I'm assuming you don't normally expect strict secrecy from your wife regarding your correspondence, your house, your phone, and your...privates. If you do expect that, you'll probably have to engage in non-default behavior. Just like here.
That house, phone, and privates all belong to her because I married her. Using your analogy, would it be too much to ask for a purely platonic web browser without everyone flaming me as commitment phobic?;-)
By default I put my snail mail in envelopes (keep my correspondence private), by default I put on clothes (keep my privates... private), and by default I expect the police are not searching my house or tapping my phone (4th Amendment privacy). Why isn't my browser private by defa.... oh wait, it's not my browser, it belongs to MS Google Mozilla, nevermind.
I'm hoping someone can explain to me why the far better-established and easily-maintained option of Solar Power isn't first on the list.
I mean: negligible atmosphere, established support-structure (the ground), 100% predictable yield, negligible material costs after setup, and land-area isn't such a big issue... can't really think of a better case for it.
You answered your own question by acknowledging the source of power with the words "after setup". I think it's safe to assume that NASA plans to use that power source to do a bit of "setup" themselves. Pandering is only a source of power for politicians.
In California, Giuliani and Edwards both dropped out less than a week before
the primary election date, and Romney dropped out the 7th. Many Californians
cast their absentee ballots a month in advance of the election date. After all
votes were counted there were over a million votes (out of about 9 million total)
for candidates that weren't even running.
I'm not claiming this single state could have altered the final nominees of Obama and McCain, but I am making a point about why
one might not want to vote (too) early.
Using pseudo-science to scare people, promote your carbon-tax moneymaking scams, and further turn governments into over reaching big-brother nanny-states is uncool.
Somehow I just don't see that faring well with Joe Average...
On the contrary, it's probably going over quite well since the likely reason for the change was customer complaints. Why, I alone have told them a MILLION times that people shouldn't exaggerate so much.
I assume you meant well when repeating that reasonable sounding cop-out, and I assume you read the article even though you missed the following quote describing that it is necessary:
However, Noonan stressed that it is still unknown whether HACNS1 causes changes in gene expression in human limb development or whether HACNS1 would create human-like limb development if introduced directly into the genome of a mouse.
While part of me wishes there were easy answers, I think it's prudent to assume there aren't.
Surely you don't believe that question of ethics are settled by legal decisions? Did the Dredd Scott case [slashdot.org] make slavery ethically ok?
I never said or implied the ethics of anything would ever be settled. What I did say is there should be no ethical impediments once the law is made clear. What that means is that people may exercise their free speech, and they may protest, but they may not limit the rights of others.
The sperm and egg are both alive before conception.
I said that.
No life is created at conception; life started billions of years ago and is an ongoing process.
Ok, you disagree with the accepted definition of conception, that I posted. Perhaps this was the point you should have shared your own definition.
And let me point out that conception can ultimately result in the production of multiple organisms of the parent's species.
No, conception has never been shown to do that, citation required.
Unless you want to argue that identical twins (or even identical triplets or quadruplets) are the same organism?
No, identical twins are formed when a zygote divides, and not during conception, stop saying that unless you are going to provide a citation.
Life is just an interesting chemical reaction, of little ethical relevance. What is relevant is consciousness and personhood; these are things generated by the brain. A fetus, or even a newborn, does not have sufficient brain development to be possessed of either.
So a newborn baby can't make a conscious decision to move his arm or turn his head, and he can't feel pain or cry either? Those actions are observable characteristics of conscious behavior. Perhaps if decided to move his arm and bitchslap you, would that meet your definition?;-)
I'm as concerned as the next person about statuary rape
I wouldn't be. I would have thought it might be a bit of a detumefying experience, though those statues might not notice...;-)
I blame the gene responsible for poor spelling, because I have to use the spell checker so often, that I don't word check the spell checker.;-)
Isn't DNA, by definition enough to recreate a human (or other carbon-based life-form)?
Just because we don't know how to do it, doesn't mean that all the information isn't there -
Nope, DNA doesn't define Mitochondria or Mitochondrial DNA. The theory goes that you create some artificial DNA, transplant it into a Mitochondria cell, and then it starts working.
Of genetic ancestry interest, is that Mitochondrial DNA is only passed mother by mother, because fathers do not pass theirs on.
I don't think the law can ever be clear because there is no single time at which human life begins.
Legal Definition
The Supreme court decided that viability would be the determiner of the earliest "potential life" at around the 28th week, with Roe vs Wade in 1973.
Even conception (which is probably the closest to an actual event) is not the start of life for your first cell, that was created when your mother was still a foetus.
Well, technically an egg is alive, just like a rabbit is alive, or a carrot is a living thing, but they aren't human things. The difference is ethically we can kill and eat a rabbit, but not a human.
Science Definition
Conception is the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism of the same species. That new organism, produced by process of conception, is indeed the start of a life.
Also I think the law should be driven by ethics, not the other way around!
I agree, our laws should be based upon our ethics. We write and enforce laws that protect our lives and property, because we value our lives and property.
Mice and humans share rather more than 80% of their DNA. For the kind of studies involved it may be a case of "any mammal will do".
Not according to the article:
However, Noonan stressed that it is still unknown whether HACNS1 causes changes in gene expression in human limb development or whether HACNS1 would create human-like limb development if introduced directly into the genome of a mouse.
Also the recent fuss in the UK about making human/animal hybrids has been trying to get around this, by putting human DNA which is easy to get into eggs from other animals.
The rabbit-human hybrids are a promising tool for studying diseases, and testing drug therapies for those diseases. If the law is clear on when human life begins, then there should be no ethical impediments.
The best defense is that mouse embryos are a lot easier to make and are a reasonable human model for a lot of purposes.
You are correct for that testing stage, and thanks for the on-topic reply for this controversial subject. But like testing for new drugs, the early stages are virtual simulations, the middle stages have animal testing, and the final stages involve human trials.
Perhaps the moderation as "troll" is because you state that the "mom forced her child to have three abortions in the span of six months" (the article only says that the first one was forced by the mother), but what of the man having sex with his 14-year-old "girlfriend" and the girl who got pregnant three times? Bravo for selective outrage.
Here's another article that cites an AP report that describes the mothers involvement. As for "selective outrage", I'm as concerned as the next person about statuary rape, but rape is a crime and not relevant to D&X (intact dilatation and extraction).
The article mentions tests on mouse embryos, but if we are trying to find information
about humans development and human DNA, then shouldn't we use human embryos? As long
as the tests can be completed before the 24th week (Yale is in Connecticut) or 28th
week (New York is nearby) then there shouldn't be a problem.
For those that would cowardly moderate this discussion troll, it's the 21st century.
If a
mom (in the very same state of Connecticut)
can force her 14 year old daughter to have three abortions in six months time, then why can't a scientist,
who is a professional, that is going to follow strict guidelines, do the very same thing but for an honorable purpose.
Who the hell cares if they are? Prisoners, who are in PRISON due to a serious crime they committed should not be able to have free cable on my tax dollars. Let them sit in their cell staring at the wall pining over what they have done wrong with their lives.
What about the rest of society. One day those in prison will get out, and if they are more ignorant, and more violent than when they went in, how is that good for society?
You do realize that YOU yourself will not be negatively impacted by aliens fiddling around with your genetic code in a million years, right?
Consciousness isn't determined solely by DNA, otherwise identical twins would be perfect clones of each other, or even be capable of clairvoyance or something.
Well, then for my future identical twins...
"Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." - John Donne
While DNA can be used like a fingerprint to identify someone, I don't think it has ever been
proven to be a sufficient definition to recreate man, or any other living creature. Ok, it's
just a game, so I shouldn't be so serious, but even if it were possible, why would you want
a future alien scientist to recreate you? Best case scenario is they have a human version
of Jurassic Park, worst case is he needs a test subject. I won! I won! Doh!
...and it couldn't be any other way. Even if they built 100 times the bandwidth we have now, it would still be slow. Like George Carlin's routine about people buying stuff that fills up their home, and when it's full they move all their stuff to a bigger house, so they can buy.. more.. stuff.
Sure, this is a nice interface, but it's missing a very important part... the speeches!
I see only the tiniest fraction of convention speeches up there, and doubt the reason is a technological one.
The issue is financing, of how do transcribers of movies, speeches, TV, DVDs, etc. get paid.
Speech recognition software? No, that's been on the horizon... or a mirage on the horizon for decades. Not to mention that when we need it most, for the unintelligible bits, it's certain to fail. Call me again when they can
auto-transcribe a song from Metalocalypse. If we want nice transcriptions, then I think we are going to have pay for them.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm assuming you don't normally expect strict secrecy from your wife regarding your correspondence, your house, your phone, and your...privates. If you do expect that, you'll probably have to engage in non-default behavior. Just like here.
That house, phone, and privates all belong to her because I married her. Using your analogy, would it be too much to ask for a purely platonic web browser without everyone flaming me as commitment phobic? ;-)
Shouldn't this be called default mode?
By default I put my snail mail in envelopes (keep my correspondence private), by default I put on clothes (keep my privates... private), and by default I expect the police are not searching my house or tapping my phone (4th Amendment privacy). Why isn't my browser private by defa.... oh wait, it's not my browser, it belongs to MS Google Mozilla, nevermind.
I'm hoping someone can explain to me why the far better-established and easily-maintained option of Solar Power isn't first on the list.
I mean: negligible atmosphere, established support-structure (the ground), 100% predictable yield, negligible material costs after setup, and land-area isn't such a big issue... can't really think of a better case for it.
You answered your own question by acknowledging the source of power with the words "after setup". I think it's safe to assume that NASA plans to use that power source to do a bit of "setup" themselves. Pandering is only a source of power for politicians.
In California, Giuliani and Edwards both dropped out less than a week before the primary election date, and Romney dropped out the 7th. Many Californians cast their absentee ballots a month in advance of the election date. After all votes were counted there were over a million votes (out of about 9 million total) for candidates that weren't even running.
I'm not claiming this single state could have altered the final nominees of Obama and McCain, but I am making a point about why one might not want to vote (too) early.
Somehow I just don't see that faring well with Joe Average ...
On the contrary, it's probably going over quite well since the likely reason for the change was customer complaints. Why, I alone have told them a MILLION times that people shouldn't exaggerate so much.
Because it's really not that necessary.
I assume you meant well when repeating that reasonable sounding cop-out,
and I assume you read the article even though you missed the following quote describing that it is necessary:
However, Noonan stressed that it is still unknown whether HACNS1 causes changes in gene expression in human limb development or whether HACNS1 would create human-like limb development if introduced directly into the genome of a mouse.
While part of me wishes there were easy answers, I think it's prudent to assume there aren't.
Surely you don't believe that question of ethics are settled by legal decisions? Did the Dredd Scott case [slashdot.org] make slavery ethically ok?
I never said or implied the ethics of anything would ever be settled. What I did say is there should be no ethical impediments once the law is made clear. What that means is that people may exercise their free speech, and they may protest, but they may not limit the rights of others.
The sperm and egg are both alive before conception.
I said that.
No life is created at conception; life started billions of years ago and is an ongoing process.
Ok, you disagree with the accepted definition of conception, that I posted. Perhaps this was the point you should have shared your own definition.
And let me point out that conception can ultimately result in the production of multiple organisms of the parent's species.
No, conception has never been shown to do that, citation required.
Unless you want to argue that identical twins (or even identical triplets or quadruplets) are the same organism?
No, identical twins are formed when a zygote divides, and not during conception, stop saying that unless you are going to provide a citation.
Life is just an interesting chemical reaction, of little ethical relevance. What is relevant is consciousness and personhood; these are things generated by the brain. A fetus, or even a newborn, does not have sufficient brain development to be possessed of either.
So a newborn baby can't make a conscious decision to move his arm or turn his head, and he can't feel pain or cry either? Those actions are observable characteristics of conscious behavior. Perhaps if decided to move his arm and bitchslap you, would that meet your definition? ;-)
I'm as concerned as the next person about statuary rape I wouldn't be. I would have thought it might be a bit of a detumefying experience, though those statues might not notice... ;-)
I blame the gene responsible for poor spelling, because I have to use the spell checker so often, that I don't word check the spell checker. ;-)
Isn't DNA, by definition enough to recreate a human (or other carbon-based life-form)?
Just because we don't know how to do it, doesn't mean that all the information isn't there -
Nope, DNA doesn't define Mitochondria or Mitochondrial DNA. The theory goes that you create some artificial DNA, transplant it into a Mitochondria cell, and then it starts working. Of genetic ancestry interest, is that Mitochondrial DNA is only passed mother by mother, because fathers do not pass theirs on.
I don't think the law can ever be clear because there is no single time at which human life begins.
Legal Definition
The Supreme court decided that viability would be the determiner of the earliest "potential life" at around the 28th week, with Roe vs Wade in 1973.
Even conception (which is probably the closest to an actual event) is not the start of life for your first cell, that was created when your mother was still a foetus.
Well, technically an egg is alive, just like a rabbit is alive, or a carrot is a living thing, but they aren't human things. The difference is ethically we can kill and eat a rabbit, but not a human.
Science Definition
Conception is the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism of the same species. That new organism, produced by process of conception, is indeed the start of a life.
Also I think the law should be driven by ethics, not the other way around!
I agree, our laws should be based upon our ethics. We write and enforce laws that protect our lives and property, because we value our lives and property.
Mice and humans share rather more than 80% of their DNA. For the kind of studies involved it may be a case of "any mammal will do".
Not according to the article:
However, Noonan stressed that it is still unknown whether HACNS1 causes changes in gene expression in human limb development or whether HACNS1 would create human-like limb development if introduced directly into the genome of a mouse.
Also the recent fuss in the UK about making human/animal hybrids has been trying to get around this, by putting human DNA which is easy to get into eggs from other animals.
The rabbit-human hybrids are a promising tool for studying diseases, and testing drug therapies for those diseases. If the law is clear on when human life begins, then there should be no ethical impediments.
The best defense is that mouse embryos are a lot easier to make and are a reasonable human model for a lot of purposes.
You are correct for that testing stage, and thanks for the on-topic reply for this controversial subject. But like testing for new drugs, the early stages are virtual simulations, the middle stages have animal testing, and the final stages involve human trials.
Perhaps the moderation as "troll" is because you state that the "mom forced her child to have three abortions in the span of six months" (the article only says that the first one was forced by the mother), but what of the man having sex with his 14-year-old "girlfriend" and the girl who got pregnant three times? Bravo for selective outrage.
Here's another article that cites an AP report that describes the mothers involvement. As for "selective outrage", I'm as concerned as the next person about statuary rape, but rape is a crime and not relevant to D&X (intact dilatation and extraction).
I salute your 19th century soapbox rant about the 21st century! You sir, are the epitomy of human evolution!
Is that your best defense, for a continued use of mouse embryos over human embryos?
The article mentions tests on mouse embryos, but if we are trying to find information about humans development and human DNA, then shouldn't we use human embryos? As long as the tests can be completed before the 24th week (Yale is in Connecticut) or 28th week (New York is nearby) then there shouldn't be a problem.
For those that would cowardly moderate this discussion troll, it's the 21st century. If a mom (in the very same state of Connecticut) can force her 14 year old daughter to have three abortions in six months time, then why can't a scientist, who is a professional, that is going to follow strict guidelines, do the very same thing but for an honorable purpose.
Who the hell cares if they are? Prisoners, who are in PRISON due to a serious crime they committed should not be able to have free cable on my tax dollars. Let them sit in their cell staring at the wall pining over what they have done wrong with their lives.
What about the rest of society. One day those in prison will get out, and if they are more ignorant, and more violent than when they went in, how is that good for society?
You do realize that YOU yourself will not be negatively impacted by aliens fiddling around with your genetic code in a million years, right?
Consciousness isn't determined solely by DNA, otherwise identical twins would be perfect clones of each other, or even be capable of clairvoyance or something.
Well, then for my future identical twins... "Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." - John Donne
While DNA can be used like a fingerprint to identify someone, I don't think it has ever been proven to be a sufficient definition to recreate man, or any other living creature. Ok, it's just a game, so I shouldn't be so serious, but even if it were possible, why would you want a future alien scientist to recreate you? Best case scenario is they have a human version of Jurassic Park, worst case is he needs a test subject. I won! I won! Doh!
Mandatory TV Conversion Creates Complications For Prisons
...and it couldn't be any other way. Even if they built 100 times the bandwidth we have now, it would still be slow. Like George Carlin's routine about people buying stuff that fills up their home, and when it's full they move all their stuff to a bigger house, so they can buy.. more.. stuff.
'Yo momma so fat she got a Nobel prize for thinking so hard'
Yo mama so fat she can verify the latest Mersenne prime number just by thinking about it.
Sure, this is a nice interface, but it's missing a very important part... the speeches! I see only the tiniest fraction of convention speeches up there, and doubt the reason is a technological one. The issue is financing, of how do transcribers of movies, speeches, TV, DVDs, etc. get paid.
Speech recognition software? No, that's been on the horizon... or a mirage on the horizon for decades. Not to mention that when we need it most, for the unintelligible bits, it's certain to fail. Call me again when they can auto-transcribe a song from Metalocalypse. If we want nice transcriptions, then I think we are going to have pay for them.