The contract calls for spending $9.5 million through January, and as much as $18 million through 2014, according to the GSA press release.
This doesn't say it outright, but I'm assuming from past experience that the site is probably supposed to go live around January, with the 9.5 million being for the site creation, and then the rest of that money being potentially spent on maintenance, change requests after the fact, etc.
Now, in addition to that speculation, what are the chances that it goes into production when scheduled...
alas, no mod points right now...
But you make a good point. I'm sick of incomplete deregulation followed by problems being blamed on the market, when they're actually caused by the government interference in said market.
I wouldn't say that we "shouldn't" understand anything. But, when we don't (yet) understand what we're doing, we shouldn't mess with it lightly. In other words, I don't think it's such a great idea to take risks in "designing" babies to have particular superficial qualities (eye color, gender, etc), but it would be worthwhile if we can screen out a serious debilitating condition.
Yeah, weight loss is just so easy, all we have to do is provide mirrors to all these overweight people so they'll find out they're fat, and the pounds will drop off just like that...
Most couples faced with the news of a Down syndrome or Spina Bifida simply abort.
Sounds like this would be a great thing then. I know that it would be a lot less painful for me to not choose an embryo for transfer that had one of these conditions than to be faced with the abortion decision. I'm sure that it's not easy for anyone else, either.
Re:a curious choice of words
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 1
Wish I had points to mod you up! This could save people a lot of heartbreak and money. A single cycle of IVF can cost between $10K and $20K, and the pain of finally getting pregnant, and then miscarrying makes it worse.
In most cases of IVF, not all embryos are transferred anyway, so if they can select the ones that have the best chance of making it, how is this not a good thing?
I wholeheartedly agree with you except for the part where you seem to discount your effort by calling it an "inspirational moment". I think this actually feeds the notion that intellectual efforts are somehow less worthy of compensation than physical efforts.
If you aren't able to afford to buy anything more expensive than the cheap plastic shit sold at Wal-Mart then you are part of the problem???
FIFY...
Seriously, I do look for products made in the US, and if they are better quality and I can afford them, I buy them. But that's not always an option for me, and for people who make even less than I do, it's even harder.
How do these people stay employed? Standards compliance doesn't get the attention I wish it did in my company, but if we deliver something that doesn't work in at least IE, Firefox and Safari, I'll hear about it and be fixing it.
I'm glad I don't work with any of those "non-clueful" people...
This is very true. I think they should not be putting the burden on car owners, for this reason. I did not drive a 20+ year old beast of a car because I wanted to, but because I couldn't afford anything else, and I had to get to work and school somehow. When it finally wouldn't pass emissions tests and they made us get rid of it, I had to do without a car. I was very lucky that public transportation was at least possible, even though it meant a 2 hour commute each way, putting severe limits on my work availability. Some people don't even have that option, if their homes and workplaces aren't near bus routes, or they have less forgiving work schedules, family obligations, etc.
In some areas, that 2500 to 4500 may buy them a slightly newer used car which is a little more fuel efficient, but in other areas, you can't get any kind of reliable car for that price.
If taxpayer's money must be spent, perhaps it would be better to expand the availability of public transportation, so that when those old, inefficient cars just plain wear out in a few years, the owners of those cars will have something to fall back on for getting to work.
It would be better than penalizing the people who can least afford it by taking away their cars that are still running.
Slashdot Mirror
The contract calls for spending $9.5 million through January, and as much as $18 million through 2014, according to the GSA press release.
This doesn't say it outright, but I'm assuming from past experience that the site is probably supposed to go live around January, with the 9.5 million being for the site creation, and then the rest of that money being potentially spent on maintenance, change requests after the fact, etc.
Now, in addition to that speculation, what are the chances that it goes into production when scheduled...
That would mess up the plan of keeping a majority of the votes^H^H^H^H^Hpeople dependent on the government...
alas, no mod points right now... But you make a good point. I'm sick of incomplete deregulation followed by problems being blamed on the market, when they're actually caused by the government interference in said market.
I wouldn't say that we "shouldn't" understand anything. But, when we don't (yet) understand what we're doing, we shouldn't mess with it lightly. In other words, I don't think it's such a great idea to take risks in "designing" babies to have particular superficial qualities (eye color, gender, etc), but it would be worthwhile if we can screen out a serious debilitating condition.
I love DBZ, but that is so true... lol
We're doing our share, the geekling should grace us with his/her presence in about 5 1/2 months... :)
Memento was awesome! :)
But isn't our current government committed to green energy? Doesn't that mean that this won't happen anymore?
mod + insightful (I'd like to hear an answer to this as well)
Why does the desire for privacy of one's own body have to have anything to do with sex?
Yeah, weight loss is just so easy, all we have to do is provide mirrors to all these overweight people so they'll find out they're fat, and the pounds will drop off just like that...
In socialist USA, the government owns corporations
Most couples faced with the news of a Down syndrome or Spina Bifida simply abort.
Sounds like this would be a great thing then. I know that it would be a lot less painful for me to not choose an embryo for transfer that had one of these conditions than to be faced with the abortion decision. I'm sure that it's not easy for anyone else, either.
Sex-linked diseases...
http://www.gender-select.com/gender_selection_sex_linked_diseases.html
Basically, there are certain diseases that would affect a child of one gender, but not the other.
Wish I had points to mod you up! This could save people a lot of heartbreak and money. A single cycle of IVF can cost between $10K and $20K, and the pain of finally getting pregnant, and then miscarrying makes it worse. In most cases of IVF, not all embryos are transferred anyway, so if they can select the ones that have the best chance of making it, how is this not a good thing?
But I'm a gir%!$*%& [NO CARRIER]
I suspect that his sigh was in response to the 3 "boyfriends"...
I think a better analogy would be requiring a fired employee to hand over his keys to company property...
WHOOOSH!
I wholeheartedly agree with you except for the part where you seem to discount your effort by calling it an "inspirational moment". I think this actually feeds the notion that intellectual efforts are somehow less worthy of compensation than physical efforts.
No 'tisn't!
If you aren't able to afford to buy anything more expensive than the cheap plastic shit sold at Wal-Mart then you are part of the problem???
FIFY...
Seriously, I do look for products made in the US, and if they are better quality and I can afford them, I buy them. But that's not always an option for me, and for people who make even less than I do, it's even harder.
How do these people stay employed? Standards compliance doesn't get the attention I wish it did in my company, but if we deliver something that doesn't work in at least IE, Firefox and Safari, I'll hear about it and be fixing it. I'm glad I don't work with any of those "non-clueful" people...
This is very true. I think they should not be putting the burden on car owners, for this reason. I did not drive a 20+ year old beast of a car because I wanted to, but because I couldn't afford anything else, and I had to get to work and school somehow. When it finally wouldn't pass emissions tests and they made us get rid of it, I had to do without a car. I was very lucky that public transportation was at least possible, even though it meant a 2 hour commute each way, putting severe limits on my work availability. Some people don't even have that option, if their homes and workplaces aren't near bus routes, or they have less forgiving work schedules, family obligations, etc. In some areas, that 2500 to 4500 may buy them a slightly newer used car which is a little more fuel efficient, but in other areas, you can't get any kind of reliable car for that price. If taxpayer's money must be spent, perhaps it would be better to expand the availability of public transportation, so that when those old, inefficient cars just plain wear out in a few years, the owners of those cars will have something to fall back on for getting to work. It would be better than penalizing the people who can least afford it by taking away their cars that are still running.
I think there's a difference between "not liking" someone, and encouraging people to kill them...