Run along, son. I hope you realize that the Supreme Court does not rule on ethical disputes. My point about the Supreme Court was in response to some jerkoff who said that no respectable opinion could hold that there is any such thing as "potential life." To the extent that the Supreme Court talked about it positively, I showed how that statement was in error. Only a jackass such as yourself could find in any way a legal statement made by me in any of this. If you want legal advice, talk to a lawyer. If you want to talk to an overbearing shit, talk to Naomiah.
I like TOS. I kind of like TNG. I never watched DS9 or Voyager much. Don't like Enterprise at all. It's not that I hate Star Trek. It's that I expect more from Star Trek. I expect it to be thoughtful.
In the season finale, "a mysterious probe from space will blast a swath of destruction across North and Central America, causing epic explosions and annihilating everything between Florida and Venezuela," according to the article. "As viewers will learn, this is a preemptive strike by an alien race known as the Xindi (that's Zin-dee), who have obtained knowledge that Earth will destroy their home world 400 years in the future. The hour ends on a chilling threat of more devastation to come, but this is no mere summer cliff-hanger. In fact, it marks a whole new direction for the series."... It's up to Captain Archer to go there and stop them from destroying us altogether."
The Xindi attack is obviously a rehash of 9/11. This whole thing is just a cheap shot against the War on Terrorism.
Just substitute the "Xindi" for Arabs. The "Arabs" attacked America on 9/11. The Xindi attacked Earth in the Star Trek future. Note that the Trek producers call the Xindi attack "preemptive." That's how Bush referred to the Iraq war. Berman is turning Star Trek into utterly non-subtle hard left political correctness run amok.
SPOILERS. Here's what will happen. I guarantee this. It's so predictable. First, Archer will angrily make a military foray against the Xindi, determining to wage his own preemptive strike. He will look with disdain and haughtiness at all diplomatic solutions. But his military efforts will prove fruitless. He will only succeed in killing a lot of civilians. Then, there will be a big moment that hammers the "cycle of violence" fallacy home with an opprobrious sledgehammer. Then, Archer will realize that the only way to stop the "cycle of violence" is to hang out with the Xindi in their bars and holy places and become friends with them, and even take up their traditional practice of basket weaving or whatever. Unfortunately, Archer's "epic lesson" (of LIES!!) will be forgotten by an arrogant Federation. Then, in the next TNG movie the Xindi will attack again! (Well shucks, like that isn't obvious.) That's when Picard must go through the same process that Archer went through. Fortunately, Kirk's legacy will be dead and so there will be no unnecessary blastings. And of course, the Xindi will turn out to be fundamentally friendly. As for why they blew up a large chunk of planet Earth, well, hey, you can't blame them for that! At the time, the Xindi were led by Republicans! They were warlike and militaristic. They thought that was the best way of protecting themselves, by striking first! Only Jonathan Archer taught them how to live in peace.
Give me a break.
I used to like Star Trek. Now, I can't tolerate it. No matter how much Star Trek there is on TV or in the movies, that won't change the fact of how, for example, little Iraqi children will no longer have to endure electric drills being pushed through their wrists while their parents are forced to watch.
Rick Berman, you are a loser.
I'm sure someone will say something like, "Hey, how do you know this isn't a return to TOS, and epic space battles? Why do you assume that this will be antiwar propaganda?" Hey, buddy. This is Star Trek. It's wussy sci-fi.
Before anyone quips about the RFID "kill" feature being password-protected, please tell me how that is going to be implemented securely. What are they going to use, PGP? Are they going to generate unique keys for every RFID? I thought there were going to be billions of RFIDs. I thought RFIDs were too small to have a CPU capable of doing high-end encryption.
Oh, they're going to use an uncrackable password protection system? Like one time pad? Don't make me laugh. There's no way to keep the secret keys secret.
Oh, they're going to use one generic password for entire product lines, or entire stores? Let's see. How hard would it be to manufacture a small handheld device that brute force checks every possible password and broadcasts a kill command for each within a few seconds' time? Oh, would that be too difficult? Okay. Shoplifters go down to the store, buy a box of cereal flakes legitimately, then take the box out to their car, where they then brute force the RFID for the whole product line or the whole store. They program their handheld RFID killer appropriately. Then they reenter the store and take whatever they want.
How are consumers supposed to get the password? If the consumer can't get the password, the kill feature is useless. If the consumer can get the password, so can shoplifters.
This is the same basic encryption problem that Schneier talks about in Secrets and Lies. Security is hard. There's no magic bullet that will keep you safe in the world. There's always risk.
"RFID kill" is obviously not the solution. Not sure of how this "kill" technology would be implemented, but it's easy to imagine one type. If it's convenient for a privacy-concerned consumer to hold a small gadget or wand above an RFID-impregnated good like a shirt or a pair of pants to "kill" the RFID in the comfort of home, it will also be convenient for a shoplifter in a store.
This is one of those fundamental dilemmas. RFIDs or privacy: pick one.
The winner of this will be decided by power. Whoever has more power will win. Privacy advocates versus the money men. Don't bet against money. The problem that RFIDs are (poorly) designed to solve is shoplifting. Privacy advocates should figure out a better way to reduce shoplifting, and then argue their case by saying that that is better than RFIDs.
The obvious alternative to RFIDs is, of course, e-commerce. In e-commerce, there is no shoplifting. One could argue that "RFIDs are basically a pathetic attempt by dinosaur retailing to keep their obsolete business model alive."
Another alternative way to reduce shoplifting is to issue a store identity card. You could still enter a store and look at all the things they have for sale. Display items would still be out in the open. But to get to the inventory, you'd have to swipe your store identity card, which would allow you to pop open a little clear plastic door. Then, you take out the shirt or can of soup that you want. A sensor like that in hotel minibars determines whether you take anything from the cubby hole, and if so, how much. Then you go pay for what you took out. When you pay, you flash your store ID card. If you don't pay for it or put it in the "return bin" again swiping your card, the cops will hunt you down. The privacy concerns with this plan are the same as for e-commerce.
Store ID cards would still work for small retail outlets, even those with one store. Instead of having their own unique store ID card, they would join a clearinghouse system. This would be analogous to Visa or Mastercard, but would be different. (Identiy kept separate from funds.) Once a consumer got a clearinghouse card, they could shop at one of, let's say, thousands of participating stores.
E-commerce is cheaper than RFIDs, and not just because of all the negative PR from RFIDs that stores will avoid. The store ID card idea is also cheaper than RFIDs. Both e-commerce and the store ID card idea would significantly reduce shoplifting.
Embryonic stem cells don't come from a fetus, they're harvested from an embryo.
Of course that's right. I was using the term fetus in its less usual sense of the unborn human in all its stages from fertilized egg to full-term fetus.
the embryo in question is not "destroyed for this purpose".
This is wrong. When a fertilized egg is harvested for the purpose of using its stem cells, the entire blastocyst is used. At that point, the blastocyst is entirely composed of stem cells ("embryonic" stem cells). Again, the entire blastocyst is harvested. The only part that is not harvested is the nascent umbilical cord and placenta, which obviously will not develop by themselves into a human. When the blastocyst is harvested, the unborn human will obviously never be born. It is totally destroyed.
There is a highly significant difference between the purposeful destruction of an embryo for research purposes and the destruction of unwanted embryos in fertility clinics. The difference is the reason for destruction. If an unborn person, which is potential life, is destroyed for research purposes, that is unethical. The end of that potential life is undignified. The potential human cannot possibly give consent for becoming a research subject. The potential life is unethically treated by society as a means to an end.
OTOH, destruction of an embryo in a fertility clinic is dignified. The potential life does not have the right to be born, and thus may be destroyed. The potential life does have a right against being used or manufactured for research purposes, or as a means to some end. Morality demands that a human life, potential or otherwise, may not ever become merely a means to an end.
You also speak as if you know for a fact that these baby teeth stem cells are as viable as embryonic cells.
Of course you are right. That is why I included the phrase, "if this turns out to be the case."
Real reason that Mozilla head honchos insist on "Firebird": AOLTW doesn't want a product that it funds that competes with Netscape to have a cool name. Loss of revenue opportunities if Phoenix were to really take wing.
Firebird is about as good as its going to get. All of the cool names that were suggested will never be adopted because AOLTW doesn't want Phoenix to knock Netscape off.
This alternative approach to harvesting stem cells from baby teeth could help researchers to bypass the moral debate over using embryonic stem cells for research.
Not quite. If this turns out to be the case, it will mean that those of us against embryonic stem cell research, where the embryonic stem cells come from a fetus destroyed for this purpose, will have a new, even more devatstating argument.
This is dumb. Okay, so there's a foot for the icon. That makes it all right for Slashdot to post a hoax on a date other than April 1. There is a credibility issue here.
Let's think about this as realistically as possible. If you could travel from 2256 to 2003 and wanted to make money, you wouldn't attempt to make $350 million over the course of a few days in 2003. Instead, you'd go back, place buy orders on stocks that will increase in value slowly over time. Then you'd go back to 2256. Your stocks would then be worth a fortune.
Robert Atkins, popularizer of the low carbohydrate diet, is dead at age 72.
The immediate cause of death was a fall that caused a head injury. Last year, Atkins received treatment for a heart condition, said to be caused by an infection unrelated to his diet.
The current average life expectancy for American men is 74.0. It's too early to start throwing questions out about Robert Atkins and his diet, but his untimely death will eventually spark them.
That's a wrong characterization of what kind of
"ActiveX support" we're going to have. What is going in will allow those who want ActiveX to run it with a plugin. You still have to install the plugin manually. Mozilla won't run ActiveX stuff unless you download additional software to let it do that. Some intranet users actually need this, so this support is a very nice addition to Mozilla.
Slashdot Mirror
Run along, son. I hope you realize that the Supreme Court does not rule on ethical disputes. My point about the Supreme Court was in response to some jerkoff who said that no respectable opinion could hold that there is any such thing as "potential life." To the extent that the Supreme Court talked about it positively, I showed how that statement was in error. Only a jackass such as yourself could find in any way a legal statement made by me in any of this. If you want legal advice, talk to a lawyer. If you want to talk to an overbearing shit, talk to Naomiah.
I like TOS. I kind of like TNG. I never watched DS9 or Voyager much. Don't like Enterprise at all. It's not that I hate Star Trek. It's that I expect more from Star Trek. I expect it to be thoughtful.
The Xindi attack is obviously a rehash of 9/11. This whole thing is just a cheap shot against the War on Terrorism.
Just substitute the "Xindi" for Arabs. The "Arabs" attacked America on 9/11. The Xindi attacked Earth in the Star Trek future. Note that the Trek producers call the Xindi attack "preemptive." That's how Bush referred to the Iraq war. Berman is turning Star Trek into utterly non-subtle hard left political correctness run amok.
SPOILERS. Here's what will happen. I guarantee this. It's so predictable. First, Archer will angrily make a military foray against the Xindi, determining to wage his own preemptive strike. He will look with disdain and haughtiness at all diplomatic solutions. But his military efforts will prove fruitless. He will only succeed in killing a lot of civilians. Then, there will be a big moment that hammers the "cycle of violence" fallacy home with an opprobrious sledgehammer. Then, Archer will realize that the only way to stop the "cycle of violence" is to hang out with the Xindi in their bars and holy places and become friends with them, and even take up their traditional practice of basket weaving or whatever. Unfortunately, Archer's "epic lesson" (of LIES!!) will be forgotten by an arrogant Federation. Then, in the next TNG movie the Xindi will attack again! (Well shucks, like that isn't obvious.) That's when Picard must go through the same process that Archer went through. Fortunately, Kirk's legacy will be dead and so there will be no unnecessary blastings. And of course, the Xindi will turn out to be fundamentally friendly. As for why they blew up a large chunk of planet Earth, well, hey, you can't blame them for that! At the time, the Xindi were led by Republicans! They were warlike and militaristic. They thought that was the best way of protecting themselves, by striking first! Only Jonathan Archer taught them how to live in peace.
Give me a break.
I used to like Star Trek. Now, I can't tolerate it. No matter how much Star Trek there is on TV or in the movies, that won't change the fact of how, for example, little Iraqi children will no longer have to endure electric drills being pushed through their wrists while their parents are forced to watch.
Rick Berman, you are a loser.
I'm sure someone will say something like, "Hey, how do you know this isn't a return to TOS, and epic space battles? Why do you assume that this will be antiwar propaganda?" Hey, buddy. This is Star Trek. It's wussy sci-fi.
Yes. http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/
I'm trying to screen out almost all the "games" topics. Now this comes along, and it's in news. Aargh.
Welcome back to real life. I was making an ethical point, not a legal one. I thought that was obvious, but apparently not to everyone.
Oh, they're going to use an uncrackable password protection system? Like one time pad? Don't make me laugh. There's no way to keep the secret keys secret.
Oh, they're going to use one generic password for entire product lines, or entire stores? Let's see. How hard would it be to manufacture a small handheld device that brute force checks every possible password and broadcasts a kill command for each within a few seconds' time? Oh, would that be too difficult? Okay. Shoplifters go down to the store, buy a box of cereal flakes legitimately, then take the box out to their car, where they then brute force the RFID for the whole product line or the whole store. They program their handheld RFID killer appropriately. Then they reenter the store and take whatever they want.
How are consumers supposed to get the password? If the consumer can't get the password, the kill feature is useless. If the consumer can get the password, so can shoplifters.
This is the same basic encryption problem that Schneier talks about in Secrets and Lies. Security is hard. There's no magic bullet that will keep you safe in the world. There's always risk.
This is one of those fundamental dilemmas. RFIDs or privacy: pick one.
The winner of this will be decided by power. Whoever has more power will win. Privacy advocates versus the money men. Don't bet against money. The problem that RFIDs are (poorly) designed to solve is shoplifting. Privacy advocates should figure out a better way to reduce shoplifting, and then argue their case by saying that that is better than RFIDs.
The obvious alternative to RFIDs is, of course, e-commerce. In e-commerce, there is no shoplifting. One could argue that "RFIDs are basically a pathetic attempt by dinosaur retailing to keep their obsolete business model alive."
Another alternative way to reduce shoplifting is to issue a store identity card. You could still enter a store and look at all the things they have for sale. Display items would still be out in the open. But to get to the inventory, you'd have to swipe your store identity card, which would allow you to pop open a little clear plastic door. Then, you take out the shirt or can of soup that you want. A sensor like that in hotel minibars determines whether you take anything from the cubby hole, and if so, how much. Then you go pay for what you took out. When you pay, you flash your store ID card. If you don't pay for it or put it in the "return bin" again swiping your card, the cops will hunt you down. The privacy concerns with this plan are the same as for e-commerce.
Store ID cards would still work for small retail outlets, even those with one store. Instead of having their own unique store ID card, they would join a clearinghouse system. This would be analogous to Visa or Mastercard, but would be different. (Identiy kept separate from funds.) Once a consumer got a clearinghouse card, they could shop at one of, let's say, thousands of participating stores.
E-commerce is cheaper than RFIDs, and not just because of all the negative PR from RFIDs that stores will avoid. The store ID card idea is also cheaper than RFIDs. Both e-commerce and the store ID card idea would significantly reduce shoplifting.
Search for potential life. And keep searching for it.
I see you aren't willing to argue the ethical issues in a serious manner.
"Potential life" is just a ludicrous concept.
Perhaps you should inform the Supreme Court of the United States of America of that.
Of course that's right. I was using the term fetus in its less usual sense of the unborn human in all its stages from fertilized egg to full-term fetus.
the embryo in question is not "destroyed for this purpose".
This is wrong. When a fertilized egg is harvested for the purpose of using its stem cells, the entire blastocyst is used. At that point, the blastocyst is entirely composed of stem cells ("embryonic" stem cells). Again, the entire blastocyst is harvested. The only part that is not harvested is the nascent umbilical cord and placenta, which obviously will not develop by themselves into a human. When the blastocyst is harvested, the unborn human will obviously never be born. It is totally destroyed.
There is a highly significant difference between the purposeful destruction of an embryo for research purposes and the destruction of unwanted embryos in fertility clinics. The difference is the reason for destruction. If an unborn person, which is potential life, is destroyed for research purposes, that is unethical. The end of that potential life is undignified. The potential human cannot possibly give consent for becoming a research subject. The potential life is unethically treated by society as a means to an end.
OTOH, destruction of an embryo in a fertility clinic is dignified. The potential life does not have the right to be born, and thus may be destroyed. The potential life does have a right against being used or manufactured for research purposes, or as a means to some end. Morality demands that a human life, potential or otherwise, may not ever become merely a means to an end.
You also speak as if you know for a fact that these baby teeth stem cells are as viable as embryonic cells.
Of course you are right. That is why I included the phrase, "if this turns out to be the case."
K.I.S.S.
This Slashdot is a hellhole.
Firebird is about as good as its going to get. All of the cool names that were suggested will never be adopted because AOLTW doesn't want Phoenix to knock Netscape off.
Not quite. If this turns out to be the case, it will mean that those of us against embryonic stem cell research, where the embryonic stem cells come from a fetus destroyed for this purpose, will have a new, even more devatstating argument.
Let's think about this as realistically as possible. If you could travel from 2256 to 2003 and wanted to make money, you wouldn't attempt to make $350 million over the course of a few days in 2003. Instead, you'd go back, place buy orders on stocks that will increase in value slowly over time. Then you'd go back to 2256. Your stocks would then be worth a fortune.
The immediate cause of death was a fall that caused a head injury. Last year, Atkins received treatment for a heart condition, said to be caused by an infection unrelated to his diet.
The current average life expectancy for American men is 74.0. It's too early to start throwing questions out about Robert Atkins and his diet, but his untimely death will eventually spark them.
Let's face it. The Weekly World News just hacked Slashdot.
News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
Technicalis Omnium Imperator
or,
Master of Things Digitized and Otherwise
or,
Electronic Information Steward
or,
Informatics Guardsman
In my experience, it's usually a bad idea to piss off somebody with a sword.
That should be to quote Pink Floyd.
GGur uhznaf ner ba gb hf. Gurl ner fgnegvat gb nfx irel hapbzsbegnoyr dhrfgvbaf nobhg gurve sbhe-yrttrq oerguera. Bhe cynaf gb hfr gurz nyy nf fynirf naq zrng pbhyq tb njel. Pbzzrapr vainfvba va avar beovgf bs guvf fuvgubyr zhqonyy nebhaq vgf cngurgvp, htyl lryybj fgne. Vzcbegnag! Ercrng: Vzcbegnag! Gur qnatrebhf fvgr xabja nf Fynfuqbg zhfg or fnobgntrq! Bajneq, Unyvgbffnevna Rzcver! Unvy gur Terng Yrnqre Ohypu!
That's a wrong characterization of what kind of "ActiveX support" we're going to have. What is going in will allow those who want ActiveX to run it with a plugin. You still have to install the plugin manually. Mozilla won't run ActiveX stuff unless you download additional software to let it do that. Some intranet users actually need this, so this support is a very nice addition to Mozilla.
Obviously, Mozilla itself does not render video. That is left to plugins. That is forgivable.
Videos, however, do not render. HTML is rendered.
Furthermore, HTML does not render. A browser renders HTML.
Proper usage would be, "The HTML is rendered in Mozilla...."