"But lets say for a moment that a fertilized egg is a human being"
this is exactly what i'm talking about - i don't agree that a couple of cells constitutes a human being, so why should someone like yourself who this has zero impact on get to deny 100,000's of people potentially life saving treatments? i'd like to see these people against stem cell research look a kid dieing from organ failure in the eye, and tell him they don't believe cloned organs are worth looking into.
i think part of the problem is a lot of people have romanticised the idea of conception, if they were to actually go to a lab and see what they are protesting about they might alter their views.
"i'm pretty sure punishing people for killing other innocent people (even to save another) is not considered shoving morals down throats"
but that's got nothing to do with stem cell research - you can kill other people to harvest their organs right now. and it does happen. so that's adding nothing to the discussion.
the point is, we should be given the freedom to get to the point where we need to answer such moral questions like "when is an cloned organ donor human?" for ourselfs, and not have that taken away by the moralist right.
one persons moral code should never prevent someone else getting medical treatment. bottom line, if you don't believe in that you don't believe in freedom. this kind of research is what will save lives in the future.
omg fail. do you know WHY it reduces the frame rate??! because it's refreshing 2x lower res frames INTERLACED to make them look like a larger, higher res image. this is why 1080i is not as smooth to watch as 1080p. the actual number of pixels making up the original image source is almost half as much.
as long as the fonts are readable and the game is getting 25fps or greater, what right do you have to whinge? I own a 70" full hi def tv, you'd want to hope content creators are pandering to the leading edge consumers since they are where the money is, not your stingey cheap skates still playing their xbox on a 50cm CRT. how the hell else are you going to see progress?!
"b) I wonder if they'd object if I stood outside and handed out Ubuntu CD's?"
they would probably invite you inside, then in front of everyone ask you to install it on a pc and ask you to demo some common tasks on it. when you fail miseribly with the sound and 3d video no working, you'll no doubt stammer something about it being the hardwares fault.
that or they might ask you to leave, and when you cause a scene they call the cops and we get the next "don't tase me bro".
grandpa? i'm 29 you spastic, but clearly you are a lot younger and inexperienced then i am because you failed to conceive the possibility that nudity doesn't matter in the slightest - if you were an attractive female they could easily use only your head shot. let alone there are still plenty of racey photo's of people on facebook anyway.
mark my words, the current generation who post anything and everything on myspace and facebook will end up regretting it. I have to wonder what will happen when facebook goes into decline and cash dries up, and they start selling pictures to porn sites. what if you go for a job and they recognise you from a site you have nothing to do with called bustedpartysluts.com?
unless facebook has you sign a proper model release form, i can't see how this kind of use is going to hold up.
read your own article, it's all about the australia institute trying to pressure the government of the time into implementing filtering, not any kind of grand plan to filter the internet on the governments part. they commissioned some research, found it didn't work, dropped the idea. perfectly reasonable.
yet labour is STILL wasting money on trials and is STILL pushing this after protests in the streets and the 3 main ISP's rejecting it.
it is a total failure, iinet has already provided the communicatino minister with ample evidence of this, but he's commited to being a total idiot it seems.
no, what they did was provide free filtering software to anyone that wanted it. a much better, cheaper solution for anyone concerned about billy seeing his first boobie.
the 3 biggest ISP's which account for about 90% of the traffic didn't participate and are opposed to it... so the test doesn't do anything to gauge the impact on speed if you tried ramping this up to cover the whole country.
then again, you can't expect to talk sense with the labor party....
i disagree, people are only purists as long as they aren't involved in anything serious. as soon as they hit a road block they find out life is all about compromises and they become pragmatists.
"It is a fact that CO2 in the atmosphere increases global heat"
no, it doesn't. the sun is the source of heat. and no CO2 does not act like a green house, heat reflection is an effect of water vapour. CO2 is a very poor heat absorber, so even if humans added significant amounts the effect would be very minimal.
Slashdot Mirror
this is exactly what i'm talking about - i don't agree that a couple of cells constitutes a human being, so why should someone like yourself who this has zero impact on get to deny 100,000's of people potentially life saving treatments? i'd like to see these people against stem cell research look a kid dieing from organ failure in the eye, and tell him they don't believe cloned organs are worth looking into.
i think part of the problem is a lot of people have romanticised the idea of conception, if they were to actually go to a lab and see what they are protesting about they might alter their views.
wtf isn't precise about it? maybe you need to learn to read without the tinted glasses on.
but that's got nothing to do with stem cell research - you can kill other people to harvest their organs right now. and it does happen. so that's adding nothing to the discussion.
the point is, we should be given the freedom to get to the point where we need to answer such moral questions like "when is an cloned organ donor human?" for ourselfs, and not have that taken away by the moralist right.
one persons moral code should never prevent someone else getting medical treatment. bottom line, if you don't believe in that you don't believe in freedom. this kind of research is what will save lives in the future.
it's fitting. he is by far the worse "editor" i've ever come across.
who ever is tagging these is a legend.
try delacing that so we are comparing apples and apples. oh look it's pretty close to 320x240.
omg fail. do you know WHY it reduces the frame rate??! because it's refreshing 2x lower res frames INTERLACED to make them look like a larger, higher res image. this is why 1080i is not as smooth to watch as 1080p. the actual number of pixels making up the original image source is almost half as much.
why are clouds pink? why does toast fall up? see i can play lets ask stupid questions to!
and the difference is more then 1600x1200 vs 1024x768, it's 1920x1080 vs 320x240. so unless you have rocks in your head it's a hell of a big step up.
as long as the fonts are readable and the game is getting 25fps or greater, what right do you have to whinge? I own a 70" full hi def tv, you'd want to hope content creators are pandering to the leading edge consumers since they are where the money is, not your stingey cheap skates still playing their xbox on a 50cm CRT. how the hell else are you going to see progress?!
they would probably invite you inside, then in front of everyone ask you to install it on a pc and ask you to demo some common tasks on it. when you fail miseribly with the sound and 3d video no working, you'll no doubt stammer something about it being the hardwares fault.
that or they might ask you to leave, and when you cause a scene they call the cops and we get the next "don't tase me bro".
gain some market share, then we will talk. kthxbai.
grandpa? i'm 29 you spastic, but clearly you are a lot younger and inexperienced then i am because you failed to conceive the possibility that nudity doesn't matter in the slightest - if you were an attractive female they could easily use only your head shot. let alone there are still plenty of racey photo's of people on facebook anyway.
unless facebook has you sign a proper model release form, i can't see how this kind of use is going to hold up.
poeple on here don't really care because they know it'll be simple to defeat, and once joe six pack can't get his porn, it'll go away.
yet labour is STILL wasting money on trials and is STILL pushing this after protests in the streets and the 3 main ISP's rejecting it.
it is a total failure, iinet has already provided the communicatino minister with ample evidence of this, but he's commited to being a total idiot it seems.
no, what they did was provide free filtering software to anyone that wanted it. a much better, cheaper solution for anyone concerned about billy seeing his first boobie.
then again, you can't expect to talk sense with the labor party....
.. a thousand apple fanboi's cried out and then were suddenly silent....
i disagree, people are only purists as long as they aren't involved in anything serious. as soon as they hit a road block they find out life is all about compromises and they become pragmatists.
it's a terrible example because licensing issues are the realm of purists.
progress to what end? show me a purist that can actually give you a straight answer and i'll show you a pragmatist in hiding.
no, it doesn't. the sun is the source of heat. and no CO2 does not act like a green house, heat reflection is an effect of water vapour. CO2 is a very poor heat absorber, so even if humans added significant amounts the effect would be very minimal.