But the storage, in the article, comes from overlaying the shapes and colors, thus creating new shapes and colors. Seems pretty hard to do in RAM or on magnetic media which only has two states.
On the other hand, wouldn't we also be able use the same magical trick also without the paper? I.e. digitally code all information not as bits but as the digital representation of the shapes? (i.e. achiving the Y/(Z*log2(x)) compression ratio without needing new printer/scanner devices)
Except that once you go digital, all of that information needs to be transfered into binary 0s and 1s. Now, if they every come up with computers that use something other than binary, it might work.
It depends, really. It depends if you have to retrain staff to use the new systems, if you need to hire extra support personnel, if you need to buy hardware that works with Linux... all sorts of things could affect the overall cost, not just the license cost.
Everything you say is true, but then to have a fair comparison you would need to include the cost of training support staff on Vista and including the cost of upgrading the computers to being Vista, unless the libraries were going to maintain multiple versions of Window's operating systems (which would increase costs even further).
With the limited information in the article, it is difficult to determine how the cost could be so much higher for linux. One would assume that the hardware costs are comparable. There is the cost of Windows, office, etc. versus linux, openoffice, etc., which most likely would have been less costly going the linux route. So the only other area where cost seem to be an issue is on support and training.
To arrive at the numbers they are quoting, one would have to assume that they are spending next to nothing on support and training for Windows and a lot for linux. However, in a true cost accounting model, that cannot be true. The ongoing support and training costs should be similar, so we are really talking about the support and training to impliment the project.
Now, it does stand to reason that installing new technology is going to cost more in terms of support and training than the current technology you are using. However, in their circumstances, that is very short sighted given the fact that Vista is being released within a month and during the middle of their deployment cycle. They could mitigate the training and support for Vista by foregoing it and paying for it out of their regular operating budget, but that is just shifting the funding source. If they were going to do that, they could of done the same for linux.
So, the cost issue, seems to be a red-herring. While I have no doubt it is a real number, it is hard to determine what the cost actually represents and how it relates to the overall project. It's also unlikely that it is a software issue or that would have been used as the reason -- "we have stopped the project because the rewriting of all of our applications turned out to be more monumental and costly than we were led to believe." But that wasn't the reason given. Nor was the cost of support staff or any other measurable reason.
So, by throwing out a number and saying it is too costly, they have 1) silenced critics to the decision and 2) most likely have made a political based decision.
They're allowed to sell different OSes without retaliation, that was one of the hallmarks of the antithrust case. The reason they don't do it is that they don't want to support it. Yes, the 'recommends XP Professionnal" is, AFAIK, standard marketing.
You are only half right. Yes they are allowed to sell different OSes without retaliation. However, if they want to receive the coop revenue from Microsoft and the heavy discount for each copy of Windows they ship, then they must sign up for the voluntary "recommends XP..." program, in which they agree to not sell other operating systems (or at least not advertise them). So, Microsoft isn't forcing anybody to join their discount program. However, since margins are so low in the OEM business, you can't compete with the other OEMs if you don't.
Not true. I'm sure you've heard of Moore's Law. There are many different formulations and misrepresentations of it, but the important thing is that the number of transistors we can cram on a chip increases exponentially. This obviously means that the individual transistors are smaller and are packed closer together. Both of these reduce power consumption. You can see this, for example, when AMD or Intel releases an existing core on a smaller manufacturing process: this results in a pretty spectacular cut in power consumption.
They can do this and run Windows XP and Vista? I have no doubt that packing more transistors on a chip is more efficient than having them on multiple chips throughout a system on multiple chips. However, that misses the point. Each additional transistor uses additional power. It is only improves overall efficiency if the overall system is more efficient. If all of those extra transistors are required to support feature creep in the OS, for example, then efficiency hasn't really been improved. Sure, the computer is more efficient at what it can do, but not at what it is doing.
The hardware requirements to run the upcoming Vista release of Windows would have been considered a graphics workstation just a couple of years ago. Sticking that kind of machine on a clerk's desk to process orders or a secretary's desk to type memos or just about any other information workers desk is so much overkill.
Going back to your original premise of packing more transistors is more efficient, which I don't disagree with in theory, if the said clerk was using Office on Windows 2000 with 256MB or even 512MB of RAM and must now be upgraded to a new machine to run Vista with 1GB of RAM (to be compatible with the rest of the company or maybe it's time on the upgrade cycle), regardless of how much more efficient the new RAM may be, doubling the capacity of the RAM is going to use more energy. This doesn't even take into account that the CPU and GPU will use quite a bit more power than the previous machine. Will the clerk be able to enter more orders, more quickly? Probably not. So, the amount of work produced per unit of energy expended has gone up.
The whole push for flat panel monitors and sleep mode on computers is to consume less energy. Flat panels have their place. They definitely consume less power to run, although I haven't seen numbers on the energy costs to produce a flat panel vs a CRT or other environmental hazards in their production, so it's hard to say which is truly the most environmentally friendly between the two. Sleep and power down modes are in response to the habits that have developed because of how long a) Windows takes to boot (so we leave the computers on) and b) how much computing power is required to just run the OS, which when we aren't actively using it, sits their idly (so why not shut it down and save the power).
The idea makes sense on laptops, where people are trying to conserve limited battery power as long as possible, but most people don't use those features with desktops because they are a pain to deal with.
Making the hardware more efficient isn't the answer. It can only go so far. Ultimately, the OS has to become more efficient at what it does and until it does, we will keep being forced into buying this little space heaters we call PCs.
Of course wasn't it Microsoft that implemented all of the power down features because it took so long to boot Windows in the first place that people didn't want to wait so long for the computer to power on? Wasn't it also the bloated Windows code and feature creep that made it necessary for ever faster cpu, ram, video and storage requirements, which all equate to more energy consumption? Isn't also true that Microsoft Vista is going to tax these resources even more? So, isn't it a bit hypocritical to talk about how "green" Microsoft would be by forcing computers to power down?
Maybe a better solution would be an OS designed to run on lower powered devices from the start instead of trying to make the high horse powered PC of today more efficient. As an analogy, although there have been improvements with technology, an eight cylinder automobile is not going to ever be as fuel efficient as a four cylinder one. Nor will a four cylinder be as efficient, say as a fuel-cell powered one. Likewise, as long as the system requirements to just run Windows (not even applications on Windows) keeps increasing, the PC will continue to consume greater and greater amounts of power.
We all know, even if we don't want to admit it, that personal productivity for the business masses, anyway, has ceased to improved, at least significantly, from the latest releases of Windows. Why? Because of those 600 million computers quoted in the article, most are used for things like word processing, simple spreadsheets and surfing the web and to do email. Stuff that computers capable of running Windows 2000 and Office 2000 (if not earlier versions) still do quite well. Sure new versions make it easier to get pictures of our cameras and to create music, etc. But the vast majority of people aren't seriously doing that work and those that are, use specialized tools, anyway.
Now, many will argue, and I would agree, that hardware is cheap, relatively, anyway. However, the point of the article was not about cheap hardware, but about saving energy. And the point of the matter is that as long as we keep adding fluff and flash to the OS, forcing bigger and faster computers, which translates into greater power consumption, they will never be "green." Even if they do power down when not in use, they will still use far more energy than is needed to actually perform the task while they are on.
If Microsoft wants to truly be known as a "green" company, then they should design the next version of Windows so that it runs on less hardware than what is currently required, so we don't have keep to filling up the landfills with technically good computers that become obsolete, just to stay compatible every time Microsoft releases the latest version of Windows.
Using their argument, which you cited (Graham v James), would also imply that every newspaper and magazine that is published or sold, through a public venue, or nonexclusively, would also waive their right to sue for copyright infringement. Haven't they have granted a nonexclusive license - anyone can read the paper, particularly if I leave it on the train? And, if so, doesn't that make their content now open for use?
I wonder if Ford or GM could get away with saying if you didn't fill out your warranty registration papers on your newly purchased vehicle and turn it in within three days, your new car will be operate in reduced functionality mode?
Seems that if crippling a piece a software against the user's wishes is a violation of the DMCA. Just because Microsoft tells you about it upfront doesn't make it okay, so did the April Fools Day virus.
I would predict that if too many legitimate purchasers are impacted by this tactic, that it won't be long before a a state AG takes action. Remember, the courts still hold that Microsoft is a monopoly.
So it's not the fact that someone is charging that makes it wrong but the amount they are charging? I bet most students don't come to your office to ask to have an entire lecture repeated, but I assume they do come to have questions answered. What's to stop the next professor from posting FAQs for a fee or even study guides? Last time I checked the university model was about imparting of knowledge. More and more, however, I see professors "selling" their services.
This selling of services is a natural progression of the Univerity's publish or perish mentality. The only difference is that in the individual selling of services, the professor is the direct beneficiary, not the university. All of that is fine, it's a free world, however, as long as they do so on their time and not the University, their employer's time (or taxpayer if a public institution). Even worse, though is when they are selling those services to the very students they are supposed to be teaching. At that point, it seems like an ethics issue has arisen.
Maybe I'm just old fashioned. I still hold to the notion that professor, is at the university to teach first.
I agree, use attendance to handle absenteeism. That's what my school did. That's what my son's school does. That's what I do. However, there are many more reasons to want the recording of lecture than the fact that somebody missed the class. In my courses, exams are pretty much based from the lecture, the books supplement the lecture material and is a reference. Very often, students are taking heavy class loads, are distracted by relationship problems, home problems, work, etc. While I don't record my lectures, at any given class, there are probably a dozen recorders sitting on the counter in front of me.
Who assumes they are missing those classes. Maybe, they want/need those lectures to help study with? Maybe the tests are based off of lectures and they aren't very good note takers (since they tend not to teach that in schools very much anymore). Maybe the professor is hard to hear, who knows the reason why. However, I know a lot of people when I was in school who recorded lectures on their own (obviously not cutting class or they wouldn't be there to record it), myself included.
Let me ask you this, if said professor were charging students $2.50 an office visit to obtain clarification to something he said in his lecture in class, would that be alright? If not, then why is it alright to charge them $2.50 to re-hear it again? Besides, doesn't their tution and fees entitle them to ALL course materials? Obviously, when the lecture was just given, that was that, but now that the professor has made it available, it would seem to be part of the course materials.
There's nothing wrong with "making a nice little incoming on the side", is there?
It's a contractual matter, and as such it'll probably depend on the particular copyright arrangements in place. They will likely differ for affiliate professors (who are academic freelancers and just contracted for particular classes) and tenured ones, who are basically full-time & permanent staff.
There's nothing wrong with it unless you are already being paid to provide service. If the professor were charging to students $2.50 to come see him during office hours to clarify things he said in class, would that be different? If so, then how is letting students re-hear the lecture they just sat through, so they can get clarification (not all students cut class) not the same?
It's not a copyright issue, because students are allowed to record lectures for their own use. Yes, the content might be copyrighted, but the student, by being registered in the class, is still entitled to hear the lecture not just sit in a seat and hear it on the day presented as the professor contends. The professor would be right, if the official copy weren't available, but once it is available, students, by paying their tuition and fees are entitled to all course materials. That would seem to imply physical and electronic.
So, as an analogy, if you pay to see a play, you should get to see it as many times as you want since you have already paid your admission? Or maybe you think you should be provided with a recording of the performance as well?
Plays prohibit the recording of their content, by the audience, students are allowed to record lectures already, so I'm not sure this example actually applies.
The interpretation here is that paying tuition gives you the right to attend the lecture. Not the right to view it however you want - but to attend it at a specific time and a certain location - just like a ticket to a 7:15 movie - you don't get to use it to go to the 7:30 movie in another theatre.
That was the professor's assertion, however, I'm not sure that would be the University's assertion as it could produce other undesired consequences if all of a sudden tuition becomes a fee for specific services to be rendered (and if so, maybe refunds are owed to students for failure to deliver on the service). The movie ticket analogy also is faulty, becuase, again, in most Universities, if I miss a class and the same class is offered later, I can sit in on it. Heck, I can even sit in on a lecture periodically, even if I am not enrolled in that class or pay a reduced fee to sit in on it all the time but for no credit.
No, he isn't. He's hosting it on an indie music site. Also, even if it is university equipment he may have to pay for use, or he may have purchased his own equipment. He mentions a cost for the equipment, but not how that cost is incurred.
It is true that he is hosting it on an indie music site, which is interesting. The only valid reason would seem to be to allow a fee to be charged as the University probably isn't set up for that.
If you read the article, and I can tell you didn't, you would also have found out that he does perform editing of the lecture. The extent of the editing is unknown. It could be as simple as taking out any extended pauses or it could include re-recording audio that isn't clear, or taking out ambient noise. Without purchasing one, (and attending the actual lecture), it isnt possible to know what editing is done.
Actually I did read the article, that just doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Yes, it says he edits the lecture, but doesn't define what that means, so it really isn't any information at all. If he edits it too much, then he would be provided different content for those who pay a fee than those who attend class. In short, it wouldn't be his lecture he is selling, but something else. Maybe he edits out student's questions from the recording, since he doesn't have permission to use them? Of course, that would mean that he would be recording his lectures live (which would get rid of the first problem) but basically would be running a second business while on University time, unless of course, the University has given him permission to use their classrooms and courses to generate this additional revenue for himself. Last time I checked, though, most Universities allow research projects but not the selling of services.
don't think he is doing anything wrong with this. Sure, he could do this out of the goodness of his own heart, but there would be students who would then blow off the lecture since they could listen to it later. Statistically, this will result in a lower grade for them, so an educator should try to minimize the number of students who skip class. A small fee seems to provide a good balance between convenience and assisting the students.
Many people seem to share your view that there is nothing wrong with the professor profiting from offering extra help to students. Of course most are assuming the students are skipping class, and some probably are, but attendance tracking is how you deal with that. Many students, however, need help with note taking skills and depending on the subject matter just trying to grasp concepts. They are hardly the dead-beats that the posters
You're kidding, right? The students have already paid tuition to hear the content of the lecture, why should they pay again. Plus, he's recording all of this and hosting all of this with university equipment. What entitles him to any profit at all. If there is to be a fee, shouldn't it go to the university?
As for taking time and effort, I'm pretty sure a microphone and tape recorder is all it takes to record a lecture (that's how I did it in school in the "old" days). Then you plug the headphone jack into the line-in and record it to an mp3 or whatever format you want and you're done. Not much more work than ripping a CD.
Excuse, me, but who gets the fee for the lecture, the professor or the university? The students are paying tuition to be provided an education that fufills the requirements of course xyz (his argument that the student's tuition gets them the lecture in the classroom is bogus -- tuition is more than just his classroom time - otherwise, shouldn't distance classes and classes taught by a TA be less than those taught by a professor?).
Therefore, the lecture is already being provided to the students as part of the contract for taking and paying for the course. The ability to download said lecture is the same content, just in a different format.
I am assuming that it is the professor who is collecting the fee, but then that raises the question of whether he is producing said downloadable lecture using university equipment (recorder, internet, web server, etc.) and on university time or not. If he is deriving income from the download, then wouldn't that be using university resources for personal use?
Also, the question of $2.50 a lecture seems steep. Maybe not for one, but a 13 week class at 3 classes a week comes out to be 39 lectures or $97.50. It doesn't take too many students before the professor makes a nice little income on the side. If the professor teaches three classes with three sections each, well, that's a nice supplement to his income each semester.
Maybe not only the university should look into the use of school property for personal gain, but maybe the IRS should look into reportable income.
About 30 years ago, weren't they saying the same thing about IBM and the mainframe? Granted, it was hardware, but still, it seems that all it took for IBM and it's lock on the computing world to be unseated was a misjudging of the market. What's to keep Microsoft from doing the same? They've sunk a lot of resources into their vision of computing but what if the market decides they don't like it or worse yet (for Microsoft), what if there are major problems with Vista or the next version of Office or their security suite, etc.
The view of the article also seems to be pretty US centric, or at least western centric. What about the upcoming third world markets? China has a lot of potential sway in the outcome of what is adopted technology wise. Same with South America, Africa, India, and other non-European/US countries.
Will these countries as they develop their own IT industry rely on being tied to the US and Microsoft or will they look elsewhere? The answer to that question may ultimately decide what the status of OSS is in the future.
Basically, instead of allowing all the people molested by Catholic priests to be prosecuted and sent to jail.
Why would the people molested by Catholic priests be prosecuted or sent to jail?
But seriously, if, as many victims of abuse argue they aren't interested in damages, they just want to make sure the abuser can't do it to anybody else, this could be one way for it to happen.
However, in reality, a) there is nothing to stop the Catholic Church from releasing the names of child abusing priests b) this law will be used in ways other than the intended purpose.
I am just amazed how we ever survived without all of this technology and somehow learned in school with books and paper and pencils and put a man on the moon (if you believe it happened) and developed all of the technology that is in these laptops that everyone thinks kids must have to learn today.
Even kids in college today weren't exposed to laptops in grade school. And yet the experts tell us that without throwing all of this money into technology either a) our kids won't be ready for the business world, b) college or c) they'll fall behind the rest of the world.
Well, it sure seems that not too long ago, before schools spent class time teaching kids how to do powerpoint presentations and instead taugh reading and writing and math and science that graduates were better prepared for the business world and college and their performance compared to the rest of the world was signficantly better.
It seems that while some may do better with technology, overall, it appears to be a distraction from the core skills one needs. The best powerpoint presentation in the world won't help you if you can't organize your thoughts and articulate a sentence. Spreadsheets are great tools, but they can't solve a problem if you don't know how to formulate the question. The web is full of information, but if you can't discriminate between what are valid sources and what are conjecture or simply someone elses opinion, then it's not really useful (in the old days, the advantage of the library was that the library gave credibility to the sources kept there).
If Johny can't read or write or add or multiply, then all of the computer technology in the world is not going to help. Sure, it may allow him to get the correct answer, just as using a calculator, but that simply turns him into a technician and doesn't mean he has actually grasped actual concepts (just what buttons to push).
The article mentions powerpoint, an obvious business tool. Since when was the purpose of public education (aka tax funded education) to teach how to use a business program? Isn't that the purpose of an employer?
People wonder why our public schools are failing. As others have posted, it's not because they are under funded. We pour billions of dollars into public education. It is, however, what we spend those dollars on that is not always in the best interest of furthering the learning of students that is the problem. Hiring and retaining competent teachers would be far more productive than any number of laptops, more costly, too, but if the goal is to educate students, then that is what the focus should be.
I think the original poster was wanting the ability to transfer the music to/from the iPod to/from multiple computers. If you are using iTunes as the front end, then it doesn't let you do that to keep you from copying your mp3s to multiple people (you can do it, but then the list on that computer is replaced by your ipod). By accessing the iPod as a harddrive, you can move the music from it. As you stated, even with the mac, you can copy the songs off, however to get them in the play list, you need iTunes. On linux, you don't (but you do need something like gtkpod which is included with most distros).
Is that my approach? Either I dramatically miswrote something or you dramatically misread something. Looking back at my post: you misread something. Take another look. I think you'll find that I do not assert that life begins with conception (or state any other conclusions about when life starts).
While you mention "humanhood," that is a pretty modern and to date undefined concept. If I'm not mistaken, the notion of humanhood as the basis for when a person exists has only been around for the last 40 years or so and is still in the debate stage of what it means. From my limited understanding of it, but some definitions, for instance, new born infants, since they are not aware of their own existance would not considered human persons. Because of it is such a new concept and hasn't stood the test of time and the rest of your post was refering to more traditional concepts, I didn't focus on the "humanhood" aspect of what you were saying. Sorry about that. However, since most of the rest of your post was about fertilizing the embryo and it's status, that is where I picked up the "life begins at conception" argument, because for most people that's where they see the issue.
BTW, I agree that birth isn't an absolute either, however, I assumed we were talking about western culture as that is where most of the controversy over the research is taking place. I don't buy the arugument, however, that a poor mother starving her newborn to keep from starving the other children is an example of the newborn not having rights. It could simply be the mother being place in the terrible position of having to choose which child has the greatest chance of survival with the limited food at hand. Kind of a very real and sad version of the life boat question of who are you going to throw out of the boat so the others can be saved.
I find your comments on moral systems very intresting and for the most part don't disagree. I don't think, however, that rule-based moralities, like Bible-based ones, HAVE to be as inflexible as you make them out to be. There's nothing to keep them from allowing for adaptation to the situation and circumstances (whether they do or not is a different story). I also am not sure that the purpose of a moral system is for happiness (you mention that several times) or for an ordered society (which ultimately leads to certain level of happiness). If the purpose is really just to maximize happiness, then that would seem to lead to what many would view as an immoral society by today's standards anyway and would seem to allow for the infringement on others "rights."
So, if the purpose is to maximize happiness but with certain restriction on how far you can go, then we are back to a rule-based morality like you are opposed to.
As for the question of "Who are you to say your morality is better or worse..." I have to admit, that was a cheap shot and I shouldn't have made it. My intention was, however, to emphasize that in the argument on pro-life argument people are using two (or more) different moral frameworks for their reasoning. To one group, the threat is the other group is trying to take something away. To the other group, they think they are trying to restore what was taken away. Until they come up with a common framework, however, it is unlikely the debate on this issue will go away (even if politically, the laws changed, the debate will rage on, it will only change who is doing the protesting).
As for the big guy in the sky, whether you believe in one or not or whether if there is on who's got anythign useful to say about right or wrong doesn't change the fact that all of those people who came before you that did believe and were influence by such a deity have passed down their morality through social norms that you have been influenced by (we all have). Our basic sense of right and wrong is culturally based and is based, at least in the U.S. on judea-christian values. They aren't set in stone, but they don't change easily, either. So, like it or not, even if you think through your consequences to achieve the goals you want, it's still influenced, in some form or another by the big guy in the sky (or at least by those who believe there is a big guy in the sky).
he didn't say anything about dead, he said discarded. All embryos used in stem cell research is used from embryos that where removed for artificial insemination, and they already have taken the ones there going to use.(the get around a dozen) If they don't go to stem cell research, they go into the trash.
It is true he didn't say anything about dead embryos, however, he did say they weren't alive. If they aren't alive, what is multiplying in the petri dish that they are harvesting the stem cells from?
In fact, if you find sten cell research unethical, you MUST find artificial insemination unethical. Thats fine, but I don't see a whole lot of people being against that.
I thought the discussion was on whether embryos are alive or not, not on how they are created. However, isn't artifical insemination where the sperm is injected into the vagina? I believe you are meaning invitro fertilization where the egg is fertilized outside the body. In and of itself that shouldn't be considered immoral (unethical really wouldn't apply). I believe the people who are opposed to it, however, aren't opposed to the concept but the fact that multiple embryos are created but only a few are used. It's not the process of fertilization and implantation that would be immoral but what happens what happens next to all of those embryos, or so the argument goes.
" So, by definition, the developing embryo is alive and what kind of life? Human life."
by your definition, hair is l;ife and we chouls shut down all barbers. It is not human life. It is cerianly not sentient life.
Well, if we let a hair folicle continue to grow and develop, it will always be a hair folicle. If we let an embryo continue to grow, it will develop into a full adult one day. So, just as a baby becomes an infant who becomes a todler who becomes a child who becomes a teenager who becomes an adult, following various developmental stages, isn't the embryo and then fetus, just early points along that developmental process? If not, exactly at what point in the womb does it occur that there is a human being growing in there today, but not yesterday?
"And yet, most people are opposed to cloning a fetus, just to harvest it's organs, even if those organs could save another life."
that's not true.
Well, according to the USA Today and the NY Times polls they are, but maybe you have other data.
"In short, the embryonc stem cell debate is about whether the government should force people to pay for research (through taxation) for something they are morally opposed to?"
sure.
The sad part is that there are other researchers already dismissing the technique used in this original article saying that it isn't efficient enough. However, it has already produced as many viable stem cell lines as what are usuable from the allowed pool that Bush authorized. Personally, we, at my research centre, are waiting to hear from legal as to whether this new technique can be used to get around the government funding issues and allow us to access to new cells for research. If so, it doesn't have to be the most efficient method around, it just needs to be around.
note that the loudest oppents of stem cell research have no issue with sending people to kill others. I assume you are meaning the war in Iraq. Again, I thought the discussion was on whether embryos were human life or not. I haven't seen any data correlating peoples views on embryonic stem cell research vs war, it might prove interesting, but I don't see how it is related to this topic.
I am not a religous fundamentalist, but I don't think your position is sustainable. First off, a dead embryo is no good for harvesting stem cells, it has to be living and multiplying, so by definition, it must be life. Having a nervous system, heart, etc, have nothing to do with whether or not there is life.
Next, we know, if the embryo is allowed to continue to live and progress through all of the devopmental stages that it will eventually be, not a horse or a pig or a bird or a cow, but a human. That is all it can be.
So, by definition, the developing embryo is alive and what kind of life? Human life.
Now, whether there is a soul and all of that, that is for the philosophers and theologeans to debate, but you cannot get around the fact that a developing embryo is human life (not necessarily sentient, but human).
The real question is the same moral question we are faced with time and time again. Which life is worth more. Just like the question of who are you going to through out of the lifeboat, it is a value judgement. Society for the most part values human life more once it is outside the womb or at least close to be outside the womb than it does at the beginning stages (or end stages, for that matter).
However, at some point between fertilization and birth, that human life does take on enough value for most people that it should be protected to some extent (even the majority of Americans are against abortion on demand for late third trimester abortions).
You state that the embryo is just a cluster of cells, which it is. But that does not mean it is without value. A heart is also just a cluster of cells, albeit a lot bigger. And yet, most people are opposed to cloning a fetus, just to harvest it's organs, even if those organs could save another life.
The whole debate over embryonic stem cells is not about science or faith. It's about basic moral values. It's the same basic question as with abortion. However, this time, instead of being a private issue between a woman and her doctor, people's money (taxdollars) are being used (at least that's what the researchers want) to pay for something that many may be opposed to. In short, the embryonc stem cell debate is about whether the government should force people to pay for research (through taxation) for something they are morally opposed to?
The problem with your approach, as with all approaches that start with conception is that people will never agree when life begins. Is that fertilized egg human life? What about at the embryo stage? When we start from a state of non-life a sperm and an egg and try and determine when life begins, it's anybody's guess.
However, start at a point when we all agree there is human life, say a 1 day old baby and work backwards and see what happens. Is it still human life at 1/2 day? What about just outside the womb? How about coming down the birth canal? What about 1 day prior to birth? Two? Three? So far, most people would all agree with yes.
However, with agreement that even before birth, we have human life, but continuing to work earlier and earlier in the development of that life, it becomes very difficult for people to decide at what point we went from having human life to not having it (much earlier, it turns out, than going the other way from non-life to life). It all depends on the perspective one takes (kind of like a glass half empty or half full).
So maybe those people aren't trying to force their broken moral decision making on others, but instead have a different perspective of things. Who's to say their morallity is any better or worse than yours or mine? It's just different.
As for them forcing their moral decision making on others, how is that any different, at least from their perspective, with the pro-abortion view?
Slashdot Mirror
But the storage, in the article, comes from overlaying the shapes and colors, thus creating new shapes and colors. Seems pretty hard to do in RAM or on magnetic media which only has two states.
On the other hand, wouldn't we also be able use the same magical trick also without the paper? I.e. digitally code all information not as bits but as the digital representation of the shapes? (i.e. achiving the Y/(Z*log2(x)) compression ratio without needing new printer/scanner devices)
Except that once you go digital, all of that information needs to be transfered into binary 0s and 1s. Now, if they every come up with computers that use something other than binary, it might work.
It depends, really. It depends if you have to retrain staff to use the new systems, if you need to hire extra support personnel, if you need to buy hardware that works with Linux... all sorts of things could affect the overall cost, not just the license cost.
Everything you say is true, but then to have a fair comparison you would need to include the cost of training support staff on Vista and including the cost of upgrading the computers to being Vista, unless the libraries were going to maintain multiple versions of Window's operating systems (which would increase costs even further).
With the limited information in the article, it is difficult to determine how the cost could be so much higher for linux. One would assume that the hardware costs are comparable. There is the cost of Windows, office, etc. versus linux, openoffice, etc., which most likely would have been less costly going the linux route. So the only other area where cost seem to be an issue is on support and training.
To arrive at the numbers they are quoting, one would have to assume that they are spending next to nothing on support and training for Windows and a lot for linux. However, in a true cost accounting model, that cannot be true. The ongoing support and training costs should be similar, so we are really talking about the support and training to impliment the project.
Now, it does stand to reason that installing new technology is going to cost more in terms of support and training than the current technology you are using. However, in their circumstances, that is very short sighted given the fact that Vista is being released within a month and during the middle of their deployment cycle. They could mitigate the training and support for Vista by foregoing it and paying for it out of their regular operating budget, but that is just shifting the funding source. If they were going to do that, they could of done the same for linux.
So, the cost issue, seems to be a red-herring. While I have no doubt it is a real number, it is hard to determine what the cost actually represents and how it relates to the overall project. It's also unlikely that it is a software issue or that would have been used as the reason -- "we have stopped the project because the rewriting of all of our applications turned out to be more monumental and costly than we were led to believe." But that wasn't the reason given. Nor was the cost of support staff or any other measurable reason.
So, by throwing out a number and saying it is too costly, they have 1) silenced critics to the decision and 2) most likely have made a political based decision.
They're allowed to sell different OSes without retaliation, that was one of the hallmarks of the antithrust case. The reason they don't do it is that they don't want to support it. Yes, the 'recommends XP Professionnal" is, AFAIK, standard marketing.
You are only half right. Yes they are allowed to sell different OSes without retaliation. However, if they want to receive the coop revenue from Microsoft and the heavy discount for each copy of Windows they ship, then they must sign up for the voluntary "recommends XP..." program, in which they agree to not sell other operating systems (or at least not advertise them). So, Microsoft isn't forcing anybody to join their discount program. However, since margins are so low in the OEM business, you can't compete with the other OEMs if you don't.
Not true. I'm sure you've heard of Moore's Law. There are many different formulations and misrepresentations of it, but the important thing is that the number of transistors we can cram on a chip increases exponentially. This obviously means that the individual transistors are smaller and are packed closer together. Both of these reduce power consumption. You can see this, for example, when AMD or Intel releases an existing core on a smaller manufacturing process: this results in a pretty spectacular cut in power consumption.
They can do this and run Windows XP and Vista? I have no doubt that packing more transistors on a chip is more efficient than having them on multiple chips throughout a system on multiple chips. However, that misses the point. Each additional transistor uses additional power. It is only improves overall efficiency if the overall system is more efficient. If all of those extra transistors are required to support feature creep in the OS, for example, then efficiency hasn't really been improved. Sure, the computer is more efficient at what it can do, but not at what it is doing.
The hardware requirements to run the upcoming Vista release of Windows would have been considered a graphics workstation just a couple of years ago. Sticking that kind of machine on a clerk's desk to process orders or a secretary's desk to type memos or just about any other information workers desk is so much overkill.
Going back to your original premise of packing more transistors is more efficient, which I don't disagree with in theory, if the said clerk was using Office on Windows 2000 with 256MB or even 512MB of RAM and must now be upgraded to a new machine to run Vista with 1GB of RAM (to be compatible with the rest of the company or maybe it's time on the upgrade cycle), regardless of how much more efficient the new RAM may be, doubling the capacity of the RAM is going to use more energy. This doesn't even take into account that the CPU and GPU will use quite a bit more power than the previous machine. Will the clerk be able to enter more orders, more quickly? Probably not. So, the amount of work produced per unit of energy expended has gone up.
The whole push for flat panel monitors and sleep mode on computers is to consume less energy. Flat panels have their place. They definitely consume less power to run, although I haven't seen numbers on the energy costs to produce a flat panel vs a CRT or other environmental hazards in their production, so it's hard to say which is truly the most environmentally friendly between the two. Sleep and power down modes are in response to the habits that have developed because of how long a) Windows takes to boot (so we leave the computers on) and b) how much computing power is required to just run the OS, which when we aren't actively using it, sits their idly (so why not shut it down and save the power).
The idea makes sense on laptops, where people are trying to conserve limited battery power as long as possible, but most people don't use those features with desktops because they are a pain to deal with.
Making the hardware more efficient isn't the answer. It can only go so far. Ultimately, the OS has to become more efficient at what it does and until it does, we will keep being forced into buying this little space heaters we call PCs.
Of course wasn't it Microsoft that implemented all of the power down features because it took so long to boot Windows in the first place that people didn't want to wait so long for the computer to power on? Wasn't it also the bloated Windows code and feature creep that made it necessary for ever faster cpu, ram, video and storage requirements, which all equate to more energy consumption? Isn't also true that Microsoft Vista is going to tax these resources even more? So, isn't it a bit hypocritical to talk about how "green" Microsoft would be by forcing computers to power down?
Maybe a better solution would be an OS designed to run on lower powered devices from the start instead of trying to make the high horse powered PC of today more efficient. As an analogy, although there have been improvements with technology, an eight cylinder automobile is not going to ever be as fuel efficient as a four cylinder one. Nor will a four cylinder be as efficient, say as a fuel-cell powered one. Likewise, as long as the system requirements to just run Windows (not even applications on Windows) keeps increasing, the PC will continue to consume greater and greater amounts of power.
We all know, even if we don't want to admit it, that personal productivity for the business masses, anyway, has ceased to improved, at least significantly, from the latest releases of Windows. Why? Because of those 600 million computers quoted in the article, most are used for things like word processing, simple spreadsheets and surfing the web and to do email. Stuff that computers capable of running Windows 2000 and Office 2000 (if not earlier versions) still do quite well. Sure new versions make it easier to get pictures of our cameras and to create music, etc. But the vast majority of people aren't seriously doing that work and those that are, use specialized tools, anyway.
Now, many will argue, and I would agree, that hardware is cheap, relatively, anyway. However, the point of the article was not about cheap hardware, but about saving energy. And the point of the matter is that as long as we keep adding fluff and flash to the OS, forcing bigger and faster computers, which translates into greater power consumption, they will never be "green." Even if they do power down when not in use, they will still use far more energy than is needed to actually perform the task while they are on.
If Microsoft wants to truly be known as a "green" company, then they should design the next version of Windows so that it runs on less hardware than what is currently required, so we don't have keep to filling up the landfills with technically good computers that become obsolete, just to stay compatible every time Microsoft releases the latest version of Windows.
Using their argument, which you cited (Graham v James), would also imply that every newspaper and magazine that is published or sold, through a public venue, or nonexclusively, would also waive their right to sue for copyright infringement. Haven't they have granted a nonexclusive license - anyone can read the paper, particularly if I leave it on the train? And, if so, doesn't that make their content now open for use?
I wonder if Ford or GM could get away with saying if you didn't fill out your warranty registration papers on your newly purchased vehicle and turn it in within three days, your new car will be operate in reduced functionality mode?
Seems that if crippling a piece a software against the user's wishes is a violation of the DMCA. Just because Microsoft tells you about it upfront doesn't make it okay, so did the April Fools Day virus.
I would predict that if too many legitimate purchasers are impacted by this tactic, that it won't be long before a a state AG takes action. Remember, the courts still hold that Microsoft is a monopoly.
So it's not the fact that someone is charging that makes it wrong but the amount they are charging? I bet most students don't come to your office to ask to have an entire lecture repeated, but I assume they do come to have questions answered. What's to stop the next professor from posting FAQs for a fee or even study guides? Last time I checked the university model was about imparting of knowledge. More and more, however, I see professors "selling" their services.
This selling of services is a natural progression of the Univerity's publish or perish mentality. The only difference is that in the individual selling of services, the professor is the direct beneficiary, not the university. All of that is fine, it's a free world, however, as long as they do so on their time and not the University, their employer's time (or taxpayer if a public institution). Even worse, though is when they are selling those services to the very students they are supposed to be teaching. At that point, it seems like an ethics issue has arisen.
Maybe I'm just old fashioned. I still hold to the notion that professor, is at the university to teach first.
I agree, use attendance to handle absenteeism. That's what my school did. That's what my son's school does. That's what I do. However, there are many more reasons to want the recording of lecture than the fact that somebody missed the class. In my courses, exams are pretty much based from the lecture, the books supplement the lecture material and is a reference. Very often, students are taking heavy class loads, are distracted by relationship problems, home problems, work, etc. While I don't record my lectures, at any given class, there are probably a dozen recorders sitting on the counter in front of me.
Who assumes they are missing those classes. Maybe, they want/need those lectures to help study with? Maybe the tests are based off of lectures and they aren't very good note takers (since they tend not to teach that in schools very much anymore). Maybe the professor is hard to hear, who knows the reason why. However, I know a lot of people when I was in school who recorded lectures on their own (obviously not cutting class or they wouldn't be there to record it), myself included.
Let me ask you this, if said professor were charging students $2.50 an office visit to obtain clarification to something he said in his lecture in class, would that be alright? If not, then why is it alright to charge them $2.50 to re-hear it again? Besides, doesn't their tution and fees entitle them to ALL course materials? Obviously, when the lecture was just given, that was that, but now that the professor has made it available, it would seem to be part of the course materials.
There's nothing wrong with "making a nice little incoming on the side", is there?
It's a contractual matter, and as such it'll probably depend on the particular copyright arrangements in place. They will likely differ for affiliate professors (who are academic freelancers and just contracted for particular classes) and tenured ones, who are basically full-time & permanent staff.
There's nothing wrong with it unless you are already being paid to provide service. If the professor were charging to students $2.50 to come see him during office hours to clarify things he said in class, would that be different? If so, then how is letting students re-hear the lecture they just sat through, so they can get clarification (not all students cut class) not the same?
It's not a copyright issue, because students are allowed to record lectures for their own use. Yes, the content might be copyrighted, but the student, by being registered in the class, is still entitled to hear the lecture not just sit in a seat and hear it on the day presented as the professor contends. The professor would be right, if the official copy weren't available, but once it is available, students, by paying their tuition and fees are entitled to all course materials. That would seem to imply physical and electronic.
So, as an analogy, if you pay to see a play, you should get to see it as many times as you want since you have already paid your admission? Or maybe you think you should be provided with a recording of the performance as well?
Plays prohibit the recording of their content, by the audience, students are allowed to record lectures already, so I'm not sure this example actually applies.
The interpretation here is that paying tuition gives you the right to attend the lecture. Not the right to view it however you want - but to attend it at a specific time and a certain location - just like a ticket to a 7:15 movie - you don't get to use it to go to the 7:30 movie in another theatre.
That was the professor's assertion, however, I'm not sure that would be the University's assertion as it could produce other undesired consequences if all of a sudden tuition becomes a fee for specific services to be rendered (and if so, maybe refunds are owed to students for failure to deliver on the service). The movie ticket analogy also is faulty, becuase, again, in most Universities, if I miss a class and the same class is offered later, I can sit in on it. Heck, I can even sit in on a lecture periodically, even if I am not enrolled in that class or pay a reduced fee to sit in on it all the time but for no credit.
No, he isn't. He's hosting it on an indie music site. Also, even if it is university equipment he may have to pay for use, or he may have purchased his own equipment. He mentions a cost for the equipment, but not how that cost is incurred.
It is true that he is hosting it on an indie music site, which is interesting. The only valid reason would seem to be to allow a fee to be charged as the University probably isn't set up for that.
If you read the article, and I can tell you didn't, you would also have found out that he does perform editing of the lecture. The extent of the editing is unknown. It could be as simple as taking out any extended pauses or it could include re-recording audio that isn't clear, or taking out ambient noise. Without purchasing one, (and attending the actual lecture), it isnt possible to know what editing is done.
Actually I did read the article, that just doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Yes, it says he edits the lecture, but doesn't define what that means, so it really isn't any information at all. If he edits it too much, then he would be provided different content for those who pay a fee than those who attend class. In short, it wouldn't be his lecture he is selling, but something else. Maybe he edits out student's questions from the recording, since he doesn't have permission to use them? Of course, that would mean that he would be recording his lectures live (which would get rid of the first problem) but basically would be running a second business while on University time, unless of course, the University has given him permission to use their classrooms and courses to generate this additional revenue for himself. Last time I checked, though, most Universities allow research projects but not the selling of services.
don't think he is doing anything wrong with this. Sure, he could do this out of the goodness of his own heart, but there would be students who would then blow off the lecture since they could listen to it later. Statistically, this will result in a lower grade for them, so an educator should try to minimize the number of students who skip class. A small fee seems to provide a good balance between convenience and assisting the students.
Many people seem to share your view that there is nothing wrong with the professor profiting from offering extra help to students. Of course most are assuming the students are skipping class, and some probably are, but attendance tracking is how you deal with that. Many students, however, need help with note taking skills and depending on the subject matter just trying to grasp concepts. They are hardly the dead-beats that the posters
You're kidding, right? The students have already paid tuition to hear the content of the lecture, why should they pay again. Plus, he's recording all of this and hosting all of this with university equipment. What entitles him to any profit at all. If there is to be a fee, shouldn't it go to the university?
As for taking time and effort, I'm pretty sure a microphone and tape recorder is all it takes to record a lecture (that's how I did it in school in the "old" days). Then you plug the headphone jack into the line-in and record it to an mp3 or whatever format you want and you're done. Not much more work than ripping a CD.
Excuse, me, but who gets the fee for the lecture, the professor or the university? The students are paying tuition to be provided an education that fufills the requirements of course xyz (his argument that the student's tuition gets them the lecture in the classroom is bogus -- tuition is more than just his classroom time - otherwise, shouldn't distance classes and classes taught by a TA be less than those taught by a professor?).
Therefore, the lecture is already being provided to the students as part of the contract for taking and paying for the course. The ability to download said lecture is the same content, just in a different format.
I am assuming that it is the professor who is collecting the fee, but then that raises the question of whether he is producing said downloadable lecture using university equipment (recorder, internet, web server, etc.) and on university time or not. If he is deriving income from the download, then wouldn't that be using university resources for personal use?
Also, the question of $2.50 a lecture seems steep. Maybe not for one, but a 13 week class at 3 classes a week comes out to be 39 lectures or $97.50. It doesn't take too many students before the professor makes a nice little income on the side. If the professor teaches three classes with three sections each, well, that's a nice supplement to his income each semester.
Maybe not only the university should look into the use of school property for personal gain, but maybe the IRS should look into reportable income.
About 30 years ago, weren't they saying the same thing about IBM and the mainframe? Granted, it was hardware, but still, it seems that all it took for IBM and it's lock on the computing world to be unseated was a misjudging of the market. What's to keep Microsoft from doing the same? They've sunk a lot of resources into their vision of computing but what if the market decides they don't like it or worse yet (for Microsoft), what if there are major problems with Vista or the next version of Office or their security suite, etc.
The view of the article also seems to be pretty US centric, or at least western centric. What about the upcoming third world markets? China has a lot of potential sway in the outcome of what is adopted technology wise. Same with South America, Africa, India, and other non-European/US countries.
Will these countries as they develop their own IT industry rely on being tied to the US and Microsoft or will they look elsewhere? The answer to that question may ultimately decide what the status of OSS is in the future.
1. OS X
2. Linux
3. Microsoft
I could live with that!
Basically, instead of allowing all the people molested by Catholic priests to be prosecuted and sent to jail.
Why would the people molested by Catholic priests be prosecuted or sent to jail?
But seriously, if, as many victims of abuse argue they aren't interested in damages, they just want to make sure the abuser can't do it to anybody else, this could be one way for it to happen.
However, in reality, a) there is nothing to stop the Catholic Church from releasing the names of child abusing priests b) this law will be used in ways other than the intended purpose.
I am just amazed how we ever survived without all of this technology and somehow learned in school with books and paper and pencils and put a man on the moon (if you believe it happened) and developed all of the technology that is in these laptops that everyone thinks kids must have to learn today.
Even kids in college today weren't exposed to laptops in grade school. And yet the experts tell us that without throwing all of this money into technology either a) our kids won't be ready for the business world, b) college or c) they'll fall behind the rest of the world.
Well, it sure seems that not too long ago, before schools spent class time teaching kids how to do powerpoint presentations and instead taugh reading and writing and math and science that graduates were better prepared for the business world and college and their performance compared to the rest of the world was signficantly better.
It seems that while some may do better with technology, overall, it appears to be a distraction from the core skills one needs. The best powerpoint presentation in the world won't help you if you can't organize your thoughts and articulate a sentence. Spreadsheets are great tools, but they can't solve a problem if you don't know how to formulate the question. The web is full of information, but if you can't discriminate between what are valid sources and what are conjecture or simply someone elses opinion, then it's not really useful (in the old days, the advantage of the library was that the library gave credibility to the sources kept there).
If Johny can't read or write or add or multiply, then all of the computer technology in the world is not going to help. Sure, it may allow him to get the correct answer, just as using a calculator, but that simply turns him into a technician and doesn't mean he has actually grasped actual concepts (just what buttons to push).
The article mentions powerpoint, an obvious business tool. Since when was the purpose of public education (aka tax funded education) to teach how to use a business program? Isn't that the purpose of an employer?
People wonder why our public schools are failing. As others have posted, it's not because they are under funded. We pour billions of dollars into public education. It is, however, what we spend those dollars on that is not always in the best interest of furthering the learning of students that is the problem. Hiring and retaining competent teachers would be far more productive than any number of laptops, more costly, too, but if the goal is to educate students, then that is what the focus should be.
The scene: A badly lit office somewhere in America. Empty pizza boxes are scattered around ....
Now I know I didn't give you or anybody else permission to go snooping around my office!
I think the original poster was wanting the ability to transfer the music to/from the iPod to/from multiple computers. If you are using iTunes as the front end, then it doesn't let you do that to keep you from copying your mp3s to multiple people (you can do it, but then the list on that computer is replaced by your ipod). By accessing the iPod as a harddrive, you can move the music from it. As you stated, even with the mac, you can copy the songs off, however to get them in the play list, you need iTunes. On linux, you don't (but you do need something like gtkpod which is included with most distros).
Is that my approach? Either I dramatically miswrote something or you dramatically misread something. Looking back at my post: you misread something. Take another look. I think you'll find that I do not assert that life begins with conception (or state any other conclusions about when life starts).
While you mention "humanhood," that is a pretty modern and to date undefined concept. If I'm not mistaken, the notion of humanhood as the basis for when a person exists has only been around for the last 40 years or so and is still in the debate stage of what it means. From my limited understanding of it, but some definitions, for instance, new born infants, since they are not aware of their own existance would not considered human persons. Because of it is such a new concept and hasn't stood the test of time and the rest of your post was refering to more traditional concepts, I didn't focus on the "humanhood" aspect of what you were saying. Sorry about that. However, since most of the rest of your post was about fertilizing the embryo and it's status, that is where I picked up the "life begins at conception" argument, because for most people that's where they see the issue.
BTW, I agree that birth isn't an absolute either, however, I assumed we were talking about western culture as that is where most of the controversy over the research is taking place. I don't buy the arugument, however, that a poor mother starving her newborn to keep from starving the other children is an example of the newborn not having rights. It could simply be the mother being place in the terrible position of having to choose which child has the greatest chance of survival with the limited food at hand. Kind of a very real and sad version of the life boat question of who are you going to throw out of the boat so the others can be saved.
I find your comments on moral systems very intresting and for the most part don't disagree. I don't think, however, that rule-based moralities, like Bible-based ones, HAVE to be as inflexible as you make them out to be. There's nothing to keep them from allowing for adaptation to the situation and circumstances (whether they do or not is a different story). I also am not sure that the purpose of a moral system is for happiness (you mention that several times) or for an ordered society (which ultimately leads to certain level of happiness). If the purpose is really just to maximize happiness, then that would seem to lead to what many would view as an immoral society by today's standards anyway and would seem to allow for the infringement on others "rights."
So, if the purpose is to maximize happiness but with certain restriction on how far you can go, then we are back to a rule-based morality like you are opposed to.
As for the question of "Who are you to say your morality is better or worse..." I have to admit, that was a cheap shot and I shouldn't have made it. My intention was, however, to emphasize that in the argument on pro-life argument people are using two (or more) different moral frameworks for their reasoning. To one group, the threat is the other group is trying to take something away. To the other group, they think they are trying to restore what was taken away. Until they come up with a common framework, however, it is unlikely the debate on this issue will go away (even if politically, the laws changed, the debate will rage on, it will only change who is doing the protesting).
As for the big guy in the sky, whether you believe in one or not or whether if there is on who's got anythign useful to say about right or wrong doesn't change the fact that all of those people who came before you that did believe and were influence by such a deity have passed down their morality through social norms that you have been influenced by (we all have). Our basic sense of right and wrong is culturally based and is based, at least in the U.S. on judea-christian values. They aren't set in stone, but they don't change easily, either. So, like it or not, even if you think through your consequences to achieve the goals you want, it's still influenced, in some form or another by the big guy in the sky (or at least by those who believe there is a big guy in the sky).
he didn't say anything about dead, he said discarded. All embryos used in stem cell research is used from embryos that where removed for artificial insemination, and they already have taken the ones there going to use.(the get around a dozen)
If they don't go to stem cell research, they go into the trash.
It is true he didn't say anything about dead embryos, however, he did say they weren't alive. If they aren't alive, what is multiplying in the petri dish that they are harvesting the stem cells from?
In fact, if you find sten cell research unethical, you MUST find artificial insemination unethical.
Thats fine, but I don't see a whole lot of people being against that.
I thought the discussion was on whether embryos are alive or not, not on how they are created. However, isn't artifical insemination where the sperm is injected into the vagina? I believe you are meaning invitro fertilization where the egg is fertilized outside the body. In and of itself that shouldn't be considered immoral (unethical really wouldn't apply). I believe the people who are opposed to it, however, aren't opposed to the concept but the fact that multiple embryos are created but only a few are used. It's not the process of fertilization and implantation that would be immoral but what happens what happens next to all of those embryos, or so the argument goes.
"
So, by definition, the developing embryo is alive and what kind of life? Human life."
by your definition, hair is l;ife and we chouls shut down all barbers.
It is not human life. It is cerianly not sentient life.
Well, if we let a hair folicle continue to grow and develop, it will always be a hair folicle. If we let an embryo continue to grow, it will develop into a full adult one day. So, just as a baby becomes an infant who becomes a todler who becomes a child who becomes a teenager who becomes an adult, following various developmental stages, isn't the embryo and then fetus, just early points along that developmental process? If not, exactly at what point in the womb does it occur that there is a human being growing in there today, but not yesterday?
"And yet, most people are opposed to cloning a fetus, just to harvest it's organs, even if those organs could save another life."
that's not true.
Well, according to the USA Today and the NY Times polls they are, but maybe you have other data.
"In short, the embryonc stem cell debate is about whether the government should force people to pay for research (through taxation) for something they are morally opposed to?"
sure.
The sad part is that there are other researchers already dismissing the technique used in this original article saying that it isn't efficient enough. However, it has already produced as many viable stem cell lines as what are usuable from the allowed pool that Bush authorized. Personally, we, at my research centre, are waiting to hear from legal as to whether this new technique can be used to get around the government funding issues and allow us to access to new cells for research. If so, it doesn't have to be the most efficient method around, it just needs to be around.
note that the loudest oppents of stem cell research have no issue with sending people to kill others.
I assume you are meaning the war in Iraq. Again, I thought the discussion was on whether embryos were human life or not. I haven't seen any data correlating peoples views on embryonic stem cell research vs war, it might prove interesting, but I don't see how it is related to this topic.
I am not a religous fundamentalist, but I don't think your position is sustainable. First off, a dead embryo is no good for harvesting stem cells, it has to be living and multiplying, so by definition, it must be life. Having a nervous system, heart, etc, have nothing to do with whether or not there is life.
Next, we know, if the embryo is allowed to continue to live and progress through all of the devopmental stages that it will eventually be, not a horse or a pig or a bird or a cow, but a human. That is all it can be.
So, by definition, the developing embryo is alive and what kind of life? Human life.
Now, whether there is a soul and all of that, that is for the philosophers and theologeans to debate, but you cannot get around the fact that a developing embryo is human life (not necessarily sentient, but human).
The real question is the same moral question we are faced with time and time again. Which life is worth more. Just like the question of who are you going to through out of the lifeboat, it is a value judgement. Society for the most part values human life more once it is outside the womb or at least close to be outside the womb than it does at the beginning stages (or end stages, for that matter).
However, at some point between fertilization and birth, that human life does take on enough value for most people that it should be protected to some extent (even the majority of Americans are against abortion on demand for late third trimester abortions).
You state that the embryo is just a cluster of cells, which it is. But that does not mean it is without value. A heart is also just a cluster of cells, albeit a lot bigger. And yet, most people are opposed to cloning a fetus, just to harvest it's organs, even if those organs could save another life.
The whole debate over embryonic stem cells is not about science or faith. It's about basic moral values. It's the same basic question as with abortion. However, this time, instead of being a private issue between a woman and her doctor, people's money (taxdollars) are being used (at least that's what the researchers want) to pay for something that many may be opposed to. In short, the embryonc stem cell debate is about whether the government should force people to pay for research (through taxation) for something they are morally opposed to?
The problem with your approach, as with all approaches that start with conception is that people will never agree when life begins. Is that fertilized egg human life? What about at the embryo stage? When we start from a state of non-life a sperm and an egg and try and determine when life begins, it's anybody's guess.
However, start at a point when we all agree there is human life, say a 1 day old baby and work backwards and see what happens. Is it still human life at 1/2 day? What about just outside the womb? How about coming down the birth canal? What about 1 day prior to birth? Two? Three? So far, most people would all agree with yes.
However, with agreement that even before birth, we have human life, but continuing to work earlier and earlier in the development of that life, it becomes very difficult for people to decide at what point we went from having human life to not having it (much earlier, it turns out, than going the other way from non-life to life). It all depends on the perspective one takes (kind of like a glass half empty or half full).
So maybe those people aren't trying to force their broken moral decision making on others, but instead have a different perspective of things. Who's to say their morallity is any better or worse than yours or mine? It's just different.
As for them forcing their moral decision making on others, how is that any different, at least from their perspective, with the pro-abortion view?