If this kid they had genetically crafted from the parents already fucked up cells has the same traits as his sisters, then wouldn't it make sense to think this kid will also be prone to the same exact disease which he was born to fix in his older sister? So basically this new kid will have to have his parents bust another embryo out thats the same as him, thus creating a whole strain of genetically messed up people who will keep on havin babies that will keep on havin this blood disease. And what about down the road..will the kids have fights like "Mommy only had you so that I could live..so mommy likes me best"?? By the way..I'm all about havin ghetto fabulous children..it'd just be weird bein a big white bald guy with black kids and a white mother...I could just see the made-for-TV movie now.
Fine..more foreign IT professionals...all I have to say is Will the countries in Europe repay the favor to the USA by letting US Citizens move there to work?
I think I have noticed a trend in the US government towards replacing standard welfare practices with training practices..i.e. the government uses the money otherwise reserved for welfare (read: free money) to train those on welfare with useful skills. Right now this gives them a good reason to implement that plan. This sort of action will practically obliterate the unemployment rate in this country as well as create a strong group of technically trained computer specialists. It all sounds very good on paper, but, the reality of it is how many of these people will actually work? I know in my home town the majority of people on welfare enjoyed being on welfare because they didn't have to work a shit job and because they usually averaged more money than those of us who busted our asses at minimum wage jobs. Granted...not all are like that...and I am sure there would be many that would jump on this opportunity...but there is no replacement for the experience some of these H1B workers possessed. Anyway..the H1B folk should be able to get awesome jobs back at their homelands with most countries becoming computerzed...so no..I don't feel bad..if the gov. does like it should there will be a larger percentage of people learning to use computers and program with them. I'm just not very fond of importing talent when the potential is readily available in our own country.
So what..who cares if MS knows that you used the default bookmark that came with their browser. On the same note, who cares if some random company knows what sites you are visiting. Like they're gonna tell yer mom that you looked at some pr0n or something. Jesus people, you make me sick.
This sort of technology is an incredible boost to internet security. If this thing gets wide spread usage it will only cause the companies to start designing their networks properly instead of a loose hodgepodge of equipment which most companies have. Your whole spiel about being legitimate is a good point, BUT, whats the point of being legitimate if the "legitimate" people are creating crap. I for one applaud all sorts of cracking and abuse on the internet because it only leads to a better stronger entity. The more people go about messing with everyone elses equipment/software the more those people will improve on their goods. Its called natural selection. Those companies that cannot make a better piece of equipment/software will fail and die. Which is how it should be in a capitalist economy. There is no point in a company succeeding through shoddy gear.
Copyright laws as they exist should not apply to software. Originally copyright laws were written for books and musical recordings. These things do not change or get better or become obsolete. Software does. There needs to be an ammendment to copyright laws regarding software, which takes into account the average turn around period on a piece of software. I would figure, on average, software become totally obsolete in about 10 years..maybe as few as five years. Books don't..but software does. Music doesn't...but software does. Software is basically a disposable commodity...it is practically guaranteed that you can not get vendor support for a game or other program created 10 years ago, so why is the copyright relevent for 70+ years? I really don't think there will be much of a calling for windows 3.11 in 2050...there really isn't a calling for it now, most machines won't even run it now (properly that is)...this leads all the way to emulating gaming systems that don't exist anymore...theoretically..you cannot download PONG and run it...its still in copyright....or any atari 2600 game....why? Nobody would have a good answer, so make software copyright only last 10 years after production has ceased. If a company wants to keep producing the game/program/etc etc forever to maintain copyright, then let em...otherwise it should be dropped to public domain.
Thats the big "conspiracy" about cancer. Supposedly there is a treatment which will destroy cancer in a person and thats that, supposedly you can go to places like Canada or Europe for this where medical service is regulated by the government and not by the dollar bill, and supposedly America has the technology but the FDA has been holding it "pending testing" for a few years now...I'm not advocating this conspiracy theory...just passing it along. Monetarily speaking..treatment is best for an American healthcare system...but in other countries where medicine is regulated by the government, a cure is the best answer because it costs less on the taxpayers. What this whole topic looks at is an ultimate corruption of the American "core values"...by the book these institutions and corps are not wrong, but ethically they fester in their own shit. But as it goes...there is no law saying universities cannot make money off of their research, so it will be done, especially when they are starved for money by the government and people who are supposed to support them. This also ties into the who libertarian topics that have been cropping up about libertarian selfishness etc etc...if I had any sort of real funds to donate I would not donate to some organization that keeps the socially useless alive..I would donate to a school where people are trained to be a better part of society. Call me a troll, but we really don't need billions of dollars pumped into keeping the homeless and the mentally retarded alive...they call it social darwinism
I mosly agree with you...but I feel that it should start at the high school level..such as 9th grade or whatever. You are given a choice in 9th grade to pursue a "trade" path which you are given a battery of tests to determine which general are you are best suited for to give you an idea for which trade you should go for..under no obligation to follow the path(s) recommended. Or you can go the "liberal arts and sciences" way which gives you a broad education throughout high school (like we have now), but which requires a college education after high school to do really anything with. The trade method would be great for creating a pool of high tech type kids who already know what they want to be doing with themselves. Right now, in many school districts we have this sort of split already, but "trade" school amounts to auto mechanics and electricians and others like that. To broaden the trade school option to high tech career fields will increase the amount of people available for tech jobs (which in America, and from what I understand most of the world, there is a HUGE shortage of qualified personnel for the jobs)..while maintaining the option for kids to decide they want to be anthropologists or psychologists or doctors, the American education system will begin to provide a better product for the working world. As it stands now, any kid coming out of high school is basically forced to some sort of higher education or training..be that military service or some college..and many cannot afford the latter and do not want to contribute to the former. As far as the issue with research scientists in univeristies and colleges making money off of their research I say good on that...there should be no reason why these people shouldn't be getting their just dues for creating quality science.
Actually I do have ahabit of bein a jackass on here...but in this case I'm not wrong. MS did make a version of linux, I don't know why, and Compaq has signed a deal to use it. I don't know any of the whys of this, I just know what I was told by my friend who was working on the project. Some people get so pissy on this board when they hear something that they don't wanna hear. Damn elitist crybabies
I have a friend who was working on that project for Compaq (he has since quit...Compaq works you like a dog)...funny bit he told me was that Compaq had signed a deal with MS for the use of..drumroll...usage of MS Linux on their machines...thats right folks...MS Linux...so prepare to be owned by MS soon....and in response to another comment..iPAQ is Compaq's name for just about any of their new "slimline" stylie computer stuff...they have an iPaq desktop and now their iPaq handheld...all in catchy black and silver cases (I think they look nice...)..anyway...thats my bit...MS Linux...muahahahahahahaha
You really just made absolutely no sense what-so-ever..and hid behind an anonymous name...The United States have never been separate countries, they are just territories that have been claimed over the years and then formally included into the union. The state aspect is simply to make the governing of the people easier. Get a clue and go back to school fool.
Dan here has a point....he seems to get a little worked up in trying the express his point, but there is one. If you go by the proverbial "books" for Libertarian political and social stance they do come out sounding pretty selfish and obsessed with making money. Which would lead one to believe that they do not agree with charity at all (I don't agree with charity myself..in America..except for retards who can't help themselves..no matter what anyone says..if people would just work a bit at themselves they could have a decent job...but onto the rest...but there is nothing there saying "Don't give money to the poor and retarded"...so calm down Dan...it'll be OK...Libertarians will never have any political power in America in the first place...they aren't related to any of the previous presidents by direct descent and they aren't Republican'ts or Democraps...so just live life and ignore the BS...if it bugs ya so much go find another country that you like...Americans have a good chance of movin most anywhere if they want to.
Just giving everyone here a heads-up. Your vote means absolutely jack shit in the case of a Presidential/Vice-Presidential election. In America we proscribe to a system for voting that includes and Electoral College. Ripped straight from Brittanica.com..here's the write up:
-------------------------------------------------- electoral college
in the United States, a group of electors chosen within each state to elect the president and vice president. Each state has as many presidential electors as it has representatives in both houses of Congress.
As originally planned by the framers of the Constitution, the electors actually choose the president. The framers preferred this to a direct popular election because, at a time when travel was difficult and there were no national party organizations, they feared that many regional candidates would divide the vote. Requiring a candidate to win a majority in the electoral college was a way of obtaining a national consensus.
Although the Constitution still allows electors to use their discretion, electors now are usually pledged to support a party's candidate. All the states, except Maine and Nebraska, hold a winner-take-all popular vote for electors. Whichever candidate wins a plurality in a state wins all the electoral votes in that state.
With the winner-take-all system, elected presidents receive a greater percentage of the electoral vote than of the popular vote. Two presidents, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 and Benjamin Harrison in 1888, won a majority of the electoral votes even though they received fewer popular votes than their principal opponents. In a very close election, it would again be possible for a popular-vote loser to be elected president. Opponents of the electoral system fear this would undermine the authority of the presidency. It is also feared that a regionally strong third-party candidate who could win even a few states could thwart the intention of the voters. He could throw his electoral votes to a candidate, who would not win otherwise, in exchange for political concessions.
Defenders of the system argue that in a direct popular vote the winner does not have to win a majority of anything--votes or states. Small states or states with a small population fear being overwhelmed by urban centres. Defenders claim a direct-vote system would encourage more splinter candidates.
--------------------------------------------------
So, as you can see, the popular vote is just a method we use to make the masses feel good about themselves. The real vote comes from the Electoral College...and, even though the article there says that the states elect them, I've NEVER heard of an election for an Electoral College nominee. So take a good look at the US government, and realize that you, as a citizen in the here "democracy", have absolutely no power what-so-ever when it comes to the presidency. This coming in so late will probably not be read...but whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
Doh...missed that part...was just skimming the article..
If this kid they had genetically crafted from the parents already fucked up cells has the same traits as his sisters, then wouldn't it make sense to think this kid will also be prone to the same exact disease which he was born to fix in his older sister? So basically this new kid will have to have his parents bust another embryo out thats the same as him, thus creating a whole strain of genetically messed up people who will keep on havin babies that will keep on havin this blood disease. And what about down the road..will the kids have fights like "Mommy only had you so that I could live..so mommy likes me best"?? By the way..I'm all about havin ghetto fabulous children..it'd just be weird bein a big white bald guy with black kids and a white mother...I could just see the made-for-TV movie now.
Fine..more foreign IT professionals...all I have to say is Will the countries in Europe repay the favor to the USA by letting US Citizens move there to work?
I think not.
I think I have noticed a trend in the US government towards replacing standard welfare practices with training practices..i.e. the government uses the money otherwise reserved for welfare (read: free money) to train those on welfare with useful skills. Right now this gives them a good reason to implement that plan. This sort of action will practically obliterate the unemployment rate in this country as well as create a strong group of technically trained computer specialists. It all sounds very good on paper, but, the reality of it is how many of these people will actually work? I know in my home town the majority of people on welfare enjoyed being on welfare because they didn't have to work a shit job and because they usually averaged more money than those of us who busted our asses at minimum wage jobs. Granted...not all are like that...and I am sure there would be many that would jump on this opportunity...but there is no replacement for the experience some of these H1B workers possessed. Anyway..the H1B folk should be able to get awesome jobs back at their homelands with most countries becoming computerzed...so no..I don't feel bad..if the gov. does like it should there will be a larger percentage of people learning to use computers and program with them. I'm just not very fond of importing talent when the potential is readily available in our own country.
'nuff said...
So what..who cares if MS knows that you used the default bookmark that came with their browser. On the same note, who cares if some random company knows what sites you are visiting. Like they're gonna tell yer mom that you looked at some pr0n or something. Jesus people, you make me sick.
This sort of technology is an incredible boost to internet security. If this thing gets wide spread usage it will only cause the companies to start designing their networks properly instead of a loose hodgepodge of equipment which most companies have. Your whole spiel about being legitimate is a good point, BUT, whats the point of being legitimate if the "legitimate" people are creating crap.
I for one applaud all sorts of cracking and abuse on the internet because it only leads to a better stronger entity. The more people go about messing with everyone elses equipment/software the more those people will improve on their goods. Its called natural selection. Those companies that cannot make a better piece of equipment/software will fail and die. Which is how it should be in a capitalist economy. There is no point in a company succeeding through shoddy gear.
My piece is said.
Copyright laws as they exist should not apply to software. Originally copyright laws were written for books and musical recordings. These things do not change or get better or become obsolete. Software does. There needs to be an ammendment to copyright laws regarding software, which takes into account the average turn around period on a piece of software. I would figure, on average, software become totally obsolete in about 10 years..maybe as few as five years. Books don't..but software does. Music doesn't...but software does. Software is basically a disposable commodity...it is practically guaranteed that you can not get vendor support for a game or other program created 10 years ago, so why is the copyright relevent for 70+ years? I really don't think there will be much of a calling for windows 3.11 in 2050...there really isn't a calling for it now, most machines won't even run it now (properly that is)...this leads all the way to emulating gaming systems that don't exist anymore...theoretically..you cannot download PONG and run it...its still in copyright....or any atari 2600 game....why? Nobody would have a good answer, so make software copyright only last 10 years after production has ceased. If a company wants to keep producing the game/program/etc etc forever to maintain copyright, then let em...otherwise it should be dropped to public domain.
Thats the big "conspiracy" about cancer. Supposedly there is a treatment which will destroy cancer in a person and thats that, supposedly you can go to places like Canada or Europe for this where medical service is regulated by the government and not by the dollar bill, and supposedly America has the technology but the FDA has been holding it "pending testing" for a few years now...I'm not advocating this conspiracy theory...just passing it along. Monetarily speaking..treatment is best for an American healthcare system...but in other countries where medicine is regulated by the government, a cure is the best answer because it costs less on the taxpayers. What this whole topic looks at is an ultimate corruption of the American "core values"...by the book these institutions and corps are not wrong, but ethically they fester in their own shit. But as it goes...there is no law saying universities cannot make money off of their research, so it will be done, especially when they are starved for money by the government and people who are supposed to support them. This also ties into the who libertarian topics that have been cropping up about libertarian selfishness etc etc...if I had any sort of real funds to donate I would not donate to some organization that keeps the socially useless alive..I would donate to a school where people are trained to be a better part of society. Call me a troll, but we really don't need billions of dollars pumped into keeping the homeless and the mentally retarded alive...they call it social darwinism
I mosly agree with you...but I feel that it should start at the high school level..such as 9th grade or whatever. You are given a choice in 9th grade to pursue a "trade" path which you are given a battery of tests to determine which general are you are best suited for to give you an idea for which trade you should go for..under no obligation to follow the path(s) recommended. Or you can go the "liberal arts and sciences" way which gives you a broad education throughout high school (like we have now), but which requires a college education after high school to do really anything with. The trade method would be great for creating a pool of high tech type kids who already know what they want to be doing with themselves. Right now, in many school districts we have this sort of split already, but "trade" school amounts to auto mechanics and electricians and others like that. To broaden the trade school option to high tech career fields will increase the amount of people available for tech jobs (which in America, and from what I understand most of the world, there is a HUGE shortage of qualified personnel for the jobs)..while maintaining the option for kids to decide they want to be anthropologists or psychologists or doctors, the American education system will begin to provide a better product for the working world. As it stands now, any kid coming out of high school is basically forced to some sort of higher education or training..be that military service or some college..and many cannot afford the latter and do not want to contribute to the former. As far as the issue with research scientists in univeristies and colleges making money off of their research I say good on that...there should be no reason why these people shouldn't be getting their just dues for creating quality science.
Actually I do have ahabit of bein a jackass on here...but in this case I'm not wrong. MS did make a version of linux, I don't know why, and Compaq has signed a deal to use it. I don't know any of the whys of this, I just know what I was told by my friend who was working on the project. Some people get so pissy on this board when they hear something that they don't wanna hear. Damn elitist crybabies
I have a friend who was working on that project for Compaq (he has since quit...Compaq works you like a dog)...funny bit he told me was that Compaq had signed a deal with MS for the use of..drumroll...usage of MS Linux on their machines...thats right folks...MS Linux...so prepare to be owned by MS soon....and in response to another comment..iPAQ is Compaq's name for just about any of their new "slimline" stylie computer stuff...they have an iPaq desktop and now their iPaq handheld...all in catchy black and silver cases (I think they look nice...)..anyway...thats my bit...MS Linux...muahahahahahahaha
You really just made absolutely no sense what-so-ever..and hid behind an anonymous name...The United States have never been separate countries, they are just territories that have been claimed over the years and then formally included into the union. The state aspect is simply to make the governing of the people easier. Get a clue and go back to school fool.
Dan here has a point....he seems to get a little worked up in trying the express his point, but there is one. If you go by the proverbial "books" for Libertarian political and social stance they do come out sounding pretty selfish and obsessed with making money. Which would lead one to believe that they do not agree with charity at all (I don't agree with charity myself..in America..except for retards who can't help themselves..no matter what anyone says..if people would just work a bit at themselves they could have a decent job...but onto the rest...but there is nothing there saying "Don't give money to the poor and retarded"...so calm down Dan...it'll be OK...Libertarians will never have any political power in America in the first place...they aren't related to any of the previous presidents by direct descent and they aren't Republican'ts or Democraps...so just live life and ignore the BS...if it bugs ya so much go find another country that you like...Americans have a good chance of movin most anywhere if they want to.
Just giving everyone here a heads-up. Your vote means absolutely jack shit in the case of a Presidential/Vice-Presidential election. In America we proscribe to a system for voting that includes and Electoral College. Ripped straight from Brittanica.com..here's the write up:-
-
-------------------------------------------------
electoral college
in the United States, a group of electors chosen within each state to elect the president and vice president. Each state has as many presidential electors as it has representatives in both houses of Congress.
As originally planned by the framers of the Constitution, the electors actually choose the president. The framers preferred this to a direct popular election because, at a time when travel was difficult and there were no national party organizations, they feared that many regional candidates would divide the vote. Requiring a candidate to win a majority in the electoral college was a way of obtaining a national consensus.
Although the Constitution still allows electors to use their discretion, electors now are usually pledged to support a party's candidate. All the states, except Maine and Nebraska, hold a winner-take-all popular vote for electors. Whichever candidate wins a plurality in a state wins all the electoral votes in that state.
With the winner-take-all system, elected presidents receive a greater percentage of the electoral vote than of the popular vote. Two presidents, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 and Benjamin Harrison in 1888, won a majority of the electoral votes even though they received fewer popular votes than their principal opponents. In a very close election, it would again be possible for a popular-vote loser to be elected president. Opponents of the electoral system fear this would undermine the authority of the presidency. It is also feared that a regionally strong third-party candidate who could win even a few states could thwart the intention of the voters. He could throw his electoral votes to a candidate, who would not win otherwise, in exchange for political concessions.
Defenders of the system argue that in a direct popular vote the winner does not have to win a majority of anything--votes or states. Small states or states with a small population fear being overwhelmed by urban centres. Defenders claim a direct-vote system would encourage more splinter candidates.
-------------------------------------------------
So, as you can see, the popular vote is just a method we use to make the masses feel good about themselves. The real vote comes from the Electoral College...and, even though the article there says that the states elect them, I've NEVER heard of an election for an Electoral College nominee. So take a good look at the US government, and realize that you, as a citizen in the here "democracy", have absolutely no power what-so-ever when it comes to the presidency. This coming in so late will probably not be read...but whatever.