Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Star cloning controversy (Score 1) 111

Depending on where this has occurred, they may very well be nailed for child support. It has happened with one time that I've heard of, though they weren't famous and it wasn't a clone, just a normal IVF. If I remember right, there was some controversy over the sperm and it not being intended for fertilization purposes.

Comment Re:I see .... (Score 2) 111

As a clone would be an infant with normal growth & aging, it would still be a very long time before she's legal. (Exact time depends on local laws. I believe the US is 18 years of age, so with the 9 months gestation, close to 19 years, assuming you weren't already caught and thrown in jail.)
Why do so many people think clones are a copy of a person, that's instantly adult and has all their memories? I vote for stupidity.

Comment It is legal - however (Score 1) 285

(ianal) There have been court decisions that make media shifting very specifically legal. The main problem for US consumers is that it does nothing about the issues of breaking DRM to make your media shifted file. I don't know if the files you got in Australia were protected by DRM or if breaking it to media shift is legal there or not.

Of course there are two more points to look out for:

First of all, the customs agents, tsa, and anybody else, have no idea how you got those files, and it's extremely doubtful they'll ask.

Second, if they get a wild hair or just don't like you, they'll jack you up for fun. They are total assholes about that, despite what the law and their own regulations say. You can't trust them with anything.
Even before they became as psychotic as they are now, this was years ago, one of the agents almost destroyed a $700 program because the dumbfuck slid open the protective slider on a 3.5" disk and was about to touch the recording material itself. I yelled him up one side and down the other, grabbed my disks from him and stalked off leaving him dumbfounded and shellshocked. If that were to happen these days, I'm sure I'd be locked in a small hole somewhere without a trial.

As a side note here, yes, there are reasonable, responsible, and rational people working for both customs and the tsa. The problem is there aren't enough of those types, and we still have to put up with the jackboot thugs with an inflated sense of authority and no respect for the laws.

Wow, I'm in a bitchy mood this morning

Comment To what purpose (Score 5, Insightful) 163

Once upon a time, I'd always heard that those types of gag orders were to prevent the individuals under investigation from being alerted so they couldn't hide evidence or flee, and I'm not opposed to that.
These days it seems to be more of a political move for the purposes of avoiding oversight and preventing the authorities from being charged with illegal, or at least immoral and unethical, activities.

Comment Re:Copies are not you! (Score 1) 383

If it's a perfect mental copy, you wouldn't even be able to tell the difference, nor could anyone else. At that point, if the copy is indistinguishable from the original, is it really a copy?
Other than philosophy, the answer is no, it's no longer a copy, rather they are both undifferentiated duplicates of each other. Sure the body is no longer biological, but society has been moving to the concept that the self is the mind not the body for a very long time. Otherwise all the fiction about body swaps would be rather different.

Now will they start out with perfect copies? Of course not, but they have to start somewhere. Will people go for this even if it's not perfect? Oh hell yes they will, especially the desperate. The idea that even a part of themselves would remain is very alluring to a lot of people. Less people would be willing if the 'scanning process' destroyed the original, but there would still be plenty queuing up.

Legal ramifications can get tricky, especially if the original biological remained viable. Suddenly there's two of you. Now that looks like a legal nightmare for most people and a lawyers wet dream.

Now there is one more point people always get around to bringing up when it comes to this kind of thing. The soul. Ok, fine. There is no proof that the soul exists, so science can't do a damn thing about that. There will be those that claim the android will be without a soul. But as this is all faith and belief with no way to detect test or verify anything, there's no reason not to assume that the soul will remain with the mind no matter what form the body takes, and for that matter, if you have both the android and the bio still viable, maybe a soul would be both adaptable and existential enough to encompass all of itself, despite now having multiple bodies. You don't believe in souls, no problem. If you do, maybe you should just assume that your god is smarter than you are and designed a system that would handle this situation without issue.

And yes, I have thought about this subject before, as I'm sure most people that have contemplated the man machine singularity have.

Comment Re:Ah Slashdot: Reap what you sow (Score 4, Insightful) 480

Basically he's like the architect and builder of a beautiful building, and was bragging about it to a prospective employer, to suddenly find out some asshat that got hired to do maintenance after he left changed the dedication plaque and blueprints to have his name instead.

Comment Re:Ah Slashdot: Reap what you sow (Score 1) 480

Some people have.
Often they later cancel their ISP, burn their modem or router, and then throw their computer off a cliff.

Of course if their therapist later coaxes them onto the internet at some point, they make sure that whatever they download isn't something infected by the sheep weevil.

Comment Re:email leak (Score 1) 476

The scientists have no ability to profit from Global Warming, to the contrary, since big business and so many politicians want it to be a fairy tale, or at least ignored, anyone saying it exists and has the data to prove it knowingly puts turns themselves into a target.

Those emails, when reviewed in their entirety, show nothing wrong with the data collection and processing, nor with the conclusions of the climatologists. Of course to those who don't understand the specifics, or worse, do understand but wants to hide it, a half assed deception using partial and out of context quotes can easily manipulate many people. This has been proven time and time again, just look at Fox 'News' viewers.

As to any scientific field wide conspiracy, it'll never happen, and by the very nature of the process of peer review and competition to discover or publish, can't happen. Unlike political parties, the largest group of scientists that can work together to pull one over is a single research group. (Size of research groups vary, but are never very large.) No scientific field is comprised of only one group. And because of this, even if a group tried to fake something, the others would find out and blow the whistle. Happens all the time, though most of them I've heard about with fake research or conclusions have been with Chinese and North Korean claims. For that matter, those charlatans were outed by the rest of the world scientists pretty much immediately. The B.S. detectors worked right off the bat, but it took a week or two for the denouncements to get published because it takes time to write them, have enough research backing it up to prove your point, and getting it published. On the other hand, factless B.S., or baseless B.S. can be spewed out as fast as con man, err, Fox News Anchor can read the teleprompter.

Have you ever heard someone say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."?
Scientists work, live, and breath that very credo. To violate it is anathema to their entire way of thinking. That's not to say a few don't go nuts for some reason and violate it, but to a scientist that kind of stuff is like a mass murderer. They have to be stopped as quickly as possible, and it's a good thing that such a minuscule percentage of the populace (way less than 1%) ever does such atrocities.
Media Personalities and Politicians rarely if ever follow that credo. They spew lies, misrepresentations, and obfuscations like Niagra Falls does water. So tell me, who are you going to trust on matters of science? Someone that has a vested interest and ethics in being correct, no matter how embarrassing it might be, or someone that could care less about the truth, but wants to manipulate things to gain more power, money, and influence, if not all three.

Also, don't forget, the scientists study their fields for many years. How long do you think politicians, pundits, or other media types study those same fields?
So if you for some reason think the non-scientists know more about a scientific field than it's scientists, then I would suggest that the next time you need surgery, don't dare go to a surgeon, go find an auto-mechanic or airline host and have them do your surgery, after all, by your reasoning, they must know more than the trained expert.

Comment Re:it's going to fail (Score 4, Insightful) 307

It's not a suggestion that male names are superior, it's a means to strengthen familial bonds.
A primary result (intended or otherwise) of couples has always been reproduction.
The lineage of the Mother is never in doubt.
If the father has his name attached to said resulting offspring, and the assurances of the Mother that the child is his, he will usually accept that it is and help support both the child and the mother. Otherwise, there is a much lower rate of acceptance and fathers (or possible fathers) will leave them claiming it's another males child.
Strangely enough, this has been studied. I read a science article on it about a month or two ago.
No, I am not a sociologist or anything, but the info is out there, you just have to look for it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never keep up with the Joneses. Drag them down to your level. -- Quentin Crisp

Working...