A lawyer/judge friend of mine put it to me this way, as to why sometimes a judge alone is preferable to a jury:
When the trial is about something that the average person either knows nothing about, or is likely to have grave misperceptions about, you are better off to only have to convince ONE idiot of your innocence, than to have to convince TWELVE idiots of your innocence.
Absolutely. Anonymous speech is critical to a free nation, for all the reasons you state.
And as I say above -- when you don't dare express your opinion, that becomes a form of thought control, since there's a natural tendency to avoid thoughts that lead to Unpleasantness (such as being sued or arrested for every negative opinion).
Anonymous accusation is another matter. In some areas of local law (anything to do with child or animal welfare), anonymous complaints are taken as solid evidence, and you have no right to face your accuser. That is equally wrong.
Totally agree with everything you said. Anymore you can't just speak your mind; you've got to edit everything you think lest you offend SOMEONE. In that way, it's a form of thought control -- Thou Shalt Not Express Bad Thoughts, Especially About Those In Power. What you can't express, you tend not to think anymore either.
We have a whole generation that has been taught they have a right to be respected without earning it, and to have "self esteem" without having to grow it themselves. Is it any wonder that businesses are following in these same footsteps??
Now that's more like it. And I'll have to mention it to my neighbour, who can't afford the normal packages but seems to need rescuing from the side of the road all too often!
I've thought about those (and probably would go that route if I couldn't get a landline so really needed the cellphone) but the problem is that you pay up front and if you don't use it up within their timeframe, oh well, wasted money. Or at least so it was last time I checked.
Interesting concept. And it would probably prove to be the companies that would do the most to enhance the GNP, thus benefiting the economy and the average citizen.
Actually, one reason I *don't* have a cellphone is because rather than basic service getting cheap, they keep adding useless shit (at least to me). Give me a $5/month phone (so it's competitive with the poverty rate) that's *nothing but a phone* and I'd be happy.
Since Mr.Obama is so good at fundraising, he's just putting his best skills to work -- separating citizens from their wallets.
How about the gov't stops spending so much?? Then it wouldn't NEED new stealth taxes..... and citizens don't get to go out and rob someone every time WE get strapped.
Hmm.... there's a thought. Next time you overspend your credit limit -- rob the government!!!
Re:Parents choose their baby's name
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, but speaking as a canine professional -- you do not know what you are talking about. ALL dog breeds developed to do some particular job. Sometimes that job was serious work, like the various huskies, herders, and hunting dogs. Sometimes it was just being a passive footwarmer in a cold climate, like the Pekingese (which BTW hasn't changed enough to notice since LONG before dog shows -- photos from long ago clearly show that). Humans have bred and used dogs for these jobs for thousands of years. Dog shows have only been around in any serious form for about 100 years. Nearly all dog breeds go back hundreds or even thousands of years before that, and only a few show any migration to a different type since becoming strictly show breeds. Yes, a few people are idiots and chase after every fad, but good judging keeps that under control. Like every form of competition, there are swings into madness, but it evens out over time.
What breeders HAVE done is make an effort to breed out the various genetic defects that affect the entire canine species (NOT just purebreds), such as hip dysplasia (averaging 46% in the generic dog, but only 5% to 20% in most pure breeds, after breeders selected away from HD as much as was practical) and inherited blindness. That we have better tools for diagnosing these issues today doesn't mean they are more prevalent than in the past -- indeed, these tools let us select away from affected and carrier invidivuals in ways that could not be done with the breeds' ancestors, so the prevalence of genetic disease is generally declining.
Of course, if HSUS and PETA have their way, the educated and experienced breeder will soon be a thing of the past, and at that point you can expect things to go downhill rapidly as there will no longer be any old-timer mentors to keep the young faddists in check.
Re:Parents choose their baby's name
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 1
[hat type="professional dog trainer/breeder"]
Actually, AKC recognition has nothing to do with it. The individual breed clubs set the standard for each breed, and that's so whether the parent club is an AKC affiliate or not.
As to whether a breed gets 'ruined' -- blame the small minority of title chasing breeders, not AKC or the breed standard. All breed standards reflect the fact that every breed evolved to do some particular job, and form very much follows function.
Obviously, breeders who actually *use* the dogs for their intended function will have a much better handle on what form to breed for, to maintain that function. If breed clubs fail to educate judges (AKC or not) about their breed's function and the form needed to do that job, that is a failing of those breed clubs.
[Credential: I bred and own the ONLY *100% fieldbred* Labrador to go Best In Show in ANY venue anywhere in the world since 1974. She's also one of my best workers.]
[/hat]
Re:Parents choose their baby's name
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'm one of those weirdassed extra-colours seers [g] To me, a peacock's tail plumage looks more like the righthand example than the left: http://www.bio.bris.ac.uk/research/vision/4d.htm -- not quite that blue, but with the sparklies in the black "eye" clearly visible.
Note that the populations that are most in excess are also those that most desire male children. Maybe this is nature's way of curbing the population, even tho it appears to be social pressure: Where do social drives come from? I'd argue that they're largely generated by instinct. When there are too many people, parents desire boys; when there are significantly more boys than girls, the birth rate falls; eventually the population drops and we no longer have too many people.
Do remember that until a couple hundred years ago, it was common practice to leave a defective infant in the woods to die. This is really the same practice as what is now being called "child euthanasia" -- except that in the Olden Days, the parent took direct responsibility; if the state or a doctor gets involved, it's probably quicker for the child but it removes some of the parental responsibility.
Re:A little story in how this is dangerous
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 1
And the simple fact of life is, we still need ditch-diggers and ag workers and Walmart clerks. Not everyone CAN be a rocket scientist even if everyone has the brains for it -- because even the rocket scientists need to eat, and there are only so many jobs available for rocket scientists. And it's better if people are adapted for their job and content with it, than unhappy because it's not enough for them.
If there was no value to a range of personalities and intelligence, they'd have been long since selected out of the gene pool.
Re:No idea where that will lead?
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 1
As I recall, one reason for the Crusades was to find a way to occupy the surplus young males who couldn't find a mate, because the death-in-childbirth rate kept the supply of eligible women of breeding age too small to go around, and of course only one male could inherit in each family. So all his brothers went off to war.
If China did the same today as Europe did with its surplus young males during the middle ages, yes, we'd call it WW3.
[Eyeing U.S./China balance of trade] Er, maybe they already have, and we just didn't notice!
Re:One gene != one characteristic
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 1
The sky may not be falling, and what you say is correct, but it's still possible that selection for recessive traits could eliminate the dominant alleles in some small segments of the population. And that would be bad for that population, because as a whole, dominants tend to be survival-positives, while recessives tend to be deleterious. And in my experience (speaking as a dog breeder with 13 generations of my own line) recessives tend to clump together in a given individual. I haven't found an explanation for this, but it is often so.
But people have always selected for their offsprings' traits -- they've simply done it via their selection of a breeding mate. This has much the same effect, albeit less directly than culling the offspring who lack the desired traits.
And the sky still didn't fall, because with as few as a million humans, and far more so with 6 billion humans, we've got a LOT of gene pool, and a LOT of diversity. So what happens with one small segment really isn't significant to the species. And until the day when we all live in the Gattica technobubble, embryo selection won't have enough impact to notice, if only because the majority of the tough people who live in tough conditions won't have access to it, and natural selection will still do its job.
I'd further suggest that said hobbled politicians be restricted from going anywhere but 1) their own district and 2) their own parliment, congress, or whatever your country calls it.
Actually, I'm not so sure I'm joking, now that I think about it.
And it's not that long a step from "every pub" to "every business". Start with the ones that have some risk, like liquor stores and upscale shops, then progress down thru the ranks to the corner grocer.
And once that's done, and the next generation is accustomed to being watched everywhere in public, it'll become "every home" (even if only only watched from outside, at least until another generation goes by...)
Forty years ago I'd have laughed at the above as complete SF (and I'd read 1984, Colossus, and many of their kin). Today, it no longer seems the least bit fantastic; to the contrary, it now looms as inevitable.
I think that's already been done, in places where the "Castle Doctrine" no longer applies, and you're required by law to retreat from home invaders rather than defend your property.
One might also say it's already been done anywhere that has civil asset forfeiture.
Slashdot Mirror
A lawyer/judge friend of mine put it to me this way, as to why sometimes a judge alone is preferable to a jury:
When the trial is about something that the average person either knows nothing about, or is likely to have grave misperceptions about, you are better off to only have to convince ONE idiot of your innocence, than to have to convince TWELVE idiots of your innocence.
Absolutely. Anonymous speech is critical to a free nation, for all the reasons you state.
And as I say above -- when you don't dare express your opinion, that becomes a form of thought control, since there's a natural tendency to avoid thoughts that lead to Unpleasantness (such as being sued or arrested for every negative opinion).
Anonymous accusation is another matter. In some areas of local law (anything to do with child or animal welfare), anonymous complaints are taken as solid evidence, and you have no right to face your accuser. That is equally wrong.
Totally agree with everything you said. Anymore you can't just speak your mind; you've got to edit everything you think lest you offend SOMEONE. In that way, it's a form of thought control -- Thou Shalt Not Express Bad Thoughts, Especially About Those In Power. What you can't express, you tend not to think anymore either.
We have a whole generation that has been taught they have a right to be respected without earning it, and to have "self esteem" without having to grow it themselves. Is it any wonder that businesses are following in these same footsteps??
Now that's more like it. And I'll have to mention it to my neighbour, who can't afford the normal packages but seems to need rescuing from the side of the road all too often!
I've thought about those (and probably would go that route if I couldn't get a landline so really needed the cellphone) but the problem is that you pay up front and if you don't use it up within their timeframe, oh well, wasted money. Or at least so it was last time I checked.
Interesting concept. And it would probably prove to be the companies that would do the most to enhance the GNP, thus benefiting the economy and the average citizen.
Actually, one reason I *don't* have a cellphone is because rather than basic service getting cheap, they keep adding useless shit (at least to me). Give me a $5/month phone (so it's competitive with the poverty rate) that's *nothing but a phone* and I'd be happy.
As the old saw goes, "If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at 40, you have no brain."
Since Mr.Obama is so good at fundraising, he's just putting his best skills to work -- separating citizens from their wallets.
How about the gov't stops spending so much?? Then it wouldn't NEED new stealth taxes..... and citizens don't get to go out and rob someone every time WE get strapped.
Hmm.... there's a thought. Next time you overspend your credit limit -- rob the government!!!
Sorry, but speaking as a canine professional -- you do not know what you are talking about. ALL dog breeds developed to do some particular job. Sometimes that job was serious work, like the various huskies, herders, and hunting dogs. Sometimes it was just being a passive footwarmer in a cold climate, like the Pekingese (which BTW hasn't changed enough to notice since LONG before dog shows -- photos from long ago clearly show that). Humans have bred and used dogs for these jobs for thousands of years. Dog shows have only been around in any serious form for about 100 years. Nearly all dog breeds go back hundreds or even thousands of years before that, and only a few show any migration to a different type since becoming strictly show breeds. Yes, a few people are idiots and chase after every fad, but good judging keeps that under control. Like every form of competition, there are swings into madness, but it evens out over time.
What breeders HAVE done is make an effort to breed out the various genetic defects that affect the entire canine species (NOT just purebreds), such as hip dysplasia (averaging 46% in the generic dog, but only 5% to 20% in most pure breeds, after breeders selected away from HD as much as was practical) and inherited blindness. That we have better tools for diagnosing these issues today doesn't mean they are more prevalent than in the past -- indeed, these tools let us select away from affected and carrier invidivuals in ways that could not be done with the breeds' ancestors, so the prevalence of genetic disease is generally declining.
Of course, if HSUS and PETA have their way, the educated and experienced breeder will soon be a thing of the past, and at that point you can expect things to go downhill rapidly as there will no longer be any old-timer mentors to keep the young faddists in check.
[hat type="professional dog trainer/breeder"]
Actually, AKC recognition has nothing to do with it. The individual breed clubs set the standard for each breed, and that's so whether the parent club is an AKC affiliate or not.
As to whether a breed gets 'ruined' -- blame the small minority of title chasing breeders, not AKC or the breed standard. All breed standards reflect the fact that every breed evolved to do some particular job, and form very much follows function.
Obviously, breeders who actually *use* the dogs for their intended function will have a much better handle on what form to breed for, to maintain that function. If breed clubs fail to educate judges (AKC or not) about their breed's function and the form needed to do that job, that is a failing of those breed clubs.
[Credential: I bred and own the ONLY *100% fieldbred* Labrador to go Best In Show in ANY venue anywhere in the world since 1974. She's also one of my best workers.]
[/hat]
I'm one of those weirdassed extra-colours seers [g] To me, a peacock's tail plumage looks more like the righthand example than the left: http://www.bio.bris.ac.uk/research/vision/4d.htm -- not quite that blue, but with the sparklies in the black "eye" clearly visible.
Note that the populations that are most in excess are also those that most desire male children. Maybe this is nature's way of curbing the population, even tho it appears to be social pressure: Where do social drives come from? I'd argue that they're largely generated by instinct. When there are too many people, parents desire boys; when there are significantly more boys than girls, the birth rate falls; eventually the population drops and we no longer have too many people.
Interesting links.
Do remember that until a couple hundred years ago, it was common practice to leave a defective infant in the woods to die. This is really the same practice as what is now being called "child euthanasia" -- except that in the Olden Days, the parent took direct responsibility; if the state or a doctor gets involved, it's probably quicker for the child but it removes some of the parental responsibility.
And the simple fact of life is, we still need ditch-diggers and ag workers and Walmart clerks. Not everyone CAN be a rocket scientist even if everyone has the brains for it -- because even the rocket scientists need to eat, and there are only so many jobs available for rocket scientists. And it's better if people are adapted for their job and content with it, than unhappy because it's not enough for them.
If there was no value to a range of personalities and intelligence, they'd have been long since selected out of the gene pool.
As I recall, one reason for the Crusades was to find a way to occupy the surplus young males who couldn't find a mate, because the death-in-childbirth rate kept the supply of eligible women of breeding age too small to go around, and of course only one male could inherit in each family. So all his brothers went off to war.
If China did the same today as Europe did with its surplus young males during the middle ages, yes, we'd call it WW3.
[Eyeing U.S./China balance of trade] Er, maybe they already have, and we just didn't notice!
The sky may not be falling, and what you say is correct, but it's still possible that selection for recessive traits could eliminate the dominant alleles in some small segments of the population. And that would be bad for that population, because as a whole, dominants tend to be survival-positives, while recessives tend to be deleterious. And in my experience (speaking as a dog breeder with 13 generations of my own line) recessives tend to clump together in a given individual. I haven't found an explanation for this, but it is often so.
But people have always selected for their offsprings' traits -- they've simply done it via their selection of a breeding mate. This has much the same effect, albeit less directly than culling the offspring who lack the desired traits.
And the sky still didn't fall, because with as few as a million humans, and far more so with 6 billion humans, we've got a LOT of gene pool, and a LOT of diversity. So what happens with one small segment really isn't significant to the species. And until the day when we all live in the Gattica technobubble, embryo selection won't have enough impact to notice, if only because the majority of the tough people who live in tough conditions won't have access to it, and natural selection will still do its job.
I've also read of mysterious failures to get all the bubbles out of the barrel casting, which of course does really bad things once the gun heats up.
Because the government believes that the default content of "privacy" is "criminal activity".
I think you just reinvented FIDOnet.
Not only that, but if the system is breached, what better way to sweep up an entire "conspiracy of friends" all at once??
I'd further suggest that said hobbled politicians be restricted from going anywhere but 1) their own district and 2) their own parliment, congress, or whatever your country calls it.
Actually, I'm not so sure I'm joking, now that I think about it.
And it's not that long a step from "every pub" to "every business". Start with the ones that have some risk, like liquor stores and upscale shops, then progress down thru the ranks to the corner grocer.
And once that's done, and the next generation is accustomed to being watched everywhere in public, it'll become "every home" (even if only only watched from outside, at least until another generation goes by...)
Forty years ago I'd have laughed at the above as complete SF (and I'd read 1984, Colossus, and many of their kin). Today, it no longer seems the least bit fantastic; to the contrary, it now looms as inevitable.
I think that's already been done, in places where the "Castle Doctrine" no longer applies, and you're required by law to retreat from home invaders rather than defend your property.
One might also say it's already been done anywhere that has civil asset forfeiture.
That question came up in another discussion. Seems the answer is you'd get arrested for obstruction of justice, or some such nonsense.
But otherwise... yeah, on punch cards AND as bits, not bytes. ;)