My guess, is like most things, this approach isn't for everyone.
I'm not suggesting that everyone should be learning this way. Rather, people should learn (or be taught) in the way most appropriate to them. For some people, that's home schooling, others this "unschooling", still others standard public/private classroom schooling.
FWIW, I was a public school brat. While I spent most of my time quite bored, it panned out in the end.
You'd be surprised how many areas only have one broadband provider. DSL isn't an option at my house (can only get ISDN speeds here), and Verizon/AT&T only laugh at me when I ask when service might be available through them. Comcast has a monopoly here, and service only gets more expensive and less reliable. At my father's house, he has a huge list of choices. Good DSL, a cable company that actually has to compete, and AT&T uverse. Actual competition, and it shows. Not only does he get more services for his money, it's more reliable, and he's spending $50+ less per month that I do (no, he's not even paying a promotional price right now).
I really don't think the OP meant they use it for two straight days non-stop. A more logical look would be that they are able to go two days between charges because they only use it around six hours during that time frame.
None of which answer the questions I was actually asking. I know what stem cell research is (embryonic and otherwise), thank you.
Thankfully, interkin3tic posted below some well reasoned arguments to answer what I had been asking from the beginning. Suggestion: Take a look at that kind of reply, it's actually useful! I know I will, since I'm nearly as guilty as you are about making pointless replies.:-p
Thank you, this is exactly the kind of response I was looking for. QuantumG spent his entire "conversation" trolling me rather than answer my questions. I don't understand why some people have to get so hostile just because they're hiding behind a handle.
You once again managed to demonstrate that you have no idea what you're talking about, better than I ever could, so I'll just stop talking to you now.
In my experience, when people start talking like this they really mean:
I don't really know enought about what I'm talking about, I can't come up with a response, so I'm going to give up.
Maybe that's a bit rude (fine, it is), but why is it whenever people encounter some resistance to their arguments, the response is to say "YOU'RE AN IDIOT" pack up and go home? It's entirely possible that I am an idiot, but I really would appreciate some enlightenment on the subject. Bueller?
Corporations set up separate legal entities all the time to mitigate liability. Software companies will do this to mitigate losses when working with open source, for example. If they believe that new embryonic stem cell lines really are the holy grail, then why didn't they? It seems to me this is just someone chafing against a restriction rather than doing anything about it.
Understand this, any institution that took federal funding for any research was banned from doing stem cell research with new embryonic stem cell lines.
Fixed, emphasis mine. What exactly was stopping them from using the existing stem cell lines? I don't believe I've ever received a satisfactory answer for this other then "They just couldn't!" To be fair, I don't think anyone ever really got past the word "ban" to even look at problems with existing cell lines, but that's no excuse. I'd actually appreciate if you have a link of some kind to why existing cell lines were insufficient (I'm being serious.).
And the MJF foundation did exactly that. Thing is, about 12 months after the ban there was no-one in the US willing to do the research. They saw the writing on the wall and declined to martyr themselves.
Maybe I'm being a bit of a prick but I translate what you've just said to be this:
And the MJF foundation did exactly that. Thing is, about 12 months after the ban there was no-one in the US willing to do the research. They were too busy whining about not being able to dip into taxpayer money to do any work.
The fact of the matter is that they could have done work on existing cell lines with taxpayer support, or done work on new cell lines with someone else's money. They elected to whine about the funding rather than spend time doing actual research. Any real "ban" was self-imposed. Declining to martyr themselves? Please, that's just more whining from the purely anti-Bush crowd (you know the type, no matter what Bush does, it's pure evil). For the record, I'm pro-research, but I just can't bear the whining on the subject.
The new rules, which go into effect today, follow President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush....
In the interest of accuracy, I wish people would stop calling it a "ban on embryonic stem cell research".
While calling it a all out "ban on embryonic stem cell research" makes a great sound bite, it's horribly inaccurate. It was only a ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research for stem cell lines created after August 9, 2001. If you were willing to fund it yourself, you were free to do so. Bush's executive order didn't change that part at all which the misleading sound bite alludes to.
Now, with that interjected, back our regularly scheduled flame wars on this topic.
My experience with US security clearance was exactly as you describe. I literally had 8 hours of reading/signing documents and had to sign at least 3 that told me explicitly who I could and could not talk to about what I was doing. Each was read to me after I read it myself, and they went line by line to make sure I understood it. Roth is completely full of crap if he claims he didn't know. The process left me with the distinct impression that if I even had a hint that I shouldn't be talking about it or wasn't sure, I should keep my big mouth shut. The funny part is, I'm not sure I actually saw anything classified during my stint. Not that I'm going to be talking about any of it, because I'm just not sure, but still. Doubly funny was debriefing, that also took 8 hours where they went over everything again that I had gone through when I received clearance in the first place.
(Now there are various caveats. The really big one being the ability of nations to "outsource" their emissions by importing from nations with no such caps. But I don't think this is an argument for removing the caps --- rather, we should be finding ways to integrate the trading schemes of those nations with caps, and recover some of the carbon cost on imports from the other nations.)
This is a massive caveat. I don't think that "finding ways to integrate the trading schemes of those nations with caps, and recover some of the carbon cost on imports from the other nations" is going to work either. The long and short of it is that you'd like to impose some kind of "carbon tariff" on imports from said countries. That'll fly as well a bird with clipped wings, and will lead to retaliatory tariffs. This also says nothing about what the WTO would think about such a tariff in the first place.
DRM is the reason I won't be getting an e-reader, no matter how much I'd really like to get one. I read my books often enough that if I don't get them in hard cover, I'll be buying another paperback of that book in a few years. As much as I'd love to read my books and avoid killing more trees than I have to, I'm not about to buy an encumbered book on an encumbered e-reader. Last thing I want is someone, somewhere to decide that I don't have access to a book I've purchased. When I hear about some of the "features" of Kindle (remote deletion) I want to scream. What gives them the right to even think about doing such a thing?
Never mind the problems you'd end up with when upgrading from one e-reader to another, or if publisher goes out of business taking their DRM servers with them. I don't appreciate being treated like a criminal when I'm buying something legally. I don't want a device with a built in "claw-back provision".
So, until that's dealt with, I definitely won't be getting one.
Slashdot Mirror
My guess, is like most things, this approach isn't for everyone.
I'm not suggesting that everyone should be learning this way. Rather, people should learn (or be taught) in the way most appropriate to them. For some people, that's home schooling, others this "unschooling", still others standard public/private classroom schooling.
FWIW, I was a public school brat. While I spent most of my time quite bored, it panned out in the end.
"Unschooling: For those kids who aspire to be the dish washers of the future"
But seriously, is there any less way to be prepared for higher education (higher, meaning anything from 3rd grade on up)?
Given the number of children in the current system that aren't remotely prepared...?
You'd be surprised how many areas only have one broadband provider. DSL isn't an option at my house (can only get ISDN speeds here), and Verizon/AT&T only laugh at me when I ask when service might be available through them. Comcast has a monopoly here, and service only gets more expensive and less reliable. At my father's house, he has a huge list of choices. Good DSL, a cable company that actually has to compete, and AT&T uverse. Actual competition, and it shows. Not only does he get more services for his money, it's more reliable, and he's spending $50+ less per month that I do (no, he's not even paying a promotional price right now).
Now, if only they'd add LAN play back.
Fixed that for ya.
I really don't think the OP meant they use it for two straight days non-stop. A more logical look would be that they are able to go two days between charges because they only use it around six hours during that time frame.
Or they just stole it from us directly(or from /. here)...
None of which answer the questions I was actually asking. I know what stem cell research is (embryonic and otherwise), thank you.
Thankfully, interkin3tic posted below some well reasoned arguments to answer what I had been asking from the beginning. Suggestion: Take a look at that kind of reply, it's actually useful! I know I will, since I'm nearly as guilty as you are about making pointless replies. :-p
Thank you, this is exactly the kind of response I was looking for. QuantumG spent his entire "conversation" trolling me rather than answer my questions. I don't understand why some people have to get so hostile just because they're hiding behind a handle.
You once again managed to demonstrate that you have no idea what you're talking about, better than I ever could, so I'll just stop talking to you now.
In my experience, when people start talking like this they really mean:
I don't really know enought about what I'm talking about, I can't come up with a response, so I'm going to give up.
Maybe that's a bit rude (fine, it is), but why is it whenever people encounter some resistance to their arguments, the response is to say "YOU'RE AN IDIOT" pack up and go home? It's entirely possible that I am an idiot, but I really would appreciate some enlightenment on the subject. Bueller?
Yes, they're whiners.
Corporations set up separate legal entities all the time to mitigate liability. Software companies will do this to mitigate losses when working with open source, for example. If they believe that new embryonic stem cell lines really are the holy grail, then why didn't they? It seems to me this is just someone chafing against a restriction rather than doing anything about it.
Understand this, any institution that took federal funding for any research was banned from doing stem cell research with new embryonic stem cell lines .
Fixed, emphasis mine. What exactly was stopping them from using the existing stem cell lines? I don't believe I've ever received a satisfactory answer for this other then "They just couldn't!" To be fair, I don't think anyone ever really got past the word "ban" to even look at problems with existing cell lines, but that's no excuse. I'd actually appreciate if you have a link of some kind to why existing cell lines were insufficient (I'm being serious.).
And the MJF foundation did exactly that. Thing is, about 12 months after the ban there was no-one in the US willing to do the research. They saw the writing on the wall and declined to martyr themselves.
Maybe I'm being a bit of a prick but I translate what you've just said to be this:
And the MJF foundation did exactly that. Thing is, about 12 months after the ban there was no-one in the US willing to do the research. They were too busy whining about not being able to dip into taxpayer money to do any work.
The fact of the matter is that they could have done work on existing cell lines with taxpayer support, or done work on new cell lines with someone else's money. They elected to whine about the funding rather than spend time doing actual research. Any real "ban" was self-imposed. Declining to martyr themselves? Please, that's just more whining from the purely anti-Bush crowd (you know the type, no matter what Bush does, it's pure evil). For the record, I'm pro-research, but I just can't bear the whining on the subject.
In the interest of accuracy, I wish people would stop calling it a "ban on embryonic stem cell research".
While calling it a all out "ban on embryonic stem cell research" makes a great sound bite, it's horribly inaccurate. It was only a ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research for stem cell lines created after August 9, 2001. If you were willing to fund it yourself, you were free to do so. Bush's executive order didn't change that part at all which the misleading sound bite alludes to.
Now, with that interjected, back our regularly scheduled flame wars on this topic.
My experience with US security clearance was exactly as you describe. I literally had 8 hours of reading/signing documents and had to sign at least 3 that told me explicitly who I could and could not talk to about what I was doing. Each was read to me after I read it myself, and they went line by line to make sure I understood it. Roth is completely full of crap if he claims he didn't know. The process left me with the distinct impression that if I even had a hint that I shouldn't be talking about it or wasn't sure, I should keep my big mouth shut. The funny part is, I'm not sure I actually saw anything classified during my stint. Not that I'm going to be talking about any of it, because I'm just not sure, but still. Doubly funny was debriefing, that also took 8 hours where they went over everything again that I had gone through when I received clearance in the first place.
Things like Eyes Wide Shut aren't obscene because they have a plot.
I'm not sure we saw the same movie. :)
(Now there are various caveats. The really big one being the ability of nations to "outsource" their emissions by importing from nations with no such caps. But I don't think this is an argument for removing the caps --- rather, we should be finding ways to integrate the trading schemes of those nations with caps, and recover some of the carbon cost on imports from the other nations.)
This is a massive caveat. I don't think that "finding ways to integrate the trading schemes of those nations with caps, and recover some of the carbon cost on imports from the other nations" is going to work either. The long and short of it is that you'd like to impose some kind of "carbon tariff" on imports from said countries. That'll fly as well a bird with clipped wings, and will lead to retaliatory tariffs. This also says nothing about what the WTO would think about such a tariff in the first place.
WTB Mod points. The linked article is great.
Don't delude yourself, the albatross around our necks is the entitlement programs and the national debt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2008
[sarcasm] Oh, wow. I'm surprised by this one! [/sarcasm]
kdawson's SNR is pretty low.
[Citation Needed]
Mostly because it was in the belly of a US Air Force bomber at the time, and because most of us didn't find out about it until long after it happened.
Thank you, this is what I was driving at.
I wonder how much trouble Apple may get into for calling Jobs' problem a "hormone imbalance" to their investors.
A hormonal imbalance is one thing, and a liver transplant is a completely different animal.
Not too bad for those of us who aren't AT&T customers...
DRM is the reason I won't be getting an e-reader, no matter how much I'd really like to get one. I read my books often enough that if I don't get them in hard cover, I'll be buying another paperback of that book in a few years. As much as I'd love to read my books and avoid killing more trees than I have to, I'm not about to buy an encumbered book on an encumbered e-reader. Last thing I want is someone, somewhere to decide that I don't have access to a book I've purchased. When I hear about some of the "features" of Kindle (remote deletion) I want to scream. What gives them the right to even think about doing such a thing?
Never mind the problems you'd end up with when upgrading from one e-reader to another, or if publisher goes out of business taking their DRM servers with them. I don't appreciate being treated like a criminal when I'm buying something legally. I don't want a device with a built in "claw-back provision".
So, until that's dealt with, I definitely won't be getting one.