So far my experiences with 8.04 have been terrible.
The sound does not work on Realtek AC888.
There is a huge bug in Dolphin as well which makes an error window pop up when using the mouse curser.
I'd rate this release as a C. It's not production quality. The only reason it's not D or F is because the install works great and for the most part it's functional, but it's just not ready for a serious user.
To start with, allowing athletes to use performance enhancing drugs basically would have the effect of starting an "arms" race amongst athletes - with long term detrimental effects on the athletes themselves.
Allowing "globalization" has started an arms race among employees. Don't you understand the true nature of the situation? It already is and always has been an arms race. There is no overall mission, or goal beyond merely surviving and profiting. The individual is in a competition with all other individuals for resources. Every family is in it for themselves. Every corporation is in it for themselves. Every government is in it for them self. They don't care about you, me, or anyone who stands in the way of their power and influence because the game is about getting what you can get in the time that you have.
If you don't get what you can from life then you aren't winning. If you don't win, no one cares about you or respects your existence. Homeless individuals aren't winning, and most dont care about the homeless. People living in the third world aren't winning and most don't care about the third world.
You have to be a taker to survive in America. This is the first lesson all immigrants learn. This is the one lesson you can see if you look throughout US history, the takers are the people who come from families that have something to show for their existence, and then there are the have nots, the people who wouldn't or couldn't take the resources they needed to live in a secure environment.
A secure environment means being able to raise your children in a safe neighborhood, away from the slums, away from the risks, in an environment where your children have an opportunity to live a good life, and be happy. The American dream is not free. In order to access the American dream, often individuals must sacrifice their health, either psychologically or otherwise, to do the things that are required of them to get where they must go.
The point, it's better to die trying to win than to die trying not to lose. Because that is the American way of life.
The point of sport is to see athletes at their peak pitted against one another. The whole purpose of sport is that it is totally performance based. It does not mean that someone who is genetically inferior cannot attempt to compete, and in fact I believe that there have been some successful sub-6 foot basketballers.
Yeah, one or two, and those basketball players were still genetically unusual. Being able to dunk and being under 6ft0 is unusual.
Have you never read "Think and Grow Rich"? In almost every case in society it is not genetics that ends up winning, but training, willpower and dedication.
Persistence plays a role, as does social power, but without they genes you won't have the intelligence to be truly qualified. Many individuals are born into social power, and are persistent, so they do go to Harvard, Yale, etc, but can you say that these people are the smartest humanity has to offer? Can you say they are the smartest that America has to offer?
Some of our smarter people might be rotting in prison on drug charges. Some of them might never have finished college. Some people are complete geniuses, but for whatever reason, they are assumed to be dumb based on where they were born, or what race they are. Again, persistence plays a role, but so does environment, and so do genetics, and intelligence is genetic even if persistence can make it so anyone can get a degree.
Using genetics as an excuse for taking steroids undermines the whole reason for having sports in the first place.
Steroids was invented in the first place as a way to prevent genetic discrimination. The reason for having sports is for our entertainment, and so the sporting companies can profit from it. The same reason we have corporations, so profits can be made. A sports team exists so it's owner can profit from ticket and other sales. A corporation exists so it's sha
The government of the US is corrupt? By what standard are you judging it? Have these allegations been upheld in a court of law? What does administration do that makes scientific research corrupt?
The US government is more corrupt than it has been in the last 100 years. Arguably, the US is in a similar situation to the situation Rome was once in before it collapsed. If the government is corrupt, and the government is funding the scientific research, then the research itself will be used for corrupt purposes even if the researchers themselves aren't corrupt. All the discoveries on genetic medicine can have dual uses as genetic weaponry. It's just common sense.
Again with the allegations of corruption. What conclusive evidence do you have that this government is corrupt? Misguided - maybe, making decisions based on faulty information - certainly, but corrupt
Follow the money. If you look at what the US government spends most of it's money funding it's obvious that the government is corrupt. The US government is so corrupt that a lot of what is funded is classified and no, it's not always classified because it's defense related.
I think anyone with a brain right now knows the US government is corrupt. Look at the situation in Iraq. Hell, just use wikipedia and look up all the moles that were lurking in the US government since before 911 and tell me, is the War on Terror even winnable? It's a completely unwinnable religious war. We have no way to beat an enemy when that enemy is ubiquitous. There are probably terrorists within the government itself, so how exactly can we win?
Citation needed. Race is just one physical manifestation of genetic differences anyway. To believe in race you must believe in genetics. Again, I ask for you to back up your statement with facts.
Race is not an accurate measurement of genetic difference. Race is an inaccurate measurement used by pseudo-scientists for religious reasons.
Most racists believe in race and have no clue who they are genetically.
This may be so, but I fail to see how it relates to this bill. Also, race is an issue Americans are far more comfortable thinking about than genetics (i.e. the average American has a greater understanding of race than they do of genetics, intertwined though they are).
I can't take a government seriously when the government does not fully believe in the science of genetics. To ask people to choose a race is as ridiculous as asking people to choose a portion of their genes. In some cases the race they put on the census will not even be accurate genetically, it's just what people look like.
A perfect example would be Barack Obama, is he black or white? He is neither. He's genetically American. Yet the census assumes everyone is going to fit neatly into a box, and thats the fatal flaw of the census. While there may be boxes according to science, the boxes cannot be seen by the naked eye and the only way for the government to truly measure race would be to ask every citizen to submit their DNA to check how American they are.
I do believe that some people are rational enough in government to consider replacing the census with DNA measurements, but these people are probably still currently outnumbered by the people who believe in the religious concepts of race. The truth is, you can get a more accurate genetic measurement by looking at class than you can by looking at race.
So you are now crediting this "corrupt" government (which is now made up of a democrat majority in congress I might add) with foresight?
The Bill is not all bad. If we lived in a world where the government actually followed the international laws, and the laws of the US constitution, perhaps I would not be so against the concepts that make up this bill. However the words have to be changed because the words leave too many loopholes and only assist corrupt individuals.
Tell me why we shouldn't save our species by boosting the rate of evolution? Because humans are faddish creatures. Ever notice how names run in waves within generations? Just wait until a wave of soccer moms decides to tailor some Taylors that have a genetic predisposition towards clothes tailoring. Most of these children grow up to find that the tailoring business has a glut, they'll end up either unhappy in another job or working for peanuts. Also, this common gene sequence might make them susceptible to a new virus down the road (which would ultimately be good for society overall if it's a fatal virus).
Tell me why we shouldn't save our species by boosting the rate of evolution? Because humans are faddish creatures. Ever notice how names run in waves within generations? Just wait until a wave of soccer moms decides to tailor some Taylors that have a genetic predisposition towards clothes tailoring. Most of these children grow up to find that the tailoring business has a glut, they'll end up either unhappy in another job or working for peanuts. Also, this common gene sequence might make them susceptible to a new virus down the road (which would ultimately be good for society overall if it's a fatal virus). It may be the case that parents select based on fads, but how is that any different than the currently stupid way in which we select based merely on physical appearance and bank account?
I'd much rather we snap out of our horrible patterns of selection to move to more scientific patterns of selection. There will always be patterns, there is no doubt about this, but can we generally agree that intelligence is good? There are going to be certain genes which will never be fads and which will not be a matter of subjective opinions, there are certain genes which will improve our offspring's chances of survival, and intelligence is a good example of that.
The point is, we already control our gene patterns based on mating patterns and birth control, I don't see how adding another tool int our arsenal would be a bad thing.
Let's allow people to screen for diseases. Let's cure down syndrome and let's cure ignorance while we are at it. If we don't have to give birth to ignorant babies, why should we continue to do it?
Even if we are ignorant ourselves, why would we want to keep giving birth to babies that are more ignorant than we are and call this evolution?
Instead of making the people who generate the risk pay the highest taxes, we want to make the model citizens pay the majority of the tax burden for the risk generators.
Perhaps our taxes would be much lower if we made people pay for the damages they generate instead of making all of society pay for the damages generated by the thousands who get rich off destroying society.
If they have the money to buy the drugs to treat their genetic misfortune, then it would be efficient.
But I agree with you that as things are not it's not efficient. I don't think this bill makes anything more efficient either because these same people who voted for this bill want steroids illegal in sports.
They don't REALLY want to outlaw genetic discrimination for all people, they just want to outlaw it for themselves, and get rich.
While I can understand why an individual would be against having corporations genetically discriminate, why would that same person also be against designer babies?
The only way to truly evolve as a species will be through genetic and human enhancement technologies.
Lets face the fact that as we are, we are unfit for survival on this planet. We have to change and speed up our rate of evolution just so we don't destroy our own habitat and our species along with it. We face a question on whether we want to go extinct and take thousands of species and possibly the planet along with us, or whether we'd like to go the route of designer babies and boost the rate of human evolution x10.
There will always be an underclass under any capitalist system. The underclass has nothing to do with whether or not we support designer babies, or trans-humanism. Trans-humanism is basically the only means we have to guarantee that every baby is intelligent, so that no more babies are born with downs-syndrome, or autistic, so that we have no more crack babies, no more genetic diseases that pass down from generation to generation.
It starts with birth control, if you don't want an inferior baby, try to choose a mate/partner who has superior genetic material in the first place and use birth control. If birth control doesn't work, there is abortion, and while I personally don't support abortion, if you are a drug addict and you get pregnant by some homeless person or random bloke on the street, then I can at least understand the reasoning behind it.
Designer babies are a step up above birth control and abortion as it has the potential to make both obsolete. Considering that we do have a problem with low genetic quality, and considering we are horrible at selecting naturally, unnatural selection, and designer babies I believe will save the human race in the long term.
To put it simply, we must evolve or die. We aren't evolving at a fast enough rate naturally. Our only solution will be to start genetically screen babies in the lab to remove all the obvious diseases. Eventually we will reach a stage where we understand intelligence enough to allow parents to select intelligence as a trait in a lab. We have already reached a point where two overly smart people can pair up without ever meeting each other.
We have sperm banks. Sperm banks are good because it allows us to preserve the best genetic material and the desired genetic mutations.
We will have egg banks as well which will allow women to freeze and store their eggs for the same purposes.
This is and probably will lead to a future where we can scientifically match the best sperm with the best egg to produce the most genetically fit babies possible. It wont require that the two individuals even have sex with each other, they'd merely have to sign the paper work. Through these means, the smartest people in the world will pair up, because currently the smartest people in the world are not the most physically attractive people in the world.
This also leads to an ability to increase intelligence by screening for genes which we know hinder the growth or development of the brain. And finally this leads to a period where you'll be able to go to a drug store and buy some smart pills, which will increase your IQ by 50 points, and then 100 points, etc. If it hasn't been developed already, there will be pills for photographic memory, there will be pills for increasing creativity, in specific there will be brain enhancers.
I'm convinced that if humans do not overcome their own genes, we humans will be destroyed and will die out due to our diseases and our low gene quality. It's really just natural law.
I just finished teaching a bioethics course at Harvard College and we studied this topic in detail; it was one of the questions on the final exam. I am convinced that this is a well-intentioned but bad law.
The problem with this law is that it creates adverse selection in health insurance. Health insurers won't be able to get genetic info on the people they're covering, but the people themselves will. That creates asymmetric information, and is ripe for abuse. Think about it: if I get my DNA sequenced and find out that I'm a walking health hazard, then I'll buy the most comprehensive policy out there. If I find out I'm genetically clear, I scale down my coverage, or drop it completely. Meanwhile, the insurer can't adjust my premium to accurately reflect my risk. The result: only genetically unhealthy (and risk-averse) people will buy into health insurance pools, or the genetically health will only buy insurance for physical accidents. And when the insurance pools are small, and the insurers can't accurately price risk, they pools collapse: nobody gets health insurance.
Of course, the obvious alternative--let both buyers and sellers of health insurance use DNA analysis to accurately price risk--is unpalatable because people will suffer from higher premiums through no fault of their own (i.e. because they have bad genes), and people will benefit through no effort of their own (i.e. because they have good genes). This concern (coupled with privacy concerns) is why GINA passed overwhelmingly, and I don't mean to diminish it.
Insurance works best when the risks aren't ascertainable in an individual case but are ascertainable in the aggregate. DNA sequencing really threatens the concept of health insurance, because it greatly decreases the uncertainty surrounding an individual's health future. The best way to keep insurance alive is to insure before it is possible to determine a person's health risk. Now, you could do that by banning DNA testing for individuals unless they are willing to permanently waive their ability to buy or modify their health insurance policies, but DNA testing is so cheap that the ban will be hard to enforce, and a permanent waiver seems rather harsh. You could require people to buy insurance for their kids before conception, but that has the same problem that the kid will be stuck with the same health insurance for ever (and that there might not be a kid in sad circumstances)
The ultimate, fool-proof solution: social gene insurance. Essentially, when any private insurer wants to charge you more than the base rate because of your genes, you just pay the base rate and society picks up the difference. The gene insurance would be funded through taxes, much like social security is now, though none of that "lockbox" BS. Socialized health insurance would work, too, being a superset of social gene insurance. The idea behind social insurance schemes is that they in effect force citizens to buy in before anyone has any knowledge of their genetic risk, making it a sound insurance product. And the solution works from the view of liberal theories of justice, e.g. Rawls, because it is essentially a redistribution of social resources from those who happen to be born with (and hence do not deserve) such resources to those who happen to be dealt a bad hand, through no fault of their own. I don't want t pay for someone elses bad genes. It's bad enough I have to pay for the bad genes within my own family, you think I want to pay taxes to support all the bad genes floating around in this country?
That idea is simply insane. Let the people who have bad genes pay for it themselves, and let's offer them the trans-humanist solution so they can overcome their bad genes. (Free steroids and memory enhancing drugs)
This is why we should be supporting trans-humanism, it's the only long term solution.
You've studied at Harvard so you should know this.
And I'm not trying to be cynical about it, but I believe a bill supporting trans-humanism would be more useful than a bill trying to ban genetic discrimination.
Carrots work better than sticks. It's better to create new opportunities for people than to remove options from people. If we can't all be equal, we should legalize steroids and intelligence enhancing drugs so we all can level the playing fields.
Otherwise these sorts of bills actually will make things worse. What if, as a way to lower costs, certain companies decide to develop race based medicine? How exactly would this be better for the consumer?
I think we need some bills in support of trans-humanism and we need to once and for all legalize all human or genetic enhancement drugs, because thats the reasonable way to lower costs. If you can afford to buy the drugs, you can have a chance at making it as a professional body builder, or as a player in the NFL, or even get into a good school and be a scientist/doctor studying medicine.
To not let us enhance ourselves is also genetic discrimination.
This bill seems like it would effect the NBA, NFL and Baseball more than it would effect most other employers.
They want to attack organized sports by telling athletes they can't use human enhancement drugs such as steroids, then they go and pass this ridiculous bill which encourages athletes to use steroids because now if the employer threaten them in any way, it's a potential trial with genetic discrimination thrown into the mix.
I don't see a point. I think currently, we have the most corrupt group of lawmakers in US history. The laws don't even have to make sense anymore, most of the laws are political, and most of the laws are emotional, none of the laws are reasonable and this includes the patriot act and the iraq war resolutions.
Can you really trust any of the research being done under this corrupt government? And can you really trust any kinda race based medicine?
Honestly, the research might be important, but considering that the research is being done by one of the most corrupt governments on the planet, it doesn't sit well with me.
We are also one of the most religious governments on the planet. Half of the politicians don't even believe in genetics and still think in terms of race. The census still asks for racial information instead of genetic or DNA information. The bill might not be all that bad but it's way before it's time.
We have a government that genetically discriminates against drug addicts, just look at the drug laws, yet this non-discrimination law would prevent employers and health insurance companies from discriminating against those same drug addicts? I don't see a point.
And then we have the government trying to crack down on steroids and other human enhancement products, helping to enforce the very genetic discrimination that this bill is attempting to stop.
I don't can't see this bill being anything good when it's managed by the current group of people.
Sure we can have genetic tests, but whats the point?
I see this as just a backdoor to race based medicine. As long as we have a government that is still asking for racial information on the census, why should I believe the government has developed enough of a brain to suddenly go scientific and ask about genetics?
And I'm not naive enough to think that the doctors want this information to innocently cure all the worlds diseases. The only useful reason I see to offer genetic information would be to lower health insurance costs and to improve your marketability in the work place.
I feel like we only have two options. We can support the human enhancement industry(trans-humanism), or we can support genetic discrimination.
During a time when we are going after athletes for using steroids, it makes absolutely no sense to me why we'd pass a genetic discrimination bill. Is it our goal to ruin our sports industries? Or are we going to legalize steroids?
I'm of the position where I can only support this bill if this law leads to a trans-humanist future. Let's face it, most people have genes which prevent them from being talented, this is a fact. Most of us aren't going to be physically talented enough to get into the NBA or the NFL, yet now the NBA and NFL cannot genetically discriminate against us, so does this mean we can use steroids so that we can compete with the genetically gifted players?
In another example, we may discover the genes for human intelligence, but we may also develop chemical compounds, and organic compounds which improve memory, focus and allow an individual to have greater intelligence and a photographic memory. Should we allow doctors to screen an individual and based on that give the dumb individual these pills so they can compete with the person who genetically has the photographic memory? Or should we just sell these pills over the counter to whoever can afford them?
What about specific traits? What if we discover the genes which control certain traits, yet we also figure out drugs which can change peoples personalities to fit the requirements of a job. Should the employer be able to make a persons doctor prescribe these drugs so as to increase their profits or should employers be forced to hire obviously sub-par individuals for jobs they clearly are not qualified for?
If a job requires a person to work around drugs, and the person has the addiction genes, this person is genetically an addict, yet this person may have gone to school and trained to work around drugs. Should we put them around drugs if we know they are a potential drug abuser? Chances are we wouldn't if there was DNA screening.
What about pedophiles? Right now we don't have a clue who the pedophiles could be, but what if we eventually find out that a certain configuration or genes, can determine whether someone is capable of becoming a pedophile or not, should we allow these individuals to work around children?
I think genetic discrimination would be taken to the extreme if we used it to exclude and harass pedophiles and potential addicts, but at the same time if I want to submit my DNA because I know I have superior genes, and the person I'm in competition with does not want to submit theirs because they know they have questionable genes, I should at least be able to have my DNA considered by employers.
If not, if it's decided that I should not have my DNA considered, thats fine, but I should at least be able to consume any drugs I have to, to make myself more marketable and more talented than my DNA allows. Thus I support trans-humanism.
I don't think we can live in a competitive world without having either genetic discrimination or trans-humanism, because currently we aren't genetically fit for the world we live in, and if we ban stuff like steroids, we will simply reduce our overall performance and for what? If there is no genetic discrimination, let's treat everyone like a blank slate and legalize steroids and memory enhancing drugs for all.
When prejudice results in greater profits and a better functioning business, is it still wrong?
If we discover the genes that make people intelligent, and if we discover the genes that make people physically good athletes, strong, etc, is it wrong to hire these people?
The NBA and NFL genetically discriminates, and probably should because sports are based almost entirely on genetic ability at this point in time rather than just skill. Yes skill is important to be in the NBA, but there is a reason why all the players are over 6ft0 and I don't see people complaining that it's prejudice or genetic discrimination, but thanks to this law, now we can.
What about construction, what if we could know exactly who the strongest people all due to the genes that allow their muscles to grow and repair quicker? There will be no need for construction workers to take steroids because we'd be able to genetically screen all who would be too weak genetically to do the job.
What if someone has a gene for certain intellectual talents, perfect pitch for music, or a genetic gift of a photographic memory for painting, should schools and employers not be able to consider this?
It seems that by considering genetic advantages you'd simply have people in jobs they are designed for rather than trying to redesign people to fit into certain jobs they aren't designed for. But I could be wrong.
Either way, tell me why this is bad. Tell me why it's better to give people an IQ test and go through all the trouble of making people use steroids or take memory enhancing drugs. I assume if you don't support genetic discrimination, that you support trans-humanism, because if you support neither, then you aren't making any economic sense.
What if he or she has cheated on you in the past, what if you have kids together? Then you can't just leave and get a new life, you'll be stuck with that person.
As far as monitoring people, trust should be earned, not just given. If they are so loyal that you don't have to monitor them because they monitor themselves, great. But many people aren't capable of monitoring their own behavior.
So what you are saying is that people who cannot be monogamous should not ever get married. That is correct, but it's beside the point. If they already are married then it's too late.
"It's a sexual addiction. The attraction you have to young boys cannot be cured, but you can learn to control your urge to have sex with young boys. [..] No one is saying you'll stop being attracted to young boys, but you should do whatever it takes to control your urges."
Being attracted to children is no more of an "addiction" than being attracted to adults. The subject of attraction does not affect the addictiveness of an attraction.
Furthermore, I do control my urges. I don't touch children. What do you suggest that I should have therapy for? If you've been having re-occuring fantasies or dreams of touching children then you should see a therapist.
The point is, if you seek help people are more likely to trust you and leave you alone because you are honest and you know these thoughts are wrong, than if you sneak around downloading child pornography, which society will not tolerate.
"If there is something you can't do then you merely need to empower yourself and the impossible becomes possible."
We cannot change the fundamental physical attributes of the universe we inhabit, so many of the impossible things that occur in dreams will continue to be impossible, yet they seem very real indeed to those who are dreaming them, despite the fact that the dreaming person wouldn't consider such things as being plausible (let alone possible) when they're awake.
"And no, the matter isn't what took man into space, it was mans mind which designed the spacecraft and worked out the math."
The history of our forays into both the air and space are notable for the fact that they were made possible by trial and error rather than mathematics (which turned out to be spectacularly wrong more often that it was right). Note also that without suitable matter, no amount of mathematics and imagination would have been able to move us off the ground. It's not mathematically impossible. Maybe it's only impossible because we don't have the physical resources.
And you are wrong, you could genetically engineer humans to have wings if you really set your mind to it. Or you can build an airplane. The matter is not what got you off the ground, the design did.
It depends on who you are dealing with. If you are dealing with the sorta person who has no empathy, that person actually is capable of rape, and to get allow them to fantasize about something they could actually do will cause problems.
Most of us have a conscience, and are capable of empathy and remorse. Rapists don't feel empathy, thats why they can rape. So it all depends on who is playing these games, and if you have the sorta child that is torturing animals and showing no sign of empathy, you shouldn't let that child play GTA.
However if you have the sorta child that clearly shows empathy, GTA or any of the porn with rape in it, will have zero affect on the behavior of that child.
It's simple, a lot of people can think about being a rapist of serial killer, or child killer, or whatever kinda monster, but when the time comes to actually do it and be that person, their empathy for the victim kicks in and they wont go through with it.
The rapist has a completely different brain, because when they are raping their victim they aren't feeling any empathy at all. They just aren't capable of feeling that.
If the above poster who claims to think like a pedophile actually has abused children, he is vastly different from a person who merely thinks about it but has never and will never go on to molest or abuse a child. I don't know which of the two this person is, I don't know whether the poster is someone with a problem seeking help, or a predator looking for children to abuse.
I think to be fair, society should allow people to at least seek help. I don't see a point to just labeling people a pedophile and not giving them any chance to try to change or try to get help. If that how we want to treat people with brain diseases?
The best situation would be to allow people who have this thinking to come forward and seek help, and see a psychiatrist and a specially trained officer who can watch over them, and keep them away from young boys or from jobs which allow them to be around young boys. Prevention is better than punishment.
Paedophilia can't be "cured", for the same reasons that homosexuality can't be cured. See this article by Fred Berlin. I'd actually like to know what makes you think that paedophilia can be cured. It is not an "addiction". It's a sexual addiction. The attraction you have to young boys cannot be cured, but you can learn to control your urge to have sex with young boys.
There was a time when I considered "therapy" for my sexuality, before I realised that paedophilia can't be cured. I did not seek therapy because I was concerned about the consequences of admitting my fantasies to a therapist. Therapy should exist to help people like you. If you are willing to go through with it, people should offer you help.
I don't understand this statement. People don't just become attracted to children by watching too much children's television, etc; paedophilia is a fixed sexuality. I remember, for example, being extremely attracted to a friend's 9 year old brother when I was 12/13. I was attracted to boys around the ages of 8-13 then, and the age which I'm attracted to just never changed. By encourage, I mean by encouraging you to have fantasies about it, knowing you have a problem. Your man problem will be controlling your fantasies. No one is saying you'll stop being attracted to young boys, but you should do whatever it takes to control your urges.
Slashdot Mirror
So far my experiences with 8.04 have been terrible.
The sound does not work on Realtek AC888.
There is a huge bug in Dolphin as well which makes an error window pop up when using the mouse curser.
I'd rate this release as a C. It's not production quality. The only reason it's not D or F is because the install works great and for the most part it's functional, but it's just not ready for a serious user.
To start with, allowing athletes to use performance enhancing drugs basically would have the effect of starting an "arms" race amongst athletes - with long term detrimental effects on the athletes themselves.
Allowing "globalization" has started an arms race among employees. Don't you understand the true nature of the situation? It already is and always has been an arms race. There is no overall mission, or goal beyond merely surviving and profiting. The individual is in a competition with all other individuals for resources. Every family is in it for themselves. Every corporation is in it for themselves. Every government is in it for them self. They don't care about you, me, or anyone who stands in the way of their power and influence because the game is about getting what you can get in the time that you have.
If you don't get what you can from life then you aren't winning. If you don't win, no one cares about you or respects your existence. Homeless individuals aren't winning, and most dont care about the homeless. People living in the third world aren't winning and most don't care about the third world.
You have to be a taker to survive in America. This is the first lesson all immigrants learn. This is the one lesson you can see if you look throughout US history, the takers are the people who come from families that have something to show for their existence, and then there are the have nots, the people who wouldn't or couldn't take the resources they needed to live in a secure environment.
A secure environment means being able to raise your children in a safe neighborhood, away from the slums, away from the risks, in an environment where your children have an opportunity to live a good life, and be happy. The American dream is not free. In order to access the American dream, often individuals must sacrifice their health, either psychologically or otherwise, to do the things that are required of them to get where they must go.
The point, it's better to die trying to win than to die trying not to lose. Because that is the American way of life.
The point of sport is to see athletes at their peak pitted against one another. The whole purpose of sport is that it is totally performance based. It does not mean that someone who is genetically inferior cannot attempt to compete, and in fact I believe that there have been some successful sub-6 foot basketballers.
Yeah, one or two, and those basketball players were still genetically unusual. Being able to dunk and being under 6ft0 is unusual.
Have you never read "Think and Grow Rich"? In almost every case in society it is not genetics that ends up winning, but training, willpower and dedication.
Persistence plays a role, as does social power, but without they genes you won't have the intelligence to be truly qualified. Many individuals are born into social power, and are persistent, so they do go to Harvard, Yale, etc, but can you say that these people are the smartest humanity has to offer? Can you say they are the smartest that America has to offer?
Some of our smarter people might be rotting in prison on drug charges. Some of them might never have finished college. Some people are complete geniuses, but for whatever reason, they are assumed to be dumb based on where they were born, or what race they are. Again, persistence plays a role, but so does environment, and so do genetics, and intelligence is genetic even if persistence can make it so anyone can get a degree.
Using genetics as an excuse for taking steroids undermines the whole reason for having sports in the first place.
Steroids was invented in the first place as a way to prevent genetic discrimination. The reason for having sports is for our entertainment, and so the sporting companies can profit from it. The same reason we have corporations, so profits can be made. A sports team exists so it's owner can profit from ticket and other sales. A corporation exists so it's sha
The government of the US is corrupt? By what standard are you judging it? Have these allegations been upheld in a court of law? What does administration do that makes scientific research corrupt?
The US government is more corrupt than it has been in the last 100 years. Arguably, the US is in a similar situation to the situation Rome was once in before it collapsed. If the government is corrupt, and the government is funding the scientific research, then the research itself will be used for corrupt purposes even if the researchers themselves aren't corrupt. All the discoveries on genetic medicine can have dual uses as genetic weaponry. It's just common sense.
Again with the allegations of corruption. What conclusive evidence do you have that this government is corrupt? Misguided - maybe, making decisions based on faulty information - certainly, but corrupt
Follow the money. If you look at what the US government spends most of it's money funding it's obvious that the government is corrupt. The US government is so corrupt that a lot of what is funded is classified and no, it's not always classified because it's defense related.
I think anyone with a brain right now knows the US government is corrupt. Look at the situation in Iraq. Hell, just use wikipedia and look up all the moles that were lurking in the US government since before 911 and tell me, is the War on Terror even winnable? It's a completely unwinnable religious war. We have no way to beat an enemy when that enemy is ubiquitous. There are probably terrorists within the government itself, so how exactly can we win?
Citation needed. Race is just one physical manifestation of genetic differences anyway. To believe in race you must believe in genetics. Again, I ask for you to back up your statement with facts.
Race is not an accurate measurement of genetic difference. Race is an inaccurate measurement used by pseudo-scientists for religious reasons.
Most racists believe in race and have no clue who they are genetically.
This may be so, but I fail to see how it relates to this bill. Also, race is an issue Americans are far more comfortable thinking about than genetics (i.e. the average American has a greater understanding of race than they do of genetics, intertwined though they are).
I can't take a government seriously when the government does not fully believe in the science of genetics. To ask people to choose a race is as ridiculous as asking people to choose a portion of their genes. In some cases the race they put on the census will not even be accurate genetically, it's just what people look like.
A perfect example would be Barack Obama, is he black or white? He is neither. He's genetically American. Yet the census assumes everyone is going to fit neatly into a box, and thats the fatal flaw of the census. While there may be boxes according to science, the boxes cannot be seen by the naked eye and the only way for the government to truly measure race would be to ask every citizen to submit their DNA to check how American they are.
I do believe that some people are rational enough in government to consider replacing the census with DNA measurements, but these people are probably still currently outnumbered by the people who believe in the religious concepts of race. The truth is, you can get a more accurate genetic measurement by looking at class than you can by looking at race.
So you are now crediting this "corrupt" government (which is now made up of a democrat majority in congress I might add) with foresight?
The Bill is not all bad. If we lived in a world where the government actually followed the international laws, and the laws of the US constitution, perhaps I would not be so against the concepts that make up this bill. However the words have to be changed because the words leave too many loopholes and only assist corrupt individuals.
No, there is nothin
I'd much rather we snap out of our horrible patterns of selection to move to more scientific patterns of selection. There will always be patterns, there is no doubt about this, but can we generally agree that intelligence is good? There are going to be certain genes which will never be fads and which will not be a matter of subjective opinions, there are certain genes which will improve our offspring's chances of survival, and intelligence is a good example of that.
The point is, we already control our gene patterns based on mating patterns and birth control, I don't see how adding another tool int our arsenal would be a bad thing.
Let's allow people to screen for diseases. Let's cure down syndrome and let's cure ignorance while we are at it. If we don't have to give birth to ignorant babies, why should we continue to do it?
Even if we are ignorant ourselves, why would we want to keep giving birth to babies that are more ignorant than we are and call this evolution?
And how exactly is it better to pass a law in an era where people believe more in "races" than in genes?
I see it as pointless. It's like passing the human rights laws during the time of the crusades.
Instead of making the people who generate the risk pay the highest taxes, we want to make the model citizens pay the majority of the tax burden for the risk generators.
Perhaps our taxes would be much lower if we made people pay for the damages they generate instead of making all of society pay for the damages generated by the thousands who get rich off destroying society.
Tell me why we shouldn't save our species by boosting the rate of evolution?
If they have the money to buy the drugs to treat their genetic misfortune, then it would be efficient.
But I agree with you that as things are not it's not efficient. I don't think this bill makes anything more efficient either because these same people who voted for this bill want steroids illegal in sports.
They don't REALLY want to outlaw genetic discrimination for all people, they just want to outlaw it for themselves, and get rich.
While I can understand why an individual would be against having corporations genetically discriminate, why would that same person also be against designer babies?
The only way to truly evolve as a species will be through genetic and human enhancement technologies.
Lets face the fact that as we are, we are unfit for survival on this planet. We have to change and speed up our rate of evolution just so we don't destroy our own habitat and our species along with it. We face a question on whether we want to go extinct and take thousands of species and possibly the planet along with us, or whether we'd like to go the route of designer babies and boost the rate of human evolution x10.
There will always be an underclass under any capitalist system. The underclass has nothing to do with whether or not we support designer babies, or trans-humanism. Trans-humanism is basically the only means we have to guarantee that every baby is intelligent, so that no more babies are born with downs-syndrome, or autistic, so that we have no more crack babies, no more genetic diseases that pass down from generation to generation.
It starts with birth control, if you don't want an inferior baby, try to choose a mate/partner who has superior genetic material in the first place and use birth control. If birth control doesn't work, there is abortion, and while I personally don't support abortion, if you are a drug addict and you get pregnant by some homeless person or random bloke on the street, then I can at least understand the reasoning behind it.
Designer babies are a step up above birth control and abortion as it has the potential to make both obsolete. Considering that we do have a problem with low genetic quality, and considering we are horrible at selecting naturally, unnatural selection, and designer babies I believe will save the human race in the long term.
To put it simply, we must evolve or die. We aren't evolving at a fast enough rate naturally. Our only solution will be to start genetically screen babies in the lab to remove all the obvious diseases. Eventually we will reach a stage where we understand intelligence enough to allow parents to select intelligence as a trait in a lab. We have already reached a point where two overly smart people can pair up without ever meeting each other.
We have sperm banks. Sperm banks are good because it allows us to preserve the best genetic material and the desired genetic mutations.
We will have egg banks as well which will allow women to freeze and store their eggs for the same purposes.
This is and probably will lead to a future where we can scientifically match the best sperm with the best egg to produce the most genetically fit babies possible. It wont require that the two individuals even have sex with each other, they'd merely have to sign the paper work. Through these means, the smartest people in the world will pair up, because currently the smartest people in the world are not the most physically attractive people in the world.
This also leads to an ability to increase intelligence by screening for genes which we know hinder the growth or development of the brain. And finally this leads to a period where you'll be able to go to a drug store and buy some smart pills, which will increase your IQ by 50 points, and then 100 points, etc. If it hasn't been developed already, there will be pills for photographic memory, there will be pills for increasing creativity, in specific there will be brain enhancers.
I'm convinced that if humans do not overcome their own genes, we humans will be destroyed and will die out due to our diseases and our low gene quality. It's really just natural law.
The problem with this law is that it creates adverse selection in health insurance. Health insurers won't be able to get genetic info on the people they're covering, but the people themselves will. That creates asymmetric information, and is ripe for abuse. Think about it: if I get my DNA sequenced and find out that I'm a walking health hazard, then I'll buy the most comprehensive policy out there. If I find out I'm genetically clear, I scale down my coverage, or drop it completely. Meanwhile, the insurer can't adjust my premium to accurately reflect my risk. The result: only genetically unhealthy (and risk-averse) people will buy into health insurance pools, or the genetically health will only buy insurance for physical accidents. And when the insurance pools are small, and the insurers can't accurately price risk, they pools collapse: nobody gets health insurance.
Of course, the obvious alternative--let both buyers and sellers of health insurance use DNA analysis to accurately price risk--is unpalatable because people will suffer from higher premiums through no fault of their own (i.e. because they have bad genes), and people will benefit through no effort of their own (i.e. because they have good genes). This concern (coupled with privacy concerns) is why GINA passed overwhelmingly, and I don't mean to diminish it.
Insurance works best when the risks aren't ascertainable in an individual case but are ascertainable in the aggregate. DNA sequencing really threatens the concept of health insurance, because it greatly decreases the uncertainty surrounding an individual's health future. The best way to keep insurance alive is to insure before it is possible to determine a person's health risk. Now, you could do that by banning DNA testing for individuals unless they are willing to permanently waive their ability to buy or modify their health insurance policies, but DNA testing is so cheap that the ban will be hard to enforce, and a permanent waiver seems rather harsh. You could require people to buy insurance for their kids before conception, but that has the same problem that the kid will be stuck with the same health insurance for ever (and that there might not be a kid in sad circumstances)
The ultimate, fool-proof solution: social gene insurance. Essentially, when any private insurer wants to charge you more than the base rate because of your genes, you just pay the base rate and society picks up the difference. The gene insurance would be funded through taxes, much like social security is now, though none of that "lockbox" BS. Socialized health insurance would work, too, being a superset of social gene insurance. The idea behind social insurance schemes is that they in effect force citizens to buy in before anyone has any knowledge of their genetic risk, making it a sound insurance product. And the solution works from the view of liberal theories of justice, e.g. Rawls, because it is essentially a redistribution of social resources from those who happen to be born with (and hence do not deserve) such resources to those who happen to be dealt a bad hand, through no fault of their own. I don't want t pay for someone elses bad genes.
It's bad enough I have to pay for the bad genes within my own family, you think I want to pay taxes to support all the bad genes floating around in this country?
That idea is simply insane. Let the people who have bad genes pay for it themselves, and let's offer them the trans-humanist solution so they can overcome their bad genes. (Free steroids and memory enhancing drugs)
This is why we should be supporting trans-humanism, it's the only long term solution.
You've studied at Harvard so you should know this.
And I'm not trying to be cynical about it, but I believe a bill supporting trans-humanism would be more useful than a bill trying to ban genetic discrimination.
Carrots work better than sticks. It's better to create new opportunities for people than to remove options from people. If we can't all be equal, we should legalize steroids and intelligence enhancing drugs so we all can level the playing fields.
Otherwise these sorts of bills actually will make things worse. What if, as a way to lower costs, certain companies decide to develop race based medicine? How exactly would this be better for the consumer?
I think we need some bills in support of trans-humanism and we need to once and for all legalize all human or genetic enhancement drugs, because thats the reasonable way to lower costs. If you can afford to buy the drugs, you can have a chance at making it as a professional body builder, or as a player in the NFL, or even get into a good school and be a scientist/doctor studying medicine.
To not let us enhance ourselves is also genetic discrimination.
This bill seems like it would effect the NBA, NFL and Baseball more than it would effect most other employers.
They want to attack organized sports by telling athletes they can't use human enhancement drugs such as steroids, then they go and pass this ridiculous bill which encourages athletes to use steroids because now if the employer threaten them in any way, it's a potential trial with genetic discrimination thrown into the mix.
I don't see a point. I think currently, we have the most corrupt group of lawmakers in US history. The laws don't even have to make sense anymore, most of the laws are political, and most of the laws are emotional, none of the laws are reasonable and this includes the patriot act and the iraq war resolutions.
Can you really trust any of the research being done under this corrupt government? And can you really trust any kinda race based medicine?
Honestly, the research might be important, but considering that the research is being done by one of the most corrupt governments on the planet, it doesn't sit well with me.
We are also one of the most religious governments on the planet. Half of the politicians don't even believe in genetics and still think in terms of race. The census still asks for racial information instead of genetic or DNA information. The bill might not be all that bad but it's way before it's time.
We have a government that genetically discriminates against drug addicts, just look at the drug laws, yet this non-discrimination law would prevent employers and health insurance companies from discriminating against those same drug addicts? I don't see a point.
And then we have the government trying to crack down on steroids and other human enhancement products, helping to enforce the very genetic discrimination that this bill is attempting to stop.
I don't can't see this bill being anything good when it's managed by the current group of people.
Sure we can have genetic tests, but whats the point?
I see this as just a backdoor to race based medicine. As long as we have a government that is still asking for racial information on the census, why should I believe the government has developed enough of a brain to suddenly go scientific and ask about genetics?
And I'm not naive enough to think that the doctors want this information to innocently cure all the worlds diseases. The only useful reason I see to offer genetic information would be to lower health insurance costs and to improve your marketability in the work place.
What if we want to give them our records?
I fail to understand the value of this bill while at the same time we are critical of athletes for using steroids. That's genetic discrimination too.
I feel like we only have two options. We can support the human enhancement industry(trans-humanism), or we can support genetic discrimination.
During a time when we are going after athletes for using steroids, it makes absolutely no sense to me why we'd pass a genetic discrimination bill. Is it our goal to ruin our sports industries? Or are we going to legalize steroids?
I'm of the position where I can only support this bill if this law leads to a trans-humanist future. Let's face it, most people have genes which prevent them from being talented, this is a fact. Most of us aren't going to be physically talented enough to get into the NBA or the NFL, yet now the NBA and NFL cannot genetically discriminate against us, so does this mean we can use steroids so that we can compete with the genetically gifted players?
In another example, we may discover the genes for human intelligence, but we may also develop chemical compounds, and organic compounds which improve memory, focus and allow an individual to have greater intelligence and a photographic memory. Should we allow doctors to screen an individual and based on that give the dumb individual these pills so they can compete with the person who genetically has the photographic memory? Or should we just sell these pills over the counter to whoever can afford them?
What about specific traits? What if we discover the genes which control certain traits, yet we also figure out drugs which can change peoples personalities to fit the requirements of a job. Should the employer be able to make a persons doctor prescribe these drugs so as to increase their profits or should employers be forced to hire obviously sub-par individuals for jobs they clearly are not qualified for?
If a job requires a person to work around drugs, and the person has the addiction genes, this person is genetically an addict, yet this person may have gone to school and trained to work around drugs. Should we put them around drugs if we know they are a potential drug abuser? Chances are we wouldn't if there was DNA screening.
What about pedophiles? Right now we don't have a clue who the pedophiles could be, but what if we eventually find out that a certain configuration or genes, can determine whether someone is capable of becoming a pedophile or not, should we allow these individuals to work around children?
I think genetic discrimination would be taken to the extreme if we used it to exclude and harass pedophiles and potential addicts, but at the same time if I want to submit my DNA because I know I have superior genes, and the person I'm in competition with does not want to submit theirs because they know they have questionable genes, I should at least be able to have my DNA considered by employers.
If not, if it's decided that I should not have my DNA considered, thats fine, but I should at least be able to consume any drugs I have to, to make myself more marketable and more talented than my DNA allows. Thus I support trans-humanism.
I don't think we can live in a competitive world without having either genetic discrimination or trans-humanism, because currently we aren't genetically fit for the world we live in, and if we ban stuff like steroids, we will simply reduce our overall performance and for what? If there is no genetic discrimination, let's treat everyone like a blank slate and legalize steroids and memory enhancing drugs for all.
When prejudice results in greater profits and a better functioning business, is it still wrong?
If we discover the genes that make people intelligent, and if we discover the genes that make people physically good athletes, strong, etc, is it wrong to hire these people?
The NBA and NFL genetically discriminates, and probably should because sports are based almost entirely on genetic ability at this point in time rather than just skill. Yes skill is important to be in the NBA, but there is a reason why all the players are over 6ft0 and I don't see people complaining that it's prejudice or genetic discrimination, but thanks to this law, now we can.
What about construction, what if we could know exactly who the strongest people all due to the genes that allow their muscles to grow and repair quicker? There will be no need for construction workers to take steroids because we'd be able to genetically screen all who would be too weak genetically to do the job.
What if someone has a gene for certain intellectual talents, perfect pitch for music, or a genetic gift of a photographic memory for painting, should schools and employers not be able to consider this?
It seems that by considering genetic advantages you'd simply have people in jobs they are designed for rather than trying to redesign people to fit into certain jobs they aren't designed for. But I could be wrong.
Either way, tell me why this is bad. Tell me why it's better to give people an IQ test and go through all the trouble of making people use steroids or take memory enhancing drugs. I assume if you don't support genetic discrimination, that you support trans-humanism, because if you support neither, then you aren't making any economic sense.
What if he or she has cheated on you in the past, what if you have kids together? Then you can't just leave and get a new life, you'll be stuck with that person.
As far as monitoring people, trust should be earned, not just given. If they are so loyal that you don't have to monitor them because they monitor themselves, great. But many people aren't capable of monitoring their own behavior.
So what you are saying is that people who cannot be monogamous should not ever get married. That is correct, but it's beside the point. If they already are married then it's too late.
I'm all for going to China and doing this. The question is, will I have to be asian?
Being attracted to children is no more of an "addiction" than being attracted to adults. The subject of attraction does not affect the addictiveness of an attraction.
Furthermore, I do control my urges. I don't touch children. What do you suggest that I should have therapy for? If you've been having re-occuring fantasies or dreams of touching children then you should see a therapist.
The point is, if you seek help people are more likely to trust you and leave you alone because you are honest and you know these thoughts are wrong, than if you sneak around downloading child pornography, which society will not tolerate.
http://www.lovefraud.com/blog/2006/11/24/children-of-sociopaths-are-twice-cursed/
We cannot change the fundamental physical attributes of the universe we inhabit, so many of the impossible things that occur in dreams will continue to be impossible, yet they seem very real indeed to those who are dreaming them, despite the fact that the dreaming person wouldn't consider such things as being plausible (let alone possible) when they're awake.
"And no, the matter isn't what took man into space, it was mans mind which designed the spacecraft and worked out the math."
The history of our forays into both the air and space are notable for the fact that they were made possible by trial and error rather than mathematics (which turned out to be spectacularly wrong more often that it was right). Note also that without suitable matter, no amount of mathematics and imagination would have been able to move us off the ground. It's not mathematically impossible. Maybe it's only impossible because we don't have the physical resources.
And you are wrong, you could genetically engineer humans to have wings if you really set your mind to it. Or you can build an airplane. The matter is not what got you off the ground, the design did.
Only if you are a person who has no empathy or remorse whatsoever. (And a lot of people are that person).
It depends on who you are dealing with. If you are dealing with the sorta person who has no empathy, that person actually is capable of rape, and to get allow them to fantasize about something they could actually do will cause problems.
Most of us have a conscience, and are capable of empathy and remorse. Rapists don't feel empathy, thats why they can rape. So it all depends on who is playing these games, and if you have the sorta child that is torturing animals and showing no sign of empathy, you shouldn't let that child play GTA.
However if you have the sorta child that clearly shows empathy, GTA or any of the porn with rape in it, will have zero affect on the behavior of that child.
It's simple, a lot of people can think about being a rapist of serial killer, or child killer, or whatever kinda monster, but when the time comes to actually do it and be that person, their empathy for the victim kicks in and they wont go through with it.
The rapist has a completely different brain, because when they are raping their victim they aren't feeling any empathy at all. They just aren't capable of feeling that.
If the above poster who claims to think like a pedophile actually has abused children, he is vastly different from a person who merely thinks about it but has never and will never go on to molest or abuse a child. I don't know which of the two this person is, I don't know whether the poster is someone with a problem seeking help, or a predator looking for children to abuse.
I think to be fair, society should allow people to at least seek help. I don't see a point to just labeling people a pedophile and not giving them any chance to try to change or try to get help. If that how we want to treat people with brain diseases?
The best situation would be to allow people who have this thinking to come forward and seek help, and see a psychiatrist and a specially trained officer who can watch over them, and keep them away from young boys or from jobs which allow them to be around young boys. Prevention is better than punishment.