This is design 101. We've been Poka-yoke-ing connectors in other industries for decades.
In fact, if you look through the datasheets for most components you will quickly realize that being able to survive reverse voltage is actually somewhat rare
Because you're supposed to build it in Most components only do one thing and do it well. You build your own protection circuit. The ECMs we use at work will take 1000V on any pin. Could you imagine how far your car would make it without any protection circuits built in?
And yet, towering over all of these in importance is the kind of shirt the spokesman is wearing when he makes the announcement that humanity has arrived at some great new achievement.
"If you can force a rocket scientist, celebrating the accomplishment of a lifetime, to cry and grovel and beg forgiveness on international TV for wearing a shirt, you are not unempowered."
Any major manned project at this point is going to involve a lot of robotic probes and preparation.
Yeah, we're already doing that. We've sent robotic probes to the Moon, Mars, and the asteroid belt lately. Have you forgotten about all the hubbub over the bright spots they found on Ceres? We are *not* ignoring the asteroid belt.
But asteroids are a lot easier to get to and from than Mars, precisely because of their lack of gravity and lack of atmosphere.
I disagree. True, Mars has enough of an atmosphere to be a nuisance (because you need reentry shielding, but there's not enough there to be really useful for aerobraking), but it's also significantly closer than the belt. Farther = a longer journey. For a probe, a few extra months might not be that big a deal, but for humans, it is. Mars is already too far as it is (as in, "too long a journey for most people to want to sit in a spacecraft that long", plus the radiation concerns).
A lunar space elevator might be a nice project. But in the end, the moon is a really harsh environment, the resources it has are hard to get at, and it, too, has just too much gravity.
The environment isn't that harsh; it's 3 days away (super-close in celestial terms), and there's no annoying atmosphere, and just enough gravity so that we can operate on it without having to invent all-new methods for every simple little thing. But the gravity is low enough that a lunar space elevator should be quite doable, unlike Earth (where the gravity is way too high so we don't have good materials with enough strength, and we have a thick atmosphere that causes all kinds of problems with such an elevator).
The proximity of moon to earth also means that remotely operated robots are a reasonable alternative to manned exploration.
I disagree entirely. For simple probing around, sure, that'll work OK, but if you want to do any really serious work, you have to have boots on the ground. Remotely-operated vehicles are *not* going to build factories, mines, etc. We do *not* have that kind of technology yet. Some heavy-equipment stuff could definitely be converted to remote-control: dump trucks, shovels, etc. But that'll only work as long as nothing goes wrong. As soon as something breaks or gets stuck, you're going to need some people there to deal with it. So you could definitely get by with a lot less manpower on-site, by operating a lot of vehicles remotely, but you'll still need some. It's just like our UAVs ("drones") used by the US military: the planes are flown remotely, I think even by people stateside, but you still have to have real people on-site in the theater to refuel them, do maintenance work, etc., when they land. It'll be the same for heavy equipment on the Moon.
I still think our primary focus should be exploration of the asteroid belt, first with robotic probes, then towing asteroids into lunar orbits, creating habitats, and finally moving out there.
We're already exploring the asteroid belt. We could stand to do more though. But there's no reason we can't get started building habitats and industrial facilities on the Moon simultaneously. We already know there's a crapload of asteroids out there with valuable ores, so we might as well prepare for using them. And we should definitely be working right away on building the technology for capturing and towing these asteroids.
No. It would make them sentient dolphins, not "non-human people".
Whatever you want to call them - do you think that they would not be entitled to, at the minimum, a right to life to the same degree as humans (i.e. killing them should be treated as murder)?
If so, then what determines who has that right and who doesn't? Sentience? But zygotes aren't sentient.
23 chromosomes is a normal number for humans, but not all humans have 23 chromosomes - Down syndrome, XYY males and XXX females etc.
Ultimately, all this is just accumulated mutations and selection of them over the course of that 6 million years of divergence. By itself, that's still a quantitative difference, not qualitative - i.e. we know that things are different, sure, but they're also different between humans on genetic level. The question is, what exactly about those missing or extra chromosomes and DNA difference is responsible for having or not having natural rights? If you could incrementally edit a chimp's genome to make it human, at which point during the process is it "human enough"?
Anyone intelligent enough to post on
Enough for what? To eventually grow a human, sure. But to be a person? I don't know.
Thus, if self-awareness is the measure of humanity/personhood, it's just as ok to "put down" an eighteen month old human as it is to kill an unwanted dog.
You're correct - i.e. logically speaking, either both are okay, or neither is okay.
Or, possibly, the definition of "person" is more extensive than self-awareness. But I still don't see why it should have anything to do with DNA makeup.
I fail to see the difference between the two.
It's because the definition of "person" is not strict, and for most people who haven't given it consideration, it's basically "I know it when I see it". However, surely you can imagine a hypothetical non-human person, even under whatever subjective definition you subscribe to? E.g. suppose we do determine that dolphins are "intelligent enough", after all, and devise means to communicate with them with a full-fledged language - would that not make them persons?
"Human", on the other hand, is defined entirely in strict biological terms. It's still not a strict definition if you consider corner cases (which extinct hominids were human and which weren't, for example? and at which point the result of our future evolution can no longer be called "human" and becomes a different species?), but for practical purposes, you can just do a DNA test.
Where did I indicate such a thing???
You indicated that natural rights belong to humans, and humans are defined by DNA. I don't see why such differentiation by DNA is fundamentally different from differentiating within homo sapiens sapiens by DNA; the only difference is degree. Just as you can determine the difference between humans and chimps by comparing their genes, so you can determine the difference between different human populations by looking at some genetic markers or others (and yes, there are some that correlate pretty well with black skin, for example).
And don't pretend like the fact that one case straddles species boundary and the other one doesn't makes a huge difference - "species" themselves are a rather arbitrary human construct stemming from our desire to neatly label and categorize everything, but nature doesn't really care about such things. If you want to talk about objective facts, you'll have to show a difference in quality rather than quantity of differences (or demonstrate that some quantity is a threshold meaningful for some reason other than "because I said so").
It is relevant, because with it you boil the argument down to objective facts instead of philosophical and socio-political arguments.
You can't boil the argument down without agreeing on what the argument is about. This particular one is whether personhood or humanity is the defining factor for possessing natural rights, including right to life. Yes, if you arbitrarily resolve this question in favor of humanity, then you can boil it down to objective facts - DNA etc. But that first decision is arbitrary, and not everyone agrees to it.
I'm not gonna click that link but, knowing you, that'd better be the band.
Nah, see it was just a laugh from a cartoon. You're probably too sophisticated to know the reference, but a stupid cartoon full of dirty jokes is right in my intellectual wheelhouse.
Old programmers never die, they just branch to a new address.