If you were smart enough to read, instead of just repeating the left's propaganda, you'd know that no cures for ANYTHING have been found using embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells are now responsible for curing over 100 conditions.
Be careful about using absolutes like "anything" or "nothing", "always", or "never". They frequently come back to bite you. Remember, all of this research is extremely nascent, most results are just getting to the human testing phases. Further, embryonic stem cell research receives far less funding (especially in the United States) and what research does occur here is very limited. Even with one hand tied behind its back though:
Ok, I'm tired to cutting and pasting. The list is way too long. And as far as Bush not opposing embryonic stem cell research, your daft if you actually believe otherwise. He's stated as much on many occasions. 8 years ago, embryonic stem cell research was a glint in sciences eye. It's no wonder that funding didn't exist before then.
That we have received funding despite Bush's efforts is not a sign of his support. Simply compare the funding being provided within the U.S. to that being provided in other countries. It's no wonder the U.S. is lagging far behind the rest of the world. You know what happens when a societies backwards, ignorant beliefs prevent funding into cutting edge technology? The cutting edge sciencists leave.
You seem convinced that there is a universal value system (and I do agree), but how do you justify it?
This is a very good question. In fact, it very well may be the most important moral question of all. It has been oft discussed in depth and the magnitude of the question is far beyond a "sound bite" style slashdot quote. By virtue of the forum, any answer will be a gross over simplification.
That being said, I can posit response...as simplified as it may be. Essentially, it is derivative from kantian philosophy when facing two conflicting desires by autonomous beings. The dilemma is addressed within the context of their autonomous existence.
We can compare to physical phenomenon. An objective observation can be made as the hydrogen's affinity to oxygen. To ask if this is an inherent truth since if oxygen did not exist, neither would the affinity is specious. The fact is, that they do exist...thus the relationship can be derived. We do exist, thus our existence is crucial to an assessment of morality within the context of our existence.
As I said, many greater minds then I have broached this topic and most deemed it worthy of 100's of pages of writings rather then a couple of paragraphs.
Except that it doesn't say that, exactly the opposite really. If you are going to damn a book at least get your facts straight. See my sig.
I was typing that in about 3m in a moving car and simply reversed the two inadvertently. Though I suppose attacking what is essentially a typo is easier then addressing the core point of the statement which is no less true due to that typo.
So yes, morality could be considered arbitrary. God is not good because "good is good"; rather, good is what God decides is good, and, being made in His image, those values are propagated to us.
What a sad world to live in where good does not exist. Where murdering your son is moral one day and not the next. Where genocide is a good thing if the man in the sky gives the go ahead.
Such stalwart ignorance begs for ad homonyms, but I'll resist. And yes, you can build a system of morals on observable facts. Rather then waste time here, I'll just suggest you read some of the very in depth literature on the topic accrued over 1000's of years of human history. Though I suppose "cause some myth says so" is a much less mentally taxing endeavor.
Most consider the death of the brain to be the death of the being; all abortion does is kill the brain while it's still in a compressed state.
It's not "compressed" in these embryos. It doesn't even exist. Neither does a nervous system. In fact, nothing similar to a full brain exists until quite far into development. I also think you miss the *reason* that brain death is considered to be the death of a being...it's not the brain, it's the lack of anything resembling "personhood" or "consciousness" that is the death of a being...the lack of a self-aware sentient being.
A person needn't know you're harming them for it to be wrong.
But the person has to exist first. None existent entities cannot be harmed. The concept is nonsensical.
They key difference, of course, is action. Intervening to reverse a previous intervention is not equivalent to the original intervention never happening. Not creating is not equivalent to destroying.
They're in a petri dish. Without direct intervention they never will exist.
Of course my religious beliefs inform my views. An objectively derivable value system is an oxymoron.
A value system without any objective basis is empty and without meaning. If you only base your morality on what "God" says, then your admitting that if God declared tomorrow that raping children was 'moral' it would, in fact, be moral. Most would respond "But God would NEVER declare such a thing moral." But you must ask: why not? If morality is arbitrary with no objective value, then the only thing separating the moral from the immoral is proclamation. Ask yourself this: Is God a moral being. He chooses the good because it is good and not arbitrarily, then God is not necessary to determine what is good. We merely need to ask the question "Why is the good good?" I pity the man who believes morality is an arbitrary thing as it strips morality altogether.
And no, you can't have it both ways either morality is
arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
or it is
objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts
If objective, they have an inherent and determinable value. If not, they have no real value whatsoever.
So you believe. Can you justify that opinion any more strongly than I can mine?
Any law is the imposing of somebody's value system on another.
Only if you believe that all value systems have equal validity. For example, according to this belief (the one you seem to be supporting) raping children has no objective immoral value. This means it is, in fact, no more moral/immoral then charity or good will. I don't think you really understand or are willing to accept the consequences in practice of the belief system you're supporting. It means a person has no legitimate basis to claim that another cannot murder, rape, torture, and all other manner of harmful behavior.
To make it plain, if you adhere to an objective moral system then the aim should be imposing the correct value system, that possessing an inherent moral quality.
The definition of "murder" has typically meant "killing a human". The Bible does seem to classify a fetus as human: "for I am a Nazarite, that is to say, consecrated to God from my mother's womb". Hard to consecrate a nonexistent person.
There is only a single passage in the bible that directly addresses the fetus. Ex 21:22-23. The passage makes it very clear that the penalty for killing an unborn fetus is not that of murder. Rather it is considered a harm against the pregnant woman with a penalty on par with that of killing a man's chattel.
As we all know, a man or woman can do with their own chattel what they wish.
Creationism only states that God created everything. It does not in any way describe how God created anything. It does not rule out expected incremental and not so incremental changing
Actually, it does. The only reason to believe creationism to begin with is the Bible (or equivalent creation myths in other religions). It provides many disprovable claims. Such as man being created from the rib of a woman.
Actually, it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis in the scope of scientific inquiry. To be a hypothesis, there must be no assumption of truth (ha!) and it must be testable, more specifically there must be a criteria by which it can be proven wrong.
The litmus for whether a proposition should be remotely considered by science is the answer to a very simple question: What evidence, what experimental results would it take for this idea to be rejected?
Simple, as the ratio of males to females increases the ability to acquire a female mate becomes exceedingly difficult. Females will have their pick of any mate they want. Usually leading them to choose the "pick of the litters". The most attractive, financially stable, kindest, generous, egalitarian...whatever qualities are most valued in a mate in that society.
Then one day, a woman in that society thinks to herself "You know, girls have it pretty damned easy. They're guaranteed success. They're guaranteed a mate of their choosing....I think I'll have a little girl."
Are your powers of rationality really that convoluted? A man is in a horrible accident, his head is severed. But medical break through has been made that can keep his body functioning indefinately. Would we consider him a "human being". Would it be murder to not provide this treatement?
The fact, yes the fact, these cells have no powers of reason, no emotion, no rationality, no ability to physically feel. There is absolutely nothing about them that could be remotely considered sentient.
"Ohh, Ohhh, but what if it becomes Beethoven! Think of the potential!". If this were our measure of immorality then every man should be thrown in prison when he wastes he does not attempt to produce children with it. And every woman should be held accountable for not popping out a kid every year from the age of puberty until she is infertile. Think of the millions of potential Beethovens that were never born! Oh My!
In the vast majority of cases, these shallow, empty, completely illogical propositions are made to cover up the real incentive for these beliefs: Santa Claus told them that it has a soul.
The problem with religion is, it's a belief not founded on any rationale. Beliefs differ. If you feel this way due to some religious roots, then just admit it. Of course, this means that you'll have no more right to impose that belief on people then you do to impose any of the other completely arbitrary and none nonsensical beliefs that are part of your religion.
And just to toss this in, the almighty infallible Christian Bible never considered the destroying of a fetus "murder" either.
Religion has nothing to do with determining when human is human. Your personification of what is just a clump of cells, as in a clump of cells with no consciousness, no thought, not even a frickin' nervous system. It doesn't feel anything, it doesn't think anything, it doesn't even have the capability of permitting anything.
It's no more "human" then the tissue I flushed down the toilet last night that had human DNA all over it. For the love of FSM, man! By your metric of human we'd have to ask every turd, sneeze, cough, and loogey permission to dispose of it.
I'm a capitalist. As a capitalist I'm a staunch adherent to free & fair market competition. The existence of unions is essential to this equation. The reason being that a business, especially large business, is essentially a business union.
There must be a counterweight to this collusion for any market to remain healthy. Even Adam Smith recognized this:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.
Adam Smith
"...or to lower wages." Is easily added to this observation as the spirit of quote is that that trade unions (*cough* corporations) will always try to maximize profits. This is not a bad thing, but we must allow workers to form their own groups and counter balance this force with one of their own: To maximize individual profits and ensure safe conditions.
The real travesty is not out sourcing, but the lack of penalty (financially) for a business model that takes advantage of states or nations that do not adhere to these essential principles of a free & fair market (and worker) equality.
However, Adam Smith's advocacy of a living wage and unions did not stop there.
"It is but equity...that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged."
-Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776
Of course, the cunning slashdotter libertarian may respond "but what is 'tolerably'? Should everyone have a TV and a computer? Let the market decide!" Our estimable Father of Free Market Capitalism did not stop here, but made absolutely clear what "tolerable" should mean:
By necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but what ever the customs of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even the lowest order, to be without. A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably, though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-laborer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into, without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England.
If, as we oft hear, we are now in a global economy and so boundaries between economies should be torn down, then so too should the boundaries of "tolerable" existence be destroyed as well. If a company wishes to sell its goods to the Western nation's, it is by the standards of those that these outsourced workers "feed, clothe and lodge" that their income should be determined.
One may pose the rebuttal that this would negate the benefit of outsourcing, but is utter hogwash. First, let's investigate what is meant by "tolerable existance" by posing a simple question (I borrow this from John Cassidy, New Yorker Economist, paraphrased for brevity). "What lack of affluence would such a society, in general, view as a point of shame?" In Western society, most would consider the inability to afford a television a rather embarassing state to be in...one can be had for a mere 100 American dollars or even less. By this metric, we should pay outsourced workers an amount capable of producing this level of success in their own economies, which is quite a bit less.
Thus, out sourcing to nations for cheaper labor is not an inherently bad thing. However, when this is done with the aim of abusing lax labor, environmental, and other measures necessary for the worker to enjoy a level of success seen in the nation doing the sourcing, i
In my experience, the types of problems these systems are designed to solve are not child's play. It is only a small subset of individuals working on issues that fully benefit and they are a very intelligent group indeed.
I work with oodle's of "joe-researchers". I agree their experience in the computing field can be, to be kind, lacking. However, some tools are just down right difficult to learn if used properly. Take Solid Works, your never going to have a situation where "joe-medical-researcher" clicks a button that says "generate plans for implantable device". If someone tried to make such a tool, your going to end up with a lot of shitty medical devices.
I was tutoring a "joe-mdphd" today who wanted to get into MRI research. She didn't understand why she had to learn all these weird concepts like "server/client" (to understand that when you connect to another computer that the data is actually on that computer and not on yours) and that before you can start whipping out published papers you had to understand a bit about MRI physics TR's T*'s, functionals, structerals, contrasts, and scan protocols.
I presented her with an analogy: I have a background of programming, computer engineering, physics, etc. behind me. But if I wanted to become a surgeon, I couldn't just jump in the operating room and say "ok, now! let's do this!". There's a lot of training that goes into that skill. Now, you don't have to learn *everything*, but you do need to add a few things to your basic toolkit before you can tackle the big problems...and no, you probably won't be able to do so in a week, or even a few weeks.
The question I would propose is this: What exactly would an "accessible to the masses" clustering environment be? Imagine the tasks that these folks do, how specialized to their particular goals they are, how would you design a program to accommodate all these situations?
Now, there are large areas of research that use a similar set of tools to accomplish their varied goals. I think you'll find that these do indeed already have established, cluster friendly software suites that vastly simplify the process.
In other words, if you find yourself having to write a custom HPC application to complete your research, it's probably because it's such a niche area that no one else felt the need to before...which is exciting in its own right.
I doubt your problems had to do with your intelligence. It doesn't justify the actions against you in any way, please don't interpret it that way.
I was a jock and a very high performer grade wise. There were about two other of my fellow athletes that were also at the top of the class. Between myself and one of these other athletes, we often received the highest marks in the class and set the curve.
I can assure you, neither of us were ever picked on or were the focus of physical confrontation. Unfortunately, school can be a cruel place for the socially awkward. However, do not confuse the unwarranted cruelty meted out to the socially awkward with a "hate for intelligence". That's just elitism and stubborn refusal to inquire into true cause. Even the "stupid and lazy" are most likely not retarded. I have no doubt they could sense your deep disdain and attitude of superiority.
--I only mention that we were jocks to show that we were generally social and diverse in our group associations. We got along with all groups. There were several who also were in the "high marks" category who were not athletes, yet were still very socially popular.
I've never used a one button mouse with mac. I've never used the bundled mighty mouse. I've never used the bundled mouse with OEM windows machines (hate them, very un ergonomic and give me carpal).
In this sense (using a 3rd party multi-mouse button with my desktop purchase), nothing has changed from windows to osx.
For my thoughts on the one button laptops, I prefer it. Some folks like one model of car, some like others. I wouldn't say it's because one car manufacturer has a hatred for features in the other. It's just a matter of options/choice/preference. Choice is good? amiright?
for desktops yes (and as you say you could use a third party multi button mouse before that) thier laptops still come with only one button below the touchpad though.
I've come to prefer this setup in laptops. Most clicking done is left clicking, when I switch to a windows laptop I find myself inadvertently hitting the right click constantly. I prefer the precise control offered by a ctrl+click which is (for me) less prone to accidental clicking.
I'm not saying your preference is bad, or that mine is superior. But it would appear that it is a preference. I've heard this from many switchers as well. So I'm not unique in this.
As far as the desktop, I've never used a one button mouse with osx. Nor have I noticed any differences in functionality from windows.
There is a new category of child porn that has started to pop up lately. Child produced pornography. This means 3 or 4 children, all the same age who take turns operating a cameraphone and performing for it.
Now there are instances where abused children then turn that abuse to others. The nature of these acts are often quite disturbing given the age of the children involved.
However, I'm sure some of these acts of "child on child" "pornography" are not of this nature. For that genre, we had a name for it when I was growing up: "Playing Doctor". And all the (sane) parenting books I've read said this is a normal expression of a child's curiosity with their bodies and should not even be punished, let alone "prosecuted".
Sure, there's the added complication of digital dispersion. But this is a symptom of our times. There's nothing inherently "dirty" about nudity, not even a child's nudity. Otherwise, there's a lot of parents in for a load of trouble for those naked 2 and 3 yr/old pictures of johney in the family scrap book.
I usually donate money when something occurs that brings into stark view the value of a piece of software.
So ask yourself what inspired you to donate. Maybe you installed this distro and were impressed with the job they've done in bundling all these packages together for you. Maybe your stuck behind an obnoxious firewall and an ssh socks proxy saved the day.
Donate to whatever project gave you the gumption to pull your wallet out whether it's some college kid or a large project.
Ha, that's the funniest write up I've read. It seemed like a euphemistic way of describing how some guy walked into an apple store, stood on the Pulpit of GNU, and wondered why he irritated the hell out of people.
Geniuses are just college kids, nothing special there (specially in Louisiana). Sounds to me like they said their not trained to demo Linux and so couldn't do so. Makes sense, Boot Camp is just a boot loader. Anyone using linux can likely figure it out without issues. If they can't, the first hit on google tells you how.
Wonder if I ever ran into that pompous ass when I lived in LA.
His signature says it all: "Liberated in 1999." pffft
There is always a way to implement solution that is safe. Some posters above have mentioned a few with user permissions, virtual tables/views, and complete database replication on a standalone system.
When I was first getting into administration, a good friend of mine who is very successful in the field said something that has stuck with me throughout my career. Not just in administration/IT, but very generally applicable. I'll pass it on here:
There's no such thing as an absolute 'No'. There are only solutions and costs.
What does the customer want? Access to his data. You should not be thinking "Should I or shouldn't I allow this?", rather the question should be "What is an acceptable means of providing this service that will meet my and my companies requirements of security, accessibility, and policy? How much will this solution cost?". If you approach all of your problems this way, it never comes across like you are denying your customer or opposing your company. The decision is always in the hands of the customer/manager/boss. They walk away feeling like they've been given a choice and made the decision that suites them best.
Not to mention that sometimes you find your initial instinct was wrong. Maybe the customer is fully willing to absorb what you thought would be an outlandish cost. Maybe it doesn't end up costing as much as you thought it would.
It's always better to be known as a solution finder then a decision maker unless you are the person paying the cost associated with those decisions.
It's weird how zealots will claim that Apple's hardware is the be-all and end-all of computing equipment but simultaneously declare that licensing OS X to third parties would destroy Apple.
I do not claim this. The core hardware in an Apple machine is exactly the same as that in pc. What I claim is that people jump on the "comparing pintos to Mercedes" bandwagon. Just because their both cars do not make them the same.
If pc's with truly comparable specifications are compared, the apple products are quite competitive. No, a single processor C2D is *not* the same as a dual quad core Xeon tower. If your complaint is Apple does not make the product you want, fine. But this is more akin to complaining about the lack of a 10k BMW model then claiming that BMW's are overpriced compared to Toyota.
And this is just comparing raw specs. Have you actually looked into the cost of a solid aluminum, high quality tower case? They can easily reach over 350 dollars alone before they begin to compare with the quality in a Mac Pro case design.
Slashdot Mirror
If your interest lies in OSS, you may consider investigating a language that is less platform specific.
I find the "Sam's XX in 24 hours" books pretty handy for beginners as well.
The first thing you should do is see a psychiatrist.
Be careful about using absolutes like "anything" or "nothing", "always", or "never". They frequently come back to bite you. Remember, all of this research is extremely nascent, most results are just getting to the human testing phases. Further, embryonic stem cell research receives far less funding (especially in the United States) and what research does occur here is very limited. Even with one hand tied behind its back though:
Ok, I'm tired to cutting and pasting. The list is way too long. And as far as Bush not opposing embryonic stem cell research, your daft if you actually believe otherwise. He's stated as much on many occasions. 8 years ago, embryonic stem cell research was a glint in sciences eye. It's no wonder that funding didn't exist before then.
That we have received funding despite Bush's efforts is not a sign of his support. Simply compare the funding being provided within the U.S. to that being provided in other countries. It's no wonder the U.S. is lagging far behind the rest of the world. You know what happens when a societies backwards, ignorant beliefs prevent funding into cutting edge technology? The cutting edge sciencists leave.
This is a very good question. In fact, it very well may be the most important moral question of all. It has been oft discussed in depth and the magnitude of the question is far beyond a "sound bite" style slashdot quote. By virtue of the forum, any answer will be a gross over simplification.
That being said, I can posit response...as simplified as it may be. Essentially, it is derivative from kantian philosophy when facing two conflicting desires by autonomous beings. The dilemma is addressed within the context of their autonomous existence.
We can compare to physical phenomenon. An objective observation can be made as the hydrogen's affinity to oxygen. To ask if this is an inherent truth since if oxygen did not exist, neither would the affinity is specious. The fact is, that they do exist...thus the relationship can be derived. We do exist, thus our existence is crucial to an assessment of morality within the context of our existence.
As I said, many greater minds then I have broached this topic and most deemed it worthy of 100's of pages of writings rather then a couple of paragraphs.
I was typing that in about 3m in a moving car and simply reversed the two inadvertently. Though I suppose attacking what is essentially a typo is easier then addressing the core point of the statement which is no less true due to that typo.
What a sad world to live in where good does not exist. Where murdering your son is moral one day and not the next. Where genocide is a good thing if the man in the sky gives the go ahead.
Such stalwart ignorance begs for ad homonyms, but I'll resist. And yes, you can build a system of morals on observable facts. Rather then waste time here, I'll just suggest you read some of the very in depth literature on the topic accrued over 1000's of years of human history. Though I suppose "cause some myth says so" is a much less mentally taxing endeavor.
It's not "compressed" in these embryos. It doesn't even exist. Neither does a nervous system. In fact, nothing similar to a full brain exists until quite far into development. I also think you miss the *reason* that brain death is considered to be the death of a being...it's not the brain, it's the lack of anything resembling "personhood" or "consciousness" that is the death of a being...the lack of a self-aware sentient being.
But the person has to exist first. None existent entities cannot be harmed. The concept is nonsensical.
They're in a petri dish. Without direct intervention they never will exist.
A value system without any objective basis is empty and without meaning. If you only base your morality on what "God" says, then your admitting that if God declared tomorrow that raping children was 'moral' it would, in fact, be moral. Most would respond "But God would NEVER declare such a thing moral." But you must ask: why not? If morality is arbitrary with no objective value, then the only thing separating the moral from the immoral is proclamation. Ask yourself this: Is God a moral being. He chooses the good because it is good and not arbitrarily, then God is not necessary to determine what is good. We merely need to ask the question "Why is the good good?" I pity the man who believes morality is an arbitrary thing as it strips morality altogether.
And no, you can't have it both ways either morality is
or it is
If objective, they have an inherent and determinable value. If not, they have no real value whatsoever.
Only if you believe that all value systems have equal validity. For example, according to this belief (the one you seem to be supporting) raping children has no objective immoral value. This means it is, in fact, no more moral/immoral then charity or good will. I don't think you really understand or are willing to accept the consequences in practice of the belief system you're supporting. It means a person has no legitimate basis to claim that another cannot murder, rape, torture, and all other manner of harmful behavior.
To make it plain, if you adhere to an objective moral system then the aim should be imposing the correct value system, that possessing an inherent moral quality.
There is only a single passage in the bible that directly addresses the fetus. Ex 21:22-23. The passage makes it very clear that the penalty for killing an unborn fetus is not that of murder. Rather it is considered a harm against the pregnant woman with a penalty on par with that of killing a man's chattel.
As we all know, a man or woman can do with their own chattel what they wish.
Actually, it does. The only reason to believe creationism to begin with is the Bible (or equivalent creation myths in other religions). It provides many disprovable claims. Such as man being created from the rib of a woman.
Actually, it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis in the scope of scientific inquiry. To be a hypothesis, there must be no assumption of truth (ha!) and it must be testable, more specifically there must be a criteria by which it can be proven wrong.
The litmus for whether a proposition should be remotely considered by science is the answer to a very simple question: What evidence, what experimental results would it take for this idea to be rejected?
Simple, as the ratio of males to females increases the ability to acquire a female mate becomes exceedingly difficult. Females will have their pick of any mate they want. Usually leading them to choose the "pick of the litters". The most attractive, financially stable, kindest, generous, egalitarian...whatever qualities are most valued in a mate in that society.
Then one day, a woman in that society thinks to herself "You know, girls have it pretty damned easy. They're guaranteed success. They're guaranteed a mate of their choosing....I think I'll have a little girl."
Are your powers of rationality really that convoluted? A man is in a horrible accident, his head is severed. But medical break through has been made that can keep his body functioning indefinately. Would we consider him a "human being". Would it be murder to not provide this treatement?
The fact, yes the fact, these cells have no powers of reason, no emotion, no rationality, no ability to physically feel. There is absolutely nothing about them that could be remotely considered sentient.
"Ohh, Ohhh, but what if it becomes Beethoven! Think of the potential!". If this were our measure of immorality then every man should be thrown in prison when he wastes he does not attempt to produce children with it. And every woman should be held accountable for not popping out a kid every year from the age of puberty until she is infertile. Think of the millions of potential Beethovens that were never born! Oh My!
In the vast majority of cases, these shallow, empty, completely illogical propositions are made to cover up the real incentive for these beliefs: Santa Claus told them that it has a soul.
The problem with religion is, it's a belief not founded on any rationale. Beliefs differ. If you feel this way due to some religious roots, then just admit it. Of course, this means that you'll have no more right to impose that belief on people then you do to impose any of the other completely arbitrary and none nonsensical beliefs that are part of your religion.
And just to toss this in, the almighty infallible Christian Bible never considered the destroying of a fetus "murder" either.
The unborn don't exist.
Religion has nothing to do with determining when human is human. Your personification of what is just a clump of cells, as in a clump of cells with no consciousness, no thought, not even a frickin' nervous system. It doesn't feel anything, it doesn't think anything, it doesn't even have the capability of permitting anything.
It's no more "human" then the tissue I flushed down the toilet last night that had human DNA all over it. For the love of FSM, man! By your metric of human we'd have to ask every turd, sneeze, cough, and loogey permission to dispose of it.
I'm a capitalist. As a capitalist I'm a staunch adherent to free & fair market competition. The existence of unions is essential to this equation. The reason being that a business, especially large business, is essentially a business union.
There must be a counterweight to this collusion for any market to remain healthy. Even Adam Smith recognized this:
"...or to lower wages." Is easily added to this observation as the spirit of quote is that that trade unions (*cough* corporations) will always try to maximize profits. This is not a bad thing, but we must allow workers to form their own groups and counter balance this force with one of their own: To maximize individual profits and ensure safe conditions.
The real travesty is not out sourcing, but the lack of penalty (financially) for a business model that takes advantage of states or nations that do not adhere to these essential principles of a free & fair market (and worker) equality.
However, Adam Smith's advocacy of a living wage and unions did not stop there.
Of course, the cunning slashdotter libertarian may respond "but what is 'tolerably'? Should everyone have a TV and a computer? Let the market decide!" Our estimable Father of Free Market Capitalism did not stop here, but made absolutely clear what "tolerable" should mean:
If, as we oft hear, we are now in a global economy and so boundaries between economies should be torn down, then so too should the boundaries of "tolerable" existence be destroyed as well. If a company wishes to sell its goods to the Western nation's, it is by the standards of those that these outsourced workers "feed, clothe and lodge" that their income should be determined.
One may pose the rebuttal that this would negate the benefit of outsourcing, but is utter hogwash. First, let's investigate what is meant by "tolerable existance" by posing a simple question (I borrow this from John Cassidy, New Yorker Economist, paraphrased for brevity). "What lack of affluence would such a society, in general, view as a point of shame?" In Western society, most would consider the inability to afford a television a rather embarassing state to be in...one can be had for a mere 100 American dollars or even less. By this metric, we should pay outsourced workers an amount capable of producing this level of success in their own economies, which is quite a bit less.
Thus, out sourcing to nations for cheaper labor is not an inherently bad thing. However, when this is done with the aim of abusing lax labor, environmental, and other measures necessary for the worker to enjoy a level of success seen in the nation doing the sourcing, i
In my experience, the types of problems these systems are designed to solve are not child's play. It is only a small subset of individuals working on issues that fully benefit and they are a very intelligent group indeed.
I work with oodle's of "joe-researchers". I agree their experience in the computing field can be, to be kind, lacking. However, some tools are just down right difficult to learn if used properly. Take Solid Works, your never going to have a situation where "joe-medical-researcher" clicks a button that says "generate plans for implantable device". If someone tried to make such a tool, your going to end up with a lot of shitty medical devices.
I was tutoring a "joe-mdphd" today who wanted to get into MRI research. She didn't understand why she had to learn all these weird concepts like "server/client" (to understand that when you connect to another computer that the data is actually on that computer and not on yours) and that before you can start whipping out published papers you had to understand a bit about MRI physics TR's T*'s, functionals, structerals, contrasts, and scan protocols.
I presented her with an analogy: I have a background of programming, computer engineering, physics, etc. behind me. But if I wanted to become a surgeon, I couldn't just jump in the operating room and say "ok, now! let's do this!". There's a lot of training that goes into that skill. Now, you don't have to learn *everything*, but you do need to add a few things to your basic toolkit before you can tackle the big problems...and no, you probably won't be able to do so in a week, or even a few weeks.
The question I would propose is this: What exactly would an "accessible to the masses" clustering environment be? Imagine the tasks that these folks do, how specialized to their particular goals they are, how would you design a program to accommodate all these situations?
Now, there are large areas of research that use a similar set of tools to accomplish their varied goals. I think you'll find that these do indeed already have established, cluster friendly software suites that vastly simplify the process.
In other words, if you find yourself having to write a custom HPC application to complete your research, it's probably because it's such a niche area that no one else felt the need to before...which is exciting in its own right.
I doubt your problems had to do with your intelligence. It doesn't justify the actions against you in any way, please don't interpret it that way.
I was a jock and a very high performer grade wise. There were about two other of my fellow athletes that were also at the top of the class. Between myself and one of these other athletes, we often received the highest marks in the class and set the curve.
I can assure you, neither of us were ever picked on or were the focus of physical confrontation. Unfortunately, school can be a cruel place for the socially awkward. However, do not confuse the unwarranted cruelty meted out to the socially awkward with a "hate for intelligence". That's just elitism and stubborn refusal to inquire into true cause. Even the "stupid and lazy" are most likely not retarded. I have no doubt they could sense your deep disdain and attitude of superiority. --I only mention that we were jocks to show that we were generally social and diverse in our group associations. We got along with all groups. There were several who also were in the "high marks" category who were not athletes, yet were still very socially popular.
In this sense (using a 3rd party multi-mouse button with my desktop purchase), nothing has changed from windows to osx.
For my thoughts on the one button laptops, I prefer it. Some folks like one model of car, some like others. I wouldn't say it's because one car manufacturer has a hatred for features in the other. It's just a matter of options/choice/preference. Choice is good? amiright?
Now there are instances where abused children then turn that abuse to others. The nature of these acts are often quite disturbing given the age of the children involved.
However, I'm sure some of these acts of "child on child" "pornography" are not of this nature. For that genre, we had a name for it when I was growing up: "Playing Doctor". And all the (sane) parenting books I've read said this is a normal expression of a child's curiosity with their bodies and should not even be punished, let alone "prosecuted".
Sure, there's the added complication of digital dispersion. But this is a symptom of our times. There's nothing inherently "dirty" about nudity, not even a child's nudity. Otherwise, there's a lot of parents in for a load of trouble for those naked 2 and 3 yr/old pictures of johney in the family scrap book.
we had God cornered, he goes and pulls another fast one.
I usually donate money when something occurs that brings into stark view the value of a piece of software.
So ask yourself what inspired you to donate. Maybe you installed this distro and were impressed with the job they've done in bundling all these packages together for you. Maybe your stuck behind an obnoxious firewall and an ssh socks proxy saved the day.
Donate to whatever project gave you the gumption to pull your wallet out whether it's some college kid or a large project.
Ha, that's the funniest write up I've read. It seemed like a euphemistic way of describing how some guy walked into an apple store, stood on the Pulpit of GNU, and wondered why he irritated the hell out of people.
Geniuses are just college kids, nothing special there (specially in Louisiana). Sounds to me like they said their not trained to demo Linux and so couldn't do so. Makes sense, Boot Camp is just a boot loader. Anyone using linux can likely figure it out without issues. If they can't, the first hit on google tells you how.
Wonder if I ever ran into that pompous ass when I lived in LA.
His signature says it all: "Liberated in 1999." pffft
Do you want to file forever?
Agreed. Polygraph Tester enthusiasts are known to be a pretty wild, ornery bunch.
There is always a way to implement solution that is safe. Some posters above have mentioned a few with user permissions, virtual tables/views, and complete database replication on a standalone system.
When I was first getting into administration, a good friend of mine who is very successful in the field said something that has stuck with me throughout my career. Not just in administration/IT, but very generally applicable. I'll pass it on here:
What does the customer want? Access to his data. You should not be thinking "Should I or shouldn't I allow this?", rather the question should be "What is an acceptable means of providing this service that will meet my and my companies requirements of security, accessibility, and policy? How much will this solution cost?". If you approach all of your problems this way, it never comes across like you are denying your customer or opposing your company. The decision is always in the hands of the customer/manager/boss. They walk away feeling like they've been given a choice and made the decision that suites them best.
Not to mention that sometimes you find your initial instinct was wrong. Maybe the customer is fully willing to absorb what you thought would be an outlandish cost. Maybe it doesn't end up costing as much as you thought it would.
It's always better to be known as a solution finder then a decision maker unless you are the person paying the cost associated with those decisions.
I do not claim this. The core hardware in an Apple machine is exactly the same as that in pc. What I claim is that people jump on the "comparing pintos to Mercedes" bandwagon. Just because their both cars do not make them the same.
If pc's with truly comparable specifications are compared, the apple products are quite competitive. No, a single processor C2D is *not* the same as a dual quad core Xeon tower. If your complaint is Apple does not make the product you want, fine. But this is more akin to complaining about the lack of a 10k BMW model then claiming that BMW's are overpriced compared to Toyota.
And this is just comparing raw specs. Have you actually looked into the cost of a solid aluminum, high quality tower case? They can easily reach over 350 dollars alone before they begin to compare with the quality in a Mac Pro case design.