No, they don't hate the consumer, they think the consumer is stupid and needs to be led by the hand(and frequently lied to) to see what is in his best interest. Of course that is a large part of why they are failing, the consumer says, "We want X, Y and Z. We don't want A, B, or C." The media companies respond, "No, no you really do want A, B, and C. And why would anybody be interested in X, Y and Z. Here, buy A, B and C from us." Then, they yell loudly as fewer and fewer buy their product.
You seem to be saying that a default installation of a wireless network is as secure as a default installation of a wired network. The other option is that you are saying that if you don't make any effort to secure your network, it is not secure. That's sort of like saying that if you don't eat, you'll starve to death.
Sure, if you know nothing about security. Why does everyone think wired is so secure? I would say well implemented wireless networks are more secure than the average wired network. This is because well implemented wireless networks have strong authentication (e.g. client side certificates) and encryption whereas most wired networks do not have these things.
So, let me get this straight: People should switch to wireless because they don't securely implement their wired connections, and properly configured wireless connections are more secure than improperly configured wired connections. Yes but which is more secure; a wired connection that has no security except default settings, or a wireless connection that has no security except default settings?
B.S. While you are right about the subtly different properties, the origin is very distinct and if a scientist doesn't know exactly which cell line he is working with derives from which type of source he is not only sloppy, he is in violation of GLP (Good Laboratory Practice) and can't get government money for any research. So the research results haven't muddied the results, the reports of the studies has muddied the distinction.
GLP is not just a U.S. regulation, every developed country in the world has GLP regulations. The company I work for does testing under all of them. China by the way does not have any GLP regulations at this time (which is why I am skeptical of this press release).
That may be, but that is a result of supporters of embryonic stem cell research (like the author of the linked article) muddying the waters by making it seem like all stem cell research is embryonic stem cell research.
Adult stem cells have been used for treatments for OVER 30 years, so the development of treatments using adult stem cells predates George W. Bush and his decision to fund SOME embryonic stem cell research (before that the federal government didn't fund ANY embryonic stem cell treatment).
This is an issue that is so full of FUD. George W> Bush was the first U.S. President to provide ANY federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
I am sorry, you are full of shit. There are many treatments that get approved that never receive any federal funding. I'm not even sure where you get the idea that in order to get approval federally funded research would have to be done.
Yes in order to get approval the federal government would have to review your research, but you don't have to take federal money in order to develop some new medical treatment.
That's his point. I believe he is saying that whether or not those currently running China have ethics (or morals) is an open question. And that perhaps the reason they are making these advances that the U.S. is not is the result of not having ethics.
It's not exactly true that Republican conservatives are REALLY against stem cell research.
From that perspective, their platforms are profitable:
IF you:
1) position your hedge investments in China and Korea
2) politicize science, and push domestic policies which are hostile to science.
3) PROFIT! Your investments stand a good chance at riding a tidal wave (out)...
It's not just with science either.
A lot of conservatives recognize the investment value of countries which DO "socialized medicine" or "universal education through college". They'll invest in such countries, but they don't want the same thing for America. The sad part is a lot of their base really DOES believe this stuff is "country first".
Of course, if you actually look at the people with hedge fund accounts, it turns out that most of them are Democrats.
You seem to be saying that it is easier to develop treatments with embryonic stem cells and then replicate those treatments with adult stem cells. The problem with that argument is that there are several treatments ALREADY in use using adult stem cells. The first treatment using embryonic stem cells will only enter trials later this year.
So, it seems to me that you don't see the facts as they are.
I have never heard of ANYONE who opposed adult stem cell research. You put up this straw man of "Right Wing Crazies" who don't understand the difference between embryonic and adult stem cells. As far as I can tell, the idea that there are "Right Wing Crazies" who oppose adult stem cell research is a fabrication of people who wish to marginalize all opponents to embryonic stem cell research rather than engage them in debate for the support of the general public.
The article is propaganda. It starts by saying that the U.S. lost ground by Bush limiting embryonic stem cell research and then gives as an example a breakthrough in Japan using adult stem cells. If that is an example of the critical thinking applied by the author to the claims, I tend to believe that this whole operation is a scam.
Time Warner didn't "merge AOL into it", AOL merged Time Warner into AOL. AOL bought Time Warner, not the other way around.
There were several online services in dial up days. Originally, none of them were connected to the Internet. People who had different online services couldn't exchange email. There was Compuserve (the uber-Geek network), there was Prodigy (for not completely geek early adopters), and AOL (for everybody else). OK there were a couple of others, but you get the idea. You could only access content on the service you paid for. You could only send email on the same service. If you were on Compuserve and your friend was on Prodigy, no email between you.
AOL was the only one of these to truly make a profit. When AOL bought Time Warner, the latter was struggling with their business model in the new age of the Internet. The people who were the target market for the other online services saw that the writing was on the wall for AOL (partly because those services had already succumbed for the most part), but they had been saying that since 1994 and AOL had only gotten bigger and richer since then.
The advent of high speed Internet put the final nail in AOL's coffin, not even buying Time Warner could save it.
I'd forgotten how complicated this whole story was. There is about three more paragraphs of explanation, but I will stop here.
There are improved electrolysis techniques which are making the possibility of hydrogen production on-the-fly feasible. This means that it is not only conceivable, but attainable to have a personal transportation vehicle, with an internal combustion that used to run on gasoline, that now runs on water.
No, it now runs on electric, not water. I don't see how separating water to produce hydrogen and then burning the hydrogen is more efficient that just running the motor on electricity in the first place.
Just as importantly, making voting easier does not improve the quality of the results of the election. The easier it is to vote the more people who are uninformed will vote. The harder it is to vote, the more likely that the voters will understand the issues being voted on.
I believe that voting should require some effort on the part of the voter (I oppose "motor-voter" registration). However, this effort should be the same regardless of income, race, social class, etc.
This wouldn't fix anything (although I personally would like to see it as well), do you know how many times I have had a firewall message come up "3g4trx has attempted to access the internet. Allow or deny?"? After I deny because I have no idea what "3g4trx" is, some recently installed program stops working. I personally think that software developers should clearly name the processes and secondary programs they call so that I know what piece of software is trying to access the internet (or for that matter I know what program is running when I look at everything that is currently running).
If the US pulled out of Iraq... who or what would be killing Iraqis? Other Iraqis? Sounds like an Iraqi problem, not a US problem.
No, not necessarily, most of the "insurgents" in Iraq have not been Iraqis, but muslims from other nations (mostly Arabs, but some non-Arabs from other muslim countries).
Arlen Specter wasn't a reliable supporter for a filibuster when he was a Republican. I doubt he will be any more reliable as a Democrat than he was as a Republican (except in as much as he is ideologically more of a Democrat than Republican anyway). Basically, if Specter would have supported a filibuster on a particular bill as a Republican, I expect that he will still support it even after he has switched parties.
They'd have chipped the wang off the Statue of David. Let's see, who else do I know that had a policy of making "Inappropriate" works of art disappear? Oh yes... The Christians.
There fixed that for you.
You do know that the statue of David was commissioned to stand in a Cathedral? Right? You know, a place of CHRISTIAN worship.
Most of my college papers had exactly one draft written the night before they were due with bibliography. Most of them received a B or better.
I do however agree that more student-teacher interaction would be a better solution to this problem. Teaching is a "labor" intensive task in that it optimizes at some small number of students per teacher. I do not believe that technology is capable of changing that to a significant degree.
Maybe. Would it have been as much of a disaster as Bush's reelection was? Probably not.
Since I don't think that Bush's second term was a disaster, there is no answer to your question. Bush's second term was not good, but all of the other options would have been a disaster.
From 1983 until 2001, Islamic terrorists directly struck U.S. interests somewhere in the world in a spectacular fashion with a frequency on the order of every two years. Since September 11, 2001, the only successful terrorist attacks against direct U.S. interests have been against troops deployed in a combat zone. That is not a disaster.
As for the economy, Bush tried to address the issue in 2003 by tightening controls on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and was told by prominent Democrats that not only wasn't there a problem that needed to be addressed, but things were grand with those two institutions.
Because conservatives (again despite the way that many Democrats try to paint them) are not single issue voters and they felt that he was better than the alternatives on issues that were more important than fiscal responsibility.
Conservatives supported George W. Bush in 2004 because they knew that if they didn't someone much worse would have won the election (John Kerry). If they had tried to nominate someone else for the Republican nominee, the wounds from the fighting would have led to the Democrats winning the election, which would have been a disaster in 2004.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, Media companies hate the consumer.
No, they don't hate the consumer, they think the consumer is stupid and needs to be led by the hand(and frequently lied to) to see what is in his best interest. Of course that is a large part of why they are failing, the consumer says, "We want X, Y and Z. We don't want A, B, or C." The media companies respond, "No, no you really do want A, B, and C. And why would anybody be interested in X, Y and Z. Here, buy A, B and C from us." Then, they yell loudly as fewer and fewer buy their product.
You seem to be saying that a default installation of a wireless network is as secure as a default installation of a wired network. The other option is that you are saying that if you don't make any effort to secure your network, it is not secure. That's sort of like saying that if you don't eat, you'll starve to death.
Sure, if you know nothing about security. Why does everyone think wired is so secure? I would say well implemented wireless networks are more secure than the average wired network. This is because well implemented wireless networks have strong authentication (e.g. client side certificates) and encryption whereas most wired networks do not have these things.
So, let me get this straight: People should switch to wireless because they don't securely implement their wired connections, and properly configured wireless connections are more secure than improperly configured wired connections. Yes but which is more secure; a wired connection that has no security except default settings, or a wireless connection that has no security except default settings?
B.S. While you are right about the subtly different properties, the origin is very distinct and if a scientist doesn't know exactly which cell line he is working with derives from which type of source he is not only sloppy, he is in violation of GLP (Good Laboratory Practice) and can't get government money for any research. So the research results haven't muddied the results, the reports of the studies has muddied the distinction.
GLP is not just a U.S. regulation, every developed country in the world has GLP regulations. The company I work for does testing under all of them. China by the way does not have any GLP regulations at this time (which is why I am skeptical of this press release).
They follow a fully developed system of ethics does not have the same conclusions as our own.
The scientist in question may be behaving ethically.
And if the scientist followed our ethical standards, he might be behaving unethically.
Who follows a fully developed system of ethics? The chinese from the article, or the Nazis? Or both?
That may be, but that is a result of supporters of embryonic stem cell research (like the author of the linked article) muddying the waters by making it seem like all stem cell research is embryonic stem cell research.
Adult stem cells have been used for treatments for OVER 30 years, so the development of treatments using adult stem cells predates George W. Bush and his decision to fund SOME embryonic stem cell research (before that the federal government didn't fund ANY embryonic stem cell treatment).
This is an issue that is so full of FUD. George W> Bush was the first U.S. President to provide ANY federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
The limits were not "added to Bill Clintons rules". Bill Clinton provided NO federal funding for embryonic research while he was President.
You do understand that before George W. Bush, there was NO federal funding for stem cell research at all.
I am sorry, you are full of shit. There are many treatments that get approved that never receive any federal funding. I'm not even sure where you get the idea that in order to get approval federally funded research would have to be done.
Yes in order to get approval the federal government would have to review your research, but you don't have to take federal money in order to develop some new medical treatment.
What they didn't have was ethics (or morals).
That's his point. I believe he is saying that whether or not those currently running China have ethics (or morals) is an open question. And that perhaps the reason they are making these advances that the U.S. is not is the result of not having ethics.
It's not exactly true that Republican conservatives are REALLY against stem cell research.
From that perspective, their platforms are profitable:
IF you: 1) position your hedge investments in China and Korea 2) politicize science, and push domestic policies which are hostile to science. 3) PROFIT! Your investments stand a good chance at riding a tidal wave (out)...
It's not just with science either.
A lot of conservatives recognize the investment value of countries which DO "socialized medicine" or "universal education through college". They'll invest in such countries, but they don't want the same thing for America. The sad part is a lot of their base really DOES believe this stuff is "country first".
Of course, if you actually look at the people with hedge fund accounts, it turns out that most of them are Democrats.
You seem to be saying that it is easier to develop treatments with embryonic stem cells and then replicate those treatments with adult stem cells. The problem with that argument is that there are several treatments ALREADY in use using adult stem cells. The first treatment using embryonic stem cells will only enter trials later this year.
So, it seems to me that you don't see the facts as they are.
I have never heard of ANYONE who opposed adult stem cell research. You put up this straw man of "Right Wing Crazies" who don't understand the difference between embryonic and adult stem cells. As far as I can tell, the idea that there are "Right Wing Crazies" who oppose adult stem cell research is a fabrication of people who wish to marginalize all opponents to embryonic stem cell research rather than engage them in debate for the support of the general public.
The article is propaganda. It starts by saying that the U.S. lost ground by Bush limiting embryonic stem cell research and then gives as an example a breakthrough in Japan using adult stem cells. If that is an example of the critical thinking applied by the author to the claims, I tend to believe that this whole operation is a scam.
Time Warner didn't "merge AOL into it", AOL merged Time Warner into AOL. AOL bought Time Warner, not the other way around.
There were several online services in dial up days. Originally, none of them were connected to the Internet. People who had different online services couldn't exchange email. There was Compuserve (the uber-Geek network), there was Prodigy (for not completely geek early adopters), and AOL (for everybody else). OK there were a couple of others, but you get the idea. You could only access content on the service you paid for. You could only send email on the same service. If you were on Compuserve and your friend was on Prodigy, no email between you.
AOL was the only one of these to truly make a profit. When AOL bought Time Warner, the latter was struggling with their business model in the new age of the Internet. The people who were the target market for the other online services saw that the writing was on the wall for AOL (partly because those services had already succumbed for the most part), but they had been saying that since 1994 and AOL had only gotten bigger and richer since then.
The advent of high speed Internet put the final nail in AOL's coffin, not even buying Time Warner could save it.
I'd forgotten how complicated this whole story was. There is about three more paragraphs of explanation, but I will stop here.
There are improved electrolysis techniques which are making the possibility of hydrogen production on-the-fly feasible. This means that it is not only conceivable, but attainable to have a personal transportation vehicle, with an internal combustion that used to run on gasoline, that now runs on water.
No, it now runs on electric, not water. I don't see how separating water to produce hydrogen and then burning the hydrogen is more efficient that just running the motor on electricity in the first place.
Just as importantly, making voting easier does not improve the quality of the results of the election. The easier it is to vote the more people who are uninformed will vote. The harder it is to vote, the more likely that the voters will understand the issues being voted on.
I believe that voting should require some effort on the part of the voter (I oppose "motor-voter" registration). However, this effort should be the same regardless of income, race, social class, etc.
This wouldn't fix anything (although I personally would like to see it as well), do you know how many times I have had a firewall message come up "3g4trx has attempted to access the internet. Allow or deny?"? After I deny because I have no idea what "3g4trx" is, some recently installed program stops working. I personally think that software developers should clearly name the processes and secondary programs they call so that I know what piece of software is trying to access the internet (or for that matter I know what program is running when I look at everything that is currently running).
If the US pulled out of Iraq... who or what would be killing Iraqis? Other Iraqis? Sounds like an Iraqi problem, not a US problem.
No, not necessarily, most of the "insurgents" in Iraq have not been Iraqis, but muslims from other nations (mostly Arabs, but some non-Arabs from other muslim countries).
Arlen Specter wasn't a reliable supporter for a filibuster when he was a Republican. I doubt he will be any more reliable as a Democrat than he was as a Republican (except in as much as he is ideologically more of a Democrat than Republican anyway). Basically, if Specter would have supported a filibuster on a particular bill as a Republican, I expect that he will still support it even after he has switched parties.
They'd have chipped the wang off the Statue of David. Let's see, who else do I know that had a policy of making "Inappropriate" works of art disappear? Oh yes... The Christians.
There fixed that for you.
You do know that the statue of David was commissioned to stand in a Cathedral? Right? You know, a place of CHRISTIAN worship.
Most of my college papers had exactly one draft written the night before they were due with bibliography. Most of them received a B or better.
I do however agree that more student-teacher interaction would be a better solution to this problem. Teaching is a "labor" intensive task in that it optimizes at some small number of students per teacher. I do not believe that technology is capable of changing that to a significant degree.
Maybe. Would it have been as much of a disaster as Bush's reelection was? Probably not.
Since I don't think that Bush's second term was a disaster, there is no answer to your question. Bush's second term was not good, but all of the other options would have been a disaster.
From 1983 until 2001, Islamic terrorists directly struck U.S. interests somewhere in the world in a spectacular fashion with a frequency on the order of every two years. Since September 11, 2001, the only successful terrorist attacks against direct U.S. interests have been against troops deployed in a combat zone. That is not a disaster.
As for the economy, Bush tried to address the issue in 2003 by tightening controls on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and was told by prominent Democrats that not only wasn't there a problem that needed to be addressed, but things were grand with those two institutions.
Because conservatives (again despite the way that many Democrats try to paint them) are not single issue voters and they felt that he was better than the alternatives on issues that were more important than fiscal responsibility.
Conservatives supported George W. Bush in 2004 because they knew that if they didn't someone much worse would have won the election (John Kerry). If they had tried to nominate someone else for the Republican nominee, the wounds from the fighting would have led to the Democrats winning the election, which would have been a disaster in 2004.