You're right. I suggest that we publish the names and photos of all undercover cops working against organized crime
What cops working against organized crime? The biggest organized crime syndicate in the world, the finance industry, steals billions out in the open and law enforcement never bothers to do anything about it.
So what do we actually stand to lose by complete and utter openness? Law enforcement and military actions are completely ineffective at doing anything good for the people. Actually, they've been outright harming the people for decades. If we make them totally impotent through openness, it will be a win for freedom in America.
Stop playing the pedant about it being "genetic engineering" or not. It's direct genetic manipulation to remove undesired genes. Apply whatever term you want to that.
It's not genetic manipulation. All the sequences involved occur naturally. You apply a similar selection mechanism when you select a mate that is tall or has big boobs. You're selecting against the genes for shortness or flat chests. The only real difference in a genetic screening process is that it uses technology to make traits visible that weren't before.
As for your genetic diversity argument, try asking a huntington's patient about the positive traits their mutant huntintin provides.
After you die you will be literally be shown how all things work for the greater good over the long run even if the short term is unbearable. You are completely and totally ignorant of the fact that: People joyfully CHOSE the afflictions BEFORE they were born.
This is how crazy you have to be to oppose screening for Huntington's.
Screening out harmful genes is not genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is splicing, or mutating genes. What he is talking about is just a selection process.
Does anyone really think it's a bad idea to screen out the gene for Huntingtons? There's absolutely no reason any child today has to be born with Huntingtons, an incredibly miserable way to die as a chile. I'd say that screening for Huntingtons is such a serious moral obligation, that failing to do so should be criminal.
If that's OK, it's just a discussion of how much selection we should be doing, not whether we do it. Actual genetic engineering is a whole different story.
As for where the law applies, many laws apply outside territories.
Under what theory of jurisprudence is this valid? Why should Assange be subject to US law any more than I am subject to Thai (the Thai king is an ugly idiot!) or Saudi (Muhammad was a murdering pedofile) law?
Shouldn't I be under extradition to Thailand or Saudi Arabia right now? If not, why not, and why doesn't the same reason apply to Assange?
IF Mr. Assange can be shown to have *solicited* the data from PFC Manning, then the charge is espionage, which IS a crime in the United States, regardless of where you happen to be sitting when you're collecting your data.
Just because it's a crime in the United States doesn't mean the US has jurisdiction over a foreigner on foreign soil. Possession of cannabis is a crime in the US. Are we going to start extraditing potheads from the Netherlands?
If you are not in a country, or a citizen of the country you are not obligated to obey that country's laws. Period.
Depends on your state. In my state, and many others, either party can ask the judge to move the case to regular court and he will. Once in regular court, you will have your ass handed to you unless you hire an expensive lawyer.
The justice system doesn't even bother pretending to be fair to the little guy anymore. The entire economic and political system on this planet is a complete and utter scam.
Each and every god damned one of us has a responsibility to identify what is ethical and what is not and call it out as such.
But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? â" in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, 1849
Google was irresponsible in not publishing these holes immediately so affected users could take steps to mitigate their vulnerability while Adobe put together a patch.
Reductio ad absurdum is a valid technique, not a fallacy. If something is true, it's true at the extremities. If you can find an exception, you know that the proposition is not universally true.
"Reductio ad absurdum, which Euclid loved so much, is one of a mathematician's finest weapons. It is a far finer gambit than any chess play: a chess player may offer the sacrifice of a pawn or even a piece, but a mathematician offers the game. G H Hardy A Mathematician's Apology (London 1941).
You're too generous. These people are shocked that evolution is in the curriculum because evolution conflicts with the bronze age mythology they've been raised to believe is 100% true, always and forever.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right. I suggest that we publish the names and photos of all undercover cops working against organized crime
What cops working against organized crime? The biggest organized crime syndicate in the world, the finance industry, steals billions out in the open and law enforcement never bothers to do anything about it.
So what do we actually stand to lose by complete and utter openness? Law enforcement and military actions are completely ineffective at doing anything good for the people. Actually, they've been outright harming the people for decades. If we make them totally impotent through openness, it will be a win for freedom in America.
Jim Sterling at Zero Punctuation spells out in this videos EXACTLY why EA is in the shape its in, and it all comes down to screwing the customers
Thanks for the synopsis. Zero Punctuation is unwatchable.
Stop playing the pedant about it being "genetic engineering" or not. It's direct genetic manipulation to remove undesired genes. Apply whatever term you want to that.
It's not genetic manipulation. All the sequences involved occur naturally. You apply a similar selection mechanism when you select a mate that is tall or has big boobs. You're selecting against the genes for shortness or flat chests. The only real difference in a genetic screening process is that it uses technology to make traits visible that weren't before.
As for your genetic diversity argument, try asking a huntington's patient about the positive traits their mutant huntintin provides.
This is how crazy you have to be to oppose screening for Huntington's.
What we are close in is lack of control by the people. There's no choice in either system.
There's no theory there. There is a blanket assertion that we can do this and we will. What I'm asking is how can that be just?
Screening out harmful genes is not genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is splicing, or mutating genes. What he is talking about is just a selection process.
Does anyone really think it's a bad idea to screen out the gene for Huntingtons? There's absolutely no reason any child today has to be born with Huntingtons, an incredibly miserable way to die as a chile. I'd say that screening for Huntingtons is such a serious moral obligation, that failing to do so should be criminal.
If that's OK, it's just a discussion of how much selection we should be doing, not whether we do it. Actual genetic engineering is a whole different story.
As for where the law applies, many laws apply outside territories.
Under what theory of jurisprudence is this valid? Why should Assange be subject to US law any more than I am subject to Thai (the Thai king is an ugly idiot!) or Saudi (Muhammad was a murdering pedofile) law?
Shouldn't I be under extradition to Thailand or Saudi Arabia right now? If not, why not, and why doesn't the same reason apply to Assange?
I'm pretty sure we're both right.
IF Mr. Assange can be shown to have *solicited* the data from PFC Manning, then the charge is espionage, which IS a crime in the United States, regardless of where you happen to be sitting when you're collecting your data.
Just because it's a crime in the United States doesn't mean the US has jurisdiction over a foreigner on foreign soil. Possession of cannabis is a crime in the US. Are we going to start extraditing potheads from the Netherlands?
If you are not in a country, or a citizen of the country you are not obligated to obey that country's laws. Period.
Wrong. If a company does not provide the goods or services that they sold you, in this case, a lifetime account, that's illegal in the US.
Can someone please tell that to John Corzine? And Barack Obama?
Depends on your state. In my state, and many others, either party can ask the judge to move the case to regular court and he will. Once in regular court, you will have your ass handed to you unless you hire an expensive lawyer.
The justice system doesn't even bother pretending to be fair to the little guy anymore. The entire economic and political system on this planet is a complete and utter scam.
We are hurtling headlong towards another dark ages.
2) Assange discusses with Manning how to hide his involvement in the disclosure. The discussion might lean towards conspiracy.
Conspiracy to leak information that as a foreign national on foreign soil he had no legal obligation to keep secret.
Oh wait, I forgot US law applies across the entire planet, and probably Mars now.
Each and every god damned one of us has a responsibility to identify what is ethical and what is not and call it out as such.
Where do 98, 98SE, NT4 and W2K fit into that "pattern"? You can make a pattern out of anything if you pick and choose.
You'd like to think so, but generally fundies really believe that shit. It's not just an idea to them, but an identity.
Google was irresponsible in not publishing these holes immediately so affected users could take steps to mitigate their vulnerability while Adobe put together a patch.
What if I get the holy water and find out that it hasn't been properly sanctified? Should I get my money back?
So what you're saying is that if I buy holy water off of eBay and complain that it wasn't as holy as described, they'll ban Christian items too?
Funny? Mod this one informative.
Reductio ad absurdum is a valid technique, not a fallacy. If something is true, it's true at the extremities. If you can find an exception, you know that the proposition is not universally true.
You're too generous. These people are shocked that evolution is in the curriculum because evolution conflicts with the bronze age mythology they've been raised to believe is 100% true, always and forever.
Parts of the state actively supported the Union, other parts actively supported the Confederacy. Similar story when you get to individuals.
Which part of the individual supported the Union, and which parts supported the Confederacy?
Unless you're Janet Napolitano, John Pistole, Michael Chertoff, etc.