One issue could be the question of the rights of the hybrid. For example, humans have many rights that cows don't, but what about a cow with a human central nervous system?
Or other primates with bits and pieces of human "code" in their brains? If we say that this animal isn't human, and therefore only deserving of the rights normally given to other primates even though it shows clear signs of human intelligence, wouldn't that somehow be wrong? But on the other hand, should they have full human rights, a seat at the UN, etc.?
Stretching things a little, wouldn't it be possible to create a slave-class of creature, with many of the abilities of humans but none of the rights?
There would seem to be a lot of room for a lot of pain to be caused if we don't get this right.
Wow! That was fast! Thanks chill!
sdmolloy at gmail
Pretty please?
His uncertainty principle doesn't put any limits on how accurately we can know any one number. It puts a limit on how accurately we can know certain pairs of numbers (e.g. position and momentum). There is nothing in his principle that says we can't know one of those numbers *precisely*, as long as we are completely uncertain as to the value of its canonical pair.
Not a lot of people seem to be complaining about that, but it was one of the first things I noticed. I guess the
Shit. Accidentally modded you redundant. Posting to negate.
Or maybe there's a guy in Belfast wanting to advertise his films, and he's smart enough to get posted to slashdot?
Can you imagine his disappointment when he realises he only made it to Idle?
"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne