I notice no crocodile tears are shed by Murdoch for the authors, who are still stuck at 5 to 10% of revenue.
5 to 10% of revenue is a pretty big chunk for a single individual in the process. The brick and mortar bookstore owner(in the case of printed books) is happy to be pocketing at most 5% of revenue on a book. The rest of the 40 to 60% of the cover price that the bookstore gets go to cover the cost of operating the bookstore (rent, electricity, etc).
I haven't checked the profitability of publishers lately, but while they generally do ok, they are not raking it in hand over fist. Most of the revenue that goes to the publisher, also, does to expenses. Unlike in the music industry, there is not a lot of money just floating around in publishing.
If the publishers want more money they could have just started rising price (regardless of the fact we are in the midst of a rather major depression). But to attempt to dictate retail prices by banding together is nothing but an assault on copyright law.
That is what Macmillan did, they raised the price of ebooks. Amazon attempted to push back and lost. Macmillan didn't "band together" with other publishers, they just recognized (and seized) the opportunity that Apple's entry into the ebook market gave them.
This does not mean that I think highly of Macmillan's move to raise the prices of ebooks, to be precise, I dislike it. But that doesn't mean that it isn't a legitimate business decision on their part. Does this decision to raise the price on their ebooks diminish the chances that I will get an ebook reader? Yes. But since those chances were slim after Amazon's "1984" action, it really doesn't affect them much
(Gary Kildall?), which person didn't show up. Surfing or something. Wasn't interested in meeting the suits.
Gary Kildall, the writer of the CP/M operating system, wanted to go flying that morning. QDOS was written at a shop called "Seattle Computer Products" by a worthy named Tim Patterson.
Notice how every one of these stories involves someone at the very zenith of their career blowing-off a meeting with the punk Bill Gates. This general lackadaisy strongly hints at just how insignificant people though PCs were going to be at the time, and how BillG primarily deserves credit for being the only person in the room at the time who didn't think the Personal Computer, as a concept, wasn't a total joke. Even the people who wrote CP/M and QDOS thought PCs were a joke, and that their creations were just weird redheaded stepchildren of their minicomputer OSs. Only Gates and Jobs thought personal computing would go anywhere, and while Jobs was and remains in love with the idea of PC as a Personal Information Appliance, and BillG was the only one that thought you could make a huge business out of selling the software, completely ignoring hardware manufacturing.
Bill Gates had nothing to do with the meeting between IBM and Gary Kildall. IBM knew who Gary Kildall was and arranged the meeting completely independent of Bill Gates (or anybody else at MS). Gary Kildall was scared off by IBM's nondisclosure agreement and reputation.
Seattle Computer Products (and Tim Patterson)knew nothing about IBM's need for an OS for their new PC. It was not a matter of thinking that PCs were a joke.
If I remember my lore correctly, when Gates first set up a meeting with IBM over QDOS, he actually invited the guy who was responsible for it (Gary Kildall?), which person didn't show up. Surfing or something. Wasn't interested in meeting the suits.
That was actually the meeting between Gary Kildall (owner of Digital Research and writer of CP/M) and IBM. Bill Gates had nothing to do with that meeting. One version of the story says he went flying instead of showing up at the meeting arranged by IBM. Gary Kildall has said that that isn't true. He says he objected to the draconian nondisclosure agreement IBM wanted him to sign.
The company that wrote QDOS didn't know IBM was looking for an OS for their new PC. I'm not even sure that anybody even knew they were building one yet when Microsoft bought QDOS from the company that first wrote it (although I'm pretty sure the rumors had started at the least).
MS-DOS? Not remotely innovative. The well-known story is that Gates snuck in under the radar to grab the contract for the IBM PC's operating system from Digital Research (developers of the then-dominant CP/M OS, and probable favourites for the job).
Of course, Gates didn't actually have an OS, and then had to go out and buy one from a small software company [wikipedia.org]. Which was basically just an unremarkable workalike/blatant-ripoff (delete according to opinion) of CP/M anyway. That became PC-DOS/MS-DOS 1, of course, but you'll note that the interest here is in how Gates grabbed the contract, not in that totally unremarkable and uninnovative (rip)off-the-shelf OS.
This is not entirely correct, although it is close. Bill Gates has successfully sold IBM's PC division on a couple of compilers for their new PC, but IBM didn't yet have an OS. They went to the CEO of Digital Research, but he was put off by IBM's boilerplate nondisclosure agreement (it may have been more than just an NDA, I don't remember exactly). There are a couple of different stories about how he responded to IBM's overture, but the end result was that the IBM guys felt like he didn't want to do business with them.
Now IBM had decided to use a new chip from Intel at the core of their PC. There was no OS yet written to work on it. At the same time, a small company in Seattle was developing machines that used this new Intel chip. They needed an OS for it. One of their employees wrote a quick and dirty OS (QDOS) that would do for them to get their machine out the door and working. The plan being that if someone developed a better OS for the chip later they would buy it and start using it. I forget how Bill Gates learned of this OS, but he promptly went to this company and bought the rights to distribute it. QDOS was not a rip off of CP/M, but it had enough similarities that when Digital Research made DR-DOS, Microsoft couldn't stop them. I'm sure there are others on here are more familiar with the details.
However, your main point is correct MS has never been an innovator (except maybe a bit with their compilers in the early days).
Actually, the punishment system does work much of the time. The problem is for those with the authority to punish being able to identify the bully. The victim of bullying can identify the bully, but how do you distinguish between good natured ribbing between peers and bullying? This study says that often times the behavior changes from good natured ribbing to bullying because the victim does not recognize the social signals being sent in a situation. Nothing in what this article says is meant to let the bully off the hook. It is meant to help the victims of bullies learn how to not be targets.
I understand the point of this article. I fit into the demographic that gets bullied, yet I never did. This article explains why. I never fought anybody in school and I was one of the "geeks", yet the bullies always left me alone. I sent out the signals that told the bullies I was not a victim.
Just like Battered Wife Syndrome, bullying is something that, ultimately, is the fault of the aggressor. Appeasement is not the solution.
Battered Wife Syndrome is real. I have known several women who have gone from abusive relationship to abusive relationship. When one of them asked a friend why they never met any decent guys, the friend told them they should start going to specific places where decent guys hung out to meet men rather than the places they usually went to, The battered woman's response was that all the guys who hung out at those places were boring. I know similar stories for most of the women I've known who always got into relationships with abusive men. Actually, I've, also, known one who, when she did date a nice guy, she tried to turn him into someone who would physically abuse her (she failed). They could never understand that the things they found attractive in a man were signs that he was abusive towards the women in his life. BTW, all the women I've known with this problem where I've known their background, were sexually bullied by guys from the time they hit puberty.
This by no means lets the men off the hook for battering women, in my opinion, it is always wrong for a man to hit a woman. Not all women who are abused by their SO suffer from Battered Wife Syndrome.
You can piss and moan all you want about people being dicks and guess what - they will still be dicks. Its like those personal ads where the girl says things like "no jerks need reply" - like that would ever stop a jerk.
That reminds me of one of the "tricks" I saw young women use to keep jerks from hitting on them. They would wear a wedding ring to make it look like they were married. All of the women I knew who tried that trick always ended up dating jerks. They always wondered why they never met any nice guys. They never understood that nice guys were the only ones who were put off by the wedding ring.
"You're here and you're smaller than me so you're gonna get beat up"
I remember a kid who thought that way when I was in junior high school. This bully always got away with beating kids up because they were always afraid to tell the teachers what had happened. Seconf year, there was a new kid at the school who was really small for his age. The bully thought he would make a great target. The problem is there was one thing he didn't know about this new kid. The new kid had a black belt in taekwondo. The bully threw the first punch and the new kid beat the snot out of him. Bully ended up in the nurse's office and suspended.
You have a real reading comprehension problem. At no point do I suggest that I have any trust of the government. The part of my post which you appear to take as "absolute trust in your government" is me describing the way that I believe it should work, not the way I believe that it does work.
Actually, the part you take as "rampant distrust of your fellow man", is not about distrusting people. It is about not exposing one's children to danger that one has reason to suspect without evidence that that reason is incorrect.
Innocent until proven guilty is important in court and before the government, but it is not such a good idea for private individuals. If you are a parent and rumor or your instinct tell that Person A is a child molester, don't leave your child alone with Person A until you are convinced that Person A is not a child molester (the same rule applies to other situations involving individuals, although the standard of proof may be less in most circumstances). However, people should not be locked up on the basis of rumor or somebody's instinct. They shouldn't be seriously investigated by the authorities on that basis, although a quick preliminary check might be called for (something along the lines of a quick background check to see if they have a criminal record).
There have been cases where police have pulled people over on "instinct" and found something serious that was later thrown out because they didn't have what the courts considered sufficient cause. On the other hand, people have been pulled over on suspicion and convicted of something minor that had little to do with why they pulled the person over in the first place. Both are wrong. If the cops pull somebody over because they were driving slowly through an area that has had problems with driveby shootings and all they find is a pipe with pot residue in it, they should let the person go. If on the other hand they find a fully loaded automatic weapon in a car with somebody who had previously been convicted of a gang related crime, well, that's a different story (and I would want further details before deciding what course of action the police should have followed).
Well, we have a better invention, the human-adapted city. In cities that were build for people and not for cars, the grocery store is no more than two blocks away..
And the food costs quite a bit more because it has a much smaller customer base than most supermarkets. Oh yeah, it also has less variety because, again, it has a smaller customer base.
Protecting a trademark means going after people who use it to refer to something that can be mistaken for your product.
For example, a radio show I listen to has "Lost" parties where they get people together to watch the TV show "Lost". They promote them heavily. They have not obtained official permission from the network for these parties. If they tried the same thing with the Super Bowl and referred to them as "Super Bowl Parties", the NFL would be all over them (or at least it would have been two or three years ago, I haven't heard anything about the NFL going after media for using Super Bowl in an unauthorized manner in the last year or so, so maybe they stopped).
No, that is not true "jocks" are the ones who actually play the sports. While some jocks are also sports nerds, most sports nerds are no closer to being actual jocks than a stereotypical geek is.
I do know that a couple of years ago, media organizations stopped referring to events they were sponsoring as "Super Bowl Random Event" but instead started to refer to them as "Big Game Random Event". Frequently they would make a point about not being able to use Super Bowl to refer to the event because of licensing issues with the NFL. At the time I thought that the NFL was shooting themselves in the foot. What makes the Super Bowl such a big money maker for them is its cultural ubiquity in the U.S.. If there are not a lot of events planned around the game, people will pay less attention to the game. If too many of the events planned around the game are "Big Game" events rather than "Super Bowl" events, it will diminish the value of the words "Super Bowl".
It is an easy error to make when one considers that a: English is not your native language and b: you work in a field that uses the term "academic paper" in a different (although related) way.
You seem to have a misunderstanding of what the article meant when it said "Academic papers". It was not referring to papers submitted to a journal for publication. It was referring to papers being submitted for a grade (there may be some indication that these papers were theoretically supposed to be carefully researched, as opposed to a paper whose purpose was merely to express the student's opinion). The implication is that one would think that by the time that students get to university, they would be taught to follow formal grammatical rules for academic papers.
I think it is unlikely that "cuz" will become standard any time soon. In current slang it is a shortening of two very different words: because (using "cuz" for that is of longer standing, it was used in informal writing before the advent of PCs) and cousin (although "cuz" does not parse exactly the same as cousin in those cases where it is used as a shortening for it).
Yes, there are existing words that have completely different meanings for the same word depending on context. However, those words generally have been in use for a long time (over 100 years) and in many (most?) cases they were already "accepted" words which acquired a second meaning.
Let's look at actual implementation, when Washington DC implemented its recently overturned strict gun laws, violent crime rates rose. The same is true of other localities. When states have passed laws making it easy for anyone without a criminal record to get concealed carry permits, violent crime rates fell.
If it has mini HDMI to plug into a bigger screen, 11" built in screen is too big (unless it is foldable). Personally, I want a keyboard, but I think there might be a market for one with just touch screen. Price needs to be below $300. If you can get it below $200, it is a game changer. It seems that all of the manufacturers introduce cheap machines then try to leverage that to higher priced machine.
Really? When was the last time you opened a document created in Word 95? How about Excel 95? Did they open with no problem?
Government documents often remain unchanged (and sometimes unlooked at) for the length of time necessary for a transition like Word 95 to Word 2007.
The article also points out that this method could work around the ethical issues surrounding embryonic stem-cell research.
This is more a religious issue rather than ethical - much like the pro-choice and anti-choice debate. Same people are anti-stem cell as those who are anti-choice.
Right, the same people who are in favor of killing unborn babies just because people don't want to have a baby, are in favor of killing unborn babies to harvest stem cells to use for medical research (even though all of the evidence points to those cells being of no medical use).
There are no "workarounds" in the need for embryonic stem cells. Each approach and method of stem cell generation have their respective strengths and weaknesses
What "need" for embryonic stem cells? Can you tell me of one successful therapeutic use for embryonic stem cells?
Slashdot Mirror
Right, they don't want their devlopers to realize that Google encourages and rewards outstanding developers.
I notice no crocodile tears are shed by Murdoch for the authors, who are still stuck at 5 to 10% of revenue.
5 to 10% of revenue is a pretty big chunk for a single individual in the process. The brick and mortar bookstore owner(in the case of printed books) is happy to be pocketing at most 5% of revenue on a book. The rest of the 40 to 60% of the cover price that the bookstore gets go to cover the cost of operating the bookstore (rent, electricity, etc). I haven't checked the profitability of publishers lately, but while they generally do ok, they are not raking it in hand over fist. Most of the revenue that goes to the publisher, also, does to expenses. Unlike in the music industry, there is not a lot of money just floating around in publishing.
If the publishers want more money they could have just started rising price (regardless of the fact we are in the midst of a rather major depression). But to attempt to dictate retail prices by banding together is nothing but an assault on copyright law.
That is what Macmillan did, they raised the price of ebooks. Amazon attempted to push back and lost. Macmillan didn't "band together" with other publishers, they just recognized (and seized) the opportunity that Apple's entry into the ebook market gave them.
This does not mean that I think highly of Macmillan's move to raise the prices of ebooks, to be precise, I dislike it. But that doesn't mean that it isn't a legitimate business decision on their part. Does this decision to raise the price on their ebooks diminish the chances that I will get an ebook reader? Yes. But since those chances were slim after Amazon's "1984" action, it really doesn't affect them much
Gary Kildall, the writer of the CP/M operating system, wanted to go flying that morning. QDOS was written at a shop called "Seattle Computer Products" by a worthy named Tim Patterson.
Notice how every one of these stories involves someone at the very zenith of their career blowing-off a meeting with the punk Bill Gates. This general lackadaisy strongly hints at just how insignificant people though PCs were going to be at the time, and how BillG primarily deserves credit for being the only person in the room at the time who didn't think the Personal Computer, as a concept, wasn't a total joke. Even the people who wrote CP/M and QDOS thought PCs were a joke, and that their creations were just weird redheaded stepchildren of their minicomputer OSs. Only Gates and Jobs thought personal computing would go anywhere, and while Jobs was and remains in love with the idea of PC as a Personal Information Appliance, and BillG was the only one that thought you could make a huge business out of selling the software, completely ignoring hardware manufacturing.
Bill Gates had nothing to do with the meeting between IBM and Gary Kildall. IBM knew who Gary Kildall was and arranged the meeting completely independent of Bill Gates (or anybody else at MS). Gary Kildall was scared off by IBM's nondisclosure agreement and reputation.
Seattle Computer Products (and Tim Patterson)knew nothing about IBM's need for an OS for their new PC. It was not a matter of thinking that PCs were a joke.
If I remember my lore correctly, when Gates first set up a meeting with IBM over QDOS, he actually invited the guy who was responsible for it (Gary Kildall?), which person didn't show up. Surfing or something. Wasn't interested in meeting the suits.
That was actually the meeting between Gary Kildall (owner of Digital Research and writer of CP/M) and IBM. Bill Gates had nothing to do with that meeting. One version of the story says he went flying instead of showing up at the meeting arranged by IBM. Gary Kildall has said that that isn't true. He says he objected to the draconian nondisclosure agreement IBM wanted him to sign.
The company that wrote QDOS didn't know IBM was looking for an OS for their new PC. I'm not even sure that anybody even knew they were building one yet when Microsoft bought QDOS from the company that first wrote it (although I'm pretty sure the rumors had started at the least).
MS-DOS? Not remotely innovative. The well-known story is that Gates snuck in under the radar to grab the contract for the IBM PC's operating system from Digital Research (developers of the then-dominant CP/M OS, and probable favourites for the job). Of course, Gates didn't actually have an OS, and then had to go out and buy one from a small software company [wikipedia.org]. Which was basically just an unremarkable workalike/blatant-ripoff (delete according to opinion) of CP/M anyway. That became PC-DOS/MS-DOS 1, of course, but you'll note that the interest here is in how Gates grabbed the contract, not in that totally unremarkable and uninnovative (rip)off-the-shelf OS.
This is not entirely correct, although it is close. Bill Gates has successfully sold IBM's PC division on a couple of compilers for their new PC, but IBM didn't yet have an OS. They went to the CEO of Digital Research, but he was put off by IBM's boilerplate nondisclosure agreement (it may have been more than just an NDA, I don't remember exactly). There are a couple of different stories about how he responded to IBM's overture, but the end result was that the IBM guys felt like he didn't want to do business with them.
Now IBM had decided to use a new chip from Intel at the core of their PC. There was no OS yet written to work on it. At the same time, a small company in Seattle was developing machines that used this new Intel chip. They needed an OS for it. One of their employees wrote a quick and dirty OS (QDOS) that would do for them to get their machine out the door and working. The plan being that if someone developed a better OS for the chip later they would buy it and start using it. I forget how Bill Gates learned of this OS, but he promptly went to this company and bought the rights to distribute it. QDOS was not a rip off of CP/M, but it had enough similarities that when Digital Research made DR-DOS, Microsoft couldn't stop them. I'm sure there are others on here are more familiar with the details.
However, your main point is correct MS has never been an innovator (except maybe a bit with their compilers in the early days).
Actually, the punishment system does work much of the time. The problem is for those with the authority to punish being able to identify the bully. The victim of bullying can identify the bully, but how do you distinguish between good natured ribbing between peers and bullying? This study says that often times the behavior changes from good natured ribbing to bullying because the victim does not recognize the social signals being sent in a situation. Nothing in what this article says is meant to let the bully off the hook. It is meant to help the victims of bullies learn how to not be targets.
I understand the point of this article. I fit into the demographic that gets bullied, yet I never did. This article explains why. I never fought anybody in school and I was one of the "geeks", yet the bullies always left me alone. I sent out the signals that told the bullies I was not a victim.
Just like Battered Wife Syndrome, bullying is something that, ultimately, is the fault of the aggressor. Appeasement is not the solution.
Battered Wife Syndrome is real. I have known several women who have gone from abusive relationship to abusive relationship. When one of them asked a friend why they never met any decent guys, the friend told them they should start going to specific places where decent guys hung out to meet men rather than the places they usually went to, The battered woman's response was that all the guys who hung out at those places were boring. I know similar stories for most of the women I've known who always got into relationships with abusive men. Actually, I've, also, known one who, when she did date a nice guy, she tried to turn him into someone who would physically abuse her (she failed). They could never understand that the things they found attractive in a man were signs that he was abusive towards the women in his life. BTW, all the women I've known with this problem where I've known their background, were sexually bullied by guys from the time they hit puberty.
This by no means lets the men off the hook for battering women, in my opinion, it is always wrong for a man to hit a woman. Not all women who are abused by their SO suffer from Battered Wife Syndrome.
Blaming the victim only keeps the cycle going.
You can piss and moan all you want about people being dicks and guess what - they will still be dicks. Its like those personal ads where the girl says things like "no jerks need reply" - like that would ever stop a jerk.
That reminds me of one of the "tricks" I saw young women use to keep jerks from hitting on them. They would wear a wedding ring to make it look like they were married. All of the women I knew who tried that trick always ended up dating jerks. They always wondered why they never met any nice guys. They never understood that nice guys were the only ones who were put off by the wedding ring.
"You're here and you're smaller than me so you're gonna get beat up"
I remember a kid who thought that way when I was in junior high school. This bully always got away with beating kids up because they were always afraid to tell the teachers what had happened. Seconf year, there was a new kid at the school who was really small for his age. The bully thought he would make a great target. The problem is there was one thing he didn't know about this new kid. The new kid had a black belt in taekwondo. The bully threw the first punch and the new kid beat the snot out of him. Bully ended up in the nurse's office and suspended.
You have a real reading comprehension problem. At no point do I suggest that I have any trust of the government. The part of my post which you appear to take as "absolute trust in your government" is me describing the way that I believe it should work, not the way I believe that it does work.
Actually, the part you take as "rampant distrust of your fellow man", is not about distrusting people. It is about not exposing one's children to danger that one has reason to suspect without evidence that that reason is incorrect.
Innocent until proven guilty is important in court and before the government, but it is not such a good idea for private individuals. If you are a parent and rumor or your instinct tell that Person A is a child molester, don't leave your child alone with Person A until you are convinced that Person A is not a child molester (the same rule applies to other situations involving individuals, although the standard of proof may be less in most circumstances). However, people should not be locked up on the basis of rumor or somebody's instinct. They shouldn't be seriously investigated by the authorities on that basis, although a quick preliminary check might be called for (something along the lines of a quick background check to see if they have a criminal record).
There have been cases where police have pulled people over on "instinct" and found something serious that was later thrown out because they didn't have what the courts considered sufficient cause. On the other hand, people have been pulled over on suspicion and convicted of something minor that had little to do with why they pulled the person over in the first place. Both are wrong. If the cops pull somebody over because they were driving slowly through an area that has had problems with driveby shootings and all they find is a pipe with pot residue in it, they should let the person go. If on the other hand they find a fully loaded automatic weapon in a car with somebody who had previously been convicted of a gang related crime, well, that's a different story (and I would want further details before deciding what course of action the police should have followed).
Well, we have a better invention, the human-adapted city. In cities that were build for people and not for cars, the grocery store is no more than two blocks away. .
And the food costs quite a bit more because it has a much smaller customer base than most supermarkets. Oh yeah, it also has less variety because, again, it has a smaller customer base.
Protecting a trademark means going after people who use it to refer to something that can be mistaken for your product.
For example, a radio show I listen to has "Lost" parties where they get people together to watch the TV show "Lost". They promote them heavily. They have not obtained official permission from the network for these parties. If they tried the same thing with the Super Bowl and referred to them as "Super Bowl Parties", the NFL would be all over them (or at least it would have been two or three years ago, I haven't heard anything about the NFL going after media for using Super Bowl in an unauthorized manner in the last year or so, so maybe they stopped).
Sports nerds are generally called "jocks".
No, that is not true "jocks" are the ones who actually play the sports. While some jocks are also sports nerds, most sports nerds are no closer to being actual jocks than a stereotypical geek is.
I do know that a couple of years ago, media organizations stopped referring to events they were sponsoring as "Super Bowl Random Event" but instead started to refer to them as "Big Game Random Event". Frequently they would make a point about not being able to use Super Bowl to refer to the event because of licensing issues with the NFL. At the time I thought that the NFL was shooting themselves in the foot. What makes the Super Bowl such a big money maker for them is its cultural ubiquity in the U.S.. If there are not a lot of events planned around the game, people will pay less attention to the game. If too many of the events planned around the game are "Big Game" events rather than "Super Bowl" events, it will diminish the value of the words "Super Bowl".
It is an easy error to make when one considers that a: English is not your native language and b: you work in a field that uses the term "academic paper" in a different (although related) way.
You seem to have a misunderstanding of what the article meant when it said "Academic papers". It was not referring to papers submitted to a journal for publication. It was referring to papers being submitted for a grade (there may be some indication that these papers were theoretically supposed to be carefully researched, as opposed to a paper whose purpose was merely to express the student's opinion). The implication is that one would think that by the time that students get to university, they would be taught to follow formal grammatical rules for academic papers.
I think it is unlikely that "cuz" will become standard any time soon. In current slang it is a shortening of two very different words: because (using "cuz" for that is of longer standing, it was used in informal writing before the advent of PCs) and cousin (although "cuz" does not parse exactly the same as cousin in those cases where it is used as a shortening for it).
Yes, there are existing words that have completely different meanings for the same word depending on context. However, those words generally have been in use for a long time (over 100 years) and in many (most?) cases they were already "accepted" words which acquired a second meaning.
Let's look at actual implementation, when Washington DC implemented its recently overturned strict gun laws, violent crime rates rose. The same is true of other localities. When states have passed laws making it easy for anyone without a criminal record to get concealed carry permits, violent crime rates fell.
If it has mini HDMI to plug into a bigger screen, 11" built in screen is too big (unless it is foldable). Personally, I want a keyboard, but I think there might be a market for one with just touch screen. Price needs to be below $300. If you can get it below $200, it is a game changer. It seems that all of the manufacturers introduce cheap machines then try to leverage that to higher priced machine.
Improve the economic well being of a population and it will shrink.
Really? When was the last time you opened a document created in Word 95? How about Excel 95? Did they open with no problem?
Government documents often remain unchanged (and sometimes unlooked at) for the length of time necessary for a transition like Word 95 to Word 2007.
This is more a religious issue rather than ethical - much like the pro-choice and anti-choice debate. Same people are anti-stem cell as those who are anti-choice.
Right, the same people who are in favor of killing unborn babies just because people don't want to have a baby, are in favor of killing unborn babies to harvest stem cells to use for medical research (even though all of the evidence points to those cells being of no medical use).
There are no "workarounds" in the need for embryonic stem cells. Each approach and method of stem cell generation have their respective strengths and weaknesses
What "need" for embryonic stem cells? Can you tell me of one successful therapeutic use for embryonic stem cells?
The problem is that as a general rule, children in public schools have little or no "influence from above".