I would draw the line at cloning...
Displaying poll results.37683 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8470 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 6393 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
Cowboy Neal (Score:5, Funny)
It's bad enough having one around...
Re:Cowboy Neal (Score:2, Interesting)
Speaking of Cowboy Neal, I haven't seen any survey's with him as an option, what's going on Slashdot?
Re:Cowboy Neal (Score:5, Funny)
Well, there are a few reasonable possibilities, and one ridiculous one.
Re:Cowboy Neal (Score:4, Funny)
[ ] He found another job
[ ] He sued to have his name removed
[ ] It was merely a fad
[*] Cowboy Neal
Re:Cowboy Neal (Score:2)
Cowboy Neil has mutated. See article on early cellular life.
Re:Cowboy Neal (Score:2)
Did you NOT see the "Crazy hybrid clones" option?
Sheesh. Looks like we need another "How to recognize CowboyNeal" seminar.
Start with human organs (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's one thing where cloning is justified, it's with human organs. Transplants from other people are a crude stopgap solution until we are able to clone replacements from our own cells.
Re:Start with human organs (Score:3)
Re:Start with human organs (Score:5, Funny)
There have been successful trials with grown bladders already.
That research went down the toilet. They pissed away their funding.
Re:Start with human organs (Score:2)
I wish I had a mod point for you. Speaking of which, does it seem to anyone else that mod points are in shorter supply since the redesign? It seems like way fewer comments are modded lately. Or perhaps with the redesign users are staying away in droves?
Re:Start with human organs (Score:2)
At least, the 'rating' is only assigned after some minimal 'consensus' (two positively correlated votes?) has been reached.
Or perhaps with the redesign users are staying away in droves?
Probably — would serve 'them' right!
CC.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Start with human organs (Score:5, Insightful)
That was more a commentary on the disgusting state of the class-based health care system we are headed for in the US, and not necessarily the technology that enabled it. There is no reason cloned organs would have to be eternally expensive, unless one company owns the technology and creates an artificially scarce market. Hell, if we could save even 50% of the people who die languishing for a transplant, the organs would pay for themselves before too long, both in reduced inpatient care and reduced costs on society related to premature death.
So repeat after me: medical advances, good; corporate greed, bad.
Re:Start with human organs (Score:3)
You've seen how your patent system works in the bio-medical field, haven't you? Hell, make that any field.
Re:Start with human organs (Score:3)
The broken patent revision process (where patents can be revised at the end of their lifespan with subtly new processes to get the term extended) give holders a way to basically stifle innovation (by sandbagging new advancements) and monopolizing the results (by keeping the patents for decades.) It's sad but yes, under the current system (health care and patent law,) we aren't going to see much in the way of world-changing advancements, just more of the same which can only be afforded the extremely rich.
Re:Start with human organs (Score:4, Informative)
The broken patent revision process (where patents can be revised at the end of their lifespan with subtly new processes to get the term extended) give holders a way to basically stifle innovation (by sandbagging new advancements) and monopolizing the results (by keeping the patents for decades
Yeah, this is called "Evergreening" [wikipedia.org], and it is all over the modern pharmaceutical industry.
Re:Start with human organs (Score:5, Insightful)
Patients have a limited life span.
FTFY
CC.
Re:Start with human organs (Score:3)
Patents have a limited life span.
Forever minus a day... thus making them not quite last forever.
Re:Start with human organs (Score:5, Insightful)
"If we could save even 50% of the people who die languishing for a transplant..." it would increase "costs on society," not reduce them. What makes "inpatient care" a cost to society, except an exceedingly misguided sense of entitlement (and those who fullfill it)?
Yes, I've read Malthus.
Re:Start with human organs (Score:5, Insightful)
From a purely utilitarian standpoint, if someone dies then you need to replace them. Skilled workers cost a huge amount to train - hundreds of thousands of dollars to take a baby and turn it into someone capable of contributing to society. A few thousand dollars to repair an existing skilled human is cheap by comparison.
On the subject of entitlement, I hope you won't be taking any antibiotics or antivirals under the same logic - 100 years ago, if you had a virus or bacterial infection that your body couldn't fight off, you died. Dying of trivially curable pneumonia isn't premature, it's natural.
Re:Start with human organs (Score:2)
Coma [imdb.com]
Interestingly, spare organs seem to be rather expensive either way.
CC.
Re:Start with human organs (Score:3)
Repo: The Genetic Opera.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repo!_The_Genetic_Opera [wikipedia.org]
Re:Start with human organs (Score:2)
End-users (Score:2)
I have to deal with too many end-users as it is. We don't need more...
Re:End-users (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously? IT people are the only shining stars amidst a mass of worthless humanity? IT people have hobbies, Users have Snookie. Do you actually converse with any users in a way that may allow you to find out about their strengths, passions, and desires? You may be surprised to find out there are a lot of people out there who are every bit as talented in what they do as you are in what you do. You may even discover that acting like an actual human being around them lets you develop a rapport and in turn makes it more likely that they will listen when you explain to them what they are doing wrong with their computers.
Oftentimes when I meet IT people they almost invariable are low talent hacks who have an insufferably high opinion of themselves. They believe that the work they are doing is far more important than the work that the stupid lusers who just happen to be creating, marketing, or selling the product that keeps the IT person employed.
I, like many on here, have been granted the gift of a mind that wraps itself around technology pretty easy. Even with that said there are probably thousands of people on here who are more talented in the ways of IT than I am. I am not so sure that there are many who do a better job than I do though. I speak to the users. I try to find a common ground, feel out the best way to explain things to them, and teach them how to use their devices. It is amazing how quickly you can pique their interest when you approach them without your nose way up in the air.
I am not saying that there are not hopeless causes. Some people have brains that are simply void of curiosity. They are a blight to competent IT people, Auto mechanics, doctors, accountants, engineers, and shop machine operators. For the rest, let us stop pretending that the way IT people feel about them isn't a huge part of the problem.
Re:End-users (Score:3)
My other nephew's a nerd (already got his A+ and Network+ certs and he's still in high school). His best buddy's favorite TV program is 'Dirty Jobs', where they show the filthy underbelly of our civilization. They build spud guns and web sites.
Re:End-users (Score:2)
I agree there is value in knowing how to do the important things, but a four times a year (in reality it wouldn't be a disaster for past a year) task like changing oil does not fit in to that. Let somebody else do that while you're learning to do something you can exchange for other stuff other people know how to do.
Idiotic users keep IT people in demand and their minds can be aimed at learning how to do something else well enough to reach that ever increasing human efficiency, or just enjoy life. Not everybody is mentally capable of keeping up so don't worry about them being dumb, just be glad that we don't execute the feeble-minded. Now, wasting a perfectly good mind is a different matter and is a shame. However, if their mind lets them be happy without exercising it, how good of a mind is it?
Re:End-users (Score:3)
Are you all familiar with the concept of specialization? As a species when we become more advanced and its feasible for people to do more with less time, effort and materials we'll have to struggle to find a use for the bottom X% (where X is directly related to human efficiency while doing work). The way we resolve that is to just stop doing the things we don't want to do, find what we want to do, and devote ourselves to that. If everybody is changing their oil, what will the oil changers do to make themselves valuable?
However, in my understanding, that's not the point that the poster was trying to make. Instead, he is claiming (and I agree) that IT people tend to not ONLY be specialised in IT, but also have greater knowledge in many other areas of life, including hobbies and interests that are more technical or require a greater amount of thought. While "some" non IT people also do (so it's not a universal thing by any means), the percentage is significantly lower. The "user" types seem to be just generally stupider and while they may have a specialty that they focus on, they are either incapable or not interested in extending beyond that (even when that thing itself is so utterly banal, such as "expert on what's happening with the current reality TV shows").
Is there something in the IT mentality that makes us branch out more? My thoughts would be yes: To be a good IT person, one tends to have to learn a wide range of different thought processes. IT isn't just "one thing". This then trains the mind to be able to look at a lot of different things with different perspectives, and this reflects on to non IT activities as well. People who don't work in technical fields tend to be a lot more narrow focused, and therefore tend to be less capable (and less interested) in branching to other ways of thinking.
Just as a disclaimer: I'm in IT, but I'm not, nor have I ever been an Admin. I don't really deal with "users" on a day to day basis. I'm a software developer and the closest I get to hearing from users is when our support guys pass something back to me that a user has reported. I do however see the mentality in management, sales, marketing and other non-technical areas that I have to deal with... I class these people in to the general "users" group.
By the way, sorry for any rambling or incoherence in this post... currently sitting in an airport about half-way around the world from home, waiting for a plane, and my brain isn't quite as switched on as it should be.
Re:End-users (Score:3)
Changing oil is a nearly mindless task that takes all of 15 minutes. You'd have to be a complete moron to not be able to do it yourself. There's a bolt on the bottom of the engine: remove it, and the oil drains into a pan. Put the bolt back on (it's prudent to replace the crushable washer on some cars). Then replace the filter, making sure to use some oil to wet the rubber gasket, and turn it hand tight and back off a half-turn. Refill the oil at the top of the engine. If you can't handle that, you're an idiot, plain and simple, and you belong in an institution.
Now if you'd prefer to pay someone $50-100 to do it because you're lazy or don't want to get dirty (or you have a car like mine, where you have to jack it up to get under it to access the filter because you can't reach it from the top, making it potentially dangerous if you don't use a proper jack and jackstands), that's one thing, but this crap about having to "learn" how to do it is just that: crap. This is like saying you need a "professional" to repaint a room in your house. Anyone can paint 4 walls with a roller and pan from the hardware store, and lots of people do. Some people may prefer to just pay someone else to do it, but they could do it themselves if they really wanted or needed to, and in this economy, lots of people don't have extra money lying around to pay people to do things that they can do themselves for free.
Finally, getting oil changes isn't as cheap as is advertised. Typically, when you go to someplace like Jiffy Lube, while they're changing your oil (with some low-grade crap which costs them less), they'll come in and show you a nasty old air filter from a diesel truck, claiming that it's from your compact car, and "recommend" that you pay them to replace it. With a lack of honesty this rampant at oil-change businesses, there's no telling what other acts of sabotage they're performing on your car while you're not looking. Sabotage of customer vehicles is very common at repair shops, and a good reason to avoid them whenever possible.
People who are so stupid they can't handle anything more complex than changing oil shouldn't be working on complex $30,000 machines. There's lots of other jobs they can do, such as cleaning toilets, sweeping floors, stocking shelves, and doing landscaping.
Re:End-users (Score:2)
Maybe it should be.
Re:End-users (Score:2)
It's the same way for everything. Take cars, for example. Most people use one every day. What percentage of those people can tell you even the absolute basics of how an internal combustion engine works? To them it's just a black box: gasoline goes in, power, noise, and exhaust come out. And they use it every day!
Same goes for everything else they use every day. Refrigerators, microwaves, toilets, and yeah, computers. I don't know how people do it. I mean, we aren't talking about complicated stuff here, like quantum physics or human psychology, we're talking about stuff that follows a set of fairly simple and generally deterministic rules, that they use every day of their lives.
Why should people know HOW stuff works? All they need to know is THAT stuff works. Why should I waste my mindspace knowing about freon condensation / evaporation cycles, or resonant chambers tuned to the vibration frequency of water molecules, or flapper and float valve controlled siphon induction? It doesn't matter. All that matters is that the beer is cold, the popcorn is hot, and that I don't have to go outside on an icy cold winter night. I don't need to know that my remote uses 14 bit Manchester encoding with three start bits on a 36Khz carrier wave. I just need to know On/Off, Volume Up/Down, etc.
We can't know everything. Sure, by itself each individual piece is not complicated, but taken together it is every bit as daunting as quantum physics or human psychology.
Re:End-users (Score:2)
I would be happy if they would just acknowledge that they don't know what they're doing, shut up, and listen to me. Most of my end users do, but I have a couple that just go on and on complaining and making a big deal out of something that's either:
A. already fixed
B. automated, so they can only break it by messing with it (And they DO)
C. designed to be simple by a focus panel at microsoft, and I'll be happy to explain just how simple it is if they'd just shut up.
Re:End-users (Score:2)
I'm not talking about 'what' but 'how'. Math is a 'subject' not an implementation.
Re:End-users (Score:2)
I have a beautiful wood slide rule, but I take your meaning. I guess my point was that there is a lot of theory that is not being taught any longer.
Extinct species . . . (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Extinct species . . . (Score:2)
Re:Extinct species . . . (Score:2)
He didn't specify which raptors, so we still have options [wikipedia.org] that would be to the right scale. And since the feathers don't do anything about the claws and the teeth, I think they only make the things uglier. My big problem with the JP portrayal is how aggressive they were, since you don't see that kind of behavior much in the wild. But hey, only one way to find out, right?
Re:Extinct species . . . (Score:2)
yeah, like there is any species we could re-extinct if we need to.
Re:Extinct species . . . (Score:3)
That was just Randall Munroe ballot-stuffing.
meh (Score:2)
it's just like having a twin. i see no problems.
now... exact cloning (with memory etc) and teleportation i have metaphysical issues with. like what happens to the soul if there is one?
Re:meh (Score:2)
it's just like having a twin. i see no problems.
now... exact cloning (with memory etc) and teleportation i have metaphysical issues with. like what happens to the soul if there is one?
Do you really want to know [milkandcookies.com]?
Re:meh (Score:2)
Nothing to worry about.
God takes care of the soul part for you at birth. It's His own contribution to the process.
That's why the arguments against abortion don't work when you really study the Bible. At best, the only comment the O.T. makes about it was that if two people were fighting and injured a pregnant woman so that she miscarried, the husband of the woman could take the person who caused the injury to civil court for a fine. The death penalty or accidental death penalty didn't come into focus unless the mother herself died.
Re:meh (Score:2)
There is more to the story than just that. Ask any Christian if aborted babies go to heaven or hell and ask them to support their view from scripture. Most cannot even begin to do it, and those that are smart will tell you that it is "implied" in various scriptures. To support their view they might even pull out a verse or two like this one:
Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
But verses like that one don't support any such notion, but only show that GOD has foreknowledge of events.
Also, I find it amazing that people who claim belief in an afterlife are the ones most affected by death of this life, in a negative manner. It is almost as if they know the people who just died were bastards and evil and destined for the hot coals or something, and not to the place of clouds and harps.
Re:meh (Score:2)
So, by your logic, it is better to abort a baby than it would be to allow it to be born into sin. Abortion would be the moral thing to do.
Also, I reject your notion that those two verses prove the point you're trying to make. See Rom 5:12, 3:23 and the fact that those two verses speak of living, breathing children, not unborn. You're also denying the whole premise of Christianity, that ALL have sinned and need a savior, even children.
BTW, I may not be what you think I am, so be careful of your assumptions about me. ;)
Re:meh (Score:4, Funny)
Well there has been some debate about this in the Jewish community.
General consensus is that a foetus is not considered viable until it has passed medical school.
Re:meh (Score:2)
Memories are the soul.
Look at Farscape when John cloned perfectly, the two are the same person.
Re:meh (Score:3)
You are not seriously using a show with puppets as evidence for an argument, are you?
Re:meh (Score:2)
Re:meh (Score:3)
it's just like having a twin. i see no problems.
now... exact cloning (with memory etc) and teleportation i have metaphysical issues with. like what happens to the soul if there is one?
Luckily, the soul is a human fabricated concept, but if it weren't then we already live with people who, by the soul definition, only have (presumably?) half a soul because identical twins are one fertilised egg (which must, by any definition, be the 'start of life' and therefore the 'start of soul') separated into two distinct embryos. Unless one twin gets the soul and the other is soul-less? I guess we'd have to ask for a set of opinions on that from the various soul believing religions?
Re:meh (Score:3)
That's exactly what happens. Where do you think the "evil twin" comes from?
Re:meh (Score:2)
ambiguous (Score:2)
Clone 'em All (Score:4, Insightful)
But seriously, I want a pet griffin and a pet triceratops with eagle wings. If genetic engineers can give me a steady supply of those, I don't give a damn about what happens in the rest of the cloning world. =)
Re:Clone 'em All (Score:3)
And let God sort 'em out!
God, Schmod! I want my monkey-man!
Re:Clone 'em All (Score:2)
God, Schmod! I want my monkey-man!
Just look in the mirror - a monkey-man will look back
Done and done. [heidelberg.de]
Voted "no limits" (Score:5, Insightful)
I would say serious ethical issues should be raised at whole body clones / crazy hybrids, but I'm not going to draw a hard limit on any of those.
This proves nothing! (Score:2)
Varley cloning... (Score:2)
Re:Varley cloning... (Score:3)
John Varley clones must die!
Missing option: (Score:2)
Cloning whole humans to harvest their organs in a deliberately inefficient manner.
My Mother-in-Law (Score:3)
I draw the line there. It should be written into the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "No mother-in-laws can be cloned."
Re:My Mother-in-Law (Score:2)
mothers-in-law
Missing option (Score:2)
Steve Gadd!! (Score:3)
Hey! And we've flown in, at great expense, (triple scale, no less, ladies and gentlemen),
Steve Gad's clone to play the out-chorus on this song...lies really outa-site, in spite of
thefact that the click track is totally irrelevant to what he's doing now. I in listening to
the click, yes I'm suffering with the click track right now...this guy is totally out of sync with it,
but what the fuck. Ed Mann will call him up later, show him the sign. Okay Vinnie, where
is five?
No real choice (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No real choice (Score:3)
Corporations could make money off grinding you up for cattle feed. Or grinding up cattle spines for cattle feed, like they did until a couple of years ago when we manned-up and passed a law to prevent the spread of the mad-cow.
The law is tougher than corporations. Don't be afraid to use it. And make it bloody expensive for the corporations to get their way about it. Just throwing your vote to them because you think it's inevitable means you're probably not even worth grinding up for cattle feed.
A closely related question... (Score:2)
Re:A closely related question... (Score:3)
The traditional answer is incesturbation.
Re:A closely related question... (Score:2)
you forgot homosexual and narcissistic besides those two
Re:A closely related question... (Score:3)
Go on, have fun.
You're welcome.
I need a clone of myself (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I need a clone of myself (Score:3)
Actually, if you are a male, I think you can replace your Y chromosome with your existing X to make a female version of yourself. And I would have to say that I think the female version of myself would have a nice ass if it takes after me.
Re:I need a clone of myself (Score:2)
Oh wait...
Re:I need a clone of myself (Score:2)
Could I get a clone of myself, but without the y-chromosome? Would there be issues with having the same X-chromosome twice? (This is a half-serious question.)
Re:I need a clone of myself (Score:3)
This is slashdot. Most everyone here is used to having sex with themselves at least sometimes, except the married ones, who do all the time. Changing the Y chromosome wouldn't change that.
All the options amount to the same thing (Score:3)
Missing Options (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Missing Options (Score:2)
Yeah, I never know how to respond to IRL politcal polls about cloning. "Do you support cloning?" Well, no. The techniques are horribly immature and dangerous. Thalidomide mkII. But that doesn't mean I find cloning itself unethical. Just doing it on humans before it even reliably works on animals.
Clone This! (Score:3)
I think genetic manipulation and cloning are the next crowning achievement of human evolution, given that we took ourselves out of the natural path of evolution when we started making fire for ourselves. Will cloning be used for unethical, immoral purposes? Of course! Name one tech that hasn't been. Will the benefits far outweigh the negatives? History will tell, but I firmly believe so. If we can't overcome the environmental challenges of manned interstellar travel through science (including bioscience) we're doomed to a rather short life span as a species.
GO CLONING!
Re:Clone This! (Score:2)
I am guessing there will be DIY kits for sale on ThinkGeek within 20 years.
Where is my Cowboy Neal option ... (Score:2)
Priorities: (Score:2)
Alright. I voted no limits.
Now, when do I get my harem of blue haired anime catgirls?
Clone yourself? (Score:2)
Re:Clone yourself? (Score:3)
Who here would consider cloning themselves instead of getting divorced?
Clone of my Own (Oblig) (Score:4, Funny)
O give me a clone of my own flesh and bone,
With its Y chromosome changed to X.
And when it is grown, then my own little clone
Will be of the opposite sex.
Chorus:
Clone, clone of my own,
With its Y chromosome changed to X
And when I'm alone with my own little clone
We'll both think of nothing but sex.
O give me a clone, hear my sorrowful moan,
Just a clone that is wholly my own.
And if it's an X of the feminine sex,
Oh what fun we will have when we're prone.
(Chorus)
My heart's not of stone, as I've frequently shown
When alone with my dear little X
And after we've dined, I am sure we will find
Better incest than Oedipus Rex.
(Chorus)
Why should such sex vex, or disturb or perplex.
Or induce a disparaging tone?
After all, don't you see, since we're both of us me.
When we're making love, I'm alone.
(Chorus)
And after I'm done, she will still have her fun,
For I'll clone myself twice ere I die.
And this time without fail, they'll be both of them male,
And they'll each ravish her by-and-by.
Chuck Norris (Score:2)
I don't think people understand. (Score:3)
If cloning an army of yourself is legal and accepted, then we'll end up with armies of Rupert Murdochs, not Mahatma Gandhis.
Think about it.
I draw the line at a Star Wars Prequel (Score:3)
I would definitely draw the line... (Score:3)
Re:Organs? (Score:2)
Re:Where's the Cowboyneal option (Score:2)
*laugh*
On a more serious note about the CowboyNeal option, mainly since it's "none of the above". I'd choose it because I believe that species that have gone extinct due to direct human interaction, even potentially species that went extinct thousands of years ago, like Mastadons. I would urge caution in choosing species given the potential danger to existing ecosystems and to humans posed by potential resurrections, but I don't see a problem in attempting to undo some of the damage we've wrought. On the other hand, species that didn't exist when humanity came about should probably remain extinct, as they're not a condition beneficial to our presence, and if anything, their extinction led to space for us to evolve into.
I'm against human full-body cloning except in certain, specific cases, and I would age-cap the process. I'd probably limit age to something like 40, so children could get a second chance and adults with children could continue to support their children. I'd also only support this if there were a way to artificially age the clone body to the approximate age of the individual to receive it. I don't support it in general, though, because our society now is not ready for the potential immortality that full-body clones could offer if applied that way. Should we learn to handle population then this could be revised.
Hybrids would be allowed for research but not for "production", unless the research proved a particularly good or useful application, and then it would require license.
I'd think that pets and sport animals (racing horses, dogs, etc) shouldn't be cloned. People need to learn to cope with loss, and allowing a child to clone their dog is counter to that. Sporting animals are supposed to be unique, and cloning them eliminates that.
Other Missing Option (Score:2)
Re:Side Effect of Human Cloning (Score:2)
I have no clue where I heard this and is quite possible 100% bull.
Re:Side Effect of Human Cloning (Score:2)
Also, I don't get how one can make mutant clones. Or it is a clone, so it is equal to the original organism, or it is mutant, so it is different. Anyway, I don't have anything against either...
Re:Side Effect of Human Cloning (Score:2)
Re:Side Effect of Human Cloning (Score:2)
Yes, I'm riffing on the classic comic book motif, but that statement can be taken at face value just as easily. In short, "don't know if sarcastic." <shrug>
Re:Side Effect of Human Cloning (Score:2)
It wasn't me, it was my one-armed clone!
Re:Side Effect of Human Cloning (Score:2)
Plus, their nose could get pushed up against the glass and wind up looking like chief Wiggum if you leave them in a too small a tube for too long.
Re:Where's the line? (Score:2)
They stood where they interpreted the line to be. Each one of the others. So, no answer you get here will be informative.
Re:order is wrong (Score:2)
Yah, but the only way it's going to be cost-effective is to grow the clone organ in your body, which will probably hurt.