The article linked to says both. Shame on slashdot not being more specific as there's a world of difference between adult stem cells and embryonic in behavior post creation and transformation. Anybody know what the percentages were and the success of each type as far as remaining "safe" after the creation?
But then how would universities justify their cost? You can't stop the profit gravy train and this would be something that would definitely put a wrench in its gears.
Seriously slashdotters? How many distopian movies have you watched and said, "Crap, that could totally happen to us?" How many of you recognize that there are people who have unhealthy addictions to their virtual worlds? If this were Kevin Smith, the Wachowskis (maybe not after speed racer though), Orwell, Huxley or somebody other than the pope saying this, then you'd all be going, "yeah, he's right, we've got to be careful". Or at the very least we'd be hearing a discussion of the implications of technology on our daily lives. But no, instead you guys go right for the genetic fallacy that because the pope is saying this, it must be garbage. If the pope said 2+2=4 would you all of a sudden stop believing that too?
Seriously, the issues he brings up are completely understandable from a religious or non-religious position. We should be concentrating on these, not whether the pope can fly.
As a professor I just don't see the issue. It's stupidly egoistic to think that what I have to say is soooooo important that if every student doesn't listen to me then they're missing out. If the student can surf all class whilst still doing well in the class, then good for them. More likely than not though, the more general it is becoming for students to do this, the more likely the average student will become below-average. But this isn't my problem. If student's want to do poorly by not paying attention, that's their issue, not mine.
The only time this is an issue is when the student is being disruptive to students who are trying to pay attention. Short of that, let them waste their time and money in showing up.
1) Your point is a non-sequitur, it is a practical point that fails to meet the epistemic critique; it addresses nothing of what I've claimed.
2) I'm not saying that science is wrong default, my point is simply in line with Nietzsche; all this bashing of religion in the name of science is just as foolish as all of religions' previous bashings of science. To point fingers and claim that the world would be better without religion/science is just foolishness. Both sides, if they're taken as mutually exclusive (which is of course not the only option, this issue need not be like our media makes politics-blue/red only) take a faith the other claims they cannot have. Again, to make a claim of epistemic exclusivity is foolish, because there is just no proof for this exclusivity on either side.
Beware you Dawkins types, South Park did a great job of taking up Nietzsche's reins and showing just how evil anti-religious types are and their satire of the future involving war is not far off at all, evil has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with being human (regardless of whether you take it as a metaphysical entity or not; Nietzsche did not, but knew evil couldn't be blamed on religion).
Nietzsche warned of an all pervading trust in science by pale atheists. Why, because essentially he realized, science is based on faith just as much any religion. To claim that science is the sole purveyor of truth would, by scientific standards, require some kind of empirical confirmation/experiment of just that claim, but 1) no such experiment exists because 2) it'd be arguing in a vicious circle because it'd be claiming something epistemic that cannot be verified empirically. Science is treated as a holy grail just as much as religion, and it takes just as much faith to make an epistemic exclusivity claim for science just as much religion.
I wish the RIAA would go forward and try to litigate the President's daughters. All of a sudden the President's attention would be very quickly and precisely to act against any current and future RIAA litigation by basically saying, you're a bullying group with no legal authority don't do this type of thing again or be disbanded. If only...
Slashdot Mirror
The article linked to says both. Shame on slashdot not being more specific as there's a world of difference between adult stem cells and embryonic in behavior post creation and transformation. Anybody know what the percentages were and the success of each type as far as remaining "safe" after the creation?
But then how would universities justify their cost? You can't stop the profit gravy train and this would be something that would definitely put a wrench in its gears.
Seriously slashdotters? How many distopian movies have you watched and said, "Crap, that could totally happen to us?" How many of you recognize that there are people who have unhealthy addictions to their virtual worlds? If this were Kevin Smith, the Wachowskis (maybe not after speed racer though), Orwell, Huxley or somebody other than the pope saying this, then you'd all be going, "yeah, he's right, we've got to be careful". Or at the very least we'd be hearing a discussion of the implications of technology on our daily lives. But no, instead you guys go right for the genetic fallacy that because the pope is saying this, it must be garbage. If the pope said 2+2=4 would you all of a sudden stop believing that too? Seriously, the issues he brings up are completely understandable from a religious or non-religious position. We should be concentrating on these, not whether the pope can fly.
No-IP + Proxy Server + Firefox = no great firewall
http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/slashdot/eqWf/~3/Ltx1dUIvKyA/Hacked-Climate-Emails-Stoke-Debate It disappeared completely from Slashdot. Why?
That's "specious" reasoning :-)
As a professor I just don't see the issue. It's stupidly egoistic to think that what I have to say is soooooo important that if every student doesn't listen to me then they're missing out. If the student can surf all class whilst still doing well in the class, then good for them. More likely than not though, the more general it is becoming for students to do this, the more likely the average student will become below-average. But this isn't my problem. If student's want to do poorly by not paying attention, that's their issue, not mine. The only time this is an issue is when the student is being disruptive to students who are trying to pay attention. Short of that, let them waste their time and money in showing up.
1) Your point is a non-sequitur, it is a practical point that fails to meet the epistemic critique; it addresses nothing of what I've claimed. 2) I'm not saying that science is wrong default, my point is simply in line with Nietzsche; all this bashing of religion in the name of science is just as foolish as all of religions' previous bashings of science. To point fingers and claim that the world would be better without religion/science is just foolishness. Both sides, if they're taken as mutually exclusive (which is of course not the only option, this issue need not be like our media makes politics-blue/red only) take a faith the other claims they cannot have. Again, to make a claim of epistemic exclusivity is foolish, because there is just no proof for this exclusivity on either side.
Beware you Dawkins types, South Park did a great job of taking up Nietzsche's reins and showing just how evil anti-religious types are and their satire of the future involving war is not far off at all, evil has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with being human (regardless of whether you take it as a metaphysical entity or not; Nietzsche did not, but knew evil couldn't be blamed on religion). Nietzsche warned of an all pervading trust in science by pale atheists. Why, because essentially he realized, science is based on faith just as much any religion. To claim that science is the sole purveyor of truth would, by scientific standards, require some kind of empirical confirmation/experiment of just that claim, but 1) no such experiment exists because 2) it'd be arguing in a vicious circle because it'd be claiming something epistemic that cannot be verified empirically. Science is treated as a holy grail just as much as religion, and it takes just as much faith to make an epistemic exclusivity claim for science just as much religion.
I wish the RIAA would go forward and try to litigate the President's daughters. All of a sudden the President's attention would be very quickly and precisely to act against any current and future RIAA litigation by basically saying, you're a bullying group with no legal authority don't do this type of thing again or be disbanded. If only...
In preferences this can be avoided by turning off the "Open 'Safe' Files" option. Simply uncheck the box.