Actually this is plain old silly. Not to mention history repeating itself. A prime example of Japan Govt trying to yet again appear "civilized" to the "westerners".
Filter mobile access for under-age kids??? Ha! "Think of the children" is kinda hard to argue against. Except that instead of USA, this is now done in a country that has pedophilia as a national obsession.
Since past 3 months, the area outside Akihabara train station itself in Tokyo is experience a curious phenomenon. Droves of young girls barely 12 or 14, sit in costumes outside, selling their "Sexy and cute" photo albums. They are surrounded by literally hundreds of Japanese men in their late 40s whipping out their cameraphones and cams and clicking pics. And then there is Enjo kosai... the practice of "compensated dating"... basically young schoolgirls having liaisons with middle aged Japanese businessmen for quick pocket money. And then you have this certain prefecture in Japan, that still refuses to make sex with minors an illegal and punishable act. Japanese businessmen regularly flock to the place for a "good time".
If that is not enough, you have to just look at the so called manga magazines. The covers are adorned by near naked child models that are usually 20 or 18 but are clearly sought after because they look almost 14 or 15. Any bets what fantasies, are being catered to? And even that facade is dispensed with, when it comes to actual renditions of female comic characters inside. They are drawn to look like 9 or 10. The younger, the better. Did I mention that this explicit content is sold on the shelves openly, available even to kids? Oh, the more "adult" content magazines (with real photos of sexual acts) are usually sealed, but animation stuff with same content(drawings of explicit sex acts) is considered pretty okay. It is just drawing, you know?
This is where it all becomes a big hypocrisy. Japanese government will have to take care of these more entrenched areas of deeply embedded lolita-complex of the Japanese society, before it even ever begins to pretend to care about protecting minors. The politicians there, are notorious anyways of "thinking of the children" all the time. It is just in a different sense.
On the other hand it speaks volumes about the US government and the politicians, that people almost readily are willing to believe anything about them, and that the editor would approve the submission so casually.
It is not like that one can say with any certainty, that the congress is not likely to pass such a bill(Internet deemed a "terrorist" threat/tool and people with a internet connection at home, required to be finger printed and put under surveillance) in near future. They have passed the DMCA, copyright extension and the Patriot act after all. Speaks volumes about the trust people have in them.
One would have assumed that people from the nation with the biggest arsenal of nukes, would have a clue. Guess not.
What makes you think any government(USA or otherwise) would *ever* allow any significant quantities of radioactive material to be sold to just any random civilian individuals??? Are you really that retarded?
First of all, the massive oil cartel that owns the USA government(and George Bush's soul), ensures that any nuclear energy alternative gets associated with things going ka-boom without rhyme or reason.
Which is silly when you consider, that for a Chernobyl, you also have a Union Carbide gas leak in Bhopal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster, proving that accidents are possible in any scenario if proper care is not taken. And funnily enough, the protest groups to the glee(or perhaps with sponsorship of) oil cartels, have no problems with nukes being stored in locations close by(because if they protest *that*, they will be hauled off as traitors and shipped off to Guantanamo) but if the same material is used to *help* people and provide a cheap alternative to oil, that is a big no-no.
This product, *if* it is safe enough and actually works as advertised, could have been sold to cities or even to governments(and not truck ramming terrorists) providing cheap energy alternative, but it is safe to bet that even so, the oil cartel would ensure by lobbying and controlling media, that it is never accepted by the public.
Actually it is not the paying customers who are the freeloaders.
All ISPs offer a "shared bandwidth" plan where they tell you that you will be sharing the bandwidth at the last mile, with your neighbors. And if you want to have fast guaranteed unshared access, they offer a dedicated "bandwidth connection" for a premium fee, where only you get the full bandwidth and if it is any lower than promised average, you can actually complain to the ISP and get it fixed, or even possibly sue them for not providing service as promised.
Mr. cheapskate bigshot CEO opted for the shared bandwidth option, where he was aware that his neighbors would share the bandwidth and thus his connection quality was dependent on their usage. He chose not to go for the premium dedicated line in order to save a few dollars.
And now the Greedy Bastard is complaining about why he is not getting the features of the *premium* dedicated service on his cheap shared bandwidth connection. And then he calls *others* freeloaders!!!
What makes animal embroys less worthy of such "protection"? Don't they match your above definition? If you add the qualifier "only human embroys", why so?
In short, you are just creating another question and need for yet another definition : What separates "human" cells from "animal" cells? If you state, the number of chromosomes or whatever as the part of requirement for such "protection"... why? Why is one "alive" and other is not? How is it different from "might or smartness is right"?
Your explanation is nonsensical. An embryonic or a stem cell looks or resembles nothing like its parents(humans). So what was your ill-thought point again? Do you guys actually even bother to think before you start trying to think of one reason or another to pave the way to the real agenda of banning abortions?
It is the *government* formulating and enforcing these laws and even forcing/coercing other countries to sign up in way of carrots and sticks. And *you* may be a vegetarian or pacifist, George Bush and the government is clearly not! Don't even pretend otherwise.
And thus, if they are taking "life in its tiniest forms is holy" philosophy to insane levels, they *have* to answer the myriad other questions that get raised.
1. Why are a bunch of cells "really" alive, but a full grown intelligent monkey or cow is not? It is *not* besides the point or a red herring. It is a pretty much relevant and related question. Why qualifies embroynic cells for a special treatment?
2. Why is it okay for the government to wage wars and kill humans in wars and by way of capital punishment, but killing a bunch of non-inteligent cells is such a big problem?
If *you* were just trying to *convince* and convert others to your own philosophy, there is nothing wrong with it. But when the *government* start making *laws* backed by such religious beliefs, it has to be answerable to the questions regards its hypocrisy about wars and destroying sick animals and so on. It doesn't matters what the anti-abortion/religious nuts camps believe or whether they are vegetarian or anti-war or not. The *government* is the one forcing this as law and if it says all life is holy and killing of even cells is wrong, it should best stop playing god with lives of people it puts to death every day.
If the government practices capital punishment, engages in war, creates nukes, it has no business talking about sanctity of life. *You* can go on talking about it all you want. Government cannot!
I am not a troll, despite your fondness of labeling everyone questioning your beliefs, as one. But you, unless you have a logically reasonable and common sense explanation, are a religious nutcase!
Learn to think before making nonsensical arguments that do not have a leg to stand upon. Stem cells look nothing like humans. They are *cells*!
Plus it is hypocritical of even the anti-abortion/religious folks to go rabid over this topic, if you are not able to provide quality of life as well to all the "potential babies". For an example, a person may be in intolerable pain from an uncurable disease or accident, unable to move, see or function... he may *want* to die to just escape the pain, but you are insensitive to his/her suffering. All that matters to you is that he should be forced to live because of your beliefs. You are not even interested in allowing medical research that may find a cure for his/her condition... but only *your* salvation by forcing others to live according to your beliefs is important to you.
That is right. This is not about obeying the word of god. Heaven knows you are not worried about suffering of others and helping them. Because if you *really* did, you would not have an internet connection. You will instead spend the money, or ask whoever was spending the money on your connection, to spend it to feed hungry or treating sick children instead. Because there are millions of kids dying from starvation or diseases all over the world...and here you are... ensuring *your* salvation instead, by wasting all your time and energy instead on arguing with me rather than *really* doing what your god wants.
So we have established that you neither believe in sanctity of life apart from your own(if you did you will be in iraq, throwing yourself against tanks and bullets to show you will die for your beliefs)... nor are you concerned about *how* these babies live... since you are spending money on the net while kids are starving.... all you car
Nonsense. One does not have to be a Christian to have ethics. It's not about who is or who is not "alive" it's about what rights an organism has. Even animals that we use for food have the right not to be tortured. Millions of people across the country will be eating Turkey this week, I doubt that many of them think it would be ok to torture those turkeys before they're slaughtered for food.
Nice strawman!
Animals have the right not to be tortured, but they do not have the right to not to be killed? You are espousing precisely the hypocrisy I am questioning!
I said I was against animals being killed at all, tortured or otherwise! And you come back with "oh it is fine to kill innocent animals... they are not REALLY alive, you know?... my smallest, tiniest *cells* are more 'alive' than a full-grown intelligent chimpanzee or cow!". Bravo!!!
And by extension, if the emborys are not being tortured, I guess you are fine with their being killed? Please explicitly confirm so.
May I ask why you are so comfortable eating the cells present in beef, but not present in your body? What makes you consider your cell as somehow superior?
Why are you okay with killing cows which are pretty much more intelligent and sentient/alive than a bunch of "cells"?
On the related note, what is your take on nail-biting? or chewing lip skin that many kids do? OMG!!! Cannibalism! Cannibalism is taboo due to mostly mutual self-preservation instincts. Extending it to non-intelligent cells is plain silly.
Your sense of dignity extends to even cells, but not to the animals or plants you consume every day. May I ask "Mr. atheist", what makes *your* cell superior to the cells present on animals and plants?
As an "atheist", you lose even the stupid argument of "coz the bible says so!"
Actually if you look at it....anybody who is not equally uncomfortable with wars against foreign countries, capital punishment and what not, but is willing to pass laws against future scenarios based on science fiction novels and hollywood films, even if that means withholding medical research that can help save lives and increase life quality, *is* a nut in any case... religious or otherwise.
What test must be passed before that clump of cells is human? Who are you to decide? What if the government decided the age of liberty was your age +1? How would that make you feel?
Even someone lacking in brain cells would know the answer to this question and wouldn't even have bothered asking it. But regardless:
What test must be passed before deciding that a sperm and egg is not "alive" but a fertilized ovum egg is? Who are you to decide that the sperm or an egg is not really "alive"? After all an ovum egg, if fertilized with the sperm will become a human? So who are you to decide that only the result but not the participants are "truly" alive? Even a fertilized egg if deprived of "appropriate conditions" (norishment, a womb) might not become a human. Pretty much same as an ovum not becoming a baby if not provided with a fertilizing sperm. Who are *you* to decide what is alive and what is not? You *are* playing god by placing a definition on what is "not" alive.
And what is worse, you are a hypocrite. Because you have simultaneously implicitly decided that *animals* are not "really" alive and it is okay to kill and eat them... or even okay to just kill them because they are sick(mad cow disease). You are okay with *that*. You are okay with your government waging wars and killing humans. But you are more concerned about "embroys" and "cells" and what not. A bunch of hypocritical navel-gazers!
Who are you to decide that other lower lifeforms are not "really" alive? What gives you the right???? And if you can justify *that*, and the wars and the capital punishment in the country, how DARE you talk about protecting embroys and cells??!!! HOW DARE YOU??!!
Hope you have your answer.. and a few questions to ask yourself.
We find this definition has a scientific and ethical clearity that can avoid a lot of the horrors of history that now (most of) humanity regrets based on what counts as a human worthy of protection.
And what "horrors of history" would those be? Frankenstein's Monster? Inhabitants of the island of Dr Moreau? Mind quoting a non-science-fiction example of your strawman? But here is what your enlightened leaders do to those that they *do* recognize as humans, based on your "definition":
Proceeding to support *another* nuclear proliferating dictator while waging the above war, and assisting in trampling human and civil rights of others and trampling on their right to have a democracy? No problem! http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-11-21-voa1.cfm
Causing deaths of millions of babies by withholding medicines and food, and claiming that the "price(killing these babies) was worth it"! No problem with that either! Those were non-american babies and thus not "really" alive or really "human". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK_QshS2EW8
Inciting a war in another uninvolved country and driving it to ruins and in hands of radical Islami c zealots, just to give a cold-war rival "its vietnam"... perfectly okay and ethical! http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
But God forbid that someone aborts an unborn fetus they are not ready for. God forbid that scientists do valuable research that can actually cure diseases and reduce suffering! *Then* the esteemed leaders become so very "ethical" and "religious".
*Government* "allows" a lot of stuff which is unacceptable : Invading and killing innocent civilians in other countries for imagined threats or supposed "liberation and democracy". Defending and encouraging "ally" dictators in other countries and lauding them to have done "more for democracy" by their acts of suspending the constitution and imposing military rule. Making copyright violations worse than actual theft or possibly even rape or murder. Spying and distrusting its *own* citizens rather than just foreigners.
And then it diverts attention from all those acts by crating fake controversies, over imaginary "murders" of "living cells".
How *do* you define life then? It might be fine to just ban the abortion of a unborn fetus older than 2 months. There are tons of medical reasons to support that decision. But if you want to push the line even further, where does it stop? A ban on the morning after pill? A ban on condoms, since they interfere with "potential" life and thus "murder" it as well? A ban on masturbation perhaps, since it is also wasting potential "life"? How *do* you define life? What makes one kind of cell(fertilized egg) "alive" and yet other(sperm) is not, when neither is showing any greater sentience than the other at the early stages at least? If you make a criterion, what is the "rationale" behind that criterion?
And how soon before we get people being persecuted for masturbating, or using protection during sex? What is the guarantee that this lunacy will not lead to *THAT*? Historical evidence shows that when we put "government" in charge of personal decisions, and allow them too much power, *that* is when "experimentation on humans" happen. Care to give one example of a reasonably democratic country where human experimentation was tolerated? I can definitely give examples of fascist, police states, where the human experimentation happened and was ignored by citizens. And a government making insane, illogical laws that are just a step way for interfering with personal decisions of people, is more likely to lead to a fascist, police state.
And if "life" is so holy, what is the arrogant reasoning behind killing and eating other "near-sentient" lifeforms? By your logic everyone should be forced to become vegetarian? Oh wait! Even plants have been proven to be alive! So, it is the arrogant belief that only human beings are "truly" alive, right?
But that is a very Christian belief, isn't it? i.e. humans being the only "really" alive beings! As a matter of fact Jain and Buddhist religion consider even lower life forms to be just as alive and forbid killing them because of the desire avoid the very same arrogant hypocrisy. So basically the American Government is just enforcing a "Christian" belief, while paying lip service to the idea of being secular, "religious equality" and "separation of state and the church".
People want to eat. Eating is not bad in itself, but it is a minor version of eating poison, or even worse, cannibalism. Eating food can lead to cannibalism if you are not careful. Do you allow eating?
If you do not provide the same answer in *this* instance as well, can you explain why?
Care to do it *before* you die from starvation btw?
...and you accused the GP of "fear mongering"... which was a pretty baseless and offensive accusation as well, no? Especially when it was just based on your personal criterion of what is "out of proportion".
Mr. pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Basically you are exactly the kind of person you are criticizing. You flew off the handle in indignation, before thinking that this is exactly what you had just done. And that makes you a hypocrite.
Your "attitude" doesn't makes GP's argument invalid. "Often" apparently means "always" in your dictionary. There is a difference between real, relevant *examples* to support an argument and just baseless "ancedotes" that you yourself seem to prefer, since you asked for those rather than real verifiable newsstories. True mark of a very confused person who is not sure what he wants. And someone who is unable to differentiate between ancedotes and real examples, is possibly an idiot...or "trying to push an agenda".
Amusing that someone who is a sore loser in arguments, should preach about "being nice" or communication skills.
What is wrong with some people? When every sane person believes in "innocent till proven guilty" as a principle, why is vigilantism based on bare suspicion suddenly acceptable? The whole tone of this story, as if journalists do something wrong by protecting possible innocents or mere suspects, is obscene! And equally obscene are the apathetic idiots whose reponse to something they don't like, is to claim that it is not "worth notice" or is "blown out of proportion". What if your ex was a psycho who framed you online with a fake sob story that brought gullible mobs to your doorstep, howling for your blood? Happened with Uma khurana in India, and the chinese student accused by the suspicious husband.
And since when does the safety of the family members of such "guilty" folks become acceptable collateral damage? When did being "fair" or "rational" become outdated?
You're providing to me an example that you saw on the internet? Reread what I wrote: Has this happened to you or anyone you know?
As a matter of fact, yes. A family friend was named as a suspect in a well-publicized political murder case, by the media. Despite his being cleared of any possible links to the case, he was still ostracized by his neighbors as a "criminal with mafia connections". Now, do tell... what exactly was your point? You have asked me if it has happened with anyone I know, and I have given an example. So what will you do now besides calling me a "liar" and going back to your belief that is more or less "Lions don't exist because I have never seen one in real life myself"?
What was exactly your point when you asked this silly question? That it happened to "someone else", so it was not your problem? How apathetic or shallow can you get?!!
Was your brilliant argument that, it can "never happen to you"? I am pretty sure, that is what all those people thought as well, *till* it actually happened to them.
Has this happened to you or anyone you know? If not, stop the fearmongering.
Well you are obviously clueless, but if you had ever *bothered* to check the news, anywhere other than slashdot, you would have seen it happening in lots of places.
A reporter for a local tv channel in Delhi, India, accused a school teacher Ms. Uma Khurana, of coercing her students into a prostitution racket. With her name, workplace, home address etc. being supplied, a local mob beat her up. Later it turned out that the reporter just wanted to settle an old grudge and the allegations were false. Tell it to the mob now, which nearly killed the poor lady.
A tv crew from a Microsoft NBC, tried to lure a DA in USA, into meeting with a person pretending to be a minor child, in a chatroom. When the DA did not fall for the trap, they decided to stalk him by surrounding his house with tv crews, forcing the DA into committing suicide. His widow is now suing Microsoft NBC.
A husband in China, whose wife had initiated an affair with a student, instead of settling the matter with the parties directly involved, or going for marriage counselling or divorce, decided to go the vigilante route. He published the real details of the student online with his story and called upon others to deliver "justice". Impassioned people teamed up to uncover the student's address and telephone number, both of which were then posted online. Soon, people eager to denounce him showed up at his university and at his parents' house, forcing him to drop out of school and barricade himself with his family in their home.
Is it fear mongering? Or is it just you being apathetic and burying your head in the sand like an ostrich, despite the various items like these in the news? Decide for yourself.
you are assuming that any future president will happily seek to get restricted/removed any power he has gained.
Assuming that there is someone who actually wants to become the president out of a true desire to serve the people, what is to stop the next guy from undoing any changes he makes? Once an unopposed precedent has been allowed and set, the law merely becomes silly putty and loses any real meaning.
How many people die/suffer from various diseases like AIDS, cancer etc. every year? How many people get killed in drunken auto-accidents every year? And how do those figure compare to the ones that died on 9-11? Where is the proportionate response to those other deaths? Or are we choosing between the types of deaths now?
But of course, there is no sensationalism in trying to find a cure for cancer or AIDS. It is easier to appeal to "patriotism" than to appeal to common sense and basic human decency. You cannot invade diseases. And there are no votes in trying to making laws to combat drunken driving, on an equal level as the war efforts against an imaginary threat in Iraq.
Is the USA any safer today? Have they done even the simplest thing possible to prevent hijacks? Namely, seal off access to pilot cabins from the rest of the plane? Is it even possible to close up every single manner of attack against every possible kind of enemy? Today it is muslims, tomorrow it might be mexicans. The brilliant response by USA government to an threat specifically "external", is to spy on its *own* citizens. Makes perfect sense and speaks volume about a President and Government that distrusts its own people.
If it is the terrorists came in posing as students, why is that an excuse to spy on *American* citizens? Lots of less people would have objected, if it was just the foreigners that were subjected to even round the clock surveillance. Lots of other countries do that. And it is perfectly acceptable to not implicitly trust an outsider. The visitors would probably hardly object either. But instead, this government wants an excuse to spy on its own citizens and it is somehow "patriotic".
And with all this talk of sacrificing and terror, why has George Bush failed to catch Bin Laden? Did he even ever intend to? Why is all this effort, all these massive resources not focussed on doing something more productive? Something that may actually save millions of lives that are lost to diseases or road-accidents every year?
IIRC, the SCO claims were never going to be tested in court anyways, because from what I understood, the case they actually filed was entirely different from whatever nonsense Darl McBride was spouting.
They may have claimed about millions of lines of codes being copied, but the actual case filed was only regards breach of contract. They claimed that IBM had donated its AIX code to the Linux kernel. Their second argument consisted of "Boohoo, Linux would have been nowhere if not for IBM. IBM created a competitor for us. We hate competition. Boohoo!".
The only piece of code they ever showed as being part of the Linux kernel, turned out to have already been released under a BSD license by the original creators and had already been replaced by better alternatives in the Kernel, which made their whole claim seem to go up in smoke.
All in all, it was just FUD sponsored by possibly an under-the-table deal between Microsoft and Darl McBride, with the aim of stemming the expansion of Linux in the server market, till Microsoft got its slightly-more-stable-than-xp vista OS out. It might be interesting to observe in future, whether any more information regards this possible deal comes out, and whether Microsoft can be sued under another anti-trust, unfair-practices case for its part in generating the controversy.
No, not at all. Everyone is entitled to make mistakes, take a wrong turn now and then. But maybe one should learn to be more humble instead and stop acting like they are doing everything to help the world.
The emancipation war may have redeemed the crimes towards the blacks. What about the native Red Indians? What war did American immigrants wage to redeem their wanton genocide? Not all crimes can be excused or be redeemed from. And you have all the rights to defend yourself and your interests. Just stop pretending that the other side is any more evil than you are, then.
There is only one reason that invalidates nuking them. Would you have still provided all these lame excuses, if *they* had got the bomb first and would have nuked you first? Wanna bet, you would have made it the biggest crime against humanity of all time then? It is no wonder so many of the Germans justified the Jewish genocide. In their own view, they were just "defending" themselves from the Jews. By wiping out the jews, they were doing something "good". And the American definition of "good" is surprisingly similar now.
Because while a bully that steals your lunch money is a bad thing, but a bully that expects you to thank him for it, is infinite times worse.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually this is plain old silly. Not to mention history repeating itself. A prime example of Japan Govt trying to yet again appear "civilized" to the "westerners".
Filter mobile access for under-age kids??? Ha! "Think of the children" is kinda hard to argue against. Except that instead of USA, this is now done in a country that has pedophilia as a national obsession.
Since past 3 months, the area outside Akihabara train station itself in Tokyo is experience a curious phenomenon. Droves of young girls barely 12 or 14, sit in costumes outside, selling their "Sexy and cute" photo albums. They are surrounded by literally hundreds of Japanese men in their late 40s whipping out their cameraphones and cams and clicking pics. And then there is Enjo kosai... the practice of "compensated dating"... basically young schoolgirls having liaisons with middle aged Japanese businessmen for quick pocket money. And then you have this certain prefecture in Japan, that still refuses to make sex with minors an illegal and punishable act. Japanese businessmen regularly flock to the place for a "good time".
If that is not enough, you have to just look at the so called manga magazines. The covers are adorned by near naked child models that are usually 20 or 18 but are clearly sought after because they look almost 14 or 15. Any bets what fantasies, are being catered to? And even that facade is dispensed with, when it comes to actual renditions of female comic characters inside. They are drawn to look like 9 or 10. The younger, the better. Did I mention that this explicit content is sold on the shelves openly, available even to kids? Oh, the more "adult" content magazines (with real photos of sexual acts) are usually sealed, but animation stuff with same content(drawings of explicit sex acts) is considered pretty okay. It is just drawing, you know?
This is where it all becomes a big hypocrisy. Japanese government will have to take care of these more entrenched areas of deeply embedded lolita-complex of the Japanese society, before it even ever begins to pretend to care about protecting minors. The politicians there, are notorious anyways of "thinking of the children" all the time. It is just in a different sense.
Not impressed.
Just put up a sign saying "Toll Road for Trucks: XX $" and watch how truckers do a quick reverse and disappear forever.
On the other hand it speaks volumes about the US government and the politicians, that people almost readily are willing to believe anything about them, and that the editor would approve the submission so casually.
It is not like that one can say with any certainty, that the congress is not likely to pass such a bill(Internet deemed a "terrorist" threat/tool and people with a internet connection at home, required to be finger printed and put under surveillance) in near future. They have passed the DMCA, copyright extension and the Patriot act after all. Speaks volumes about the trust people have in them.
One would have assumed that people from the nation with the biggest arsenal of nukes, would have a clue. Guess not.
What makes you think any government(USA or otherwise) would *ever* allow any significant quantities of radioactive material to be sold to just any random civilian individuals??? Are you really that retarded?
First of all, the massive oil cartel that owns the USA government(and George Bush's soul), ensures that any nuclear energy alternative gets associated with things going ka-boom without rhyme or reason.
Which is silly when you consider, that for a Chernobyl, you also have a Union Carbide gas leak in Bhopal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster, proving that accidents are possible in any scenario if proper care is not taken. And funnily enough, the protest groups to the glee(or perhaps with sponsorship of) oil cartels, have no problems with nukes being stored in locations close by(because if they protest *that*, they will be hauled off as traitors and shipped off to Guantanamo) but if the same material is used to *help* people and provide a cheap alternative to oil, that is a big no-no.
This product, *if* it is safe enough and actually works as advertised, could have been sold to cities or even to governments(and not truck ramming terrorists) providing cheap energy alternative, but it is safe to bet that even so, the oil cartel would ensure by lobbying and controlling media, that it is never accepted by the public.
And in neither case, Mr. Mark Cuban should have anything to complain about.
If his connection is DSL and is not "shared", his complaint is baseless, since what other users do should not affect his own bandwidth in any case.
If he has internet via cable and thus shared access, he is getting what he paid for.
Or maybe you have an alternative offer for the term "dedicated connection"?
Perhaps it doesn't exists in the schizoid alternate reality you live in?
All ISPs offer a "shared bandwidth" plan where they tell you that you will be sharing the bandwidth at the last mile, with your neighbors. And if you want to have fast guaranteed unshared access, they offer a dedicated "bandwidth connection" for a premium fee, where only you get the full bandwidth and if it is any lower than promised average, you can actually complain to the ISP and get it fixed, or even possibly sue them for not providing service as promised.
Mr. cheapskate bigshot CEO opted for the shared bandwidth option, where he was aware that his neighbors would share the bandwidth and thus his connection quality was dependent on their usage. He chose not to go for the premium dedicated line in order to save a few dollars.
And now the Greedy Bastard is complaining about why he is not getting the features of the *premium* dedicated service on his cheap shared bandwidth connection. And then he calls *others* freeloaders!!!
What makes animal embroys less worthy of such "protection"? Don't they match your above definition? If you add the qualifier "only human embroys", why so?
In short, you are just creating another question and need for yet another definition : What separates "human" cells from "animal" cells? If you state, the number of chromosomes or whatever as the part of requirement for such "protection"... why? Why is one "alive" and other is not? How is it different from "might or smartness is right"?
Your explanation is nonsensical. An embryonic or a stem cell looks or resembles nothing like its parents(humans). So what was your ill-thought point again? Do you guys actually even bother to think before you start trying to think of one reason or another to pave the way to the real agenda of banning abortions?
It is the *government* formulating and enforcing these laws and even forcing/coercing other countries to sign up in way of carrots and sticks. And *you* may be a vegetarian or pacifist, George Bush and the government is clearly not! Don't even pretend otherwise.
And thus, if they are taking "life in its tiniest forms is holy" philosophy to insane levels, they *have* to answer the myriad other questions that get raised.
1. Why are a bunch of cells "really" alive, but a full grown intelligent monkey or cow is not? It is *not* besides the point or a red herring. It is a pretty much relevant and related question. Why qualifies embroynic cells for a special treatment?
2. Why is it okay for the government to wage wars and kill humans in wars and by way of capital punishment, but killing a bunch of non-inteligent cells is such a big problem?
If *you* were just trying to *convince* and convert others to your own philosophy, there is nothing wrong with it. But when the *government* start making *laws* backed by such religious beliefs, it has to be answerable to the questions regards its hypocrisy about wars and destroying sick animals and so on. It doesn't matters what the anti-abortion/religious nuts camps believe or whether they are vegetarian or anti-war or not. The *government* is the one forcing this as law and if it says all life is holy and killing of even cells is wrong, it should best stop playing god with lives of people it puts to death every day.
If the government practices capital punishment, engages in war, creates nukes, it has no business talking about sanctity of life. *You* can go on talking about it all you want. Government cannot!
I am not a troll, despite your fondness of labeling everyone questioning your beliefs, as one. But you, unless you have a logically reasonable and common sense explanation, are a religious nutcase!
Learn to think before making nonsensical arguments that do not have a leg to stand upon. Stem cells look nothing like humans. They are *cells*! Plus it is hypocritical of even the anti-abortion/religious folks to go rabid over this topic, if you are not able to provide quality of life as well to all the "potential babies". For an example, a person may be in intolerable pain from an uncurable disease or accident, unable to move, see or function... he may *want* to die to just escape the pain, but you are insensitive to his/her suffering. All that matters to you is that he should be forced to live because of your beliefs. You are not even interested in allowing medical research that may find a cure for his/her condition... but only *your* salvation by forcing others to live according to your beliefs is important to you.
That is right. This is not about obeying the word of god. Heaven knows you are not worried about suffering of others and helping them. Because if you *really* did, you would not have an internet connection. You will instead spend the money, or ask whoever was spending the money on your connection, to spend it to feed hungry or treating sick children instead. Because there are millions of kids dying from starvation or diseases all over the world...and here you are ... ensuring *your* salvation instead, by wasting all your time and energy instead on arguing with me rather than *really* doing what your god wants.
So we have established that you neither believe in sanctity of life apart from your own(if you did you will be in iraq, throwing yourself against tanks and bullets to show you will die for your beliefs) ... nor are you concerned about *how* these babies live... since you are spending money on the net while kids are starving.... all you car
Nonsense. One does not have to be a Christian to have ethics. It's not about who is or who is not "alive" it's about what rights an organism has. Even animals that we use for food have the right not to be tortured. Millions of people across the country will be eating Turkey this week, I doubt that many of them think it would be ok to torture those turkeys before they're slaughtered for food.
Nice strawman! Animals have the right not to be tortured, but they do not have the right to not to be killed? You are espousing precisely the hypocrisy I am questioning!
I said I was against animals being killed at all, tortured or otherwise! And you come back with "oh it is fine to kill innocent animals... they are not REALLY alive, you know? ... my smallest, tiniest *cells* are more 'alive' than a full-grown intelligent chimpanzee or cow!". Bravo!!!
And by extension, if the emborys are not being tortured, I guess you are fine with their being killed? Please explicitly confirm so.
Why are you okay with killing cows which are pretty much more intelligent and sentient/alive than a bunch of "cells"?
On the related note, what is your take on nail-biting? or chewing lip skin that many kids do? OMG!!! Cannibalism! Cannibalism is taboo due to mostly mutual self-preservation instincts. Extending it to non-intelligent cells is plain silly.
Your sense of dignity extends to even cells, but not to the animals or plants you consume every day. May I ask "Mr. atheist", what makes *your* cell superior to the cells present on animals and plants?
As an "atheist", you lose even the stupid argument of "coz the bible says so!"
Says a lot about George Bush and the republicans.
Even someone lacking in brain cells would know the answer to this question and wouldn't even have bothered asking it. But regardless
What test must be passed before deciding that a sperm and egg is not "alive" but a fertilized ovum egg is? Who are you to decide that the sperm or an egg is not really "alive"? After all an ovum egg, if fertilized with the sperm will become a human? So who are you to decide that only the result but not the participants are "truly" alive? Even a fertilized egg if deprived of "appropriate conditions" (norishment, a womb) might not become a human. Pretty much same as an ovum not becoming a baby if not provided with a fertilizing sperm. Who are *you* to decide what is alive and what is not? You *are* playing god by placing a definition on what is "not" alive.
And what is worse, you are a hypocrite. Because you have simultaneously implicitly decided that *animals* are not "really" alive and it is okay to kill and eat them... or even okay to just kill them because they are sick(mad cow disease). You are okay with *that*. You are okay with your government waging wars and killing humans. But you are more concerned about "embroys" and "cells" and what not. A bunch of hypocritical navel-gazers!
Who are you to decide that other lower lifeforms are not "really" alive? What gives you the right???? And if you can justify *that*, and the wars and the capital punishment in the country, how DARE you talk about protecting embroys and cells??!!! HOW DARE YOU??!!
Hope you have your answer.. and a few questions to ask yourself.
And what "horrors of history" would those be? Frankenstein's Monster? Inhabitants of the island of Dr Moreau? Mind quoting a non-science-fiction example of your strawman? But here is what your enlightened leaders do to those that they *do* recognize as humans, based on your "definition"
Cluster bombing innocent civilians as collateral damage in a war waged over fake reasons and imaginary threats? Making laws to torture and imprison them without trials? No problem! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/fogofwar/index/cdamage.htm
Proceeding to support *another* nuclear proliferating dictator while waging the above war, and assisting in trampling human and civil rights of others and trampling on their right to have a democracy? No problem! http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-11-21-voa1.cfm
Causing deaths of millions of babies by withholding medicines and food, and claiming that the "price(killing these babies) was worth it"! No problem with that either! Those were non-american babies and thus not "really" alive or really "human". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK_QshS2EW8
Inciting a war in another uninvolved country and driving it to ruins and in hands of radical Islami c zealots, just to give a cold-war rival "its vietnam"... perfectly okay and ethical! http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
Actually nuking millions of innocent civilians ... sure! Again non-americans and therefore not really "humans" or "alive". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
But God forbid that someone aborts an unborn fetus they are not ready for. God forbid that scientists do valuable research that can actually cure diseases and reduce suffering! *Then* the esteemed leaders become so very "ethical" and "religious".
You are both non-persuasive *and* stupid.
And you are a hypocrite!
And then it diverts attention from all those acts by crating fake controversies, over imaginary "murders" of "living cells".
How *do* you define life then? It might be fine to just ban the abortion of a unborn fetus older than 2 months. There are tons of medical reasons to support that decision. But if you want to push the line even further, where does it stop? A ban on the morning after pill? A ban on condoms, since they interfere with "potential" life and thus "murder" it as well? A ban on masturbation perhaps, since it is also wasting potential "life"? How *do* you define life? What makes one kind of cell(fertilized egg) "alive" and yet other(sperm) is not, when neither is showing any greater sentience than the other at the early stages at least? If you make a criterion, what is the "rationale" behind that criterion?
And how soon before we get people being persecuted for masturbating, or using protection during sex? What is the guarantee that this lunacy will not lead to *THAT*? Historical evidence shows that when we put "government" in charge of personal decisions, and allow them too much power, *that* is when "experimentation on humans" happen. Care to give one example of a reasonably democratic country where human experimentation was tolerated? I can definitely give examples of fascist, police states, where the human experimentation happened and was ignored by citizens. And a government making insane, illogical laws that are just a step way for interfering with personal decisions of people, is more likely to lead to a fascist, police state.
And if "life" is so holy, what is the arrogant reasoning behind killing and eating other "near-sentient" lifeforms? By your logic everyone should be forced to become vegetarian? Oh wait! Even plants have been proven to be alive! So, it is the arrogant belief that only human beings are "truly" alive, right?
But that is a very Christian belief, isn't it? i.e. humans being the only "really" alive beings! As a matter of fact Jain and Buddhist religion consider even lower life forms to be just as alive and forbid killing them because of the desire avoid the very same arrogant hypocrisy. So basically the American Government is just enforcing a "Christian" belief, while paying lip service to the idea of being secular, "religious equality" and "separation of state and the church".
Here is another argument in your own vein.
People want to eat. Eating is not bad in itself, but it is a minor version of eating poison, or even worse, cannibalism. Eating food can lead to cannibalism if you are not careful. Do you allow eating?
If you do not provide the same answer in *this* instance as well, can you explain why?
Care to do it *before* you die from starvation btw?
Mr. pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Basically you are exactly the kind of person you are criticizing. You flew off the handle in indignation, before thinking that this is exactly what you had just done. And that makes you a hypocrite.
Your "attitude" doesn't makes GP's argument invalid. "Often" apparently means "always" in your dictionary. There is a difference between real, relevant *examples* to support an argument and just baseless "ancedotes" that you yourself seem to prefer, since you asked for those rather than real verifiable newsstories. True mark of a very confused person who is not sure what he wants. And someone who is unable to differentiate between ancedotes and real examples, is possibly an idiot...or "trying to push an agenda".
Amusing that someone who is a sore loser in arguments, should preach about "being nice" or communication skills.
What is wrong with some people? When every sane person believes in "innocent till proven guilty" as a principle, why is vigilantism based on bare suspicion suddenly acceptable? The whole tone of this story, as if journalists do something wrong by protecting possible innocents or mere suspects, is obscene! And equally obscene are the apathetic idiots whose reponse to something they don't like, is to claim that it is not "worth notice" or is "blown out of proportion". What if your ex was a psycho who framed you online with a fake sob story that brought gullible mobs to your doorstep, howling for your blood? Happened with Uma khurana in India, and the chinese student accused by the suspicious husband.
And since when does the safety of the family members of such "guilty" folks become acceptable collateral damage? When did being "fair" or "rational" become outdated?
You're providing to me an example that you saw on the internet? Reread what I wrote: Has this happened to you or anyone you know?
As a matter of fact, yes. A family friend was named as a suspect in a well-publicized political murder case, by the media. Despite his being cleared of any possible links to the case, he was still ostracized by his neighbors as a "criminal with mafia connections". Now, do tell... what exactly was your point? You have asked me if it has happened with anyone I know, and I have given an example. So what will you do now besides calling me a "liar" and going back to your belief that is more or less "Lions don't exist because I have never seen one in real life myself"?
What was exactly your point when you asked this silly question? That it happened to "someone else", so it was not your problem? How apathetic or shallow can you get?!!
Was your brilliant argument that, it can "never happen to you"? I am pretty sure, that is what all those people thought as well, *till* it actually happened to them.
Well you are obviously clueless, but if you had ever *bothered* to check the news, anywhere other than slashdot, you would have seen it happening in lots of places.
A reporter for a local tv channel in Delhi, India, accused a school teacher Ms. Uma Khurana, of coercing her students into a prostitution racket. With her name, workplace, home address etc. being supplied, a local mob beat her up. Later it turned out that the reporter just wanted to settle an old grudge and the allegations were false. Tell it to the mob now, which nearly killed the poor lady.
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200711011822.htm
A tv crew from a Microsoft NBC, tried to lure a DA in USA, into meeting with a person pretending to be a minor child, in a chatroom. When the DA did not fall for the trap, they decided to stalk him by surrounding his house with tv crews, forcing the DA into committing suicide. His widow is now suing Microsoft NBC.
A husband in China, whose wife had initiated an affair with a student, instead of settling the matter with the parties directly involved, or going for marriage counselling or divorce, decided to go the vigilante route. He published the real details of the student online with his story and called upon others to deliver "justice". Impassioned people teamed up to uncover the student's address and telephone number, both of which were then posted online. Soon, people eager to denounce him showed up at his university and at his parents' house, forcing him to drop out of school and barricade himself with his family in their home.
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-6-22/43052.html
Is it fear mongering? Or is it just you being apathetic and burying your head in the sand like an ostrich, despite the various items like these in the news? Decide for yourself.
Assuming that there is someone who actually wants to become the president out of a true desire to serve the people, what is to stop the next guy from undoing any changes he makes? Once an unopposed precedent has been allowed and set, the law merely becomes silly putty and loses any real meaning.
How many people die/suffer from various diseases like AIDS, cancer etc. every year? How many people get killed in drunken auto-accidents every year? And how do those figure compare to the ones that died on 9-11? Where is the proportionate response to those other deaths? Or are we choosing between the types of deaths now?
But of course, there is no sensationalism in trying to find a cure for cancer or AIDS. It is easier to appeal to "patriotism" than to appeal to common sense and basic human decency. You cannot invade diseases. And there are no votes in trying to making laws to combat drunken driving, on an equal level as the war efforts against an imaginary threat in Iraq.
Is the USA any safer today? Have they done even the simplest thing possible to prevent hijacks? Namely, seal off access to pilot cabins from the rest of the plane? Is it even possible to close up every single manner of attack against every possible kind of enemy? Today it is muslims, tomorrow it might be mexicans. The brilliant response by USA government to an threat specifically "external", is to spy on its *own* citizens. Makes perfect sense and speaks volume about a President and Government that distrusts its own people.
If it is the terrorists came in posing as students, why is that an excuse to spy on *American* citizens? Lots of less people would have objected, if it was just the foreigners that were subjected to even round the clock surveillance. Lots of other countries do that. And it is perfectly acceptable to not implicitly trust an outsider. The visitors would probably hardly object either. But instead, this government wants an excuse to spy on its own citizens and it is somehow "patriotic".
And with all this talk of sacrificing and terror, why has George Bush failed to catch Bin Laden? Did he even ever intend to? Why is all this effort, all these massive resources not focussed on doing something more productive? Something that may actually save millions of lives that are lost to diseases or road-accidents every year?
Are you volunteering yourself to be arrested for fungus growing on that stale bread in your fridge? It is all like....that "bacteria" stuff, you know?
Idiot!
They may have claimed about millions of lines of codes being copied, but the actual case filed was only regards breach of contract. They claimed that IBM had donated its AIX code to the Linux kernel. Their second argument consisted of "Boohoo, Linux would have been nowhere if not for IBM. IBM created a competitor for us. We hate competition. Boohoo!".
The only piece of code they ever showed as being part of the Linux kernel, turned out to have already been released under a BSD license by the original creators and had already been replaced by better alternatives in the Kernel, which made their whole claim seem to go up in smoke.
All in all, it was just FUD sponsored by possibly an under-the-table deal between Microsoft and Darl McBride, with the aim of stemming the expansion of Linux in the server market, till Microsoft got its slightly-more-stable-than-xp vista OS out. It might be interesting to observe in future, whether any more information regards this possible deal comes out, and whether Microsoft can be sued under another anti-trust, unfair-practices case for its part in generating the controversy.
like they tried to ban prOn err... *cough* porn?
Right!
The emancipation war may have redeemed the crimes towards the blacks. What about the native Red Indians? What war did American immigrants wage to redeem their wanton genocide? Not all crimes can be excused or be redeemed from. And you have all the rights to defend yourself and your interests. Just stop pretending that the other side is any more evil than you are, then.
There is only one reason that invalidates nuking them. Would you have still provided all these lame excuses, if *they* had got the bomb first and would have nuked you first? Wanna bet, you would have made it the biggest crime against humanity of all time then? It is no wonder so many of the Germans justified the Jewish genocide. In their own view, they were just "defending" themselves from the Jews. By wiping out the jews, they were doing something "good". And the American definition of "good" is surprisingly similar now.
Because while a bully that steals your lunch money is a bad thing, but a bully that expects you to thank him for it, is infinite times worse.