It depends: does it actually exist? And is is catholic/christian sound?;-)
Actually I'm afraid you read to much in it; it was only a post meant to be modded 'funny'. I was actually alluding to the Simpson episode where Lisa sells Homer a stone that 'keeps away tigers' and even though Lisa explains the obvious logical fallacy ('you don't see any tigers around, do you?'), homer buys the stone anyway.
halo, do you know what (or where to find) the options are of the parliament if it ever get passed the counsel? I know it can reject it, but can it also force it to become a first reading, again?
I seem to remember reading about those options, but I forgot where exactly.
"Since they appearantly believe they are finished discussing this, forcing them to discuss it again among themselves is hardly going to achieve anything."
I'm not entirely sure about that. As Polen has demonstrated, not all countries agree with it any longer (see also Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany, which have been under parliamentary scrutiny, the fact that the % of vote-power changed because of the enlargement, etc.) It leaves little doubt that, if it were to be discussed and voted again by the counsel, it would not gain a majority any more. Thus, amendments would have a greater chance of being incorporated.
Ofcourse, restarting the whole proces is an option too...I think. I'm not sure; what ARE the options of the EU parliament again? I know they can get a 'compromise' with the commission, but this seems unfruitful; the amendments made by the parliament were already minimal. If they get watered down any more by a 'compromise', it will just such anyway. and it's uncertain if we would get the 2/3 majority on such a thing.
Better chances we have by outright refusing the proposal, or indeed, if that's possible, to restart the proposal (which they should do now, thnks to JURI, but aparently, the commision and counsel is bound on ignoring it).
Anyway, seen that even McCarthy voted for a restart in the JURI, even when it was her own proposal, makes me optimistic that we can receive a 2/3 majority to revoke or restart the process, possibly make some assesment studies in between, etc. So, even when it would pass in the counsel, I doubt it will pass for the second reading in the EU parliament.
The question rather is, if it comes that far, what should the position of our no-swp lobby go for?
Compromise? (seems very dubious) Reject? (safe for 2 years, further assesment possible, more awareness of the problem by then) Restart? (has the potential advantage of making a law that actually forbids swp, instead of leaving it ambiguous)
Hmm..I'm a bit puzzled. You seem to convey one thing, but give examples that strengthen the oposite.
Revolutions are unfair, which is shown by the fact Hitler got elected?
Wouldn't that rather point to the fact that revolutions may be necessary, even in a democarcy?
Don't take me wrong; I think think democracy is one of the best systems we have... but it's still a pretty crappy system. It could be made better, ofcourse, and in that respect I take some old ideas of Plato and the lot, who argued for the 'perfect state' - not that I believe there is such a thing. (An oligarchy of 'wise men' (in current times that would be the necessary education/degrees) comes to mind, but then as premise to get elected, for instance).
Anyway, the fallacy you make, is to assume that the current democratic systems are so good, that revolutions become 'unfair' and 'useless'. And all that because you could convince a 'majority' of people. As your own examples demonstrate, this is a dubious reasoning.
Say, hypothetically, you have a country where two ethnic groups that can't stand eachother live together, and one (A) make out 51% and the other (B) 49% of the populace. A wins and decides to get rid of group B. Now, democratically speaking, this is all very correct...but would it be fair? And if it isn't, wouldn't it be fair for group B to revolt?
Me thinks: yes.
So, in essence, there might be situations where, even within a democracy, a revolution is neither unfair nor useless.
It wouldn't be bad to send (or give out, at the demonstration) a letter or something, shortly but strongly summarising the objections raised to the current proposal, and the reason (and request) to remove it from any future agenda, or make it a B-topic.
Ofcourse, this would involve knowing the adresses of all the ministers (of the counsel) involved, or at least trying to hand it over to them as they enter the building.:-)
But it might be a neat idea that could be worthwhile. Ofcourse, someone has to do it, and that someone is you, halo1!!;-)
Maybe I'll see you at the meeting (although the timing sucks a bit for me on that day).
If you don't have much faith in all these yummy healthy vegetables, I have another option for you, without any fallacy present as far as I can see:
It just so happens, that I have a (magical) stone with me, that keeps away any form of cancer. The proof? I have had that stone for years, and during those years I have not had one cancer, no sirree!
I'm willing to sell you that stone for a meager 1000 bucks! What do you say? I'll even throw in some drops of holy water for free, taken from good christian holy sources, where it has been proven without any doubt, by overwhelming anecdotal evidence, that wonders have occured.
You are fully right to dismiss science! The only way to come to the truth is sound christian/catholic reasoning coppled with a strong belief that something actually exists! Myriads of people have shown this, so it must be true.
When you talk about the joe-doe-in-the-street, you are probably right; he probably doesn't know anythingt about it. It was totally new to my less-tech-savvy friends too.
But then again, one could say that in general: seldom a political issue generates a truelly 'huge' public concern, not even when it's about jobs or taxes.
The fact that it generated as much concern for such a topic, is really astounding nevertheless.
And, I must say, if you read slashdot daily, and you still managed to miss the EU-patents issue, I would suggest buying some glasses.;-)
I have always thought a solution (at least a better democratic one) would be to abolish the powers that the counsel of ministers and the EU commision has, and divide that power between the EU parliament and a directly elected EU president.
Ofcourse, since all sovereign countries will need to agree with new EU laws/directives, it seems higly unlikely that the counsel of ministers will ever be totally dismissed. A bit more realistic and feasable though, would be to limit the power of that counsel somewhat, and to transform the EU commision into a real EU government, with an elected president (for periods of 5 years, for instance) at the top (and not an unelected bureaucrat as chairman for 6 months, like it is now).
The problem is that patents, and especially sw-patents do NOT encourage innovation and just enable you (?) and especially megacorps with huge portfolios to profit from it. That's wrong with it.
An influential European Parliamentary committee voted yesterday to ask the Commission to send the proposed Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions back to Parliament for a first reading.
Simon Gentry, founder of the pro-patent Campaign for Creativity, wrote a letter to his supporters today: "The assault on patents - based on a deliberate distortion of the facts - has, in effect, won."
Gentry added that he is considering winding up the lobbying group. "Set against the apparently limitless resources - both human and financial - of the anti-patent lobby, the cause seems lost."
The current draft has changed radically since the Parliament first considered it, while the membership of the Parliament and the European Union itself has also altered. These are reasons for a restart, say many MEPs.
The draft Directive, often known as the Software Patents Directive, has been on the verge of approval by the Council of Ministers since May, when European Trade Ministers rejected amendments made to the draft by the European Parliament. Some MEPs expressed fears that the wording of the Directive risks bringing to Europe the more liberal regime of software and business method patenting that exists in the US.
Progress on the draft Directive then stalled, as political manoeuvring kept the proposals off the Council agenda, where it was due to be included as an "A" item, being one that is voted through without discussion.
The Polish Government has been influential in delaying the vote, taking advantage of new voting weights that came into force on 1st November. Denmark also appears to have disrupted progress of the draft in the run up to its Parliamentary elections on 8th February.
Once successfully rubber-stamped, the Directive is due to be sent back to the European Parliament for a second reading. But some MEPs argued that the legislative progress should be restarted instead, allowing the enlarged Parliament to give full consideration to the issues, instead of rushing it through in the three-month timescale that a second reading allows.
The issue came to a head yesterday in a meeting of the Parliament's legal affairs committee (JURI).
In what has been described as a heated debate, Charlie McCreevy, European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, explained that the Council of Ministers had now reached consensus and that the draft was due to be re-instated as an A point at a forthcoming Council meeting.
Committee members reacted to the news by voting by 19 votes to two in support of a motion to ask the Commission to send the proposals back to the Parliament for a first reading, effectively restarting the process.
The Commission does not have to comply with the request. It may instead continue with the existing process, in the knowledge that once the Directive is put to the Parliament for a second reading, consensus is unlikely to be achieved.
According to UK Labour MEP Arlene McCarthy, it is more likely that the whole process will now be delayed for up to six months, in order to assess the impact of the legislation. "Under the circumstances this is the best solution," she said.
Austrian JURI member Eva Lichtenberger said: "The Legal Affairs Committee's initiative is a good beginning, but does not yet offer a happy ending to the software patents story."
She added: "Today's courageous decision introduces the possibility of a better solution. I am very happy that we now have an opportunity to prevent software patenting and to obtain a better directive that will benefit the whole of the industry. We may now be able to stop market giants - aided by an American-style patenting law - from forcing innovators and SMEs out of the market."
But Simon Gentry of the Campaign for Creativity believes that the Committee vote "will open the way to a deluge of anti-IP amendments that will probably result in the final stripping away of IP protection for the IT sector."
I (and I doubt I'm the only one) wouldn't mind a strong and united europe - if only to provide some counterbalance to the USA - provided their remains reasonable sovereignity in matters of culture and such, and provided that we have directly elected representatives with real power, also on the law-making.
I would have little problem with a EU government if the power of the counsel of ministers and that of the commision was abolished and given to the parliament and a directly chosen EU president instead. As it is now, I do not like it one bit: the current EU parliament has little real power and neither the counsel or the commision/bureaucrats drafting the directives are directly chosen into the postions they hold. It stinks.
"And a unified European government is not a bad thing (I want one), but software patents are."
I agree, but on the condition that that government is directly chosen by the people. Personally, I am all for dividing the power that the commision and the counsel of ministers has between the EU parliament and a directly chosen EU president.
As it is now; a pretty weak EU parliament and a pretty strong elitist group of bureaucrats that weren't voted into the position they have: - no, thanks. If the EU doesn't become more democratic, I'd rather have my more 'local' sovereign parliament and governement. I'd rather live in a small and unsignificant but democratic country without the EU-meddling then in a powerful yet undemocratic supra-national entity.
there used to be a strong movement towards more democratic influence in the EU; I wonder what happend to it? Nowadays, it seems the bureaucrats think THEY can decide for the people, yet, they have never gotten any mandate from us and they also don't have to live with any repercusions that politicians - at least to some degree - have to recon with. Even today I'm still baffled that laws (even though they are called 'directives') are made by non-elected people, while those laws effects millions of EU citizens.
Which is why, (aside of all other arguments,) even purely economically speaking, it doesn't make sense to allow swp in the EU.
Currently, SME's in europe can sue companies in the USA for swp infringements, but the USA companies can't do the same. While swp is on itself a bad idea, at least it is an additional and obvious reason for EU politicians why they shouldn't allow it in the EU.
"I hope I am not goring any holy cows, but mice as well as other animals are self aware, they deal with changes in the environment and learn."
Hmm...well, it is possible I'm using the wrong terminology, being non-native english...but I don't think so.
What you describe is awareness: they live and learn, and are aware of their surroundings. It does not follow they are self-aware, however. (The question how much apes (such as chimps) and dolphins are self-aware is still open, but as far as I know, they are the only group of animals - aside humans - who, for instance, recognise themselves in a mirror, as far as I know).
Ofcourse, as said before, babies are not fully self-aware neither, but at least they have the potential to become so. Mice not, normally. Chimera mice (or other animals) might, however; which is another reason why I think there are ethical concerns with these kinds of experiments.
Ethics deal with morals, and morals deal with good and bad. I agree that good and bad (and thus morals and ethics) are higly subjective and diverse, and change from one society to another, and one timeframe to another.
Yet, that there iveriable ARE things that are considered good and bad is a fact. There has not been one society in the history of humankind that didn't not have ethics, and a sense of what is good or bad (on itself). So, though it may vary, it is there.
Now, what you say comes down to areeing to a premise, as I've said before. Since I think it is (currently, in most societies) considered 'wrong' to experiment on humans, in using rationale, one could (or should) see that there are ethical problems when you are creating creatures that become increasingly human.
He didn't offer an insightful alternative, he used specious reasoning.
1)Who claimed that *because* he was using Lynx, he wasn't hacking?
2)Where did he get the impression there was any causal relationship between the two?
The argument is ludicrous. If a guy says he was arrested because he weared a leather jacket when entering a bank, one could say: wearing a leather jacket does not mean he wasn't going to rob a bank. Well...DUH. WHATEVER you legally do, it does not mean you can't do something illegal too...how exactly is this insightful?
"I think regular mankind (myself included) likes to fear the possibilities of global disasters caused by science."
I agree completely. I do not like, nor do I believe, any doom-scenario's that predict that, because of science, we will all perish or society will crumble.
The lone scientist that is capable of such a thing, may be found in genetically engineering some virus, but apart from that theorethic possibility, I really don't see it happening in any other way. Groups are far more dangerous, in that regard. And I'm an optimist in the sense that I think whatever mess we will get in, it will be thanks to science that we will get out of it too.
That said, I wasn't talking about any doomsday frankenstein-vision, I was merely talking about the ethics of science and scientists. And I am sure you can think of more then one example where scientists have been unethical. In fact, it's rampant, as it is with any group of people. after all, it's not science that is weak, but the scientists themselves, being human, they fall prey to the weakness that all humans know: profit, social or corporate pressure, bias, ideology, status among peers, ego, etc. Unethical behaviour is not unknown to scientists.
and, while I applaud to ever-continuing search for scientific progress, it is also not unheard of that many scientists will go further and further for the pursuit of knowledge, not fully aware of the consequences of their actions. I'm glad you mentionned the A-bom: it's a prime example of that. Many scientists, afterwarss, felt horrorified by the use of their creation, yet, shouldn't they have been aware of the very predictable use of it by the military?
It's the old question of whether a scientist is responsible for the use of his creation. Some would say no, but I think that's just taking the easy way out. If you could forsee the use of your creation, and didn't want it to be used that way, yet you did nothing to prevent or at least minimise the negative aspects of it...then, in my book, yes, you are, at least partly responsable. One can't shove of one's responsability so easily buy saying 'they (the military, etc.) did it, not me!'. That's like the Church in the 15th century saying "It's not we that burn the withches, it's the secular magistrate!", after they sentenced someone to be burned alive. I think it's rather hypocrite. You create something; you are responsable for what happens to that creation, and what *it* does to people and society. The fact that others use it in ways you did not wish, does not absolve you completely from any responsability, me thinks.
Anyway, I disgress. While doomsdayscenarios may be bullocks, unethical behaviour is not, and this type of chimera-research defnitaly has ethical issues on it, and those that claim it doesn't are talking crap or only from a limited personal viewpoint. Sure, you can find chimeras to be no ethical issue, but history has proven more then once that even humans can be a non-issue. If you allow human/animal mixing, sooner or later the question has to be asked what or whome it is, exacly, that scientists are experimenting on. I'd rather ask it sooner then later. And I'd rather have laws prohibiting unethical experiments beforhand then after they have occured.
Well, no sweat; during the history of slashdot, I probably have not read hundreds if not thousands of posts:-)
If you want to read more of a particular person, you can klick on his name and then on the posts he made, however. (Just saying because you seem to indicate you're new and may not know this).
"Sure, I can think of examples of immoral science. Nazi experiments on people in concentration camps, for one (Godwin forgive me). But there is nothing unethical with what those scientists in China did, nor in Minnesota, nor what the Stanford scinetists propose to do."
Well, my point is, that that is YOUR opinion. You can not scientifically and in an objective manner demonstarte that your ethical viepoint is the correct one, not even the only rational one. Which was my point. I *do* see ethical problems when you experiment with human brainscells and mixing animal/humans in a way that could involve brainprocesses.
As you said; you object to experiments on people... but what constitutes "people"? Clearly, as the nazi's have shown, that's rather arbitrary. If scientists create something that is 49% human and 51% animal, is it to be considered an animal, which can be experimented on? Or a human?
Or, ultimately, does it revolves around being able to produce coherent thoughts? but then, shouldn't scientists be able to experiment on babies too? After all, they are not capable of coherent thought.
You see, the question is rather complex, and I don't like claims of having a rational reasoning by people that, when their reasoning is followed consistently, do not agree where their own reasoning leads to.
I, for one, think that all experiments that could lead to human-like thought should be forbidden. And possibly, the experiments with the mice might fall under that (the example of human blood in a pig doesn't, however). I mean, I dunno..and actually, neither do the scientists. Imagine, just imagine, that those mice with 100% human braincells develop a neural network that gives them a sense of self-awareness...what do those scientists kill by the dozens, then? Is it simply mice? They might think the chance of that happening is minute, but the truth and the fact is, they don't really care that much.
After all, biologists routinely use apes, of which we now they have a sense of self-awareness, and still they are merily used to experiment on. I must agree with the greens and tree-huggers on that one: I think chimps and the lot should not be used. I do not agree with them that all animal research should be abondoned (unless it can be done without it too, ofcourse). but I'm not saying even *that* is ethical right, I think killing even lower animals for the advancement of science is, on itself, not right, I just realise that, as a human, I think I'm more important then a dozen mice, 5 pigs and 12 rabbits.
I'm not convinced my life is more worth then another sentient being, however. But such a thing is impossible to define by rationalisation, if you don't agree to the premise. Many would argue, that they do not care, and that they are more important then any number of chimps or dolphins. Many would even say (and have said in the past) that they are more important then other people, even.
So, how do you think a chimera would do, that is half human, and half animal? Knowing human nature, I think not very well. If we do not set laws to limit this kind of research, then sooner or later, we'll be killing and experimenting on beings that maybe arne't strictly human, but aren't really animals neither. Do I think this is an ethical issue, based on rationale? Yes. And these mouse might be the first step.
And I can't remember science ever to have taken a step back, unless the law obliges them (and even then).
"So what you are saying is that it's a matter of terminology. I hate to point out the obvious, but somebody who isn't entirely fluent in English can't really participate properly in such an argument (with people speaking English of course; feel free to have the argument with people speaking your native language)."
I beg to differ. First of all, it's not simply a matter of terminology; even when one would say it in the most beautiful language and be entirely fluent, it still wouldn't change the fact that it is arbitrarly. NOT the word or concept 'human' is arbitrarly, but the ethical view one has is.
Secondly, even if you were right I would disagree; in my opinion, it is sufficient that someone understands what is meant, whether or not someone is 'entirely fluent' or not. But in any case, I wasn't talking about semantics.
"This is my precise point. Whether something is human or not raises no ethical issues at all. Whether something is a person or not raises plenty of ethical questions. But when you don't speak English very well, I have no way of knowing whether you'll understand the difference."
As I said, my point was NOT whether the concept of a human could be deemed differently, but rather that the ethical viewpoint one has can not be shown to be wrong or right, nor even 'rational' or 'valid'. You exchange the word human for person, but that doesn't solve anything, really. One could still argument a mentally handicapt is not a person, or a baby is not a person, because (for instance) it can not produce a coherent thought. thus, following this reasoning, one could ethically be allowed to experiment on handicapts and babies...something few will agree too, including those that claim there is no ethical concern, because they are being rational about it.
Despite some claims to the contrary, I'm rather inclined to think I'm being rational about it too, yet it does not mean I think those proclaiming there are no ethical problems are right. As one can see, the reasonings so far, when consitently applied, would lead to something that many would consider to be unethical, even to those that started the reasoning.
"Let me play devil's advocate here, and ask: Why shouldn't that line be crossed?
If we could give dogs the brains of humans (uplift-them, David Brin style[1]), why shouldn't we? "
If we could create human bodies with the brains of a dog, why shouldn't we? If we could throw in a few ape-genes and call a human an animal (or put a bunch of human genes in apes), and keep them as slaves, why shouldn't we?
If we can experiment on handicapt persons and jews, why shouldn't we?
The nazi's (hmm...isn't this invoking some law?;-) thought they should be able too, and they did it.
Your point completely surpasses the ethical question, which was the whole issue in the first place. You begin with shouldn't, and argument with can't. The answer is; if you can, you can, but whether you should is a question of opinion, and opinion is based on morals. You can not argument an ethical vision as being a rational conclusion, unless you start with the same premise and then use rational reasonings all the way. There is no way that you can conclude your ethial viewpoint is the only valid one, not even the only rational one.
As history has proven, the "can't" is only limited by the power one has, and the "shouldn't" by morailty. You can't (or at least shouldn't;-) derive one from the other and vice versa.
But I could also return the question: if it's not wrong to kill a mouse with a nominally human brain, why then should a human body with the same nominally human brain not be killed or experimented on?
And if it is not wrong, why wait untill we have created them in a lab? We already have severely mentally handicapt people (missing the complete front lobes, for instance, which makes them vegetate, let alone show mental activity as some animals can)...we could use them right now!
I agree that consistency is extremely important, also (and maybe even more) in ethical issues, but one should be careful which premise one starts with.
Slashdot Mirror
"Hmm...you don;t believe in reading much do you?"
;-)
It depends: does it actually exist? And is is catholic/christian sound?
Actually I'm afraid you read to much in it; it was only a post meant to be modded 'funny'.
I was actually alluding to the Simpson episode where Lisa sells Homer a stone that 'keeps away tigers' and even though Lisa explains the obvious logical fallacy ('you don't see any tigers around, do you?'), homer buys the stone anyway.
halo, do you know what (or where to find) the options are of the parliament if it ever get passed the counsel? I know it can reject it, but can it also force it to become a first reading, again?
I seem to remember reading about those options, but I forgot where exactly.
"Since they appearantly believe they are finished discussing this, forcing them to discuss it again among themselves is hardly going to achieve anything."
I'm not entirely sure about that. As Polen has demonstrated, not all countries agree with it any longer (see also Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany, which have been under parliamentary scrutiny, the fact that the % of vote-power changed because of the enlargement, etc.) It leaves little doubt that, if it were to be discussed and voted again by the counsel, it would not gain a majority any more. Thus, amendments would have a greater chance of being incorporated.
Ofcourse, restarting the whole proces is an option too...I think. I'm not sure; what ARE the options of the EU parliament again? I know they can get a 'compromise' with the commission, but this seems unfruitful; the amendments made by the parliament were already minimal. If they get watered down any more by a 'compromise', it will just such anyway. and it's uncertain if we would get the 2/3 majority on such a thing.
Better chances we have by outright refusing the proposal, or indeed, if that's possible, to restart the proposal (which they should do now, thnks to JURI, but aparently, the commision and counsel is bound on ignoring it).
Anyway, seen that even McCarthy voted for a restart in the JURI, even when it was her own proposal, makes me optimistic that we can receive a 2/3 majority to revoke or restart the process, possibly make some assesment studies in between, etc. So, even when it would pass in the counsel, I doubt it will pass for the second reading in the EU parliament.
The question rather is, if it comes that far, what should the position of our no-swp lobby go for?
Compromise? (seems very dubious)
Reject? (safe for 2 years, further assesment possible, more awareness of the problem by then)
Restart? (has the potential advantage of making a law that actually forbids swp, instead of leaving it ambiguous)
Hmm..I'm a bit puzzled. You seem to convey one thing, but give examples that strengthen the oposite.
Revolutions are unfair, which is shown by the fact Hitler got elected?
Wouldn't that rather point to the fact that revolutions may be necessary, even in a democarcy?
Don't take me wrong; I think think democracy is one of the best systems we have... but it's still a pretty crappy system. It could be made better, ofcourse, and in that respect I take some old ideas of Plato and the lot, who argued for the 'perfect state' - not that I believe there is such a thing. (An oligarchy of 'wise men' (in current times that would be the necessary education/degrees) comes to mind, but then as premise to get elected, for instance).
Anyway, the fallacy you make, is to assume that the current democratic systems are so good, that revolutions become 'unfair' and 'useless'. And all that because you could convince a 'majority' of people. As your own examples demonstrate, this is a dubious reasoning.
Say, hypothetically, you have a country where two ethnic groups that can't stand eachother live together, and one (A) make out 51% and the other (B) 49% of the populace.
A wins and decides to get rid of group B. Now, democratically speaking, this is all very correct...but would it be fair? And if it isn't, wouldn't it be fair for group B to revolt?
Me thinks: yes.
So, in essence, there might be situations where, even within a democracy, a revolution is neither unfair nor useless.
Why, I...never...!...hmpf...
Are you insinuating you found some level of irony in my former post!?
Maybe I *am* a religious bigot, you potentially unsensitive clod!!
It wouldn't be bad to send (or give out, at the demonstration) a letter or something, shortly but strongly summarising the objections raised to the current proposal, and the reason (and request) to remove it from any future agenda, or make it a B-topic.
:-)
;-)
Ofcourse, this would involve knowing the adresses of all the ministers (of the counsel) involved, or at least trying to hand it over to them as they enter the building.
But it might be a neat idea that could be worthwhile. Ofcourse, someone has to do it, and that someone is you, halo1!!
Maybe I'll see you at the meeting (although the timing sucks a bit for me on that day).
If you don't have much faith in all these yummy healthy vegetables, I have another option for you, without any fallacy present as far as I can see:
It just so happens, that I have a (magical) stone with me, that keeps away any form of cancer. The proof? I have had that stone for years, and during those years I have not had one cancer, no sirree!
I'm willing to sell you that stone for a meager 1000 bucks! What do you say? I'll even throw in some drops of holy water for free, taken from good christian holy sources, where it has been proven without any doubt, by overwhelming anecdotal evidence, that wonders have occured.
You are fully right to dismiss science! The only way to come to the truth is sound christian/catholic reasoning coppled with a strong belief that something actually exists! Myriads of people have shown this, so it must be true.
Away with science and its logical fallacies!!
"How come when Europe does something, people claim that's it's a great European accomplishment and everyone salutes them."
;-)
Because they are sympathetic and the underdog (not neccesarely in that order).
"However when the USA does something and people claim it's a great American accomplishment, people get offended and feel the need to knock NASA?"
That's because, mostly, it's not 'people' in general claiming that, but rather americans claiming it of their own; an opinion not shared by many.
"It's almost as if the political climate on this forum supports the recognition of someone's feats only if they're considered an underdog?"
Your point being? If you want recognition that much, and if your theory is right, the only thing nasa/usa has to do is become the underdog.
"Most of Europe has proven this. And America is supposed to be better, right?"
;-)
Not according to most europeans.
When you talk about the joe-doe-in-the-street, you are probably right; he probably doesn't know anythingt about it. It was totally new to my less-tech-savvy friends too.
;-)
But then again, one could say that in general: seldom a political issue generates a truelly 'huge' public concern, not even when it's about jobs or taxes.
The fact that it generated as much concern for such a topic, is really astounding nevertheless.
And, I must say, if you read slashdot daily, and you still managed to miss the EU-patents issue, I would suggest buying some glasses.
I have always thought a solution (at least a better democratic one) would be to abolish the powers that the counsel of ministers and the EU commision has, and divide that power between the EU parliament and a directly elected EU president.
Ofcourse, since all sovereign countries will need to agree with new EU laws/directives, it seems higly unlikely that the counsel of ministers will ever be totally dismissed. A bit more realistic and feasable though, would be to limit the power of that counsel somewhat, and to transform the EU commision into a real EU government, with an elected president (for periods of 5 years, for instance) at the top (and not an unelected bureaucrat as chairman for 6 months, like it is now).
The problem is that patents, and especially sw-patents do NOT encourage innovation and just enable you (?) and especially megacorps with huge portfolios to profit from it. That's wrong with it.
An influential European Parliamentary committee voted yesterday to ask the Commission to send the proposed Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions back to Parliament for a first reading.
Simon Gentry, founder of the pro-patent Campaign for Creativity, wrote a letter to his supporters today: "The assault on patents - based on a deliberate distortion of the facts - has, in effect, won."
Gentry added that he is considering winding up the lobbying group. "Set against the apparently limitless resources - both human and financial - of the anti-patent lobby, the cause seems lost."
The current draft has changed radically since the Parliament first considered it, while the membership of the Parliament and the European Union itself has also altered. These are reasons for a restart, say many MEPs.
The draft Directive, often known as the Software Patents Directive, has been on the verge of approval by the Council of Ministers since May, when European Trade Ministers rejected amendments made to the draft by the European Parliament. Some MEPs expressed fears that the wording of the Directive risks bringing to Europe the more liberal regime of software and business method patenting that exists in the US.
Progress on the draft Directive then stalled, as political manoeuvring kept the proposals off the Council agenda, where it was due to be included as an "A" item, being one that is voted through without discussion.
The Polish Government has been influential in delaying the vote, taking advantage of new voting weights that came into force on 1st November. Denmark also appears to have disrupted progress of the draft in the run up to its Parliamentary elections on 8th February.
Once successfully rubber-stamped, the Directive is due to be sent back to the European Parliament for a second reading. But some MEPs argued that the legislative progress should be restarted instead, allowing the enlarged Parliament to give full consideration to the issues, instead of rushing it through in the three-month timescale that a second reading allows.
The issue came to a head yesterday in a meeting of the Parliament's legal affairs committee (JURI).
In what has been described as a heated debate, Charlie McCreevy, European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, explained that the Council of Ministers had now reached consensus and that the draft was due to be re-instated as an A point at a forthcoming Council meeting.
Committee members reacted to the news by voting by 19 votes to two in support of a motion to ask the Commission to send the proposals back to the Parliament for a first reading, effectively restarting the process.
The Commission does not have to comply with the request. It may instead continue with the existing process, in the knowledge that once the Directive is put to the Parliament for a second reading, consensus is unlikely to be achieved.
According to UK Labour MEP Arlene McCarthy, it is more likely that the whole process will now be delayed for up to six months, in order to assess the impact of the legislation. "Under the circumstances this is the best solution," she said.
Austrian JURI member Eva Lichtenberger said: "The Legal Affairs Committee's initiative is a good beginning, but does not yet offer a happy ending to the software patents story."
She added: "Today's courageous decision introduces the possibility of a better solution. I am very happy that we now have an opportunity to prevent software patenting and to obtain a better directive that will benefit the whole of the industry. We may now be able to stop market giants - aided by an American-style patenting law - from forcing innovators and SMEs out of the market."
But Simon Gentry of the Campaign for Creativity believes that the Committee vote "will open the way to a deluge of anti-IP amendments that will probably result in the final stripping away of IP protection for the IT sector."
He continued: "At the very least we
I (and I doubt I'm the only one) wouldn't mind a strong and united europe - if only to provide some counterbalance to the USA - provided their remains reasonable sovereignity in matters of culture and such, and provided that we have directly elected representatives with real power, also on the law-making.
I would have little problem with a EU government if the power of the counsel of ministers and that of the commision was abolished and given to the parliament and a directly chosen EU president instead. As it is now, I do not like it one bit: the current EU parliament has little real power and neither the counsel or the commision/bureaucrats drafting the directives are directly chosen into the postions they hold. It stinks.
"And a unified European government is not a bad thing (I want one), but software patents are."
I agree, but on the condition that that government is directly chosen by the people. Personally, I am all for dividing the power that the commision and the counsel of ministers has between the EU parliament and a directly chosen EU president.
As it is now; a pretty weak EU parliament and a pretty strong elitist group of bureaucrats that weren't voted into the position they have: - no, thanks. If the EU doesn't become more democratic, I'd rather have my more 'local' sovereign parliament and governement. I'd rather live in a small and unsignificant but democratic country without the EU-meddling then in a powerful yet undemocratic supra-national entity.
there used to be a strong movement towards more democratic influence in the EU; I wonder what happend to it? Nowadays, it seems the bureaucrats think THEY can decide for the people, yet, they have never gotten any mandate from us and they also don't have to live with any repercusions that politicians - at least to some degree - have to recon with. Even today I'm still baffled that laws (even though they are called 'directives') are made by non-elected people, while those laws effects millions of EU citizens.
Which is why, (aside of all other arguments,) even purely economically speaking, it doesn't make sense to allow swp in the EU.
Currently, SME's in europe can sue companies in the USA for swp infringements, but the USA companies can't do the same. While swp is on itself a bad idea, at least it is an additional and obvious reason for EU politicians why they shouldn't allow it in the EU.
Ah well...using a steel brush wold be nice too!
:-)
As long as you understand what I meant to say I'm happy.
"I hope I am not goring any holy cows, but mice as well as other animals are self aware, they deal with changes in the environment and learn."
Hmm...well, it is possible I'm using the wrong terminology, being non-native english...but I don't think so.
What you describe is awareness: they live and learn, and are aware of their surroundings. It does not follow they are self-aware, however. (The question how much apes (such as chimps) and dolphins are self-aware is still open, but as far as I know, they are the only group of animals - aside humans - who, for instance, recognise themselves in a mirror, as far as I know).
Ofcourse, as said before, babies are not fully self-aware neither, but at least they have the potential to become so. Mice not, normally. Chimera mice (or other animals) might, however; which is another reason why I think there are ethical concerns with these kinds of experiments.
Ethics deal with morals, and morals deal with good and bad. I agree that good and bad (and thus morals and ethics) are higly subjective and diverse, and change from one society to another, and one timeframe to another.
Yet, that there iveriable ARE things that are considered good and bad is a fact. There has not been one society in the history of humankind that didn't not have ethics, and a sense of what is good or bad (on itself). So, though it may vary, it is there.
Now, what you say comes down to areeing to a premise, as I've said before. Since I think it is (currently, in most societies) considered 'wrong' to experiment on humans, in using rationale, one could (or should) see that there are ethical problems when you are creating creatures that become increasingly human.
He didn't offer an insightful alternative, he used specious reasoning.
1)Who claimed that *because* he was using Lynx, he wasn't hacking?
2)Where did he get the impression there was any causal relationship between the two?
The argument is ludicrous. If a guy says he was arrested because he weared a leather jacket when entering a bank, one could say: wearing a leather jacket does not mean he wasn't going to rob a bank. Well...DUH. WHATEVER you legally do, it does not mean you can't do something illegal too...how exactly is this insightful?
"I think regular mankind (myself included) likes to fear the possibilities of global disasters caused by science."
I agree completely. I do not like, nor do I believe, any doom-scenario's that predict that, because of science, we will all perish or society will crumble.
The lone scientist that is capable of such a thing, may be found in genetically engineering some virus, but apart from that theorethic possibility, I really don't see it happening in any other way. Groups are far more dangerous, in that regard. And I'm an optimist in the sense that I think whatever mess we will get in, it will be thanks to science that we will get out of it too.
That said, I wasn't talking about any doomsday frankenstein-vision, I was merely talking about the ethics of science and scientists. And I am sure you can think of more then one example where scientists have been unethical. In fact, it's rampant, as it is with any group of people. after all, it's not science that is weak, but the scientists themselves, being human, they fall prey to the weakness that all humans know: profit, social or corporate pressure, bias, ideology, status among peers, ego, etc. Unethical behaviour is not unknown to scientists.
and, while I applaud to ever-continuing search for scientific progress, it is also not unheard of that many scientists will go further and further for the pursuit of knowledge, not fully aware of the consequences of their actions. I'm glad you mentionned the A-bom: it's a prime example of that. Many scientists, afterwarss, felt horrorified by the use of their creation, yet, shouldn't they have been aware of the very predictable use of it by the military?
It's the old question of whether a scientist is responsible for the use of his creation. Some would say no, but I think that's just taking the easy way out. If you could forsee the use of your creation, and didn't want it to be used that way, yet you did nothing to prevent or at least minimise the negative aspects of it...then, in my book, yes, you are, at least partly responsable. One can't shove of one's responsability so easily buy saying 'they (the military, etc.) did it, not me!'. That's like the Church in the 15th century saying "It's not we that burn the withches, it's the secular magistrate!", after they sentenced someone to be burned alive. I think it's rather hypocrite. You create something; you are responsable for what happens to that creation, and what *it* does to people and society. The fact that others use it in ways you did not wish, does not absolve you completely from any responsability, me thinks.
Anyway, I disgress. While doomsdayscenarios may be bullocks, unethical behaviour is not, and this type of chimera-research defnitaly has ethical issues on it, and those that claim it doesn't are talking crap or only from a limited personal viewpoint. Sure, you can find chimeras to be no ethical issue, but history has proven more then once that even humans can be a non-issue. If you allow human/animal mixing, sooner or later the question has to be asked what or whome it is, exacly, that scientists are experimenting on. I'd rather ask it sooner then later. And I'd rather have laws prohibiting unethical experiments beforhand then after they have occured.
Well, no sweat; during the history of slashdot, I probably have not read hundreds if not thousands of posts :-)
If you want to read more of a particular person, you can klick on his name and then on the posts he made, however. (Just saying because you seem to indicate you're new and may not know this).
"Sure, I can think of examples of immoral science. Nazi experiments on people in concentration camps, for one (Godwin forgive me). But there is nothing unethical with what those scientists in China did, nor in Minnesota, nor what the Stanford scinetists propose to do."
Well, my point is, that that is YOUR opinion. You can not scientifically and in an objective manner demonstarte that your ethical viepoint is the correct one, not even the only rational one. Which was my point. I *do* see ethical problems when you experiment with human brainscells and mixing animal/humans in a way that could involve brainprocesses.
As you said; you object to experiments on people... but what constitutes "people"? Clearly, as the nazi's have shown, that's rather arbitrary. If scientists create something that is 49% human and 51% animal, is it to be considered an animal, which can be experimented on? Or a human?
Or, ultimately, does it revolves around being able to produce coherent thoughts? but then, shouldn't scientists be able to experiment on babies too? After all, they are not capable of coherent thought.
You see, the question is rather complex, and I don't like claims of having a rational reasoning by people that, when their reasoning is followed consistently, do not agree where their own reasoning leads to.
I, for one, think that all experiments that could lead to human-like thought should be forbidden. And possibly, the experiments with the mice might fall under that (the example of human blood in a pig doesn't, however). I mean, I dunno..and actually, neither do the scientists. Imagine, just imagine, that those mice with 100% human braincells develop a neural network that gives them a sense of self-awareness...what do those scientists kill by the dozens, then? Is it simply mice? They might think the chance of that happening is minute, but the truth and the fact is, they don't really care that much.
After all, biologists routinely use apes, of which we now they have a sense of self-awareness, and still they are merily used to experiment on. I must agree with the greens and tree-huggers on that one: I think chimps and the lot should not be used. I do not agree with them that all animal research should be abondoned (unless it can be done without it too, ofcourse). but I'm not saying even *that* is ethical right, I think killing even lower animals for the advancement of science is, on itself, not right, I just realise that, as a human, I think I'm more important then a dozen mice, 5 pigs and 12 rabbits.
I'm not convinced my life is more worth then another sentient being, however. But such a thing is impossible to define by rationalisation, if you don't agree to the premise. Many would argue, that they do not care, and that they are more important then any number of chimps or dolphins. Many would even say (and have said in the past) that they are more important then other people, even.
So, how do you think a chimera would do, that is half human, and half animal? Knowing human nature, I think not very well. If we do not set laws to limit this kind of research, then sooner or later, we'll be killing and experimenting on beings that maybe arne't strictly human, but aren't really animals neither. Do I think this is an ethical issue, based on rationale? Yes. And these mouse might be the first step.
And I can't remember science ever to have taken a step back, unless the law obliges them (and even then).
"So what you are saying is that it's a matter of terminology. I hate to point out the obvious, but somebody who isn't entirely fluent in English can't really participate properly in such an argument (with people speaking English of course; feel free to have the argument with people speaking your native language)."
I beg to differ. First of all, it's not simply a matter of terminology; even when one would say it in the most beautiful language and be entirely fluent, it still wouldn't change the fact that it is arbitrarly. NOT the word or concept 'human' is arbitrarly, but the ethical view one has is.
Secondly, even if you were right I would disagree; in my opinion, it is sufficient that someone understands what is meant, whether or not someone is 'entirely fluent' or not. But in any case, I wasn't talking about semantics.
"This is my precise point. Whether something is human or not raises no ethical issues at all. Whether something is a person or not raises plenty of ethical questions. But when you don't speak English very well, I have no way of knowing whether you'll understand the difference."
As I said, my point was NOT whether the concept of a human could be deemed differently, but rather that the ethical viewpoint one has can not be shown to be wrong or right, nor even 'rational' or 'valid'. You exchange the word human for person, but that doesn't solve anything, really. One could still argument a mentally handicapt is not a person, or a baby is not a person, because (for instance) it can not produce a coherent thought. thus, following this reasoning, one could ethically be allowed to experiment on handicapts and babies...something few will agree too, including those that claim there is no ethical concern, because they are being rational about it.
Despite some claims to the contrary, I'm rather inclined to think I'm being rational about it too, yet it does not mean I think those proclaiming there are no ethical problems are right. As one can see, the reasonings so far, when consitently applied, would lead to something that many would consider to be unethical, even to those that started the reasoning.
"Let me play devil's advocate here, and ask: Why shouldn't that line be crossed?
;-) thought they should be able too, and they did it.
;-) derive one from the other and vice versa.
If we could give dogs the brains of humans (uplift-them, David Brin style[1]), why shouldn't we? "
If we could create human bodies with the brains of a dog, why shouldn't we? If we could throw in a few ape-genes and call a human an animal (or put a bunch of human genes in apes), and keep them as slaves, why shouldn't we?
If we can experiment on handicapt persons and jews, why shouldn't we?
The nazi's (hmm...isn't this invoking some law?
Your point completely surpasses the ethical question, which was the whole issue in the first place. You begin with shouldn't, and argument with can't. The answer is; if you can, you can, but whether you should is a question of opinion, and opinion is based on morals. You can not argument an ethical vision as being a rational conclusion, unless you start with the same premise and then use rational reasonings all the way. There is no way that you can conclude your ethial viewpoint is the only valid one, not even the only rational one.
As history has proven, the "can't" is only limited by the power one has, and the "shouldn't" by morailty. You can't (or at least shouldn't
But I could also return the question: if it's not wrong to kill a mouse with a nominally human brain, why then should a human body with the same nominally human brain not be killed or experimented on?
And if it is not wrong, why wait untill we have created them in a lab? We already have severely mentally handicapt people (missing the complete front lobes, for instance, which makes them vegetate, let alone show mental activity as some animals can)...we could use them right now!
I agree that consistency is extremely important, also (and maybe even more) in ethical issues, but one should be careful which premise one starts with.