Yeah, I think they would. I wouldn't. But what I think doesn't matter. It's what the more general population think.
Would you stigmatize an identical twin or an in-vitro fertilized human?
No, of course not.
Down that path lies madness, and genocide.
Yep, but that is the path that is most likely. Alcoholics are stigmatised through no fault of their own; whether you recognise it or not. And, genocide has never happened before? Madness has never happened before? I fail to see how those pints are relevent to how a population will react.
Well, that is kind of interesting. Is it moral to eat cloned human flesh? If the human was cloned and kept free from disease, then (perhaps) it would be OK to eat. It is fairly likely that our repulsion to eating other humans stems from natural selection and the risk of contracting disease from other humans. Although, this raises other issues like "is it moral to clone a human being and then keep them in a cage and sterile environment." One could argue (although I'd disagree) that the cloned human is not really a human, but a human creation--therefore we could farm them. If that were the case, then it'd be OK to eat them as well. I'm not sure if it'd be a requirement that the meat be labelled (probably it would). However, how is it OK to develop other kinds of meat and not require labelling and not OK to label human meat as cloned? I would like to be given the CHOICE whether I eat meat from a cloned animal (either directly or from its offspring)... or not.
I understand my friend. Fortunately the Reptoids' can be fooled into thinking I am a rock merely by encasing myself in foil. The egyptians almost had it right by wrapping their dead in cloth, but foil works much better. Peace be with you.
The secret invasion by aliens will be revealed. I, for one, welcome our new overlords. I've been watching them for years on Lost in Space, Star Trek, V, Battlestar Gallactica and The Smurfs. I am looking forward to the secret being revealed and my release from the asylum.
Actually I have used NeXTSTEP. This doesn't change my opinion of the self-proclaimed new "Chief" though. Seriously, why does he have to keep reminding us (the poor serfs) that he is the "Chief"? And why all the business speak crap? Why not speak to us as equals, rather than speaking down to us like we're idiots? I don't think I'm an idiot. I don't think you're an idiot. But he thinks (judging from his blog) that we're both idiots. That is what is irritating me. I am a technical person. I can see through propaganda and when I do, I don't particularly appreciate it. I'd rather that he was honest and "spoke" (in his writing) to me as a peer.
And... I think this dude is a complete moron. He types (on the page and in his blog) all this "business" speak gibberish which, in the end, means nothing. He says that he thinks KDE and Gnome are "amateurish" but doesn't bother to explain his reasoning behind the assertion. To me, this implies that he doesn't actually have a reason behind the assertion and that the whole silly blog is propaganda. I find his "business speak" patronising, transparent and meaningless. It may work for Microsoft, but propaganda does not work for the audience he is (supposed) to be targetting.
And even then, they're not always "Latin" names; specific epiphets are rarely latin (often Greek, often "latinised" names). Genera, families, classes etc... none of them have to be Latin.
On the other hand, it is possible that the earlier people learn about these things the better they'll be in the long run. C's mem management is far from complicated to learn. Pointers... perhaps a bit harder to learn, but dereferencing is an important topic (not really related to C). In any event, pointers in C aren't that hard and learning them teaches you more than learning how to "pass by reference (for e.g)" (to functions) in other languages. My only reservation about teaching C as a first language is that it's too obliging (to do whatever you want). However, if C is taught in conjunction with good programming practices and design, then why not learn C first?
"A Book on C". Apart from the errors in this book (which, when I last looked about 7 years ago, are few), I think it's great. The errors, by the way, will be picked up by the better students. I'm not convinced that C is a great first language, but if you insist, I reckon that book is good (if it's still available). Then again, lots of stuff is written in C and available as source code; so, in that sense, C would be a great first language. There's not many current applications written in, for example, modula-2 that have their source available. Taking into account "learning by example" then C is, in my opinion, top of the stack.
It's been a long time since I installed Anjuta under Fedora. But since I used it at one stage I guess it was OK. These days I use kdevelop (sorry Anjuta...)
Or, another way to look at it: "Does XXX have the potential to do better than RPM?". If not, then they should die--people responsible for packaging apps will have one less format to take care of.
this is, perhaps, offtopic, but the biggest gripe I have with Fedora is the software updater. I dunno about other people, but I'm uninterested in updates to stuff I don't have installed.
I'm sorry, but exactly why is apt better than RPM? I've been hearing this argument for years and have, yet, to hear a convincing against RPM that doesn't involve elitist propaganda. Perhaps I'm missing something, but the main thing going against RPM is, sometimes, that it has RedHat associated with its name. Sure, RPM has bugs. So does apt. Sure, RPM could be improved. apt could be improved as well.
The fact that the Amazon jungle has collapsed under the weight of a thousand boxes surprises me little. In fact I thought the number would have been more. Boxes to transport wood, made of... wood... it's no wonder really. This is a sad day. The diversity of species in the Amazon is huge. The fact that it has collapsed is worrying to say the least. This is likely to result in a whole series of follow-on effects: Global Warming will quicken; The ice-caps will melt; The Ozone Hole will become a non-issue (the hole will be so big, we'll start calling normal bits of sky the Ozone Zones). I have no idea why nobody thought of the children.
Once supplies dwindle enough, the farming of fish will become more attractive
And at that stage the available genes will be so low that farming may become problematic as well...
Re:They seem to be forgetting something...
on
Oceans Empty By 2048?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
No? There are lots of examples of industries that have collapsed because of over exploitation. The fact is, the fishing industries probably don't care (or worry) about the collapse--they can worry about that once it does (the word "greed" comes to mind here).
And, considering that a 90% loss is fairly significant, it's debatable if we could do anything anyway. Even if capturing those 29% of fish was banned, the re-establishment of their population could be questioned. Clearly the rates of death, in those 29% of edible fishes, far exceeds the rates of birth (because humans have raised the rate of death). We're not the only predators of those fish however. If we stopped predating them, it could be argued that they have fallen below som critical level and "natural" predation will finish them off. Of course, births will still be occuring, but with a diminished gene pool, lots of bad things happen.
Already, 29% of edible fish and seafood species have declined by 90% -- a drop that means the collapse of these fisheries
A decline of 90% for any species surely means that the species is in chance of vansishing entirely. The gene pool of 29% of the ocens edible fishes has diminished (according to the article). The chances of those fishes regaining their former population is decreasing as well. Also, even if they do reach their previous numbers inbreeding is probably more likely (resulting in gene depression etc). If the data is accurate then I don't think it's FUD.
There are still wild bananas (Musa spp.) that are not seedless. Off the top of my head, there is at least one species of wild banana that grows in tropical Australia. Another (possibly the same species) in Papua New Guinea.
Slashdot Mirror
This is America. Whatever we say is true. Even though the majority of us are idiots.
It's probably easy for the "attacker" to note the time they "attack".
They would?
Yeah, I think they would. I wouldn't. But what I think doesn't matter. It's what the more general population think. Would you stigmatize an identical twin or an in-vitro fertilized human?
No, of course not.
Down that path lies madness, and genocide.
Yep, but that is the path that is most likely. Alcoholics are stigmatised through no fault of their own; whether you recognise it or not. And, genocide has never happened before? Madness has never happened before? I fail to see how those pints are relevent to how a population will react.
Cloned humans may be different to "normal" humans. They'd be stigmatised for a start.
Well, that is kind of interesting. Is it moral to eat cloned human flesh? If the human was cloned and kept free from disease, then (perhaps) it would be OK to eat. It is fairly likely that our repulsion to eating other humans stems from natural selection and the risk of contracting disease from other humans. Although, this raises other issues like "is it moral to clone a human being and then keep them in a cage and sterile environment." One could argue (although I'd disagree) that the cloned human is not really a human, but a human creation--therefore we could farm them. If that were the case, then it'd be OK to eat them as well. I'm not sure if it'd be a requirement that the meat be labelled (probably it would). However, how is it OK to develop other kinds of meat and not require labelling and not OK to label human meat as cloned? I would like to be given the CHOICE whether I eat meat from a cloned animal (either directly or from its offspring)... or not.
I understand my friend. Fortunately the Reptoids' can be fooled into thinking I am a rock merely by encasing myself in foil. The egyptians almost had it right by wrapping their dead in cloth, but foil works much better. Peace be with you.
The secret invasion by aliens will be revealed. I, for one, welcome our new overlords. I've been watching them for years on Lost in Space, Star Trek, V, Battlestar Gallactica and The Smurfs. I am looking forward to the secret being revealed and my release from the asylum.
Actually I have used NeXTSTEP. This doesn't change my opinion of the self-proclaimed new "Chief" though. Seriously, why does he have to keep reminding us (the poor serfs) that he is the "Chief"? And why all the business speak crap? Why not speak to us as equals, rather than speaking down to us like we're idiots? I don't think I'm an idiot. I don't think you're an idiot. But he thinks (judging from his blog) that we're both idiots. That is what is irritating me. I am a technical person. I can see through propaganda and when I do, I don't particularly appreciate it. I'd rather that he was honest and "spoke" (in his writing) to me as a peer.
And... I think this dude is a complete moron. He types (on the page and in his blog) all this "business" speak gibberish which, in the end, means nothing. He says that he thinks KDE and Gnome are "amateurish" but doesn't bother to explain his reasoning behind the assertion. To me, this implies that he doesn't actually have a reason behind the assertion and that the whole silly blog is propaganda. I find his "business speak" patronising, transparent and meaningless. It may work for Microsoft, but propaganda does not work for the audience he is (supposed) to be targetting.
You must have been new at the time then. And why is the subject line talking about The Matrix but your comment referring to "The Net". I am confused.
And even then, they're not always "Latin" names; specific epiphets are rarely latin (often Greek, often "latinised" names). Genera, families, classes etc... none of them have to be Latin.
On the other hand, it is possible that the earlier people learn about these things the better they'll be in the long run. C's mem management is far from complicated to learn. Pointers... perhaps a bit harder to learn, but dereferencing is an important topic (not really related to C). In any event, pointers in C aren't that hard and learning them teaches you more than learning how to "pass by reference (for e.g)" (to functions) in other languages. My only reservation about teaching C as a first language is that it's too obliging (to do whatever you want). However, if C is taught in conjunction with good programming practices and design, then why not learn C first?
"A Book on C". Apart from the errors in this book (which, when I last looked about 7 years ago, are few), I think it's great. The errors, by the way, will be picked up by the better students. I'm not convinced that C is a great first language, but if you insist, I reckon that book is good (if it's still available). Then again, lots of stuff is written in C and available as source code; so, in that sense, C would be a great first language. There's not many current applications written in, for example, modula-2 that have their source available. Taking into account "learning by example" then C is, in my opinion, top of the stack.
It's been a long time since I installed Anjuta under Fedora. But since I used it at one stage I guess it was OK. These days I use kdevelop (sorry Anjuta...)
Or, another way to look at it: "Does XXX have the potential to do better than RPM?". If not, then they should die--people responsible for packaging apps will have one less format to take care of.
this is, perhaps, offtopic, but the biggest gripe I have with Fedora is the software updater. I dunno about other people, but I'm uninterested in updates to stuff I don't have installed.
I'm sorry, but exactly why is apt better than RPM? I've been hearing this argument for years and have, yet, to hear a convincing against RPM that doesn't involve elitist propaganda. Perhaps I'm missing something, but the main thing going against RPM is, sometimes, that it has RedHat associated with its name. Sure, RPM has bugs. So does apt. Sure, RPM could be improved. apt could be improved as well.
Pay them the quoted price. Then it would be up to them to try and reclaim the extra. Put the onus on them and take it off yourself.
A thing that counts lunar cycles? A lunatic. Decoded. Maybe I've been spending too much time alone reading /.
The fact that the Amazon jungle has collapsed under the weight of a thousand boxes surprises me little. In fact I thought the number would have been more. Boxes to transport wood, made of... wood... it's no wonder really. This is a sad day. The diversity of species in the Amazon is huge. The fact that it has collapsed is worrying to say the least. This is likely to result in a whole series of follow-on effects: Global Warming will quicken; The ice-caps will melt; The Ozone Hole will become a non-issue (the hole will be so big, we'll start calling normal bits of sky the Ozone Zones). I have no idea why nobody thought of the children.
Once supplies dwindle enough, the farming of fish will become more attractive
And at that stage the available genes will be so low that farming may become problematic as well...
No? There are lots of examples of industries that have collapsed because of over exploitation. The fact is, the fishing industries probably don't care (or worry) about the collapse--they can worry about that once it does (the word "greed" comes to mind here).
And, considering that a 90% loss is fairly significant, it's debatable if we could do anything anyway. Even if capturing those 29% of fish was banned, the re-establishment of their population could be questioned. Clearly the rates of death, in those 29% of edible fishes, far exceeds the rates of birth (because humans have raised the rate of death). We're not the only predators of those fish however. If we stopped predating them, it could be argued that they have fallen below som critical level and "natural" predation will finish them off. Of course, births will still be occuring, but with a diminished gene pool, lots of bad things happen.
Already, 29% of edible fish and seafood species have declined by 90% -- a drop that means the collapse of these fisheries
A decline of 90% for any species surely means that the species is in chance of vansishing entirely. The gene pool of 29% of the ocens edible fishes has diminished (according to the article). The chances of those fishes regaining their former population is decreasing as well. Also, even if they do reach their previous numbers inbreeding is probably more likely (resulting in gene depression etc). If the data is accurate then I don't think it's FUD.
There are still wild bananas (Musa spp.) that are not seedless. Off the top of my head, there is at least one species of wild banana that grows in tropical Australia. Another (possibly the same species) in Papua New Guinea.