Just how many embryos do you think you will need to go through to find what you think you need?
Research in this manner is not much different than producing the remedy. Look at the mass produced lines of mice that have this or that particular genetic feature. Finding the cure is a mass production effort in and of itself.
And I bet you would have felt right at home in other "successful" societies where science and reason were the primary influences. Umm...can you tell me which one that was again?
So let's say they come up with a cure for something, anything, using embryonic stem cells.
The next logical step is to produce this cure in production quantities. How long until the supply of embryos in storage from artificial insemination attempts, etc. are exhausted?
What then? The only option is pay men and women for their sperm and eggs so that they can produce the embryos from which to harvest the stem cells. I understand that extracting eggs is an expensive and painful process. Of course, give a guy a Hustler and he's good to go.
So in order to commercialize the cure, even in limited quantities, you essentially have to set up embryo factories.
If that does not give you pause, then there is something wrong with you.
"Your assertion is: The government ordered lenders to loan to people with bad credit ratings, no stable income sufficient to repay, and without any deposit."
I must have missed something. I don't recall typing that and it's not anywhere in my post.
The Feds did their common wink wink, nudge, it would be bad for you if you didn't thing. And then still assured them that they were covered, Fannie Mae and Mac would buy up the loans. There was a fucking law that encouraged it.
It may be true that Fannie Mae and Mac did not originate the loans but they did buy them all up.
And this common sense accounting rule fails the common sense test.
If an institution has loan portfolio with 100% positive cash flow (no defaults, all on time payments) they could still be considered insolvent if other institutions (Fannie Mae and Mac for instance) were suffering losses from defaults and had to sell, which drives down the market price.
Then, the accounting rules say the institution is insolvent, when in reality their investment is sound. There is the disconnect from reality.
Of course, then they have to sell assets to remain solvent which further drives down the price. They didn't invest in a high risk market but they are caught in the troubles of others.
There are alternatives to Mark to Market that provide investors a reasonable means to estimate their risk and at the same time avoid the disconnect from reality of M to M.
The bottom line is that the Feds encouraged and even bullied lending institutions to loan to those with bad credit risks, saying "we got your back".
Now the feds are saying, "we got your company".
If you want the absolute, real cause, just Google "mark to market". Government accounting rules artificially causing banking institutions to go "insolvent"
Even the highest estimates by the wackiest groups don't come close to a million. And funny thing about those civilians, they were all carrying firearms and shooting back.
Bush won in the only way that should matter, legally marked votes.
You say you are concerned about future elections.
The only way they can be secure and fair is if you take people out of the loop for counting. Whether it is optical or punched cards, or whatever.
That also demands that people follow the fucking instructions. As soon as you have to have someone say "well, they meant this or that" then you are fucked. It is so easy to ask for help and/or get a new ballot and do it right.
IF you really are as much about election fairness as you say, then you would reject all the recount scenarios and go only with ballots that are marked correctly and can be read by the machine AS INTENDED. You would be horrified at the thought of elections going one way or another based on someone's interpretation of voter intent.
But I suspect your version of fair elections is when your guy wins.
1. Register 2. Show up at the right place 3. Follow the directions on how to mark the ballot.
If you fuck it up...sorry you lose. Because when you put someone in charge of trying to decide what you really wanted, you will get what the examiner wanted. Even if it is the same most of the time, it is still illegitimate and suspect.
Just look at Coleman and Franken.
Mark Franken, X out Coleman...oh, you wanted Franken. Mark Colman, X out Franken, Oh...you wanted Franken. The WSJ laid it all out plain and simple.
Voter intent is SHIT. How you mark the ballot is everything.
"Gore's narrow margin in the statewide count was the result of a windfall in overvotes. "
So recount everything and then count the spoiled and legally invalid ballots in favor of Gore.
What about all those who stayed home or went home because the election was called before the Panhandle had finished voting. Shouldn't we track them all down, determine their intent and include that?
Voter intent is bullshit because voter intent depends on who is determining it. Sorry, if you can't mark the ballot correctly or can't be bothered to show up, then your vote doesn't count.
Bush's anti-following was born, ready made, from the Florida fiasco, which before anyone starts in, even the NYTs and the WaPo plus others say he won no matter how you counted.
I suspect the popular vote result and widespread ignorance of how the electoral college works is what inflamed the majority of the wild-eyed Bush haters from the start.
Slashdot Mirror
To the extend that the ban had a negative effect, it was due to all the demagoguery done by the Bush Haters.
It takes more balls to have the ability to do something, yet hold back due to ethics/morals.
Umm...Hillary wanted to do just that.
"what has been proven to work: socialism"
Are you on drugs?
I suspect you don't listen to Rush. Because he explicitly said the opposite of what you describe.
Well, Barry is in charge now.
Why aren't we in Somalia?
Why aren't we in Darfur?
Why did North Korea start up it's reactors again?
I suspect that many of Barry's supports will either be disappointed about the lack of intervention in their trendy causes or will be silent about it.
It's one thing to bitch about the other guy and another thing altogether to be in charge and make decisions and stand behind them.
DSL.
But then I have the lowest tier so It would take a decade to download 44 gigs.
Substitute 150,000mph for 36,000.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0023.shtml
Just how many embryos do you think you will need to go through to find what you think you need?
Research in this manner is not much different than producing the remedy. Look at the mass produced lines of mice that have this or that particular genetic feature. Finding the cure is a mass production effort in and of itself.
And I bet you would have felt right at home in other "successful" societies where science and reason were the primary influences. Umm...can you tell me which one that was again?
This is not a Straw Man.
There. I responded with the same substance as you.
So let's say they come up with a cure for something, anything, using embryonic stem cells.
The next logical step is to produce this cure in production quantities. How long until the supply of embryos in storage from artificial insemination attempts, etc. are exhausted?
What then? The only option is pay men and women for their sperm and eggs so that they can produce the embryos from which to harvest the stem cells. I understand that extracting eggs is an expensive and painful process. Of course, give a guy a Hustler and he's good to go.
So in order to commercialize the cure, even in limited quantities, you essentially have to set up embryo factories.
If that does not give you pause, then there is something wrong with you.
The troll moderators are out in force. I guess their Sat. Morning Cartoons are over now.
Just because you don't agree doesn't mean the post is a troll. Didn't they teach you that when you watched Barney this morning?
This story on how to create malware comes immediately following a story on Slashdot about the increase in Malware.
They need to outlaw exclusive arrangements with municipalities.
More competition = lower prices and more options. IF it is real competition.
Include appropriate prohibitions against collusion, etc.
"Your assertion is:
The government ordered lenders to loan to people with bad credit ratings, no stable income sufficient to repay, and without any deposit."
I must have missed something. I don't recall typing that and it's not anywhere in my post.
The Feds did their common wink wink, nudge, it would be bad for you if you didn't thing. And then still assured them that they were covered, Fannie Mae and Mac would buy up the loans. There was a fucking law that encouraged it.
With apologies to rohan972:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=community+reinvestment+act [google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=federal+reserve+act [google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fractional+reserve+lending [google.com]
It may be true that Fannie Mae and Mac did not originate the loans but they did buy them all up.
And this common sense accounting rule fails the common sense test.
If an institution has loan portfolio with 100% positive cash flow (no defaults, all on time payments) they could still be considered insolvent if other institutions (Fannie Mae and Mac for instance) were suffering losses from defaults and had to sell, which drives down the market price.
Then, the accounting rules say the institution is insolvent, when in reality their investment is sound. There is the disconnect from reality.
Of course, then they have to sell assets to remain solvent which further drives down the price. They didn't invest in a high risk market but they are caught in the troubles of others.
There are alternatives to Mark to Market that provide investors a reasonable means to estimate their risk and at the same time avoid the disconnect from reality of M to M.
Yeah...what he said.
Saying it ain't so doesn't make it true.
The bottom line is that the Feds encouraged and even bullied lending institutions to loan to those with bad credit risks, saying "we got your back".
Now the feds are saying, "we got your company".
If you want the absolute, real cause, just Google "mark to market". Government accounting rules artificially causing banking institutions to go "insolvent"
"until congress can pass another ex post facto law"
Fixed.
Umm...you forgot the sarcasm tag.
Funny thing is, the odds are 50% that a post like this is serious.
million civilians
Even the highest estimates by the wackiest groups don't come close to a million. And funny thing about those civilians, they were all carrying firearms and shooting back.
Bush won in the only way that should matter, legally marked votes.
You say you are concerned about future elections.
The only way they can be secure and fair is if you take people out of the loop for counting. Whether it is optical or punched cards, or whatever.
That also demands that people follow the fucking instructions. As soon as you have to have someone say "well, they meant this or that" then you are fucked. It is so easy to ask for help and/or get a new ballot and do it right.
IF you really are as much about election fairness as you say, then you would reject all the recount scenarios and go only with ballots that are marked correctly and can be read by the machine AS INTENDED. You would be horrified at the thought of elections going one way or another based on someone's interpretation of voter intent.
But I suspect your version of fair elections is when your guy wins.
I don't give a shit what it said.
Voting really is easy.
1. Register
2. Show up at the right place
3. Follow the directions on how to mark the ballot.
If you fuck it up...sorry you lose. Because when you put someone in charge of trying to decide what you really wanted, you will get what the examiner wanted. Even if it is the same most of the time, it is still illegitimate and suspect.
Just look at Coleman and Franken.
Mark Franken, X out Coleman...oh, you wanted Franken. Mark Colman, X out Franken, Oh...you wanted Franken. The WSJ laid it all out plain and simple.
Voter intent is SHIT. How you mark the ballot is everything.
"Gore's narrow margin in the statewide count was the result of a windfall in overvotes. "
So recount everything and then count the spoiled and legally invalid ballots in favor of Gore.
What about all those who stayed home or went home because the election was called before the Panhandle had finished voting. Shouldn't we track them all down, determine their intent and include that?
Voter intent is bullshit because voter intent depends on who is determining it. Sorry, if you can't mark the ballot correctly or can't be bothered to show up, then your vote doesn't count.
Stopping a recount that focused only on democratic precincts is electing a president?
Bush's anti-following was born, ready made, from the Florida fiasco, which before anyone starts in, even the NYTs and the WaPo plus others say he won no matter how you counted.
I suspect the popular vote result and widespread ignorance of how the electoral college works is what inflamed the majority of the wild-eyed Bush haters from the start.