Their lack of immunoresposive antigenicity makes embryonic stemcells transplantable between individuals.
Ah, no, that's completely wrong. According to the Australian Academy of Science, which was the first link that popped up in Google, one of the first hurdles in stem cell therapy is immune rejection. To quote:
"Patients receiving a graft of embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells sourced from cadavers would probably be treated in much the same way that organ transplant recipients are treated. The grafts would be matched to the individual patient and anti-rejection drugs would be used. Patients receiving brain cells may not need these drugs; the brain seems to get away with less surveillance by the immune system than other parts of the body."
They do mention that "there is one type of stem cell known as a mesenchymal stem cell that seems to evade detection by the immune system", however they are limited to "treatments of bone and joint diseases or repair heart muscle damaged during a heart attack". Thus, the statement that all stem cells "lack... immunoresposive antigenicity" is simply false.
While there could be ways that eating stemcells could preserve their restorative effects
And this would be where I realized you were probably just quoting a wikipedia article.
And parthenogenesis is another example of pluripotent primitive cells.
Only insofar as any embryonic tissue will contain stem cells. But there's nothing particularly special about a parthogenetically created embryo.
And I also pointed out that these reputed and demonstrated properties of shark tissue are explainable by what we already know of stemcells, not "magic".
They are, are they? Really? Well, would you care to tell me how? Explain to me how eating stemcells could be rejuvinating. Maybe you can explain how the lack of immunoresponse to shark cartilage can be attributed to stem cells. Hey, maybe you can explain how parthenogenesis has anything at all to do with stem cells.
You're telling me that talk of magical "rejuvination" and "abilities" that are, somehow, based on stemcells, isn't baseless pseudo-science? Please. Next you'll be explaining how the stemcells in shark fins will cleanse my body of nasty toxins or some other nonsense...
You mentioned having been drunk in the past. Do you really want someone to use that bit of data to question you being a good parent (by implicating that you go home afterwards, confronting your kids with your intoxication, which is ofcourse bad) ?
You know, the funny thing is that, if people were more upfront about things like drinking, drugs, etc, we'd probably have a more sane society. We have societal taboos about all kinds of things, things that *everyone* does... masturbation, pornography, drugs, alcohol... they're all exceedingly common, yet no one wants to admit it. Maybe if such things were out in the open, we'd have a more well-adjusted society.
Of course, that's not to say I favour a lack of privacy. But it is an interesting counterpoint.
Why? Because you got a free ride, and now you have to pay for it. See, burning fuel results in externalities that, right now, you aren't paying for. $12/gallon gas actually begins to offset those externalities, and the result is you actually paying for your lifestyle, instead of the bill being paid by the environment, etc.
"Well, all you are doing is moving where the fossil fuels are burned". Sure - today.
Heck, even that is a bullshit argument, as moving where fossil fuels are burned is a *good* thing. By centralizing combustion, you can take advantage of economies of scale. Further, it's far easier to upgrade a large coal plant with new scrubber technology than it is to retrofit hundreds of millions of cars.
Wow, talk about false dichotomies... so anyone who thinks libertarians are nuts must be socialist? With that kind of simplistic thinking, I'm not surprised libertarianism hasn't caught on.
And anyone can attack a survey based on the institute that produced it.
The real question is, can one attack the survey based on it's merits? Are there flaws in the research methodology or it's conclusions? I'm betting the answer is "yes". But to write off studies based purely on the messenger is nothing but an ad hominem attack, and isn't terribly useful or enlightening.
Well, I wouldn't call number two a *complete* let-down. At the time, one could see how it might've set up a great third movie. And then number three came out... *sigh*
Re:How many people have the computing power ...
on
A Mighty Number Falls
·
· Score: 5, Funny
in fact you have about a 1 in 300 chance of pulling 1024-bit prime out of your ass
No, the cited medical facts in the blog post, produced by an expert in the field of addiction, which, alas, I can't link to directly, refute your personal, unfounded opinions. But, like I said, you seem fairly closed minded... actually, you seem like a troll, but...
alcohol is not nearly as addictive as heroin, and not as inebriating
Good of you to ignore the link. Pity the evidence provided therein, that is, a table of relative levels of addictive power produced by a scientist using actual research, invalidates the rest of your post (and your others, as well). OTOH, I expect you'll continue to ignore it, as it flies in the face of your own preconceptions, which are apparently deeply rooted and difficult to shake.
heroin and its derivatives (like oxycontin) are amongst the most addictive substances known to man
Funny, then, that alcohol and nicotine are also among the most addictive substances, and we don't seem to have problems with them. Heck, alcohol results in extremely anti-social, often violent behaviour. Yet, heroin is more dangerous?
But you go right ahead rationalizing to yourself about why you're qualified to judge what I can and can not put in my body.
Of if the happen to have a nice car or just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Which, for a sex offender, is basically anywhere they choose to live, because that location is published in a place where anyone interested in attacking them can find it.
They get the same legal protection from violence as anybody else.
Right... so the cops should just patrol their residences day and night?
Honestly, at what point did you decide to stop reasoning logically?
and yet every time there is one, a whole lot of people decide to avoid the airline in question for awhile
Whoops, missed this one. Not that there's much to say... all that proves is that people are stupid, particularly since far more people die driving to the airport than in a plane crash.
No, the odds of a catastrophic house fire with smoke detectors, etc, is about 1 in 500.
By contrast, the odds of being struck by lightening are about 1 in 240,000. Think about that... a child is approximately three times more likely to get struck by lightening as to be sexually abused by a stranger.
So, tell me again how it is you're not being unreasonably paranoid?
Yeah... you do realize the odds of being abused by a strange are pretty damned low (1 in 610,000), right? So, unless *you* plan to abuse the kid (4/5ths of child sexual abuse occur with a family member), he's probably pretty safe.
Slashdot Mirror
So you decided it's inferior but others won't be smart enough to do the same because of Intel's access to superior marketing?
Well, these *are* governments... after all, wasn't the US Internet czar that referred to his charge as "a series of tubes"?
We do? How?
Wow, I didn't even know that existed. Thanks!
Such as?
I take it you've never heard of "pollution"?
forgot the name of that cool phenomenon
The material was probably a Non-Newtonian fluid, which undergoes a process called "shear thickening" when a force is applied to it.
Wow, you brought absolutely NOTHING to the conversation and they modded you +5 Insightful?
I don't understand it either. The parent post should have been modded down, IMHO, but mine certainly shouldn't have been modded up.
Their lack of immunoresposive antigenicity makes embryonic stemcells transplantable between individuals.
... immunoresposive antigenicity" is simply false.
Ah, no, that's completely wrong. According to the Australian Academy of Science, which was the first link that popped up in Google, one of the first hurdles in stem cell therapy is immune rejection. To quote:
"Patients receiving a graft of embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells sourced from cadavers would probably be treated in much the same way that organ transplant recipients are treated. The grafts would be matched to the individual patient and anti-rejection drugs would be used. Patients receiving brain cells may not need these drugs; the brain seems to get away with less surveillance by the immune system than other parts of the body."
They do mention that "there is one type of stem cell known as a mesenchymal stem cell that seems to evade detection by the immune system", however they are limited to "treatments of bone and joint diseases or repair heart muscle damaged during a heart attack". Thus, the statement that all stem cells "lack
While there could be ways that eating stemcells could preserve their restorative effects
And this would be where I realized you were probably just quoting a wikipedia article.
And parthenogenesis is another example of pluripotent primitive cells.
Only insofar as any embryonic tissue will contain stem cells. But there's nothing particularly special about a parthogenetically created embryo.
So, would you care to try again?
And I also pointed out that these reputed and demonstrated properties of shark tissue are explainable by what we already know of stemcells, not "magic".
They are, are they? Really? Well, would you care to tell me how? Explain to me how eating stemcells could be rejuvinating. Maybe you can explain how the lack of immunoresponse to shark cartilage can be attributed to stem cells. Hey, maybe you can explain how parthenogenesis has anything at all to do with stem cells.
You're telling me that talk of magical "rejuvination" and "abilities" that are, somehow, based on stemcells, isn't baseless pseudo-science? Please. Next you'll be explaining how the stemcells in shark fins will cleanse my body of nasty toxins or some other nonsense...
Wow... a few commonly known facts and some "magic" pseudoscience and baseless speculation, and you get a +5 insightful... nice work!
You mentioned having been drunk in the past. Do you really want someone to use that bit of data to question you being a good parent (by implicating that you go home afterwards, confronting your kids with your intoxication, which is ofcourse bad) ?
You know, the funny thing is that, if people were more upfront about things like drinking, drugs, etc, we'd probably have a more sane society. We have societal taboos about all kinds of things, things that *everyone* does... masturbation, pornography, drugs, alcohol... they're all exceedingly common, yet no one wants to admit it. Maybe if such things were out in the open, we'd have a more well-adjusted society.
Of course, that's not to say I favour a lack of privacy. But it is an interesting counterpoint.
Why? Because you got a free ride, and now you have to pay for it. See, burning fuel results in externalities that, right now, you aren't paying for. $12/gallon gas actually begins to offset those externalities, and the result is you actually paying for your lifestyle, instead of the bill being paid by the environment, etc.
It's called balance.
"Well, all you are doing is moving where the fossil fuels are burned". Sure - today.
Heck, even that is a bullshit argument, as moving where fossil fuels are burned is a *good* thing. By centralizing combustion, you can take advantage of economies of scale. Further, it's far easier to upgrade a large coal plant with new scrubber technology than it is to retrofit hundreds of millions of cars.
Wow, talk about false dichotomies... so anyone who thinks libertarians are nuts must be socialist? With that kind of simplistic thinking, I'm not surprised libertarianism hasn't caught on.
And anyone can attack a survey based on the institute that produced it.
The real question is, can one attack the survey based on it's merits? Are there flaws in the research methodology or it's conclusions? I'm betting the answer is "yes". But to write off studies based purely on the messenger is nothing but an ad hominem attack, and isn't terribly useful or enlightening.
Why am I not surprised that the libertarian nutters popped out so quickly...
Well, I wouldn't call number two a *complete* let-down. At the time, one could see how it might've set up a great third movie. And then number three came out... *sigh*
in fact you have about a 1 in 300 chance of pulling 1024-bit prime out of your ass
Wow, now *that* is a cool trick!
a blog post disputes solid medical fact
No, the cited medical facts in the blog post, produced by an expert in the field of addiction, which, alas, I can't link to directly, refute your personal, unfounded opinions. But, like I said, you seem fairly closed minded... actually, you seem like a troll, but...
alcohol is not nearly as addictive as heroin, and not as inebriating
Good of you to ignore the link. Pity the evidence provided therein, that is, a table of relative levels of addictive power produced by a scientist using actual research, invalidates the rest of your post (and your others, as well). OTOH, I expect you'll continue to ignore it, as it flies in the face of your own preconceptions, which are apparently deeply rooted and difficult to shake.
heroin and its derivatives (like oxycontin) are amongst the most addictive substances known to man
Funny, then, that alcohol and nicotine are also among the most addictive substances, and we don't seem to have problems with them. Heck, alcohol results in extremely anti-social, often violent behaviour. Yet, heroin is more dangerous?
But you go right ahead rationalizing to yourself about why you're qualified to judge what I can and can not put in my body.
Of if the happen to have a nice car or just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Which, for a sex offender, is basically anywhere they choose to live, because that location is published in a place where anyone interested in attacking them can find it.
They get the same legal protection from violence as anybody else.
Right... so the cops should just patrol their residences day and night?
Honestly, at what point did you decide to stop reasoning logically?
and yet every time there is one, a whole lot of people decide to avoid the airline in question for awhile
Whoops, missed this one. Not that there's much to say... all that proves is that people are stupid, particularly since far more people die driving to the airport than in a plane crash.
No, the odds of a catastrophic house fire with smoke detectors, etc, is about 1 in 500.
By contrast, the odds of being struck by lightening are about 1 in 240,000. Think about that... a child is approximately three times more likely to get struck by lightening as to be sexually abused by a stranger.
So, tell me again how it is you're not being unreasonably paranoid?
Yeah... you do realize the odds of being abused by a strange are pretty damned low (1 in 610,000), right? So, unless *you* plan to abuse the kid (4/5ths of child sexual abuse occur with a family member), he's probably pretty safe.
Honestly, why are people so god damned paranoid?