1 is subject to debate and will be based upon the cloner's ability to minimize or eliminate the effects of premature aging.
2, 3, and 4 are almost completely a matter of genes.
It doesn't really matter how many dogs you've trained semi-professionally. Until you get your hands on one genetically identical animal, after another, after another... I don't think you'll fully appreciate how much alike these creatures will be. Additionally, they'll be raised in very similar drug-sniffing environments.
It will be very much similar to driving one 2007 V6 Honda Accord just off the assembly line after another. You'll rarely notice a significant difference from one to the next.
There are tons of arguments about how paying for gold outside of the game changes the way it works.
It creates real world economies that produce hordes of third-world sweat shops farming in areas where I'd like to just be enjoying myself with other gamers. Farmers suck. In-game spammers suck. These things would be a rarity if not for real world value driving them.
I enjoy playing by "the rules of the game". I don't want to cheat by leaving the constraints of the rules. I want everyone else to obey the rules as well. If you have more gold than I do, I don't want it to be because your mommy gives you a nice cash allowance. I want it to be because you're all pasty faced from a lack of sunlight because you put the time in on the game.
It affects me because I know about it.
The shittiest part, though, is the constant reminder that you can't even be allowed to agree with a group of folks on how to play a god damned game without cheating -- then go enjoy yourself. No, the world is full of cheating assholes who absolutely, positively, must get in there and hose your enjoyment doing things to you and your GAME world that you never agreed to remotely in the first place. I don't enjoy playing tennis with losers who cheat. Why should I enjoy sharing a game world with cheaters?
Rationalize all you want with "I work hard out of the game world" excuses. That's all twisted self-justifying bullshit. You're a cheater. Wear the badge proudly.
Those are some pretty sour grapes you're pedaling there.
So how many cases do you have to win in order to have truth and wisdom in the books you write?
How many to be a good and ethical person?
How many to do noble, important things and not have wannabes in the peanut gallery take "I met him once and he wasn't all that" pot shots at you?
We need go no further than Slashdot's search engine to nail these bozos: Same guys last year making claims that they were shipping that year. Here they are the year before along with some other crooks making claims. And earlier in 2005... why do they get so much play for vapor?
Ooh, here's a good one on some guy trying sucker people with funding for his spintronics drive that will bring miraculous storage to the masses. He already has pricing worked out!
While I'm sure that sooner or later one of these technologies will pan out and we'll see a product; it all looks like con men looking for sucker investor money so far. Don't give them any attention until they ship a product or at least a prototype to a magazine that can review their product to prove that it actually exists and seems to work.
What on earth are you talking about? Of course it's not a real product. It's vapor. Here's an article on Slashdot that's not about vapor. See the difference? One is a product that an actual reviewer was able to buy and get his hands on... the other one is just fanciful speculation.
I skimmed through the article looking for a reference to a real product that someone had gotten his hands on... nothing. Just more speculation on how so much gee-whizz-plenty storage will be used to make all our lives so wonderful.
Holographic storage products are always due out "this fall" or "next year". Odds are this is just another stock price or other type of investment pump like it's been for the past 15 years that I've been seeing these announcements.
Tell me about it when I can order one online or see it on the shelf at Fry's. Until that time, don't give these greedy bastards a cent of credit or success in getting all our hopes up with vapor. Like spammers, they do it because they financially benefit from it. Like suckers who fall for spammers, the Slashdot crowd and editors are complicit in that financial success.
Ignorance in situations of justice is only useful when you have ignorance of the criminal or case being tried. You don't want a judge or jury to have preconceptions about the innocence or guilt of the parties involved.
That doesn't mean you want legal decision-makers completely ignorant of even the basic working infrastructure of our modern society. Far from your notion that the judge can just "listen to the facts" -- rather than being able to take internet information for granted while his mind moves on to the pertinent facts of the case, he's wasting valuable brain cycles trying to figure out what this whole web site thing is on the fly as he either puzzles over it himself or TAKES SOMEONE ELSE'S WORD that what it is is important or not important to the case. Is it relevant to innocence or guilt? Is it not? He doesn't know because he's too much in the dark to even have figured out what my 90 year old grandmother knows.
Besides the issues of not knowing a basic building block of the case, it's just appalling that a judge in a modern society could have his head so far buried in the sand to not know what a web site is. Does his lack of observational skills extend to facts being dispensed in the case?
Maybe seeing lots of people grouped together wasn't particularly unique in his experience at the time, but seeing rows upon rows of videogame cabinets was?
Imagine suffering through one of those CR diets for a few decades, then someone makes a cheap pill that does the same thing while allowing you to eat whatever you want. You'd feel like such a dumbass.
I would agree with your general premise that/.ers have a skewed perspective and don't tend to realize how it explains a lot of their disconnect with what happens in reality.
But since we're talking about technology issues, isn't the perspective of a bunch of "smarter than your average bear" (yes, I cringed when I typed that, but it's true) geeks more relevant than joe six pack's?
What if this were a medical discussion board that tended to attract medical professionals, and we were here discussing a health issue? We would rant and rail at how the general population just doesn't understand nutrition guidelines and FDA rulings... "WHY? How could the voters and politicians let the FDA sit in the back pocket of big pharma by letting dicylatrithrithpalaphimides onto the market?", we'd bemoan.
So, I would argue that consumers tend to not know what they want, contrary to your conclusion #2. They're ignorant of the choices that they make every day -- especially in technology areas where (believe it or not),/.ers tend to be highly educated.
For example, my Dad knows now that he didn't want to waste the time buying a new computer or having someone fix his current one. But since he was largely ignorant of how his online behaviors (not patching Windows, running IE, opening every attachment he received, etc.) would devastate his desktop, he did all the things that he shouldn't have done. Now he knows, and he knows because he got to experience the pain of computer catastrophe and I spent a lot of "I told you so" time educating him as to what he had been doing wrong.
As conceited as it sounds, maybe we should be a bit shocked at the technology decisions made by everyday consumers. Maybe it's justified for us to have an air of superiority when we're talking about them. Consumers don't know what rootkits are, despite the fact that they're affected by them. Look at all the people who fall for 419 scams. They're not falling victim to them because of a personal preference that relativistically is just as valid as my preference to NOT fall for them. They're doing it because they're woefully and pathetically ignorant suckers who have no clue what they're doing.
The shittiest part is that when those woeful, pathetic suckers walk into the voting booth or spend a buck to support companies that do evil so they can get the latest ass-reamingly bad hip hop CD, their opinions count just as much as mine do. I have to suffer with their dumb consumerist, political ideologue influenced choices.
That would suck. Those would be pretty shitty people to want to do something like that to puppies since they're cute and all. What if they wanted to hack away at corn plants? Plants have been shown to "feel" pain by reacting physically to damaging stimuli. What if they wanted to pay to swat flies? Flies are animals that can definitely feel pain. Why are they on the other side of the line? What about sewer rats? That would be a little more disturbing than flies, but we eradicate sewer rats as a matter of course in society. If you want to use a rat trap and someone else wants to use a soldering iron, then who are you to consider yourself superior. How about if people just want to hunt the rats? We tolerate/encourage hunters in society, but hunting an animal is a form of torture, what with all the chasing and the wounding.
What's the difference between a puppy and a sewer rat, though? One is cuter, so are we basing the animals value on physical appearance? Maybe we should kill all the ugly animals! That would speak volumes about our ethical framework.
Slippery slippery slippery slopes everywhere you turn with this issue. The only logical framework I've ever been able to build upon to govern the humananimal relationship has been one based upon societal contract and property ownership. If you've got something not just rooted in aesthetics and emotion, please let me know about it. I'd be happy to give it some thought. Puppies are cute and I don't like it when people are mean to them on a visceral level. However, a dog is not demonstrably more important than the fly you swat, the rat you exterminate, or the cow you slaughter.
No, we don't need animal rights. "Animal rights" is just a mess of slippery slopes that are impossible to reconcile logically. Okay, animals have the right to not be tortured or treated cruelly. By PETA's definition, keeping an animal in a cage is treating it cruelly... so is killing it to eat it. Huh, so I guess we're all vegetarians now. Oh, crap. Harvesting grain kills millions of animals every year. I guess we have to stop doing that too. So where do we draw the line? Are humans allowed to survive in the face of killing animals?
Sorry, people, but animals are (or should be treated as) property like shoes, cars, and computers.
Animals have no ability to negotiate social contracts for themselves or their offspring. They're unable to agree to society's implicit contract by following rules of behavior. There are no members of animal society able to vouchsafe their behaviors.
Animals should be treated as meaty machines. Fascinatingly complex meaty machines, to be sure -- but meaty machines nonetheless. If I want to raise some to eat, then I should be able to do that. If I want to raise some to test drugs on, then I should be able to do that. If I want to raise some to skin for clothing (shallow as a thing like that may appear to some), then I should be able to do that.
Yes, I know it sounds hard hearted to say things like this; but I strongly believe in a society-based view of rights. If you're not in the society in some meaningful way, it's kind of tough shit. The world is a place of limited space and resources. We either consider how we share it with each other in logical, meaningful ways; or we say "screw it" and just live lives of hedonistic anarchy.
FYI, Pokemon is #19 on Wikipedia's list of most visited pages over the last couple of days. I was looking at Wikipedia's stats page the other day and noticed that interesting fact.
Exactly what I thought as I was reading the article. It's one thing to have a little sensationalism in article title summaries to spice things up a bit; but to say that researches stop brain activity with light and that this technique could be used to help with people with epilepsy is just downright wrong.
Articles summaries like this need to be pulled and rewritten or discarded. I find it really annoying to be dealt a bait and switch by Slashdot.
Re:Borland has died after Borland Delphi 7
on
Delphi For PHP Released
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I'll take it a step further. Borland/Inprise/whatever is such a fucked up piece of shit company that I'd never knowingly start a serious project that depends upon them or their products in any way.
My team has suffered from blistering crotch fires of agony trying to cope with C++ Builder's (5 & 6) linker woes. Rather than spending our valuable development time on important-for-our-customers product development issues, the very existence of our company became reliant upon working around our inability to even link our growing application.
It was a horrible mess, and one that Borland was useless in helping us to resolve because they were off working on new products that never saw the light of day.
That's a bit extreme.
The reason for the patent system is to encourage people to invent new things rather than just copying the ideas of others. The problem is that congress (and therefore the public in general), thinks that it's just a set and forget type system that doesn't need to be revised.
Maybe throwing out the whole thing would be the best solution. I would think that paying attention to it and correcting some of its problems would be more useful.
By the very fact that you claim blacks need black rolemodels you are a racist yourselve. You are saying a rolemodel should be chosen based on their race and that is the essence of racism, to judge a person by their race in ANYWAY.
Is it racism to acknowledge that children identify more with people who look like them? Isn't choosing a role model all about finding someone the child can easily identify with and who is successful at something "respectable"?
While there's some truth to the thrust of your argument, in that the whole concept of racism is a multi-edged sword and that many(most) are guilty of acting in a racist manner at some point in time, even inadvertently. I'm not so sure that understanding and acknowledging who will work well as a role model for many children falls under the label of "racism". You might need to define the term before using it in that case.
I had never seen the show before. I didn't find the outline of the character to be confusing. It was a misunderstanding, lesson learned. Move on without prosecution, please.
Slashdot Mirror
1 is subject to debate and will be based upon the cloner's ability to minimize or eliminate the effects of premature aging.
2, 3, and 4 are almost completely a matter of genes.
It doesn't really matter how many dogs you've trained semi-professionally. Until you get your hands on one genetically identical animal, after another, after another... I don't think you'll fully appreciate how much alike these creatures will be. Additionally, they'll be raised in very similar drug-sniffing environments.
It will be very much similar to driving one 2007 V6 Honda Accord just off the assembly line after another. You'll rarely notice a significant difference from one to the next.
They've been beating that drum for years. Can't you tell that they're investor-gobbling vaporware crooks?
- It creates real world economies that produce hordes of third-world sweat shops farming in areas where I'd like to just be enjoying myself with other gamers. Farmers suck. In-game spammers suck. These things would be a rarity if not for real world value driving them.
- I enjoy playing by "the rules of the game". I don't want to cheat by leaving the constraints of the rules. I want everyone else to obey the rules as well. If you have more gold than I do, I don't want it to be because your mommy gives you a nice cash allowance. I want it to be because you're all pasty faced from a lack of sunlight because you put the time in on the game.
- It affects me because I know about it.
The shittiest part, though, is the constant reminder that you can't even be allowed to agree with a group of folks on how to play a god damned game without cheating -- then go enjoy yourself. No, the world is full of cheating assholes who absolutely, positively, must get in there and hose your enjoyment doing things to you and your GAME world that you never agreed to remotely in the first place. I don't enjoy playing tennis with losers who cheat. Why should I enjoy sharing a game world with cheaters?Rationalize all you want with "I work hard out of the game world" excuses. That's all twisted self-justifying bullshit. You're a cheater. Wear the badge proudly.
Those are some pretty sour grapes you're pedaling there.
So how many cases do you have to win in order to have truth and wisdom in the books you write?
How many to be a good and ethical person?
How many to do noble, important things and not have wannabes in the peanut gallery take "I met him once and he wasn't all that" pot shots at you?
We need go no further than Slashdot's search engine to nail these bozos: Same guys last year making claims that they were shipping that year. Here they are the year before along with some other crooks making claims. And earlier in 2005... why do they get so much play for vapor?
Ooh, here's a good one on some guy trying sucker people with funding for his spintronics drive that will bring miraculous storage to the masses. He already has pricing worked out!
While I'm sure that sooner or later one of these technologies will pan out and we'll see a product; it all looks like con men looking for sucker investor money so far. Don't give them any attention until they ship a product or at least a prototype to a magazine that can review their product to prove that it actually exists and seems to work.
What on earth are you talking about? Of course it's not a real product. It's vapor. Here's an article on Slashdot that's not about vapor. See the difference? One is a product that an actual reviewer was able to buy and get his hands on... the other one is just fanciful speculation.
I skimmed through the article looking for a reference to a real product that someone had gotten his hands on... nothing. Just more speculation on how so much gee-whizz-plenty storage will be used to make all our lives so wonderful.
Holographic storage products are always due out "this fall" or "next year". Odds are this is just another stock price or other type of investment pump like it's been for the past 15 years that I've been seeing these announcements.
Tell me about it when I can order one online or see it on the shelf at Fry's. Until that time, don't give these greedy bastards a cent of credit or success in getting all our hopes up with vapor. Like spammers, they do it because they financially benefit from it. Like suckers who fall for spammers, the Slashdot crowd and editors are complicit in that financial success.
Ignorance in situations of justice is only useful when you have ignorance of the criminal or case being tried. You don't want a judge or jury to have preconceptions about the innocence or guilt of the parties involved.
That doesn't mean you want legal decision-makers completely ignorant of even the basic working infrastructure of our modern society. Far from your notion that the judge can just "listen to the facts" -- rather than being able to take internet information for granted while his mind moves on to the pertinent facts of the case, he's wasting valuable brain cycles trying to figure out what this whole web site thing is on the fly as he either puzzles over it himself or TAKES SOMEONE ELSE'S WORD that what it is is important or not important to the case. Is it relevant to innocence or guilt? Is it not? He doesn't know because he's too much in the dark to even have figured out what my 90 year old grandmother knows.
Besides the issues of not knowing a basic building block of the case, it's just appalling that a judge in a modern society could have his head so far buried in the sand to not know what a web site is. Does his lack of observational skills extend to facts being dispensed in the case?
Maybe seeing lots of people grouped together wasn't particularly unique in his experience at the time, but seeing rows upon rows of videogame cabinets was?
Imagine suffering through one of those CR diets for a few decades, then someone makes a cheap pill that does the same thing while allowing you to eat whatever you want. You'd feel like such a dumbass.
Or better yet, SVK.
Live by the popularity of juvenile selfish pirates, die by the popularity of juvenile selfish pirates.
I would agree with your general premise that /.ers have a skewed perspective and don't tend to realize how it explains a lot of their disconnect with what happens in reality.
/.ers tend to be highly educated.
But since we're talking about technology issues, isn't the perspective of a bunch of "smarter than your average bear" (yes, I cringed when I typed that, but it's true) geeks more relevant than joe six pack's?
What if this were a medical discussion board that tended to attract medical professionals, and we were here discussing a health issue? We would rant and rail at how the general population just doesn't understand nutrition guidelines and FDA rulings... "WHY? How could the voters and politicians let the FDA sit in the back pocket of big pharma by letting dicylatrithrithpalaphimides onto the market?", we'd bemoan.
So, I would argue that consumers tend to not know what they want, contrary to your conclusion #2. They're ignorant of the choices that they make every day -- especially in technology areas where (believe it or not),
For example, my Dad knows now that he didn't want to waste the time buying a new computer or having someone fix his current one. But since he was largely ignorant of how his online behaviors (not patching Windows, running IE, opening every attachment he received, etc.) would devastate his desktop, he did all the things that he shouldn't have done. Now he knows, and he knows because he got to experience the pain of computer catastrophe and I spent a lot of "I told you so" time educating him as to what he had been doing wrong.
As conceited as it sounds, maybe we should be a bit shocked at the technology decisions made by everyday consumers. Maybe it's justified for us to have an air of superiority when we're talking about them. Consumers don't know what rootkits are, despite the fact that they're affected by them. Look at all the people who fall for 419 scams. They're not falling victim to them because of a personal preference that relativistically is just as valid as my preference to NOT fall for them. They're doing it because they're woefully and pathetically ignorant suckers who have no clue what they're doing.
The shittiest part is that when those woeful, pathetic suckers walk into the voting booth or spend a buck to support companies that do evil so they can get the latest ass-reamingly bad hip hop CD, their opinions count just as much as mine do. I have to suffer with their dumb consumerist, political ideologue influenced choices.
I just have time for one more question on this topic.
:)
Should these guys be thrown in jail?
Flypower
Thanks for the discussion.
That would suck. Those would be pretty shitty people to want to do something like that to puppies since they're cute and all. What if they wanted to hack away at corn plants? Plants have been shown to "feel" pain by reacting physically to damaging stimuli. What if they wanted to pay to swat flies? Flies are animals that can definitely feel pain. Why are they on the other side of the line? What about sewer rats? That would be a little more disturbing than flies, but we eradicate sewer rats as a matter of course in society. If you want to use a rat trap and someone else wants to use a soldering iron, then who are you to consider yourself superior. How about if people just want to hunt the rats? We tolerate/encourage hunters in society, but hunting an animal is a form of torture, what with all the chasing and the wounding.
What's the difference between a puppy and a sewer rat, though? One is cuter, so are we basing the animals value on physical appearance? Maybe we should kill all the ugly animals! That would speak volumes about our ethical framework.
Slippery slippery slippery slopes everywhere you turn with this issue. The only logical framework I've ever been able to build upon to govern the humananimal relationship has been one based upon societal contract and property ownership. If you've got something not just rooted in aesthetics and emotion, please let me know about it. I'd be happy to give it some thought. Puppies are cute and I don't like it when people are mean to them on a visceral level. However, a dog is not demonstrably more important than the fly you swat, the rat you exterminate, or the cow you slaughter.
No, we don't need animal rights. "Animal rights" is just a mess of slippery slopes that are impossible to reconcile logically. Okay, animals have the right to not be tortured or treated cruelly. By PETA's definition, keeping an animal in a cage is treating it cruelly... so is killing it to eat it. Huh, so I guess we're all vegetarians now. Oh, crap. Harvesting grain kills millions of animals every year. I guess we have to stop doing that too. So where do we draw the line? Are humans allowed to survive in the face of killing animals?
Sorry, people, but animals are (or should be treated as) property like shoes, cars, and computers.
Animals have no ability to negotiate social contracts for themselves or their offspring. They're unable to agree to society's implicit contract by following rules of behavior. There are no members of animal society able to vouchsafe their behaviors.
Animals should be treated as meaty machines. Fascinatingly complex meaty machines, to be sure -- but meaty machines nonetheless. If I want to raise some to eat, then I should be able to do that. If I want to raise some to test drugs on, then I should be able to do that. If I want to raise some to skin for clothing (shallow as a thing like that may appear to some), then I should be able to do that.
Yes, I know it sounds hard hearted to say things like this; but I strongly believe in a society-based view of rights. If you're not in the society in some meaningful way, it's kind of tough shit. The world is a place of limited space and resources. We either consider how we share it with each other in logical, meaningful ways; or we say "screw it" and just live lives of hedonistic anarchy.
FYI, Pokemon is #19 on Wikipedia's list of most visited pages over the last couple of days. I was looking at Wikipedia's stats page the other day and noticed that interesting fact.
Exactly what I thought as I was reading the article. It's one thing to have a little sensationalism in article title summaries to spice things up a bit; but to say that researches stop brain activity with light and that this technique could be used to help with people with epilepsy is just downright wrong.
Articles summaries like this need to be pulled and rewritten or discarded. I find it really annoying to be dealt a bait and switch by Slashdot.
I'll take it a step further. Borland/Inprise/whatever is such a fucked up piece of shit company that I'd never knowingly start a serious project that depends upon them or their products in any way.
My team has suffered from blistering crotch fires of agony trying to cope with C++ Builder's (5 & 6) linker woes. Rather than spending our valuable development time on important-for-our-customers product development issues, the very existence of our company became reliant upon working around our inability to even link our growing application.
It was a horrible mess, and one that Borland was useless in helping us to resolve because they were off working on new products that never saw the light of day.
Never *ever* again.
That's a bit extreme. The reason for the patent system is to encourage people to invent new things rather than just copying the ideas of others. The problem is that congress (and therefore the public in general), thinks that it's just a set and forget type system that doesn't need to be revised. Maybe throwing out the whole thing would be the best solution. I would think that paying attention to it and correcting some of its problems would be more useful.
too... many... uranus... jokes... in... mind... must... refrain...
That's just god awful... nice job.
While there's some truth to the thrust of your argument, in that the whole concept of racism is a multi-edged sword and that many(most) are guilty of acting in a racist manner at some point in time, even inadvertently. I'm not so sure that understanding and acknowledging who will work well as a role model for many children falls under the label of "racism". You might need to define the term before using it in that case.
It was a joke, son. You know, a "rib tickler"? A "funny"?
I had never seen the show before. I didn't find the outline of the character to be confusing. It was a misunderstanding, lesson learned. Move on without prosecution, please.