From a pure evolutionary point of view: if we would eliminate the genetic deversity, the evolution of humans would stop.
1. Evolution is a process that operates over millions of years; genetic enhancements can be applied within decades. You do the math. 2. No plausible genetic enhancement scheme would have any measureable effect -- positive or negative -- on the overall genetic diversity of the human species. 3. Stopping the evolution of human beings is probably a good thing at this point. (I think you are under the mistaken impression that evolution is some magical process of never-ending improvement.)
Its also dangerous for society because it might very well lead to forms of discrimination.
Good thing we don't have genetic engineering, and thus live in a completely discrimination-free society! Genetic engineering wouldn't make discrimination any worse than it is today. All it might do is change which groups are discriminated against.
After all the harassment and insane goings on, it is common to want to seek some sort of revenge, however people need to realize that it is just not worth it and then move on.
On the contrary, the problem is that not enough people seek revenge.
For example, by all appearances Kenneth Lay and his partners in crime walk freely and without fear. This is a condemnation of all of the thousands of workers whose lives they destroyed: that not one of them was man enough to take revenge. (Now, if I misunderstand the situation -- if Ken Lay et al surround themselves with bodyguards or have fled overseas -- I apologize to all Enron ex-employees.) Forget judicial reform: what level of corporate anti-worker crime would remain, if even one out of every twenty executives who destroyed the lives of hundreds of workers was murdered?
But no, you prefer to lie supine as you are trampled. You even tell yourself that your meekness and impotence is a virtue. Well then, you deserve to be trampled (you pathetic wretch). And as you lie there know that through your complicity in your own degradation, you embolden those everywhere who would prey upon the weak.
Everything you know, everything you think that you can do that is special will be done quicker and better by a 5 year old pressing a few bright buttons in a machine that you will end up designing and maintaining.
Does that mean I can have George Jetson's job when I grow up?
Look, you can take a can of spraypaint and write on the sidewalk, "By stepping over this message, you agree not to raise your voice above 10 decibles while in front of Mr. Jones's house." But that doesn't mean that stepping over the message constitutes any type of agreement.
If you haven't read a particular EULA, does that mean it doesn't apply either?
EULAs are non-binding anyway. Anyone who thinks he can impose additional terms after the point of sale is either an idiot, or is counting on his customers being idiots.
If you bought a TV and when you got home and opened the box the TV had a sticker over the power button saying, "By turning on this TV, you agree never to watch content not approved by XYZ Inc," would you be under the delusion that that was legally binding? Of course not, because you weren't born yesterday.
(Terms agreed to as part of the sale itself are another matter, but they still have limits.)
Anything which may be considered a controversial opinion (i.e. one which doesn't bow down to open source) is immediately modded as flamebait as no one will actually defend open source with arguments.
Actually, no. The reason that the great-grandparent was modded troll was because it offered no argument. It was a piece of content-free flamebait. Of course, I wouldn't expect someone with your illustrious posting history to admit or understand this.
Every, I say EVERY, scientist knows, that experiment that yields unexpected/bad results is a GOOD experiment.
Or, in the case of undergraduates, it means your instruments weren't properly calibrated, or you were jiggling the table with your knee, or you messed up the experiment in any of a thousand ways.
Yes, it does. Probability is a construct that depends on available information.
For example, let's say someone flips a coin and you call the result in mid-air. In reality, the result of the coin toss is already determined at this point. However, as far as you're concerned the probability of either result is 50%. Or even better, let's say that you're trying to guess which of two cups holds a ball. The person who placed the ball knows with complete certainty which cup holds it, but as far as you're concerned the probability is 50% that the ball is in either cup.
Probability doesn't exist independently of observation. Probability is simply a measure of expectation.
Actually, "in" takes the ablative and the accusative, not the dative.
Gah! I must have been thinking of German.
In any case, the part of your original statement that I took issue with was "in Latin, there is no distinction between in, on, into, or onto." Your post seems to indicate you have realized that this is not true.
1.0.3 for X-Windows is ugly and unresponsive and a pain in the ass to use on a Mac. (Is it that much to ask to use CMD instead of CTRL?) Then again, since you're running a test release, I guess you're probably the kind of guy who wouldn't be particularly sensitive to these issues.
I love OpenOffice for the PC, but a few more hours using the X version and I would have chucked my darling Mac through a window. I've given up on OpenOffice for the Mac until a native version is released.
So let's celebrate gratis software, because it is what will allow us to take business away from proprietary companies.
What other profession contains members that are dedicated to its destruction?
I'm all for other people giving me free stuff: don't let me stop you from writing a kickass image-manipulation program or web browser and making it available for free. But why should anyone be opposed to charging for software on principle?
Slashdot Mirror
I will bask in the irrelevance of your glorious, insightful comment.
(Come back when you RTFA, or even RTF-summary, ya hear?)
the entire liberal campaign is "Hey at least we're not republican"
Nah, that's John Kerry's entire campaign. Not that I'd expect a mouth-breather like you to understand the difference.
From a pure evolutionary point of view: if we would eliminate the genetic deversity, the evolution of humans would stop.
1. Evolution is a process that operates over millions of years; genetic enhancements can be applied within decades. You do the math.
2. No plausible genetic enhancement scheme would have any measureable effect -- positive or negative -- on the overall genetic diversity of the human species.
3. Stopping the evolution of human beings is probably a good thing at this point. (I think you are under the mistaken impression that evolution is some magical process of never-ending improvement.)
Its also dangerous for society because it might very well lead to forms of discrimination.
Good thing we don't have genetic engineering, and thus live in a completely discrimination-free society! Genetic engineering wouldn't make discrimination any worse than it is today. All it might do is change which groups are discriminated against.
Let me second that.
(No, I don't use AOL. Honest.)
The professors aren't sweating it. In fact, if this system replaced their classes altogether, almost none would complain.
The vast, vast majority of professors are employed by the university to do research. Teaching is an unfortunate but necessary annoyance.
*sigh* Because they're big and rich it's okay to steal...
Exactly. Robin Hood is a folk hero, while Kenneth Lay is just a criminal. Savvy?
You should fight to repeal laws you feel are unjust.
Do not just break them because you don't agree with them.
There were people who told that to Martin Luther King, Jr. Myself, I subscribe to Thoreau.
Whom cares?
Was that intentional? Because that was pretty funny.
(No, it doesn't bother me that you still struggle with your native language.)
Does bittorent needs port 25?
No. You may specify any port (or range of possible ports) for BitTorrent.
After all the harassment and insane goings on, it is common to want to seek some sort of revenge, however people need to realize that it is just not worth it and then move on.
On the contrary, the problem is that not enough people seek revenge.
For example, by all appearances Kenneth Lay and his partners in crime walk freely and without fear. This is a condemnation of all of the thousands of workers whose lives they destroyed: that not one of them was man enough to take revenge. (Now, if I misunderstand the situation -- if Ken Lay et al surround themselves with bodyguards or have fled overseas -- I apologize to all Enron ex-employees.) Forget judicial reform: what level of corporate anti-worker crime would remain, if even one out of every twenty executives who destroyed the lives of hundreds of workers was murdered?
But no, you prefer to lie supine as you are trampled. You even tell yourself that your meekness and impotence is a virtue. Well then, you deserve to be trampled (you pathetic wretch). And as you lie there know that through your complicity in your own degradation, you embolden those everywhere who would prey upon the weak.
That was depressingly unfunny.
Everything you know, everything you think that you can do that is special will be done quicker and better by a 5 year old pressing a few bright buttons in a machine that you will end up designing and maintaining.
Does that mean I can have George Jetson's job when I grow up?
Now that's a future worth to look forward to!
And who will keep these clever systems up and running 24h * 365days?
Yeah, because we know that tech support will never be outsourced.
That's a different situation, since you're talking about the law of the land instead of an agreement between yourself and Radio Shack.
It's an interesting story; I just hope you weren't trying to draw an erroneous parallel.
Look, you can take a can of spraypaint and write on the sidewalk, "By stepping over this message, you agree not to raise your voice above 10 decibles while in front of Mr. Jones's house." But that doesn't mean that stepping over the message constitutes any type of agreement.
If you haven't read a particular EULA, does that mean it doesn't apply either?
EULAs are non-binding anyway. Anyone who thinks he can impose additional terms after the point of sale is either an idiot, or is counting on his customers being idiots.
If you bought a TV and when you got home and opened the box the TV had a sticker over the power button saying, "By turning on this TV, you agree never to watch content not approved by XYZ Inc," would you be under the delusion that that was legally binding? Of course not, because you weren't born yesterday.
(Terms agreed to as part of the sale itself are another matter, but they still have limits.)
Anything which may be considered a controversial opinion (i.e. one which doesn't bow down to open source) is immediately modded as flamebait as no one will actually defend open source with arguments.
Actually, no. The reason that the great-grandparent was modded troll was because it offered no argument. It was a piece of content-free flamebait. Of course, I wouldn't expect someone with your illustrious posting history to admit or understand this.
Every, I say EVERY, scientist knows, that experiment that yields unexpected/bad results is a GOOD experiment.
Or, in the case of undergraduates, it means your instruments weren't properly calibrated, or you were jiggling the table with your knee, or you messed up the experiment in any of a thousand ways.
Yes, it does. Probability is a construct that depends on available information.
For example, let's say someone flips a coin and you call the result in mid-air. In reality, the result of the coin toss is already determined at this point. However, as far as you're concerned the probability of either result is 50%. Or even better, let's say that you're trying to guess which of two cups holds a ball. The person who placed the ball knows with complete certainty which cup holds it, but as far as you're concerned the probability is 50% that the ball is in either cup.
Probability doesn't exist independently of observation. Probability is simply a measure of expectation.
Actually, "in" takes the ablative and the accusative, not the dative.
Gah! I must have been thinking of German.
In any case, the part of your original statement that I took issue with was "in Latin, there is no distinction between in, on, into, or onto." Your post seems to indicate you have realized that this is not true.
in Latin, there is no distinction between in, on, into, or onto; all are denoted by the word in; everything else is in context.
That's not true at all: it is determined by whether the indirect object is in the dative or accusative case.
(I'm running 1.1.2 on my Mac and it is fabulous)
1.0.3 for X-Windows is ugly and unresponsive and a pain in the ass to use on a Mac. (Is it that much to ask to use CMD instead of CTRL?) Then again, since you're running a test release, I guess you're probably the kind of guy who wouldn't be particularly sensitive to these issues.
I love OpenOffice for the PC, but a few more hours using the X version and I would have chucked my darling Mac through a window. I've given up on OpenOffice for the Mac until a native version is released.
So let's celebrate gratis software, because it is what will allow us to take business away from proprietary companies.
What other profession contains members that are dedicated to its destruction?
I'm all for other people giving me free stuff: don't let me stop you from writing a kickass image-manipulation program or web browser and making it available for free. But why should anyone be opposed to charging for software on principle?
...and you didn't even read the article. Not only is your comment stupid, it's completely irrelevant to the story.
Could you please explain the point you're making to someone who isn't familiar with the intricacies of Linux?