Income inequality drives crime. When everyone is poor, no one steals from each other. You mean there is no crime in Communist countries where everyone gets the same check? Is there no crime in poor neighborhoods?
When everyone is rich, everyone steals from each other, but there are rules. Everyone is rich in America, compared to most of the world. Are we all stealing from each other?
When some people are very, very rich and some are poor, the poor feel justified in evening out the unfairness through direct action. This may only true if there is no opportunity for the poor to pick themselves up. I would point out a caste system as an example, but I don't know what the crime rates are in India. According the the Gini numbers mentioned in TFA, this would mean that the US has one of the highest crime rates in the world! I don't think that is the case.
If everyone had their basic needs met, I don't think income inequality would matter as much. Here in America, there is no reason for anyone to starve or have their basic needs met. In communist countries, basic needs are met by the gov't. Is there no crime in America or communist countries?
But as long as some people are desperare and feel they are being screwed, and they can find an easy target in a rich person, there will be crime. People feel they are getting screwed because they are told they are getting screwed. This class-warfare bullshit is getting really old, really fast. The poorest in America live better than the vast majority of the world, but they are not shown that. They are shown how the "rich and famous" live on TV and they think that they are getting screwed because they don't live like that. If they showed starving kids instead, they might feel pretty good about the four walls on their trailer-house.
It's class division that makes people steal, it's a lack of morals. Granted, if I'm starving, I will steal a loaf of bread to feed my family, but that's not what we are talking about here. My father lives in a 1970's built trailer house in East Texas. He is what most people in the US would call "dirt poor". He refuses help and doesn't steal, or cheat or really commit any other crimes with the exception public intoxication. He works hard for what he has building "chicken houses" for those in the area with more money and land than he has. He lives the way he does because he has social issues and he's not comfortable in places with other people. Still, he's happy with what he has and has no problems with his lifestyle. But by your post, he should one of the biggest outlaws in Texas because he's poor and there are others around him who are rich.
If this were true, why is it, in twelve years of being in the majority in Congress, Republicans were unable to pass bills to advance the construction of nuclear power plants? And please don't blame Clinton - he was only in the White House for half of it.
The same reason that a Republican controlled congress and White House could not get Judge Pickering confirmed to the court of appeals. Hell, it never even made it to a vote! Having a majority in congress != absolute rule.
The simple fact is that just about nobody wants one (or, if they do, they don't want one in their back yard...).
Very true, but there's a lot of territory that is not exactly in anyone's back yard. Take West Texas or Kansas for example or even any number of closed or soon-to-be-closed military bases.
This is really not meant as a troll, but with the recent change of power in congress, don't expect anything relating to nuclear to happen. Just as the Republicans are supposedly pwned by big corporations, the Democrats supposedly pwned by environmental groups who seem to be opposed to all forms of energy production, especially nuclear (or nucular as Carter and Bush call it)
Yoda, is that you? Seriously, I assume the installer will config the system. Once the use flags are set up, that's pretty much it. While some config files will change as software is updated, not updating the configs has never been a problem for me. Updating them can cause issues, but so far, the original configs have always worked....on occasion, manually blended with incompatible new frosting.
If the use flags are set up conservatively, this will rarely be a problem, and even then only after repository has been updated so many times that current libraries become a problem. That said, emerge has not given me near the grief that apt-get or (God forbid) yum have. (Don't get me wrong, yum is great, but rpm's tend to suck.)
Actually, I take back the earlier statement about Gentoo being the easiest to maintain. That prize would have to go to Lindows... er... Linspire because they maintain Apple-strict control of the repositories. But since Linspire is not free, not offered for the PS3, and not the topic of this discussion, I'll stick with Gentoo on my PC and PS3 should I win the lottery.
I really think that someone taking his first steps in linux world should not be left out in the cold with Gentoo!! Gentoo has its benefits... but being user friendly to beginners is definitely not one of them!!
The hard part of Gentoo is setting it up and that's really by choice. I've set it up from both stage 1 and 3 and trust me, there is a huge difference. However, once Gentoo is set up, it's cake to maintain. I'd go as far to say that it is the easiest distro I've ever used when it comes to installing software if it is set up correctly. As long as it is set to sync the portage tree regularly (via Cron) and GUI tools such as Porthole or Kuroo, maintenance is a breeze. May I suggest checking out a Gentoo based OS like Sabayon or Vida.
*Disclaimer: This message typed on a Sabayon powered system.
I would say pretty high. Radio waves are a part of nature. We use them because they are the best solution for broadcast transmissions and for mobile communications. The systems are simple and work well. Odds are pretty good that they would have many of the same needs as we do and they share the universe with us so the solutins could be very similar. After all how long have we used the wheel?
Excellent point. However, we don't know what these aliens are like. Their eyes may see in radio where we see in light. Your common cordless phone would be like a sparkler to these people.
Then again, you're probably right. I don't know beans about radio except it's the only musical instrument I can play!
The flaw with all these searches is that it assumes that any nearby civilizations are exactly at the same level of development as humanity
Actually, they would have to have been as advanced as we some time ago, depending on how far they are away. For example, if they are 500 light years away, then they would have to have been at our level 500 years ago, or at least be using radio 500 years ago.
I think this is a great idea and I like the idea of SETI, but what are the odds that an alien civilization would even use radio as a means of communication and use as much as we do? I mean, detecting radio is one thing, using it for communication and everything from basic entertainment to object detection (RADAR) and entertainment are yet others.
Think processors that produce less heat, but don't look at them directly without eye protection. As speeds ramp up, heat sincs will be replaced with tinted shields.
So it sounds to me like you want to draw the line at "possesses human dna and will continue to grow and be self sustaining eventually". I should point out that there are some alzeheimer's patients and coma victems who would not pass this test. I should also point out that frozen embryos do not pass this test as they are not in an environment where they are capable of growth.
Yeah, I didn't put that very well. I thought of a better way after I hit submit:
A finger is part of a person. A person can live without a finger but not the other way around. If it were possible to extract stem cells without destroying the embryo, I would not have any problems with it, just like I don't have a problem removing them from am biotic fluid as mentioned in TFA.
Also, there is a possibility that coma patients will wake up. If not, I would still not like them being experimented on, but I don't have a problem with euthanasia. The same could be said of Alzheimer's patients. I guess you could consider embryos as organ donors, but that would be stretch as they won't have ID's to put the sticker on. I guess I'll support harvesting embryos for stem cells when it's made legal to take organs from cadaver without consent.
The only objection to fingerprinting everyone (somewhere in elementary school) is the indignity of (mis)treating every citizen as a (potential) criminal.
But isn't everyone a "potential" criminal?
My only problem with fingerprinting is the chance that I will get ink on my shirt. As long as it applies to everyone, there really shouldn't be an indignity from this, but I understand how some can feel dirty after going through airport security. It may also help if the fingerprint database is not referred to as a "criminal database". I don't know if it was named that by the article or the FBI itself.
Suppose someone's finger gets cut off. DNA tests will undoubtedly confirm it to be human. Should it be afforded all the rights of a person? Should we keep it on life support?
No. Because a finger, like a pre-3 month embryo, is an incomplete piece of a person.
Excellent point, except that a pre-3 month embryo will continue to grow and be self sustaining eventually. A finger will not. Besides, under your logic, if someone loses a finger, what do we save, the finger or the rest of the carcass?
I think this is where it gets pretty dirty... having Michael J Fox and John Edwards (referencing Christopher Reeve) that "cures" are on the way when - to the best of my knowledge and research - *adult* stem cells are the only ones which have actually demonstrated anything useful.
Seeing that MJF even supported the wrong candidate for his stated purposes (either one that voted against stem cell research or against a candidate that voted for it, I don't remember), it either means that he is completely ignorant and was used by the Democratic party or he is a political hack himself. For Fox's sake, I hope he's ignorant. Ignorance in this case would at least mean he was being honest and genuine.
First let me start the flaming by saying... Excellent post.
Next, let me sorta agree with the "We don't have to find where to draw the line" part. I agree in the sense that when we start trying to decide what is human and what is not, you are going to upset a lot of people. That's why this is such a debate to begin with. People like me (/.'ers call us "fundamentalists" while fundamentalists call us "heathens"... so I guess we are somewhere in the middle) feel that the line should never be drawn. It's either human or it's not. A simple DNA test will decide. Human rights are just that HUMAN rights, whether that human be a glob of cells or a Alzheimer's ridden 90-year drooling and wearing a diaper. After all, we are all really just a glob of cells. Of course, you disagree, which is one of the most telling human characteristics I know of. We aren't wrong, we just see things differently
Hopefully, none of that really matters. If this discovery pans out, this debate will be over and we can hopefully see the benefits of stem cell research sooner rather than later. Hopefully, the discoveries will be so incredible that the new debate will be "how far should we go?" rather than "how will we get there?"
The funniest part about this is your assumption that science is capable of defining to a factual certainty what constitutes a "living human organism" and then attacking me for MY ignorance.
No, the funny part is that you think that science does not able to identify: 1) Life. We are not talking about strange, Martian life here, but mammalian life here on earth. I think science has ID'd cells as living, especially when they do things like divide and convert chemicals into energy. 2) Human. A DNA test will confirm that the cell is indeed, human 3) Organism. Same as number one, but currently "alive" is not a requirement.
So again, either you disagree with some part of what I've written, which means one of us is ignorant (not that there is anything wrong with that) or that you are being intellectually honest.
I think that you are equating "human" with "having a soul" (not necessarily a religious-type soul, maybe a "James-Brown-type soul"). And I hope that you see that the GGP's definition lands a bit close to my own. My beef is you calling someone a liar because you disagree with them. Believe it or not, some people see things differently than you do and are not they lying when they say something that does not jive with YOUR view of the universe. Just because someone's view is different then your own does not make them wrong.
I'm sorry, but the idea that embryonic stem cells could have become a baby is precisely the objection that most of the people who object to ESC research have.
I'm afraid I have to disagree here. The problem is not with stem cell research, or even the fact that it is possible to manipulate a stem cell into becoming a human being, but how you got the cell in the first place.
I fully support stem cell research. I think it is a sin not to. The only problem people like me have with embryonic stem cell research is not the research at all, but the production of the stem cells to begin with. In order to harvest embryonic stem cells (as my feeble mind understands it), an embryo must be coaxed to divide and start to grow. At a certain point, it has to be destroyed to harvest the stem cells. It's that destruction of a growing embryo that is the problem. People like me equate that to an abortion, but it's no longer about women's choice, but experimentation and profit.
Now we can get into a ton of philosophical debates as to when life begins and when an embryo becomes human and such, but this debate goes into so many different directions. If we agree not to harvest embryos for stem cells because they are human, then they must be human when considering an abortion. If an embryo is not human, then why the rub about abortion? This is another reason why the debate gets so heated. There is more at stake than just stem cells.
Most people want embryonic stem cells for one or a combination of three reasons: 1) Bush said not to and it pisses off fundies (these tend to go together) 2) It legally reaffirms that embryos are not human, and thus abortion remains legal 3) They want to stop the suffering humans with diseases that stem cell research promises to cure, and they don't know that stem cells can come from other sources.
This is why other sources must be found. It's not because anyone is right or wrong, but because neither side will ever give up. Will it get to the point where fundies are blowing up research labs and feminists are performing stem cell harvesting with coat hangers? Doubtful, but why have the debate at all when there are other means of harvesting stem cells than to kill a growing embryo? We really can have our cake and eat it too!
I would say that the thing that makes us human is the differnece between us and the other animals, our mind (or as some people call it our soul). An embrio certainly doesn't have a mind (or knowlage) greater than that of any other animal so or probably an insect or plant so why should they be treated any differently to the other aminals and plants?
I could say the same for the "mentally challenged". Should we carve them up as well?
To take it a step further: I remember the Chaivo case a while back where a lady was determined to be brain dead. Her husband was allowed to pull the plug on her, not because she had no brain activity, but because she would never again have any brain activity. You can't say the same of an embryo.
So how can Tesla, a startup company with little manufacturing and car experience relative to GM, build an electric car that can make it 200 miles on a charge, while GM can only build one that makes it 40? Come on GM, put a bigger Li-Ion battery in the thing and create a car that works for commuters.
Keep in mind that the Tesla does not have to worry about lugging a heavy internal combustion engine around either. If you want to drive more than 200 miles in a Tesla, you have to carry around the portable charge and recharge it for three hours, assuming you can find a place that will let you plug in. The gasoline powered internal combustion engine may reduce the efficiency of the car, but it allows for the car to drive cross country, only stopping to refill (and pee), which takes about 15 minutes ever 400 miles or so.
Unless you happen to be a member of the LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual or Transgendered) community... in which case they'd rather string you up and hang you from a big ass tree in front of their house because it's the "Christian" thing to do. Pretty funny considering there was a saying about Texas... steers and queers or something?
I hate to inform you, but bigotry exists in all 50 states. While I have not lived in 50, I can tell you that Texas is one of the more "gay-friendly" places I've lived. Of course, you want to stay in the bigger cities as small towns everywhere have issues.
I remember one of the larges student groups at UofH was the GLSA. One of my first college girlfriends from Sam Houston State (in East Texas) turned out to be bi. My first and latest boss in Austin were gay, (and uncomfortably so.)
So just because we are in the south, don't assume we all the ignorant hicks you see on TV. That's being just as bigotedly as you are accusing Texans of being.
Slashdot Mirror
Income inequality drives crime. When everyone is poor, no one steals from each other.
You mean there is no crime in Communist countries where everyone gets the same check? Is there no crime in poor neighborhoods?
When everyone is rich, everyone steals from each other, but there are rules.
Everyone is rich in America, compared to most of the world. Are we all stealing from each other?
When some people are very, very rich and some are poor, the poor feel justified in evening out the unfairness through direct action.
This may only true if there is no opportunity for the poor to pick themselves up. I would point out a caste system as an example, but I don't know what the crime rates are in India. According the the Gini numbers mentioned in TFA, this would mean that the US has one of the highest crime rates in the world! I don't think that is the case.
If everyone had their basic needs met, I don't think income inequality would matter as much.
Here in America, there is no reason for anyone to starve or have their basic needs met. In communist countries, basic needs are met by the gov't. Is there no crime in America or communist countries?
But as long as some people are desperare and feel they are being screwed, and they can find an easy target in a rich person, there will be crime.
People feel they are getting screwed because they are told they are getting screwed. This class-warfare bullshit is getting really old, really fast. The poorest in America live better than the vast majority of the world, but they are not shown that. They are shown how the "rich and famous" live on TV and they think that they are getting screwed because they don't live like that. If they showed starving kids instead, they might feel pretty good about the four walls on their trailer-house.
It's class division that makes people steal, it's a lack of morals. Granted, if I'm starving, I will steal a loaf of bread to feed my family, but that's not what we are talking about here. My father lives in a 1970's built trailer house in East Texas. He is what most people in the US would call "dirt poor". He refuses help and doesn't steal, or cheat or really commit any other crimes with the exception public intoxication. He works hard for what he has building "chicken houses" for those in the area with more money and land than he has. He lives the way he does because he has social issues and he's not comfortable in places with other people. Still, he's happy with what he has and has no problems with his lifestyle. But by your post, he should one of the biggest outlaws in Texas because he's poor and there are others around him who are rich.
If this were true, why is it, in twelve years of being in the majority in Congress, Republicans were unable to pass bills to advance the construction of nuclear power plants? And please don't blame Clinton - he was only in the White House for half of it.
The same reason that a Republican controlled congress and White House could not get Judge Pickering confirmed to the court of appeals. Hell, it never even made it to a vote! Having a majority in congress != absolute rule.
The simple fact is that just about nobody wants one (or, if they do, they don't want one in their back yard...).
Very true, but there's a lot of territory that is not exactly in anyone's back yard. Take West Texas or Kansas for example or even any number of closed or soon-to-be-closed military bases.
This is really not meant as a troll, but with the recent change of power in congress, don't expect anything relating to nuclear to happen. Just as the Republicans are supposedly pwned by big corporations, the Democrats supposedly pwned by environmental groups who seem to be opposed to all forms of energy production, especially nuclear (or nucular as Carter and Bush call it)
More accurate to say:
A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far, Far Away...
Close though.
A cake with config frosting that must be,
...on occasion, manually blended with incompatible new frosting.
Yoda, is that you?
Seriously, I assume the installer will config the system. Once the use flags are set up, that's pretty much it. While some config files will change as software is updated, not updating the configs has never been a problem for me. Updating them can cause issues, but so far, the original configs have always worked.
If the use flags are set up conservatively, this will rarely be a problem, and even then only after repository has been updated so many times that current libraries become a problem. That said, emerge has not given me near the grief that apt-get or (God forbid) yum have. (Don't get me wrong, yum is great, but rpm's tend to suck.)
Actually, I take back the earlier statement about Gentoo being the easiest to maintain. That prize would have to go to Lindows... er... Linspire because they maintain Apple-strict control of the repositories. But since Linspire is not free, not offered for the PS3, and not the topic of this discussion, I'll stick with Gentoo on my PC and PS3 should I win the lottery.
is there a reason to use the PS3 instead of a PC?
YES
Because you can!
I really think that someone taking his first steps in linux world should not be left out in the cold with Gentoo!! Gentoo has its benefits ... but being user friendly to beginners is definitely not one of them!!
The hard part of Gentoo is setting it up and that's really by choice. I've set it up from both stage 1 and 3 and trust me, there is a huge difference. However, once Gentoo is set up, it's cake to maintain. I'd go as far to say that it is the easiest distro I've ever used when it comes to installing software if it is set up correctly. As long as it is set to sync the portage tree regularly (via Cron) and GUI tools such as Porthole or Kuroo, maintenance is a breeze. May I suggest checking out a Gentoo based OS like Sabayon or Vida.
*Disclaimer: This message typed on a Sabayon powered system.
I would say pretty high. Radio waves are a part of nature. We use them because they are the best solution for broadcast transmissions and for mobile communications.
The systems are simple and work well. Odds are pretty good that they would have many of the same needs as we do and they share the universe with us so the solutins could be very similar. After all how long have we used the wheel?
Excellent point. However, we don't know what these aliens are like. Their eyes may see in radio where we see in light. Your common cordless phone would be like a sparkler to these people.
Then again, you're probably right. I don't know beans about radio except it's the only musical instrument I can play!
The flaw with all these searches is that it assumes that any nearby civilizations are exactly at the same level of development as humanity
Actually, they would have to have been as advanced as we some time ago, depending on how far they are away. For example, if they are 500 light years away, then they would have to have been at our level 500 years ago, or at least be using radio 500 years ago.
I think this is a great idea and I like the idea of SETI, but what are the odds that an alien civilization would even use radio as a means of communication and use as much as we do? I mean, detecting radio is one thing, using it for communication and everything from basic entertainment to object detection (RADAR) and entertainment are yet others.
I yearn for impartial & unbiased educational programming that I enjoyed in my youth
In other words, boring.
(/joke)
Coax for light?
Why?
Think processors that produce less heat, but don't look at them directly without eye protection. As speeds ramp up, heat sincs will be replaced with tinted shields.
So it sounds to me like you want to draw the line at "possesses human dna and will continue to grow and be self sustaining eventually". I should point out that there are some alzeheimer's patients and coma victems who would not pass this test. I should also point out that frozen embryos do not pass this test as they are not in an environment where they are capable of growth.
Yeah, I didn't put that very well. I thought of a better way after I hit submit:
A finger is part of a person. A person can live without a finger but not the other way around. If it were possible to extract stem cells without destroying the embryo, I would not have any problems with it, just like I don't have a problem removing them from am biotic fluid as mentioned in TFA.
Also, there is a possibility that coma patients will wake up. If not, I would still not like them being experimented on, but I don't have a problem with euthanasia. The same could be said of Alzheimer's patients. I guess you could consider embryos as organ donors, but that would be stretch as they won't have ID's to put the sticker on. I guess I'll support harvesting embryos for stem cells when it's made legal to take organs from cadaver without consent.
The coax cable is only about 300nm wide,...
How do you plug it in?
The only objection to fingerprinting everyone (somewhere in elementary school) is the indignity of (mis)treating every citizen as a (potential) criminal.
But isn't everyone a "potential" criminal?
My only problem with fingerprinting is the chance that I will get ink on my shirt. As long as it applies to everyone, there really shouldn't be an indignity from this, but I understand how some can feel dirty after going through airport security. It may also help if the fingerprint database is not referred to as a "criminal database". I don't know if it was named that by the article or the FBI itself.
Suppose someone's finger gets cut off. DNA tests will undoubtedly confirm it to be human. Should it be afforded all the rights of a person? Should we keep it on life support?
No. Because a finger, like a pre-3 month embryo, is an incomplete piece of a person.
Excellent point, except that a pre-3 month embryo will continue to grow and be self sustaining eventually. A finger will not. Besides, under your logic, if someone loses a finger, what do we save, the finger or the rest of the carcass?
I think this is where it gets pretty dirty... having Michael J Fox and John Edwards (referencing Christopher Reeve) that "cures" are on the way when - to the best of my knowledge and research - *adult* stem cells are the only ones which have actually demonstrated anything useful.
Seeing that MJF even supported the wrong candidate for his stated purposes (either one that voted against stem cell research or against a candidate that voted for it, I don't remember), it either means that he is completely ignorant and was used by the Democratic party or he is a political hack himself. For Fox's sake, I hope he's ignorant. Ignorance in this case would at least mean he was being honest and genuine.
First let me start the flaming by saying... Excellent post.
Next, let me sorta agree with the "We don't have to find where to draw the line" part. I agree in the sense that when we start trying to decide what is human and what is not, you are going to upset a lot of people. That's why this is such a debate to begin with. People like me (/.'ers call us "fundamentalists" while fundamentalists call us "heathens"... so I guess we are somewhere in the middle) feel that the line should never be drawn. It's either human or it's not. A simple DNA test will decide. Human rights are just that HUMAN rights, whether that human be a glob of cells or a Alzheimer's ridden 90-year drooling and wearing a diaper. After all, we are all really just a glob of cells. Of course, you disagree, which is one of the most telling human characteristics I know of. We aren't wrong, we just see things differently
Hopefully, none of that really matters. If this discovery pans out, this debate will be over and we can hopefully see the benefits of stem cell research sooner rather than later. Hopefully, the discoveries will be so incredible that the new debate will be "how far should we go?" rather than "how will we get there?"
The funniest part about this is your assumption that science is capable of defining to a factual certainty what constitutes a "living human organism" and then attacking me for MY ignorance.
No, the funny part is that you think that science does not able to identify:
1) Life. We are not talking about strange, Martian life here, but mammalian life here on earth. I think science has ID'd cells as living, especially when they do things like divide and convert chemicals into energy.
2) Human. A DNA test will confirm that the cell is indeed, human
3) Organism. Same as number one, but currently "alive" is not a requirement.
So again, either you disagree with some part of what I've written, which means one of us is ignorant (not that there is anything wrong with that) or that you are being intellectually honest.
I think that you are equating "human" with "having a soul" (not necessarily a religious-type soul, maybe a "James-Brown-type soul"). And I hope that you see that the GGP's definition lands a bit close to my own. My beef is you calling someone a liar because you disagree with them. Believe it or not, some people see things differently than you do and are not they lying when they say something that does not jive with YOUR view of the universe. Just because someone's view is different then your own does not make them wrong.
I'm sorry, but the idea that embryonic stem cells could have become a baby is precisely the objection that most of the people who object to ESC research have.
I'm afraid I have to disagree here. The problem is not with stem cell research, or even the fact that it is possible to manipulate a stem cell into becoming a human being, but how you got the cell in the first place.
I fully support stem cell research. I think it is a sin not to. The only problem people like me have with embryonic stem cell research is not the research at all, but the production of the stem cells to begin with. In order to harvest embryonic stem cells (as my feeble mind understands it), an embryo must be coaxed to divide and start to grow. At a certain point, it has to be destroyed to harvest the stem cells. It's that destruction of a growing embryo that is the problem. People like me equate that to an abortion, but it's no longer about women's choice, but experimentation and profit.
Now we can get into a ton of philosophical debates as to when life begins and when an embryo becomes human and such, but this debate goes into so many different directions. If we agree not to harvest embryos for stem cells because they are human, then they must be human when considering an abortion. If an embryo is not human, then why the rub about abortion? This is another reason why the debate gets so heated. There is more at stake than just stem cells.
Most people want embryonic stem cells for one or a combination of three reasons:
1) Bush said not to and it pisses off fundies (these tend to go together)
2) It legally reaffirms that embryos are not human, and thus abortion remains legal
3) They want to stop the suffering humans with diseases that stem cell research promises to cure, and they don't know that stem cells can come from other sources.
This is why other sources must be found. It's not because anyone is right or wrong, but because neither side will ever give up. Will it get to the point where fundies are blowing up research labs and feminists are performing stem cell harvesting with coat hangers? Doubtful, but why have the debate at all when there are other means of harvesting stem cells than to kill a growing embryo? We really can have our cake and eat it too!
I would say that the thing that makes us human is the differnece between us and the other animals, our mind (or as some people call it our soul). An embrio certainly doesn't have a mind (or knowlage) greater than that of any other animal so or probably an insect or plant so why should they be treated any differently to the other aminals and plants?
I could say the same for the "mentally challenged". Should we carve them up as well?
To take it a step further: I remember the Chaivo case a while back where a lady was determined to be brain dead. Her husband was allowed to pull the plug on her, not because she had no brain activity, but because she would never again have any brain activity. You can't say the same of an embryo.
"It is scientific fact that embryos, from conception onward, are living human organisms."
Why lie? That is by no measure a "scientific fact" and you destroy any credibility you may have had by lying in such an obvious fashion.
More to the point, YOU betray your religious leanings by lying like that.
You either don't know the definition of "living organism" or you are the liar yourself. I don't know which is worse.
So how can Tesla, a startup company with little manufacturing and car experience relative to GM, build an electric car that can make it 200 miles on a charge, while GM can only build one that makes it 40? Come on GM, put a bigger Li-Ion battery in the thing and create a car that works for commuters.
Keep in mind that the Tesla does not have to worry about lugging a heavy internal combustion engine around either. If you want to drive more than 200 miles in a Tesla, you have to carry around the portable charge and recharge it for three hours, assuming you can find a place that will let you plug in. The gasoline powered internal combustion engine may reduce the efficiency of the car, but it allows for the car to drive cross country, only stopping to refill (and pee), which takes about 15 minutes ever 400 miles or so.
a possible Web Worm that lives in the very fabric of Web 2.0 and could kill the Web as we know it.
This statement has FUD written all over it. (or was it written in FUD?)
Unless you happen to be a member of the LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual or Transgendered) community... in which case they'd rather string you up and hang you from a big ass tree in front of their house because it's the "Christian" thing to do. Pretty funny considering there was a saying about Texas... steers and queers or something?
:)
I hate to inform you, but bigotry exists in all 50 states. While I have not lived in 50, I can tell you that Texas is one of the more "gay-friendly" places I've lived. Of course, you want to stay in the bigger cities as small towns everywhere have issues.
I remember one of the larges student groups at UofH was the GLSA. One of my first college girlfriends from Sam Houston State (in East Texas) turned out to be bi. My first and latest boss in Austin were gay, (and uncomfortably so.)
So just because we are in the south, don't assume we all the ignorant hicks you see on TV. That's being just as bigotedly as you are accusing Texans of being.
(is bigotedly a word? Firefox picked it