Should we add an amendment that says that if a right isn't listed in the constitution, people still have it?
Should we also add a sentence that says that, other than the specific things the Federal Government is authorized to do, the states are in charge of everything else?
Do you believe that the Partiot Act should be changed to read "No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."?
Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees.
Can't even recognize the 1st Amendment when they hear it, but the little suckers have got the Miranda warning down pat.
Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees.
What do you want to bet that this same crowd thinks the 2nd amendment doesn't go far enough?
mini desktop - portability 3, upgradeability 5, price ?
big desktop - portability 1, upgradeability 10, price 10
Mini desktops behave like a laptop with a detached monitor (which is bad for travel, but can be upgraded). There will be a market for them only if they price near big desktops.
Anyone who says that they can't see any ethical issues with this is lying.
I cannot understand why you have to paint everyone with your ethical and moral brush.
There are issues. The parent may not care about them, but the grandparent is evidence that some people do. Therefore, there are issues. We must come to agreement on them or face conflict.
...remember that nature in and of itself has done these things in the course of evolution.... you're probably killing life everyday by consuming plants and animals. This is no different.
We are not responsible for what nature does in evolution. We are responsible for what we do. If nature creates suffering, we try to mitigate it. (For instance, the recent tsunami.) We do not try to imitate it.
If we act using genetics to create modified beings, we may create great suffering. Of the modified beings, of us, of other unmodified animals. We have ever-greater power, but we still lack control. Let us take small steps only, and with caution. Perhaps there are some things we should not do, even though we can.
How do you feel about research obtained from torturing people during the Holocaust.... One side of me says that the research is there and there's no reason not to use it, but another part says that using it just says that there was some valid reason to torture those people.
I wish I could reach my conclusion on moral grounds. Instead, I reach it on practical grounds.
Destroy it. We are talking about the research of a few men over a few years. It cannot be irreplaceable. We surely have surpassed all their findings already, and by moral means. Destroy it and be done.
Will this hybrid respond to things the same way a human would? B) When do we consider these things human? A human brain in a different organism's body sounds enough like a human to me.
It's going to make the debate about what legal rights a cloned human should have seem simple by comparison, isn't it?
What's distrubing about this article is the angle it takes. I had accepted the idea of using animals to grow replacement organs for people. But, it turns out that that was only the easiest scenario. How will we handle the growing of a mostly-human hybrid from a legal and moral perspective? That's hard.
From what I vaguely recall, one of the greatest risks of a chimera (aside perhaps from the slippery moral slope), is the risk of a genetic material from diseases that affected their species making a jump to the human species.
Perhaps that's the greatest medical risk to the existing human population, but it is unlikely to be the greatest risk overall.
The created being bears a greater risk that it will have "birth defects" that cause it to suffer. Our skill at genetics remains crude at this time.
Greater still is the risk of vigilanteism and war. People have spent centuries (falsely) denouncing each other as "half-human" and using that denunciation to justify tragic behavior. We must expect that people will do worse to those who actually are "half-human."
In order to make a case against something like this, you need to show *who is hurt*.
Answer: the being created.
My greatest concern with these techniques is the possibility of producing near-human offspring that are deficient in some way. Consider that old fashioned children with old fashioned birth defects suffer greatly from (a) their medical conditions and (b) mistreatment by people. How much moreso will these creations suffer?
Let us be very, very cautious about creating some one who is truly "half-human."
In the U.S., copyright springs from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. You may wish to read up on the moral rights of authors theory of copyright held by France and many other countries. Not every country has this public-private bargain as part of its justification for copyright.
Wanna guess who said that? It was Thomas Jefferson! And who better to define copyright than the guy who wrote the Constitution in the first place?...So anyway, after hearing all that, are you still going to try to dismiss... the words of the Founding Fathers themselves as "disinformation?"
Thomas Jefferson did not write the U.S. Constitution. As your own links point out, he was in France throughout the drafting. To be sure, he mailed in some comments, but that's about it. Disinformation? Yes, there is some here.
This whole concept of "adult time-out" is stupid. Turning 18 doesn't(shouldn't) change "getting grounded" from lasting a few days or hours to lasting months to years to decades.
a) Being 18 eliminates "getting grounded" all together. Offenses that would get a child grounded go unpunished in adults because adults have peers, not parents (in formal authority).
b) The acts that adults get jailed for months or years for doing (drugs, assault, theft, destruction, murder, etc.) are not acts that mere grounding could ever have addressed.
c) The use of the word "time-out" to describe a punishment is less than a few decades old. Jail is a millenia-old concept. Jail is not some defective form of "time-out". Judge jail on its own merits or demerits, but don't saddle it with new-age parenting baggage.
Come, raise a toast to all those restrictive languages that are so wildly popular with programmers today. Let us all thank Wirth that none of their free-wheeling, permissive contemporaries are still in use.
The new keyboard looks like it will have a short learning curve. That may drive sales. Certainly, a person who knows only the alphabet can hunt and peck at this thing more effectively than on either querty or dvorak.
But how good is the new one once you've learned it? Will it provide actual benefits over querty for the experienced typist as dvorak promises?
In English, the top letters by frequency are etaoi nsrhl dcumf. In this keyboard, the left hand covers the first half of the alphabet (including eaihldcmf), the right hand covers the second half (including tonsru). So, the new layout gives a relatively even load to each hand. Now, what about fingers?
The citation is appreciated. For my money, the original is better said.
"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." --Martin Niemoeller, a protestant minister in Nazi Germany (c. 1937)
"If I am not for myself, who will be? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?" - Rabbi Hillel
I can make a rational argument that the law should forbid murder and theft. You can make a religious argument for the same thing... All this means is that we happen to agree. It does not mean the laws are based on religion or morality.
Quite right. Our existing laws are the set of things that our body politic has agreed to over time. Obviously, not everyone cast their votes for the same reason.
At a minimum, though, we need a set of laws that redress the kinds of injuries that people would otherwise take revenge for. (Revenge being an inefficient and inexact process that often hits the wrong target, leading to more injuries.) Thus, laws against murder and theft are needed. Over time, we'll find other injuries that need redressing (perhaps trespass, perhaps battery, etc.)
Laws against 'victimless' conduct may not be necessary in this fashion. Perhaps this is why we argue more about them that about well-agreed laws such as no-murder.
---------------------- The state of nature is a place best left behind quickly, where The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do. -- Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow in "Pirates of the Carribean".
Shouldn't SCO be releasing code to an independent party to determine if its copyright has been breeched?
(a) Court cases don't use "independent" third-parties (except very rarely). Inevitably, whichever side lost would complain afterward that the third-party was somehow biased. Instead, the two sides (whose biases are obvious) each make their best pitch to the court/jury. Then, the court/jury decides what/who to believe.
(b) Doesn't IBM _have_ SCO's code? IBM is/was a longtime licensee.
if something can be proven, the issue of belief does not arise.
I disagree. Belief and disbelief can be irrational. A belief or disbelief that is contradicted by all currently available evidence may yet turn out to be right once more evidence is obtained. Consider the question:
What do you not believe in even though it can be proved?
A man walks into a curio shop and begins to browse. His eyes are immediately drawn to an odd-looking bronze figurine in the shape of a rat. The tag says $12.
"Where did you get this bronze rat? Is this really $12?" he asks the shopkeeper.
"Oh, that is a very special rat, sir. The statue is $12, but it is $500 for the story behind it."
"I can do without the story," says the man and hands over the $12.
"You'll be back for the story, I am thinking," smiles the shopkeeper.
Soon after the man exits the shop with his purchase, he notices a rat emerge from a sewer grate and begin to follow him. Another appears a moment later, then another. Soon a dozen or more rats have appeared and are running along behind him. Alarmed, the man begins walking faster, but this only draws more rats out of the sewer. In a panic, he begins to run, but within a minute, hundreds, then thousands of rats are chasing the man down the street.
Desperate to escape them, he flees down a pier and hurls the brass rat into the water. The swarming rats pour off the end of the pier and swim down after the bronze rat until all have drowned.
After the man has caught his breath, he returns to the shop.
The shopkeeper chuckles from behind his counter, "So, you have come back for the story, then?"
"No, says the man, "But I was wondering if you happened to have a golden lawyer?"
Slashdot Mirror
Should we add an amendment that says that if a right isn't listed in the constitution, people still have it?
Should we also add a sentence that says that, other than the specific things the Federal Government is authorized to do, the states are in charge of everything else?
[[What do you think that survey would show?]]
No.
No, that would be unamerican.
No, you can't fight terrorism that way.
No, and I'm making a list of your IP addresses.
Yes.
Cowboy Neal for Chief Justice!
Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees.
Can't even recognize the 1st Amendment when they hear it, but the little suckers have got the Miranda warning down pat.
Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees.
What do you want to bet that this same crowd thinks the 2nd amendment doesn't go far enough?
"Yikes!" indeed.
Smarten up, kids. You'll be living in a corporate controlled country when you grow up.
Dusty: Jesus, it's coming. Jo, Bill, it's coming! It's headed right for us!
Bill: It's already here!
--Twister (1996)
pda - portability 10, upgradeability 2, price 2
laptop - portability 8, upgradeability 4, price 4
mini desktop - portability 3, upgradeability 5, price ?
big desktop - portability 1, upgradeability 10, price 10
Mini desktops behave like a laptop with a detached monitor (which is bad for travel, but can be upgraded). There will be a market for them only if they price near big desktops.
I cannot understand why you have to paint everyone with your ethical and moral brush.
There are issues. The parent may not care about them, but the grandparent is evidence that some people do. Therefore, there are issues. We must come to agreement on them or face conflict.
We are not responsible for what nature does in evolution. We are responsible for what we do. If nature creates suffering, we try to mitigate it. (For instance, the recent tsunami.) We do not try to imitate it.
If we act using genetics to create modified beings, we may create great suffering. Of the modified beings, of us, of other unmodified animals. We have ever-greater power, but we still lack control. Let us take small steps only, and with caution. Perhaps there are some things we should not do, even though we can.
One of the many over-used sci-fi plots has been "man makes creature, creature tries to destroy man." ... it'll be nice to actually see it happen.
Only if you're playing the role of "the resourceful loner who survives and saves the girl".
(You do know that we're not in the audience on this one, right?)
How do you feel about research obtained from torturing people during the Holocaust. ... One side of me says that the research is there and there's no reason not to use it, but another part says that using it just says that there was some valid reason to torture those people.
I wish I could reach my conclusion on moral grounds. Instead, I reach it on practical grounds.
Destroy it. We are talking about the research of a few men over a few years. It cannot be irreplaceable. We surely have surpassed all their findings already, and by moral means. Destroy it and be done.
Will this hybrid respond to things the same way a human would? B) When do we consider these things human? A human brain in a different organism's body sounds enough like a human to me.
It's going to make the debate about what legal rights a cloned human should have seem simple by comparison, isn't it?
What's distrubing about this article is the angle it takes. I had accepted the idea of using animals to grow replacement organs for people. But, it turns out that that was only the easiest scenario. How will we handle the growing of a mostly-human hybrid from a legal and moral perspective? That's hard.
From what I vaguely recall, one of the greatest risks of a chimera (aside perhaps from the slippery moral slope), is the risk of a genetic material from diseases that affected their species making a jump to the human species.
Perhaps that's the greatest medical risk to the existing human population, but it is unlikely to be the greatest risk overall.
The created being bears a greater risk that it will have "birth defects" that cause it to suffer. Our skill at genetics remains crude at this time.
Greater still is the risk of vigilanteism and war. People have spent centuries (falsely) denouncing each other as "half-human" and using that denunciation to justify tragic behavior. We must expect that people will do worse to those who actually are "half-human."
In order to make a case against something like this, you need to show *who is hurt*.
Answer: the being created.
My greatest concern with these techniques is the possibility of producing near-human offspring that are deficient in some way. Consider that old fashioned children with old fashioned birth defects suffer greatly from (a) their medical conditions and (b) mistreatment by people. How much moreso will these creations suffer?
Let us be very, very cautious about creating some one who is truly "half-human."
In the U.S., copyright springs from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. You may wish to read up on the moral rights of authors theory of copyright held by France and many other countries. Not every country has this public-private bargain as part of its justification for copyright.
Wanna guess who said that? It was Thomas Jefferson! And who better to define copyright than the guy who wrote the Constitution in the first place?...So anyway, after hearing all that, are you still going to try to dismiss ... the words of the Founding Fathers themselves as "disinformation?"
Thomas Jefferson did not write the U.S. Constitution. As your own links point out, he was in France throughout the drafting. To be sure, he mailed in some comments, but that's about it. Disinformation? Yes, there is some here.
This whole concept of "adult time-out" is stupid. Turning 18 doesn't(shouldn't) change "getting grounded" from lasting a few days or hours to lasting months to years to decades.
a) Being 18 eliminates "getting grounded" all together. Offenses that would get a child grounded go unpunished in adults because adults have peers, not parents (in formal authority).
b) The acts that adults get jailed for months or years for doing (drugs, assault, theft, destruction, murder, etc.) are not acts that mere grounding could ever have addressed.
c) The use of the word "time-out" to describe a punishment is less than a few decades old. Jail is a millenia-old concept. Jail is not some defective form of "time-out". Judge jail on its own merits or demerits, but don't saddle it with new-age parenting baggage.
1. A method for tracing a traffic event utilizing a firewall, comprising:
(a) executing a firewall on a local computer;
(b) monitoring traffic events between the local computer and a remote computer over a network utilizing the firewall;
(c) displaying the traffic events utilizing the firewall;
(d) tracing at least one of the traffic events utilizing the firewall; and
(e) displaying a world map with an illustration of the trace thereon utilizing the firewall.
And, of course, not one citation to a piece of prior art other than old patents.
It sounds wonderful, doesn't it?
Come, raise a toast to all those restrictive languages that are so wildly popular with programmers today. Let us all thank Wirth that none of their free-wheeling, permissive contemporaries are still in use.
The new keyboard looks like it will have a short learning curve. That may drive sales. Certainly, a person who knows only the alphabet can hunt and peck at this thing more effectively than on either querty or dvorak.
But how good is the new one once you've learned it? Will it provide actual benefits over querty for the experienced typist as dvorak promises?
In English, the top letters by frequency are etaoi nsrhl dcumf. In this keyboard, the left hand covers the first half of the alphabet (including eaihldcmf), the right hand covers the second half (including tonsru). So, the new layout gives a relatively even load to each hand. Now, what about fingers?
The citation is appreciated. For my money, the original is better said.
"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
--Martin Niemoeller, a protestant minister in Nazi Germany (c. 1937)
"If I am not for myself, who will be?
If I am only for myself, what am I?
If not now, when?" - Rabbi Hillel
Yes, for the love of doughnuts!
The suit filed WAS the salvo fired. Leave the poor nits alone. They're not bothering anybody. No need to be picking on them.
I can make a rational argument that the law should forbid murder and theft. You can make a religious argument for the same thing... All this means is that we happen to agree. It does not mean the laws are based on religion or morality.
Quite right. Our existing laws are the set of things that our body politic has agreed to over time. Obviously, not everyone cast their votes for the same reason.
At a minimum, though, we need a set of laws that redress the kinds of injuries that people would otherwise take revenge for. (Revenge being an inefficient and inexact process that often hits the wrong target, leading to more injuries.) Thus, laws against murder and theft are needed. Over time, we'll find other injuries that need redressing (perhaps trespass, perhaps battery, etc.)
Laws against 'victimless' conduct may not be necessary in this fashion. Perhaps this is why we argue more about them that about well-agreed laws such as no-murder.
----------------------
The state of nature is a place best left behind quickly, where The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do. -- Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow in "Pirates of the Carribean".
Roger that. Parent insightful. Grandparent not so much.
Shouldn't SCO be releasing code to an independent party to determine if its copyright has been breeched?
(a) Court cases don't use "independent" third-parties (except very rarely). Inevitably, whichever side lost would complain afterward that the third-party was somehow biased. Instead, the two sides (whose biases are obvious) each make their best pitch to the court/jury. Then, the court/jury decides what/who to believe.
(b) Doesn't IBM _have_ SCO's code? IBM is/was a longtime licensee.
if something can be proven, the issue of belief does not arise.
I disagree. Belief and disbelief can be irrational. A belief or disbelief that is contradicted by all currently available evidence may yet turn out to be right once more evidence is obtained. Consider the question:
What do you not believe in even though it can be proved?
A man walks into a curio shop and begins to browse. His eyes are immediately drawn to an odd-looking bronze figurine in the shape of a rat. The tag says $12.
"Where did you get this bronze rat? Is this really $12?" he asks the shopkeeper.
"Oh, that is a very special rat, sir. The statue is $12, but it is $500 for the story behind it."
"I can do without the story," says the man and hands over the $12.
"You'll be back for the story, I am thinking," smiles the shopkeeper.
Soon after the man exits the shop with his purchase, he notices a rat emerge from a sewer grate and begin to follow him. Another appears a moment later, then another. Soon a dozen or more rats have appeared and are running along behind him. Alarmed, the man begins walking faster, but this only draws more rats out of the sewer. In a panic, he begins to run, but within a minute, hundreds, then thousands of rats are chasing the man down the street.
Desperate to escape them, he flees down a pier and hurls the brass rat into the water. The swarming rats pour off the end of the pier and swim down after the bronze rat until all have drowned.
After the man has caught his breath, he returns to the shop.
The shopkeeper chuckles from behind his counter, "So, you have come back for the story, then?"
"No, says the man, "But I was wondering if you happened to have a golden lawyer?"