This device covered by Patents number 5764221 and 5821508 .
According to his website he already holds 2 patents on the device and concept. And it looks reasonably sound. Just a touch circuit board more or less, a small processor to translate the signal into something meaningful, and a bank of thin RAM to store the info in. I would suggest using laminated paper or some sort of cheap plastic sheet to avoid the affects of weather. But that would still only raise the cost by a dollar or two at most, might even lower it... The concept is sound, the implementation looks simply enough, and I think it would kick ass.
I have to very much agree with this. The company spends a lot of time, effort, and money to host people for next to nothing and as soon as they have a problem they are inundated by hate mail and flames. Where is the community support? I've been on MUDs where the Imms ran out of funds to keep the mud up and the players started sending in cash. The MUD ran for 3 years off of 2 months of people donating cash. Why isn't there that kind of community here? Where is your support for the people who help you out? Everyone has been shouting that they should have gotten a dialup account to send out e-mails, they should have done this or that or the other to contact their customers. But in the middle of trying to figure out what the hell was going on that just might not have been possible, from what I know this is NOT a large company. They don't neccesarily have the resources to contact 800 people. Now they should have had a contingency plan, but heck I work for one of the largest check printing companies in the world and our contingency plans usually cons0ist of 'Call the Tech and watch the shit hit the fan'. Which means I get a lot of phone calls.... What I'm trying to say is BACK OFF. These people did a lot for the community and when they stumbled the Community grabbed a 2x4 and beat them to the ground.
An example of why multiple Internet links are important. A large server should try to have links to two ISPs with DNS on at least two separate places. Then the pipe would have run slower but data would still get through.
How many people would have been willing to pay double the cost to support having that second ISP though?
Kintanon
Sweet, now I need one that can wash dishes....
on
Cool Personal Robots
·
· Score: 1
Can't wait for el robotic maid.... The best gift a geek can get, something that cleans up after him/her.>:) This little thing would get drowned in the sea of soda cans on my floor.
Now here's a really serious question, if/when Lucas comes out with the original trilogy on DVD, should he release the digitally enhanced versions or the original versions as they were shown in theaters? I go for the "as they were shown in theaters originally" versions, but that's because of personal nostalgia. what does everyone else think?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
How about both on the same DVD? There is plenty of room.
Microsoft completed merger talks with industry giant United States of America. Reports are somewhat sketchy at the moment, but it looks like Microsoft will be purchasing a majority share in the USoA. Supporters point to the recent Microsoft controlled actions of the NYPD as further evidence of the MegaCorps takeover. USoA stock skyrocketed on the rumors as investors speculate that for the first time in fifty years USoA may actually turn a profit. Microsoft stock also rose several points as the acquisition of nuclear weapons makes them a formidable world economic player.
Last time I checked Antimatter was not a demonstrable item. No one has ever seen, or interacted with antimatter. You believe in Antimatter to explain the origin of the universe, I believe in God. I think my belief makes more sense.
I'll leave the silly Karma pimping alone, as for the rest...
If you show me the Big Bang, then I will believe it. Until then the two theories are equally viable and I have chosen the one that seems to make the most sense to me. I really don't care one way or another whether you agree with me or not.
Here we have a common misconception. There need not be anything before the Big Bang, because there is no 'before the Big Bang.' Time is not something which governs the reasons behind the Big Bang. Time is of necessity a dimension within the space/time continuum. Hence Time only affects those things which are within that continuum. Our entire existence, the entire existence of the universe, everything is simply one slice of that continuum.
Except that the Big Bang has to follow the Laws of Thermodynamics or it nulls all of the laws that govern our universe. And the spontaneous combustion of the universe means that everything that is here had to have been somewhere before it was here, because energy can not be created or destroyed. Hence everything that is here must have existed elsewhere before it was here, by my reasoning the entity we are naming as God would fit the bill. The universe was created by him, from his essence, whatever it may be. When the universe became, time began, because it goes hand in hand with the other 3 dimensions that only exist within our universe.
My point is'nt actually that you'd need another prime cause for 'their' 'God'. My point is that, if they can so easily get rid of their first cause for 'their' 'God', well I don't need a first cause for 'my' 'Universe'. The first cause requirement is a logical fallacy.
Your universe is required to follow the laws of physics and thermodynamics. God is not. Hence anything describing your universe as violating its own laws must be false. However God is unaffected by the laws of the universe because he is not bound by the universe.
Kintanon
Re:That's not what I said.
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 2
You're putting words in my mouth. I claim that 'religions' don't have a good enough track record to be able to point the 'good' when THEY, as religions, have done so much bad.
No one has a good enough track record as an organization. Individually there are plenty of good people. But those aren't the kind of people that desire power, so they aren't the ones who end up leading organizations. Scientists as a group are no better or worse than Wiccans, or Christians, or Nazis as a group. There are good individuals in each group though, and those are the people we need to hear from.
Ok, but where did god come from? You don't seem to want to answer this question. This is his point. And you can't just say that he is and always has been. No to that.
you seem to be implying that God is somehow subject to a before and an after. Which would imply that God is governed by time. Which is not possible. Time is a function of God. There is no time in relation to God. You can not have a before God, or an After God. Because Before and After are concepts which exist within God. We exist in a single, crystal moment. That moment changes, and the previous state ceases to exist. There is no future state, there is only the now state. God sees all Nows. to God there is no Time. Hence there is no place or time for God to come from, because everything exists as a function of God. There is no Is and Always has Been, because those terms are completely meaningless when applied to God.
Kintanon
Re:How does this mock religion?
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 2
We can argue all we'd like about whether or not God assembled the first genetic molecules, but they can and do spontaneously self-assemble after that. The watch does not imply a watchmaker any more than an icy widshield implies a little crystalline forester. The icy windshield could imply a guy pouring water on a windwshield, but it could also imply the mere presence of water and a smooth surface.
You simply state that because you do not implicitly see the literal hand of God piecing each atom and molecule together that there must be no hand of God. Yes you do not doubt that the water freezes because it is cold. You can not see cold, you do not see the force which binds those molecules. We know it exists, but we don't really know what it is beyond a force of some kind. They have named it, demonstrated its characteristics, and called it science. But there is no fundamental understanding.
Kintanon Just because you can not see it, does not mean it is not there.
Re:Religion is the cause of bloodshed and cruelty?
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 2
) Hitler was Catholic. 2) Communism is not evil.
Check your facts, Hitler was raised catholic but he was not a practicing catholic nor did he believe in any of the Catholic principles. He was NOT a religious man.
Kintanon
Re:A good argument for moderating articles, this i
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 2
Umm.... I challenge you to find ANY examples of communist bloodshed/genocide that measure up to the Crusades, jihad, Inquisition, etc. I mean, communism has only been around for the last 3/4 of a century!!! Compare that to your 2000 years of dogmatic bigotry. Any "evils" of communism were not a result of the philosophy, but of nationalism and ruthless individual leaders. You have fallen victim to Western anti-communism (McCarthy) propaganda.
Any "evils" of Christianity were not a result of the philosophy, but of nationalism and ruthless individual leaders. You have fallen victim to the Antheist anti-Christian propaganda.
The actions of a group are almost never the result of a concious decision by that group but of powermad leaders that have managed to sieze power some how. I imagine that BEFORE they were whipped into a frenzy by some dictator the citizens of a certain country had no problems with a certain ethnic group and had no desire to dump said group into gas chambers. Christianity as a whole has never embarked on a Crusade, several political leaders who had been granted power over the church proclaimed a crusade, and many blood thirsty Christians used that as an excuse to loot and pillage a neighboring land in the hopes of salvation in a Jihad, not to mention bringing home a big pack full of gold. The actions of these few however were not indicative of the entire community any more than Gritsboy and that guy with the stone fetish are indicative of this community.
to address your next point, I don't believe we have any Shinto, Buddhist or Muslim followers in the discussion right now. If there were I should hope they would share their views.
As for religious leaders being wide of the mark, at least they make scientists stop and consider the social ramifications of their discoveries instead of only the technical ramifications.
Kintanon
Re:"My God has a bigger d**k than your God!"
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 2
BZZT! WRONG! Not believing in God does not automatically disqualify a person from a moral debate. God is absolutely NOT necessary for morality, especially the Judaeo-Christian god. There's a lot of Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Pagans, Satanists, and people who worship Alan Greenspan (not necessarily in any particular order) who would disagree. They all have a moral framework, and they don't believe in God.
BZZT! WRONG! They DO believe in God, just not the Judeo Christian God. If someone believes that Alan Greenspan is God then they obviously believe that he has some power to watch their actions and punish them if they misbehave, hence they are much more likely to follow the Code of Greenspan, or Alanocracy or whatever.>:) If one believes there is no God, no ultimate Accountability, no one who can judge them, then it becomes that much easier to believe that might makes right and as long as they win the war they have nothing to worry about. Belief in God is a GOOD thing, it provides something that humans DESPERATELY need, something to frame their morals on. People, humanity as a whole, know that certain things are wrong, Murder is wrong no one is going to try to tell you otherwise. But WHY is murder wrong? Well, because it damages society. How does it damage society? Well, we need to reproduce, we need more people, and it hurts peoples feelings. But we have plenty of people, and more being born every second, and why should I care about peoples feelings? If they are dead they can't do anything to me, and what if I want that car he has? These are questions which science can not answer. You can not ask a scientist why Murder is wrong. Because that is not the kind of question that Science is supposed to answer. Religion is what explains why Murder is wrong. Murder is wrong because God gave man life and no human has the right to undo what God hath done. Oh, and just for your future reference half of the religions you named believe in multiple Gods, and one of them believes that Man is God.
Kintanon
Re:How does this mock religion?
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 2
By you standard the only way to create life would be to create the universe. That's a perfectly valid semantic view, but not ethically very useful.
"In order to make a cake from scratch, one must first create the universe." I forgot who said it, but I think it's apropriate.
The thing I don't understand about this article is why had the scientific community decided to take ORGANIZED RELIGION's opinions into concern with respect to the genome project. We are simply exploring the body, no more, no less. We havent found the basis of life, and _I_ at least dont beleive that the basis of life can be found by science. If the religious leaders truely beleive in their own religions, I dont think they would be too concerned with scientists stepping on their robe-clad toes by mapping out proteins. This research is a tool, it is a guide book, it could lead us to great things. So why are we involving the same people who have banned evolution in Kansas?
Perhaps because the vast majority of the earths population is religiously inclined? I think it's a sensible move at this point, because if the religious leaders of the world endorse this step then they are more likely to endorse later steps because they will have been given time to integrate this advance of humanity into their theologic philosophy and hence will not feel threatened by it. The reason this is a good thing is that no one can whip a crowd into a frenzy faster than a good priest, so unless you want your lab burned and your guinea pigs pitch forked I suggest you let the religious figure out where they stand on these newly emerging issues. Especially one that will eventually lead to human engineered life.
Personally I feel that we are doing exactly what God first decreed we were to do, be Stewards over the earth, maybe we're finally becoming ready to accept the role he intended for us?
And neither does religion. If you have such a problem with the universe existing by itself without a supreme will (AKA 'God') creating it, then, personally, I have a probleme with a supreme will existing by itself, therefore it has to have been created by something else, probably a metagod, which would need in turn a metametagod etc...
This is one of the main fallacy of religion: the need for a first cause.
Here we have a common misconception. There need not be anything before God, because there is no before God. Time is not something which governs a supreme entity. Time is of necessity a function of God. Hence Time only affects those things which God has decreed they affect. Our entire existence, the entire existence of the universe, everything is simply one state of God's existence. We are all in essence part of God, just as the rest of the Universe is. There may very well be multiple universes, multiple planets teeming with intelligent life, all manner of things. Man can not dictate God's will to God. Finding alien life will not engender any kind of crisis of faith in me, nor will humans sticking together a few legos to create a simple organism. When Man creates something from nothing, then I will be impressed. Until then I can find no conflicts between my faith and our science.
Kintanon
Re:How does this mock religion?
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 2
Bunk, even a casual review of gentic research will show that all species genome's contain vast sequences of "noise" of permeniatly turned off segments of DNA. Nature is a pack rat of code - it's more bloated then the latest from Readmond.
Not necessarily true, we can not say for sure yet that those 'turned off' genes are useless. They may serve some crucial and as yet unkown purpose. Which makes it equally likely that removing them will lead to a crippled organism. Of course, that would be good to know too. I'm all for continuing this experiment. I don't think there are any religious or moral questions until we actually start from scratch and create an organism, and by scratch I mean energy.
I like low-profile Internet businesses, ones that are honest and humble. Amazon is neither. They do what they do well -- they're very seductive -- but they also have a vision for the Internet that I don't share and can't support.
Oddly enough, this was the same position held by millions upon millions of people earlier in this century when shopping centers, convenience stores, and malls began to replace the traditional mom & pop general store. Everyone railed against the impersonal feel of the larger stores, but shopped there for most of their things because of the lower prices and convenience of being able to get everything in one place. People would complain about every aspect of the larger store while at the same time picking up their groceries from it. Eventually the Mom & Pop Shops couldn't keep their heads above water because they were being undercut so badly in price. Now we come to the internet and 'e-commerce' we have a similar situation. The mega-giant-buy-everything-here store Amazon has us all bitching about it. The difference here is that Amazon can't undercut the smaller stores on the 'net because it costs next to nothing to run a business on the net out of your home. Add to that the fact that Amazon orders a ton of its books from smaller stores and most of the other things that they sell are easily available elsewhere for less. Convenience is no longer an issue when you are 4 clicks from the next store instead of 40 miles, or even 4 miles. Amazon may be able to expand exponentially for the next few years, but they won't be able to subvert so much of the market that they starve out the smaller competition. And even now people are starting to realize that the larger company isn't giving them the best prices. Amazon has now angered a large section of the online population and it's going to hurt them, a lot. I'm willing to bet we see a serious, nay DRASTIC change in Amazons policies over the next few months.
there *are* reasons to be worried about this, but they don't have anything to do with the "creation" part; making "creation" a special thing outside of human reach seems to be a christian knee-jerk reaction, but I see no real basis for it.
As a Christian I'd have to say we stepped past the point where God said 'Don't eat the bloody apple you dick.' and are now to the point where God is saying, 'Do whatever the hell you want, if I don't want you to do something you bloody well won't be able to.' so I say go for it, as long as we are pretty sure we know what we're doing let's give it a whirl!
Why_ should the consult religous leaders at all? It is this very experiment which is going to prove them irrelevant once and for all. After all, if man can create life, then what makes "god" so special?
It's a viewpoint thing. Scientists are most concerned with CAN we, Religion is more concerned with Should we. Both sides can present their views and then we can decide what the ramifications of humans creating life are and whether it's worth it. After all, look how we treated the stuff that was already here, should we bring a new life form into the world simply to abuse it?
My wrists have been popping a LOT recently. Would this be an early warning sign of RSI or something? It generally doesn't hurt but it can't be good. What are some other early warning signs?
Hmmm, if that's bad I may be in serious trouble. My fingers, wrists, elbows, shoulders, knees, back, neck,hips, and even my breastbone pop frequently. Oh, and I have chronic back pain, and my wrists are significantly weaker than they were 1 year ago... And it SUCKS because I'm only 19, I love martial arts and rock climbing, and weak wrists make both of those activities harder. Also, a 2 minute stream of constant typing will tire out my wrists. Anyone know if I need to see a doctor?
Slashdot Mirror
This device covered by Patents number 5764221 and 5821508 .
According to his website he already holds 2 patents on the device and concept. And it looks reasonably sound. Just a touch circuit board more or less, a small processor to translate the signal into something meaningful, and a bank of thin RAM to store the info in. I would suggest using laminated paper or some sort of cheap plastic sheet to avoid the affects of weather. But that would still only raise the cost by a dollar or two at most, might even lower it... The concept is sound, the implementation looks simply enough, and I think it would kick ass.
Kintanon
I have to very much agree with this. The company spends a lot of time, effort, and money to host people for next to nothing and as soon as they have a problem they are inundated by hate mail and flames. Where is the community support? I've been on MUDs where the Imms ran out of funds to keep the mud up and the players started sending in cash. The MUD ran for 3 years off of 2 months of people donating cash. Why isn't there that kind of community here? Where is your support for the people who help you out?
Everyone has been shouting that they should have gotten a dialup account to send out e-mails, they should have done this or that or the other to contact their customers. But in the middle of trying to figure out what the hell was going on that just might not have been possible, from what I know this is NOT a large company. They don't neccesarily have the resources to contact 800 people. Now they should have had a contingency plan, but heck I work for one of the largest check printing companies in the world and our contingency plans usually cons0ist of 'Call the Tech and watch the shit hit the fan'. Which means I get a lot of phone calls....
What I'm trying to say is BACK OFF. These people did a lot for the community and when they stumbled the Community grabbed a 2x4 and beat them to the ground.
Kintanon
An example of why multiple Internet links are important. A large server should try to have links to two ISPs with DNS on at least two separate places. Then the pipe would have run slower but data would still get through.
How many people would have been willing to pay double the cost to support having that second ISP though?
Kintanon
Can't wait for el robotic maid.... The best gift a geek can get, something that cleans up after him/her.>:)
This little thing would get drowned in the sea of soda cans on my floor.
Kintanon
Now here's a really serious question, if/when Lucas comes out with the original trilogy on DVD, should he release the digitally enhanced versions or the original versions as they were shown in theaters? I go for the "as they were shown in theaters originally" versions, but that's because of personal nostalgia. what does everyone else think?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
How about both on the same DVD? There is plenty of room.
Kintanon
Microsoft completed merger talks with industry giant United States of America. Reports are somewhat sketchy at the moment, but it looks like Microsoft will be purchasing a majority share in the USoA. Supporters point to the recent Microsoft controlled actions of the NYPD as further evidence of the MegaCorps takeover. USoA stock skyrocketed on the rumors as investors speculate that for the first time in fifty years USoA may actually turn a profit. Microsoft stock also rose several points as the acquisition of nuclear weapons makes them a formidable world economic player.
Kintanon
Last time I checked Antimatter was not a demonstrable item. No one has ever seen, or interacted with antimatter. You believe in Antimatter to explain the origin of the universe, I believe in God. I think my belief makes more sense.
Kintanon
I'll leave the silly Karma pimping alone, as for the rest...
If you show me the Big Bang, then I will believe it. Until then the two theories are equally viable and I have chosen the one that seems to make the most sense to me. I really don't care one way or another whether you agree with me or not.
Kintanon
Here we have a common misconception. There need not be anything before the Big Bang, because there is no 'before the Big Bang.' Time is not something which governs the reasons behind the Big Bang. Time is of necessity a dimension within the space/time continuum. Hence Time only affects those things which are within that continuum. Our entire existence, the entire existence of the universe, everything is simply one slice of that continuum.
Except that the Big Bang has to follow the Laws of Thermodynamics or it nulls all of the laws that govern our universe. And the spontaneous combustion of the universe means that everything that is here had to have been somewhere before it was here, because energy can not be created or destroyed. Hence everything that is here must have existed elsewhere before it was here, by my reasoning the entity we are naming as God would fit the bill. The universe was created by him, from his essence, whatever it may be. When the universe became, time began, because it goes hand in hand with the other 3 dimensions that only exist within our universe.
Kintanon
My point is'nt actually that you'd need another prime cause for 'their' 'God'. My point is that, if they can so easily get rid of their first cause for 'their' 'God', well I don't need a first cause for 'my' 'Universe'. The first cause requirement is a logical fallacy.
Your universe is required to follow the laws of physics and thermodynamics. God is not. Hence anything describing your universe as violating its own laws must be false. However God is unaffected by the laws of the universe because he is not bound by the universe.
Kintanon
You're putting words in my mouth. I claim that 'religions' don't have a good enough track record to be able to point the 'good' when THEY, as religions, have done so much bad.
No one has a good enough track record as an organization. Individually there are plenty of good people. But those aren't the kind of people that desire power, so they aren't the ones who end up leading organizations. Scientists as a group are no better or worse than Wiccans, or Christians, or Nazis as a group. There are good individuals in each group though, and those are the people we need to hear from.
Kintanon
Ok, but where did god come from? You don't seem to want to answer this question. This is his point. And you can't just say that he is and always has been. No to that.
you seem to be implying that God is somehow subject to a before and an after. Which would imply that God is governed by time. Which is not possible. Time is a function of God. There is no time in relation to God. You can not have a before God, or an After God. Because Before and After are concepts which exist within God. We exist in a single, crystal moment. That moment changes, and the previous state ceases to exist. There is no future state, there is only the now state. God sees all Nows. to God there is no Time. Hence there is no place or time for God to come from, because everything exists as a function of God. There is no Is and Always has Been, because those terms are completely meaningless when applied to God.
Kintanon
We can argue all we'd like about whether or not God assembled the first genetic molecules, but they can and do spontaneously self-assemble after that. The watch does not imply a watchmaker any more than an icy widshield implies a little crystalline forester. The icy windshield could imply a guy pouring water on a windwshield, but it could also imply the mere presence of water and a smooth surface.
You simply state that because you do not implicitly see the literal hand of God piecing each atom and molecule together that there must be no hand of God. Yes you do not doubt that the water freezes because it is cold. You can not see cold, you do not see the force which binds those molecules. We know it exists, but we don't really know what it is beyond a force of some kind. They have named it, demonstrated its characteristics, and called it science. But there is no fundamental understanding.
Kintanon
Just because you can not see it, does not mean it is not there.
) Hitler was Catholic.
2) Communism is not evil.
Check your facts, Hitler was raised catholic but he was not a practicing catholic nor did he believe in any of the Catholic principles. He was NOT a religious man.
Kintanon
Umm.... I challenge you to find ANY examples of communist bloodshed/genocide that measure up to the Crusades, jihad, Inquisition, etc. I mean, communism has only been around for the last 3/4 of a century!!! Compare that to your 2000 years of dogmatic bigotry. Any "evils" of communism were not a result of the philosophy, but of nationalism and ruthless individual leaders. You have fallen victim to Western anti-communism (McCarthy) propaganda.
Any "evils" of Christianity were not a result of the philosophy, but of nationalism and ruthless individual leaders. You have fallen victim to the Antheist anti-Christian propaganda.
The actions of a group are almost never the result of a concious decision by that group but of powermad leaders that have managed to sieze power some how. I imagine that BEFORE they were whipped into a frenzy by some dictator the citizens of a certain country had no problems with a certain ethnic group and had no desire to dump said group into gas chambers. Christianity as a whole has never embarked on a Crusade, several political leaders who had been granted power over the church proclaimed a crusade, and many blood thirsty Christians used that as an excuse to loot and pillage a neighboring land in the hopes of salvation in a Jihad, not to mention bringing home a big pack full of gold.
The actions of these few however were not indicative of the entire community any more than Gritsboy and that guy with the stone fetish are indicative of this community.
to address your next point, I don't believe we have any Shinto, Buddhist or Muslim followers in the discussion right now. If there were I should hope they would share their views.
As for religious leaders being wide of the mark, at least they make scientists stop and consider the social ramifications of their discoveries instead of only the technical ramifications.
Kintanon
BZZT! WRONG! Not believing in God does not automatically disqualify a person from a moral debate. God is absolutely NOT necessary for morality, especially the Judaeo-Christian god. There's a lot of Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Pagans, Satanists, and people who worship Alan Greenspan (not necessarily in any particular order) who would disagree. They all have a moral framework, and they don't believe in God.
BZZT! WRONG! They DO believe in God, just not the Judeo Christian God. If someone believes that Alan Greenspan is God then they obviously believe that he has some power to watch their actions and punish them if they misbehave, hence they are much more likely to follow the Code of Greenspan, or Alanocracy or whatever.>:) If one believes there is no God, no ultimate Accountability, no one who can judge them, then it becomes that much easier to believe that might makes right and as long as they win the war they have nothing to worry about. Belief in God is a GOOD thing, it provides something that humans DESPERATELY need, something to frame their morals on. People, humanity as a whole, know that certain things are wrong, Murder is wrong no one is going to try to tell you otherwise. But WHY is murder wrong? Well, because it damages society. How does it damage society? Well, we need to reproduce, we need more people, and it hurts peoples feelings. But we have plenty of people, and more being born every second, and why should I care about peoples feelings? If they are dead they can't do anything to me, and what if I want that car he has? These are questions which science can not answer. You can not ask a scientist why Murder is wrong. Because that is not the kind of question that Science is supposed to answer. Religion is what explains why Murder is wrong. Murder is wrong because God gave man life and no human has the right to undo what God hath done.
Oh, and just for your future reference half of the religions you named believe in multiple Gods, and one of them believes that Man is God.
Kintanon
By you standard the only way to create life would be to create the universe. That's a perfectly valid semantic view, but not ethically very useful.
"In order to make a cake from scratch, one must first create the universe." I forgot who said it, but I think it's apropriate.
Kintanon
The thing I don't understand about this article is why had the scientific community decided to take ORGANIZED RELIGION's opinions into concern with respect to the genome project. We are simply exploring the body, no more, no less. We havent found the basis of life, and _I_ at least dont beleive that the basis of life can be found by science. If the religious leaders truely beleive in their own religions, I dont think they would be too concerned with scientists stepping on their robe-clad toes by mapping out proteins. This research is a tool, it is a guide book, it could lead us to great things. So why are we involving the same people who have banned evolution in Kansas?
Perhaps because the vast majority of the earths population is religiously inclined?
I think it's a sensible move at this point, because if the religious leaders of the world endorse this step then they are more likely to endorse later steps because they will have been given time to integrate this advance of humanity into their theologic philosophy and hence will not feel threatened by it. The reason this is a good thing is that no one can whip a crowd into a frenzy faster than a good priest, so unless you want your lab burned and your guinea pigs pitch forked I suggest you let the religious figure out where they stand on these newly emerging issues. Especially one that will eventually lead to human engineered life.
Personally I feel that we are doing exactly what God first decreed we were to do, be Stewards over the earth, maybe we're finally becoming ready to accept the role he intended for us?
Kintanon
And neither does religion. If you have such a problem with the universe existing by itself without a supreme will (AKA 'God') creating it, then, personally, I have a probleme with a supreme will existing by itself, therefore it has to have been created by something else, probably a metagod, which would need in turn a metametagod etc ...
This is one of the main fallacy of religion: the need for a first cause.
Here we have a common misconception. There need not be anything before God, because there is no before God. Time is not something which governs a supreme entity. Time is of necessity a function of God. Hence Time only affects those things which God has decreed they affect. Our entire existence, the entire existence of the universe, everything is simply one state of God's existence. We are all in essence part of God, just as the rest of the Universe is. There may very well be multiple universes, multiple planets teeming with intelligent life, all manner of things. Man can not dictate God's will to God. Finding alien life will not engender any kind of crisis of faith in me, nor will humans sticking together a few legos to create a simple organism. When Man creates something from nothing, then I will be impressed. Until then I can find no conflicts between my faith and our science.
Kintanon
Bunk, even a casual review of gentic research will show that all species genome's contain vast sequences of "noise" of permeniatly turned off segments of DNA. Nature is a pack rat of code - it's more bloated then the latest from Readmond.
Not necessarily true, we can not say for sure yet that those 'turned off' genes are useless. They may serve some crucial and as yet unkown purpose. Which makes it equally likely that removing them will lead to a crippled organism. Of course, that would be good to know too. I'm all for continuing this experiment.
I don't think there are any religious or moral questions until we actually start from scratch and create an organism, and by scratch I mean energy.
Kintanon
Who appointed us judge and jury?
Does the phrase, 'Of the people, by the people, for the people' ring any bells? We made ourselves the judge and jury.
Kintanon
I like low-profile Internet businesses, ones that are honest and humble. Amazon is neither. They do what they do well -- they're very seductive -- but they also have a vision for the Internet that I don't share and can't support.
Oddly enough, this was the same position held by millions upon millions of people earlier in this century when shopping centers, convenience stores, and malls began to replace the traditional mom & pop general store. Everyone railed against the impersonal feel of the larger stores, but shopped there for most of their things because of the lower prices and convenience of being able to get everything in one place. People would complain about every aspect of the larger store while at the same time picking up their groceries from it. Eventually the Mom & Pop Shops couldn't keep their heads above water because they were being undercut so badly in price.
Now we come to the internet and 'e-commerce' we have a similar situation. The mega-giant-buy-everything-here store Amazon has us all bitching about it. The difference here is that Amazon can't undercut the smaller stores on the 'net because it costs next to nothing to run a business on the net out of your home. Add to that the fact that Amazon orders a ton of its books from smaller stores and most of the other things that they sell are easily available elsewhere for less. Convenience is no longer an issue when you are 4 clicks from the next store instead of 40 miles, or even 4 miles. Amazon may be able to expand exponentially for the next few years, but they won't be able to subvert so much of the market that they starve out the smaller competition. And even now people are starting to realize that the larger company isn't giving them the best prices. Amazon has now angered a large section of the online population and it's going to hurt them, a lot. I'm willing to bet we see a serious, nay DRASTIC change in Amazons policies over the next few months.
Kintanon
there *are* reasons to be worried about this, but they don't have anything to do with the "creation" part; making "creation" a special thing outside of human reach seems to be a christian knee-jerk reaction, but I see no real basis for it.
As a Christian I'd have to say we stepped past the point where God said 'Don't eat the bloody apple you dick.' and are now to the point where God is saying, 'Do whatever the hell you want, if I don't want you to do something you bloody well won't be able to.' so I say go for it, as long as we are pretty sure we know what we're doing let's give it a whirl!
Kintanon
Why_ should the consult religous leaders at all? It is this very experiment which is going to prove them irrelevant once and for all. After all, if man can create life, then what makes "god" so special?
It's a viewpoint thing. Scientists are most concerned with CAN we, Religion is more concerned with Should we. Both sides can present their views and then we can decide what the ramifications of humans creating life are and whether it's worth it. After all, look how we treated the stuff that was already here, should we bring a new life form into the world simply to abuse it?
Kintanon
My wrists have been popping a LOT recently. Would this be an early warning sign of RSI or something? It generally doesn't hurt but it can't be good. What are some other early warning signs?
Hmmm, if that's bad I may be in serious trouble. My fingers, wrists, elbows, shoulders, knees, back, neck,hips, and even my breastbone pop frequently. Oh, and I have chronic back pain, and my wrists are significantly weaker than they were 1 year ago... And it SUCKS because I'm only 19, I love martial arts and rock climbing, and weak wrists make both of those activities harder. Also, a 2 minute stream of constant typing will tire out my wrists. Anyone know if I need to see a doctor?
Kintanon