Embryonic stem cells *are* the embryo at the point they are harvested. There is no fetus that contains them - they are the whole thing. Killing the cells would negate the whole purpose of extracting them.
>Embryonic stem cells are harvested through the destruction of living human embryos.
No, if the cells were destroyed, they wouldn't be useful to anyone. The cells are just as alive as they would have been if they had continued to grow into a complete person, but are instead performing a different function.
>Our genetic make-up, even at the embryonic stage clearly mark us as human.
Yes, but so what? Every single cell in my body is also human. I don't usually get protesters marching at my front door every time I bite my lip. So what's the difference? Maybe you'll say that those cells will never become a full-grown person, but there is no reason to think that human cloning won't be accomplished soon. Maybe you'll say something about the unique genetic makeup of those cells, but cancer cells are also unique.
Face it, the only thing that makes human cells any more valuable than other animals is their ability to support our level of consciousness, and no single cell can do anything like that.
If I were sitting bored in a cage for all my life and someone offered me drugs, I'd probably jump at the chance too!;)
Seriously though, I know a lot of people who have done cocaine and only one of them has ever had a problem with it - he was the same guy who couldn't control his drinking. While your little experiment may be true for some subset of monkeys (just like humans), it doesn't apply to every one, or even a majority.
Typical anti-drug propaganda, really. Take the absolute worst case and act like that is the typical response.
Just look at what happened to alcohol when it was decriminalized - the crime nearly completely left the production and distribution. The worst thing they do now is make bad commercials for the super bowl.
>Drugs affect your mind to make you crave them more than food, sex, and life itself.
Of course they do. That's why everyone I know who has ever tried drugs is now a slobbering mess who crawls on their belly from one crackhouse to the next.
>Drug usage is no longer a choice for those that have tried it.
>It flat out kills people and ruins whole country's.
If it weren't illegal, it would no more destroy countries than coffee does. It's only through the ridiculous markup on illegal drugs that causes them to be fought over.
>The concentration of written laws should be at the state level, since the state is much closer to the citizen than the feds will ever be. States rights are the issue in this argument, and I think that they should not be impeded.
If this were the way things actually worked, I would be in complete agreement with you. As it is, state's rights are dead. The federal government routinely overrides the states in areas that it has absolutely no authority to do so (drug laws, education, law enforcement, etc).
>The power for real law and governance lays at the states' feet. The power for regulation and interstate commerce lies with the feds. Leave it this way.
They certainly should have left it that way. The federal government *is* the super-state now, and direct elections are the only way to be fair to all citizens.
> If we worked it by popular vote, only fewer than 10 states would be needed to win the election. That is not very representative either.
And how is that any different than the situation right now? Instead of the 10 most populous states, they run around to the 5 or 6 'swing' states.
>The electoral college assures that each candidate will visit every state, not just the ones needed to win.
But they don't. At all.
> If we did it by popular vote, a Democrat would win nearly every time because CA, NY, and a couple of other states have the most population.
Umm, Bush *did* also win the popular vote this time, you know.
>Fair would actually be like the Senate. Each state gets (1) electoral vote.
So someone in Alaska's vote matters more than someone's in New York? If a state only has 1 million people, their vote is more valuable than a state that has 10 million.
>In fact, the families of 9/11 have won a judgment against Iraq for its complicity in 9/11.
Only because there was literally no defense brought forth for Iraq. On top of that, the US government is refusing to allow payment of the judgement because it might cut into Halliburton's oil revenues in Iraq.
>In close elections such as this one, it's not so much voting *for* someone you like as it is voting *against* someone you dislike.
What a complete and total copout. Don't vote for the guy you actually agree with - instead, vote for the guy who you mostly disagree with so that the guy you totally disagree with won't win.
Doing this will never get you any closer to the government you really want.
Actually, the speed of light is an observation. This could then be used in whatever theory you might come up with, but it is a plain fact that the speed of light is some set value.
>If cocaine and heroin use was as widespread and popular in the US as alcohol and tobacco, they would bring with them more of the widespread illness and social problems that tobacco and alcohol bring.
And what facts do you base that conclusion upon? What would make heroin addicts any worse that alcoholics? Would more people die from cocaine than die from cigarettes? No way. On a percentage basis, tobacco is at the top of the 'bad drug' chart no matter how you look at it.
>Society as a whole has a right to decide what is acceptable.
Not when society has already decided that personal freedom is superior to group rights.
Listen, if someone gets messed up and commits a real crime, they should be thrown in jail. Simply doing certain drugs should simply not be a crime in itself. Our legal system is not supposed to punish everyone for the shortcomings of a few.
I'm sorry that the facts about tobacco are so bad. It is a highly addictive and unhealthy drug. If you have any facts to refute the above with, post them here.
>Wow, someone is actually arguing that heroin is not addictive to most users? Geez, never though I'd see the day.
It's not. The vast majority of people who try heroin never become addicted. If you think that it is, provide some evidence to back it up.
http://www.users.on.net/~rmc/drugs.htm
"Research made unwillingly by the U.S. Army on its Vietnam War veterans showed that nearly half used heroin (95% pure), 7% of those stayed on it on return to the U.S.A. with only 1% of these being addicted. The research was forced on the U.S. Army because many soldiers claimed disability pensions on the grounds that heroin addiction is permanent and disqualifies the user from any sort of productive life. Originally the heroin was smoked until Authority clamped down and it became more cost-effective to inject.
The addiction rate for social ALCOHOL drinkers is 10% with another 5% "at risk". ("Addiction" is when stopping taking the drug leads to withdrawal symptoms not present before taking it. e.g. alcohol "Dependence" is when cessation means just returning to the previous status quo e.g. insulin.)"
>Let me put it plain and simple for you: if you try heroin once, you probably have a 75% chance of trying it a second time...
Honestly, are you getting your facts from a DARE bumper sticker, or what?
>No it won't. It'll still cost ten bucks, but a big company will be getting rich off it rather than some drug baron.
You assume there would only be one supplier. Sure, you can pay $100 for a bottle of wine, but you can also get a bottle of Mad Dog for $2. Why would this not be the case for other drugs?
>there is no such thing as a casual cocaine/heroin "user", only "addicts"
You're either joking or are painfully naive. A person is no more likely to become addicted to either of the above than they are to alcohol, and less likely than tobacco.
http://www.ccguide.org.uk/addicts.html
>It takes over your life. It creates a dysfunctional circumstance in which the person quickly loses the ability to carry on a normal life, hold a steady job, and maintain a loving relationship with family.
Oh god, you've swallowed the propaganda whole. Poor thing.
>Are you suggesting that the government stop trying to aprehend and prosecute hard drug users/dealers?
I don't know if he is, but I sure am. The 'war on drugs' is the cause of 95% of the problems that are attributed to the drugs themselves. For example:
Supporting terrorism - drugs are only outrageously profitable because of their illegality.
Overdoses - mostly caused by the unknown doses in an illegal market.
Street crime - once again caused by their unnaturally high prices. Nobody needs to rob anyone to buy beer, nor are there turf wars (anymore) over alcohol.
The 'what about the children' argument - ask any high school kid how hard it is to get drugs. It is a lot harder for them to buy alcohol.
Addiction - two of the most addictive and dangrous drugs (alcohol and tobacco) are legal. Why are we allowed to choose to use those, but not others?
While you're pondering the above, explain to me why a constitutional amendment was required to prohibit alcohol, but wasn't required for any other drug.
>So the guy doesn't think we should continue the war against terrorism
We should have sane policies in place with regards to other countries so that their people wouldn't have any reason to fly themselves into our buildings. The 'war on terrorism' is a joke, just like the 'war on drugs' - both cause more problems than they solve.
>he's not for any gun restriction
Hmm, neither is the constitution. What's your point?
>yes, terrorist cells are/were operating in this country
Yes, they are/were. Does that mean that we should all give up the rights that so many have died for in order to catch them?
>What makes you feel that you have a god-given right to prerecorded music then? Just because you want it? That justifies you?
I need no justification. I get recorded music because it is available to me whenever I want it - much like air. I would no more pay for that music than I would for the air.
>Do you shoplift too?
Nope, that would be stealing - you know, actually taking something away from someone. I've never stolen anything from anyone.
>If a quadraplegic wrote beautiful music that made your heart soar, they wouldn't be worthy of getting a dime from you, as they couldn't tour?
I'd probably send them some money directly in that case.
>So, you wouldn't know how much time that being a really good musician takes then, would you? Did you know most professional musicians practice 4-8 hours a day? Kind of hard to hold down a day job and have a life with that kind of schedule isn't it?
Hence the vast majority of musicians don't perform as their primary means of income. Nothing new there.
>You also wouldn't know the economic realities of the music industry. Consider this: a band that I've worked with has sold 50K+ copies of their last two albums as a completely independent group. At roughly $10/profit per disk, that's one million dollars directly into their pocket. Nonetheless, they are considering signing on with a large independent label, which would drop their per unit profit to around $4. Now, if there wasn't some real benefit to all parties involved, would they be considering that?
How would I know? Maybe they're just dumb.
>So, you favour intellectual property rights when it serves your given sphere.
Not really. We would all be much better off if they didn't exist at all. I use the GPL as a means to keep my code free (as in freedom). If there were no copyright, I wouldn't have to bother.
>Why should _you_ be able to choose what license to give your code away under, but musicians should be forced (in your view) to give theirs away?
If someone gets away with using my code without releasing the source code, more power to them.
'Intellectual property' is a myth. I can only really 'own' my code only until I release it. After that, it's everyone's.
>Why should you be able to offer your code through contracts?
I offer my work through contracts. The code is the product of my work. If someone needs some code written, they pay me to do it. It's the same as paying someone to paint your house or build your garage. Your question doesn't make a lot of sense.
>If everything music should be free, everything software should be free as well, right?
I have certainly not said that everything music should be free, so you can put that strawman away right now.
>Switch your business model to giving away _every_ bit of code you write for free and charge for support.
Why? If someone wants something special written, why shouldn't I charge to write it?
>Do you think that touring is fun and easy?
Let's cry for the rockstars now. Wah!
Lots of occupations aren't fun and easy. Coal miners and firefighters come to mind. People still chose to do them, and people will continue to make music, even if they can't make millions on selling cds.
Yes, they do - from the link in the submission - an apartment complex cannot even keep you from putting up a small dish on your balcony. These apartments are not even owned by the university, so there is no question about them lacking the authority to regulate access points.
Slashdot Mirror
Embryonic stem cells *are* the embryo at the point they are harvested. There is no fetus that contains them - they are the whole thing. Killing the cells would negate the whole purpose of extracting them.
>Embryonic stem cells are harvested through the destruction of living human embryos.
No, if the cells were destroyed, they wouldn't be useful to anyone. The cells are just as alive as they would have been if they had continued to grow into a complete person, but are instead performing a different function.
>Our genetic make-up, even at the embryonic stage clearly mark us as human.
Yes, but so what? Every single cell in my body is also human. I don't usually get protesters marching at my front door every time I bite my lip. So what's the difference? Maybe you'll say that those cells will never become a full-grown person, but there is no reason to think that human cloning won't be accomplished soon. Maybe you'll say something about the unique genetic makeup of those cells, but cancer cells are also unique.
Face it, the only thing that makes human cells any more valuable than other animals is their ability to support our level of consciousness, and no single cell can do anything like that.
If I were sitting bored in a cage for all my life and someone offered me drugs, I'd probably jump at the chance too! ;)
Seriously though, I know a lot of people who have done cocaine and only one of them has ever had a problem with it - he was the same guy who couldn't control his drinking. While your little experiment may be true for some subset of monkeys (just like humans), it doesn't apply to every one, or even a majority.
Typical anti-drug propaganda, really. Take the absolute worst case and act like that is the typical response.
Just look at what happened to alcohol when it was decriminalized - the crime nearly completely left the production and distribution. The worst thing they do now is make bad commercials for the super bowl.
T-R-Double O-L!
>Drugs affect your mind to make you crave them
more than food, sex, and life itself.
Of course they do. That's why everyone I know who has ever tried drugs is now a slobbering mess who crawls on their belly from one crackhouse to the next.
>Drug usage is no longer a choice for those that have tried it.
Did you just get out of your DARE class, or what?
>It flat out kills people and ruins whole country's.
If it weren't illegal, it would no more destroy countries than coffee does. It's only through the ridiculous markup on illegal drugs that causes them to be fought over.
>The concentration of written laws should be at the state level, since the state is much closer to the citizen than the feds will ever be. States rights are the issue in this argument, and I think that they should not be impeded.
If this were the way things actually worked, I would be in complete agreement with you. As it is, state's rights are dead. The federal government routinely overrides the states in areas that it has absolutely no authority to do so (drug laws, education, law enforcement, etc).
>The power for real law and governance lays at the states' feet. The power for regulation and interstate commerce lies with the feds. Leave it this way.
They certainly should have left it that way. The federal government *is* the super-state now, and direct elections are the only way to be fair to all citizens.
> If we worked it by popular vote, only fewer than 10 states would be needed to win the election. That is not very representative either.
And how is that any different than the situation right now? Instead of the 10 most populous states, they run around to the 5 or 6 'swing' states.
>The electoral college assures that each candidate will visit every state, not just the ones needed to win.
But they don't. At all.
> If we did it by popular vote, a Democrat would win nearly every time because CA, NY, and a couple of other states have the most population.
Umm, Bush *did* also win the popular vote this time, you know.
>Fair would actually be like the Senate. Each state gets (1) electoral vote.
So someone in Alaska's vote matters more than someone's in New York? If a state only has 1 million people, their vote is more valuable than a state that has 10 million.
1 person, 1 vote is the only fair system.
>In fact, the families of 9/11 have won a judgment against Iraq for its complicity in 9/11.
Only because there was literally no defense brought forth for Iraq. On top of that, the US government is refusing to allow payment of the judgement because it might cut into Halliburton's oil revenues in Iraq.
>In close elections such as this one, it's not so much voting *for* someone you like as it is voting *against* someone you dislike.
What a complete and total copout. Don't vote for the guy you actually agree with - instead, vote for the guy who you mostly disagree with so that the guy you totally disagree with won't win.
Doing this will never get you any closer to the government you really want.
Actually, the speed of light is an observation. This could then be used in whatever theory you might come up with, but it is a plain fact that the speed of light is some set value.
>If cocaine and heroin use was as widespread and popular in the US as alcohol and tobacco, they would bring with them more of the widespread illness and social problems that tobacco and alcohol bring.
And what facts do you base that conclusion upon? What would make heroin addicts any worse that alcoholics? Would more people die from cocaine than die from cigarettes? No way. On a percentage basis, tobacco is at the top of the 'bad drug' chart no matter how you look at it.
>Society as a whole has a right to decide what is acceptable.
Not when society has already decided that personal freedom is superior to group rights.
Listen, if someone gets messed up and commits a real crime, they should be thrown in jail. Simply doing certain drugs should simply not be a crime in itself. Our legal system is not supposed to punish everyone for the shortcomings of a few.
I'm sorry that the facts about tobacco are so bad. It is a highly addictive and unhealthy drug. If you have any facts to refute the above with, post them here.
>Wow, someone is actually arguing that heroin is not addictive to most users? Geez, never though I'd see the day.
It's not. The vast majority of people who try heroin never become addicted. If you think that it is, provide some evidence to back it up.
http://www.users.on.net/~rmc/drugs.htm
"Research made unwillingly by the U.S. Army on its Vietnam War veterans showed that nearly half used heroin (95% pure), 7% of those stayed on it on return to the U.S.A. with only 1% of these being addicted. The research was forced on the U.S. Army because many soldiers claimed disability pensions on the grounds that heroin addiction is permanent and disqualifies the user from any sort of productive life. Originally the heroin was smoked until Authority clamped down and it became more cost-effective to inject.
The addiction rate for social ALCOHOL drinkers is 10% with another 5% "at risk". ("Addiction" is when stopping taking the drug leads to withdrawal symptoms not present before taking it. e.g. alcohol "Dependence" is when cessation means just returning to the previous status quo e.g. insulin.)"
>Let me put it plain and simple for you: if you try heroin once, you probably have a 75% chance of trying it a second time...
Honestly, are you getting your facts from a DARE bumper sticker, or what?
>No it won't. It'll still cost ten bucks, but a big company will be getting rich off it rather than some drug baron.
You assume there would only be one supplier. Sure, you can pay $100 for a bottle of wine, but you can also get a bottle of Mad Dog for $2. Why would this not be the case for other drugs?
>there is no such thing as a casual cocaine/heroin "user", only "addicts"
You're either joking or are painfully naive. A person is no more likely to become addicted to either of the above than they are to alcohol, and less likely than tobacco.
http://www.ccguide.org.uk/addicts.html
>It takes over your life. It creates a dysfunctional circumstance in which the person quickly loses the ability to carry on a normal life, hold a steady job, and maintain a loving relationship with family.
Oh god, you've swallowed the propaganda whole. Poor thing.
>Are you suggesting that the government stop trying to aprehend and prosecute hard drug users/dealers?
I don't know if he is, but I sure am. The 'war on drugs' is the cause of 95% of the problems that are attributed to the drugs themselves. For example:
Supporting terrorism - drugs are only outrageously profitable because of their illegality.
Overdoses - mostly caused by the unknown doses in an illegal market.
Street crime - once again caused by their unnaturally high prices. Nobody needs to rob anyone to buy beer, nor are there turf wars (anymore) over alcohol.
The 'what about the children' argument - ask any high school kid how hard it is to get drugs. It is a lot harder for them to buy alcohol.
Addiction - two of the most addictive and dangrous drugs (alcohol and tobacco) are legal. Why are we allowed to choose to use those, but not others?
While you're pondering the above, explain to me why a constitutional amendment was required to prohibit alcohol, but wasn't required for any other drug.
After the first elevator goes up, it would be almost trivial to build more. So it would only be *the* space elevator for a very short period of time.
Which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is hard for your mind to grasp?
The second amendment talks about 2 things, a well regulated militia, and the right of people to bear arms.
>So the guy doesn't think we should continue the war against terrorism
We should have sane policies in place with regards to other countries so that their people wouldn't have any reason to fly themselves into our buildings. The 'war on terrorism' is a joke, just like the 'war on drugs' - both cause more problems than they solve.
>he's not for any gun restriction
Hmm, neither is the constitution. What's your point?
>yes, terrorist cells are/were operating in this country
Yes, they are/were. Does that mean that we should all give up the rights that so many have died for in order to catch them?
What makes you think he would want to do any searching of hemp fields? After all, libertarians are against the war on drugs.
>What makes you feel that you have a god-given right to prerecorded music then? Just because you want it? That justifies you?
I need no justification. I get recorded music because it is available to me whenever I want it - much like air. I would no more pay for that music than I would for the air.
>Do you shoplift too?
Nope, that would be stealing - you know, actually taking something away from someone. I've never stolen anything from anyone.
>If a quadraplegic wrote beautiful music that made your heart soar, they wouldn't be worthy of getting a dime from you, as they couldn't tour?
I'd probably send them some money directly in that case.
>So, you wouldn't know how much time that being a really good musician takes then, would you? Did you know most professional musicians practice 4-8 hours a day? Kind of hard to hold down a day job and have a life with that kind of schedule isn't it?
Hence the vast majority of musicians don't perform as their primary means of income. Nothing new there.
>You also wouldn't know the economic realities of the music industry. Consider this: a band that I've worked with has sold 50K+ copies of their last two albums as a completely independent group. At roughly $10/profit per disk, that's one million dollars directly into their pocket. Nonetheless, they are considering signing on with a large independent label, which would drop their per unit profit to around $4. Now, if there wasn't some real benefit to all parties involved, would they be considering that?
How would I know? Maybe they're just dumb.
>So, you favour intellectual property rights when it serves your given sphere.
Not really. We would all be much better off if they didn't exist at all. I use the GPL as a means to keep my code free (as in freedom). If there were no copyright, I wouldn't have to bother.
>Why should _you_ be able to choose what license to give your code away under, but musicians should be forced (in your view) to give theirs away?
If someone gets away with using my code without releasing the source code, more power to them.
'Intellectual property' is a myth. I can only really 'own' my code only until I release it. After that, it's everyone's.
>Why should you be able to offer your code through contracts?
I offer my work through contracts. The code is the product of my work. If someone needs some code written, they pay me to do it. It's the same as paying someone to paint your house or build your garage. Your question doesn't make a lot of sense.
>If everything music should be free, everything software should be free as well, right?
I have certainly not said that everything music should be free, so you can put that strawman away right now.
>Switch your business model to giving away _every_ bit of code you write for free and charge for support.
Why? If someone wants something special written, why shouldn't I charge to write it?
>Do you think that touring is fun and easy?
Let's cry for the rockstars now. Wah!
Lots of occupations aren't fun and easy. Coal miners and firefighters come to mind. People still chose to do them, and people will continue to make music, even if they can't make millions on selling cds.
Yes, they do - from the link in the submission - an apartment complex cannot even keep you from putting up a small dish on your balcony. These apartments are not even owned by the university, so there is no question about them lacking the authority to regulate access points.
Sorry to rain on yours, but in this case it *is* a lease. The apartments are not owned by the college.