Being the ones who opened the bottle, and then saw how dangerous the genie is, and shoved the cork right back in, we take it as our responsibility to guard the bottle against others who would open it.
If adult stem cells prove to be as useful as embryonic stem cells[1], then the only reason to harvest embryonic stem cells would be the sheer joy of killing unborn babies.
[1] It should be noted that adult stem cells have already proven extremely useful in treating many diseases, whereas embyonic stem cells have proven useful in treating exactly zero so far.
It's the only solution. Absolutely the only way to "fix" the global warming problem:
Be God.
Short of that, the ONLY reasonable thing we can do is to learn to adapt to a perpetually changing climate. The climate has NEVER.... EVER.... EVER been static. It has ALWAYS been either warming or cooling, and it ALWAYS will be. Forever.
The way science is supposed to work, you go through the cycle of hypothesis, experimentation, analysis, and interpretation, and then publish your findings for peer review. You then welcome any criticism of your findings, and either defend them, or modify your experiments and analysis accordingly.
In climate science, however, this seems to have changed to where once you've published your findings, the only remaining test is for political correctness. If your findings agree with the politically correct stance, then anyone who dares to offer criticism will then be silenced and/or discredited. Often using epithets and comparisons with soldiers of an old, socialist regime. There is no longer any need for your work to actually stand on its own merits.
Just look at the uphill battle that many, many "right-wing whackos" had to fight in order to get rid of that "hockey stick" garbage that had been accepted as fact merely because it was what Al Gore wanted to see. There are STILL people actually defending it, despite the historical record which totally belies it.
When junk science is shown be junk by simple facts, and a scientific community refuses to concede it, you know the process is broken.
Silencing dissenting opinions is not scientific. We humans are imperfect. I don't think there is ANYTHING in the scientific realm that we understand perfectly. The science of "global warming" in particular. There is A LOT we still don't know.
Personally, I think if anyone claims to be speaking scientifically, but states that there is no room for dissent in the discussion about global warming, THEY should be de-certified.
I remember the weeks preceding the election, reading poll after poll, from any number of sources, which showed the President tied with, or narrowly beating Kerry. Almost all of the polls I read had just about the same result, with a very few aberrations. Then came election eve. The exit polls started looking dramatically different from the polls during the run-up. They showed Kerry ahead, sometimes significantly. Then the official results came, and looked pretty much exactly like the polls from the preceding weeks.
It was clear then, as now. The exit polls were screwy.
I'm so thankful that with this discovery, nobody can claim it is necessary to kill these people for their stem cells anymore.
The justification for embryonic stem-cell research is now gone completely (not that it was ever valid).
And yet, I somehow get the feeling that some will still fight for the right to kill them, even though there is absolutely no reason to. You have to wonder about people who insist on killing for no reason.
...but apparantly Muslims conquering the Holy Land before the Crusades, and slaughtering all who would not convert to Islam.... well that's just ducky.
Anyone forcing others to convert at swordpoint is acting out of evil. Anyone who does so in the name of Christ, is also taking the Lord's name in vain. When the Muslims slaughtered those in the Holy land, that was evil. When the Christians retaliated, and killed supposedly in the name of God, that was also evil.
But do NOT act like Christians had the monopoly on killing. The Crusades were an overREACTION to the slaughter that the Muslims had perpetrated. To pretend that the Muslims were just sitting around chatting about Allah, and the Christians came in for no reason and killed them all is beyond absurd. That pretense is evil.
I'm not defending the barbarous acts committed by many Crusaders. I'm sure many of them are roasting on their respective spits in Hell right now. However, when you PRETEND that those from whom they tried to take the Holy Land BACK were innocent victims of evil Christianity, you are guilty of slander on a massive scale.
If I decide to try to tell you what's wrong with quantum theory, then, by all means, address my objections, and show where I'm wrong. Do NOT just say "where's your degree? No? Then shut your mouth"
If you are indeed a physicist with some expertise in the matter, then you can address the actual arguments presented.
No, actually what I'm saying is that when some slash-dotter posts an argument backed up only with "...and if you don't believe ME, then you are disagreeing with these *real scientists*", they are not arguing based on facts, but rather based on appeal to authority. And when they say that my opinion does not count because I don't have a doctorate in climatology, that's argumentum ad hominem. Again, not based on facts, but a fallacious argument.
If you're going to debate, you MUST debate based on facts, not fallacious arguments.
These are well defined terms, and are quite fitting here.
If what you're saying is true, then science has nothing to do with analyzing observable facts, and everything to do with politics (that is, appeals to authority and argumentum ad hominem)
Virtually no Americans have died in America from terrorist attacks following implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act.
Now you might argue that this came at the cost of liberties, which I totally dispute. However, to say that the USA PATRIOT Act has accomplished nothing flies in the face of the last several years of demonstrable safety in the homeland versus terrorist attacks.
You must remember, the USA PATRIOT Act is largely just an adaptation of the RICO Act, extending it to those involved in terrorism. There were some limitations on law enforcement which prevented them from preventing terrorism. Some of those limitations have been modified by the USA PATRIOT Act to allow law enforcement to more properly function in this arena. That we are safer from terrorism as a result is obvious.
How much safer? Up for debate. Does it erode freedoms in the process? Up for debate. Has it made us safer? Obviously.
I just know some whacko left-wingers are going to blame this on Republicans for rejecting Kyoto, and me personally for using an aerosol can twenty years ago.
With everything a child does, they are learning. Everyone with whom they interact is teaching them. My children's education is MY responsibility. Not their own. Not the state's. I, as parent, am charged with guiding their development.
Recognizing the fact that everyone they interact with is teaching them, I must have say as to with whom they are interacting. I *MAY* cede some of that control in some circumstances in exchange for a level of trust that child has earned, but even in the best case, that trust is not absolute. You see, they are still learning. If they are in a chat room that is not controlled by me, then I don't know who those other chatters are, and what they might be saying to my child behind my back. Even though my child may have a solid base from which to make decisions, that base is still in development, and as I said before, everyone with whom they interact is teaching them. Even the random chatters in a chatroom.
I reserve the right to know what my child is learning. Without that knowledge, I cannot be a responsible parent.
We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.
The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
So much for the notion that leaving Iraq now would be a good thing.
Historical note: The war against Saddam's Iraq went almost flawlessly, and ended very quickly. This is not that war. After Saddam's Iraq was soundly defeated, the "jihadists" opened a new front in the already existing "jihad" against the west. Us going into Iraq did not create that "jihad", it was just seen as a good opportunity for them to open an active front in that war, which is what we're embroiled in right now. When Muslims pushed the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan, the "jihadists" were elated, and saw it as a sign that they could win against a superpower. Now they are directly taking us on in Iraq. If they succeed (as our own Left wing seems intent on making happen), it will be disastrous for the world.
They must not win... or even be able to foster any kind of perception that they have won.
If you value civilization at all, you will not seek to get us out of Iraq prematurely.
If the CIA is watching some guy in Pakistan they know to be al-Qaida, and is working on the next attack, and they're trying to figure out who the next target is.... then the guy calls somebody in Alaska, a few miles from the pipeline, YOU BET I want the CIA tapping that call! If I was that agent, I would tap the call, legal or not.
Another commentator rightly said that most women who try to get pregnant abort faulty embryos which can be several weeks old without even noticing. Where's the big moral dilemma?
It's the difference between someone dying of natural causes and you killing them. I find it hard to believe you can't see the moral dilemma.
The question I can never seem to get a straight answer to is this:
If somehow they manage to develop a cure for, say diabetes, using embryonic stem cells, what happens when the twenty million Americans (not to mention the untold millions around the world) who suffer from this disease come knocking at the door demanding the cure? How many embryos will we now need to create/destroy? The numbers needed just to do the research are negligible in comparison, I would think.
I'll just stick with my main point that you (the readers of Slashdot) know squat about this case, save what one reporter has written. And yet, so many here summarily condemn the principal, the administration, and even the teachers for "bullying" this kid, and/or attempting to squelch his free speech rights. I'm exceedingly happy that the actual justice system in this country does not operate like it works in here.
If the school has "*no*frickin*authority* to control the behavior of kids outside of school", then they have no authority to assign homework. Your view of student rights decimates education entirely.
Slashdot Mirror
Being the ones who opened the bottle, and then saw how dangerous the genie is, and shoved the cork right back in, we take it as our responsibility to guard the bottle against others who would open it.
If adult stem cells prove to be as useful as embryonic stem cells[1], then the only reason to harvest embryonic stem cells would be the sheer joy of killing unborn babies.
[1] It should be noted that adult stem cells have already proven extremely useful in treating many diseases, whereas embyonic stem cells have proven useful in treating exactly zero so far.
It's the only solution. Absolutely the only way to "fix" the global warming problem:
Be God.
Short of that, the ONLY reasonable thing we can do is to learn to adapt to a perpetually changing climate. The climate has NEVER.... EVER.... EVER been static. It has ALWAYS been either warming or cooling, and it ALWAYS will be. Forever.
If there were hoops to jump through before, they were so negligible that I don't even remember jumping through them.
The way science is supposed to work, you go through the cycle of hypothesis, experimentation, analysis, and interpretation, and then publish your findings for peer review. You then welcome any criticism of your findings, and either defend them, or modify your experiments and analysis accordingly.
In climate science, however, this seems to have changed to where once you've published your findings, the only remaining test is for political correctness. If your findings agree with the politically correct stance, then anyone who dares to offer criticism will then be silenced and/or discredited. Often using epithets and comparisons with soldiers of an old, socialist regime. There is no longer any need for your work to actually stand on its own merits.
Just look at the uphill battle that many, many "right-wing whackos" had to fight in order to get rid of that "hockey stick" garbage that had been accepted as fact merely because it was what Al Gore wanted to see. There are STILL people actually defending it, despite the historical record which totally belies it.
When junk science is shown be junk by simple facts, and a scientific community refuses to concede it, you know the process is broken.
I'll take death, thank you.
Silencing dissenting opinions is not scientific. We humans are imperfect. I don't think there is ANYTHING in the scientific realm that we understand perfectly. The science of "global warming" in particular. There is A LOT we still don't know.
Personally, I think if anyone claims to be speaking scientifically, but states that there is no room for dissent in the discussion about global warming, THEY should be de-certified.
I remember the weeks preceding the election, reading poll after poll, from any number of sources, which showed the President tied with, or narrowly beating Kerry. Almost all of the polls I read had just about the same result, with a very few aberrations. Then came election eve. The exit polls started looking dramatically different from the polls during the run-up. They showed Kerry ahead, sometimes significantly. Then the official results came, and looked pretty much exactly like the polls from the preceding weeks.
It was clear then, as now. The exit polls were screwy.
I'm so thankful that with this discovery, nobody can claim it is necessary to kill these people for their stem cells anymore.
The justification for embryonic stem-cell research is now gone completely (not that it was ever valid).
And yet, I somehow get the feeling that some will still fight for the right to kill them, even though there is absolutely no reason to. You have to wonder about people who insist on killing for no reason.
...but apparantly Muslims conquering the Holy Land before the Crusades, and slaughtering all who would not convert to Islam.... well that's just ducky.
Anyone forcing others to convert at swordpoint is acting out of evil. Anyone who does so in the name of Christ, is also taking the Lord's name in vain. When the Muslims slaughtered those in the Holy land, that was evil. When the Christians retaliated, and killed supposedly in the name of God, that was also evil.
But do NOT act like Christians had the monopoly on killing. The Crusades were an overREACTION to the slaughter that the Muslims had perpetrated. To pretend that the Muslims were just sitting around chatting about Allah, and the Christians came in for no reason and killed them all is beyond absurd. That pretense is evil.
I'm not defending the barbarous acts committed by many Crusaders. I'm sure many of them are roasting on their respective spits in Hell right now. However, when you PRETEND that those from whom they tried to take the Holy Land BACK were innocent victims of evil Christianity, you are guilty of slander on a massive scale.
If I decide to try to tell you what's wrong with quantum theory, then, by all means, address my objections, and show where I'm wrong. Do NOT just say "where's your degree? No? Then shut your mouth"
If you are indeed a physicist with some expertise in the matter, then you can address the actual arguments presented.
No, actually what I'm saying is that when some slash-dotter posts an argument backed up only with "...and if you don't believe ME, then you are disagreeing with these *real scientists*", they are not arguing based on facts, but rather based on appeal to authority. And when they say that my opinion does not count because I don't have a doctorate in climatology, that's argumentum ad hominem. Again, not based on facts, but a fallacious argument.
If you're going to debate, you MUST debate based on facts, not fallacious arguments.
These are well defined terms, and are quite fitting here.
If what you're saying is true, then science has nothing to do with analyzing observable facts, and everything to do with politics (that is, appeals to authority and argumentum ad hominem)
Of course it dropped at the news that the Democrats have taken the House.
i d=alV51nRAKeqU&refer=home
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&s
Did anyone really believe that Democrat control would be positive for the economy?
Virtually no Americans have died in America from terrorist attacks following implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act.
Now you might argue that this came at the cost of liberties, which I totally dispute. However, to say that the USA PATRIOT Act has accomplished nothing flies in the face of the last several years of demonstrable safety in the homeland versus terrorist attacks.
You must remember, the USA PATRIOT Act is largely just an adaptation of the RICO Act, extending it to those involved in terrorism. There were some limitations on law enforcement which prevented them from preventing terrorism. Some of those limitations have been modified by the USA PATRIOT Act to allow law enforcement to more properly function in this arena. That we are safer from terrorism as a result is obvious.
How much safer? Up for debate. Does it erode freedoms in the process? Up for debate. Has it made us safer? Obviously.
I just know some whacko left-wingers are going to blame this on Republicans for rejecting Kyoto, and me personally for using an aerosol can twenty years ago.
With everything a child does, they are learning. Everyone with whom they interact is teaching them. My children's education is MY responsibility. Not their own. Not the state's. I, as parent, am charged with guiding their development.
Recognizing the fact that everyone they interact with is teaching them, I must have say as to with whom they are interacting. I *MAY* cede some of that control in some circumstances in exchange for a level of trust that child has earned, but even in the best case, that trust is not absolute. You see, they are still learning. If they are in a chat room that is not controlled by me, then I don't know who those other chatters are, and what they might be saying to my child behind my back. Even though my child may have a solid base from which to make decisions, that base is still in development, and as I said before, everyone with whom they interact is teaching them. Even the random chatters in a chatroom.
I reserve the right to know what my child is learning. Without that knowledge, I cannot be a responsible parent.
So much for the notion that leaving Iraq now would be a good thing.
Historical note: The war against Saddam's Iraq went almost flawlessly, and ended very quickly. This is not that war. After Saddam's Iraq was soundly defeated, the "jihadists" opened a new front in the already existing "jihad" against the west. Us going into Iraq did not create that "jihad", it was just seen as a good opportunity for them to open an active front in that war, which is what we're embroiled in right now. When Muslims pushed the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan, the "jihadists" were elated, and saw it as a sign that they could win against a superpower. Now they are directly taking us on in Iraq. If they succeed (as our own Left wing seems intent on making happen), it will be disastrous for the world.
They must not win... or even be able to foster any kind of perception that they have won.
If you value civilization at all, you will not seek to get us out of Iraq prematurely.
If the CIA is watching some guy in Pakistan they know to be al-Qaida, and is working on the next attack, and they're trying to figure out who the next target is.... then the guy calls somebody in Alaska, a few miles from the pipeline, YOU BET I want the CIA tapping that call! If I was that agent, I would tap the call, legal or not.
He's learning that his parents love him.
It's the difference between someone dying of natural causes and you killing them. I find it hard to believe you can't see the moral dilemma.
The question I can never seem to get a straight answer to is this:
If somehow they manage to develop a cure for, say diabetes, using embryonic stem cells, what happens when the twenty million Americans (not to mention the untold millions around the world) who suffer from this disease come knocking at the door demanding the cure? How many embryos will we now need to create/destroy? The numbers needed just to do the research are negligible in comparison, I would think.
Do we really want to open this box, Pandora?
I'll just stick with my main point that you (the readers of Slashdot) know squat about this case, save what one reporter has written. And yet, so many here summarily condemn the principal, the administration, and even the teachers for "bullying" this kid, and/or attempting to squelch his free speech rights. I'm exceedingly happy that the actual justice system in this country does not operate like it works in here.
If the school has "*no*frickin*authority* to control the behavior of kids outside of school", then they have no authority to assign homework. Your view of student rights decimates education entirely.
When did the teachers make veiled threats of physical violence. I must have missed that part.