The problem is we haven't found billions of planets just like ours
Because we can only see so many from our vantage point and with our current technology.
Since there's billions and billions of galaxies, each will billions and billions of stars, and we can't see into any of them, we have no way of looking there. We're looking at stuff that (on a galactic scale) is relatively close. That's kind of like standing on a street corner in a small town in rural Iowa and claiming that people with different skin colours don't exist -- you can't see 'em from where you're standing, so therefore they must not exist.
People around here forget that it's really only within the last 15-20 years or so that we've been able to find any exoplanets -- in that time, we've gone from thinking that any form of planet was likely quite rare. The fact that we've not found a huge number of planets exactly like ours is a matter of the scale of what we're looking at.
For those of us who remember what detecting a planet orbiting a distant star was a pipe-dream, lamenting the fact that we've not found that one perfect planet is kind of like whining that the Wright Brothers didn't achieve super-sonic speeds. We've come a long way in the last few decades, but we still have a long way to go. For me, Drake's equation makes more sense with each passing year.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Good to see that we're keeping a nice and closed mind about any lifeforms that might be outside the box. Just because we're so stuck on the definition of life that works here on our planet doesn't mean we won't find a lifeform that completely redefines "habitable zone".
You know, this particular thing comes up quite often around here when the topic of looking for exoplanets comes up, and it always strikes me as somewhat silly.
Yes, of course, there could be life forms 'outside of the box' of the habitable zone -- me, I'm betting on it in a vast universe. But, given that we don't have the vaguest &^%$*&^ idea of how to search for something so alien as to be unimaginable... how, exactly, would you design an experiment to look for something we can't even conceive of? What would your criteria be?
The fact of the matter is, we can only really spend time looking for things in what we call the habitable zone because there's simply no basis to look for other things. Sure, we could look at all of the flaming hot, sulphurous worlds, or the icy frozen methane worlds. But, what exactly would we be looking for and how?
You either narrow your focus to what you can understand, or you flail about randomly. It's not so much that we have closed minds about the habitable zone, it's merely that we have no basis to look for anything else. Once you go outside of the realm of the science you have to work with, you're making shit up as you go, and then it becomes fiction.
No car analogy or Checkbox form on why this won't solve the problem of/. readers getting laid?
OK...
Well, first you need to learn how to drive. Maybe hire a pro for some lessons at first, or if your lucky, find a friend with a car and practice with them. Driving a car is a fairly difficult when you're learning, and fairly automatic once you know what you're doing. It seems like a lot at first, but your brain eventually gets the hang of it.
Then you need to go car shopping. You might want to test drive a couple so you don't rush into a final decision with a car you're not entirely sure of.
Read up on cars, find out what you're looking for in a car, and what's in your price range. Understand the features, and know what your must have's are and what you can do without. There's lots of ways to shop for cars -- online, browsing at your local car dealership, ask friends what they look for in cars and their experiences with various models, and if they know anyone with a reliable car that's available. Don't get pressured into getting a car that isn't right for you because it's flashy or cool or because you just really want a car -- a car is a big commitment.
You may need to make some concessions on your first car. When you first start, you're not qualified to drive a viper, no matter what the X-Box has told you. And, unless your parents are wealthy, you don't have the means to get yourself a fancy car. Something reliable is always good choice, Civics are popular and hold their retail value well -- not fancy, but they'll get you there. Though, if you're just starting out, you may need to start out with an older model that still runs until you can trade up. If you're uncertain about a used car, take it to a mechanic for an inspection.
Each car is different, and you should at least know a little about the principles on which your car operates, and learn a little about basic maintenance and trouble-shooting. Some of this can take time to learn, but there are books and web-sites which can teach you the basics, but a lot of it just takes some experience rather than just book-learning.
The biggest thing about driving a car is understanding that it's a privilege, not a right. Drive responsibly, don't get yourself or anyone else killed, and keep your wits about you and be aware of your surroundings at all times. Follow the rules of the road, and don't drive like an idiot. You should do fine.
Ummm... happy? That should cover the high-points.;-)
*laugh* No, but it was pre-Hubble before they'd actually done the measurements to be fairly sure. There was strong theoretical evidence, but nothing they'd been able to hold up until '94 when they looked at M87. (Yes, there had been some evidence, but not yet conclusive.)
Some of us went to university a long time ago, and the world has changed a lot since then.
Like I said, I just continue to be amazed at the changes in my lifetime. You young kids think we've always known this stuff.:-P
Wow, when I was in university, Black Holes were still a mostly theoretical idea and we had no real empirical evidence to support their existence.
Now we've got 33 pairs of them entwined in death spirals, and we're pretty sure every galaxy has one.
There's still a lot out there that we can't even conceive of... I can't wait to see what the next 15-20 years brings us. I like the fact that the universe is vastly more complicated than we've ever really been able to guess at.
Let me sum up all the comments that are forth coming
Don't forget the guy who enumerates the kind of posts we can expect to see in this story to lump everyone into one of a list and decide that the discussion is over.
Oh, you forgot "Soviet Russia" jokes and your spelling got worse as you whipped yourself into a lather, so count me in as one of the grammar Nazis.:-P
Throw in some MS bashing, blaming everything on RMS, and invoking Godwin, and we'll be almost done.;-)
Correct me if I am wrong, I probably am, but I thought there were 2 of these rovers, could the other not lend a hand to get the first out of the mud/sand, or wipe off his panels for him???
As has already been pointed out, they're very far apart from one another on the planet -- many orders of magnitude further than either have traveled yet, and way more than either of them could ever possibly travel. Like, around the planet kind of distances.
However, since the second one was added as a bonus (and I guess a failsafe) on top of the mission parameters without too much extra cost, they've managed to get an extraordinary amount of value out of these two little suckers. Over 6 years vs around 3 months of initially planned mission duration. It's the 1973 Honda Civic of space exploration -- beaten, battered, dusty, and no longer quite state of the art, but running nonetheless.
We'll all lament the final death of these probes (OK, some of us will:-P), but they've performed admirably. We know they'll both succumb to the cold and dust before long -- it's mostly just astounding how long they've managed to keep 'em going. The sad thing is, after they've been performing on the planet for so long, I'm not even sure there's a replacement mission in the works in any meaningful timeline.
In the meantime, a company which was issued a patent in 1998 for the idea of maintaining a document's format in a separate file
But, what's astounding to me, is in 1995 I was using SGML as a method of separating the document content from its layout. The layout wasn't kept in a separate file, but there were mechanisms to apply publishing layout to SGML based on rules. That was the whole point of SGML and its predecessor GML.
Heck, in 1995 Arbor Text had an SGML editor which could apply formatting to SGML documents for the purposes of publishing, and the company I worked for was helping people to install SGML editing and layout systems.
I'm not 100% convinced that these actually represent novel claims. They may not have been described in terms of XML, but the state of the art with SGML sure as hell was doing the whole "maintaining a document's format in a separate file" before this.
Can anyone who understands this a little more identify what specifically is required to infringe on this patent?
If it is a canadian company doing business in the US then I guess that's ok.
TFA clearly states that this was a US appeals court which upheld the judgement. Sadly, this company is playing within the US court rules -- don't blame the rest of us up here in Canada.
I can't for the life of me figure out how someone seems to have gotten a patent on XML that they've not been slamming the rest of the industry with.
and i have never yet seen any other country nearby, leave aside any european countries in which overweight people were ridiculed, belittled, bullied or discriminated against in any respect.
Maybe not openly, and as a matter of public policy, but it does happen.
i very much have the idea that you people are so obsessed with your own socioeconomical circumstances, and so many bullshit propaganda being fed into you that you fail to see a world outside yours with different ideas and inclinations exist.
I very much have the idea that you're a bit of a well-meaning naif who can only imagine the world as you've experienced it... but that you are nonetheless wrong.
It's nice that you have never seen discrimination, and can't imagine it. That doesn't change that it does, in fact, exist.
I have never personally seen a platypus... and since I've had this rock, I've not been mauled by tigers. Neither of these statements change the existence of the platypus, or the fact that there aren't tigers nearby anyway.
Sigh... from the user probably? You know for something like a fitness game
Given that the patent says "A method of interacting with a virtual environment, comprising:accessing a physical characteristic nonvolitionally obtained from a user", and makes reference to a "health information smart card", I disagree.
The information they're describing goes well beyond that I'd ever provide to any game. This really does sound like some creepy sort of "fat kid rehab center" where you no longer really have a choice in the matter.
I'm also fairly sure that in most locations, you wouldn't really be legally allowed to use someone's health information like this.
But nah... I'm sure it's far more likely this is for governments to track fat people, so that there is a high calorie food supply for the political and economic elite in times of crisis.
I often thought they should invent a Wii Fit for the mind. It would be like a helmet that you wear and it would scan your brainwave looking for thoughts that society disapproves of.
Microsoft also proposes shaping gaming experiences by using 'psychological and demographic information such as education level, geographic location, age, sex, intelligence quotient, socioeconomic class, occupation, marital/relationship status, religious belief, political affiliation, etc.'
Where, exactly, does Microsoft think it's going to get this stuff from? The summary actually makes reference to health records.
Heck, I'm not sure most government agencies should have access to most of that information. Microsoft sure as fsck has no business with it.
Welcome to the dystopian future, fat boy. This is actually kind of scary.
In her blog post, Ms Nagler said that the services was created to be at its best for "typical viewing set ups" and that user groups with standard equipment were happy with the service.
Is she saying that they've optimized their HD for people without HD screens, or am I just confused?
It really does sound like they're trying to sell something which isn't HD, but gets sold as if it is. Strange. "Now, to server you better, we are open fewer hours."
The link to TFA, which does go into detail about the equipment used, is anchored to, "seems to have an atmosphere." Most people will look at the title, maybe sift through the article, take note of the anchor, and presume that the story is about the planet. It was.
Well, TFA is primarily about the planet and the fact that it seems to have an atmosphere.
The resulting density suggests that GJ1214b is composed of about three-fourths water and other ices, and one-fourth rock. There are also tantalizing hints that the planet has a gaseous atmosphere.... Berta added that some of the planet's water should be in the form of exotic materials like Ice VII (seven) -- a crystalline form of water that exists at pressures greater than 20,000 times Earth's sea-level atmosphere.... Since this planet is so close to Earth, Hubble should be able to detect the atmosphere and determine what it's made of
That the composition is even vaguely Earth-like, and has the likelihood of some form of atmosphere is is newsworthy. Detecting it from ground based sources is also newsworthy if you're into that sort of thing.
Why do people on Slashdot continue to be so entirely dismissive of science? For those of us old enough to remember when we found the first exoplanets, this continues to be pretty remarkable stuff. I mean, you're spotting something exceedingly distant, in a huge field of other stars to choose from, through some pretty sophisticated techniques and (comparatively) modest equipment. This isn't like spotting your neighbor with binoculars here.
I mean, Jeebus, have we become so jaded that new exoplanet discoveries is boring and the possibility of confirming planets with atmospheres trivial? Wow -- to me, the whole story is cool.
I just don't get the mentality of this "how is this possibly news" stance.
If they find out that it does actually have an atmosphere, that is news. Until then, we do not have a news story here...
Actually, it's news in large part because they're doing this with a large number of small, ground-based telescopes. Getting that kind of resolution with that kind of equipment is a fairly big advancement. From TFA...
Since we found the super-earth using a small ground-based telescope, this means that anyone else with a similar telescope and a good CCD camera can detect it too.
Cuba is free to trade with the rest of the world. If you blame the US' unilateral embargo for the failure of the "revolution", then I think it's you who are deluded.
Economic embargo, any non-US company that deals economically with Cuba can be subjected to legal action and that company's leadership can be barred from entry into the United States. Sanctions may be applied to non-U.S. companies trading with Cuba. This means that internationally operating companies have to choose between Cuba and the US, which is a much larger market.
.
I believe it's you who is deluded. The US has placed very large restrictions on how Cuba can trade with the rest of the world, much to the detriment of the Cuban people. They really can't conduct fair and open trade with the rest of the world -- in Cuba, this embargo is thought or more as a blockade, since it effectively has the same result. It means they can't import a lot of goods, so the average Cuban goes without unless tourists bring it down and give it to them.
Oh, that and the fact that at one time America imposed an amendment to the Cuban constitution which gives the American government some control over Cuba that Cubans don't want and which violates their sovereignty.
Maybe you should learn a little more about Cuba instead of just spouting what you've heard and don't understand.
I don't understand why parents (and governments) feel that the internet needs to be made child-proof; it just isn't and it never will be.
Because some people think the world should be made child proof to accommodate them. I've been in several contexts where it's a primarily grown up venue and had someone chastise me for swearing withing earshot of their children. Don't want to hear me swear? Keep your kids away from the damned beer garden -- piss off. Even if it's not a "grown ups only" context, I don't care about your child as long as I don't have to listen to it squealing and whining. I can't stop swearing in front of my mother, what makes you think your four-year old is my problem?
It's just a sad reality that people want to enforce a bubble of perfect behavior around any children, at the same time as placing their children in the vicinity of some boisterous events where decidedly non child-safe stuff is happening. Believe me, this behavior extends way past the internet for some parents.
I'm not sure why this product is even necessary. Is a vegetarian diet really that awful that we need to market meat that doesn't come from animals to supplement it?
No, and I have no idea of what PETA is on about -- for me as a vegetarian, I would not be willing to eat this stuff. It sounds just really nasty and gross. PETA is only really worried about the animals in a "won't someone think of the animals" sort of knee-jerk reaction.
If eating the flesh of previously living creatures is disgusting to you, why is fake meat any more appetizing?
This is even less appetizing for me -- now instead of being a dead animal, it's something which is grown in a vat, that sounds disgusting and un-appetizing, and I'm not sure I fully understand how it would be scientifically classified. I mean, genetically is it cow, but grown in a sterile vat and never part of what we'd call an organism? So, like a colony of beef cells?? That's just... wrong.
It's easy to say that it's takes less resources to produce than real meat, but how does it compare to the vegetable foods that we already have, and that are already quite delicious?
I, for one, will continue to expand my repertoire of vegetarian dishes made from identifiable vegetables, and mixing and matching cooking techniques and spices. It's not that tough.
It seems about every six months or so this topic of vat-grown meat ends up on Slashdot, and everyone talks about if it would be ethical for a vegetarian to eat this goo. I can't imagine it would be attractive to anyone, vegetarian or not. It sure as hell isn't going to drive vegetarians back to meat via eating never-been-alive-or-dead slurry of something which is (vaguely) beef.
Slashdot Mirror
Because we can only see so many from our vantage point and with our current technology.
Since there's billions and billions of galaxies, each will billions and billions of stars, and we can't see into any of them, we have no way of looking there. We're looking at stuff that (on a galactic scale) is relatively close. That's kind of like standing on a street corner in a small town in rural Iowa and claiming that people with different skin colours don't exist -- you can't see 'em from where you're standing, so therefore they must not exist.
People around here forget that it's really only within the last 15-20 years or so that we've been able to find any exoplanets -- in that time, we've gone from thinking that any form of planet was likely quite rare. The fact that we've not found a huge number of planets exactly like ours is a matter of the scale of what we're looking at.
For those of us who remember what detecting a planet orbiting a distant star was a pipe-dream, lamenting the fact that we've not found that one perfect planet is kind of like whining that the Wright Brothers didn't achieve super-sonic speeds. We've come a long way in the last few decades, but we still have a long way to go. For me, Drake's equation makes more sense with each passing year.
Cheers
You know, this particular thing comes up quite often around here when the topic of looking for exoplanets comes up, and it always strikes me as somewhat silly.
Yes, of course, there could be life forms 'outside of the box' of the habitable zone -- me, I'm betting on it in a vast universe. But, given that we don't have the vaguest &^%$*&^ idea of how to search for something so alien as to be unimaginable ... how, exactly, would you design an experiment to look for something we can't even conceive of? What would your criteria be?
The fact of the matter is, we can only really spend time looking for things in what we call the habitable zone because there's simply no basis to look for other things. Sure, we could look at all of the flaming hot, sulphurous worlds, or the icy frozen methane worlds. But, what exactly would we be looking for and how?
You either narrow your focus to what you can understand, or you flail about randomly. It's not so much that we have closed minds about the habitable zone, it's merely that we have no basis to look for anything else. Once you go outside of the realm of the science you have to work with, you're making shit up as you go, and then it becomes fiction.
Cheers
OK ...
Well, first you need to learn how to drive. Maybe hire a pro for some lessons at first, or if your lucky, find a friend with a car and practice with them. Driving a car is a fairly difficult when you're learning, and fairly automatic once you know what you're doing. It seems like a lot at first, but your brain eventually gets the hang of it.
Then you need to go car shopping. You might want to test drive a couple so you don't rush into a final decision with a car you're not entirely sure of.
Read up on cars, find out what you're looking for in a car, and what's in your price range. Understand the features, and know what your must have's are and what you can do without. There's lots of ways to shop for cars -- online, browsing at your local car dealership, ask friends what they look for in cars and their experiences with various models, and if they know anyone with a reliable car that's available. Don't get pressured into getting a car that isn't right for you because it's flashy or cool or because you just really want a car -- a car is a big commitment.
You may need to make some concessions on your first car. When you first start, you're not qualified to drive a viper, no matter what the X-Box has told you. And, unless your parents are wealthy, you don't have the means to get yourself a fancy car. Something reliable is always good choice, Civics are popular and hold their retail value well -- not fancy, but they'll get you there. Though, if you're just starting out, you may need to start out with an older model that still runs until you can trade up. If you're uncertain about a used car, take it to a mechanic for an inspection.
Each car is different, and you should at least know a little about the principles on which your car operates, and learn a little about basic maintenance and trouble-shooting. Some of this can take time to learn, but there are books and web-sites which can teach you the basics, but a lot of it just takes some experience rather than just book-learning.
The biggest thing about driving a car is understanding that it's a privilege, not a right. Drive responsibly, don't get yourself or anyone else killed, and keep your wits about you and be aware of your surroundings at all times. Follow the rules of the road, and don't drive like an idiot. You should do fine.
Ummm ... happy? That should cover the high-points. ;-)
Cheers
*laugh* No, but it was pre-Hubble before they'd actually done the measurements to be fairly sure. There was strong theoretical evidence, but nothing they'd been able to hold up until '94 when they looked at M87. (Yes, there had been some evidence, but not yet conclusive.)
Some of us went to university a long time ago, and the world has changed a lot since then.
Like I said, I just continue to be amazed at the changes in my lifetime. You young kids think we've always known this stuff. :-P
Cheers
Wow, when I was in university, Black Holes were still a mostly theoretical idea and we had no real empirical evidence to support their existence.
Now we've got 33 pairs of them entwined in death spirals, and we're pretty sure every galaxy has one.
There's still a lot out there that we can't even conceive of ... I can't wait to see what the next 15-20 years brings us. I like the fact that the universe is vastly more complicated than we've ever really been able to guess at.
Cheers
Well, it's governed by orbital mechanics and gravity ... so the bigger one technically 'leads', but the smaller one also exerts some influence. :-P
Cheers
Don't forget the guy who enumerates the kind of posts we can expect to see in this story to lump everyone into one of a list and decide that the discussion is over.
Oh, you forgot "Soviet Russia" jokes and your spelling got worse as you whipped yourself into a lather, so count me in as one of the grammar Nazis. :-P
Throw in some MS bashing, blaming everything on RMS, and invoking Godwin, and we'll be almost done. ;-)
Cheers
It is in The Fine Article ... go ahead. :-P
Cheers
As has already been pointed out, they're very far apart from one another on the planet -- many orders of magnitude further than either have traveled yet, and way more than either of them could ever possibly travel. Like, around the planet kind of distances.
However, since the second one was added as a bonus (and I guess a failsafe) on top of the mission parameters without too much extra cost, they've managed to get an extraordinary amount of value out of these two little suckers. Over 6 years vs around 3 months of initially planned mission duration. It's the 1973 Honda Civic of space exploration -- beaten, battered, dusty, and no longer quite state of the art, but running nonetheless.
We'll all lament the final death of these probes (OK, some of us will :-P), but they've performed admirably. We know they'll both succumb to the cold and dust before long -- it's mostly just astounding how long they've managed to keep 'em going. The sad thing is, after they've been performing on the planet for so long, I'm not even sure there's a replacement mission in the works in any meaningful timeline.
Cheers
But, what's astounding to me, is in 1995 I was using SGML as a method of separating the document content from its layout. The layout wasn't kept in a separate file, but there were mechanisms to apply publishing layout to SGML based on rules. That was the whole point of SGML and its predecessor GML.
Heck, in 1995 Arbor Text had an SGML editor which could apply formatting to SGML documents for the purposes of publishing, and the company I worked for was helping people to install SGML editing and layout systems.
I'm not 100% convinced that these actually represent novel claims. They may not have been described in terms of XML, but the state of the art with SGML sure as hell was doing the whole "maintaining a document's format in a separate file" before this.
Can anyone who understands this a little more identify what specifically is required to infringe on this patent?
Cheers
TFA clearly states that this was a US appeals court which upheld the judgement. Sadly, this company is playing within the US court rules -- don't blame the rest of us up here in Canada.
I can't for the life of me figure out how someone seems to have gotten a patent on XML that they've not been slamming the rest of the industry with.
Cheers
Maybe not openly, and as a matter of public policy, but it does happen.
I very much have the idea that you're a bit of a well-meaning naif who can only imagine the world as you've experienced it ... but that you are nonetheless wrong.
It's nice that you have never seen discrimination, and can't imagine it. That doesn't change that it does, in fact, exist.
I have never personally seen a platypus ... and since I've had this rock, I've not been mauled by tigers. Neither of these statements change the existence of the platypus, or the fact that there aren't tigers nearby anyway.
Cheers
Given that the patent says "A method of interacting with a virtual environment, comprising:accessing a physical characteristic nonvolitionally obtained from a user", and makes reference to a "health information smart card", I disagree.
The information they're describing goes well beyond that I'd ever provide to any game. This really does sound like some creepy sort of "fat kid rehab center" where you no longer really have a choice in the matter.
I'm also fairly sure that in most locations, you wouldn't really be legally allowed to use someone's health information like this.
*laugh* Now that, I might believe.
Cheers
Isn't that what the Scientologists do? ;-)
Cheers
Wow, recursive suck. How depressing. :-P
Cheers
Where, exactly, does Microsoft think it's going to get this stuff from? The summary actually makes reference to health records.
Heck, I'm not sure most government agencies should have access to most of that information. Microsoft sure as fsck has no business with it.
Welcome to the dystopian future, fat boy. This is actually kind of scary.
Cheers
Is she saying that they've optimized their HD for people without HD screens, or am I just confused?
It really does sound like they're trying to sell something which isn't HD, but gets sold as if it is. Strange. "Now, to server you better, we are open fewer hours."
Cheers
*laugh* Wow, sounds like a hell of a time. Throw in the LSD and free love, and you've got a party!
Cheers
Aww, come on man. Some of us read Slashdot during our lunch break.
That's just nasty! :-P
Cheers
Aww, shucks. That's the nicest thing anyone has said to me all week. ;-P
Cheers
Well, TFA is primarily about the planet and the fact that it seems to have an atmosphere.
That the composition is even vaguely Earth-like, and has the likelihood of some form of atmosphere is is newsworthy. Detecting it from ground based sources is also newsworthy if you're into that sort of thing.
Why do people on Slashdot continue to be so entirely dismissive of science? For those of us old enough to remember when we found the first exoplanets, this continues to be pretty remarkable stuff. I mean, you're spotting something exceedingly distant, in a huge field of other stars to choose from, through some pretty sophisticated techniques and (comparatively) modest equipment. This isn't like spotting your neighbor with binoculars here.
I mean, Jeebus, have we become so jaded that new exoplanet discoveries is boring and the possibility of confirming planets with atmospheres trivial? Wow -- to me, the whole story is cool.
I just don't get the mentality of this "how is this possibly news" stance.
Cheers
Actually, it's news in large part because they're doing this with a large number of small, ground-based telescopes. Getting that kind of resolution with that kind of equipment is a fairly big advancement. From TFA ...
That is somewhat impressive. This really is news.
Cheers
That is not entirely accurate. From wiki ...
.
I believe it's you who is deluded. The US has placed very large restrictions on how Cuba can trade with the rest of the world, much to the detriment of the Cuban people. They really can't conduct fair and open trade with the rest of the world -- in Cuba, this embargo is thought or more as a blockade, since it effectively has the same result. It means they can't import a lot of goods, so the average Cuban goes without unless tourists bring it down and give it to them.
Oh, that and the fact that at one time America imposed an amendment to the Cuban constitution which gives the American government some control over Cuba that Cubans don't want and which violates their sovereignty.
Maybe you should learn a little more about Cuba instead of just spouting what you've heard and don't understand.
Cheers
Because some people think the world should be made child proof to accommodate them. I've been in several contexts where it's a primarily grown up venue and had someone chastise me for swearing withing earshot of their children. Don't want to hear me swear? Keep your kids away from the damned beer garden -- piss off. Even if it's not a "grown ups only" context, I don't care about your child as long as I don't have to listen to it squealing and whining. I can't stop swearing in front of my mother, what makes you think your four-year old is my problem?
It's just a sad reality that people want to enforce a bubble of perfect behavior around any children, at the same time as placing their children in the vicinity of some boisterous events where decidedly non child-safe stuff is happening. Believe me, this behavior extends way past the internet for some parents.
Cheers
No, and I have no idea of what PETA is on about -- for me as a vegetarian, I would not be willing to eat this stuff. It sounds just really nasty and gross. PETA is only really worried about the animals in a "won't someone think of the animals" sort of knee-jerk reaction.
This is even less appetizing for me -- now instead of being a dead animal, it's something which is grown in a vat, that sounds disgusting and un-appetizing, and I'm not sure I fully understand how it would be scientifically classified. I mean, genetically is it cow, but grown in a sterile vat and never part of what we'd call an organism? So, like a colony of beef cells?? That's just ... wrong.
I, for one, will continue to expand my repertoire of vegetarian dishes made from identifiable vegetables, and mixing and matching cooking techniques and spices. It's not that tough.
It seems about every six months or so this topic of vat-grown meat ends up on Slashdot, and everyone talks about if it would be ethical for a vegetarian to eat this goo. I can't imagine it would be attractive to anyone, vegetarian or not. It sure as hell isn't going to drive vegetarians back to meat via eating never-been-alive-or-dead slurry of something which is (vaguely) beef.
Me, I'm just shuddering thinking of this.
Cheers