Say to these countries that their debt will be suspended if they accept the tutorship of a foreigner.
In a state of emergency, OK.
Because I would not give anything for free : I'd invest in trust.
Agreed. But AFAIK trust can only be maintained in one way: own up to one's obligations.
If it works, which means : if the country proves itself to be able to send representatives as tutors in other countries, then the debt will be cancelled.
I don't understand how sending several workers abroad means anything worked at all.
The way I see it, postponing a debt works when 2 things happen:
1) The borrowing state improves it's internal situation (laws, education, infrastructure) so that its people can have safe, good, productive lives.
2) The borrowing state admits that the debt exists and must be returned, and implements serious plans toward that goal, at a sustainable rate in the present andfuture
Only so can the borrowing country expect to have investments. Not charity: investments. Charity is unsustainable in the long run. It is also never enough.
If not, well, then the trial period has not expired.
But this is exactly what bankruptcy means: your trial period has expired, and we don't expect anything from you anymore. This is the situation I think one should avoid.
No matter what pretty words anyone sais: If a debt is cancelled, that is bankrupcy. And like I said in another answer, for a country, bankruptcy is about as bad as it can get financially. It is not a favour, but a horrible blow to that country's future.
Bankruptcy is (and should be) a financial mark of cain: it means this person/buisness cannot be taken seriously financially.
It gives protection from debters, but the price is that no serious body will (should) make buisness with the bankrupt body or his former management.
For a person, or a buisness to sell their future so is one thing, for a state to do so is one of the worst possible scenarios financially. It is selling your children's financial future for a couple of pennies today.
This is why I insist one should not if at all posible declare a country bankrupt: one should insist on it fulfilling its obligations in a pragmatic manner: forgo interest payments and return debts adjusted with inflation, in a reasonable period of time.
The rich countries will not be hurt at all from forgoing such lost debts. The only ones really hurt will be the third-worlders.
"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" -Ebenezer Scrooge
And never give money for free if you want to help someone.
Cancelling a debt will hurt the recipient in the long run: He will get used to getting help for free and develop an addiction.
There are other ways to help: I believe that third world countries should be given lower interest loans, even zero-interest loans ; conditioned by their changing their economies and reducing corruption.
This IT help the UN aparently wants to give poor countries is a step in the right direction.
But relinquishing debt is stupid and eventually hurts the poor more than the rich.
Yes dear, I know I need to go to work and feed our kids, but , you see, those big bad monitors at work are giving me hell. And I have referenced scientific article to prove it !
people working with monitors are reluctant to go to work. scoop.
LOTR is exciting, uses lots of CGI and the geek factor is high. I really can't wait untill the twin towers. When Hollywood makes great movies like this the whole MPAA trying to take away our rights thing doesn't sound so bad...
Holywood deserves pay for its products (cool or shity, as their costumers decides).
Holywood does not deserve to get control of every type of indormation exchange and information processing and usage, wether legal or not, wether movie related or not just because they need to protect their bottom line.
They are acting like a cancerous cell, which for it's own minute purpose will eat all the systems of it's sorounding organism. And (the US) society's immune system does nothing to stop them so far.
So yes, LOTR movies are nice (I personally am not so excited by CGI and special effects. A good story is more important IMHO), but this price is way too high. I will not pay it, and the world cannot pay it.
If the US cannot restrain its' media corporations, the rest of the world will find other means of information exchange and processing. To the ultimate loss of the US.
Re:PDF Files arn't easily modifiable.
on
Microsoft takes on PDF
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I think you'll find that Microsoft ensured that the "best product" never got made, because they knew it wouldn't be theirs.
Nope. They have good devs just as other firms. the "best product" wouldn't be made because MS will not be able to charge for an upgrade later.
This is not an MS-specific tactic, many SW firms use it, but MS has used it most successfully, so far.
problem with this kind of tactic is that eventually it WILL backfire.
Dune was one hell of a novel. Frank Herbert's subsequent Dune novels got worse and worse.
On the contrary. the first dune book was a complex book, a wonderful book, but the basic story is a (quite banal) coming-of-age defeat-the-badguy story.
It is only the later stories, the fall of paul and Aliah, and the rise of leto and it's toll on humanity where the depth of F. Herbert's genius really comes to light. The motive of human's impact on ecology only comes to fruition in leto's story, when arakis has been terraformed. The notion of prescience's degenerative affect is also one that is not dealt with in the first novel.
All in all, I think one must read the first 4 books, at least, to understand the first one. They should IMHO be treated as parts of the same work no less then the three parts of the LOTR.
While it may be said that the later F.H. books (the post-tyrant books) were not as good, and perhaps did have a more financial reason for being than an artistic ones (I don't know), the first books have firm literary, consistency and completeness reasons for being made.
Now his relatives are milking the franchise for all it's worth, and the brand equity of a franchise like Dune is worth a great deal.
Well I'm not sure this is due to greed. B. Herbert had a remarkable father. He cannot fill a tenth of his father's shoes. Seeing him try and fail so miserably actually makes me pity him. I think he really wanted to succeed in writing as much as his father and it is not his fault he doesn't have what is takes (I don't know if anyone does, definately not too many do...).
What is worse, being greedy or being pathetic ? I do not deride B.Herbert. I pity him.
That said, his editor and publisher must have known he was on the way to total disgrace. The fact they published his works is both a professional disgrace (for them) and apparently a very nasty thing to do as human beings.
But "some publishers are scum" is no great news either...
Re:Inflation != Multiple Universes
on
One of Many
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
but this would mean that the laws of physics would no longer be laws..
It certainly, IMHO, means that the laws we know break. Very probably it means the laws we can conceivably test also do not apply.
This does not mean there isn't any generalization of the basic theories which do apply. In fact physicists predict properties such a theory must have, which may lead to hypothesis of this kind.
wether such hypothesis are true, or can even be tested, again, is a leap of faith IMHO.
If I lived on a proto-planet then I would be a creature that was much smaller than an electron and therefore must be made up of things that don't apply to the current physics
Here I think you may have a misconception of the notion of size. General Relativity tells us you cannot directly compare sizes over great distances. This means that the world we live in is a Riemann manifold ( a patchwork of local non congruent euclidian approximations )
What all this means, is that comparing sizes inside a black hole (the above approximations break on the way) and outside is not only impossible, it is meaningless. It does NOT mean the laws of physics must be different in flat areas inside. (or that they aren't)
Besides... I'd would be darn horrible to find out that we have been preforming planicide on entire civilizations and races every time a cyclotron or particle accelerator is fired up
wrong. this may have conceivably been possible if current experiments would heve been close to the plank scale. However we're many many orders of magnitude away from achieving such cataclysmic energies. AFAIK we know pretty well the basics of what is happening in the sub-TeV scale.
Re: You've got it backwards.
on
One of Many
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Unfortunately, the big-brained ones have now copped onto the Sci-Fi idea of these alternate universes
I think you have a wrong picture: although the notion of different choices and their consequences is an ancient one, the notion of parallel universes came from science (everett interpretation, feynman-multiple-path approach to quantum mechanics) to SciFi and philosophy.
As usual, the ideas flow from science to science-fiction. I asume this is because usually, nature is more bizare than what our imagination can predict. (and also because the best scientists are among the most creative people...)
regardless of the ISS subject, this kind of thinking is counter-productive.
One should try to choose the best path at all times. Resources spent are not important, only resources you will spend, as oposed to your projected return and probability of success.
as for plans, one should always make other plans and think ahead, so that decision making will be more effective.
Survival of the human race for the furtherment of science is of the utmost priority !
Yes, I can see it now: all the voters shouting: "our survival is only important for the further advancing of science ! please take our lives for your next article !";-)
either you ment that the other way around, or, like the famous redhead said "you need to sort out your priorities".
much easier and cheaper to build colonies in space. Either mine the asteroids exclusively or create a lunar mining base, but once you have a stream of resources from either, real-estate and energy is MUCH cheaper in orbit.
Also transportation is cheaper (just one gravity well instead of 2)
(this is the third time I ask the question in/. and I still haven't gotten a satisfactoy answer.)
Yeah, couldn't be that some people actually BELIEVE WHAT THEY WROTE, right??
could be, but I did not say \forall pro-microsoft posts are from hired pen just that \Exist some.
And MS used this tactic of hired liars to overcome OS/2, so I see no reason why they shouldn't do it again.
Why is it that every OSS zealot has to insist that any point of view contrary to their own is the result of a derranged mind?
you find that in my post, where exactly ?
You want to try and convince me that Microsoft is evil and that I should shun absolutely anything coming out of Redmond and that I should embrace the OSS world? Fine, try and convince me.
I say you should read/. posts with a HUJE grain of salt./. is a rumors site, and is as vulnerable to outside manipulations (thru lobiers) as any discussion room, or conference. This is the meaning of my post.
I said a short, single sentence, the amount of information you infer from it is quite, ahem, impressive.
Do it logically and without insulting me.
Where did I insult anyone in particular ? Or specificly you ? I didn't say you are a hired-pen (I don't know you at all), I said I belive MS hires some (as she did in the past)
(fzammet said) BUT DON'T FUCKING DO IT BY TELLING ME I'M A NUTCASE OR A PAID LACKEY OF SOME CORPORORATE ENTITY BECUASE I DON'T CURRENTLY AGREE WITH YOUR WORLD-VIEW!
like they write in chess: ?!
again, you infer quite a lot of info regarding yourself from a small general sentence, then curse and shout and deny what you presume you've read.
drink a glass of water, cool a bit.
Another group of people acted the way some of you people act... we fought a world war against them...
I don't know if this is more funny or alarming.
1) Who are "these people" that I'm supposedly a part of ?
2) Hey, you're equating me to the Nazis because I think there are liars and hired-pen on/..
no personal insult there... also, IMHO, not a lot of common sense.
The Saturn V was designed to do two things. Escape the Earth's gravity well (or at least the great majority of it) and prove to the Soviets that if we could land a man on the moon we could damn sure land a hydrogen bomb on Moscow.
H-bombing anything on earth can be done once you reach orbit. ICBMs are, AFAIK, much smaller, simpler and cheaper than SV: I doubt that at 1960 Russia and the US didn't know already that they could H-bomb each other out. There was no need for Apolo to demonstrate that.
But look at many of the comments in this forum - it seems MS has even managed to persuade many Slashdotters that they are going to use open formats. Poor fools.
a contract is void by default if it violates a law
IANAL, this is more complicated. The problem here is that there are two (possibly) mutually exclusive constraints on the client , so that he may be screwed in any case: if he complies with the law his user agreement his void and microsoft can refuse giving support, or worse, sue. Of course if the client violates the law he is vulnerable to suits from the government or, much worse, his own clients or third parties damaged by possible exploits.
so this seems like a real concern. If I were a bank's lawyer (which again, IANAL) I'd be scared shitless, I'd recomend just to forget about it all.
I'm open minded about this kind of research. I just don't feel ready to have one of these alpha-testing organs put into me.
This kind of testing is not done on healthy people. If you get to the stage you'll acutely need a transplant, you'll probably change your mind.
If you know that the organ will give you, perhaps a year, then it is good. Do we know that?
How do you propose we find out without testing it on human being ?
I'm just trying to point out the problems with the technology
Donald Knuth, which is a much smarter man then me, and possibly you, once said in a different context: "premature optimization is the root of all evil"
pointing out potential problems in future technology is analogous: it is, IMHO, much better to try and see.
You cannot guarantee that the outcome will be healthy, even if it looks good, it will probably differ in some way
this is what's science is all about: instead of being afraid the result will be different "in some way" the researchers are actually finding out the problems and dealing with them one by one.
Is an organ developed using transgenetics likely to be healthy? That is what I'm trying to ask!
healthy compared to what ? A person needs a transplant when the original body-part has serious malfunctions. Compared to a malfunctioning liver (you'll die in 3 days) a transplant which will kill you in a year is a blessing.
BTW, human-origin transplants also raise problems (life expectancy of transplant recievers is much shorter than for normal people)
Actually it is Kosher, while some disagree Judaism lawers seem to be saying that it is because. 1) surgery is different then eating. 2) The Kosher laws can be suspended when necessary to save
yes, not only is this allowed by jewish law, it is a great "MITZVA" to save a human life. And using pigs will cancel the current moral problems with human-donor transplants (when is the donor considered dead ? i.e. when is taking his vitals is no longer considered murder ? )
That is why the attack on 09-11 (and the post anthrax threat) was SO effective, it shook ppl out of the safety they lived in into a world of terror.
out of their illusions into reality ? a large part of the world does live in fear, famine, wars and genocide.
More than 1000 times the deaths of the so called "anthrax threat" are killed every month in violent crimes in the US, so which one is a greater threat, and which one got more publicity, and which one made ppl afraid ?
Hysteria != concern. The media flames and is feeding on the first, but that does not mean one should automatically dismiss the second.
A threat is not measured just in the current amount of victims/damages, but also by the potential costs and estimated probability. In this regard biowarfare (not anthrax, which is rather weak , but things like smallpox and worse) is IMHO quite a significant threat. Just look at europe of the 14th century for an example of what an efficient plauge can do.
I beg to differ. Using a weapon safely and efficiently takes knowledge AND practice. This is why soldiers spend weeks to months in the firing range before they can use assault rifles efficiently. And this is for assault rifles which are quite accurate in the 20-50m range. Pistols are much harder to use efficiently and quickly. Many people will probably not hit what they aimed for from 20m, but they WILL hit something... Result is that a weapons-newbie is one of the most dangerous things around.
And I haven't talked about maintainence, general handling (even simple things like how you carry a weapon), safety rules, etc.
Every child can press a trigger, (almost) every idiot can learn to use a weapon safely and efficiently, but it takes a lot of time and practice. Without them, you're a menace to society.
Slashdot Mirror
Say to these countries that their debt will be suspended if they accept the tutorship of a foreigner.
In a state of emergency, OK.
Because I would not give anything for free : I'd invest in trust.
Agreed. But AFAIK trust can only be maintained in one way: own up to one's obligations.
If it works, which means : if the country proves itself to be able to send representatives as tutors in other countries, then the debt will be cancelled.
I don't understand how sending several workers abroad means anything worked at all.
The way I see it, postponing a debt works when 2 things happen:
1) The borrowing state improves it's internal situation (laws, education, infrastructure) so that its people can have safe, good, productive lives.
2) The borrowing state admits that the debt exists and must be returned, and implements serious plans toward that goal, at a sustainable rate in the present andfuture
Only so can the borrowing country expect to have investments.
Not charity: investments.
Charity is unsustainable in the long run. It is also never enough.
If not, well, then the trial period has not expired.
But this is exactly what bankruptcy means: your trial period has expired, and we don't expect anything from you anymore. This is the situation I think one should avoid.
No matter what pretty words anyone sais: If a debt is cancelled, that is bankrupcy. And like I said in another answer, for a country, bankruptcy is about as bad as it can get financially. It is not a favour, but a horrible blow to that country's future.
I guess you have never heard of bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy is (and should be) a financial mark of cain: it means this person/buisness cannot be taken seriously financially.
It gives protection from debters, but the price is that no serious body will (should) make buisness with the bankrupt body or his former management.
For a person, or a buisness to sell their future so is one thing, for a state to do so is one of the worst possible scenarios financially. It is selling your children's financial future for a couple of pennies today.
This is why I insist one should not if at all posible declare a country bankrupt: one should insist on it fulfilling its obligations in a pragmatic manner: forgo interest payments and return debts adjusted with inflation, in a reasonable period of time.
The rich countries will not be hurt at all from forgoing such lost debts. The only ones really hurt will be the third-worlders.
"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" -Ebenezer Scrooge
Don't insult. Convince.
And never give money for free if you want to help someone.
Cancelling a debt will hurt the recipient in the long run: He will get used to getting help for free and develop an addiction.
There are other ways to help: I believe that third world countries should be given lower interest loans, even zero-interest loans ; conditioned by their changing their economies and reducing corruption.
This IT help the UN aparently wants to give poor countries is a step in the right direction.
But relinquishing debt is stupid and eventually hurts the poor more than the rich.
I can see it now:
Yes dear, I know I need to go to work and feed our kids, but , you see, those big bad monitors at work are giving me hell. And I have referenced scientific article to prove it !
people working with monitors are reluctant to go to work. scoop.
LOTR is exciting, uses lots of CGI and the geek factor is high. I really can't wait untill the twin towers. When Hollywood makes great movies like this the whole MPAA trying to take away our rights thing doesn't sound so bad...
Holywood deserves pay for its products (cool or shity, as their costumers decides).
Holywood does not deserve to get control of every type of indormation exchange and information processing and usage, wether legal or not, wether movie related or not just because they need to protect their bottom line.
They are acting like a cancerous cell, which for it's own minute purpose will eat all the systems of it's sorounding organism. And (the US) society's immune system does nothing to stop them so far.
So yes, LOTR movies are nice (I personally am not so excited by CGI and special effects. A good story is more important IMHO), but this price is way too high. I will not pay it, and the world cannot pay it.
If the US cannot restrain its' media corporations, the rest of the world will find other means of information exchange and processing. To the ultimate loss of the US.
I think you'll find that Microsoft ensured that the "best product" never got made, because they knew it wouldn't be theirs.
Nope. They have good devs just as other firms. the "best product" wouldn't be made because MS will not be able to charge for an upgrade later.
This is not an MS-specific tactic, many SW firms use it, but MS has used it most successfully, so far.
problem with this kind of tactic is that eventually it WILL backfire.
Dune was one hell of a novel. Frank Herbert's subsequent Dune novels got worse and worse.
...) .
...
On the contrary. the first dune book was a complex book, a wonderful book, but the basic story is a (quite banal) coming-of-age defeat-the-badguy story.
It is only the later stories, the fall of paul and Aliah, and the rise of leto and it's toll on humanity where the depth of F. Herbert's genius really comes to light. The motive of human's impact on ecology only comes to fruition in leto's story, when arakis has been terraformed. The notion of prescience's degenerative affect is also one that is not dealt with in the first novel.
All in all, I think one must read the first 4 books, at least, to understand the first one. They should IMHO be treated as parts of the same work no less then the three parts of the LOTR.
While it may be said that the later F.H. books (the post-tyrant books) were not as good, and perhaps did have a more financial reason for being than an artistic ones (I don't know), the first books have firm literary, consistency and completeness reasons for being made.
Now his relatives are milking the franchise for all it's worth, and the brand equity of a franchise like Dune is worth a great deal.
Well I'm not sure this is due to greed. B. Herbert had a remarkable father. He cannot fill a tenth of his father's shoes. Seeing him try and fail so miserably actually makes me pity him. I think he really wanted to succeed in writing as much as his father and it is not his fault he doesn't have what is takes (I don't know if anyone does, definately not too many do
What is worse, being greedy or being pathetic ? I do not deride B.Herbert. I pity him.
That said, his editor and publisher must have known he was on the way to total disgrace. The fact they published his works is both a professional disgrace (for them) and apparently a very nasty thing to do as human beings.
But "some publishers are scum" is no great news either
but this would mean that the laws of physics would no longer be laws ..
It certainly, IMHO, means that the laws we know break. Very probably it means the laws we can conceivably test also do not apply.
This does not mean there isn't any generalization of the basic theories which do apply. In fact physicists predict properties such a theory must have, which may lead to hypothesis of this kind.
wether such hypothesis are true, or can even be tested, again, is a leap of faith IMHO.
If I lived on a proto-planet then I would be a creature that was much smaller than an electron and therefore must be made up of things that don't apply to the current physics
Here I think you may have a misconception of the notion of size. General Relativity tells us you cannot directly compare sizes over great distances. This means that the world we live in is a Riemann manifold ( a patchwork of local non congruent euclidian approximations )
What all this means, is that comparing sizes inside a black hole (the above approximations break on the way) and outside is not only impossible, it is meaningless. It does NOT mean the laws of physics must be different in flat areas inside. (or that they aren't)
Besides... I'd would be darn horrible to find out that we have been preforming planicide on entire civilizations and races every time a cyclotron or particle accelerator is fired up
wrong. this may have conceivably been possible if current experiments would heve been close to the plank scale. However we're many many orders of magnitude away from achieving such cataclysmic energies.
AFAIK we know pretty well the basics of what is happening in the sub-TeV scale.
Unfortunately, the big-brained ones have now copped onto the Sci-Fi idea of these alternate universes
...)
I think you have a wrong picture: although the notion of different choices and their consequences is an ancient one, the notion of parallel universes came from science (everett interpretation, feynman-multiple-path approach to quantum mechanics) to SciFi and philosophy.
As usual, the ideas flow from science to science-fiction. I asume this is because usually, nature is more bizare than what our imagination can predict. (and also because the best scientists are among the most creative people
yes, this article has the mental coherency of a class of 11-year olds talking to themselves.
I don't even like my wife messing with my computer, nevermind some complete stranger.
:P)
(Side note: Yes, she does have her own computer. So there.
funny. I'd have thought her credit-card and other vital info are as important as yours.
I actually think one should take MORE care with a non-technical spouse's security.
regardless of the ISS subject, this kind of thinking is counter-productive.
One should try to choose the best path at all times. Resources spent are not important, only resources you will spend, as oposed to your projected return and probability of success.
as for plans, one should always make other plans and think ahead, so that decision making will be more effective.
Survival of the human race for the furtherment of science is of the utmost priority !
;-)
.
Yes, I can see it now: all the voters shouting: "our survival is only important for the further advancing of science ! please take our lives for your next article !"
either you ment that the other way around, or, like the famous redhead said "you need to sort out your priorities"
Or at least, why Mars as first/second choice ?
much easier and cheaper to build colonies in space. Either mine the asteroids exclusively or create a lunar mining base, but once you have a stream of resources from either, real-estate and energy is MUCH cheaper in orbit.
Also transportation is cheaper (just one gravity well instead of 2)
(this is the third time I ask the question in
Yeah, couldn't be that some people actually BELIEVE WHAT THEY WROTE, right??
/. posts with a HUJE grain of salt. /. is a rumors site, and is as vulnerable to outside manipulations (thru lobiers) as any discussion room, or conference. This is the meaning of my post.
/. .
... also, IMHO, not a lot of common sense.
could be, but I did not say \forall pro-microsoft posts are from hired pen just that \Exist some.
And MS used this tactic of hired liars to overcome OS/2, so I see no reason why they shouldn't do it again.
Why is it that every OSS zealot has to insist that any point of view contrary to their own is the result of a derranged mind?
you find that in my post, where exactly ?
You want to try and convince me that Microsoft is evil and that I should shun absolutely anything coming out of Redmond and that I should embrace the OSS world? Fine, try and convince me.
I say you should read
I said a short, single sentence, the amount of information you infer from it is quite, ahem, impressive.
Do it logically and without insulting me.
Where did I insult anyone in particular ? Or specificly you ? I didn't say you are a hired-pen (I don't know you at all), I said I belive MS hires some (as she did in the past)
(fzammet said)
BUT DON'T FUCKING DO IT BY TELLING ME I'M A NUTCASE OR A PAID LACKEY OF SOME CORPORORATE ENTITY BECUASE I DON'T CURRENTLY AGREE WITH YOUR WORLD-VIEW!
like they write in chess: ?!
again, you infer quite a lot of info regarding yourself from a small general sentence, then curse and shout and deny what you presume you've read.
drink a glass of water, cool a bit.
Another group of people acted the way some of you people act... we fought a world war against them...
I don't know if this is more funny or alarming.
1) Who are "these people" that I'm supposedly a part of ?
2) Hey, you're equating me to the Nazis because I think there are liars and hired-pen on
no personal insult there
The Saturn V was designed to do two things. Escape the Earth's gravity well (or at least the great majority of it) and prove to the Soviets that if we could land a man on the moon we could damn sure land a hydrogen bomb on Moscow.
H-bombing anything on earth can be done once you reach orbit. ICBMs are, AFAIK, much smaller, simpler and cheaper than SV: I doubt that at 1960 Russia and the US didn't know already that they could H-bomb each other out. There was no need for Apolo to demonstrate that.
But look at many of the comments in this forum - it seems MS has even managed to persuade many Slashdotters that they are going to use open formats. Poor fools.
or hired voices ?
a contract is void by default if it violates a law
IANAL, this is more complicated. The problem here is that there are two (possibly) mutually exclusive constraints on the client , so that he may be screwed in any case: if he complies with the law his user agreement his void and microsoft can refuse giving support, or worse, sue.
Of course if the client violates the law he is vulnerable to suits from the government or, much worse, his own clients or third parties damaged by possible exploits.
so this seems like a real concern. If I were a bank's lawyer (which again, IANAL) I'd be scared shitless, I'd recomend just to forget about it all.
I'm open minded about this kind of research. I just don't feel ready to have one of these alpha-testing organs put into me.
This kind of testing is not done on healthy people. If you get to the stage you'll acutely need a transplant, you'll probably change your mind.
If you know that the organ will give you, perhaps a year, then it is good. Do we know that?
How do you propose we find out without testing it on human being ?
I'm just trying to point out the problems with the technology
Donald Knuth, which is a much smarter man then me, and possibly you, once said in a different context: "premature optimization is the root of all evil"
pointing out potential problems in future technology is analogous: it is, IMHO, much better to try and see.
You cannot guarantee that the outcome will be healthy, even if it looks good, it will probably differ in some way
this is what's science is all about: instead of being afraid the result will be different "in some way" the researchers are actually finding out the problems and dealing with them one by one.
Is an organ developed using transgenetics likely to be healthy? That is what I'm trying to ask!
healthy compared to what ? A person needs a transplant when the original body-part has serious malfunctions. Compared to a malfunctioning liver (you'll die in 3 days) a transplant which will kill you in a year is a blessing.
BTW, human-origin transplants also raise problems (life expectancy of transplant recievers is much shorter than for normal people)
always take the ratio-nal approach.
Actually it is Kosher, while some disagree Judaism lawers seem to be saying that it is because. 1) surgery is different then eating. 2) The Kosher laws can be suspended when necessary to save
yes, not only is this allowed by jewish law, it is a great "MITZVA" to save a human life.
And using pigs will cancel the current moral problems with human-donor transplants (when is the donor considered dead ? i.e. when is taking his vitals is no longer considered murder ? )
I think you're a little confused here:
cloning == creating an organism with a DNA identical to a source DNA
transgenics == implanting DNA from one specie to sperm, eggs or fertilized egg from another specie.
If I read the article correctly they are doing transgenics, not cloning.
also, the article does not say anything on stem cells.
You seem to be interested, but not knowledgeable, for a very good basic biology book I recomend Keeton & Gould.
(nice username, BTW )
That is why the attack on 09-11 (and the post anthrax threat) was SO effective, it shook ppl out of the safety they lived in into a world of terror.
out of their illusions into reality ? a large part of the world does live in fear, famine, wars and genocide.
More than 1000 times the deaths of the so called "anthrax threat" are killed every month in violent crimes in the US, so which one is a greater threat, and which one got more publicity, and which one made ppl afraid ?
Hysteria != concern. The media flames and is feeding on the first, but that does not mean one should automatically dismiss the second.
A threat is not measured just in the current amount of victims/damages, but also by the potential costs and estimated probability. In this regard biowarfare (not anthrax, which is rather weak , but things like smallpox and worse) is IMHO quite a significant threat. Just look at europe of the 14th century for an example of what an efficient plauge can do.
Using a weapon is not difficult
I beg to differ. Using a weapon safely and efficiently takes knowledge AND practice. This is why soldiers spend weeks to months in the firing range before they can use assault rifles efficiently. And this is for assault rifles which are quite accurate in the 20-50m range. Pistols are much harder to use efficiently and quickly. Many people will probably not hit what they aimed for from 20m, but they WILL hit something...
Result is that a weapons-newbie is one of the most dangerous things around.
And I haven't talked about maintainence, general handling (even simple things like how you carry a weapon), safety rules, etc.
Every child can press a trigger, (almost) every idiot can learn to use a weapon safely and efficiently, but it takes a lot of time and practice. Without them, you're a menace to society.
one of the three properties a black hole can have - size, charge and angular momentum
IIRC BH also have entropy.