also, bacteria mutate at a sufficient rate that virus resistant bacteria are not uncommon. While most virus resistant bacteria have some small mutation in the surface receptor that the virus identifies, a portion of bacteria overproduce their cell wall and develop large gooey cell walls that make it immune to virtually all viruses. So you end up with new technology, same problem.
"sources close to Clarke insist... he simply wants to pursue new challenges outside government after 30 years of public service and a stint as deputy assistant secretary in the State Department.
You are misinformed on the topic. They did not use embryonic stem cells, but stem cells from the boy's own bown marrow. There is no restricition on funding for research in this area in the United States, and no, embryonic stem cell research would not contribute to this cure. Don't blame Bush for being a luddite when you yourself don't know all the details.
As much as I like the washington post, it seems that the reporter has mixed up the facts. The abstract/article states that the eggs were fertilized and then the embryos screened. The researches harvested the polar bodies 1 and polar bodies 2 and screened those for the mutation. For those of you who haven't studied mitosis and fertilization, polar body 1 exists before fertilzation but contains two copies of half the chromosomes. Polar body 2 is released after fertilization and contains 1 copy of the remaining chromosomes. By screening the polar bodies, you would need to fertilize it first, as it states in the methods in the full text, which is available freely
Alright, first let's agree on one thing: trading of copyrighted materials is illegal.
You people on Slashdot should embrace technology such as this. It would still let you keep all your vaunted "rights on-line" while only persecuting those that do wrong. It's a much better solution than shutting down Napster or making it a subscription service right? If the entire point of Napster was to promote non-RIAA artists (as i have so oftenly heard), then this should be the salvation to Napster. It would allow napster to do nothing but to trade those non-RIAA artist's songs for free, without any legal complication. But why does everyone at Slashdot complain? Could it be that they only care about themselves and don't care about other people's rights? Rights that slashdotters try so hard to keep themselves? That all they really want is free illegal warez? Just say that already and throw off all your pretenses of legallity and free-speach; say, "I want everyone to work for only for me. I want free songs, free software, free os, free food, free cars, me me me me me."
And then you say, "har har, the artists are getting shortchanged by the RIAA, we are doing them a favor by letting them make even less money than they already are." Well guess what, the RIAA doesn't force the artists to sign a contract, but they do. Have you people heard of a market economy? The RIAA provides a service, the artists accept the service. What problem do you have with that? There is a lot of work and a lot of peoples times going into making each cd. The cost of the cd is not in packaging, but in the production cost, which is so huge that no independet artists could even imagine of doing it themselves. The artists could make 100% of the profits if instead they decided to produce and market their own CD's BUT THEY DON'T. And your downloading of their songs instead of buying their CD's definately does not help their case at all.
Now how does this technology infringe on your legal rights at all? It does nothing at all to fair-use. you can still make your own copies of mp3's. So why are you still complaining? If you want to protect rights that you don't have, go become active in the government and get new rights passed.
And about all your *snort* it won't work *snort* and i'll just get illegal mp3's and steal other people's work some other way. So why do you care about this technology? It will just make the major distributing systems unusable, you can always go back to ratio ftp. It's just the RIAA trying to stop illegal copying as much as it can. It will just make it much harder for the normal joe to get illegal songs. I'm sure there will always be a way for you 7331 haX0rs to get around it. And what about Gnutella? easy, just sick the program loose on the top 1% of file sharers, sue them past bankruptcy, and your done. You think that everyone who knows how to use computers thinks filesharing of copyrighted materials is good?
conclusion: Stop pretending you care about your-rights-online and just admit that you want to steal things because it benifits you.
Slashdot Mirror
also, bacteria mutate at a sufficient rate that virus resistant bacteria are not uncommon. While most virus resistant bacteria have some small mutation in the surface receptor that the virus identifies, a portion of bacteria overproduce their cell wall and develop large gooey cell walls that make it immune to virtually all viruses. So you end up with new technology, same problem.
Doesn't look like it.
"sources close to Clarke insist... he simply wants to pursue new challenges outside government after 30 years of public service and a stint as deputy assistant secretary in the State Department.
You are misinformed on the topic. They did not use embryonic stem cells, but stem cells from the boy's own bown marrow. There is no restricition on funding for research in this area in the United States, and no, embryonic stem cell research would not contribute to this cure. Don't blame Bush for being a luddite when you yourself don't know all the details.
As much as I like the washington post, it seems that the reporter has mixed up the facts. The abstract/article states that the eggs were fertilized and then the embryos screened. The researches harvested the polar bodies 1 and polar bodies 2 and screened those for the mutation. For those of you who haven't studied mitosis and fertilization, polar body 1 exists before fertilzation but contains two copies of half the chromosomes. Polar body 2 is released after fertilization and contains 1 copy of the remaining chromosomes. By screening the polar bodies, you would need to fertilize it first, as it states in the methods in the full text, which is available freely
Alright, first let's agree on one thing: trading of copyrighted materials is illegal.
You people on Slashdot should embrace technology such as this. It would still let you keep all your vaunted "rights on-line" while only persecuting those that do wrong. It's a much better solution than shutting down Napster or making it a subscription service right? If the entire point of Napster was to promote non-RIAA artists (as i have so oftenly heard), then this should be the salvation to Napster. It would allow napster to do nothing but to trade those non-RIAA artist's songs for free, without any legal complication. But why does everyone at Slashdot complain? Could it be that they only care about themselves and don't care about other people's rights? Rights that slashdotters try so hard to keep themselves? That all they really want is free illegal warez? Just say that already and throw off all your pretenses of legallity and free-speach; say, "I want everyone to work for only for me. I want free songs, free software, free os, free food, free cars, me me me me me."
And then you say, "har har, the artists are getting shortchanged by the RIAA, we are doing them a favor by letting them make even less money than they already are." Well guess what, the RIAA doesn't force the artists to sign a contract, but they do. Have you people heard of a market economy? The RIAA provides a service, the artists accept the service. What problem do you have with that? There is a lot of work and a lot of peoples times going into making each cd. The cost of the cd is not in packaging, but in the production cost, which is so huge that no independet artists could even imagine of doing it themselves. The artists could make 100% of the profits if instead they decided to produce and market their own CD's BUT THEY DON'T. And your downloading of their songs instead of buying their CD's definately does not help their case at all.
Now how does this technology infringe on your legal rights at all? It does nothing at all to fair-use. you can still make your own copies of mp3's. So why are you still complaining? If you want to protect rights that you don't have, go become active in the government and get new rights passed.
And about all your *snort* it won't work *snort* and i'll just get illegal mp3's and steal other people's work some other way. So why do you care about this technology? It will just make the major distributing systems unusable, you can always go back to ratio ftp. It's just the RIAA trying to stop illegal copying as much as it can. It will just make it much harder for the normal joe to get illegal songs. I'm sure there will always be a way for you 7331 haX0rs to get around it. And what about Gnutella? easy, just sick the program loose on the top 1% of file sharers, sue them past bankruptcy, and your done. You think that everyone who knows how to use computers thinks filesharing of copyrighted materials is good?
conclusion: Stop pretending you care about your-rights-online and just admit that you want to steal things because it benifits you.