"Well, who knows what a person's reasons are? I'm sure there are legitimate reasons/cirumstances for making a clone of oneself, just as there are sometimes legitimate reasons for killing another person."
Okay, then - what are they? I can understand killing someone when there is no other option to prevent them killing someone else, but I haven't thought of any for cloning yet, aside from cloning biologically "useful" individuals for science (i.e. rare people naturally resistant to cancer/AIDS/malaria/etc). In those cases, the clone would be a guinea pig, not just somebody's kid. If you've got a reason for clone yourself (other than what I just said, which would nearly always take the form of a scientist requesting to clone you, not you deciding to clone yourself), please add.
"1. Playing God
2. The development of this technology can lead to being cloned without your knowledge"
Religion is losing power rather rapidly (in western nations, at least). Census data from the US, UK, and Australia (I haven't looked at others, but I have little doubt they'd be similar) show that the younger generations have far less religion ("No Religion" or "Atheist" as response) than their parents. "Playing God" may be a major issue today, but it may not be in a few decades.
Being cloned without your knowledge really isn't all that bad. Look at it this way - women who become pregnant unintentionally have a big price to pay, however men who accidentally impregnate a woman only have to worry about emotional issues. How many men do you think have kids they don't know/care about? Obviously a genetically similar (~50% or 100%) kid isn't much of an issue if you eliminate the physical price.
"Neither of those seem to justify the fear to me, but those are the sources I have run up against.
Same here - the defects that result from the imperfect process we currently use is the only qualm I have. Cloning yourself isn't all that far from giving your child your name (xxxxxx Jr., xxxxxxx III, etc.) and raising them to be just like you. While I think it's a bit sick and twisted (vision of self as perfect, vicarious living, etc.), it's not something I'm about to legislate against or get worked up about. If you're so obsessed with yourself that you want a genetically identical (at point of conception) kid, go right ahead. I won't hold it against the kid (though I will hold it against you, sicko).
"On the flip side, there is not much on regular television (or even most pay stations) that's worth watching anymore. There are only about one or two movies worth watching on HBO a month for example. Netflix is a much better value."
All to true, yet even still there's just enough to keep me from commercials. The History Channel, Discovery Channel, Comedy Central, and ESPN are the only stations I watch regularly, and sports and movies are the only things I watch on other stations. That may not be much (considering that most programming on major networks is sitcom and reality, which I despise), but it's sufficient to give me something to watch during a commercial break. That, of course, means that I'm not seeing the ads even without a TiVo, so in-game ads and product placement in movies are the only things that I have a chance of seeing.
The Discovery Channel has wised up, and is tying new specials to new movies (last night's Xtreme Martial Arts was tied to Tom Cruise's "The Last Samuri," featuring interviews, behind the scenes footage, and full commercials during the show). I expect other channels will follow suit, and I don't mind - the advert was relevant to what I was watching, unlike seeing "AOL 9.0" on the field during a football game.
There's a fine line between making the text offensive/misleading and adding in a few words that obviously don't belong. I'm well aware of the normal trend of trolls modifying stories, however this doesn't really qualify on a significant level. It's not funny or offensive - in essense, why'd they bother putting in the effort?
"Under the federal law, consumers cannot sue og have sex at any given time." "The bill bans harvesting of e-mail addresses from goatse.cx sites and breaking into computers to send spam."
Why did you add that junk to the article? Was it supposed to be funny or something?
"Right. I suppose we should all smile and nod when our co-workers or bosses catch on and start calling us [...] crackers"
Hey, I'm a white guy named Graham. If I got offended when people called me "cracker," I wouldn't have many friends. Everyone thinks they're hysterical when they come up with it (typically about 2 seconds after I tell them my name). African-American males (this is the PC thread) can't get enough of it. Some just yell out "Yo, Cracker!" whenever they see me, just because they can. But I just laugh all the same, and do you know why? Because I like puns.
I was far more offended being called "American" back when I was in the UK. At least that had an intended negative connotation.
If they were that small, you'd have to attatch it to a tire or something like they do with gas station keys to keep someone from pocketing it, I suppose.
I don't know where you're living, but that's been the top issue everywhere I've lived in the US. Price is always secondary to coverage (does it work indoors, does it work in the next state, etc).
It's got to be easier when there are a lot of them. There are one or two guys in my hallway (I'm a college student living in a dorm) who talk on their cell phones in the bathroom. We've only got 3 stalls, they don't do it often, and it's usually talking to a girlfriend. It's quite unnerving hearing people say "I love you," out of nowhere in the stall next to you.
Re:Always the way
on
DVD-Rs go 8x
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
He/she is not satisfied with the product. Simple as that. It's not an abuse; the person bought the product believing it was the best offered product in its class, but has found it not to be. Few stores only accept returns on broken items, and many (most?) large chains only ask as a matter of gathering consumer feedback on inventory.
Hmm...that comment got me thinking about wallpaper, paint, etc. that could help block microwaves, which lead to another question...
Is there a way businesses (or home users, I suppose) can amplify their WiFi network by using certain elements in wall coatings, optimizing office layout, etc?
Sorry, I parsed the sentence incorrectly. It would have been better written as
"That's equivalent to burning a CD per minute (700MB/min)."
Re:the slowdown in writing is dirty media
on
DVD-Rs go 8x
·
· Score: 1
No reason for them to give any numbers like that. All max speeds for technology are based on an optimal environment. If you put that drive on a 386 with with 2MB RAM, it's probably not going to run at 8X then either.
If you can't keep your fingers off of your DVD surfaces (or your DVDs out of your sandwiches, as you seem to suggest), you're in no position to argue about the product not performing the way you expected. DVDs normally contain warnings about heat, contact, etc. to make this clear.
Same "in" longer?
on
DVD-Rs go 8x
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
"That is about the same as a CD in just over a minute."
Well that certainly clears things up.
I'm guessing what you meant to say was that it takes about a minute longer than a CD to burn, but I don't know how that involves the words "same" or "in."
First, what do you mean "developed traits"? A trait that is "developed" during lifetime will not be reflected in children. Since the animals were not allowed to freely reproduce, only the humans had a say in what traits would be selected for.
Secondly, they didn't survive. The dogs/wolves of the past are long dead. The survival of wolves wasn't in jeopardy, and if dogs became a new species, it wouldn't be survival, it would be addition.
I think you're using the term 'browsing the web' a bit loosely. If I recall correctly, those monitors can't even display at a high enough resolution to be of much use today, even if attatched to a brand new machine. My point was that students can't search Google for a picture/video of a frog for their biology class.
1 - I said modern word processing software (MS Word, WordPerfect, etc)
2 - Note that I specifically said "world wide web" and not "internet." I'm aware it's got limited internet capabilities, but you're not going to be browsing the web on it.
"Actually I think dogs and cats genetically engineered themselves in order to survive. It's the pets that own us, not the other way around, contray to popular belief."
You couldn't be more wrong. Just because cater to your pets demands for food, etc. doesn't change anything. They are slave species - bred specifically to serve a purpose. The dogs with the best qualities to aid in hunting were bred together for centuries to yield modern hunting dogs. 'Toy dogs' were the result of breeding smaller and more good-tempered dogs. It all started with wolves, don't forget. There is no reason to believe dogs have any way of knowing what traits are being selected for, anyway.
About 5 years ago the Junior High School I attended sold off a full lab of IIGS's. I think the asking price was $20-$50, or something to that effect. Wait around - if your school has a network of them, they're likely to sell them off eventually. Those machines continue to run relatively well far longer than their useful lifespan (they lack modern word processing software, world wide web capabilities, etc).
If the feds realize this (dictionary attack on encrypted or gov't held list), they'll have little choice but to ruin email in the US. Essentially, the only method they'll have to have all bulk email come through specific gov't servers which filter the do-not-email addresses out and send it along, without letting it get back to the source. This is only a step away from having ALL email go through the gov't before it gets to its recipient.
Slashdot Mirror
"Gandalf is not a man -- he is istari, an immortal Maya"
I didn't realize that wizards were from Mexico.
(...It's Maia.)
"Well, who knows what a person's reasons are? I'm sure there are legitimate reasons/cirumstances for making a clone of oneself, just as there are sometimes legitimate reasons for killing another person."
Okay, then - what are they? I can understand killing someone when there is no other option to prevent them killing someone else, but I haven't thought of any for cloning yet, aside from cloning biologically "useful" individuals for science (i.e. rare people naturally resistant to cancer/AIDS/malaria/etc). In those cases, the clone would be a guinea pig, not just somebody's kid. If you've got a reason for clone yourself (other than what I just said, which would nearly always take the form of a scientist requesting to clone you, not you deciding to clone yourself), please add.
"1. Playing God
2. The development of this technology can lead to being cloned without your knowledge"
Religion is losing power rather rapidly (in western nations, at least). Census data from the US, UK, and Australia (I haven't looked at others, but I have little doubt they'd be similar) show that the younger generations have far less religion ("No Religion" or "Atheist" as response) than their parents. "Playing God" may be a major issue today, but it may not be in a few decades.
Being cloned without your knowledge really isn't all that bad. Look at it this way - women who become pregnant unintentionally have a big price to pay, however men who accidentally impregnate a woman only have to worry about emotional issues. How many men do you think have kids they don't know/care about? Obviously a genetically similar (~50% or 100%) kid isn't much of an issue if you eliminate the physical price.
"Neither of those seem to justify the fear to me, but those are the sources I have run up against.
Same here - the defects that result from the imperfect process we currently use is the only qualm I have. Cloning yourself isn't all that far from giving your child your name (xxxxxx Jr., xxxxxxx III, etc.) and raising them to be just like you. While I think it's a bit sick and twisted (vision of self as perfect, vicarious living, etc.), it's not something I'm about to legislate against or get worked up about. If you're so obsessed with yourself that you want a genetically identical (at point of conception) kid, go right ahead. I won't hold it against the kid (though I will hold it against you, sicko).
"On the flip side, there is not much on regular television (or even most pay stations) that's worth watching anymore. There are only about one or two movies worth watching on HBO a month for example. Netflix is a much better value."
All to true, yet even still there's just enough to keep me from commercials. The History Channel, Discovery Channel, Comedy Central, and ESPN are the only stations I watch regularly, and sports and movies are the only things I watch on other stations. That may not be much (considering that most programming on major networks is sitcom and reality, which I despise), but it's sufficient to give me something to watch during a commercial break. That, of course, means that I'm not seeing the ads even without a TiVo, so in-game ads and product placement in movies are the only things that I have a chance of seeing.
The Discovery Channel has wised up, and is tying new specials to new movies (last night's Xtreme Martial Arts was tied to Tom Cruise's "The Last Samuri," featuring interviews, behind the scenes footage, and full commercials during the show). I expect other channels will follow suit, and I don't mind - the advert was relevant to what I was watching, unlike seeing "AOL 9.0" on the field during a football game.
There's a fine line between making the text offensive/misleading and adding in a few words that obviously don't belong. I'm well aware of the normal trend of trolls modifying stories, however this doesn't really qualify on a significant level. It's not funny or offensive - in essense, why'd they bother putting in the effort?
"Under the federal law, consumers cannot sue og have sex at any given time."
"The bill bans harvesting of e-mail addresses from goatse.cx sites and breaking into computers to send spam."
Why did you add that junk to the article? Was it supposed to be funny or something?
Mod parent down.
"Right. I suppose we should all smile and nod when our co-workers or bosses catch on and start calling us [...] crackers"
Hey, I'm a white guy named Graham. If I got offended when people called me "cracker," I wouldn't have many friends. Everyone thinks they're hysterical when they come up with it (typically about 2 seconds after I tell them my name). African-American males (this is the PC thread) can't get enough of it. Some just yell out "Yo, Cracker!" whenever they see me, just because they can. But I just laugh all the same, and do you know why? Because I like puns.
I was far more offended being called "American" back when I was in the UK. At least that had an intended negative connotation.
If they were that small, you'd have to attatch it to a tire or something like they do with gas station keys to keep someone from pocketing it, I suppose.
...the increased competetion will likely force companies to offer short-term contracts with less limitations.
"Since nobody talks about phone SERVICE"
I don't know where you're living, but that's been the top issue everywhere I've lived in the US. Price is always secondary to coverage (does it work indoors, does it work in the next state, etc).
In England you have to have your phone "unlocked" to use it on another network. The process isn't legal, but small shops will do it for about 10 quid.
It's got to be easier when there are a lot of them. There are one or two guys in my hallway (I'm a college student living in a dorm) who talk on their cell phones in the bathroom. We've only got 3 stalls, they don't do it often, and it's usually talking to a girlfriend. It's quite unnerving hearing people say "I love you," out of nowhere in the stall next to you.
He/she is not satisfied with the product. Simple as that. It's not an abuse; the person bought the product believing it was the best offered product in its class, but has found it not to be. Few stores only accept returns on broken items, and many (most?) large chains only ask as a matter of gathering consumer feedback on inventory.
Hmm...that comment got me thinking about wallpaper, paint, etc. that could help block microwaves, which lead to another question...
Is there a way businesses (or home users, I suppose) can amplify their WiFi network by using certain elements in wall coatings, optimizing office layout, etc?
I hope you kept your reciept.
Sorry, I parsed the sentence incorrectly. It would have been better written as
"That's equivalent to burning a CD per minute (700MB/min)."
No reason for them to give any numbers like that. All max speeds for technology are based on an optimal environment. If you put that drive on a 386 with with 2MB RAM, it's probably not going to run at 8X then either.
If you can't keep your fingers off of your DVD surfaces (or your DVDs out of your sandwiches, as you seem to suggest), you're in no position to argue about the product not performing the way you expected. DVDs normally contain warnings about heat, contact, etc. to make this clear.
"That is about the same as a CD in just over a minute."
Well that certainly clears things up.
I'm guessing what you meant to say was that it takes about a minute longer than a CD to burn, but I don't know how that involves the words "same" or "in."
Couple of problems with that argument.
First, what do you mean "developed traits"? A trait that is "developed" during lifetime will not be reflected in children. Since the animals were not allowed to freely reproduce, only the humans had a say in what traits would be selected for.
Secondly, they didn't survive. The dogs/wolves of the past are long dead. The survival of wolves wasn't in jeopardy, and if dogs became a new species, it wouldn't be survival, it would be addition.
I think you're using the term 'browsing the web' a bit loosely. If I recall correctly, those monitors can't even display at a high enough resolution to be of much use today, even if attatched to a brand new machine. My point was that students can't search Google for a picture/video of a frog for their biology class.
1 - I said modern word processing software (MS Word, WordPerfect, etc)
2 - Note that I specifically said "world wide web" and not "internet." I'm aware it's got limited internet capabilities, but you're not going to be browsing the web on it.
It was a common occurence.
"Actually I think dogs and cats genetically engineered themselves in order to survive. It's the pets that own us, not the other way around, contray to popular belief."
You couldn't be more wrong. Just because cater to your pets demands for food, etc. doesn't change anything. They are slave species - bred specifically to serve a purpose. The dogs with the best qualities to aid in hunting were bred together for centuries to yield modern hunting dogs. 'Toy dogs' were the result of breeding smaller and more good-tempered dogs. It all started with wolves, don't forget. There is no reason to believe dogs have any way of knowing what traits are being selected for, anyway.
About 5 years ago the Junior High School I attended sold off a full lab of IIGS's. I think the asking price was $20-$50, or something to that effect. Wait around - if your school has a network of them, they're likely to sell them off eventually. Those machines continue to run relatively well far longer than their useful lifespan (they lack modern word processing software, world wide web capabilities, etc).
If the feds realize this (dictionary attack on encrypted or gov't held list), they'll have little choice but to ruin email in the US. Essentially, the only method they'll have to have all bulk email come through specific gov't servers which filter the do-not-email addresses out and send it along, without letting it get back to the source. This is only a step away from having ALL email go through the gov't before it gets to its recipient.