The family's situation is totally screwed up. If nothing changes, at least one of the kids is going to be stuck baby-sitting for the rest of their lives, putting their own life on hold, after the parents kick the bucket. This isn't fair to them. Worse - what if the genetic defect is 50/50, and the kids are carriers?
This is not a blessing - it's a horror show. Imagine dying of old age and never having become self-aware... you can imagine it because your ARE self-aware. Emily never will be. That's the difference between a human being, and a human animal. You're a being, a person - Emily is just a human animal. Not a being, and with no capacity to become one, since she can't learn, and is responding purely on instinct. The family has developed coping mechanisms, but they'll be ill served by them in the long run. Think about what's going to happen over the next few decades. Would YOU like to have a sister as a pet, along with the responsibility that goes with it? And the guilt when you get fed up? Because that's the future in this case, unless and until Emily kicks off.
Sure, be sympathetic for the family... but also look at the reality - that for too long we've held euthanasia as being "unthinkable", a taboo, and that we then force other people to live lives that suck because of our taboos. Sometimes, you have to be brutal to overcome a deeply-seated taboo and get people to even consider the alternatives. Or to realize that form is not more important than function. Emily might have the form of a human being, but she will never function as one - one of the essentials - changes in the brain that allow learning - is missing. The same thing that excites doctors about the rest of her has sealed her fate in that most important area - the ability to become self-aware.
I wouldn't wish this on family. But I would make it easy and socially acceptable for them to change it.
Now let me get my asbestos overcoat before the fundies go all snakey.
Fact: The brain has not developed normally. this is undeniable, since it hasn't grown physically.
Fact: Even the family admits that her "communication" consists of grunts, etc. In other words, it's purely instinctive. The vocal apparatus is there. Just nobody home to work it, because no learning is going on.
Fact: The family IS projecting - Emily is about as active as a Chia Pet in its' planter. Infant clothes from 12 years ago? Active kids wear them out before they outgrow them - she's a veggie. If her body was growing, she'd be labeled as the most severely mentally handicapped.
So the family treats her like a toy or a pet, because they don't have much in the way of alternatives, do they?
It's a fucked-up situation. If they get some comfort out of thinking "hey, maybe she holds the secret to eternal youth", more power to them... but it doesn't change the reality. Emily will never mature. That's a very high price to pay for "eternal youth."
No - what I'm saying is that this Emily doesn't meet the criteria for a human being... she may be human, but she is NOT a "being", and is incapable of becoming one, since her brain is not changing, she is not learning, and will never become self-aware. So sure, use her for study, the same as Fleming's mold that gave us penicillin, but don't get all dewy-eyed and sentimental about it. What she will probably teach us is that aging is good compared to the alternative of being 16 and treated like the family pet or a toy.
"In this case, the point is that she may hold the key to help cure the disease known as aging."
Aging isn't all bad. It is the path by which we mature as human beings - a path Brooke will never go down. Mentally, she is no better than a vegetable - incapable of learning, since her brain does not change. I'd rather get old (and be aware that I'm aging) than never get out of infancy and never become self-aware.
Imagine stopping all chemical changes in the body - you can never, ever again, learn a single new thing. You wouldn't even be able to remember what happened a minute ago. Might as well put a bullet in your head. Even "50 First Dates" allowed for learning and adaptation over a 24-hour period before the clock reset.
Your signature argues that she SHOULD be euthanized.
"Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is."
That will never happen with Brooke. Mentally, she is a plant, not an animal. She cannot learn, since her brain doesn't grow or change. Learning requires changes in the brain. From the article, all her behaviour at age 16 is still instinctive. Morally, offing her is no worse than cutting back the weeds.
She's obviously not active enough to wear out clothing. Think "Chia Pet", or "Toy Doll", not human toddler.
No aging also means no maturing. Apparently the brain hasn't changed much since birth, which means not much learning has occurred - learning requires changes in the brain. Thing of it as having Alzheimers at birth - you never retain anything new. How can you even develop a personality? In this respect, she's more like a plant than an animal. Even the family dog or cat can do better.
I got the sense that she's more like the family pet than a toy... but yes, it's sad.
And for all those who downmodded this sort of discussion, it shows more concern with form over function, a lack of understanding about what really makes us human. and/or a knee-jerk reaction to anything that doesn't conform to your initial perception of "don't harm the cute baby." It's not a "cute baby" - it's a grotesque parody of a human, with no potential, no real personality (the brain has not changed since infanthood - she can't talk, and reacts the same as an infant to outside stimuli).
About the only positive thing to say at this point is that baby diapers are cheaper than Depends.
Her bones are aging at an almost normal rate, so there's no question of her living to be centuries old, and "just developing slower". Maybe they can transplant the genes into "Chicken Little".
Any learning requires the pruning and changing of connections - this isn't happening, so Brooke can't learn. What you see is a classic case of "it is what it is". In anyone else, it would be called congenital severe mental retardation - a 16-year-old with the mind of an infant. Read the story - this isn't a sister or daughter - it's the family pet.
Nah - post-birth abortion. Euthenasia implies a "mercy killing" to end suffering. Brooke isn't suffering - there's "nobody home", really. An infant's brain, with no chance of growing, learning, etc. Even the family dog has more potential.
The article says that her brain has hardly changed at all - it's still an infant's brain. If you read the article, you'll see that the parents and those around her who claim to see changes or improvements in her ability to communicate are projecting their wishes, same as people do with their pets - except that pets CAN grow and learn. Brooke can't.
Imagine if your brain suddenly never changes. You can never learn a new thing, remember anything from even 5 minutes ago, etc. Before the movie "50 First Dates", there was a sci-fi short story that posited this, with horrifying consequences. It would be the worse than having Alzheimers.
And it appears that, at 16, she still has the brains and skill set of an infant... this is going to sound cruel, but without any more details, it sounds like a good argument for post-birth abortion. I mean, what's the point? At least "The Strange Case of Benjamin Button" had SOME growth of character.
When asked about the possibility of "Cap and Trade Bill", he said "Sure - this way, Bill won't come back and take my job away from me like all the whiners are chanting. So, what do you think we can get in trade for Gates?"
"Right now the results of the/. poll are showing the majority of votes as him being forgettable. Obviously the current young generation has no idea the impact MJ had on the world. Perhaps in time they will learn."
Riiight - Michael Jackson - the same guy who added a whole new meaning to "Think of the children!" Next up: a new Fox DocuDrama/Horror Flick: "Michael Jackson Unmasked!"
Look, the idea of having even an OPTIONm to turn off masking is what's retarded. That was my original point, and one that you seem to insist on not understanding. The people who modded my original post to +5 understood that, so it seems that you're the one with the english comprehension problem.
The idea is totally brain-dead. I would never trust ANY design by someone who would seriously propose such an option for banking - to the point that I would refuse to work with them. The fallout, bad juju, or negative karmic load from being on the same team is just not worth it. And yes, I've been in the business long enough that I have no problem taking my marbles and playing elsewhere when I feel that there's a disaster in the making and there's no turning it around.
Knowing how many digits your PIN is doesn't help, because they are a fixed, standard length.
No, they're not. that's why you also have an "ENTER" key. You don't have to accept the default length. I've used non-standard (read "non-default length") PINS with ATMs.
"Windows (win'-doze) (n.): 32-bit extensions to a 16-bit graphical shell for an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor by a 2-bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition,
This is just to distract people from the growing rumble that Vista SPx (a.k.a. Windows 7) pricing is way off the mark...
Q. Top ten reason why Windows on a mainframe is like Michael Jackson:
A. Neither one can fog a mirror.
A2. Neither one of them can win by a nose.
A3. As of yesterday, you can blend either one.
A4. They both target the immature.
A5. They've both been seriously broken for a looong time.
A6. "It just looks strange..."
A7. They both have high maintenance costs.
A8. They both have a history of instability.
A9. One's a faceless corporation, the other one's just faceless.
A10. They're both past their "best before" date.
Read what I quoted - here, I'll save you the trouble:
"It's therefore worth offering them a checkbox to have their passwords masked; for high-risk applications, such as bank accounts, you might even check this box by default. In cases where there's a tension between security and usability, sometimes security should win."
He IS suggesting that even bank accounts should have the option to reveal the password as it's inputted. This is REALLY stupid. Shoulder surfing happens all the time. This sort of dumb idea would get you FIRED, and rightfully so, if you were designing software for a bank. It would also affect the credibility of any bank that actually was stupid enough to implement it, and can only increase identity theft. The banks have enough PR problems as is.
This is no better than writing your PIN on your bank card.
That's another thing in the article - thanks for pointing it out - complaining about the reset button. Depending on the form, it doesn't just clear the fields - I've scripted it often enough so that it sets them to rational defaults, which helps if someone's got a lot of stuff to enter - for example, a javascript mini-app that performs calculations based on a dozen different fields, or that applies various styles to an element based on user selections... when someone accidentally choses the same background and foreground colours, and everything magically disappears, a reset button is darned handy for the end-user.
The whole article is a bad conclusion based on an over-simplification and a failure of imagination as to what can possibly go wrong...
"from personal experience working on the hell desk; even if we did give users the option to unmask their password chances are they wouldn't remember it anyway.
why not just give them a checkbox that says Password Optional"
... because you KNOW some idiot is going to type "O-p-t-i-o-n-a-l" in the box, then call helldesk to say his password doesn't work...
... and then the other Daryl is going to call to complain that someone must have "hacked" his account because they changed his password to "Optional" and it used to be "NASCAR"...
... my beef, if you bothered to read what I wrote, is that he says that the end user should be allowed to turn off password masking for applications such as banking/ATMs, which is totally stupid. Even audio feedback (one beep per keypress) should be turned off at ATMs since this allows bystanders to figure out how many digits your passcode is.
Mind you, if you're too brain-dead to type in a password without seeing the characters echoed on-screen, there's a fair probability nobody would WANT to steal your identity - but there are always exceptions to the rule, and we all have "blonde days".
Changing the default behaviour for some, but not all, cases is just adding to confusion, not "simplifying things."
"Um, according to that piece of the article you quoted he suggests having password masking for "high-risk" applications such as banking default to ON.">
.. and allowing the user to turn it off! Definitely NOT what your local bank wants you to do. This idea of allowing people to turn off masking is a brain-fart.
I'd rather have to retype the occasional password than have it visible to anyone shoulder surfing.
Think about your bank card, your PIN, etc.
FTFA:
It's therefore worth offering them a checkbox to have their passwords masked; for high-risk applications, such as bank accounts, you might even check this box by default. In cases where there's a tension between security and usability, sometimes security should win.
Retarded doesn't begin to cover this. Offering a default to turn OFF password masking for bank accounts? I'm sure the banks will just LOVE this one. We have enough problems with identity theft already.
"There is no version that only runs three apps anymore."
Doesn't that really depend on the apps? I'm sure that we can come up with a customized 3-app combo that will use so many resources that ANY version will hork up a hairball...
Slashdot Mirror
The family's situation is totally screwed up. If nothing changes, at least one of the kids is going to be stuck baby-sitting for the rest of their lives, putting their own life on hold, after the parents kick the bucket. This isn't fair to them. Worse - what if the genetic defect is 50/50, and the kids are carriers?
This is not a blessing - it's a horror show. Imagine dying of old age and never having become self-aware ... you can imagine it because your ARE self-aware. Emily never will be. That's the difference between a human being, and a human animal. You're a being, a person - Emily is just a human animal. Not a being, and with no capacity to become one, since she can't learn, and is responding purely on instinct. The family has developed coping mechanisms, but they'll be ill served by them in the long run. Think about what's going to happen over the next few decades. Would YOU like to have a sister as a pet, along with the responsibility that goes with it? And the guilt when you get fed up? Because that's the future in this case, unless and until Emily kicks off.
Sure, be sympathetic for the family ... but also look at the reality - that for too long we've held euthanasia as being "unthinkable", a taboo, and that we then force other people to live lives that suck because of our taboos. Sometimes, you have to be brutal to overcome a deeply-seated taboo and get people to even consider the alternatives. Or to realize that form is not more important than function. Emily might have the form of a human being, but she will never function as one - one of the essentials - changes in the brain that allow learning - is missing. The same thing that excites doctors about the rest of her has sealed her fate in that most important area - the ability to become self-aware.
I wouldn't wish this on family. But I would make it easy and socially acceptable for them to change it.
Now let me get my asbestos overcoat before the fundies go all snakey.
Fact: The brain has not developed normally. this is undeniable, since it hasn't grown physically.
Fact: Even the family admits that her "communication" consists of grunts, etc. In other words, it's purely instinctive. The vocal apparatus is there. Just nobody home to work it, because no learning is going on.
Fact: The family IS projecting - Emily is about as active as a Chia Pet in its' planter. Infant clothes from 12 years ago? Active kids wear them out before they outgrow them - she's a veggie. If her body was growing, she'd be labeled as the most severely mentally handicapped.
So the family treats her like a toy or a pet, because they don't have much in the way of alternatives, do they?
It's a fucked-up situation. If they get some comfort out of thinking "hey, maybe she holds the secret to eternal youth", more power to them ... but it doesn't change the reality. Emily will never mature. That's a very high price to pay for "eternal youth."
No - what I'm saying is that this Emily doesn't meet the criteria for a human being ... she may be human, but she is NOT a "being", and is incapable of becoming one, since her brain is not changing, she is not learning, and will never become self-aware. So sure, use her for study, the same as Fleming's mold that gave us penicillin, but don't get all dewy-eyed and sentimental about it. What she will probably teach us is that aging is good compared to the alternative of being 16 and treated like the family pet or a toy.
"In this case, the point is that she may hold the key to help cure the disease known as aging."
Aging isn't all bad. It is the path by which we mature as human beings - a path Brooke will never go down. Mentally, she is no better than a vegetable - incapable of learning, since her brain does not change. I'd rather get old (and be aware that I'm aging) than never get out of infancy and never become self-aware.
Imagine stopping all chemical changes in the body - you can never, ever again, learn a single new thing. You wouldn't even be able to remember what happened a minute ago. Might as well put a bullet in your head. Even "50 First Dates" allowed for learning and adaptation over a 24-hour period before the clock reset.
Brooke - the Human Chia Pet.
Your signature argues that she SHOULD be euthanized.
"Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is."
That will never happen with Brooke. Mentally, she is a plant, not an animal. She cannot learn, since her brain doesn't grow or change. Learning requires changes in the brain. From the article, all her behaviour at age 16 is still instinctive. Morally, offing her is no worse than cutting back the weeds.
Or are you going to change your sig?
She's obviously not active enough to wear out clothing. Think "Chia Pet", or "Toy Doll", not human toddler.
No aging also means no maturing. Apparently the brain hasn't changed much since birth, which means not much learning has occurred - learning requires changes in the brain. Thing of it as having Alzheimers at birth - you never retain anything new. How can you even develop a personality? In this respect, she's more like a plant than an animal. Even the family dog or cat can do better.
I got the sense that she's more like the family pet than a toy ... but yes, it's sad.
And for all those who downmodded this sort of discussion, it shows more concern with form over function, a lack of understanding about what really makes us human. and/or a knee-jerk reaction to anything that doesn't conform to your initial perception of "don't harm the cute baby." It's not a "cute baby" - it's a grotesque parody of a human, with no potential, no real personality (the brain has not changed since infanthood - she can't talk, and reacts the same as an infant to outside stimuli).
About the only positive thing to say at this point is that baby diapers are cheaper than Depends.
Her bones are aging at an almost normal rate, so there's no question of her living to be centuries old, and "just developing slower". Maybe they can transplant the genes into "Chicken Little".
Any learning requires the pruning and changing of connections - this isn't happening, so Brooke can't learn. What you see is a classic case of "it is what it is". In anyone else, it would be called congenital severe mental retardation - a 16-year-old with the mind of an infant. Read the story - this isn't a sister or daughter - it's the family pet.
Nah - post-birth abortion. Euthenasia implies a "mercy killing" to end suffering. Brooke isn't suffering - there's "nobody home", really. An infant's brain, with no chance of growing, learning, etc. Even the family dog has more potential.
The article says that her brain has hardly changed at all - it's still an infant's brain. If you read the article, you'll see that the parents and those around her who claim to see changes or improvements in her ability to communicate are projecting their wishes, same as people do with their pets - except that pets CAN grow and learn. Brooke can't.
Imagine if your brain suddenly never changes. You can never learn a new thing, remember anything from even 5 minutes ago, etc. Before the movie "50 First Dates", there was a sci-fi short story that posited this, with horrifying consequences. It would be the worse than having Alzheimers.
And it appears that, at 16, she still has the brains and skill set of an infant ... this is going to sound cruel, but without any more details, it sounds like a good argument for post-birth abortion. I mean, what's the point? At least "The Strange Case of Benjamin Button" had SOME growth of character.
When asked about the possibility of "Cap and Trade Bill", he said "Sure - this way, Bill won't come back and take my job away from me like all the whiners are chanting. So, what do you think we can get in trade for Gates?"
"Right now the results of the /. poll are showing the majority of votes as him being forgettable. Obviously the current young generation has no idea the impact MJ had on the world. Perhaps in time they will learn."
Riiight - Michael Jackson - the same guy who added a whole new meaning to "Think of the children!" Next up: a new Fox DocuDrama/Horror Flick: "Michael Jackson Unmasked!"
Look, the idea of having even an OPTIONm to turn off masking is what's retarded. That was my original point, and one that you seem to insist on not understanding. The people who modded my original post to +5 understood that, so it seems that you're the one with the english comprehension problem.
The idea is totally brain-dead. I would never trust ANY design by someone who would seriously propose such an option for banking - to the point that I would refuse to work with them. The fallout, bad juju, or negative karmic load from being on the same team is just not worth it. And yes, I've been in the business long enough that I have no problem taking my marbles and playing elsewhere when I feel that there's a disaster in the making and there's no turning it around.
No, they're not. that's why you also have an "ENTER" key. You don't have to accept the default length. I've used non-standard (read "non-default length") PINS with ATMs.
Let me fix that saying for you ...
"Windows (win'-doze) (n.): 32-bit extensions to a 16-bit graphical shell for an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor by a 2-bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition,
This is just to distract people from the growing rumble that Vista SPx (a.k.a. Windows 7) pricing is way off the mark ...
Q. Top ten reason why Windows on a mainframe is like Michael Jackson: ..."
A. Neither one can fog a mirror.
A2. Neither one of them can win by a nose.
A3. As of yesterday, you can blend either one.
A4. They both target the immature.
A5. They've both been seriously broken for a looong time.
A6. "It just looks strange
A7. They both have high maintenance costs.
A8. They both have a history of instability.
A9. One's a faceless corporation, the other one's just faceless.
A10. They're both past their "best before" date.
Read what I quoted - here, I'll save you the trouble:
"It's therefore worth offering them a checkbox to have their passwords masked; for high-risk applications, such as bank accounts, you might even check this box by default. In cases where there's a tension between security and usability, sometimes security should win."
He IS suggesting that even bank accounts should have the option to reveal the password as it's inputted. This is REALLY stupid. Shoulder surfing happens all the time. This sort of dumb idea would get you FIRED, and rightfully so, if you were designing software for a bank. It would also affect the credibility of any bank that actually was stupid enough to implement it, and can only increase identity theft. The banks have enough PR problems as is.
This is no better than writing your PIN on your bank card.
This is just plain WRONG on SO many levels ...
That's another thing in the article - thanks for pointing it out - complaining about the reset button. Depending on the form, it doesn't just clear the fields - I've scripted it often enough so that it sets them to rational defaults, which helps if someone's got a lot of stuff to enter - for example, a javascript mini-app that performs calculations based on a dozen different fields, or that applies various styles to an element based on user selections ... when someone accidentally choses the same background and foreground colours, and everything magically disappears, a reset button is darned handy for the end-user.
The whole article is a bad conclusion based on an over-simplification and a failure of imagination as to what can possibly go wrong ...
"from personal experience working on the hell desk; even if we did give users the option to unmask their password chances are they wouldn't remember it anyway. why not just give them a checkbox that says Password Optional"
Mind you, if you're too brain-dead to type in a password without seeing the characters echoed on-screen, there's a fair probability nobody would WANT to steal your identity - but there are always exceptions to the rule, and we all have "blonde days".
Changing the default behaviour for some, but not all, cases is just adding to confusion, not "simplifying things."
"Um, according to that piece of the article you quoted he suggests having password masking for "high-risk" applications such as banking default to ON.">
I'd rather have to retype the occasional password than have it visible to anyone shoulder surfing.
Think about your bank card, your PIN, etc.
FTFA:
Retarded doesn't begin to cover this. Offering a default to turn OFF password masking for bank accounts? I'm sure the banks will just LOVE this one. We have enough problems with identity theft already.
"There is no version that only runs three apps anymore."
Doesn't that really depend on the apps? I'm sure that we can come up with a customized 3-app combo that will use so many resources that ANY version will hork up a hairball ...