Because someone WILL buy them? Apparently you don't understand the concept of sales eh? I think selling you something you actually need is against the salesman code of ethics.
Addiction experts know but won't come out and say it directly. There aren't 4,000 different types of addiction, there are basically two, Physical and Psychological. Although technically you are addicted to chemicals either way, with psychological addiction your own body is producing them.
With physical addiction a substance is introduced into the bloodstream that either makes a direct chemical conversion into a substance the brain forms a dependence on or is already a substance the brain becomes dependent upon. Heroin is a physically addictive substance. Alcohol is another.
With psychological addiction the substance, behavior, or activity is NOT the bad guy, the person is. ANYTHING you enjoy can cause a psychological addiction. When you enjoy an activity your brain rewards itself with addictive substances. It is those addictive substances you then become addicted to. Marijuana addiction, Gambling, Video Game addiction, girl chasing, and thrill-seeking are all examples of psychological addiction. Alcohol is another.
There may be a genetic predisposition to some forms or all forms of addiction.
What difference does it make? It makes a great deal of difference. Beyond the term adrenaline junkie there is no other recognition of the fact that psychological addiction is a broken function of the human brain. Everywhere people want to blame the substance or activities for psychological addictions but the substance or activity is irrelevant, lack of moderation is the reason for addiction. Why would we blame the substance or activity; simply because they were an enjoyable activity our brain failed to moderate? Every time lots of people start getting psychologically addicted to something it might be worth mentioning on the news but it certainly isn't anything new medically. In fact, there are probably millions of undiagnosed addicts who sink hours everyday doing things they enjoy. Maybe they paint miniatures, maybe they work on cars, maybe they Slashdot.
P.S. Yes, alcohol is on both lists. Some are born with a brain chemistry that converts alcohol directly into a highly addictive substance in the brain. Others simply enjoy being drunk and have psychologically addicted. Someone who drowns their sorrows would be psychologically addicted. Someone who picked up their first beer in high school and never put it down is probably physically addicted.
'What a completely nonsensical and inaccurate comparison.'
Your right, let me fix it. A comparable view would be not locking the doors or the windows because you have an alarm that would sound if they are opened.
'This report, plus 3rd party counts of vulnerabilities'
This report is from the vendor, it doesn't support anything. As for vulnerability counts, despite Microsoft's love of them it has been well established that they provide no meaningful metric of security.
'almost certainly dramatically improved the quality of their code'
Almost certainly? Where does the certainty come from?
'But no matter how good your code is, things will be missed.'
True, and when you discover one of those things you make it a top priority to fix it. Safety nets are fine and dandy as a backup measure but it is hardly safe to assume they will work.
'like turning off multiple security features... What's next, are you going to blame Microsoft when a user smacks their motherboard with a hammer?'
Are you seriously comparing turning off obtrusive features that break numerous common applications and cause a number of built in windows functions (like network printing) to fail to pulling out a motherboard and beating it with a hammer? Most users who disable vista security 'features' consider themselves to be FIXING the system. Further, that view shouldn't be especially harmful since those features are merely a backup security measure and aren't SUPPOSED to be considered a first line of defense.
Here is another analogy. A medieval castle with bridge and giant gap in the wall that fails to consider the gap critical because there are guards inside the walls who might stop intruders.
'The fact of the matter is, that at least so far, Vista is proving to be the most secure OS on the market.'
LOL
'If you have data that suggests otherwise, then provide it.'
I'm fairly sure you are the one making the ridiculous statement so the burden is on you to provide proof. And don't bother to provide vulnerability counts, as I've already mentioned these numbers have been proven to be worthless for any kind of security assessment in so many ways that it isn't worth repeating.
By one source. And yes, this is the same bozo who attempts to claim critical flaws aren't critical at all because there are exploitable and unproven fail-safe security measures that might prevent them from being exploited.
'Slashdot actually managed to spin a highly positive analysis of Vista'
Actually you have it reversed. This was Microsoft's attempt to spin an extremely poor security effort in a positive manner.
'Microsoft is somehow going out of its way *not* to fix it'
Not at all, it doesn't require effort to NOT do something. They don't have to go out of their way to sit on their hands.
Is there some reason that pro-bush comments are being left alone or modded up and all contrary opinions are being modded down? There isn't one modded down post in this thread that was modded for any reason other than the mod didn't agree with the poster. Not one legitimate mod point spent.
IMHO not much. We have a dictator in office, said dictator is already known to have rigged the election to stay in power, disregards the highest laws in the land and the principles our nation is founded upon, has ordered the murder and torture of tens of thousands in a sovereign nation without any known cause, spies upon our citizens, and of course detains and tortures U.S. Citizens without trial.
In response to this, the people of this nation have taken decisive action to remove this threat to our democracy and way of life. We have... complained about him and made fun of him. Is it really that far of a stretch to assume that all this might have had an impact on our credibility in the rest of the world?
Somewhere along the lines we got confused. We have fought so hard and defended free speech so desperately that forgot that there is a time to stop talking and start acting.
'crazed conspiracy theory where random Joe Public runs around screaming that the NSA is decrypting his SSL'd eBay login information'
Not likely without a reason but not unlikely if they had some reason to care.
'listening for words like "bomb" and "president" on his phone calls to his mother'
You do realize this isn't a conspiracy theory right? This has been leaked, confirmed, and publicly defended by the dictat... err president.
'The minute God crapped out the third cave man, a conspiracy was hatched against one of them.'
No doubt. Personally I am rather impressed with own governments clever spin. Despite the fact that government conspiracies are uncovered and brought into the public eye regularly, everyone who suspects that the government might be conspiring in any way that hasn't yet been uncovered is considered a crackpot (not to say that there are any shortage of actual crackpots).
Aha, I have it, in addition to gene therapy we make infant screening and sterilization a free public service. There are no shortage of people who want these procedures simply to avoid children. Many won't get the procedures because they are expensive. Kill two birds with one stone.
I never said anything about mandatory legal requirements. But I think the best method is genetic screening and gene therapy for children. If you do it that way, mothers will voluntarily bring their children to you. When the process is applied it will be applied to a potential human rather than an actual human. Trust me, the potential human won't object and will roll his eyes later when mom tells the story about how the doctors resolved his 'condition'. With gene therapy you might even be able to reintroduce genetically modified cells and resolve issues in adults without sterilization.
'Deep down, everyone is convinced of their right to live and breed.'
I have to disagree. I have convinced a number of mothers with severe genetic psychological illnesses to have themselves sterilized. The world will be a better place tomorrow because of it. It is also common for parents to have mentally retarded children sterilized. I have also convinced a number of mothers that circumcision is genital mutilation akin to removing a woman's clit in order to prevent yeast infections. There are a number of male children who will thank me later.
'If you are always filtering to some level then it isn't a 'Last Resort', it's part of the overall process.'
A last resort is the least desirable way of doing something. It's the last choice. If you have to pick a choice a billion times then you can be forced to pick the least desirable choice numerous times a day without it somehow magically becoming more desirable. Last resorts are part of the overall process.
'Evaluating information is holistic, not iterative.'
Care to back that up? Simply because you MIGHT iterate quickly does not mean you don't iterate.
I gave you a sound practical example to demonstrate this concept and because you are unable to dispute it you have chosen to ignore it. Give it up already, you are wrong.
'I'd be happy if Dell said they wouldn't offer software support for Linux, just hardware support.'
That is what Dell already does. The issue is that they are apparently refusing to do this for businesses. Software support might require a greater level of expertise to satisfy business customers but hardware support only requires a willingness to replace the part.
'Of course diagnosis of hardware could be an issue if they don't want to even know about the OS but they could always provide some sort of Dell 'live' hardware diagnosis disk'
The problem with those isn't so much false positives as false negatives. For instance, bad ram will often pass a memory diagnostic but if the diagnostic fails on supported hardware its a safe bet the ram is bad.
This problem is easily solved the same way they solve it on windows. They hire trained monkeys to read scripts of troubleshooting procedures off a screen. This is even more effective in business where they have a tech there who already determined the hardware is bad and just need a new widget sent ASAP.
'I don't care if they have actually installed the OS.'
I do, not for myself but for the ignorant masses who might finally be adventurous enough to try something new.
'Now if you are trying to corroborate by looking at sources that do not have a vested interest, then you are in fact evaluating the messenger.'
No, you are evaluating groups of diverse messengers and that is a different ball of wax. But again, corroborating by looking at other sources is a less than ideal solution. Slightly better than looking at the individual messenger.
'The time to independently verify is a huge cost, and can't always be accomplished.'
Indeed. I said filtering based upon the messenger should be considered a last resort. I never said anything about the frequency with which you'd have to use that last resort.
It seems as if you and others who wish to debate the issue would like to paint me into an idealistic box. I never claimed that you could in practice always ignore the source of information. I never claimed that in the real world you wouldn't have to evaluate information in that way every day.
That said, there are no shortage of people who have dismissed the idea of evaluating the message rather than the messenger entirely simply because it is not always practical to do so. It has even become common to use this worst case method of evaluation as a PRIMARY filter for information.
Again, I stand by my previously expressed opinion that ideals are something that one should eternally for. In case I wasn't firm enough the first time, those who think they can be achieved, and those who dismiss ideals entirely because they can not be achieved are both imbeciles in the matter. Unfortunately, most fall into one group or the other.
'How else do you evaluate the information other than by evaluating the messenger?'
Put the box away already. That is why its a LAST resort, not a NEVER resort.
'What is eugenics? I thought it was the breeding of animals to produce desired traits.'
Eugenics is the idea that some behaviors, as opposed to just physical characteristics, are passed genetically. For instance, based upon a belief in eugenics the US used to sterilize individuals who had been convicted of certain crimes. This continued until the 1970's.
There are a number of ways you could utilize the theory of eugenics some of the ones that have been used are genocide (kill everyone with bad genes), sterilization (stop the bad genes from spreading), cloning, and selective breeding. One that I am not aware of ever being used is gene therapy but it should be equally applicable to eugenics as it is to altering other genetic characteristics.
Eugenics comes into play in the animal breeding world not when a farmer breeds an animal to be bigger or produce more milk, but rather when he breeds the animal to be spirited or docile. There is also even stronger evidence to support eugenics in the pet (especially dogs and cats) breeding world where behavior tendencies in different breeds is seen even though the animals are raised in different environments.
As far as force goes, there is no need to make eugenics mandatory. That said, I see no problem with either sterilization or gene therapy so long as modern scientific methods are used to determine, in an objective manner, that behaviors are transmitted; what behaviors are transmitted; and the genes responsible for the transmission.
That is what neither the US nor the Nazis did. In both cases no attempt was made to scientifically establish anything. The US used a blanket approach, it is possible that not all negative behaviors result in crimes and likely that not all criminal behaviors are the result of genetics. The Nazis just picked a random set of criteria as bad and then set up so called doctors to determine how to identify it.
Dunno, I pulled it out of left field. That or something about spending billions of dollars a year funding Linux development and promoting Linux based products. All of that has something to do with IBM being a Linux distributor.
'First, there's a difference between Nazi eugenics and selecting and/or breeding superior cultivars. Only one of them hurts people.'
Agreed, I seem to recall writing a nice post about that and how the misuse of the Nazi's has been used to redefine eugenics in the eyes of the masses. Nazi Eugenics is not Eugenics. The post you replied to if I recall.
'Second, eugenics fails to take social influences into consideration.'
There is no reason that you can't both have eugenics and social influences.
'Isn't it obvious that someone raised to believe in their own innate superiority will be, generally speaking, better than the average person.'
Certainly, although your example hints at an inability to separate the Nazi practices from eugenics. Nobody is entirely superior to another. Someone with true schizophrenia is genetically broken in that respect, that person might blow relativity away tomorrow. Would you care to name their superior? In order to have any accuracy you must narrowly define the superior aspect.
'People are not plants. They are not limited by their inherent nature like superior varieties will, due to their genes, produce a superior crop.'
Nonsense. Environmental factors play heavily on the development of man but that hardly means you aren't born with a genetic raw potential just like everything else. Most of that raw potential is probably cultivated or wasted before you are developed enough mentally to have a conscious role in the matter. The idea that only a small portion of the brain is active in humans is false, the idea that man only uses x percent of his brain's potential is probably true.
Let me stick with your plant comparisons. Humans match up plants rather well. The raw potential of a plant is defined by genetics. If you breed plants that show the best characteristics in a given environment then over time you will improve crops raised under those circumstances. That doesn't mean that environment doesn't play an equally important or more important role in plant development. It is less apparent because we can more easily control the environmental factors that affect a plant. That and plants don't live as long and we aren't afraid to do testing on them because of false codes of morality. That means we have a much greater understanding of how their environment impacts them then humans. Last but definately not least, we can define what is 'best' for plants more easily then humans. After all, there is nothing cosmic that makes ANY condition or state superior to another so it is left for man to make up definitions of superiority to strive for.
'Granted, they've got identical genes because of vegative propagation methods, but similar genes, the result a eugenics program would have, are still a liability for a species.'
I disagree. Eugenics would remove selected genetics from the pool. The only way you would see the results you are speaking of in a genetic pool as large as that of humans would be if you either cloned a selected set of genetics on a large scale or you went Nazi style, picking a small set of genetics and exterminating any variances.
'Diversity is not beneficial for a species survival; its essential.'
Eugenics has nothing to do with eliminating everyone who is different from a narrowly defined template. There is room for removing obviously defective genetics and diversity.
'Eugenics is nothing more than Darwin simplified, and it only works on paper. '
Eugenics is nothing more than Darwin being guided intelligently. As for only working on paper, actual implementation in animals that are very close to ourselves has proven otherwise. Dog breeders are closest to Nazi's of course, praising race without actual cause but even with those greatly diminished genetics pools the dogs are able to fight disease. Ranchers and farmers are also able to successfully breed disease resistant animals. Both cases demonstrate that eugenics can work even when propagating small sets of genetics, nobody but the Nazi's ever sugges
'For instance, why do you go to a doctor to receive medical related information?'
A doctor is one source of medical related information but hardly the only one.
'There's no guarantee that the information the doctor gives you is correct'
Exactly, which is why you should always independently verify that information as best you can. You probably will not be able to verify medical information you are given directly so the next best thing is to corroborate that information with other sources. If you don't do this then I highly recommend you start, doctors troubleshoot people in the same way technicians troubleshoot computers and their competence seems to vary just as it does from one tech to the next. Plus, doctors are even more arrogant than techs and will NEVER let on that they don't know.
'but we accept their background as a means to justify accepting the information they provide.'
Speak for yourself. The only time I take the word of someone based upon their background is when it is the only feasible option or when the consequence if they are wrong is less substantial than the cost of independently verifying the information.
Apparently you didn't actually read my post. And yes, of course science produces better results than religion but there is no need to interfere with your bedroom or stop you from having sex. Genetic correction, sterilization, and experimentation on clones can yield the desired results. There is no reason to hurry in this field to try to produce results overnight. In fact, a great deal of study is needed to determine what, if any, behavioral traits are passed genetically in the first place. You aren't likely to impact thievery by sterilizing everyone who gets hungry and steals a loaf of bed. The only time eugenics makes sense is after it has been concretely established that the characteristic is genetic or at least is usually genetic.
Who knows, further inquiry could determine that Eugenics is bunk and the only thing being passed genetically is a tendency for hormone imbalances and that the behavior characteristics are actually just symptoms of the imbalances.
'Are you going to read every A/C post that's been moderated to -1? Because if really and truly don't consider the source of data, that's what you're saying we should all do.'
Yes. Hopefully so does everyone else with mod points.
'Idealism is nice and all, but come back when you've had a better taste of reality.'
lol. That is cute. How would you rate my taste of reality? What metric is used? I must have a way to quantify it as you have so that I might be sure I have had enough of a taste to be worthy of commenting in your divine presence. Obviously your own experience is the highest standard. How else could you safely assume you had a superior experience? How else could you assume that your view was that bred of a 'better' taste or reality rather than the result of an inferior taste? After all, you are comparing yourself to someone you know nothing about.
I COULD ignore what you had to say because of the obvious problems with the source. Instead I prefer to consider your comments based upon their own merits. Considering, what are we doing when we consider? We are filtering in the manner you referred to. That is indeed an essential process required to imagine meaning and definition in a universe that lacks any. Perhaps it would help to clarify, when referring to 'source' we are talking about human sources. Human or not, pure practicality becomes more dangerous than idealism if you do not strive to achieve the ideal. For instance, in the world of academics and mainstream science massive quantities of good ideas and information are ignored because practicality is used without an eye on the ideal. Ideally every idea presented would be tested as thoroughly as modern technology allows. Practically the amount of material must be reduced because every idea can not be tested. The best marriage of the two is to consider every proposed idea possible and narrow the choices based upon the result of applying your filters to the IDEA.
'As far as eugenics, the reason the Nazi version doesn't get anywhere is because most people in the West consider selectively breeding human beings to be morally reprehensible.'
You just failed to separate the Nazi version from the concept. In fact, a quick search shows that many sources you might have found to discover the meaning of the word do the same. Eugenics is not artificial selection. The core concept of Eugenics isn't selective breeding so much as the concept that in some measure some behavioral characteristics are passed on genetically. Selective breeding is just a natural application of the theory.
As for the moral issues, mythical morality will slowly dissipate as the common man gains a greater understanding of the way the world works. It will probably go hand in hand with a diminishing belief in imaginary friends. In the meantime, eugenics can be applied on a large scale simply by opposing measures that attempt to prevent idiots from killing themselves. You can even call it 'natural' selection (as if man and his actions aren't a natural element either way).
'It comes down to trying to determine if you believe somebody has important information.'
You have just nailed one of the greatest flaws in typical human reasoning. Humans attempt to judge the source rather than information. Hitler could have written the most profound poetry, work that gives the reader a beneficial life altering insight into their soul. Only a few historians would ever read it and even they may not read it with an open mind.
A better example is Eugenics. Eugenics has never been seriously considered in the modern day because of the unscientific manner in which the Nazi's used the concept to justify genocide. People can't seem to separate the two. It's actually fairly sad because ranchers and farmers have assumed the validity of Eugenics (probably without even knowing what it was and the stigma attached to it) for decades if not centuries and their successful results make it very difficult to dispute the core concept.
One should never consider the source when determining the validity and importance of information except as a last resort. Instead, one should consider the information itself and let it stand or fall on its own merit.
Slashdot Mirror
It gets a brief note at the bottom of TFA. At 500 terraflops it pales in comparison.
Welcome to America kid.
'if no-one needed to buy them'
Because someone WILL buy them? Apparently you don't understand the concept of sales eh? I think selling you something you actually need is against the salesman code of ethics.
'You don't have to share a program you changed as long as you don't distribute it.'
Yup, the net result being that the program remains sharable while maintaining sanity.
'I mean, hits on the site to about the article to show to the news agency they deserve a job'
Don't be silly, nobody on Slashdot reads the article.
Addiction experts know but won't come out and say it directly. There aren't 4,000 different types of addiction, there are basically two, Physical and Psychological. Although technically you are addicted to chemicals either way, with psychological addiction your own body is producing them.
With physical addiction a substance is introduced into the bloodstream that either makes a direct chemical conversion into a substance the brain forms a dependence on or is already a substance the brain becomes dependent upon. Heroin is a physically addictive substance. Alcohol is another.
With psychological addiction the substance, behavior, or activity is NOT the bad guy, the person is. ANYTHING you enjoy can cause a psychological addiction. When you enjoy an activity your brain rewards itself with addictive substances. It is those addictive substances you then become addicted to. Marijuana addiction, Gambling, Video Game addiction, girl chasing, and thrill-seeking are all examples of psychological addiction. Alcohol is another.
There may be a genetic predisposition to some forms or all forms of addiction.
What difference does it make? It makes a great deal of difference. Beyond the term adrenaline junkie there is no other recognition of the fact that psychological addiction is a broken function of the human brain. Everywhere people want to blame the substance or activities for psychological addictions but the substance or activity is irrelevant, lack of moderation is the reason for addiction. Why would we blame the substance or activity; simply because they were an enjoyable activity our brain failed to moderate? Every time lots of people start getting psychologically addicted to something it might be worth mentioning on the news but it certainly isn't anything new medically. In fact, there are probably millions of undiagnosed addicts who sink hours everyday doing things they enjoy. Maybe they paint miniatures, maybe they work on cars, maybe they Slashdot.
P.S. Yes, alcohol is on both lists. Some are born with a brain chemistry that converts alcohol directly into a highly addictive substance in the brain. Others simply enjoy being drunk and have psychologically addicted. Someone who drowns their sorrows would be psychologically addicted. Someone who picked up their first beer in high school and never put it down is probably physically addicted.
'What a completely nonsensical and inaccurate comparison.'
Your right, let me fix it. A comparable view would be not locking the doors or the windows because you have an alarm that would sound if they are opened.
'This report, plus 3rd party counts of vulnerabilities'
This report is from the vendor, it doesn't support anything. As for vulnerability counts, despite Microsoft's love of them it has been well established that they provide no meaningful metric of security.
'almost certainly dramatically improved the quality of their code'
Almost certainly? Where does the certainty come from?
'But no matter how good your code is, things will be missed.'
True, and when you discover one of those things you make it a top priority to fix it. Safety nets are fine and dandy as a backup measure but it is hardly safe to assume they will work.
'like turning off multiple security features... What's next, are you going to blame Microsoft when a user smacks their motherboard with a hammer?'
Are you seriously comparing turning off obtrusive features that break numerous common applications and cause a number of built in windows functions (like network printing) to fail to pulling out a motherboard and beating it with a hammer? Most users who disable vista security 'features' consider themselves to be FIXING the system. Further, that view shouldn't be especially harmful since those features are merely a backup security measure and aren't SUPPOSED to be considered a first line of defense.
Here is another analogy. A medieval castle with bridge and giant gap in the wall that fails to consider the gap critical because there are guards inside the walls who might stop intruders.
'The fact of the matter is, that at least so far, Vista is proving to be the most secure OS on the market.'
LOL
'If you have data that suggests otherwise, then provide it.'
I'm fairly sure you are the one making the ridiculous statement so the burden is on you to provide proof. And don't bother to provide vulnerability counts, as I've already mentioned these numbers have been proven to be worthless for any kind of security assessment in so many ways that it isn't worth repeating.
'vulnerabilities are not considered "critical"'
By one source. And yes, this is the same bozo who attempts to claim critical flaws aren't critical at all because there are exploitable and unproven fail-safe security measures that might prevent them from being exploited.
'Slashdot actually managed to spin a highly positive analysis of Vista'
Actually you have it reversed. This was Microsoft's attempt to spin an extremely poor security effort in a positive manner.
'Microsoft is somehow going out of its way *not* to fix it'
Not at all, it doesn't require effort to NOT do something. They don't have to go out of their way to sit on their hands.
Is there some reason that pro-bush comments are being left alone or modded up and all contrary opinions are being modded down? There isn't one modded down post in this thread that was modded for any reason other than the mod didn't agree with the poster. Not one legitimate mod point spent.
IMHO not much. We have a dictator in office, said dictator is already known to have rigged the election to stay in power, disregards the highest laws in the land and the principles our nation is founded upon, has ordered the murder and torture of tens of thousands in a sovereign nation without any known cause, spies upon our citizens, and of course detains and tortures U.S. Citizens without trial.
In response to this, the people of this nation have taken decisive action to remove this threat to our democracy and way of life. We have... complained about him and made fun of him. Is it really that far of a stretch to assume that all this might have had an impact on our credibility in the rest of the world?
Somewhere along the lines we got confused. We have fought so hard and defended free speech so desperately that forgot that there is a time to stop talking and start acting.
'crazed conspiracy theory where random Joe Public runs around screaming that the NSA is decrypting his SSL'd eBay login information'
Not likely without a reason but not unlikely if they had some reason to care.
'listening for words like "bomb" and "president" on his phone calls to his mother'
You do realize this isn't a conspiracy theory right? This has been leaked, confirmed, and publicly defended by the dictat... err president.
'The minute God crapped out the third cave man, a conspiracy was hatched against one of them.'
No doubt. Personally I am rather impressed with own governments clever spin. Despite the fact that government conspiracies are uncovered and brought into the public eye regularly, everyone who suspects that the government might be conspiring in any way that hasn't yet been uncovered is considered a crackpot (not to say that there are any shortage of actual crackpots).
Aha, I have it, in addition to gene therapy we make infant screening and sterilization a free public service. There are no shortage of people who want these procedures simply to avoid children. Many won't get the procedures because they are expensive. Kill two birds with one stone.
'Anyone who would put this into law'
I never said anything about mandatory legal requirements. But I think the best method is genetic screening and gene therapy for children. If you do it that way, mothers will voluntarily bring their children to you. When the process is applied it will be applied to a potential human rather than an actual human. Trust me, the potential human won't object and will roll his eyes later when mom tells the story about how the doctors resolved his 'condition'. With gene therapy you might even be able to reintroduce genetically modified cells and resolve issues in adults without sterilization.
'Deep down, everyone is convinced of their right to live and breed.'
I have to disagree. I have convinced a number of mothers with severe genetic psychological illnesses to have themselves sterilized. The world will be a better place tomorrow because of it. It is also common for parents to have mentally retarded children sterilized. I have also convinced a number of mothers that circumcision is genital mutilation akin to removing a woman's clit in order to prevent yeast infections. There are a number of male children who will thank me later.
'If you are always filtering to some level then it isn't a 'Last Resort', it's part of the overall process.'
A last resort is the least desirable way of doing something. It's the last choice. If you have to pick a choice a billion times then you can be forced to pick the least desirable choice numerous times a day without it somehow magically becoming more desirable. Last resorts are part of the overall process.
'Evaluating information is holistic, not iterative.'
Care to back that up? Simply because you MIGHT iterate quickly does not mean you don't iterate.
I gave you a sound practical example to demonstrate this concept and because you are unable to dispute it you have chosen to ignore it. Give it up already, you are wrong.
'I'd be happy if Dell said they wouldn't offer software support for Linux, just hardware support.'
That is what Dell already does. The issue is that they are apparently refusing to do this for businesses. Software support might require a greater level of expertise to satisfy business customers but hardware support only requires a willingness to replace the part.
'Of course diagnosis of hardware could be an issue if they don't want to even know about the OS but they could always provide some sort of Dell 'live' hardware diagnosis disk'
The problem with those isn't so much false positives as false negatives. For instance, bad ram will often pass a memory diagnostic but if the diagnostic fails on supported hardware its a safe bet the ram is bad.
This problem is easily solved the same way they solve it on windows. They hire trained monkeys to read scripts of troubleshooting procedures off a screen. This is even more effective in business where they have a tech there who already determined the hardware is bad and just need a new widget sent ASAP.
'I don't care if they have actually installed the OS.'
I do, not for myself but for the ignorant masses who might finally be adventurous enough to try something new.
'Now if you are trying to corroborate by looking at sources that do not have a vested interest, then you are in fact evaluating the messenger.'
No, you are evaluating groups of diverse messengers and that is a different ball of wax. But again, corroborating by looking at other sources is a less than ideal solution. Slightly better than looking at the individual messenger.
'The time to independently verify is a huge cost, and can't always be accomplished.'
Indeed. I said filtering based upon the messenger should be considered a last resort. I never said anything about the frequency with which you'd have to use that last resort.
It seems as if you and others who wish to debate the issue would like to paint me into an idealistic box. I never claimed that you could in practice always ignore the source of information. I never claimed that in the real world you wouldn't have to evaluate information in that way every day.
That said, there are no shortage of people who have dismissed the idea of evaluating the message rather than the messenger entirely simply because it is not always practical to do so. It has even become common to use this worst case method of evaluation as a PRIMARY filter for information.
Again, I stand by my previously expressed opinion that ideals are something that one should eternally for. In case I wasn't firm enough the first time, those who think they can be achieved, and those who dismiss ideals entirely because they can not be achieved are both imbeciles in the matter. Unfortunately, most fall into one group or the other.
'How else do you evaluate the information other than by evaluating the messenger?'
Put the box away already. That is why its a LAST resort, not a NEVER resort.
'What is eugenics? I thought it was the breeding of animals to produce desired traits.'
Eugenics is the idea that some behaviors, as opposed to just physical characteristics, are passed genetically. For instance, based upon a belief in eugenics the US used to sterilize individuals who had been convicted of certain crimes. This continued until the 1970's.
There are a number of ways you could utilize the theory of eugenics some of the ones that have been used are genocide (kill everyone with bad genes), sterilization (stop the bad genes from spreading), cloning, and selective breeding. One that I am not aware of ever being used is gene therapy but it should be equally applicable to eugenics as it is to altering other genetic characteristics.
Eugenics comes into play in the animal breeding world not when a farmer breeds an animal to be bigger or produce more milk, but rather when he breeds the animal to be spirited or docile. There is also even stronger evidence to support eugenics in the pet (especially dogs and cats) breeding world where behavior tendencies in different breeds is seen even though the animals are raised in different environments.
As far as force goes, there is no need to make eugenics mandatory. That said, I see no problem with either sterilization or gene therapy so long as modern scientific methods are used to determine, in an objective manner, that behaviors are transmitted; what behaviors are transmitted; and the genes responsible for the transmission.
That is what neither the US nor the Nazis did. In both cases no attempt was made to scientifically establish anything. The US used a blanket approach, it is possible that not all negative behaviors result in crimes and likely that not all criminal behaviors are the result of genetics. The Nazis just picked a random set of criteria as bad and then set up so called doctors to determine how to identify it.
Dunno, I pulled it out of left field. That or something about spending billions of dollars a year funding Linux development and promoting Linux based products. All of that has something to do with IBM being a Linux distributor.
'First, there's a difference between Nazi eugenics and selecting and/or breeding superior cultivars. Only one of them hurts people.'
Agreed, I seem to recall writing a nice post about that and how the misuse of the Nazi's has been used to redefine eugenics in the eyes of the masses. Nazi Eugenics is not Eugenics. The post you replied to if I recall.
'Second, eugenics fails to take social influences into consideration.'
There is no reason that you can't both have eugenics and social influences.
'Isn't it obvious that someone raised to believe in their own innate superiority will be, generally speaking, better than the average person.'
Certainly, although your example hints at an inability to separate the Nazi practices from eugenics. Nobody is entirely superior to another. Someone with true schizophrenia is genetically broken in that respect, that person might blow relativity away tomorrow. Would you care to name their superior? In order to have any accuracy you must narrowly define the superior aspect.
'People are not plants. They are not limited by their inherent nature like superior varieties will, due to their genes, produce a superior crop.'
Nonsense. Environmental factors play heavily on the development of man but that hardly means you aren't born with a genetic raw potential just like everything else. Most of that raw potential is probably cultivated or wasted before you are developed enough mentally to have a conscious role in the matter. The idea that only a small portion of the brain is active in humans is false, the idea that man only uses x percent of his brain's potential is probably true.
Let me stick with your plant comparisons. Humans match up plants rather well. The raw potential of a plant is defined by genetics. If you breed plants that show the best characteristics in a given environment then over time you will improve crops raised under those circumstances. That doesn't mean that environment doesn't play an equally important or more important role in plant development. It is less apparent because we can more easily control the environmental factors that affect a plant. That and plants don't live as long and we aren't afraid to do testing on them because of false codes of morality. That means we have a much greater understanding of how their environment impacts them then humans. Last but definately not least, we can define what is 'best' for plants more easily then humans. After all, there is nothing cosmic that makes ANY condition or state superior to another so it is left for man to make up definitions of superiority to strive for.
'Granted, they've got identical genes because of vegative propagation methods, but similar genes, the result a eugenics program would have, are still a liability for a species.'
I disagree. Eugenics would remove selected genetics from the pool. The only way you would see the results you are speaking of in a genetic pool as large as that of humans would be if you either cloned a selected set of genetics on a large scale or you went Nazi style, picking a small set of genetics and exterminating any variances.
'Diversity is not beneficial for a species survival; its essential.'
Eugenics has nothing to do with eliminating everyone who is different from a narrowly defined template. There is room for removing obviously defective genetics and diversity.
'Eugenics is nothing more than Darwin simplified, and it only works on paper. '
Eugenics is nothing more than Darwin being guided intelligently. As for only working on paper, actual implementation in animals that are very close to ourselves has proven otherwise. Dog breeders are closest to Nazi's of course, praising race without actual cause but even with those greatly diminished genetics pools the dogs are able to fight disease. Ranchers and farmers are also able to successfully breed disease resistant animals. Both cases demonstrate that eugenics can work even when propagating small sets of genetics, nobody but the Nazi's ever sugges
'but I understand where Dell is coming from with their lack of support for Ubuntu, it's just not financially viable to train agents to support it.'
Right, which is why they don't support it. They only support the hardware.
'For instance, why do you go to a doctor to receive medical related information?'
A doctor is one source of medical related information but hardly the only one.
'There's no guarantee that the information the doctor gives you is correct'
Exactly, which is why you should always independently verify that information as best you can. You probably will not be able to verify medical information you are given directly so the next best thing is to corroborate that information with other sources.
If you don't do this then I highly recommend you start, doctors troubleshoot people in the same way technicians troubleshoot computers and their competence seems to vary just as it does from one tech to the next. Plus, doctors are even more arrogant than techs and will NEVER let on that they don't know.
'but we accept their background as a means to justify accepting the information they provide.'
Speak for yourself. The only time I take the word of someone based upon their background is when it is the only feasible option or when the consequence if they are wrong is less substantial than the cost of independently verifying the information.
Apparently you didn't actually read my post. And yes, of course science produces better results than religion but there is no need to interfere with your bedroom or stop you from having sex. Genetic correction, sterilization, and experimentation on clones can yield the desired results. There is no reason to hurry in this field to try to produce results overnight. In fact, a great deal of study is needed to determine what, if any, behavioral traits are passed genetically in the first place. You aren't likely to impact thievery by sterilizing everyone who gets hungry and steals a loaf of bed. The only time eugenics makes sense is after it has been concretely established that the characteristic is genetic or at least is usually genetic.
Who knows, further inquiry could determine that Eugenics is bunk and the only thing being passed genetically is a tendency for hormone imbalances and that the behavior characteristics are actually just symptoms of the imbalances.
'Are you going to read every A/C post that's been moderated to -1? Because if really and truly don't consider the source of data, that's what you're saying we should all do.'
Yes. Hopefully so does everyone else with mod points.
'Idealism is nice and all, but come back when you've had a better taste of reality.'
lol. That is cute. How would you rate my taste of reality? What metric is used? I must have a way to quantify it as you have so that I might be sure I have had enough of a taste to be worthy of commenting in your divine presence. Obviously your own experience is the highest standard. How else could you safely assume you had a superior experience? How else could you assume that your view was that bred of a 'better' taste or reality rather than the result of an inferior taste? After all, you are comparing yourself to someone you know nothing about.
I COULD ignore what you had to say because of the obvious problems with the source. Instead I prefer to consider your comments based upon their own merits. Considering, what are we doing when we consider? We are filtering in the manner you referred to. That is indeed an essential process required to imagine meaning and definition in a universe that lacks any. Perhaps it would help to clarify, when referring to 'source' we are talking about human sources. Human or not, pure practicality becomes more dangerous than idealism if you do not strive to achieve the ideal. For instance, in the world of academics and mainstream science massive quantities of good ideas and information are ignored because practicality is used without an eye on the ideal. Ideally every idea presented would be tested as thoroughly as modern technology allows. Practically the amount of material must be reduced because every idea can not be tested. The best marriage of the two is to consider every proposed idea possible and narrow the choices based upon the result of applying your filters to the IDEA.
'As far as eugenics, the reason the Nazi version doesn't get anywhere is because most people in the West consider selectively breeding human beings to be morally reprehensible.'
You just failed to separate the Nazi version from the concept. In fact, a quick search shows that many sources you might have found to discover the meaning of the word do the same. Eugenics is not artificial selection. The core concept of Eugenics isn't selective breeding so much as the concept that in some measure some behavioral characteristics are passed on genetically. Selective breeding is just a natural application of the theory.
As for the moral issues, mythical morality will slowly dissipate as the common man gains a greater understanding of the way the world works. It will probably go hand in hand with a diminishing belief in imaginary friends. In the meantime, eugenics can be applied on a large scale simply by opposing measures that attempt to prevent idiots from killing themselves. You can even call it 'natural' selection (as if man and his actions aren't a natural element either way).
That isn't the definition of Eugenics.
'It comes down to trying to determine if you believe somebody has important information.'
You have just nailed one of the greatest flaws in typical human reasoning. Humans attempt to judge the source rather than information. Hitler could have written the most profound poetry, work that gives the reader a beneficial life altering insight into their soul. Only a few historians would ever read it and even they may not read it with an open mind.
A better example is Eugenics. Eugenics has never been seriously considered in the modern day because of the unscientific manner in which the Nazi's used the concept to justify genocide. People can't seem to separate the two. It's actually fairly sad because ranchers and farmers have assumed the validity of Eugenics (probably without even knowing what it was and the stigma attached to it) for decades if not centuries and their successful results make it very difficult to dispute the core concept.
One should never consider the source when determining the validity and importance of information except as a last resort. Instead, one should consider the information itself and let it stand or fall on its own merit.