A few months ago, I was at my grandparent's house with my cousin's kids ( around 7 years old). She asked my grandpa if he would turn on the 'old computer' in his den so she could use it. She was referring to the typewriter.
Just because you're an uptight prude doesn't mean that another person is amoral. US television is incredibly violent, and no one complains that that will hurt children. But you show anything about sex, and people become afraid that that will turn children into raging nymphomaniacs.
Why are you so eager to push your agenda on others? If you think it's okay to show violence on TV -- in this case, actual violence, where grown men beat the living tar out of each other, and we witness injuries live -- why do you think you should win out over what the parent thinks is appropriate to show on TV?
Can we conclude that anything unreachable from our universe is not part of the universe? If so, can we conclude that the past is not part of our universe?
I have to disagree. People evolved to live in small, related, co-operative groups. These days most people live in large hostile cities surrounded by strangers. In order to keep society from breaking down into looting, riots, and revenge killings, the government has to constantly train people from kindergarten to stand in line, sign their name, show their papers, write checks/give their credit card numbers for the bills every month, do what the man in the suit/uniform says.
Now, you have the situation where a hostile stranger poses as a man in the uniform asking joe citizen to do what he's been trained all his life to -- show his papers, give his numbers, sign right here... are you surprised at the results?
Buddhist answer: the computer is the same in a series. I believe in the Buddhist tradition the question was is a 40 year old man the same as an 8 year old boy? Obivously not. But wasn't that man at one point an 8 year old boy? Buddhist philosophy argues against static, eternal things, and says instead everything is in flux, like a river or a flame. In what sense is a river the same river that was there a year ago? They are part of the same series.
OK, so you can print a complex organ. It's still not inside the body. If you take a look inside the body, there are a lot of intertwined systems. It would be exceedingly difficult to replace , for instance, your entire circulatory system if you had some kind of vein disease (or degeneration in general) that effected everything. Or a degenerative nerve condition that affected all your nerves. That surgery would take like a week, and would be extremely expensive and risky. If you screw up anywhere, that part of the body dies. If you lose an organ, I hope you have a new one pre-grown and ready to go in. Hey, in that case, you might as well replace everything below the neck.
Yes, I agree this will solve a lot of problems, such as organ replacement, like you say, but as far as immortaility, I'm still not convinced it's feasible. You have to have a way to replace things where they are. I think the only way to do it is to have the cells fix the things real-time, and that will take a lot of novel genetic and cellular tricks.
Ok, I just read over the article after I posted, and everyone one of his aging factors concern cells. Either too many, too old, the wrong kind, internal damage, etc. He says nothing of supercellular structure such as organs or tissues. So here's a theoretical problem: If you take all the individual cells that make up your veinous system, remove all the extra, damaged, and malignant ones, you are not guaranteed to have a group of cells in the shape of a blood vessel system. We share a highly specific pattern to move blood around our bodies, and I think cells are only capable of growing into that patten, not necessarily replacing bad sections.
I can't explain exactly why, but it boils down to something like this. We can keep a car running forever, or maintain a house indefinitely, but at some point someone decides the major overhauls aren't worth it.
Even if you replace every damaged cell, there are still supercellular structures (tissues, organs) that have to be maintained. You are probably going to need a lot of wholesale organ replacement. Living things have elvolved to grow their organs from small or large by multiplying cells in a certain pattern. I'm not sure that cell replacement can adequately maintain that pattern. If you have an old house and you replace each piece of wood as it rots out, small inacuracies will build up over time, and the whole structure will become misshapen, and you will have to replace the whole wall.
I guess the point is that living things were designed to grow, and by that I mean go from small to large, into adult form, and then die. Can maintenance really work? If you look at, say, the spiral pattern on a flower, I think it's fairly easy to get one cell to multiply into that pattern, but then to replace a single petal? A lot of our organs have that branching tree structure. I think it's easier to grow that than to maintain. I don't know if our DNA has a program to replace a section of artery, but it certainly has a program to grow it.
I remember from a radio interview a museum curator said "It's easier to destroy than to create, and it's easier to create than to maintain". I think it will be cheaper to make new people and let the old ones die than it will be to maintain everyone.
"RE: the "good ol' boy" thing, that's a show Bush puts on FOR the yokels. His dad's a rich New Englander and Bush went to a fancy prep school in the Northeast and then Yale- does anyone seriously think that he actually would have talked that way in College?"
I don't think he spoke that way in college, but I do think he probably spoke that way growing up -- in Texas. He probably learned it there naturally as a kid. I grew up in a suburb of Columbus and I learned to speak a kind of 'Ohio redneck'. I can do it at will, but I will also slip into it naturally when I'm around others who speak it natively. I never used it at OSU. So I think that's part of who he really is, rather than a show.
Funny you mentioned that. Jimmy Carter took accent lessons to lessen his Southern drawl when he ran for president.
As far as Bush vs. Johnson, when you combine speech impairment with Texas accent, 'yokel' comes to a lot of people's mind. I'm not talking about his recent press conference, but about the sound bites that we get from speeches. I'm a liberal, but I do think there is kind of a liberal elitism going on when people criticise Bush for how he speaks.
The thing about the Bushes are that they have a genetically based speech impedement. That doesn't mean that they aren't smart, but sometimes, borth Bush Sr. and Jr. will get their grammar mixed up, mispronounce words, etc. I hate it when people make fun of this, because it's something that they can't control -- like making fun of someone with a stutter. OTOH, if you are going to make a career out of being a politician, you should expect to do a lot of public speaking.
Also, Bush Jr. will use a Texas way of talking (both accent and phrases), which, to some people, make him sound like a dumb hillbilly. This is just plain bigotry. Anyone with a country or southern accent is looked upon as a backwoods moron, when in reality there is an 'upper-class' stigma given to Eastern and midwestern accents.
But, as president, Bush isn't cut out for the job. His administration has consistently shown it is unwilling to listen to expertise and criticism. The administration is in a bubble. This is clearly evident in the Iraq war -- all the predictions of the neocons have turned out to be false (welcomed with flowers and candy, instant democracy), whereas all the experts (scholars, diplomats, millitary personnel) where right on. We went in without a plan for after the war, and it clearly shows. Combined with the Bush administration being one of the most secretive in history, with almost the entire media lined up behind them (including illegally apid 'journalists'), the US will be feeling the pain from this administration for years.
It's no surprise that truly conservative Republicans are saying behind the scenes that they don't support this whacked out president.
"If a woman exposes herself to a man she gets whatever she wants!"
Or sometimes more than she wants, or something totally different than what she wanted. Sometimes a woman gets something she doesn't want without even exposing herself.
If you're out on the road, the officer wants to stop you, and the police 'tag' your car with some kind of tracking device (whether GPS, etc) to track and stop you instead of risking a high speed chase, or pursuing a fleeing suspect, I'm for it.
However, if the police have to come onto private premises in order to tag your car, I say they need a warrant.
Well, I read on another thread that the Malicious Software Detection Program thinks VNC is heinous. And remember, the only remote access app you are allowed to use on WinXP is Remote Desktop.
Actually, this might be seriously unfunny in the near future. If MS takes a hardline against open source or GPL licensed stuff, or make they claim that any particular app in using infringing code, a lot of slashdotters might be saying "I told you so".
Well, I wouldn't say that exactly. Even if you're strictly 'tracing', there is still a lot of artistic judgement as to where exactly to put the line, what color to use, whether to have a line or a fade, how much to change between each frame etc.
Check out Waking Life. Different artists did each different section of the movie. There is considerable differences in styles, and for a lot of the movie artists took a lot of leeway in adding animation to the filmography.
Slashdot Mirror
A few months ago, I was at my grandparent's house with my cousin's kids ( around 7 years old). She asked my grandpa if he would turn on the 'old computer' in his den so she could use it. She was referring to the typewriter.
Why are you so eager to push your agenda on others? If you think it's okay to show violence on TV -- in this case, actual violence, where grown men beat the living tar out of each other, and we witness injuries live -- why do you think you should win out over what the parent thinks is appropriate to show on TV?
... I can finally order 'personal' leatherbound books?
Can we conclude that anything unreachable from our universe is not part of the universe? If so, can we conclude that the past is not part of our universe?
Now, you have the situation where a hostile stranger poses as a man in the uniform asking joe citizen to do what he's been trained all his life to -- show his papers, give his numbers, sign right here... are you surprised at the results?
Buddhist answer: the computer is the same in a series. I believe in the Buddhist tradition the question was is a 40 year old man the same as an 8 year old boy? Obivously not. But wasn't that man at one point an 8 year old boy? Buddhist philosophy argues against static, eternal things, and says instead everything is in flux, like a river or a flame. In what sense is a river the same river that was there a year ago? They are part of the same series.
I say the best route to immortaility is sperm or ova. I would rather have a different organ of mine preserved for all time.
Yes, I concede. I see your pretty and raise you: very cool.
Yes, I agree this will solve a lot of problems, such as organ replacement, like you say, but as far as immortaility, I'm still not convinced it's feasible. You have to have a way to replace things where they are. I think the only way to do it is to have the cells fix the things real-time, and that will take a lot of novel genetic and cellular tricks.
Hm. Then you have an ongoing series of expensive and dangerous organ replacement surgeries.
Ok, I just read over the article after I posted, and everyone one of his aging factors concern cells. Either too many, too old, the wrong kind, internal damage, etc. He says nothing of supercellular structure such as organs or tissues. So here's a theoretical problem: If you take all the individual cells that make up your veinous system, remove all the extra, damaged, and malignant ones, you are not guaranteed to have a group of cells in the shape of a blood vessel system. We share a highly specific pattern to move blood around our bodies, and I think cells are only capable of growing into that patten, not necessarily replacing bad sections.
Even if you replace every damaged cell, there are still supercellular structures (tissues, organs) that have to be maintained. You are probably going to need a lot of wholesale organ replacement. Living things have elvolved to grow their organs from small or large by multiplying cells in a certain pattern. I'm not sure that cell replacement can adequately maintain that pattern. If you have an old house and you replace each piece of wood as it rots out, small inacuracies will build up over time, and the whole structure will become misshapen, and you will have to replace the whole wall.
I guess the point is that living things were designed to grow, and by that I mean go from small to large, into adult form, and then die. Can maintenance really work? If you look at, say, the spiral pattern on a flower, I think it's fairly easy to get one cell to multiply into that pattern, but then to replace a single petal? A lot of our organs have that branching tree structure. I think it's easier to grow that than to maintain. I don't know if our DNA has a program to replace a section of artery, but it certainly has a program to grow it.
I remember from a radio interview a museum curator said "It's easier to destroy than to create, and it's easier to create than to maintain". I think it will be cheaper to make new people and let the old ones die than it will be to maintain everyone.
Can't we stay away from these ad hominem attacks?
In the fact that it has never happened any other way in the history of the world.
Where is the basis for it in the Constitution.
Section. 8. Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
I am of the mind that private charities and businesses can handle this burden without a caretaker government.
So what? Where is your PROOF?!
I don't think he spoke that way in college, but I do think he probably spoke that way growing up -- in Texas. He probably learned it there naturally as a kid. I grew up in a suburb of Columbus and I learned to speak a kind of 'Ohio redneck'. I can do it at will, but I will also slip into it naturally when I'm around others who speak it natively. I never used it at OSU. So I think that's part of who he really is, rather than a show.
As far as Bush vs. Johnson, when you combine speech impairment with Texas accent, 'yokel' comes to a lot of people's mind. I'm not talking about his recent press conference, but about the sound bites that we get from speeches. I'm a liberal, but I do think there is kind of a liberal elitism going on when people criticise Bush for how he speaks.
Also, Bush Jr. will use a Texas way of talking (both accent and phrases), which, to some people, make him sound like a dumb hillbilly. This is just plain bigotry. Anyone with a country or southern accent is looked upon as a backwoods moron, when in reality there is an 'upper-class' stigma given to Eastern and midwestern accents.
But, as president, Bush isn't cut out for the job. His administration has consistently shown it is unwilling to listen to expertise and criticism. The administration is in a bubble. This is clearly evident in the Iraq war -- all the predictions of the neocons have turned out to be false (welcomed with flowers and candy, instant democracy), whereas all the experts (scholars, diplomats, millitary personnel) where right on. We went in without a plan for after the war, and it clearly shows. Combined with the Bush administration being one of the most secretive in history, with almost the entire media lined up behind them (including illegally apid 'journalists'), the US will be feeling the pain from this administration for years.
It's no surprise that truly conservative Republicans are saying behind the scenes that they don't support this whacked out president.
Send an atomic explosive device that will blow it into Earth's orbit, and mine it from there.
Or sometimes more than she wants, or something totally different than what she wanted. Sometimes a woman gets something she doesn't want without even exposing herself.
If you're out on the road, the officer wants to stop you, and the police 'tag' your car with some kind of tracking device (whether GPS, etc) to track and stop you instead of risking a high speed chase, or pursuing a fleeing suspect, I'm for it.
However, if the police have to come onto private premises in order to tag your car, I say they need a warrant.
Yes, 75,000 years to see it after you've died.
Well, even if it does happen, you won't know about it until 1 million years later.
Well, I read on another thread that the Malicious Software Detection Program thinks VNC is heinous. And remember, the only remote access app you are allowed to use on WinXP is Remote Desktop.
Actually, this might be seriously unfunny in the near future. If MS takes a hardline against open source or GPL licensed stuff, or make they claim that any particular app in using infringing code, a lot of slashdotters might be saying "I told you so".
Check out Waking Life. Different artists did each different section of the movie. There is considerable differences in styles, and for a lot of the movie artists took a lot of leeway in adding animation to the filmography.
In short, no, it's not a bunch of tracers.