Erm, you need to consult a biology textbook about how bacteria reproduce. Hint: They don't need partners to do so. That makes cross-breeding a bit difficult. Especially since a strain of E.coli was used that doesn't do the conjugation thing, either.
Point taken. I'm laughing at myself over that one. Thank you for the correction and for not being condescending about it.
Maybe I should have used other examples of what I feel is a similar adaptation, the white moth/black moth example. I'm sure we've all heard it. White moths do well in an area with white tree bark because birds cant see them. The few black moths that are born don't do well. When some even turns the tree bark black, the tables turn and the white moths get eaten and the black moths flourish. So my question was relating to this example. Is this just a simple adaptation or "evolution"?
... to protect teachers who simply ACKNOWLEDGE the fact that not everyone believes ToE is correct.
So, should we also protect teachers who simply ACKNOWLEDGE the fact that not everyone believes the Earth is round?
If it comes up, sure. Should the teacher DENY the fact that some people think the world is flat? I'm not saying that they should teach that the world is flat, but they shouldn't be forced to deny anything.
A teacher's job is not to tell the children what some people believe, his job is to teach what is known to be the most accurate theory in existence.
A teacher's primary job should be to teach kids to THINK. Once that is taught, the students can teach themselves.
As for teaching alternative views, I have nothing against that, as long as they are presented exactly as that: alternative. If a teacher presents the "ID" theory in class, it should be shown why ID is not a reasonable alternative to evolution. Children should be aware that ID exists, because they will find it mentioned outside of class, but they should be aware that a well-informed and intelligent person would have absolutely no doubt that evolution is the correct alternative.
That's pretty much what this law is designed to do. It is not just designed (forgive the word) to protect teachers from the ACLU if a teacher should answer a student's question about ID without dismissing it outright. It is also intended to protect teachers who wish to simply acknowledge that evolution is not complete (yet) and there is still much to be learned. Too many people think that by pointing out any flaws or missing data where evolution is concerned, you are automatically teaching ID. That's simply not true. Science is founded on challenging what is thought to be "known". Science is based on skepticism and curiosity.
Watch this be shot down in court like the last one in....
ID is such a piece of bullshit.
Actually, this law is more about academic freedom than ID. The ACLU has even said that the law is not unconstitutional. However, if it is USED for something that it deems to be unconstitutional, then expect lawsuits.
From TFA:
Ultimately, if a number of suits are successfully tried, a group like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) could take the law itself to court, citing various cases in which it was used to bring religious material into the classroom. Representatives from the ACLU and from Americans United for Separation of Church and State have already told Louisiana state officials that lawsuits will follow if the law is used for religious ends.
Maybe you're confused about the definition of "or", but you can still have science without direct experimentation.
Anyway, there IS loads of experimentation going on around evolution. See the announcement the other month where a 20 year experiment saw E. Coli mutate into an entirely different species in a stressful environment for an example. It directly contradicts the idea that we've never seen a beneficial mutation be passed along.
Was it an "entirely different species" or was it just an adaptation? Could you cross breed this "new" version of citrate metabolizing E. Coli with the original strain? Is so, then it's not really a new species, just the same with a new ability.
Granted, over another million years or so of isolation, it may become a "entirely different species", but not in a mere 20 years.
Also, given 20+ years and 44,000 generations to develop the ability to metabolize citrate, how long does it take to evolve into a platypus?
(Note: I believe in evolution. I just don't see this as "proof". There is still much to be learned.)
So what you're saying is that the growth in our economy from 2002 to 2007 has no bearing on anything because we lost a bunch of money in 2001 due to 9/11?
You may be able to make the case that it had an indirect affect but even that is going to be difficult to show.
No. I'm saying the same thing you just said. The GGP said that 911 did not send the economy into a tailspin and then blamed the war in Iraq for our current economic troubles. I pointed out that 9-11 had a drastic, although temporary impact on the economy, so he was incorrect. Then the GP chimed in, called me a moron and said that 911 was not the cause of the current economic woes. So, I pointed out the same thing you just said, only not as well as you did.
Now, we continue with your currently scheduled program.
Firstly, anyone who actually contends that the Fairness Doctrine targeted conservative viewpoints is so mindnumbingly stupid that it defies belief they have the opposable thumbs to actually type a blog. The Fairness Doctrine applied to both liberal and conservative viewpoints, and anyone who says differently is a liar.
Actually, the "fairness" doctrine that is being proposed now would only affect media outlets that use an FCC licensed spectrum. That means that the only affected media sources would be broadcast TV (ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox) and talk radio. Since the bias on broadcast TV is pretty much a non-issue, that leaves talk radio. Now, even partisan hack like yourself can answer the following question, who dominates talk radio, liberals or conservatives? So given that, do you still think that the fairness doctrine will be applied fairly?
You should really learn the facts before you start calling people names like "stupid", "fruitcakes" "liar" and "mindnumbingly stupid" or you take a risk that you will end up looking like all those names you tried to project onto others. You wouldn't want to promote yourself to "a mindnumbingly stupid liar" when you just have a bad case of ignorance and partisan induced blindness.
Moron, he didn't say it didn't have an economic effect at all. He said it wasn't responsible for the currently nose-diving US economy. And on that score, he's correct, as last I checked, no one in their right mind was attempting to link 9/11 to the current, ongoing American economic implosion.
Actually, what he said was "9/11 didn't send our economy into a tailspin." That was incorrect. Had he said "current" tailspin, then he would have been correct. He did not. 9-11 did harm our economy and it has since recovered. It has actually done quite well for quite some time. It has done so well in fact that the current economic slowdown (not even a recession by definition) feels like a downright depression. Some extreme dumbasses even call it an "economic implosion", but those people really shouldn't be out in public without supervision.
What do we have to be so darned worried about? It's not like the President would compile an "Enemies List" of people to wiretap, or something. This is America, right?
With respect to the fairness doctrine, I present the following: FileGate
The incident caused a firestorm of criticism because many of the files covered White House employees from previous Republican administrations, including top figures such as James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, and Marlin Fitzwater.
9/11 didn't send our economy into a tailspin. An ill-planned war, and greed (mortgage "investment") sent our economy into a tailspin. Nothing more, nothing less.
Don't let the facts get in your way of your politically motivated theory.
The attacks had a significant economic impact on the United States and world markets. The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), the American Stock Exchange, and NASDAQ did not open on September 11 and remained closed until September 17. When the stock markets reopened, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (âoeDJIAâ) stock market index fell 684 points, or 7.1%, to 8921, its biggest-ever one-day point decline.[162] By the end of the week, the DJIA had fallen 1,369.7 points (14.3%), its largest one-week point drop in history.[163] U.S. stocks lost $1.4 trillion in value for the week.[163] In New York City, there were approximately 430,000 lost job months and $2.8 billion in lost wages, which occurred in the three months following the 9/11 attacks. The economic effects were mainly focused on the city's export economy sectors.[164] The GDP for New York City was estimated to have declined by $27.3 billion for the last three months of 2001 and all of 2002. The Federal government provided $11.2 billion in immediate assistance to the Government of New York City in September 2001, and $10.5 billion in early 2002 for economic development and infrastructure needs.
We already did. Forty thousand people die on American highways every single year. Those deaths are no less traumatic to the families than the WTC deaths to those families, or those murdered by non-political murderers.
There is a difference between a terrorists attack or murder and accidents. Accidents, while unfortunate, do not leave the grieving yearning for revenge. Grieving is bad enough, but adding the rage that comes from knowing that ones who killed your loved one still live and breathe just makes it that much worse.
I want some of that homeland security money to go to guard rails.
I agree that highways should get much more funding, but there is a highway fund for that. Rather than using national security money for that purpose, how about we eliminate something like corn, dairy of tobacco subsidies and use THAT money instead.
Bush invaded Iraq, rather than any of the other countries led by violent, oppressive dictators because Iraq had oil. Not because we wanted the oil, but because the oil could be used to finance Saddam Hussein and make him much more dangerous to his neighbors and the world.
However, I assume that's not what you meant. Judging by BDS driven rant, you think Bush went into Iraq to steal their oil. Just as recent history has shown that Iraq's WMD programs were not an imminent threat, it shows that the US did NOT invade Iraq to steal their oil. If that was the goal of the US, then why isn't the US stealing Iraqi oil?
In other words, you're full of shit. You have less than half the integrity that you claim Bush has. You are a liar to the first degree and will say anything at all, even thought it is proven bullshit to push your political agenda.
I believe that much of the problem is that SSD's are still a new technology compared to rotating disks. Right now, engineers are more concerned with increasing capacity and just making the damn things work. These are much more important than efficiency. As time goes on and the technology gets more mature, efficiency will get more attention from engineers.
Elsewhere, another poster argued that a tapeworm is likewise divisible from my own body. Why should the embryo be treated with any more respect than the tapeworm?
This has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on slash... And I've seen some doosies!
Here we have a moron that doesn't know the difference between a tapeworm and human life! Even PETA would call you fucking idiot!
So I can kill a twin because the other has the same DNA so it doesn't matter? I can't kill cancer because it has slightly different DNA than the host? If I clone someone I can kill the clone at will because they're not a person (same DNA as they were cloned from)?
My sperm has different DNA than me (mutations and other stuff) so I can't ever masturbate? What about a woman's eggs?
A child has the same DNA as both it's parents (or rather the parents have almost all of the child's dna between them) so can we say it's not a person because it has almost no "unique" DNA?
Where do you draw the line?
We'll start and end with your sperm egg example. Sperm and egg only contain 23 of the 46 chromosomes that make up a "full human". So "throwing your kids around the shower" is perfectly acceptable, provided it's not a public shower!
The fact that you either didn't know or understand that tells me you need to go back and retake 6'th grade biology and every science class after that. When you have at least completed your middle school education, come back and we'll finish this discussion. Unfortunately, I don't have the time nor energy to explain basic biology to you.
Yes, and that argument is self-evidently silly because you're presupposing that there is a difference between "you" and "your fingernail clippings" when your criterion for deciding what is or is not a human just IS having human DNA.
Do you have human DNA? Yes. Does your fingernail clipping that you just clipped this morning? Yes.
Well then, if 'having human DNA' is the criterion for deciding humanity, both "you" and "your discarded fingernail" ARE human, and it doesn't do you any good to say "No, I'm human, that's just a fingernail clipping."
That argument misses the point because it changes your definition of what constitutes a human. First you said it's "stuff with human DNA." And then we point out the absurdity of that criterion, you change your definition to "A fully grown human specimen" which implicitly DENIES humanity to the very thing you were trying to attribute it to, that is, an undifferentiated clump of human cells.
If we incinerated that fingernail clipping, we would be incinerating ITS "entire DNA", now wouldn't we? And yet you don't care one bit about this, because it's manifestly not human, even though it has human DNA. And yet you DO care about a set of undifferentiated cells that you probably couldn't even see unaided.
To put it succinctly, the "having human DNA" argument just doesn't even get off the ground, regardless of your attempts to backdoor in some other criteria, like *actually being a human*.
Don't be fucking stupid. Of course your finger nails are human tissue, but they do not deserve rights? They are PART of you. As they are part of you, you may do with them as you wish. If you want to give them your rights, I guess that's OK. Now, is a fetus part of the mother? Sure, it's inside the mother. It's attached to the mother, but is it part of the mother. Do a DNA test and you'll find out that it is NOT part of the mother, and therefor, nothing like your fucking dumbass fingernail example.
I don't believe there are people so fucking stupid that they needed that explained to them.
I guess indirectly, my response is that everytime a woman ovulates and fails to get pregnant, someone's entire DNA is also destroyed.
You are half right. An egg only contains half of human DNA (23 chromosomes). The sperm carries the other half. So, no, someone's entire DNA is NOT destroyed with every unsuccessful ovulation. Nor is it murder if you toss off in the shower (throw your kids around the shower).
So, if a cop sees someone beating the shit out of you, should he mind his own business? Wait, before you answer, that cop is part of the government and is "not involved" in your ass getting kicked. Should he mind his own business. Of course not!
Let's say that instead of someone beating the shit out of me, they're coming at me with a knife -- except that they're a surgeon performing a medical procedure I opted into. Is it still the police officer's job to "protect" me from something I'm doing by choice?
IMHO, if a DNA test says its human, then it's human and religion has nothing to do with it. No one should be allowed to kill or experiment on him/her without his/her permission.
So it should be illegal for me to get a tumor cut out of me -- because a DNA test would show that it's human?
Sure, if YOU opted for the surgery, that's fine. If the doctor is cutting stuff from you that is part of you (IE, matches you genetically), then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Now, what if you were a fetus. Well, as long as you agreed to the procedure that will end your life, I have no problem with it.
As for your tumor question, You are free to cut it out. It's as human as you are because it's part of YOU. If you do a DNA test on it, the tumor will come back as YOU. You are free to remove whatever part of yourself that you wish. It's your body! A fetus/unborn child is NOT a tumor and it's not YOUR body as it has a body of its own.
Of course, don't get stupid and say something like, "OK, what if I took my tumor and stuck it into your stomach. Would you have to keep it?" Try to remain intelligent.
That being said, if you could choose the genetic make-up of your children and spare them any diseases or malformations I would be hard pressed to form an argument against it. Especially, since I would want the same for my children.
My argument against would be that folks that're "disabled" like me wouldn't have a chance to contribute to society as a whole....
In short, Beethoven.;)
This is the most insightful/interesting post on this article and it gets marked flamebait? I hope that mod get banned!
Also, Hawking would be another fine example. Roosevelt (although his Polio was not a genetic defect). Hell, I didn't have perfect eyesight, can that be considered a defect worthy of abortion... er... fetal termination?
Anyone not involved should mind their own business? I agree with that. Government religion you listening? Hey! Religion, get your ass back here! Don't you walk away!!
So, if a cop sees someone beating the shit out of you, should he mind his own business? Wait, before you answer, that cop is part of the government and is "not involved" in your ass getting kicked. Should he mind his own business. Of course not! Why? Because it's the governments job to protect its innocent citizens, and therefor not only has the right, but the DUTY to step in. That's a given. The unborn are also innocent. That's also a given. Now the question we need to be asking in this situation is not, "should the government do anything" but "when is human life human?"
Now, the GP stated that he couldn't give a shit about a clump a cells. Well, isn't he just a clump of cells? If his mother decided to have an abortion at this stage and started chasing him with a vacuum cleaner, should the police (or CPS) turn a blind eye? After all, he is just a clump of cells.
So, whether or not government should protect you is not a matter of religion. When is human life HUMAN is where religion steps in.
IMHO, if a DNA test says its human, then it's human and religion has nothing to do with it. No one should be allowed to kill or experiment on him/her without his/her permission.
No, they're dumb. Fox News was unable to find people who could act dumb, so now they just hire people who really, (really, really) are dumb.
First of all, this guy is on the news during the day. His competition during that time is shows like "The View", various soaps, Oprah and so on. So saying that this guy is representative of all of Fox News is like saying that Joy Behar is representative of the accumulated intelligence of NBC. Sorry, but this guy is on because he is an idiot (or plays one very well). Audiences respond better to someone who speaks from their own level, and lets face it, daytime TV audiences are not the brightest. Take you typical Jerry Springer viewer for a prime example.
Those people will hire people who are likely to promote the same viewpoint.
They hire people who make them money. They are big business corporations, after all.
I would believe that if the "liberal" run networks had more viewers. But that's not the case. In cable news, Fox gets more viewers than all the other cable news networks combined. So, if their job were to get more viewers (and thus more money), then they would have followed Fox's example years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Erm, you need to consult a biology textbook about how bacteria reproduce. Hint: They don't need partners to do so. That makes cross-breeding a bit difficult. Especially since a strain of E.coli was used that doesn't do the conjugation thing, either.
Point taken. I'm laughing at myself over that one. Thank you for the correction and for not being condescending about it.
Maybe I should have used other examples of what I feel is a similar adaptation, the white moth/black moth example. I'm sure we've all heard it. White moths do well in an area with white tree bark because birds cant see them. The few black moths that are born don't do well. When some even turns the tree bark black, the tables turn and the white moths get eaten and the black moths flourish. So my question was relating to this example. Is this just a simple adaptation or "evolution"?
So, should we also protect teachers who simply ACKNOWLEDGE the fact that not everyone believes the Earth is round?
If it comes up, sure. Should the teacher DENY the fact that some people think the world is flat? I'm not saying that they should teach that the world is flat, but they shouldn't be forced to deny anything.
A teacher's job is not to tell the children what some people believe, his job is to teach what is known to be the most accurate theory in existence.
A teacher's primary job should be to teach kids to THINK. Once that is taught, the students can teach themselves.
As for teaching alternative views, I have nothing against that, as long as they are presented exactly as that: alternative. If a teacher presents the "ID" theory in class, it should be shown why ID is not a reasonable alternative to evolution. Children should be aware that ID exists, because they will find it mentioned outside of class, but they should be aware that a well-informed and intelligent person would have absolutely no doubt that evolution is the correct alternative.
That's pretty much what this law is designed to do. It is not just designed (forgive the word) to protect teachers from the ACLU if a teacher should answer a student's question about ID without dismissing it outright. It is also intended to protect teachers who wish to simply acknowledge that evolution is not complete (yet) and there is still much to be learned. Too many people think that by pointing out any flaws or missing data where evolution is concerned, you are automatically teaching ID. That's simply not true. Science is founded on challenging what is thought to be "known". Science is based on skepticism and curiosity.
Watch this be shot down in court like the last one in....
ID is such a piece of bullshit.
Actually, this law is more about academic freedom than ID. The ACLU has even said that the law is not unconstitutional. However, if it is USED for something that it deems to be unconstitutional, then expect lawsuits.
From TFA:
Ultimately, if a number of suits are successfully tried, a group like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) could take the law itself to court, citing various cases in which it was used to bring religious material into the classroom. Representatives from the ACLU and from Americans United for Separation of Church and State have already told Louisiana state officials that lawsuits will follow if the law is used for religious ends.
Maybe you're confused about the definition of "or", but you can still have science without direct experimentation.
Anyway, there IS loads of experimentation going on around evolution. See the announcement the other month where a 20 year experiment saw E. Coli mutate into an entirely different species in a stressful environment for an example. It directly contradicts the idea that we've never seen a beneficial mutation be passed along.
Was it an "entirely different species" or was it just an adaptation? Could you cross breed this "new" version of citrate metabolizing E. Coli with the original strain? Is so, then it's not really a new species, just the same with a new ability.
Granted, over another million years or so of isolation, it may become a "entirely different species", but not in a mere 20 years.
Also, given 20+ years and 44,000 generations to develop the ability to metabolize citrate, how long does it take to evolve into a platypus?
(Note: I believe in evolution. I just don't see this as "proof". There is still much to be learned.)
So what you're saying is that the growth in our economy from 2002 to 2007 has no bearing on anything because we lost a bunch of money in 2001 due to 9/11?
http://genxfinance.com/2007/11/26/a-visual-history-of-the-stock-market-from-1996-2007/
Here's a link that shows by the end of 2001 we had already recovered to the point we were at before 9/11. The short term impact of 9/11 is not insignificant, but it was a long way from "causing" our current economic situation.
You may be able to make the case that it had an indirect affect but even that is going to be difficult to show.
No. I'm saying the same thing you just said. The GGP said that 911 did not send the economy into a tailspin and then blamed the war in Iraq for our current economic troubles. I pointed out that 9-11 had a drastic, although temporary impact on the economy, so he was incorrect.
Then the GP chimed in, called me a moron and said that 911 was not the cause of the current economic woes.
So, I pointed out the same thing you just said, only not as well as you did.
Now, we continue with your currently scheduled program.
Firstly, anyone who actually contends that the Fairness Doctrine targeted conservative viewpoints is so mindnumbingly stupid that it defies belief they have the opposable thumbs to actually type a blog. The Fairness Doctrine applied to both liberal and conservative viewpoints, and anyone who says differently is a liar.
Actually, the "fairness" doctrine that is being proposed now would only affect media outlets that use an FCC licensed spectrum. That means that the only affected media sources would be broadcast TV (ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox) and talk radio. Since the bias on broadcast TV is pretty much a non-issue, that leaves talk radio. Now, even partisan hack like yourself can answer the following question, who dominates talk radio, liberals or conservatives? So given that, do you still think that the fairness doctrine will be applied fairly?
You should really learn the facts before you start calling people names like "stupid", "fruitcakes" "liar" and "mindnumbingly stupid" or you take a risk that you will end up looking like all those names you tried to project onto others. You wouldn't want to promote yourself to "a mindnumbingly stupid liar" when you just have a bad case of ignorance and partisan induced blindness.
Moron, he didn't say it didn't have an economic effect at all. He said it wasn't responsible for the currently nose-diving US economy. And on that score, he's correct, as last I checked, no one in their right mind was attempting to link 9/11 to the current, ongoing American economic implosion.
Actually, what he said was "9/11 didn't send our economy into a tailspin." That was incorrect. Had he said "current" tailspin, then he would have been correct. He did not. 9-11 did harm our economy and it has since recovered. It has actually done quite well for quite some time. It has done so well in fact that the current economic slowdown (not even a recession by definition) feels like a downright depression. Some extreme dumbasses even call it an "economic implosion", but those people really shouldn't be out in public without supervision.
What do we have to be so darned worried about? It's not like the President would compile an "Enemies List" of people to wiretap, or something. This is America, right?
oh crap
With respect to the fairness doctrine, I present the following:
FileGate
The incident caused a firestorm of criticism because many of the files covered White House employees from previous Republican administrations, including top figures such as James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, and Marlin Fitzwater.
9/11 didn't send our economy into a tailspin. An ill-planned war, and greed (mortgage "investment") sent our economy into a tailspin. Nothing more, nothing less.
Don't let the facts get in your way of your politically motivated theory.
The attacks had a significant economic impact on the United States and world markets. The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), the American Stock Exchange, and NASDAQ did not open on September 11 and remained closed until September 17. When the stock markets reopened, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (âoeDJIAâ) stock market index fell 684 points, or 7.1%, to 8921, its biggest-ever one-day point decline.[162] By the end of the week, the DJIA had fallen 1,369.7 points (14.3%), its largest one-week point drop in history.[163] U.S. stocks lost $1.4 trillion in value for the week.[163] In New York City, there were approximately 430,000 lost job months and $2.8 billion in lost wages, which occurred in the three months following the 9/11 attacks. The economic effects were mainly focused on the city's export economy sectors.[164] The GDP for New York City was estimated to have declined by $27.3 billion for the last three months of 2001 and all of 2002. The Federal government provided $11.2 billion in immediate assistance to the Government of New York City in September 2001, and $10.5 billion in early 2002 for economic development and infrastructure needs.
We already did. Forty thousand people die on American highways every single year. Those deaths are no less traumatic to the families than the WTC deaths to those families, or those murdered by non-political murderers.
There is a difference between a terrorists attack or murder and accidents. Accidents, while unfortunate, do not leave the grieving yearning for revenge. Grieving is bad enough, but adding the rage that comes from knowing that ones who killed your loved one still live and breathe just makes it that much worse.
I want some of that homeland security money to go to guard rails.
I agree that highways should get much more funding, but there is a highway fund for that. Rather than using national security money for that purpose, how about we eliminate something like corn, dairy of tobacco subsidies and use THAT money instead.
Making math errors at blazing speeds...
To err is human.
To really screw up, you need the aid of a computer.
There you guys sit, all laughing at me at pointing and jeering at my Tinfoil Hat 3000(tm), but look who's sitting pretty now! Ha! Fsckers!
You won't be sitting pretty when you shiny new hat starts to spark and arc like a fork in the microwave!
"I was ego-surfing the other day, and was surprised to discover that I was listed as a member of the an on-line dating service.
So, did you get any hits?
Bush invaded because of Iraqi oil...
You partially right.
Bush invaded Iraq, rather than any of the other countries led by violent, oppressive dictators because Iraq had oil. Not because we wanted the oil, but because the oil could be used to finance Saddam Hussein and make him much more dangerous to his neighbors and the world.
However, I assume that's not what you meant. Judging by BDS driven rant, you think Bush went into Iraq to steal their oil. Just as recent history has shown that Iraq's WMD programs were not an imminent threat, it shows that the US did NOT invade Iraq to steal their oil. If that was the goal of the US, then why isn't the US stealing Iraqi oil?
In other words, you're full of shit. You have less than half the integrity that you claim Bush has. You are a liar to the first degree and will say anything at all, even thought it is proven bullshit to push your political agenda.
I believe that much of the problem is that SSD's are still a new technology compared to rotating disks. Right now, engineers are more concerned with increasing capacity and just making the damn things work. These are much more important than efficiency. As time goes on and the technology gets more mature, efficiency will get more attention from engineers.
Elsewhere, another poster argued that a tapeworm is likewise divisible from my own body. Why should the embryo be treated with any more respect than the tapeworm?
This has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on slash... And I've seen some doosies!
Here we have a moron that doesn't know the difference between a tapeworm and human life! Even PETA would call you fucking idiot!
...(and therefore the lion's share of the human worth) is in the ova.
No truer words have ever been spoken here on slashdot! :-)
So I can kill a twin because the other has the same DNA so it doesn't matter? I can't kill cancer because it has slightly different DNA than the host? If I clone someone I can kill the clone at will because they're not a person (same DNA as they were cloned from)?
My sperm has different DNA than me (mutations and other stuff) so I can't ever masturbate? What about a woman's eggs?
A child has the same DNA as both it's parents (or rather the parents have almost all of the child's dna between them) so can we say it's not a person because it has almost no "unique" DNA?
Where do you draw the line?
We'll start and end with your sperm egg example. Sperm and egg only contain 23 of the 46 chromosomes that make up a "full human". So "throwing your kids around the shower" is perfectly acceptable, provided it's not a public shower!
The fact that you either didn't know or understand that tells me you need to go back and retake 6'th grade biology and every science class after that. When you have at least completed your middle school education, come back and we'll finish this discussion. Unfortunately, I don't have the time nor energy to explain basic biology to you.
Yes, and that argument is self-evidently silly because you're presupposing that there is a difference between "you" and "your fingernail clippings" when your criterion for deciding what is or is not a human just IS having human DNA.
Do you have human DNA? Yes.
Does your fingernail clipping that you just clipped this morning? Yes.
Well then, if 'having human DNA' is the criterion for deciding humanity, both "you" and "your discarded fingernail" ARE human, and it doesn't do you any good to say "No, I'm human, that's just a fingernail clipping."
That argument misses the point because it changes your definition of what constitutes a human. First you said it's "stuff with human DNA." And then we point out the absurdity of that criterion, you change your definition to "A fully grown human specimen" which implicitly DENIES humanity to the very thing you were trying to attribute it to, that is, an undifferentiated clump of human cells.
If we incinerated that fingernail clipping, we would be incinerating ITS "entire DNA", now wouldn't we? And yet you don't care one bit about this, because it's manifestly not human, even though it has human DNA. And yet you DO care about a set of undifferentiated cells that you probably couldn't even see unaided.
To put it succinctly, the "having human DNA" argument just doesn't even get off the ground, regardless of your attempts to backdoor in some other criteria, like *actually being a human*.
Don't be fucking stupid. Of course your finger nails are human tissue, but they do not deserve rights? They are PART of you. As they are part of you, you may do with them as you wish. If you want to give them your rights, I guess that's OK. Now, is a fetus part of the mother? Sure, it's inside the mother. It's attached to the mother, but is it part of the mother. Do a DNA test and you'll find out that it is NOT part of the mother, and therefor, nothing like your fucking dumbass fingernail example.
I don't believe there are people so fucking stupid that they needed that explained to them.
I guess indirectly, my response is that everytime a woman ovulates and fails to get pregnant, someone's entire DNA is also destroyed.
You are half right. An egg only contains half of human DNA (23 chromosomes). The sperm carries the other half. So, no, someone's entire DNA is NOT destroyed with every unsuccessful ovulation. Nor is it murder if you toss off in the shower (throw your kids around the shower).
Let's say that instead of someone beating the shit out of me, they're coming at me with a knife -- except that they're a surgeon performing a medical procedure I opted into. Is it still the police officer's job to "protect" me from something I'm doing by choice?
So it should be illegal for me to get a tumor cut out of me -- because a DNA test would show that it's human?
Sure, if YOU opted for the surgery, that's fine. If the doctor is cutting stuff from you that is part of you (IE, matches you genetically), then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Now, what if you were a fetus. Well, as long as you agreed to the procedure that will end your life, I have no problem with it.
As for your tumor question, You are free to cut it out. It's as human as you are because it's part of YOU. If you do a DNA test on it, the tumor will come back as YOU. You are free to remove whatever part of yourself that you wish. It's your body! A fetus/unborn child is NOT a tumor and it's not YOUR body as it has a body of its own.
Of course, don't get stupid and say something like, "OK, what if I took my tumor and stuck it into your stomach. Would you have to keep it?" Try to remain intelligent.
That being said, if you could choose the genetic make-up of your children and spare them any diseases or malformations I would be hard pressed to form an argument against it. Especially, since I would want the same for my children.
My argument against would be that folks that're "disabled" like me wouldn't have a chance to contribute to society as a whole....
In short, Beethoven. ;)
This is the most insightful/interesting post on this article and it gets marked flamebait? I hope that mod get banned!
Also, Hawking would be another fine example. Roosevelt (although his Polio was not a genetic defect). Hell, I didn't have perfect eyesight, can that be considered a defect worthy of abortion... er... fetal termination?
Anyone not involved should mind their own business? I agree with that. Government religion you listening? Hey! Religion, get your ass back here! Don't you walk away!!
So, if a cop sees someone beating the shit out of you, should he mind his own business? Wait, before you answer, that cop is part of the government and is "not involved" in your ass getting kicked. Should he mind his own business. Of course not! Why? Because it's the governments job to protect its innocent citizens, and therefor not only has the right, but the DUTY to step in. That's a given. The unborn are also innocent. That's also a given. Now the question we need to be asking in this situation is not, "should the government do anything" but "when is human life human?"
Now, the GP stated that he couldn't give a shit about a clump a cells. Well, isn't he just a clump of cells? If his mother decided to have an abortion at this stage and started chasing him with a vacuum cleaner, should the police (or CPS) turn a blind eye? After all, he is just a clump of cells.
So, whether or not government should protect you is not a matter of religion. When is human life HUMAN is where religion steps in.
IMHO, if a DNA test says its human, then it's human and religion has nothing to do with it. No one should be allowed to kill or experiment on him/her without his/her permission.
No, they're dumb. Fox News was unable to find people who could act dumb, so now they just hire people who really, (really, really) are dumb.
First of all, this guy is on the news during the day. His competition during that time is shows like "The View", various soaps, Oprah and so on. So saying that this guy is representative of all of Fox News is like saying that Joy Behar is representative of the accumulated intelligence of NBC. Sorry, but this guy is on because he is an idiot (or plays one very well). Audiences respond better to someone who speaks from their own level, and lets face it, daytime TV audiences are not the brightest. Take you typical Jerry Springer viewer for a prime example.
Those people will hire people who are likely to promote the same viewpoint.
They hire people who make them money. They are big business corporations, after all.
I would believe that if the "liberal" run networks had more viewers. But that's not the case. In cable news, Fox gets more viewers than all the other cable news networks combined. So, if their job were to get more viewers (and thus more money), then they would have followed Fox's example years ago.