No, he wasn't. Clinton funded research as of 2000 on embryonic stem cells, though would not allow said cells to be extracted with federal funds. Because these stem cell lines were new to the federal research budget, this represented federal funding of new stem cell lines.
Bush has eliminated funding from new stem cell lines.
Q.E.D. - Bush has reduced federal funding for new stem cell lines.
Moral of the story, do your own research rather than just believing what Bill O'Riley and Fox News tell you.
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U
on
US Stem Cells Contaminated
·
· Score: 4, Informative
"The potential of embryonic stem cells became apparent in the late 1990s, and in 2000 the National Institutes of Health announced that it would fund stem-cell research as long as the actual extraction of cells from embryos was done by someone else. President Clinton strongly supported this policy." [Source]
And if you think Slate is too liberal a source to trust on this, here's a venom spitting concervitive to back me up.
"the feds are not going to actually get involved -- will not spend appropriated funds -- until after the pluripotent stem cells have been already recovered from the process." [Source]
I think we can safely take the above paragraph to indicate that Clinton approved the use of federal funds to research embryonic stem cells, though did not approve said funds to actualy extract the cells.
Track from Google. Really.... when your company name has become a verb meaning "to search for on the internet" it's a safe bet that a statisticly relelvant sample size can be garnered from your site.
Cheney is the one who needs a heart (in more ways than one). Bush neesd a brain... come to think of it... I imagine someone over there is in need of some courage too.
Not necessarily. A quick review of the Blizzard website doesn't turn up the EULA or TOS for WoW. My assumption then is that you don't get the EULA until after you've opened the box and popped the CD in the drive.
If that's the case, there's a legitimate argument that the EULA is null and void. Afterall, once the shrink wrap is off, I can't return the product. Basicly, I've no choice but to agree to their terms. My money is gone. I can't return the game, so either I agree to their terms or I'm out however much I paied for the game.
It doesn't matter. You can't sue them for the loss of an item no matter what its value is. The reason you can't sue them is because your suit has the logical consequence that the item is the object of contention, but baring the item you want money in its stead.
But blizzard has ultimate discression as to who gets what item.
Lost an item in a server crash? Fine. Can you prove you had it? If so, Blizzard can give you the item back. No suit necessary. If not, you don't have a leg to stand on.
Try this... you can order the supplies from your favorite biological supply company.
1 - Culture e.coli in, say, 1000 petri dishes. 2 - Divide the dishes into two groups, test and control 3 - Introduce low levels of antibiotic into the test group of petri dishes, call it five test groups of increasing dosage. 4 - After each antibiotic introduction, allow the bacteria colony to grow back to full size before dosing again. Repeat 10 times. 5 - After all doses have been administered, dose all 1000 dishes with antibiotics, use the dose size used in the highest dosed colony.
Hypothesis: The antibiotics will kill bacteria in all groups equally because evolution does not occur.
Outcome 1: Fail to reject hypothesis -- All groups suffered the same death rate when exposed to antibiotics. We thus fail to reject the hypothesis that evolution does not occur.
Outcome 2: Reject hypothesis -- Groups suffered different death rates with the highest death rates occurring in the control group. Groups with higher previous doses of antibiotics faired best, while lower doses faired worse.
Having preformed this experiment myself, I can tell you that you will witness evolution in progress. In the literally thousands of generations of bacteria since you started the test, a new strain has emerged which is resistant to the antibiotics you are testing with. This is distinct from the strain you started with [the control group].
That said, I'm all for teaching creationism in public schools. It doesn't belong in Science class, because it fundamentally isn't Science. Give me an experiment to prove or disprove creationism and then you'll be a lot closer to the subject area. Until that time, creationism belongs in Social Studies, along with all the other creation myths.
It's worth pointing out that the reason you stir a martini rather than shaking it is to prevent the ice from being chipped. Chipped ice melts faster and thus incrases the water content of the drink.
James is ordering a weak martini and being snooty about it.
Because once you accecpt that those entities are similar to yourself you must realise that they, like yourself, have the capability to manipulate their environment.
Because you are part of their environment, they have some power over you and you some power over them. Since they seem to exhibit a sort of herd mentality, it would seem foolish to antagonize them as the herd itself is significantly stronger than the sum of its parts.
One thing that's damaging TIVO is HD. A lot of cable companies are offering HD DVRs on the lease plan for $5-$8/mo.
TIVO has HD units, but as stand alones they are expensive.
Since TIVO can't get that much of a revenue stream out of the units to justify a low price on the more expensive HD hardware, TIVO is going to suffer as HD becomes more commonplace in the high end video market TIVO targeted in the first place.
Stealing can have many definitions. Rather than dealing with those definitions, lets examine the possible harm to the "victim" to see if any crime was committed.
1 - Did the vicitm actualy loose possession of the item in question? No, online piracy involves making a copy, not removing or destroying the origional. As a consequence, the copyright holder has not been deprived of any property.
2 - Did the victim loose some future benefit? While many would argue that piracy cuts into sales, the argument is flawed. Pirated copies are free. At zero cost demand can be assumed to be at its maximum. Maximum demand is well above equilibrium unless you're selling air. Further, authorized copies are typicaly at a higher bit rate and exhibit superior characteristics in nearly ever respect. As a consqeuence few if any sales of authorized copies will be lost to the inferior pirate copy.
3 - The ability to control the distribution of a peice of information is the primary purpose of copyright and the primary benefit lost when piracy occurs. As a consequence pirates are liable for the monitary value of this loss. The question then is what is the monitary value of this loss. Moreover, once piracy has occured once the copyright holder has lost the monopoly on this distribution chain. Further copies beyond the first do not do further damage to this monopoly. In this case we could perhaps ascribe blame and liability to the first individual to break the copyright monopoly for each individual work. Of course, determining exactly what civil and criminal penalties were in order would involve placing a dollar value, not on the distribution of the work, but on the difference between a monopoly as the state of nature.
As no real values exist for this descrepancy, appropriate penality seems impossible.
At present, however, we must deal with what the law says as opposed to what the law ought to say.
Under the USA P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act and in cooperation with the US Defense Department your IP has been logged. Please remain in the building. Further transmissions will be monitored. Agents will be with you shortly to escort you into custody.
What you have hit upon is a concept in Political Science known as the Carceral (spelling may be off). Discueed at length by philosopher Michel Foucault (pronounced Foo-co) The basic concept is that, because you are always subject to monitoring and can not know when you are being watched, you will always behave like you're being watched.
The idea was first set forth as a method of perfectly controlling a factory. The premise was that a manager or observer would sit at some central station observing employees who he could see but who could not see him. As the employees could be under scrutiny at any given time, they had no choice but to assume that they were always under scrutiny.
The Carceral is a prison, not for the mind, but of the mind. Have you ever stopped at a red light when there was no one for miles? That's the classic example of the Carceral in action.
We see this all around us, every hour of every day. The RIAA uses it to deter file traders. The Federal Government uses it to deter tax cheats. Walmart uses it to prevent shoplifting.
The online world is a different place, however. Security and scrutiny are something the individual has as much power to prevent as the observer has to employ. Use of sophisticated encryption systems is within the grasp of many users. Moreover, the huge volume of traffic does make monitoring even a meaningful portion hugely difficult.
Remember, the challenge is not to monitor all the traffic on the Internet, but to monitor enough that people will assume that you can monitor it all. Just as the RIAA can't sue every file trader, the Feds can't monitor every bit and byte that flows over the wires. That said, the RIAA can monitor enough to make you think twice about loading up a P2P client, and the Feds might be able to monitor enough to make terrorist organizations choose a less convenient, less efficient, and less sophisticated method of communication. That in and of itself is a victory.
The consequences for the rest of us will be just another casualty in this war on terror. Chalk it up there with free speech, privacy, and equal protection under the law.
There remain cell types (allbeit uncommon ones) that Adult Stem Cells are unable to replicate. These cell types are a naturaly occuring part of the human body and presumably have some usefull function.
As for the Hippocratic Oath and the promotion of death as you put it, consider this. Thousands of women have abortions in this country every year. The aborted fetus in such a procedure is literaly tossed out along with the rest of the medical waste and is incinerated. Contained within these bundles of cells is a great deal of medical potential. More over, Embryonic stem cells can be used to generate human eggs (something adult stem cells can't be used for). As a consequence, the possibilty of a self sustaining store of stem cells becomes real with research into this area.
Realisticly, I can understand wanting to ban the use of abortion for the specific purpose of aquiring stem cells. That said, abortions are happening anyway, why not try to at least make the best of a bad situation?
You're confusing "works" with "always works." Microsoft's major advantage is that, at least at first, the interface is fairly intuitive for basic tasks, the software install process is idiot proof, and the applications "just work"
Sure, if it breaks you still need a fairly sophisticated idea of how everything works to fix it, but the computer is fast becoming a home applicance. Like any other appliance, it goes to a specialist for repair.
Linux needs the following
1 - An installation standard that is every bit as idiot proof as installing a self executing binary with microsoft.
2 - An out of the box user interface that has the polished look and feel users have come to expect form Apple and MS.
3 - Application suites competitive with pay products like Office.
Primarily the difference lies in the distinction between differentiated and undifferentiated cells. Adult cells, which were previously thought to be completely differentiated, are now known to be only partially differentiated. A differentiated stem cell is one that can grow to become only one kind of cell in the body. For example, for a long time we thought that Bone Marrow cells could only grow to become blood cells.
In reality, Adult Stem Cells can grow to become several different types of cells including (in the case of Bone Marrow) liver, nerve, muscle and kidney cells.
Unfortunately, Adult Stem Cells are not able to replicate all 200 types of human cells. This means that there are types of damage and types of organs that can't be fixed using Adult Stem Cells. That's one of the major limitations.
Embryonic Stem Cells (in contrast) are able to change into any of the 200 human cell types, making them infinitely more versatile. Further, Embryonic stem cells are far more plentiful as women continue to have abortions. Moreover, Embryonic cells can be turned into human eggs, which in turn can be turned into yet more Embryonic stem cells, perhaps promising a kind of breeder reactor for such cells.
Most Embryonic treatments are highly experimental, which means that you're only going to see them used in patients who are at death's door with known fatal illnesses and no further hope. Such treatments, often referred to as Class A experimental, are difficult to characterize and yet more difficult to explain as the definitive turning point in a person's treatment. I know an individual (who is a minor, and thus I can't post her personal info here) who has been successfully treated with embryonic stem cells for childhood cancer. Was it the stem cells that turned her around? We may never know, but she's better now and is making a full recovery. Something worked.
I'm not familiar with any tendency for Embryonic cells to become cancerous when used, but perhaps I'm using outdated materials. The real lynchpin is quantity. We can simply produce huge quantities of embryonic stem cells without increasing the abortion rate by even one fetus. When it comes down to the wire, this is a promising field that deserves research, these are pregnancies that have already been terminated. What moral conflict is there in trying to use a tragedy like an abortion to save a human life?
Problem with your argument is that, if that were the primary motivating force you'd expect the major drug companies to be backing the party in favor of stem cell research, namely the Democrats. Instead, their donations overwhelmingly favor the GOP. See this link for the numbers.
Thus it would seem that drug companies, those most likely to be doing all the patenting, have a great deal more profit to be made and suffering people to exploit by keeping us tied to technologies that require them to develop no new infrastructure.
Embryonic stem cells represent a unique track that holds new promice for medical science. The way all this works is a bit over my head... which is why I'm not a medical doctor. Nonetheless, I can tell you form personal experiance that embryonic stem cells hold promise for specific patients that adult stem cells can no longer help. I've seen children treated with embryonic stem cells successfully when nothing else would work.
So in California you have the distinct honor of going into debt to fund another health industry attempt to gather up some patents, yes. But you might save some lives in the process. It's not ideal, but nothing is.
Slashdot Mirror
No, we liberals keep loosing elections because, as Plato said
"If you allow the people to choose their rulers they will elect fools and naives"
In this particular case, we seem to have rolled these two undesirable caricatures into one candidate and elected him President.
No, he wasn't. Clinton funded research as of 2000 on embryonic stem cells, though would not allow said cells to be extracted with federal funds. Because these stem cell lines were new to the federal research budget, this represented federal funding of new stem cell lines.
Bush has eliminated funding from new stem cell lines.
Q.E.D. - Bush has reduced federal funding for new stem cell lines.
Moral of the story, do your own research rather than just believing what Bill O'Riley and Fox News tell you.
"The potential of embryonic stem cells became apparent in the late 1990s, and in 2000 the National Institutes of Health announced that it would fund stem-cell research as long as the actual extraction of cells from embryos was done by someone else. President Clinton strongly supported this policy." [Source]
And if you think Slate is too liberal a source to trust on this, here's a venom spitting concervitive to back me up.
"the feds are not going to actually get involved -- will not spend appropriated funds -- until after the pluripotent stem cells have been already recovered from the process." [Source]
I think we can safely take the above paragraph to indicate that Clinton approved the use of federal funds to research embryonic stem cells, though did not approve said funds to actualy extract the cells.
Anything else you need me to prove?
Track from Google. Really.... when your company name has become a verb meaning "to search for on the internet" it's a safe bet that a statisticly relelvant sample size can be garnered from your site.
Cheney is the one who needs a heart (in more ways than one). Bush neesd a brain... come to think of it... I imagine someone over there is in need of some courage too.
Not necessarily. A quick review of the Blizzard website doesn't turn up the EULA or TOS for WoW. My assumption then is that you don't get the EULA until after you've opened the box and popped the CD in the drive.
If that's the case, there's a legitimate argument that the EULA is null and void. Afterall, once the shrink wrap is off, I can't return the product. Basicly, I've no choice but to agree to their terms. My money is gone. I can't return the game, so either I agree to their terms or I'm out however much I paied for the game.
Is that a contract under duress?
The courts may have to decide.
It doesn't matter. You can't sue them for the loss of an item no matter what its value is. The reason you can't sue them is because your suit has the logical consequence that the item is the object of contention, but baring the item you want money in its stead.
But blizzard has ultimate discression as to who gets what item.
Lost an item in a server crash? Fine. Can you prove you had it? If so, Blizzard can give you the item back. No suit necessary. If not, you don't have a leg to stand on.
Try this... you can order the supplies from your favorite biological supply company.
1 - Culture e.coli in, say, 1000 petri dishes.
2 - Divide the dishes into two groups, test and control
3 - Introduce low levels of antibiotic into the test group of petri dishes, call it five test groups of increasing dosage.
4 - After each antibiotic introduction, allow the bacteria colony to grow back to full size before dosing again. Repeat 10 times.
5 - After all doses have been administered, dose all 1000 dishes with antibiotics, use the dose size used in the highest dosed colony.
Hypothesis: The antibiotics will kill bacteria in all groups equally because evolution does not occur.
Outcome 1: Fail to reject hypothesis -- All groups suffered the same death rate when exposed to antibiotics. We thus fail to reject the hypothesis that evolution does not occur.
Outcome 2: Reject hypothesis -- Groups suffered different death rates with the highest death rates occurring in the control group. Groups with higher previous doses of antibiotics faired best, while lower doses faired worse.
Having preformed this experiment myself, I can tell you that you will witness evolution in progress. In the literally thousands of generations of bacteria since you started the test, a new strain has emerged which is resistant to the antibiotics you are testing with. This is distinct from the strain you started with [the control group].
That said, I'm all for teaching creationism in public schools. It doesn't belong in Science class, because it fundamentally isn't Science. Give me an experiment to prove or disprove creationism and then you'll be a lot closer to the subject area. Until that time, creationism belongs in Social Studies, along with all the other creation myths.
I can't wait to tell all my friends. They don't have a rock this big.
I'm sure any game with a vibrator built in will do well in certain... niche... markets.
Seriously, we need another word for the thing-a-ma-jig that makes phones/beepers/etc vibrate. I say well call it a buzzer.
k=m*v^2
Of course... if m is really really big, it isn't pretty either.
Also, remember that, in the case of asteroid impact, a fair bit of m ends up in the atmosphere.
Four words for you....
Multi Angle Matrix Trillogy.
Admittedly, the plot went to hell on the 2nd and 3rd films, but how bad ass would that be?
If you can pick up at DVR 501 or DVR 508 or a DVR 721 from Dish Network you'll avoid the $5/month fee.
It's worth pointing out that the reason you stir a martini rather than shaking it is to prevent the ice from being chipped. Chipped ice melts faster and thus incrases the water content of the drink.
James is ordering a weak martini and being snooty about it.
Because once you accecpt that those entities are similar to yourself you must realise that they, like yourself, have the capability to manipulate their environment.
Because you are part of their environment, they have some power over you and you some power over them. Since they seem to exhibit a sort of herd mentality, it would seem foolish to antagonize them as the herd itself is significantly stronger than the sum of its parts.
One thing that's damaging TIVO is HD. A lot of cable companies are offering HD DVRs on the lease plan for $5-$8/mo.
TIVO has HD units, but as stand alones they are expensive.
Since TIVO can't get that much of a revenue stream out of the units to justify a low price on the more expensive HD hardware, TIVO is going to suffer as HD becomes more commonplace in the high end video market TIVO targeted in the first place.
Thanks! I didn't know that. My wife's a Foucault nut (Poly Sci grad student and all). I think I know what she's getting for X-mas now. :)
Stealing can have many definitions. Rather than dealing with those definitions, lets examine the possible harm to the "victim" to see if any crime was committed.
1 - Did the vicitm actualy loose possession of the item in question? No, online piracy involves making a copy, not removing or destroying the origional. As a consequence, the copyright holder has not been deprived of any property.
2 - Did the victim loose some future benefit? While many would argue that piracy cuts into sales, the argument is flawed. Pirated copies are free. At zero cost demand can be assumed to be at its maximum. Maximum demand is well above equilibrium unless you're selling air. Further, authorized copies are typicaly at a higher bit rate and exhibit superior characteristics in nearly ever respect. As a consqeuence few if any sales of authorized copies will be lost to the inferior pirate copy.
3 - The ability to control the distribution of a peice of information is the primary purpose of copyright and the primary benefit lost when piracy occurs. As a consequence pirates are liable for the monitary value of this loss. The question then is what is the monitary value of this loss. Moreover, once piracy has occured once the copyright holder has lost the monopoly on this distribution chain. Further copies beyond the first do not do further damage to this monopoly. In this case we could perhaps ascribe blame and liability to the first individual to break the copyright monopoly for each individual work. Of course, determining exactly what civil and criminal penalties were in order would involve placing a dollar value, not on the distribution of the work, but on the difference between a monopoly as the state of nature.
As no real values exist for this descrepancy, appropriate penality seems impossible.
At present, however, we must deal with what the law says as opposed to what the law ought to say.
CARNIVORE KEYWORD INTERCEPT TRIGGERED
Under the USA P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act and in cooperation with the US Defense Department your IP has been logged. Please remain in the building. Further transmissions will be monitored. Agents will be with you shortly to escort you into custody.
Thank you for your cooperation.
What you have hit upon is a concept in Political Science known as the Carceral (spelling may be off). Discueed at length by philosopher Michel Foucault (pronounced Foo-co) The basic concept is that, because you are always subject to monitoring and can not know when you are being watched, you will always behave like you're being watched.
The idea was first set forth as a method of perfectly controlling a factory. The premise was that a manager or observer would sit at some central station observing employees who he could see but who could not see him. As the employees could be under scrutiny at any given time, they had no choice but to assume that they were always under scrutiny.
The Carceral is a prison, not for the mind, but of the mind. Have you ever stopped at a red light when there was no one for miles? That's the classic example of the Carceral in action.
We see this all around us, every hour of every day. The RIAA uses it to deter file traders. The Federal Government uses it to deter tax cheats. Walmart uses it to prevent shoplifting.
The online world is a different place, however. Security and scrutiny are something the individual has as much power to prevent as the observer has to employ. Use of sophisticated encryption systems is within the grasp of many users. Moreover, the huge volume of traffic does make monitoring even a meaningful portion hugely difficult.
Remember, the challenge is not to monitor all the traffic on the Internet, but to monitor enough that people will assume that you can monitor it all. Just as the RIAA can't sue every file trader, the Feds can't monitor every bit and byte that flows over the wires. That said, the RIAA can monitor enough to make you think twice about loading up a P2P client, and the Feds might be able to monitor enough to make terrorist organizations choose a less convenient, less efficient, and less sophisticated method of communication. That in and of itself is a victory.
The consequences for the rest of us will be just another casualty in this war on terror. Chalk it up there with free speech, privacy, and equal protection under the law.
Relative new car? half the persons i know have fairely old cars.
Of course they do. The other half drive "relitively new cars." See how that works? Isn't statistics wonderfull?
Kind of like my favorite statistic. Think about how stupid the average person is. Now realize that about 50% of the population is dumber than that.
There remain cell types (allbeit uncommon ones) that Adult Stem Cells are unable to replicate. These cell types are a naturaly occuring part of the human body and presumably have some usefull function.
As for the Hippocratic Oath and the promotion of death as you put it, consider this. Thousands of women have abortions in this country every year. The aborted fetus in such a procedure is literaly tossed out along with the rest of the medical waste and is incinerated. Contained within these bundles of cells is a great deal of medical potential. More over, Embryonic stem cells can be used to generate human eggs (something adult stem cells can't be used for). As a consequence, the possibilty of a self sustaining store of stem cells becomes real with research into this area.
Realisticly, I can understand wanting to ban the use of abortion for the specific purpose of aquiring stem cells. That said, abortions are happening anyway, why not try to at least make the best of a bad situation?
You're confusing "works" with "always works." Microsoft's major advantage is that, at least at first, the interface is fairly intuitive for basic tasks, the software install process is idiot proof, and the applications "just work"
Sure, if it breaks you still need a fairly sophisticated idea of how everything works to fix it, but the computer is fast becoming a home applicance. Like any other appliance, it goes to a specialist for repair.
Linux needs the following
1 - An installation standard that is every bit as idiot proof as installing a self executing binary with microsoft.
2 - An out of the box user interface that has the polished look and feel users have come to expect form Apple and MS.
3 - Application suites competitive with pay products like Office.
Primarily the difference lies in the distinction between differentiated and undifferentiated cells. Adult cells, which were previously thought to be completely differentiated, are now known to be only partially differentiated. A differentiated stem cell is one that can grow to become only one kind of cell in the body. For example, for a long time we thought that Bone Marrow cells could only grow to become blood cells.
In reality, Adult Stem Cells can grow to become several different types of cells including (in the case of Bone Marrow) liver, nerve, muscle and kidney cells.
Unfortunately, Adult Stem Cells are not able to replicate all 200 types of human cells. This means that there are types of damage and types of organs that can't be fixed using Adult Stem Cells. That's one of the major limitations.
Embryonic Stem Cells (in contrast) are able to change into any of the 200 human cell types, making them infinitely more versatile. Further, Embryonic stem cells are far more plentiful as women continue to have abortions. Moreover, Embryonic cells can be turned into human eggs, which in turn can be turned into yet more Embryonic stem cells, perhaps promising a kind of breeder reactor for such cells.
Most Embryonic treatments are highly experimental, which means that you're only going to see them used in patients who are at death's door with known fatal illnesses and no further hope. Such treatments, often referred to as Class A experimental, are difficult to characterize and yet more difficult to explain as the definitive turning point in a person's treatment. I know an individual (who is a minor, and thus I can't post her personal info here) who has been successfully treated with embryonic stem cells for childhood cancer. Was it the stem cells that turned her around? We may never know, but she's better now and is making a full recovery. Something worked.
I'm not familiar with any tendency for Embryonic cells to become cancerous when used, but perhaps I'm using outdated materials. The real lynchpin is quantity. We can simply produce huge quantities of embryonic stem cells without increasing the abortion rate by even one fetus. When it comes down to the wire, this is a promising field that deserves research, these are pregnancies that have already been terminated. What moral conflict is there in trying to use a tragedy like an abortion to save a human life?
Problem with your argument is that, if that were the primary motivating force you'd expect the major drug companies to be backing the party in favor of stem cell research, namely the Democrats. Instead, their donations overwhelmingly favor the GOP. See this link for the numbers.
Thus it would seem that drug companies, those most likely to be doing all the patenting, have a great deal more profit to be made and suffering people to exploit by keeping us tied to technologies that require them to develop no new infrastructure.
Embryonic stem cells represent a unique track that holds new promice for medical science. The way all this works is a bit over my head... which is why I'm not a medical doctor. Nonetheless, I can tell you form personal experiance that embryonic stem cells hold promise for specific patients that adult stem cells can no longer help. I've seen children treated with embryonic stem cells successfully when nothing else would work.
So in California you have the distinct honor of going into debt to fund another health industry attempt to gather up some patents, yes. But you might save some lives in the process. It's not ideal, but nothing is.