I found that if you just hit the keys harder, they still make noise. Granted, it's not quite the same as the older, cooler keyboards, but it works.
It has the added benefit of keeping my fingers fairly strong on the long stretches when I don't have time to practice guitar. I find that if I spend the intervening time smashing keys on the keyboard (programming and sex being the only things that take me from my guitar for these stretches) then when I return to my guitar I've lost less finger strength. This is important because I use pretty heavy strings, and I bend the shit out of them. Enough rambling...
It's just shitty code. Must have come from Microsoft.
Re:Everyone is "anxious" in combat
on
Mood-Sensing Computer
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I'd say that you and a lot of other people seem to have missed the big major selling point, as well as some minor ones.
1. If a soldier is unable to call for help, but needs it (such as laying unconscious with his blood decorating the countryside) the computer may sense an "abnormal" condition and call for help. Otherwise, he may die. He may die anyway, with or without medical attention, but this computer would increase his chances of survival and remaining in his own army by notifying the appropriate medical unit of his condition, and where he is.
2. Casualties that need to be recovered can be prioritized in whatever fashion. It would be possible to "home in" on the most dangerously wounded and get them to aid first, because they're in the most dangerous situations.
3. MIAs: He's missing in action, but we know he's alive. Or we know he's dead. Or we don't know because his unit has stopped transmitting, meaning either the unit is damaged or he's been captured. Secondary transmitters embedded within the soldier could give signal that the soldier is still alive but in distress.
These are all very important issues to soldiers on the battlefield, their families at home, the citizens they're protecting (at least, we hope they're being employed to protect us), and the military they are serving.
Detecting mood on the battlefield is more than just knowing how he's feeling, it's also knowing more about what's going on in a tactical perspective.
1. In the command center a light flickers on near the battalion on the left wing showing *surprise*. This kind of data, while inconclusive, is *faster* than waiting for the comm personnel in the battalion to signal that they are under a surprise attack.
2. The general is deciding whether or not to fight or retreat, and his instruments show an overwhelming amount of confidence from most of his troops. He decides to fight when he might have decided to retreat, and goes on to win what had been a hopeless battle. Granted there is a risk involved in this decision and I'm presenting the best case, but knowing how your troops view the battle can give your general a tactical advantage over the opposition.
The article didn't say ANYTHING at all about these machines being a walking counselor trying to help the soldier to feel better. So, with that in mind, READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE.
Would you want the blood to be on your hands because you didn't go and grab the garbage after the judge didn't approve it quickly enough?
Turn it around. Say they got the warrant approved too quickly, search the wrong guy, attach the evidence to the wrong case, convict and sentence him to DEATH. Would you want *that* blood on your hands?
In America, until the fourth amendment was recently appealed, we were "innocent until proven guilty by a jury of our peers". The criminals get this treatment just like the rest of us, because it's not always easy to prove someone's a criminal.
If it's THAT easy to prove someone's a criminal, do you really think warrants would be needed in the first place?
I mean, come on. Don't put stuff on the curb if you don't want to lose it. The rule is, if you have something that someone else may find useful, but you don't want it anymore, give it to Goodwill or the Salvation Army.
When either of those organizations says "It's too trashy for our clientele", (or if you don't like them for some reason, as I do not) then you stick it on the curb and wait 'till a passerby takes it. If a passerby doesn't take it and you get sick of looking at it, THEN you HAUL IT YOURSELF.
Therefore, by convention, just like saying "thank you" when you pay for your fuckin' groceries, if you put something on the curb, anyone else can have it. Unless it's a car. Bicycles are usually excluded too. A sign helps.
Perhaps if your neighbor prefers not to honor this convention then he should hang a sign informing the passersby that he does not honor this convention?
but on the other hand, the wonderful teachers of Texas aren't exactly churning out the brightest students in the country.
Heh, no flame attack here. Because it's not the teachers' fault, at least not completely. What about the drugs? I'm not talking about the fact that 70%+ teenage kids in Austin smoke pot, I'm talking about LITHIUM, and PROZAC, and the OTHER drug habits that are forced upon these kids.
Working in fast food I met a decent statistical sampling of kids in the area, and 90% of them were on some prescribed tranquilizer that prevented their brains from functioning.
Keep your kids ignorant, shoot 'em up with drugs, manufacture threats to national security, so which group gets to be the scapegoat? In Germany they had the jews, who's it gonna be for Nazi US? The arabs? Or iraqis? Who, who who?
I was accosted by some dude at a gas station in Oregon while I was driving through (I know, who drives through Oregon?). He went to my '71 Chevy pickup and filled the fucking thing to overflowing! Then he just stood there and looked dumb! That fucking idiot. I had to grab stuff to clean it up to prevent the spilled gas from further screwing up an old paint job.
I was always taught in school that overfilling a gas tank was dangerous, some sort of fire hazard. Obviously he wasn't taught the same thing....
And he was just trying to milk a few more cents out of me. I'd rather NOT smell gas in the cab of my truck for the next 400 miles on a long trip than submit to this stupid law.
The most qualified person in this whole fucking world to fill up my gas tank is ME, because I fill it up every week and have done so for the last two years. It's a truck with some "character", so it doesn't behave like you expect a truck to behave. (It actually runs, for one thing, and usually starts right away)
Re:Rampaging, Free-Range Bovines
on
Lab-Grown Steak
·
· Score: 1
This reminds me. What did free-range cows do before becoming a domesticated animal that provided milk and meat?
Porn?
Hehe, seriously, then they were still the food supply, they just weren't domesticated. But still part of the primary food supply. Of course, we had buffalo then, too, that were part of the primary food supply. If the buffalo hadn't been hunted to the point of extinction, perhaps they too would be domesticated. But still fulfilling their first, and only role, which is providing food for the rest of us.:)
Re:Flavor- Who gives a F-ck. This is sick
on
Lab-Grown Steak
·
· Score: 1
that we have more choice than many people choose to live out.
I can agree with this. Freedom of choice, in my opinion, is our most important freedom, mostly because it implies the rest.:)
To summarize, it would make me happy if people would consider eating less meat instead of just saying "I like the taste of meat nyah nyah" (most of what we eat comes from an outside suggestion anyway, an other point being there is more variety than the few things that keep people tied to a meat-centred diet). I don't think I'm much of a facist because of that and I certainly don't deserve a "careful, dude."
I agree that choosing to eat something solely because I like it is probably a bad idea. Besides personal morality choices (I chose to eat meat myself:) ), there's also a personal danger level (it *is* possible to cook and eat chicken in a healthy fashion, I do it all the time).
There *is* more variety, and I never pass up a dish just because it says "I'm good for vegetarians." If the dish is a well-balanced meal, or fits nicely into such, then I will eat it regardless of its composition.
So, if you discover a lump of shit that has the amount of protein my body needs (as well as other nutrients), I might choose not to eat it solely for taste reasons, but in a pinch I'd eat it regardless.
The "careful, dude" was because assumptions can be dangerous, and when I see someone doing something potentially dangerous, it warrants a "careful, dude".:)
Imagine some other species cut you in pieces and cook you in a pot. They saw you bleed and cry, then discuss the question:" Do you think he suffered while we killed him? Hmmm... tough question..."
This is relevant...how?
Really, if some other species cut me in pieces and cooked me in a pot, I'd do my damndest to try not to give them indigestion. They won't get me without a fight, but after/if they win, I'll have a "proper" role to play.
I get sick of these kinds of arguments, really. "Imagine what if they did it to you!" Well, have you considered that a basic part of my decision-making process requires that I consider the question before making such a judgement? Have you huh?
Oh yeah, you weren't talking to me.
I class this argument along with "What if you're wrong, Dave? What if there really is a God, wouldn't you rather go to Heaven?"
(The answer, if anyone cares, is "not just no but HELL no do I want to go to heaven")
Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal
on
Lab-Grown Steak
·
· Score: 1
I'm sure human meat is even better for consumption. Why don't we grow human steaks, then?
The basic thread seems to be going like this:
1. Animal eats plants and processes it into proteins.
2. Human body eats animals and processes the proteins into shit. Human body also eats plants and processes them into sugars, which are in turn processed into shit.
3. Now someone has suggested we eat humans, who have processed the food into shit.
I'm not gonna eat shit, unless it's for basic survival. I won't make it as a culinary decision.
Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal
on
Lab-Grown Steak
·
· Score: 1
If slaughterhouses had glass walls many of you would join me for a veggie-burger.
Like hell, veggie-burgers are a nasty attempt to recreate something you enjoyed as a meat eater! It's the same reason I don't celebrate the Winter Solstice by letting Santa Claus deliver presents to my house, and declare this time of year the season of brotherhood and good will towards men!
Veggie-burgers are the #1 reason people don't respect vegans and the like.:)
Re:Flavor- Who gives a F-ck. This is sick
on
Lab-Grown Steak
·
· Score: 1
I didn't say they anyone was doing anything unusual. We can view things outside of the "purpose of industry." In fact we can even question and change what industries do, to our advantage. You didn't know this? Wow.
Careful dude, you "assumed" something. You assumed I didn't know this.:)
You presented the view that industry was somehow performing something that was somehow "bad" by trying to survive. Making money == survival, ! making money != survival. This is the problem of industry. It's why industry will always do whatever is needed to survive, and people will always suffer. There's no solution. It's division by zero: undefined.
Now, I'm all for trying to help businesses be more ethical. The problem really happens when you attempt to define "ethical". For example, if the meat-producers of the world stopped producing meat entirely because they felt it was unethical and people starved because of this, then did they do the "right" thing? Note that I'm not saying that stopping meat production would cause starvation, I don't know the answer to that.
Many problems occur when one group tries to enforce their own sense of "ethics" or "morals". Take the FSF as a prime example. The Free Software community is starkly divided, but for what reason? Because one group of people tried to impose their "ethics" and "morals" upon the other, and the other said "not me, buddy."
So, after we all agree what "ethics" are, and what will be henceforth considered "ethics", then we can force industry to obey. Until then, we're being no more ethical than they are by forcing them to do something that might be contrary to their own beliefs.
Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal
on
Lab-Grown Steak
·
· Score: 1
Everyone likes to espouse and demand respect for their own, while alternately disrespecting those they don't personally hold.
Here's a twist: I don't give a fuck if you respect my views or not. If I don't respect your views, then your (possible) lack of respect for mine isn't going to make me respect yours all of a sudden, it'll only provide stronger feelings behind my views.
If I *do* respect your views, then your views will not call for the respecting of other people's views. Simple. I wouldn't respect your views if they called for respecting other people's views AND you did not respect mine.
If I *do* respect your views, then your views may call for the respecting of other people's views, and to my knowledge you carry this out. However:
When people demand that their own views be respected, they are rarely willing to deliver respect to other views. I.e. they're the ones who've "gotta draw the line somewhere, if we let these devil-worshippers live then" < insert nasty consequence of letting devil-worshippers live >.
However, if you respect my views, I may not respect your views. Sorry, stupid is stupid, I don't have to respect that.:)
Aw shit, it's some tumbled logic. Work it out for yourself.:)
I wonder how I am going to get my steak bloody as hell if it's that superficial...
Aw hell, I might finally get to eat it raw, just the way I like it!
Re:You're bitter and hateful
on
Lab-Grown Steak
·
· Score: 1
Detail a strategy for feeding the world's population with cows.
1. Kill enough cows to feed the world's population.
2. ???
3. Profit!!!
Seriously, though, the problem isn't a feeding problem, it's a supply problem. Detail a plan to provide enough cow to feed the world's population:
1. Visit FAT porno sites
2. ???
3. Profit!!!
Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten?
on
Lab-Grown Steak
·
· Score: 1
As I've stated elsewhere I don't see much utility in segregating our activities into religous and secular so cavalierly. That "any sufficiently evolved technology is indistinguishable from magic" is a caution to the scientist as much as to the savage.
There are those who define magic as "something which science has not been able to explain." Not "inherently evil". Consider that before we know something, we must *not* know it. To consider the unknown to be dangerous and evil for the fact that we don't know it is to limit growth, indeed stop it entirely. At what point does scientific research become immoral? Simple, when someone puts the knowledge gained into practice *against* his fellow human beings. I'll redefine that statement as needed to suit new life forms as they're found, but I do not feel the need to apply the statement to other life forms on our planet, at this time.
That version 1.0 came out of a burning bush concerns me not. It's validity as a concept should not be suspect simply because it originates in a religous tradition.
This will inevitably lead a person to think that they should respect religion. Consider that the stories of Moses, or at the least the ones that didn't get censored out of the Bible (or the Torah, if you prefer) were originally passed down from father to son for *thousands* of years, then you also have to consider that the Stories of Moses could well have information that is "good" information. However, the fact that it is *also* stories of religion, and therefore extremely biased, means we must question the stories with the same level of skepticism we assign to our modern press.
That's right. Because the books of Moses (and the rest of the books that didn't get censored out of the Bible) can be treated as "pro-God FUD" and dismissed the same way we can dismiss "pro-microsoft FUD". Show me something that's not just FUD and contains irrefutable facts, for *any* religion (not just the philosophical meanderings found in the Eastern Religions, and the one I already linked to).
Re:But if the grown meat ...
on
Lab-Grown Steak
·
· Score: 1
What, exactly, is the benefit derived from having to go through a monumental debate over some totally arbitrary rules every time you want to add anything to your diet?
That's called "rationalization" and allows a religionist to do anything they want.:)
Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten?
on
Lab-Grown Steak
·
· Score: 1
The fact that the meat was rasied in a dish probably reinforces this position rather than weakening it.
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
Isn't growing meat in a dish witchcraft?
Oh wait, I forget. Everything is magic and "evil" until "science" (the new religion) makes it happen.
Alright then, until you invent a faster TCP/IP stack then I'll eat you the next time I see you!
Why? Have you invented a faster TCP/IP stack? You countered a self-defeating statement with a self-defeating statement, and you're both defeated.:)
Re:Gag the PETA people, please.
on
Lab-Grown Steak
·
· Score: 1
Sorry but I am of the belief that all life is amazing and truly is a miracle, and I can see complexity in every life from an ant to a walrus.
Not only do I agree wholeheartedly with this statement, but I would also eat every life from an ant to a walrus, if I was hungry enough.
It doesn't have to make sense. If you assume your actions must make sense, you could be making an "ass" out of "ume". If you assume the world makes sense somehow, maybe you should read the previous sentence.
Stop the senseless stuff! I can't handle it anymore! I'm gonna have a nervous breakdown because the world doesn't make sense to my narrow imagination, limited experience, and generally pathetic brain (I'm talking about *all* of you, and me too)!
Slashdot Mirror
It has the added benefit of keeping my fingers fairly strong on the long stretches when I don't have time to practice guitar. I find that if I spend the intervening time smashing keys on the keyboard (programming and sex being the only things that take me from my guitar for these stretches) then when I return to my guitar I've lost less finger strength. This is important because I use pretty heavy strings, and I bend the shit out of them. Enough rambling...
It would be better if it just told my wife she wanted to have sex.
It's just shitty code. Must have come from Microsoft.
I'd say that you and a lot of other people seem to have missed the big major selling point, as well as some minor ones.
1. If a soldier is unable to call for help, but needs it (such as laying unconscious with his blood decorating the countryside) the computer may sense an "abnormal" condition and call for help. Otherwise, he may die. He may die anyway, with or without medical attention, but this computer would increase his chances of survival and remaining in his own army by notifying the appropriate medical unit of his condition, and where he is.
2. Casualties that need to be recovered can be prioritized in whatever fashion. It would be possible to "home in" on the most dangerously wounded and get them to aid first, because they're in the most dangerous situations.
3. MIAs: He's missing in action, but we know he's alive. Or we know he's dead. Or we don't know because his unit has stopped transmitting, meaning either the unit is damaged or he's been captured. Secondary transmitters embedded within the soldier could give signal that the soldier is still alive but in distress.
These are all very important issues to soldiers on the battlefield, their families at home, the citizens they're protecting (at least, we hope they're being employed to protect us), and the military they are serving.
Detecting mood on the battlefield is more than just knowing how he's feeling, it's also knowing more about what's going on in a tactical perspective.
1. In the command center a light flickers on near the battalion on the left wing showing *surprise*. This kind of data, while inconclusive, is *faster* than waiting for the comm personnel in the battalion to signal that they are under a surprise attack.
2. The general is deciding whether or not to fight or retreat, and his instruments show an overwhelming amount of confidence from most of his troops. He decides to fight when he might have decided to retreat, and goes on to win what had been a hopeless battle. Granted there is a risk involved in this decision and I'm presenting the best case, but knowing how your troops view the battle can give your general a tactical advantage over the opposition.
The article didn't say ANYTHING at all about these machines being a walking counselor trying to help the soldier to feel better. So, with that in mind, READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE.
Turn it around. Say they got the warrant approved too quickly, search the wrong guy, attach the evidence to the wrong case, convict and sentence him to DEATH. Would you want *that* blood on your hands?
In America, until the fourth amendment was recently appealed, we were "innocent until proven guilty by a jury of our peers". The criminals get this treatment just like the rest of us, because it's not always easy to prove someone's a criminal.
If it's THAT easy to prove someone's a criminal, do you really think warrants would be needed in the first place?
Is your neighbor antisocial?
I mean, come on. Don't put stuff on the curb if you don't want to lose it. The rule is, if you have something that someone else may find useful, but you don't want it anymore, give it to Goodwill or the Salvation Army.
When either of those organizations says "It's too trashy for our clientele", (or if you don't like them for some reason, as I do not) then you stick it on the curb and wait 'till a passerby takes it. If a passerby doesn't take it and you get sick of looking at it, THEN you HAUL IT YOURSELF.
Therefore, by convention, just like saying "thank you" when you pay for your fuckin' groceries, if you put something on the curb, anyone else can have it. Unless it's a car. Bicycles are usually excluded too. A sign helps.
Perhaps if your neighbor prefers not to honor this convention then he should hang a sign informing the passersby that he does not honor this convention?
Heh, no flame attack here. Because it's not the teachers' fault, at least not completely. What about the drugs? I'm not talking about the fact that 70%+ teenage kids in Austin smoke pot, I'm talking about LITHIUM, and PROZAC, and the OTHER drug habits that are forced upon these kids.
Working in fast food I met a decent statistical sampling of kids in the area, and 90% of them were on some prescribed tranquilizer that prevented their brains from functioning.
Keep your kids ignorant, shoot 'em up with drugs, manufacture threats to national security, so which group gets to be the scapegoat? In Germany they had the jews, who's it gonna be for Nazi US? The arabs? Or iraqis? Who, who who?
If you don't underpay teachers, you wind up with 20-year olds too qualified to haul trash.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. :)
In Oregon it is forced upon you.
I was accosted by some dude at a gas station in Oregon while I was driving through (I know, who drives through Oregon?). He went to my '71 Chevy pickup and filled the fucking thing to overflowing! Then he just stood there and looked dumb! That fucking idiot. I had to grab stuff to clean it up to prevent the spilled gas from further screwing up an old paint job.
I was always taught in school that overfilling a gas tank was dangerous, some sort of fire hazard. Obviously he wasn't taught the same thing....
And he was just trying to milk a few more cents out of me. I'd rather NOT smell gas in the cab of my truck for the next 400 miles on a long trip than submit to this stupid law.
The most qualified person in this whole fucking world to fill up my gas tank is ME, because I fill it up every week and have done so for the last two years. It's a truck with some "character", so it doesn't behave like you expect a truck to behave. (It actually runs, for one thing, and usually starts right away)
The fourth amendment has been repealed.
Porn?
Hehe, seriously, then they were still the food supply, they just weren't domesticated. But still part of the primary food supply. Of course, we had buffalo then, too, that were part of the primary food supply. If the buffalo hadn't been hunted to the point of extinction, perhaps they too would be domesticated. But still fulfilling their first, and only role, which is providing food for the rest of us. :)
I can agree with this. Freedom of choice, in my opinion, is our most important freedom, mostly because it implies the rest. :)
To summarize, it would make me happy if people would consider eating less meat instead of just saying "I like the taste of meat nyah nyah" (most of what we eat comes from an outside suggestion anyway, an other point being there is more variety than the few things that keep people tied to a meat-centred diet). I don't think I'm much of a facist because of that and I certainly don't deserve a "careful, dude."
I agree that choosing to eat something solely because I like it is probably a bad idea. Besides personal morality choices (I chose to eat meat myself :) ), there's also a personal danger level (it *is* possible to cook and eat chicken in a healthy fashion, I do it all the time).
There *is* more variety, and I never pass up a dish just because it says "I'm good for vegetarians." If the dish is a well-balanced meal, or fits nicely into such, then I will eat it regardless of its composition.
So, if you discover a lump of shit that has the amount of protein my body needs (as well as other nutrients), I might choose not to eat it solely for taste reasons, but in a pinch I'd eat it regardless.
The "careful, dude" was because assumptions can be dangerous, and when I see someone doing something potentially dangerous, it warrants a "careful, dude". :)
This is relevant...how?
Really, if some other species cut me in pieces and cooked me in a pot, I'd do my damndest to try not to give them indigestion. They won't get me without a fight, but after/if they win, I'll have a "proper" role to play.
I get sick of these kinds of arguments, really. "Imagine what if they did it to you!" Well, have you considered that a basic part of my decision-making process requires that I consider the question before making such a judgement? Have you huh?
Oh yeah, you weren't talking to me.
I class this argument along with "What if you're wrong, Dave? What if there really is a God, wouldn't you rather go to Heaven?"
(The answer, if anyone cares, is "not just no but HELL no do I want to go to heaven")
The basic thread seems to be going like this:
1. Animal eats plants and processes it into proteins.
2. Human body eats animals and processes the proteins into shit. Human body also eats plants and processes them into sugars, which are in turn processed into shit.
3. Now someone has suggested we eat humans, who have processed the food into shit.
I'm not gonna eat shit, unless it's for basic survival. I won't make it as a culinary decision.
Like hell, veggie-burgers are a nasty attempt to recreate something you enjoyed as a meat eater! It's the same reason I don't celebrate the Winter Solstice by letting Santa Claus deliver presents to my house, and declare this time of year the season of brotherhood and good will towards men!
Veggie-burgers are the #1 reason people don't respect vegans and the like. :)
How about shit?
Careful dude, you "assumed" something. You assumed I didn't know this. :)
You presented the view that industry was somehow performing something that was somehow "bad" by trying to survive. Making money == survival, ! making money != survival. This is the problem of industry. It's why industry will always do whatever is needed to survive, and people will always suffer. There's no solution. It's division by zero: undefined.
Now, I'm all for trying to help businesses be more ethical. The problem really happens when you attempt to define "ethical". For example, if the meat-producers of the world stopped producing meat entirely because they felt it was unethical and people starved because of this, then did they do the "right" thing? Note that I'm not saying that stopping meat production would cause starvation, I don't know the answer to that.
Many problems occur when one group tries to enforce their own sense of "ethics" or "morals". Take the FSF as a prime example. The Free Software community is starkly divided, but for what reason? Because one group of people tried to impose their "ethics" and "morals" upon the other, and the other said "not me, buddy."
So, after we all agree what "ethics" are, and what will be henceforth considered "ethics", then we can force industry to obey. Until then, we're being no more ethical than they are by forcing them to do something that might be contrary to their own beliefs.
Here's a twist: I don't give a fuck if you respect my views or not. If I don't respect your views, then your (possible) lack of respect for mine isn't going to make me respect yours all of a sudden, it'll only provide stronger feelings behind my views.
If I *do* respect your views, then your views will not call for the respecting of other people's views. Simple. I wouldn't respect your views if they called for respecting other people's views AND you did not respect mine.
If I *do* respect your views, then your views may call for the respecting of other people's views, and to my knowledge you carry this out. However:
When people demand that their own views be respected, they are rarely willing to deliver respect to other views. I.e. they're the ones who've "gotta draw the line somewhere, if we let these devil-worshippers live then" < insert nasty consequence of letting devil-worshippers live >.
However, if you respect my views, I may not respect your views. Sorry, stupid is stupid, I don't have to respect that. :)
Aw shit, it's some tumbled logic. Work it out for yourself. :)
Aw hell, I might finally get to eat it raw, just the way I like it!
1. Kill enough cows to feed the world's population.
2. ???
3. Profit!!!
Seriously, though, the problem isn't a feeding problem, it's a supply problem. Detail a plan to provide enough cow to feed the world's population:
1. Visit FAT porno sites
2. ???
3. Profit!!!
There are those who define magic as "something which science has not been able to explain." Not "inherently evil". Consider that before we know something, we must *not* know it. To consider the unknown to be dangerous and evil for the fact that we don't know it is to limit growth, indeed stop it entirely. At what point does scientific research become immoral? Simple, when someone puts the knowledge gained into practice *against* his fellow human beings. I'll redefine that statement as needed to suit new life forms as they're found, but I do not feel the need to apply the statement to other life forms on our planet, at this time.
That version 1.0 came out of a burning bush concerns me not. It's validity as a concept should not be suspect simply because it originates in a religous tradition.
This will inevitably lead a person to think that they should respect religion. Consider that the stories of Moses, or at the least the ones that didn't get censored out of the Bible (or the Torah, if you prefer) were originally passed down from father to son for *thousands* of years, then you also have to consider that the Stories of Moses could well have information that is "good" information. However, the fact that it is *also* stories of religion, and therefore extremely biased, means we must question the stories with the same level of skepticism we assign to our modern press.
That's right. Because the books of Moses (and the rest of the books that didn't get censored out of the Bible) can be treated as "pro-God FUD" and dismissed the same way we can dismiss "pro-microsoft FUD". Show me something that's not just FUD and contains irrefutable facts, for *any* religion (not just the philosophical meanderings found in the Eastern Religions, and the one I already linked to).
That's called "rationalization" and allows a religionist to do anything they want. :)
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
Isn't growing meat in a dish witchcraft?
Oh wait, I forget. Everything is magic and "evil" until "science" (the new religion) makes it happen.
Why? Have you invented a faster TCP/IP stack? You countered a self-defeating statement with a self-defeating statement, and you're both defeated. :)
Not only do I agree wholeheartedly with this statement, but I would also eat every life from an ant to a walrus, if I was hungry enough.
It doesn't have to make sense. If you assume your actions must make sense, you could be making an "ass" out of "ume". If you assume the world makes sense somehow, maybe you should read the previous sentence.
Stop the senseless stuff! I can't handle it anymore! I'm gonna have a nervous breakdown because the world doesn't make sense to my narrow imagination, limited experience, and generally pathetic brain (I'm talking about *all* of you, and me too)!