Not sure what happened(doubt if you care).
Anyways I'm missing a part and was just wondering if someone could type what is missing, so that I can get the whole thing.
pg 16 its the KAM Shadowtalker I have through "- a viable clone would cause more legal problems than we have lawyers to solve, I think. Is a clone an..."
I don't have anything else till his signature, so I'm hoping that there is not two small posters that have a few sentences each, and that it is only a single paragraph.
I hope this is legal. I mean I own the book, just some crappy thing happened, and this is the only part of the book that has the blank.
Nath
Aug 7 2004, 11:46 PM
I've occasionally quoted on these forums excerpts much longer, essential and interesting than that one, and the details you gave are enough of a proof (if you had a way to note those few words without owning the book, you could have noted the whole paragraph...).
| QUOTE (SOTA2063) |
> Oh, there have been enough abuses of cloning technology to warrant concern. stories still persist of people trying to create clones of themselves, though there are no reliable reports of success. which is probably a good thing-a viable clone would cause more legal problems than we have lawyers to solve, I think. Is a clone an independant entity, or is it just an expression of your genetic code-and hence, are you responsible for anything the clone does? I think it's proabably a good thing that it's still in the realm of science fiction.
> KAM |
Not very interesting I'm afraid. The good old KAM had better days. I find her point quite stupid. All the legal issues about two beings having the same genetical code should be easily solved taking twins cases for precedences.
Kanada Ten
Aug 8 2004, 12:10 AM
Consider that parents are responsible for what their child does - it a point and whether because the child is an expression of the genes or because they have taken such responsibility is a legal question. Guardians are afforded "more" maneuvering over their responsibility to the child than parents - and for the reason that they had less to do with the child's end behavior. I do agree the last point she makes would be solved: if you consented to the clone then you would be as responsible as a normal parent.
Then there are issues about ownership of the creation and citizenship. Can a clone be granted a SIN or is being born a requirement of human life? Even beyond that is a clone grown in a vat ever born and thus is not even granted citizenship to begin with? But maybe Im making it more complicated than it is.
Very good point, and to think I was waiting for that line just to continue reading the book. Ohhh well. Thanks none the less. I made sure to write it down, not going to repeat this in a few years, when I want to re-read the book!
Still I could see someone sueing someone for this stupid reason. So KAM makes a valid point, we don't seem to have enough lawyers sueing people for stupid crap now. I'm sure we will have even more of a problem by 2060.
Backgammon
Aug 8 2004, 02:29 AM
If you're book is missing a section, I'm sure Fanpro or Wizkids or whatever will replace it.
Deacon
Aug 8 2004, 06:56 PM
| QUOTE (Backgammon) |
| If you're book is missing a section, I'm sure Fanpro or Wizkids or whatever will replace it. |
Unless, of course, you didn't acquire a print format of the book...
snowRaven
Aug 8 2004, 08:47 PM
| QUOTE (Deacon) |
| QUOTE (Backgammon @ Aug 8 2004, 02:29 AM) | | If you're book is missing a section, I'm sure Fanpro or Wizkids or whatever will replace it. |
Unless, of course, you didn't acquire a print format of the book...
|
Well, considering the placement of that shadowtalk section on the page, and the fact that 252 knew the identity of the poster, I would guess there was a mishap involving something spilled on the book? Faulty printing is possible, though, I guess.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.