I don't know what the fuck is about MS that drives people to say or believe such rubbish. If Bill Gates crapped in a bowl, someone like would be posting:
Well, this crap stinks, but it takes too much time to configure my own.
Well, I don't really like this crap, but MS makes the best bowls and I really need a bowl for my salad so I guess I'll just have to take the bundle.
With all the com sattelites and GPS sattelites we're sending up, why not just get them to attach small telescopes or somthing similar and build a sattelite array the size of earth's orbit?
I'm sure there are parts of the rotation of some sattelites when these things are operating far under capacity. Is there some way to use that 'down time' to construct an array, or is it too problematic to turn the things to look in the opposite direction?
I'd call it an attempt at humor, but same difference.
Ya know, with all the comments I'm hearing on how polititians look, I think we should just stick the bastards in bathing suits and have a beauty contest instead of elections.
It'd save money, and for once the 'how would I improve the world' speeches would have some actual friggin relevance.
I'm not making a binary statement. There's already a fair bit of control in our system. It's possible to have too much control and structure in the same way that it's possible to have too much randomness.
Take genetics as a metaphore. If you get a species which is too well adapted to a certain niche, it will be seriously inconvenienced if you remove it from that niche. The ability to deal with randomness is what allows a system to adapt to change.
Also, it's dangerous to put too much faith in 'science' since science is ultimatly done by people and can be corrupted in the short term. Take, for example, the issue with the FDA where the head was taking money from the producers of various statin drugs such as lipitor and in turn advocated that statin drugs be proscribed even when a person's cholesterol was inside what should have been a 'safe' zone. Cholesterol is needed for neurogenesis, and while it's not listed as a side effect, these drugs can seriously interfere with a person's memory. It happened to my grandmother and it can happen to other people as well. As my organic chem professor told me in College, people put too much confidnece in the benevolence of the FDA.
Applied science (technology) is and always has been vulnerable to corruption by those with vested interests.
Besides, scientists are typically reductionist. They're trained to get confirmation of their theories on the mechanistic level, but they're not trained at all to consider the social rammifications.
You don't think that this poses any problems at all?
I mean, just start by considering that our entire legal system is based on the fact that most rights are reserved for human beings and based on assumptions about human beings ( age of consent, maturity, average intelligence, etc. )
Given, these creatures aren't allowed to survive to maturity. (and I'm not sure how well animal chimeras would, but with plants we do this all the time.) But start out by asking 'what is the legal status of these creatures.' Continue by asking what new diseases might they bring into our popuplation which we aren't immune to. The flu, for example, as well as a lot of airborne diseases, comes from either bird or swine viruses which change to work with a human host.
Add to this the fact that people are not always the best at determining what is 'good.' Doing this for the sake of medical necessity is one thing. New kidneys, new hearts, etc. But too conscious control over processes which should be random or out of conscious control has definite social and political dangers, even if you don't mix humans with other animals. One example is that if you can control the birth order, most people would have a boy first and a girl second. Birth order has been proven to be an important factor in an individual's psychology and propensity for leadership, and a nation where most girls were second and most boys were first would help further establish girls as 'non-leaders' in an already male dominated society. Of course, some might not see this as a 'harm.' But any ability to consciously control social factors is likely to cement the established hierarchy. If those who can afford it can 'buy' better genes, then you re-inforce the gap between rich and poor. Again, this presumes the desire for equality which some people might be against. You could even say that inequality a la Brave New World where everyone is assigned to a role would make for a stronger nation, if that's what your idea of 'good' is.
But the point is, that our moral, social and ethical standards are based on certain assumptions which will all have to be reconsidered if and when the definition of 'human' and 'human nature' are blurred. This is a pretty new development in human affairs, and caution and serious reflection are needed.
Rifkin said, adding that sophisticated computer models can substitute for experimentation on live animals.
No. No they can't. Even if we understood the whole human organism, which we don't, it's still a self modifying entity which can behave in ways not immediatly obvious based on its initial conditions.
Why do people always advocate 'computer models' for such complex and poorly understood phenomenon. Besides the obvious self-righteous reasons, of course.
Human and rabbit mixes? They have to be called "hubits" because they can't be called "ramans." Unless you put them in soup. Which the Chinese might do.
My Chinese friends have told me that folks even buy fetus on the black market in Canton and eat it.
Al Capone was a wonder of the age. It should be pointed out that Capone was the 'generous' gangster. He actually helped build Cicero and Chicago projects, gave to the needy, helped the elderly, and was great with kids. While he may have consciously did this for improving his image, he did try to be an active member of the community. He liked sports, baseball, boxing, and horse racing. He gave away a lot of his ill-gotten gains, and it was part of the defence for his tax evasion trial. But Capone ultimately went to prison for tax evasion, and died in 1947 from complications arising from syphilis.
From http://www.btinternet.com/~dreklind/valentine.htm
Good catch.;) You're the first person so far who has mentioned they know where that came from.
Well, I am a science geek, but more along the lines of Biotech/Scientific Communication/Scientific History.
I just happened to do an independant study on Ruth Lewin Sime's autobiography of Lise Meitner (discovery of fission) my senior year of college. It's not 'dumbed down' like a lot of the 'popular science' books out there, but its heavy enough to kill a horse. So that's where that came from. I thought it did well as a username to express the non-locality of the internet.
I LIKE physics. I just haven't studied any more than the basics.
No. China has not invaded another country for the last 200 years.... debatable. There's still Tibet which was, despite past security agreements between the two countries, for all intents and purposes a separate country. Moreover, China's act was agressive and they claimed the land as their own. Likewise, there are the Xinjiang separatist rebels. The US used to support these guys, though it seems there's a quid pro quo between Bush and Beijing where Washington has agreed to consider the Xinjiang separatists as 'terrorists' and in return Beijing supports the 'war on terror.'
Re: Communism.
China is closer to Facism than Communism at the moment, though there are elections at the local level and national politics are like an oligarchy. The whole 'economic equality and state ownership of labor' has gone out the window in the past ten years. Everything is on sale there now. Communism is dead in China.
Interesting post. I'm surprised you stuck to chemical causes, though, and didn't point a finger or two at a virus. I mean, considering that they deliberatly put cells into the types of endless loops that you refered to...
Slashdot Mirror
The difference with holding the teacher at gunpoint is that you're holding the teacher at gunpoint.
The law distinguishes between violent and non-violent crime.
The question is, what is the non-technological equivalent of what he's done, and what are the consequences for it?
And pong! So we can see how our forefathers entertained themselves.
And how about selling Altair kits in the gift shop?
I don't know what the fuck is about MS that drives people to say or believe such rubbish. If Bill Gates crapped in a bowl, someone like would be posting:
Well, this crap stinks, but it takes too much time to configure my own.
Well, I don't really like this crap, but MS makes the best bowls and I really need a bowl for my salad so I guess I'll just have to take the bundle.
ve are revoking yor shtar on de flag and replacing it wish a vite oval dot.
Essentially, the state of Massachusetts is simply repositioning what it considers an 'open format.'
How does Bill Gates screw in a lightbulb?
He doesn't. He declares darkness the industry standard.
If this were any other company in the world, I don't know if anyone would care...
But I'm sure Microsoft is going to bundle it with everything else, so it'll at least be viable if not actually deserving of whatever position it gets.
I will say, though, that paying for hits with Overture was a lot more cost effective than google, even though the hits cost more.
I guess people don't go to google to shop... or at least they don't go there if they know what they want.
Being able to direct a large crowd of people who are eager to conform like MS now can is a real business asset.
if the man sneezes, then snorts, coughs, and finally clears his throat.
My neural net system indicates that there is a 75% chance he will spit next. In which case, he will want to use the sink in the bathroom.
With all the com sattelites and GPS sattelites we're sending up, why not just get them to attach small telescopes or somthing similar and build a sattelite array the size of earth's orbit?
I'm sure there are parts of the rotation of some sattelites when these things are operating far under capacity. Is there some way to use that 'down time' to construct an array, or is it too problematic to turn the things to look in the opposite direction?
I'd call it an attempt at humor, but same difference.
Ya know, with all the comments I'm hearing on how polititians look, I think we should just stick the bastards in bathing suits and have a beauty contest instead of elections.
It'd save money, and for once the 'how would I improve the world' speeches would have some actual friggin relevance.
I'm not making a binary statement. There's already a fair bit of control in our system. It's possible to have too much control and structure in the same way that it's possible to have too much randomness.
Take genetics as a metaphore. If you get a species which is too well adapted to a certain niche, it will be seriously inconvenienced if you remove it from that niche. The ability to deal with randomness is what allows a system to adapt to change.
Also, it's dangerous to put too much faith in 'science' since science is ultimatly done by people and can be corrupted in the short term. Take, for example, the issue with the FDA where the head was taking money from the producers of various statin drugs such as lipitor and in turn advocated that statin drugs be proscribed even when a person's cholesterol was inside what should have been a 'safe' zone. Cholesterol is needed for neurogenesis, and while it's not listed as a side effect, these drugs can seriously interfere with a person's memory. It happened to my grandmother and it can happen to other people as well. As my organic chem professor told me in College, people put too much confidnece in the benevolence of the FDA.
Applied science (technology) is and always has been vulnerable to corruption by those with vested interests.
Besides, scientists are typically reductionist. They're trained to get confirmation of their theories on the mechanistic level, but they're not trained at all to consider the social rammifications.
Chimera was beaten by Belerephontis (sp? i know the greek name only) and his horse, Pegasus.
Ironic that a monster which was a mix of several animals was beaten, in part, by a creature which was half bird and half horse.
Hm? No, he seems to think that Bush won and that he's ugly. Reread the post.
You don't think that this poses any problems at all?
I mean, just start by considering that our entire legal system is based on the fact that most rights are reserved for human beings and based on assumptions about human beings ( age of consent, maturity, average intelligence, etc. )
Given, these creatures aren't allowed to survive to maturity. (and I'm not sure how well animal chimeras would, but with plants we do this all the time.) But start out by asking 'what is the legal status of these creatures.' Continue by asking what new diseases might they bring into our popuplation which we aren't immune to. The flu, for example, as well as a lot of airborne diseases, comes from either bird or swine viruses which change to work with a human host.
Add to this the fact that people are not always the best at determining what is 'good.' Doing this for the sake of medical necessity is one thing. New kidneys, new hearts, etc. But too conscious control over processes which should be random or out of conscious control has definite social and political dangers, even if you don't mix humans with other animals. One example is that if you can control the birth order, most people would have a boy first and a girl second. Birth order has been proven to be an important factor in an individual's psychology and propensity for leadership, and a nation where most girls were second and most boys were first would help further establish girls as 'non-leaders' in an already male dominated society. Of course, some might not see this as a 'harm.' But any ability to consciously control social factors is likely to cement the established hierarchy. If those who can afford it can 'buy' better genes, then you re-inforce the gap between rich and poor. Again, this presumes the desire for equality which some people might be against. You could even say that inequality a la Brave New World where everyone is assigned to a role would make for a stronger nation, if that's what your idea of 'good' is.
But the point is, that our moral, social and ethical standards are based on certain assumptions which will all have to be reconsidered if and when the definition of 'human' and 'human nature' are blurred. This is a pretty new development in human affairs, and caution and serious reflection are needed.
Fool! Nobody prefers tentacle creatures. That's why they're always raping everybody. Duh.
Rifkin said, adding that sophisticated computer models can substitute for experimentation on live animals.
No. No they can't. Even if we understood the whole human organism, which we don't, it's still a self modifying entity which can behave in ways not immediatly obvious based on its initial conditions.
Why do people always advocate 'computer models' for such complex and poorly understood phenomenon. Besides the obvious self-righteous reasons, of course.
Human and rabbit mixes? They have to be called "hubits" because they can't be called "ramans." Unless you put them in soup. Which the Chinese might do.
My Chinese friends have told me that folks even buy fetus on the black market in Canton and eat it.
What point are you refering to?
You make a lot of assumptions, friend.
My point is that, first and formost, there are reasons that a person gives money away other than simple charity and warmheartedness.
Al Capone was a wonder of the age. It should be pointed out that Capone was the 'generous' gangster. He actually helped build Cicero and Chicago projects, gave to the needy, helped the elderly, and was great with kids. While he may have consciously did this for improving his image, he did try to be an active member of the community. He liked sports, baseball, boxing, and horse racing. He gave away a lot of his ill-gotten gains, and it was part of the defence for his tax evasion trial. But Capone ultimately went to prison for tax evasion, and died in 1947 from complications arising from syphilis.
From http://www.btinternet.com/~dreklind/valentine.htm
-1 Flamebait.
Good catch. ;) You're the first person so far who has mentioned they know where that came from.
Well, I am a science geek, but more along the lines of Biotech/Scientific Communication/Scientific History.
I just happened to do an independant study on Ruth Lewin Sime's autobiography of Lise Meitner (discovery of fission) my senior year of college. It's not 'dumbed down' like a lot of the 'popular science' books out there, but its heavy enough to kill a horse. So that's where that came from. I thought it did well as a username to express the non-locality of the internet.
I LIKE physics. I just haven't studied any more than the basics.
Theoretically. It would just go backwards in time. Nothing with mass can travel AT the speed of light.
I ain't a physics geek, but I did learn that much in college.
One solution is to do what I did and go to work for an overseas American firm.
At least you don't have to compete with local candidates for the job.
No. China has not invaded another country for the last 200 years. ... debatable. There's still Tibet which was, despite past security agreements between the two countries, for all intents and purposes a separate country. Moreover, China's act was agressive and they claimed the land as their own. Likewise, there are the Xinjiang separatist rebels. The US used to support these guys, though it seems there's a quid pro quo between Bush and Beijing where Washington has agreed to consider the Xinjiang separatists as 'terrorists' and in return Beijing supports the 'war on terror.'
Re: Communism.
China is closer to Facism than Communism at the moment, though there are elections at the local level and national politics are like an oligarchy. The whole 'economic equality and state ownership of labor' has gone out the window in the past ten years. Everything is on sale there now. Communism is dead in China.
We might say "Northern Lightses" though my preciouss...
we wants them.
Interesting post. I'm surprised you stuck to chemical causes, though, and didn't point a finger or two at a virus. I mean, considering that they deliberatly put cells into the types of endless loops that you refered to...