need to pay a subscription fee to vote in the next election?
I live in Vancouver, where University of British Columbia is. And I knew some of the students who played a part in the prank. Frankly, the university doesn't mind it, since this event is great publicity for it. And I don't mind either, since now every Slashdot member knows Canada and Vancouver and what it's known for :-) Who says anything about Canadians being polite anyway? Canada rules!
I agree with the adoption idea. We have enough people in the world as it is. Why do we need more from cloning? I can see why couples would want to give birth to a child, but thinking that sperm donors or adopted children are inferior to one's own genes is simply arrogant. Cloning also raises the debate whether the "parents" will treat a clone child in the same manner as a child today. Logically there should be no difference. But humans are not logical creatures, and cloning will dramatically change what birth and parenting means culturally. Do we need cloning? No! So why risk irreversible and unknown consequences just to satisfy our virtuosity? Such behavior, above all, is irresponsible at best.
Imagine a country at war where the leaders have the technology to clone humans. War and battle would be nothing more than a game of Risk. If people die, they simply clone more humans and send them out to fight. And precisely because cloning is and will be too expensive for the average citizen, they have no say in the direction and development of the technology. And if you think countries will never fight one another anymore after World War II, you are really living in a dream world.
There is no doubt that Microsoft has made some great software. But never forget that the .NET initative is not only Microsoft's "revenge fantasy having been denied the right to 'embrace, extend and exterminate' Java," it is also Microsoft's cunning plan to effectively nullify the anti-trust lawsuit should the company be split up. Once .NET becomes a standard, Microsoft is no longer reliant on the sales of its Windows OS. Therefore having Windows and the rest of the company split apart will make little difference to Microsoft.
Also, as moral and responsible citizens, we should not embrace a product simply because it is efficent. As consumers we vote with our or our employer's dollar on companies and what they stand for. If what they stand for, in terms of ethics, is not in the interest of citizens, then we should seriously reconsider our investments. Therefore other factors must be considered as well.
Given the potential political ramifications of .NET, I would strongly fellow Slashdot readers to not simply weight its programming and efficiency benefits, but its politicial and ethical ramifications as well.
Mr. Black is known for extreme right wing ideas. But that's not what scares me about him. He has a history of taking over the editorial department to match his ideologies. Having said that, I am rather surprised that he would even let such an article published. Mind you, there was another article published in the Vancouver Sun (another Conrad Black newspaper) about Napster and anti-free market issues a couple of months ago. Wish I knew the references.
Superficially, it does seem that Metallica is standing up for themselves. That's why this lawsuit can hold up for so long in the first place. However, laws must follow ethics, not the other way around. And there is little doubt that Metallica and the Recording Industry is unethical by suing Napster. It is impossible to point out all the arguments, but I will say one thing. Metallica's lawsuit is never about helping artists. In fact, many artists, such as Limp Buskit and Public Enemy, support Napster because they know that Napster would help independent artists get publicity without having to slave for greedy recording companies. Only big, multi-millionaire artists and companies benefit from current copyright laws. Furthermore, recently the court ruled against the recording companies for wrongful price-fixing to increase the cost of CDs. For years, recording companies, thanks to copyright, has been able to scam us millions of dollars due to their unlawful and unethical practices. It wouldn't even surprise that the Napster debate played a significant role in influencing the court's decision.
In a litigious society, it is necessary to play by rules dictated by the courts. If a lawyer allows us to play the game better and take advantage, whether he or she is filthy or not (BTW, I agree that lawyers are filthy), then why not? Let the lawyer contribute something back to the public for a change.