Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Here it comes... (Score 1) 540

Local levels, many, and rather successfully it seems.
Federal/national level, haven't heard of any others. Key point there, "I haven't heard of any others".

Which churches/organizations other than scientology and catholics have been having non-misdemeanor legal issues?

Comment Re:Here it comes... (Score 2) 540

Well regular christians have done all that stuff for centuries, why shouldn't a newly spawned branch of christianity be any less disreputable? Yes, Mormons are Christians. So are Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, and so many others.

No, I'm not a Mormon, but I probably know a lot more than many of the posters here today. Sad, isn't it.

Comment Re:Here it comes... (Score 1) 540

It's obvious you haven't read the religious texts of either the Mormons or Scientology. I'd bet you haven't even read the bible, most christians haven't, other than select passages their preacher has them turn the page to.

And yes, the Mormons may be different, and their history is rather oddball, but scientology is just plain wackjob badly written sci-fantasy.

By the way, all of those religious texts I've mentioned are easily obtainable, and for free if you just look. Go read them.

Comment Re:Blasphemy in whose term ? (Score 1) 275

Hillary Clinton wanted (maybe still wants) to make drawings and paintings of characters that someone thinks is a minor, child pornography.

Obviously she doesn't get the reason for ban, or comprehend what a horrible can of worms she is opening by allowing prosecution based on what someone else imagines rather than something that actually happened. (Various expletives come to mind that I can't post here.)

Comment Re:Blasphemy in whose term ? (Score 1) 275

I agree. Not many atheists have been murdered for being atheists or saying things the religious fruitcakes don't like in the U.S..
I don't make any predictions on fanatics because I find them rather unpredictable, except that they do stupid and horrible things based on their own twisted interpretations of ideologies.

Comment Re:What if... (Score 4, Informative) 175

We are mostly water. As to "Fahrenheit is a scale based what is hot an cold to humans", what the $#@$% are you talking about?
Try reading
It goes over what how and why Fahrenheit set his temperature scale the way he did, and you know what, the human feelings had nothing to do with it, though the temperature of human blood was used for part of it. I find that kind of creepy, but a lot of people were obsessed about that kind of stuff in the early 1700s.

So again, Fahrenheit isn't based on what a human might think is hot or cold, it's based on some arbitrary points and scaling by it's creator. For that matter, so is the Celsius scale, but in a lesser extent because it based the whole thing on a consistent set of arbitrary stuff. (The Freezing and boiling of water broken into 100 degrees.)

Comment Re:There would be no need... (Score 2) 337

Of course, is the 'infraction' due to a software error, an emergency response to prevent a collision, or falsified to begin with?
In any of those cases, you, the owner, can easily fight it in court.

Remember, just recently a car stopped at an intersection and clearly not moving was cited for going too fast. Needless to say, the driver fought the ticket using the 'proof' from the citation that clearly showed the car not moving.

Comment Re:"didn't appear likely to pose a threat" (Score 4, Informative) 204

It's pretty much the only scientific standard available for food. Nothing is absolute, including your existence, and science recognizes that. Additionally, 'food safety' is a pretty nebulous thing once you've excluded all known toxins. Well, those fish aren't toxic, and the tests haven't found anything else more dangerous than any other salmon. As to long term effect, well, we don't really have long term effects on human consumption of any salmon other than anecdotal stuff, and on the level we interact with the salmon, it's the same as other salmon. If I gave you 10 salmon steaks and one was from a genetically modified salmon, you couldn't tell which one it was. (That's if they were raised in the same environment on the same food. Different water temps and foods can change the texture and taste of salmon, but that's environment, not genetics.)

As a side note, I like mentioning corn. Do you really think our corn is 'natural'? Have you seen corn from a thousand years ago? I have, it looks like wheat. What we call corn now is a fast growing freakishly huge form that was created by the form of genetic manipulation techniques known as hybridization and selective breeding.

If you're afraid of eating something just because it's genetics have been changed, you had better stop eating commercial food because pretty much everything we grow and raise has been genetically modified. It's just those were done by slower and less accurate means in the past. It was a method that has even more unintended alterations than genetic engineering and also has to be repeated many many times in an attempt to target the specific change desired while attempting to weed out some of the unintended ones that were introduced at the same time. If you don't believe me, that's fine, go look up breeding and hybridization, you'll find haphazard and unregulated it actually is.
Now if you have a problem with something specific, like a pesticide being produced by the crop, then you might have something worth looking into. Of course, does it express in the part we eat? How do the quantities compare to 'normal' food we buy? (They get pesticide too, and in larger quantities. How much is still there after you take the food home and have washed it?) Of course, if you are just afraid because something is a 'frankenfood', your fears are baseless and I have to wonder if you enjoyed dying in your zombie apocalypse a few days ago?

Sorry about my post being a bit disorganized and rushed, I have to hurry up and get some last minute stuff done that just came up. Have fun, and don't have a staring contest with your food, even if the food started it. :)

Comment Re:No harm done (Score 1) 630

I read an ancient piece of sci-fi that has a future society where every adult is armed and expected to be able to fight. Duels are common. For those that are abject cowards, or those that are deemed incapable of fighting or are restricted from it for some reason (pregnant women, the physically disabled, the sick, etc.) wear a special item that clearly identifies their status, they are not allowed to carry a weapon, and must always defer to the fighting capable. If they pick up a weapon though, they become fare game and subject to harsh penalties from the law, assuming they survive. As a side note, it's considered honorable and just to defend those incapable of fighting from unjust treatment, though there's a huge difference between what's considered appropriate for a pregnant woman vs a complete coward.

Sorry I can't remember the name, but like I said, it was really old. (Now that's going to bug me for weeks until I dig up that name.)

Comment Re:Hillbilly regions and their conspiracy theories (Score 4, Insightful) 223

Of course since they remain a viable reservoir of the virus, it can and will continue to attempt to expand beyond their borders.
They are a viral cesspool that threatens to infect everyone.
Ok, that was a bit dramatic, but the point is, you can't leave a viable infectious reservoir if you want to eradicate a disease.
Look at smallpox. There was a massive campaign to inoculate everyone on the planet. The got pretty close to that goal, and no area was left untouched. Now, the only smallpox you are going to see are the samples still held by certain organizations. Most of the doctors and scientists want even those samples eradicated, but a few fools have been preventing that for over a decade. (I could list why their excuses are invalid, but this isn't the place.)
They are just trying to do the same thing with polio. This can only be effectively done with diseases that reside exclusively in humans.

Ok, some people are going with the Star Trek Prime Directive excuse. In Next Gen and later, the wimps writing for them interpreted it as a total hands off let them suffer version. In the original series, it was a don't mess with their development kind of thing. Curing a plague was ok, so was evacuating a doomed planet. On the other hand, you don't set yourself up as gods, provide them with advanced tech or science, or force a non-space faring planet into the federation.
In the New stuff, they'd totally let everyone suffer and die, and then wring their hands metaphorically and congratulate themselves on not interfering in the development of another culture.
In the Old stuff, they'd have provided a vaccine and aided in it's distribution and then congratulate themselves on saving vast numbers of peoples lives among the primitive culture, and making it possible for them to continue to develop on their own.

Yes, I watched a lot of Star Trek when I was younger.

One of the problems some people are overlooking is that vaccinations need to go to the people, the people can't really go to the vaccines, or at least not the distances and locations that would be required if they had to go to the major cities. Few people have the kind of transportation necessary, and leaving your own area, ESPECIALLY if you are a tribal, it is an immediate and large risk to your survival and well being. It would be great if the government would provide security escorts for the aid workers, but again, it's not going to work in the boonies out there. Some tribal territories would consider that a hostile act, and either not cooperate, or actually try to kill everyone involved.
As to the CIA thing, I hadn't heard of it, and am somewhat doubtful without further documentation. On the other hand, that's the kind of bullshit the CIA is know for doing, even though I'm pretty sure it's against international law. Even if it isn't against international law, it is a horribly stupid thing to do as it will put all humanitarian aid personnel and projects in jeopardy for years if not decades. It's something no intelligent, rational, or ethical person would do. In other words, right up spy alley.

As to the Taliban, they've already proven they'll say and do anything to force people to follow and obey their power. They have proven themselves to the world to be irrational unreasoning scum of the worst sort. They don't want outsiders in their territories and will happily lie, steal, cheat, and kill to get their way.

Comment Re:Human cloning is a gimmick. (Score 5, Insightful) 233

I wouldn't say 'slight differences'. Even raised in the same environment, and sharing many of the same experiences, identical twins are not identical. Nobody would argue that they are two different people.
Obviously a clone may share appearances with their DNA donor, but would have a totally different environment and experiences. They would probably be nothing alike outside of their overall appearance.

Saying that parents could replace a dead offspring is a horrible and deceitful thing to say. The clone would be a new person that only looked like the dead one. The parents would be torturing themselves by having a constant reminder of the dead child in the image of a new one that definitely isn't the prior one. As to the poor clone, it would be always having to live up to the expectations others have based on a dead child. You thought you had a problem living in the shadow of your older siblings, just imagine the horror of living in the shadow of a dead child you were cloned from.;

I'm not against cloning, but it needs to be done for the correct reason, and people need to understand that the clones are new individuals that have nothing to do with their donor other than sharing a genetic heritage, just like you. You see, you are essentially a hybrid clone derived from 2 donors. It's not an exact analogy, but it's close enough. Kind of funny how that works out.

Slashdot Top Deals