Slashdot Mirror

Troll? I'm not the one comparing people who legitimate reasons against ESC with those who bomb abortion clinics. Who's flame-baiting here?

The first article you gave me showcased using IVF leftovers (which I addressed in my post). Using stem cells harvested in this way has the major problem that they are only suited to academic research where tissue rejection is not a problem, because their genetic material cannot match the patient. I covered this in my post already.

The second article you sent me showcases a modified form of standard SCNT, where they add the twist of crippling the embryo, because they think that people will object less to destroying a crippled human embryo rather than one that is created with normal SCNT.

Do you want to see how the public ethic responds to stuff like this? Imagine the KFC headless chicken scenario, only with humans instead of chickens. Yeah, that'll fly like a lead balloon.

But even on a practical level, the technique listed in the second article suffers from the issue that there are simply not enough IVF leftovers to fuel widespread ESC-based treatments. There just aren't enough eggs.

Neither of the articles you quoted address the criticisms referenced in my original post, and all of the arguments remain untouched.

ESC-based treatments remain as unviable as the Whitehead Institute's crippled embryos, and there are no answers on the horizon that solve both the issues of tissue rejection and human egg supply.

Instead, make sure some library like the one Sarah Palin likes to ban books from in Wasilla, Alaska.

Contrary to wide-spread smears, Sarah Palin has never banned a book. Nope...

You have been lied to, believed it, and now spread the disinformation... Please, stop. Thank you.

While I am at it, it is very hard to take seriously a group that makes up statistics about domestic violence and the Super Bowl Sunday. And, once the lie was exposed, the group has defended and justified the lie.

And, it is hard to take seriously a group that has been complaining about the wage-gender gap when a female economist showed the gap to be, 2% when experience, education, and number of years on the job are taken into account. And, when a former head of the National Organization for Women New York City shows it is actually false. The reason men tend to make more in many professions is because men do harder and more dangerous jobs. Men are more likely to do the nastier jobs, to work later, to work overtime, work odd hours, to travel for their job, and do all the most difficult things in a job than women. Women are also more likely to choose jobs that are personally rewarding but pay less, such as working for non-profits. The reason men make more than women is because men sacrifice more of their happiness, health, and self to their jobs than women do.

Feminists are their own worst enemy.

Bush never threatened France with anything. Find a quote or stop lying.

It was discovered that France was selling weapons illegally to Iraq for oil. One of these countries was in the wrong. I'll let you figure it out on your own.

Here is a great article on the Palestinian video.

http://internetscofflaw.com/2008/04/21/urban-legend-claims-palestinian-911-celebration-video-is-fake/

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.asp

Other news agencies claimed to have witnessed Palestine celebrating the attacks as well, but reporters were threatened when they attempted to photograph it.

I watched the video live, as well as replays of it. There are signs directly stating they are celebrating the death of Americans, and children were chanting "God loves us because he is killing Americans".

I can't see how Bush made the US a totalitarionist country. Congress still holds the bulk of power in this country. Obama didn't make us more of a democracy.

The only civil rights you've lost in the past 10 year were rights both parties voted on. Obama made it a huge part of his campaign to remove the domestic spying program, but then voted for FISA, and then extended the powers of the wiretap program the second he got into office.

Put down the Kool-Aid and don't attempt to spout the bullshit at me.

Idiot. You are just flat out wrong, because you listen to idiots. Obama has shown his real Hawaii birth certificate. Snopes, the debunkers of all things stupid, says you are a delusional fucking moron. Fuck off and die in a fire, you America hating traitor.

Lemmings don't commit suicide.

Making the world a brighter place, one myth at a time.
No offence.

http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp

The anecdote is false, though that doesn't necessarily invalidate your point. But we should probably find a better way to convey it.

There is a hoax running especially in Europe, +358 or similar number, similar to Italy code (+35). Once you get a "ring" from that line or tricked calling it, your phone bill will be doomed. I speak about thousands of dollars (euros) here and you can't get that money back.

Urban legend.

That number is a lie. The unemployment rate is not based on the number of people who would like to have work but cannot find a job, but instead on the number of people currently receiving unemployment benefits.

No, that's a myth. The unemployment rate is calculated by a monthly survey of over 60,000 households. Always has been.
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/unemploy.asp

We used to have a huge tariff on sugar, that is. I believe it was lifted in 2006.

Coke gradually switched from sugar to corn syrup during the late 70s/early 80s. By the time New Coke came around, Coke products were made exclusively with corn syrup. Snopes has more details in its New Coke article.

It got attention. Isn't that the point of marketing?

Not entirely. Take the Taco Bell Dog as an example. From Snopes:

In July 2000 fast food giant Taco Bell (a subsidiary of Yum! Brands, Inc.) did the ostensibly unthinkable: it abruptly ended what appeared to be a highly successful ad campaign that had worked to establish this memorable brand identity. Seemingly out of the blue, the corporation announced it would no longer feature the wise-cracking Chihuahua in its ads. Though the Taco Bell dog might make cameo appearances in subsequent commercials, he was being retired as company spokespooch.

The reason behind the move was simple enough: the dog, though beloved of consumers, wasn't working magic on the company's bottom line. Though Taco Bell had succeeded in creating a cultural icon, the resultant symbol wasn't inspiring a great enough segment of the fast food-buying public to make a run for the border. Same-store sales were down 6 percent in the second quarter of 2000, a result the company could only regard as alarming and a certain sign that changes had to be made.

So while Microsoft's marketing may bring smiles to churro vendors everywhere, it doesn't mean the attention is really getting anything for Microsoft.

Snopes says it is true.

I also like the idea of Wells Fargo sending this to customers:

You owe your soul to the company store. Why not owe your home to Wells Fargo? An equity advantage loan can help you spend what would have been your children's inheritance.

At all the mexican food restaurants here in Texas, they hang a (sealed) ziploc bag filled with water above the door. Somehow they believe that it repels mosquitos and flies. So many places do it, you'd think it would have to work, but I can't see how. Anybody have any ideas?

I believe the theory is that flies avoid it to avoid getting snapped up by the fish found in running water. Whether it works or not is still unclear but unlikely. One researcher says "no, under fluorescent or incandescent lighting", but surprisingly there doesn't seem to be much research.

that claim has been debunked by snoopes

"I agree on the cost issue, though. Instead of spending a million bucks to develop a space pen that writes in zero-G, The Ruskies used pencils. Duh."

Of course that's not true. The designer of the space pen spent a million dollars developing it. The reason for developing it was because pencils could be hazardous in zero gravity and high oxygen environments.
They were sold to NASA for $2.95 a piece. Before the pen was developed NASA used lead pencils.

NASA Space Pen

You've all seen the jars of Gerber baby food, right? The one with the big baby face on the front? Turns out when they first tried to sell it in rural segments of Africa, it wouldn't sell -- like at all. Turns out that the majority of the population in those markets is illiterate and so the products contained pictures of what was inside the jars and boxes. Well, the locals thought Gerber was selling, achem... baby.

Some good points. Though the Gerber story is probably an urban legend.

I guess you think advertisers should learn from pretend made up stories?
http://www.snopes.com/business/market/babyfood.asp

In the UK to establish copyright you used to be able to send yourself a stamp addressed envelope containing the relevant work. So long as it remained unopened the postmark served as both a mark of authenticity and also as a timestamp.

Not really, no. The Royal Mail will gladly deliver your unsealed empty envelope to you, complete with postmark, and ready to
receive any content you want to "prove" is yours. You'll need at least some credible witness confirming your story.

Also, http://www.copyrightauthority.com/poor-mans-copyright/ and http://www.snopes.com/legal/postmark.asp

He never claimed that. It was just political games and a clumsy choice of words.

Interesting that you mention "Happy Birthday". Copyright protection is the reason restaurant wait-staff crow some other tuneless "song" at you when they bring out the cake with the sparklers, instead of "Happy Birthday To You".

c.f http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp

While I agree with your fundamental position - technology in the last 10 years has brought massive challenges to the assumptions underlying the very nature of intellectual property - I find it ironic that you chose this example, since obviously someone still thinks the copyright in HappyBirthday is worth something.

False!

300 year supply of on-shore oil in the lower 48? If you mean a 300 year inadequate supply, I'll grant you that. If you mean 300 years at our current and future consumption levels, for that, I want a citation. And don't say Bakken because that isn't the panacea you think it is -- it is hard to get, uses a lot of energy to get, the wells are slow producers, and they go into decline very fast. Bakken has been known for 60 years -- it hasn't been developed because it oil prices haven't been high enough -- in other words, if you think it will provide cheap oil, think again. It will provide expensive oil at volumes too low to supply the US for 300 years.

I used to believe that, too. But it's wrong, an urban legend.

Kangaroos with stinger missiles?

Prior art I think. Though the Snopes article is funnier.

I remember what happened last time they built a simulator.

Because it was named after the company that sponsored it.. The "World" newspaper, as far as I remember. It could just as easily have been the times series or the enquirer series or any other paper you care to mention.

Not so - see http://www.snopes.com/business/names/worldseries.asp

Quality is whatever the customer requires. So, quality is and always has been "good enough".
In fact, that's EXACTLY what quality is.

Better than "good enough" wastes my money.

I am not a machinist. I have absolutely no need for professional grade drill, bits, press, grinders, etc. For me, such a set would be a complete waste of my money.
If you offered me such a set for the price of the set I was about to buy, then my next question is "what's the price of the consumer grade tools?"

Apocryphal or not, this story makes the point.

gerbil.

nice try, but before you keep propagating that myth, you might want to see what Cecil has to say about the Richard Gere and the gerbil.

I've seen lots of links and stories about the kid in Paris who got glass in his eye, and apparently he won't turn over the iPod for testing. Apple says they're aware of fewer than ten incidents, and that these all seem to be caused by "external force", not battery issues.

There are millions of iPhones out there. Until there are some credibly documented cases where an iPhone exploded due to a factory defect, I'll assume that there's no story here.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to x-ray my can of Pepsi.

Also, I've seen this picture before. Two questions: one, is it real. Two: please tell me the steering wheel is to avoid computer crashes.

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/computer.asp

Although the photograph displayed could represent what some people in the early 1950s contemplated a "home computer" might look like (based on the technology of the day), it isn't, as the accompanying text claims, a RAND Corporation illustration from 1954 of a prototype "home computer." The picture is actually an entry submitted to a Fark.com image modification competition, taken from an original photo of a submarine maneuvering room console found on the U.S. Navy web site, converted to grayscale, and modified to replace a modern display panel and TV screen with pictures of a decades-old teletype/printer and television (as well as to add the gray-suited man to the left-hand side of the photo)

Lukket's Fark photoshop has had as many comebacks as Peter Mandelson!

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/computer.asp

he invented it, let him fix it

This kind of humor leaves me cold, when it's based on a well-documented misinterpretation/distortion. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

That's like a legislature getting together and deciding that pi = 3. Couldn't happen.

Indeed it couldn't. Such an attempt would never get past state senate.

Urban legend. No basis whatsoever.

On subject of TFA, there's also no evidence that Jamie Lee Curtis is a hermaphrodite either.

Urban legend. No basis whatsoever.

On subject of TFA, there's also no evidence that Jamie Lee Curtis is a hermaphrodite either.

Note to self: Never touch Richard Gere's mouse.

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

Snopes = exhaustively researched articles done by people who take the time to get it right as much as they possibly can, with no need to be "first to post" to get credit.

BS. Snopes = getting ad money to sound authoritative, no more, no less.

I've sent two corrections to Snopes. The first was in a myth about taking caffeine and aspirin. They had reported that there was nothing about the combination that would be stronger than both taken individually. I sent links to published studies demonstrating the synergistic effect of the combo, and links to common products (eg Excedrin) that pair them. Snopes updated the article to reflect the new information.

The second was regarding Marilyn Monroe having six toes. Now, I see no reason to believe that she did. However, some of their supporting "evidence" was that Monroe would've had a long recovery and a lasting limp. My wife, a podiatric surgeon, told them that this was completely untrue, and that she's amputated many toes over the years without long-term adverse affects to the patients. Snopes replied that she was wrong and that I was crazy for thinking Marilyn had 6 toes.

So I personally know of one article that presents completely, 100% wrong evidence as proof, and another that had completely ignored evidence that would have weakened their claim. How many other corrections have been ignored or rejected?

Snopes is not exhaustively researched, not by a long shot. Read the site for entertainment or as a starting point for further research, but don't take their word for anything.

Snopes = exhaustively researched articles done by people who take the time to get it right as much as they possibly can, with no need to be "first to post" to get credit.

BS. Snopes = getting ad money to sound authoritative, no more, no less.

I've sent two corrections to Snopes. The first was in a myth about taking caffeine and aspirin. They had reported that there was nothing about the combination that would be stronger than both taken individually. I sent links to published studies demonstrating the synergistic effect of the combo, and links to common products (eg Excedrin) that pair them. Snopes updated the article to reflect the new information.

The second was regarding Marilyn Monroe having six toes. Now, I see no reason to believe that she did. However, some of their supporting "evidence" was that Monroe would've had a long recovery and a lasting limp. My wife, a podiatric surgeon, told them that this was completely untrue, and that she's amputated many toes over the years without long-term adverse affects to the patients. Snopes replied that she was wrong and that I was crazy for thinking Marilyn had 6 toes.

So I personally know of one article that presents completely, 100% wrong evidence as proof, and another that had completely ignored evidence that would have weakened their claim. How many other corrections have been ignored or rejected?

Snopes is not exhaustively researched, not by a long shot. Read the site for entertainment or as a starting point for further research, but don't take their word for anything.

Ever here of Snopes? http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/matrix.asp Case was dismissed for no evidence. (She didn't even show up.)

Snopes says... true. Wow, that almost never happens--I had always assumed this was a myth. The Snopes article, BTW, is much more informative and detailed than the one linked in the Slashdot post.

Snopes bet /. by 2 years
and the US Gumbiment bet them by 24 years!

In one 1985 study done by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration on the money machines in a U.S. Federal Reserve district bank, random samples of $50 and $100 bills revealed that a third to a half of all the currency tested bore traces of cocaine.

Great Scott!

it's now widely known that the first movie's plot was actually stolen from another author, Sophia Stewart

A quick look on the net bears another story, Snopes is a good place to start.

Other than that, you are spot on.

Snopes is laughably naive at times- this is a good example:
  http://www.snopes.com/quotes/bush.asp

So Campbell denies something, and the source of the claim goes to ground?

Sure... that sounds like snopes has reached a reliable interpretation of events.

Indeed it does.

Lloyd Grove of The Washington Post was unable to reach Baroness Williams to gain her confirmation of the tale, but he did receive a call from Alastair Campbell, Blair's director of communications and strategy. "I can tell you that the prime minister never heard George Bush say that, and he certainly never told Shirley Williams that President Bush did say it," Campbell told The Post. "If she put this in a speech, it must have been a joke." /quote

Seriously...do you see a shred of support for the claim that Bush said that to Blair? The most direct source denied it, the original source could not be reached to confirm it, and the original outlet was the famously sarcastic British tabloid press. Sounds like a thoroughly busted rumor to me.

Stop spreading this myth.

From Snopes:

Claim:NASA spent millions of dollars developing an "astronaut pen" which would work in outer space while the Soviets solved the same problem by simply using pencils.

Status:False.

Is the word "Sarcasm" not in your dictionary? You somehow know about Snopes, but not the common convention of emoticons to indicate a joke? Well, it appears that you are not alone. Maybe previous AC will learn to use [/sarcasm] tags from now on.

Snopes is laughably naive at times- this is a good example:

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/bush.asp

So Campbell denies something, and the source of the claim goes to ground?

Sure... that sounds like snopes has reached a reliable interpretation of events.

Stop spreading this myth.

From Snopes:

Claim:NASA spent millions of dollars developing an "astronaut pen" which would work in outer space while the Soviets solved the same problem by simply using pencils.

Status:False.

Who knows? But Time Warner gets about 2 million a year for a copyright of the *words* (not the tune, as that when into the public domain).

The strange thing is that nobody knows who wrote the words to "Happy Birthday". The copyright to the song was awarded to Jessica Hill in a lawsuit, and the Clayton F Summy Company and Jessica Hill secured the copyright in 1935 with the publishing of the sheet music with the words and a copyright notice. (The song had been published prior to that time, but not with any author or copyright, so those dates don't count).

The copyright will expire under current law in 2030, but isn't likely to without some movement, like the Pirate Party, to champaign for the value of the Public Domain.

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp

Just take it on faith that in some cultures a child of 5 asking where they came from is likely to be told they were found under a cabbage plant. (Yes, that is a literal example)

Snopes is unsure whether these people really exist. You seem to be able to answer this extremely intriguing question for us all.

All western societies are based upon implicit trust.

Totally agree with you, but you still need to use your noodle mate. If someone calls my number and says that I am late with a bill payment, I trust them and assume it's right - it's within the realms of common sense. If someone was to call me and say that my car had been picked up by the police and I should call the station at such and such, no problems, I would probably give them a call - but if they started telling me to start throwing chairs through windows to get a quicker police reaction time... I would have to let some common sense creep in and think it was a prank.

If you have such total implicit trust in strangers that you would do whatever they tell you, let me be the first to warn you about Nigerian email scams. They don't really have the money! It's all a scam!