I reject the common notions of "nature" as outmoded, unhelpful and often plain wrong. We are living organisms. We follow natural laws such as gravity, thermodynamics and evolution. The idea that our intelligence exempts us from such processes is untrue. As smart as we are, we are just animals. I like to think we are special. I do not think that we are unnatural or even capable of being unnatural. Humans are just another cog, a very fancy one, in the machine. Statements about controlling nature do not make a bit of sense to me. Do you mean using chemistry and physics to make a car go or building roofs to keep the rain off?
Hardy-Weinburg is just some simple math for demonstating that frequencies of genes in populations are stable under some assumptions. The assumptions are imperfect. Mating is often assortative, but H-W assumes random mating. I forgot the others. Its assumptions are close enough to provide some clues about why gene frequencies are relatively stable, though.
Science is a method or system of inquiry. It should not be applied to certain questions. How long does it take to burn a pile of 100 living babies? The world should never know. It is a scientific question, however. In that particular case, I am for impeding the advancement of science. Within all that we could do is an enormous chunk of things would should not do. How do we figure out what to do? Science might help us distinguish among the possibilities and to compare them. It will not make our decisions for us.
In America, the legal argument behind Roe v. Wade is based on privacy. Judging from your spelling, you probably are not American.
The problem is that United States law is not clear on privacy. The Fourteenth Amendment is cited, but it does not mention privacy. The Constitution lacks specific provisions regarding privacy outside a few topics such as search and seizure. It is, however, a living document that requires application to the issues of the times. Privacy, as best I can tell, is not an explicitly stated right under U.S. law. Court decisions based on privacy are, therefore, poorly footed.
I have heard better groundings for abortion discussed. A much better discussion, not that many people are interested in a bona fide discussion of abortion, should address support obligations. If one of my kidneys would keep my neighbor alive, am I legally obliged to give it to him? Currently, the courts and most people think not. If my uterus would allow a pregnancy to continue, am I required to provide it?
On the other hand, pregnancy has many important differences from the kidney example. In most cases, a pregnancy comes into being through the willing actions of a woman. Its dependency on her is completely predictable. The only two alternatives in early pregancy are continuation and termination. For a pregnancy conceived in the usual way, nobody else can provide a suitable uterus.
The kidney example still might provide some guidance. What if I intentionally caused my neighbor's kidneys to fail? Legally, I still am not obligated to give an kidney.
I am forced back to the other hand. If my neighbor dies because I forced his kidneys to fail, I am subject to legal prosecution with a high likelihood of conviction. Although I am not obligated to give him a kidney, I am responsible for his death if I caused him to need a kidney and he dies as a result. Are the obligations of a woman toward a pregnancy different because she created the state of dependency?
I have intentially used the term "pregnancy" instead of "fetus" or "baby." There is an important central issue in this consideration of support. Is a pregnancy different from a tumor? How much of a person is a fetus and when?
The other problems I wish the anti-abortion crowd would address are the health risks of illegal abortions and the punishments that abortions should receive if they were illegal. Many women died from sepsis caused by illegal abortions. Those deaths were terrible. If abortions were illegal, should women who attempt them and the people who assist be tried? What would be the charges? What would be the punishments? I never heard much from anti-abortion camps about how the legal system would act if abortions were illegal.
Your understanding of evolution is flawed. Evolution is a description of changes over generations. We are a part of the natural process. We cannot hinder natural selection. Whatever happens is natural selection.
It is not that we are weakening the genetic pool when some people survive who would not have lived in the past. Evolution is based on survival. The survival of such people reflects a basic concept of evolution. The world and its selective pressures are in flux. From an evolutionary standpoint, having the ability to do something is worthless if it does not lead to increased reproductive success. If a particular condition no longer hinders reproduction because some technological advance has overcome it, that condition is no longer subject to much evolutionary pressure. We evolve based on the real world with real evolutionary pressures, not some imaginary world based on ideas of strength and weakness.
What are these dangerous genes? Do you know anything about population genetics? Look up Hardy-Weinburg. Although it is just a simple mathematical model, it provides a good argument against the rapid spread of a particular gene outside exceptional circumstances such as a genetic bottleneck.
With iDVD and similar software, I really wish there were something for Macintosh even close to MythTV or MCE. The EyeTV reports I have read contend that it is not reliable. The Hauppauge products for Apple get very little attention. The whole state of affairs is disappointing.
Can Macs run MythTV? I know that porting attempts were underway. I never saw any results. I have no idea what tuner hardware would work with MythTV on a Mac. A Mac with PVR and home theater capabilities, especially with all the DVD tools Apple advertises, would be a great product. At least, it is what I want to buy. I just cannot find all the pieces for Mac.
In many instances, morons waste all their time arguing about whether some outcome is a choice or whether some behavior is right. Your post is a call to the real issue.
Wake up, dumbasses all around! What made men who like to play with their peepees together turn out that way is not very important. The real issue is what we ought to do about it. As with most issues, the answer is obvious to the non-retarded minority.
Having an arm most certainly is a choice. If you do not want am arm, get rid of it.
It is a choice to breathe. I can stop whenever I want. Eventually, I will pass out and start breathing again. There are ways around that, too. One could take a lot of painkillers, for instance.
Do you know what a false dichotomy is? You seem to think that volition and the physical world are somehow in conflict. Um... why?
Allow me to misrepresent you. You just thought so. Rather, you did not really think. You assumed so. It just seems that way. Guess what! You are wrong. Scientific investigation often reveals facts that are contrary to your arbitrary assumptions about the ways the world works. The brain is a biochemical machine, not a magic mass of gray goop.
Trade your grocery card for a friend's. Repeat regularly. Most of the cards I have seen do not have a name or other identification. Average their statistics away by trading your card once in a while.
Boing Boing has another Disney story today. A Fox News interview went on the attack over the new Disney PC. In a strange conspiratorial twist, he linked Gay Days at the theme parks with the new Disney children's computer. I never would have put those two together myself.
There are several short acting benzodiazepines that might offer help for some insomniacs. I think they mainly are appropriate for short term insomnia. Do not rely on my advice, though. I am not a doctor. More importantly, I am not your doctor. Please see your doctor and, if necessary, a specialist. There are other treatments for other sleep problems, and awareness of the dangers of excessive daytime sleepiness, often resulting from sleep problems, has grown recently both in medical circles and the general public.
Benzodiazepines' action is not that different from alcohol. Valium is the best known one. It definitely helps induce sleep, but it has some bad side effects. Because its elimination is rather slow, many people wake up groggy and hungover. Zaleplon and zolpidem are two of the newer, shorter acting benzos. They usually help induce sleep and then wear off after just a few hours. I do not think that these drugs are right for every form on insomnia, but they can be extremely helpful for some forms of insomnia.
Slashdot Mirror
I reject the common notions of "nature" as outmoded, unhelpful and often plain wrong. We are living organisms. We follow natural laws such as gravity, thermodynamics and evolution. The idea that our intelligence exempts us from such processes is untrue. As smart as we are, we are just animals. I like to think we are special. I do not think that we are unnatural or even capable of being unnatural. Humans are just another cog, a very fancy one, in the machine. Statements about controlling nature do not make a bit of sense to me. Do you mean using chemistry and physics to make a car go or building roofs to keep the rain off?
Hardy-Weinburg is just some simple math for demonstating that frequencies of genes in populations are stable under some assumptions. The assumptions are imperfect. Mating is often assortative, but H-W assumes random mating. I forgot the others. Its assumptions are close enough to provide some clues about why gene frequencies are relatively stable, though.
Science is a method or system of inquiry. It should not be applied to certain questions. How long does it take to burn a pile of 100 living babies? The world should never know. It is a scientific question, however. In that particular case, I am for impeding the advancement of science. Within all that we could do is an enormous chunk of things would should not do. How do we figure out what to do? Science might help us distinguish among the possibilities and to compare them. It will not make our decisions for us.
In America, the legal argument behind Roe v. Wade is based on privacy. Judging from your spelling, you probably are not American.
The problem is that United States law is not clear on privacy. The Fourteenth Amendment is cited, but it does not mention privacy. The Constitution lacks specific provisions regarding privacy outside a few topics such as search and seizure. It is, however, a living document that requires application to the issues of the times. Privacy, as best I can tell, is not an explicitly stated right under U.S. law. Court decisions based on privacy are, therefore, poorly footed.
I have heard better groundings for abortion discussed. A much better discussion, not that many people are interested in a bona fide discussion of abortion, should address support obligations. If one of my kidneys would keep my neighbor alive, am I legally obliged to give it to him? Currently, the courts and most people think not. If my uterus would allow a pregnancy to continue, am I required to provide it?
On the other hand, pregnancy has many important differences from the kidney example. In most cases, a pregnancy comes into being through the willing actions of a woman. Its dependency on her is completely predictable. The only two alternatives in early pregancy are continuation and termination. For a pregnancy conceived in the usual way, nobody else can provide a suitable uterus.
The kidney example still might provide some guidance. What if I intentionally caused my neighbor's kidneys to fail? Legally, I still am not obligated to give an kidney.
I am forced back to the other hand. If my neighbor dies because I forced his kidneys to fail, I am subject to legal prosecution with a high likelihood of conviction. Although I am not obligated to give him a kidney, I am responsible for his death if I caused him to need a kidney and he dies as a result. Are the obligations of a woman toward a pregnancy different because she created the state of dependency?
I have intentially used the term "pregnancy" instead of "fetus" or "baby." There is an important central issue in this consideration of support. Is a pregnancy different from a tumor? How much of a person is a fetus and when?
The other problems I wish the anti-abortion crowd would address are the health risks of illegal abortions and the punishments that abortions should receive if they were illegal. Many women died from sepsis caused by illegal abortions. Those deaths were terrible. If abortions were illegal, should women who attempt them and the people who assist be tried? What would be the charges? What would be the punishments? I never heard much from anti-abortion camps about how the legal system would act if abortions were illegal.
Your understanding of evolution is flawed. Evolution is a description of changes over generations. We are a part of the natural process. We cannot hinder natural selection. Whatever happens is natural selection.
It is not that we are weakening the genetic pool when some people survive who would not have lived in the past. Evolution is based on survival. The survival of such people reflects a basic concept of evolution. The world and its selective pressures are in flux. From an evolutionary standpoint, having the ability to do something is worthless if it does not lead to increased reproductive success. If a particular condition no longer hinders reproduction because some technological advance has overcome it, that condition is no longer subject to much evolutionary pressure. We evolve based on the real world with real evolutionary pressures, not some imaginary world based on ideas of strength and weakness.
What are these dangerous genes? Do you know anything about population genetics? Look up Hardy-Weinburg. Although it is just a simple mathematical model, it provides a good argument against the rapid spread of a particular gene outside exceptional circumstances such as a genetic bottleneck.
Point the laser in approximately the right direction. Scan the laser back and forth, up and down.
"Virii" makes no sense. Nobody who follows any rules for making plurals would choose it.
Green means go. Red means stop. Yellow means run like hell.
With iDVD and similar software, I really wish there were something for Macintosh even close to MythTV or MCE. The EyeTV reports I have read contend that it is not reliable. The Hauppauge products for Apple get very little attention. The whole state of affairs is disappointing.
Can Macs run MythTV? I know that porting attempts were underway. I never saw any results. I have no idea what tuner hardware would work with MythTV on a Mac. A Mac with PVR and home theater capabilities, especially with all the DVD tools Apple advertises, would be a great product. At least, it is what I want to buy. I just cannot find all the pieces for Mac.
Don't send your child to school with expensive toys.
I fought some growing up. It serves a purpose. Don't worry about winning. Worry about inflicting pain and shame.
From m-w.com, "marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals"
People are animals.
Um... all diseases are genetic.
It depends what we mean by disease, of course, but not much.
In many instances, morons waste all their time arguing about whether some outcome is a choice or whether some behavior is right. Your post is a call to the real issue.
Wake up, dumbasses all around! What made men who like to play with their peepees together turn out that way is not very important. The real issue is what we ought to do about it. As with most issues, the answer is obvious to the non-retarded minority.
Treat them as justly and humanely as we can.
Having an arm most certainly is a choice. If you do not want am arm, get rid of it.
It is a choice to breathe. I can stop whenever I want. Eventually, I will pass out and start breathing again. There are ways around that, too. One could take a lot of painkillers, for instance.
"In the US is is not legally possible to have a consentual sexual relationship with a subordinate."
Has the USA outlawed heterosexual relationships?
Do you know what a false dichotomy is? You seem to think that volition and the physical world are somehow in conflict. Um... why?
Allow me to misrepresent you. You just thought so. Rather, you did not really think. You assumed so. It just seems that way. Guess what! You are wrong. Scientific investigation often reveals facts that are contrary to your arbitrary assumptions about the ways the world works. The brain is a biochemical machine, not a magic mass of gray goop.
On the August 8, 2004 Daily Show, Stephen Colbert asked an Indian woman, "Gandhi or Sitting Bull?"
The woman replied, "Gandhi."
"Good. Because I already have a squaw."
Why didn't the resin splatter and land on his hand making it very hard to hold everything in place? Solder usually works that way.
Can TiVo rip or store?
Trade your grocery card for a friend's. Repeat regularly. Most of the cards I have seen do not have a name or other identification. Average their statistics away by trading your card once in a while.
and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter or IPO.
Importing with newer Netscape (and probably Mozilla) email clients involves manually copying files from one folder to another. It seems ridiculous.
Boing Boing has another Disney story today. A Fox News interview went on the attack over the new Disney PC. In a strange conspiratorial twist, he linked Gay Days at the theme parks with the new Disney children's computer. I never would have put those two together myself.
I heard about these worms via a segment on All Things Considered Friday. The authors of this new study were fun to hear.
There are several short acting benzodiazepines that might offer help for some insomniacs. I think they mainly are appropriate for short term insomnia. Do not rely on my advice, though. I am not a doctor. More importantly, I am not your doctor. Please see your doctor and, if necessary, a specialist. There are other treatments for other sleep problems, and awareness of the dangers of excessive daytime sleepiness, often resulting from sleep problems, has grown recently both in medical circles and the general public.
Benzodiazepines' action is not that different from alcohol. Valium is the best known one. It definitely helps induce sleep, but it has some bad side effects. Because its elimination is rather slow, many people wake up groggy and hungover. Zaleplon and zolpidem are two of the newer, shorter acting benzos. They usually help induce sleep and then wear off after just a few hours. I do not think that these drugs are right for every form on insomnia, but they can be extremely helpful for some forms of insomnia.