And the common view by some is that embroyos are not human, as given by you and goldcd in the post below.
But leads to the question "at what point does an embroyo become human, what stage of development?" Legally speaking it was recently determined (at the risk of starting a flame war) that an unborn child was human before exiting the birth canal. How much further back (development wise) will we go and say "Life begins here, this is Human"?
We know there is more to life than Science has taught us so far. You don't believe this? Then define a thought. What makes one thought different from another? What does a thought weigh, what frequency is thought on? And yet the capability for rational thought is what many believe sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. How is it that something so fundamental, but that makes such a hugh difference, is so intangible to Science if Science gives us all the answers?
The ethical delima you seem to have missed is, are embroyos human, are they people? I realize this topic has been debated with quite a bit of heat for several decades now and I have no intention of continuing that debate here. If they are, then we have created a group of humans for the sole purpose of scientific experimentation. This is not like sending a man into space. There is not much ethical consideration there beyond "are we taking all resonable precautions to keep our astronauts alive?" Going into space is, ethically speaking, a null value. Experimenting on human beings however is not, and there have been several high publicity trials on this issue in the previous century if you care to do some minimal research.
My point is simply that we don't know and for the moment we can't. Physical science helps us to understand the world around us, but in the long run it is incapable of answering questions like "should we..." Read the book Jurassic Park (or see the movie) for a very interesting "rant" by the character Ian Malcolm on this subject. I belive Michael Chriton(sp?) sums it up very well.
The question here isn't "Can we do this?" but rather "Should we do this?", and I just don't think we know enough to answer the 2nd question yet.
After all, what are we (as a culture, people, race, as well as individuals)going to think if further research reveals that Life begins at conception? Will posterety record us a a generation that created an entire class of people for the sole purpose of scientific experimentation?
And philosophical considerations aside, with all the cloning errors with Dolly (dozens of attempts, one "success") and other issues (genetic diseases present in Dolly that weren't present in her "mother") is any research we perform on a human clone going to have any medical validity?
Considering www.XYZ-sucks.com to be cybersquatting it ludicrous, I don't care if it's the current trend or not. You are telling me that http://www.barbieslapp.com/ or any site that takes issue with an entity and uses that company or product name, or a variation on it, is cybersquatting? Sounds more like protectionism for special interests to me.
Besides, according to WhatIs.com and Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act you are incorrect. Cybersquatting is defined as I defined it in the parent post, for profit.
Did you bother read past the first three lines before you jumped down my throat? I noted that Van Hollen could have had ligit reasons for "not oppose"ing those payments and that "not oppose" was weasle worded, tho I didn't say so in so many words.
"Van Hollen did not oppose Sadam paying suicide bomber families $25,000 for murdering innocent citizens in Israel"
That sounds like voting for terrorists to me. If some desperate person knows his family is going to be taken care of if he has blown himself to bits he might just go do it. And he might not even have been a Muslim (or pick your flavor) fanatic when he decided to do it.
Of course "...did not oppose..." is pretty vague. If Van Hollen were not present (for legitimate reasons) for that vote then it's a smear.
My inital comments (see grandparent) not withstanding, this Web site looks like legitimate politicol advertising to me.
I'd call it cybersquatting if he were trying to sell it back to Van Hollings for a profit, but as it is he's registered a domain and is free to say what he wants on it.
Having said that, I'm not thrilled with the tone U.S. politics has taken over the past 20 years or so with all the mud slinging, and I think this is (potentialy) just another few feet down that same slipery slope. I say potentially because I haven't seen the pages that were put up yet. It could be "honest politics" where one candidate is merely pointing out the voting record of another. However in this day and age I am inclined to doubt it.
Boo-freakin'-hoo. I thought Slashdot was all about the rights of the end user. Yet you don't want to learn to play an FPS with mouse & keyboard, yet you are going to get upset that have the freedom to make that choice? As someone else already pointed out, my Radeon 24000 may be faster than your geForce 12, so I have an unfair advantage already. Or maybe you're on broadband and I'm on dial-up, guess who's going to win THAT shootout? Just work with what you have, or change it, so that it works well for you. And try not to ruin anyone else's fun needlessly. And remember, it's only a game.
If you carry a gun and can't control who holds it, you haven't trained with it or else lack the courage or wisdom to use it appropriately, popular myths not withstanding.
As for U.S. politics, the 2nd Amendment defends the rest of them. But only if the citizens have the courage, will, and wisdom to stand up for ourselves against an ever more invasive government. So while I could say "you're simply wrong" it proves nothing. Do some research, real research not propaganda from HCI or whereever you get your news from, and get back to me with facts not rhetoric.
Neither Flame nor Troll, the above is my heartfelt opinion.
The ICC subournes the rights of U.S. (and possibly other) citizens. Keep that POS away from the U.S. You show me some organization with full accountability to the world's citizens, that doesn't treat the Bill of Rights like a joke, and I'll think about it. Until then you can keep the that facist, socialist organization the Hell out of my back yard.
Again, no flames or troll intended, this is my heartfelt reaction to the above post.
Then you are responsible not only for the lost of your own life, but for the next victim as well, since you declined to stop the person who chose to assault you when you had the chance.
Where have you been the past 20 years? All I read half the time is "America sucks, why can't they mind their own buisness" and "We hate the U.S." etc, etc. So let the rest of the world hate us just like they have for the past 20 years, and let us keep on helping with their disasters, natural and otherwise.
Actually, the U.S. Constitution guarantees U.S. citizens the right to own property. This licensing nonsense is nothing more (or less) than pseudo-legal, sanctioned extortion.
And if you'll note, the key that came with the PC isn't valid. So he didn't even get what he paid for (and didn't want to pay for to begin with). Also, the restore disk is all but useless for any meaningful troubleshooting beyond re-imaging your system. Is that yet another of the license limitations you are talking about?
PS I neither flame nor troll. These are my honest, heartfelt opinions. If you moderate them as flamebait or troll you are mistaken.
My comment regarding 4B. years is the proposed age of the earth, not the proposed duration of a given temperature cycle. Global warming may be real. As I said we have much too small a statistical sample to determine if what we are in is the normal part of the temperature cycle, or if there is truely a trend that is outside the norm. I am also not saying that a normal swing within the cycle would not be detrimental to the human race. Nor am I saying that the human race is or is not having an effect on the temperature cycle. What I am saying (again) is that we don't have enough information to know.
Re: N. Korea
They have permission to have nukes until someone feels big and bad enough to do something about it. The U.S. has already said "You can't have those" to which N. Korea responded "Yeah, right!". So it's pretty obvious they aren't going to respond to a civil request and, with China on their northern border, it's not likely the U.S. will invade. China might invade them, and I'd get a good laugh if they did, but until then it's a moot point.
No Mr. Moderator, the parent to my reply was flamebait. I merely responded by mocking the goofy ideas presented there. But thank you, and have a nice day anyway. I've got some karma to burn....
Why don't people rather worry about more pertinent things, such as global warming,...
I personally believe that global warming is a load of crap. Plotting a trend based on.00000015% of total data (if I remember correctly, you do the math. Temp. records for 200 yrs over 4 billion years of Earth history) is nothing less than self delusion.
...or feeding the millions of hungry people in Africa?
As for the millions of hungry people in Africa, what are you doing about it? You know there are charities you can donate to that will feed one child for $15-$30 a month? How many are you feeding? Even if it is more than I am (which you don't know since you haven't bothered asking before making your assumptions) why should I have money extorted from me to support children who aren't biologically mine? Yet another induhvidual wants to take from my pocket to solve the world's problems. If all of you who are so intent on robbing me to fix things would just go fix them yourselves you wouldn't have to ask me for help.
I believe this "weapons of mass destruction" thing is WAY overrated, and mostly a load of crap. ALSO, I find it interseting how only the USA is allowed to have a nuclear arsenal.
And like the rest of your diatribe, wrong again. Unless of course Great Brittain, Pakistan, India, France, Russia, China, and North Korea are new states in the U.S. and I just forgot to read the papers this morning.
Wow you really made a lot of assumptions about me without knowing a damn thing.
You talk about the government's job as being the redistribution of resources. That's sounds like Socialism to me. I personally believe that people can handle their own resources much better than the the government does, and with considerably less pettiness. For example, President Clinton shutdown the superconducting supercolider in Texas because TX didn't vote for him. Was this good for the country, or just petty revenge? I'll tell you what I think, the U.S.'s strength has been in science and technology for the better part of the last century and we're seeing that evaporate because of decisions like that one and other's that are "good for business" like H1B's and offshoring (both parties are guilty on all counts here, lest you think I'm a fan of Pres. Bush II). So much for the government being consistent in the distribution of resources. But is that what gets your vote, thinking that you'll get a bigger piece of the pie if a candidate who's favorable to your state is elected?
That's the worst study I've ever seen. Amazingly meaningless. Google doesn't mean shit. Try googling for "liberal" and "conservative". That will tell you...nothing...again. The millions of hits could be anything, bloggers that no one reads, dead pages, spoofs. Who knows? Google is evidence of nothing and doesn't represent all media.
Granted it's a ad hoc study, but I weeded out the worst of the false positives. I see it offended you anyway. It still makes a very clear point. The media feels that "right wing" is a valid polical label but that "left wing" isn't. If you are objective this will tell you of a bias in the media. Searching for Liberal and Conservative won't show as much bias because those terms are not emotionaly charged, although it will show some because the liberal media believes they are moderate.
I searched one mainstream media site, I invite you to search any mainstream media site of your choice with the search engine of your choice. You'll find no real difference between your results and mine. I know because I've done this before, different sites and search engines. I just do it again every time so I can post more recent results.
The nation is more than just people, but it is "administered" by those who live in it. We need governance of rural areas as much as we need good governance of urban areas. Unfortunately those in urban areas don't understand all the issues facing those who dwell in rural areas, and vice versa.
And you truely don't see how doing away with the Elecoral college would remove the last pretense of democracy from the U.S., do you? Or you just can't see anything beyond your "cause" and must respond sarcastically to anyone who disagrees with you.
To make this clear to you, if the candidate of your choice doesn't win you aren't disenfranchised. You vote in the next election and hope your candidate wins then. If you live in an area who's votes never count (other than prison) then you are disenfranchesed. Now do you get it? Of course you can make a case that those who don't like Replicans or Democrats are disenfranchised since it's almost impossible to get a 3rd party (or non-party) candidate on the ballot, but that's another discussion. Or is it?
"I'm not against welfare..." That's obvious from your post. The Government givith and the Government taketh away, blessed be the name of the Government. Bah! Why can't you let people run their own lives and quit trying to have the goverment help them? I don't want my charity run with the compassion of the IRS, BATF, and USPO. Charity belongs in the private sector and the government needs to keep out of my pocket (other than minimaly). I realize you get to feel good for instituting a socialism because you've "helped the poor" without have to have inconvienced yourself, however most of us would prefer to do our charitable giving of our time and other resources when we choose to.
... but I cannot believe it when people from the "red" states complain about the "liberal media" and "liberal professors" when they control the country and its resources from a minority position.
Google CNN.com for the phrase "left wing" ~1,600 hits. Roughly half the first page (100 links per page) was regarding the shuttle Columbia. Roughly half of what's left was outside the U.S.
Now repeat for the phrase "right wing" ~ 3,600 hits, maybe 1 or 2 articles on the shuttle, well under 1/4 outside the U.S.
If that doesn't show you that there is a problem with the media then you are in denial.
As for being "in control of the country" that is a load of hogwash. I didn't hear a bunch of conservative whining during the last 8 years of the previous century. But really, you only have yourselves to blame for losing the House. The Assault Weapons Ban was foolish and voters let the incumbants know it in spades.
Wrong. Your vote would count just as much as anyone else's did- there just happen to be more people in those places.
The U.S. consists of both rural and urban areas. My point is that the rural areas would have effectively no representation due to their less dense population.
So you claim that rural people deserve more power than city people? Why is that? Does the country lifestyle make them inherently more moral?
It is not that they are more or less moral than urbanites, but that they deserve representation too. Government policy effects them just as it does the rest of us. Their needs and views are different and they should be represented by a government that claims to be "of the people, by the people, for the people".
See the pattern? You need to explain why one kind of minority deserves a boost to it's power, but not any of those others.
It seemed so obvious to me that I didn't think it needed explaining, however see above. It's not about a minority status so I didn't even address your straw man.
Only 40%? The existing system has disenfranchised the 75% of voters who don't live in swing states, so that'll be an improvement.
I don't disagree that the Electoral College needs reform, but doing away with it not the answer. Perhaps it would be fairer to give each county one vote in the Electoral College and make it mandatory that the Electors vote the way their constituents did. But whatever changes were proposed would have to be studied thoroughly and numerous scenarios tested to make sure we were getting fair representation of the population.
Of course I'd also like to see a law where you can't get elected to the Presidency if you don't carry your home state. After all those people already know you, if they don't feel you'd make a good President then you shouldn't be President.
Of course, according to your argument, 49% of the population is ALWAYS disenfranchised by the other 51%. From one point of view, that is true- but still meaningless.
No, just because you vote and your candidate didn't get elected this time does not mean you got disenfranchised. You get to vote again next time and hopefully make a difference then.
It's very simple, and has been discussed numerous times since 2000. If we elect the President by a simple plurality (or majority) then Presidential candidates will simply spend huge amounts of money in a few population dense markets. Your vote won't count unless you live in the North East, Los Angeles, and a few other places. And as a side effect the views of rural America won't be represented at all, they might as well not even vote. So if disenfranchising 40% or more of the population is your goal, by all means eleminate the Electoral College.
This is exactly what I was hoping for! The author shared a very nice resource and now other people are sharing links to cool sites and DIY info.
Just remember people, there truely is no such thing as an Alpha Geek, so share 'em if you got 'em. But check your ego at the door for a more pleasant experience for everyone, yourself included. TIA for the links.
Slashdot Mirror
We know there is more to life than Science has taught us so far. You don't believe this? Then define a thought. What makes one thought different from another? What does a thought weigh, what frequency is thought on? And yet the capability for rational thought is what many believe sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. How is it that something so fundamental, but that makes such a hugh difference, is so intangible to Science if Science gives us all the answers?
My point is simply that we don't know and for the moment we can't. Physical science helps us to understand the world around us, but in the long run it is incapable of answering questions like "should we..." Read the book Jurassic Park (or see the movie) for a very interesting "rant" by the character Ian Malcolm on this subject. I belive Michael Chriton(sp?) sums it up very well.
The question here isn't "Can we do this?" but rather "Should we do this?", and I just don't think we know enough to answer the 2nd question yet. After all, what are we (as a culture, people, race, as well as individuals)going to think if further research reveals that Life begins at conception? Will posterety record us a a generation that created an entire class of people for the sole purpose of scientific experimentation? And philosophical considerations aside, with all the cloning errors with Dolly (dozens of attempts, one "success") and other issues (genetic diseases present in Dolly that weren't present in her "mother") is any research we perform on a human clone going to have any medical validity?
Besides, according to WhatIs.com and Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act you are incorrect. Cybersquatting is defined as I defined it in the parent post, for profit.
Did you bother read past the first three lines before you jumped down my throat? I noted that Van Hollen could have had ligit reasons for "not oppose"ing those payments and that "not oppose" was weasle worded, tho I didn't say so in so many words.
"Van Hollen did not oppose Sadam paying suicide bomber families $25,000 for murdering innocent citizens in Israel"
That sounds like voting for terrorists to me. If some desperate person knows his family is going to be taken care of if he has blown himself to bits he might just go do it. And he might not even have been a Muslim (or pick your flavor) fanatic when he decided to do it.
Of course "...did not oppose..." is pretty vague. If Van Hollen were not present (for legitimate reasons) for that vote then it's a smear.
My inital comments (see grandparent) not withstanding, this Web site looks like legitimate politicol advertising to me.
Having said that, I'm not thrilled with the tone U.S. politics has taken over the past 20 years or so with all the mud slinging, and I think this is (potentialy) just another few feet down that same slipery slope. I say potentially because I haven't seen the pages that were put up yet. It could be "honest politics" where one candidate is merely pointing out the voting record of another. However in this day and age I am inclined to doubt it.
Thanks!
If you carry a gun and can't control who holds it, you haven't trained with it or else lack the courage or wisdom to use it appropriately, popular myths not withstanding. As for U.S. politics, the 2nd Amendment defends the rest of them. But only if the citizens have the courage, will, and wisdom to stand up for ourselves against an ever more invasive government. So while I could say "you're simply wrong" it proves nothing. Do some research, real research not propaganda from HCI or whereever you get your news from, and get back to me with facts not rhetoric. Neither Flame nor Troll, the above is my heartfelt opinion.
Again, no flames or troll intended, this is my heartfelt reaction to the above post.
Then you are responsible not only for the lost of your own life, but for the next victim as well, since you declined to stop the person who chose to assault you when you had the chance.
Where have you been the past 20 years? All I read half the time is "America sucks, why can't they mind their own buisness" and "We hate the U.S." etc, etc. So let the rest of the world hate us just like they have for the past 20 years, and let us keep on helping with their disasters, natural and otherwise.
Neither troll nor flamebait, the above is my heartfelt opinion.
And if you'll note, the key that came with the PC isn't valid. So he didn't even get what he paid for (and didn't want to pay for to begin with). Also, the restore disk is all but useless for any meaningful troubleshooting beyond re-imaging your system. Is that yet another of the license limitations you are talking about?
PS I neither flame nor troll. These are my honest, heartfelt opinions. If you moderate them as flamebait or troll you are mistaken.
That's one heck of a wardrobe malfunction that coming!
Re: N. Korea
They have permission to have nukes until someone feels big and bad enough to do something about it. The U.S. has already said "You can't have those" to which N. Korea responded "Yeah, right!". So it's pretty obvious they aren't going to respond to a civil request and, with China on their northern border, it's not likely the U.S. will invade. China might invade them, and I'd get a good laugh if they did, but until then it's a moot point.
No Mr. Moderator, the parent to my reply was flamebait. I merely responded by mocking the goofy ideas presented there. But thank you, and have a nice day anyway. I've got some karma to burn....
I personally believe that global warming is a load of crap. Plotting a trend based on .00000015% of total data (if I remember correctly, you do the math. Temp. records for 200 yrs over 4 billion years of Earth history) is nothing less than self delusion.
As for the millions of hungry people in Africa, what are you doing about it? You know there are charities you can donate to that will feed one child for $15-$30 a month? How many are you feeding? Even if it is more than I am (which you don't know since you haven't bothered asking before making your assumptions) why should I have money extorted from me to support children who aren't biologically mine? Yet another induhvidual wants to take from my pocket to solve the world's problems. If all of you who are so intent on robbing me to fix things would just go fix them yourselves you wouldn't have to ask me for help.
I believe this "weapons of mass destruction" thing is WAY overrated, and mostly a load of crap. ALSO, I find it interseting how only the USA is allowed to have a nuclear arsenal.
And like the rest of your diatribe, wrong again. Unless of course Great Brittain, Pakistan, India, France, Russia, China, and North Korea are new states in the U.S. and I just forgot to read the papers this morning.
You talk about the government's job as being the redistribution of resources. That's sounds like Socialism to me. I personally believe that people can handle their own resources much better than the the government does, and with considerably less pettiness. For example, President Clinton shutdown the superconducting supercolider in Texas because TX didn't vote for him. Was this good for the country, or just petty revenge? I'll tell you what I think, the U.S.'s strength has been in science and technology for the better part of the last century and we're seeing that evaporate because of decisions like that one and other's that are "good for business" like H1B's and offshoring (both parties are guilty on all counts here, lest you think I'm a fan of Pres. Bush II). So much for the government being consistent in the distribution of resources. But is that what gets your vote, thinking that you'll get a bigger piece of the pie if a candidate who's favorable to your state is elected?
That's the worst study I've ever seen. Amazingly meaningless. Google doesn't mean shit. Try googling for "liberal" and "conservative". That will tell you...nothing...again. The millions of hits could be anything, bloggers that no one reads, dead pages, spoofs. Who knows? Google is evidence of nothing and doesn't represent all media.
Granted it's a ad hoc study, but I weeded out the worst of the false positives. I see it offended you anyway. It still makes a very clear point. The media feels that "right wing" is a valid polical label but that "left wing" isn't. If you are objective this will tell you of a bias in the media. Searching for Liberal and Conservative won't show as much bias because those terms are not emotionaly charged, although it will show some because the liberal media believes they are moderate.
I searched one mainstream media site, I invite you to search any mainstream media site of your choice with the search engine of your choice. You'll find no real difference between your results and mine. I know because I've done this before, different sites and search engines. I just do it again every time so I can post more recent results.
And you truely don't see how doing away with the Elecoral college would remove the last pretense of democracy from the U.S., do you? Or you just can't see anything beyond your "cause" and must respond sarcastically to anyone who disagrees with you.
To make this clear to you, if the candidate of your choice doesn't win you aren't disenfranchised. You vote in the next election and hope your candidate wins then. If you live in an area who's votes never count (other than prison) then you are disenfranchesed. Now do you get it? Of course you can make a case that those who don't like Replicans or Democrats are disenfranchised since it's almost impossible to get a 3rd party (or non-party) candidate on the ballot, but that's another discussion. Or is it?
Google CNN.com for the phrase "left wing" ~1,600 hits. Roughly half the first page (100 links per page) was regarding the shuttle Columbia. Roughly half of what's left was outside the U.S.
Now repeat for the phrase "right wing" ~ 3,600 hits, maybe 1 or 2 articles on the shuttle, well under 1/4 outside the U.S.
If that doesn't show you that there is a problem with the media then you are in denial.
As for being "in control of the country" that is a load of hogwash. I didn't hear a bunch of conservative whining during the last 8 years of the previous century. But really, you only have yourselves to blame for losing the House. The Assault Weapons Ban was foolish and voters let the incumbants know it in spades.
The U.S. consists of both rural and urban areas. My point is that the rural areas would have effectively no representation due to their less dense population.
So you claim that rural people deserve more power than city people? Why is that? Does the country lifestyle make them inherently more moral?
It is not that they are more or less moral than urbanites, but that they deserve representation too. Government policy effects them just as it does the rest of us. Their needs and views are different and they should be represented by a government that claims to be "of the people, by the people, for the people".
See the pattern? You need to explain why one kind of minority deserves a boost to it's power, but not any of those others.
It seemed so obvious to me that I didn't think it needed explaining, however see above. It's not about a minority status so I didn't even address your straw man.
Only 40%? The existing system has disenfranchised the 75% of voters who don't live in swing states, so that'll be an improvement.
I don't disagree that the Electoral College needs reform, but doing away with it not the answer. Perhaps it would be fairer to give each county one vote in the Electoral College and make it mandatory that the Electors vote the way their constituents did. But whatever changes were proposed would have to be studied thoroughly and numerous scenarios tested to make sure we were getting fair representation of the population.
Of course I'd also like to see a law where you can't get elected to the Presidency if you don't carry your home state. After all those people already know you, if they don't feel you'd make a good President then you shouldn't be President.
Of course, according to your argument, 49% of the population is ALWAYS disenfranchised by the other 51%. From one point of view, that is true- but still meaningless.
No, just because you vote and your candidate didn't get elected this time does not mean you got disenfranchised. You get to vote again next time and hopefully make a difference then.
...that's about what the full version is worth.
It's very simple, and has been discussed numerous times since 2000. If we elect the President by a simple plurality (or majority) then Presidential candidates will simply spend huge amounts of money in a few population dense markets. Your vote won't count unless you live in the North East, Los Angeles, and a few other places. And as a side effect the views of rural America won't be represented at all, they might as well not even vote. So if disenfranchising 40% or more of the population is your goal, by all means eleminate the Electoral College.
Just remember people, there truely is no such thing as an Alpha Geek, so share 'em if you got 'em. But check your ego at the door for a more pleasant experience for everyone, yourself included. TIA for the links.