Back ontopic: this is EXACTLY like the oil companies telling the car manufacturers that they want a cut of all car sales, because the gasoline they sell is driving car sales.
The utter fucking gall of these people. And to think that lobyists for this group are buying legislation...you US-ians should be scared shitless that your elected representatives are even listening to these creeps.
Have you missed the last decade? You know, when the internet became a myor moneymaker, and having local domain names made a lot of people a lot of money, improved trade etc?
No...it's the geek who's interfacing with the input device of the servers (whilst the man with the gun at the door who has no idea what the geek is doing is protecting said geek) who ulimately owns it:)
"expect it to work with the existing system run by the largest GDP economy in the world."
I really hate it when people do things like that. Next time, to make a fair comparison, try a US vs EU comparison, as those areas have about the same amount of people in them. Either that, or do a 'state in the US vs a country in the EU' comparison.
As an aside: you realise that the whole use of the internet is to have an open system which is essentially open to anyone to connect to? Fragementation is not a solution; the solution is to have the governing of it as minimal and as non-partisan/unilateral as possible. Which means 'not in a single nations hands'.
In that way the internet is like the global environment...it's not just a closed system, it's the only, the whole system.
This comment (especially that 3 point list) shows amazing ignorance for the workings of and the design philosophy behind the internet.
The internet is composed of the networks of all countries. The initial internet grew out of a network of networks, of which DARPA's was the first and largest, true, but that part the US pays for is for one run by private companies, not 'the US' (the US doesn't lay those cables). The US part of the internet is not payed for by the US...it's payed for by the people who buy from their ISP's (although it is true that the TLD's in the US are indirectly payed for by the US, as universities do get grants for that kind of thing).
Point 3 is just out-and-out wrong. It shows such disregard for how the internet is setup, and the demographics, it's stunning. Korea is the most wired country on earth...other countries like the Netherlands are in top slots also...the US isn't anything special concerning people with net connections. Hell, EU vs US, the EU has many more peopel with net connections.
As for that final paragraph....it's.com, so I really doubt China could do anything in regards to registering it if the UN were to have controll of ICANN.
Which is why there's this push to get it uinder UN and not coutry controll.
"Finally, what advantage would there be to other countries if they managed the domain servers."
Why do you think the US doesn't want to relinquish controll? There has been soem hefty critisism of the ICANN in recent years, so there might actually be some benefit in handing that over to a non-partisan organisation.
Sure...you're not allowed to drink, but you can duie for your country: you're an adult now!
"Also, it's not considered 'a crime', it's considered 'immoral'."
No...their stated aim is to overturn Roe vs Wade and thus make it criminal. Therefore, to their mind, it isn't just immoral, it is a crime which since Roe v Wade doesn't have the force of law behind it, but soon will again.
"while morals are not."
Which is why those ten commandment tablets are popping up left and right?
"I'd like to note that sperm and egg donation is completely voluntary,"
You left that very open for interpretation in your original post (in fact, you weren't talking about donations at all, you were talking purely about use), which is why I made the point that certain people wouldn't like their zygote to be donated to couples who wanted it, which might be the reason why it isn't done that way.
As for your parting comment; wow...now I'm really upset. Really.
The military IS the government! It is fully funded by it and the government has full authority over it; whcih is why politicians create the rules of engagement soldiers fight under. The internet sprung from DARPA (fully a government project and funded as such), and the www was develloped by someone working for another fully governmental project. The government paid for those projects. You're right about cars, but you're ignoring your own statement that you don't trust stuff which isn't mentioned in the constitution, wheras my point here was that that is a silly attitude.
"If the stem cells are contaminated them researchers can get stem cells elsewhere"
NO! Thats the whole point! You either use those cells specific embrionic lines, or you don't get federal funding (and that means you don't do the research, because that amount of money you just don't get privately or from teh state level).
No shit. Next you'll tell me the www was develloped by Tim Berners Lee whilst working for a (multi)government funded CERN (no private investment there). Also...who pays the military?
Anyway, that's not the issue...it was stemcells and strains which are sanctioned by the US government being useless due to contamination, forcing researchers to go to other countries (like the UK).
Oh, man! You totally misunderstood the parentposter, AND you got modded +4 Interesting for it! Now that's funny!
a) he can't have seen a bluescreen in his years of LINUX adminning, as linux doesn't do blue screens b) he knows that c) he's not saying that, see a) d) you can't read and understand posts, and it's obvious that the parentposter knows more about NT than you do about reading comprehension AND maybe computing in general. e)/. moderators seem to be on more crack than usual.
You are confusing drugs with research. Watson and Crick (discoverers of the structure of DNA) made their discovery at a university (which is...funded by the country in which that uni is located!). Most basic research is done by universities. They are largely state funded. These guys discover the basics which drug companies then use to target their drugs (this is a gross simplification).
"in fact there are almost no medical discoveries that can be associated with federal studies"
Fine statement, but flawed (read: laughably wrong). Any professor at a university is largely funded by the state (seeing as the university is state funded). Mecial discoveries are not drugs. You are very wrong and show a lack of understanding in how these things work, and that in what you say is your 'favorite subject'. Damn, just read one editorial of j.random medical journal.
Yeah, but look at the breakdown. Military research is pretty much the only area where there has been an increase; the other areas have pretty much seen a massive decrease in funding.
Then look at the fact that Bushco. thinks intelligent design is science. Science and the critical thinking it promotes directly presents a threat to Bushco. The proof is that hardly anyone calls FOX on it's scarce presentation of facts and figuires, or that there has been no outcry at the lack of additional information used in teh many polls FOX runs. People are too stupid and uninformed to know that a (bar)graph by itself, without a couple of bits more of information, means nothing at all.
It's not bullshit; many people have left the US to pursue their research in other countries. It is because a federal ban on funding is effectively a ban. Can't do the research if you don't have the money. And genetics research is notoriously expensive.
Furthermore, the only strains which are allowed to be used are strains which have been used for years and are now found to be contaminated. Go search; I recomend you start at www.sciam.com (Scientific American) for a laypersons explanation.
Potential for abuse? Just restrict it to single cells gained from cells which were about to be discarded by fertility clincs. No abuse possible anymore.
BTW; the internet's not in the constitution either. Nor are cars, or many other things. Gues you opose them too. Both can be used for nefarious means.
In the netherlands, a human who knows his life is about to end in even more terrible misery than (s)he already is in is (after consultation) allowed to kill him/herself. It's considered humane.
It is also something which we readily recoignise worldwide for animals...furthermore, it is considered cruel to let a dog or cat suffer for longer than neccessary.
""No, that embryo will be destroyed (and you can't have it to have a baby of your own.)" is heartbreaking to a lot of people."
As it is heartbreaking to a couple to give up their child for adoption. Forcing them to give their fertilised eggs to other couples results in that situation, really.
Interestingly enough, in the US it is considered by the religious people to be a crime to have an abortion (usually the removal of an unwanted potential child). However, it is perfectly OK to send a wanted and loved child into a situation where it is very likely that he/she will get blown up by an IED.
I know a lot of this post isn't really an answer to your post...but ethical questions beg more ethical 'paradoxes'.
Logical phalacy alert! Embrionic stem cells are not people! If you are against the use of less than a hundred living human cells (which have served their purpose) for medicinal purposes, you should never wash yourself again, as literally thousands of living cells get washed away!
This is not a joke, or an attempt at one: it is simply what happens when one washes (not to mention the bunch of micro-organisms which you wash away which are symbiotic to humans, but that's neither here nor there). Knowing that, what's the difference between a bunch of living cells and a bunch of living cells? Is it that cells which come from the vagina are holy? So it's just women who should never wash?
Clue: there is also one logical phalacy in this post; bonus points if you can find it and explain why it doesn't matter for/this/ argument.
BTW: I do agree that medical (and for that matter all other) scinece is filled with ethical questions.
Dunno where I saw/read this, but an analysis of the top oscar winning and top grossing hollywood pictures all had this in common: a single writer and/or director, who frequently was one and the same person. They had creative controll of their movie and thus they were able to make brilliant movies. Just goes to show how broken the current hollywood, 'we'll re-write the re-write' system is. Wonder why hollywood isn't grossing so well teh past couple of years....must be the pirates! Arrr!
If you really work outdoors, you want a tractor or a rangerover. Not an SUV. Plus the demographics show that a vast mayority (90%+) of SUV's are never used off-road at all (which isn't much of a surprise, as they drive like shit off road).
Sounds a bit like loser's hatred there. Fact is that a) Nuna's major sponsor was Nuon (an energy company) and b) there's quite some groundbreaking R&D went into it (like the aerodynamic testing which produced a car which actually harnessed sidewinds in the way that a sailboat does, materials choice in different parts [no, they didn't use all-composite material...that wouldn't be very smart use of strenght-to-weight-to-size-ratios]). Sure, they had a lot of money, too...so what? They used that money to back up their research and bought and built a winning car...which was the object of the solar challenge. Couldn't beat them? Go find better sponsors and design/build a better car.
Read my comment again. Reuters, BBC and CNN. And I'm saying 'if you don't beleive me, go search them yourself' for the exact same reason why I can claim e=m x gamma(u) x c^2 and then say that if you want proof of it, go read some physics yourself. I know it's true, I've pointed out credible sources where these stories have been reported, but I can't be bothered to do your work for you.
Personally, I think the guy who wrote the article was a whiner who couldn't hack the math (as much as he thought he could...he was just deluding himself). What I do agree with is the course load, especially when you compare it to other studies. Engineering/science means a lot work. Much more than the libereal arts. So much so that I'd say the study should be extended by a year to reduce the load and allow for some extracurricular activities, or even a job. Because that part the article writer got right; you work your arse off for years and you end up with a not so high paying job with excelemnt chances of being laid off by that pansy-ass liberal arts mayor who is now managing you. And no matter what the MBA's of the world say; managing can be taught, and it's much easier than a physics degree.
Ha. Haha. How droll. However, I can produce links to credible news sources for all acts comitted here (and I'm not talking right/left wing websites...I'm talking Reuters, BBC and (shudder) CNN). Pretty much spells fact in my book.
It's not inconcievable that certain things I say are wrong. It's just inconcievable that the things in my post above all happened, are reported by credible news sources and the american people don't seem to care. Even more inconcievable is some idiot saying that these things didn't happen, when a quick keyword search at the Reuters/BBC sites will prove me right.
So before you reply, do me a favour. Take the five minutes to do so for each fact I just stated above. If you come across anything (FROM A CREDIBLE SOURCE!) which contradicts me, PLEASE let me know, and I will change my mind/attitude and tell others what you have taught me. I'm just afraid that you won't find anything which doesn'tdepend on far-rightwing websites who don't properly source their news. But please prove me wrong.
Sure...if you don't even count anymore those who have stopped looking for work after they've tried and have lost their benefits...then you get some nice figures. Problem is, they then stop matching reality. Google this; it really is true: US unemployment figures don't count the millions who have run out of benefits.
And I will argue about quality of life; people who work two or three shit-paying jobs to try to make ends meet (like one in security, one at McDonalds; not uncommon in the US) are a) counted multiple times and b ) have a shit quality of life, working near the whole day...quite unlike the 36-40 hour work week usual in the EU (although most of my friends do tend to work 60-80 hour weeks, due to the fact that they have amazingly cool and wellpaying jobs [bastards:)]).
Slashdot Mirror
Well researched post, thanks for the linkage!
Back ontopic: this is EXACTLY like the oil companies telling the car manufacturers that they want a cut of all car sales, because the gasoline they sell is driving car sales.
The utter fucking gall of these people. And to think that lobyists for this group are buying legislation...you US-ians should be scared shitless that your elected representatives are even listening to these creeps.
Have you missed the last decade? You know, when the internet became a myor moneymaker, and having local domain names made a lot of people a lot of money, improved trade etc?
No...it's the geek who's interfacing with the input device of the servers (whilst the man with the gun at the door who has no idea what the geek is doing is protecting said geek) who ulimately owns it :)
"expect it to work with the existing system run by the largest GDP economy in the world."
I really hate it when people do things like that. Next time, to make a fair comparison, try a US vs EU comparison, as those areas have about the same amount of people in them. Either that, or do a 'state in the US vs a country in the EU' comparison.
As an aside: you realise that the whole use of the internet is to have an open system which is essentially open to anyone to connect to? Fragementation is not a solution; the solution is to have the governing of it as minimal and as non-partisan/unilateral as possible. Which means 'not in a single nations hands'.
In that way the internet is like the global environment...it's not just a closed system, it's the only, the whole system.
This comment (especially that 3 point list) shows amazing ignorance for the workings of and the design philosophy behind the internet.
.com, so I really doubt China could do anything in regards to registering it if the UN were to have controll of ICANN.
The internet is composed of the networks of all countries. The initial internet grew out of a network of networks, of which DARPA's was the first and largest, true, but that part the US pays for is for one run by private companies, not 'the US' (the US doesn't lay those cables). The US part of the internet is not payed for by the US...it's payed for by the people who buy from their ISP's (although it is true that the TLD's in the US are indirectly payed for by the US, as universities do get grants for that kind of thing).
Point 3 is just out-and-out wrong. It shows such disregard for how the internet is setup, and the demographics, it's stunning. Korea is the most wired country on earth...other countries like the Netherlands are in top slots also...the US isn't anything special concerning people with net connections. Hell, EU vs US, the EU has many more peopel with net connections.
As for that final paragraph....it's
Which is why there's this push to get it uinder UN and not coutry controll.
"Finally, what advantage would there be to other countries if they managed the domain servers."
Why do you think the US doesn't want to relinquish controll? There has been soem hefty critisism of the ICANN in recent years, so there might actually be some benefit in handing that over to a non-partisan organisation.
I dunno, but ICANN has recieved (quite justly) some hefty critism on /. and around the net in recent years. You might have missed that.
Sure...you're not allowed to drink, but you can duie for your country: you're an adult now!
"Also, it's not considered 'a crime', it's considered 'immoral'."
No...their stated aim is to overturn Roe vs Wade and thus make it criminal. Therefore, to their mind, it isn't just immoral, it is a crime which since Roe v Wade doesn't have the force of law behind it, but soon will again.
"while morals are not."
Which is why those ten commandment tablets are popping up left and right?
"I'd like to note that sperm and egg donation is completely voluntary,"
You left that very open for interpretation in your original post (in fact, you weren't talking about donations at all, you were talking purely about use), which is why I made the point that certain people wouldn't like their zygote to be donated to couples who wanted it, which might be the reason why it isn't done that way.
As for your parting comment; wow...now I'm really upset. Really.
The military IS the government! It is fully funded by it and the government has full authority over it; whcih is why politicians create the rules of engagement soldiers fight under. The internet sprung from DARPA (fully a government project and funded as such), and the www was develloped by someone working for another fully governmental project. The government paid for those projects. You're right about cars, but you're ignoring your own statement that you don't trust stuff which isn't mentioned in the constitution, wheras my point here was that that is a silly attitude.
"If the stem cells are contaminated them researchers can get stem cells elsewhere"
NO! Thats the whole point! You either use those cells specific embrionic lines, or you don't get federal funding (and that means you don't do the research, because that amount of money you just don't get privately or from teh state level).
No shit. Next you'll tell me the www was develloped by Tim Berners Lee whilst working for a (multi)government funded CERN (no private investment there). Also...who pays the military?
Anyway, that's not the issue...it was stemcells and strains which are sanctioned by the US government being useless due to contamination, forcing researchers to go to other countries (like the UK).
Easy...unmount the seperate harddrive you have your swapfile on whilst writing to the swapfile. BSOD and reset.
Oh, man! You totally misunderstood the parentposter, AND you got modded +4 Interesting for it! Now that's funny!
/. moderators seem to be on more crack than usual.
a) he can't have seen a bluescreen in his years of LINUX adminning, as linux doesn't do blue screens
b) he knows that
c) he's not saying that, see a)
d) you can't read and understand posts, and it's obvious that the parentposter knows more about NT than you do about reading comprehension AND maybe computing in general.
e)
You are confusing drugs with research. Watson and Crick (discoverers of the structure of DNA) made their discovery at a university (which is ...funded by the country in which that uni is located!).
Most basic research is done by universities. They are largely state funded. These guys discover the basics which drug companies then use to target their drugs (this is a gross simplification).
"in fact there are almost no medical discoveries that can be associated with federal studies"
Fine statement, but flawed (read: laughably wrong). Any professor at a university is largely funded by the state (seeing as the university is state funded). Mecial discoveries are not drugs. You are very wrong and show a lack of understanding in how these things work, and that in what you say is your 'favorite subject'. Damn, just read one editorial of j.random medical journal.
Yeah, but look at the breakdown. Military research is pretty much the only area where there has been an increase; the other areas have pretty much seen a massive decrease in funding.
Then look at the fact that Bushco. thinks intelligent design is science. Science and the critical thinking it promotes directly presents a threat to Bushco. The proof is that hardly anyone calls FOX on it's scarce presentation of facts and figuires, or that there has been no outcry at the lack of additional information used in teh many polls FOX runs. People are too stupid and uninformed to know that a (bar)graph by itself, without a couple of bits more of information, means nothing at all.
It's not bullshit; many people have left the US to pursue their research in other countries. It is because a federal ban on funding is effectively a ban. Can't do the research if you don't have the money. And genetics research is notoriously expensive.
Furthermore, the only strains which are allowed to be used are strains which have been used for years and are now found to be contaminated. Go search; I recomend you start at www.sciam.com (Scientific American) for a laypersons explanation.
Potential for abuse? Just restrict it to single cells gained from cells which were about to be discarded by fertility clincs. No abuse possible anymore.
BTW; the internet's not in the constitution either. Nor are cars, or many other things. Gues you opose them too. Both can be used for nefarious means.
In the netherlands, a human who knows his life is about to end in even more terrible misery than (s)he already is in is (after consultation) allowed to kill him/herself. It's considered humane. It is also something which we readily recoignise worldwide for animals...furthermore, it is considered cruel to let a dog or cat suffer for longer than neccessary. ""No, that embryo will be destroyed (and you can't have it to have a baby of your own.)" is heartbreaking to a lot of people." As it is heartbreaking to a couple to give up their child for adoption. Forcing them to give their fertilised eggs to other couples results in that situation, really. Interestingly enough, in the US it is considered by the religious people to be a crime to have an abortion (usually the removal of an unwanted potential child). However, it is perfectly OK to send a wanted and loved child into a situation where it is very likely that he/she will get blown up by an IED. I know a lot of this post isn't really an answer to your post...but ethical questions beg more ethical 'paradoxes'.
Logical phalacy alert! Embrionic stem cells are not people! If you are against the use of less than a hundred living human cells (which have served their purpose) for medicinal purposes, you should never wash yourself again, as literally thousands of living cells get washed away!
/this/ argument.
This is not a joke, or an attempt at one: it is simply what happens when one washes (not to mention the bunch of micro-organisms which you wash away which are symbiotic to humans, but that's neither here nor there). Knowing that, what's the difference between a bunch of living cells and a bunch of living cells? Is it that cells which come from the vagina are holy? So it's just women who should never wash?
Clue: there is also one logical phalacy in this post; bonus points if you can find it and explain why it doesn't matter for
BTW: I do agree that medical (and for that matter all other) scinece is filled with ethical questions.
Dunno where I saw/read this, but an analysis of the top oscar winning and top grossing hollywood pictures all had this in common: a single writer and/or director, who frequently was one and the same person. They had creative controll of their movie and thus they were able to make brilliant movies. Just goes to show how broken the current hollywood, 'we'll re-write the re-write' system is. Wonder why hollywood isn't grossing so well teh past couple of years....must be the pirates! Arrr!
BULLSHIT.
If you really work outdoors, you want a tractor or a rangerover. Not an SUV. Plus the demographics show that a vast mayority (90%+) of SUV's are never used off-road at all (which isn't much of a surprise, as they drive like shit off road).
Sounds a bit like loser's hatred there. Fact is that a) Nuna's major sponsor was Nuon (an energy company) and b) there's quite some groundbreaking R&D went into it (like the aerodynamic testing which produced a car which actually harnessed sidewinds in the way that a sailboat does, materials choice in different parts [no, they didn't use all-composite material...that wouldn't be very smart use of strenght-to-weight-to-size-ratios]).
Sure, they had a lot of money, too...so what? They used that money to back up their research and bought and built a winning car...which was the object of the solar challenge. Couldn't beat them? Go find better sponsors and design/build a better car.
Read my comment again. Reuters, BBC and CNN. And I'm saying 'if you don't beleive me, go search them yourself' for the exact same reason why I can claim e=m x gamma(u) x c^2 and then say that if you want proof of it, go read some physics yourself. I know it's true, I've pointed out credible sources where these stories have been reported, but I can't be bothered to do your work for you.
Personally, I think the guy who wrote the article was a whiner who couldn't hack the math (as much as he thought he could...he was just deluding himself). What I do agree with is the course load, especially when you compare it to other studies. Engineering/science means a lot work. Much more than the libereal arts. So much so that I'd say the study should be extended by a year to reduce the load and allow for some extracurricular activities, or even a job. Because that part the article writer got right; you work your arse off for years and you end up with a not so high paying job with excelemnt chances of being laid off by that pansy-ass liberal arts mayor who is now managing you.
And no matter what the MBA's of the world say; managing can be taught, and it's much easier than a physics degree.
Well, if it's any consolation, I am :)
Ha. Haha. How droll. However, I can produce links to credible news sources for all acts comitted here (and I'm not talking right/left wing websites...I'm talking Reuters, BBC and (shudder) CNN). Pretty much spells fact in my book.
It's not inconcievable that certain things I say are wrong. It's just inconcievable that the things in my post above all happened, are reported by credible news sources and the american people don't seem to care. Even more inconcievable is some idiot saying that these things didn't happen, when a quick keyword search at the Reuters/BBC sites will prove me right.
So before you reply, do me a favour. Take the five minutes to do so for each fact I just stated above. If you come across anything (FROM A CREDIBLE SOURCE!) which contradicts me, PLEASE let me know, and I will change my mind/attitude and tell others what you have taught me.
I'm just afraid that you won't find anything which doesn'tdepend on far-rightwing websites who don't properly source their news. But please prove me wrong.
Sure...if you don't even count anymore those who have stopped looking for work after they've tried and have lost their benefits...then you get some nice figures. Problem is, they then stop matching reality. Google this; it really is true: US unemployment figures don't count the millions who have run out of benefits.
:)]).
And I will argue about quality of life; people who work two or three shit-paying jobs to try to make ends meet (like one in security, one at McDonalds; not uncommon in the US) are a) counted multiple times and b
) have a shit quality of life, working near the whole day...quite unlike the 36-40 hour work week usual in the EU (although most of my friends do tend to work 60-80 hour weeks, due to the fact that they have amazingly cool and wellpaying jobs [bastards