Yes and no. While iTunes is indeed barely mentioned in the article, the title of the page (though not the article) is: "Why there is no iTunes for movies. - By Farhad Manjoo - Slate Magazine". Thus the fault does not lie with/. (alone).
I'd say, technically you're both right. While sex is determined by the presence/absence of a single gene, you get that gene by receiving the Y chromosome from your father.
Thus the simplest correct explanation is that receiving either an X or a Y chromosome from the father determines the child's sex.
Great. So if you do know science, you get labelled a geek/nerd. While I personally don't feel offended by being called this (of course I live in Europe, where the stereotype is less prevalent), it's generally considered to be a negative stereotype. Which doesn't exactly help make science interesting and cool, especially to young people.
I'll agree. Many mutations have advantages as well as disadvantages, including the mutation known as "the average joe" - who is probably more disadvantaged than anyone else. In the same way that coders often use the maxim of "speed, size and simplicity - pick any two", the same is likely true of many of the variants found in human DNA. I would be extremely wary of allowing insurance agencies, jobs, or "social norms" to decide which variants were acceptable and which needed to be fixed.
(Many aspies hate and revile organizations who consider them to be lesser beings who should be "cured", whether we want it or not. Yes, some do advocate cures against the will of the one being "cured". I think such organizations and such attitudes are an abomination and far more in need of "curing" than Asperger's or Autism.)
I agree.
When it comes to "curing" autism, we need to be very careful. Just because autistic behaviour is different from that of the majority doesn't make it "wrong" or undesirable. Just because someone doesn't make eye contact, or flaps his/her hands in an "odd" way, doesn't mean he/she needs to be "fixed". Of course, those on the autism spectrum with impaired mental ability will probably have a difficult time achieving a high quality of life, but especially those with (above) average intelligence, can live productive lives in a supportive environment.
Take communication for instance: people with autism have trouble dealing with ambiguity, implications etc. This is perceived as "impaired communication" because most people communicate differently. But there is nothing inherently wrong about the way autistic people communicate. It's just different -- maybe even better.
We need to be very careful not to impose our own standards of what's "normal" on other people. If say 50% of the world's population was autistic, there might not even be a perceived problem. If it was 90%, they might even pity those who are now considered "normal" for their inability to communicate "properly", attributing hidden meaning and intent where there is none.
Thus we need to make sure we don't try to "fix" something just because it's different from what we know.
I do applaud advanced in biology -- including genetic testing. But we need to put safeguards in place to make sure these kinds of tests are not misused to weed out those with traits that do not conform to the "social norms", otherwise it's a slippery slope indeed.
All that aside, I wouldn't mind that second pair of eyes, so I can work and read/. at the same time.
I had a CD-ROM drive once that would "eat" my CD's. Whenever you put a CD in it, closed the tray, and reopened it, it would be empty. Closing and reopening it would make the CD reappear.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes and no. While iTunes is indeed barely mentioned in the article, /. (alone).
the title of the page (though not the article) is: "Why there is no
iTunes for movies. - By Farhad Manjoo - Slate Magazine". Thus the
fault does not lie with
- Felix
You mean there's a link to an article?
Oh, wait ...
I'd say, technically you're both right. While sex is
determined by the presence/absence of a single gene, you get that gene
by receiving the Y chromosome from your father.
Thus the simplest correct explanation is that receiving either an X
or a Y chromosome from the father determines the child's sex.
Of course, other (more interesting) sex-determination systems exist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-determination_system
- Felix
From TFA's quiz:
10 or 11 right: You are a geek!
Great. So if you do know science, you get labelled a geek/nerd.
While I personally don't feel offended by being called this (of course
I live in Europe, where the stereotype is less prevalent), it's
generally considered to be a negative stereotype. Which doesn't
exactly help make science interesting and cool, especially to young
people.
See also
http://www.amazon.com/Nerds-They-Need-More-Them/dp/1585425907.
- Felix
I'll agree. Many mutations have advantages as well as disadvantages,
including the mutation known as "the average joe" - who is probably
more disadvantaged than anyone else. In the same way that coders often
use the maxim of "speed, size and simplicity - pick any two", the same
is likely true of many of the variants found in human DNA. I would be
extremely wary of allowing insurance agencies, jobs, or "social norms"
to decide which variants were acceptable and which needed to be fixed.
(Many aspies hate and revile organizations who consider them to be
lesser beings who should be "cured", whether we want it or not. Yes,
some do advocate cures against the will of the one being "cured". I
think such organizations and such attitudes are an abomination and far
more in need of "curing" than Asperger's or Autism.)
I agree.
When it comes to "curing" autism, we need to be very careful. Just
because autistic behaviour is different from that of the majority
doesn't make it "wrong" or undesirable. Just because someone doesn't
make eye contact, or flaps his/her hands in an "odd" way, doesn't mean
he/she needs to be "fixed". Of course, those on the autism spectrum
with impaired mental ability will probably have a difficult time
achieving a high quality of life, but especially those with (above)
average intelligence, can live productive lives in a supportive
environment.
Take communication for instance: people with autism have trouble
dealing with ambiguity, implications etc. This is perceived as
"impaired communication" because most people communicate differently.
But there is nothing inherently wrong about the way autistic people
communicate. It's just different -- maybe even better.
We need to be very careful not to impose our own standards of what's
"normal" on other people. If say 50% of the world's population was
autistic, there might not even be a perceived problem. If it was 90%,
they might even pity those who are now considered "normal" for their
inability to communicate "properly", attributing hidden meaning and
intent where there is none.
Thus we need to make sure we don't try to "fix" something just because
it's different from what we know.
I do applaud advanced in biology -- including genetic testing. But we
need to put safeguards in place to make sure these kinds of tests are
not misused to weed out those with traits that do not conform to the
"social norms", otherwise it's a slippery slope indeed.
All that aside, I wouldn't mind that second pair of eyes, so I can /. at the same time.
work and read
- Felix
I had a CD-ROM drive once that would "eat" my CD's. Whenever you put a CD in it, closed the tray, and reopened it, it would be empty. Closing and reopening it would make the CD reappear. ;-)
- Felix