In
news:1182976184.816903.304680@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com
, mrdarrett@gmail.com posted a post with timestamp Wed, 27
Jun 2007 20:29:44 -0000:
"[..]
As much as I dislike the current administration's
foreign policy
decisions, I admire the current administration
courageously standing
firm against using tax dollars to fund embryonic
stem-cell research.
[..]"
The inaccurate portrayals of George Walker Bush within the
prolife community outside of (and presumably inside of) the
United States of America as someone against destroying the
lives of human embryos is a cause for sadness. From e.g.
WWW.Ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2001/0810/breaking8.htm
of the website of the newspaper "The Irish Times":
"Last Updated: 10/08/2001 06:56
Bush approves funds for stem cell research
The US President Mr George W Bush announced last night he
would approve federal funding for limited medical research
on stem cells extracted from human embryos.
He made the announcement during his first televised address
to the US public.
[..]"
Also please check reports that during George Walker Bush's
reign, someone (namely Paul Hill) was executed for defending
innocent lives by killing employees of an abortion clinc's
("[..] Dr John Bayard Britton and his bodyguard, retired
Air Force officer James Herman Barrett[..]"), e.g.
WWW.Ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2003/0904/breaking6.htm
and
WWW.Ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2003/0903/breaking10.htm
"(Amazing how far this thread has wandered from
alternatives to the AVR
Butterfly, eh?)"
Not at all. Can you mention a newsgroup in which every week
a post with more than two entries in its References field
whose body is of a significantly thrust than the original
post of the thread's does not exist?
In
news:1182990577.858239.124370@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
timestamped Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:29:37 -0700, a hypocrite
called Lewin A. R. W. Edwards posted:
"[..]
A person who lets paternalistic others choose where
that
line is drawn
is being intellectually lazy."
Lewin A. R. W. Edwards has been lazy, e.g. in "Re: So what
is the difference between a software engineer and computer
scientist?", Message-ID: <eqcgl1$6vf$1@newsserver.cilea.it>
timestamped 7 Feb 2007 12:28:17 GMT, Colin Paul Gloster had
pointed out:
"[..]
Lewin A. R. W. Edwards wrote:
" a complete disregard for
inconvenient truth "
I do not disregard inconvenient truth. I am aware of
electronic
engineers who do ignore inconvenient truth: e.g. that
simulating with
an unsynthesizable intellectual property model written with
a
SystemC(R) library in C++ does not necessarily have a
different order
of magnitude of running time than simulating synthesizable
VHDL code
of the same I.P. core. [..]
[..]"
Lewin A. R. W. Edwards has responded by poking fun at me yet
later has the cheek to write in
news:1182990577.858239.124370@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
:"Furthermore, curtailing any sort of research is a
very,
VERY dangerous
step down the road to book-burning. As soon as someone
tells you "that
knowledge is forbidden; seek it not, my child", that's
a
damn good
reason to try and learn more, in my view.
Of course, this issue is only the tip of the iceberg;
the
current
administration has ignored and/or suppressed lots of
good
science that
was politically inconvenient. As, no doubt, the
previous
did, and the
next will do. [..]
[..]"
So will Lewin A. R. W. Edwards have the integrity to pay for
licenses for RTL VHDL to RTL or higher Verilog translation
tools for me and for the paper submission fee so that I will
have my own numbers to publish instead of one of the many
parts of my research for a Ph.D. which were censored last
year to protect others from embarrassment?
In
news:1183006656.549389.287230@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com
timestamped Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:57:36 -0700,
mrdarrett@gmail.com posted:
"On Jun 27, 5:29 pm, larwe <zwsdot...@gmail.com> wrote:
[..]
[..]
> Furthermore, curtailing any sort of research is a
very,
VERY dangerous
> step down the road to book-burning. As soon as
someone
tells you "that
> knowledge is forbidden; seek it not, my child",
that's a
damn good
> reason to try and learn more, in my view.
Seek it if you like; this is a free universe. Forcing
taxpayers to
fund it is a different story.
[..]"
If it is unethical it is something which must not be allowed
even if funded without taxes.
Lewin A. R. W. Edwards <zwsdotcom@gmail.com> posted in
news:1183025956.849674.105050@k29g2000hsd.googlegroups.com
timestamped Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:19:16 -0000:
"On Jun 28, 12:57 am, mrdarr...@gmail.com wrote:
[..]
My philosophy requires that I [..]
[..] It does NOT require me to remain tacit about hypocrisy
(religion veneered with politics).
> Destruction of a life to save another life without that first life's
And here is an unbridgeable gap. This is not a life;
it's a lump."
It is a life.
" And
furthermore a lump that was already destined for destruction. Stem
cell research of this type is essentially
trash-picking."
Even if you do not think it is a life, it could become what
Lewin A. R. W. Edwards considers to be a life if it was not
deliberately put into a situation that it will not be
allowed to live.
"My tax dollars are funding religious schools, the war
in Iraq, and
numerous other minority interests that I don't believe in and, in many
cases, I think are morally unjustifiable - where's the
difference?
[..]"
Did anyone say they are different?
Sincerely,
Nicholas Paul Collin Gloucester, abbreviated as Colin Paul
Gloster
Alternative to AVR Butterfly?
Started by ●June 19, 2007
Reply by ●June 29, 20072007-06-29
Reply by ●June 29, 20072007-06-29
On Jun 29, 9:42 am, Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Glos...@ACM.org> wrote: What a bizarre post; I might go so far as to say cracked-out. In particular:> So will Lewin A. R. W. Edwards have the integrity to pay for > licenses for RTL VHDL to RTL or higher Verilog translation > tools for me and for the paper submission fee so that I willWTF are you talking about? Are you complaining that you don't have government funding for some piece of research? The correct way to obtain it is to do what everyone else does: convince some politician that there are votes in it for him and he will lobby to have someone else write you a check for whatever you want to do; aardvark pornography or a cure for AIDS. If you are unlucky, some religious bigot will stand up and say that the bible/koran/whatever forbids your sort of research, your funding will be cut off at the first whiff of vote-losing controversy, and this is precisely the situation we are arguing about in this thread. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with religious dogma intruding on the lives of people who don't share the dogmatists' belief system.> And here is an unbridgeable gap. This is not a life; > it's a lump." > > It is a life.If it is a life, then a mole removed from your hand is a life too, and measurably just as human. The definitions we use to differentiate the two are "moral"/religious, since from a scientific perspective there is no difference. Do you hold ten little funerals every time you have a manicure?> Even if you do not think it is a life, it could become what > Lewin A. R. W. Edwards considers to be a life if it was not > deliberately put into a situation that it will not be > allowed to live.Same for the mole. Neither of them could survive by themselves if you put them on the table and walk away. Either of them could, given the appropriate technology and processing, be grown into a self-sufficient organism.> "My tax dollars are funding religious schools, the war > in Iraq, and > numerous other minority interests that I don't believe in and, in many > cases, I think are morally unjustifiable - where's the > difference? > > [..]" > > Did anyone say they are different?Yes: The OP is saying that his particular set of "allowable, should be taxpayer-funded" activities is right, and mine is wrong. As are you, I think; it's a little hard to parse your post. Personally, I think very few activities need to be taxpayer-funded [compared to the vast number of idiotic pet projects currently hung around the taxpayer's neck]; people who care about results should invest in them, and people who use the results (i.e. customers of the end product) should help amortize the development cost. Using the "people who care pay" model, for example, every person in the United States should be paying about $6.67 per day to support the war in Iraq (or proportionately fewer people paying more). If enough money cannot be found to carry out the war, then clearly it is not something the country as a whole wants to do. Funding is simply another form of weighted voting.> Sincerely,I think not.> Nicholas Paul Collin Gloucester, abbreviated as Colin Paul > Gloster- Lewin Aleksis Roger William Edwards, abbreviated as "me".
Reply by ●June 29, 20072007-06-29
Colin Paul Gloster wrote:> > In > news:1182976184.816903.304680@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com > , mrdarrett@gmail.com posted a post with timestamp Wed, 27 > Jun 2007 20:29:44 -0000: > > "[..] > > As much as I dislike the current administration's > foreign policy > decisions, I admire the current administration > courageously standing > firm against using tax dollars to fund embryonic > stem-cell research. > > [..]" > > The inaccurate portrayals of George Walker Bush within the > prolife community outside of (and presumably inside of) the > United States of America as someone against destroying the > lives of human embryos is a cause for sadness. From e.g. > WWW.Ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2001/0810/breaking8.htm > of the website of the newspaper "The Irish Times": > "Last Updated: 10/08/2001 06:56 > Bush approves funds for stem cell researchBetween inaccurate quoting and off-topic persistance, PLONK. -- <http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt> <http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423> <http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html> cbfalconer at maineline dot net -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Reply by ●July 14, 20072007-07-14
In news:1183127500.588545.315300@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
timestamped Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:31:40 -0000, larwe
<zwsdotcom@gmail.com> posted:
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"[..] |
| |
|[..] Are you complaining that you don't have |
|government funding for some piece of research? The correct way to |
|obtain it is to do what everyone else does: convince some politician |
|that there are votes in it for him and he will lobby to have someone |
|else write you a check for whatever you want to do; aardvark |
|pornography or a cure for AIDS." |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
None of the many Ph.D. scholarship application forms I have used was
supposed to be sent to a politician. Were those application forms incorrect?
In news:1183127500.588545.315300@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
timestamped Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:31:40 -0000, larwe
<zwsdotcom@gmail.com> posted:
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"On Jun 29, 9:42 am, Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Glos...@ACM.org> |
|wrote: |
| |
|What a bizarre post; I might go so far as to say cracked-out. In |
|particular: |
| |
|> So will Lewin A. R. W. Edwards have the integrity to pay for |
|> licenses for RTL VHDL to RTL or higher Verilog translation |
|> tools for me and for the paper submission fee so that I will |
| |
|WTF are you talking about? Are you complaining that you don't have |
|government funding for some piece of research? [..] |
| |
|[..] |
| |
|If you are unlucky, some religious bigot will stand up and say that |
|the bible/koran/whatever forbids your sort of research, your funding |
|will be cut off at the first whiff of vote-losing controversy, and |
|this is precisely the situation we are arguing about in this thread. |
|It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with religious |
|dogma intruding on the lives of people who don't share the dogmatists' |
|belief system." |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
One can be unlucky without the reason for termination of funding being
to avoid losing votes. E.g. last year I empirically disproved an up to
then theory of my then and current Ph.D. tutor's (who is unwilling to
continue being my Ph.D. tutor in 2008) related to the speeds of
SystemC(R) and VHDL simulations. LARWE managed to not bother to
quote "parts of my research for a Ph.D. which were censored last
year to protect others from embarrassment?" from the end of a question
but quoted the beginning of the question. LARWE claimed in
news:1182990577.858239.124370@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
that if knowledge is forbidden that is enough of a "reason to try and
learn more" but already read "Re: So what
is the difference between a software engineer and computer
scientist?", Message-ID: <eqcgl1$6vf$1@newsserver.cilea.it>
timestamped 7 Feb 2007 12:28:17 GMT by Colin Paul Gloster in which
it had already been pointed out
"[..]
I do not disregard inconvenient truth. I am aware of
electronic
engineers who do ignore inconvenient truth: e.g. simulating with
an unsynthesizable intellectual property model written with
a
SystemC(R) library in C++ does not necessarily have a
different order
of magnitude of running time than simulating synthesizable
VHDL code
of the same I.P. core. [..]
[..]"
Has LARWE actually tried to "learn more" or was he content to let this
research be suppressed and to make fun of a victim in this case?
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|" |
|> And here is an unbridgeable gap. This is not a life; |
|> it's a lump." |
|> |
|> It is a life. |
| |
|If it is a life, then a mole removed from your hand is a life too, and |
|measurably just as human. The definitions we use to differentiate the |
|two are "moral"/religious, since from a scientific perspective there |
|is no difference. Do you hold ten little funerals every time you have |
|a manicure?" |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
I do not hold any funerals related to a manicure. From a scientific
perspective, an embryo is not a piece of excess skin.
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|" |
|> Even if you do not think it is a life, it could become what |
|> Lewin A. R. W. Edwards considers to be a life if it was not |
|> deliberately put into a situation that it will not be |
|> allowed to live. |
| |
|Same for the mole. Neither of them could survive by themselves if you |
|put them on the table and walk away. Either of them could, given the |
|appropriate technology and processing, be grown into a self-sufficient |
|organism." |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
How exactly can an embryo be placed on a table without deliberately
creating the circumstances which will prevent it from living? No
technology is needed to insert a penis into a vagina and ejaculate;
sperm can afterwards manage to merge with an egg inside a woman
without using technology; and the process can continue much more
safely than unnecessarily removing parts from adults so that LARWE can
unnicely put an embryo on a table.
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|" |
|> "My tax dollars are funding religious schools, the war |
|> in Iraq, and |
|> numerous other minority interests that I don't believe in and, in many|
|> cases, I think are morally unjustifiable - where's the |
|> difference? |
|> |
|> [..]" |
|> |
|> Did anyone say they are different? |
| |
|Yes: The OP is saying that his particular set of "allowable, should be |
|taxpayer-funded" activities is right, and mine is wrong." |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Please show me exactly where that was said.
Who do you think the Original Poster (OP) is? This thread was started
by Dr. Michael A. Covington ("mc <look@www.ai.uga.edu.for.address>")
one of whose webpages (
WWW.CovingtonInnovations.com/christian.html
)
contains:
"[..]
How can Christians justify the cruelty of [the Crusades / medieval
kings / some so-called Christians today / whatever]?
We can't and we don't. Through much of history, whenever kings or
politicians wanted to do anything dubious and avoid criticism, they
said they were doing it for Christ. This shows only that the name of
Christ had prestige which all sorts of people tried to borrow.
Nowadays, whenever politicians want to start a war, they often say
they're doing it "for world peace." Does that mean "peace" is a
dishonorable cause?
[..]"
Maybe he does think that your taxes should pay for a war in Iraq and
that your taxes should pay for a school you dislike, but I saw no
post from him in this thread (I have noticed strictly four posts from
him in this thread so far) about what he thinks about your taxes, and
I have not scrutinized his webpages.
Perhaps you were thinking instead of Michael <mrdarrett@Gmail.com> who
wrote in
news:1182976184.816903.304680@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com timestamped
Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:29:44 -0000:
"[..]
[..] I dislike the current administration's foreign policy
decisions, [..]
[..]"
without a definite mention of "funding religious schools, [..] and
numerous other minority interests" (though I concede later that he
seemed to quote from a Bible in
news:1182978619.760334.235090@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com
and mentioned the "Military Channel" earlier in
news:1182969259.753592.94080@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com
). I have detected strictly eight posts from him in this thread so
far.
Perhaps you were thinking instead of Simon Clubley
<clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> who also seems to have
not said in this thread what you claimed. I have noticed strictly two
posts from him in this thread so far.
LARWE typed:
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"Yes: The OP is saying that his particular set of "allowable, should be |
|taxpayer-funded" activities is right, and mine is wrong. As are you, I |
|think; it's a little hard to parse your post." |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
I never said in this thread that some types of schools nor the war in
the Iraq (you can check newsgroup archives to deduce whether or not I
deemed and still deem that to be moral or not) nor the "numerous other
minority interests" you vaguely mentioned (how could I speak
specifically about those?) nor the vague classification of "activities"
you deem to be right (again, how could I be specific about those if
you keep them unclear?) are right or wrong nor whether they "should be
taxpayer-funded".
LARWE typed:
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|" |
|Personally, I think very few activities need to be taxpayer-funded |
|[compared to the vast number of idiotic pet projects currently hung |
|around the taxpayer's neck]; people who care about results should |
|invest in them, and people who use the results (i.e. customers of the |
|end product) should help amortize the development cost. |
| |
|[..]" |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
I agree that many projects which are for commercial gain should not be
funded by taxes and should instead be funded by companies. I do not
agree that very few activities (e.g. basic research and medical
research) should receive almost no funding from taxes.
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"[..] |
| |
|> Sincerely, |
| |
|I think not. |
| |
|[..]" |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Please apologize for thinking that I was insincere.
Sincerely,
Colin Paul Gloster
