Is it resonsible, moral, or ethical to create life when the planet is as overcrowded as it is?
I guess no one should have sex then... damn... thanks for ruining it for us...
Is it ethical to create life that can feel, think, or be hurt when you *know* we're going to dissect and vivisect of what we create?
Who ever said that we'd be doing this? At most they're probably gonna create an RNA or DNA strand that won't even form into anything... even if they create a single-celled organism, do ya think that it'll hurt it when it fries from too much light from the microscope?? ITS A CELL!
Is it ethical or responsible to create life, when we know that we're already making serious mistakes in genetic engineering, such as the genes that recently jumped between soya and corn?
If we've gotten better... then why not?
This is a wonderful new field of science that has incredible potential for human advancement. It also has incredible potential for misuse and unethical behavior.
You're too into ethics. Why don't you give a concrete example why this is bad instead of asking redundent questions as to the ethics of this scientific project...
In my opinion... it's ALL ethical.
Since your arguement relies on someones opinion of ethics, then it really won't hold up that well against the scientific community.
The way to persuade a true scientist is not by rambling on about religious-based ethics, but by logic, scientific proof, statistics, and examples...
bad. As you make a given generation take on more and more mutations, the probability approaches 1 that at least one of those mutations will be fatal.
Actually... almost ALL mutations are bad for the organism. That is why evolution takes so long. Eventually, one out of a million mutations will be beneficial...
and this goes to show that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
What are you talking about?
in fact you sound so much like a nazi when you talking about "weakening the gene pool".
Hitler! Bad!...think for yourself for once... The idea of only allowing the most genetically sound to mate is instinct of all animals. Why do you think birds have plummage to show off and attract the opposite sex? Why do we have pheromones? In the end, the strongest and best looking male will get the girl... it's part of nature... live with it...
our "gene pool" has nothing to do with what the article mentioned.
It does somewhat directly, but indirectly it has a lot to do with it. Regardless of that, my post was to comment more on the post it was replying to...
as many people already mentioned, what we need is responsible use of the right drug at the right time.
Sometimes the drug is not needed at all... the only medication I have taken in my life(besides a decongestant and pain reliever) is amoxicillin... only because it was necessary for an ear infection.
genetic engineering... you're just gonna screw things up even more with that
Hate to break it to you, but have you looked at humanity lately? We aren't anywhere near as strong as the great apes, we are poor runners, lack powerful jaw muscles and teeth, lack claws, and our hide is not only easy to tear, its also very inefficient at insulating us from the extremes of heat and cold. Not only that, but we can't graze on the food that many creatures can, and without technology, we'd have a hard time tearing apart any large prey. Other creatures have teeth to cut through thick hides - we don't.
You're not breaking anything to me... but most of the traits that our ancestors had are lost because we have no need for them anymore. Claws are no use to us, if we reproduced every few years there would be far to many of us (because of our advanced medical technology)... and all those traits you put together are not held by a single animal (An animal as strong as an ape, fast as a cheeta, can live in the tropic and artic??)
Not only that, but we can't graze on the food that many creatures can, and without technology, we'd have a hard time tearing apart any large prey
The reason we have lost most of our strength and do not have all the cool little biological weapons that most animals have is because of our ability to think and our use of tools... A pocket knife and a nice hot fire do just fine for cookin up meat in the wild...
While I agree that it is a shame that we have lost some great characteristics of our animal ancestors (like the strength of an ape), you should not go so far as to "add insult to injury" when discussing the upbringing of our young. (which they mature at age 12-14 (even as young as 9)... which is perfectly fine).
...taking an obscene amount of months before being able to move on their own...
Apes are the same way. They nurture their young for a long time before sending them off on their own...
The focus of my argument before was genetic weakness in the respect of disease susceptibility and defects... not the lack of claws...
AIDS does not swap genes.... it infects a living cell with its own genes. Then those genes take over the cell, multiply, and pack themselves with enzymes and other chemicals for the trip to the next cell. The cell bursts and off they go...
Just like how our medical methods are really making our gene pool a bit murkey. Since even the children with life-threatening defects live and reproduce, this weakness gets spread to all their offspring... weakening the gene pool even more.
On one hand, advanced medical science can cure the world... on the other... it can make everybody so weak that they would die from a untreated cold in a matter of hours...
maybe genetic engineering can restore the strength that the human race once had...
Researcher Mark Petticrew, PhD, and colleagues examined 26 studies assessing the role of psychological coping styles on cancer recurrence and survival, and concluded that none conclusively linked any one style to positive outcomes.
Now that is just one huge vague statement full of meaningless words. They didn't even define how many patients were in each study. Because of this, we are forced to assume that only one patient was in each study -- giving too much charity to an arguement is a bad thing.
First, a group of 26 patients is HARDLY enough to make ANY real conclusion. 26 out of how many millions that have had cancer? And what type of cancer did these people have? It would be like asking a small city in the middle of nowhere what they thought about certian world issues... the results would be just as representative.
Second, they say that none "conclusively linked any one style to positive outcomes." Well of course they wouldn't. In a case of 26 "studies", there are probably 26 different unique "styles". This would only allow them to document one outcome for each style... which of course would not be anything to make a conclusion out of.
This type of journalism is horrible... it's on the verge of tabloid.
"We certainly aren't saying that a positive mental attitude is not beneficial," Petticrew tells WebMD. "I think the message here is that while it is good to think positively, it is also OK to feel bad. It is probably not going to influence your outcome."
This statement gives a very broad conclusion, and somewhat contradictory. They say nothing definitively here. You could sum it up by saying, "Positive atitude may or may not have an influence on your outcome."
I think they should have waited untill they made a more conclusive find in relation to this before they went public with their results (which again, really say nothing).
it would be pretty tough to survive once the solar wind had stripped the atmosphere away from this rock we sit on.
Yea... did you know that Venus doesn't have a magnetic field around it? Look how dense it's frekin atmosphere is...
The earth's magnetic field (ie the magnetosphere, see here [nasa.gov] and here [nasa.gov]) has a vital role in keeping tremendous amounts of radiation (least of all from our own sun) away from the planet.
Too bad that the magnetosphere only DEFLECTS the radiation to the poles (ever seen northern lights?). It's just a giant vacuum. The same ammount of radiation will hit us... hell... even less since the radiation isn't being sucked in from a hundreds of miles up...
Even if we sent of the idiots into space himself/herself, some world probably just say there were put through a simulation reconstruction.
Now that would just be rediculous of them... We would have enough data and the processing power to put someone through a virtual 3D real-time simulation of a moon landing with perfect simulation of the dynamic physics (the spray of dust particles, gasses from the engines, going through the clouds on the way up... even perfect rendering of the frekin Earth's surface), but the brain power needed to stage something like that couldn't get us to the frekin MOON???
Or better yet... the memory was implanted into their mind using complex electromagnetic (or whatever they pull out of their ass) waves to perfectly induce firing of the frekin microscopic nurons in the human mind... but nooooo... we don't know how to get to the moon and back...
Of course the moon landing is a hoax! Everybody knows that there really is no moon and it's just a big projection up in the sky created by our government to test effects of radiation on US citizens! Why do you think people go crazy on nights with a full moon?
I've heard stories of people being killed when someone walked into an MRI room with a pair of scissors in their pocket.
My father works in a hospital as a pharmacist. He has told me a story about how someone walking by the room door with an oxygen tank was killed... the tank was on the opposite side of them and they were basically crushed under it. It's not necessarily the fact that the magnetic field strength is one tesla, it is because the field does not weaken much when you walk away from it.
I've dealt with magnets that are over one tesla (neodymium), and they only put a very very very small force on any american change i put right next to them.
If a star was about as far away as the moon, I think I'd worry about more than pocket change and floppy disks.
If a start was about as far away as the moon, I don't think anyone would get the chance to worry about anything...
Re:OpenBSD based floppy firewall?
on
OpenBSD 3.2 Available
·
· Score: 3, Informative
microbsd.net
not quite OpenBSD, but it's a BSD that fits on a coupla floppys.
Re:Inflation != Multiple Universes
on
One of Many
·
· Score: 2
The laws of physics as we know them are the laws of physics for this universe and this universe alone. A different universe would have different laws of physics altogether.
I have been saying this to everybody that I have talked to for a few years now... but, I'm only 18 so it's not like anybody would take my thoughts seriously...
Anyway, from this, I came up with a theory to explain why our explanations of our universe are so frekin complicated... and answer is somewhat simple...
Quoting myself from my own personal website: "Our own existance deviates so much from the actual physical and chemical existance of the universe in whole that we have come up with theories and laws that only apply to us... and not to the universe."
So all our theories and physical laws are only partly true. Sure, they work, but it's like trying to figure out a computer by talking about the plastic casing on the keyboard....
This is why I stopped trying to ponder the existance of the universe, why I stopped trying to figure out how the hell we got here... because I realised that, from our standpoint in this universe, it is impossible...
...just my thoughts on the matter (...pun! get it?)
that was not an error in the programming... some dumbass gave all the calculation in English units for acceleration to the programmer who writes his program using SI for units (or metric... same thing...).
Unit of distance : meters Unit of mass : kilograms Unit of force : Newtons
The article you linked to clearly states that the mixup was in the English system and Metric System.... not SI and Metric (for which there is almost no contrast that I can think)
Slashdot Mirror
Is it resonsible, moral, or ethical to create life when the planet is as overcrowded as it is?
I guess no one should have sex then... damn... thanks for ruining it for us...
Is it ethical to create life that can feel, think, or be hurt when you *know* we're going to dissect and vivisect of what we create?
Who ever said that we'd be doing this? At most they're probably gonna create an RNA or DNA strand that won't even form into anything... even if they create a single-celled organism, do ya think that it'll hurt it when it fries from too much light from the microscope?? ITS A CELL!
Is it ethical or responsible to create life, when we know that we're already making serious mistakes in genetic engineering, such as the genes that recently jumped between soya and corn?
If we've gotten better... then why not?
This is a wonderful new field of science that has incredible potential for human advancement. It also has incredible potential for misuse and unethical behavior.
You're too into ethics. Why don't you give a concrete example why this is bad instead of asking redundent questions as to the ethics of this scientific project...
In my opinion... it's ALL ethical.
Since your arguement relies on someones opinion of ethics, then it really won't hold up that well against the scientific community.
The way to persuade a true scientist is not by rambling on about religious-based ethics, but by logic, scientific proof, statistics, and examples...
bad. As you make a given generation take on more and more mutations, the probability approaches 1 that at least one of those mutations will be fatal.
Actually... almost ALL mutations are bad for the organism. That is why evolution takes so long. Eventually, one out of a million mutations will be beneficial...
and this goes to show that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
...think for yourself for once... The idea of only allowing the most genetically sound to mate is instinct of all animals. Why do you think birds have plummage to show off and attract the opposite sex? Why do we have pheromones? In the end, the strongest and best looking male will get the girl... it's part of nature... live with it...
What are you talking about?
in fact you sound so much like a nazi when you talking about "weakening the gene pool".
Hitler! Bad!
our "gene pool" has nothing to do with what the article mentioned.
It does somewhat directly, but indirectly it has a lot to do with it. Regardless of that, my post was to comment more on the post it was replying to...
as many people already mentioned, what we need is responsible use of the right drug at the right time.
Sometimes the drug is not needed at all... the only medication I have taken in my life(besides a decongestant and pain reliever) is amoxicillin... only because it was necessary for an ear infection.
genetic engineering... you're just gonna screw things up even more with that
Only if you're incharge...
Hate to break it to you, but have you looked at humanity lately? We aren't anywhere near as strong as the great apes, we are poor runners, lack powerful jaw muscles and teeth, lack claws, and our hide is not only easy to tear, its also very inefficient at insulating us from the extremes of heat and cold. Not only that, but we can't graze on the food that many creatures can, and without technology, we'd have a hard time tearing apart any large prey. Other creatures have teeth to cut through thick hides - we don't.
...taking an obscene amount of months before being able to move on their own...
You're not breaking anything to me... but most of the traits that our ancestors had are lost because we have no need for them anymore. Claws are no use to us, if we reproduced every few years there would be far to many of us (because of our advanced medical technology)... and all those traits you put together are not held by a single animal (An animal as strong as an ape, fast as a cheeta, can live in the tropic and artic??)
Not only that, but we can't graze on the food that many creatures can, and without technology, we'd have a hard time tearing apart any large prey
The reason we have lost most of our strength and do not have all the cool little biological weapons that most animals have is because of our ability to think and our use of tools... A pocket knife and a nice hot fire do just fine for cookin up meat in the wild...
While I agree that it is a shame that we have lost some great characteristics of our animal ancestors (like the strength of an ape), you should not go so far as to "add insult to injury" when discussing the upbringing of our young. (which they mature at age 12-14 (even as young as 9)... which is perfectly fine).
Apes are the same way. They nurture their young for a long time before sending them off on their own...
The focus of my argument before was genetic weakness in the respect of disease susceptibility and defects... not the lack of claws...
AIDS does not swap genes.... it infects a living cell with its own genes. Then those genes take over the cell, multiply, and pack themselves with enzymes and other chemicals for the trip to the next cell. The cell bursts and off they go...
Just like how our medical methods are really making our gene pool a bit murkey. Since even the children with life-threatening defects live and reproduce, this weakness gets spread to all their offspring... weakening the gene pool even more.
On one hand, advanced medical science can cure the world... on the other... it can make everybody so weak that they would die from a untreated cold in a matter of hours...
maybe genetic engineering can restore the strength that the human race once had...
Researcher Mark Petticrew, PhD, and colleagues examined 26 studies assessing the role of psychological coping styles on cancer recurrence and survival, and concluded that none conclusively linked any one style to positive outcomes.
Now that is just one huge vague statement full of meaningless words. They didn't even define how many patients were in each study. Because of this, we are forced to assume that only one patient was in each study -- giving too much charity to an arguement is a bad thing.
First, a group of 26 patients is HARDLY enough to make ANY real conclusion. 26 out of how many millions that have had cancer? And what type of cancer did these people have? It would be like asking a small city in the middle of nowhere what they thought about certian world issues... the results would be just as representative.
Second, they say that none "conclusively linked any one style to positive outcomes." Well of course they wouldn't. In a case of 26 "studies", there are probably 26 different unique "styles". This would only allow them to document one outcome for each style... which of course would not be anything to make a conclusion out of.
This type of journalism is horrible... it's on the verge of tabloid.
"We certainly aren't saying that a positive mental attitude is not beneficial," Petticrew tells WebMD. "I think the message here is that while it is good to think positively, it is also OK to feel bad. It is probably not going to influence your outcome."
This statement gives a very broad conclusion, and somewhat contradictory. They say nothing definitively here. You could sum it up by saying, "Positive atitude may or may not have an influence on your outcome."
I think they should have waited untill they made a more conclusive find in relation to this before they went public with their results (which again, really say nothing).
(why you're wrong)
it would be pretty tough to survive once the solar wind had stripped the atmosphere away from this rock we sit on.
Yea... did you know that Venus doesn't have a magnetic field around it? Look how dense it's frekin atmosphere is...
The earth's magnetic field (ie the magnetosphere, see here [nasa.gov] and here [nasa.gov]) has a vital role in keeping tremendous amounts of radiation (least of all from our own sun) away from the planet.
Too bad that the magnetosphere only DEFLECTS the radiation to the poles (ever seen northern lights?). It's just a giant vacuum. The same ammount of radiation will hit us... hell... even less since the radiation isn't being sucked in from a hundreds of miles up...
you're wrong.... wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong....
[insert canadian joke, eh?]
Even if we sent of the idiots into space himself/herself, some world probably just say there were put through a simulation reconstruction.
Now that would just be rediculous of them... We would have enough data and the processing power to put someone through a virtual 3D real-time simulation of a moon landing with perfect simulation of the dynamic physics (the spray of dust particles, gasses from the engines, going through the clouds on the way up... even perfect rendering of the frekin Earth's surface), but the brain power needed to stage something like that couldn't get us to the frekin MOON???
Or better yet... the memory was implanted into their mind using complex electromagnetic (or whatever they pull out of their ass) waves to perfectly induce firing of the frekin microscopic nurons in the human mind... but nooooo... we don't know how to get to the moon and back...
The reflected light from the moon is strong enough to fry Hubble's optics.
Then why not use a high powered telescope on earth that can handle the light?
Of course the moon landing is a hoax! Everybody knows that there really is no moon and it's just a big projection up in the sky created by our government to test effects of radiation on US citizens! Why do you think people go crazy on nights with a full moon?
I've heard stories of people being killed when someone walked into an MRI room with a pair of scissors in their pocket.
My father works in a hospital as a pharmacist. He has told me a story about how someone walking by the room door with an oxygen tank was killed... the tank was on the opposite side of them and they were basically crushed under it. It's not necessarily the fact that the magnetic field strength is one tesla, it is because the field does not weaken much when you walk away from it.
I've dealt with magnets that are over one tesla (neodymium), and they only put a very very very small force on any american change i put right next to them.
If a star was about as far away as the moon, I think I'd worry about more than pocket change and floppy disks.
If a start was about as far away as the moon, I don't think anyone would get the chance to worry about anything...
microbsd.net
not quite OpenBSD, but it's a BSD that fits on a coupla floppys.
The laws of physics as we know them are the laws of physics for this universe and this universe alone. A different universe would have different laws of physics altogether.
...just my thoughts on the matter (...pun! get it?)
I have been saying this to everybody that I have talked to for a few years now... but, I'm only 18 so it's not like anybody would take my thoughts seriously...
Anyway, from this, I came up with a theory to explain why our explanations of our universe are so frekin complicated... and answer is somewhat simple...
Quoting myself from my own personal website: "Our own existance deviates so much from the actual physical and chemical existance of the universe in whole that we have come up with theories and laws that only apply to us... and not to the universe."
So all our theories and physical laws are only partly true. Sure, they work, but it's like trying to figure out a computer by talking about the plastic casing on the keyboard....
This is why I stopped trying to ponder the existance of the universe, why I stopped trying to figure out how the hell we got here... because I realised that, from our standpoint in this universe, it is impossible...
[insert joke in relation to someones abnormally large buttox]
[auto-mod +3: Funny]
[insert microsoft bashing or joke]
[auto-mod to +5: Insightful]
A poor communication among the software guys that results in improper units being used in a program isn't a software problem?
That's correct. It's a communication problem
If that wasn't a software problem, what was it?
A miscommunication between software guys...
All software problems are defects in design or implementation, they all go back to a miscommunication or mistake among some software people somewhere.
Your definition of a software problem is to vague to be proper...
But anyway, that's only half true. The problem is that not all software bugs go back to that source... hardware plays a big role as well.
that was not an error in the programming... some dumbass gave all the calculation in English units for acceleration to the programmer who writes his program using SI for units (or metric... same thing...).
...metric is practically the same as SI...
Unit of distance : meters
Unit of mass : kilograms
Unit of force : Newtons
The article you linked to clearly states that the mixup was in the English system and Metric System.... not SI and Metric (for which there is almost no contrast that I can think)
which aren't usefull as HUD screens since they're not completely transparent
They're transparent enough.....
At least they didn't use the old stock photo of a large moon colliding into a planet for a picture this time ;)
maybe you didn't understand my setup of Ko....
Just set up 3 different Ko's on a single board... if you do it right, you can rotate through the different Kos forever...