Daniel 7:7:
After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.
I think that the comments I have read above me are missing the point, or maybe I am.
The software was changed so that falls of more than 6 feet no longer caused a case to be considered "category A", the problem is that (through a mistake when rewriting that bit of code I assume), mention of a fall was causing a case to be considered "category B" even if other things were present that would normally have made it "category A".
I feel almost ridiculous replying now, since the thread has moved on so far since, but I will primarily so that I can say the following:
My intention was certainly not to start a flame war, and to be honest I am amazed that my original point was modded flamebait when the post I originally responded to was modded as +3 insightful. Infact, until I reached the part of your comment that became a personal attack on me, I was actually glad to be reading a post that was based on a degree of science, whether right or wrong, rather than human chauvinism.
A. We do if we are trying to learn about the specific conditions that those individuals represent. You learn about Autism by working with autistic children.
I think that you have missed the point with this response, or perhaps so wrapped up in the reply that you almost forgot what the original topic was (which I have done a few times), since there is a big difference between "working with" autistic children, and experimenting on them in the way the animals in the article were to be experimented on.
B. More in line with what you probably intended to get a response to, Humans of any kind make horrible research subjects. The diversity within human groups, even within specific ethnic groups, is orders of magnitude greater than that between 2 strains of rats. That is why much of our biomedical and nutritional research is piloted in animals and only replicated in humans if it seems like the research is going somewhere.
We are indeed a very diverse species, but any research that did not take that into account would be terrible research to begin with, and (perhaps due to my own ignorance) I struggle to believe that there are fewer differences between a rat and the average human than there are between two humans.
I can state with a high degree of certainty that those monkey's that were going to be used for the Anthrax study were subjected to far less fear and pain in their life than most humans. I've worked with primates (in a behavior lab) and the regulations for working with and caring for them put the laws governing the rearing of human children to shame.
On the final part of this point, I have little argument - we share a world with some incredibly cruel and/or self-centred individuals, but regardless I feel that the pain that would have been experienced is more than what the monkeys ought to be exposed to. Finally, just to clarify it for anyone else reading this, I am not saying that they ought to be treated better than humans, and was never implying (as I am sure you must realise) that I believe we should experiment on children.
In that case, why not experiment on the mentally ill, or children born with severe learning disabilities?
Maybe then they would understand that Human Life is more valuable than Animal Life.
Last time I checked, human life was animal life.
Just as it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer, so it is better that ten animals die in the name of science than one human being die because a vaccine was not properly tested, or, worse still, never brought to market because of a lack of testing.
So are you saying that other animals are intrinsically guilty, and humans innocent by definition? If so, I would have to disagree.
Monkeys being "cute" has nothing to do with it. Some would argue that experimentation on rats would be just as wrong, and some would argue that discriminating based on species is wrong, and would point out the fact that a human child is less intellectually developed than certain primates, but the majority would be shocked and disgusted at the thought of experimenting on one, so why should we experiment on the monkeys?
While I can accept that music would be less distracting that office chatter, I simply don't understand the concept that music is better than silence. I can work with music, but if I need to concentrate on something intensely, like a complex coding problem or making decisions based on a large amount of data, I need silence.
When I try to work in a silent environment, I find that my mind wanders elsewhere, and for a long time. Working with music, on the other hand, I find that when my mind does drift from the task at hand, it is to the music, and not scenarios running through my head. This means my work gets my attention again much faster.
If I want to think about a specific task, I need background noises. If I want to think deeply about my actions, etc., I prefer silence.
This proves nothing of any use, since the first probe was done in the UK, and the more recent one in Australia.
I see your point, and I would agree with you if the website described any of the blood types in an undesirable manner, but from what I have seen the website makes a few positive affirmations (along the lines of "you are independent"), suggests a diet (not sure how that one works, I will leave it to someone else to comment on), and then state where and when the blood type is thought to have emerged.
It isn't doing any harm by being there, whether it is true or not.
This isn't like teaching creationism in biology, which directly conflicts with something of greater scientific worth. The only thing this conflicts with is the view that it is wrong.
The very same
The wired network throughout the campus has not worked for 2 generations of ubuntu now, but all posts on the bug report are from Aberystwyth University students, so it seems the problem is to do with the setup of the network rather than something common to all networks... I would be interested to know what change broke compatibility though, since old versions of ubuntu and other most other distros work.
Wifi is unusable, the connection being lost sometimes within seconds of connecting, however certain parts of campus have a second wifi network that works if you use the VPN (see next line).
The VPN is awkward to set up in Linux, especially if you do not want to edit gconf.
You won't official get help with linux from the Information Services support desk, but depending on who is working you will sometimes get help.
The Computer Science department is very Linux friendly... infact, anything you do in the first year at least can be done using linux. A lot of the staff use Linux as their main system and so will probably give help within reason.
my brain is decoding messages from outer space!
Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"
