I have an hour-each-way commute and find reading during this time to be a bit more problematic than listening to audiobooks on my iPod (through the car stereo, of course). I have no financial stake in PodioBooks.com or Audible.com, but they provide a nice, eyes-free alternative. There are lots of other sources, too.
Responding to "Frankly, I don't want Budweiser knowing when I choose to buy their beer versus another brands.": You must have an amazingly trouble-free life to go this far to find something to be unhappy about. You're buying beer in a public store, surrounded by video cameras (especially if you're walking down the beer isle), and maybe even paying for the stuff with a credit card (thereby volunteering the details of your purchase to whatever bank issued the card). But NOW you're concerned that the company who's product you purchase in this way might get wind of your having bought their stuff?! There is no shortage of genuine trouble in the world. To invent more out of thin air is just stupid. Grow up. Just grow up. [end of tirade]
Actually, it seems like this sort of product tracking has the potential to increase the economic efficiency of retail markets. I don't know of a purer or freer or more inherently fair large-scale democracy than a free market economy. Especially for luxuries like beer (And by the way, if we have Internet access, the vast majority of our take-home income is very likely blown on luxuries.), every time we buy something, we're casting our vote in favor of the product at the price we pay for it (and for the place where we buy it, and the time of day when we buy it, etc.). Better tracking of the products just makes the voting faster and more accurate. If you don't like it, don't vote for the product. Every dollar is a ballot, and we can vote until we run out of them, though most of us might do well to abstain more often.:)
It's also not that complicated. I intended, albeit without saying so, that my comments be taken in the context of a developing human organism, not in that of a single, specialized cell that will never be more than a part of a larger organism. When I say that genetically human is human, all I mean is that as soon as we have an ovum with a full set of chromosomes in it, we should regard that as human. (No, I didn't miss the part of the original article that talked about chemically jump-starting the process of cellular division, but the human being who begins life in this way is no less human for it.)
I harp on this definition because I think it is entirely sensible and because it points out that, while the advocates of cloning experiments might tell us how they hope to improve the human condition, we are actually degrading our value for human life by continuing to destroy human lives in the process of this pursuit.
The title should read "Korean Scientists Kill 30 Children to Advance Research". Each of us began life as a fertilized egg. We advanced through the normal stages of development until we could live outside of our mothers. (And we were still quite reliant on our parents for our survival for a good while after that.) These were human lives that were taken; lives of innocent children. Genetically human is human. Why can't we see that?
And don't give me the argument about the thousands of suffering people who are waiting for transplants. Their admittedly heart-breaking predicaments do not justify the taking of a single child's life. To do so would be barbaric. That's why advocates of research cloning have to sugar-coat the language they use when they discuss this topic. They're not children or babies. They're "embryos" or "blastocysts." They're still human, and they still rely on us for their survival.
What really gets me is that we need laws to tell us that killing children is wrong. I'm reminded of a quote:
The means by which we live have outdistanced the ends for which we live. Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.
-Martin Luther King, Jr., civil-rights leader (1929-1968)
I know that Dr. King had a different topic in mind when he said this, but I also think that this quote may be very appropriately applied to many men and women today who are misguided with respect to the basic rights of unborn humans. I'll say it again: Genetically human is human.
Presumably, the host running the service in question will stop listening after a few seconds, after which port scanning will reveal nothing. Of greater concern is this method's vulnerability to sniffing. Patterns of "connection refused" responses would be a dead give-away. And if any of this is happening over a wireless network, it just makes sniffing that much easier. While I certainly wouldn't call the use of a port knocking mechanism pointless, I also wouldn't rest all my security-related hopes and dreams on this technique.
Here's how I (39 years old, 6'0", 188lbs) look at it. I'm really just an energy storage buffer. If I consume more energy that I expend, I store the difference (more or less). When I find myself growing, I can shrink back down by consuming less or by expending more. Running can be painful for me, but I enjoy biking. There's bound to be some activity that you would enjoy. Then it's a matter of priority. It's really that simple. It is a DECISION, a refusal to yield to sloth and gluttony. For instance, I've given up refined sugar (pastries, cokes, candy, etc) for a while in order to shed 5 pounds for an upcoming weekend hiking trip on the Appalachian Trail. I've had good success with this technique. (This has sounded really judgmental, but it wasn't meant to be. I know that some people have a harder time with weight management than others. But I prefer to get flamed by someone who understands exactly what I've said over being misunderstood in the first place.)
Anybody taking bets on how long it will take Robin Hood to spew it's legal folks at slashdot? Just watch. It will happen. They'll say that we're just a bunch of "haters" who are out to get them and are "jealous" (are they serious?!) of them.
It's pretty rich how Eddy talks about the "Self-appointed spam-exterminators" who use "guerilla tactics" to keep spammers' unwanted and unwelcome content from bloating our in-boxes. He can't be typing this stuff with a straight face. Do you suppose that he's so self-deluded that he actually believes his own rhetoric?
Here's all you have to see to know what type of people these folks are, if they're still allowing links from slashdot. I could hit this page from my grandmother's PC and it would present me with the same sort of rhetoric. If they're rejecting links from slashdot, open a new browser window and go to http://www.evidence-eliminator.com/go.shtml to see the scare tactics these guys use to drum up business.
I'm generally an open book kind of guy, and I find that privacy issues are usually non-issues for me. If I run a 24-hour web cam in my living room, what is my ethical responsibility to inform guests of this? What if a few friends come over to watch a movie? What about dinner with friends? What if I'm on a date? I don't make an effort to hide the camera, but it's not exactly a conversation piece either. Maybe I could put up a sign saying, "These Premises Are Under 24-hour Video Surveillance," and let guests interpret that as they may. Some would see this use of technology as nothing short of perverse, while others wouldn't give it a second thought. And I think these reactions are usually more felt than thought. And should that affect whether and how I disclose to guests that a camera might see them while they're at my house? I'm not really looking for answers here. This is not a deep and burning question that I loose sleep over. I'm just offering this issue for use in the course on how our use of technology introduces new issues in the area of ethical behavior.
Read the article again. The liquid stays in the system. This is the same principle as most modern refrigeration. Cars' AC, houses' AC, and refrigerators/freezers all use this technique using some liquid with a convenient boiling point.
You're absolutely right. I've been using the TX3 for my primary PC for a few weeks now, and I'm absolutely loving it. I'll never go back to those giant boxes.
I've looked over WAVE's web site. The core of the issue for me is the anonymity of the accuser. I believe that this program will foster a generation who are accustomed to the idea of an anonymous accuser. This is a fundamentally unconstitutional idea. Aside from that, it all but encourages cowardice. Bullies feed on cowardice but are often discouraged by sincere bravery. I don't want students to be vigilantes, but they should have the guts to go personally to someone in authority in order to make their accusation. I don't like violence in our culture, and certainly not in our schools, but I also don't want the next generation of adults to think that anonymous accusation is ok. What this cure would lead to is worse than the disease.
Slashdot Mirror
I have an hour-each-way commute and find reading during this time to be a bit more problematic than listening to audiobooks on my iPod (through the car stereo, of course). I have no financial stake in PodioBooks.com or Audible.com, but they provide a nice, eyes-free alternative. There are lots of other sources, too.
Actually, it seems like this sort of product tracking has the potential to increase the economic efficiency of retail markets. I don't know of a purer or freer or more inherently fair large-scale democracy than a free market economy. Especially for luxuries like beer (And by the way, if we have Internet access, the vast majority of our take-home income is very likely blown on luxuries.), every time we buy something, we're casting our vote in favor of the product at the price we pay for it (and for the place where we buy it, and the time of day when we buy it, etc.). Better tracking of the products just makes the voting faster and more accurate. If you don't like it, don't vote for the product. Every dollar is a ballot, and we can vote until we run out of them, though most of us might do well to abstain more often. :)
I harp on this definition because I think it is entirely sensible and because it points out that, while the advocates of cloning experiments might tell us how they hope to improve the human condition, we are actually degrading our value for human life by continuing to destroy human lives in the process of this pursuit.
The title should read "Korean Scientists Kill 30 Children to Advance Research". Each of us began life as a fertilized egg. We advanced through the normal stages of development until we could live outside of our mothers. (And we were still quite reliant on our parents for our survival for a good while after that.) These were human lives that were taken; lives of innocent children. Genetically human is human. Why can't we see that?
And don't give me the argument about the thousands of suffering people who are waiting for transplants. Their admittedly heart-breaking predicaments do not justify the taking of a single child's life. To do so would be barbaric. That's why advocates of research cloning have to sugar-coat the language they use when they discuss this topic. They're not children or babies. They're "embryos" or "blastocysts." They're still human, and they still rely on us for their survival.
What really gets me is that we need laws to tell us that killing children is wrong. I'm reminded of a quote:
I know that Dr. King had a different topic in mind when he said this, but I also think that this quote may be very appropriately applied to many men and women today who are misguided with respect to the basic rights of unborn humans. I'll say it again: Genetically human is human.Presumably, the host running the service in question will stop listening after a few seconds, after which port scanning will reveal nothing. Of greater concern is this method's vulnerability to sniffing. Patterns of "connection refused" responses would be a dead give-away. And if any of this is happening over a wireless network, it just makes sniffing that much easier. While I certainly wouldn't call the use of a port knocking mechanism pointless, I also wouldn't rest all my security-related hopes and dreams on this technique.
Here's how I (39 years old, 6'0", 188lbs) look at it. I'm really just an energy storage buffer. If I consume more energy that I expend, I store the difference (more or less). When I find myself growing, I can shrink back down by consuming less or by expending more. Running can be painful for me, but I enjoy biking. There's bound to be some activity that you would enjoy. Then it's a matter of priority. It's really that simple. It is a DECISION, a refusal to yield to sloth and gluttony. For instance, I've given up refined sugar (pastries, cokes, candy, etc) for a while in order to shed 5 pounds for an upcoming weekend hiking trip on the Appalachian Trail. I've had good success with this technique. (This has sounded really judgmental, but it wasn't meant to be. I know that some people have a harder time with weight management than others. But I prefer to get flamed by someone who understands exactly what I've said over being misunderstood in the first place.)
Anybody taking bets on how long it will take Robin Hood to spew it's legal folks at slashdot? Just watch. It will happen. They'll say that we're just a bunch of "haters" who are out to get them and are "jealous" (are they serious?!) of them.
It's pretty rich how Eddy talks about the "Self-appointed spam-exterminators" who use "guerilla tactics" to keep spammers' unwanted and unwelcome content from bloating our in-boxes. He can't be typing this stuff with a straight face. Do you suppose that he's so self-deluded that he actually believes his own rhetoric?
Here's all you have to see to know what type of people these folks are, if they're still allowing links from slashdot. I could hit this page from my grandmother's PC and it would present me with the same sort of rhetoric. If they're rejecting links from slashdot, open a new browser window and go to http://www.evidence-eliminator.com/go.shtml to see the scare tactics these guys use to drum up business.
I'm generally an open book kind of guy, and I find that privacy issues are usually non-issues for me. If I run a 24-hour web cam in my living room, what is my ethical responsibility to inform guests of this? What if a few friends come over to watch a movie? What about dinner with friends? What if I'm on a date? I don't make an effort to hide the camera, but it's not exactly a conversation piece either. Maybe I could put up a sign saying, "These Premises Are Under 24-hour Video Surveillance," and let guests interpret that as they may. Some would see this use of technology as nothing short of perverse, while others wouldn't give it a second thought. And I think these reactions are usually more felt than thought. And should that affect whether and how I disclose to guests that a camera might see them while they're at my house? I'm not really looking for answers here. This is not a deep and burning question that I loose sleep over. I'm just offering this issue for use in the course on how our use of technology introduces new issues in the area of ethical behavior.
Read the article again. The liquid stays in the system. This is the same principle as most modern refrigeration. Cars' AC, houses' AC, and refrigerators/freezers all use this technique using some liquid with a convenient boiling point.
You're absolutely right. I've been using the TX3 for my primary PC for a few weeks now, and I'm absolutely loving it. I'll never go back to those giant boxes.
I've looked over WAVE's web site. The core of the issue for me is the anonymity of the accuser. I believe that this program will foster a generation who are accustomed to the idea of an anonymous accuser. This is a fundamentally unconstitutional idea. Aside from that, it all but encourages cowardice. Bullies feed on cowardice but are often discouraged by sincere bravery. I don't want students to be vigilantes, but they should have the guts to go personally to someone in authority in order to make their accusation. I don't like violence in our culture, and certainly not in our schools, but I also don't want the next generation of adults to think that anonymous accusation is ok. What this cure would lead to is worse than the disease.