"Why? A mouse with a brain that is genetically human is hardly making a mouse that has a human brain."
And a human with a brain that is genetically that of a mouse, is hardly making a mouse that has a human brain neither. I mean, think of the possibilities! If one would be able to create complete bodies, but with no human brain, you can't call them humans, right? And imagine the harvesting of organs that could be done! We could use spare parts like changing parts on a car, and live twice as long in good health!
In fact, maybe we don't have to wait for mouse brains: you could use ape-brains, or just genetically manipulate the bodies so they don't produce the (front)lobes that produce higher thought. In fact, we have human bodies even now, that are exactly like that, in mental institutions! Why wait any longer; let's engineer and clone a multi-usable 'crawler' and use that creature for spare parts! It would make any man or corporation rich beyond their dreams - and you help thousands of (paying) customers at the same time, so it can't be bad!
And hey, if some ethic commision would protest, throw in some animal genes and claim it's an animal now, and all your probs are gone. Nothing should stand in the way of scientific progress and corporate profit (though not necessary in that order)!!
"That's because there are a number of people on slashdot that don't really understand science or its underpinnings."
Or, maybe, they do understand, but they do not agree?
As I have said before, I dislike this kind of 'if you're not for science, you're against it' mentality. It sounds Bushy to me. I have made several posts in this thread why I still think there are ethical issues, and that some of this (chimera) research should be forbidden. It has *nothing* to do with being anti-science or being non-rational. In fact, you would be hardpressed to find a regular reply/poster to me that would claim I'm not a staunch fan of using rational and logic reasoning. Ask Halo1 if you have any doubts;-).
Yet, I do not agree with a laissez-faire viewpoint, just because it advances science, for the reasons I mentionned in my other posts. I find it hugely disturbing that anyone that opposes some form(s) of scientific research would be deemed irrational, just because he does so. Since when did scientific progress became the new dogmatic principle? *That* is quite unscientific, actually.
" Sure, they can plug a CPU into a motherboard, install a service pack, perhaps even a linux distro. But they're incapable of critical thought (especially reflective critical thought, but that's another story), and have difficulty applying reason or logic."
What I said above: your conclusion (or at least insinuatuion) that because someone is not for it, he is incapable of critical thought and has difficulty applying reason or logic, is premature at best, and flawed at worst. It is just because I think in a critical and rational way (and consistent), that I DO see (ethical) problems, and that I DO think some forms of research should be forbidden.
"Engineers with rigorous formal training are usually the first to admit that they are not scientists. Engineers with sloppy minds and little formal training think they know it all, or think that what they know in one area is easily transfered to another completely different area."
Because, if you put a blastocell in it's natural ideal conditions (womb, and all that), it grows out (or can grow out) into a baby, and when you you place an adult-derived stemcell in it's natural ideal condictions, it doesn't (and can't)?
My point was, one CAN argument it both ways, and it really is arbitrary. The parent poster thinks he has an overriding (ratioanl) viewpoint, but he hasn't. Being rational or not has nothing to do with it; it's a matter of premise. One can argument, completely rationally, that severely mentally handicapt people should not be considered fully human, for instance.
Feel free to demonstarte I'm wrong, and that the ethical question of when you consider something human as being human is not arbitrary, but can be demonstrated in an objective, scientific manner.
heh...well, despite being a slashdotter (in some sense, at least), I'm actually pro-tech. And yet, I do think there are ethical issues here. A voice of reason is all very well, and I think a lot of people lack that, but it doesn't mean you have to agree with everything that science does. Science, after all, is done by scientists, and scientists are only humans too. Being inhumane is part of the human nature (even though it sounds contradictory).
I hate it likewise, that anyone argumenting against some scientific development or research is portrayed as being 'anti-tech', or some sort of zealot. I, for instance, I'm very much pro science, more so then the joe doe on the street, I believe. I'm neither a green animal/tree-hugger nor a christian catholic (well, exept by birth, but I hadn't anything of a say in that). I consider myself to be an agnostic.
Yet, I do think that some experiments where there is a melting of humans and animals should be severely controlled, restricted, and in some cases, forbidden, indeed. This has a very clear (and rational, btw) reason: if you start with the premise that humans can't be experimented on (because it is unethical), not even to advance science, then the melting of animals and humans obviously cause problems. Namely, when does it remain animal, and when does it become human?
Where ever one draws the line, it is clear that there is such a line, and it is also clear that that line is fully arbitrary. I would say that any chimera experiments might produce something that could be considered, at least partly, human. And are we going to allow human experiments, even if they have animal genes in them? I would say no.
Then again, we already experiment on human embryos as well, so clearly the line IS arbitrary. However, rest assured I consider that ethical burdersome too, and I think if one wants to stay consistent, one should forbid that too.
Consistency is a nice thing.;-)
I do not develop my view out of a zealot-green or catholic beliefsystem, but rather on a basic premise and rational thinking. Somehow, this seems implausable to other people proclaiming to be progressive or scientifically minded (which I consider myself to belong too). Progress is good, but not to all costs, and I do think sometimes the price can be too high. And let's face it, in reality, in science, there is often more then one way to get the same useful data. The matter of fact is, scientists, being human, often do unethical things (sometimes downright illegal things) to cut corners or because it is more easy, not because it's the only way in the universe to proceed and progress.
"Might as well start arguing that a blastocyst is fully human. OK, if THAT is fully human, then why is an adult-derived stem cell not?"
Because an adult-derived stemcell on itself can't grow into a baby? Ah yes, but maybe you don't consider it as 'fully'? After all, one could also argument that an 22 weeks old embryo isn't 'fully human', or a 9 months old one, or even a baby for that matter.
The fact is, the line you draw between 'fully human' or 'partly human' or 'not human' (especially now with the chimeras) is completely arbitrary. So yes, it could be argumented that a blastocyst is human. As for the 'fully'...well, why should it be fully? And what is to considered fully? Physically, only adults are fully developed humans, and mentaly, one could argue that mentally handicapt people aren't 'fully' humans; a concept the Nazi's had agreed on, for instance.
The problem with 'fully human' is that it is decided by another human, and one can wonder if that one is fully human in the first place.
For me, it's enough that it is human, to raise ethical questions. It doesn't have to be 'fully', because then I ask myself the question who's going to decide whether it is or not, and why their view on things would be more right then that of mine. Since it's completely arbitrary, I don't think this can be done.
I tought the oposite was rather true. I mean, for what else do we have the anti-suicide phoneline (TM)?
I think the real danger is rather a lack of communication with other humans. Ofcourse, that communication should be helpful, so slashdot may not qualify, but all by all, I think having communications with the outside world is better then being (or feeling) totally alone, for a suicider.
I see another Morrowind-adept has reached the shores of slashdot.;-)
And thus the darkelf pondered: "Time to put my ebony helm on and go to Balmora (I hate Vivec; it's a confusing maze of sewers). I only wished there were some more additional quests [plugins] now that I have a high level. It becomes too easy, these days. The last one given me any trouble was the Lich at FireMoth."
This is actually NOT a good thing. If people or organisations have to request an additional special exemption to be allowed to bypass artificial restrictions, where will it end? We are already legally bestowed with the right of exemptions, yet is the the fault of RIAA&co we can't make use of those rights anymore!
In fact, in many countries, those restrictions may be downright illegal, which is why it is so puzzling the EU directive seems to endorse it by making it a criminal offence, no less!
Why is that, you ask? Well, in most european countries, you pay a tax on blank carriers (including CD-r/w) because it compensates for the right to take a personal copy of digital media (which, in case of film or music, IS allowed to be viewed by family/friends, whatever the RIAA says. Now, clearly, by allowing and even endorsing 'protection measures' and making it a criminal offense, you effectively prohibit that people can make use of their right of making a copy.
So, at one hand, there is a law that says you are not allowed to do crack something (not even to be able to make a personal copy), and on the other hand, it is law that you have the right to make such a copy. There is a contradiction here, but one which is solvable: OR the RIAA&co create a system that allows you to make at least one personal copy (they have been sued by consumer-protection organistations in this regard), OR you get rid of the tax on blanc carriers.
Of course, the RIAA&co don't feel like doing either of both things: they want people to continue to pay, even if they can't make use of the right they are paying for anymore. why shouldn't that surprise us?
Hmm, well, though I don't like all the over-zealous femenist-crap some die-hard feminists are constantly drabbling about, I must say the other poster has a point.
When you use a sentence like 'feminists say' or 'fish are poisonous' you insinuate (at least) that all or most of them are. When people want to indicate that they mean 'some', they say so explicitly.
You see? I just said 'people', not 'some people'...why? Because it stands for 'most people'.:-)
After all semantics is a tricky thing. When you do somethiong stupid, and I say 'well, that's smart!', then technically, the only thing I actually said was that you are smart. The meaning however, is just the oposite, because it was meant to be ironic. So, though you are technically correct he didn't say 'all' or 'most', the meaning was implied (and is considered as such by 'most' people).;-)
"I assure you that she actually wants it in the bedroom"
Wants what? A beating?
j/k!!!
"That makes so much sense it makes me want to put a gun in my mouth."
Does it really take so little?;-)
I never realised slashdot was such a public danger to potential suiciders! There should be a warning-label at the top!
Btw, why did you want to post anonymously? Seems like you expressed an opinion, as is be expected on slasdot. In fact, I've seen far worse. Hmm...come to think of it, most of those were done by anonymous cowards, though.;-)
As long as one underscores that it is limited to some fields, that men have equal fields in which they are less good at, and that the diversity of genetically based skills does not mean women (or men) CAN NOT do it, nor that the difference between individuals are less then those between the sexes. Actually, the last one is my own hypothesis, but I'm willing to bet on it: the individual differences in capability between people will be greater, statisctically more significant, then those between the sexes as a whole.
Yet, it I do believe their are *some* differences to which one can say that it is gender-related. There have actual scientific studies that have indicated that already. Ofcourse, it does not mean the social surroundings and edcutional enverronment one has had is any less important then the slight advantage (in some areas) or disadvantage (in others), on the contrary.
Many of these claims of 'women can't do that' are clearly biased and sexist. Yet, it is also true there IS an observable difference, and it's not too farfetched to ponder about how much this is genetically induced. With sports, this becomes more obvious, and few will deny that...so why all that outrage if it's about a particular intellectual endeavour? For instance, take chess: wile there are very good female chessplayers, the best are all men. and the relative percentage of female-male chessplayers is about 1 to 5, at best, regardless of the country. Now, don't say chessclubs are sexist: they don't care one bit if their members are female or male, and it's not about making promotion or having ambition and all those other traits that often gets attributed with male attitude.
Chessclubs are open to everyone, and are happy with any member. Modern parents will not obstruct their daghters if they want to play chess, nor will they push their sons to do it (as one might with physical sports)....yet, quantitavily as well as qualitatively, women do not score all that good, as a whole, wompared to men, in this field. Am I a sexist for having observed this fact? I don't think so.
That's why there is so much crap nowadays. Most of the current 'pop-hits' is so lame it can rival with the 'bothers of the hood' rap.
It's so dull, colorless and less-the-original they increasingly have to start showing some boobs or ass (on MTV) to make it even remotely worth listening too. (you could turn of the sound, though:-)
I guess that's the reason why the RIAA keeps its prices sky-high too; they have to make so much effort in marketing to sell their crappy stuff, they can't reach their 85% profit-margin otherwise!;-)
It's always nice to see ppl wanting to learn more.
Anyway, there have been numerous posts in the past to it, but I don't know the links at heart. I do seem to remember the FFII has a page with links to sw-research, as does nosoftwarepatents.com, I think.
Happy reading!
Software patents and the Fine Line
on
MySQL CEO Interview
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
"There's a fine line that needs to be walked when it comes to software patents. Either extreme will stunt growth."
Indeed, and that fine line is: allowing them.
"On the one extreme[...]"
sw patents are hopelessly borked. You can not patch the process up to be sure you only have high quality true software-innovations, and the whole idea of it is flawed in the first place, because software is akin to writing recipes, and it should be governed by copyright, not patents. and thirdly, patents are monopolies given by the state, because it is supposed to stimulate further innovation: all neutral research thusfar has indicated that it doesn't do that, on the contrary.
"On the other extreme[...]"
No, it won't. You seem to ignore the fact that, when software started with it's boom, there WERE NO sw patents. In fact, it can be reasonably argumented that it was just because they didn't existed at the time, that software knew such a high flight. Time and money isn't spend to produce new sw technologies; it is increasingly diverted to the legal departement of the companies. Companies that are flexible and can adapt will survive just fine without sw patents, rest assured.
Maybe he does, and maybe he doesn't, but that's not the actual point. Even if he would turn out to be a greedy bastard who wanted to monopolise the entire industry (as MS does), the question remains if sw patents are a good idea or not.
Good isn't good for this or that corporation in the short term, but for society in the long term. After all, a patent is a monopoly given by the state, and the state is (supposed to do) what's good for their citizens. Ultimately, in a democracy, *we* define the state. So the question boils down to: is it a good thing for the populace as a whole?
As we all know, monopolies are never a good thing, and the only reason why it is given, is because it is supposed to stimulate further innovation. at least on sw patents enough studies have been done to indicate they don't do that at all, on the contrary.
Conclusion: it is NOT a good thing. (Even when a particular company might profit from it at a given time).
That is a rather limited view. Seen that research indicates that softwarepatents actually hinder innovation, one could as well say that it is, at the end, NOT a good things for the economy *as a whole*.
When you have less innovation, ultimately your products and your businesses get behind, which will lead to a far bigger economical deficit then some IP lawyer could ever make the economy 'recuperate'.
On an individual level and short-time period, level, you will have people benefitting and people losing out when sw patents are allowed (or not). On the long run and for the economy as a whole, you will lose out if you create or maintain software patents.
"Right or wrong, the famers entered into the contract knowingly. The company bypassed thousands, or tens of thousands of years of evolution by producing a genetically advanced form of crop. The farmer signed a contract. Farmer violated contract. Seems open and shut to me, Monsanto doesn't have a monopoly on the corn market."
I think what the parent poster wanted to say is, that signing a contract is not all-encompassing. A simple example to demonstrate this so you might understand: in my country, some shops claim you can not return your goods, once bought. It says so in the conditions when you buy it. According to your reasoning, since I bought a product of such a shop, I am bound by the rules of their contract. I should have gone to 'another' shop if I didn't like it, right?
Wrong. This is the american view on things, which the parent poster hinted at. Alas, it is not my viewpoint; I'm of the opinion I have rights too. And indeed, the clause that prohibits bringing your goods back (even without a reason) *IS* null and void (though not many people know this). So clearly, the fact they made the contract with that prohibition, and I 'agreed' to it by buying their product, does still not give them the right to do so. In your worldview, this must seem incomprehensible, in mine it's called basic consumer protection.
If the law didn't protect (even though it's often a weak protection) individual rights, including those of a consumer or user, we would soon all be dancing to the tunes of mega-corps. In europe we seem to realise that danger more then in the USA.
"Not really, the enhancements are what is being licensed by the contract."
That's nothing more then semantics. If Monsanto ever owned the patent of an 'enhanced' human, would you consider it fully in their right to consider their creations as property, and make restrictions on the propagation of said humans, even when parents that opted for these kids agreed to the contract?
Once again, as the parent poster said, you seem to ignore the question whether it is right, with the question of being technically lawfull. You seem to be a dude who accepts a law, because it is the law. I (and many other europeans) would rather accept a law because it is right (which is the main meaning of 'justice' after all).
Not that europeans are intrinsically all that noble or better, mind you. After all, during WW2 in nazi-germany, it was lawful to report and turn in (and discriminate) Jews too. Strictly spoken, one should follow the law, as you said. In any normal sense, however, one should spit on the Nazi's, as I spit on Monsanto.
And no, I'm not comparing Monsanto to the SS, but I am making the case that because something is technically spoken 'law', it isn't always right and it shouldn't always be followed. I do not subscribe to your premise that, because there is a contract, all the provisions in that contract outweigs all other considerations, even when a law says so.
"What the fuck does this have to do with being American? Troll."
Well, the parent poster might have been guilty of overgeneralisation, because I know you have some thoughtful and critical americans too, but he does have a point to some degree. Americans typically have the strange notion that everything, and I mean everything, should be regarded in the light of money and profit, and that the pursuit of personal enrichment outweighs every other consideration.
That this leads to a concentration of a few wealthy rich and a mass of extremely poor, that corporations have such strong lobbies they virtually make out the politics and that rights are being trampled on in the name of economy, seems not only to escape most americans, but even when noticed, it hardly leads to any protest. The majority of you lot seem to accept this as 'the way it is supposed to be'.
Europeans, however, have quite another picture of how the world should be. Not to say we don't have the same weaknesses of all humans, ofcourse. But still, their IS a difference
It DOES rival with "If you haven't signed a license, and seeds blow across the road, Monsanto can't sue you because you never signed a license." when Monsanto has done *exactly* that.
If, by some miraculous chance, you didn't notice it; numerous posts have already linked to the story in question. It still amazes me that people don't know the difference between patent-infringement and breach of contract. Especially slashdot readers should be aware of the differences, with SCO and all that. You don't need to have signed any contract or licence to get sued for patent-infringement, let this be clear.
Note further that I said 'only' and 'immediate profitable return'.
Your post seems to indicate you missed that, and therefor it is rather non-relevant as a response.
It is perfectly possible to claim - without having a contradiction - the fact that people do things for money (I do that too, after all), yet maintain the argument that it would be a sad thing, if immediate profit would be the only drive of people.
And actually, history, in those same past few hundreds years (and actually thousands before that), has shown us that there are, luckily (and sometimes regretable) a lot of other drives for people. One of the lastest and most well-known examples (at least on slashdot) of non-profit driven technology is Linux.:-)
Perhaps, but the figure of 100 000 000 is arbitrary chosen. With the same validity, one could say: ah, yes, but why not wait another 100 year, so 10 ppl don't have to starve for it? And then you go to 1 in a hundred, 1 in a thousand, etc.
Thus, as I said, it only depends on what you think it's worth it, when using that reasoning. At one moment, you'll have to decide: yes, it is worth it (or not). In that respect, I would claim spacetravel is far more worth it then spending hundreds of billions on the military. If they would slash half of that, with the finances that could be would become available, one could easily pay for space-exploration, better education and better housing, elevating the standard of living for 10000000 people and a hald dozen other things, at once.
Seems to me, however, people seem to accept that money-spending for developping better weapons, even when it is a lot less positive for the human race.
Ofcourse, I'm not pleading to 'go for it' right here and now. We need to walk before we can run, obviously, and robot exploration and scientific research certainly should develop further. But I can't imagine our knowledge of human space-exploration/colonisation will augment all that much if we solely send robots up. And 'cost', well...even the precursors of robosapien were exhorbitant expensive...yet, if they hadn't build it, and waited untill it would become dirtcheap, the question remains if we would have an affordable robosapien today.
No; profit is *one* of the drives of humans. And I'm all for stimulating that drive too, which is why I'm very happy about the succes of Spaceship1 and I hope Branson can pull it off to make an economical viable fleet of spaceplanes.
But your wrong to think it's the only drive. The men who climbed the Mont Everest didn't do it for profit, Jaque Costeau didn't reserch the seas for profit, CERN wasn't build for profit (and that costs billions too, btw).
Exploration on itself is a drive of the human race too, even if it's a pure academic form. The quest for scientific knowledge, just having fun, to gain more power, profit, honor (or social status); all these things drive people, and it would be wrong to generalise and think or claim only one thing drives people (or is it worth).
I'm attacking no one or nothing; you're entitled to your opinion, but it does not mean the reasoning used is sound.
"Science says absolutely nothing against this[..]"
Well, yes, that was one of my points; you can't scientifically disprove that God or the toothfairy didn't create the world just a second ago, with fossils and even our own memories of having lived for years included. Any other theory which is in such a way not falsifiable would be thrown into the bin, by scientists. Since you claim to be a scientist, you should do the same with your belief, yet you don't, which is why I claim their IS indeed a problem. The problem lies not in the personal arena, because ppl have a way of making it everything ok in their mind, whatever the reasoning used, but you do have a problem if you look at it in a scientific way, as a scientist would/should do.
It amazes me that as a scientist, you do not realise that any theory which is not falsifiable is basically worthless, at least in the scientific viewpoint.
Thus, though every person has the right to his belief, even when it's in santa claus, I still maintain that their is a contradiction between science and belief.
"The Catholic Churh has no problem with evolution assuming you allow that God created man, through evolution."
Actually, they had A LOT of problems with it. It's just that science progresses and has the upperhand (at least since the enlightenment) on what the bible or the pope dictates. Since the *scientific* view is widely accepted now, the church can't else then agree to it. Yet, even now, as the article demonstartes, you have ppl who actually believes what the Bible says, and they would consder themselves to be the true 'devaut' christian.
And in fact, they would be right. Strictly spoken, what they say is closer to what the bible says, and you could easily be called a heretic. I find modern christiaans are the worst of two worlds: they only take out of the bible what suits their own viewpoint, and disregard all the rest (for instance, like the fact that God, especially as described in the old testament, is one hack of a vengefull son of a bitch). Mostly it is done in a 'revision' of the bible, where the aspects that are obviously absurd or contradictory are remade into an allegoric sense, or revamed into something esotheric, that is impossible to prove. 'God created man, through evolution' is a prime example of that. Nonsense, for as long as one can remember, and to some degree even till today, the church has said that god created man, as described in the Bible, period. 'Evolution' is nowhere mentionned in the Bible.
So you see, you don't really follow the bible or what it really mans, but rather you use it like a self-service buffet: you use what you want, and the rest you denounce as being allegoric or 'tales'. Well, be consistent and acknowledge the possibility the whole Bible is a tale and allegoric, then.
It is simply not possible to respect the scientific viewpoint, and yet remain convinced of a tale, because no one can disprove the (parts of the) tale (you kept as belief). The true scientific respons has always been to adher theories to falsification; and if theories are inherently unprovable, then they are scientifically spoken worthless.
Now, it can well be that you and other people, on a psychological level, have a need to belief and maybe feel better and happier by it, but that's not the scientific viewpoint, but a personal one. That's why I said their is a problem if you want to be both. If you do that you are either not being scientific about it, or not a really devaut catholic (in the strict sense), and probably both.
"Strong argument in favor of religion is that science also cannot explain life itself"
Bullocks. Lightning didn't used to be explained by science neither, the same with earthquakes etc.: they all were frequently attributed to God in the past. If you're reasoning would make sense, then, indeed, it would have been a strong argument in favor of
Slashdot Mirror
"Why? A mouse with a brain that is genetically human is hardly making a mouse that has a human brain."
And a human with a brain that is genetically that of a mouse, is hardly making a mouse that has a human brain neither. I mean, think of the possibilities! If one would be able to create complete bodies, but with no human brain, you can't call them humans, right? And imagine the harvesting of organs that could be done! We could use spare parts like changing parts on a car, and live twice as long in good health!
In fact, maybe we don't have to wait for mouse brains: you could use ape-brains, or just genetically manipulate the bodies so they don't produce the (front)lobes that produce higher thought. In fact, we have human bodies even now, that are exactly like that, in mental institutions! Why wait any longer; let's engineer and clone a multi-usable 'crawler' and use that creature for spare parts! It would make any man or corporation rich beyond their dreams - and you help thousands of (paying) customers at the same time, so it can't be bad!
And hey, if some ethic commision would protest, throw in some animal genes and claim it's an animal now, and all your probs are gone. Nothing should stand in the way of scientific progress and corporate profit (though not necessary in that order)!!
"That's because there are a number of people on slashdot that don't really understand science or its underpinnings."
;-).
;-)
Or, maybe, they do understand, but they do not agree?
As I have said before, I dislike this kind of 'if you're not for science, you're against it' mentality. It sounds Bushy to me. I have made several posts in this thread why I still think there are ethical issues, and that some of this (chimera) research should be forbidden. It has *nothing* to do with being anti-science or being non-rational. In fact, you would be hardpressed to find a regular reply/poster to me that would claim I'm not a staunch fan of using rational and logic reasoning. Ask Halo1 if you have any doubts
Yet, I do not agree with a laissez-faire viewpoint, just because it advances science, for the reasons I mentionned in my other posts. I find it hugely disturbing that anyone that opposes some form(s) of scientific research would be deemed irrational, just because he does so. Since when did scientific progress became the new dogmatic principle? *That* is quite unscientific, actually.
" Sure, they can plug a CPU into a motherboard, install a service pack, perhaps even a linux distro. But they're incapable of critical thought (especially reflective critical thought, but that's another story), and have difficulty applying reason or logic."
What I said above: your conclusion (or at least insinuatuion) that because someone is not for it, he is incapable of critical thought and has difficulty applying reason or logic, is premature at best, and flawed at worst. It is just because I think in a critical and rational way (and consistent), that I DO see (ethical) problems, and that I DO think some forms of research should be forbidden.
"Engineers with rigorous formal training are usually the first to admit that they are not scientists. Engineers with sloppy minds and little formal training think they know it all, or think that what they know in one area is easily transfered to another completely different area."
I must confess I usually think I know it all.
Because, if you put a blastocell in it's natural ideal conditions (womb, and all that), it grows out (or can grow out) into a baby, and when you you place an adult-derived stemcell in it's natural ideal condictions, it doesn't (and can't)?
My point was, one CAN argument it both ways, and it really is arbitrary. The parent poster thinks he has an overriding (ratioanl) viewpoint, but he hasn't. Being rational or not has nothing to do with it; it's a matter of premise. One can argument, completely rationally, that severely mentally handicapt people should not be considered fully human, for instance.
Feel free to demonstarte I'm wrong, and that the ethical question of when you consider something human as being human is not arbitrary, but can be demonstrated in an objective, scientific manner.
heh...well, despite being a slashdotter (in some sense, at least), I'm actually pro-tech. And yet, I do think there are ethical issues here. A voice of reason is all very well, and I think a lot of people lack that, but it doesn't mean you have to agree with everything that science does. Science, after all, is done by scientists, and scientists are only humans too. Being inhumane is part of the human nature (even though it sounds contradictory).
;-)
I hate it likewise, that anyone argumenting against some scientific development or research is portrayed as being 'anti-tech', or some sort of zealot. I, for instance, I'm very much pro science, more so then the joe doe on the street, I believe. I'm neither a green animal/tree-hugger nor a christian catholic (well, exept by birth, but I hadn't anything of a say in that). I consider myself to be an agnostic.
Yet, I do think that some experiments where there is a melting of humans and animals should be severely controlled, restricted, and in some cases, forbidden, indeed. This has a very clear (and rational, btw) reason: if you start with the premise that humans can't be experimented on (because it is unethical), not even to advance science, then the melting of animals and humans obviously cause problems. Namely, when does it remain animal, and when does it become human?
Where ever one draws the line, it is clear that there is such a line, and it is also clear that that line is fully arbitrary. I would say that any chimera experiments might produce something that could be considered, at least partly, human. And are we going to allow human experiments, even if they have animal genes in them? I would say no.
Then again, we already experiment on human embryos as well, so clearly the line IS arbitrary. However, rest assured I consider that ethical burdersome too, and I think if one wants to stay consistent, one should forbid that too.
Consistency is a nice thing.
I do not develop my view out of a zealot-green or catholic beliefsystem, but rather on a basic premise and rational thinking. Somehow, this seems implausable to other people proclaiming to be progressive or scientifically minded (which I consider myself to belong too). Progress is good, but not to all costs, and I do think sometimes the price can be too high. And let's face it, in reality, in science, there is often more then one way to get the same useful data. The matter of fact is, scientists, being human, often do unethical things (sometimes downright illegal things) to cut corners or because it is more easy, not because it's the only way in the universe to proceed and progress.
"Might as well start arguing that a blastocyst is fully human. OK, if THAT is fully human, then why is an adult-derived stem cell not?"
Because an adult-derived stemcell on itself can't grow into a baby? Ah yes, but maybe you don't consider it as 'fully'? After all, one could also argument that an 22 weeks old embryo isn't 'fully human', or a 9 months old one, or even a baby for that matter.
The fact is, the line you draw between 'fully human' or 'partly human' or 'not human' (especially now with the chimeras) is completely arbitrary. So yes, it could be argumented that a blastocyst is human. As for the 'fully'...well, why should it be fully? And what is to considered fully? Physically, only adults are fully developed humans, and mentaly, one could argue that mentally handicapt people aren't 'fully' humans; a concept the Nazi's had agreed on, for instance.
The problem with 'fully human' is that it is decided by another human, and one can wonder if that one is fully human in the first place.
For me, it's enough that it is human, to raise ethical questions. It doesn't have to be 'fully', because then I ask myself the question who's going to decide whether it is or not, and why their view on things would be more right then that of mine. Since it's completely arbitrary, I don't think this can be done.
I tought the oposite was rather true. I mean, for what else do we have the anti-suicide phoneline (TM)?
I think the real danger is rather a lack of communication with other humans. Ofcourse, that communication should be helpful, so slashdot may not qualify, but all by all, I think having communications with the outside world is better then being (or feeling) totally alone, for a suicider.
Anyway, you make a strong case against circumcision. :-)
But then again, it can take a very long time for reason to supercede superstition and religious dogmas, as we all know.
Alas, I would say.
Maybe you've missed the earlier criticism regarding wikipedia (on slashdot)?
;-)
I fear it wasn't the best of choices to use the wikipedia as an example of scientific accuracy.
I see another Morrowind-adept has reached the shores of slashdot. ;-)
And thus the darkelf pondered:
"Time to put my ebony helm on and go to Balmora (I hate Vivec; it's a confusing maze of sewers). I only wished there were some more additional quests [plugins] now that I have a high level. It becomes too easy, these days. The last one given me any trouble was the Lich at FireMoth."
This is actually NOT a good thing. If people or organisations have to request an additional special exemption to be allowed to bypass artificial restrictions, where will it end? We are already legally bestowed with the right of exemptions, yet is the the fault of RIAA&co we can't make use of those rights anymore!
In fact, in many countries, those restrictions may be downright illegal, which is why it is so puzzling the EU directive seems to endorse it by making it a criminal offence, no less!
Why is that, you ask? Well, in most european countries, you pay a tax on blank carriers (including CD-r/w) because it compensates for the right to take a personal copy of digital media (which, in case of film or music, IS allowed to be viewed by family/friends, whatever the RIAA says. Now, clearly, by allowing and even endorsing 'protection measures' and making it a criminal offense, you effectively prohibit that people can make use of their right of making a copy.
So, at one hand, there is a law that says you are not allowed to do crack something (not even to be able to make a personal copy), and on the other hand, it is law that you have the right to make such a copy. There is a contradiction here, but one which is solvable: OR the RIAA&co create a system that allows you to make at least one personal copy (they have been sued by consumer-protection organistations in this regard), OR you get rid of the tax on blanc carriers.
Of course, the RIAA&co don't feel like doing either of both things: they want people to continue to pay, even if they can't make use of the right they are paying for anymore. why shouldn't that surprise us?
Hmm, well, though I don't like all the over-zealous femenist-crap some die-hard feminists are constantly drabbling about, I must say the other poster has a point.
:-)
;-)
When you use a sentence like 'feminists say' or 'fish are poisonous' you insinuate (at least) that all or most of them are. When people want to indicate that they mean 'some', they say so explicitly.
You see? I just said 'people', not 'some people'...why? Because it stands for 'most people'.
After all semantics is a tricky thing. When you do somethiong stupid, and I say 'well, that's smart!', then technically, the only thing I actually said was that you are smart. The meaning however, is just the oposite, because it was meant to be ironic. So, though you are technically correct he didn't say 'all' or 'most', the meaning was implied (and is considered as such by 'most' people).
"I assure you that she actually wants it in the bedroom"
;-)
;-)
Wants what? A beating?
j/k!!!
"That makes so much sense it makes me want to put a gun in my mouth."
Does it really take so little?
I never realised slashdot was such a public danger to potential suiciders! There should be a warning-label at the top!
Btw, why did you want to post anonymously? Seems like you expressed an opinion, as is be expected on slasdot. In fact, I've seen far worse. Hmm...come to think of it, most of those were done by anonymous cowards, though.
As long as one underscores that it is limited to some fields, that men have equal fields in which they are less good at, and that the diversity of genetically based skills does not mean women (or men) CAN NOT do it, nor that the difference between individuals are less then those between the sexes. Actually, the last one is my own hypothesis, but I'm willing to bet on it: the individual differences in capability between people will be greater, statisctically more significant, then those between the sexes as a whole.
Yet, it I do believe their are *some* differences to which one can say that it is gender-related. There have actual scientific studies that have indicated that already. Ofcourse, it does not mean the social surroundings and edcutional enverronment one has had is any less important then the slight advantage (in some areas) or disadvantage (in others), on the contrary.
Many of these claims of 'women can't do that' are clearly biased and sexist. Yet, it is also true there IS an observable difference, and it's not too farfetched to ponder about how much this is genetically induced. With sports, this becomes more obvious, and few will deny that...so why all that outrage if it's about a particular intellectual endeavour? For instance, take chess: wile there are very good female chessplayers, the best are all men. and the relative percentage of female-male chessplayers is about 1 to 5, at best, regardless of the country. Now, don't say chessclubs are sexist: they don't care one bit if their members are female or male, and it's not about making promotion or having ambition and all those other traits that often gets attributed with male attitude.
Chessclubs are open to everyone, and are happy with any member. Modern parents will not obstruct their daghters if they want to play chess, nor will they push their sons to do it (as one might with physical sports)....yet, quantitavily as well as qualitatively, women do not score all that good, as a whole, wompared to men, in this field. Am I a sexist for having observed this fact? I don't think so.
That's why there is so much crap nowadays. Most of the current 'pop-hits' is so lame it can rival with the 'bothers of the hood' rap.
:-)
;-)
It's so dull, colorless and less-the-original they increasingly have to start showing some boobs or ass (on MTV) to make it even remotely worth listening too. (you could turn of the sound, though
I guess that's the reason why the RIAA keeps its prices sky-high too; they have to make so much effort in marketing to sell their crappy stuff, they can't reach their 85% profit-margin otherwise!
It's always nice to see ppl wanting to learn more.
Anyway, there have been numerous posts in the past to it, but I don't know the links at heart. I do seem to remember the FFII has a page with links to sw-research, as does nosoftwarepatents.com, I think.
Happy reading!
"There's a fine line that needs to be walked when it comes to software patents. Either extreme will stunt growth."
Indeed, and that fine line is: allowing them.
"On the one extreme[...]"
sw patents are hopelessly borked. You can not patch the process up to be sure you only have high quality true software-innovations, and the whole idea of it is flawed in the first place, because software is akin to writing recipes, and it should be governed by copyright, not patents. and thirdly, patents are monopolies given by the state, because it is supposed to stimulate further innovation: all neutral research thusfar has indicated that it doesn't do that, on the contrary.
"On the other extreme[...]"
No, it won't. You seem to ignore the fact that, when software started with it's boom, there WERE NO sw patents. In fact, it can be reasonably argumented that it was just because they didn't existed at the time, that software knew such a high flight. Time and money isn't spend to produce new sw technologies; it is increasingly diverted to the legal departement of the companies. Companies that are flexible and can adapt will survive just fine without sw patents, rest assured.
"Does he really care about the industry?"
Maybe he does, and maybe he doesn't, but that's not the actual point. Even if he would turn out to be a greedy bastard who wanted to monopolise the entire industry (as MS does), the question remains if sw patents are a good idea or not.
Good isn't good for this or that corporation in the short term, but for society in the long term. After all, a patent is a monopoly given by the state, and the state is (supposed to do) what's good for their citizens. Ultimately, in a democracy, *we* define the state. So the question boils down to: is it a good thing for the populace as a whole?
As we all know, monopolies are never a good thing, and the only reason why it is given, is because it is supposed to stimulate further innovation. at least on sw patents enough studies have been done to indicate they don't do that at all, on the contrary.
Conclusion: it is NOT a good thing. (Even when a particular company might profit from it at a given time).
That is a rather limited view. Seen that research indicates that softwarepatents actually hinder innovation, one could as well say that it is, at the end, NOT a good things for the economy *as a whole*.
When you have less innovation, ultimately your products and your businesses get behind, which will lead to a far bigger economical deficit then some IP lawyer could ever make the economy 'recuperate'.
On an individual level and short-time period, level, you will have people benefitting and people losing out when sw patents are allowed (or not). On the long run and for the economy as a whole, you will lose out if you create or maintain software patents.
"Right or wrong, the famers entered into the contract knowingly. The company bypassed thousands, or tens of thousands of years of evolution by producing a genetically advanced form of crop. The farmer signed a contract. Farmer violated contract. Seems open and shut to me, Monsanto doesn't have a monopoly on the corn market."
I think what the parent poster wanted to say is, that signing a contract is not all-encompassing. A simple example to demonstrate this so you might understand: in my country, some shops claim you can not return your goods, once bought. It says so in the conditions when you buy it. According to your reasoning, since I bought a product of such a shop, I am bound by the rules of their contract. I should have gone to 'another' shop if I didn't like it, right?
Wrong. This is the american view on things, which the parent poster hinted at. Alas, it is not my viewpoint; I'm of the opinion I have rights too. And indeed, the clause that prohibits bringing your goods back (even without a reason) *IS* null and void (though not many people know this). So clearly, the fact they made the contract with that prohibition, and I 'agreed' to it by buying their product, does still not give them the right to do so. In your worldview, this must seem incomprehensible, in mine it's called basic consumer protection.
If the law didn't protect (even though it's often a weak protection) individual rights, including those of a consumer or user, we would soon all be dancing to the tunes of mega-corps. In europe we seem to realise that danger more then in the USA.
"Not really, the enhancements are what is being licensed by the contract."
That's nothing more then semantics. If Monsanto ever owned the patent of an 'enhanced' human, would you consider it fully in their right to consider their creations as property, and make restrictions on the propagation of said humans, even when parents that opted for these kids agreed to the contract?
Once again, as the parent poster said, you seem to ignore the question whether it is right, with the question of being technically lawfull. You seem to be a dude who accepts a law, because it is the law. I (and many other europeans) would rather accept a law because it is right (which is the main meaning of 'justice' after all).
Not that europeans are intrinsically all that noble or better, mind you. After all, during WW2 in nazi-germany, it was lawful to report and turn in (and discriminate) Jews too. Strictly spoken, one should follow the law, as you said. In any normal sense, however, one should spit on the Nazi's, as I spit on Monsanto.
And no, I'm not comparing Monsanto to the SS, but I am making the case that because something is technically spoken 'law', it isn't always right and it shouldn't always be followed. I do not subscribe to your premise that, because there is a contract, all the provisions in that contract outweigs all other considerations, even when a law says so.
"What the fuck does this have to do with being American? Troll."
Well, the parent poster might have been guilty of overgeneralisation, because I know you have some thoughtful and critical americans too, but he does have a point to some degree. Americans typically have the strange notion that everything, and I mean everything, should be regarded in the light of money and profit, and that the pursuit of personal enrichment outweighs every other consideration.
That this leads to a concentration of a few wealthy rich and a mass of extremely poor, that corporations have such strong lobbies they virtually make out the politics and that rights are being trampled on in the name of economy, seems not only to escape most americans, but even when noticed, it hardly leads to any protest. The majority of you lot seem to accept this as 'the way it is supposed to be'.
Europeans, however, have quite another picture of how the world should be. Not to say we don't have the same weaknesses of all humans, ofcourse. But still, their IS a difference
It DOES rival with "If you haven't signed a license, and seeds blow across the road, Monsanto can't sue you because you never signed a license." when Monsanto has done *exactly* that.
If, by some miraculous chance, you didn't notice it; numerous posts have already linked to the story in question. It still amazes me that people don't know the difference between patent-infringement and breach of contract. Especially slashdot readers should be aware of the differences, with SCO and all that. You don't need to have signed any contract or licence to get sued for patent-infringement, let this be clear.
See my post "actually, no".
:-)
Note further that I said 'only' and 'immediate profitable return'.
Your post seems to indicate you missed that, and therefor it is rather non-relevant as a response.
It is perfectly possible to claim - without having a contradiction - the fact that people do things for money (I do that too, after all), yet maintain the argument that it would be a sad thing, if immediate profit would be the only drive of people.
And actually, history, in those same past few hundreds years (and actually thousands before that), has shown us that there are, luckily (and sometimes regretable) a lot of other drives for people. One of the lastest and most well-known examples (at least on slashdot) of non-profit driven technology is Linux.
Perhaps, but the figure of 100 000 000 is arbitrary chosen. With the same validity, one could say: ah, yes, but why not wait another 100 year, so 10 ppl don't have to starve for it? And then you go to 1 in a hundred, 1 in a thousand, etc.
Thus, as I said, it only depends on what you think it's worth it, when using that reasoning. At one moment, you'll have to decide: yes, it is worth it (or not). In that respect, I would claim spacetravel is far more worth it then spending hundreds of billions on the military. If they would slash half of that, with the finances that could be would become available, one could easily pay for space-exploration, better education and better housing, elevating the standard of living for 10000000 people and a hald dozen other things, at once.
Seems to me, however, people seem to accept that money-spending for developping better weapons, even when it is a lot less positive for the human race.
Ofcourse, I'm not pleading to 'go for it' right here and now. We need to walk before we can run, obviously, and robot exploration and scientific research certainly should develop further. But I can't imagine our knowledge of human space-exploration/colonisation will augment all that much if we solely send robots up. And 'cost', well...even the precursors of robosapien were exhorbitant expensive...yet, if they hadn't build it, and waited untill it would become dirtcheap, the question remains if we would have an affordable robosapien today.
"To profit is what drives the human race."
No; profit is *one* of the drives of humans. And I'm all for stimulating that drive too, which is why I'm very happy about the succes of Spaceship1 and I hope Branson can pull it off to make an economical viable fleet of spaceplanes.
But your wrong to think it's the only drive. The men who climbed the Mont Everest didn't do it for profit, Jaque Costeau didn't reserch the seas for profit, CERN wasn't build for profit (and that costs billions too, btw).
Exploration on itself is a drive of the human race too, even if it's a pure academic form. The quest for scientific knowledge, just having fun, to gain more power, profit, honor (or social status); all these things drive people, and it would be wrong to generalise and think or claim only one thing drives people (or is it worth).
I'm attacking no one or nothing; you're entitled to your opinion, but it does not mean the reasoning used is sound.
"Science says absolutely nothing against this[..]"
Well, yes, that was one of my points; you can't scientifically disprove that God or the toothfairy didn't create the world just a second ago, with fossils and even our own memories of having lived for years included. Any other theory which is in such a way not falsifiable would be thrown into the bin, by scientists. Since you claim to be a scientist, you should do the same with your belief, yet you don't, which is why I claim their IS indeed a problem. The problem lies not in the personal arena, because ppl have a way of making it everything ok in their mind, whatever the reasoning used, but you do have a problem if you look at it in a scientific way, as a scientist would/should do.
It amazes me that as a scientist, you do not realise that any theory which is not falsifiable is basically worthless, at least in the scientific viewpoint.
Thus, though every person has the right to his belief, even when it's in santa claus, I still maintain that their is a contradiction between science and belief.
"The Catholic Churh has no problem with evolution assuming you allow that God created man, through evolution."
Actually, they had A LOT of problems with it. It's just that science progresses and has the upperhand (at least since the enlightenment) on what the bible or the pope dictates. Since the *scientific* view is widely accepted now, the church can't else then agree to it. Yet, even now, as the article demonstartes, you have ppl who actually believes what the Bible says, and they would consder themselves to be the true 'devaut' christian.
And in fact, they would be right. Strictly spoken, what they say is closer to what the bible says, and you could easily be called a heretic. I find modern christiaans are the worst of two worlds: they only take out of the bible what suits their own viewpoint, and disregard all the rest (for instance, like the fact that God, especially as described in the old testament, is one hack of a vengefull son of a bitch). Mostly it is done in a 'revision' of the bible, where the aspects that are obviously absurd or contradictory are remade into an allegoric sense, or revamed into something esotheric, that is impossible to prove. 'God created man, through evolution' is a prime example of that. Nonsense, for as long as one can remember, and to some degree even till today, the church has said that god created man, as described in the Bible, period. 'Evolution' is nowhere mentionned in the Bible.
So you see, you don't really follow the bible or what it really mans, but rather you use it like a self-service buffet: you use what you want, and the rest you denounce as being allegoric or 'tales'. Well, be consistent and acknowledge the possibility the whole Bible is a tale and allegoric, then.
It is simply not possible to respect the scientific viewpoint, and yet remain convinced of a tale, because no one can disprove the (parts of the) tale (you kept as belief). The true scientific respons has always been to adher theories to falsification; and if theories are inherently unprovable, then they are scientifically spoken worthless.
Now, it can well be that you and other people, on a psychological level, have a need to belief and maybe feel better and happier by it, but that's not the scientific viewpoint, but a personal one. That's why I said their is a problem if you want to be both. If you do that you are either not being scientific about it, or not a really devaut catholic (in the strict sense), and probably both.
"Strong argument in favor of religion is that science also cannot explain life itself"
Bullocks. Lightning didn't used to be explained by science neither, the same with earthquakes etc.: they all were frequently attributed to God in the past. If you're reasoning would make sense, then, indeed, it would have been a strong argument in favor of
"News to me."
;-)
That doesn't surprise me much.