Politicians have to talk about cloning in any democracy. Technology may not be good or evil by definition, but governments are responsible for doing more than just limiting evil things.
It is the people of a country who get to decide if they like cloning or not. Moreover, they have the right to decide based on whatever they want. If you want to ensure an informed decision, then get out and raise awareness. Don't say the issue should be ignored. Apathy is always bad in the political sense.
Politicians have a moral duty to learn about and discuss legislation on all new technologies. Most of the time, they will resolve to do nothing, but they have to have a look. The alternative is some sort of techno-anarchy, where the rich live by different rules than the poor.
Just to clarify, I do like democracy for government. But we are not talking about the government. We are talking about a highly specialiezed sector of the internet that most people do not have the ability to understand.
In a governmental democracy the people who don't understand the issues don't vote (we call this apathy). The ease of use of the internet means that people who don't know what they are doing can fire off a flame (or vote) in 5 easy minutes. Why should they be allowed to?
Wouldn't this just result in Mr. Aol and Ms. First Post being elected to the board? Do we really want the average internet user, (or even the average slashdot user now-a-days) to be making this type of decision?
Uh, you're kinda, uh, lying about that eh?
I think maybe if you read the article, you would have noticed that it says "The campus is doing a survey of students to see if they want to be offered access to Microsoft software and upgrades. Students would have to pay $20 for this access."
Not that they have to pay the $20 even IF the majority of students wanted the option, only that they COULD.
The article's only point against this is that most people already have M$ products, and if they don't, they can just borrow a CD from a friend to install (STEAL) it.
I don't like Microsoft, but a lot of their products are worth paying for. If you don't think so, then don't use them at all.
Here's a fact. Being exposed to violence desensitizes you to it. That's any type of violence; verbal abuse, violent murder and rape, and everything in between. Hearing something horrible happen on the radio desensitizes you a little. Seeing it on TV does it more. Doing it interactively on the computer, where you make it happen, desensitizes you a lot.
If you are desensitized to violence, you are more likely to do it yourself. If violence is a viable solution in every aspect of your "play" life, then you will begin to see it as a solution in your "real" life.
The younger you are, the more pronounced the effect is.
Example: Normal people off the street will not, unless circumstances are extreme, kill someone. The US Marines need to train people to kill someone when they are not in direct personal danger. So they use pop up targets with the shape of a human. This trains people to pull the trigger without thinking. This is the same psychologically as playing Quake or Halflife.
However, it is true that video games are not responsible for much violence in society. The amount that they desensitize you is not massive and mind bending. Video games are only really a threat to people who are violent or already in a mentally suggestive state.
[The above is based on the expert opinion of the Chief of Psychology and Administrative Director of the local Phyc. Hospital.]
This is my opinion:
I think that putting Solider of Fortune in the hands of 6 six year old should be a crime.
Here in Canada, and in the US and UK, we live in liberal democracy. The question of whether of not the insurance companies should be able to do this, based on a shared-risk analysis of the system, doesn't look at the real underlying value.
The question should be: Can anyone (government agency, or company, or private individual) treat someone differently from someone else based on that person's possible genetic disposition for a disease. It's important to remember that unlike other pre-existing conditions, genetic traits do not guarantee that a person will develop a disease or syndrome.
In Canada, we have something called Equality; it comes in two main types. There is Equality before the law, and Equality under the law. The difference is this. According to the first, everyone is treated the same when being faced with criminal charges. Everyone gets a fair trial; everyone has the right to counsel, etc. The second one is significantly different. It proposes that some people should be treated differently (better) than others because of who they are. The government is required to spend more on building access for handicapped people than it is for "normal" people. That is to say, the government has to go out of its way to improve the standard of living for handicapped people, so that they can have equal chances in life. So that they have Equality with the rest of us "normal" people.
The suggestion made in the UK, seems to say that the normal people have to be protected more than the people who may get sick. This is not the way things normally work in a democracy. The people who face having to deal with a disease, should have extra guarantees of protection by the government, who in turn should either force insurance companies to carry the weight, or do it themselves through taxes and publicly funded health care (as is, happily, the case in Canada). We need to remember that governments are not about protecting "normal" people, and not even just about protecting the majority. In fact, governments should go out of their way to protect minorities, while at the same time respecting the will of the majority. (At times when the two are in conflict, you hope that you have either good morals, or a solid Constitution with a built in set of basic rights, that not even a majority can take away from anyone.)
Someone has to ask, if I sew DeCSS into a sweat shirt, and then wear that, am I violating that silly law you guys have down there? (Assuming I wear the sweat shirt while on vation down south.)
I hope this gets moded down. I mean, aren't we sick of these references yet?
that NASA should let itself be taken over by the Canadians. Since everyone who lives up here already has the ability to live on mars, using only our normal winter clothing, and stoic egos, NASA is only wasting money on highly trained astronauts. Believe me, anyone who has ever tried to get a car out of a snow bank with a plastic shovel and some sand, knows more about retro-thrust and physics than ANY MIT grad. And I bet putting the shuttle in proper orbit is a lot easier than finding a parking spot at Canadian Tire. (None one down there is going to understand that joke. Oh well.)
Re:It's not the broken mods that piss people off..
on
New Q3A Patch And Mods
·
· Score: 2
I can totaly understand why this would piss you off. Who wouldn't be upset to learn that their chance at big money for playing a game had been taken away? It's this type of free market GREATNESS that allows any starving person to pull themselves off the street by merely wishing their problems away, and applying God and give all!
The point I'm trying to make is that it IS hard for me to understand how anyone could POSSIBLY be upset by this. There are better things to worry about.
Here's the kicker: It is a game.
I'm not sure that "News for nerds. Stuff that matters" is really true anymore, (was it ever?) There are lots of valid privacy and technology issues out there. This isn't one of them.
In the USA the libraries have to worry about being sued by some overzealous public morality guardian. In the UK, the libraries have to worry about supplying free email access for bad people who like to blow stuff up. Without taking sides in the issue, we do have to note that the UK has some striking cultural issues. Which to them are a little more important than whether or not Johhy can get porn, regardless of Johhy's age. With rocket attacks in what's relatively downtown London, this isn't likely a big concern.
As has always, sadly, been the case, the rules of law and contracts do not have any force of effect outside their own shallow wording. Which means in short, that anyone (SUN) can do anything which is wrong, as a long as there's not a rule against it.
Which is bad, for my 2c.
Actually, I remember that there WAS a company that had humans search the internet for information you wanted. I don't remember the name (of course). Their main focus was on major research, that would include intenet sites, but would also do an internet only search for some small fee.
Slashdot Mirror
Politicians have to talk about cloning in any democracy. Technology may not be good or evil by definition, but governments are responsible for doing more than just limiting evil things.
It is the people of a country who get to decide if they like cloning or not. Moreover, they have the right to decide based on whatever they want. If you want to ensure an informed decision, then get out and raise awareness. Don't say the issue should be ignored. Apathy is always bad in the political sense.
Politicians have a moral duty to learn about and discuss legislation on all new technologies. Most of the time, they will resolve to do nothing, but they have to have a look. The alternative is some sort of techno-anarchy, where the rich live by different rules than the poor.
Not my idea of democracy.
Just to clarify, I do like democracy for government. But we are not talking about the government. We are talking about a highly specialiezed sector of the internet that most people do not have the ability to understand. In a governmental democracy the people who don't understand the issues don't vote (we call this apathy). The ease of use of the internet means that people who don't know what they are doing can fire off a flame (or vote) in 5 easy minutes. Why should they be allowed to?
Wouldn't this just result in Mr. Aol and Ms. First Post being elected to the board? Do we really want the average internet user, (or even the average slashdot user now-a-days) to be making this type of decision?
Uh, you're kinda, uh, lying about that eh? I think maybe if you read the article, you would have noticed that it says "The campus is doing a survey of students to see if they want to be offered access to Microsoft software and upgrades. Students would have to pay $20 for this access."
Not that they have to pay the $20 even IF the majority of students wanted the option, only that they COULD.
The article's only point against this is that most people already have M$ products, and if they don't, they can just borrow a CD from a friend to install (STEAL) it.
I don't like Microsoft, but a lot of their products are worth paying for. If you don't think so, then don't use them at all.
Here's a fact. Being exposed to violence desensitizes you to it. That's any type of violence; verbal abuse, violent murder and rape, and everything in between. Hearing something horrible happen on the radio desensitizes you a little. Seeing it on TV does it more. Doing it interactively on the computer, where you make it happen, desensitizes you a lot.
If you are desensitized to violence, you are more likely to do it yourself. If violence is a viable solution in every aspect of your "play" life, then you will begin to see it as a solution in your "real" life.
The younger you are, the more pronounced the effect is.
Example: Normal people off the street will not, unless circumstances are extreme, kill someone. The US Marines need to train people to kill someone when they are not in direct personal danger. So they use pop up targets with the shape of a human. This trains people to pull the trigger without thinking. This is the same psychologically as playing Quake or Halflife.
However, it is true that video games are not responsible for much violence in society. The amount that they desensitize you is not massive and mind bending. Video games are only really a threat to people who are violent or already in a mentally suggestive state.
[The above is based on the expert opinion of the Chief of Psychology and Administrative Director of the local Phyc. Hospital.]
This is my opinion: I think that putting Solider of Fortune in the hands of 6 six year old should be a crime.
Here in Canada, and in the US and UK, we live in liberal democracy. The question of whether of not the insurance companies should be able to do this, based on a shared-risk analysis of the system, doesn't look at the real underlying value.
The question should be: Can anyone (government agency, or company, or private individual) treat someone differently from someone else based on that person's possible genetic disposition for a disease. It's important to remember that unlike other pre-existing conditions, genetic traits do not guarantee that a person will develop a disease or syndrome.
In Canada, we have something called Equality; it comes in two main types. There is Equality before the law, and Equality under the law. The difference is this. According to the first, everyone is treated the same when being faced with criminal charges. Everyone gets a fair trial; everyone has the right to counsel, etc. The second one is significantly different. It proposes that some people should be treated differently (better) than others because of who they are. The government is required to spend more on building access for handicapped people than it is for "normal" people. That is to say, the government has to go out of its way to improve the standard of living for handicapped people, so that they can have equal chances in life. So that they have Equality with the rest of us "normal" people.
The suggestion made in the UK, seems to say that the normal people have to be protected more than the people who may get sick. This is not the way things normally work in a democracy. The people who face having to deal with a disease, should have extra guarantees of protection by the government, who in turn should either force insurance companies to carry the weight, or do it themselves through taxes and publicly funded health care (as is, happily, the case in Canada). We need to remember that governments are not about protecting "normal" people, and not even just about protecting the majority. In fact, governments should go out of their way to protect minorities, while at the same time respecting the will of the majority. (At times when the two are in conflict, you hope that you have either good morals, or a solid Constitution with a built in set of basic rights, that not even a majority can take away from anyone.)
Someone has to ask, if I sew DeCSS into a sweat shirt, and then wear that, am I violating that silly law you guys have down there? (Assuming I wear the sweat shirt while on vation down south.) I hope this gets moded down. I mean, aren't we sick of these references yet?
that NASA should let itself be taken over by the Canadians. Since everyone who lives up here already has the ability to live on mars, using only our normal winter clothing, and stoic egos, NASA is only wasting money on highly trained astronauts. Believe me, anyone who has ever tried to get a car out of a snow bank with a plastic shovel and some sand, knows more about retro-thrust and physics than ANY MIT grad. And I bet putting the shuttle in proper orbit is a lot easier than finding a parking spot at Canadian Tire. (None one down there is going to understand that joke. Oh well.)
I can totaly understand why this would piss you off. Who wouldn't be upset to learn that their chance at big money for playing a game had been taken away? It's this type of free market GREATNESS that allows any starving person to pull themselves off the street by merely wishing their problems away, and applying God and give all! The point I'm trying to make is that it IS hard for me to understand how anyone could POSSIBLY be upset by this. There are better things to worry about. Here's the kicker: It is a game. I'm not sure that "News for nerds. Stuff that matters" is really true anymore, (was it ever?) There are lots of valid privacy and technology issues out there. This isn't one of them.
In the USA the libraries have to worry about being sued by some overzealous public morality guardian. In the UK, the libraries have to worry about supplying free email access for bad people who like to blow stuff up. Without taking sides in the issue, we do have to note that the UK has some striking cultural issues. Which to them are a little more important than whether or not Johhy can get porn, regardless of Johhy's age. With rocket attacks in what's relatively downtown London, this isn't likely a big concern.
As has always, sadly, been the case, the rules of law and contracts do not have any force of effect outside their own shallow wording. Which means in short, that anyone (SUN) can do anything which is wrong, as a long as there's not a rule against it. Which is bad, for my 2c.
Actually, I remember that there WAS a company that had humans search the internet for information you wanted. I don't remember the name (of course). Their main focus was on major research, that would include intenet sites, but would also do an internet only search for some small fee.