Infrasound has been used to this effect as well. It's worth a read on wikipedia. For additional fun reading, look at the healing effects of the frequency of cat's purring and bone structure. It's really quite fascinating how some naturally occurring phenomena can either help us achieve positive ends or negative ends.
I, for one, welcome our terrifyingly smelly overlords.
Interesting. Similar thing happened to me after having 4 wisdom teeth cut out at the same time. My jaw nerves had to repair and some of the fine facial nerves had to re-route and sort out where feeling was supposed to be. It took a while, but it eventually ended up righting itself.
That's as dumb as shooting a flare gun over the bank you're about to rob. Hey officer - don't look now, but I am giving away the location and affiliation with my drug dealing activity. Now me and my clientel might look a bit surprised when you discover our secret place of business, but it's all in good fun - we'll claim that we were profiled or set up - heck, it's only my 6th offense anyway...
Part of your charge, as you got your license, was to promote the hobby and contribute to good will. I understand your sentiment, and as a 33 year old Ham, I often have to adjust my perspective when entering the conversational arenas of those who have been here much longer than I. Honestly, is all of the backbiting necessary? Every hobby has the same collection of folks with their own passions and eccentricities. Every hobby has the same collection of folks who are desperately seeking to preserve what they perceive as special and unique (even though I may not share their sentiment). Bottom line, please take the time to understand the bigger picture and give some folks the benefit of the doubt. Equally detrimental to the Ham radio community is publicly jabbing one another for perceived personality issues rather than an appreciation for the number of folks who still do this, for the diversity of tech that has come of it, and for the public service that it provides when needed. Bottom line: I'm glad you are a Ham, and my hope for you is that you will someday be glad that you are a Ham as well.
I'm just waiting for the extended life batteries for these rides to show up on ebay. If the concept is anything like the "super batteries" for phones, these cars will need wheelie bars in the back because of the new growth that has been added for extended range.
Interesting take. As one who is very interested in the return of Christ, I would have to both agree and disagree. It is scripturally presented as an inevitability - hopefully, that is the case. Since I tend to believe that Jesus ruling over the earth would be a best case scenario, I have to accept that the events that would make that happen are necessary.
In a similar fashion, if it weren't for the revolutionary war, America would never have been free. The whole thing is a bit unsettling, but the one allegiance that I have to give is with God; this world is ill and is eventually going to implode anyway...
That being said, I'm a pacifist. I would never try to usher in a war or anything of the sort. My goal would be to usher in as much peace as possible before the whole thing gets rebooted.
Interesting take on the whole thing. Like I said, I'm not looking to witch hunt about the mark of the beast and what it really will be. The overarching principle that I'm contemplating is when I'm called to account for my allegiance (it can only be in one place), will the forces of capitalism still have room for religious tolerance?
It concerns me, as a Christian, that technology is pursuing biometrics on face or hands to enable buying and selling.
Revelation 13:16-17 (for those who are curious - it's talking about the mark of the beast) "He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to reveive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name."
For those who think it's all a bunch of religious bologna, that's fine. Without reading too much into the mark (speculation can be a big rabbit trail), the principle of the matter is that there will eventually be a time when those of us who have promised not to take such a mark (whatever it may be) will have to opt out - under the threat of certain hardship and persecution. For those of us who are not comfortable with the technology, hopefully there will always be the possibility to opt out.
Privacy is a whole other matter, not to mention that this is a pretty cracked tech. My problem with this whole thing is the precedent...
[At the time he was just doing a simple dive. From the detective who reviewed the film of Steve Irwin swimming in about 6-7 feet of water.]
That being the case, there is a safe zone (regardless of whether or not you are diving unprotected) of relatively 5 feet of water that any responsible diver knows to inhabit 1)so as not to damage reef and 2)so as not to be damaged by creatures in reef or sand.
I understand what you're saying. My point is that folks are missing the bigger picture. When you are diving in water that has poisonous creatures just beneath the sand and in the reef whilst filming Oceans Deadliest (can't stress that title enough), you probe at safe distance with a tool, you wear protective gear, etc...it's not rocket science. How many times did he ever stick his arm, head, leg into harms way while chasing snakes and crocs? When you're diving with sharks in the water, use a shark cage. Unfortunate, yes. Very low probability, yes (well, that should be rethought now). Surprising that he dodged death this long, yes. We have this Hollywood hero mentality that the good guy should always come out unscathed, no matter what risks he taks - what good movie kills off the star 5 minutes into the film? Steve was a mortal, he took risks, those risks caught up with him.
Here is another analogy that may prove helpful. I had a friend who was killed by a drunk driver at 2am. It was a freak accident and my friend was stone sober. HOWEVER - driving at 2am greatly increases your risk of having an unfortunate encounter with a drunk driver. I'm not blaming my buddy, but that's why I don't drive anywhere past 10pm unless I absolutely have to. If I do have to drive later than 10pm, you bet that I'm taking all sorts of precautions and driving with heightened awareness that I'm in a potentially more dangerous situation than regular daytime driving (aside from the regular bonehead cell phone drivers).
[It's like a motorcycle daredevil getting hit by freak lightning on a clear day on the golf course.] - that's not a good comparison at all - it's more like a motorcycle daredevil getting killed while jumping through a hoop of fire and snapping his neck on the hoop. He was killed while taking a risk - people just keep refusing to say that he took a risk because doggoneit that Steve Irwin is just so loveable and entertaining.
I've got it all wrong...remind me again of the title of the documentary he was filming? Oh yeah, it was "Ocean's Deadliest". The truth of the matter is that we all encouraged his lack of proper precaution by paying to see it. It's the theatrics of of taking chances swimming unprotected that killed him, not the "freakishness" of the accident. He taught a respect for nature, but didn't exhibit it.
You can film a documentary about a mine field without running through it in clown shoes. No matter how good your map of the mine field is, no matter what you think you know about how many duds there are out there, you had better be darn sure that you did everything possible to return to your family.
Is having a "Steve Irwin, Crocodile Hunter" more important at the end of the day than having a Steve Irwin, father and husband? No. Once you commit yourself in marriage and parenthood to have responsibility over someone else's life, things must change. Being killed in a car accident on the way home from work is not a fair comparison here either - unless you fancy a drive home with your gas tank on fire, driving while intoxicated, or traveling at rediculous speeds. It is sad, no doubt. The tragedy is just as much in the decision to not take proper precaution as it is in the actual death.
As a parent, I think we're missing something
on
Steve Irwin Dead
·
· Score: 1
Who cares if he died doing what he loved. That's such a hollywood romanticized statement and so trite. Someone dies while swimming with stingrays, the fact of the matter is that they are still dead. I have a daughter and if you think for a moment that a documentary about the "Ocean's Deadliest" caries equal weight with the presence of a father and husband in the lives of his wife and children, I pray that you reconsider what life is actually about.
If I got bit by a gopher on a golf course and died, do you think that noble "he died doing what he liked" would actually console my daughter for the rest of her childhood or my wife as she wonders how to make ends meet? Hillbillys die in all manner of "Hey y'all, watch this..." accidents and leave real people behind to deal with the aftermath financially and emotionally. I'm not saying Mr. Irwin's contribution wasn't important (personally, I really liked what he did) - I'm just saying that the theatrics, while entertaining to the masses, ended up taking a daddy away from his kids and a husband away from his wife. Senseless and irresponsible when it's all said and done. There are no winners in this scenario.
Seriously, those folks need to get this out. There is nothing I would enjoy more than being able to watch a podcast of 24 on the bathroom wall / stall door whilst exercising the large veins in my forehead over last night's chili.
The applications are endless: -projecting "kick me" signs on your buddy's back -literally labeling people in bars as you approach them (your typical loser, desperate single guy, lush, the "come on, we're going" girl, designated driver, career drinker, future mayor of the drunk tank, the "you think that's bad, I..." guy, will puke, have puked, laughed so hard I peed a little, kinky, not really a girl, high maintenance, "forgot" my wedding ring, etc... -projecting the definition of a 6-pack on my gut (among other body mods to various people...) -showing movies on your wife's forhead so it appears that you are paying attention to her when she is saying...whatever it is that she says.
I'm in - let me know when it's selling for 1/2 price on ebay at 2am. I've got cable internet and I'm not afraid to wait until the last 3 seconds...punks.
It's funny - I thought that the McCarthy era was just a rediculous caricature of uneducated fear that didn't have the privledge of historical perspective to see the overarching problems that happen when you supplant fear with objectivity. We've come so far...
I would love to see a Vegas air marshall on a plane with the bolero men from the Thomas Crown Affair...
/. had an article not too long ago about a Taiwanese company that had developed a 2 TB XD card or some solid state format - something that could fit in a pocket. 50 TB CDs are fine, but still awkward in form and difficult to be carried around.
1. Does this hint at the revival of the pocket PC market or uberphones with 1-2 TB micro drives? 2. Will they finally be able to unleash the resolution reins on cameras (which, to my understanding have been limited by the solid state memory cards)? 3. Will HDTV / TiVo have a different face now that large amounts of data can be piled in? 4. Will bandwidth squeeze become an even larger issue when storage becomes a non-issue?
I would love to see endless memory...I just wonder what will change most on the consumer side which has been so limited by storage in the past.
You have many stem cells in your bone marrow, spine, and nose. Embryonic stem cells are not necessary. Harvard scientists could literally pick their noses and continue their research without venturing into the territory that they are in.
Do you have a child? Much of this dialogue focuses on other peoples' live, other peoples' cells, and most definitely relies on a psychic distance from the connection of parent to child. One might be able to speak of what to do with the stem cells from baby X, but the thought of causing harm to your own child is unspeakable. Every embryo clearly has a set of parents who have created a situation of dependence (if even in a test tube). How accountable we hold the parents to not aggregiously transgress that dependence is another issue for another thread.
The application of the golden rule in this case seems simplistic (though perfectly applicable), but from whatever bent you view this topic, the over-arching principle is that we cannot discuss the "possibilities" that can be achieved at the expense of someone else's life if we are unwilling to assume that someone, at the very same moment, is postulating the same "possibilities" at the expense of your life. There are many elderly people, and/or invalids (yes, the handicapped are vulnerable to this at all stages - spinal and nasal stem cells are viable - folks who are vegetables/quadraplegics/mentally deficient/diabetic/etc...) won't mind if we harvest a few, will they) who are without family and without homes or means. Are we to assume that the point at which a person's physical structure becomes a commodity to the masses is precisely at the point where they have been isolated from the proverbial herd and been found unable to contribute to society?
The key is that we are unable to remove ourselves from the equation - it's not just "someone else's" child. At that point, it puts the inalienable rights that we are promised in true jeopardy. Our ethical protocol is always to include ourselves in the equation. I have a 6 month old infant. The actual connection to the human that is little more than a variable in someone else's equation puts the conversation in perspective. To add to that, however, I am also signed up to be an organ and tissue donor at the point where my life has ended.
Do you have a child? Much of this dialogue focuses on other peoples' live, other peoples' cells, and most definitely relies on a psychic distance from the connection of parent to child. One might be able to speak of what to do with the stem cells from baby X, but the thought of causing harm to your own child is unspeakable. Every embryo clearly has a set of parents who have created a situation of dependence (if even in a test tube). How accountable we hold the parents to not aggregiously transgress that dependence is another issue for another thread.
The application of the golden rule in this case seems simplistic (though perfectly applicable), but from whatever bent you view this topic, the over-arching principle is that we cannot discuss the "possibilities" that can be achieved at the expense of someone else's life if we are unwilling to assume that someone, at the very same moment, is postulating the same "possibilities" at the expense of your life. There are many elderly people, and/or invalids (yes, the handicapped are vulnerable to this at all stages - spinal and nasal stem cells are viable - folks who are vegetables/quadraplegics/mentally deficient/diabetic/etc...) won't mind if we harvest a few, will they) who are without family and without homes or means. Are we to assume that the point at which a person's physical structure becomes a commodity to the masses is precisely at the point where they have been isolated from the proverbial herd and been found unable to contribute to society?
The key is that we are unable to remove ourselves from the equation - it's not just "someone else's" child. At that point, it puts the inalienable rights that we are promised in true jeopardy. Our ethical protocol is always to include ourselves in the equation. I have a 6 month old infant. The actual connection to the human that is little more than a variable in someone else's equation puts the conversation in perspective. To add to that, however, I am also signed up to be an organ and tissue donor at the point where my life has ended.
You have a child, and that gives you added credibility to this discussion. Much of this dialogue focuses on other peoples' live, other peoples' cells, and most definitely relies on a psychic distance from the connection of parent to child. One might be able to speak of what to do with the stem cells from baby X, but the thought of causing harm to your own child is unspeakable. Every embryo clearly has a set of parents who have created a situation of dependence (if even in a test tube). How accountable we hold the parents to not aggregiously transgress that dependence is another issue for another thread.
The application of the golden rule in this case seems simplistic (though perfectly applicable), but from whatever bent you view this topic, the over-arching principle is that we cannot discuss the "possibilities" that can be achieved at the expense of someone else's life if we are unwilling to assume that someone, at the very same moment, is postulating the same "possibilities" at the expense of your life. There are many elderly people, and/or invalids (yes, the handicapped are vulnerable to this at all stages) who are without family and without homes or means. Are we to assume that the point at which a person's physical structure becomes a commodity to the masses is precisely at the point where they have been isolated from the proverbial herd and been found unable to contribute to society?
The key is that we are unable to remove ourselves from the equation - it's not just "someone else's" child. At that point, it puts the inalienable rights that we are promised in true jeopardy. Our ethical protocol is always to include ourselves in the equation. I have a 6 month old infant. The actual connection to the human that is little more than a variable in someone else's equation puts the conversation in perspective. To add to that, however, I am also signed up to be an organ and tissue donor at the point where my life has ended.
Do you have a child? Much of this dialogue focuses on other peoples' live, other peoples' cells, and most definitely relies on a psychic distance from the connection of parent to child. One might be able to speak of what to do with the stem cells from baby X, but the thought of causing harm to your own child is unspeakable. Every embryo clearly has a set of parents who have created a situation of dependence (if even in a test tube). How accountable we hold the parents to not aggregiously transgress that dependence is another issue for another thread.
The application of the golden rule in this case seems simplistic (though perfectly applicable), but from whatever bent you view this topic, the over-arching principle is that we cannot discuss the "possibilities" that can be achieved at the expense of someone else's life if we are unwilling to assume that someone, at the very same moment, is postulating the same "possibilities" at the expense of your life. There are many elderly people (to use your example) who are without family and without homes or means. Are we to assume that the point at which a person's physical structure becomes a commodity to the masses is precisely at the point where they have been isolated from the proverbial herd?
The key is that we are unable to remove ourselves from the equation - it's not just "someone else's" child. At that point, it puts the inalienable rights that we are promised in true jeopardy. Our ethical protocol is always to include ourselves in the equation. I have a 6 month old infant. The actual connection to the human that is little more than a variable in someone else's equation puts the conversation in perspective.
Do you have a child? Much of this dialogue focuses on other peoples' live, other peoples' cells, and most definitely relies on a psychic distance from the connection of parent to child. One might be able to speak of what to do with the stem cells from baby X, but the thought of causing harm to your own child is unspeakable.
The application of the golden rule in this case seems simplistic (though perfectly applicable), but from whatever bent you view this topic, the over-arching principle is that we cannot discuss the "possibilities" that can be achieved at the expense of someone else's life if we are unwilling to assume that someone, at the very same moment, is postulating the same "possibilities" at the expense of your life.
The key is that we are unable to remove ourselves from the equation - it's not just "someone else's" child. At that point, it puts the inalienable rights that we are promised in true jeopardy. Our ethical protocol is always to include ourselves in the equation. I have a 6 month old infant. The actual connection to the human that is little more than a variable in someone else's equation puts the conversation in perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
Never not funny...I was expecting it, I read it, and giggled like an 8-year-old...who's serving up the Uranus joke?!
Infrasound has been used to this effect as well. It's worth a read on wikipedia. For additional fun reading, look at the healing effects of the frequency of cat's purring and bone structure. It's really quite fascinating how some naturally occurring phenomena can either help us achieve positive ends or negative ends.
I, for one, welcome our terrifyingly smelly overlords.
Imagine getting the best steak you ever had down to a repeatable science! I'm going to giggle myself into a food coma!!!
Messages from ~beyond... "Kent, this is God. Stop touching yourself." "It IS you!"
That's as dumb as shooting a flare gun over the bank you're about to rob. Hey officer - don't look now, but I am giving away the location and affiliation with my drug dealing activity. Now me and my clientel might look a bit surprised when you discover our secret place of business, but it's all in good fun - we'll claim that we were profiled or set up - heck, it's only my 6th offense anyway...
Part of your charge, as you got your license, was to promote the hobby and contribute to good will. I understand your sentiment, and as a 33 year old Ham, I often have to adjust my perspective when entering the conversational arenas of those who have been here much longer than I. Honestly, is all of the backbiting necessary? Every hobby has the same collection of folks with their own passions and eccentricities. Every hobby has the same collection of folks who are desperately seeking to preserve what they perceive as special and unique (even though I may not share their sentiment). Bottom line, please take the time to understand the bigger picture and give some folks the benefit of the doubt. Equally detrimental to the Ham radio community is publicly jabbing one another for perceived personality issues rather than an appreciation for the number of folks who still do this, for the diversity of tech that has come of it, and for the public service that it provides when needed. Bottom line: I'm glad you are a Ham, and my hope for you is that you will someday be glad that you are a Ham as well.
73's - W9BSH
I'm just waiting for the extended life batteries for these rides to show up on ebay. If the concept is anything like the "super batteries" for phones, these cars will need wheelie bars in the back because of the new growth that has been added for extended range.
Just talk louder and slower; enunciate and they have to understand you...maybe throw in a few hand gestures.
Interesting take. As one who is very interested in the return of Christ, I would have to both agree and disagree. It is scripturally presented as an inevitability - hopefully, that is the case. Since I tend to believe that Jesus ruling over the earth would be a best case scenario, I have to accept that the events that would make that happen are necessary. In a similar fashion, if it weren't for the revolutionary war, America would never have been free. The whole thing is a bit unsettling, but the one allegiance that I have to give is with God; this world is ill and is eventually going to implode anyway... That being said, I'm a pacifist. I would never try to usher in a war or anything of the sort. My goal would be to usher in as much peace as possible before the whole thing gets rebooted.
Interesting take on the whole thing. Like I said, I'm not looking to witch hunt about the mark of the beast and what it really will be. The overarching principle that I'm contemplating is when I'm called to account for my allegiance (it can only be in one place), will the forces of capitalism still have room for religious tolerance?
It concerns me, as a Christian, that technology is pursuing biometrics on face or hands to enable buying and selling.
Revelation 13:16-17 (for those who are curious - it's talking about the mark of the beast)
"He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to reveive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name."
For those who think it's all a bunch of religious bologna, that's fine. Without reading too much into the mark (speculation can be a big rabbit trail), the principle of the matter is that there will eventually be a time when those of us who have promised not to take such a mark (whatever it may be) will have to opt out - under the threat of certain hardship and persecution. For those of us who are not comfortable with the technology, hopefully there will always be the possibility to opt out.
Privacy is a whole other matter, not to mention that this is a pretty cracked tech. My problem with this whole thing is the precedent...
[At the time he was just doing a simple dive. From the detective who reviewed the film of Steve Irwin swimming in about 6-7 feet of water.]
That being the case, there is a safe zone (regardless of whether or not you are diving unprotected) of relatively 5 feet of water that any responsible diver knows to inhabit 1)so as not to damage reef and 2)so as not to be damaged by creatures in reef or sand.
I understand what you're saying. My point is that folks are missing the bigger picture. When you are diving in water that has poisonous creatures just beneath the sand and in the reef whilst filming Oceans Deadliest (can't stress that title enough), you probe at safe distance with a tool, you wear protective gear, etc...it's not rocket science. How many times did he ever stick his arm, head, leg into harms way while chasing snakes and crocs? When you're diving with sharks in the water, use a shark cage. Unfortunate, yes. Very low probability, yes (well, that should be rethought now). Surprising that he dodged death this long, yes. We have this Hollywood hero mentality that the good guy should always come out unscathed, no matter what risks he taks - what good movie kills off the star 5 minutes into the film? Steve was a mortal, he took risks, those risks caught up with him.
Here is another analogy that may prove helpful. I had a friend who was killed by a drunk driver at 2am. It was a freak accident and my friend was stone sober. HOWEVER - driving at 2am greatly increases your risk of having an unfortunate encounter with a drunk driver. I'm not blaming my buddy, but that's why I don't drive anywhere past 10pm unless I absolutely have to. If I do have to drive later than 10pm, you bet that I'm taking all sorts of precautions and driving with heightened awareness that I'm in a potentially more dangerous situation than regular daytime driving (aside from the regular bonehead cell phone drivers).
Thank you, that was hilarious
[It's like a motorcycle daredevil getting hit by freak lightning on a clear day on the golf course.] - that's not a good comparison at all - it's more like a motorcycle daredevil getting killed while jumping through a hoop of fire and snapping his neck on the hoop. He was killed while taking a risk - people just keep refusing to say that he took a risk because doggoneit that Steve Irwin is just so loveable and entertaining.
I've got it all wrong...remind me again of the title of the documentary he was filming? Oh yeah, it was "Ocean's Deadliest". The truth of the matter is that we all encouraged his lack of proper precaution by paying to see it. It's the theatrics of of taking chances swimming unprotected that killed him, not the "freakishness" of the accident. He taught a respect for nature, but didn't exhibit it.
You can film a documentary about a mine field without running through it in clown shoes. No matter how good your map of the mine field is, no matter what you think you know about how many duds there are out there, you had better be darn sure that you did everything possible to return to your family.
Is having a "Steve Irwin, Crocodile Hunter" more important at the end of the day than having a Steve Irwin, father and husband? No. Once you commit yourself in marriage and parenthood to have responsibility over someone else's life, things must change. Being killed in a car accident on the way home from work is not a fair comparison here either - unless you fancy a drive home with your gas tank on fire, driving while intoxicated, or traveling at rediculous speeds. It is sad, no doubt. The tragedy is just as much in the decision to not take proper precaution as it is in the actual death.
Who cares if he died doing what he loved. That's such a hollywood romanticized statement and so trite. Someone dies while swimming with stingrays, the fact of the matter is that they are still dead. I have a daughter and if you think for a moment that a documentary about the "Ocean's Deadliest" caries equal weight with the presence of a father and husband in the lives of his wife and children, I pray that you reconsider what life is actually about.
If I got bit by a gopher on a golf course and died, do you think that noble "he died doing what he liked" would actually console my daughter for the rest of her childhood or my wife as she wonders how to make ends meet? Hillbillys die in all manner of "Hey y'all, watch this..." accidents and leave real people behind to deal with the aftermath financially and emotionally. I'm not saying Mr. Irwin's contribution wasn't important (personally, I really liked what he did) - I'm just saying that the theatrics, while entertaining to the masses, ended up taking a daddy away from his kids and a husband away from his wife. Senseless and irresponsible when it's all said and done. There are no winners in this scenario.
Seriously, those folks need to get this out. There is nothing I would enjoy more than being able to watch a podcast of 24 on the bathroom wall / stall door whilst exercising the large veins in my forehead over last night's chili.
The applications are endless:
-projecting "kick me" signs on your buddy's back
-literally labeling people in bars as you approach them (your typical loser, desperate single guy, lush, the "come on, we're going" girl, designated driver, career drinker, future mayor of the drunk tank, the "you think that's bad, I..." guy, will puke, have puked, laughed so hard I peed a little, kinky, not really a girl, high maintenance, "forgot" my wedding ring, etc...
-projecting the definition of a 6-pack on my gut (among other body mods to various people...)
-showing movies on your wife's forhead so it appears that you are paying attention to her when she is saying...whatever it is that she says.
I'm in - let me know when it's selling for 1/2 price on ebay at 2am. I've got cable internet and I'm not afraid to wait until the last 3 seconds...punks.
Do you have children yourself?
It's funny - I thought that the McCarthy era was just a rediculous caricature of uneducated fear that didn't have the privledge of historical perspective to see the overarching problems that happen when you supplant fear with objectivity. We've come so far...
I would love to see a Vegas air marshall on a plane with the bolero men from the Thomas Crown Affair...
/. had an article not too long ago about a Taiwanese company that had developed a 2 TB XD card or some solid state format - something that could fit in a pocket. 50 TB CDs are fine, but still awkward in form and difficult to be carried around.
1. Does this hint at the revival of the pocket PC market or uberphones with 1-2 TB micro drives?
2. Will they finally be able to unleash the resolution reins on cameras (which, to my understanding have been limited by the solid state memory cards)?
3. Will HDTV / TiVo have a different face now that large amounts of data can be piled in?
4. Will bandwidth squeeze become an even larger issue when storage becomes a non-issue?
I would love to see endless memory...I just wonder what will change most on the consumer side which has been so limited by storage in the past.
You have many stem cells in your bone marrow, spine, and nose. Embryonic stem cells are not necessary. Harvard scientists could literally pick their noses and continue their research without venturing into the territory that they are in. Do you have a child? Much of this dialogue focuses on other peoples' live, other peoples' cells, and most definitely relies on a psychic distance from the connection of parent to child. One might be able to speak of what to do with the stem cells from baby X, but the thought of causing harm to your own child is unspeakable. Every embryo clearly has a set of parents who have created a situation of dependence (if even in a test tube). How accountable we hold the parents to not aggregiously transgress that dependence is another issue for another thread. The application of the golden rule in this case seems simplistic (though perfectly applicable), but from whatever bent you view this topic, the over-arching principle is that we cannot discuss the "possibilities" that can be achieved at the expense of someone else's life if we are unwilling to assume that someone, at the very same moment, is postulating the same "possibilities" at the expense of your life. There are many elderly people, and/or invalids (yes, the handicapped are vulnerable to this at all stages - spinal and nasal stem cells are viable - folks who are vegetables/quadraplegics/mentally deficient/diabetic/etc...) won't mind if we harvest a few, will they) who are without family and without homes or means. Are we to assume that the point at which a person's physical structure becomes a commodity to the masses is precisely at the point where they have been isolated from the proverbial herd and been found unable to contribute to society? The key is that we are unable to remove ourselves from the equation - it's not just "someone else's" child. At that point, it puts the inalienable rights that we are promised in true jeopardy. Our ethical protocol is always to include ourselves in the equation. I have a 6 month old infant. The actual connection to the human that is little more than a variable in someone else's equation puts the conversation in perspective. To add to that, however, I am also signed up to be an organ and tissue donor at the point where my life has ended.
Do you have a child? Much of this dialogue focuses on other peoples' live, other peoples' cells, and most definitely relies on a psychic distance from the connection of parent to child. One might be able to speak of what to do with the stem cells from baby X, but the thought of causing harm to your own child is unspeakable. Every embryo clearly has a set of parents who have created a situation of dependence (if even in a test tube). How accountable we hold the parents to not aggregiously transgress that dependence is another issue for another thread. The application of the golden rule in this case seems simplistic (though perfectly applicable), but from whatever bent you view this topic, the over-arching principle is that we cannot discuss the "possibilities" that can be achieved at the expense of someone else's life if we are unwilling to assume that someone, at the very same moment, is postulating the same "possibilities" at the expense of your life. There are many elderly people, and/or invalids (yes, the handicapped are vulnerable to this at all stages - spinal and nasal stem cells are viable - folks who are vegetables/quadraplegics/mentally deficient/diabetic/etc...) won't mind if we harvest a few, will they) who are without family and without homes or means. Are we to assume that the point at which a person's physical structure becomes a commodity to the masses is precisely at the point where they have been isolated from the proverbial herd and been found unable to contribute to society? The key is that we are unable to remove ourselves from the equation - it's not just "someone else's" child. At that point, it puts the inalienable rights that we are promised in true jeopardy. Our ethical protocol is always to include ourselves in the equation. I have a 6 month old infant. The actual connection to the human that is little more than a variable in someone else's equation puts the conversation in perspective. To add to that, however, I am also signed up to be an organ and tissue donor at the point where my life has ended.
You have a child, and that gives you added credibility to this discussion. Much of this dialogue focuses on other peoples' live, other peoples' cells, and most definitely relies on a psychic distance from the connection of parent to child. One might be able to speak of what to do with the stem cells from baby X, but the thought of causing harm to your own child is unspeakable. Every embryo clearly has a set of parents who have created a situation of dependence (if even in a test tube). How accountable we hold the parents to not aggregiously transgress that dependence is another issue for another thread. The application of the golden rule in this case seems simplistic (though perfectly applicable), but from whatever bent you view this topic, the over-arching principle is that we cannot discuss the "possibilities" that can be achieved at the expense of someone else's life if we are unwilling to assume that someone, at the very same moment, is postulating the same "possibilities" at the expense of your life. There are many elderly people, and/or invalids (yes, the handicapped are vulnerable to this at all stages) who are without family and without homes or means. Are we to assume that the point at which a person's physical structure becomes a commodity to the masses is precisely at the point where they have been isolated from the proverbial herd and been found unable to contribute to society? The key is that we are unable to remove ourselves from the equation - it's not just "someone else's" child. At that point, it puts the inalienable rights that we are promised in true jeopardy. Our ethical protocol is always to include ourselves in the equation. I have a 6 month old infant. The actual connection to the human that is little more than a variable in someone else's equation puts the conversation in perspective. To add to that, however, I am also signed up to be an organ and tissue donor at the point where my life has ended.
Do you have a child? Much of this dialogue focuses on other peoples' live, other peoples' cells, and most definitely relies on a psychic distance from the connection of parent to child. One might be able to speak of what to do with the stem cells from baby X, but the thought of causing harm to your own child is unspeakable. Every embryo clearly has a set of parents who have created a situation of dependence (if even in a test tube). How accountable we hold the parents to not aggregiously transgress that dependence is another issue for another thread. The application of the golden rule in this case seems simplistic (though perfectly applicable), but from whatever bent you view this topic, the over-arching principle is that we cannot discuss the "possibilities" that can be achieved at the expense of someone else's life if we are unwilling to assume that someone, at the very same moment, is postulating the same "possibilities" at the expense of your life. There are many elderly people (to use your example) who are without family and without homes or means. Are we to assume that the point at which a person's physical structure becomes a commodity to the masses is precisely at the point where they have been isolated from the proverbial herd? The key is that we are unable to remove ourselves from the equation - it's not just "someone else's" child. At that point, it puts the inalienable rights that we are promised in true jeopardy. Our ethical protocol is always to include ourselves in the equation. I have a 6 month old infant. The actual connection to the human that is little more than a variable in someone else's equation puts the conversation in perspective.
Do you have a child? Much of this dialogue focuses on other peoples' live, other peoples' cells, and most definitely relies on a psychic distance from the connection of parent to child. One might be able to speak of what to do with the stem cells from baby X, but the thought of causing harm to your own child is unspeakable. The application of the golden rule in this case seems simplistic (though perfectly applicable), but from whatever bent you view this topic, the over-arching principle is that we cannot discuss the "possibilities" that can be achieved at the expense of someone else's life if we are unwilling to assume that someone, at the very same moment, is postulating the same "possibilities" at the expense of your life. The key is that we are unable to remove ourselves from the equation - it's not just "someone else's" child. At that point, it puts the inalienable rights that we are promised in true jeopardy. Our ethical protocol is always to include ourselves in the equation. I have a 6 month old infant. The actual connection to the human that is little more than a variable in someone else's equation puts the conversation in perspective.