Um. Saying that one should go into genetic modification with ones eyes open, prepared for unexpected consequences, learning from the mistakes we've already made? That's silly?
People love to read meaning into things that is not there. They also tend to argue vociferously for or against. So someone who has a cautious but positive approach to a topic confuses the hell out of them.
You'd think an "expert in practical ethics" would think of the obvious practical consequences of his ethical recommendations, but I guess his flawed character can't resist the temptation of playing god.
He suffers from the problem that he thinks he is intelligent and wise enough to make the correct choices - whilst others who he thinks are not of his enlightened moral compass or intellectual cadre would not make the right choice.
Rest assured, there are plenty of people as smart or smarter than Professor Savulescu who would not make the same choices as him, even though they may still choose to genetically alter mankind.
No, we're learning what genes seem to indicate a greater potential for certain personality and mental problems.
The other poster is correct. We do not truly understand how DNA and personality interact and screwing with it, with our small knowledge of the human genome, may not turn out all peaches and cream.
We may have mapped the human genome, but we have not decoded it.
As it stands, IVF is mainly used to treat what can be termed as genetically inferior people to achieve reproduction (which would otherwise be denied to them from there own inferior genes). They pass on these inferior genes through IVF. We have not figured out how to give these parents a child with non-defective genes - i.e. their children will probably have the same reproductive problems. Now, this transfers to healthy babies too - we don't know how to make them better than average.
The oldest IVF baby is about 34 years old (born 1978). We don't currently know what long term effects IVF will have on humans. We do know it doesn't look good by indicators from other animals. Studies like this point to these same problems being inherited by humans: http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/125/15/1890.abstract
IVF is a highly flawed technology. First we need to solve the IVF problem. Then decode the human genome. Then we can go making better humans.
Of course, adults shouldn't be interested in fixing unborn babies. Adults should be interested in gene therapy for adults. The real versus a potential.
= = = Indeed. I'm beginning to suspect these claims of widespread fraud have more to do with some pretty bizarre metrics on the part of those making the claim. It makes great headlines, but I think there's something rather fishy about it. = = =
Lot of pushback on the so-called "fraud epidemic" on the academic science blogs. The emerging concensus is that the campaign is part of a softening-up process for anti-climate science actions.
sPh
Here is my suggestion - you can look at this a few different ways:
If this article is correct, then the defence of those committing the fraud will be to call bullshit on the article and suggest that it's the "science deniers" pushing this article (oh double irony - in that they're the ones denying it and suggesting the science deniers are using science to deny it and further their own denial agenda).
If this article is indeed bullshit then there will be a reaction from the science community to try and deny the article any credit. Currently, as you've suggested, they seem to be following a paranoid consensus of the climate science deniers being behind the article to soften up the science community in preparation to make science that shows no adverse climate change as legitimate (again the irony - scientists not using science to suggest science deniers are using science to soften up the community to discredit science they are accused of not understanding or denying - haha so ironic).
These two courses of action are almost identical in appearance. There may be other simpler or more convoluted explanations, which, like my examples, may or may not be true.
So unless someone, somewhere, can come up with some real evidence to show a hidden agenda behind this article then everything else is pretty much conjecture.
From memory, this proposal is not nearly as comprehensive as the totally network aware models that have been proposed in the past, with all traffic flow managed by computers.
Both orthodox christians and catholic christians (which together make up the vast majority of christians world wide) interpret the bible differently than what you describe. They have what they call "tradition" as well. It pretty much prevents what you are describing.
Protestant christianity (which is dominant in USA - the worlds super power) does interpret the bible very closely to the way you described.
"60 meters (200 feet) through 5,000 psi reinforced concrete 40 meters (125 feet) through moderately hard rock 8 meters (25 feet) through 10,000 psi reinforced concrete (these number seem suspiciously high and may in fact be first in feet, not meters)"
- note: their warning not mine
5000psi reinforced concrete is typical building concrete - a cheap bunker might be made of this.
10000 psi reinforced concrete is what you'll find good bunkers or structures that need high strength are made of. Even higher strength concrete is available.
So it probably won't go far into a well made bunker.
The F4 Phantom is 13757kg (30328lb) of steel - that's without any fuel or armaments. It was travelling at 805km/h (500m/h). The bomb is also about 13636kg (30000lb) with 1/6th of its mass being explosives.
Not a terrible comparison.
Back to the actual bomb. There is no indication anywhere that it can penetrate 60 feet into anything but dirt. If you can find a legitimate reference to show it can penetrate 60 feet of steel reinforced concrete (which is what they make bunkers out of) just post it up.
I'm pretty positive that it would not go far into steel reinforced concrete before exploding.
I can't find a reference that says 60 feet of "concrete" anywhere.
The article links to a wikipedia entry that says it penetrates up to 60 feet - it does not give a material. It links to a USAF article as a source. The USAF article also says it penetrates up to 60 feet - but does not give a material.
I'm going to suggest it penetrates up to 60 feet into soil. Penetration into steel reinforced concrete before exploding will be very small indeed.
Here is a video a Phantom F4 jet smashing into a reinforced concrete wall at 500Mph - it disintegrates entirely. I suspect this bomb would suffer a similar fate.
I'm fairly certain this would breach parts of the Competition and Consumer Act in Australia. It dictates that a consumer is entitled to "quiet enjoyment" of any goods they buy. It seems to me that a third party disabling content and demanding money to re-enable that content would breach that provision. Any Aussie lawyers know more?
Does the USA have similar state or federal provisions?
I was going to say the same thing. Telstra (in Australia) got a lot of flak from introducing a paper bill charge and reversed it - but they aren't the only one...
The way I see it is that internet billing has reduced their costs considerably, so the few people who need to have a paper bill (usually older people who haven't cottoned on to the internet) should be extended the courtesy of a paper bill free of charge (with the internet payers essentially subsidising them). This small group of paper users will slowly decrease to zero.
Re:I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my Da
on
How Doctors Die
·
· Score: 1
That's not actually quite correct. The current debate isn't about whether hands-only CPR is more effective than full CPR (It's not), the question is whether hands-only is more easily performed correctly than compressions/vents, and is, on average, going to be more effective as it gets performed in the field, add into that the fact that hands-only is easier and faster to teach, and maybe we'll have more of the population able to perform CPR, which means a decrease in time from arrest to start of CPR, which will always improve outcomes.
Actually the current debate is not about the effectiveness per se but about the outcome. Compression only CPR is showing better patient results for lay-people and professionals alike.
Re:I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my Da
on
How Doctors Die
·
· Score: 1
I agree with jd. There are several major studies that have happened in recent years that all point to compressions only being most effective. The first step to achieving this was changing the ratio of compressions to breaths from 15:2 to 30:2. Soon it will be compressions only.
Or just put it on a bus or someone else's car. Remember to wear gloves when you do it. Then it's pretty hard for the government to pin anything on you in regards to interference with an investigation or loss of their property since you can deny ever knowing about it (and since they specifically hid it from you it is hard to prove otherwise).
No, you moomin, but since hardware and software can both be reduced to a mathematical algorithm, the fact that software can be reduced to a mathematical algorithm is not an argument against patenting software. Sheesh. Get it now?
Software is at its core a "mathematical algorithm". We use a high level programming language to be able to translate our instructions into that mathematical algorithm (otherwise it would be too cumbersome and complex to program). It is an abstract mathematical entity.
On the other hand, circuits and just about any other physical entity can be "reduced" to a mathematical model/algorithm of some sort. But they are still physical entities first and foremost with a mathematical model as a simulation or representation of that object.
Tobacco: Also associated with nicotine addiction, respiratory disease and cancer
Alcohol: Also associated with addiction, liver disease and cognitive impairment
Alcohol is also linked to cancer, heart disease, domestic violence, public violence, increased car crash rates (with a higher fatality rate), etc.
Compared to tobacco, alcohol is the worse of the two (it costs the Australian economy - where I am - the same as tobacco, has just as many serious diseases attributed to it, and it has the distinction of causing a greater amount of serious social problems) but tobacco is the publicly demonised product for various reasons.
I'd like to see manufacturers put only Thunderbolt ports on the PC's motherboard and then sell separate break out boxes (that go in a 3.5" or 5.25" bay or externally). That way I get to choose the other connectivity options I want.
Right now Apple is the largest manufacturer of PCs in the world - so they have some clout in pushing Thunderbolt.
Slashdot Mirror
Um. Saying that one should go into genetic modification with ones eyes open, prepared for unexpected consequences, learning from the mistakes we've already made? That's silly?
People love to read meaning into things that is not there. They also tend to argue vociferously for or against. So someone who has a cautious but positive approach to a topic confuses the hell out of them.
You'd think an "expert in practical ethics" would think of the obvious practical consequences of his ethical recommendations, but I guess his flawed character can't resist the temptation of playing god.
He suffers from the problem that he thinks he is intelligent and wise enough to make the correct choices - whilst others who he thinks are not of his enlightened moral compass or intellectual cadre would not make the right choice.
Rest assured, there are plenty of people as smart or smarter than Professor Savulescu who would not make the same choices as him, even though they may still choose to genetically alter mankind.
No, we're learning what genes seem to indicate a greater potential for certain personality and mental problems.
The other poster is correct. We do not truly understand how DNA and personality interact and screwing with it, with our small knowledge of the human genome, may not turn out all peaches and cream.
We may have mapped the human genome, but we have not decoded it.
As it stands, IVF is mainly used to treat what can be termed as genetically inferior people to achieve reproduction (which would otherwise be denied to them from there own inferior genes). They pass on these inferior genes through IVF. We have not figured out how to give these parents a child with non-defective genes - i.e. their children will probably have the same reproductive problems. Now, this transfers to healthy babies too - we don't know how to make them better than average.
The oldest IVF baby is about 34 years old (born 1978). We don't currently know what long term effects IVF will have on humans. We do know it doesn't look good by indicators from other animals. Studies like this point to these same problems being inherited by humans: http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/125/15/1890.abstract
IVF is a highly flawed technology. First we need to solve the IVF problem. Then decode the human genome. Then we can go making better humans.
Of course, adults shouldn't be interested in fixing unborn babies. Adults should be interested in gene therapy for adults. The real versus a potential.
No need to write it down when it has already been discussed in writing over the last few years.
I could see how your sentiment would be downmodded, I think the scientific community largely agrees Climate Change is happening, man-made or not.
Yes, the climate is changing. In all the history of the world, the climate has been changing. Slowly but surely and always.
Lot of pushback on the so-called "fraud epidemic" on the academic science blogs. The emerging concensus is that the campaign is part of a softening-up process for anti-climate science actions.
sPh
Here is my suggestion - you can look at this a few different ways:
If this article is correct, then the defence of those committing the fraud will be to call bullshit on the article and suggest that it's the "science deniers" pushing this article (oh double irony - in that they're the ones denying it and suggesting the science deniers are using science to deny it and further their own denial agenda).
If this article is indeed bullshit then there will be a reaction from the science community to try and deny the article any credit. Currently, as you've suggested, they seem to be following a paranoid consensus of the climate science deniers being behind the article to soften up the science community in preparation to make science that shows no adverse climate change as legitimate (again the irony - scientists not using science to suggest science deniers are using science to soften up the community to discredit science they are accused of not understanding or denying - haha so ironic).
These two courses of action are almost identical in appearance. There may be other simpler or more convoluted explanations, which, like my examples, may or may not be true.
So unless someone, somewhere, can come up with some real evidence to show a hidden agenda behind this article then everything else is pretty much conjecture.
From memory, this proposal is not nearly as comprehensive as the totally network aware models that have been proposed in the past, with all traffic flow managed by computers.
IIRC this concept is very similar to "sola scriptura".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura
Both orthodox christians and catholic christians (which together make up the vast majority of christians world wide) interpret the bible differently than what you describe. They have what they call "tradition" as well. It pretty much prevents what you are describing.
Protestant christianity (which is dominant in USA - the worlds super power) does interpret the bible very closely to the way you described.
These numbers are from what they've "heard". No official specs available.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mop-specs.htm
"60 meters (200 feet) through 5,000 psi reinforced concrete
40 meters (125 feet) through moderately hard rock
8 meters (25 feet) through 10,000 psi reinforced concrete
(these number seem suspiciously high and may in fact be first in feet, not meters)"
- note: their warning not mine
5000psi reinforced concrete is typical building concrete - a cheap bunker might be made of this.
10000 psi reinforced concrete is what you'll find good bunkers or structures that need high strength are made of. Even higher strength concrete is available.
So it probably won't go far into a well made bunker.
The F4 Phantom is 13757kg (30328lb) of steel - that's without any fuel or armaments. It was travelling at 805km/h (500m/h).
The bomb is also about 13636kg (30000lb) with 1/6th of its mass being explosives.
Not a terrible comparison.
Back to the actual bomb. There is no indication anywhere that it can penetrate 60 feet into anything but dirt. If you can find a legitimate reference to show it can penetrate 60 feet of steel reinforced concrete (which is what they make bunkers out of) just post it up.
I'm pretty positive that it would not go far into steel reinforced concrete before exploding.
I can't find a reference that says 60 feet of "concrete" anywhere.
The article links to a wikipedia entry that says it penetrates up to 60 feet - it does not give a material. It links to a USAF article as a source. The USAF article also says it penetrates up to 60 feet - but does not give a material.
I'm going to suggest it penetrates up to 60 feet into soil. Penetration into steel reinforced concrete before exploding will be very small indeed.
Here is a video a Phantom F4 jet smashing into a reinforced concrete wall at 500Mph - it disintegrates entirely. I suspect this bomb would suffer a similar fate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk
I'm fairly certain this would breach parts of the Competition and Consumer Act in Australia. It dictates that a consumer is entitled to "quiet enjoyment" of any goods they buy. It seems to me that a third party disabling content and demanding money to re-enable that content would breach that provision. Any Aussie lawyers know more?
Does the USA have similar state or federal provisions?
No. You're not like "the majority of the population": you have a problem with authority, while most people don't.
Neither of you have supplied any data to support either of your claims - which suggests neither of you would know.
I was going to say the same thing. Telstra (in Australia) got a lot of flak from introducing a paper bill charge and reversed it - but they aren't the only one...
http://www.news.com.au/money/money-matters/telstra-drops-fee-to-pay-telephone-bill/story-e6frfmd9-1225794125751
The way I see it is that internet billing has reduced their costs considerably, so the few people who need to have a paper bill (usually older people who haven't cottoned on to the internet) should be extended the courtesy of a paper bill free of charge (with the internet payers essentially subsidising them). This small group of paper users will slowly decrease to zero.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_118513.html
That's not actually quite correct. The current debate isn't about whether hands-only CPR is more effective than full CPR (It's not), the question is whether hands-only is more easily performed correctly than compressions/vents, and is, on average, going to be more effective as it gets performed in the field, add into that the fact that hands-only is easier and faster to teach, and maybe we'll have more of the population able to perform CPR, which means a decrease in time from arrest to start of CPR, which will always improve outcomes.
Actually the current debate is not about the effectiveness per se but about the outcome. Compression only CPR is showing better patient results for lay-people and professionals alike.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-chest-compression-only-cpr-survival-cardiac.html
http://www.theheart.org/article/1106815.do
And the quality of compressions in compression only CPR goes down over time.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17069958
I agree with jd. There are several major studies that have happened in recent years that all point to compressions only being most effective. The first step to achieving this was changing the ratio of compressions to breaths from 15:2 to 30:2. Soon it will be compressions only.
Or just put it on a bus or someone else's car. Remember to wear gloves when you do it. Then it's pretty hard for the government to pin anything on you in regards to interference with an investigation or loss of their property since you can deny ever knowing about it (and since they specifically hid it from you it is hard to prove otherwise).
No, you moomin, but since hardware and software can both be reduced to a mathematical algorithm, the fact that software can be reduced to a mathematical algorithm is not an argument against patenting software. Sheesh. Get it now?
Software is at its core a "mathematical algorithm". We use a high level programming language to be able to translate our instructions into that mathematical algorithm (otherwise it would be too cumbersome and complex to program). It is an abstract mathematical entity.
On the other hand, circuits and just about any other physical entity can be "reduced" to a mathematical model/algorithm of some sort. But they are still physical entities first and foremost with a mathematical model as a simulation or representation of that object.
There are few things Obama could do to restore some faith that he isn't the worst sitting president since Bush II.
Has there been another president in between?
Tobacco: Also associated with nicotine addiction, respiratory disease and cancer
Alcohol: Also associated with addiction, liver disease and cognitive impairment
Alcohol is also linked to cancer, heart disease, domestic violence, public violence, increased car crash rates (with a higher fatality rate), etc.
Compared to tobacco, alcohol is the worse of the two (it costs the Australian economy - where I am - the same as tobacco, has just as many serious diseases attributed to it, and it has the distinction of causing a greater amount of serious social problems) but tobacco is the publicly demonised product for various reasons.
I predict a future where people will claim to have invented math too. Oh wait, that would be software patents.
My sentiment exactly. And yet they still get allowed. Why? Are patent examiners ignorant of this fact?
I'd like to see manufacturers put only Thunderbolt ports on the PC's motherboard and then sell separate break out boxes (that go in a 3.5" or 5.25" bay or externally). That way I get to choose the other connectivity options I want.
Right now Apple is the largest manufacturer of PCs in the world - so they have some clout in pushing Thunderbolt.
Mindcontrolled - Where are they teaching thermodynamics using calories instead of joules, kelvin, etc. (i.e. insert other SI unit here)?
zieroh - wikipedia suggests gramcalories are used for food and kilocalories are used for other things.
Either way - calories were deprecated 51 years ago.
Of course that may not be what floats your boat...