I frequent both sites, and let me tell you, MySpace has a LOT more "normal" people on it than Slashdot.
That's just the point. Most people on/. are here because we're sick of all the normals, which can be defined as the masses of ignorant mortals that think that by wearing black and painting their nails they've found a quick, easy, and acceptable solution that makes them "unique". I don't want this pathetic manifestation of normalcy. Therefore, since I consider the word "normal" an insult, I think your post is just about the best compliment a Slashdotter could receive.
I just want to point out that it is possible to be against both IVF and stem cell research that derives from embryos, *but* still in favor of stem cell research that uses umbylical or bone marrow cells.
Who actually takes issue with what can be done with the cells? I'd really like to know what or who you were referring to. As far as I knew, all contention really was about where the cells came from.
*I* wouldn't find it funny to be turned into a treatment; but it's the real, living, *I* that speaks here. I wouldn't have any problem being turned into a treatment if I didn't exist yet, because there would be no *I* to speak of.
I think the point is that there wouldn't be any "real, living *you*" here and now if, some years ago, someone somewhere decided to harvest the stem-cells of your embryo so they could grow back the finger they accidentally cut off. Now that you *can* speak for yourself (even though you couldn't then), is that what you would have liked to have happend?
*I* wouldn't find it funny to be turned into a treatment; but it's the real, living, *I* that speaks here.
Besides, I think your opinions, my opinions, and everybody else's opinions have *no* relevance at all and that every scientist should do whatever he likes to do. Cloning babies and engineering planet-destroying death stars... whatever.
If you feel that every scientist should be allowed to do whatever he/she wants even to the point of engineering planet-destroying death stars, I really don't see why you should mind them turning the fully developed *you* into a treatment.
I agree with you completely with regards to stem-cell research that involves taking the cells from viable human embryos. I'd just like to point out, however, that research that involves cells from umbylical cords or bone marrow avoids the ethical dilema that you present. Neither an umbylical cord, nor bone marrow, if left alone, would ever grow into another human being. Both have shown much promise, as well.
As far as your points on invitro fertilization, I disagree slightly in that I don't think I'd like to be used as a treatement *or* sent back to non-existance, as you put it. I don't agree with IVF for the very reason that it creates viable human beings that it will knowingly have to destroy. There already exists a surplus of living children that need to be adopted and cared for. We don't need to create more through IVF. People are just too selfish to adopt, anymore, I guess.
Still, stem-cell research takes things a step further than IVF by not only taking life, but taking it, and then repurposing it to further the convenience of others. If I were paralized, I wouldn't want to walk again, knowing that I did it by destroying a fellow human-being, no matter how undeveloped he/she had been. You may think this is crazy. I have read, however, that it is fairly common for people that have gone through organ transplants have to endure some very real psycological misgivings about the fact that there are parts of people that are now dead inside of them. The first hand transplant patient even went as far as to request the hand removed for this very reason. In the case of organ recipients it's not even their own fault (organ donors are not destroyed willfully). In the case of stem-cell research, being responsible for the willful destruction of those involved would just be too much.
Can anybody argue that using them for research is morally any worse than simply destroying them?
No, but the same people that are against IVF in the first place for the very reason that it results in surplus that must eventually be destroyed will remain opposed to it.
Am I the only one that is sick of all the "hybrid" craze lately? It seems the solution to everything nowadays is to create a "hybrid." It's quickly becoming just another meaningless buzzword that belongs in the web BS generator. Want some VC? No worries -- call it a hybrid. Welcome to the hybrid bubble of the late 2000's. I for one do *not* welcome our new hybrid market-speak overlords!
I think the OP meant to say "traditional standing army", instead of "military". A citizen-soldier-style militia like the one Switzerland has is ideal, IMHO. This was the original vision of the founders for the United States as well. It has since been twisted into the current perversion we see before us that more closely resembles the Roman-style standing army that they were so carefully trying to avoid. Switzerland's neutrality is very admirable, as well. The U.S. could learn a lot from the Swiss in these areas, if you ask me.
Why not cut them both. The real military should be *the people*. If the citizenry of a nation all had firearms* and were trained in their use, it would make launching a ground-assault on such a nation a fairly unworkable scenario. I don't like Social Security *or* standing armies.
*Yes, even fully automatics (which were fairly common for private citizens of the U.S. to own in the 20's and 30's). Why would you trust something so dangerous to governments (that may or may not care about your best interests), but not to your own hands (when your own hands most definitely care about your own best interests)?
Second, most parents aren't qualified to even teach fractions
s/parents/government teachers/gi
Would you rather an inept person that doesn't give a damn about the kids instruct them, or an inept person that has a vested interest in their success?
They're too busy talking about the financial freedom lost when you have a work force of illiterates who can't add.
Sorry. Human literacy predates government-run forced education programs.
And your constructive solution is then to let thousands and thousands of people either die or turn to crime? Step one, end social security. What's step two? Please answer. If you've got a way to make this work, please tell us. I really, really want to be on your side, because that's a lot of money.
Well, let's see... Social Security as we know it has only existed since the 1930's. Were all elderly prior to that time throughout history dieing in the streets or turning to a vile life of crime? The simple solution is to have a minumum of 2 kids for every parent. When you're young and can't take care of yourself, your parents do it -- give you food, change the diaper, etc. When your parents get old, and can no longer take care of themselves, it's *your* turn to give them food and change the diaper. This is the natural order of things. It's not a revolutionary idea. It's the way things have been done for *10's of thousands* of years (as opposed to SS's 1930's+). The problem is people now are too selfish to be willing to help out even the very people that looked after them when they were incapable children.
Genius! How could that possibly go bad? Combine this with your no-free-schooling idea and we've got ourselves a plan that just might solve everybody's problem.
Instead of sarcastically calling him a genius and then changing the subject, maybe you could elaborate on why you think arming the poor is a bad idea? Could it be because you're a member of the upper-middle-class and being on equal footing with the poor threatens your "superior" position?
The biggest hypocrites on gun control are those who live in upscale developments with armed security guards -- and who want to keep other people from having guns to defend themselves. But what about lower-income people living in high-crime, inner city neighborhoods? Should such people be kept unarmed and helpless, so that limousine liberals can 'make a statement' by adding to the thousands of gun laws already on the books?" --Thomas Sowell
I already said I use cash or check, not CC. I only use cards at places where I can swipe it myself, and the number is transferred electronically, not put on carbon paper.
Hand it to the waiter, and you have your card with all of the security numbers printed thereon in the clear.
This is why I always pay with cash or check at any resteraunt, or anyplace where it's customary for them to take your card and walk with it to a little back room. Anything they're gonna do with my card, they can do it in front of me, or they're getting cash or a check.
I'm also a long-time Mac user. I have a PowerBook for work, and my Linux desktop for pleasure.
But there's so much more to UI than how the widgets look. It's about how it feels and how it works. It's about making the sidebar automatically downsize the icons, making sure as many items as possible can fit before it puts a scroll bar in there. It's about having that question mark in the title look like a button, similarly to the other buttons in there (this is just a general style rule - Mac OS X's help button never appears as a title bar widget). It's also about leaving out the pinstripe background from the icon view, because it never ever appears outside of the window chrome itself - you wouldn't normally have "window gray" in there, would you?
A lot of what you mentioned is easily configured with Baghira's great configuration tool, others can be found in KDE's Control Panel. If you want to just make these UI goals of yours happen in GNU/Linux, there's nothing stopping you from releasing a distro that takes Baghira's "skin" (as you put it) and additionally configures things to adhere to your grand UI vision by default. If what you're really after is further restricting the user by preventing them from changing any of the default settings of your OneTrueWay®, I don't think your distro would gain much of a following. Frankly, I don't agree with some of the UI descisions made in OS X, anyway. In many ways the IG of the "Classic" era were superior, and more consistently adhered to. Maybe I'd like to configure my OS X box to be more like that -- problem is, I can't. With GNU/Linux, I can.
Absurd rumor mongering at its best/worst. If Google really wanted to get into the browser arena, why wouldn't they just create their own based on the open (And most importantly, FREE) Gecko engine?
Absurd rumor mongering at its best/worst. If Google really wanted to get into the browser arena, why wouldn't they just create their own based on the open (And most importantly, Acid2 compliant) KHTML engine?
If they wanted to reclaim waste heat, it seems like they should have gone with a Stirling engine.
This is exactly what I thought when I read the article. For those of you that don't know. Stirling engines are not only more efficient than steam, they're safer because they don't have the explosive high pressures that steam does.
Even if you get the phone part working (which it sounds like you're well on the way to doing), how will you make it work with each distinct service provider (Sprint, T-Mobile, or whoever else), and with the correct user account?
If the goal is to keep me from having to think, then most of the interface designers have missed the mark completely. I now have my fluxbox set up so that I have keybindings to do anything I want, instantly. When I'm coding and listening to music and someone calls on the phone, my fingers now instinctively reach for the Ctrl-Alt-P (play/pause [xmms -t]). I similarly have keybindings set up to advance/regress to the next/previous song, etc. while I work. When a song comes up that I'd rather skip, I don't even miss a beat, and I can keep on working. I don't even lose window focus on what I'm doing. Again, all this is now instinctive -- I don't even have to think.
In UI-Nazi world of the OneTrueWay® DE's [*cough* Gnome *cough*] the "authorities" would prefer I be forced to stop whatever I'm doing, locate the minimized xmms button that could be anywhere on my honking 22" monitor's taskbar, restore the window, then navigate the mouse all the way back to some other random extreme of the screen looking for a tiny pause button, all the while losing window focus and, more importantly, *my* focus on my work! By that time the phone call has already gone to voicemail, anyway. Sorry. No thanks. I agree with your premise of "don't make me think." I completely reject your poorly-thought-out, shortsighted implementation.
Slashdot Mirror
That's just the point. Most people on /. are here because we're sick of all the normals, which can be defined as the masses of ignorant mortals that think that by wearing black and painting their nails they've found a quick, easy, and acceptable solution that makes them "unique". I don't want this pathetic manifestation of normalcy. Therefore, since I consider the word "normal" an insult, I think your post is just about the best compliment a Slashdotter could receive.
I just want to point out that it is possible to be against both IVF and stem cell research that derives from embryos, *but* still in favor of stem cell research that uses umbylical or bone marrow cells.
Who actually takes issue with what can be done with the cells? I'd really like to know what or who you were referring to. As far as I knew, all contention really was about where the cells came from.
I think the point is that there wouldn't be any "real, living *you*" here and now if, some years ago, someone somewhere decided to harvest the stem-cells of your embryo so they could grow back the finger they accidentally cut off. Now that you *can* speak for yourself (even though you couldn't then), is that what you would have liked to have happend?
If you feel that every scientist should be allowed to do whatever he/she wants even to the point of engineering planet-destroying death stars, I really don't see why you should mind them turning the fully developed *you* into a treatment.
I agree with you completely with regards to stem-cell research that involves taking the cells from viable human embryos. I'd just like to point out, however, that research that involves cells from umbylical cords or bone marrow avoids the ethical dilema that you present. Neither an umbylical cord, nor bone marrow, if left alone, would ever grow into another human being. Both have shown much promise, as well.
As far as your points on invitro fertilization, I disagree slightly in that I don't think I'd like to be used as a treatement *or* sent back to non-existance, as you put it. I don't agree with IVF for the very reason that it creates viable human beings that it will knowingly have to destroy. There already exists a surplus of living children that need to be adopted and cared for. We don't need to create more through IVF. People are just too selfish to adopt, anymore, I guess.
Still, stem-cell research takes things a step further than IVF by not only taking life, but taking it, and then repurposing it to further the convenience of others. If I were paralized, I wouldn't want to walk again, knowing that I did it by destroying a fellow human-being, no matter how undeveloped he/she had been. You may think this is crazy. I have read, however, that it is fairly common for people that have gone through organ transplants have to endure some very real psycological misgivings about the fact that there are parts of people that are now dead inside of them. The first hand transplant patient even went as far as to request the hand removed for this very reason. In the case of organ recipients it's not even their own fault (organ donors are not destroyed willfully). In the case of stem-cell research, being responsible for the willful destruction of those involved would just be too much.
No, but the same people that are against IVF in the first place for the very reason that it results in surplus that must eventually be destroyed will remain opposed to it.
Am I the only one that is sick of all the "hybrid" craze lately? It seems the solution to everything nowadays is to create a "hybrid." It's quickly becoming just another meaningless buzzword that belongs in the web BS generator. Want some VC? No worries -- call it a hybrid. Welcome to the hybrid bubble of the late 2000's. I for one do *not* welcome our new hybrid market-speak overlords!
I think the OP meant to say "traditional standing army", instead of "military". A citizen-soldier-style militia like the one Switzerland has is ideal, IMHO. This was the original vision of the founders for the United States as well. It has since been twisted into the current perversion we see before us that more closely resembles the Roman-style standing army that they were so carefully trying to avoid. Switzerland's neutrality is very admirable, as well. The U.S. could learn a lot from the Swiss in these areas, if you ask me.
Why not cut them both. The real military should be *the people*. If the citizenry of a nation all had firearms* and were trained in their use, it would make launching a ground-assault on such a nation a fairly unworkable scenario. I don't like Social Security *or* standing armies.
*Yes, even fully automatics (which were fairly common for private citizens of the U.S. to own in the 20's and 30's). Why would you trust something so dangerous to governments (that may or may not care about your best interests), but not to your own hands (when your own hands most definitely care about your own best interests)?
s/parents/government teachers/gi
Would you rather an inept person that doesn't give a damn about the kids instruct them, or an inept person that has a vested interest in their success?
Sorry. Human literacy predates government-run forced education programs.
Well, let's see... Social Security as we know it has only existed since the 1930's. Were all elderly prior to that time throughout history dieing in the streets or turning to a vile life of crime? The simple solution is to have a minumum of 2 kids for every parent. When you're young and can't take care of yourself, your parents do it -- give you food, change the diaper, etc. When your parents get old, and can no longer take care of themselves, it's *your* turn to give them food and change the diaper. This is the natural order of things. It's not a revolutionary idea. It's the way things have been done for *10's of thousands* of years (as opposed to SS's 1930's+). The problem is people now are too selfish to be willing to help out even the very people that looked after them when they were incapable children.
Instead of sarcastically calling him a genius and then changing the subject, maybe you could elaborate on why you think arming the poor is a bad idea? Could it be because you're a member of the upper-middle-class and being on equal footing with the poor threatens your "superior" position?
I already said I use cash or check, not CC. I only use cards at places where I can swipe it myself, and the number is transferred electronically, not put on carbon paper.
This is why I always pay with cash or check at any resteraunt, or anyplace where it's customary for them to take your card and walk with it to a little back room. Anything they're gonna do with my card, they can do it in front of me, or they're getting cash or a check.
Actually, I seem to recall that there were several very serious and prominant instances of questionable constitutional rights violations by the federal government under Clinton.
Stop accepting their groupthink. Stop being a Democrat or a Republican and start being a human being.
I'm also a long-time Mac user. I have a PowerBook for work, and my Linux desktop for pleasure.
A lot of what you mentioned is easily configured with Baghira's great configuration tool, others can be found in KDE's Control Panel. If you want to just make these UI goals of yours happen in GNU/Linux, there's nothing stopping you from releasing a distro that takes Baghira's "skin" (as you put it) and additionally configures things to adhere to your grand UI vision by default. If what you're really after is further restricting the user by preventing them from changing any of the default settings of your OneTrueWay®, I don't think your distro would gain much of a following. Frankly, I don't agree with some of the UI descisions made in OS X, anyway. In many ways the IG of the "Classic" era were superior, and more consistently adhered to. Maybe I'd like to configure my OS X box to be more like that -- problem is, I can't. With GNU/Linux, I can.
Absurd rumor mongering at its best/worst. If Google really wanted to get into the browser arena, why wouldn't they just create their own based on the open (And most importantly, Acid2 compliant) KHTML engine?
Just one try of Opera's amazing zoom feature on my 22" monitor was all it took for me. Firefox/IE/Safari/Konqueror's "Text Zoom" doesn't even close.
This is exactly what I thought when I read the article. For those of you that don't know. Stirling engines are not only more efficient than steam, they're safer because they don't have the explosive high pressures that steam does.
So this means porting to the Treo 600 should be easy, right?! :-)
BZZT. Caught ya. Every *true* cheapskate knows you don't rent when you can *borrow* from the public library! :-)
Even if you get the phone part working (which it sounds like you're well on the way to doing), how will you make it work with each distinct service provider (Sprint, T-Mobile, or whoever else), and with the correct user account?
Not if Linus has anything to say about it! :-)
I have a Treo 600. Is there any chance your work will be able to be ported to the 600, or will it be exclusively Treo 650?
If the goal is to keep me from having to think, then most of the interface designers have missed the mark completely. I now have my fluxbox set up so that I have keybindings to do anything I want, instantly. When I'm coding and listening to music and someone calls on the phone, my fingers now instinctively reach for the Ctrl-Alt-P (play/pause [xmms -t]). I similarly have keybindings set up to advance/regress to the next/previous song, etc. while I work. When a song comes up that I'd rather skip, I don't even miss a beat, and I can keep on working. I don't even lose window focus on what I'm doing. Again, all this is now instinctive -- I don't even have to think.
In UI-Nazi world of the OneTrueWay® DE's [*cough* Gnome *cough*] the "authorities" would prefer I be forced to stop whatever I'm doing, locate the minimized xmms button that could be anywhere on my honking 22" monitor's taskbar, restore the window, then navigate the mouse all the way back to some other random extreme of the screen looking for a tiny pause button, all the while losing window focus and, more importantly, *my* focus on my work! By that time the phone call has already gone to voicemail, anyway. Sorry. No thanks. I agree with your premise of "don't make me think." I completely reject your poorly-thought-out, shortsighted implementation.
Aqua is available on Linux if you follow Linus' advice and use KDE.