VincePetaccio

Quote

I'm trying to understand why folks think that the immediate results of an egg and a sperm uniting are a human being?

I don't. I really, really don't. I don't think abortion is a great idea, but emphatically think it should be legal, particularly in the first 4 months or so. Yes, 4.

But I'm interested in why people think it is a full-on human being. But reasons, not just assertions.

Wendy P.

As soon as the two meet, they form a unique piece of life, that is NOT the same as the parent.

The zygote presents meeting all seven traits of the biological definition of life:

1. Homeostasis- Zygotes are able to regulate their internal environment within their own external environment (remember that "internal" and "external" are relative terms).

2. Organization- A developing zygote displays high levels of developmental organization. Doesn't take much explanation.

3. Metabolism- The zygote is able to metabolize substrates to create energy and lyse the resulting products.

4. Growth- Again, pretty straight forward.

5. Adaptation- The developing zygote is able to adapt to changes in its environment. Consider the situation of twins, in which two zygotes must compete for physical space and resources, or changes in pH in the uterus.

6. Response to stimuli- A zygote will respond to stimuli (primarily chemical in the early stages), and a fetus will respond physically to physical stimuli.

7. Reproduction- Each cell in the newly formed zygote is able to reproduce (otherwise the zygote would not become a fetus). This blows a bit of a hole in the idea that birth defines the creation of a human- a newborn baby is not able to reproduce. Nor are the germ cells that must meet in order to form the zygote. Therefore, it is the joining of the sperm and the egg that complete the biological definition of life.

In terms of uniqueness, it is not until the sperm meets the egg that a unique set of DNA is formed in the new zygote.

Take it or leave it, whatever your stance on abortion or stem cell research, I'd say this is a fairly strong case for calling a zygote (or some later developmental stage) a human.

Quote

So what would you propose to do? Publish everything and let people vote on what can stay secret and what can't?
Yep, that'll work.
Thank God the decision isn't up to you and your kind.

You raise a valid point: it would not work. It would be a dismal mess, resulting in huge disaster.

I think the disconnect here between you and I is that you seem to be viewing this as how we can change the current system to work better. Clearly if the CIA instituted an open-door policy, the results would be disastrous for our nation.

I'm viewing it as how the system should be, and what a good system would look like. In a perfect world, our foreign policies would eliminate the need for secrecy, our communications would be appropriate for release, and we wouldn't need to have secrets at all. In this case, then an open-door policy at the CIA would not only work, but would probably not be very interesting to many people.

Of course, this isn't a perfect world, and the CIA will never have an open-door policy. But hey, I can dream, can't I?

Quote

Quote

I think there needs to be some oversight. In theory, Congress has oversight over the Executive Branch through the Intelligence Committee and other channels. In reality, Congress seems to let the Executive do whatever it wants.
.
.
.
If this sort of think has been done to avoid paying out death settlements, think what else has been covered up by claiming state secrets?

I get the feeling that you are not going to get many rebuttals here.
Good stuff.

My only problem is finding someone trustworthy enough to BE that oversight of the hen house.
They're ALL foxes.

Perhaps it should be the people. In fact, I think that's the (general) idea of WL.

Where does this need you speak of come into play? I'm asking out of pure curiosity and a desire to understand; I'm not implying that there is no need.

Quote

So...whose side do you stand with? Your country? Or the POS who leaked thousands of your countries confidential comminucations wih other countries?

I haven't read much else of this thread after this comment (sorry for whack-a-moling), but I really need to comment on this.

There is a distinct difference between standing for your country and supporting the actions of its leaders. It is not only our right, but our duty to challenge and question those who make the decisions in our nation. They represent the people, and are subject to their will. If their actions are not transparent, how can we know that they are fulfilling their duties?

Maybe transparency wouldn't be such an issue if we could trust our leaders. Clearly, though, we cannot.

It doesn't take much to turn shadiness into corruption. And when the US turns into one of a few "hot-right-now" African nations, you'll be on the side supporting the tyrant.

Quote

So you personally would not own or use guns, but you support other's rights to do ao and oppose government infringing on those rights - is that correct?

If so you would seem to be a libertarian who has chosen not to exercise a particular right. As a libertarian, I would respect your individual chose, as long as it remains a personal choice. Don't try to force it on anyone else and we are good.

That's correct.

I don't recall forcing it on anybody else. So. I guess we are good.

ALLRIGHTIGOTMYCOFFEEANDIAMFEELINGCAFFEINATEDANDREADYTOTAKEONTHERESTOFTHEDAY.

NOTIMETOSTOPFORTHESPACEBARHAVETOBEPRODUCTIVE.

uh oh.

UH OH!

Day is dragging on... energy levels dropping... NEED KAWFY

Quote

Quote

I'm "anti-gun." But I'm also a libertarian

then you are not really a libertarian.

"Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of expression and action. Libertarianism includes diverse philosophies and organizations; all advocate either minimization or elimination of the state, and a goal of maximizing individual liberty and freedom."

"The Libertarian Party supports legalization and elimination of government control over drugs, pornography, prostitution, gambling, homosexuality, opposes censorship, and supports right to keep and bear arms."

You may CALL yourself a Libertarian, but that does not mean you are one.

I generally hesitate to use the term "sorry, you're wrong," because I feel like a jerk, but...

Sorry, you're wrong.

I do believe that the government should have no part of gun control. I do support the right to bear arms.

Its guns and their use that I don't support. Note that I'm not saying that I oppose them. What others do with their rights (or, more in line with individual liberties, absence of restrictions of freedom) is up to them. For me, I don't plan on using guns; I truly believe that I can stay safe and secure without using them, and don't really see the enjoyment in killing other living things by hunting. If others feel differently, then there should be nothing stopping them from practicing safe, responsible, considerate gun use.

Supporting the right to bear arms is not the same as supporting the use of arms.

Quote

So not a coffee person but once in awhile. I really wish that I did like it more than I do though. I could really use a get up and go right now. Been up since 330 stressing about a research paper I have to write tonight.

I never drank coffee before two years ago. The aromatic scent of coffee roasting eventually wore away at me, and now I am, more or less, an addict.

Who wants to help me invent the coffee patch?

Quote

Just out of curiosity, what facts do you base that opinion on?
You certainly are entitled to your opinions, but I have yet to see any accurate or rational reasoning that supports that particular opinion.
Please don't tell me the "43 times more likely" myth.

I won't disagree that they can be misused, and that misuse causes a lot of misery.

But the number of guns that are misused is a very small percentage of all guns out there. Even the number of guns that are actually used to prevent/stop crime is a small percentage of all the guns out there (although a larger percentage than those used in crimes).

If they are unnecessary and only lead to bad, why do cops, security guards, soldiers, etc carry them?

To respond to your post in an upside-down fashion, I'll answer your last question first, by asking you a question: if criminals, insurgents, etc did not have guns, would cops, security guards, soldiers etc carry them? I don't believe that there would be a need to.

Of course, one could argue that they would still carry guns to protect themselves from other weapons (knifes, "shanks," icicles, rabid chipmunks, etc), but then they would be carrying weapons whose lethality potentially exceeded that of those from whom they are protecting themselves, a scenario which does not exist currently.

If this ideal (in my mind) situation DID play out, though, I'm sure the next big debate would be knife rights, then shank rights, then icicle rights, then rabid chipmunk rights.

So I suppose that my opinion on the issue comes down to my view of the world and those who inhabit it. I'm a deontologicalist- I value intentions over outcomes. I believe in the good of mankind. I'm an idealist.

Would I like to see guns as weapons (hunting, etc is another issue in my mind) erased from our society? Absolutely. But do I think it will ever happen? Absolutely not.

Well, there is certainly something to be said about logos that "just look cool"- they catch the eye and are usually pretty memorable!

Sounds like you've got some pretty interesting connections to the other logos, too. If nothing else, maybe they could be conversation starters.

Quote

that's closer than most get to an individualistic perspective

if you replace "as a whole" with "for me" ('as a whole' is none of my business)
delete "may" (who am I you to give permission to another's opinions)
and just delete "and I'm open to that" (being 'open' to another's position is also none of my business - what am I really judging?)

If we do that, we have a serious winner.

But, take note, you would be considered a "pro gun nutjob" with your position by the anti-gun types here and most places.

By "as a whole," I meant "in the majority of situations," and by "may," I meant "might."

By saying I'm open to it, I suppose that I mean that I'm open to hearing what others have to say.

However, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by your last part. Do you mean to say that taking a stance that is open to the opinions of those who are pro-gun could earn me the title "pro gun nutjob"?

Quote

Quote

I'm "anti-gun." But I'm also a libertarian- the opposite of "pro-government control."

The only way to be both is to be "anti-gun" as a personal decision you only apply for yourself and those you are responsible for - and you'd let others decide for themselves if they want guns or not.

I know the pro-gunners on this site respect that position.

You've hit the nail on the head. I think the government should keep its nose out of our business, and I believe that we have an innate right to make our own decisions on the matter of gun ownership; I do not believe that a government should have to "grant" us some right to it.

However, I personally feel as though guns are unnecessary as a whole and that they only lead to bad. Others may agree or disagree as they see fit, and I'm open to that.

Quote

unless the "I'm" in your statemet was a hypothetical person, I believe you stated your opinion.

True, I did state an opinion here, but simply to show that assumptions about correlations can be flawed. The original discussion is whether facts should "trump" feelings or vica-versa. I'm not sure I ever spoke to that question.

Quote

I'm curious how many people that voted "Facts top feelings" also believe in religion.

That's an interesting question. I'd be interested in seeing how people feel about that.

Quote

As far as unique logos go, I like the first one, as it's not likely to be confused with any other logo out there. My concern about that logo is that I'm not sure it has any connection to our name or what we do. It sort of looks like a point-source of light. Maybe that's not as important as I'm thinking it to be?

I'd say that it's fairly important that the logo represent the company's products, goals, or values. Others may not place much importance on representing these things, though- I think it's really up to you!

However, I'm prone to agree with you that it is kind of important. If it were me (and I know it's not :o), I'd consider working with the designer to use the first design or two as a basis for a more representative logo, assuming time and budget allow for further revision.

First of all, we're not talking about my opinion on the matter, because I never stated it (read: you don't know it). Likewise, we're not talking about how I make decisions, because- again- I never said anything about that.

What we ARE talking about is being open-minded, civil, and able to have a healthy discussion.

I don't recall ever suggesting whether his opinion was right or wrong, just that it's a bit childish to not be open to hearing what others have to say. To clarify, the "shallow, close-minded thinking" that I was referring to was his apparent lack of multiplistic thinking.

Every now and then there is black, and there is white. But most of the time, everything is a shade of grey. Try to see that.

Quote

Yes, facts trump feelings.

Two problems:

First, for too many anti-gun pro-government-control types, they do let their feelings overrule the facts.

You seem to feel as though your method of approaching the world (facts > feelings) is the correct method. This is shallow, close-minded thinking.

Please learn to accept that there are many ways of thinking about the world that are equally valid, and to those with opinions differing from your own, their opinions are just as valid as are yours to you (have fun deciphering that sentence, lol).

For example, I'm "anti-gun." But I'm also a libertarian- the opposite of "pro-government control." So your attempt to correlate opinions on gun control with opinions on government involvement fail.

Quote

Were you able to get them working yet? I checked them in Firefox and Safari

Also, I'm using Chrome on a Mac. It didn't work at first, but it's working now.

OK, I got it to work. I'm down with the first few, for a few reasons:

I think that the latter ones are a bit "clip-art"ish. The 3D button look (as in the last few) is overdone, and is starting to come off as tacky. The designs with the spark coming out of the middle of the name seem kind of tacked-on, as though the design element was an afterthought proceeding the name of the company, and the composition is a bit wonky.

The first few also seem to have the added benefit of having elements that are recognizable without the actual text, or with it. This, along with the simple color combinations (absent from the latter few), provides for a lot of flexibility in the future in terms of printing (printing multiple colors can get expensive) and design work.

Walk from the subway to the office was especially cold today. Saw a pantsless homeless woman squatting over what looked to have been a partially melted Snickers bar.

Got to the office, only DECAF coffee left. Not happy.

I need to go buy some Colombian La Cacica beans (by Allegro) and get some REAL coffee going. It's been too long.

Neither of the links are working for me! :o\

Bummer, too- as a biomedical engineer I was excited to see some medical product shtuff.

Quote

How fast ya flyin'?

Lemme grab a pencil.
Now . . . is that statute MPH or Knots?

AHH too many units!!!!


(...that's what she said)

Quote

Quote

>The Fahrenheit scale is more "precise" since the difference between two neighbouring
>Fahrenheit grades is less that the difference between two neighbouring Celsius grades.

That's what I like about it. For some of what I do (brewing, for example) the extra accuracy comes in handy; 70F really is different than 71F during fermentation, and 150F really is different from 151F during the mash. That problem is solved by adding a decimal point, but then a) you sort of have too much accuracy (20.5C really isn't different than 21C) and b) all your displays have to add a decimal point and another digit.

I notice this because I do use both. I got some super cheap heating/cooling controllers designed for the EU, so they are 220 volt and display in C. Everything else in my notes is in F.

Extra accuracy is needed but it is too much :) ?

One of the reasons I prefer SI/metric system (on top of the obvious one that the school system teaches it) is the decimal thingie.

A couple of examples:
1 kilometer is 1000 meters, 1 meter = 100 cm = 1000 mm).
1 mile (wait - is it nautical, statute or survey one?) is 5280 feet (except the 1st one, see below).

Presenting fractions over a kilometer is dead easy 1.35562 km equals to 1 kilometer, 355 meters and 62 centimeters

1 mile is 5280 feet unless it is the nautical one in which case it is one minute of arc of latitude along any meridian meaning that 1.34462 miles is either 1.34462 * 5280 feet or 1.34462 * 1852 meters (or 1.34462 * approximately 6,076 feet)

Oil barrel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_barrel#Oil_barrel

So on SI adding accuracy equals more or less to adding decimals. In Imperial hazzle accuracy equals to switching to another definition of measure that is split so some weird amount of partions ;-).

Both temperature scales are equally precise (accuracy and precision are different things). The F scale has greater whole-unit resolution between boiling and freezing temperatures of water, but the C scale can resolve equally well (or better) by adding a decimal point.

Accuracy, precision, and resolution are functions of the measuring tools, not of the scale used.

The whole miles/gallon thing makes it hard for me to judge aircraft fuel economy based on a gallons/hour metric.

Yes! It was beautiful! We had two King Airs flying by noon or so.