bush didn't rule out anything... bush didn't allow anything
Bush gave funding for the already existing stem cells to be researched. It hasn't been decided whether we can harvest any more or whether stem cell research will be brought to a halt. The Senate or the House (i'm not sure which) passed a bill making stem cell harvesting illegal, however it still has to pass through the other respective committee that we call government, and then through the president. Also the supreme court has the right to dictate whether the bill is unconstitutional or not. No rulings have actually been made yet.
dude, you really speak the truth. You don't even have to look back to far to see the power trips that [any] church is on. Watch Stigmata, anybody? Anyone heard of Tammy Fae Baker? the list goes on.
'Well, I didn't expect a sort of Spanish Inquisition!' 'Noone expects the Spanish Inquisition- Our cheif element is surprise!'
I agree that while 'religious freedom' may have started out with good intentions, these once liberal protestant churches have turned extremely conservative, controlling, and interested mainly in power over people. Pushing your belief system onto others has been a practice of mankind for millenia. As it stands, the term 'religious freedom' is synonymous with 'control of the government by pieces of society, not the whole'.
However, some of your points i disagree with-
'scientific community...has way, way more than necessary reasons to consider all religions to be based on false theories.'
This is not true. Each scientist has himself a religion and therefore a belief system which guides him through life. [yes atheism is a religion. simply denying the existence of god does not make you religionless. As well, to be without any sort of religion, and IANAG(i am not a god) but as i understand it, you must be Nihilistic. This would constitute that you don't believe in the existence of anything- you, science, computers, the internet, your family, god, etc. Since you don't believe that anything actually exists, there would be truly no point to be a scientist and try and figure things out. True nihilists don't take an active part in society and probably commit suicide rather early since they have no point to live, because they are not living. I know I'm talking in circles, but i am struggling to make sense of it as well.]
Regardless of his creed, a scientist is obligated to be objective in his findings and not simply use findings that perpetuate his/her theory. Therefore religion should not affect the scientific processes or governmental processes, however it does have an effect on the people involved in these processes.
having too many people from one particular creed in power may be bad for the society in general, however sometimes it just ends up that way. The only time it is bad, anyway, is when those in power form together to stay in power and to broadcast their 'truths'.
people like to hold things
staring at a computer screen is strenuous
scrolling can be a bitch
it's much easier to keep your place on the page with paper
it doesn't take forever to download a book on paper
cover art is friendly
books on shelves are aesthetically and socially pleasing
closing a window on your browser is not as satisfying as replacing a book on the shelf
i can throw a book if it is frustrating- i'm not gonna fscking kick my computer or damage it in any other way
books are cheaper than computers
bending covers and dog-earing pages are therapeutic activities
i can go anywere with a book
i don't have to pay an electricity bill to read a book(except at night when i need light)
i can fall asleep in bed with a book, but not so easily a mouse and keyboard
if i spill my tea/coffee/soda/beer/water on a book, it's not the end of the world
the list goes on
So far, every post i've seen has been one pissant argument after the other. Kids were always rebellious and are nothing vs. Now they can destroy our world.
let's think.. Back in the day there were children who teased eachother, spraypainted grafitti... there were also children who committed savage acts of crime like rape and burglary[don't deny it just because it wasn't in the news]
There were also adults who spraypainted and acted like children, as were there adults who committed violent acts; More adults commit savage acts actually.
Now there are still both adults and children who act like children. And there are still adults and children who act like savages. Just because the internet is commonplace and children seem to take to computers like fish to water does not mean that every fifteen year old kid is writing virii... it also doesn't mean that all virii are written by 15 year old kids. To say these things would be ludicrous and flat out wrong. Adults do it too...
Here is the only reason anyone is up in arms about 15 year olds having access to information about virii: The media- When a 37 year old writes a virus or hacks a federal establishment, it's just another old geeky loser hacker. When a 15 year old writes a virus or hacks a federal establishment, it's the future, today's youth, who are becoming criminals and run amok!
Common Misconception #1- 1 child can represent the entire U.S. population under the age of 17.
'But even movies about apes ought to evolve -- does anybody in 2001 really need convincing of slavery's evil?'
excuse me? did katz just say that despite rampant slavery in third world countries throughout, plus sweatshops run here in america? What about many countries attitude toward women that puts them in near slave like conditions?
you're analogies of equating scientific fact to belief systems is not only ludicrous, it is assanine. The fact that the world is a sphere-like object is not a belief system, nor is it a moral standpoint or even merely a feeling. It is fact- proven long ago. Yes, at one point in time you could have said it was a matter of belief, but only because someone hadn't proven it scientifically.
To borrow from IanCarlson[who posted earlier _citing_ your intolerance]- 'When you mentioned that your police officer friends never abused their power, you recieved a bunch of replies noting that you had no reliable way of knowing this. Moreover, there was a fair amount of doubt that a corrupt cop would come clean to his civilian friend(s). Instead of humoring/exploring these notions, you insisted that the whole concept was ludicrous. This insistance that you were correct was intolerance for the opinions of others.
Part of the definition of being a bigot is one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion. You are blindly and obstinately devoted to your opinion that your police officer friends don't abuse their power, therefore you are bigoted against other opinions.
As you have been shown conclusivly at this point to be a bigot and intolerant.
Would you like me to specifically cite you for where and how you've wasted vast amounts of my time by being a twerp who feels he has the right to be "cited" on everything?'
To break it down for you, what we all are saying is that you are blindly following these men as a sheep. Do you not question their integrity? Sure, they are your friends, but one questions his friends from time to time. Especially when his friends are in a place of power and have a responsibility to the public. Noone is trying to say that undeniably your friends are corrupt, we are just saying that you cannot make us believe that they are 100% pure. There was a time in American history, not too long ago, when any man in public office, and before that any white man, was infalliable in the eyes of the general public. People who did very bad things, but noone questioned them until much later. Don't be the sheep herded off the cliff.
Alcohol doesn't affect your judgement as much if you know exactly where you stand.
is it just me or are the space projects of the last few years getting cheaper and less productive? What happened to the geniuses that all went to work for Nasa? Since Challenger i haven't seen anything from the space programs that got the entire country excited. sure the mars lander was decent- but it broke. i mean, really, who are these people?
Alcohol doesn't affect your judgement as much if you know exactly where you stand.
Would you agree by your definition of bigot that if you told me that you think the Yankees will win the world series, and I told you that you're wrong and the Mets will win, I am a bigot?
No, damnit. What would make you a bigot would be if i said that the Yankees would win and you, as you so eloquently put it, 'act as though someone just scratched their nails against a chalkboard; cover my eyes or stick my head in the sand.' simply disagreeing does not make you a bigot... but disagreeing in the fashion that you are- in which you must reply to every post against you because *they have* to be wrong- makes you a bigot.
Alcohol doesn't affect your judgement as much if you know exactly where you stand.
the displacement is based on density... if ice were more dense than water it would displace more than in water form... nevermind you're never gonna get it
Alcohol doesn't affect your judgement as much if you know exactly where you stand.
imitation is not intelligence. If you want to be considered a sentient being, you must have individuality, thoughts, and ideas. Repeating processes over and over like you mentioned is simply a good program. Fooling sentient beings is not the same as being a sentient being.
maybe sometime in the distant future this will have a practical purpose... i'm glad to hear that people are working on projects like this, but to actually put it into public use? For a long time, there will be no way that a computer can have the understanding of a human or answer our questions.
When Ask Jeeves came out, they billed it as something that actually gave you summarized answers to your queries by its having read other webpages. If i wanted links i could have easily searched on yahoo or hotbot or google... hell.
You must understand that you are speaking on a greatly microcosmic world. You think that your 3 friends represent the entire police force for every city in the nation. Given that these three men are Saints, taking a slice of the pie and assuming the whole pie is more of the same can very well be an incorrect and rash assumption.
How many times have you gotten a pizza where more pepperoni was on one side?
3 people also hardly constitutes a valid cross-section of anything unless you are speaking of a society of 3 people.
Alcohol doesn't affect your judgement as much if you know exactly where you stand.
This ranges from law school students who and kids with rich parents who are ready to sue at the drop of the hat, to idiots who are ready to fight an armed officer (or worse).
And you still can honestly call them unbigotted towards a certain socioeconomic class? Please.. and you sound just as bigotted.
Bigotry is not merely racism... and if you think racism is the only problem we face with stereotypes you are A) dead wrong B) a biggot and C) probably racist(since you see race relations as a problem and not other class battles)
Alcohol doesn't affect your judgement as much if you know exactly where you stand.
anyone who can seriously say that rust color=amelia earharts engine is a loon. She's definitely dead anyway. Do you honestly think you'd find her body either? No, it's been washed away and down the drain long ago. We all know that she is dead... We also know the Bermuda Triangle didn't get her... Why are the most plausible explanations (i.e. she drowned and is in a huge trench somewhere) the most overlooked by this guy?
Alcohol doesn't affect your judgement as much if you know exactly where you stand.
no the Archimedean law states that the amount of displacement of the water is equal to the volume of the object occupying it... we are talking about a change in the state of the water and a change in volume changing the water level... think about it. How are you going to argue with the pure common sense and simple derivation just given above? Alcohol doesn't affect your judgement as much if you know exactly where you stand.
'it should "fill in" precisely the volume displaced by the ice.'
I'm sorry but this is an incorrect assumption.
The density of ice is less than water (hence ice floats in water). Density is defined as mass/volume. So you have two seperate density equations-
where i signifies ice and w signifies water- m(i)/v(i) = d(i) m(w)/v(w) = d(w)
since the mass is unchanged in this example- m(i)=m(w)
therefore- m/v(i) = d(i) m/v(w) = d(w)
we know that d(w)/d(i) > 1 therefore
(m/v(w))/(m/v(i)) > 1 m's drop out and... v(i)/v(w) > 1 or v(i) > v(w)
this means that the volume displaced by ice is greater than the volume displaced by H20 at a higher temperature. Although it is a good point mentioned below that the ice is only displacing the water partially(floating).
Alcohol doesn't affect your judgement as much if you know exactly where you stand.
Global warming has been an issue for quite a few years... the government has known that CFC's were accelerating the greenhouse effect and changing the equilibrium since at least the 70's. The fact that many people know about this issue is not surprising.
Before Global warming was a rallying point, Nuclear weapons were the heady subject of the time [and they continue to be]. Previous to mass destruction, extinction processes and evolution were a much talked about subject[as they still are].
These issues aren't necessarily having people rear their heads and turn their ears and eyes toward science. Most people who know of these issues don't even consider them much more than trivial. The issues have been around for extended periods of time; hence public awareness. This has not been a quick or even recent process of understanding by mass culture. And it will never be so.
People like to live their lives within their shells... within their ecosystems and areas. When the river by your house is polluted, you become involved... when your kids are deformed by Agent Orange you gain interest... when the temperature is said to be increasing over amounts of time that it is indistinguishable from yesterday, people are aware of it but don't really care.
Alcohol doesn't affect your judgement as much if you know exactly where you stand.
is it just me, or does everyone complain about the GBA too much? if you like it, buy it; otherwise fuck off. Can't you people find more important things to worry about?
Slashdot Mirror
ok. thanks.
Bush gave funding for the already existing stem cells to be researched. It hasn't been decided whether we can harvest any more or whether stem cell research will be brought to a halt. The Senate or the House (i'm not sure which) passed a bill making stem cell harvesting illegal, however it still has to pass through the other respective committee that we call government, and then through the president. Also the supreme court has the right to dictate whether the bill is unconstitutional or not.
No rulings have actually been made yet.
'Well, I didn't expect a sort of Spanish Inquisition!'
'Noone expects the Spanish Inquisition- Our cheif element is surprise!'
good post
However, some of your points i disagree with-
'scientific community...has way, way more than necessary reasons to consider all religions to be based on false theories.'
This is not true. Each scientist has himself a religion and therefore a belief system which guides him through life. [yes atheism is a religion. simply denying the existence of god does not make you religionless. As well, to be without any sort of religion, and IANAG(i am not a god) but as i understand it, you must be Nihilistic. This would constitute that you don't believe in the existence of anything- you, science, computers, the internet, your family, god, etc. Since you don't believe that anything actually exists, there would be truly no point to be a scientist and try and figure things out. True nihilists don't take an active part in society and probably commit suicide rather early since they have no point to live, because they are not living. I know I'm talking in circles, but i am struggling to make sense of it as well.]
Regardless of his creed, a scientist is obligated to be objective in his findings and not simply use findings that perpetuate his/her theory. Therefore religion should not affect the scientific processes or governmental processes, however it does have an effect on the people involved in these processes.
having too many people from one particular creed in power may be bad for the society in general, however sometimes it just ends up that way. The only time it is bad, anyway, is when those in power form together to stay in power and to broadcast their 'truths'.
whew.
people like to hold things
staring at a computer screen is strenuous
scrolling can be a bitch
it's much easier to keep your place on the page with paper
it doesn't take forever to download a book on paper
cover art is friendly
books on shelves are aesthetically and socially pleasing
closing a window on your browser is not as satisfying as replacing a book on the shelf
i can throw a book if it is frustrating- i'm not gonna fscking kick my computer or damage it in any other way
books are cheaper than computers
bending covers and dog-earing pages are therapeutic activities
i can go anywere with a book
i don't have to pay an electricity bill to read a book(except at night when i need light)
i can fall asleep in bed with a book, but not so easily a mouse and keyboard
if i spill my tea/coffee/soda/beer/water on a book, it's not the end of the world
the list goes on
let's think.. Back in the day there were children who teased eachother, spraypainted grafitti... there were also children who committed savage acts of crime like rape and burglary[don't deny it just because it wasn't in the news]
There were also adults who spraypainted and acted like children, as were there adults who committed violent acts; More adults commit savage acts actually.
Now there are still both adults and children who act like children. And there are still adults and children who act like savages. Just because the internet is commonplace and children seem to take to computers like fish to water does not mean that every fifteen year old kid is writing virii... it also doesn't mean that all virii are written by 15 year old kids. To say these things would be ludicrous and flat out wrong. Adults do it too...
Here is the only reason anyone is up in arms about 15 year olds having access to information about virii: The media- When a 37 year old writes a virus or hacks a federal establishment, it's just another old geeky loser hacker. When a 15 year old writes a virus or hacks a federal establishment, it's the future, today's youth, who are becoming criminals and run amok!
Common Misconception #1- 1 child can represent the entire U.S. population under the age of 17.
I think adequacy.com is probably run by 15 year olds to begin with!
'nerds are committing a form of social parricide, turning on their parents and almost all other elders'
Maybe that's social patricide?
'But even movies about apes ought to evolve -- does anybody in 2001 really need convincing of slavery's evil?'
excuse me? did katz just say that despite rampant slavery in third world countries throughout, plus sweatshops run here in america? What about many countries attitude toward women that puts them in near slave like conditions?
'Nah weep bah ninny grab?'
-Hot Rod
man, you are messed up... but to humor you-
you're analogies of equating scientific fact to belief systems is not only ludicrous, it is assanine. The fact that the world is a sphere-like object is not a belief system, nor is it a moral standpoint or even merely a feeling. It is fact- proven long ago.
Yes, at one point in time you could have said it was a matter of belief, but only because someone hadn't proven it scientifically.
To borrow from IanCarlson[who posted earlier _citing_ your intolerance]-
'When you mentioned that your police officer friends never abused their power, you recieved a bunch of replies noting that you had no reliable way of knowing this. Moreover, there was a fair amount of doubt that a corrupt cop would come clean to his civilian friend(s). Instead of humoring/exploring these notions, you insisted that the whole concept was ludicrous. This insistance that you were correct was intolerance for the opinions of others. Part of the definition of being a bigot is one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion. You are blindly and obstinately devoted to your opinion that your police officer friends don't abuse their power, therefore you are bigoted against other opinions. As you have been shown conclusivly at this point to be a bigot and intolerant. Would you like me to specifically cite you for where and how you've wasted vast amounts of my time by being a twerp who feels he has the right to be "cited" on everything?'
To break it down for you, what we all are saying is that you are blindly following these men as a sheep. Do you not question their integrity? Sure, they are your friends, but one questions his friends from time to time. Especially when his friends are in a place of power and have a responsibility to the public. Noone is trying to say that undeniably your friends are corrupt, we are just saying that you cannot make us believe that they are 100% pure. There was a time in American history, not too long ago, when any man in public office, and before that any white man, was infalliable in the eyes of the general public. People who did very bad things, but noone questioned them until much later. Don't be the sheep herded off the cliff.
Alcohol doesn't affect your judgement as much if you know exactly where you stand.
is it just me or are the space projects of the last few years getting cheaper and less productive? What happened to the geniuses that all went to work for Nasa? Since Challenger i haven't seen anything from the space programs that got the entire country excited. sure the mars lander was decent- but it broke. i mean, really, who are these people?
Alcohol doesn't affect your judgement as much if you know exactly where you stand.
your statement is simply steriotypical... game set match.
Alcohol doesn't affect your judgement as much if you know exactly where you stand.
Would you agree by your definition of bigot that if you told me that you think the Yankees will win the world series, and I told you that you're wrong and the Mets will win, I am a bigot?
No, damnit. What would make you a bigot would be if i said that the Yankees would win and you, as you so eloquently put it, 'act as though someone just scratched their nails against a chalkboard; cover my eyes or stick my head in the sand.' simply disagreeing does not make you a bigot... but disagreeing in the fashion that you are- in which you must reply to every post against you because *they have* to be wrong- makes you a bigot.
Alcohol doesn't affect your judgement as much if you know exactly where you stand.
damn it... have you no brains, man?
the displacement is based on density... if ice were more dense than water it would displace more than in water form... nevermind you're never gonna get it
Alcohol doesn't affect your judgement as much if you know exactly where you stand.
imitation is not intelligence. If you want to be considered a sentient being, you must have individuality, thoughts, and ideas. Repeating processes over and over like you mentioned is simply a good program. Fooling sentient beings is not the same as being a sentient being.
maybe sometime in the distant future this will have a practical purpose... i'm glad to hear that people are working on projects like this, but to actually put it into public use? For a long time, there will be no way that a computer can have the understanding of a human or answer our questions.
When Ask Jeeves came out, they billed it as something that actually gave you summarized answers to your queries by its having read other webpages. If i wanted links i could have easily searched on yahoo or hotbot or google... hell.
You must understand that you are speaking on a greatly microcosmic world. You think that your 3 friends represent the entire police force for every city in the nation. Given that these three men are Saints, taking a slice of the pie and assuming the whole pie is more of the same can very well be an incorrect and rash assumption.
How many times have you gotten a pizza where more pepperoni was on one side?
3 people also hardly constitutes a valid cross-section of anything unless you are speaking of a society of 3 people.
Alcohol doesn't affect your judgement as much if you know exactly where you stand.
This ranges from law school students who and kids with rich parents who are ready to sue at the drop of the hat, to idiots who are ready to fight an armed officer (or worse).
And you still can honestly call them unbigotted towards a certain socioeconomic class? Please.. and you sound just as bigotted.
Bigotry is not merely racism... and if you think racism is the only problem we face with stereotypes you are A) dead wrong B) a biggot and C) probably racist(since you see race relations as a problem and not other class battles)
Alcohol doesn't affect your judgement as much if you know exactly where you stand.
anyone who can seriously say that rust color=amelia earharts engine is a loon. She's definitely dead anyway. Do you honestly think you'd find her body either? No, it's been washed away and down the drain long ago. We all know that she is dead... We also know the Bermuda Triangle didn't get her... Why are the most plausible explanations (i.e. she drowned and is in a huge trench somewhere) the most overlooked by this guy?
Alcohol doesn't affect your judgement as much if you know exactly where you stand.
no the Archimedean law states that the amount of displacement of the water is equal to the volume of the object occupying it... we are talking about a change in the state of the water and a change in volume changing the water level... think about it. How are you going to argue with the pure common sense and simple derivation just given above?
Alcohol doesn't affect your judgement as much if you know exactly where you stand.
'it should "fill in" precisely the volume displaced by the ice.'
...
I'm sorry but this is an incorrect assumption. The density of ice is less than water (hence ice floats in water). Density is defined as mass/volume. So you have two seperate density equations-
where i signifies ice and w signifies water-
m(i)/v(i) = d(i)
m(w)/v(w) = d(w)
since the mass is unchanged in this example-
m(i)=m(w)
therefore-
m/v(i) = d(i)
m/v(w) = d(w)
we know that
d(w)/d(i) > 1
therefore
(m/v(w))/(m/v(i)) > 1
m's drop out and
v(i)/v(w) > 1
or
v(i) > v(w)
this means that the volume displaced by ice is greater than the volume displaced by H20 at a higher temperature. Although it is a good point mentioned below that the ice is only displacing the water partially(floating).
Alcohol doesn't affect your judgement as much if you know exactly where you stand.
Global warming has been an issue for quite a few years... the government has known that CFC's were accelerating the greenhouse effect and changing the equilibrium since at least the 70's. The fact that many people know about this issue is not surprising.
Before Global warming was a rallying point, Nuclear weapons were the heady subject of the time [and they continue to be]. Previous to mass destruction, extinction processes and evolution were a much talked about subject[as they still are].
These issues aren't necessarily having people rear their heads and turn their ears and eyes toward science. Most people who know of these issues don't even consider them much more than trivial. The issues have been around for extended periods of time; hence public awareness. This has not been a quick or even recent process of understanding by mass culture. And it will never be so.
People like to live their lives within their shells... within their ecosystems and areas. When the river by your house is polluted, you become involved... when your kids are deformed by Agent Orange you gain interest... when the temperature is said to be increasing over amounts of time that it is indistinguishable from yesterday, people are aware of it but don't really care.
Alcohol doesn't affect your judgement as much if you know exactly where you stand.
In the end, a random or cryptic password could be just as easy to crack as BritNeYSpEARsFan if you think about it...
I mean, if they are trying to break into someone's computer who is a B.S. fan, what's the point?
is it just me, or does everyone complain about the GBA too much? if you like it, buy it; otherwise fuck off. Can't you people find more important things to worry about?
you could buy this with a business account, and if they don't think you need a linux box, write it off as a paperweight.