You speak to many issues I faced when working for a law firm. I was there for eight years first as a desktop hardware guy and for most of my tenure as the only network guy in an office of ~275 users. I had a partner "fire" me...he was mostly, but not completely kidding. I had a counsel scream at me and then cry. I was called into the office at 10:30 PM on a Saturday night just in case I was needed (of course when I got there no one else was there because they went out to dinner).
"But seriously, why is this so much better than using a virus or phage as the vector for reproducing a protein?"
It's easy to breed and care for chickens. We've been doing it for thousands of years. Viruses and phages require labs and exacting environmental control.
"I agree with you but I guess that genetically modified cows would be a better source for tailored proteins. If there is a problem with getting enough viable animals (as has been with cloneing) to produce these tailored proteins then cows should be able to make massive amounts of these over their lifetime compared to chicken. "
I agree in general. My wife and I raised chickens and ducks for eggs, not meat. They were pets and we enjoyed them immensely. You might be surprised however at their longevity. We had many that lived for more than five years. The ones that didn't were the ones that the owls, hawks, and coyotes made meals of. Such is the life of prey animals that are free range. Volume wise and longevity wise, cows are obviously superior. But, chickens can certainly be productive over a good span. I think you are also quite correct about them being cared for better than regular farm stock. Their importance as a medicinal source makes them much more valuable than just another KFC bucket.
This has the potential to be a great advance in medicine and science related to cancer. Those of you who are trying for funny or sarcastic posts...would you rather have an option other than dying if you were diagnosed with cancer? I know that some folks out there won't be happy due to manipulation of "God's creatures" but if my wife, parents, or me was diagnosed with cancer, I would want as many options available as possible. This really is a potentially huge step in fighting cancers. It is especially important when you consider how few options there are in fighting most types of cancer. Chemotherapy is a long shot most times and makes you sick as hell before you MIGHT get better. Surgery has many shortfalls besides being invasive. This could be a huge step in making cancer a problem with much better odds of beating.
I agree with you that it would be ideal to get rid of nuclear armaments across the board. What do you think we (US, UN, everyone) should do about North Korea, Iran, India, Pakistan, and even Israel? Of course, we can guarantee that the US, China, and Russia won't get rid of theirs until everyone else does. Even then, they might decide that they are the only ones that should keep them...just in case.
I'm a great fan of privacy and if someone videotaped me in my back yard puking in the bushes while I'm throwing a wild and crazy drunken bash, I'd be pissed. Yeah, maybe you have the right to do that because you can easily see into my backyard but that doesn't mean it is ethical in my view of ethics. I'm certainly not trying espouse a "I don't care, it doesn't really matter in the big picture" attitude. I feel I really care more than most. At worst, I probably am guilty of a defeatist attitude. I care but feel like there's not a lot I can do to fix things. The best I can do is speak out about how I feel. Great example...my previous post about the Star Wars Kid. I see a kid having a good time. It sucks that so many people think he should an object of ridicule. Yeah it's funny but how can anyone criticize or condemn him for having fun?
I'm not sure if I'm remembering this correctly but I'm pretty sure he won a couple of significantly sized civil suits against a couple of media outlets. It's scary to think about the hell he went through at that time but I doubt he has to worry about job interviews or even working anymore. I know that the last article I read about him portrayed him as hero and emphasized the damage done to him at the time.
Thank you. I'm really glad you expanded on your original comment and responded gently and intelligently to my somewhat flamish post. I think I may have looked at your comment from the wrong angle. Could have been the spitting in my food comment.:) I'll blame it on one beer too many. It doesn't surprise me that there are folks out there who will try and wreck another's reputation. It's a shame but goes to show that there are some really nasty people out there. I've helped in the hiring process before and definitely made sure that what I find on the web about an applicant is considered with a grain of salt. I make sure people know that John Doe's post may not actually have been made by John Doe or may have been made by a completely different John Doe. References and interview results hold a lot more weight for me.
It's funny, I saw that after I submitted and was disgusted. I couldn't figure out if that was the fault of the puppy on my lap or the beer in my belly.:)
"So is it safe to say then that if you are in a restaurant and need to have an important conversation the polite thing to do is get up and go to the restroom lobby or outside to have the conversation? It is perfectly legitimate to make a phone call at normal conversational volume anywhere that a normal conversation could be held. I think what ticks of most of the cellphone bigots is that they can no longer hear both sides of the conversation. It has very little to do with the actual noise involved."
I think the problem is a little different than that. Normal conversation with other folks at the table is fine. Cell phone conversation at the table all too often entails the "CAN YOU HEAR ME KNOW" type of conversation due to background noise. Not to mention the fact that I usually don't eat at a restaurant by myself so I would choose to make that call away from the table so as not to be rude to the folks I'm eating with. I would normally say "excuse me, forgot I need make a short, important call" and then leave the table for a minute or two. Of course there are exceptions but my preferred way to make the call would be to excuse myself and leave the table. As to the cellphone bigots...fuck them. I'll be as polite as I can but I am the one who determines how important the call is. If I need take or make a call, I will. But, I'll always also do my best to minimize my call's impact on others.
"And how do you know that the idiot close enough to film you for that minor infraction is not psychopathic enough to lean over and spit in your food while you're gone?"
Well, I don't usually eat alone.
"As for some videos being ignored... no, not really. I'm a top manager at a really big small business (yes, contradiction there) and I know all about investigating applicants. I know my underling managers and I'd be hard pressed to hire someone who would see someone being humiliated online over some minor shit and not laugh at it and then see this person as a total joke and not a potential employee. It happens everywhere. Almost everyone is mentally at the point of doing that now."
In your situation it sounds like you, and your "underling managers", all need to be fired and replaced with people who have hearts that aren't grinch sized. Seriously, how can you fail to consider someone for hire because they were humiliated online over some "minor shit". If it's minor shit then it should be easy to ignore. There's also the huge issue of mistaken identity. Most of this video is going to be crap quality and at best you might be able to say, "he kinda looks like that dude I saw in that online humiliating video". That's a pretty big assumption on your part to say that the guy you're interviewing is the SAME guy you saw online.
Oh, and the Washington Times isn't a rabid Republican publication? It's as conservative as the Washington Post is liberal...or more so. I'm not projecting a bias onto anyone. Perhaps the term "rabid" was flamebaiting a little bit. I'll admit that. But I take issue with extreme conservatives (and extreme liberals) when they deny the obvious because it goes against their dogma. I presented my opinion, based on my limited observations, that most people who aren't rabid Republicans classify it as a documentary. The Washington Times and the National Science Teachers Association certainly don't constitute a large enough population to constitute "most people". I'll bet for every one organization or source that you can provide that describes it as other than a documentary, I can provide two organizations or sources that classify as a documentary. imdb.com classifies it as a documentary as a starter. I've never seen any political leaning from them.
You have hit upon a key point. You can't shame someone for behavior for which they aren't ashamed and that boundary seems to expand daily. Common courtesy seems to be as dead as common sense.
If you're in a restaurant and need to make an important call the polite thing to do would be get up and go to the restroom lobby or outside and make the call.
You do make a good point about being "held hostage to anyone's momentary whims". Another post made reference to "noise". At some point only the most extreme cases will be used to try and cause shame. All others will be ignored and viewed by such a small number of people that they won't be shamed.
Wow! You committed a felony because she doesn't flush the toilet or clean up after herself! Too cool. Actually it is pretty cool but I couldn't have done that to my sister or brother because they might call the cops as a form of oneupmanship.
Well thanks for your opinion. I was pretty proud of making what I thought was a "thoughtful and genuine" first post. Even a serious topic can stand a little humor.
I agree wholeheartedly. The biggest danger of all in this is false accusation. And, you're probably right about the noise issue. The value of such sites will almost certainly be degraded to no value at all once the amount of information available becomes too large and broad.
Fantastic point about a "critical mass" being needed! That's why I asked for examples counter to what I stated. I felt there was an angle I was missing but couldn't put my finger on it. I guess the critical mass has to come from a critical mass of subversives. Think about how Victorian times changed to where we are now. From what I read of history it's not that everyone espoused Victorian ethics, it's that they kept their non-Victorian ethics hidden from view of the general public until people started to realize that it was okay to loosen up.
"Are you saying the majority is always in the right? I can think of a few examples where the majority would deem an act "shameful" that shouldn't really be. Stealing a newspaper is (in most cases) shameful, as is not cleaning up after your dog. But what about, for example, getting rejected when asking someone out? "
Why would getting rejected when asking someone out be shameful? That strikes me as a self image problem. So that's one attempt at an example, do you have others?
"Finally, even with shameful acts, there is the idea that the punishment should fit the crime. What if you stumble home drunk, piss on your car, and collapse in your doorway. Now, first of all, that's pretty pathetic, and you probably deserve ridicule. But that ridicule should come from friends and neighbours. Should that video go online, where your employer might see it? Does it have your name on it? What if it affects future employment opportunities? "
I'll agree with pathetic but I can't agree with the part about deserving ridicule. Deserving empathy, sympathy, and HELP come to mind first. If it affects future employment opportunities then maybe it will promote a change in behavior. Realistically, it's unlikely an interviewer would assume anything other than "hey, this guy kinda looks like the guy in that drunken video I saw in the web".
I agree that the ones doing the uploading probably have issues. I have better things to do with my time. It would take a pretty egregious offense for me make the effort.
I hope the Star Wars Kid isn't ashamed and keep in mind that he's the exception, not the rule. It's amazing to see the life span that video has had. I see a kid having a good time, not anything to really be ashamed about.
I don't see a problem. You can either forgoe shameful behavior or keep it hidden. If you're doing something you would be ashamed of then you probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you're doing something that you feel you shouldn't be ashamed of but that others might want to shame you for, then keep it private. I call that civilization. For those that say they are entitled or should have the right, if most people agree then there is no reason to be ashamed. If most people don't agree then maybe you need to reassess whether or not you should be ashamed.
I'm betting some will disagree with me. If you can provide me an example of where I might be wrong I'm certainly willing to think about it. Offhand, I couldn't think of an example on my own where my logic wouldn't work.
I agree that political films should not be shown in science class. However, this film seems to be classified as a documentary by most people who aren't rabid Republicans. While there is a political aspect, most of the film tries to show the hard science that underlies the theory of global warming. The fact of the matter is that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are higher than they have been in the last 600 million years. My somewhat limited understanding of the CO2 cycle on a world scale leads me to believe that we are approaching a crucial tipping point. We are rapidly reaching a CO2 saturation level in the oceans that will destroy a crucial part of the ecosystem. When organisms such as plankton, shrimp, and shellfish can't form their skeletons/shells, their collapse will have a disastrous domino effect. Dead oceans = dead world.
Slashdot Mirror
You speak to many issues I faced when working for a law firm. I was there for eight years first as a desktop hardware guy and for most of my tenure as the only network guy in an office of ~275 users. I had a partner "fire" me...he was mostly, but not completely kidding. I had a counsel scream at me and then cry. I was called into the office at 10:30 PM on a Saturday night just in case I was needed (of course when I got there no one else was there because they went out to dinner).
"Somehow, I don't see cow eggs as being able to compete, either in quantity, or in ease of access, to hen eggs :-)"
:)
Ahh! But what about cow milk!
I'd love to make an on topic comment but I can't RTF original message because the poster's bandwidth has been exceeded.
Anyway, most if not all support sites censor their posts and answers. Of course I can't offer an opinion as to why in this case.
"But seriously, why is this so much better than using a virus or phage as the vector for reproducing a protein?"
It's easy to breed and care for chickens. We've been doing it for thousands of years. Viruses and phages require labs and exacting environmental control.
"I agree with you but I guess that genetically modified cows would be a better source for tailored proteins. If there is a problem with getting enough viable animals (as has been with cloneing) to produce these tailored proteins then cows should be able to make massive amounts of these over their lifetime compared to chicken. "
I agree in general. My wife and I raised chickens and ducks for eggs, not meat. They were pets and we enjoyed them immensely. You might be surprised however at their longevity. We had many that lived for more than five years. The ones that didn't were the ones that the owls, hawks, and coyotes made meals of. Such is the life of prey animals that are free range. Volume wise and longevity wise, cows are obviously superior. But, chickens can certainly be productive over a good span. I think you are also quite correct about them being cared for better than regular farm stock. Their importance as a medicinal source makes them much more valuable than just another KFC bucket.
This has the potential to be a great advance in medicine and science related to cancer. Those of you who are trying for funny or sarcastic posts...would you rather have an option other than dying if you were diagnosed with cancer? I know that some folks out there won't be happy due to manipulation of "God's creatures" but if my wife, parents, or me was diagnosed with cancer, I would want as many options available as possible. This really is a potentially huge step in fighting cancers. It is especially important when you consider how few options there are in fighting most types of cancer. Chemotherapy is a long shot most times and makes you sick as hell before you MIGHT get better. Surgery has many shortfalls besides being invasive. This could be a huge step in making cancer a problem with much better odds of beating.
I agree with you that it would be ideal to get rid of nuclear armaments across the board. What do you think we (US, UN, everyone) should do about North Korea, Iran, India, Pakistan, and even Israel? Of course, we can guarantee that the US, China, and Russia won't get rid of theirs until everyone else does. Even then, they might decide that they are the only ones that should keep them...just in case.
I'm a great fan of privacy and if someone videotaped me in my back yard puking in the bushes while I'm throwing a wild and crazy drunken bash, I'd be pissed. Yeah, maybe you have the right to do that because you can easily see into my backyard but that doesn't mean it is ethical in my view of ethics. I'm certainly not trying espouse a "I don't care, it doesn't really matter in the big picture" attitude. I feel I really care more than most. At worst, I probably am guilty of a defeatist attitude. I care but feel like there's not a lot I can do to fix things. The best I can do is speak out about how I feel. Great example...my previous post about the Star Wars Kid. I see a kid having a good time. It sucks that so many people think he should an object of ridicule. Yeah it's funny but how can anyone criticize or condemn him for having fun?
I'm not sure if I'm remembering this correctly but I'm pretty sure he won a couple of significantly sized civil suits against a couple of media outlets. It's scary to think about the hell he went through at that time but I doubt he has to worry about job interviews or even working anymore. I know that the last article I read about him portrayed him as hero and emphasized the damage done to him at the time.
Thanks for a positive comment. I agree wholeheartedly.
Thank you. I'm really glad you expanded on your original comment and responded gently and intelligently to my somewhat flamish post. I think I may have looked at your comment from the wrong angle. Could have been the spitting in my food comment. :) I'll blame it on one beer too many. It doesn't surprise me that there are folks out there who will try and wreck another's reputation. It's a shame but goes to show that there are some really nasty people out there. I've helped in the hiring process before and definitely made sure that what I find on the web about an applicant is considered with a grain of salt. I make sure people know that John Doe's post may not actually have been made by John Doe or may have been made by a completely different John Doe. References and interview results hold a lot more weight for me.
It's funny, I saw that after I submitted and was disgusted. I couldn't figure out if that was the fault of the puppy on my lap or the beer in my belly. :)
"So is it safe to say then that if you are in a restaurant and need to have an important conversation the polite thing to do is get up and go to the restroom lobby or outside to have the conversation? It is perfectly legitimate to make a phone call at normal conversational volume anywhere that a normal conversation could be held. I think what ticks of most of the cellphone bigots is that they can no longer hear both sides of the conversation. It has very little to do with the actual noise involved."
I think the problem is a little different than that. Normal conversation with other folks at the table is fine. Cell phone conversation at the table all too often entails the "CAN YOU HEAR ME KNOW" type of conversation due to background noise. Not to mention the fact that I usually don't eat at a restaurant by myself so I would choose to make that call away from the table so as not to be rude to the folks I'm eating with. I would normally say "excuse me, forgot I need make a short, important call" and then leave the table for a minute or two. Of course there are exceptions but my preferred way to make the call would be to excuse myself and leave the table. As to the cellphone bigots...fuck them. I'll be as polite as I can but I am the one who determines how important the call is. If I need take or make a call, I will. But, I'll always also do my best to minimize my call's impact on others.
"And how do you know that the idiot close enough to film you for that minor infraction is not psychopathic enough to lean over and spit in your food while you're gone?"
Well, I don't usually eat alone.
"As for some videos being ignored... no, not really. I'm a top manager at a really big small business (yes, contradiction there) and I know all about investigating applicants. I know my underling managers and I'd be hard pressed to hire someone who would see someone being humiliated online over some minor shit and not laugh at it and then see this person as a total joke and not a potential employee. It happens everywhere. Almost everyone is mentally at the point of doing that now."
In your situation it sounds like you, and your "underling managers", all need to be fired and replaced with people who have hearts that aren't grinch sized. Seriously, how can you fail to consider someone for hire because they were humiliated online over some "minor shit". If it's minor shit then it should be easy to ignore. There's also the huge issue of mistaken identity. Most of this video is going to be crap quality and at best you might be able to say, "he kinda looks like that dude I saw in that online humiliating video". That's a pretty big assumption on your part to say that the guy you're interviewing is the SAME guy you saw online.
Oh, and the Washington Times isn't a rabid Republican publication? It's as conservative as the Washington Post is liberal...or more so. I'm not projecting a bias onto anyone. Perhaps the term "rabid" was flamebaiting a little bit. I'll admit that. But I take issue with extreme conservatives (and extreme liberals) when they deny the obvious because it goes against their dogma. I presented my opinion, based on my limited observations, that most people who aren't rabid Republicans classify it as a documentary. The Washington Times and the National Science Teachers Association certainly don't constitute a large enough population to constitute "most people". I'll bet for every one organization or source that you can provide that describes it as other than a documentary, I can provide two organizations or sources that classify as a documentary. imdb.com classifies it as a documentary as a starter. I've never seen any political leaning from them.
You have hit upon a key point. You can't shame someone for behavior for which they aren't ashamed and that boundary seems to expand daily. Common courtesy seems to be as dead as common sense.
If you're in a restaurant and need to make an important call the polite thing to do would be get up and go to the restroom lobby or outside and make the call.
You do make a good point about being "held hostage to anyone's momentary whims". Another post made reference to "noise". At some point only the most extreme cases will be used to try and cause shame. All others will be ignored and viewed by such a small number of people that they won't be shamed.
Wow! You committed a felony because she doesn't flush the toilet or clean up after herself! Too cool. Actually it is pretty cool but I couldn't have done that to my sister or brother because they might call the cops as a form of oneupmanship.
Well thanks for your opinion. I was pretty proud of making what I thought was a "thoughtful and genuine" first post. Even a serious topic can stand a little humor.
All your videos are belong to us!
I agree wholeheartedly. The biggest danger of all in this is false accusation. And, you're probably right about the noise issue. The value of such sites will almost certainly be degraded to no value at all once the amount of information available becomes too large and broad.
Fantastic point about a "critical mass" being needed! That's why I asked for examples counter to what I stated. I felt there was an angle I was missing but couldn't put my finger on it. I guess the critical mass has to come from a critical mass of subversives. Think about how Victorian times changed to where we are now. From what I read of history it's not that everyone espoused Victorian ethics, it's that they kept their non-Victorian ethics hidden from view of the general public until people started to realize that it was okay to loosen up.
"Are you saying the majority is always in the right? I can think of a few examples where the majority would deem an act "shameful" that shouldn't really be. Stealing a newspaper is (in most cases) shameful, as is not cleaning up after your dog. But what about, for example, getting rejected when asking someone out? "
Why would getting rejected when asking someone out be shameful? That strikes me as a self image problem. So that's one attempt at an example, do you have others?
"Finally, even with shameful acts, there is the idea that the punishment should fit the crime. What if you stumble home drunk, piss on your car, and collapse in your doorway. Now, first of all, that's pretty pathetic, and you probably deserve ridicule. But that ridicule should come from friends and neighbours. Should that video go online, where your employer might see it? Does it have your name on it? What if it affects future employment opportunities? "
I'll agree with pathetic but I can't agree with the part about deserving ridicule. Deserving empathy, sympathy, and HELP come to mind first. If it affects future employment opportunities then maybe it will promote a change in behavior. Realistically, it's unlikely an interviewer would assume anything other than "hey, this guy kinda looks like the guy in that drunken video I saw in the web".
I agree that the ones doing the uploading probably have issues. I have better things to do with my time. It would take a pretty egregious offense for me make the effort.
I hope the Star Wars Kid isn't ashamed and keep in mind that he's the exception, not the rule. It's amazing to see the life span that video has had. I see a kid having a good time, not anything to really be ashamed about.
I don't see a problem. You can either forgoe shameful behavior or keep it hidden. If you're doing something you would be ashamed of then you probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you're doing something that you feel you shouldn't be ashamed of but that others might want to shame you for, then keep it private. I call that civilization. For those that say they are entitled or should have the right, if most people agree then there is no reason to be ashamed. If most people don't agree then maybe you need to reassess whether or not you should be ashamed.
I'm betting some will disagree with me. If you can provide me an example of where I might be wrong I'm certainly willing to think about it. Offhand, I couldn't think of an example on my own where my logic wouldn't work.
First post?
I agree that political films should not be shown in science class. However, this film seems to be classified as a documentary by most people who aren't rabid Republicans. While there is a political aspect, most of the film tries to show the hard science that underlies the theory of global warming. The fact of the matter is that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are higher than they have been in the last 600 million years. My somewhat limited understanding of the CO2 cycle on a world scale leads me to believe that we are approaching a crucial tipping point. We are rapidly reaching a CO2 saturation level in the oceans that will destroy a crucial part of the ecosystem. When organisms such as plankton, shrimp, and shellfish can't form their skeletons/shells, their collapse will have a disastrous domino effect. Dead oceans = dead world.