Science does not specifically reject God(s), it merely rejects the manner of thinking which caused you to arrive at your belief. It's something that could change with hard evidence, but we've yet to see any.
Do you believe in aliens? Do you believe in the possibility that they might exist?
See, what I find fascinating is the ego of so many supposed science aficianados. We currently do not know whether aliens exist or not. We pre-suppose the possibility, we have conducted some scientific tests and experiments with no success in our results. One possibility is that we have not advanced to a high enough level of knowledge and scientific understanding to determine the existance of aliens.
Is just the lack of our means and technical advancement enough to declare that a) intelligent exterrestials don't exist? b) is the fact that we don't know how to test for them successfully enough to deny such existance?
The truth of the matter is we might one day achieve such a success. However, right now we are not advanced enough to make such determination.
I find it funny that more people in their thinking of science will accept such. But you want to deny flat out the possibility of an intelligent designer.
What happens if mankind creates an intelligence (a sentient computer). What happens if mankind dies away. Will they argue about whether there was a God called Man? and whether they were created or not?
Is it possible that God can in fact be observed scientifically...but we might not have the means at this time? Does the fact that 200 yrs ago we could not observe an atom stand as an argument that atoms did not exist? What if God does exist and is observable in the universe but only on a sub-atomic extradimensional level we have yet to ever begin to observe.
Why is it that one can claim in the name of science to be so right as to know that something is unobservable. When history is there to tell us that a mere few hundred years before hand we did not have the means to observe much of what we now know and use every day. Is it not wiser and more scientific to simply continue observing and not decry the possibility impossible without an evidence.
And they exist on both sides of the issue (Pro-ID or Anti-ID). Though as of late, it seems Slashdot has grown fond of catering to troll submissions so long as it opposes ID. And it gets lame after a while. Do we really need 3 anti-ID articles a week?
I'm sorry, but I don't know a single ID'ist who has ever used the fact that science didn't know how honeybees flew as proof that science was wrong. Perhaps, as a point at the time, to stress that science doesn't have all the answers yet. And anyone who'd argue with that is frankly an idiot.
Maybe one day science will have all the answers...
You're so ignorant and dogmatic you have no !@#$% clue what ID supporters believe. Moron. Yes flame bait.
But guess what, nearly every ID supporter I've ever known (from raw creationists to intelligent evolution supporters) have all been strong supporters of science. ID's supporters aren't against learning how a bee flies nor adapting such understanding to our own use.
ID supporters just believe that there was an element of design and intent as oppose to simple randomness in the development of what we observe.
- You say the complexities observed, from our DNA to the sub-atomic particles are all the way they by pure random chance.
- ID simply notes that there are observed complexities and notes that similar complexities observed tend to be by design, and that there seems to be an element of design. And the range of ID supporters swings quite wide. From those who believe the earth was created in 6 days to those who believe the earth is 4+ billion years old and man evolved from intelligently coded programming.
I just find it so tiresome (it'd be laughable if it wasn't so sad) that you guys are lock-stock judgmentally trapped in your own barrel of pickles (ideologies) that you can't even take the time to understand what ID includes and how it varies. And how much of it has no conflict with any evidence science has put forth.
Sure, they'll jump on any whacko ID who spouts something stupid. And at the same time whenever random scientist spouts something stupid they just dismiss it. You're more dogmatic and blind than the people you are criticizing.
"Proponents of intelligent design, or ID, have tried in recent years to promote the idea of a supreme being by discounting science because it can't explain everything in nature."
Very few proponents of intelligent design point to such things. And in truth, I've never heard that argument made myself. Not saying there aren't a few who do.
But you know. We took a perfectly good article about how we've furthered our understanding of how bee's fly. And basically turned that knowledge into trash.
So yes, now, we know how bee's fly. (Actually, I remember reading an article on it a few years back that seemed to give a fairly detailed review.) But let me say something about the poster and the author of the article. They're both lame.
Why....because if you are devoted solely to turning any discovery as an argument of one issue than you have lost the purpose of science. You are not a scientist you have become a dogmatic believer. In the case of the bee argument, those arguments are usually made to point out that scientists do not know all the answers. And they don't. So they gained understanding of one answer. Congratulations...
But I fear for science when it becomes so dogmatic that it must act in the most poor manner imitating all that it derides about religion...these individual become the very thing thing they mock.
For example, I can make car that runs perfectly and to spec without failure. But place it in water and it will sink to the bottom. Was it a bad car because it sank? no...it just was a bad boat!
If you give me the task of writing a pattern recognition software for fingerprints...and I deliver you a program that never crashes due to software error and perfectly identifies 100% of all patterns presented. Then said software is installed on a bank lock mechanism. You can't blame me if your lock was by-passed because the bank robbers cut off the banker's hand in order to by-pass the system. The software did it's job. It was the banker who failed to retain his hand and who is at fault - not the software.
Or point out, that the ability to move 200lbs up rugged terrain and trenches which are inaccessible by vehicle would allow a vehicle level weapon to be brought by a light mechanized infantry unit.
For example: such a system could allow a heavier caliber gatling machine gun to be mounted on a mountain side. A ordinance not normally able to be carried by infantry; to a position unreachable by vehicle. Where as currently, an infantry unit may have one heavy infantry weapon (machine gun, anti-tank weapon, bazooka, stinger, etc.) Such a system if it could be powered for prolonged use would allow every member of a squad to have heavy armament. When a platoon of mechanized infantry have the means to quickly move and engage with heavy ordinance an armored unit (tank) it makes the tanks much less viable.
Furthermore, this doesn't even address if they were to replace the ICE with a nuclear powerplant. Often the case for such a design as this specifies to design a unit that operates and functions on a powerplant of "X" amount. Then the powerplant is developed seperately and eventually substituted.
For instance, with fighter jets, most prototypes do not use final engines. Often they are told to design the jet with the expectations that the final engines will provide x thousand lbs of thrust/lbs of engine. But are first tested with engines that often do not provide such power levels. Later in the final prototypes the engines are replaced with the new final units.
I imagine the plan of feasibility is that these things will eventually run off a non ICE power plant.
You're right...it's the Skim Milk of BSG, it maintained 2% of the original. Essentially, the name, the name of the characters, the viper, and the Galactica. Everything else just was a slap in the face.
And please does every single character have to be castrated and made a female?
Adama - divided into two characters, the religious caring leader removed and made the female president. Starbuck - made female (but hey, I'll give credit where credit is due, she's on of the few characters I've found myself liking) Boomer - made female, goes from calm supportive male lead to whiny doubtful asian female (where's the boom baby?) Commander Cain - made female
(okay, this is starting to look like an obsession. And please don't give me any diversity crap. How can we even consider claiming this in the name of diversity? 1970's show features two strong supporting black male role-models. The 2005 show nearly 25 yrs later features "zero". And the one black female has seemed to disappear from any significant prominence to a level just slightly above background actor. I still don't see what all the hub-bub is around this show. I mean I enjoy it but I don't find it anything grand. I think Serenity was far more fun, the characters much less flat and two dimensional. It's like everyone's ranting about it...why, because it took a page from the much Babylon5 playbook and used story arcs? Babylon5 was a much better show than I think the new BSG will ever live up to being.)
a) we do not have the means to control/influence the actions of stem cells (minimal success at best with adult stem cells)
b) embryonic stem cells require orders of magnitude greater control
Hence, their is no point in using them until we can even justly handle the adult stem cells. And if at that point we find a situation where once we gain understanding and control, that the adult stem cells are incapable of such performance. Than, and only then is there even any need to consider embryonic stem cell usage.
Sorry, you're correct, part of the problem is my Russian heritage and tendency (even four or five generations removed) to use double-negatives for the purpose of emphasis.
I should have stated "poorly/mis-informed" at least to convey such to my readers.;)
So leave it the way it is...just like mail order catalogs. Keep the burden on the state to collect taxes. What right does the state of Connecticut (one royally !@#$%'d up state when it comes to taxes) have to obligate anyone outside it's jurisdiction to collect taxes for it?
Yes, Connecticut residents are supposed to declare such, and seldom do. So the State of Connecticut should either frickin enforce it's own crap in-house...or change it's tax system. But to expect say some southern state of a much lower cost-of-living to have to implement immensely complex tax collecting systems when said state eliminate complex tax systems due to the waste the complexity brought about...now they have to re-implement such a system now 50-fold?
Yeah. *cocks chamber* and shouts "Live Free or Die";)
Said proposal is an undue tax burden put on individuals outside said state's jurisdiction. It's frankly unconstitutional. I don't think it will pass the supreme court in the long run.
Screw'em. If they want me to pay taxes out-of-state, they can give me a representative to vote on my behald in their state.
How long until one state makes itself a no online tax state. And a company sets up "receiving/shipping" and you just have it sent to a PO Box and then it's routed elsewhere. You bought it in "x" tax free state.
I don't know where your views lie, but my prayers are that things will continue to improve in most wonderful ways.
Your sharing reminds me of Glenn Beck's sharing regarding his daughter, who was likewise damaged. I remember him recounting when the doctor told him that black spots are dead areas. And showed a normal brain. Then put up his daughter's brain and it was almost completely black. And yet, she's graduated high school. The girl who was unlikely to live more than a few years and if so to expected to be severely mentally & physically retarded.
I think it's a sign of how much we casually dismiss life in our society.
Thank you for sharing. And reminding us a) to hope b) to realize...
(although, I don't necessarily agree with the study being bogus, and I think it may be less necessary in children, but it might lead to insight in how to apply such to adults. For instance, children seem to have the ability to trigger stem cell growth activity. Perhaps such addition will show further increase. And monitoring might at somepoint provide the understanding of how it's triggered. Than from there one can take the knowledge and method and apply it in adults and trigger similar growth in kind.
However, the fact of the matter is that fetal stem cell research has essentially resulted in very little success. In fact, because of their heightened mutation qualities the end result of almost all fetal research has been the same, the creation of a tumor and nothing more.
Where as adult stem cell research has had a few dozen potential successes. All without the taking of life. In fact, the advocates of adult stem cell only research have proved quite right in their hypothesis that a few years added research would show that most of the "proposed additional benefits" that would be provided by fetal stem cells can also be achieved by adult stem cells. In fact, a lot of success has been from "umbilical" stem cells. Still a bit younger but not quite as reactive and unstable as the the fetal stem cells.
Let me ask you this simple question. If you were to make a flight between NY & LA which would you rather fly on? an uncontrollable ballistic rocket? or a slightly slower but controllable jet plane? in fact, until we learn more control with the much more controllable (stable) adult stem cells we will have next to no ability to produce positive results with fetal stem cells. So let's learn the basics of flight with a nice stable Cessna. Than, one we understand, lift, pitch, yaw, etc. We can move to more experimental and unstable designs if we discover that all the needs cannot indeed be met with the adult stem cell research.
PLEASE....educate yourself on this issue. You are extremely misinformed!
Try reading the article for starters, here is a quote:
The clinical trial is the first to apply stem cells to treat traumatic brain injury. It does not involve embryonic stem cells.
A bit more about stem cell research:
1. There is no ban on stem cell research. Merely, a provision stating that Federal funds will not be used for fetal stem cell research. (Privately funded research is still available.) Furthermore, the government allocated $500 million to stem cell research. Far from a ban to say the least.
2. All successful or promising stem cell development has been achieved using adult & umbilical stem cells. In fact, many experts in the field believe that there is no need what-so-ever to use fetal stem cells. a) that all goals can be achieved from non-fetal stem cells given a bit more time and study b) said additional study will likely take less time than the study necessary to learn how to control and utilize fetal stem cells.
3. Fetal stem cell research has to date had very little success. The most common end result is "tumors". The fetal stem cells are too reactive and uncontrolled. Of the few dozen articles on stem cell success I have read not a single one has been due to fetal stem cells.
4. When people keep ignorantly making statements above they merely show themselves to be poorly misinformed at best and quite a bit more at worse.
Perhaps, they're going to buy Opera, so as to have rights to certain code (as I recall Opera's a pretty speedy browser) and take that code and incorporate it (or make it available to Firefox/Mozilla)
Just a thought...however unlikely the whole thing might be.
"Unfortunately, that design also deprives you of a great joy and advantage of digital photography: framing your shots using the camera's screen."
Damn...Slashdot is now doing "advertising", I sure hope they got paid for this one.
First off, I agree with the first poster. I won't buy it cause it's SONY. (And IMHO SONY = crap quality + proprietary overpriced memory.)
Second, this is NOTHING NEW: "move along folks...nothing new to see here"
Olympus' E-10/E-20 fixed lens DSLR allowed for the using of the LCD screen to frame a shot. I know, I owned one and on more than one occasion held the unit upside down over my head to get above crowds at concerts. (Sure, it's not quite as big as the new batch of DSLRs but that's because those are 4 yr old models. So you're touting a 4 yr old feature as new.)
Canon's 20Da also allows you to do the same thing. This is a modified variant of their 20D with a focus on Astrophotography.
Please tell me what the fuck is wrong with having the lyrics posted so that people can find the words when they try to quote them...oh dear. It's not like people are using the lyrics to perform the song, and if so, then they'd get nail by the performance rights collectors.
All we want is to be able to find the lyrics essentially to educate us, and that should be in fair use. And were the MPA to provide such themselves that'd be cool.
But !@#$% them...I am so sick of this crap. It's gone way beyond sanity.
Wikipedia, nice concept...a fairly large resource of information, but a good example somewhat of anarchy in action.
First, Wikipedia often fails to state it's purposes clearly. Is it an information source, an encyclopedia or an all encompassing well of knowledge?
Take for example issues regarding web comics. Wikipedia went on a purge of dozens of web comic entries. Eliminating vast amounts of effort put in by individuals. The premise, "noteworthiness"....a change in the meaning of that term eliminated large quantities of listings. Such a premise must be taken into account before entries begin. To decide to change the qualifications so as to eliminate 90% of entries is to deride the effort of user's works.
Second, a complete lack of check and balances for edits allow for great risk of destructive behaviors. Were Wikipedia to simply implement a small concept common in Roget's rules of order and most others rules of order there would be much less inclination toward destruction. And that is to require a member to "second" any edits. Sure, it still poses risk. But to do so would enable a bit more order. Perhaps large and substantial edits or deletions of content would require 2 or more "seconds" before said change would be implemented.
Changes should go thru some sort of review process and affirmation.
*shrug*
Until such processes are implemented little will impede the anarchy that is Wikipedia.
Actually, I think Smallville is in it's 5th season.
And they have done a pretty darn good job actually. They have several villain type situations:
a) Superman encounters regular criminal mob often jeopardizing his friends. He is also trying to keep his powers underwraps and out of observation.
b) The meteorite rocks that came from Krypton with Superman cause mutations in humans. Often resulting in super-powered villains. (Or more usually people who's emotional instabilities become super-powered.) The overweight girls who gets such a super-high metabolism that she loses 100lbs overnight. But it keeps speeding up. So she starts sucking the fat directly from other people's bodies.
c) The third and most interesting villainry was done so with ingenius intuition. They made Clark Kent and Lex Luthor "best friends" and the strain of the divergent relationships and conflicts and dishonesty on both parts makes for some interesting tension and episodes.
d) The last set of villains are his kryptonian influences (father, sexy kryptonian wanna be girlfriend, etc) who tend to have a low regard for humanity.
One must remember that the FDIC approached Microsoft a while back with the comment that they were sitting on tens of billions of dollars. And that they needed to a) give out a dividend and b) re-invest said capital as a responsibility to their share-holders or be fined for violation.
In other words, Microsoft was basically told they needed to re-invest 50% of their cash hoard. So the Xbox gave them a strong "market" investment area. And allowed them to burn thru "investment capital" while at the same time building their portfolio. So when Microsoft loses $350 million a year on the Xbox. This is in fact not outside the scope. It is new market capitalization. And they can now point to such investment in order to avoid fines and legal lawsuits from the investment end.
While at the same time, they buttress their core division by ensuring that if home entertainment consoles become the new "home PCs" they have a strong footing in the game. So it was both a protective and expansive move in a multi-faceted levels.
I also imagine that the Xbox360 is going to do what many thought the original Xbox would (but never did). It's going to crossover. I expect in the third year you will see Microsoft offer a Keyboard, XIE browser, and Live accounts will include email and messenger compatibility with MSN Messenger. Oh...and possibly the following year if such is successful. Office lite....subscription service.;)
The iTunes "kiosk"... you walk into Circuit City and there is a large kiosk in the center of the music area. It has 8-12 small LCD screens. You place your iPod into the kiosk and you can buy the songs thru Circuit City. Yes, there will be an additional fee but you no longer need internet access.
Yes, I have heard of the "Apple/Beatle" issue. But I have a feeling that if they were to propose such a legal battle (and Apple is one of the few companies that could drop $1 billion on a 10 yr legal fight) against RIAA and approach Paul McCartney. How interesting, Apple could offer McCartney and Apple Records a joint venture. Stock swap.
McCartney would get Apple stock, perhaps a chance to reclaim some rights to his music, and a major roll in music's future (in addition to his role in it's past).
Even if Apple loses the lawsuit, I don't think RIAA could hold out financially for a decade with such competition. Apple might be able to walk up and buy a 1 or 2 of the big 4. And at the same time, they've accumulated 10 yrs worth of "new bands" as they sign the bands.
The only thing that really prevents such from happening are "egos" (If Steve Jobs & Paul McCartney could put aside ego conflict for the goal of world music domination. *lol*)
"I highly doubt Paul McCartney's (to use your example) prime target for sales would be that hyped about buying digital copies of his music, especially since they're much less likely to know to back it up."
[[[ No need to back-up. iTunes could keep track of all purchases and in case of a computer crash or new machine one could re-download their library. (Perhaps a limit of "two" restorations a year.) ]]]
"Besides, most record-buying public are likely to want the liner notes, covers, and cases to hold their music in, and are less likely to want to purchase single songs."
[[[ This is changing. I am an avid collector. But after toying with my mom's iPod I am becoming more inclined to the digital format. It displays images, album cover, etc. So I think we'll reach the point where the purchase of a song includes art, liner notes, lyrics, and additional media. And I really think we will eventually go that way. ]]]
"Remember, the percentage of the population that buys the music that would be more popular is much less savvy than you think."
[[[ That's a very condescending hypothesis...and in truth, most pop is bought by the younger crowd. Who tend to be quite saavy. And my mom, who is 50 yrs old is loving her iPod. She hasn't taken advantage of all of it's features...but enough to enjoy it! ]]]
Slashdot Mirror
Science does not specifically reject God(s), it merely rejects the manner of thinking which caused you to arrive at your belief. It's something that could change with hard evidence, but we've yet to see any.
Do you believe in aliens? Do you believe in the possibility that they might exist?
See, what I find fascinating is the ego of so many supposed science aficianados. We currently do not know whether aliens exist or not. We pre-suppose the possibility, we have conducted some scientific tests and experiments with no success in our results. One possibility is that we have not advanced to a high enough level of knowledge and scientific understanding to determine the existance of aliens.
Is just the lack of our means and technical advancement enough to declare that a) intelligent exterrestials don't exist? b) is the fact that we don't know how to test for them successfully enough to deny such existance?
The truth of the matter is we might one day achieve such a success. However, right now we are not advanced enough to make such determination.
I find it funny that more people in their thinking of science will accept such. But you want to deny flat out the possibility of an intelligent designer.
What happens if mankind creates an intelligence (a sentient computer). What happens if mankind dies away. Will they argue about whether there was a God called Man? and whether they were created or not?
Is it possible that God can in fact be observed scientifically...but we might not have the means at this time? Does the fact that 200 yrs ago we could not observe an atom stand as an argument that atoms did not exist? What if God does exist and is observable in the universe but only on a sub-atomic extradimensional level we have yet to ever begin to observe.
Why is it that one can claim in the name of science to be so right as to know that something is unobservable. When history is there to tell us that a mere few hundred years before hand we did not have the means to observe much of what we now know and use every day. Is it not wiser and more scientific to simply continue observing and not decry the possibility impossible without an evidence.
And they exist on both sides of the issue (Pro-ID or Anti-ID). Though as of late, it seems Slashdot has grown fond of catering to troll submissions so long as it opposes ID. And it gets lame after a while. Do we really need 3 anti-ID articles a week?
I'm sorry, but I don't know a single ID'ist who has ever used the fact that science didn't know how honeybees flew as proof that science was wrong. Perhaps, as a point at the time, to stress that science doesn't have all the answers yet. And anyone who'd argue with that is frankly an idiot.
Maybe one day science will have all the answers...
- Saj
You're so ignorant and dogmatic you have no !@#$% clue what ID supporters believe. Moron. Yes flame bait.
But guess what, nearly every ID supporter I've ever known (from raw creationists to intelligent evolution supporters) have all been strong supporters of science. ID's supporters aren't against learning how a bee flies nor adapting such understanding to our own use.
ID supporters just believe that there was an element of design and intent as oppose to simple randomness in the development of what we observe.
- You say the complexities observed, from our DNA to the sub-atomic particles are all the way they by pure random chance.
- ID simply notes that there are observed complexities and notes that similar complexities observed tend to be by design, and that there seems to be an element of design. And the range of ID supporters swings quite wide. From those who believe the earth was created in 6 days to those who believe the earth is 4+ billion years old and man evolved from intelligently coded programming.
I just find it so tiresome (it'd be laughable if it wasn't so sad) that you guys are lock-stock judgmentally trapped in your own barrel of pickles (ideologies) that you can't even take the time to understand what ID includes and how it varies. And how much of it has no conflict with any evidence science has put forth.
Sure, they'll jump on any whacko ID who spouts something stupid. And at the same time whenever random scientist spouts something stupid they just dismiss it. You're more dogmatic and blind than the people you are criticizing.
- Saj
"Proponents of intelligent design, or ID, have tried in recent years to promote the idea of a supreme being by discounting science because it can't explain everything in nature."
Very few proponents of intelligent design point to such things. And in truth, I've never heard that argument made myself. Not saying there aren't a few who do.
But you know. We took a perfectly good article about how we've furthered our understanding of how bee's fly. And basically turned that knowledge into trash.
So yes, now, we know how bee's fly. (Actually, I remember reading an article on it a few years back that seemed to give a fairly detailed review.) But let me say something about the poster and the author of the article. They're both lame.
Why....because if you are devoted solely to turning any discovery as an argument of one issue than you have lost the purpose of science. You are not a scientist you have become a dogmatic believer. In the case of the bee argument, those arguments are usually made to point out that scientists do not know all the answers. And they don't. So they gained understanding of one answer. Congratulations...
But I fear for science when it becomes so dogmatic that it must act in the most poor manner imitating all that it derides about religion...these individual become the very thing thing they mock.
That is not a software bug, but a "usage" bug.
For example, I can make car that runs perfectly and to spec without failure. But place it in water and it will sink to the bottom. Was it a bad car because it sank? no...it just was a bad boat!
If you give me the task of writing a pattern recognition software for fingerprints...and I deliver you a program that never crashes due to software error and perfectly identifies 100% of all patterns presented. Then said software is installed on a bank lock mechanism. You can't blame me if your lock was by-passed because the bank robbers cut off the banker's hand in order to by-pass the system. The software did it's job. It was the banker who failed to retain his hand and who is at fault - not the software.
We who cannot think out of the box salute you!
Or point out, that the ability to move 200lbs up rugged terrain and trenches which are inaccessible by vehicle would allow a vehicle level weapon to be brought by a light mechanized infantry unit.
For example: such a system could allow a heavier caliber gatling machine gun to be mounted on a mountain side. A ordinance not normally able to be carried by infantry; to a position unreachable by vehicle. Where as currently, an infantry unit may have one heavy infantry weapon (machine gun, anti-tank weapon, bazooka, stinger, etc.) Such a system if it could be powered for prolonged use would allow every member of a squad to have heavy armament. When a platoon of mechanized infantry have the means to quickly move and engage with heavy ordinance an armored unit (tank) it makes the tanks much less viable.
Furthermore, this doesn't even address if they were to replace the ICE with a nuclear powerplant. Often the case for such a design as this specifies to design a unit that operates and functions on a powerplant of "X" amount. Then the powerplant is developed seperately and eventually substituted.
For instance, with fighter jets, most prototypes do not use final engines. Often they are told to design the jet with the expectations that the final engines will provide x thousand lbs of thrust/lbs of engine. But are first tested with engines that often do not provide such power levels. Later in the final prototypes the engines are replaced with the new final units.
I imagine the plan of feasibility is that these things will eventually run off a non ICE power plant.
You're right...it's the Skim Milk of BSG, it maintained 2% of the original. Essentially, the name, the name of the characters, the viper, and the Galactica. Everything else just was a slap in the face.
And please does every single character have to be castrated and made a female?
Adama - divided into two characters, the religious caring leader removed and made the female president.
Starbuck - made female (but hey, I'll give credit where credit is due, she's on of the few characters I've found myself liking)
Boomer - made female, goes from calm supportive male lead to whiny doubtful asian female (where's the boom baby?)
Commander Cain - made female
(okay, this is starting to look like an obsession. And please don't give me any diversity crap. How can we even consider claiming this in the name of diversity? 1970's show features two strong supporting black male role-models. The 2005 show nearly 25 yrs later features "zero". And the one black female has seemed to disappear from any significant prominence to a level just slightly above background actor. I still don't see what all the hub-bub is around this show. I mean I enjoy it but I don't find it anything grand. I think Serenity was far more fun, the characters much less flat and two dimensional. It's like everyone's ranting about it...why, because it took a page from the much Babylon5 playbook and used story arcs? Babylon5 was a much better show than I think the new BSG will ever live up to being.)
- Saj
There is zero chance currently of such...
a) we do not have the means to control/influence the actions of stem cells (minimal success at best with adult stem cells)
b) embryonic stem cells require orders of magnitude greater control
Hence, their is no point in using them until we can even justly handle the adult stem cells. And if at that point we find a situation where once we gain understanding and control, that the adult stem cells are incapable of such performance. Than, and only then is there even any need to consider embryonic stem cell usage.
So I find your argument baseless...
Sorry, you're correct, part of the problem is my Russian heritage and tendency (even four or five generations removed) to use double-negatives for the purpose of emphasis.
;)
I should have stated "poorly/mis-informed" at least to convey such to my readers.
So leave it the way it is...just like mail order catalogs. Keep the burden on the state to collect taxes. What right does the state of Connecticut (one royally !@#$%'d up state when it comes to taxes) have to obligate anyone outside it's jurisdiction to collect taxes for it?
;)
Yes, Connecticut residents are supposed to declare such, and seldom do. So the State of Connecticut should either frickin enforce it's own crap in-house...or change it's tax system. But to expect say some southern state of a much lower cost-of-living to have to implement immensely complex tax collecting systems when said state eliminate complex tax systems due to the waste the complexity brought about...now they have to re-implement such a system now 50-fold?
Yeah. *cocks chamber* and shouts "Live Free or Die"
Said proposal is an undue tax burden put on individuals outside said state's jurisdiction. It's frankly unconstitutional. I don't think it will pass the supreme court in the long run.
No taxation without representation....
Screw'em. If they want me to pay taxes out-of-state, they can give me a representative to vote on my behald in their state.
How long until one state makes itself a no online tax state. And a company sets up "receiving/shipping" and you just have it sent to a PO Box and then it's routed elsewhere. You bought it in "x" tax free state.
(((((((((((((((((((HUGS))))))))))))))))))
I don't know where your views lie, but my prayers are that things will continue to improve in most wonderful ways.
Your sharing reminds me of Glenn Beck's sharing regarding his daughter, who was likewise damaged. I remember him recounting when the doctor told him that black spots are dead areas. And showed a normal brain. Then put up his daughter's brain and it was almost completely black. And yet, she's graduated high school. The girl who was unlikely to live more than a few years and if so to expected to be severely mentally & physically retarded.
I think it's a sign of how much we casually dismiss life in our society.
Thank you for sharing. And reminding us a) to hope b) to realize...
(although, I don't necessarily agree with the study being bogus, and I think it may be less necessary in children, but it might lead to insight in how to apply such to adults. For instance, children seem to have the ability to trigger stem cell growth activity. Perhaps such addition will show further increase. And monitoring might at somepoint provide the understanding of how it's triggered. Than from there one can take the knowledge and method and apply it in adults and trigger similar growth in kind.
Kill a child - save a child?
However, the fact of the matter is that fetal stem cell research has essentially resulted in very little success. In fact, because of their heightened mutation qualities the end result of almost all fetal research has been the same, the creation of a tumor and nothing more.
Where as adult stem cell research has had a few dozen potential successes. All without the taking of life. In fact, the advocates of adult stem cell only research have proved quite right in their hypothesis that a few years added research would show that most of the "proposed additional benefits" that would be provided by fetal stem cells can also be achieved by adult stem cells. In fact, a lot of success has been from "umbilical" stem cells. Still a bit younger but not quite as reactive and unstable as the the fetal stem cells.
Let me ask you this simple question. If you were to make a flight between NY & LA which would you rather fly on? an uncontrollable ballistic rocket? or a slightly slower but controllable jet plane? in fact, until we learn more control with the much more controllable (stable) adult stem cells we will have next to no ability to produce positive results with fetal stem cells. So let's learn the basics of flight with a nice stable Cessna. Than, one we understand, lift, pitch, yaw, etc. We can move to more experimental and unstable designs if we discover that all the needs cannot indeed be met with the adult stem cell research.
PLEASE....educate yourself on this issue. You are extremely misinformed!
Try reading the article for starters, here is a quote:
The clinical trial is the first to apply stem cells to treat traumatic brain injury. It does not involve embryonic stem cells.
A bit more about stem cell research:
1. There is no ban on stem cell research. Merely, a provision stating that Federal funds will not be used for fetal stem cell research. (Privately funded research is still available.) Furthermore, the government allocated $500 million to stem cell research. Far from a ban to say the least.
2. All successful or promising stem cell development has been achieved using adult & umbilical stem cells. In fact, many experts in the field believe that there is no need what-so-ever to use fetal stem cells. a) that all goals can be achieved from non-fetal stem cells given a bit more time and study b) said additional study will likely take less time than the study necessary to learn how to control and utilize fetal stem cells.
3. Fetal stem cell research has to date had very little success. The most common end result is "tumors". The fetal stem cells are too reactive and uncontrolled. Of the few dozen articles on stem cell success I have read not a single one has been due to fetal stem cells.
4. When people keep ignorantly making statements above they merely show themselves to be poorly misinformed at best and quite a bit more at worse.
- Saj
And once again I won't be able to use the crap I buy and I'll simply start using hacked versions.
Perhaps, they're going to buy Opera, so as to have rights to certain code (as I recall Opera's a pretty speedy browser) and take that code and incorporate it (or make it available to Firefox/Mozilla)
Just a thought...however unlikely the whole thing might be.
More people simply copy the music they bought on CD to their iPods, thus Apple's download service is holding the music industry back...
(how much did the RIAA pay the author)
"Unfortunately, that design also deprives you of a great joy and advantage of digital photography: framing your shots using the camera's screen."
Damn...Slashdot is now doing "advertising", I sure hope they got paid for this one.
First off, I agree with the first poster. I won't buy it cause it's SONY. (And IMHO SONY = crap quality + proprietary overpriced memory.)
Second, this is NOTHING NEW: "move along folks...nothing new to see here"
Olympus' E-10/E-20 fixed lens DSLR allowed for the using of the LCD screen to frame a shot. I know, I owned one and on more than one occasion held the unit upside down over my head to get above crowds at concerts. (Sure, it's not quite as big as the new batch of DSLRs but that's because those are 4 yr old models. So you're touting a 4 yr old feature as new.)
Canon's 20Da also allows you to do the same thing. This is a modified variant of their 20D with a focus on Astrophotography.
WHAT THE FUCK!!!!
Please tell me what the fuck is wrong with having the lyrics posted so that people can find the words when they try to quote them...oh dear. It's not like people are using the lyrics to perform the song, and if so, then they'd get nail by the performance rights collectors.
All we want is to be able to find the lyrics essentially to educate us, and that should be in fair use. And were the MPA to provide such themselves that'd be cool.
But !@#$% them...I am so sick of this crap. It's gone way beyond sanity.
Wikipedia, nice concept...a fairly large resource of information, but a good example somewhat of anarchy in action.
First, Wikipedia often fails to state it's purposes clearly. Is it an information source, an encyclopedia or an all encompassing well of knowledge?
Take for example issues regarding web comics. Wikipedia went on a purge of dozens of web comic entries. Eliminating vast amounts of effort put in by individuals. The premise, "noteworthiness"....a change in the meaning of that term eliminated large quantities of listings. Such a premise must be taken into account before entries begin. To decide to change the qualifications so as to eliminate 90% of entries is to deride the effort of user's works.
Second, a complete lack of check and balances for edits allow for great risk of destructive behaviors. Were Wikipedia to simply implement a small concept common in Roget's rules of order and most others rules of order there would be much less inclination toward destruction. And that is to require a member to "second" any edits. Sure, it still poses risk. But to do so would enable a bit more order. Perhaps large and substantial edits or deletions of content would require 2 or more "seconds" before said change would be implemented.
Changes should go thru some sort of review process and affirmation.
*shrug*
Until such processes are implemented little will impede the anarchy that is Wikipedia.
Actually, I think Smallville is in it's 5th season.
And they have done a pretty darn good job actually. They have several villain type situations:
a) Superman encounters regular criminal mob often jeopardizing his friends. He is also trying to keep his powers underwraps and out of observation.
b) The meteorite rocks that came from Krypton with Superman cause mutations in humans. Often resulting in super-powered villains. (Or more usually people who's emotional instabilities become super-powered.) The overweight girls who gets such a super-high metabolism that she loses 100lbs overnight. But it keeps speeding up. So she starts sucking the fat directly from other people's bodies.
c) The third and most interesting villainry was done so with ingenius intuition. They made Clark Kent and Lex Luthor "best friends" and the strain of the divergent relationships and conflicts and dishonesty on both parts makes for some interesting tension and episodes.
d) The last set of villains are his kryptonian influences (father, sexy kryptonian wanna be girlfriend, etc) who tend to have a low regard for humanity.
One must remember that the FDIC approached Microsoft a while back with the comment that they were sitting on tens of billions of dollars. And that they needed to a) give out a dividend and b) re-invest said capital as a responsibility to their share-holders or be fined for violation.
;)
In other words, Microsoft was basically told they needed to re-invest 50% of their cash hoard. So the Xbox gave them a strong "market" investment area. And allowed them to burn thru "investment capital" while at the same time building their portfolio. So when Microsoft loses $350 million a year on the Xbox. This is in fact not outside the scope. It is new market capitalization. And they can now point to such investment in order to avoid fines and legal lawsuits from the investment end.
While at the same time, they buttress their core division by ensuring that if home entertainment consoles become the new "home PCs" they have a strong footing in the game. So it was both a protective and expansive move in a multi-faceted levels.
I also imagine that the Xbox360 is going to do what many thought the original Xbox would (but never did). It's going to crossover. I expect in the third year you will see Microsoft offer a Keyboard, XIE browser, and Live accounts will include email and messenger compatibility with MSN Messenger. Oh...and possibly the following year if such is successful. Office lite....subscription service.
Right...
However, imagine this concept...
The iTunes "kiosk"... you walk into Circuit City and there is a large kiosk in the center of the music area. It has 8-12 small LCD screens. You place your iPod into the kiosk and you can buy the songs thru Circuit City. Yes, there will be an additional fee but you no longer need internet access.
Yes, I have heard of the "Apple/Beatle" issue. But I have a feeling that if they were to propose such a legal battle (and Apple is one of the few companies that could drop $1 billion on a 10 yr legal fight) against RIAA and approach Paul McCartney. How interesting, Apple could offer McCartney and Apple Records a joint venture. Stock swap.
McCartney would get Apple stock, perhaps a chance to reclaim some rights to his music, and a major roll in music's future (in addition to his role in it's past).
Even if Apple loses the lawsuit, I don't think RIAA could hold out financially for a decade with such competition. Apple might be able to walk up and buy a 1 or 2 of the big 4. And at the same time, they've accumulated 10 yrs worth of "new bands" as they sign the bands.
The only thing that really prevents such from happening are "egos" (If Steve Jobs & Paul McCartney could put aside ego conflict for the goal of world music domination. *lol*)
"I highly doubt Paul McCartney's (to use your example) prime target for sales would be that hyped about buying digital copies of his music, especially since they're much less likely to know to back it up."
[[[ No need to back-up. iTunes could keep track of all purchases and in case of a computer crash or new machine one could re-download their library. (Perhaps a limit of "two" restorations a year.) ]]]
"Besides, most record-buying public are likely to want the liner notes, covers, and cases to hold their music in, and are less likely to want to purchase single songs."
[[[ This is changing. I am an avid collector. But after toying with my mom's iPod I am becoming more inclined to the digital format. It displays images, album cover, etc. So I think we'll reach the point where the purchase of a song includes art, liner notes, lyrics, and additional media. And I really think we will eventually go that way. ]]]
"Remember, the percentage of the population that buys the music that would be more popular is much less savvy than you think."
[[[ That's a very condescending hypothesis...and in truth, most pop is bought by the younger crowd. Who tend to be quite saavy. And my mom, who is 50 yrs old is loving her iPod. She hasn't taken advantage of all of it's features...but enough to enjoy it! ]]]