"Experimenting with human embyos, experimenting on people will dramatically further science and improve life for the rest of us (billions). It means we need to come to terms with the fact that humans are animals as any, and experimentation is required. But how do we do that without allowing for genocide? Not simple problem, but unless we solve it, we'll all be victims to save the few from being victims."
Sure about that? There's a big difference between being a "victim" of another human's or society's desires and being a "victim of - what? Old age? Disease? Being ugly? Having a bad heart?
You are proposing that humans be involuntarily sacrificed for the benefit of others, and your only concern is avoiding genocide? What about individual human rights? If I came up to you and said "Your organs can save the lives of 6 people (heart, liver, 2 lungs, 2 kidneys), so I'm going to kil you now", would you not object? Or would you submit to being one of the "few" victims to save the "many"?
Was just at the Maryland RennFest. Having gone there for the past 8 years, we've formulated some rules that should be enforced, but sadly are not.
1) Just because it is acceptable to wear a "saucy wench" outfit doesn't mean you look good in it. Hence, mandatory 2 minutes in front of a 3 way mirror for anyone in garb prior to admittance. 2) Women should not be allowed to wear bells around their waist with a belly dancer outfit when said belly is drooping to over aforementioned bells. 2a) Women should not get cranky when folks stare at #2 above - you just adorned your fat rolls with shiny, noisy things, and you expect it NOT to draw the eye? 3) Re. "push-up" corsets - if it makes your boobs look like they are squashed in a mammogram, it's the wrong size (this is from my wife, and I assume the female slashdotters will understand. I have no clue what it means) 4) For the men - your not fucking Sauron, so don't bring the 7 foot tall black staff with the wings and the crystal ball on top. It gets in everyone else's way and will not, repeat NOT, get you laid. Period. No, really. 5) And added just this year - the Trekkers were bad enough, but furries? FURRIES?! I had to explain to my wife what the difference between a furry and a plishie is .
The thing is, hearing Microsoft criticising another company's business practices vis a vis privacy is singularly jarring. Remember, this is the company who just recently forced users of their software to install a patch, whether they said "No" or not. And then didn't want to tell those users about it.
It is perfectly acceptable to agree with concerns about a company's activities, but question the motives of those making the objections. It's like a murderer criticising a drug dealer - it seems the murderer is trying to make himself look better in comparison.
"Honestly... I don't care if you guys know that I broke 5 ribs 15 years ago, have bad eyesight and am allergic to Ceclor. Snoop away, no skin off my ass. But you better fucking believe I want every hospital worker and their mom to know all about it."
Were you treated for alcoholism? Are you a transexual? Have an abortion?
There are plenty of things that, while perfectly legal, are things that one does NOT want "every hospital worker and their mom to know all about it." And you won't get to selectively edit it, because there are still SOME healthcare workers that need to know it. And HIPPA be damned - once a deep, dark secret is out, all the money damages in the world won't make up for it.
I'm actually for computerized, remote accessible records. But access needs to be secure, controlled, traceable.
And sure as shit I don't want Microsoft (or any private corporation, for that matter) to have any part of it.
I have no doubt that the evolution claim can be tested over a short timespan. But TFA gives the strong impression that these researchers are done, and they have all the "proof" they will need. I don't believe that, but this a pa particulaly shitty example of science reporting, mainly because it's so subtle.
Ironically enough, cryogenic treatments on ferrous materials DO have beneficial effects on the molecular level - it is widely used in racing engines and gun barrels.
A computer model, or any model for that matter, doesn't "demonstrate" anything, other than the fact that that model will give those results with this input. By definition, a model isn't really the phenomenon it represents. Models "predict", it's only by measurement of the actual phenomena is a prediction or hypothesis demonstarted to be true/accurate.
This is why a lot of folks are uncomfortable with the "fact" that global warming is caused by human generated greenhuse gasses - the only "fact" is that computer models show this. We can't test that theory in any meaningful way, so we need to work with what we've got, but I can't help but think the Goreacle and Leonardo DiHybrido would do better by not focussing on "proving" something that essentially can't be proven until after the results are in - i.e. a thousand years from now.
"It's cool what he is doing I guess, but in the scheme of things, it doesn't really matter."
Say that when you've lost your job due to the ever increasing assault on the rational sciences by the forces of ignorance and stupidity. If you are in academia, funding dries up, and if in corporate R&D, the economy starts collapsing.
"It's also well known that anything that ends in "ology" isn't science either:-)
Signed, A. Physicist."
Careful on making judgement on the last 3 letters - you are associating yourself with psychiatrists, feminists, and racists (the first being the most dangerous, IMHO)
It was an episode of Carson that crushed Gellar's carreer, where Johnny asked him to do some of his "amazing feats", but had consulted with Randi first. Randi's advise was very simple - do not, under any circumstances, allow Gellar access to any of the object before the show.
It was beautiful - Gellar getting more and more frustrated and making lame excuses, and Carson being his regular, genteel self, with nary a smirk, knowing full well he was destroying Uri Gellar in front of millions.
"No, there would have been no useful testimony extracted by the defense. Sherman is not an expert in the accounting systems, financial records, or contractual agreements of the member corporations. None of that would be information he could be expected to know, or to provide in any detail under a cross examination."
Which, I think, could act as a wedge to get that information is as written evidence, or rebutal witnesses.
Defense Lawyer: "Could you tell me what percentage of industry profits goes to artist royalties?"
Sherman: "I don't know"
DL: Introduces the relevant documents and has Sherman read them, and attest that they are indeed documents from Capitol or the RIAA.
No, I'm not sure this would be allowed. Where's NYCL when you need him? (probably working for people that actually need him)
"None of which have any relevance to the matter of the trial, which is whether she did or did not install Kazaa and thus share music with others on the internet. All that would have to happen is that the RIAA attorney would argue that the questions are irrelevant and have the judge agree. The plantiff's attorney made the right call in arguing against the testimony of the RIAA guy."
Ahh, but that is the point! If the plaintiff believes that wider issues are relevant, and they get to present them, then they are precluded from objecting when the defense does the same. You have your pi and delta mixed up - the Planitiff (Capitol) was the one wishing to have the executive testify as to the wider impact of filesharing, and the Defendant (Thomas) objected on the grounds of relevance. I am arguing that, it might have been a tactically better position to allow Capitol to make an irrelevant but emotional appeal to the jury, since that would allow the Thomas to use the same topics with a greater emotional impact. If the Capitol guy says on the stand "Industry profits are down by 10%", it would be just as legitimate for the defendant's lawyer to ask "And what percentage of those profits goes to artist royalties?"
As for the rest, a) I have served on juries, and b) what are you smoking if you think that juries aren't swayed by emotional arguments? Look at the news, fer chrissake.
I also wonder about your reasoning - "Juries are rarely made up of well educated people with a grasp of technology and technological issues.", so "A jury might hear such testimony and decide that while all those things are bad and believe that the RIAA did them all, they have nothing to do with whether or not the plantiff broke the law. " So, juries are stupid and that makes them LESS vulnerable to an emotional appeal?
While I loathe the recording industry and hope they lose this case, I believe it may have been a tactical error on the part of the defense to object to this particular witness. Once on the stand, and after spouting of about damages to the industry as a whole, etc., it would then be the defense's turn. And since the subject matter of the whole industry had been brought up by the plaintiffs, the defense would be free to ask about the industry as a whole - for instance, what is the industrywide average revenue earned by individual artists on a CD sale? What are the terms of the industry standard contract artists regarding copyrights? Did the industry not collude to fix CD prices, as evidenced by their conviction in Federal court?
Oh yes - I think the jury would love to hear an industry representative answer questions about his industry.
I've been following The Amazing Randi for years. He is also an excellent stage magician, and his best weapon is repeating the "feats" he is debunking, but with a twist - doing "psychic surgery" and pulling out a rubber chicken, etc.
Yeah, and he's wiping his tears with the wads of cash he has made parleying ST into a career. Anyone remember TJ Hooker? Or whatever show he is on now? Priceline ads?
Is it fair that the rest of the cast has been ill treated (except Nimoy)? No. Is it reality? Yes. I can't see Shatner getting his panties in a wad over this.
Although naming one 1234-Khaaaaaan would be AWESOME! (thanks to the poster above who suggested it)
don't feed the trolls...don't feed the trolls...fuck it.
I AM a native english speaker, dipshit. I probably scored higher in the English section of the SAT's than most folks here - and I took them in the 7th grade! Oh, yeah - the degree in Philosophy would have been a little tougher to get if I wasn't at least linguistically competent in English. If anything, I am deficient on OTHER languages - I have a very hard time memorizing vocabulary.
I'll apologize for reading a sentence too fast and missing a word - but only to someone who didn't make a totally off base and condescending assumption about my background.
I am in no way in favor of the corporate influence at the FCC. However, does anyone else find it disturbing that the FCC is being criticised for allowing a 2 week lobbying period by an organization that allows lobbying 24/7/365? I'd be willing to bet that the Congresscritter who requested the report has been lobbied more on communications issues than the FCC has.
I think Sony actually DID sue itself at one point, but I can't remember the reference. When it got in front of a judge and he finally figured out the real identities of both parties, he dismissed the case, with some choice words IRC.
Slashdot Mirror
"Experimenting with human embyos, experimenting on people will dramatically further science and improve life for the rest of us (billions). It means we need to come to terms with the fact that humans are animals as any, and experimentation is required. But how do we do that without allowing for genocide? Not simple problem, but unless we solve it, we'll all be victims to save the few from being victims."
Sure about that? There's a big difference between being a "victim" of another human's or society's desires and being a "victim of - what? Old age? Disease? Being ugly? Having a bad heart?
You are proposing that humans be involuntarily sacrificed for the benefit of others, and your only concern is avoiding genocide? What about individual human rights? If I came up to you and said "Your organs can save the lives of 6 people (heart, liver, 2 lungs, 2 kidneys), so I'm going to kil you now", would you not object? Or would you submit to being one of the "few" victims to save the "many"?
Sprint sees the way the patent winds are blowing and wants to get while the gettin' is good.
Cue totally irrelevant, misinformed, and asinine stem cell blather in 5..4..3...
Oh, wait - I'm too late.
So THAT'S why my sister in law always refer's to her son's underwear as "panties". To him. In front of guests.
Or maybe she's just a bitch and is hoping therapy will straighten him out before he takes an axe to her.
Was just at the Maryland RennFest. Having gone there for the past 8 years, we've formulated some rules that should be enforced, but sadly are not.
1) Just because it is acceptable to wear a "saucy wench" outfit doesn't mean you look good in it. Hence, mandatory 2 minutes in front of a 3 way mirror for anyone in garb prior to admittance.
2) Women should not be allowed to wear bells around their waist with a belly dancer outfit when said belly is drooping to over aforementioned bells.
2a) Women should not get cranky when folks stare at #2 above - you just adorned your fat rolls with shiny, noisy things, and you expect it NOT to draw the eye?
3) Re. "push-up" corsets - if it makes your boobs look like they are squashed in a mammogram, it's the wrong size (this is from my wife, and I assume the female slashdotters will understand. I have no clue what it means)
4) For the men - your not fucking Sauron, so don't bring the 7 foot tall black staff with the wings and the crystal ball on top. It gets in everyone else's way and will not, repeat NOT, get you laid. Period. No, really.
5) And added just this year - the Trekkers were bad enough, but furries? FURRIES?! I had to explain to my wife what the difference between a furry and a plishie is .
"The Internet is good for amateur writers with talent."
Because on the internet (as well as real life), talent is recognized and floats to the top for everyone to see and admire.
Oh, wait, sorry - it's "scum" that floats to the top. My bad.
The thing is, hearing Microsoft criticising another company's business practices vis a vis privacy is singularly jarring. Remember, this is the company who just recently forced users of their software to install a patch, whether they said "No" or not. And then didn't want to tell those users about it.
It is perfectly acceptable to agree with concerns about a company's activities, but question the motives of those making the objections. It's like a murderer criticising a drug dealer - it seems the murderer is trying to make himself look better in comparison.
Can't we just get whacked by a planetkiller and be done with it? Think of the benefits:
Global warming made irrelevant.
Overpopulation? Not anymore.
Think of it as God (or the FSM) saying "Aww, fuck it" and hitting the reset button.
No, catchphrases annoy people. Then people kill people. With guns.
"Honestly... I don't care if you guys know that I broke 5 ribs 15 years ago, have bad eyesight and am allergic to Ceclor. Snoop away, no skin off my ass. But you better fucking believe I want every hospital worker and their mom to know all about it."
Were you treated for alcoholism? Are you a transexual? Have an abortion?
There are plenty of things that, while perfectly legal, are things that one does NOT want "every hospital worker and their mom to know all about it." And you won't get to selectively edit it, because there are still SOME healthcare workers that need to know it. And HIPPA be damned - once a deep, dark secret is out, all the money damages in the world won't make up for it.
I'm actually for computerized, remote accessible records. But access needs to be secure, controlled, traceable.
And sure as shit I don't want Microsoft (or any private corporation, for that matter) to have any part of it.
I have no doubt that the evolution claim can be tested over a short timespan. But TFA gives the strong impression that these researchers are done, and they have all the "proof" they will need. I don't believe that, but this a pa particulaly shitty example of science reporting, mainly because it's so subtle.
Ironically enough, cryogenic treatments on ferrous materials DO have beneficial effects on the molecular level - it is widely used in racing engines and gun barrels.
Stereo cables? I'll stick with lamp cord.
A computer model, or any model for that matter, doesn't "demonstrate" anything, other than the fact that that model will give those results with this input. By definition, a model isn't really the phenomenon it represents. Models "predict", it's only by measurement of the actual phenomena is a prediction or hypothesis demonstarted to be true/accurate.
This is why a lot of folks are uncomfortable with the "fact" that global warming is caused by human generated greenhuse gasses - the only "fact" is that computer models show this. We can't test that theory in any meaningful way, so we need to work with what we've got, but I can't help but think the Goreacle and Leonardo DiHybrido would do better by not focussing on "proving" something that essentially can't be proven until after the results are in - i.e. a thousand years from now.
"It's cool what he is doing I guess, but in the scheme of things, it doesn't really matter."
Say that when you've lost your job due to the ever increasing assault on the rational sciences by the forces of ignorance and stupidity. If you are in academia, funding dries up, and if in corporate R&D, the economy starts collapsing.
"It's also well known that anything that ends in "ology" isn't science either :-)
Signed,
A. Physicist."
Careful on making judgement on the last 3 letters - you are associating yourself with psychiatrists, feminists, and racists (the first being the most dangerous, IMHO)
It was an episode of Carson that crushed Gellar's carreer, where Johnny asked him to do some of his "amazing feats", but had consulted with Randi first. Randi's advise was very simple - do not, under any circumstances, allow Gellar access to any of the object before the show.
It was beautiful - Gellar getting more and more frustrated and making lame excuses, and Carson being his regular, genteel self, with nary a smirk, knowing full well he was destroying Uri Gellar in front of millions.
"No, there would have been no useful testimony extracted by the defense. Sherman is not an expert in the accounting systems, financial records, or contractual agreements of the member corporations. None of that would be information he could be expected to know, or to provide in any detail under a cross examination."
Which, I think, could act as a wedge to get that information is as written evidence, or rebutal witnesses.
Defense Lawyer: "Could you tell me what percentage of industry profits goes to artist royalties?"
Sherman: "I don't know"
DL: Introduces the relevant documents and has Sherman read them, and attest that they are indeed documents from Capitol or the RIAA.
No, I'm not sure this would be allowed. Where's NYCL when you need him? (probably working for people that actually need him)
"None of which have any relevance to the matter of the trial, which is whether she did or did not install Kazaa and thus share music with others on the internet. All that would have to happen is that the RIAA attorney would argue that the questions are irrelevant and have the judge agree. The plantiff's attorney made the right call in arguing against the testimony of the RIAA guy."
Ahh, but that is the point! If the plaintiff believes that wider issues are relevant, and they get to present them, then they are precluded from objecting when the defense does the same. You have your pi and delta mixed up - the Planitiff (Capitol) was the one wishing to have the executive testify as to the wider impact of filesharing, and the Defendant (Thomas) objected on the grounds of relevance. I am arguing that, it might have been a tactically better position to allow Capitol to make an irrelevant but emotional appeal to the jury, since that would allow the Thomas to use the same topics with a greater emotional impact. If the Capitol guy says on the stand "Industry profits are down by 10%", it would be just as legitimate for the defendant's lawyer to ask "And what percentage of those profits goes to artist royalties?"
As for the rest, a) I have served on juries, and b) what are you smoking if you think that juries aren't swayed by emotional arguments? Look at the news, fer chrissake.
I also wonder about your reasoning - "Juries are rarely made up of well educated people with a grasp of technology and technological issues.", so "A jury might hear such testimony and decide that while all those things are bad and believe that the RIAA did them all, they have nothing to do with whether or not the plantiff broke the law. " So, juries are stupid and that makes them LESS vulnerable to an emotional appeal?
While I loathe the recording industry and hope they lose this case, I believe it may have been a tactical error on the part of the defense to object to this particular witness. Once on the stand, and after spouting of about damages to the industry as a whole, etc., it would then be the defense's turn. And since the subject matter of the whole industry had been brought up by the plaintiffs, the defense would be free to ask about the industry as a whole - for instance, what is the industrywide average revenue earned by individual artists on a CD sale? What are the terms of the industry standard contract artists regarding copyrights? Did the industry not collude to fix CD prices, as evidenced by their conviction in Federal court?
Oh yes - I think the jury would love to hear an industry representative answer questions about his industry.
I've been following The Amazing Randi for years. He is also an excellent stage magician, and his best weapon is repeating the "feats" he is debunking, but with a twist - doing "psychic surgery" and pulling out a rubber chicken, etc.
Yeah, and he's wiping his tears with the wads of cash he has made parleying ST into a career. Anyone remember TJ Hooker? Or whatever show he is on now? Priceline ads?
Is it fair that the rest of the cast has been ill treated (except Nimoy)? No. Is it reality? Yes. I can't see Shatner getting his panties in a wad over this.
Although naming one 1234-Khaaaaaan would be AWESOME! (thanks to the poster above who suggested it)
don't feed the trolls...don't feed the trolls...fuck it.
I AM a native english speaker, dipshit. I probably scored higher in the English section of the SAT's than most folks here - and I took them in the 7th grade! Oh, yeah - the degree in Philosophy would have been a little tougher to get if I wasn't at least linguistically competent in English. If anything, I am deficient on OTHER languages - I have a very hard time memorizing vocabulary.
I'll apologize for reading a sentence too fast and missing a word - but only to someone who didn't make a totally off base and condescending assumption about my background.
I am in no way in favor of the corporate influence at the FCC. However, does anyone else find it disturbing that the FCC is being criticised for allowing a 2 week lobbying period by an organization that allows lobbying 24/7/365? I'd be willing to bet that the Congresscritter who requested the report has been lobbied more on communications issues than the FCC has.
I'll stand corrected, then. I initially read the "or" as a comma, which changed the meaning in my head.
Oh well, won't be the last time.
I won't respond to mr. "obviously not a Native English speaker" - I don't apologize to AC's.
I think Sony actually DID sue itself at one point, but I can't remember the reference. When it got in front of a judge and he finally figured out the real identities of both parties, he dismissed the case, with some choice words IRC.