Not that this is related, but talking about camera sensors....
On a digital camera it would be neat to have - accelerometer chips for 3D orientation, a tiny compass chip for absolute heading, and a GPS chip (or a bluetooth connection to one) for lat./long. and atomic time.
This way digital photos could be tagged with the exact direction and position they were shooting in. I think they are already tagged with exposure, zoom, focusing information.
With a architecture to shared such tagged photos, software could stitched similar photos together into larger pictures, do feature recognition, distance estimation, etc. Given enough time, you could capture a lot of features of the world.:)
> > Did I address the "it's a baby, not an offspring" comment? (Answer: no) > > Do I care about it being inappropriate? (Answer: no)
> You addressed my entire post, saying "your attack on him was wrong." You did not specify a particular portion of my response.... > So yes, you did address that portion of his comment, because it was part of my "attack" on him.
O, thou great believer in context, how is it your pride now blinds you to it!
- My original reply did NOT say "your attack on him was wrong". - My second reply is where I said: "You directly quoted him and replied. And your verbal attack on him was wrong."
Do you see the context yet?
> > Consider whether the US constitution talks about protecting the life of individual sperm cells? > I don't recall the constitution making any comment about embryos...
Don't take your eyes off the ball. Does the US constitution aim at protecting your *sperm* *cells*? . No? Then lay off the poor guy - he was right, and you and your strawman analogy were blazingly wrong.
To make it obvious again, here is the beginning of our conversation again:
Actually, when you phrase it that way, the moral imperative is clear. Life must always be protected under the law.
If a guy masturbates, should he be arrested for murder?
He's obviously talking about NOT DESTROYING AN *INDIVIDUAL* *HUMAN* LIFE.
Again:
He's obviously talking about NOT DESTROYING AN *INDIVIDUAL* *HUMAN* LIFE.
> But keep using that 'ol caps lock key. It's mighty persuasive. You're right !
You hold on to your "No shouting on the internet" attitude, I'll keep using the 'Shift' key for maximum effect. Remember - this is a public discussion. If you aren't amenable to logic, most other people are.
> > > the biggest barrier to human cloning is desire, > > > not technical abilty
> > Wrong. There are restrictions (and licenses) but the biggest barrier is technical ability.
Cloning that results in anything close to birthing a baby is technically very difficult.
As for this.... > http://www.globalchange.com/clonenews.htm [globalchange.com] I don't know the details, but if an egg cell can clone itself (eg: identical twins), I'm skeptical how important this breakthrough is. In fact, the same page you pointed me to says as much, further down:
"Dr Patrick Dixon, an author and expert in the ethics of human cloning, dismissed the idea that today's announcement marked a breakthrough.
He said: "Except in tissues like the brain, there are huge problems with rejection of these embryonic stem cells if they are introduced into adults.
"It is very difficult for them to grow properly and very difficult to control them," he said. "The idea that this offers a real breakthrough is based on a scientific nonsense.
> If you think that there are technical barriers which prevent > somatic transfer from successufully creating human clones > some time in the near future that could survive at least until, > say, a month after birth, then cite a valid scientific source. Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_ cloning#Risks_o f_growing_a_cloned_embryo_to_term However, the majority of scientists, including Ian Wilmut, who led the team that cloned Dolly the sheep at the Roslin Institute, claim that there are many further complications to reproductive human cloning in its current form. Aside from the ethical questions involved, the scientists claim that it is simply too risky.
> It will be awful hard for you to prove a negative > , and there's plenty of evidence that it would occur in the next 5 years... Hyuk. You just proved it for me -- that the ba
> Enough yourself. It's not a tortured justification.
Tortured without mercy, even as it groaned to be put out its misery.
> His "it's a baby, not an offspring" comment was > inappropriate in reference to a thread on biogenesis > and abiogenesis and the continuous nature of life. Earth to PsiPsiStar! Earth to PsiPsiStar! Come in PsiPsiStar!
Did I address the "it's a baby, not an offspring" comment? (Answer: no) Do I care about it being inappropriate? (Answer: no)
What do I care about? What do I think was inappropriate?
Answer: (reposting my post)
Actually, when you phrase it that way, the moral imperative is clear. Life must always be protected under the law.
If a guy masturbates, should he be arrested for murder?
He's obviously talking about NOT DESTROYING AN *INDIVIDUAL* *HUMAN* LIFE.
NOTE: EVERYTHING IS IN CONTEXT. YOU QUOTED HIM. I QUOTED BOTH OF YOU. NO INSERTIONS. Now, do you remember the other guy's post? See how he responds to the person who claimed the question of *when* life can be protected can be answered? Consider whether the US constitution talks about protecting the life of individual sperm cells? Is it STILL not GLARINGLY OBVIOUS to you that he is talking about NOT DESTROYING AN *INDIVIDUAL* *HUMAN* LIFE?
As I said. Enough!
> the biggest barrier to human cloning is desire, not technical abilty. Wrong. There are restrictions (and licenses) but the biggest barrier is technical ability.
> At what point would that cloned stem cell become human? Obviously when it is functionally equal to a human fertilized egg.
> It seems irrational to me to argue that it would be human before > it started to differentiate into the various adult cell types; nerves, muscle, etc > . at the very earliest, since before then it would be functionally equivalent > to another adult stem cells in the human body. Oh, would it really? And you know this how? If it is functionally equivalent to adult stem cells it is an ADULT STEM CELL If it is functionally equivalent to a fertilized human egg, it is a FERTILIZED HUMAN EGG. It may be both -- for eg: a fertilized human egg IS A TOTIPOTENT STEM CELL
> it would equate cells inside the body with individual human beings > because they are capable of becoming human beings. Yes: see, "fertilized human egg" above. I am a human. I am male. No one tells me "Oh, you're a male - you can't be human". Not even feminists.
> Putting an adult stem cell into a lab does not transform it into a human being. Of course.
> Similarly, you are not allowed to kill a twin as long as his other twin remains alive, > so the notion that death is the destruction of an entire genetic set wouldn't work > (identical twins being natural clones). Correct.
> The current legal standard is based on degree of differentiation of the cell towards > a self-sufficient individual rather than preservation of a certain unique set of cells. Yes. But by induction you can go back all the way to an egg - PRIOR to fertilization is the only safe place to say "Destroy this cell"
> This useful standard is being deliberatly blurred by people trying to > introduce their "life begins at conception" line.
> If this standard is adopted, it will inevitably increase the arbitrariness of the > law by creating a standard which, by its nature, cannot be applied uniformly > in all situations. Of course it can be. It's this "degree of differnetiation" nonsense that cannot be applied uniformly. And in fact is not applied uniformly. Standing in your corner - fools with consciences so seared that they cannot see anything wrong in partial-birthing a 8 month old unborn child, puncturing its neck, and sucking it's brains out.
Modified description then, of an *individual* *human* life:
"Consider this description: a distinct set of cells which, collectively, given only nutrients and time, will exhibit the characteristics you and I do"
Of course, that you and I are humans is axiomatic.
This would fit:
- you
- me
- a baby
- a fetus
- an embryo
- cloned embryos and fetuses
Since you value your life, you would extend the latter the same protection extended to you, when you were as weak as they are.
This description does not fit:
- cells excreted when we shit or spit
- stem cells lines cultured from aborted embryo body parts
- a transplanted cornea
- liver cells cultured from a donor, dead or alive
I have said: "Individual human life." The meaning of Individual here is "distinct" or "separate". It is meaning #2 specified here, and I have used it as an adjective that qualifies "human life".
A baby is an individual human life - plain and simple.
Quoting your first response:
> Without a sense of self I can't really be an individual > human bieng can I? I was rather more of a parasite than > anything else.
Since psychologists say young babies have no sense of self, this would permit killing of babies. As the other poster also pointed out, an unborn child is not any different from a baby.
Jesus Christ said "Do to others as you would have them do to you"
Remember you yourself have no sense of self when unconscious.
You, a baby, a fetus, an embryo -- all deserve the same protection by the virtue of being an "individual human life". NOT due to "sense of self" - a fluffy, ill-defined concept.
The fuck-off attitude is bad - I have experienced it too. The solution is to fix the attitude, not to impose music on others (as you point out below also).
To better notice people, one could use loose-fitting headphones (so you can hear ambient noise), or not listen to music at work at all.
> I'm not saying that imposing your music on others > is a good alternative, of course, but maybe they've > told him they don't mind as long as the volume is low enough.
Even if the boss Ok-ed it, the low volume level may still irritate some coworkers was my point - it's not fair to them.
Even if his boss told him, it's still irritating to co-workers - as i said, there is a level of irritation that occurs before someone is forced to glance over.
You directly quoted him and replied. And your verbal attack on him was wrong. > The Grandparent obviously wasn't, though, > and his thread determines the context for the conversation.
Enough! Tortured justifications don't make a wrong right.
> neither you nor the parent provide clear scientific guidelines > for "individual" or "human" which is relevant considering > conservative opposition to stem cell research.
I have no objections to stems cells per se, or even to human cloning. But I am concerned about protection of life in the process of extraction of these cells. Consider this description: a set of cells with DNA distinct from it's mother and it's father, that represents a distinct human being. This description fits:
- you
- me
- a fetus
- an embryo All deserve the same level of protection of life.
If stem cells could be obtained from a fetus in a pregnant woman, with absolutely no harm done to the fetus (and there was a great benefit to society in this being done) who could object to that?
> A stem cell line in the lab is like a human. I'd hesitate to call it that. Actually, it is NOT "like a human" at all. Rather, it is like this: if Nazi medical researchers in death camps murdered inmates and cultered their liver cells, the use of those cell lines for ongoing research, would be analogous to the situation today.
> A stem cell in your body is not. A stem cell in the body is just a cell.
> Leaving a child to die is neglect. Allowing an embryo in your > body to die 'naturally' is not. Or so the current legal standards run. And so they should.
> The simple fact is that most of our morality > is predicated on whether somthing is human or not, > and fails to address why humans get priveledges and animals don't. Because that's the way it works currently. But you, on the other hand, seem to be intent on lowering the treatment of unborn humans to the level of animals, instead of working toward the opposite.
> Unless, of course, you're using a talmudic standard > where animals take on rights as they contribute to society. Eh?
My position: It is fine for us to kill animals as long as it is done with a minimum of violence, and no malice or cruelty to the animal.
> But if an organism is created with a single human gene, is it human? > What about two human genes? What about if half of its genome is human. Oh! the mind-flex-challenge. No problem...
> Saying "Don't do it" is only going to work for so long. I'm not saying that. I'm saying "you can't do it" - you can't create a half-human, half-chimp living, breathing organism. It's too complex for you.
What you can do is introduce human cells, or parts thereof, in another animal. Like, say, a rat. But the animal is still non-human. That rat won't post on Slashdot. It is 100% rat, and no one would confuse it as human.
If something resembles a human, it deserves protection as a human.
> Eventually it will happen and we'll have to interact > with such creatures in some sort of moral context. Firstly: I don't think so. Secondly: Lets address EXISTING problems first, and worry about non-existent concerns later - during the hyperspace jump to sector 42.
> I'm trying to point out that those advocating "biblical" morality > (which doesn't even have any consistant biblical basis) (It is consistent - you don't understand it.) > are simply not using any kind of consistant standard, > and tolerating "death of a human life" in one case while > discouraging the same fate for the same life in another. Eh? Death of human life is always something not wished for. All I can say is don't be fooled by certain types of wolf-in-sheep clothing conservatives who love nobody except themselves and those who love them.
> > It has been always acceptable to, in cases of extremely serious il
That's no excuse for being obnoxious. Other people hold their belifes just as strongly as you hold yours, and have obviously given quite a bit more serious thought to them than you have.
Lets see, I happened to commit the crime of writing some sentences about the murder of unborn children in... shock horror.. IN CAPITALS! That makes me obnoxious.
In another century, you'd easily be a "Southern gentlemen" primly putting down someone upset about the appaling conditions of slaves in the Southern United States.
And yes, strength of belief has no bearing on whether something is right or wrong.
> It's the very difficulty of when a group of cells > becomes both individual and human that makes stem cell research > a diellema. Because all cells have human genes and are potentially > individual life, but not all cells are given the rights of human beings.
I just told you about the only safe position to take in these matters. If you can find a flaw in my logic, expose it, and teach me. Otherwise, suppress your pride and learn from me.
> > AN *INDIVIDUAL* *HUMAN* LIFE > Yes, they're living, human, and pretty individual if you ask me.
Well, but a sperm cell is not:
AN *INDIVIDUAL* *HUMAN* *LIFE*...in it's entirity, is it? After all, after some guy jerks off, most of him is still alive and not flushed down the drain, yes? So how come you don't understand this? Surprising.
> > Nope, that's the point at which you can first say, these cells belong > > to a different human being - distinct from the mother and the father.
> The problem here is that a sperm or ovum only have half the DNA of normal cells, > so they cannot be considered identical genetically to the parent. Uhhh, what has this got to do with anything? We already agree that both sperm and unfertilized ova can be destroyed.
The point is the fertilised ovum is an individual human life. It HAS got all the GENETIC characteristics of the baby that will develop from it.
> And if you consider that to be enough, the problem is that the sperm > or ovum still contains those 23 chromosomes of the parent when it > joins to make a zygote. So I still don't see some magical life starting > event here - just a series of stages that are all part of life. Nope. See above.
One word. (Score:0) by Solder Fumes (797270) Alter Relationship on Friday March 11, @06:58AM (#11902972)
Headphones.
Someone mod 'Solder Fumes' back up as 'Insightful' please.
To the original story poster: headphones are your answer. If co-workers can hear your music even faintly, it's not fair to them (unless you have the approval of everyone who can hear it).
There is a level of irritation before co-workers get bugged enough to "glance over" - don't impose it on your colleagues. Silence is better.
Firstly, see the other poster's insightful response about "an hour after your first breath...".
Secondly, you don't know what a baby senses.
Last, since when did "sense of self" become the arbiter of life?
What if an accident knocked you unconcious? At this point, you have... - no awareness of anything - no sense of self
Does that make it is fine for the paramedics who arrive to treat you to say: "Currently, he has no sense of self. Choice!", and then stab your neck and extract your vital organs for sale on the transplant market?
Of course not!
Then why would you DENY an unborn child the same protection?
Heck, the same conditions crop up in non-REM (non-dreaming) sleep also. Is it Ok to murder you when you're asleep... as long as your eyelids aren't fluttering?
> Thank you for yelling as we wouldn't have read otherwise. You're welcome. And that's right for quite a few people. This *is* a serious matter, after all.
Correction: OLD:/A world where the stronger mother can abort her newborn - for any reason./ NEW:/A world where the "stronger" mother can kill her unborn child - for any reason./
Actually, when you phrase it that way, the moral imperative is clear. Life must always be protected under the law.
If a guy masturbates, should he be arrested for murder?
He's obviously talking about NOT DESTROYING AN *INDIVIDUAL* *HUMAN* LIFE.
He's obviously not talking about eating fruit -- the death of non-human plant life. He is not talking about masturbation, or even spitting -- both actions by an individual that destroy some of their *own* cells.
So please don't be a jerk and purposely twist what this person is saying.
An embryo or foetus in it's mothers womb, or a birthed baby, is AN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN LIFE.
If you disagree, consider:
- YOU WERE ONCE ALL THREE - embryo, fetus, baby - BUT YOU ARE AN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEING TODAY. - AT WHICH POINT DID YOU BECOME AN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEING
(For arguments sake, consider it was when you took your first breath) - NOW GO BACK ONE HOUR FROM THAT POINT - IN WHICH WAY ARE YOU NOW LESS OF A DISTINCT INDIVIDUAL, LESS OF A HUMAN?
WORTHY OF MURDER? - KEEP GOING BACK SOME MORE...
If you are honest, you will see where this process leads -- that the only *safe* time to labels cells as not an individual human life is *before* the conception occurs.
If not, where is the arbitrary line in the sand that you draw?
The embryo and fetus in the mother's womb is A HUMAN LIFE, IT IS *NOT* HER BODY.
Even in cases of incest or rape, if conception has taken place, destruction of the pregnancy is the destruction of an individual human life - i.e. MURDER without just cause. Or do you think the son should pay for the crime of the father?
> Many embryos are spontaneously aborted... > can be preserved if doctors proscribe mandatory anti-aborfactants... > fail to take such medicaton be considered child abuse, murder or neglect?
No. It has been always acceptable to, in cases of extremely serious illness, to deny treatment other than nutrition and shelter and leave the future of the life in God's hands.
Or is the failure of a parent to approve the *forced* separation of conjoined twins, that would definitely kill one of them, approval for murder?
In the September 22 ruling, three Appeal Court judges ruled that the case came down to an issue of self-defence -- the right of the stronger twin to be released from a sister who would eventually kill them both. [CNN Article]
Welcome to this retrograde new world: where the "self-defense" of the "stronger" individual is the foundation of the law and the arbiter of life and death.
A world where the stronger mother can abort her newborn - for any reason.
So is it any wonder that we now begin to hear this: "Study: Newborn euthanasia underreported" [CNN Article]
People who forsake mercy should not expect it from God.
Slashdot Mirror
> > How exactly does Emporer Linux justify chargin $500
> Your business is to decide whether or not you want to pay for stuff.
It is his business also to ask how stuff justifies the gap between $3499 and $4000.
Thanks for that LoneCabbage.
Not that this is related, but talking about camera sensors....
:)
On a digital camera it would be neat to have - accelerometer chips for 3D orientation, a tiny compass chip for absolute heading, and a GPS chip (or a bluetooth connection to one) for lat./long. and atomic time.
This way digital photos could be tagged with the exact direction and position they were shooting in. I think they are already tagged with exposure, zoom, focusing information.
With a architecture to shared such tagged photos, software could stitched similar photos together into larger pictures, do feature recognition, distance estimation, etc. Given enough time, you could capture a lot of features of the world.
> > Do I care about it being inappropriate? (Answer: no)
> You addressed my entire post, saying "your attack on him was wrong." You did not specify a particular portion of my response.
> So yes, you did address that portion of his comment, because it was part of my "attack" on him.
O, thou great believer in context, how is it your pride now blinds you to it!
- My original reply did NOT say "your attack on him was wrong".
- My second reply is where I said:
"You directly quoted him and replied. And your verbal attack on him was wrong."
Do you see the context yet?
> > Consider whether the US constitution talks about protecting the life of individual sperm cells?
> I don't recall the constitution making any comment about embryos...
Don't take your eyes off the ball. Does the US constitution aim at protecting your *sperm* *cells*? . No? Then lay off the poor guy - he was right, and you and your strawman analogy were blazingly wrong.
To make it obvious again, here is the beginning of our conversation again:
Again:
> But keep using that 'ol caps lock key. It's mighty persuasive.
...
You're right !
You hold on to your "No shouting on the internet" attitude, I'll keep using the 'Shift' key for maximum effect.
Remember - this is a public discussion. If you aren't amenable to logic, most other people are.
> > > the biggest barrier to human cloning is desire,
> > > not technical abilty
> > Wrong. There are restrictions (and licenses) but the biggest barrier is technical ability.
Cloning that results in anything close to birthing a baby is technically very difficult.
As for this....
> http://www.globalchange.com/clonenews.htm [globalchange.com]
I don't know the details, but if an egg cell can clone itself (eg: identical twins), I'm skeptical how important this breakthrough is. In fact, the same page you pointed me to says as much, further down:
"Dr Patrick Dixon, an author and expert in the ethics of human cloning, dismissed the idea that today's announcement marked a breakthrough.
He said: "Except in tissues like the brain, there are huge problems with rejection of these embryonic stem cells if they are introduced into adults.
"It is very difficult for them to grow properly and very difficult to control them," he said. "The idea that this offers a real breakthrough is based on a scientific nonsense.
> If you think that there are technical barriers which prevent
> somatic transfer from successufully creating human clones
> some time in the near future that could survive at least until,
> say, a month after birth, then cite a valid scientific source.
Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_ cloning#Risks_o f_growing_a_cloned_embryo_to_term
However, the majority of scientists, including Ian Wilmut, who led the team that cloned Dolly the sheep at the Roslin Institute, claim that there are many further complications to reproductive human cloning in its current form. Aside from the ethical questions involved, the scientists claim that it is simply too risky.
> It will be awful hard for you to prove a negative
> , and there's plenty of evidence that it would occur in the next 5 years
Hyuk. You just proved it for me -- that the ba
OK.
Regards,
SC
Tortured without mercy, even as it groaned to be put out its misery.
> His "it's a baby, not an offspring" comment was
> inappropriate in reference to a thread on biogenesis
> and abiogenesis and the continuous nature of life.
Earth to PsiPsiStar! Earth to PsiPsiStar! Come in PsiPsiStar!
Did I address the "it's a baby, not an offspring" comment? (Answer: no)
Do I care about it being inappropriate? (Answer: no)
What do I care about? What do I think was inappropriate?
Answer: (reposting my post)
NOTE: EVERYTHING IS IN CONTEXT. YOU QUOTED HIM. I QUOTED BOTH OF YOU. NO INSERTIONS.
Now, do you remember the other guy's post? See how he responds to the person who claimed the question of *when* life can be protected can be answered? Consider whether the US constitution talks about protecting the life of individual sperm cells?
Is it STILL not GLARINGLY OBVIOUS to you that he is talking about NOT DESTROYING AN *INDIVIDUAL* *HUMAN* LIFE?
As I said. Enough!
> the biggest barrier to human cloning is desire, not technical abilty.
Wrong. There are restrictions (and licenses) but the biggest barrier is technical ability.
> At what point would that cloned stem cell become human?
Obviously when it is functionally equal to a human fertilized egg.
> It seems irrational to me to argue that it would be human before
> it started to differentiate into the various adult cell types; nerves, muscle, etc
> . at the very earliest, since before then it would be functionally equivalent
> to another adult stem cells in the human body.
Oh, would it really? And you know this how?
If it is functionally equivalent to adult stem cells it is an ADULT STEM CELL
If it is functionally equivalent to a fertilized human egg, it is a FERTILIZED HUMAN EGG.
It may be both -- for eg: a fertilized human egg IS A TOTIPOTENT STEM CELL
> it would equate cells inside the body with individual human beings
> because they are capable of becoming human beings.
Yes: see, "fertilized human egg" above.
I am a human. I am male. No one tells me "Oh, you're a male - you can't be human". Not even feminists.
> Putting an adult stem cell into a lab does not transform it into a human being.
Of course.
> Similarly, you are not allowed to kill a twin as long as his other twin remains alive,
> so the notion that death is the destruction of an entire genetic set wouldn't work
> (identical twins being natural clones).
Correct.
> The current legal standard is based on degree of differentiation of the cell towards
> a self-sufficient individual rather than preservation of a certain unique set of cells.
Yes. But by induction you can go back all the way to an egg - PRIOR to fertilization
is the only safe place to say "Destroy this cell"
> This useful standard is being deliberatly blurred by people trying to
> introduce their "life begins at conception" line.
> If this standard is adopted, it will inevitably increase the arbitrariness of the
> law by creating a standard which, by its nature, cannot be applied uniformly
> in all situations.
Of course it can be. It's this "degree of differnetiation" nonsense that cannot be applied uniformly.
And in fact is not applied uniformly. Standing in your corner - fools with consciences
so seared that they cannot see anything wrong in partial-birthing a 8 month old unborn
child, puncturing its neck, and sucking it's brains out.
> particularly undifferentiate
You have a valid objection.
Modified description then, of an *individual* *human* life:
"Consider this description: a distinct set of cells which, collectively, given only nutrients and time, will exhibit the characteristics you and I do"
Of course, that you and I are humans is axiomatic.
This would fit:
- you
- me
- a baby
- a fetus
- an embryo
- cloned embryos and fetuses
Since you value your life, you would extend the latter the same protection extended to you, when you were as weak as they are.
This description does not fit:
- cells excreted when we shit or spit
- stem cells lines cultured from aborted embryo body parts
- a transplanted cornea
- liver cells cultured from a donor, dead or alive
I have said: "Individual human life."
The meaning of Individual here is "distinct" or "separate". It is meaning #2 specified here, and I have used it as an adjective that qualifies "human life".
A baby is an individual human life - plain and simple.
Quoting your first response:
> Without a sense of self I can't really be an individual
> human bieng can I? I was rather more of a parasite than
> anything else.
Since psychologists say young babies have no sense of self, this would permit killing of babies. As the other poster also pointed out, an unborn child is not any different from a baby.
Jesus Christ said "Do to others as you would have them do to you"
Remember you yourself have no sense of self when unconscious.
You, a baby, a fetus, an embryo -- all deserve the same protection by the virtue of being an "individual human life". NOT due to "sense of self" - a fluffy, ill-defined concept.
Listen to your God-given conscience.
> That is not a node. A node is what that $100 card can control.
Aren't exactly the same Zigbee chips on the $100 card and the nodes?
(Wish you didn't post as an AC.)
If so, why should the SDIO card have an order of magnitude markup?
Are interface chips to SDIO $90 costlier than interface chips to a power line?
> The latest chips cost less than two dollars,
> meaning a whole node can be designed for much less than $10.
Currently, it's an order of magnitude above that.
This page from the website says the cards in this article will be "available by mid-March for under $100.".
The fuck-off attitude is bad - I have experienced it too. The solution is to fix the attitude, not to impose music on others (as you point out below also).
To better notice people, one could use loose-fitting headphones (so you can hear ambient noise), or not listen to music at work at all.
> I'm not saying that imposing your music on others
> is a good alternative, of course, but maybe they've
> told him they don't mind as long as the volume is low enough.
Even if the boss Ok-ed it, the low volume level may still irritate some coworkers was my point - it's not fair to them.
but the slashdot article makes no such claim.
Even if his boss told him, it's still irritating to co-workers - as i said, there is a level of irritation that occurs before someone is forced to glance over.
Dude,
You directly quoted him and replied. And your verbal attack on him was wrong.
> The Grandparent obviously wasn't, though,
> and his thread determines the context for the conversation.
Enough! Tortured justifications don't make a wrong right.
> neither you nor the parent provide clear scientific guidelines
> for "individual" or "human" which is relevant considering
> conservative opposition to stem cell research.
I have no objections to stems cells per se, or even to human cloning. But I am concerned about protection of life in the process of extraction of these cells. Consider this description: a set of cells with DNA distinct from it's mother and it's father, that represents a distinct human being. This description fits:
- you
- me
- a fetus
- an embryo
All deserve the same level of protection of life.
If stem cells could be obtained from a fetus in a pregnant woman, with absolutely no harm done to the fetus (and there was a great benefit to society in this being done) who could object to that?
> A stem cell line in the lab is like a human.
I'd hesitate to call it that. Actually, it is NOT "like a human" at all. Rather, it is like this: if Nazi medical researchers in death camps murdered inmates and cultered their liver cells, the use of those cell lines for ongoing research, would be analogous to the situation today.
> A stem cell in your body is not.
A stem cell in the body is just a cell.
> Leaving a child to die is neglect. Allowing an embryo in your
> body to die 'naturally' is not. Or so the current legal standards run.
And so they should.
> The simple fact is that most of our morality
> is predicated on whether somthing is human or not,
> and fails to address why humans get priveledges and animals don't.
Because that's the way it works currently. But you, on the other hand, seem to be intent on lowering the treatment of unborn humans to the level of animals, instead of working toward the opposite.
> Unless, of course, you're using a talmudic standard
> where animals take on rights as they contribute to society.
Eh?
My position: It is fine for us to kill animals as long as it is done with a minimum of violence, and no malice or cruelty to the animal.
> But if an organism is created with a single human gene, is it human?
> What about two human genes? What about if half of its genome is human.
Oh! the mind-flex-challenge. No problem...
> Saying "Don't do it" is only going to work for so long.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying "you can't do it" - you can't create a half-human, half-chimp living, breathing organism. It's too complex for you.
What you can do is introduce human cells, or parts thereof, in another animal. Like, say, a rat. But the animal is still non-human. That rat won't post on Slashdot. It is 100% rat, and no one would confuse it as human.
If something resembles a human, it deserves protection as a human.
> Eventually it will happen and we'll have to interact
> with such creatures in some sort of moral context.
Firstly: I don't think so.
Secondly: Lets address EXISTING problems first, and worry about non-existent concerns later - during the hyperspace jump to sector 42.
> I'm trying to point out that those advocating "biblical" morality
> (which doesn't even have any consistant biblical basis)
(It is consistent - you don't understand it.)
> are simply not using any kind of consistant standard,
> and tolerating "death of a human life" in one case while
> discouraging the same fate for the same life in another.
Eh? Death of human life is always something not wished for. All I can say is don't be fooled by certain types of wolf-in-sheep clothing conservatives who love nobody except themselves and those who love them.
> > It has been always acceptable to, in cases of extremely serious il
You are wrong again.
Most psycholigists say that a young baby has no sense of self.
But everybody sane would agree that a baby is an individual human being.
In another century, you'd easily be a "Southern gentlemen" primly putting down someone upset about the appaling conditions of slaves in the Southern United States.
And yes, strength of belief has no bearing on whether something is right or wrong.
> It's the very difficulty of when a group of cells
> becomes both individual and human that makes stem cell research
> a diellema. Because all cells have human genes and are potentially
> individual life, but not all cells are given the rights of human beings.
I just told you about the only safe position to take in these matters. If you can find a flaw in my logic, expose it, and teach me. Otherwise, suppress your pride and learn from me.
> > AN *INDIVIDUAL* *HUMAN* LIFE
...in it's entirity, is it? After all, after some guy jerks off, most of him is still alive and not flushed down the drain, yes? So how come you don't understand this? Surprising.
> Yes, they're living, human, and pretty individual if you ask me.
Well, but a sperm cell is not:
AN *INDIVIDUAL* *HUMAN* *LIFE*
> > Nope, that's the point at which you can first say, these cells belong
> > to a different human being - distinct from the mother and the father.
> The problem here is that a sperm or ovum only have half the DNA of normal cells,
> so they cannot be considered identical genetically to the parent.
Uhhh, what has this got to do with anything? We already agree that both sperm and unfertilized ova can be destroyed.
The point is the fertilised ovum is an individual human life. It HAS got all the GENETIC characteristics of the baby that will develop from it.
> And if you consider that to be enough, the problem is that the sperm
> or ovum still contains those 23 chromosomes of the parent when it
> joins to make a zygote. So I still don't see some magical life starting
> event here - just a series of stages that are all part of life.
Nope. See above.
To the original story poster: headphones are your answer. If co-workers can hear your music even faintly, it's not fair to them (unless you have the approval of everyone who can hear it).
There is a level of irritation before co-workers get bugged enough to "glance over" - don't impose it on your colleagues. Silence is better.
Firstly, see the other poster's insightful response about "an hour after your first breath...".
... as long as your eyelids aren't fluttering?
Secondly, you don't know what a baby senses.
Last, since when did "sense of self" become the arbiter of life?
What if an accident knocked you unconcious? At this point, you have...
- no awareness of anything
- no sense of self
Does that make it is fine for the paramedics who arrive to treat you to say:
"Currently, he has no sense of self. Choice!", and then stab your neck and extract your vital organs for sale on the transplant market?
Of course not!
Then why would you DENY an unborn child the same protection?
Heck, the same conditions crop up in non-REM (non-dreaming) sleep also. Is it Ok to murder you when you're asleep
Answer your conscience.
> Because we *are* morons.
*No*
> Thank you for yelling as we wouldn't have read otherwise.
You're welcome. And that's right for quite a few people. This *is* a serious matter, after all.
> What about the sperm and ovum? They're living individual human cells too.
Destroying them is fine.
Please don't be careless in your thinking. I said:
AN *INDIVIDUAL* *HUMAN* LIFE
> And realise that your decision to draw the line at conception
> is just as arbitrary as anyone else's - life doesn't "begin" anywhere.
Nope, that's the point at which you can first say, these cells belong to a different human being - distinct from the mother and the father.
Correction: /A world where the stronger mother can abort her newborn - for any reason./ /A world where the "stronger" mother can kill her unborn child - for any reason./
OLD:
NEW:
He's obviously talking about NOT DESTROYING AN *INDIVIDUAL* *HUMAN* LIFE.
He's obviously not talking about eating fruit -- the death of non-human plant life.
He is not talking about masturbation, or even spitting -- both actions by an individual that destroy some of their *own* cells.
So please don't be a jerk and purposely twist what this person is saying.
An embryo or foetus in it's mothers womb, or a birthed baby, is AN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN LIFE.
If you disagree, consider:
- YOU WERE ONCE ALL THREE - embryo, fetus, baby
- BUT YOU ARE AN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEING TODAY.
- AT WHICH POINT DID YOU BECOME AN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEING
(For arguments sake, consider it was when you took your first breath)
- NOW GO BACK ONE HOUR FROM THAT POINT
- IN WHICH WAY ARE YOU NOW LESS OF A DISTINCT INDIVIDUAL, LESS OF A HUMAN?
WORTHY OF MURDER?
- KEEP GOING BACK SOME MORE...
If you are honest, you will see where this process leads -- that the only *safe* time to labels cells as not an individual human life is *before* the conception occurs.
If not, where is the arbitrary line in the sand that you draw?
The embryo and fetus in the mother's womb is A HUMAN LIFE, IT IS *NOT* HER BODY.
Even in cases of incest or rape, if conception has taken place, destruction of the pregnancy is the destruction of an individual human life - i.e. MURDER without just cause. Or do you think the son should pay for the crime of the father?
> Many embryos are spontaneously aborted
> can be preserved if doctors proscribe mandatory anti-aborfactants
> fail to take such medicaton be considered child abuse, murder or neglect?
No. It has been always acceptable to, in cases of extremely serious illness, to deny treatment other than nutrition and shelter and leave the future of the life in God's hands.
Or is the failure of a parent to approve the *forced* separation of conjoined twins, that would definitely kill one of them, approval for murder?
In the September 22 ruling, three Appeal Court judges ruled that the case came down to an issue of self-defence -- the right of the stronger twin to be released from a sister who would eventually kill them both.
[CNN Article]
Welcome to this retrograde new world: where the "self-defense" of the "stronger" individual is the foundation of the law and the arbiter of life and death.
A world where the stronger mother can abort her newborn - for any reason.
So is it any wonder that we now begin to hear this: "Study: Newborn euthanasia underreported"
[CNN Article]
People who forsake mercy should not expect it from God.
Reasons to believe what God said.
:D
Thanks for the note.
Christ.
You only reinforced his point