It's not just you. Furthermore, some of us even figured that out before the "bubble" happened.
I've got a wife, 4 kids, and lots of hobbies, and while I enjoy work, I don't enjoy it more than the rest of my life. I left my last job in part because my peers were almost all single guys who thought little of 60 or 80 hour weeks (and the chaotic, poorly-managed environment made that necessary way too often) whereas if I'm as little as an hour or 2 late coming home, my kids are disappointed and my wife has to do extra work (feed the kids, get them ready for bed, reading stories, etc), so I place a high priority on a job which requires relatively few long days. Fortunately, I have found a place which doesn't (for a change) operate in perpetual crisis mode, with great pay no less. Also, the company has been around for several years and isn't walking a razor-edge of venture capital and market hiccups to stay in existence.
You seem to think that this is driven by the same kind of irrational fear that lead to the persecution of Galileo. I think we are talking apples and oranges. The fear that this technology will be used to exploit human beings for the benefit of others is no irrational fear, it is the only way it can go. Aside from skin (and that is limited), we can't currently grow any organ in a laboratory and can hardly keep organs in a transplantable state. The _only_ way cloning could benefit anyone today is for cloned humans to be grown and harvested for their body parts. All this business about brainless human organ farms is still firmly entrenched in the "many years down the road category, if ever".
Your arguement that we shouldn't worry about it because we will save lives applies equally well to the Nazis experimenting on Jews. Another post of mine got modded down to 0 based, I suppose, on the fact that anyone who invokes the Nazis is making a spurious argument. However, there is no doubt that what these "doctors" learned could be used to save lives. If we accept that and put it into practice, what happens the next time someone tries to do it? They will reason that ends justifies the means. Going back to the cloning issue, it all comes back to the idea of what constitutes human life and what rights do humans have.
Look at this way Anonymous (and why in the world would you not get yourself an account so more people will read your posts, unlike a lot of folks around here, you are actually responding intelligently? We need more good debate on/.),
if we do ban cloning, people will die because of lack of potential benefits of that technology. If we don't ban cloning, people will die in the attempt to reach that technology. I think we need to be extremely careful who we consider human, because we are already on the slippery slope to having our humanity, as well as our right to life being defined in more and more arbitrary and expedient terms.
Please see my response to another AC in this thread for that discussion.
OK, fine, when you put it in terms of organ factories, which I think you'll agree is essentially what you are saying, I don't think there's necessarily a problem. The problem I have, and that you and the other person who responded seem to have missed is how do you get there. How do you grow a human body without a brain (jokes about Congress and Microsoft engineers don't count)? These days, that would probably mean growing a human and taking out his or her brain. Now the problem comes back to, what defines human life? This is essentially the same problem that is the crux of the abortion issue. Anyone who considers a human embryo or fetus as not a person must then logically be able to point to some defining event which makes that person a human after some period of not being one. You will find there are three alternatives:
1. Life starts at the point of conception.
2. Life starts at some point after conception that can only be defined completely arbitrarily (much like Jews or blacks being defined as not human), or on the basis of the available level of technology, money, or desire of the parents. In all three cases, the argument is not scientific and we return to treating people as commodities. While, the other poster doesn't seem to have a problem with it, I am certainly not looking forward to the day when people are executed because they are not deemed economically feasible to remain alive, and that is a guaranteed result of that thinking.
3. Life never starts. I think even on Slashdot, it would be hard to find someone who takes this view.
Now, in the case of clones, the situation is pretty analogous. If an embryo is afforded the right to life as a result of being an individual, genetically-unique human being, then an embryo put together by replacing the nucleus in a developing zygote, which is how I understand cloning currently is done, I think you can see where I'm going.
I also have a problem with the whole argument of "if the embryo doesn't suffer, we are not doing anything wrong". A person at ground zero of a pre-emptive nuclear strike doesn't suffer either, doesn't that mean the same thing?
Now I will accept that very few people on/. will agree with me that the fact that the soul created at the conception of a human being is sufficient reason to grant that embryo the full rights afforded to other humans, I will think that any honest person will agree that any other definition of when life begins involves tradeoffs and compromises, many of which are a slippery slope leading to the kinds of dystopias we have seen in both the real world and in fiction, where people are considered things.
I believe that unless we keep an absolute definition of human life and its rights, we will eventually see those rights whittled away. Abortion has been legal for almost 30 years, and you are now hearing academics openly advocating allowing infanticide. Answer me this, now that we are going down that path, where will we be in 20, 50 or 100 years?
However, the former will happen for many years before the latter. Therein lies the problem. There was a recent news story about a doctor in Italy who wants to use cloning to help infertile couples despite bans against cloning that are being considered and/or enacted. About the same time came news that Dolly, DotCom the pig and all those other cloned animals are suffering from a large percentage of serious, apparently congenital, ailments and many are dying young of serious illnesses. I think given the current, limited state of cloning technology, a ban on human cloning is the only logical way to proceed.
Because once human cloning starts, living human beings will become a commodity, and I think we, as a civilization, can all agree that people shouldn't be property.
So all you have to do is fire up the cloning vats, take a sample from your Dad and clone a (presumably) viable embryo, bring the embryo to term, allow the person to become mature enough for organ to be usable, hope he doesn't mind that you're going to kill him, kill him, take out his liver, transplant it into your father.
Time estimate: 20 years.
You've been reading too many science fiction books. No wait, you can nver read too many science fictions books. You haven't read enough science non-fiction books!
I missed your URL. My eyes automatically tuned it out as a.sig. Still I hardly consider anything Salon has to say as more than the ramblings of self-absorbed, twenty-something intellectual-wannabes. If children were intellectually and emotionally capable of understanding the complexities (and often horrors) of life, they wouldn't be children.
I have also read Lewis and Tolkien to my children and they liked those, too, and while I recognize that their works are superior, I still think that Baum's books are worth reading, particularly to preschool-age kids. I read "The Hobbit" to my older kids when my three-year-old was a baby, I doubt, were I to read it now, she would have the patience or comprehension to sit through it. However, that's up to her. We also read plenty of shorter fare like Thomas the Tank Engine (the originals are also classics, IMO), and light stuff like Dr. Seuss and the Berenstain Bears. Given that my kids have over 100 books, I think there's room for "The Wizard of Oz" among them.
Lighten up, dude. It's a story. Why does everything have to expose everyone to all that is bad in the world. What's so wrong about children being children? Do you think my three-year-old would enjoy the story if the Scarecrow suddenly took 17 slugs in a drive-by shooting? Why is that everyone at Slashdot (most of whom, not coincidently don't have children) think you can treat children like miniature adults. What's wrong with a little fantasy?
Of course, I don't even know why I'm responding since you don't actually site any examples in your gratuitous assertion... that -1 score is there for a reason.
I just finished reading "The Wizard of Oz" to my children, a superb book by the way, and all they talked about for weeks was getting the Oz action set, including the Emerald City playset, a full complement of Munchkins, Winkies, Flying Monkeys, posable Dorothy (silver shoes not included) with three sets of clothing, Cowardly Lion with the Kung Fu grip, Rock-em-sock-em Tin Woodman and Scarecrow with Real Action Straw (pins and needles sold separately.
I'm just glad when we read the Hobbit they didn't want the Turbo Smaug with real flame. It was expensive enough buying the Laketown playset, and I waited in line for three hours for the last Bombur figure.
All those old classics are chock full of subtle marketing.
Hey, no problem. However, I think your perception of Christians is based (as is our perceptions of most groups) on a vocal minority that doesn't necessarily represent the group as a whole (or even any significant faction thereof).
However, as an example, if you take the given (and I know many people don't, but bear with me) that abortion is killing an innocent human being, then calling for an end to legal abortion is as morally justified as calling for an end to slavery was 140 years ago. Similarly, if you consider the effects of laws called for by these people (decency laws, etc) are merely attempts to codify laws to protect people just like laws against pollution, murder, etc, then you will see that they are not trying to take over your lives (well, some might be...) but ratehr trying to look out for society's well being. Just because you think someone is wrong doesn't mean you should see that person as bad. I wish more people would understand that.
A lot of people will bash the Christians for doing the same kinds of things they (the bashers) are doing, simply because they don't agree with them, and don't realize the double standard they are applying. It gets tiring after a while, but that's what happens when the level of public discourse, as evidenced by many politicians and many other vocal citizens is reduced to the intellectual level of a peanut butter commercial ("Choosy voters vote for Senator Bedfellow!"). It is great that there are forums like Slashdot where people can converse in more depth.
Rick
Diversity of ideas includes those ideas that are _not_ unpopular or prejudiced against.
Again, you are "dictating" the morality that everone should leave everyone else alone, unless they are causing harm to others. Now there's nothing wrong with that as long as you realize that it is morally equivalent to some Bible-thumper (or me) "dictating" that you should use pornography. What's the difference here? You want to change people's behavior either way, even if one is more subtle than the other.
The fact of the matter is that ALL law is forcing people to conform to a certain set of morals or beliefs. It's just that the morality imposed (at least in the U.S. and other democracies) is a subset of morality as espoused by the major religions that is generally accepted by the population at large. If outlawing pornography is forcing your morals on someone, isn't outlawing murder also? Let's set aside for the second that you consider pornography to have no negative impact on society... I bet you could find the extreme case of a person who would argue that murder does not have a negative impact on society. Oh, wait, that's not so extreme after all when you consider the abortion supporters.
In any event, I just want people to see that communicating how you think the world should work is no more an attack when you are espousing that homosexulaity is wrong than when you are espousing that "Information wants to be free". It's all just words, and since we live in a democratic republic (at least in the U.S., et al), if a majority of people want to create new laws, we must rely on the wisdom of the legislators and the protections of the U.S. Constitution (U.S.-centric views here, sorry) to make sure those laws respect our rights. Now this is often a very grey area, but no matter how secular a government is (and the U.S.'s is codified to not favor any religion over another), you cannot escape the fact that all law is based on morality and there is no stronger influence on morality throughout history than religion. You might want to pull down copies of the Ten Commandments from the courtroom walls, but you cannot discount the profound and far-reaching effect they (as well as many other religious tenets) have had on modern law.
Again, I have never argued with your statement about "anything you want as long as you don't harm others"... in fact I support it. However, we disagree on what harms others, and since no one lives in a vacuum, harming yourself always has an indirect effect on others, and I would argue that it can't be good. It may be a subtle distinction, but I think it is important.
So let me get this straight, people should be left alone unless they are harming others. Well, from a Christian point of view participating in pornography _does_ harm others, as well as yourself. I criticize intolerance, because the "tolerance" crowd is often incapable of seeing any point of view but their own, and quite often the "tolerance" crowd is anything but.
For example, isn't it ironic that when the Boy Scouts want to exclude openly gay leaders from their organization (as protected by the First Amendment) it's called "unfairly imposing their morality on others", but when pro-homosexual people demand that they "tolerate" people who openly engage in behavior that is believed to be immoral, it's called tolerance. As a Christian, I would say I have more of a claim to being tired of non-Christian values being foisted upon be because they are so pervasive. When is the last time you saw a movie or TV show that promoted chastity or modesty? When was the last time you heard a politician claim that we need to protect the rights of heterosexual people who want to live their lives a certain way (not to suggest that's needed), when was the last time you heard someone say that if you don't want AIDS, don't have promiscuous sex, rather than perpetuating the myth that condoms, which do a really poor job of preventing pregnancy overall, are any better at prevent the transmission of disease?
See? The intolerance and moralizing go both ways. It's amusing how many people fail to see that.
In a democracy, the people determine the course of action the government takes through elections and petition, etc. Isn't is interesting that when it's for racial issues, or especially here on Slashdot, intellectual property issues, it's called "speaking out", but when it's about issues that you don't agree with, it's "bullying". A double standard by Slashdot posters? How quaint (or it would be if it weren't so pandemic).
I understand perfectly what his _point_ was. His _point_ was that he thinks Christians are idiots and their views are stupid because he disagrees with them. He's entitled to his opinion, and so am I.
If you actually knew anything about Christianity, you would realize that it is not inconsistent with your 'each to his own' philosophy, but rather disagrees with what "negatively affects" other's live. Pornography certainly falls into that category, whether it's the thousands of people exploited by the industry or the millions of customers who would rather see other human beings as a series of moist orifices rather than people. It's this attitude that (some) people are just meat for our entertainment that is harmful.
I am extremely tired of the fact that people on Slashdot can pontificate until they are blue in the face, but when someone else does the same thing, he or she is put down as being "intolerant" or "self-righteous" and are worthy of scorn. Gee, I thought a community that prides itself on holding sacred the free exchange of information would practive what they preach. But then it's clear most of the posters here (and I'm not referring to anyone in particular) are a bunch of snot-nosed, self-absorbed but clueless college students who have no clue about what the real world is like. As former snot-nosed, self-absorbed, but clueless college student, I can recognize the signs.
...and this post's parent is the embodiment of typical American anti-Christian self-righteous intolerance. I think the scales about balance out. Do you think?
You seem to have not read my post. By what logic do you equate a brain cell with a byte? That seems arbitrary at best. Surely a brain cell is a more complex entity (especially since it is analog) and any kind of mapping between something so complex as a cell and a few bits of binary information must surely be a gross oversimplification with no basis in fact.
...and you think that one of these ten billion brain cells interconnected with dozens or even hundreds of others responding to many different electrical and chemical stimuli in complex ways equals one byte?
I think it will be a long time before we even have the raw storage of the human brain available in a single computer... and much longer before the extreme level of interconnectedness among the elements of this storage can be simulated. Let's not forget, no one has ruled out that the brain is not also driven by quantum effects as well.
Furthermore, even if we did have the memory capacity, the amount of parallel processing going on in the brain would require orders of magnitude more processing power than any one machine has today.
Now, quantum computers may change this, but right now QC is working on the order of a couple of bits. It, too, has a long way to go.
blurred picture: -2
picture too small: -4 (amazing how many pictures can't be made out)
headshot: +2 (you can see her face better)
animal in picture: -2 (she's obviously obsessed or weird)
kids in picture: +2 (shows she is warm and caring)
alcohol in hand: 0 (How could that possibly matter?)
alcohol in my hand: +2 (if I drank while I surfed I'm sure they would be more attractive)
can't see face: -4, she sees herself as just a sex object, or has something to hide
looks angry or pouty: -3 (I don't know where the moronic perception that that is attractive came from).
smiling: +1... I don't care what she looks like...
obviously having fun: +1
I guess I have different priorities. All in all, I'd rather surf http://freshmeat.net.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been married for 8 years and the best part of my day is the warm welcome I get from my wife and kids after work. Don't be so cynical.
Rick
It's not just you. Furthermore, some of us even figured that out before the "bubble" happened.
I've got a wife, 4 kids, and lots of hobbies, and while I enjoy work, I don't enjoy it more than the rest of my life. I left my last job in part because my peers were almost all single guys who thought little of 60 or 80 hour weeks (and the chaotic, poorly-managed environment made that necessary way too often) whereas if I'm as little as an hour or 2 late coming home, my kids are disappointed and my wife has to do extra work (feed the kids, get them ready for bed, reading stories, etc), so I place a high priority on a job which requires relatively few long days. Fortunately, I have found a place which doesn't (for a change) operate in perpetual crisis mode, with great pay no less. Also, the company has been around for several years and isn't walking a razor-edge of venture capital and market hiccups to stay in existence.
Rick
Good argument. Too bad many of the folks here seem to think people are just so much meat.
You seem to think that this is driven by the same kind of irrational fear that lead to the persecution of Galileo. I think we are talking apples and oranges. The fear that this technology will be used to exploit human beings for the benefit of others is no irrational fear, it is the only way it can go. Aside from skin (and that is limited), we can't currently grow any organ in a laboratory and can hardly keep organs in a transplantable state. The _only_ way cloning could benefit anyone today is for cloned humans to be grown and harvested for their body parts. All this business about brainless human organ farms is still firmly entrenched in the "many years down the road category, if ever".
/.),
Your arguement that we shouldn't worry about it because we will save lives applies equally well to the Nazis experimenting on Jews. Another post of mine got modded down to 0 based, I suppose, on the fact that anyone who invokes the Nazis is making a spurious argument. However, there is no doubt that what these "doctors" learned could be used to save lives. If we accept that and put it into practice, what happens the next time someone tries to do it? They will reason that ends justifies the means. Going back to the cloning issue, it all comes back to the idea of what constitutes human life and what rights do humans have.
Look at this way Anonymous (and why in the world would you not get yourself an account so more people will read your posts, unlike a lot of folks around here, you are actually responding intelligently? We need more good debate on
if we do ban cloning, people will die because of lack of potential benefits of that technology. If we don't ban cloning, people will die in the attempt to reach that technology. I think we need to be extremely careful who we consider human, because we are already on the slippery slope to having our humanity, as well as our right to life being defined in more and more arbitrary and expedient terms.
Please see my response to another AC in this thread for that discussion.
OK, fine, when you put it in terms of organ factories, which I think you'll agree is essentially what you are saying, I don't think there's necessarily a problem. The problem I have, and that you and the other person who responded seem to have missed is how do you get there. How do you grow a human body without a brain (jokes about Congress and Microsoft engineers don't count)? These days, that would probably mean growing a human and taking out his or her brain. Now the problem comes back to, what defines human life? This is essentially the same problem that is the crux of the abortion issue. Anyone who considers a human embryo or fetus as not a person must then logically be able to point to some defining event which makes that person a human after some period of not being one. You will find there are three alternatives:
/. will agree with me that the fact that the soul created at the conception of a human being is sufficient reason to grant that embryo the full rights afforded to other humans, I will think that any honest person will agree that any other definition of when life begins involves tradeoffs and compromises, many of which are a slippery slope leading to the kinds of dystopias we have seen in both the real world and in fiction, where people are considered things.
1. Life starts at the point of conception.
2. Life starts at some point after conception that can only be defined completely arbitrarily (much like Jews or blacks being defined as not human), or on the basis of the available level of technology, money, or desire of the parents. In all three cases, the argument is not scientific and we return to treating people as commodities. While, the other poster doesn't seem to have a problem with it, I am certainly not looking forward to the day when people are executed because they are not deemed economically feasible to remain alive, and that is a guaranteed result of that thinking.
3. Life never starts. I think even on Slashdot, it would be hard to find someone who takes this view.
Now, in the case of clones, the situation is pretty analogous. If an embryo is afforded the right to life as a result of being an individual, genetically-unique human being, then an embryo put together by replacing the nucleus in a developing zygote, which is how I understand cloning currently is done, I think you can see where I'm going.
I also have a problem with the whole argument of "if the embryo doesn't suffer, we are not doing anything wrong". A person at ground zero of a pre-emptive nuclear strike doesn't suffer either, doesn't that mean the same thing?
Now I will accept that very few people on
I believe that unless we keep an absolute definition of human life and its rights, we will eventually see those rights whittled away. Abortion has been legal for almost 30 years, and you are now hearing academics openly advocating allowing infanticide. Answer me this, now that we are going down that path, where will we be in 20, 50 or 100 years?
You're right.
However, the former will happen for many years before the latter. Therein lies the problem. There was a recent news story about a doctor in Italy who wants to use cloning to help infertile couples despite bans against cloning that are being considered and/or enacted. About the same time came news that Dolly, DotCom the pig and all those other cloned animals are suffering from a large percentage of serious, apparently congenital, ailments and many are dying young of serious illnesses. I think given the current, limited state of cloning technology, a ban on human cloning is the only logical way to proceed.
Because once human cloning starts, living human beings will become a commodity, and I think we, as a civilization, can all agree that people shouldn't be property.
So all you have to do is fire up the cloning vats, take a sample from your Dad and clone a (presumably) viable embryo, bring the embryo to term, allow the person to become mature enough for organ to be usable, hope he doesn't mind that you're going to kill him, kill him, take out his liver, transplant it into your father.
Time estimate: 20 years.
You've been reading too many science fiction books. No wait, you can nver read too many science fictions books. You haven't read enough science non-fiction books!
I missed your URL. My eyes automatically tuned it out as a .sig. Still I hardly consider anything Salon has to say as more than the ramblings of self-absorbed, twenty-something intellectual-wannabes. If children were intellectually and emotionally capable of understanding the complexities (and often horrors) of life, they wouldn't be children.
I have also read Lewis and Tolkien to my children and they liked those, too, and while I recognize that their works are superior, I still think that Baum's books are worth reading, particularly to preschool-age kids. I read "The Hobbit" to my older kids when my three-year-old was a baby, I doubt, were I to read it now, she would have the patience or comprehension to sit through it. However, that's up to her. We also read plenty of shorter fare like Thomas the Tank Engine (the originals are also classics, IMO), and light stuff like Dr. Seuss and the Berenstain Bears. Given that my kids have over 100 books, I think there's room for "The Wizard of Oz" among them.
Rick
Lighten up, dude. It's a story. Why does everything have to expose everyone to all that is bad in the world. What's so wrong about children being children? Do you think my three-year-old would enjoy the story if the Scarecrow suddenly took 17 slugs in a drive-by shooting? Why is that everyone at Slashdot (most of whom, not coincidently don't have children) think you can treat children like miniature adults. What's wrong with a little fantasy?
Of course, I don't even know why I'm responding since you don't actually site any examples in your gratuitous assertion... that -1 score is there for a reason.
I just finished reading "The Wizard of Oz" to my children, a superb book by the way, and all they talked about for weeks was getting the Oz action set, including the Emerald City playset, a full complement of Munchkins, Winkies, Flying Monkeys, posable Dorothy (silver shoes not included) with three sets of clothing, Cowardly Lion with the Kung Fu grip, Rock-em-sock-em Tin Woodman and Scarecrow with Real Action Straw (pins and needles sold separately.
I'm just glad when we read the Hobbit they didn't want the Turbo Smaug with real flame. It was expensive enough buying the Laketown playset, and I waited in line for three hours for the last Bombur figure.
All those old classics are chock full of subtle marketing.
It seems obvious to me that the catchy name for the time_t rollover should be s2G!
Slowly, across the world... allowing for folks on the dark side of the planet to wake up and check /.
Hey, no problem. However, I think your perception of Christians is based (as is our perceptions of most groups) on a vocal minority that doesn't necessarily represent the group as a whole (or even any significant faction thereof).
However, as an example, if you take the given (and I know many people don't, but bear with me) that abortion is killing an innocent human being, then calling for an end to legal abortion is as morally justified as calling for an end to slavery was 140 years ago. Similarly, if you consider the effects of laws called for by these people (decency laws, etc) are merely attempts to codify laws to protect people just like laws against pollution, murder, etc, then you will see that they are not trying to take over your lives (well, some might be...) but ratehr trying to look out for society's well being. Just because you think someone is wrong doesn't mean you should see that person as bad. I wish more people would understand that.
A lot of people will bash the Christians for doing the same kinds of things they (the bashers) are doing, simply because they don't agree with them, and don't realize the double standard they are applying. It gets tiring after a while, but that's what happens when the level of public discourse, as evidenced by many politicians and many other vocal citizens is reduced to the intellectual level of a peanut butter commercial ("Choosy voters vote for Senator Bedfellow!"). It is great that there are forums like Slashdot where people can converse in more depth.
Rick
Diversity of ideas includes those ideas that are _not_ unpopular or prejudiced against.
I think he should just go back to writing classical music.
(heh heh)
Again, you are "dictating" the morality that everone should leave everyone else alone, unless they are causing harm to others. Now there's nothing wrong with that as long as you realize that it is morally equivalent to some Bible-thumper (or me) "dictating" that you should use pornography. What's the difference here? You want to change people's behavior either way, even if one is more subtle than the other.
The fact of the matter is that ALL law is forcing people to conform to a certain set of morals or beliefs. It's just that the morality imposed (at least in the U.S. and other democracies) is a subset of morality as espoused by the major religions that is generally accepted by the population at large. If outlawing pornography is forcing your morals on someone, isn't outlawing murder also? Let's set aside for the second that you consider pornography to have no negative impact on society... I bet you could find the extreme case of a person who would argue that murder does not have a negative impact on society. Oh, wait, that's not so extreme after all when you consider the abortion supporters.
In any event, I just want people to see that communicating how you think the world should work is no more an attack when you are espousing that homosexulaity is wrong than when you are espousing that "Information wants to be free". It's all just words, and since we live in a democratic republic (at least in the U.S., et al), if a majority of people want to create new laws, we must rely on the wisdom of the legislators and the protections of the U.S. Constitution (U.S.-centric views here, sorry) to make sure those laws respect our rights. Now this is often a very grey area, but no matter how secular a government is (and the U.S.'s is codified to not favor any religion over another), you cannot escape the fact that all law is based on morality and there is no stronger influence on morality throughout history than religion. You might want to pull down copies of the Ten Commandments from the courtroom walls, but you cannot discount the profound and far-reaching effect they (as well as many other religious tenets) have had on modern law.
Again, I have never argued with your statement about "anything you want as long as you don't harm others"... in fact I support it. However, we disagree on what harms others, and since no one lives in a vacuum, harming yourself always has an indirect effect on others, and I would argue that it can't be good. It may be a subtle distinction, but I think it is important.
So if Apple were a person, he or she would be a prominent poster on Slashdot?
So let me get this straight, people should be left alone unless they are harming others. Well, from a Christian point of view participating in pornography _does_ harm others, as well as yourself. I criticize intolerance, because the "tolerance" crowd is often incapable of seeing any point of view but their own, and quite often the "tolerance" crowd is anything but.
For example, isn't it ironic that when the Boy Scouts want to exclude openly gay leaders from their organization (as protected by the First Amendment) it's called "unfairly imposing their morality on others", but when pro-homosexual people demand that they "tolerate" people who openly engage in behavior that is believed to be immoral, it's called tolerance. As a Christian, I would say I have more of a claim to being tired of non-Christian values being foisted upon be because they are so pervasive. When is the last time you saw a movie or TV show that promoted chastity or modesty? When was the last time you heard a politician claim that we need to protect the rights of heterosexual people who want to live their lives a certain way (not to suggest that's needed), when was the last time you heard someone say that if you don't want AIDS, don't have promiscuous sex, rather than perpetuating the myth that condoms, which do a really poor job of preventing pregnancy overall, are any better at prevent the transmission of disease?
See? The intolerance and moralizing go both ways. It's amusing how many people fail to see that.
In a democracy, the people determine the course of action the government takes through elections and petition, etc. Isn't is interesting that when it's for racial issues, or especially here on Slashdot, intellectual property issues, it's called "speaking out", but when it's about issues that you don't agree with, it's "bullying". A double standard by Slashdot posters? How quaint (or it would be if it weren't so pandemic).
I understand perfectly what his _point_ was. His _point_ was that he thinks Christians are idiots and their views are stupid because he disagrees with them. He's entitled to his opinion, and so am I.
If you actually knew anything about Christianity, you would realize that it is not inconsistent with your 'each to his own' philosophy, but rather disagrees with what "negatively affects" other's live. Pornography certainly falls into that category, whether it's the thousands of people exploited by the industry or the millions of customers who would rather see other human beings as a series of moist orifices rather than people. It's this attitude that (some) people are just meat for our entertainment that is harmful.
I am extremely tired of the fact that people on Slashdot can pontificate until they are blue in the face, but when someone else does the same thing, he or she is put down as being "intolerant" or "self-righteous" and are worthy of scorn. Gee, I thought a community that prides itself on holding sacred the free exchange of information would practive what they preach. But then it's clear most of the posters here (and I'm not referring to anyone in particular) are a bunch of snot-nosed, self-absorbed but clueless college students who have no clue about what the real world is like. As former snot-nosed, self-absorbed, but clueless college student, I can recognize the signs.
...and this post's parent is the embodiment of typical American anti-Christian self-righteous intolerance. I think the scales about balance out. Do you think?
You seem to have not read my post. By what logic do you equate a brain cell with a byte? That seems arbitrary at best. Surely a brain cell is a more complex entity (especially since it is analog) and any kind of mapping between something so complex as a cell and a few bits of binary information must surely be a gross oversimplification with no basis in fact.
...and you think that one of these ten billion brain cells interconnected with dozens or even hundreds of others responding to many different electrical and chemical stimuli in complex ways equals one byte?
I think it will be a long time before we even have the raw storage of the human brain available in a single computer... and much longer before the extreme level of interconnectedness among the elements of this storage can be simulated. Let's not forget, no one has ruled out that the brain is not also driven by quantum effects as well.
Furthermore, even if we did have the memory capacity, the amount of parallel processing going on in the brain would require orders of magnitude more processing power than any one machine has today.
Now, quantum computers may change this, but right now QC is working on the order of a couple of bits. It, too, has a long way to go.
I see things a little differently:
blurred picture: -2
picture too small: -4 (amazing how many pictures can't be made out)
headshot: +2 (you can see her face better)
animal in picture: -2 (she's obviously obsessed or weird)
kids in picture: +2 (shows she is warm and caring)
alcohol in hand: 0 (How could that possibly matter?)
alcohol in my hand: +2 (if I drank while I surfed I'm sure they would be more attractive)
can't see face: -4, she sees herself as just a sex object, or has something to hide
looks angry or pouty: -3 (I don't know where the moronic perception that that is attractive came from).
smiling: +1... I don't care what she looks like...
obviously having fun: +1
I guess I have different priorities. All in all, I'd rather surf http://freshmeat.net.
Rick
I get a real kick out of having to pay for something that restricts my fair use. Woo hoo!
Rick
I thought that was just a system of cooperative poor-man's sonar primarily used in a recreational aquatic environment. You mean I gotta pay to play?
...Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Rick
No way... your Google search clearly collided aggressively with my gratuitous assertion. I demand that you return my lame metaphor immediately.