Not sure where you are looking, but according to Apple, the *only* plan w/o unlimited N&W is the cheapest one, and it has 5000 N&W minutes. Every other plan (and all family plans) has unlimited.
Yes the cable industry spends millions and millions of dollars a year lobbying the government. Does that make them evil? Take a look at http://www.csuchico.edu/~kfountain/alpha.htmlthis list of lobbyist organizations and keep telling yourself that lobbyist groups are reserved for evildoers. The fact is that lobbying the government is the most efficient way to get things done. You want marijuana legalized? Start raising funds for a lobbyist organization, such as the ones for tobacco and alcohol, and you will start seeing results when enough billions get pumped into the right pockets. Perhaps it's yours, but my idea of efficient is not spending billions of dollars on lobbying. Not to mention you conflate one entrenched industry (cable companies, who essentially hold monopolies most places) with every other interest group out there. Decent rhetoric, but pretty poor logic.
Comcast is a business, that wants to make money. In Slashdot mythology, that is a defining characteristic of evil, but I would challenge you all to show me a business plan to create a free nationwide network of broadband coverage that offers the technical support and capabilities that Comcast allows. Again you are arguing beside the point, no one reasonable claims we oughtta have broadband for free. Rather we are upset that the current situation allows cable companies to treat customers like crap and get away with it. Market forces are _supposed_ to punish that type of behavior, but when you have a monopoly situation they don't.
Personally, I think it is about on par with what would the PC market look like if the government sanctioned a 30% marketshare cap on Microsoft. Do you really trust the OSS community to pick up the slack for the rest of the 70% of desktop users out there? I think your analogy is a poor one, as OSes don't require huge infrastructure investment, and thus competition would likely have more churn. That being said, it sounds like you prefer the Microsoft monopoly to any other solution...a position I certainly don't agree with (nor I bet, do many economists). Apple makes a very nice OS, there are various flavors of unix out there that work quite well, and in your magical 30% cap world there would no doubt be plenty of non-OSS options.
The other half is that the decision on whether to accept a certain technology dangerous to a certain extent lies not only with the danger it introduces, but also with the benefit it brings. But in the handsfree vs. non handsfree debate, the benefit is *identical*, you can talk on the phone in the car. The added danger of this technology is likewise not affected by being handsfree or not. So when you say you would accept limits on one form (normal cell phones), but not on the other (handsfree), that is simply illogical. Since they both let you telecommunicate equally, and are equally dangerous, what metric are you using to differentiate them? I honestly can not understand that part of your argument.
Your utterly lala-land claim that "danger" is the only parameter than requires assessing to grant judgement, and lack of will to discuss trivial things such as "benefit" is what I attacked, not you in person. Quit whining and address what you're asked to address. I've done no such thing, and find your claims of 'whining' to be ill-founded. I've agreed that determining what we should make illegal is based on a multi-variate analysis, including 1. utility of the behavior, 2. level of rights-infringement, 3. ability to actually accomplish behavior modification, and 4. relative danger to the public being some of the more salient factors. I've further argued that cell phone driving is a good candidate for legal action because A. it is a relatively new behavior (thus works with #3), B. we can manage nearly as well without it (we have up til a decade ago, and we can pull over make whatever calls we wish, so #1 is dealt with), and C. it is as dangerous as drunk driving (#4). Why you think I only speak to #4 is unclear, but here I've made it quite explicit that other factors matter.
Your cars example fails #1 and #3 clearly (current society requires car travel, and there is no reasonable subsitute), and #2 is debatable, #4 therefore becomes somewhat moot.
I've never suggested danger is all that matters, and I agree with you that it is not. Pragmatic consideration must be given to a variety of issues, and I will argue that cell phone driving can be eliminated even given those pragmatic and practical considerations. You may certainly disagree, but you've not made and real argument for why handsfree is any different than non-handsfree (either in utility differences or danger differences).
You seem to be wildly incapable of digesting any opinion but your own. You said you would support x but not y, where x and y are of equal danger in terms of (lack of) driving safety. This has nothing to do with opinion, its a matter of logic. That you choose not to argue the point, rather simply make an ad hominem attack speaks volumes.
To reiterate my point, making handsfree-devices legal is a pragmatic compromise. Agreed.
I'm perfectly happy with handset-while-driving=illegal, handsfree-while-driving=legal, even if there is an increased risk. This makes no sense. Numerous studies have demonstrated that driving with handsfree is *no* more safe than driving with a normal cell phone (and both cases are a decent approximation of driving while drunk). Either you do not believe what the scientists who've examined this say, or you are making a totally silly argument along the lines of, well you can drive if you're drunk off apple martinis, but not if you are drunk off of peach schnapps.
Following your approach of dangerous=>let's-ban! , we should also ban in-car stereo, radio, make sound-proof glass between driver and passengers mandatory, ban freeways and make the max speed limit everywhere about 20km/h. ALL of the above proven causes of accidents. There! No more risk! Is that where you'd want to be living? You have stuffed an awful lot of words into my mouth. I've not suggested any of those things, and you are simple pushing things to the absurd. Rather I've taken a pragmatic approach to make the argument that we can cut down on accidents by limiting a behavior the population has only recently acquired. We can't remove radios from all cars for practical reasons, as well as the ingrained attitude about them (even if it would prevent many accidents). Further, we as a society *have* decided that certain behaviors are dangerous enough to limit (drunk driving), despite the increased hassle that causes. I'm trying to suggest that as a pragmatic approach, we do the same with a newly introduced behavior that approximates that same level of increased danger.
Okay, I agree with you that the data show that a person talking on hands free is just as distracted as someone who is talking on a handset. That isn't our point of disagreement. You seem utterly convinced that "distraction" is the only axis in the driving/cell phone dynamic. Not the only, but the major.
The studies you cite have two things in common (that are germane to my point). 1. They're all synthetic. (Sit in front of a screen, wait for something to happen, mash a button.) None of them involve, you know, a car. 2. They are all studies of Psychology, not performance. Three things: First, "synthetic" experiments like that are not only common, but frequently preferable when testing certain things. Second, at least the Utah studies used driving simulators to more closely measure driving performance (If you are arguing that driving simulators != driving, that is certainly true, but until you come up with a better test that's about all we've got). Third, there is not any good way to get at the data you seem to require. Cell phone involvement in accidents only started getting recorded by police recently (past 5 years or so), and that is still usually based on self-reporting by the drivers. You can't very well send people out in cars with and without cell phones/handsfree and then record who crashes when, simply unethical and impractical.
I . . . let's say suspect, that correct use of turn signals has a measurable impact on safety. I have not formally studied this question, but I am quite certain that people who are holding an object while driving are less apt to signal. I see it with cell phones and coffee cups daily. Therefore, two drivers, one on a handset and one hands free are equally distracted; yet the one on hands free is measurably safer. Do you disagree? Nope, I simply suggest that turn signal usage is a very minor factor in the vast majority of accidents (especially serious ones), while distracted driving is a very major factor. Major enough, in fact, that its natural variation overwhelms any effect of poor signal usage.
That's a weird assumption. My experience is that passengers I'm conversing with are looking at me. It is my impression that this is normal conversational behavior. My experience is that when I'm in a car, driving or not, I spend the *vast* majority of time looking out the window. I certainly don't spend the entire time staring at the other occupants, glances here and there perhaps.
How, pray, am I meant to ascertain the expression on my passengers face while I'm looking at the fucking road? Non-verbal communication by passengers is a detriment to safety! If you stare at them sure. If, however, you steal glances at them from time to time, that seems less of an issue. Furthermore, low bandwidth of cell phones impacts the verbal as well as non-verbal.
A final word. I'm a big fan of Science. But it takes a great deal of skepticism to prevent Science from becoming a pseudo-religious series of appeals to authority. When the Scientific conclusions are at odds with casual observation it's perfectly possible that the observations are flawed. It is also possible that the assumptions going into the experimentation were flawed, or that the results, while correct, are being misapplied. Oh, and don't take what some random guy on the Internet has to say too seriously! Glad your appreciate science, it often seems like that is a lacking quality here. I'd agree that being skeptical of scientific claims is appropriate, particularly when those claims are presented without context or details. However, I tend to be more willing to believe peer-reviewed science whose goal is to examine an effect over the casual observations of some random person (myself included). In addition, I tend to find an argument more convincing when *multiple* groups of scientists using multiple methodologies have found the same hypothesis to be true (as is the case in the handsfree vs. non-handsfree cell phones question).
Rather than polarize everything into good and evil, you need to start thinking along more pragmatic cost vs benefit lines. Banning all communications from automobiles strikes me as sheer stupidity. Thing is, studies suggest cell phones cause you to drive as dangerously as being legally drunk. We have, as a society, agreed that driving drunk is an infringement of our rights that is unacceptable due to its public safety consequences. 10 years ago almost no one drove while on cell phones, and we managed. Making cell phone use while driving illegal would likely not cause such tremendous undue burden (you can *always* pull over).
I think the acceptance of cell phone driving is due to an ignorance of how dangerous it can be, not due to an informed decision that our desire for an increasing GNP is worth a drunk-driving level of danger.
And exactly how is that?! Very simple, the major issue is cognitive, not physical. The best bluetooth + phone combo in the world doesn't make you any less distracted by the non-local conversation you are taking part in.
I'm really fed up with this enormous, broad brush that you anti-phone-while-driving people use. I'm sorry your opinion happens to disagree with actual scientific research done that examines exactly these questions. I've now referenced at least 5 different studies in other parts of this thread that scientifically show that cognitive distraction is what causes cell phone drivers to be dangerous. You are welcome to paint us 'antiphonewhiledriving people' with whatever broad brush you wish, but at least have something to back it up with if you do. Your ignorant ranting doesn't really advance the discussion very much beyond the "I'm rubber and you're glue" level.
I disagree. Talking on a hands-free system isn't as good as just driving the freakin' car, but it is better than using a handset. Well the research done on the topic *strongly* disagrees with you. (My dad does public safety research at HSRC which is one of a number of places that have looked at this question...I can dig up results if you want, but a few minutes on google will do just as well.)
Hands free (Potentially less dangerous than talking with a passenger.) Wrong. Talking on a handsfree device is more likely to distract you than talking to a passenger. A passenger is in the same car looking at the same potentially dangerous situations that you are, your cell phone conversant isn't. A passenger has a higher bandwidth of communication (expressions, non-verbals) than a low-bitrate cell phone meaning you have more information to use to determine what is being communicated, thus your cognitive burden is lowered.
Anyway, I think voice dialing is a HUGE win, and hands free talking has noticeably less negative impact on driving in my experience. Thing is, your experience is 1. limited and 2. biased. Nothing personal, but people are notoriously subject to confirmation bias (we take note of things that support our beliefs, and ignore those that don't...without really realizing that we are doing it). This is why scientific studies note both presence and absence of a thing.
Somenotablelinks backing up my handsfree assertion.
There are several other common distractions. Fiddling with the stereo, disciplining children, applying makeup, and eating come to mind. Map reading ranks. I actually saw a guy reading a novel while merging onto the highway about a week ago. Unreal. Agreed, there are lots and lots of things that distract us from the complex cognitive task of driving. That does not mean we should say 'oh fuckit' and ignore evidence that handsfree options are just as bad as non-handsfree cell phones.
Hands-free systems You're right on with the other two, but hands-free systems are just as dangerous as normal cell phones. It might be legal, but that is because of poorly-written laws, not due to any extra safety from using hands-free.
The work I did was on sequencing a particular genome. The interesting thing was that once that was done, everyone on the project looked around and said, "Now what?" That's because of the level of specialization in serious cutting-edge science is overwhelming. You don't expect a patent lawyer to litigate a homicide case, you don't expect an oncologist to repair your broken ankle, and you don't expect a geneticist to study the biochemistry of protein interactions. It is great when those people come along who are adept enough to cross fields handily, but they are not all that common, simply because each field is very, very hard by itself. Scientists tend to do what they are trained in, just like everyone else.
But, that last part is rather unlikely. You will still be able to contact the recipient elsehow: either by paying the silly fee at least once, or by phoning them, or using a recipient email address not linked to the ISP, or by posting something on a web-site. So your solution involves either paying $1000, calling 50,000 people, somehow finding an alternate, potentially nonexistant email addres or posting on a website that the intended recipient would never know to go to.
I think it will be possible to vote with our wallets, and watch this little scheme die a painful death. Except the cost in time and effort to switch ISPs is non-trivial. Since most everywhere has a single cable ISP, you have to jump technology to switch from cable (if you can even get DSL)...meaning hassle, new modem hardware, potentially adding a landline, etc etc. DSL to other DSL might be easier, but is still non-trivial. DSL to cable has the same issues as vice-versa. Anyway you go, you are asking an awful lot of a already busy consumer.
Market forces work best when there are a large number of easily obtained options. Broadband ISPs are far from an ideal market.
I don't think there is any actual debate about this.
Since I disagree with your assumption of blastocyst = human being, then there clearly is debate. A unique genetic mixture does not define a human being to me (is a tumor a new human? Is a virally modified skin cell a new human? Are identical twin cells only one human being? What about cloned embryos?). If the unique genetic mixture isn't what defines humanity, what else can it be that conception imparts? There is nothing particularly novel about egg+sperm outside of a novel set of genes. Defining embryo is easy, defining human (being) is not. That being said, we clearly do differ on which levels of existence are deserving of which rights.
Someone else may be hypocritical or uninformed, but I am not.
You consider using new ESCs to be murder. "forbidding someone from using public money to deliberately kill other human beings." Yet you are ok with it being done at long as public funds don't pay for it. I would consider that hypocritical. If it is murder, how can it be ok as long as you aren't footing the bill?
I don't want to remind you of the horrors that logic has wrought upon the world. So you are arguing in support of illogic? Really? How can that even be argued (as argument requires logic as a basis)? More to the point though, why the dodge? I really want to know how you justify accepting the destruction of a cell and not accepting use of the exact same cell for research.
That said - servicing the damn things sucks. I routinely gut Dell laptops in the field to replace/upgrade hard drives, ram, WIFI cards - even CPUs. Good luck doing that with a Mac. Baloney. Upgrading my MacBook's RAM took 5 mins, one screwdriver (three screws) and a penny to remove the battery. The HD took 5 mins, one screwdriver and a penny to remove the battery.
I can't speak to CPU/Airport card, but I bet 95+% of laptop upgrades are of the HD/RAM variety.
No law is stopping you from doing this. Now you are the one being dishonest. Of course, you would have to pony up your own cash or collect it voluntarily, but that is asking too much from you, now isn't it?
Well, since the VAST majority of basic research is done with gov't funding, then yes Bush's decree is a pretty effective preventative measure. Even if I do develop the lines, no one who gets federal funding can use those lines, meaning the pool of possible users has been cut a few orders of magnitude.
We already have such lines, and both public and private money can be used to study them. Yes, some scientists screwed up and made them unacceptable for actual treatments, but research can still be done on them.
Yes, we have a very small selection of crappy lines, many of which are IP-encumbered. You are tying both hands and one leg behind our back and saying 'but you still have 5 toes, isnt that enough?'
There is nothing "dishonest" about forbidding someone from using public money to deliberately kill other human beings. You may prefer to dehumanize them for your own personal gain, but if you insist on doing so, at least have the honesty to put your money where your mouth is, rather than mine.
Sure there is. 1. If you truly, deep down believe that ESC research is murder, then you are pretty much obligated to disapprove of it regardless of who funds it. 2. Bush was dishonest by making that decree while saying *nothing* about the hundreds of thousands of frozen blastocysts sitting in IVF clinic freezers. If ESC is murder, IVF is murder. If you want to write off those already frozen cells as a lost cause, then why not let them be used for research rather than incineration? 3. We don't even need to get into the debate of whether 8-10 cells = a human being, but that is clearly a very ripe topic for disagreement across the country. I'll ignore your accusations of dehumanization as it is not germane to the issue.
It's ironic that if every self-proclaimed liberal in the country would put up $50, they could pay for more ESC research than has ever been done up to this point. But liberals don't like to use their OWN money to solve problems.
Red herring, and unrelated to the discussion.
I respect that people have different views of what makes a human being. However, to claim that ESC research is 'killing human beings' while allowing IVF to continue (absent unacceptable Italian-like controls) is just flat-out hypocritical. I have yet to hear any moral or logical reason for why blastocysts that are destined for the trash should not instead be used to further stem cell research.
I am a scientist, actually, and know how the process works. Any basic knowledge gained via embryonic research would have been gained by non-embryonic research at a later date, in a different order. When this field reaches maturity, we will not use human embryos as the source material. We do so now because it is a simple short-cut.
I am a scientist as well, and am less convinced than you about the inevitability of our knowledge acquisition. More to the point, your 'later date' could last a *long, long* time and would put off stem cell treatments by a similarly long time. The maturity of this field is already a good ways off, and it seems asinine to delay longer out of an illogical concern for already established biological trash.
I am not against IVF. I am against preparing extra embryos and freezing them. These are not the same thing.
Well, yes, excepting the scientifically backwards Italian law you cited, everywhere else in the developed world, they are. You harvest 20-some odd eggs, and implant the healthiest three while eventually discarding the rest. As for Italy, that law also illegalizes donor insemination, access to reproductive techniques for single women (Single woman?, sorry no IVF for you!), and preimplantation genetic diagnosis...truly a wonderful law.
By 2030, your SUPPLY of "free" embryos will probably disappear anyway
Anything to actually back up that statement? Not to mention the fact that we could just take all to-be-discarded embryos that exist right now and develop stem cell lines from those and would be in fine shape. As a scientist, I'm sure you know that ESC research doesn't depend on using a single embryo for an experiment, rather differentiatable cell lines are established from the initial cells. If Bush hadn't made his intellectually dishonest decree, we could've simply taken all IVF embryos available on that day, and likely never had to worry about it again.
one more reason that embryonic treatments will never come to pass outside of experimental treatments.
You are either ignorant, or being intentionally deceptive by implying that treatments will require brand new embryos.
I will pay you ten to one that in 2030, there will be no major health-related treatments that are based on destroying human embryos.
Given the cross-pollinating nature of science, you would lose already. Stem cell research on embryonic lines to date has greatly advanced our knowledge of stem cells as a whole. The results inform any future results, and even supposing this technique works in humans (which, it should be added this technique, while a potentially great advance, 1.works only in mice so far, 2. causes fatal tumors in 20% of those mice, 3. requires gene-altering viral infection, and 4. requires interbreeding of those mice), they benefited from the knowledge gained by all the ESC research already done. You can't build a skyscraper and then say 'yeah, we didnt really need that ground floor.'
destroying human embryos
Right, the ones that are currently sitting unused in IVF clinics just waiting to be burnt as biohazardous waste? Those embryos that we care so much about, that disposing of them by incineration is ok, but utilizing for research isn't? This is the biggest nut of this whole debate...if you are against ESC research, you have to be against in vitro fertilization, yet there is no meaningful IVF debate going on.
I don't feel any need to entertain your Godwin comments...
I can't believe this hogwash was moderated 'insightful.' Ignorant pseudo-libertarian ranting apparently fulfills some slashdot community need.
With so many unquestionably moral methods of creating stem cells on the very near horizon
We hope this is so, but have absolutely no way of knowing.
what is the justification for using public money for research that tens of millions of people consider murder?
First off, I'm not sure I buy your proclamation (where are the tens of millions fighting against in-vitro fertilization). Tens of millions also consider eating animals tantamount to murder...let's kill off the USDA. Tens of millions believe in creationism, let's stop geology/archeology/cosmology research. Tens of millions of people believe lots of crazy shit that should not be directing gov't policy, thats the way democracy works.
Additionally, no stem-cell research that I know of is focused on any public health concern such as communicable diseases; rather, it is focused on private health issues such as cancer or Parkinson's disease. Hence, it is debatable whether such research is the domain of government at all.
1. *That* you know of. Even the researchers don't really know how widely stem-cell therapy might or might not be used, that's why you research it. 2. So you are positing that only those lucky enough to have suffered from a communicable disease should be a concern of the gov't? Really? And what defines a public health concern? Cancer from industrial pollution? vCJD from mad-cows...that happens to be similar to parkinson's (and alzheimer's)? So people who had the unfortunate luck to be born with a disease are SOL, yet those with preventable sexually-transmitted diseases are the beneficiaries? What the hell kind of moral system did you pluck that from?
If the government is going to intrude so deeply into the private sphere, should it not do so under only the most benign of manners?
Right, so how about, say, abortion? Or euthanasia? Should the gov't butt out of those 'private spheres'? And if so, you've lost the support of those "tens of millions" who have an issue with stem-cell research.
In contrast, there is no compelling reason for the government to fund stem-cell research at all...and even less so, given its controversy.
Well, public support for gov't funding of research is a pretty damn compelling reason. Again, democracy and all. If you can convince a majority to do away with basic research funding, then we can have a debate about the societal benefit of gov't support of research. Until then, we, as a society, have pretty clearly decided that it is in our interest to support research (of non-communicable diseases as well as stem-cell related technology).
I saw $30 for a reasonable set of Monster component cables. The no-brand HDMI 3 foot cable was $90. That always makes me wonder how much the Big Box Stores make off of cables.
I have a hard time imagining that anything Amazon releases could beat the integration and ease of use of iTunes and iTunes Music Store... and from there, the iPod.
Exactly - And I don't want any of the three of those, much less all three.
You're right in implying there's an element of deception in the global warming "debate". People mistake correlation for causation all the time, often because they're told to and they're unable to think for themselves.
It is true that there is deception in the "debate." Calling it a debate is the deception.
Many mistake global warming correlating with higher CO2 with a global warming caused by CO2. Having perused material on the matter, and discussed it with colleagues who track this, there is no evidence to suggest that higher CO2 causes the global warming we are seeing today.
Correlation does not imply causation. Correlation does, however, suggest that something is going on, and offers a good place to start looking. Correlation combined with a good hypothesis backed up by experimentation, does give you a reason to suspect causation.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that is *not* debatable, simple physics tells you that (water vapor is to, but we aren't anthropormorphically changing its level like we are with CO2).
Worse is that the lack of balanced scientific debate on the topic, and the number of lemmings who blindingly need to point a finger without any actual evidence, is undermining the ability to observe and make rational opinions.
I have an idea, why don't we let the scientists work on it, and come to a consensus? That way we don't have ignorant (in the non pedantic connotation) slashdotters bitching about a lack of "balance." Oh, right, that's been done.
However, it's Slashdot. It's a populous opinion. Don't take it personal when the lemmings come and mod you down for, God forbid, positing something contrary to the convenience of their finger-pointing!:)
Not sure what that wonderful game has to do with this, but I'm all for early 90's references. Posting contrary ideas is all fine and good, but when the topic is a scientifically determinable question, and you are on the incorrect side, you're gonna catch shit. Arguing that evolution is wrong, or that gravity is only a 'theory' will do the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure where you are looking, but according to Apple, the *only* plan w/o unlimited N&W is the cheapest one, and it has 5000 N&W minutes. Every other plan (and all family plans) has unlimited.
-Ted
-Ted
-Ted
Your cars example fails #1 and #3 clearly (current society requires car travel, and there is no reasonable subsitute), and #2 is debatable, #4 therefore becomes somewhat moot.
I've never suggested danger is all that matters, and I agree with you that it is not. Pragmatic consideration must be given to a variety of issues, and I will argue that cell phone driving can be eliminated even given those pragmatic and practical considerations. You may certainly disagree, but you've not made and real argument for why handsfree is any different than non-handsfree (either in utility differences or danger differences).
-Ted
-Ted
-Ted
-Ted
I think the acceptance of cell phone driving is due to an ignorance of how dangerous it can be, not due to an informed decision that our desire for an increasing GNP is worth a drunk-driving level of danger.
-Ted
-Ted
-Ted
No, it turns out that the issue is largely cognitive, not physical. Google 'distracted driving handsfree' or similar.
-Ted
Some notable links backing up my handsfree assertion. There are several other common distractions. Fiddling with the stereo, disciplining children, applying makeup, and eating come to mind. Map reading ranks. I actually saw a guy reading a novel while merging onto the highway about a week ago. Unreal. Agreed, there are lots and lots of things that distract us from the complex cognitive task of driving. That does not mean we should say 'oh fuckit' and ignore evidence that handsfree options are just as bad as non-handsfree cell phones.
-Ted
-Ted
-Ted
Market forces work best when there are a large number of easily obtained options. Broadband ISPs are far from an ideal market.
-Ted
Since I disagree with your assumption of blastocyst = human being, then there clearly is debate. A unique genetic mixture does not define a human being to me (is a tumor a new human? Is a virally modified skin cell a new human? Are identical twin cells only one human being? What about cloned embryos?). If the unique genetic mixture isn't what defines humanity, what else can it be that conception imparts? There is nothing particularly novel about egg+sperm outside of a novel set of genes. Defining embryo is easy, defining human (being) is not. That being said, we clearly do differ on which levels of existence are deserving of which rights.
Someone else may be hypocritical or uninformed, but I am not.You consider using new ESCs to be murder. "forbidding someone from using public money to deliberately kill other human beings." Yet you are ok with it being done at long as public funds don't pay for it. I would consider that hypocritical. If it is murder, how can it be ok as long as you aren't footing the bill?
I don't want to remind you of the horrors that logic has wrought upon the world. So you are arguing in support of illogic? Really? How can that even be argued (as argument requires logic as a basis)? More to the point though, why the dodge? I really want to know how you justify accepting the destruction of a cell and not accepting use of the exact same cell for research.-Ted
I can't speak to CPU/Airport card, but I bet 95+% of laptop upgrades are of the HD/RAM variety.
-Ted
Well, since the VAST majority of basic research is done with gov't funding, then yes Bush's decree is a pretty effective preventative measure. Even if I do develop the lines, no one who gets federal funding can use those lines, meaning the pool of possible users has been cut a few orders of magnitude.
We already have such lines, and both public and private money can be used to study them. Yes, some scientists screwed up and made them unacceptable for actual treatments, but research can still be done on them.Yes, we have a very small selection of crappy lines, many of which are IP-encumbered. You are tying both hands and one leg behind our back and saying 'but you still have 5 toes, isnt that enough?'
There is nothing "dishonest" about forbidding someone from using public money to deliberately kill other human beings. You may prefer to dehumanize them for your own personal gain, but if you insist on doing so, at least have the honesty to put your money where your mouth is, rather than mine.Sure there is. 1. If you truly, deep down believe that ESC research is murder, then you are pretty much obligated to disapprove of it regardless of who funds it. 2. Bush was dishonest by making that decree while saying *nothing* about the hundreds of thousands of frozen blastocysts sitting in IVF clinic freezers. If ESC is murder, IVF is murder. If you want to write off those already frozen cells as a lost cause, then why not let them be used for research rather than incineration? 3. We don't even need to get into the debate of whether 8-10 cells = a human being, but that is clearly a very ripe topic for disagreement across the country. I'll ignore your accusations of dehumanization as it is not germane to the issue.
It's ironic that if every self-proclaimed liberal in the country would put up $50, they could pay for more ESC research than has ever been done up to this point. But liberals don't like to use their OWN money to solve problems.Red herring, and unrelated to the discussion.
I respect that people have different views of what makes a human being. However, to claim that ESC research is 'killing human beings' while allowing IVF to continue (absent unacceptable Italian-like controls) is just flat-out hypocritical. I have yet to hear any moral or logical reason for why blastocysts that are destined for the trash should not instead be used to further stem cell research.
-Ted
I am a scientist as well, and am less convinced than you about the inevitability of our knowledge acquisition. More to the point, your 'later date' could last a *long, long* time and would put off stem cell treatments by a similarly long time. The maturity of this field is already a good ways off, and it seems asinine to delay longer out of an illogical concern for already established biological trash.
I am not against IVF. I am against preparing extra embryos and freezing them. These are not the same thing.Well, yes, excepting the scientifically backwards Italian law you cited, everywhere else in the developed world, they are. You harvest 20-some odd eggs, and implant the healthiest three while eventually discarding the rest. As for Italy, that law also illegalizes donor insemination, access to reproductive techniques for single women (Single woman?, sorry no IVF for you!), and preimplantation genetic diagnosis...truly a wonderful law.
By 2030, your SUPPLY of "free" embryos will probably disappear anywayAnything to actually back up that statement? Not to mention the fact that we could just take all to-be-discarded embryos that exist right now and develop stem cell lines from those and would be in fine shape. As a scientist, I'm sure you know that ESC research doesn't depend on using a single embryo for an experiment, rather differentiatable cell lines are established from the initial cells. If Bush hadn't made his intellectually dishonest decree, we could've simply taken all IVF embryos available on that day, and likely never had to worry about it again.
one more reason that embryonic treatments will never come to pass outside of experimental treatments.You are either ignorant, or being intentionally deceptive by implying that treatments will require brand new embryos.
-Ted
Yeah, you should've seen the twink model they were considering.
-Ted
destroying human embryosGiven the cross-pollinating nature of science, you would lose already. Stem cell research on embryonic lines to date has greatly advanced our knowledge of stem cells as a whole. The results inform any future results, and even supposing this technique works in humans (which, it should be added this technique, while a potentially great advance, 1.works only in mice so far, 2. causes fatal tumors in 20% of those mice, 3. requires gene-altering viral infection, and 4. requires interbreeding of those mice), they benefited from the knowledge gained by all the ESC research already done. You can't build a skyscraper and then say 'yeah, we didnt really need that ground floor.'
Right, the ones that are currently sitting unused in IVF clinics just waiting to be burnt as biohazardous waste? Those embryos that we care so much about, that disposing of them by incineration is ok, but utilizing for research isn't? This is the biggest nut of this whole debate...if you are against ESC research, you have to be against in vitro fertilization, yet there is no meaningful IVF debate going on.
I don't feel any need to entertain your Godwin comments...
-Ted
what is the justification for using public money for research that tens of millions of people consider murder?We hope this is so, but have absolutely no way of knowing.
Additionally, no stem-cell research that I know of is focused on any public health concern such as communicable diseases; rather, it is focused on private health issues such as cancer or Parkinson's disease. Hence, it is debatable whether such research is the domain of government at all.First off, I'm not sure I buy your proclamation (where are the tens of millions fighting against in-vitro fertilization). Tens of millions also consider eating animals tantamount to murder...let's kill off the USDA. Tens of millions believe in creationism, let's stop geology/archeology/cosmology research. Tens of millions of people believe lots of crazy shit that should not be directing gov't policy, thats the way democracy works.
1. *That* you know of. Even the researchers don't really know how widely stem-cell therapy might or might not be used, that's why you research it. 2. So you are positing that only those lucky enough to have suffered from a communicable disease should be a concern of the gov't? Really? And what defines a public health concern? Cancer from industrial pollution? vCJD from mad-cows...that happens to be similar to parkinson's (and alzheimer's)? So people who had the unfortunate luck to be born with a disease are SOL, yet those with preventable sexually-transmitted diseases are the beneficiaries? What the hell kind of moral system did you pluck that from?
If the government is going to intrude so deeply into the private sphere, should it not do so under only the most benign of manners?Right, so how about, say, abortion? Or euthanasia? Should the gov't butt out of those 'private spheres'? And if so, you've lost the support of those "tens of millions" who have an issue with stem-cell research.
In contrast, there is no compelling reason for the government to fund stem-cell research at all...and even less so, given its controversy.Well, public support for gov't funding of research is a pretty damn compelling reason. Again, democracy and all. If you can convince a majority to do away with basic research funding, then we can have a debate about the societal benefit of gov't support of research. Until then, we, as a society, have pretty clearly decided that it is in our interest to support research (of non-communicable diseases as well as stem-cell related technology).
-Ted
-Ted
Exactly - And I don't want any of the three of those, much less all three.
Especially ease of use. I hate that.
-Ted
It is true that there is deception in the "debate." Calling it a debate is the deception.
Many mistake global warming correlating with higher CO2 with a global warming caused by CO2. Having perused material on the matter, and discussed it with colleagues who track this, there is no evidence to suggest that higher CO2 causes the global warming we are seeing today.
Correlation does not imply causation. Correlation does, however, suggest that something is going on, and offers a good place to start looking. Correlation combined with a good hypothesis backed up by experimentation, does give you a reason to suspect causation.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that is *not* debatable, simple physics tells you that (water vapor is to, but we aren't anthropormorphically changing its level like we are with CO2).
Worse is that the lack of balanced scientific debate on the topic, and the number of lemmings who blindingly need to point a finger without any actual evidence, is undermining the ability to observe and make rational opinions.
I have an idea, why don't we let the scientists work on it, and come to a consensus? That way we don't have ignorant (in the non pedantic connotation) slashdotters bitching about a lack of "balance." Oh, right, that's been done.
However, it's Slashdot. It's a populous opinion. Don't take it personal when the lemmings come and mod you down for, God forbid, positing something contrary to the convenience of their finger-pointing!
Not sure what that wonderful game has to do with this, but I'm all for early 90's references. Posting contrary ideas is all fine and good, but when the topic is a scientifically determinable question, and you are on the incorrect side, you're gonna catch shit. Arguing that evolution is wrong, or that gravity is only a 'theory' will do the same thing.
-Ted