I had an idea that I may be able to execute myself, but I'd love to see any (and every)body else try as well. I have a big stack of old 486 parts that our company resigned to the basement. I've rescued them and I'm in the process of building a Beowulf cluster to get some use out of them. However, I don't have any cases for all of these computers, so I came up with a novel idea. I'm going to hang the parts jellyfish-style on the walls nearby, with wires connecting them to power and each other. The blinky-light factor is incredible, it's performance art, and it's a useable supercomputer to boot (pardon the pun)! I don't know if I'm going to be able to pull it off (getting the wall space is actually an issue with 14 computers to hook up) but if I can it'll probably get a writeup in Wired. Or Better Homes and Gardens. Well, okay, maybe Wired.
Virg
Two things made alchemy viable:
1: Whoever got it to work first would make a killing before the market got flooded with cheap gold. If they were smart enough to convert this newfound wealth into something more durable (like land or gems or such) more the better.
2: Back when alchemy was big, gold was a lot more useful than lead, and also much prettier. So, switching lead into gold (even if gold wasn't worth much more than lead) still had its value. After all, even when lead and bronze were about of the same value not many people wanted to decorate with lead.
Virg
> Let's say a company has 4 employees in a
> third-world country that get paid $3 an hour,
> and one in the US who gets paid $12 an hour
> but produces 4 times as much work as the other
> employees. Suppose in an "act of good faith",
> the third-world government makes a $4 minimum
> wage. Those employees are now getting a
> collective $16 to produce the same output as
> one person who is paid $12. What happens?
>
> Well, the company makes an economic decision
> (ever heard of them?). They must fire the
> third-world workers since they aren't worth
> the money. Secondly, the US employee demands
> a $16 wage since he does the same work as those
> 4 employees. The company (and therefore their
> consumers, society) is now getting half the
> work done for $4 more. The third-world people
> are out of work.
Umm, your logic is broken here. If the company has one American ($12) and four third-worlders ($12), and then as you say happens, they'll end up with one American ($16). That's half the work for $8 less, since they were paying $24 and now are paying $16. What would be true is that they'd have to pay $8 more for the same work, but that's hardly as awful as your example tries to make it.
Virg
> How about providing us an alternative criteria
> which allows us to test on animals, but not on
> humans with microcephaly/retardation?
Well, this begs the question, test what? In the case of medicines, the argument can be made that animals are generally simpler biologically (simpler DNA structure, shorter lifespan, speedier gestation/development) than humans. In five years, testing how a particular drug will affect reproductive capacity is simply not workable with human test subjects, whereas the test is fairly exhaustive using white mice, since in five years you'll see several generations of the latter. I suppose to someone who does not condone any animal testing for any reason, the criterion of "better subject for testing" (by definition) isn't valid, but under that assumption no criterion would be valid.
More to the point, though, the argument against using unwilling human test subjects (or human test subjects who by mental incapacity cannot give informed consent) is based on a moral directive. The simple basis is that if humans with diminished mental capacity can be used without informed consent for testing, there needs to be a rule determining just what defines mental incapacity, which must be decided by subjective humans. The problems stem from the fact that there are (and always have been and always will be) people who will label someone as a valid test subject because of convenience or prejudice, without regard for real capacity (there have been doctors that argued, for example, that coma victims should be used for medical research!). Since the potential for real abuse exists, the easy moral directive is to forbid testing on any human who does not knowledgably volunteer for the test. This is a very "species"ist view, but again, if you don't condone animal testing for any reason, by definition no reason is valid, so nothing I presented could have any meaning to you.
P.S. Sorry, I couldn't resist this one. I agree that professionalism and professional experience don't necessarily go hand in hand. However, I disagree with you in that I think they often do. If you didn't wish to imply condescension, take my comment as the joke that it is. If you did wish to imply condescension, take my comment at the joke that it is, but assume tongue-in-cheek.
Whether I agree with you or not, your logical conclusion doesn't follow from your starting assumption. Your declaration states that all animals and humans with microcephaly/retardation are equals, without giving any basis for that assumption. Take another swing.
Slashdot Mirror
> "plugged into the the keyboard porn" Oh, man, I can't believe I missed out on this fetish! (Click, click, "Oh GOD, Yes!", Click...) Virg
I had an idea that I may be able to execute myself, but I'd love to see any (and every)body else try as well. I have a big stack of old 486 parts that our company resigned to the basement. I've rescued them and I'm in the process of building a Beowulf cluster to get some use out of them. However, I don't have any cases for all of these computers, so I came up with a novel idea. I'm going to hang the parts jellyfish-style on the walls nearby, with wires connecting them to power and each other. The blinky-light factor is incredible, it's performance art, and it's a useable supercomputer to boot (pardon the pun)! I don't know if I'm going to be able to pull it off (getting the wall space is actually an issue with 14 computers to hook up) but if I can it'll probably get a writeup in Wired. Or Better Homes and Gardens. Well, okay, maybe Wired. Virg
Two things made alchemy viable: 1: Whoever got it to work first would make a killing before the market got flooded with cheap gold. If they were smart enough to convert this newfound wealth into something more durable (like land or gems or such) more the better. 2: Back when alchemy was big, gold was a lot more useful than lead, and also much prettier. So, switching lead into gold (even if gold wasn't worth much more than lead) still had its value. After all, even when lead and bronze were about of the same value not many people wanted to decorate with lead. Virg
> Let's say a company has 4 employees in a > third-world country that get paid $3 an hour, > and one in the US who gets paid $12 an hour > but produces 4 times as much work as the other > employees. Suppose in an "act of good faith", > the third-world government makes a $4 minimum > wage. Those employees are now getting a > collective $16 to produce the same output as > one person who is paid $12. What happens? > > Well, the company makes an economic decision > (ever heard of them?). They must fire the > third-world workers since they aren't worth > the money. Secondly, the US employee demands > a $16 wage since he does the same work as those > 4 employees. The company (and therefore their > consumers, society) is now getting half the > work done for $4 more. The third-world people > are out of work. Umm, your logic is broken here. If the company has one American ($12) and four third-worlders ($12), and then as you say happens, they'll end up with one American ($16). That's half the work for $8 less, since they were paying $24 and now are paying $16. What would be true is that they'd have to pay $8 more for the same work, but that's hardly as awful as your example tries to make it. Virg
> How about providing us an alternative criteria
> which allows us to test on animals, but not on
> humans with microcephaly/retardation?
Well, this begs the question, test what? In the case of medicines, the argument can be made that animals are generally simpler biologically (simpler DNA structure, shorter lifespan, speedier gestation/development) than humans. In five years, testing how a particular drug will affect reproductive capacity is simply not workable with human test subjects, whereas the test is fairly exhaustive using white mice, since in five years you'll see several generations of the latter. I suppose to someone who does not condone any animal testing for any reason, the criterion of "better subject for testing" (by definition) isn't valid, but under that assumption no criterion would be valid.
More to the point, though, the argument against using unwilling human test subjects (or human test subjects who by mental incapacity cannot give informed consent) is based on a moral directive. The simple basis is that if humans with diminished mental capacity can be used without informed consent for testing, there needs to be a rule determining just what defines mental incapacity, which must be decided by subjective humans. The problems stem from the fact that there are (and always have been and always will be) people who will label someone as a valid test subject because of convenience or prejudice, without regard for real capacity (there have been doctors that argued, for example, that coma victims should be used for medical research!). Since the potential for real abuse exists, the easy moral directive is to forbid testing on any human who does not knowledgably volunteer for the test. This is a very "species"ist view, but again, if you don't condone animal testing for any reason, by definition no reason is valid, so nothing I presented could have any meaning to you.
Virg
> "they ground us into reality"
But I don't want to be ground into reality. Personally, I don't want to be ground into anything.
Virg
Oh, yeah? Well, up yours! :)
Virg
P.S. Sorry, I couldn't resist this one. I agree that professionalism and professional experience don't necessarily go hand in hand. However, I disagree with you in that I think they often do. If you didn't wish to imply condescension, take my comment as the joke that it is. If you did wish to imply condescension, take my comment at the joke that it is, but assume tongue-in-cheek.
Whether I agree with you or not, your logical conclusion doesn't follow from your starting assumption. Your declaration states that all animals and humans with microcephaly/retardation are equals, without giving any basis for that assumption. Take another swing.
Virg