I see that the catholic church is rather consitently against modern contraceptives (why can't I say I that without hearing that Month Python song in my head;) I'm questioning why they would put so much effort into fighting against life-saving research based on the whole "one-cell eggs are people too" argument, while at the same time thousands (and yes, I mean thousands) of eggs are destroyed every month at infertility clinics...
Even in personal conversatons I've had, people can't seem to resolve the dilema - they claim they are against embryonic stem-cell research (it kills babies), but make excuses as to why IVF is acceptable (it helps couples) - even though IVF worldwide probably destroys as many eggs in a week as the research would in 10 years !!!
Thanks. That's a good point about 'The Pill' there as well.
I'm pretty sure this issue is a red herring of some sort - the radicals are being driven to protest embryonic stem-cell research perhaps to preserve the profits of the private sector development, or more likely because it makes folks feel like they are 'doing something good' while keeping them too busy to protest other politically sensitive issues like the loss of civilian life in Iraq, etc...
Who can guess at the motives ? So far, when I engage people in discussion of the topic it inevitably degrades into 'save the babies from research' and everything else is 'just different' but they can't express why... sad really.
And how do you arrive at that conclusion, or are you a troll perhaps ?
This issue is clear in the fact that it deals with the use of donated eggs from IVF to start new lines. It's effectively banned in the USA (apologies to 2 Live Crew). I've never even heard a technique like that suggested, and I doubt any doctor would do it.
You obviously don't know how it works... they culture lines of stem cells, they don't use them directly. They replenish themselves and don't require lots of new material. There will never be a 'demand' for more, at least not a demand that even comes close to outpacing the avaliable eggs. By the way, they ALL go to waste now, thousands per month or more.
Maybe you should read it slower, or perhaps you should read supporting information as to how it is interpreted and implemented. Maybe Bush wants to privatize it so his corporate cronies can profit ?
Where's the logic of twisting a ban on federal funding of research into a ban on that research?
See above, and I'm not twisting anything... I'm used to this with the articles, but RTFP - read the parent post again. I made it quite clear that it's a funding rule.
Thanks for reading... I know it's just way too much to ask for those radicals (not yourself of course) to have a coherent message - I think that they are just being used and parrot whatever they are told by the TV/Magazines/Radio.
Wow... you must read a lot of SciFi books... "Will we have a new underclass of 'breeders', who get pregnant as often as possible to sell thier 'surpluss tissue'?"
That's not how it works... you just need a few lines, not a continuous supply. Let's try to stick with the facts here.
You suggest that IVF is OK since "People pay for IVF" - I suppose that following that logic, if I hire a hitman it's ok since I paid him/her to kill someone ? I still think IVF is a great procedure (around since the 80's) that gives hope to couples where preaching at them only gives them headaches;) I'm just pointing out your flaws.
You say, and I agree that "most of these religious folks believe that to stand by while evil is being commited, makes them a party to the evil act" Of course, where do they stand on the US killing 100,000+ innocent civilians in Iraq ? I guess that's acceptable because George says it's neccessary (even though he lied to get us in there). Where are the folks who value life so much when we talk about the war ? They are lining up to support the killing... some respect, eh ?
Now I know why you post AC, the radical religious right regime fears the light of day !
I can see the logic in the position the CHURCH takes, but the logic in the way the laws/rules are being lobbied just doesn't hold up. Not that I'm hoping they start trying to ban IVF, I just don't see why the radicals would be so focused on such a particular element of a highly specialized research, while ignoring what's right in front of their faces (the source of the stem cells still exists).
Yet another reason to ignore those political arguments. Personally I think they are a red herring to keep 'religious' people busy with something other than the wars, poverty, etc...
I've seen about a hundred posts arguing about why or why not the research is something that is equivalent to killing babies, and as many arguing the federal research ban only stops institutions asking for money for the research...
First, to get it out of the way, the "ban" is not a law against research, but a funding rule that is implemented such that any facility receiving federal dollars (every public hospital, college, research center, ~99.9% of the US research facilities) is barred from conducting the research on new lines. If you get federal dollars for anything at the facility, you can't do the research, period.
Now, the type of stem-cell research being debated uses discarded eggs from In-Vitro Fertilization. Regarding the radical right religious regime's belief that a Day 5 blastocyst is a person, complete with a soul, etc... Sure, if they want to 'believe' this, they can. The problem arises when they try to selectively (read: politically) apply laws to support their religious beliefs.
Apparently, many people (including a bunch of folks here on/.) believe that stem-cell research is a crime because babies get killed in the process. Here's a news-flash, as part of any IVF cycle, there are some fertilized eggs that are implanted, and some that are not. The extras are either put into cryo, or more often simply destroyed. (Some of those are donated to test the nutrient medium that's used - basically if they don't survive, that batch of medium is bad, if they do survive they are discarded). To give you an example, during an IVF cycle, there might be 17 eggs retrieved, of them 16 fertilize, of them 12 make it to day 3, then of them only 2-3 are implanted (the other 9-10 go to Day-5 then get destroyed). Instead of being forced to destroy them, people should have the freedom to donate them to stem-cell research if their beliefs allow.
So, shouldn't the radical right religious regime be even more adamantly against IVF ? While a handful of cells used in research seems to get them in a panic, they ignore the simple fact that thousands of fertilized eggs are destroyed every month as part of normal IVF treatments. Why aren't they calling for the elimination of fertility clinics ? Are these couples who pursue IVF mass-murderers ?
Where's the logic here ? If stem-cell research should be banned because allowing a Day-5 blast to arrest is killing a baby, why do they not have any issue with, or even debate over the actual IVF treatments where the stem-cells for this research are obtained ?
To me, there is no logic, it's just politics, plain and simple. The radicals pushing for the "ban" don't really respect life so much, they do respect power and influence and seem to want to use it to force themselves on others.
p.s. If you have questions or want more facts on IVF, please feel free to ask me and I'll try to point you to some answers.
I've seen about a hundred posts arguing about why or why not the research is something that is equivalent to killing babies, and as many arguing the federal research ban only stops institutions asking for money for the research...
First, to get it out of the way, the "ban" is not a law against research, but a funding rule that is implemented such that any facility receiving federal dollars (every public hospital, college, reasearch center, ~99.9% of the US research facilities) is barred from conducting the research on new lines. If you get federal dollars for anything at the facility, you can't do the research, period.
Now, the type of stem-cell reseach being debated uses discarded eggs from In-Vitro Fertilization. Regarding the radical right religious regime's belief that a Day 5 blastocyst is a person, complete with a soul, etc... Sure, if they want to 'believe' this, they can. The problem arises when they try to selectively (read: politically) apply laws to support their religious beliefs.
Apparently, many people (including a bunch of folks here on/.) believe that stem-cell research is a crime because babies get killed in the process. Here's a news-flash, as part of any IVF cycle, there are some fertilized eggs that are implanted, and some that are not. The extras are either put into cryo, or more often simply destroyed. (Some of those are donated to test the nutrient medium that's used - basically if they don't survive, that batch of medium is bad, if they do survive they are discarded anyway). To give you an example, during an IVF cycle, there might be 17 eggs retrieved, of them 16 fertilize, of them 12 make it to day 3, then of them only 2-3 are implanted (the other 9-10 go to Day-5 then get destroyed). Instead of being forced to destroy them, people should have the freedom to donate them to stem-cell research if their beliefs allow.
So, shouldn't the radical right religious regime be even more adamantly against IVF ? While a handful of cells used in research seems to get them in a panic, they ignore the simple fact that thousands of fertilized eggs are destroyed every month as part of normal IVF treatments. Why aren't they calling for the elimination of fertility clinics ? Are these couples who pursue IVF mass-murders ?
Where's the logic here ? If stem-cell research should be banned because allowing a Day-5 blast to arrest is killing a baby, why do they not have any issue with, or even debate over the effects of the IVF treatments where the stem-cells for this research are obtained ?
Okay, I'm not exactly an expert on how each sports league handles the contracts for their respective trademarks and exclusive use in video games, but I would be very surprised to learn that ESPN has a long term deal with each of them.
The article states that ESPN has only a 5-year deal with the NFL. What's to stop another network/entity from striking an exclusive deal after that contract terminates ? What if Murdock at Fox wants to become the next game mogule and uses his weight to get an exclusive Fox/NFL deal and pushes EA out (or Ted and TBS getting MLB) ? Would EA then be procluded from producing games that use NFL teams... with 10 years left on an essentially worthless deal ?
Doesn't this 15-year deal actually *weaken* EA's positition by making them more vunerable to market forces during the lifetime of the contract ?
Thanks for the reply. The discussion has turned lately to how someone who is blind can verify their vote, securely, and without breaking the anonymity of the voting booth. It's a challenging set of requirements !
And in general, the current electronic voting systems (voting machines AND tabulators) are bad, real bad... I think secure electronic voting machines are possible - it's not that computers are 'bad', the particular systems now are. Suggesting an electronic solution to the blind voter problem has just managed to distract people into the 'computers are all bad' arguments... sigh...
My hope here is that some of you folks interested in this topic might have some insight on a related issue with the US voting systems.
I've been a spectator in a recent discussion regarding the best approach to delivering a secure voting system to the blind. It was an offshoot of some discussions on the current US voting systems, their serious shortcomings, and solutions. So far, I haven't read what any proposal that made much sense to me - they are all either extremely expensive (ie: everyone gets a special $3k reading wand) or otherwise highly impractical (ie: convoluted, multi-step, off-the-cuff type procedures to supposedly ensure a secure vote for the blind citizen).
I'm no expert in this area, and I want to understand it a bit better. Can anyone suggest a practical solution that could be reasonably implemented across the US ?
Buggier and full of holes - check out the demo !
on
Buggy Voting Machines
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
From Chuck Herrin's info sec website:
I am going to show you, step by step and with screenshots, how an attack against our election system could very easily steal a Statewide or even a National election without leaving a trace. This attack would be easy to carry out, difficult to detect, and exert enormous influence on the results, leaving the humble voter coldly left out of the decision-making process.
It's an amazing demo. Be sure to check out the associated FAQ which is as easy to read for the layman as for the techie, and full of citations. Share it with you friends and family !
For you party-liners out there, Chuck is a Reublican who wants you to understand that this is not a partisan issue.
For a minute there I really did think the title "Foundations of Python Network Programming" indicated that a new Python Network was being created for television and that they were laying the foundations and discussing what the programming schedule would be.
Seriously, no joke. And by the way, a Python Network would be beat the Game Show Network hands down !!!
Mount St. Helens is located in the Pacific Northwest where is has either just stopped raining, is currently raining, or is getting ready to rain. The camera site is at an elevation of approximately 4,500 feet. It is located approximately 5 miles north-northwest from the volcano, and looks across the North Fork Toutle River Valley. This is an area which receives more than 100 inches of rain a year. Most likely, you are looking at rain, clouds, fog, and/or a combination of the three.
There is nothing wrong with the VolcanoCam or the image.
In addition to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we are engaged in a "War on Terror." It would seem that the wars are being extended, and in the case of the War on Terror, there is no end is sight. How do you plan to keep the military strong enough to wage these wars, and any future wars ? Will you bring back the draft ?
Interesting report, and after reading it it seems to me that it was well done and the result may be valid, but the RIAA doesn't care. It's not just about the money, it's about control. Consider that the **AAs are organizations that produce nothing.
They do however control everything they get their greedy little hands on. File sharing isn't just a threat to them because of copyright violations, it's a threat because the media is distributed beyond their control. I'm sure the idea of any piece of content flowing from the artists to the eyes and ears of the public without first passing through their gates is a nightmare for them. After all, with today's technologies, who needs a **AA ?
Slashdot Mirror
Sean, thanks... someone named "SDF-7" posted a great link to an insightful article.
I see that the catholic church is rather consitently against modern contraceptives (why can't I say I that without hearing that Month Python song in my head
Even in personal conversatons I've had, people can't seem to resolve the dilema - they claim they are against embryonic stem-cell research (it kills babies), but make excuses as to why IVF is acceptable (it helps couples) - even though IVF worldwide probably destroys as many eggs in a week as the research would in 10 years !!!
Thanks again for the reply...
Thanks. That's a good point about 'The Pill' there as well.
I'm pretty sure this issue is a red herring of some sort - the radicals are being driven to protest embryonic stem-cell research perhaps to preserve the profits of the private sector development, or more likely because it makes folks feel like they are 'doing something good' while keeping them too busy to protest other politically sensitive issues like the loss of civilian life in Iraq, etc...
Who can guess at the motives ? So far, when I engage people in discussion of the topic it inevitably degrades into 'save the babies from research' and everything else is 'just different' but they can't express why... sad really.
And how do you arrive at that conclusion, or are you a troll perhaps ?
This issue is clear in the fact that it deals with the use of donated eggs from IVF to start new lines. It's effectively banned in the USA (apologies to 2 Live Crew). I've never even heard a technique like that suggested, and I doubt any doctor would do it.
You obviously don't know how it works... they culture lines of stem cells, they don't use them directly. They replenish themselves and don't require lots of new material. There will never be a 'demand' for more, at least not a demand that even comes close to outpacing the avaliable eggs. By the way, they ALL go to waste now, thousands per month or more.
Is there any scientific evidence that a Day 5 blastocyst is NOT a live human being?
Um, yeah. A blastocyst is undifferentiated. No heart, no parts, just a blob of cells. Do you think your sperm are little people ?
How can pro-life groups be against IVF, if it results in birth?
They are against it because fertilized eggs are destroyed in the process. Some more here, and a few notes on blasts as well.
Incorrect. That is not what the order says.
Maybe you should read it slower, or perhaps you should read supporting information as to how it is interpreted and implemented. Maybe Bush wants to privatize it so his corporate cronies can profit ?
Where's the logic of twisting a ban on federal funding of research into a ban on that research?
See above, and I'm not twisting anything... I'm used to this with the articles, but RTFP - read the parent post again. I made it quite clear that it's a funding rule.
Thanks for reading... I know it's just way too much to ask for those radicals (not yourself of course) to have a coherent message - I think that they are just being used and parrot whatever they are told by the TV/Magazines/Radio.
(No need to post AC, we're all friends here on
Wow... you must read a lot of SciFi books... "Will we have a new underclass of 'breeders', who get pregnant as often as possible to sell thier 'surpluss tissue'?"
That's not how it works... you just need a few lines, not a continuous supply. Let's try to stick with the facts here.
You suggest that IVF is OK since "People pay for IVF" - I suppose that following that logic, if I hire a hitman it's ok since I paid him/her to kill someone ? I still think IVF is a great procedure (around since the 80's) that gives hope to couples where preaching at them only gives them headaches
You say, and I agree that "most of these religious folks believe that to stand by while evil is being commited, makes them a party to the evil act" Of course, where do they stand on the US killing 100,000+ innocent civilians in Iraq ? I guess that's acceptable because George says it's neccessary (even though he lied to get us in there). Where are the folks who value life so much when we talk about the war ? They are lining up to support the killing... some respect, eh ?
Now I know why you post AC, the radical religious right regime fears the light of day !
Thanks - that's a great link.
I can see the logic in the position the CHURCH takes, but the logic in the way the laws/rules are being lobbied just doesn't hold up. Not that I'm hoping they start trying to ban IVF, I just don't see why the radicals would be so focused on such a particular element of a highly specialized research, while ignoring what's right in front of their faces (the source of the stem cells still exists).
Yet another reason to ignore those political arguments. Personally I think they are a red herring to keep 'religious' people busy with something other than the wars, poverty, etc...
I've seen about a hundred posts arguing about why or why not the research is something that is equivalent to killing babies, and as many arguing the federal research ban only stops institutions asking for money for the research...
First, to get it out of the way, the "ban" is not a law against research, but a funding rule that is implemented such that any facility receiving federal dollars (every public hospital, college, research center, ~99.9% of the US research facilities) is barred from conducting the research on new lines. If you get federal dollars for anything at the facility, you can't do the research, period.
Now, the type of stem-cell research being debated uses discarded eggs from In-Vitro Fertilization. Regarding the radical right religious regime's belief that a Day 5 blastocyst is a person, complete with a soul, etc... Sure, if they want to 'believe' this, they can. The problem arises when they try to selectively (read: politically) apply laws to support their religious beliefs.
Apparently, many people (including a bunch of folks here on
So, shouldn't the radical right religious regime be even more adamantly against IVF ? While a handful of cells used in research seems to get them in a panic, they ignore the simple fact that thousands of fertilized eggs are destroyed every month as part of normal IVF treatments. Why aren't they calling for the elimination of fertility clinics ? Are these couples who pursue IVF mass-murderers ?
Where's the logic here ? If stem-cell research should be banned because allowing a Day-5 blast to arrest is killing a baby, why do they not have any issue with, or even debate over the actual IVF treatments where the stem-cells for this research are obtained ?
To me, there is no logic, it's just politics, plain and simple. The radicals pushing for the "ban" don't really respect life so much, they do respect power and influence and seem to want to use it to force themselves on others.
p.s. If you have questions or want more facts on IVF, please feel free to ask me and I'll try to point you to some answers.
I've seen about a hundred posts arguing about why or why not the research is something that is equivalent to killing babies, and as many arguing the federal research ban only stops institutions asking for money for the research...
First, to get it out of the way, the "ban" is not a law against research, but a funding rule that is implemented such that any facility receiving federal dollars (every public hospital, college, reasearch center, ~99.9% of the US research facilities) is barred from conducting the research on new lines. If you get federal dollars for anything at the facility, you can't do the research, period.
Now, the type of stem-cell reseach being debated uses discarded eggs from In-Vitro Fertilization. Regarding the radical right religious regime's belief that a Day 5 blastocyst is a person, complete with a soul, etc... Sure, if they want to 'believe' this, they can. The problem arises when they try to selectively (read: politically) apply laws to support their religious beliefs.
Apparently, many people (including a bunch of folks here on
So, shouldn't the radical right religious regime be even more adamantly against IVF ? While a handful of cells used in research seems to get them in a panic, they ignore the simple fact that thousands of fertilized eggs are destroyed every month as part of normal IVF treatments. Why aren't they calling for the elimination of fertility clinics ? Are these couples who pursue IVF mass-murders ?
Where's the logic here ? If stem-cell research should be banned because allowing a Day-5 blast to arrest is killing a baby, why do they not have any issue with, or even debate over the effects of the IVF treatments where the stem-cells for this research are obtained ?
If I could mod this discussion, I'de put informatives on both ! Thanks for the help !
Okay, I'm not exactly an expert on how each sports league handles the contracts for their respective trademarks and exclusive use in video games, but I would be very surprised to learn that ESPN has a long term deal with each of them.
The article states that ESPN has only a 5-year deal with the NFL. What's to stop another network/entity from striking an exclusive deal after that contract terminates ? What if Murdock at Fox wants to become the next game mogule and uses his weight to get an exclusive Fox/NFL deal and pushes EA out (or Ted and TBS getting MLB) ? Would EA then be procluded from producing games that use NFL teams... with 10 years left on an essentially worthless deal ?
Doesn't this 15-year deal actually *weaken* EA's positition by making them more vunerable to market forces during the lifetime of the contract ?
Anyone here on
Coincidence ? I think not !
Simon is obviously a bot, and he uses his AI to pick the next American Idol.
You can find it in the trunk of your flying car, right next to your alcohol-powered laptop.
Thanks for the reply. The discussion has turned lately to how someone who is blind can verify their vote, securely, and without breaking the anonymity of the voting booth. It's a challenging set of requirements !
And in general, the current electronic voting systems (voting machines AND tabulators) are bad, real bad... I think secure electronic voting machines are possible - it's not that computers are 'bad', the particular systems now are. Suggesting an electronic solution to the blind voter problem has just managed to distract people into the 'computers are all bad' arguments... sigh...
Thanks for the input !
My hope here is that some of you folks interested in this topic might have some insight on a related issue with the US voting systems.
I've been a spectator in a recent discussion regarding the best approach to delivering a secure voting system to the blind. It was an offshoot of some discussions on the current US voting systems, their serious shortcomings, and solutions. So far, I haven't read what any proposal that made much sense to me - they are all either extremely expensive (ie: everyone gets a special $3k reading wand) or otherwise highly impractical (ie: convoluted, multi-step, off-the-cuff type procedures to supposedly ensure a secure vote for the blind citizen).
I'm no expert in this area, and I want to understand it a bit better. Can anyone suggest a practical solution that could be reasonably implemented across the US ?
From Chuck Herrin's info sec website: It's an amazing demo. Be sure to check out the associated FAQ which is as easy to read for the layman as for the techie, and full of citations. Share it with you friends and family !
For you party-liners out there, Chuck is a Reublican who wants you to understand that this is not a partisan issue.
For a minute there I really did think the title "Foundations of Python Network Programming" indicated that a new Python Network was being created for television and that they were laying the foundations and discussing what the programming schedule would be.
Seriously, no joke. And by the way, a Python Network would be beat the Game Show Network hands down !!!
No, it's not the alien conspiracy doing it...
This is from the Mount St. Helens VolcanoCam site, in the archive area.
Mount St. Helens is located in the Pacific Northwest where is has either just stopped raining, is currently raining, or is getting ready to rain. The camera site is at an elevation of approximately 4,500 feet. It is located approximately 5 miles north-northwest from the volcano, and looks across the North Fork Toutle River Valley. This is an area which receives more than 100 inches of rain a year. Most likely, you are looking at rain, clouds, fog, and/or a combination of the three.
There is nothing wrong with the VolcanoCam or the image.
In addition to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we are engaged in a "War on Terror." It would seem that the wars are being extended, and in the case of the War on Terror, there is no end is sight. How do you plan to keep the military strong enough to wage these wars, and any future wars ? Will you bring back the draft ?
Interesting report, and after reading it it seems to me that it was well done and the result may be valid, but the RIAA doesn't care. It's not just about the money, it's about control. Consider that the **AAs are organizations that produce nothing.
They do however control everything they get their greedy little hands on. File sharing isn't just a threat to them because of copyright violations, it's a threat because the media is distributed beyond their control. I'm sure the idea of any piece of content flowing from the artists to the eyes and ears of the public without first passing through their gates is a nightmare for them. After all, with today's technologies, who needs a **AA ?
Okay, Ive had discussions with the @stake folks before, I'm glad they finally cashed out. Please note that my email is roughly the same in this discussion from back in 1998. (see above). They never really had the knack for security then, who knows what they do now.
Good strategy, I know a bunch of folks who (unwittingly?) have taken that approach. But scratch HR off your list, it's being outsourced too !
Thanks, very insightful... (too bad I can't mod it up
But how do those microbes computed the orbit ? (j/k)