I don't own a gun, but I'm a member of the NRA. And the ACLU. There are many people who own guns and are not members of the NRA. So clearly having a list of NRA members isn't the same as having a list of gun owners. Not that I'd approve of the government getting that list either, but I know that if they think they want it, they'll get it.

Basically, I support any organization that protects our rights. So even though I've never gone hunting, and I don't find shooting in the range THAT fun (I've only done it three times), I still support the NRA. And although I also support the ACLU, they seem to want to skip protecting that one right, so I can't ignore the NRA. It's definitely nice to see them working together.

UI should always be customizable. No two people like it exactly the same way. Find a default that seems to work for most people, but let people change it to avoid the (justified) complaints.

I would say it is linked to poor education, which is linked with credit worthiness.

Honestly, I think that justifies his questioning. It doesn't justify searching his home without informing him about it, if that part of the story really happened. A warrant needs to be issued and presented to him.

As I've pointed out before, if you think McCarthyism is wrong because he was accusing people who weren't communists of being communists, you don't get it. The problem with McCarthyism is that he was trying to hurt people for their political views. In this country, you have the right to be communist.

Actually, I was just objecting directly to the sentence, "The whole point of not using the word 'normal' is to avoid saying that people who are not cisgendered are not normal." I don't have a problem with the word.

I've got absolutely nothing against gay or transgendered individuals. I think discrimination, and especially attempts to dehumanize others for who they are, as you've described, is despicable. That said, I do tend to be very much anti-PC. I think the proper response to someone trying to dehumanize transgendered individuals by saying they're not normal is to say, "no, we're not. What's your point? I assure you there are many ways in which you are not normal." Instead of being offended by words, or trying to change the usage of such words, I think any group being dehumanized wins these battles when we teach ourselves to not fall apart when words are used against us. Doing so robs them of their power.

I'm not saying that's easy to do, either. However, it's a better goal to aim for than trying to get everyone else to walk on eggshells.

You would be incorrect

Which is stupid PC crap. Being transgendered isn't normal. Which is not to say that's a bad thing, they're just being offended for no reason. Normal means, "according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle". Think normal distribution. Most people are not transgendered, therefore being transgendered is not not normal.

By itself, not being normal isn't offensive. Most people can't run as fast as Usain Bolt, therefore Usain Bolt isn't normal. That's not an insult.

Generally speaking, we do agree as a society that convicted criminals lose some rights (although not all). I mean, normally I would say that it's not alright to hold someone against their will, but do you have an ethical objection to jails in general? Where exactly to draw the line is a complex ethical question that would be difficult to solve in this forum. I am personally not against taking the DNA from people when a warrant is issued in a case where DNA would be relevant evidence. That said, I've never researched the subject enough, and am willing to entertain the possibility I could be convinced otherwise.

That's not the analogy I meant to imply. I mean to say you may object to the use of GPS technology in order to have unmanned drones bomb locations without any human supervision. But you don't object to the researching of global positioning technologies in general simply because they would make that scenario possible. Similarly, I would object to the use of DNA by employers who want to avoid the risk of hiring someone prone to depression, which this research makes possible. But I don't object to the research. Knowledge is separate from ethics, and we should never be afraid to learn anything.

Everything has been used for malicious purposes. We're typing on a computer right now. You may have used GPS to get someplace. Well, targetting computers in conjunction with GPS are used to kill people. I carry a pocket knife with me because it's often useful. People get stabbed with pocket knives. We use airplanes to quickly travel around the world. The military uses airplanes to drop bombs.

I'm not saying that means we should take things lightly. On the contrary, it means we need to be constantly vigilant of every action we take and examine the ethics behind them. It's far too easy to accidentally take a step too far as a result of tunnel vision when you have a particular goal. But you can't replace vigilance with ignorance. Scientists figuring out which specific genes are related to increased suicidal behavior? That's just knowledge. It's ethically neutral. When the government or employers start asking for DNA tests, I'll be right there protesting with you. That's what leads to a Gattaca society.

No, but I see how absolutely flawed yours is. It's called the straw man fallacy. Here's what you said:

Emphasis mine in the quote above. Your argument is, of course, absolutely correct. Unfortunately it's not what I've claimed and it's not what this study claims. You're arguing against a position that doesn't exist. This is what I've said:

A component, as in one factor out of many. In addition, I also said:

I didn't say you could test to see if someone has depression, I said you could test to see if they have an increased risk of getting depression. So now that we've cleared that up, I can address your other comments.

First of all, I'm pretty sure I would still not commit suicide. I would quit doing idiotic things and get my life back on track. And it would be fairly easy to do so under your scenario. That's not to say there's nothing that would make me consider suicide. If I found out today I had early-onset Alzheimer's, I would consider suicide before it gets to the point where I'm no longer capable of taking care of myself. If I found out I had terminal cancer and a sufficiently low probability of recovery through chemo, I might consider not suffering through chemo, and instead spending the rest of my relatively healthy life with family and friends, and committing suicide when the cancer effects get sufficiently bad. That's not to say I have a genetic predisposition to suicide, I probably don't.

That said, you know those stories of kids who get bullied on facebook and decide to commit suicide? Or those people who commit suicide after their boyfriend or girlfriend breaks up with them? The vast majority of people would never commit suicide under those circumstances. But if you have a genetic predisposition, it might be enough to send you over the edge. Detecting this and being aware you're at an increased risk could lead you to take steps to prevent it by forming a support network, going on medication, avoiding medication known to increase suicide rates, etc.

As a real example, I've paid for a genetic profile on myself and know that I am at increased risk for Type II diabetes. That doesn't mean I *have* Type II diabetes. It means I'm more careful about what I eat now, and watch my weight carefully. I also know I'm at increased risk for certain types of cancer, so I started getting screened for those at an earlier age to increase my chances of catching it early if I develop it. Which I might not.

I didn't misread it, but I did misinterpret your comment. There were multiple ACs, and I thought you were referring to another one. The person you were replying to wasn't an AC, but he was replying to this AC comment which claimed nothing should be rigid ever. I thought you were supporting him, which made the rollbars comment strange.

So I apologize, but in my defense you didn't make it that clear who you were talking about. I was just following the thread.

You realize the rollbars are there to prevent the roof from being crushed into the passenger, right? They are there to provide stiffness, so the roof doesn't come crashing on the driver. That's not really backing up the AC.

You want to dissipate the energy with crumpling, but you don't want to crumple into the driver or passengers. That means that at some point it needs to get really rigid. Deform by a certain amount, but never deform beyond a particular point. Considering the NHTSA gave the vehicle 5 stars, I'm pretty sure their machine broke before crushing past the point it's not supposed to.

It's been known for quite some time that both depression and predisposition to suicides have a genetic component. So yes, you most certainly should be able to test someone's blood to determine if they are at an increased risk for depression, it's just a question of identifying which genes are responsible.

Recognizing that our genes have an effect on us isn't "eugenics." It's common-sense. DNA controls the color of my eyes, my skin, the type of hair I have, my height, my body type, the relative chances I have of getting heart disease or certain types of cancer...why you would think it has no effect whatsoever on my mental health is beyond me. Studies only cross into eugenics if they start advocating people with certain genes shouldn't breed, or shouldn't breed with people with a different set of genes, or should be eliminated completely from the gene pool. Saying we have genetic differences, some of which provide advantages and other which provide disadvantages is just fact. Figuring out which genes are responsible for those advantages and disadvantages is science.

As soon as I read the headline, I was reminded of an earlier slashdot article from last year.

In the linked NIH study, drinking 3 or more cups of coffee a day was associated with a lower risk of death. From all causes. This study is probably a follow up to the earlier study, and they came to the opposite conclusion.

Conclusion: not enough studies to change your daily habits one way or another. Obligatory xkcd