One other thing is that most animal testing is not beneficial - more cosmetics and such than anything else.
I agree. Is it really necessary to test eyeliner on rabbits?
However, animal testing of potentially life-saving drugs, techniques and procedures, I'm all for. As long as, again, it's well planned, and viewed in the light of the necessary evil that it is.
We have a large criminal population who will never do any good for society. This would be an excellent pay back.
Yeah, even Hitler had a good idea from time to time. Though, I suspect, that the thought of being a guinea pig and potentially used in really nasty experiments would be a very strong deterrent to the criminal population. However, it goes completely against the existing standards regarding cruel and unusual punishment. That's a slippery slope to start going down.
Perhaps an agreement to be used in testing for a reduced sentence?
One might argue that giving a convicted bank robber 10 years off his prison term when he gets the placebo is unfair; I'd argue that the coin could have landed either way and he could just as easily have been the guy getting ten years off his sentence for some really nasty experimentally-induced neurological disorder.
Technology was initially embraced because, allegedly, it would give us more leisure time. Popular Mechanics magazine has made some of the funniest wrong predictions over the years. One of my favorites was that in 1950, they said that by the year 2000, we'd all be working only 2 days a week, and machines would take the drudgery out of menial tasks by simply eliminating our need to do them.
Of course, that hasn't happened: if anything, the reverse is true.
An ex-neighbor of mine has an interesting collection: he collects lawn mowers. So, he's got a gadget called "The Lawn Ranger". It's a late-1980s computer controlled lawnmower that uses optical sensors to figure out where it has and hasn't already cut. You put it in the middle of your lawn, press the start button, and it goes merrily along, destroying your garden hose, the toys that the kids left in the lawn, and generally wreaking havoc. It's cool, and the task of mowing the lawn is pretty braindead, but it's hard for the computer to grasp it.
He's also got a far more practical device called a Hovermower. It has no wheels, and uses a fan built onto the blades to hover above the lawn like a hovercraft. It, too, is great: sweep it around corners. But, like the Lawn Ranger, it's not a very good idea: when it runs out of gas, as the motor slows down, it ceases to produce enough lift, and the blades end up tearing up a big chunk of sodding. And you don't want to ever leave the thing idling unattended, as it has a tendency to slide around like a puck on a crooked air hockey table.
Technology, and all associated good ideas, have their limits.
Sure, we're more productive during our working ours because of technology. And it's given society a whole lot *more* career choices than before, when you could basically either be a farmer or a burden to your family.
Computers are merely an incremental step along the path away from a one-lifestyle existance, whereever that path may lead. They simply join the ranks of everything starting from the steam engine and Jaquard's Loom all the way to the modern transportation infrastructure and the fax machine.
Cars can't do everything.
Nope. But they've freed us from the shackles of public transportation, allowed us to independently venture further than the first town down the road, and given us the ability to be more productive in the workplace. And, in doing so, they entertain us and diversify the working world.
This is prolly a good book and all but get real people, computers are just tools and the audience this book was intended for knows this.
Agreed. But I'd wager there are some reading this discussion right now to whom computers are *everything*; while that's not necessarily wrong if your work and hobbies involve nothing else, but it's a very narrow (ie. wrong) view of the big picture.
Computers are cool toys. And then when you've got valuable information spinning around at 7,200 RPM on your hard disks, then they're very important tools.
A slot screwdriver can be used for turning screws. Or, it can be used as a pry-bar (I have a big one that my buddies and I call "The Persuader"). Or a chisel. Or as a weapon. Even as a fireplace poker. They're a very versatile tool.
A computer is simply a very versatile tool: They're the 21st century screwdriver.
I'm not 100% against animal testing, and I'd rather things were tested on some rabbit before it gets to human testing, but, at the same time, most of the animal testing industry needs several hob-nailed boots to the head to correct it.
Yeah. PETA goes a little too far; animal testing is a necessary evil. And I think most rational people see it as that.
Though, perhaps if the PETA people would like to volunteer to spare a few guinea pigs...?
Nope, didn't see any mad rush to the research labs for *that* one.
Re:The Solution is Quite Clear but very unpleasant
on
Living Terrors
·
· Score: 2
How fitting that the BATF and FBI types are breaking down doors of survivalists who might have a few positive thoughts on protection from these harms, while possibly ignoring the more probable, internal threat from the far left.
Agreed. There are probably more potential Tim McVeighs out there than one would be happy to consider. (Not to paint McVeigh as far left or far right, he was just far out there.)
But there's also the potential of things going from the far right, too. Look at Fred Phelps of the God Hates Fags website. He's about as far right as they come. Let's say that he or one of his followers, all of whom think AIDS is a great thing because it kills off gay/lesbian people (among others), are "told by God" that it's their duty to speed along the process and release a biological warfare agent on the Castro in San Francisco? That agent would spread everywhere, accomplishing the same thing as if it were simply dropped on a BART subway platform in Oakland.
So, I the summary of my point is far *.* is dangerous. The far left and far right are both equally ludicrous and dangerous.
As in enterprise network security, more often than not, your greatest threat is from within...
True. Though it's tough to have an internal policy that will nuke east Texas if someone drops a biological agent because they didn't like the way the DOJ handled Waco. My suggested means could only work effectively against foreign anti-American organizations.
And speaking as a Canadian citizen, my shame in my country still stings strongly: it was just over a year ago that an individual who had been granted landed immigrant status in Canada (from Algeria) decided to attempt to blow up the Seattle Space Needle on New Year's 2000 in the name of some sort of Algerian independence army or some other taxi-driver crap. There needs to be an effective countermeasure to international terrorism, and I can't think of a better way than my suggestion of mutually assured destruction.
BTW, based on that incident, I'm sorely tempted to move to the US and apply for refugee status both for legitimate immigration purposes and as a publicity stunt. This incident - and a list of many other similiar demonstrations of ineptitude - proves that my country harbors (and gives welfare to) terrorists, if only due to its own ineffectiveness at keeping undesirable immigrants out.
The Solution is Quite Clear but very unpleasant.
on
Living Terrors
·
· Score: 2
Having an NBC suit and gas mask buried at the back of the closet is a good idea for anyone, but so few people do it that even a moronic terrorist is going to be able to do a lot of damage to the general population with minimal effort.
Agreed, there's no way that a biological terrorism attack could be stopped. Except for one thing: consider it to be an act of warfare propagated by the citizens of country who did it.
Granted, there's internal terrorism (Oklahoma City, for example), and part of the beauty of biological weapons is stealth, so you might not always figure out even who did it.
But, generally, whoever did it is going to jump up and down and scream at the top of his lungs "Loooook at what zee Islamic jihad has done to you stuuupid Amereeecan eeeeenfidels! Allah weeel have no mercy on your souls!".
The fact is that any terrorist organization that does this is going to broadcast the fact that it's in retaliation for some perceived injustice. And they'd probably do it to protest some American policy that has somehow allegedly affected their lovely homeland.
So, very simply, you make it known that the American policy towards biological attack will be a nuclear retaliation against the country of the terrorist group that did it.
Sure, many here will vehemently disagree with a policy that essentially amounts to a continuation of the cold war strategy of mutually assured destruction, but I've given this a lot of thought over the years, and there's no other way that I can think of scaring terrorist groups into not doing this sort of thing.
Remember, terrorists are people who will blow a commercial jet full of innocent civilians out of the sky because of a real or perceived injustice. There is no rational or intelligent way of dealing with someone who thinks it's a religious or other calling to kill innocent people.
In 1985, Sikh terrorists blew an Air India flight out of the sky, killing many Canadian citizens who were merely travelling to India. 329 people who had nothing to do with the Indian government died, though the bombing was in protest to the way Sikhs are treated in India. I'm sure their complaints are valid, but I reserve judgement on that. The fact is, terrorism is stealthy; if it gets extended to a magnitude as big as chemical/nuclear/biological weapons, I suggest that these groups be warned that they will feel a retaliation of a similar magnitude plus a little extra for punitive reasons.
So, as a case in point, say a faction of Iranians decide to drop a biological agent in New York City. Fine. USAF drops a nuclear agent on their area of Iran in retaliation. Surely, the last thing they would want is a devastation of their homeland, so they won't even get the US started.
Mutually assured destruction is idiotic, but at least it's better than the cowardice of terrorism.
Slashdot Mirror
Um...yeah. That's what I want...a criminal turned into a headcase let out ten years early. Hide the children!
Screw the kids. They don't get home from school until 3:30 anyway. By then, the stationwagon and I will be heading for the hills.
One other thing is that most animal testing is not beneficial - more cosmetics and such than anything else.
I agree. Is it really necessary to test eyeliner on rabbits?
However, animal testing of potentially life-saving drugs, techniques and procedures, I'm all for. As long as, again, it's well planned, and viewed in the light of the necessary evil that it is.
We have a large criminal population who will never do any good for society. This would be an excellent pay back.Yeah, even Hitler had a good idea from time to time. Though, I suspect, that the thought of being a guinea pig and potentially used in really nasty experiments would be a very strong deterrent to the criminal population. However, it goes completely against the existing standards regarding cruel and unusual punishment. That's a slippery slope to start going down.
Perhaps an agreement to be used in testing for a reduced sentence?
One might argue that giving a convicted bank robber 10 years off his prison term when he gets the placebo is unfair; I'd argue that the coin could have landed either way and he could just as easily have been the guy getting ten years off his sentence for some really nasty experimentally-induced neurological disorder.
Here's one thing computers *can't* do:
Shorten the work week.
Technology was initially embraced because, allegedly, it would give us more leisure time. Popular Mechanics magazine has made some of the funniest wrong predictions over the years. One of my favorites was that in 1950, they said that by the year 2000, we'd all be working only 2 days a week, and machines would take the drudgery out of menial tasks by simply eliminating our need to do them.
Of course, that hasn't happened: if anything, the reverse is true.
An ex-neighbor of mine has an interesting collection: he collects lawn mowers. So, he's got a gadget called "The Lawn Ranger". It's a late-1980s computer controlled lawnmower that uses optical sensors to figure out where it has and hasn't already cut. You put it in the middle of your lawn, press the start button, and it goes merrily along, destroying your garden hose, the toys that the kids left in the lawn, and generally wreaking havoc. It's cool, and the task of mowing the lawn is pretty braindead, but it's hard for the computer to grasp it.
He's also got a far more practical device called a Hovermower. It has no wheels, and uses a fan built onto the blades to hover above the lawn like a hovercraft. It, too, is great: sweep it around corners. But, like the Lawn Ranger, it's not a very good idea: when it runs out of gas, as the motor slows down, it ceases to produce enough lift, and the blades end up tearing up a big chunk of sodding. And you don't want to ever leave the thing idling unattended, as it has a tendency to slide around like a puck on a crooked air hockey table.
Technology, and all associated good ideas, have their limits.
Sure, we're more productive during our working ours because of technology. And it's given society a whole lot *more* career choices than before, when you could basically either be a farmer or a burden to your family.
Computers are merely an incremental step along the path away from a one-lifestyle existance, whereever that path may lead. They simply join the ranks of everything starting from the steam engine and Jaquard's Loom all the way to the modern transportation infrastructure and the fax machine.
Cars can't do everything.Nope. But they've freed us from the shackles of public transportation, allowed us to independently venture further than the first town down the road, and given us the ability to be more productive in the workplace. And, in doing so, they entertain us and diversify the working world.
This is prolly a good book and all but get real people, computers are just tools and the audience this book was intended for knows this.Agreed. But I'd wager there are some reading this discussion right now to whom computers are *everything*; while that's not necessarily wrong if your work and hobbies involve nothing else, but it's a very narrow (ie. wrong) view of the big picture.
Computers are cool toys. And then when you've got valuable information spinning around at 7,200 RPM on your hard disks, then they're very important tools.
A slot screwdriver can be used for turning screws. Or, it can be used as a pry-bar (I have a big one that my buddies and I call "The Persuader"). Or a chisel. Or as a weapon. Even as a fireplace poker. They're a very versatile tool.
A computer is simply a very versatile tool: They're the 21st century screwdriver.
And that is a rational perspective.
I'm not 100% against animal testing, and I'd rather things were tested on some rabbit before it gets to human testing, but, at the same time, most of the animal testing industry needs several hob-nailed boots to the head to correct it.
Yeah. PETA goes a little too far; animal testing is a necessary evil. And I think most rational people see it as that.
Though, perhaps if the PETA people would like to volunteer to spare a few guinea pigs...?
Nope, didn't see any mad rush to the research labs for *that* one.
How fitting that the BATF and FBI types are breaking down doors of survivalists who might have a few positive thoughts on protection from these harms, while possibly ignoring the more probable, internal threat from the far left.
Agreed. There are probably more potential Tim McVeighs out there than one would be happy to consider. (Not to paint McVeigh as far left or far right, he was just far out there.)
But there's also the potential of things going from the far right, too. Look at Fred Phelps of the God Hates Fags website. He's about as far right as they come. Let's say that he or one of his followers, all of whom think AIDS is a great thing because it kills off gay/lesbian people (among others), are "told by God" that it's their duty to speed along the process and release a biological warfare agent on the Castro in San Francisco? That agent would spread everywhere, accomplishing the same thing as if it were simply dropped on a BART subway platform in Oakland.
So, I the summary of my point is far *.* is dangerous. The far left and far right are both equally ludicrous and dangerous.
As in enterprise network security, more often than not, your greatest threat is from within...True. Though it's tough to have an internal policy that will nuke east Texas if someone drops a biological agent because they didn't like the way the DOJ handled Waco. My suggested means could only work effectively against foreign anti-American organizations.
And speaking as a Canadian citizen, my shame in my country still stings strongly: it was just over a year ago that an individual who had been granted landed immigrant status in Canada (from Algeria) decided to attempt to blow up the Seattle Space Needle on New Year's 2000 in the name of some sort of Algerian independence army or some other taxi-driver crap. There needs to be an effective countermeasure to international terrorism, and I can't think of a better way than my suggestion of mutually assured destruction.
BTW, based on that incident, I'm sorely tempted to move to the US and apply for refugee status both for legitimate immigration purposes and as a publicity stunt. This incident - and a list of many other similiar demonstrations of ineptitude - proves that my country harbors (and gives welfare to) terrorists, if only due to its own ineffectiveness at keeping undesirable immigrants out.
Having an NBC suit and gas mask buried at the back of the closet is a good idea for anyone, but so few people do it that even a moronic terrorist is going to be able to do a lot of damage to the general population with minimal effort.
Agreed, there's no way that a biological terrorism attack could be stopped. Except for one thing: consider it to be an act of warfare propagated by the citizens of country who did it.
Granted, there's internal terrorism (Oklahoma City, for example), and part of the beauty of biological weapons is stealth, so you might not always figure out even who did it.
But, generally, whoever did it is going to jump up and down and scream at the top of his lungs "Loooook at what zee Islamic jihad has done to you stuuupid Amereeecan eeeeenfidels! Allah weeel have no mercy on your souls!".
The fact is that any terrorist organization that does this is going to broadcast the fact that it's in retaliation for some perceived injustice. And they'd probably do it to protest some American policy that has somehow allegedly affected their lovely homeland.
So, very simply, you make it known that the American policy towards biological attack will be a nuclear retaliation against the country of the terrorist group that did it.
Sure, many here will vehemently disagree with a policy that essentially amounts to a continuation of the cold war strategy of mutually assured destruction, but I've given this a lot of thought over the years, and there's no other way that I can think of scaring terrorist groups into not doing this sort of thing.
Remember, terrorists are people who will blow a commercial jet full of innocent civilians out of the sky because of a real or perceived injustice. There is no rational or intelligent way of dealing with someone who thinks it's a religious or other calling to kill innocent people.
In 1985, Sikh terrorists blew an Air India flight out of the sky, killing many Canadian citizens who were merely travelling to India. 329 people who had nothing to do with the Indian government died, though the bombing was in protest to the way Sikhs are treated in India. I'm sure their complaints are valid, but I reserve judgement on that. The fact is, terrorism is stealthy; if it gets extended to a magnitude as big as chemical/nuclear/biological weapons, I suggest that these groups be warned that they will feel a retaliation of a similar magnitude plus a little extra for punitive reasons.
So, as a case in point, say a faction of Iranians decide to drop a biological agent in New York City. Fine. USAF drops a nuclear agent on their area of Iran in retaliation. Surely, the last thing they would want is a devastation of their homeland, so they won't even get the US started.
Mutually assured destruction is idiotic, but at least it's better than the cowardice of terrorism.
Bababooey to you all !!! !!
Back by popular demand
Though not by the FCC!
Howdya like them apples?
Horse-tooth jackass.
(Howard rocks! Finally a first post troll I can get behind!)