"They are very different states of mind, and that's why soldiers aren't police and police aren't soldiers. (And that's why we won the war but are losing the occupation)."
and so if you filled the streets of Iraq with (gun-toting) American cops it would be any better?
It is, however, difficult to say whether trait selection by parents really is eugenics. My first reaction is yes, but look more closely at the definition;
"The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding"
The words "improvement" and "controlled" don't work with my initial reaction.
If individuals select traits of their offspring according to local social and economic values that probably doesn't count as 'controlled' (unless the social and economic values are imposed in a controlled way but thats tinfoil hat stuff).
Also, since its undirected (aside from the local social and economic factors) its *extremely* unlikely to result in 'improvement' (rather, the reverse).
"Philosophically speaking, what right does one individual (the State) have to *force* another individual (me) never to choose the gender of my child?"
Because if you are going to have a eugenics programme then its definitely best with central control where proper statistical and strategic planning can be done.
Otherwise, if the individual members of society get to make eugenics decisions in an ad-hoc way, you are eventually going to have an extremely screwed up society. Yes, even more than it is already.
I am not a bioweapons expert, but it seems a little far fetched that the high-tech weaponised agent used in the recent 'anthrax attacks' dates from pre-1969.
Also, from the article, see ref [80];
"In 1969, President Nixon disestablished offensive studies including the destruction of all stockpiles of agents and munitions."
sorry I wasn't clear enough; I wasn't talking about the targets of the 'anthrax attacks'.
I was talking about the target for which the US *military* developed this weaponised anthrax.
This was more than just anthrax spores; it was very sophisticated. It had been carefuly and thoughtfuly and *expensively* engineered as a weapon.
You don't develop and then *build* a weapon unless you can envision a potential use for it somewhere down the line.
(My personal 'conspiracy' theory is North Korea because the US military could never ever, not in a million million years hold off a conventional attack by the North on the South without using NBC weaponry. But thats *just* a theory and not a scientific theory like evolution:)
Re:In my land of the free...
on
Contrabandwidth
·
· Score: 1
Well they've already impurified the rainwater, now they have full control over your formerly-pure bodily essences and they didn't even need to use a woman to do it!
Except, to the best of my knowledge, the USA has repeatedly denied producing or intending to use bio weapons. IIRC, the USA is signatory to the appropriate treaties.
One thing that the anthrax attacks succeeded in doing was demonstrating to the world that the USA has been developing an *offensive* bio warfare capability.
What this does is to let the world know that anything that any government or military in the USA might *say* cannot possibly be believed, not if you value your life.
Its just like Eric Cartman realises in one Southpark episode; a nation built on saying one thing and doing another.
The entire military and political structure in the USA needs to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch before any nation (except the most foolish like the UK and Israel) would ever trust them again.
"The stuff used was US dot mil brand biological war prepped cooties."
Since it was prepared in military labs in the USA, I'd kinda like to know who the *intended* target of these 'cooties' was supposed to be.
I mean you don't go to all the trouble of preparing such an effective and well-developed agent without a potential use in mind; that stuff was high tech (they had trouble getting the spores to stick to the microscope slides).
"That would be a great example, except that methadone is addictive. The reason it is given to heroin addicts is that it doesn't get them high. It's unclear to me exactly why that is considered an improvement."
Inline skates can be dangerous like that too; to a driver waiting to pull out from a side street, you just look like someone standing in the road... they don't 'see' that you are actually moving toward them.
So they pull out and hilarity ensues (as long as you have decent gear on).
"By the time I started playing (1979), it has already started the shift to being a game of imagination"
Suddenly, perhaps late 70's the price of the metal figures went through the roof.
I'd become used to buying a handful every week at (in the UK) 25p each! Then one week they were suddenly somewhere like 5 pounds (or more) each.
Perhaps thats what drove it more into the mind; I know that a lot of players rarely even bothered buying minatures after the price rise. Or used plastic toy soldier figures as substitutes.
(Supposedly there was something about the changing price of the metal but it did coincide with increased popularity of the games so one can draw ones own conclusions)
"and not having any physical media on which to store our data sounds good, right up until the first datacenter fire that loses me last week's data storage."
Not if its RAID-ed across the 'net.
It doesn't have to be stored in one single place. You could have clusters of servers across the internet and any, say 4, of which can give you your data.
Given enough redundant servers and its safe until the Big One.
Privacy?
You have your private key locally, don't you?
The datastream could be encrypted right to the point where your viewing whatsit has your keyring plugged into it. Or your finger, or whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
"They are very different states of mind, and that's why soldiers aren't police and police aren't soldiers. (And that's why we won the war but are losing the occupation)."
and so if you filled the streets of Iraq with (gun-toting) American cops it would be any better?
I think that noone would notice a difference.
It is, however, difficult to say whether trait selection by parents really is eugenics. My first reaction is yes, but look more closely at the definition;
"The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding"
The words "improvement" and "controlled" don't work with my initial reaction.
If individuals select traits of their offspring according to local social and economic values that probably doesn't count as 'controlled' (unless the social and economic values are imposed in a controlled way but thats tinfoil hat stuff).
Also, since its undirected (aside from the local social and economic factors) its *extremely* unlikely to result in 'improvement' (rather, the reverse).
"Philosophically speaking, what right does one individual (the State) have to *force* another individual (me) never to choose the gender of my child?"
Because if you are going to have a eugenics programme then its definitely best with central control where proper statistical and strategic planning can be done.
Otherwise, if the individual members of society get to make eugenics decisions in an ad-hoc way, you are eventually going to have an extremely screwed up society. Yes, even more than it is already.
Next they'll be letting people off of collecting child porn who claim that it was 'for research'...
:)
The phrase 'yeah, right' comes to mind.
I am not a bioweapons expert, but it seems a little far fetched that the high-tech weaponised agent used in the recent 'anthrax attacks' dates from pre-1969.
Also, from the article, see ref [80];
"In 1969, President Nixon disestablished offensive studies including the destruction of all stockpiles of agents and munitions."
Nixon? Come on.
sorry I wasn't clear enough; I wasn't talking about the targets of the 'anthrax attacks'.
:)
I was talking about the target for which the US *military* developed this weaponised anthrax.
This was more than just anthrax spores; it was very sophisticated. It had been carefuly and thoughtfuly and *expensively* engineered as a weapon.
You don't develop and then *build* a weapon unless you can envision a potential use for it somewhere down the line.
(My personal 'conspiracy' theory is North Korea because the US military could never ever, not in a million million years hold off a conventional attack by the North on the South without using NBC weaponry. But thats *just* a theory and not a scientific theory like evolution
Well they've already impurified the rainwater, now they have full control over your formerly-pure bodily essences and they didn't even need to use a woman to do it!
;)
Except, to the best of my knowledge, the USA has repeatedly denied producing or intending to use bio weapons. IIRC, the USA is signatory to the appropriate treaties.
One thing that the anthrax attacks succeeded in doing was demonstrating to the world that the USA has been developing an *offensive* bio warfare capability.
What this does is to let the world know that anything that any government or military in the USA might *say* cannot possibly be believed, not if you value your life.
Its just like Eric Cartman realises in one Southpark episode; a nation built on saying one thing and doing another.
The entire military and political structure in the USA needs to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch before any nation (except the most foolish like the UK and Israel) would ever trust them again.
"The stuff used was US dot mil brand biological war prepped cooties."
Since it was prepared in military labs in the USA, I'd kinda like to know who the *intended* target of these 'cooties' was supposed to be.
I mean you don't go to all the trouble of preparing such an effective and well-developed agent without a potential use in mind; that stuff was high tech (they had trouble getting the spores to stick to the microscope slides).
"If Shoe-bomber had succeeded we wouldn't have a clue how the plane went down other then an explosion in the passenger compartment."
If 'Shoe-bomber' had succeeded, we might well = be wondering how someone managed to detonate a block of plastic explosive using a *match*.
"Your original comment"
:-/
I am terribly sorry, I butted into someone elses argument. I will leave you to it.
maybe the cost/benefit ratio might possibly be higher for placebos?
I mean if placebos cost $0.00 and the medicine cost $0.01 then the placebo only has to be minutely effective to be cost effective?
The lives saved to price ratio will always be better for the placebo, wouldn't it?
What sort of resources do you need in order to create the appropriate mental state?
Little more than a working brain, really.
What sort of resources do you need in order to provide the appropriate western medicine?
Massive refineries and oil tankers and wow just masses of expensive *stuff*.
Did that help?
Ok but if the placebo effect *worked* what?
Placebos would become controlled substances?
You'd have to get FDA approval and years of clinical tests before being able to release a new placebo?
War on placebos?
"That would be a great example, except that methadone is addictive. The reason it is given to heroin addicts is that it doesn't get them high. It's unclear to me exactly why that is considered an improvement."
IIRC it was invented by the Nazis.
Need we say more?
Inline skates can be dangerous like that too; to a driver waiting to pull out from a side street, you just look like someone standing in the road... they don't 'see' that you are actually moving toward them.
So they pull out and hilarity ensues (as long as you have decent gear on).
In case of sonic attack, use your wheels, it is what they are for.
If wheels are not available metal, not organic, limbs should be used whenever possible.
Remember, survival means every man for himself.
You can help noone else.
Do not panic.
(and if anyone recognises that reference, I'll put them on my 'friends' list).
"although the sushi-dispensing robots did have a few stock phrases and voice recognition"
I bet that the 'used womens panties' vending machine would be the one with the most interesting conversation...
Yeah, but I bet Microsoft has a *patent* on tabbed browsing.
"By the time I started playing (1979), it has already started the shift to being a game of imagination"
Suddenly, perhaps late 70's the price of the metal figures went through the roof.
I'd become used to buying a handful every week at (in the UK) 25p each! Then one week they were suddenly somewhere like 5 pounds (or more) each.
Perhaps thats what drove it more into the mind; I know that a lot of players rarely even bothered buying minatures after the price rise. Or used plastic toy soldier figures as substitutes.
(Supposedly there was something about the changing price of the metal but it did coincide with increased popularity of the games so one can draw ones own conclusions)
Something is eating the dust?
"You had better stop worrying and learn to love the bomb, then!"
But first we will need many large-breasted women.
wireless?
same applies to physical security.
one can come up with paranoid scenarios to make any security measures seem pointless.
"and not having any physical media on which to store our data sounds good, right up until the first datacenter fire that loses me last week's data storage."
Not if its RAID-ed across the 'net.
It doesn't have to be stored in one single place.
You could have clusters of servers across the internet and any, say 4, of which can give you your data.
Given enough redundant servers and its safe until the Big One.
Privacy?
You have your private key locally, don't you?
The datastream could be encrypted right to the point where your viewing whatsit has your keyring plugged into it. Or your finger, or whatever.