Got fillings and a crown free. Yay socialism. Getting an implant would have cost me a grand though, but that still seems like a lot less than these auzzies are paying.

Routine clean today cost me just shy of 60quid tho, but yah, hardly worth flying to Thailand for that

American Dentistry is a huge racket. A single dental implant, (not covered), mysteriously cost right around $1700 USD. The price is the same at any dentist you go to in the entire country.

My favorite of the list is Greatbatch, and his story really gets to the value of inspiration and curiousity as an inventor. He was just making a device to record heart beats, and put in an incorrect resistor for his circuit, resulting in a oscillating blip in his recordings. Instead of going 'fuck! I made the goddamn thing wrong! So I threw it on the grooooound!' No he said, 'Woah, thats neat, I have sort-of a built-in time guage that is very regular in my recordings, and can see how irregular the heart beat is ... wait a minute...', and then proceeded to work on the completely crazy idea of an implantable, miniature device to electrically stimulating the heart to keep it beating evenly as people just walked around.

I'd argue that its basically impossible to accidentally invent something. You have to be bright enough to recognize something interesting, and curious enough to follow it off in the direction it leads.

@hpqp
Sadly, I think you're spot-on about the other failing of the firearm analogy; some people are just itching for an opportunity to shoot someone. And yes, some of those people will try to raise children in their image.

In my view, my answer to "The Big Question" is "Only before implantation, if at all. Because I know that a child is demonstrably human well prior to delivery, and tracing back I cannot rationally distinguish a point where the line is crossed after implantation. I would rather err on the side of caution when human life is involved." In light of this, it should be obvious why I am opposed to even early abortion. I'm curious about your almost offhand dismissal of adoption as a non-solution and "worse". It sounds like this is a topic you have discussed previously at length. To me, even a grievously flawed system of adoption is preferable to abortion.
I do think you raise a potent point with respect to sex through coercion as distinguished from rape.
Even so, I do not see carrying and delivering a child to be "punishment". It is a substantial burden, to be sure, but in my perspective the alternative is abhorrent to the point as to be unacceptable.

I think analogies in general fail when discussing abortion because it is such a unique situation.
Note: In discussing your analogies, I'm going to use the term "kill" with respect to abortion. Going back to "the Big Question", whether or not this is an accurate term is probably going to depend on your perspective relative to the wad of cells we term a fetus. (Which I see you're searching for.)
The helmet analogy fails because efforts to save the life of the helmet-shunner do not necessarily harm someone else as directly as in abortion. You can find harm, sure: saving feckless may divert resources from saving the life of burning-nun-bus-rescue-hero, but you aren't necessarily killing someone else to save him.
Same for the STDs. Treating an STD kills bacteria, or uses up anti-viral medication, but there's no direct harm to another individual in the process. For me, living with the consequences of getting an STD means living with one of the incurable ones or living with a curable one until it gets managed, and dealing with the social stigma of informing other partners of your status.

I disagree with the assessment that the procedure is "punishment enough", primarily because I don't think that punishment is due. Again, it's not a woman's "fault" that she's pregnant, and sex is not some grievous crime to be prosecuted. Sex is a wonderful experience that can be a carnal pleasure, an act of intimacy, or both, but one that carries consequences. The initiation of a new human life is a possible outcome. (Yes, the procedure is unpleasant, often painful, and some women will experience regret or other emotional disturbances afterwards, but those are, again, possible consequences of a choice.)

I agree wholeheartedly that more education is essential. Increased access to contraceptives (and hopefully more effective contraceptives) will (almost) certainly lessen the incidence of unwanted pregnancies. I appreciate that "don't have sex if you can't accept being pregnant" is not a magical incantation that makes people not have sex, but it has to be a part of it, because no method of contraception is 100% effective, even if used correctly.

I look forward to your followup on the "ball of cells" issue.

I appreciate the time you took to formulate your response in a fairly respectful manner and even tone, so I'm going to try to reply in kind.>> ^VoodooV:
That's the thing about many republican views. They take an ideal, utopian world view....and work backwards.My views on the potential legality of abortion are not based on my party or religious affiliation. You can look elsewhere for my views on how destructive the party system is to American democracy, and I believe religion should play no part in legislation. (For instance, if your only opposition to gay marriage is a religious one, then you have no valid opposition to the legalization of gay marriage. However, it's easily to rationally oppose theft or murder outside of "Thou Shalt Not Steal" or "Thou Shalt Not Kill", so that gets legislated.) I'm looking at what I know and believe about human development and extrapolating from there. So perhaps airing my opinions in a thread discussing the backwardness of the Republican Party Platform is likely to promote some misunderstanding.>> ^VoodooV:
"In a perfect world, there is no rape or incest and health care is perfect, thus there would be no need for abortion, therefore we should ban abortion."
That's nice and all, but it just isn't that simple. Yeah, if we lived in a perfect world where every single citizen was financially and emotionally secure and nothing ever bad happened and no one ever accidentally got pregnant, sure I would oppose abortion.
We don't live in that world, we won't ever live in that world in our lifetimes, so why would you propose a law that only applies in a perfect world?I don't think we live in a perfect world. Rape, incest, and threat-to-life are real things, and I believe it's acceptable to make an exception in those cases - that it's acceptable to do the reprehensible when it is necessary to promote justice. I believe this in the same way I think murder is reprehensible, and that taking of a human life would never be necessary in a "perfect world", but acceptable in cases of self-defense or punishment of particularly heinous crimes. Accidental pregnancies are a known risk of sexual intercourse. "Financially and emotionally secure" are different issues, addressed in a moment. >> ^VoodooV:
A baby is not the equivalent of getting a pet for your kid to teach them responsibility. why would you needlessly punish the baby by forcing it to be raised by parents who are incapable of adequately raising it? You're trying to correct a mistake by forcing people to make another mistake. Some people should just never be parents, ever. Even if they were financially able to take care of a kid.You're absolutely right. Having a baby is VERY different from just getting a puppy. We're talking about a human life. Some people aren't emotionally or financially fit to be parents. Some of them realize that. Unfortunately, some of them realize it too late, after they've chosen to have sex and gotten pregnant. Should the child be "punished" by being raised by unfit parents? Of course not. I advocate adoption in those circumstances. Is this a perfect solution? No. But it is an acceptable one. Yes, this means nine months of pregnancy and the lifestyle impacts that carries. I feel it should be noted that you are also advocating "fixing a mistake by making another mistake.">> ^VoodooV:
To use an analogy that even a republican should understand. An abortion is like a gun, you hope to hell you never need to use it, but you're going to be glad you're able to use it if you need it.Yes, but again - selectively. The use of a firearm against another human being should not be taken trivially. I'm not going to shoot my neighbor just because he's doing something to make my life inconvenient. I'm going to shoot him when he poses a threat to my life or the life of another innocent individual. I'd say it was an ill-advised analogy, because it's a much better analogy for the anti-abortion stance than the pro-abortion stance. In the firearm analogy, the one harmed is a violent aggressor, while in abortion we're wielding this power against someone who is genuinely and truly innocent. My stance on abortion is MUCH more lenient than my stance on deadly force, since I also acknowledge cases of rape or incest. >> ^VoodooV:
Whenever you masturbate (oh wait, republicans never masturbate)I have to admit that that is a ridiculous position for them to take. If you're going to advocate that people avoid having sex if they're not prepared to take responsibility for the consequences of that choice, then it's ludicrous to tell them masturbation is ALSO verboten. Mutual masturbation is almost the only sexual practice that can legitimately be said to eliminate the risk of pregnancy.>> ^VoodooV:
Even when you're having legitimate baby-making sex. The male ejaculates millions of sperm. Each one of those sperm is a potential life. Yet only one of those sperm will make it, and the rest will die. Republicans don't seem to care about those millions of potential lives being snuffed out. And with the woman, every time a woman has her cycle, that's another potential life snuffed out.I think this takes the slippery slope (no pun intended) too far, and I think you realize that. There are religious viewpoints on the "spilling of seed", but again, I think religious viewpoints alone are not justification for legislation in a free society.
We can both agree (I'm fairly confident) that killing a newborn is murder. I'm fairly confident that we both agree that late-term abortion is abhorrent, if not explicitly "murder". (Is this assertion correct?) Furthermore I think we can both agree that an unfertilized egg or unused sperm is not a "life". So, somewhere between those points is the point of contention. The point where a mass of undifferentiated tissue becomes a developing human life. I don't think we can clearly define that point with our current level of knowledge, so I feel it is most rational to err on the side of caution and oppose abortion even in early pregnancy. (I feel that this view tolerates, for instance, the "morning-after pill", that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg, a view that is likely opposed in many "pro-life" circles. I must admit, though, to a degree of uncertainty in that opinion.)

Was a show called Black Mirror that had two episodes that this reminded me of. Basically people put into little cubes who exercised, watch commercials and such for credits they spent to live.

And then another where people were implanted with a device that recorded their memories, and their employees would brain dump them....... They could show their memories to other people on TVs with little remotes they carry.

Was a pretty messed up show, but interesting.

Seems to be you can't really add senses without infringing upon our already existing ones. In his case he uses some of his hearing "bandwidth" to perceive colour. Maybe one day we'll be able to wire in completely new senses, but I don't imagine that will be soon.

Tbh, I consider us all to be psuedo-cyborgs because of our phone apps not in spite of them. We are all almost always connected with a wealth of utilities at our finger tips, some of which you could say broaden our senses. Do we need to implant microchips in our brain when carrying a device that fits in your hand is just that much more convenient - and you can opt out at any time. I think we are heading to headsupdisplays and truly hands-free interfacing. Does that make it more of a part of us than it is already? I'm not so sure tbh. Whats the advantage of putting it under your skin when it'll still be piggybacking off existing senses?

Anyway, transhumanism is fascinating. I hope we survive long enough.

On another note, the porn star @5:06 looks ridiculous. I think she's got breast implants in her lips, too.

That woman is freakish.

However, butt injections, butt implants, are really common.. even amongst people who aren't stars or artists. Most the time when you see this model or star with a big butt, it's not naturally that big. You can learn to spot all the fake injections and implants pretty easily. Anymore when I see some model in a mag I see fake asses, airbrushed legs and stomach, fake tits, fake lips, eye color, eye lashes, eyebrows, foreheads, hair.. you name it.

You think it's not that bad? Cindie Crawford had a pretty famous quite from the 90's. 'I wish I looked like Cindie Crawford'. That was 20 years ago.. it's only gotten worse and more extreme.

So, it takes a natural breast and makes it look like an implant. Fantastic, just what we need.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'bionic, implant, dbs, deep brain surgery, eddie, adcock' to 'bionic, implant, dbs, deep brain surgery, eddie, adcock, tourettes' - edited by messenger

>> ^Skeeve:

The problem is that people do get treated unnecessarily.
The real problem, though, is that doctors do not have a reliable way to determine which of these very small cancers that are caught by a biopsy are potentially dangerous and which will never bother a man in his lifetime. (Indeed, autopsy studies show that more than half of men in their 50s and three quarters of men in their 80s in the U.S. had prostate cancer but died of something else.)[...]Such ambiguity would not be so bad if the treatments were virtually risk free.[...] Surgery (open radial prostatectomy) often results in urinary leakage [...] damage to the nearby muscle that controls urination may lead to incontinence. [...] Meanwhile, the nerves and blood vessels controlling erections may be severed during surgery, causing erectile dysfunction (impotence).[...] Radiation therapy of the prostate often ends up damaging the rectum and bladder because it is hard to avoid radiation scatter[...] Moreover, rectal bleeding and fecal soiling are frequent but commonly unreported side effects of both radiation therapy (including radioactive seed implants) and surgical approaches.

People do get treated unnecessarily. And those treatments have side effects that can be far worse than living with the cancer. Only 4 percent of prostate cancers spread to the bones or organs. Medical organizations now advise that asymptomatic men should not have routine screening unless they have a strong family history of prostate cancer.>> ^alien_concept:
@Yogi Perhaps because it's the most common form of cancer here in the UK and so many men remain undiagnosed because they're too scared to have it done and he though, fuck it. I dunno. Because it was funny and he knew it would be? I don't really understand what's dangerous about it @Skeeve? I can guarantee you that here they wouldn't treat anyone unnecessarily here on the NHS



I have no idea dude, whether it's the same here or not. Your post is very interesting. All I do know is my dad had prostate cancer after being checked and they caught it early enough for him to get away with a few weeks of radiation therapy, so maybe I'm biased

The problem is that people do get treated unnecessarily.

The real problem, though, is that doctors do not have a reliable way to determine which of these very small cancers that are caught by a biopsy are potentially dangerous and which will never bother a man in his lifetime. (Indeed, autopsy studies show that more than half of men in their 50s and three quarters of men in their 80s in the U.S. had prostate cancer but died of something else.)[...]Such ambiguity would not be so bad if the treatments were virtually risk free.[...] Surgery (open radial prostatectomy) often results in urinary leakage [...] damage to the nearby muscle that controls urination may lead to incontinence. [...] Meanwhile, the nerves and blood vessels controlling erections may be severed during surgery, causing erectile dysfunction (impotence).[...] Radiation therapy of the prostate often ends up damaging the rectum and bladder because it is hard to avoid radiation scatter[...] Moreover, rectal bleeding and fecal soiling are frequent but commonly unreported side effects of both radiation therapy (including radioactive seed implants) and surgical approaches.



People do get treated unnecessarily. And those treatments have side effects that can be far worse than living with the cancer. Only 4 percent of prostate cancers spread to the bones or organs. Medical organizations now advise that asymptomatic men should not have routine screening unless they have a strong family history of prostate cancer.>> ^alien_concept:

@Yogi Perhaps because it's the most common form of cancer here in the UK and so many men remain undiagnosed because they're too scared to have it done and he though, fuck it. I dunno. Because it was funny and he knew it would be? I don't really understand what's dangerous about it @Skeeve? I can guarantee you that here they wouldn't treat anyone unnecessarily here on the NHS

Now that I've watched the trailer, rather than avoiding the trailer for the trailer... I'm actually looking forward to this.

I liked Die Hard 4.0

Neither movie was particularly based on the story, it's only 16 pages long, has alien mice and he's called Douglas Quail. There's a lot of extrapolation.

This obviously takes a fair chunk from the movie, as the whole implantation chair thing is a definite homage, but it looks pretty cool.

I'll now sit on the fence and await reviews.