Your rationale doesn't hold up - statistically, we would expect conscientiousness to be randomly distributed throughout the populace with no real geographical bias...
Why in nine hells would anyone expect that in very localized samples like voting districts!? Do you think voters in the Rodeo Drive district would be more or less conscientious than voters in the Compton district?
And, if there are, then the election committee should preferentially allocate resources to that end of town to get things moving faster.
Any time steps are proposed to improve the integrity of the voting system in the US, the Progressive Democrats start tearing their hair out screaming about disenfranchising some group, which assures that the same corrupt system stays in place.
The headline starts out already making a value judgement. "Divisive" is subjective and has no fixed definition. This is particularly true when the topics cover social, cultural, and political/ideological issues and viewpoints.
Hell, anything anyone has different opinions on is "divisive". What is "divisive" and to what degree varies greatly and depends largely these days on who says it, and any of these things could change completely tomorrow possibly based only something 'trending' on FB, or a twat someone posted on Twitter (yes, I'm aware).
So, now voicing an opinion that does not comport with current Progressive groupthink now causes loss of employment and destruction of a career? Wow, how very tolerant and inclusive of diverse ideas and cultures! If you cannot at least find common ground with your fellow countrymen, how will you be inclusive to people from totally foreign cultures who don't at all share any of our values, opinions, etc, including your own?
Starting to feel very 1937-Germany-ish these days! We even have snowflakes attempting to "LARP" as 'brown-shirts', all dressed up as 'antifa' (lol!). (You can almost get a faint whiff of Zyklon-B near this bunch if you're downwind!)
Money was allocated to each area to build projects--part of the government economic developing. Someone suggested a telescope given aspects of the area. Money was bookmarked. The project design was started and handed to people who went as far as building it. Maybe money was never bookmarked for actually running the thing? Seriously, as crazy as you make it sound, it's an incredibly common thing for governments and corporations to blow through, in aggregate, billions of dollars without any real long-term thinking or possible even short-term thinking. Governments just tend to do it larger, faster, and with more dubiously negative outcomes since they don't tend to hold themselves accountable; corporations are only marginally better because short of outright malicious or gross negligent acts, government rarely interfere with their dubiously negative outcomes either.
The less-accountable a government is to the people who are forced to fund it, the more of this type of government behavior you'll have. Why? Because it doesn't matter to those in government, there are no negative, and quite a few possible positive, consequences to doing so. It's the same behavior as US military weapon systems contracts that are approved and money spent for weapons the military does not want or need, and which have serious design/engineering flaws. Unacountability & corruption go hand-in-hand and are the hallmark of a large, powerful, central government.
You seem to be under the impression that both sides agreed to this "peace treaty". One side has attempted to force it on the other and now don't understand why they are getting pushback.
Actually, one side unilaterally declared a 'peace treaty' of their own design and is using the other side's 'violations' of this treaty they never agreed to as justification for 'going nuclear' with violence and outright suppression of 1st Amendment and other civil rights & liberties.
They cannot win a contest based on principles where both sides can voice their views for the public to choose from, they must control the message and suppress opposing viewpoints and destroy those voicing and/or publicly standing behind opposing viewpoints. Theirs must be the only view allowed. Thus Berkeley, antifa screeching & throwing poo like chimps (apologies to real chimps everywhere), etc etc.
Why do we have to identify people as R or D? I would love to live in a world where govt. represents us, We The People.
The only way to get that is to massively reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government. As long as DC has the ability to control everything it will always represent itself. Decentralize as much as possible - and you'll get closer to representation of the people.
Precisely spot-on.
People must come to once again understand that there exists an "inverse-square law" of government; That every increase in power, size, and scope of government results in creating a reduction in freedom, liberty, and wealth of the population at roughly the squared amount/importance/size of the increase in government.
Power is a zero-sum game. The people start out with 100% but then grant government a portion of their power in order to govern. If government increases in power and wealth, people necessarily *must* lose power and wealth, and with it rights, freedoms, and liberty in general to live their lives as they see fit.
I think it's more due to the fact that the elites who lecture us about our carbon footprints do so from their private jets.
That, along with nearly every major prediction made by climate alarmists having turned out to not be accurate, and in fact in most instances turning out to be *wildly* inaccurate.
Also contributing to the public's general dismissal of AGW is that all those highly-touted computer climate models they reference to scare people are incapable of modeling *past* climate changes when given the known climate-related data for the period in question.
Why are we even talking about making enormous political, ideological, economic, and societal changes based on what climate models say which cannot even somewhat-accurately reproduce *past* climate changes with known data, FFS!?
If 50% of people tell you there isn't a dinosaur in your room, but you see it clearly, you literally know it's true, who do you think is wrong? Think about this, FFS. Wake up!
Aw, c'mon! Who are you gonna believe? We, the ones who love you and feel your pain (while we pick your pockets clean, set you against each other like pit-bulls at an illegal dog-fighting event, seize your money without a crime being committed, and throw enormous numbers of you in prisons), or your lying, deceitful, eyes?
Reason is Eurocentric and has been used to dominate other people, so we must go away from reason in a more subjective direction.
Criticizing Enlightenment thought has become fashionable across the political spectrum. For the past several decades, more and more academics have called reason into question, especially the sort of rationalist worldview that emerged in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
This is especially true among left-leaning, postmodern, and post-structuralist thinkers. Reason justified white supremacy and gave it scientific backing. You're getting dangerously close to the arguments of the alt-right and if I were you I'd change my tune.
Not...sure...if actually serious...or...satire?
If you're serious you need to find the professor(s) that taught you this dreck and punch them in the mouth for wasting your time and money.
I've been running a server constantly for about 20 years now that provides a wide range of services for myself and a handful of close friends. I've been forced to use Comcast for about 10 years of that. I've never had a commercial-class connection, and it has never been an issue.
I suppose it depends on where you're at and what sort of individuals are actually in charge of decisions on who to go after. Still, having to hope some office drone doesn't happen to be having a bad day when he looks over the logs showing your server activity is not a plan and is a situation ripe for selective enforcement.
And this isn't the case now? Really, there aren't that many ISPs around, and except for a few (ProtonMail, etc.) that do actual encryption, all make your email and any attachments available for viewing by security agencies on presentation of a suitable request. Other than the specifically privacy-oriented services, all store your traffic unencrypted on their servers; SSL/TLS only protect it in transit. So your attachments are now available for scanning by all and sundry. If this Mozilla service actually does end-to-end encryption, that will be a selling point for those who care.
I never said that the current situation supported or was at all friendly to the laundry-list of things you reference. I, too, would like to be able to, for example, run a small server on occasion for limited periods of time like a few hours to a week or two without having to purchase a commercial-class connection along with all the other roadblocks to casual home server use. But, there still remains a plethora of other protocols, methods and types of P2P encrypt-able data transfer/sharing & text communication outside of the few you and I have so far mentioned.
Hypothetical: Right now, I could fire up an encryption-enabled IRC chat connection directly to another individual on another continent and we could theoretically have a secure connection between the two machines.
The goal is to make it necessary, in order to connect to another regular internet user, to first connect to a "service" which then can inspect, copy/store, and possibly alter or censor any messages, data, etc, before being passed to the intended recipient. It's also one of the only ways to really reduce large-scale copyright infringement through p2p/i2p/etc sharing over the internet which is another huge motivator for TPTB.
Hasn't everyone been saying for years that they want to turn the internet into the new cable-TV where people only consume/receive data 'product', not generate or communicate it directly themselves? It's pretty much here when you can't transfer data directly & securely to another person.
Yep. I'll stick with direct peer to peer file sharing.
That's the entire point of services like Mozilla's "Send" and likely soon several other similar 'me too!' services suddenly being rolled out and hyped heavily by major and minor players alike; Laying the groundwork towards ultimately eliminating the capability for direct connections between regular people, making it mandatory for any data, message, etc to pass through some service's servers where it can all be slurped-up by TLAs with just a relative handful of incoming data acquisition streams while simultaneously creating streamlined legal and bureaucratic procedures and reduced red tape. And, all this with less public transparency and accountability than ever.
The new chorus will be: "You can send anything you like legally for free through $TRANSFERSERVICE, only criminals who need to hide something from authorities need a direct connection, especially using hard encryption you terrorist drug-dealing pedo opponent of the current ruling power-bloc!"
Why is the NSA wasting resources and time on someone like DotCom ?
Last I checked the man wasn't exactly a threat to National Security.
If you believe the news these days ( hahahahaha ) there are so many terrorists out there to " get us ", that the NSA should have plenty to do instead of spying on someone like DotCom.
The NSA's main task for the past few decades has been mass domestic surveillance for political/ideological purposes to stifle dissent, to silence whistle-blowers, and to protect the criminally-corrupt holding power.
"National security" is simply the keycode to unlocking more extra-Constitutional powers and funding.
The USA *used to be* a nation of laws. Now, it's just another (though large) corrupt & authoritarian banana-republic.
But you can legislate greater security for wifi routers.
As long as you don't secure devices from US law enforcement and TLAs. Gotta have a "secure backdoor" for law enforcement and the TLAs because somebody might smoke a joint, start organizing political opposition to an incumbent, or even become a whistle-blower and expose illegal government actions without good old Uncle Stal...err...Uncle Sam...monitoring everything./s
You're conflating the breakup of AT&T with telecoms deregulation.
No, he did not.
He pointed out that in 100 years phone technology progressed at a glacial rate because government enabled restricted markets through regulations, Acts, and laws which allowed those huge telecoms to dictate the rate of innovation and change to suit themselves. It's called 'regulatory capture'. Once some of those restrictions (which were not all tied to the breakup of the Bells) were loosened, advances started coming at blinding speed relative to the pace set by the telecoms.
It's one of the effects of regulatory capture. Regulations become a means to maintain the status quo and raise the bars for entry to markets for new competition and technologies. We saw regulatory capture in effect with the Deep Horizon disaster.
The internet grew to what it is today without these new FCC regulations, it isn't broken right now, why do we need government to step in where it hadn't been before to 'fix' it?
I don't want to 'Deep Horizon' the internet, thanks all the same.
I'm not sure how you even got modded to +3, but your lack of knowledge and history is truly breathtaking to behold. No Interstate Highway System! Yay! What? It's a "Safety Net"?
The irony in you accusing others of lack of knowledge and(of?) history is hilarious!
The US Interstate Highway System was first and foremost, and remains to this day, a military logistics infrastructure project to be able to more quickly & efficiently move troops and materiel to help mitigate the logistics/transportation problems being such a large nation poses. It's estimated probable commercial/industrial private sector economic benefits during peacetime were also a factor in deciding to go ahead, but strategic military logistics infrastructure was and remains their main purpose as stated repeatedly by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. As national defense infrastructure, the Federal government is on solid Constitutional grounds with expending taxpayer money on the I.H.S.
I can understand the point of view of treating expanding US internet access and average available bandwidth like electric & telephone. Even as someone who leans strongly small-government, I can see that internet access is replacing much of the old essential communications infrastructure and is creating new ways for it to become essential in a modern industrialized society. Hopefully this can be accomplished with much better accountability on all sides. However, I fear that more tax money will be wasted and less accomplished the more that the Federal government is involved, as their track record is abysmal at best.
"...saying its products could be used to carry out "nefarious activities against the United States,"
Yes, absolutely!
It could well be capable of detecting the next US TLA cyber-weapon toolkit left laying about for hackers to copy and use, thereby threatening US national security by exposing the incompetence of the US government to the general public. A clear & present danger.
My exact words were; "An abundance of caution going forward is not uncalled-for..."
Nowhere did I state nor imply that I thought a ban was a solution. In fact I did not offer any solutions, as quite frankly, it's a damned difficult question with many very fundamental principles involved, many in possible opposition to one another. There are no simple solutions here, particularly as the CRISPR-cat is out of the bag and already used on human embryos, and most Western governments as yet have near-zero policy structure and regulatory outlines even being seriously discussed by their lawmakers, regulators, and leaders.
Really, gene editing has zero useful social functions like curing congenital heart defects, or adding aids resistance or any of the thousand of benefits? You are a moron.
You have to admit that this new ability to edit human genes does have the potential to be used in some pretty damned creepy and dangerous ways. Couple that with human nature and you're almost assured it will be, at some point. Do you believe someone like Kim Jong Un and N. Korea would hesitate to create "super-soldiers" and more with this?
An abundance of caution going forward is not uncalled-for considering the possible uses and results along with their depth, scope, and implications for humanity's future.
When you're thinking of it on your own volition & interest?
See, there's the problem; Individual volition is what marketers, corporations, and governments want to train people to give up and forget. They want people to let others think and make choices for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Your rationale doesn't hold up - statistically, we would expect conscientiousness to be randomly distributed throughout the populace with no real geographical bias...
Why in nine hells would anyone expect that in very localized samples like voting districts!? Do you think voters in the Rodeo Drive district would be more or less conscientious than voters in the Compton district?
And, if there are, then the election committee should preferentially allocate resources to that end of town to get things moving faster.
Any time steps are proposed to improve the integrity of the voting system in the US, the Progressive Democrats start tearing their hair out screaming about disenfranchising some group, which assures that the same corrupt system stays in place.
Strat
Gah! Headline! "Divisive"!
That'll learn me to not post before the morning coffee is ready! Well, probably not, I'll probably be too sleepy to remb....[snore]
The headline starts out already making a value judgement. "Divisive" is subjective and has no fixed definition. This is particularly true when the topics cover social, cultural, and political/ideological issues and viewpoints.
Hell, anything anyone has different opinions on is "divisive". What is "divisive" and to what degree varies greatly and depends largely these days on who says it, and any of these things could change completely tomorrow possibly based only something 'trending' on FB, or a twat someone posted on Twitter (yes, I'm aware).
So, now voicing an opinion that does not comport with current Progressive groupthink now causes loss of employment and destruction of a career? Wow, how very tolerant and inclusive of diverse ideas and cultures! If you cannot at least find common ground with your fellow countrymen, how will you be inclusive to people from totally foreign cultures who don't at all share any of our values, opinions, etc, including your own?
Starting to feel very 1937-Germany-ish these days! We even have snowflakes attempting to "LARP" as 'brown-shirts', all dressed up as 'antifa' (lol!). (You can almost get a faint whiff of Zyklon-B near this bunch if you're downwind!)
Strat
Money was allocated to each area to build projects--part of the government economic developing. Someone suggested a telescope given aspects of the area. Money was bookmarked. The project design was started and handed to people who went as far as building it. Maybe money was never bookmarked for actually running the thing? Seriously, as crazy as you make it sound, it's an incredibly common thing for governments and corporations to blow through, in aggregate, billions of dollars without any real long-term thinking or possible even short-term thinking. Governments just tend to do it larger, faster, and with more dubiously negative outcomes since they don't tend to hold themselves accountable; corporations are only marginally better because short of outright malicious or gross negligent acts, government rarely interfere with their dubiously negative outcomes either.
The less-accountable a government is to the people who are forced to fund it, the more of this type of government behavior you'll have. Why? Because it doesn't matter to those in government, there are no negative, and quite a few possible positive, consequences to doing so. It's the same behavior as US military weapon systems contracts that are approved and money spent for weapons the military does not want or need, and which have serious design/engineering flaws. Unacountability & corruption go hand-in-hand and are the hallmark of a large, powerful, central government.
Strat
You seem to be under the impression that both sides agreed to this "peace treaty". One side has attempted to force it on the other and now don't understand why they are getting pushback.
Actually, one side unilaterally declared a 'peace treaty' of their own design and is using the other side's 'violations' of this treaty they never agreed to as justification for 'going nuclear' with violence and outright suppression of 1st Amendment and other civil rights & liberties.
They cannot win a contest based on principles where both sides can voice their views for the public to choose from, they must control the message and suppress opposing viewpoints and destroy those voicing and/or publicly standing behind opposing viewpoints. Theirs must be the only view allowed. Thus Berkeley, antifa screeching & throwing poo like chimps (apologies to real chimps everywhere), etc etc.
Strat
Precisely spot-on.
People must come to once again understand that there exists an "inverse-square law" of government; That every increase in power, size, and scope of government results in creating a reduction in freedom, liberty, and wealth of the population at roughly the squared amount/importance/size of the increase in government.
Power is a zero-sum game. The people start out with 100% but then grant government a portion of their power in order to govern. If government increases in power and wealth, people necessarily *must* lose power and wealth, and with it rights, freedoms, and liberty in general to live their lives as they see fit.
Strat
I think it's more due to the fact that the elites who lecture us about our carbon footprints do so from their private jets.
That, along with nearly every major prediction made by climate alarmists having turned out to not be accurate, and in fact in most instances turning out to be *wildly* inaccurate.
Also contributing to the public's general dismissal of AGW is that all those highly-touted computer climate models they reference to scare people are incapable of modeling *past* climate changes when given the known climate-related data for the period in question.
Why are we even talking about making enormous political, ideological, economic, and societal changes based on what climate models say which cannot even somewhat-accurately reproduce *past* climate changes with known data, FFS!?
Strat
If 50% of people tell you there isn't a dinosaur in your room, but you see it clearly, you literally know it's true, who do you think is wrong? Think about this, FFS. Wake up!
Aw, c'mon! Who are you gonna believe? We, the ones who love you and feel your pain (while we pick your pockets clean, set you against each other like pit-bulls at an illegal dog-fighting event, seize your money without a crime being committed, and throw enormous numbers of you in prisons), or your lying, deceitful, eyes?
Strat
Reason is Eurocentric and has been used to dominate other people, so we must go away from reason in a more subjective direction.
Criticizing Enlightenment thought has become fashionable across the political spectrum. For the past several decades, more and more academics have called reason into question, especially the sort of rationalist worldview that emerged in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
This is especially true among left-leaning, postmodern, and post-structuralist thinkers. Reason justified white supremacy and gave it scientific backing. You're getting dangerously close to the arguments of the alt-right and if I were you I'd change my tune.
Not...sure...if actually serious...or...satire?
If you're serious you need to find the professor(s) that taught you this dreck and punch them in the mouth for wasting your time and money.
Strat
I've been running a server constantly for about 20 years now that provides a wide range of services for myself and a handful of close friends. I've been forced to use Comcast for about 10 years of that. I've never had a commercial-class connection, and it has never been an issue.
I suppose it depends on where you're at and what sort of individuals are actually in charge of decisions on who to go after. Still, having to hope some office drone doesn't happen to be having a bad day when he looks over the logs showing your server activity is not a plan and is a situation ripe for selective enforcement.
Strat
And this isn't the case now? Really, there aren't that many ISPs around, and except for a few (ProtonMail, etc.) that do actual encryption, all make your email and any attachments available for viewing by security agencies on presentation of a suitable request. Other than the specifically privacy-oriented services, all store your traffic unencrypted on their servers; SSL/TLS only protect it in transit. So your attachments are now available for scanning by all and sundry. If this Mozilla service actually does end-to-end encryption, that will be a selling point for those who care.
I never said that the current situation supported or was at all friendly to the laundry-list of things you reference. I, too, would like to be able to, for example, run a small server on occasion for limited periods of time like a few hours to a week or two without having to purchase a commercial-class connection along with all the other roadblocks to casual home server use. But, there still remains a plethora of other protocols, methods and types of P2P encrypt-able data transfer/sharing & text communication outside of the few you and I have so far mentioned.
Hypothetical: Right now, I could fire up an encryption-enabled IRC chat connection directly to another individual on another continent and we could theoretically have a secure connection between the two machines.
The goal is to make it necessary, in order to connect to another regular internet user, to first connect to a "service" which then can inspect, copy/store, and possibly alter or censor any messages, data, etc, before being passed to the intended recipient. It's also one of the only ways to really reduce large-scale copyright infringement through p2p/i2p/etc sharing over the internet which is another huge motivator for TPTB.
Hasn't everyone been saying for years that they want to turn the internet into the new cable-TV where people only consume/receive data 'product', not generate or communicate it directly themselves? It's pretty much here when you can't transfer data directly & securely to another person.
Strat
Yep. I'll stick with direct peer to peer file sharing.
That's the entire point of services like Mozilla's "Send" and likely soon several other similar 'me too!' services suddenly being rolled out and hyped heavily by major and minor players alike; Laying the groundwork towards ultimately eliminating the capability for direct connections between regular people, making it mandatory for any data, message, etc to pass through some service's servers where it can all be slurped-up by TLAs with just a relative handful of incoming data acquisition streams while simultaneously creating streamlined legal and bureaucratic procedures and reduced red tape. And, all this with less public transparency and accountability than ever.
The new chorus will be: "You can send anything you like legally for free through $TRANSFERSERVICE, only criminals who need to hide something from authorities need a direct connection, especially using hard encryption you terrorist drug-dealing pedo opponent of the current ruling power-bloc!"
Strat
Postmodernism destroyed the Enlightenment values the West was founded on.
The rise of Postmodernism and Solipsism in the former Weimar Republic gave us a society that embraced Hitler and became Nazi Germany.
Strat
(On an actual "Darwin Award")
I give it a 6 out of 10.
The "Chucky-D" gets my vote. :D
Strat
With the search warrant rendered null and void, how is it not considered theft of property at this point?
You have to ask, considering who is involved!?
Lawyers, guns, and money!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Strat
Why is the NSA wasting resources and time on someone like DotCom ?
Last I checked the man wasn't exactly a threat to National Security.
If you believe the news these days ( hahahahaha ) there are so many terrorists out there to " get us ", that the NSA should have plenty to do instead of spying on someone like DotCom.
The NSA's main task for the past few decades has been mass domestic surveillance for political/ideological purposes to stifle dissent, to silence whistle-blowers, and to protect the criminally-corrupt holding power.
"National security" is simply the keycode to unlocking more extra-Constitutional powers and funding.
The USA *used to be* a nation of laws. Now, it's just another (though large) corrupt & authoritarian banana-republic.
Strat
But you can legislate greater security for wifi routers.
As long as you don't secure devices from US law enforcement and TLAs. Gotta have a "secure backdoor" for law enforcement and the TLAs because somebody might smoke a joint, start organizing political opposition to an incumbent, or even become a whistle-blower and expose illegal government actions without good old Uncle Stal...err...Uncle Sam...monitoring everything. /s
Strat
You're conflating the breakup of AT&T with telecoms deregulation.
No, he did not.
He pointed out that in 100 years phone technology progressed at a glacial rate because government enabled restricted markets through regulations, Acts, and laws which allowed those huge telecoms to dictate the rate of innovation and change to suit themselves. It's called 'regulatory capture'. Once some of those restrictions (which were not all tied to the breakup of the Bells) were loosened, advances started coming at blinding speed relative to the pace set by the telecoms.
It's one of the effects of regulatory capture. Regulations become a means to maintain the status quo and raise the bars for entry to markets for new competition and technologies. We saw regulatory capture in effect with the Deep Horizon disaster.
The internet grew to what it is today without these new FCC regulations, it isn't broken right now, why do we need government to step in where it hadn't been before to 'fix' it?
I don't want to 'Deep Horizon' the internet, thanks all the same.
Strat
Vote for $CANDIDATE or something bad happens to your job/spouse/children/whatever is a serious potential problem.
No, it's not a problem and it never has been. You're crazy.
.
.
Strat :)
I'm not sure how you even got modded to +3, but your lack of knowledge and history is truly breathtaking to behold. No Interstate Highway System! Yay! What? It's a "Safety Net"?
The irony in you accusing others of lack of knowledge and(of?) history is hilarious!
The US Interstate Highway System was first and foremost, and remains to this day, a military logistics infrastructure project to be able to more quickly & efficiently move troops and materiel to help mitigate the logistics/transportation problems being such a large nation poses. It's estimated probable commercial/industrial private sector economic benefits during peacetime were also a factor in deciding to go ahead, but strategic military logistics infrastructure was and remains their main purpose as stated repeatedly by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. As national defense infrastructure, the Federal government is on solid Constitutional grounds with expending taxpayer money on the I.H.S.
I can understand the point of view of treating expanding US internet access and average available bandwidth like electric & telephone. Even as someone who leans strongly small-government, I can see that internet access is replacing much of the old essential communications infrastructure and is creating new ways for it to become essential in a modern industrialized society. Hopefully this can be accomplished with much better accountability on all sides. However, I fear that more tax money will be wasted and less accomplished the more that the Federal government is involved, as their track record is abysmal at best.
Strat
"...saying its products could be used to carry out "nefarious activities against the United States,"
Yes, absolutely!
It could well be capable of detecting the next US TLA cyber-weapon toolkit left laying about for hackers to copy and use, thereby threatening US national security by exposing the incompetence of the US government to the general public. A clear & present danger.
Strat
She is no more credible to analyze documents than Rick Perry is to operate a nuclear reactor as energy secretary.
What are you talking about!? There's film of Rick on the job, at the controls of a nuclear power plant on YT!
https://youtu.be/v5MOatu5-DE
Strat
But if we refuse to use it for good,...
My exact words were; "An abundance of caution going forward is not uncalled-for..."
Nowhere did I state nor imply that I thought a ban was a solution. In fact I did not offer any solutions, as quite frankly, it's a damned difficult question with many very fundamental principles involved, many in possible opposition to one another. There are no simple solutions here, particularly as the CRISPR-cat is out of the bag and already used on human embryos, and most Western governments as yet have near-zero policy structure and regulatory outlines even being seriously discussed by their lawmakers, regulators, and leaders.
Strat
Really, gene editing has zero useful social functions like curing congenital heart defects, or adding aids resistance or any of the thousand of benefits? You are a moron.
You have to admit that this new ability to edit human genes does have the potential to be used in some pretty damned creepy and dangerous ways. Couple that with human nature and you're almost assured it will be, at some point. Do you believe someone like Kim Jong Un and N. Korea would hesitate to create "super-soldiers" and more with this?
An abundance of caution going forward is not uncalled-for considering the possible uses and results along with their depth, scope, and implications for humanity's future.
Strat
When you're thinking of it on your own volition & interest?
See, there's the problem; Individual volition is what marketers, corporations, and governments want to train people to give up and forget. They want people to let others think and make choices for them.
Strat