Slashdot: News for Nerds


Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!



Google Wave Now Open To All

neutralstone Re:WTF? (180 comments)

Well God never said cussing was a sin. You just can't use his name in vain.

Funny; I tend to think of the word "god" as being a title rather than a name. It's like "lord", "captain", "sir", "lieutenant", etc. By contrast, *names* of gods include "Aphrodite", "Loki", "Yahweh", "Kal-El", "Amaterasu", etc.

I was going to put "Papa Smurf" in the second list when I realized that's not a proper name either.

That's right: Papa Smurf. Bow down and praise him, bitches!

more than 4 years ago

After DNA Misuse, Researchers Banished From Havasupai Reservation

neutralstone Re:Interesting... (332 comments)

excellent. i'm sick of these richard dawkins-types who condescendingly think they have all the answers.

Those types never said they have all answers. (But if you have a counterexample, I would be willing to stand corrected.) And the answers that they do have tend to be pretty well substantiated. Take for example the establishment of common ancestry by comparisons of genomes. But do not mistake the kind of confidence that results from a firm grip on a specific subject for a delusion of omniscience. Also note that these people tend to promote a willingness to change their own opinions when new evidence challenges said opinions.

i'm native myself, and a bit of an animist by choice, as well as a firm believer in science...but who are you to tell me i'm wrong?

What harm do you think is done by calling bullshit? Do you think it's worse than the harm that may result from failing to face up to the nature of reality implied by observable evidence, and if so, why?

more than 4 years ago

iPad Is a "Huge Step Backward"

neutralstone Re:Dear FSF (1634 comments)

It's not defective, RMS et al: it's a CHOICE. You purport to like choice, but no one believes you anymore. Many consumers don't care, and even LIKE, the idea of being locked in to the App Store, because it introduces a significant amount of safety.

So, apparently you think the choice is between (1) being able to download software from Apple's app store and (2) having software distributed directly by 3rd parties to users (as with desktop PCs). Why not give each user the power to decide whether they will choose only (1) or only (2) or both (1) and (2)? Part of the FSF's point is that Apple has taken away some of the user's power of choice.

more than 4 years ago

Novelist Blames Piracy On Open Source Culture

neutralstone Re:So a question for you (494 comments)

If we leave 1 intact, intellectual works have a far greater benefit to everyone. The challenge is to come up with a way to satisfy 3, without harming 1 and 2. The free-market solution to problems like this is to allow market participants to come up with innovative solutions. Those that solve the problem best stand to make the most profit, so there is incentive.

To me it seems you assume it's possible, under your proposed scenario, for a viable solution to exist for most copyright holders. To many of us it is not obvious that this is the case and it feels natural to assume differently.

IMO, the current system is *close* to being workable for all (or most) parties; the main problem, as I see it, is that the duration of exclusive rights has effectively become infinite when, in the age of instant global distribution, it should probably be no more than something like ten years. (And there are probably a lot of special cases that could reasonably trigger either instant release into Public Domain or a small extension of copyright.)

Also, I think you're missing an item in your list:

4. The probability of creation of a valuable intellectual work is multiplied by the extent to which the would-be creator(s) have a fair opportunity to be compensated for the act of creation.

Note that this sort of feeds into item 2: no one can benefit from a work if it's never created in the first place. So whatever we do, we really, really need something better than your personal faith in the market's ability to heal all that ails. Obviously, the market provides a lot of nice solutions to a lot of problems. I like the market for that reason. But the market does not---cannot---solve every problem. To assume that it can seems akin to assuming that natural selection *necessarily* leads to the "higher functions" of humanity (e.g. language, music, etc.) when in fact it's entirely possible for natural selection to lead many species into extinction. (And reflect on the fact that the vast majority of branches on the tree of life do not reach the present day.) So please do not underestimate the potential of the market to screw people over.

more than 4 years ago

Novelist Blames Piracy On Open Source Culture

neutralstone Re:The real story should be. . . (494 comments)

Why do I care if someone is irrationally terrified of something?

Because the set of all irrationally terrified people includes voters and some (if not most) of the policy-makers that said voters elect. It is therefore in everyone's interest for better-informed people to demonstrate and make clear the cases where an imagined threat is either (a) not real or (b) not severe enough to warrant action. And those demonstrations must be delivered to the general public, and they must come as earl early and often as possible and grab as much attention as possible.

This is part of the reason why Sagan wrote The Demon-Haunted World.

more than 4 years ago

"Miraculous" Stem Cell Progress Reported In China

neutralstone Re:Embyonic vs. Adult. (429 comments)

Ok; so why do you buy into the idea that "I" was a "complete human being" at the point of genotype establishment? What are the foundations of that assertion? What evidence would you cite?

BTW JeanPaulBob, I'm not really asking about biology here; I'm asking about the foundations of why you think the life of a zygote is worth as much as the life of an adult. And merely stating that the would-be adult and the zygote have the same genotype isn't a satisfying answer. And citing the survival needs of the zygote isn't a satisfying answer. There are some drastic practical differences in form and function between zygote and infant, and I'd like to know why those differences shouldn't matter, because there's tons of evidence (particularly from neuroscience) indicating that they *do* matter .

more than 5 years ago

"Miraculous" Stem Cell Progress Reported In China

neutralstone Re:Embyonic vs. Adult. (429 comments)

And I don't buy the idea that at any of the stages of your development, you were less than a human organism, or that there's any distinction between human organism and human being, or between human being and "person with rights to be protected".

Ok; so why do you buy into the idea that "I" was a "complete human being" at the point of genotype establishment? What are the foundations of that assertion? What evidence would you cite?

Every time in the past that people have accepted such distinctions, we've come to realize the horror of what we were allowing, endorsing, or even praising.

Regardless of definitions of "human being", "person", and so on: I don't understand what you're talking about. What "horror"? Please describe the nature of suffering that results (potentially or actually) from the destruction of a blastocyst. Or if that's not possible, please explain why you think the horror you mention has some actual referent outside your imagination.

I'm asking because I don't merely want to verbally tear into right-to-lifers; I honestly want to understand where you're coming from, and so far your position doesn't make sense to me, and I don't even see how it makes sense to you.

Also: I recognize that you don't agree with my position (briefly: "components of brain clearly generate components of the mind; therefore 'no brain' strongly indicates 'no person', for some definition of 'person' that includes the existence of emotions, impulses, perceptions and the like"). But do you at least understand how it makes sense to me?

more than 5 years ago

"Miraculous" Stem Cell Progress Reported In China

neutralstone Re:A Dying Breed (429 comments)

Or perhaps that was kind of your point? I.e. that the original idea of 'soul' grew out of a culture that knew practically nothing about biology, so we should expect the 'soul injection' argument to make little sense. It would be like trying to graft ancient peoples' beliefs involving the Greek god Helios onto what astrophysicists are now able to tell us about the solar system.

more than 5 years ago

"Miraculous" Stem Cell Progress Reported In China

neutralstone Re:A Dying Breed (429 comments)

Ok; if one is into mythology I guess that's interesting, but I don't see how it's relevant to the topic being discussed.

more than 5 years ago

"Miraculous" Stem Cell Progress Reported In China

neutralstone Re:A Dying Breed (429 comments)

As regards soul, the greco-roman ideal was that there was an ethereal substance, soul. I don't know when they thought it arrived at the body. Hebrew (language of OT) word for soul literally meant 'that which breathes' Also, blood is equated with soul in OT.

I was not aware of the supposed equivalence to blood. :-)

I wonder if you don't mind answering me this, what, other than nourishment, oxygen, and protection (albeit in relatively unorthodox ways), does a living (as in respiring) blastocyst or embryo or fetus need from anything?

I don't know the answer; sorry. I Am Not A Developmental Biologist.

In answer to your further questions in other posts about gametes, no human beings have 1/2 genetic code of any other human beings. However, AFAIK the zygote that became "NeutralStone" had the exact same DNA that you do now.

What differentiates Humans from other great Apes? Our DNA. When does that happen? At fertilization.

Sorry; did you mean to ask, "When does *DNA* happen?" If so then I don't understand your question. I do recognize fertilization as the point where my present-day genotype was established, and since I have no twin, I understand that my genotype is unique. I also understand that my genotype resulted from a kind of fusion of chromosomes from my parents' gametes.

Were you just checking to make sure of all that? :-) Was there some point you wanted to make?

more than 5 years ago

"Miraculous" Stem Cell Progress Reported In China

neutralstone Re:Embyonic vs. Adult. (429 comments)

Unless I misread the article. It seems they found a way to make Adult Stem Cells behave like embryonic stem cells. The moral issue of Stem Cells isn't the Stem Cells but the fact that if you needed Embryonic Stem Cells you needed to Abort/Terminate/Kill/(whatever verb you think best describes the process) the fetus.

Be careful with the terms! A fetus is *never* involved in *embryonic* stem cell research. Instead, blastocysts are employed.

more than 5 years ago

"Miraculous" Stem Cell Progress Reported In China

neutralstone Re:Embyonic vs. Adult. (429 comments)

An embryo left in a Petri dish has the same chance to develop into an adult as an newborn infant abandoned in the woods. It's already a "human". It doesn't need to develop into one. It's a human organism--as opposed to sperm or unfertilized eggs, which are part of a human organism. (Even outside the body, it's still a "part" in the same way that a heart outside the body is a "part".) All it needs is nourishment and friendly environment--while sperm is a body part that has to combine with another body part in order to form a new organism.

So, for a moment let's set aside uses of the term "human", since different people want to use different definitions and that's confusing.

Are you saying that a sperm cell should not be regarded as having rights because it's not able to grow into an adult without coming into contact with an egg?

In that case, it seems you have a similar problem with blastocysts: *they* don't grow into later-state embryos (let alone adults) if they fail to bind to the uterine wall (and that failure naturally happens quite often). What is it about the difference between:

  • the sperm's dependence on the egg and
  • the blastocyst's dependence on the uterus

that it causes you to see one as "deserving rights" and not the other?

more than 5 years ago

"Miraculous" Stem Cell Progress Reported In China

neutralstone Re:A Dying Breed (429 comments)

And the anti-ESCR crowd objects to said destruction because...well it's not clear. I gather that some of them think a "soul" is injected into a zygote at the moment of its formation. (Of course, the meaning of that sentence hinges on what you think a "soul" is, and I rarely get a satisfactory definition out of religious types.)

Perhaps it's based on the idea that all human beings should be protected the same way, regardless of size or level of development?

If you want the definition of the term "human being" to include blastocysts, would you also want gametes included?

If not: why not? Is it merely that each sperm and each egg only has half the genetic material of the organism that produced it? But in that case why didn't you take the position that a human being should be protected even if it only has half the genes of more "developed" human beings? [Note, I normally do not regard sperm or egg cells as human beings.]

If so: how about the cells that produced the gametes? How about skin cells? If someone gives you a paper cut, have they committed genocide?

Why is "possessing neurons" the criterion?

Because without neurons, there's none of the kind of information processing that makes a person: no concepts, no dreams, no emotion, no "instinct", no impulses, no more capacity for suffering---or for anything else---than a colony of bacteria, no perception of any kind---nothing.

(At this point some people like to say that there is *potential* for the blastocyst to grow into something else that has the biological machinery for those things. And while that is true it is somehow not compelling. Does each *potential* life have an *inalienable right* to be made *actual*? I don't know of any reasonable way to answer "yes" to that question.)

For the purpose of deciding whether a given entity has some inalienable universal right, we have to draw the line somewhere. Maybe someday we *will* recognize each bacterium as deserving said rights, and presumably around that time it would be consistent to do the same with each cell in a blastocyst. Until then, I think it's ok to say that "someone" isn't human if "they" don't have at least one iota of the hardware that makes it possible for the rest of us to exhibit the things that make us human.

The capacity to feel pain? (So if we kill someone after applying anaesthesia or while they're asleep, is that OK?)

No, it's not ok. The difference is that there's an *actual* person there (and not just a *potential* person). Not only does that entity have the *capacity* for all those wonderful mental activities, *it's actually doing many of them every minute of every day*, even while sleeping. (Though we tend not to notice the latter as much. But talk to your local neuroscientist who specializes in sleep studdies; it's fascinating stuff.) Besides: your hypothetical someone also probably wanted to go on living. That's another thing that sets him/her apart from the blastocyst out of which that person grew.

You think that while we're still developing the capacity to think, our rights are still "developing"?

I don't know. There may be a time (say, when we really understand the nature of consciousness) when our understanding permits us to apply more fine-grained rules. For now, for practical purposes, all of us demand *some* kind of boundary (whether stark or gradual, early or late) between "deserving rights" and "not deserving rights". So for now I could be content to say an embryo "deserves full rights" as soon as it has a brain (even though a housefly might have a larger and more complex brain). I'm totally open to reevaluating that stance however.

You want to classify human beings into "human beings that are persons" and "human beings that aren't".

I suppose that depends on what you think "human being" means and what you think "person" means. :-)

You want to say, "Unless you've finished developing this or that function in your body, you're not a human person yet."

That's basically correct. Would you say that you don't? Or perhaps you would pretend not to by assuming a definition of "body" that excludes sperm and egg cells but not zygotes? If so, what is the basis for that exclusion?

Won't somebody please think of the gametes? :-)

(It could be argued that life never "begins" (at least, not for any individual "human being"): life can also be seen as a continuum of ever-shuffling genes where a zygote is just a *continuation* of sperm and egg, which in turn are continuations of the cells that created them, and so on, backward in time to the first replicating molecule billions of years ago.)

more than 5 years ago

"Miraculous" Stem Cell Progress Reported In China

neutralstone Re:A Dying Breed (429 comments)

It's destruction of embryos.

While technically true, the term "embryo" can be misleading: it could lead some to think that the thing being destroyed is something close to a fetus---i.e., something with a central nervous system and a beating heart. But typically, "Embryonic stem cell research" only involves the destruction of a blastocyst. We're talking about a tiny cluster of cells that has *no neurons*. (If left to grow into a late-stage embryo then some of the cells in a blastocyst will have been the *distant ancestors* of the first neurons.)

And the anti-ESCR crowd objects to said destruction because...well it's not clear. I gather that some of them think a "soul" is injected into a zygote at the moment of its formation. (Of course, the meaning of that sentence hinges on what you think a "soul" is, and I rarely get a satisfactory definition out of religious types.)

But if there is such a thing as a human soul---loosely defined here as the mind of a person---then findings in neuroscience seem to suggest that a human soul is something generated by a human brain. In that case a common housefly would have greater capacity to bear a soul than a blastocyst, because at least a housefly has a brain!

So while I recognize that the anti-ESCR crowd has some deep emotional feelings about this, I also feel that the respect paid to them by policy-makers was not earned legitimately. How could it have been? The foundation of their argument is superstition.

more than 5 years ago

Texas Vote May Challenge Teaching of Evolution

neutralstone Re:I've never understood (1306 comments)

I've never understood why religious folk have such a hard time with evolution. I mean, can't they just say "okay, fine, evolution is the process, and God is the architect". Far as I can see, that kind of solves it.

It's a solution. But it may not be a terribly satisfying one for devotees of any particular mythology: it implies that the architect could be infinitely lazy (and effectively indifferent to suffering)---almost as if the architect *isn't there at all*. Consider that modern Darwinian evolution explains the origin of all known forms of life. That means that, in order for complex life to come into existence, divine intervention is not required. It also means that if divine intervention *did* happen, then it happened in such a way as to be indistinguishable from natural phenomena.

To people who were brought up to believe in the resurrection of Jesus or the flying horse of Mohammed, that can be a hard pill to swallow, because if a *seemingly* miraculous phenomenon (like the existence a complex organism) is actually best explained through natural events *without* conscious design, then it means that the god that such people believe in---i.e., a god who performs miracles in order to make desirable things happen---doesn't *necessarily* exist. So then a religious person is faced with the idea that there might still be *a* god, but probably not the kind that performs magic tricks and talks to people.

And so if you've been praying to a personal, miracle-performing god since childhood, then the mere *idea* of a workable, rational scientific explanation for some of the biggest "miracles" (without an actual *understanding* of said explanation) could be potentially more upsetting than a death threat against a close relative. And so a natural response is denial, because otherwise you would be afraid of losing the feeling of being connected to and cared for by the universe.

(I'm not saying the religious folk are correct; I'm just saying that I consider this to be one plausible explanation for why they have a hard time with it; why they often don't even learn what Darwinian evolution is; etc.)

Another explanation probably has to do with the belief that one's personal brand of mythology was, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, dictated by the creative force of the universe to an **unerring stenographer**; and that any statement contrary to the mythology is just wrong by definition. (I still don't know why anyone would hold to that, and I would love to read more about any science on the topic.)

more than 5 years ago

"See-Through" Touchscreen Solves Fat Finger Problem

neutralstone Re:I've never heard of this before. (170 comments)

[...] If this is truly novel, nice job!

I don't know if fiction counts, but the armored helmets of the EVA suits in Planetes had this. With the visor of the helmet down, a display panel would be directly in front of the user's face; cameras mounted on the helmet would then feed images to that display, upon which a GUI (controllable by tapping on the exterior of the visor) was superimposed.

Still, it's nice to see someone demonstrating a real working artifact.

more than 5 years ago

Iron Sky Trailer

neutralstone Re:Is it a parody? Comedy? (126 comments)

Every single decent sci-fi film/show/short that I've ever seen apart from 2001 has ignored the sound propagation issue.

I think Planetes was a bit better in this regard. IIRC they tried to stick to a model where you could only hear sounds from within a vessel or suit, but in general, non-propagation was observed.

It was pretty realistic in other respects though. In the DVD extras for the English version, they even got a couple of scientists from NASA's Orbital Debris Program Office to say as much (!), with the exception that it seemed unlikely that it would be practical to generate the kind of propulsion required to do debris recovery as depicted in the anime.

Anyway, it's good scifi.

more than 6 years ago


neutralstone hasn't submitted any stories.


neutralstone has no journal entries.

Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account