You know, meaningful subtext is seemingly an eye of the beholder condition.
I was still a young punk when Terminator (1) hit theatres, and it was my little brain's first grappling with a causal loop.
"Okay, so he has to go back in time to save the mother of the son who will one day lead the human resistance in the war against the machines... oh shit, and he's John Conner's father... but wait, don't the computers know the timeline cannot really be altered?"
Protip: If your anti-government, anti-military, anti-establishment stance is greeted with no warmness on/., you probably need to do a little soul searching.
FTA: They're already bioprinting human tissue for drug research, albeit it tiny amounts only guaranteed to live 40 days.
The biggest obstacle to working organs seems to be the inclusion of vasculature to the tissues for sustenance, but that is being worked out.
This seems promising. Financing is an initial hurdle since it's a medical procedure requiring lengthy testing and approval. Investors aren't flocking in for an expected payout of years or decades.
The one I've heard that rings true is the sanctity of life argument: the Cons being against the abortion with the same zeal as the Libs against the death penalty.
Alright. As for the honest politician oxymoron, it is really a selection of the least imperfect. Fairy tale good and noble are rarely on the ballot, but some are clearly more suited to the task than others, once you've identified a set of characteristics you're willing to vote for. Carter's failure was more management style than lack of guile. His great intelligence made it difficult for him to delegate.
"Some voters don't think that single iffy practices are necessarily indicative of character." I see what you did there.
If a President needs to lie, and maybe he doesn't (how would we know?), he needs to be able to do so convincingly.
If you don't understand this world then I would posit that that is simply because you do not know enough about it.
Understanding the World is not the goal for everyone, indeed, perhaps fewer people than one might imagine want it all neatly explained by science and informed study.
If people have proven nothing else, it seems clear many are much more comfortable in an illogical cocoon of faith and superstition.
I'm no Doomsayer, but which group of really old people should I be rooting for to straighten out this proprietary nightmare: the Congress or the Supreme Court?
I'm going to silver lining this for you. The oath of impartiality is important to a fair jury trial, and participating with an eye toward the advancement of a personal agenda is flawed, but we're better off with that than with apathy.
We all think we're smart here. Many of us are correct. Shit, you survive here as an outspoken conservative on what could be accurately described as a liberal forum... The important thing is, when things are argued properly on Slashdot, all sides are represented.
I have little doubt Mr Snowden ever imagined he'd be where he is, right now, at the mercy of a schizophrenic patron like the Russian Putin.
One of the great moments of shame for me, was when an American citizen sought refuge in Soviet Russia. I understand. The US government has a real need to treat him like a cold war spy instead of an heroic whistleblower to retain any credibility on this ubiquitous unconstitutional eavesdropping, but darn it Beav, we used to stand for something. I think some of us still do. How do we fix for him?
My twenty-year-old son recently served for the first time on a local murder trial, no less, and it taught him quite a lot about how the judicial system works. He was proud of his service, and as you might imagine, had no trouble making the jury as seemingly everyone attempted to get out of it.
Heaven forbid one of us would ever have to stand trial, but I would hope all the competent, decent people didn't weasel out of service that day.
Nobody who would vote for Hillary Clinton will care about things like this. There might be some hoopla on Twitter and Fox News for a few days, and then there will be some stragglers like with Benghazi, but it will mostly fade out of the mainstream media within a few hours from now.
It will be brought up during the presidential debates at some point, assuming Mrs. Clinton runs as expected, but you've hit the nail on the head. The US political system is so polarized that many supporters are unable to gauge wrongdoings within their own party.
The over-the-top reaction from extremists on the other side parroting what some talking head said this morning drives the party faithful to circle the wagons. We have allowed them to divide and conquer us.
...and I'll bet pretty much any ranking politician does much the same, and thinks along the same lines - in any party, in any country, in any system of governance.
If I'm honest, I reckon to be a politician of any note, you pretty much have to be a bit under-handed from time to time, and you pretty much have to push the rules to their limits. If you just want to be a local politician, or even maybe a national politician that doesn't do much more than that (what we call 'back bench' here in the UK) then you can probably be fairly noble, if you really want to be. If you've got any sort of ambition though, then you've got to 'play the game' considerably harder than that, and so pushing boundaries of the rules/decency/morality start to become more of a requirement.
I've heard it said that we get the type of candidates for political office that we do because the system is not attractive to good and noble candidates.
It also rings true that we have lowered the bar of expectation with regard to decency and morality from our politicians.
Fortunately, we can both still vote in our respective nations to change this perversion. FWIW, there are many candidates for the upcoming presidential vacancy I would be less pleased to see in power than Mrs. Clinton.
And really and truly, condemnations of a power generation venue that is still in its technological infancy is a bit short sighted.
a) We will always need power. b) We will run out of fossil fuel reserves. c)Generation by wind and s0lar means alone cannot provide reliable grid electricity as the World has come to appreciate it, and d)there is little public appetite for nuclear generation.
Storage technology and the resistance of equipment to decay in harsh sea climes are two factors likely to be improved by trial and error.
Your response was cogent, logical, and a sound observation. GP's was needy and conspiratorial.
And you are down (-4) moderations, if we were keeping score.
If you infer from this example that even smart people are drawn to the superstitious and contrived, then at the very least, your reading comprehension skills are sound.
Nimoy was sublime. Conquering the tobacco addiction was but one example.
Virtually every smoker could quit cold turkey if each could be made to spend one day as his future self with final stage lung cancer. The strength of its addiction begins in the chemical with the brain's own nicotinic receptors, but it's finished with the silky slow pace with which it wrecks its havoc.
Thirteen days without one of those delectable little heart-stoppers, and I fight a couple of strong urges a day. The most difficult one is the next one.
Agreed, the spinal nerves get where they are during fetal development, and slicing through them pretty thoroughly kills off the distal parts of the axons (Wallerian degeneration). If this could be done now, then there wouldn't be any paraplegic or quadriplegic people. And then what are they going to do about tissue rejection, when the tissue being rejected is the entire head?
Pretty much this, although I suspect cloning a body made from your own cell(s) will be plausible at or before spinal nerves are fused successfully.
I'd be more pleased if they'd move forward on this body part cloning research before I need a heart, lung, or liver.
Slashdot Mirror
I was still a young punk when Terminator (1) hit theatres, and it was my little brain's first grappling with a causal loop.
"Okay, so he has to go back in time to save the mother of the son who will one day lead the human resistance in the war against the machines... oh shit, and he's John Conner's father... but wait, don't the computers know the timeline cannot really be altered?"
Protip: If your anti-government, anti-military, anti-establishment stance is greeted with no warmness on /., you probably need to do a little soul searching.
The biggest obstacle to working organs seems to be the inclusion of vasculature to the tissues for sustenance, but that is being worked out.
This seems promising. Financing is an initial hurdle since it's a medical procedure requiring lengthy testing and approval. Investors aren't flocking in for an expected payout of years or decades.
still efforting the 40% threshold for RTFS.
The one I've heard that rings true is the sanctity of life argument: the Cons being against the abortion with the same zeal as the Libs against the death penalty.
It's the single most difficult barrier to growth and understanding: settled World view coupled with stubborn self righteousness.
"Some voters don't think that single iffy practices are necessarily indicative of character." I see what you did there.
If a President needs to lie, and maybe he doesn't (how would we know?), he needs to be able to do so convincingly.
If you don't understand this world then I would posit that that is simply because you do not know enough about it.
Understanding the World is not the goal for everyone, indeed, perhaps fewer people than one might imagine want it all neatly explained by science and informed study.
If people have proven nothing else, it seems clear many are much more comfortable in an illogical cocoon of faith and superstition.
Look, it all makes sense!" is a comfortable place in a chaotic World.
My error.
I'm no Doomsayer, but which group of really old people should I be rooting for to straighten out this proprietary nightmare: the Congress or the Supreme Court?
We all think we're smart here. Many of us are correct. Shit, you survive here as an outspoken conservative on what could be accurately described as a liberal forum... The important thing is, when things are argued properly on Slashdot, all sides are represented.
The best jury trials are like that, too.
One of the great moments of shame for me, was when an American citizen sought refuge in Soviet Russia. I understand. The US government has a real need to treat him like a cold war spy instead of an heroic whistleblower to retain any credibility on this ubiquitous unconstitutional eavesdropping, but darn it Beav, we used to stand for something. I think some of us still do. How do we fix for him?
My twenty-year-old son recently served for the first time on a local murder trial, no less, and it taught him quite a lot about how the judicial system works. He was proud of his service, and as you might imagine, had no trouble making the jury as seemingly everyone attempted to get out of it.
Heaven forbid one of us would ever have to stand trial, but I would hope all the competent, decent people didn't weasel out of service that day.
Nobody who would vote for Hillary Clinton will care about things like this. There might be some hoopla on Twitter and Fox News for a few days, and then there will be some stragglers like with Benghazi, but it will mostly fade out of the mainstream media within a few hours from now.
It will be brought up during the presidential debates at some point, assuming Mrs. Clinton runs as expected, but you've hit the nail on the head. The US political system is so polarized that many supporters are unable to gauge wrongdoings within their own party.
The over-the-top reaction from extremists on the other side parroting what some talking head said this morning drives the party faithful to circle the wagons. We have allowed them to divide and conquer us.
...and I'll bet pretty much any ranking politician does much the same, and thinks along the same lines - in any party, in any country, in any system of governance.
If I'm honest, I reckon to be a politician of any note, you pretty much have to be a bit under-handed from time to time, and you pretty much have to push the rules to their limits. If you just want to be a local politician, or even maybe a national politician that doesn't do much more than that (what we call 'back bench' here in the UK) then you can probably be fairly noble, if you really want to be. If you've got any sort of ambition though, then you've got to 'play the game' considerably harder than that, and so pushing boundaries of the rules/decency/morality start to become more of a requirement.
I've heard it said that we get the type of candidates for political office that we do because the system is not attractive to good and noble candidates.
It also rings true that we have lowered the bar of expectation with regard to decency and morality from our politicians.
Fortunately, we can both still vote in our respective nations to change this perversion. FWIW, there are many candidates for the upcoming presidential vacancy I would be less pleased to see in power than Mrs. Clinton.
This seems indicative of sense that the rules do not apply to me.
a) We will always need power. b) We will run out of fossil fuel reserves. c)Generation by wind and s0lar means alone cannot provide reliable grid electricity as the World has come to appreciate it, and d)there is little public appetite for nuclear generation.
Storage technology and the resistance of equipment to decay in harsh sea climes are two factors likely to be improved by trial and error.
When we were kids, we used to have to walk uphill both ways to Beta, in borrowed boots or barefoot, to get to Slashdot.
Crafty.
They probably thought the pipe had copper wire in it. There are lots of copper thieves.
Definitely, AT&T customers, then...
And you are down (-4) moderations, if we were keeping score.
If you infer from this example that even smart people are drawn to the superstitious and contrived, then at the very least, your reading comprehension skills are sound.
Virtually every smoker could quit cold turkey if each could be made to spend one day as his future self with final stage lung cancer. The strength of its addiction begins in the chemical with the brain's own nicotinic receptors, but it's finished with the silky slow pace with which it wrecks its havoc.
Thirteen days without one of those delectable little heart-stoppers, and I fight a couple of strong urges a day. The most difficult one is the next one.
Agreed, the spinal nerves get where they are during fetal development, and slicing through them pretty thoroughly kills off the distal parts of the axons (Wallerian degeneration). If this could be done now, then there wouldn't be any paraplegic or quadriplegic people. And then what are they going to do about tissue rejection, when the tissue being rejected is the entire head?
Pretty much this, although I suspect cloning a body made from your own cell(s) will be plausible at or before spinal nerves are fused successfully.
I'd be more pleased if they'd move forward on this body part cloning research before I need a heart, lung, or liver.
Wipe the spilled kethup off with a kleenex and slashdot this link if you really want to know.