But on the same note, challenges to established scientific principles must themselves be scientific, and that is the problem here. This creationist doctrine, whatever term proponents choose to call it, is fundamentally non-scientific -- even anti-science. If a theory can't produce hypotheses, can't be tested, can't be disproven, and can't make predictions, then it's not a theory and certainly not science.
Therein lies the problem. Tell me how the hypothesis of abiogenesis in the primordial ooze is testable, can be disproven and what predictions it makes? Specifically testable predictions for which we do not already know the results.
You have to apply the criteria without bias.
BTW, this definition of scientific theory rules out much of archaeology as a science but I am okay with that.;)
If we could only find someone like Casey Kasem ranting like that off-mike, the war for fair use would be over, and we geeks would finally have won.
I don't believe you have a clue what fair use actually is. Please read the following tutorial on fair use from Stanford
Downloading music without permission gets no help from the first two criteria for determining fair use, fails the third and fourth miserably and the fifth is debatable.
The only things a good scientist will tell you are incontrovertible are physical observables. Everything else is always subject to question. With this in mind theories are never truly proven though they can be summarily disproved. Further, according to scientific method, the only theories that are truly useful are ones that make testable predictions about what we will observe. The rest are just philosophical discussions.
Unfortunately politics often enters into the discussion of theories. Those politics tend to dismiss any theory which is not popular or 'mainstream' or which may be considered too radical. This happens most often in the general public but even otherwise respectable scientists can fall prey to the censorship because they find the implications of a theory to be distasteful.
A patent clerk once proposed a radical theory that time and space itself were malleable. If scientists had dismissed his ideas as being too fringe to have representation our textbooks would still be discussing the luminescent aether.
How does RedHat sell licenses if all their software is freely available? Because the customers want to have someone to call if things go wrong... AKA support. This is especially true of corporations.
Don't you think the GPL folks would be quick to invoke their copyright protections if, for example, Microsoft took a bunch of GPL code, added their own functionality and sold it without releasing the source?
Microsoft's "services for UNIX" pack qualifies for "here is a list of companies that make a LOT of money from sales or support of GPL'ed code" material?! Are you serious? I suspect sales of "services for UNIX" accounts for a teensie percentage of Microsoft's sales.
I know Novell is now a linux distributor, but how much money do they make from sales of linux alone? Does it really qualify as a "LOT"?
Solaris has been pretty great but most of SUN's revenue is from their hardware. Can you even purchase Solaris by itself anymore or is it just freely available ie no direct revenue.
IBM makes some of their money off of mainframes. Do they sell just linux? How much revenue do sales of linux alone bring in for them? Also you do realize they also make microprocessors of all sorts as well as other chips and they have one of the largest chip fabs in the world? They are not all about just selling computers.
IBM certainly does guard its IP. I have worked with them directly and NDA's had to be in place. Maybe they formed an alliance along some portion of their large business but not across the entire company.
How come I can only see RedHat's knowledgebase if I have purchased RHEL? If I purchased RHEL and slurped their knowledgebase and posted it on an open server somewhere, what do you think they would do? RedHat certainly guards their IP as well.
And SUN like IBM manufactures hardware and they do indeed guard that information. Just because they happen to make available some of their software as GPL'd does NOT mean that they do not have IP that is guarded.
In short, I understand what you are saying, that you believe DMCA is not only superfluous but also hindering to the consumer. But your examples were poorly chosen other than the fact that they were indeed guarding their IP before DMCA existed. These companies do employ an array of things from patents to copyrights to trademarks to trade secrets to protect their IP and I don't believe that they would eschew DMCA if it were applicable. As far as I know they may have already made use of DMCA.
You are right. Copyrights do encourage progress BY making it lucrative to create new works. Fair Use does allow derivative works but one of the factors in determining whether Fair Use applies is the effect on the market... AKA money for the authors.
Your examples touting GPL'd code are really bad and have no real relevance to the copyright argument.
Red Hat makes its money selling support largely to corporations. I don't think Atlantic Records gets very many calls on how to play its latest CD's.
Sun sells hardware... lots and lots of it.
Microsoft?! I think they sell a little bit of software that is not GPL'd.
Novell?! Again, they didn't get big selling GPL'd software.
IBM!?! They have their own chip fab for crying out loud! You honestly want to imply they grew to their current success selling GPL'd software or that selling that software is actually a significant portion of their revenue!?
I think it is naive to think that someone shouldn't need to protect their copyright in order to make money on their content.
Most of the companies you listed jealously guard their IP.
It's capitalism at its best. Remember, Laissez-faire Manchester type capitalism is just one flavour of capitalism. And by far not the most frequent one.
Except capitalism, at least as defined by Webster, specifically includes competition in a free market. This is a case of a government mandated monoply which is NOT capitalism by definition.
Webster: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"
2. Kasparov also adjusted his style (i believe there are certain playing-styles that are beneficial when playing against an AI), and i bet he had coaches and consultants
3. So what?
Headline: "Computer beats Human at chess"
If human chess experts were in the background 'helping' the computer then that headline loses its meaning and credibility. It would then need to be:
Headline: "Humans with a Computer beat other Human at chess"
"Everson said the group's partners, Learning Curve International, Magla Products, Water-Jel Technologies and First Aid Only, also receive money from the sales."
So it would seem those companies are benefiting directly from sales of products with the 'red cross' symbol.
Despite the fact that the ARC is older than J&J, and for all practical purpose is the originator of the symbol, J&J has not actively pursued any so call trademark violations until 2007.
Let's face it - J&J used the symbol to give people the impression that somehow they should be associated with the good Samaritan acts of the Red Cross. They also used the symbol, because it is the symbol associated with first aid. They didn't trademark for brand recognition, they trademarked it to prevent their competitors from doing the same.
Again according to the article:
"J&J said American Red Cross founder Clara Barton in 1895 signed a deal with J&J agreeing and acknowledging the company's "exclusive use of a red cross as a trademark and otherwise for chemical, surgical, pharmaceutical goods of every description."
If that's the case then it seems to me the ARC gave up any prior claim they might have had to the symbol, regardless of who used it first.
It really appears to me that the ARC is moving into the commercial arena in competition to J&J and still want to use the symbol that they have been freely allowed to use for over 100 years for their humanitarian efforts. J&J is saying you cannot use that symbol to help you sell products that make money for our competitors. Seems like a pretty legitimate argument to me.
Wish I had a bundle of mod points to give...
This is a great post and so much more informative than the "They've burned the constitution, stolen our freedom and the sky is falling!" posts.
Well done.
Why exactly do you think no one is comparison shopping for their insurers? I'll guarantee you that if my HR department starts getting complaints about our coverage and especially a case where one of our employees has died due to being denied that insurer will be on the chopping block and probably will lose a bundle.
I don't understand where the idea, that healthcare companies can just do as they please with no repercussions, comes from. They have to maintain and grow their customer base to make their stockholders happy just like other businesses. They cannot do that if they get a bad reputation which they surely would if they denied services every time someone filed a claim.
The real question is whether 'scientific consensus' is a threat to science. Good science, should after all, never be a popularity contest. Can you say 'luminescent ether'?
I don't get who they're marketing this to. Treo owners are mostly business people or techies, who most likely already have a laptop. At $500 it's not cheap enough to be a budget laptop replacement.
Sales guys.
I am a developer. Shortly after getting my treo I purchased a bluetooth dongle and after screwing around for a couple of hours had syncing and dialup networking all working over bluetooth. I could sit in an airport and get online with my laptop using my treo as a modem.
When I would occasionally mention this to one of our sales folks their eyes would light up. "Really!? How'd you do that?" Two sentences into the explanation their eyes glazed over. I'm not trying to pick on sales people. There are some truly tech saavy folks out there, but for many I have encountered staying up on the latest tech nitty gritty just is not a priorty. They want a canned solution that just works out of the box.It sounds like this will give them a full sized keyboard and display for doing the things they typically do in a business day with low administration overhead.
Also the instant on idea is very appealing. At one time I traveled a great deal for work and while it was nice to be able to connect using my treo as a modem, the time it took to boot the laptop, establish the bluetooth connection and make the dialup network connection was usually prohibitive for a short layover or while waiting at a gate, or riding in a shuttle.
So while I still would not have bought one at the price even when I was traveling often, I suspect sales folks with more important things to deal with than technical details and admin will eat this up.
Fine, very well. Now, explain to me how the government decides that person x is an "alien unlawful enemy combatant", in terms that match the principles of justice that have governed the country for over 200 years now.
Perhaps you refer to the principles of justice Roosevelt used when he incarcerated Japanese/Americans after Pearl Harbor. Or maybe the principles of justice that governed the country for the nearly 100 years that the country allowed slavery. ?! You act like the current government is ruining 200 years of Utopia!
Anyway, I have my own concerns about the law, but the text is there and I would have to go back and read it but I believe it describes how the determination of 'alien unlawful enemy combatant' is made. I believe it is done through a Combatant Review Tribunal. Anyway, my post was simply to point out that the government has not taken away the rights of POW's by giving them a 'fake' label. They have created a new label for a new class of... combatant.
You mean the bill passed four years after all this started?
What do you mean by 'after all this started'? Since the US detained people during conflicts? Well Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war and Grant did so shortly after that. I am pretty sure Roosevelt detained quite a few Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor. I am not sure what you are driving at? Quantanamo Bay specifically? I suppose so. But I do not know what other legislation was in place before the Military Commissions Act. I was responding to another poster who referred to the labelling of enemy combatants. I believe that label was part of this bill passed by congress.
The problem is that the administration has created a fake label for these people. By calling them enemy combatants, he deprives them of even the right of determination of POW status by refusing to permit any process whereby the government "proves" before a court or a tribunal that the person is an "enemy combatant", or even to permit the "enemy combatant" the chance to prove that he is not one.
Actually the distinction is alien unlawful enemy combatant. Which is defined in the act as an alien (non-citizen) combatant that does not belong to the military or officially recognized militia of any country or sovereign state. It is pretty specific. The act specifies that lawful enemy combatants get all the normal protections of the Geneva convention and normal court-martial procedures in the case of violations of the law of war. It also specifies that military commissions can only be formed in areas under martial law or occupied territories.
Oh and congress created the 'fake label' not the administration though they participated when the president signed the bill into law.
Do you have any quotes from those civics textbooks? I probably missed that day in class. So the situation as you understand it is the following:
Suppose we are engaged in an armed conflict with another country/sovereign state. Now suppose I drop a bomb on a barracks full of soldiers of said country. That's okay and the constitution's guarantee of life does not apply. However, if I take one of the soldiers prisoner and he says "I demand a lawyer!" If I deny him that lawyer then I am acting illegally. And that is because the constitution's guarantee of due process does apply.
Is that the way you see it?
Seems a little far-fetched but I am often ignorant. It will be interesting to see exactly what those civics textbooks say about it.
Bush's administration managed to pretend that POWs don't get trials, just various Geneva rights, and that their prisoners are not entitled to those rights, and the fucks in the media went along with the lie, and we suddenly because a police state. Everyone, being held by the government, legally gets a trial, even POWs, no exceptions whatsoever. (It's just POWs don't want trials, because then they'd stop being protected POWs and start being imprisoned felons.)
You are kidding right?! So if the U.S. were to go to war with China and the military took a million prisoners, each and everyone of those prisoners of war should be entitled to due process? Everyone of them should be provided with attorneys if they cannot afford them? Every prisoner taken should be able to file a petition for illegal detention in the courts (habeas corpus)? Every prisoner should be entitled to a speedy trial? That would create a completely untenable situation clogging the courts and costing ungodly amounts of resources.
I question your definition of police state if it includes a state that does not guarantee every prisoner of war legal due process. Heck, if we guaranteed every prisoner of war due process, China might attack and have all their soldiers surrender as a DOS attack.:)
Prisoners of war are not guaranteed due process and never have been as far as I know. Not in WWI or WWII or any other war. Not sure why you think that makes the country a police state.
Just for the record anyone who proposes that anyone in the US should not be entitled to due process is completely off the hook and very scary indeed.
Okay, lets be clear. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in a court of law where he was being sued for sexual harassment. He lied about having sex with a subordinate which is very pertinent to a sexual harassment case.
Personally I am not defending Gonzales but when you go off on an unrelated tangent to bash someone you should at least put things in perspective or risk losing your credibility.
You attacked his 'dishonest and deceptive' attempt at scaremongering, but you also attacked his reasoning regarding why a blastocyst should be considered human.
Here's a quote from his very first post to which you replied.
You are correct that this is an abortion issue. I consider a growing baby (call it whatever you want) an honest to goodness human being. Having a two month old at home changes your perspective. I have no reason to love my daughter. Honestly, all she does it eat, shit cry, and not occasionally enough, sleep. She can do little more than she could as a "blastocyst" (as I've heard it called). She barely discovered her hands, I'd hardly call her sentient. I love her because of the person she will become. I love her because of her potential.
This was a fairly objective opinion based on sentience which is often described as the property which defines us as being human. He is clearly pointing out that his newborn isn't much more sentient than a blastocyst. He is reasoning that if we assign humanity to a newborn that is still relatively devoid of sentience why not a blastocyst.
Here's a quote from your second reply where you address his reasoning above.
Your *personal religious beliefs* might dictate that a blastocyst and a newborn baby are one and the same, but *science* says otherwise.
Yours was interestingly enough the first mention of religion in the thread. Your reply is totally sensationalistic and doesn't address the specific property, sentience, that he mentions. Then you go on to claim science is on your side when, in the matter of sentience and self-awareness of newborns, it is clearly not. And this is where you most cerntainly impugn his reasoning. You are clearly claiming that his reasoning, of why a blastocyst should be considered just as human as a newborn, is wrong. But instead of pointing out logical and 'objective' reasons why a newborn might qualify for humanity but a blastocyst does not, you make a 'dishonest and deceptive' attempt to flag his argument as based on religion and disagreeing with science.
Then you follow that with:
As usual, most counter arguments are based in ignorance and/or religious dogma. It was painful trying to watch some politicians argue against this - doubly so for the ones who didn't have the stones to admit they oppose it because of their personal moral beliefs and attempted (as you did) to come up with some other, "objective" reasoning.
I think this quote pretty much speaks for itself. This is as elitist as it gets. I'm done here.
First of all humanity consists of one species, not one race.
Sorry. I was using the generally accepted meaning of the phrase 'human race' meaning all of humanity. Or course that is equivalent to the species.
How active should one be in order to not have ones plug pulled? Shoud a known hermit be saved according to your reasoning?
Hmmm... I thought we covered this with the brain death discussion.
And if anything with mere potential should be saved.. does this imply some sort of obligation to create as many humans as possible?
First its not necessarily that anything with mere potential be saved. Its that the lack of brain activity at a given point in time is not enough in and of itself to qualify as non-human unless we are willing to apply that consistently and consider adults with temprorary loss of brain activity as non-human as well. Anyway, like I said that distinction just 'feels' wrong which isn't really a very convincing argument.
Well suppose we see brain activity as a window.. and before it starts and after it ends "you" are not a person. Does that seem resonable to you?
Perhaps. Why do you make the distinction? What's the important distinction between someone recovering their brain activity and a fetus gaining brain activity? In my mind, the reason for not pulling the plug on someone who will may recover from a lack of brain activity is because they will potentially be an active member of the human race. What's so different about the case with an embryo? Just feels like an artificial distinction to me though I can't back that up with anything more concrete.
Well a total lack of measurable brain activity, and for that condition to be permanent should do it.
Yeah, this is the definition I have seen most often. However, the lack of brain activity in even an embryo is hardly permanent since it will likely gain brain activity in a few weeks. That means it would not qualify as being brain dead and we are back to the beginning.
When *I* believe a "human becomes a human" is utterly irrelevant to anything in this discussion except your ego.
LOL! This thread started because you berated and belittled another poster because his opinion of when humans become human was not 'objective' or scientific.
As usual, most counter arguments are based in ignorance and/or religious dogma. It was painful trying to watch some politicians argue against this - doubly so for the ones who didn't have the stones to admit they oppose it because of their personal moral beliefs and attempted (as you did) to come up with some other, "objective" reasoning.
So you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is either ignorant or just preaching religions dogma. Yet when pressed you cannot offer any explanation of what makes a human human. And you think it is my ego that is in danger? You have got to be kidding.
"Active central nervous system" takes care of both. Someone without an active CNS is not in a coma, they are braindead. Which is recognized as the criterion for death in a number of countries already. So no, pulling the plug on someone with no higher brain functions intact is not something I have a problem with.
Most specify that the loss of brain activity must be permanent or irreversible which is what I was trying to point out.
The whole argument about 'grandfathering in' people that have had active central nervous systems at some point so they get to keep their personhood... I could go with that though my gut tells me it is an artificial distinction.
BTW, just to play devil's advocate a little more, fetuses do achieve an 'active central nervous system' that at least meets the criteria of brain life in most of those definitions very early in their development. I think around ten weeks or so. This is long before most laws grant them 'personhood'. Though its too late to have any bearing on embryonic stem cell research, it could have serious repercussions on other hotly contested issues.:)
Yes, I did, just not in the way you wanted. A clump of cells that hasn't even embedded into the womb, is not a "human being" by any sort of objective measure. At that stage, it's a roll of the dice whether or not it will even reach that "potential human" stage of an embryo. Comparing it to any other bunch of human-sourced cells in terms of "humanness" is quite reasonable.
No you didn't. The question is very simple. WHEN do YOU believe a human becomes human developmentally?
Quit dancing around and answer the question or admit you don't know. Simple.
Slashdot Mirror
But on the same note, challenges to established scientific principles must themselves be scientific, and that is the problem here. This creationist doctrine, whatever term proponents choose to call it, is fundamentally non-scientific -- even anti-science. If a theory can't produce hypotheses, can't be tested, can't be disproven, and can't make predictions, then it's not a theory and certainly not science.
Therein lies the problem. Tell me how the hypothesis of abiogenesis in the primordial ooze is testable, can be disproven and what predictions it makes? Specifically testable predictions for which we do not already know the results.
You have to apply the criteria without bias.
BTW, this definition of scientific theory rules out much of archaeology as a science but I am okay with that. ;)
If we could only find someone like Casey Kasem ranting like that off-mike, the war for fair use would be over, and we geeks would finally have won.
I don't believe you have a clue what fair use actually is. Please read the following tutorial on fair use from Stanford
Downloading music without permission gets no help from the first two criteria for determining fair use, fails the third and fourth miserably and the fifth is debatable.
Less sensation and more information.
The only things a good scientist will tell you are incontrovertible are physical observables. Everything else is always subject to question. With this in mind theories are never truly proven though they can be summarily disproved. Further, according to scientific method, the only theories that are truly useful are ones that make testable predictions about what we will observe. The rest are just philosophical discussions.
Unfortunately politics often enters into the discussion of theories. Those politics tend to dismiss any theory which is not popular or 'mainstream' or which may be considered too radical. This happens most often in the general public but even otherwise respectable scientists can fall prey to the censorship because they find the implications of a theory to be distasteful.
A patent clerk once proposed a radical theory that time and space itself were malleable. If scientists had dismissed his ideas as being too fringe to have representation our textbooks would still be discussing the luminescent aether.
How does RedHat sell licenses if all their software is freely available? Because the customers want to have someone to call if things go wrong... AKA support. This is especially true of corporations.
Don't you think the GPL folks would be quick to invoke their copyright protections if, for example, Microsoft took a bunch of GPL code, added their own functionality and sold it without releasing the source?
Microsoft's "services for UNIX" pack qualifies for "here is a list of companies that make a LOT of money from sales or support of GPL'ed code" material?! Are you serious? I suspect sales of "services for UNIX" accounts for a teensie percentage of Microsoft's sales.
I know Novell is now a linux distributor, but how much money do they make from sales of linux alone? Does it really qualify as a "LOT"?
Solaris has been pretty great but most of SUN's revenue is from their hardware. Can you even purchase Solaris by itself anymore or is it just freely available ie no direct revenue.
IBM makes some of their money off of mainframes. Do they sell just linux? How much revenue do sales of linux alone bring in for them? Also you do realize they also make microprocessors of all sorts as well as other chips and they have one of the largest chip fabs in the world? They are not all about just selling computers.
IBM certainly does guard its IP. I have worked with them directly and NDA's had to be in place. Maybe they formed an alliance along some portion of their large business but not across the entire company.
How come I can only see RedHat's knowledgebase if I have purchased RHEL? If I purchased RHEL and slurped their knowledgebase and posted it on an open server somewhere, what do you think they would do? RedHat certainly guards their IP as well.
And SUN like IBM manufactures hardware and they do indeed guard that information. Just because they happen to make available some of their software as GPL'd does NOT mean that they do not have IP that is guarded.
In short, I understand what you are saying, that you believe DMCA is not only superfluous but also hindering to the consumer. But your examples were poorly chosen other than the fact that they were indeed guarding their IP before DMCA existed. These companies do employ an array of things from patents to copyrights to trademarks to trade secrets to protect their IP and I don't believe that they would eschew DMCA if it were applicable. As far as I know they may have already made use of DMCA.
You are right. Copyrights do encourage progress BY making it lucrative to create new works. Fair Use does allow derivative works but one of the factors in determining whether Fair Use applies is the effect on the market... AKA money for the authors.
About fair use, this link has a pretty good summary: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html
Your examples touting GPL'd code are really bad and have no real relevance to the copyright argument.
Red Hat makes its money selling support largely to corporations. I don't think Atlantic Records gets very many calls on how to play its latest CD's.
Sun sells hardware... lots and lots of it.
Microsoft?! I think they sell a little bit of software that is not GPL'd.
Novell?! Again, they didn't get big selling GPL'd software.
IBM!?! They have their own chip fab for crying out loud! You honestly want to imply they grew to their current success selling GPL'd software or that selling that software is actually a significant portion of their revenue!?
I think it is naive to think that someone shouldn't need to protect their copyright in order to make money on their content.
Most of the companies you listed jealously guard their IP.
Except capitalism, at least as defined by Webster, specifically includes competition in a free market. This is a case of a government mandated monoply which is NOT capitalism by definition.
Webster: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"
2. Kasparov also adjusted his style (i believe there are certain playing-styles that are beneficial when playing against an AI), and i bet he had coaches and consultants
3. So what?
Headline: "Computer beats Human at chess"
If human chess experts were in the background 'helping' the computer then that headline loses its meaning and credibility. It would then need to be:
Headline: "Humans with a Computer beat other Human at chess"
Not nearly so dramatic... *shrug*
They didn't license this symbol out to competitors, these are products purchased by the ARC and resold by the ARC.
According to the article here: http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/09/news/companies/bc. johnsonandjohnson.redcross.reut/index.htm?eref=rss _topstories:
"Everson said the group's partners, Learning Curve International, Magla Products, Water-Jel Technologies and First Aid Only, also receive money from the sales."
So it would seem those companies are benefiting directly from sales of products with the 'red cross' symbol.
Despite the fact that the ARC is older than J&J, and for all practical purpose is the originator of the symbol, J&J has not actively pursued any so call trademark violations until 2007.
Let's face it - J&J used the symbol to give people the impression that somehow they should be associated with the good Samaritan acts of the Red Cross. They also used the symbol, because it is the symbol associated with first aid. They didn't trademark for brand recognition, they trademarked it to prevent their competitors from doing the same.
Again according to the article:
"J&J said American Red Cross founder Clara Barton in 1895 signed a deal with J&J agreeing and acknowledging the company's "exclusive use of a red cross as a trademark and otherwise for chemical, surgical, pharmaceutical goods of every description."
If that's the case then it seems to me the ARC gave up any prior claim they might have had to the symbol, regardless of who used it first.
It really appears to me that the ARC is moving into the commercial arena in competition to J&J and still want to use the symbol that they have been freely allowed to use for over 100 years for their humanitarian efforts. J&J is saying you cannot use that symbol to help you sell products that make money for our competitors. Seems like a pretty legitimate argument to me.
Wish I had a bundle of mod points to give... This is a great post and so much more informative than the "They've burned the constitution, stolen our freedom and the sky is falling!" posts. Well done.
Why exactly do you think no one is comparison shopping for their insurers? I'll guarantee you that if my HR department starts getting complaints about our coverage and especially a case where one of our employees has died due to being denied that insurer will be on the chopping block and probably will lose a bundle.
I don't understand where the idea, that healthcare companies can just do as they please with no repercussions, comes from. They have to maintain and grow their customer base to make their stockholders happy just like other businesses. They cannot do that if they get a bad reputation which they surely would if they denied services every time someone filed a claim.
The real question is whether 'scientific consensus' is a threat to science. Good science, should after all, never be a popularity contest. Can you say 'luminescent ether'?
Sales guys.
I am a developer. Shortly after getting my treo I purchased a bluetooth dongle and after screwing around for a couple of hours had syncing and dialup networking all working over bluetooth. I could sit in an airport and get online with my laptop using my treo as a modem.
When I would occasionally mention this to one of our sales folks their eyes would light up. "Really!? How'd you do that?" Two sentences into the explanation their eyes glazed over. I'm not trying to pick on sales people. There are some truly tech saavy folks out there, but for many I have encountered staying up on the latest tech nitty gritty just is not a priorty. They want a canned solution that just works out of the box.It sounds like this will give them a full sized keyboard and display for doing the things they typically do in a business day with low administration overhead.
Also the instant on idea is very appealing. At one time I traveled a great deal for work and while it was nice to be able to connect using my treo as a modem, the time it took to boot the laptop, establish the bluetooth connection and make the dialup network connection was usually prohibitive for a short layover or while waiting at a gate, or riding in a shuttle.
So while I still would not have bought one at the price even when I was traveling often, I suspect sales folks with more important things to deal with than technical details and admin will eat this up.
Fine, very well. Now, explain to me how the government decides that person x is an "alien unlawful enemy combatant", in terms that match the principles of justice that have governed the country for over 200 years now.
Perhaps you refer to the principles of justice Roosevelt used when he incarcerated Japanese/Americans after Pearl Harbor. Or maybe the principles of justice that governed the country for the nearly 100 years that the country allowed slavery. ?! You act like the current government is ruining 200 years of Utopia!
Anyway, I have my own concerns about the law, but the text is there and I would have to go back and read it but I believe it describes how the determination of 'alien unlawful enemy combatant' is made. I believe it is done through a Combatant Review Tribunal. Anyway, my post was simply to point out that the government has not taken away the rights of POW's by giving them a 'fake' label. They have created a new label for a new class of ... combatant.
You mean the bill passed four years after all this started?
What do you mean by 'after all this started'? Since the US detained people during conflicts? Well Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war and Grant did so shortly after that. I am pretty sure Roosevelt detained quite a few Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor. I am not sure what you are driving at? Quantanamo Bay specifically? I suppose so. But I do not know what other legislation was in place before the Military Commissions Act. I was responding to another poster who referred to the labelling of enemy combatants. I believe that label was part of this bill passed by congress.
The problem is that the administration has created a fake label for these people. By calling them enemy combatants, he deprives them of even the right of determination of POW status by refusing to permit any process whereby the government "proves" before a court or a tribunal that the person is an "enemy combatant", or even to permit the "enemy combatant" the chance to prove that he is not one.
Actually the distinction is alien unlawful enemy combatant. Which is defined in the act as an alien (non-citizen) combatant that does not belong to the military or officially recognized militia of any country or sovereign state. It is pretty specific. The act specifies that lawful enemy combatants get all the normal protections of the Geneva convention and normal court-martial procedures in the case of violations of the law of war. It also specifies that military commissions can only be formed in areas under martial law or occupied territories.
Oh and congress created the 'fake label' not the administration though they participated when the president signed the bill into law.
In case someone wants to read the actual text of the bill as passed by the senate, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.039 30:.
Do you have any quotes from those civics textbooks? I probably missed that day in class. So the situation as you understand it is the following:
Suppose we are engaged in an armed conflict with another country/sovereign state. Now suppose I drop a bomb on a barracks full of soldiers of said country. That's okay and the constitution's guarantee of life does not apply. However, if I take one of the soldiers prisoner and he says "I demand a lawyer!" If I deny him that lawyer then I am acting illegally. And that is because the constitution's guarantee of due process does apply.
Is that the way you see it?
Seems a little far-fetched but I am often ignorant. It will be interesting to see exactly what those civics textbooks say about it.
Bush's administration managed to pretend that POWs don't get trials, just various Geneva rights, and that their prisoners are not entitled to those rights, and the fucks in the media went along with the lie, and we suddenly because a police state. Everyone, being held by the government, legally gets a trial, even POWs, no exceptions whatsoever. (It's just POWs don't want trials, because then they'd stop being protected POWs and start being imprisoned felons.)
You are kidding right?! So if the U.S. were to go to war with China and the military took a million prisoners, each and everyone of those prisoners of war should be entitled to due process? Everyone of them should be provided with attorneys if they cannot afford them? Every prisoner taken should be able to file a petition for illegal detention in the courts (habeas corpus)? Every prisoner should be entitled to a speedy trial? That would create a completely untenable situation clogging the courts and costing ungodly amounts of resources.
I question your definition of police state if it includes a state that does not guarantee every prisoner of war legal due process. Heck, if we guaranteed every prisoner of war due process, China might attack and have all their soldiers surrender as a DOS attack. :)
Prisoners of war are not guaranteed due process and never have been as far as I know. Not in WWI or WWII or any other war. Not sure why you think that makes the country a police state.
Just for the record anyone who proposes that anyone in the US should not be entitled to due process is completely off the hook and very scary indeed.
Okay, lets be clear. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in a court of law where he was being sued for sexual harassment. He lied about having sex with a subordinate which is very pertinent to a sexual harassment case.
If Bush LIED about WMD's in Iraq he had lots of company. http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml
Personally I am not defending Gonzales but when you go off on an unrelated tangent to bash someone you should at least put things in perspective or risk losing your credibility.
You attacked his 'dishonest and deceptive' attempt at scaremongering, but you also attacked his reasoning regarding why a blastocyst should be considered human.
Here's a quote from his very first post to which you replied.
You are correct that this is an abortion issue. I consider a growing baby (call it whatever you want) an honest to goodness human being. Having a two month old at home changes your perspective. I have no reason to love my daughter. Honestly, all she does it eat, shit cry, and not occasionally enough, sleep. She can do little more than she could as a "blastocyst" (as I've heard it called). She barely discovered her hands, I'd hardly call her sentient. I love her because of the person she will become. I love her because of her potential.
This was a fairly objective opinion based on sentience which is often described as the property which defines us as being human. He is clearly pointing out that his newborn isn't much more sentient than a blastocyst. He is reasoning that if we assign humanity to a newborn that is still relatively devoid of sentience why not a blastocyst.
Here's a quote from your second reply where you address his reasoning above.
Your *personal religious beliefs* might dictate that a blastocyst and a newborn baby are one and the same, but *science* says otherwise.
Yours was interestingly enough the first mention of religion in the thread. Your reply is totally sensationalistic and doesn't address the specific property, sentience, that he mentions. Then you go on to claim science is on your side when, in the matter of sentience and self-awareness of newborns, it is clearly not. And this is where you most cerntainly impugn his reasoning. You are clearly claiming that his reasoning, of why a blastocyst should be considered just as human as a newborn, is wrong. But instead of pointing out logical and 'objective' reasons why a newborn might qualify for humanity but a blastocyst does not, you make a 'dishonest and deceptive' attempt to flag his argument as based on religion and disagreeing with science.
Then you follow that with:
As usual, most counter arguments are based in ignorance and/or religious dogma. It was painful trying to watch some politicians argue against this - doubly so for the ones who didn't have the stones to admit they oppose it because of their personal moral beliefs and attempted (as you did) to come up with some other, "objective" reasoning.
I think this quote pretty much speaks for itself. This is as elitist as it gets. I'm done here.
First of all humanity consists of one species, not one race.
Sorry. I was using the generally accepted meaning of the phrase 'human race' meaning all of humanity. Or course that is equivalent to the species.
How active should one be in order to not have ones plug pulled? Shoud a known hermit be saved according to your reasoning?
Hmmm... I thought we covered this with the brain death discussion.
And if anything with mere potential should be saved.. does this imply some sort of obligation to create as many humans as possible?
First its not necessarily that anything with mere potential be saved. Its that the lack of brain activity at a given point in time is not enough in and of itself to qualify as non-human unless we are willing to apply that consistently and consider adults with temprorary loss of brain activity as non-human as well. Anyway, like I said that distinction just 'feels' wrong which isn't really a very convincing argument.
Well suppose we see brain activity as a window.. and before it starts and after it ends "you" are not a person. Does that seem resonable to you?
Perhaps. Why do you make the distinction? What's the important distinction between someone recovering their brain activity and a fetus gaining brain activity? In my mind, the reason for not pulling the plug on someone who will may recover from a lack of brain activity is because they will potentially be an active member of the human race. What's so different about the case with an embryo? Just feels like an artificial distinction to me though I can't back that up with anything more concrete.
Well a total lack of measurable brain activity, and for that condition to be permanent should do it.
Yeah, this is the definition I have seen most often. However, the lack of brain activity in even an embryo is hardly permanent since it will likely gain brain activity in a few weeks. That means it would not qualify as being brain dead and we are back to the beginning.
When *I* believe a "human becomes a human" is utterly irrelevant to anything in this discussion except your ego.
LOL! This thread started because you berated and belittled another poster because his opinion of when humans become human was not 'objective' or scientific.
As usual, most counter arguments are based in ignorance and/or religious dogma. It was painful trying to watch some politicians argue against this - doubly so for the ones who didn't have the stones to admit they oppose it because of their personal moral beliefs and attempted (as you did) to come up with some other, "objective" reasoning.
So you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is either ignorant or just preaching religions dogma. Yet when pressed you cannot offer any explanation of what makes a human human. And you think it is my ego that is in danger? You have got to be kidding.
Thanks.
"Active central nervous system" takes care of both. Someone without an active CNS is not in a coma, they are braindead. Which is recognized as the criterion for death in a number of countries already. So no, pulling the plug on someone with no higher brain functions intact is not something I have a problem with.
For definitions of brain death: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&cl ient=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&hs =9BE&defl=en&q=define:Brain+death&sa=X&oi=glossary _definition&ct=title
Most specify that the loss of brain activity must be permanent or irreversible which is what I was trying to point out.
The whole argument about 'grandfathering in' people that have had active central nervous systems at some point so they get to keep their personhood... I could go with that though my gut tells me it is an artificial distinction.
BTW, just to play devil's advocate a little more, fetuses do achieve an 'active central nervous system' that at least meets the criteria of brain life in most of those definitions very early in their development. I think around ten weeks or so. This is long before most laws grant them 'personhood'. Though its too late to have any bearing on embryonic stem cell research, it could have serious repercussions on other hotly contested issues. :)
Thanks for the discussion!
Yes, I did, just not in the way you wanted. A clump of cells that hasn't even embedded into the womb, is not a "human being" by any sort of objective measure. At that stage, it's a roll of the dice whether or not it will even reach that "potential human" stage of an embryo. Comparing it to any other bunch of human-sourced cells in terms of "humanness" is quite reasonable.
No you didn't. The question is very simple. WHEN do YOU believe a human becomes human developmentally?
Quit dancing around and answer the question or admit you don't know. Simple.