Not a bad idea, considering that human clones will probably be produced (couldn't think of a more 'human' word in time) before it's 'allowed' by any country.
Maybe a law protecting the information on whether a person is a clone or not (ie. your employer cannot demand to know, or fire you because of it).
It'll be interesting to watch politics fight about clone rights that's for sure.
If scientists shouldn't have to be responsible to popular opinion (the majority), who should they be responsible to?
I realise that popular opinion is often lagging behind the times when it comes to technology, but I can think of no better way to 'regulate' science.
opinions?
Re:What do you think Littleton WAS?
on
Bootlegging Buffy
·
· Score: 1
Dehumanizing these high school murderers is only going to bring us farther from figuring out what is going on and how we can stop it.
Are we just going to burn them and their demon friends at the steak? What about the parents of these hellspawn? Dehumanizing people is wrong and leads to infringements on their rights. There are countless examples of this.
They are people. They have problems. They need help. And the only way that we can solve this is by recognizing that.
Crediting it to a supernatural evil does us no good.
"Well, my son is _obviously_ human, so he doesn't need any help with his feelings of lonliness and hate."
Are we going to have priests do excorcisms after the metal detectors at school?!
Sure supercomputers would/do help with weather forcasts.
Weather is causal (sp?). It's not like a hurricane in Japan would just come from nowhere, Jon Katz's sneeze would've caused it (not too sure about a sneeze causing a hurricane, but you get the idea) and meterologists would see it coming.
I heard some meterologist say that there is enough data obtained in order to _acurrately_ forcast the weather for a week (or something) it would just take them a month to crunch all of the factors. If these factors could be taken into account faster then we could get forcasts for later dates that are more accurate.
I could be completely wrong, but I'm pretty sure on this. If anyone knows for sure please comment.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. All those pesky religions should stop trying to keep you and Sandra apart.
:).
Sorry, but these two comments make such a strange combination that I just had to comment
Maybe some reservations that people (religious or not) have are that the clones will be mistreated Like sexual slavery for example (cough cough)...
Not a bad idea, considering that human clones will probably be produced (couldn't think of a more 'human' word in time) before it's 'allowed' by any country.
Maybe a law protecting the information on whether a person is a clone or not (ie. your employer cannot demand to know, or fire you because of it).
It'll be interesting to watch politics fight about clone rights that's for sure.
If scientists shouldn't have to be responsible to popular opinion (the majority), who should they be responsible to?
I realise that popular opinion is often lagging behind the times when it comes to technology, but I can think of no better way to 'regulate' science.
opinions?
Dehumanizing these high school murderers is only going to bring us farther from figuring out what is going on and how we can stop it.
Are we just going to burn them and their demon friends at the steak? What about the parents of these hellspawn? Dehumanizing people is wrong and leads to infringements on their rights. There are countless examples of this.
They are people. They have problems. They need help. And the only way that we can solve this is by recognizing that.
Crediting it to a supernatural evil does us no good.
"Well, my son is _obviously_ human, so he doesn't need any help with his feelings of lonliness and hate."
Are we going to have priests do excorcisms after the metal detectors at school?!
hmmm... Now I feel like my handle is a little out of date. :)
I guess I'm entitled to keep it... I've done some ascii art (not good enough to move on to ansi).
Long LiVE the lowercase i!
Sure supercomputers would/do help with weather forcasts.
Weather is causal (sp?). It's not like a hurricane in Japan would just come from nowhere, Jon Katz's sneeze would've caused it (not too sure about a sneeze causing a hurricane, but you get the idea) and meterologists would see it coming.
I heard some meterologist say that there is enough data obtained in order to _acurrately_ forcast the weather for a week (or something) it would just take them a month to crunch all of the factors. If these factors could be taken into account faster then we could get forcasts for later dates that are more accurate.
I could be completely wrong, but I'm pretty sure on this. If anyone knows for sure please comment.
ODiV