Take an already poor and inconsistent audio experience... for literally any consumer paying the slightest attention, and make it even more poor and inconsistent!
There are lots of jobs that still can't be done remotely.... but the context here was high tech jobs. I'm sure more than a couple exceptions could be found among high tech jobs as well but generally building large machinery and doing electrical wiring are trade skills not high tech. You can't phone in plumbing work either.
"and mobility -- a worker's willingness to uproot their life for a job in a new place -- has declined. "
Why is this even a factor? Very few high tech positions have any need for a worker to ever be physically present... even fewer if you have a few less skilled individuals to function as hands.
"I suppose the "unused potential" option could still be done if yields were bad enough - e.g. make every core with 5 adders under the assumption that one would probably fail, and then only discard those where more than one failed, and disable the perfectly functional "extra" adder on those where it didn't fail. It seems like that could quite rapidly get excessive though: you'd have to build in enough redundancy so that a failure in any one functional unit could be replaced - easily adding a double-digit percentage cost increase to the production of every CPU. And of course, the largest most expensive functional units are also going to be the most likely to contain a malfunctioning transistor though perhaps, if such units comprise a large enough percentage of the total core cost, you simply don't put in redundancy for "major functions", and just treat any failure in them as a whole-core failure"
Basically you've got the idea. It depends on the chip in question and how it is built. We are talking about trillions of transistors, a single transistor failing causes... it depends on which transistor and what "fail" means, it isn't a binary proposition in many cases it is a question of bit error tolerance. The places most likely to have a failure aren't based purely on transition count either with every transistor having an equal probability of failure, it depends on the design and what is causing the failure because while your logical design is digital the actual exposure is analogue, certain portions of your exposure are going to be more likely to fail than others giving a place to target redundancy, additionally certain parts of your design will experience greater heat, capacitance, and other issues arising in bit errors.
Seems unlikely you will get cats to eat monkey poop... you can however easily get dogs to eat cat poop (have to fight to keep em out of it in fact) or even their own poop and so you could make triple dog distilled cat poop diamonds...
Sure but it is quite possible that overpopulation is a pressure resulting in increased rates of sexual preference that is incompatible with producing offspring. There are mechanisms known to alter similar things in plants.
Not quite, as a company goes public or goes through its rounds of capital venture the executive leadership gets replaced with people from the ranks of the upper class.
" I really don't get the final outcome it is meant to achieve."
That's easy, funding for climatologists and environmental related organizations. I'm not saying there is no climate change but remember, climate science has been predicting disaster after disaster from all sorts of things since the 70's and none of these disasters have come to pass. When it comes to our climate and environment there is as much doom and gloom being peddled all the time as from televangelists.
Not all science is equal, there are certain areas where there is more bias and political influence at play than others.
Which would be stalking... if you were doing it without some sort of legal relationship that gives a party the legal right to that information or even to authorize others to it like say an ISP agreement or a LEGAL MARRIAGE.
Remember a few years back DOD funding resulted in a process that let researchers extract an image someone had seen from their visual cortex? Your spouse can consent on your behalf to have that procedure done and see the results.
How is this any different than hiring a private investigator? People lie and break commitments, no amount of blind trust is going to change that nobody deserves blind trust and that when someone breaks that trust the other party has a right to know and they deserve to face the consequences.
But forget cheating for a moment. What is the harm in real stalking? There actually isn't any, it's just creepy. All the rest of the justifications on making such activity illegal revolve around slippery slope fallacies but really its freaking creepy. But what is creepy about your spouse being able to locate you or your phone? If there is some kind of emergency who is the person you are supposed to trust to make the call on whether reaching you is more important than your privacy in that moment and needs to be able to act on it. Your spouse. Your cell phone provider already has malware shipped with your phone that includes these capabilities, they can and at times do all the things you've listed above. You risk the horny entry level AT&T guy watching you in the dressing room for the sake of being able to take pictures with animal faces replacing your friends, did you somehow think marriage wasn't consenting to share data to a larger degree than the click-through on FB?
Seriously, if your spouse hearing something you are saying on a call, seeing you changing, or anything you might say in an email or social media message, or being able to see where you are gives you the creeps you should probably be married to someone you trust and who isn't so creepy.
That person who keeps his partner a prisoner... one in hundreds of millions, partners dramatizing situations to the point where they sound like they are comparable to keeping a spouse locked up in a mountain cabin or a basement dungeon more like 1 in 20. Now take a moment to filter anytime you consider if something which is creepy or wrong should be illegal consider whether you'd rather have it happen than be locked in that basement dungeon for years because that is what you are literally saying should be done to the person who did that wrong thing.
Giving up the right to sex without the consent of the person you are marrying is one absolute and universal thing that marriage absolutely includes. That consent is required even if the sex doesn't involve them. Just because someone doesn't own you doesn't mean they don't have rights or that you can do anything you want without consequences. If you violate that agreement they have a right to know and for that information to be disclosed in a divorce. Of course if you are at the point where you are willing to have sex your partner doesn't consent to it baffles me why you aren't getting divorced already since that is pretty much the only thing marriage is, the ultimate level of commitment not to have sex your partner doesn't consent to.
So you have two modes, absolute blind trust and bail at the first sign of anything that manages to wiggle through it? Your spouse is human, humans lie, humans do selfish things, humans make mistakes.
Your spouse doesn't need to know your every thought or action but if there is something you are making available for literally any other third party (network provider, government, friend, etc) and you don't think marrying a person implicitly and automatically amounts to granting consent to that plus more you'd never share with another party it's you who should probably just get a divorce.
There are very important and obvious reasons for that, not the least of which is if you are unconscious your partner has the right to give access to all that information to someone else and also make choices like whether or not a doctor should do something that will kill you if you've eaten X or been exposed to Y in the past 24hrs.
There are paranoid partners out there but having a doubt or suspicion in an innately fallible thing isn't the issue. Not seeing your partner as someone you ultimately trust is a marriage killer. I might write something in a message I'd rather my wife not see and I'd be annoyed if she were looking in my messages with out some sort of reason but of course she has the right to look at them without legal consequences. Your spouse can give consent to a law enforcement officer to search your possessions and information waiving your right to privacy but you think they shouldn't be legally entitled to waive that the same right when they have need?
In my house the bar for looking at one another's text messages is at the "oh yeah, I remember (s)he sent that address I'm trying to find to Joe last week."
I guess legally separated couples might be an exception but seriously, how do you "stalk" someone you are already married to? It wouldn't even rate "stalking" if you were just checking up on someone you were dating to see if they were being loyal. As a married couple you'd generally own whatever device you are putting malware on and at worst have a definite legal claim to ownership until the spouse proved you didn't contribute financially directly or indirectly to them being able to have that device.
Thanks to tinder and the like has cheating really become pervasive enough that public opinion sides with finding excuses to stop something that really does nothing more than make it harder to cheat?
"So you agree then, there are NONE that are not scams or really ill advised investments."
I've never seen anything with a purpose called an ICO. I'm just saying if you give it a decade for the craze to cool down it would be a valid option for releasing something that is actually worthwhile. Saying ICO's are scams is like saying real estate investments are scams. It is a popular vehicle for scammers but that doesn't mean the tool itself is a scam. So many idiots falsely called Bitcoin a ponzi scheme that premining any of a new coins pool will make everyone ignore the actual tech and blacklist you so if you want to be rewarded like you would be for creating any other amazing and innovative thing you've only got so many options.
What is to think out? You design a new and well thought out novel currency. Investors agree it is well thought out and will be successful. You release into the wild at which point the world agrees and begins using it and therefore value goes up or they don't.
If you believe "crypto" means digital currency you probably shouldn't be invested in anything even remotedly related to it. Crypto means cryptography... it is the thing behind that paidlock icon saying your connection to this browser is secure. If you don't know that you are a business man who knows nothing about this technology and shouldn't be investing in technology without people who are actual security engineers not only advising you but telling you what to do.
Maybe there is something about the way these ICO are working I'm not aware of. My understanding is they are simply a way to invest in the initial supply of the cryptocurrency, some or all of which is presupplied by the company who designed it... afterward the success or failure of the currency would be within the control of those who bought it and have nothing to do with the original company. If the company walks away with what they made in this process they haven't defrauded anyone, it is what people do with it afterward and the design of the intrinsic system that makes them boom or bust.
Bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash doesn't suddenly stop being something I can sell candy bars for or purchase candy bars with no matter what company goes belly up or walks away. That would still be true if the initial creators pre-mined a bit so they'd get something for their efforts any more than those who initially invested in a company should get nothing if the company goes public.
The big myth was that just because early investors (who take the most risk) getting rewarded automatically makes something a ponzi scheme.
The bad thing is that there is such a thing as a legitimate ICO. If I discover/invent some new breakthrough in how a cryptocurrency works and develop a genuinely novel solution based on it an ICO would be a valid way to launch it.
Unfortunately, creating yet another coin that is simply using the ethereum blockchain is what almost all of these ICOs are doing. I don't think that is necessarily a scam but I'd agree it is a horrible investment.
This is going to result in clicks that aren't from people who bought into the site wanting to buy coins. That's a bunch of bogus data and hits artificially supporting the SEC's stand. Just watch, later they'll come out with numbers for how many people tried to buy coins from their bogus ICO site and almost all the hits will be from people rubbernecking after reading an article such as this.
"You are the one who added animals to your list of things."
My list of things you might have lumps aka pieces aka hunks of. What I said includes a steak, what you said includes a cow, one is an animal, one is a lump of animal tissue. A cow most certainly can object to your research by expressing pain and/or resisting. You'll have no such reaction from a steak. Before you even bother ignoring context and suggesting you get steaks from cows I'll remind you the context is lumps of lab grown cells.
"Lumps of cells can certainly grow into animals even humans."
What they could theoretically in one possible future if everything plays out right become is another issue entirely. On the other hand hundreds of trillions of lumps of cells, human and animal cells, don't become animals or even humans before they end their existence. So without additional data indicating there is a high probability a particular lump of cells not only can become an animal or human but has a high probability of being an exception that will inevitably do so both given it's nature and the choices of those who own it we can safely assume lumps of cells will not. At the moment, a lump of cells grown in a lab that isn't associated with Artificial Insemination is highly unlikely to ever encounter a lump of cells that will magically transform into a complete animal or human on their table so we likely are safe for some time to come.
"Your answer is 'that it's bad' except sometimes 'trade-offs' and 'it's ok' if we can try to change its mind?"
No doubt you've strung together fragments from a paragraph into a nonsensical statement and beat it like a strawman as part of your legitimate quest to have everyone in the conversation arrive at the greatest possible enlightenment. I've just never seen an instance of using rheoterical constructs to win a debate rather than sound and transparent logic actually arrive at legitimate enlightenment.
Perhaps you'd like a blanket black and white one size fits all answer. Those don't exist in the real world, everything that is good in one context is bad in others even some that will conflict with unassailable logic which proves the good context. There is no such thing as innate good or evil, nobody is ever "right" in a conflict they are only those things relative to a perspective. Would I kill a cow to save a hundred humans? Without question. Would I kill one? Without hesitation, even a cow I loved and a human I hated. How many humans are you killing by choosing to declare research on cows unethical? Even by supporting measures that delay that use? How many extra people die?
Lumps of animal cells aren't animals any more than lumps of human cells are humans. Animals also are not humans, when they appear to be behaving like a human it is mostly humans projecting their feelings and emotions onto the acts of the animals.
For example, when you feed a cat and stroke it and the cat purrs like I saw in a Purina cat food commercial. A human tends to associate that with love being expressed for care which is a human emotion, the cat on the other hand is purring as a biological response to preparing to feed.
A dog does seem to have some kind of affection but lacks the capacity for higher reasoning and that affection will transfer when its source of food and protection changes. Dogs are not humans, they are pack animals, the affection isn't real affection it is a function of loyalty to its pack leader that dogs have evolved as a survival function. Loyalty itself is an evolved pack function, changing loyalties instantly results in a lower survival probability than having some kind of innate skepticism toward a change in leadership that grows over time.
Of course it goes both ways, much of what we couch in higher reasoning is really just dancing around and justifying human animal behavior but one thing doesn't change. We aren't dogs, or cats, or even a subset lump of actual human cells, we are humans. Limitations on how we treat humans benefits us and our children because anything we allow can be turned against us or our descendants. Limitation on how we treat other life can have a similar result. Just because a slippery slope is a fallacy doesn't mean taking a step in a direction doesn't make the path to some destinations one step shorter. That said, life is about tradeoffs, you certainly don't give up what definitely benefits human health and understanding for the sake of an individual. The difference is we can find out the motives of a human and try to change its mind and thereby eliminate the danger. The ability to do that with other animals is minimal, especially if we go projecting human motives on their behavior and when it comes down to it, limitations on risks to human life and safety are simply more important because we are humans.
If you want to grow and study some human brain tissue just do that. The minute one of your experiments communicates it isn't cool with it, THEN you have an ethical problem until then projecting human feelings and ethics on lumps of meat, protein, insects, and animals is just anthromorphic nonsense hindering progress.
Where is the penalty? You dumped toxic waste in the backyard of an orphanage for 20 years and told the nuns who run it that it was good for them. Without punitive damages the most you can be sued for isn't even the money you saved versus proper disposal it's the actual cost the orphanage paid for the cleanup (if they didn't or couldn't pay it, it could be argued they weren't damages). And the actual medical bills of those who got sick and could pay them and who can also get enough evidence to win a lawsuit (almost none of them). That means 99% of the sick people will get nothing and you'll probably be ahead by millions while they are literally dying.
There should be no circumstance under which a company engaging in illegal, unethical, or gross negligence or misconduct is ever allowed to pay less than every estimable or accountable profit/savings/or other gain they made from the activity in addition to compensating for the tangible damages they caused. At a minimum you need the old treble damages standard. Make $100 billion on anti-competitive practices or price fixing, pay at least $300 billion in damages and if the company doesn't have it a federal adjudicator should assume control, the board and executives be sacked, and the stock of the largest 10% of shareholders seized so that control of the company can be transferred to new parties, restructuring can occur, and ownership transferred to the plaintiff. That way you target those who gained the most from the activity and discourage anyone else from ever engaging in the same again but without nearly as much disruption as bankrupting the entity. As a bonus, you avoid those top shareholders/board members from polymorphing into a new company and folding up the old paper entity.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that this hugely impacts movie audio which is not music alone so why is anyone just talking about "music".
Also, there are a number of intelligent mixing options which take stereo music and do a fair job of mixing it through surround speakers.
Of course there is... on movies.
Take an already poor and inconsistent audio experience... for literally any consumer paying the slightest attention, and make it even more poor and inconsistent!
There are lots of jobs that still can't be done remotely.... but the context here was high tech jobs. I'm sure more than a couple exceptions could be found among high tech jobs as well but generally building large machinery and doing electrical wiring are trade skills not high tech. You can't phone in plumbing work either.
"and mobility -- a worker's willingness to uproot their life for a job in a new place -- has declined. "
Why is this even a factor? Very few high tech positions have any need for a worker to ever be physically present... even fewer if you have a few less skilled individuals to function as hands.
"I suppose the "unused potential" option could still be done if yields were bad enough - e.g. make every core with 5 adders under the assumption that one would probably fail, and then only discard those where more than one failed, and disable the perfectly functional "extra" adder on those where it didn't fail. It seems like that could quite rapidly get excessive though: you'd have to build in enough redundancy so that a failure in any one functional unit could be replaced - easily adding a double-digit percentage cost increase to the production of every CPU. And of course, the largest most expensive functional units are also going to be the most likely to contain a malfunctioning transistor though perhaps, if such units comprise a large enough percentage of the total core cost, you simply don't put in redundancy for "major functions", and just treat any failure in them as a whole-core failure"
Basically you've got the idea. It depends on the chip in question and how it is built. We are talking about trillions of transistors, a single transistor failing causes... it depends on which transistor and what "fail" means, it isn't a binary proposition in many cases it is a question of bit error tolerance. The places most likely to have a failure aren't based purely on transition count either with every transistor having an equal probability of failure, it depends on the design and what is causing the failure because while your logical design is digital the actual exposure is analogue, certain portions of your exposure are going to be more likely to fail than others giving a place to target redundancy, additionally certain parts of your design will experience greater heat, capacitance, and other issues arising in bit errors.
Seems unlikely you will get cats to eat monkey poop... you can however easily get dogs to eat cat poop (have to fight to keep em out of it in fact) or even their own poop and so you could make triple dog distilled cat poop diamonds...
"After all, if even one of the (100s of) millions of transistors in a CPU core malfunctions, the whole core is relatively much useless."
That isn't true at all, There are flaws in pretty much every chip off the line.
Sure but it is quite possible that overpopulation is a pressure resulting in increased rates of sexual preference that is incompatible with producing offspring. There are mechanisms known to alter similar things in plants.
Not quite, as a company goes public or goes through its rounds of capital venture the executive leadership gets replaced with people from the ranks of the upper class.
" I really don't get the final outcome it is meant to achieve."
That's easy, funding for climatologists and environmental related organizations. I'm not saying there is no climate change but remember, climate science has been predicting disaster after disaster from all sorts of things since the 70's and none of these disasters have come to pass. When it comes to our climate and environment there is as much doom and gloom being peddled all the time as from televangelists.
Not all science is equal, there are certain areas where there is more bias and political influence at play than others.
Which would be stalking... if you were doing it without some sort of legal relationship that gives a party the legal right to that information or even to authorize others to it like say an ISP agreement or a LEGAL MARRIAGE.
Remember a few years back DOD funding resulted in a process that let researchers extract an image someone had seen from their visual cortex? Your spouse can consent on your behalf to have that procedure done and see the results.
How is this any different than hiring a private investigator? People lie and break commitments, no amount of blind trust is going to change that nobody deserves blind trust and that when someone breaks that trust the other party has a right to know and they deserve to face the consequences.
But forget cheating for a moment. What is the harm in real stalking? There actually isn't any, it's just creepy. All the rest of the justifications on making such activity illegal revolve around slippery slope fallacies but really its freaking creepy. But what is creepy about your spouse being able to locate you or your phone? If there is some kind of emergency who is the person you are supposed to trust to make the call on whether reaching you is more important than your privacy in that moment and needs to be able to act on it. Your spouse. Your cell phone provider already has malware shipped with your phone that includes these capabilities, they can and at times do all the things you've listed above. You risk the horny entry level AT&T guy watching you in the dressing room for the sake of being able to take pictures with animal faces replacing your friends, did you somehow think marriage wasn't consenting to share data to a larger degree than the click-through on FB?
Seriously, if your spouse hearing something you are saying on a call, seeing you changing, or anything you might say in an email or social media message, or being able to see where you are gives you the creeps you should probably be married to someone you trust and who isn't so creepy.
That person who keeps his partner a prisoner... one in hundreds of millions, partners dramatizing situations to the point where they sound like they are comparable to keeping a spouse locked up in a mountain cabin or a basement dungeon more like 1 in 20. Now take a moment to filter anytime you consider if something which is creepy or wrong should be illegal consider whether you'd rather have it happen than be locked in that basement dungeon for years because that is what you are literally saying should be done to the person who did that wrong thing.
"OMG. Marriage is not ownership."
Giving up the right to sex without the consent of the person you are marrying is one absolute and universal thing that marriage absolutely includes. That consent is required even if the sex doesn't involve them. Just because someone doesn't own you doesn't mean they don't have rights or that you can do anything you want without consequences. If you violate that agreement they have a right to know and for that information to be disclosed in a divorce. Of course if you are at the point where you are willing to have sex your partner doesn't consent to it baffles me why you aren't getting divorced already since that is pretty much the only thing marriage is, the ultimate level of commitment not to have sex your partner doesn't consent to.
So you have two modes, absolute blind trust and bail at the first sign of anything that manages to wiggle through it? Your spouse is human, humans lie, humans do selfish things, humans make mistakes.
Your spouse doesn't need to know your every thought or action but if there is something you are making available for literally any other third party (network provider, government, friend, etc) and you don't think marrying a person implicitly and automatically amounts to granting consent to that plus more you'd never share with another party it's you who should probably just get a divorce.
There are very important and obvious reasons for that, not the least of which is if you are unconscious your partner has the right to give access to all that information to someone else and also make choices like whether or not a doctor should do something that will kill you if you've eaten X or been exposed to Y in the past 24hrs.
There are paranoid partners out there but having a doubt or suspicion in an innately fallible thing isn't the issue. Not seeing your partner as someone you ultimately trust is a marriage killer. I might write something in a message I'd rather my wife not see and I'd be annoyed if she were looking in my messages with out some sort of reason but of course she has the right to look at them without legal consequences. Your spouse can give consent to a law enforcement officer to search your possessions and information waiving your right to privacy but you think they shouldn't be legally entitled to waive that the same right when they have need?
In my house the bar for looking at one another's text messages is at the "oh yeah, I remember (s)he sent that address I'm trying to find to Joe last week."
I guess legally separated couples might be an exception but seriously, how do you "stalk" someone you are already married to? It wouldn't even rate "stalking" if you were just checking up on someone you were dating to see if they were being loyal. As a married couple you'd generally own whatever device you are putting malware on and at worst have a definite legal claim to ownership until the spouse proved you didn't contribute financially directly or indirectly to them being able to have that device.
Thanks to tinder and the like has cheating really become pervasive enough that public opinion sides with finding excuses to stop something that really does nothing more than make it harder to cheat?
"So you agree then, there are NONE that are not scams or really ill advised investments."
I've never seen anything with a purpose called an ICO. I'm just saying if you give it a decade for the craze to cool down it would be a valid option for releasing something that is actually worthwhile. Saying ICO's are scams is like saying real estate investments are scams. It is a popular vehicle for scammers but that doesn't mean the tool itself is a scam. So many idiots falsely called Bitcoin a ponzi scheme that premining any of a new coins pool will make everyone ignore the actual tech and blacklist you so if you want to be rewarded like you would be for creating any other amazing and innovative thing you've only got so many options.
What is to think out? You design a new and well thought out novel currency. Investors agree it is well thought out and will be successful. You release into the wild at which point the world agrees and begins using it and therefore value goes up or they don't.
If you believe "crypto" means digital currency you probably shouldn't be invested in anything even remotedly related to it. Crypto means cryptography... it is the thing behind that paidlock icon saying your connection to this browser is secure. If you don't know that you are a business man who knows nothing about this technology and shouldn't be investing in technology without people who are actual security engineers not only advising you but telling you what to do.
Maybe there is something about the way these ICO are working I'm not aware of. My understanding is they are simply a way to invest in the initial supply of the cryptocurrency, some or all of which is presupplied by the company who designed it... afterward the success or failure of the currency would be within the control of those who bought it and have nothing to do with the original company. If the company walks away with what they made in this process they haven't defrauded anyone, it is what people do with it afterward and the design of the intrinsic system that makes them boom or bust.
Bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash doesn't suddenly stop being something I can sell candy bars for or purchase candy bars with no matter what company goes belly up or walks away. That would still be true if the initial creators pre-mined a bit so they'd get something for their efforts any more than those who initially invested in a company should get nothing if the company goes public.
The big myth was that just because early investors (who take the most risk) getting rewarded automatically makes something a ponzi scheme.
The bad thing is that there is such a thing as a legitimate ICO. If I discover/invent some new breakthrough in how a cryptocurrency works and develop a genuinely novel solution based on it an ICO would be a valid way to launch it.
Unfortunately, creating yet another coin that is simply using the ethereum blockchain is what almost all of these ICOs are doing. I don't think that is necessarily a scam but I'd agree it is a horrible investment.
This is going to result in clicks that aren't from people who bought into the site wanting to buy coins. That's a bunch of bogus data and hits artificially supporting the SEC's stand. Just watch, later they'll come out with numbers for how many people tried to buy coins from their bogus ICO site and almost all the hits will be from people rubbernecking after reading an article such as this.
"You are the one who added animals to your list of things."
My list of things you might have lumps aka pieces aka hunks of. What I said includes a steak, what you said includes a cow, one is an animal, one is a lump of animal tissue. A cow most certainly can object to your research by expressing pain and/or resisting. You'll have no such reaction from a steak. Before you even bother ignoring context and suggesting you get steaks from cows I'll remind you the context is lumps of lab grown cells.
"Lumps of cells can certainly grow into animals even humans."
What they could theoretically in one possible future if everything plays out right become is another issue entirely. On the other hand hundreds of trillions of lumps of cells, human and animal cells, don't become animals or even humans before they end their existence. So without additional data indicating there is a high probability a particular lump of cells not only can become an animal or human but has a high probability of being an exception that will inevitably do so both given it's nature and the choices of those who own it we can safely assume lumps of cells will not. At the moment, a lump of cells grown in a lab that isn't associated with Artificial Insemination is highly unlikely to ever encounter a lump of cells that will magically transform into a complete animal or human on their table so we likely are safe for some time to come.
"Your answer is 'that it's bad' except sometimes 'trade-offs' and 'it's ok' if we can try to change its mind?"
No doubt you've strung together fragments from a paragraph into a nonsensical statement and beat it like a strawman as part of your legitimate quest to have everyone in the conversation arrive at the greatest possible enlightenment. I've just never seen an instance of using rheoterical constructs to win a debate rather than sound and transparent logic actually arrive at legitimate enlightenment.
Perhaps you'd like a blanket black and white one size fits all answer. Those don't exist in the real world, everything that is good in one context is bad in others even some that will conflict with unassailable logic which proves the good context. There is no such thing as innate good or evil, nobody is ever "right" in a conflict they are only those things relative to a perspective. Would I kill a cow to save a hundred humans? Without question. Would I kill one? Without hesitation, even a cow I loved and a human I hated. How many humans are you killing by choosing to declare research on cows unethical? Even by supporting measures that delay that use? How many extra people die?
Lumps of animal cells aren't animals any more than lumps of human cells are humans. Animals also are not humans, when they appear to be behaving like a human it is mostly humans projecting their feelings and emotions onto the acts of the animals.
For example, when you feed a cat and stroke it and the cat purrs like I saw in a Purina cat food commercial. A human tends to associate that with love being expressed for care which is a human emotion, the cat on the other hand is purring as a biological response to preparing to feed.
A dog does seem to have some kind of affection but lacks the capacity for higher reasoning and that affection will transfer when its source of food and protection changes. Dogs are not humans, they are pack animals, the affection isn't real affection it is a function of loyalty to its pack leader that dogs have evolved as a survival function. Loyalty itself is an evolved pack function, changing loyalties instantly results in a lower survival probability than having some kind of innate skepticism toward a change in leadership that grows over time.
Of course it goes both ways, much of what we couch in higher reasoning is really just dancing around and justifying human animal behavior but one thing doesn't change. We aren't dogs, or cats, or even a subset lump of actual human cells, we are humans. Limitations on how we treat humans benefits us and our children because anything we allow can be turned against us or our descendants. Limitation on how we treat other life can have a similar result. Just because a slippery slope is a fallacy doesn't mean taking a step in a direction doesn't make the path to some destinations one step shorter. That said, life is about tradeoffs, you certainly don't give up what definitely benefits human health and understanding for the sake of an individual. The difference is we can find out the motives of a human and try to change its mind and thereby eliminate the danger. The ability to do that with other animals is minimal, especially if we go projecting human motives on their behavior and when it comes down to it, limitations on risks to human life and safety are simply more important because we are humans.
Really? You are equating a lump of cells with sedating a complete intelligent organism (our own) to shut it up?
If you want to grow and study some human brain tissue just do that. The minute one of your experiments communicates it isn't cool with it, THEN you have an ethical problem until then projecting human feelings and ethics on lumps of meat, protein, insects, and animals is just anthromorphic nonsense hindering progress.
Where is the penalty? You dumped toxic waste in the backyard of an orphanage for 20 years and told the nuns who run it that it was good for them. Without punitive damages the most you can be sued for isn't even the money you saved versus proper disposal it's the actual cost the orphanage paid for the cleanup (if they didn't or couldn't pay it, it could be argued they weren't damages). And the actual medical bills of those who got sick and could pay them and who can also get enough evidence to win a lawsuit (almost none of them). That means 99% of the sick people will get nothing and you'll probably be ahead by millions while they are literally dying.
There should be no circumstance under which a company engaging in illegal, unethical, or gross negligence or misconduct is ever allowed to pay less than every estimable or accountable profit/savings/or other gain they made from the activity in addition to compensating for the tangible damages they caused. At a minimum you need the old treble damages standard. Make $100 billion on anti-competitive practices or price fixing, pay at least $300 billion in damages and if the company doesn't have it a federal adjudicator should assume control, the board and executives be sacked, and the stock of the largest 10% of shareholders seized so that control of the company can be transferred to new parties, restructuring can occur, and ownership transferred to the plaintiff. That way you target those who gained the most from the activity and discourage anyone else from ever engaging in the same again but without nearly as much disruption as bankrupting the entity. As a bonus, you avoid those top shareholders/board members from polymorphing into a new company and folding up the old paper entity.