What if people had these two round things in their head that could "organically" transfer images to a self-contained "super computer" located somewhere above their arms and shoulders. And what if, instead of taking pictures of the magazines with phones, these horrid people read all the good magazine articles and then put the magazine back on the stand, unpurchased!
And what if some book stores facilitated this copyright theft by putting big comfy chairs and couches all about the establishment?
If you think prohibition and the drug war were/are bad, wait until the copyright war swings into full gear. The jack-booted DEA agents kicking in the wrong door by mistake is bad enough, but the copyright police aren't going to have that problem...because virtually EVERYONE violates copyright law in some form or fashion.
it looks like the remanufactures could come up with an alternative printer/cartidge, selling them at much more reasonable prices, and still make a nice profit. Do the other manufactures have a Microsoft-type thing going that keeps other people out of the market, or are their products so good that it makes it too high an entry barrior into the market.
I know a lot of these manufactures make most of their money selling the cartidges...but I actually way the cost of refills into my printer purchases, and if I saw a reasonably priced printer with a reasonable cartridge replacement/refill policy, that is the one I would spend my hard earned money on.
When you are shooting at buses, ambulances, helicopters, police, etc., that's NOT survival mode. That is more correctly, "Road Warrior" mode.
Figuring out a way purify and drink the water that flooded your house, that's survival mode. Figuring out a way to cook that coon that was up on your roof, that's survival mode. Shooting at the looters trying to steal what's left of your grandmothers silver, that's survival mode.
Trying to steal a large plasma screen TV in the middle of that, that's just being a very low-life criminal.
Stalin believed that Darwinian evolution was just a bouguoise concept. He believed in Lamarckian evolution and directed his agricultural ministry to ignore studies that supported Darwinain evolution. Their agricultural industry suffered and people went hungry in the process.
That statement makes no sense whatsoever. So a nation has to believe in evolution to feed its people? For lack of better terminology at the time, that's stupid.
Stalin was a communist murderer. Communism, on a national level, is never voluntary. Stalin purposely withheld food to kill off people who didn't want to "join the group." The amount of people Hitler killed was a drop in the bucket compared to the number of people Stalin killed.
I agree and this is the exact same reasoning that led me to the certifications I have now. As far as cost, I guess it all depends on your priorities. While spending a couple of hundred bucks on a piece of paper may sound bad, when compared to taking college courses, it isn't unreasonable.
Back in my younger days, I accumulated a CD collection of between four - five hundred CDs (not to mention all the concerts I went to). True, a lot of used and discounted CDs, but still a fair amount of money invested. I have made up my mind that if I managed to waste all the money I wasted on music over the years, I can spend a couple of hundred bucks once or twice a year and not feel guilty about it. So what I have been doing is setting goals for things I want to learn, learning it, and getting a certificate to prove that I learned it.
Jay Banks FCC GROL NARTE certified Technician (Jr) (www.narte.org) Brainbench certified Telecommunications Specialist Brainbench certified Network Support Specialist HAM Tech License (KE5FAL) (Next: Network+, which isn't as easy as it used to be.)
I have heard all of my life of oil companies buying the rights to stuff like this to keep it off the market. I wonder if an "open source" type of atmosphere for inventions like this will help them actually see light of day? It is interesting to see things big money can't control.
It seems to me that if we had a choice between a car that never needed refueling and a car that used substance X, which just happened to be sold at the place that used to sell gas, the powers that be would push the latter, just because there needs to be these stores on the corner that sell something to make cars go. That's the way it has always been done, right?
Maybe someone will come up with MP3s for auto fuel and upset the way things are done. That's what needs to be done because the corps are only going to push technologies that have reoccurring revenue that benefits the system they thrive on.
True, but if you are limited to line of sight, and, due to the geographical location, you can only get three customers off of an access point, it isn't financially viable to offer service. You have a lot of expenses involved with this. The backend, tower rent, back hauls, routing equipment, it all adds up quick. The only way it is going to be profitable is to sign up more people off of that expensive access point. And you can't do that with line of sight technology, unless, as noted, you just happen to end up in a fantastic location (e.g. you live on a mountain slope with few trees, put the access points at the top of the mountain, and sign up 100 customers who all just happen to be line of sight down below).
I have a friend who used to work with me. He left and formed his own wireless Net company using 900 Mhz, which is the best option for commercial near-line-of-sight equipment there is on the market right now in the unlicensed spectrum. Last week he had an access point, two backhauls, and some routing equipment hit by lightening. He lost approx. 4000.00 worth of equipment. Luckily, he said, he only had three customers going off of that access point. 4000.00 to get 3 customers? True he hasn't been going that long, and maybe could get more, but what he is experiencing is what I have seen as well...with the limited coverage area of line of sight technology, you can't build a customer base big enough to pay for the equipment (with a few exceptions, of course). It looks like 900 Mhz is working about two miles through light tree coverage (and by light, I mean two or three rows of trees between the access point and the SM. Throw a hill or a building in the way, and you can forget about it).
I'm not going to sit here and say that nobody is making money on wireless Internet. What I am going to say is that the people that are making the REAL money out of it is the companies selling all the equipment that half-ass works in the real world. And buddy, Motorola has made a mint off of its expensive Canopy equipment.
As I mentioned in an above post, unless the houses are in a great location, you would have to have a large number of access points to reach these SMs mounted on posts.
Even with 900 Mhz, you still have line of sight issues unless you are very close to the access point. Putting the SM on a telephone post helps the problem, but it does not solve the problem because in many cases the trees are still higher than the pole. The only real-world solution is more access points, that would have to mounted very high, and in ***great locations***.
These access points are what 1000.00? 1500.00? And you still have to feed these with either some type of backhaul equipment or backend Internet connection. Motorola backhaul equipment is more expensive than the access points. And how many customers would you have to sign up to pay for business DSL, ISDN or T1 at feed a large number Access points geographically spread out?
I think the Motorola over power lines thing looks good, but it is actually a lot of smoke and mirrors.
The wireless future will belong to the first company to have a large coverage radius that does not have to be line of sight.
I work at a company that does Canopy wireless broadband and it works great, IF you can see the tower.
The problem with putting a canopy unit on an electric pole and feeding it in through the power lines, is that you would have to put an access point every two blocks to have the needed line of sight to feed the SM, which in turn pumps it into the house (unless your town happens to be in a desert or West Texas).
Those Canopy Access points are very expensive. Those canopy SMs are very expensive. Even using 900 MHz, which does better through trees, the sheer volume of Canopy access points needed to cover any fair amount of territory is going to be too cost prohibitive.
While it isn't perfect either, the closest thing to a cost effective wireless internet plan would be MESHing 802.11 using custom built equipment.
I went and checked out a guy who had a small town MESHed with 802.11 using Locustworld.com software and access points he built himself for around 500.00 or less. He had almost 100 customers working nice, some even through moderate tree coverage. I will say that what he was doing worked better than our Canopy setup...which has tens of thousands of dollars tied up in equipment. And the advantage to this is, if the customers are close enough, you don't have to have a subscriber module at the customer's house that cost 400.00 a piece.
I say the only people making money with Motorola Canopy are the few WISPs in fantastic locations...and Motorola!
On the other hand, there are plenty of instances where the government gets money and it shouldn't. For instance, some guy is speeding and hits my car. Police give him several tickets for failing to obey speed, control car, wear seatbelt, etc. Who does the guy pay his tickets to? The State. Now my car was damaged, but the State figured out a way to make money out of it. How does that work out?
Some guy breaks into a house and gets caught. He does some time, for which the tax payers pay his room and board, and then he gets out on probation. Who does this guy have to pay every month as part of his probation? Not the person whose house he broke into, but...the State.
In Texas, they now have a law that if you get a DWI, you have to pay 1000.00 (1st offense, it's 1000.00 a year for X amount of years for 2nd offenses) to the state of Texas, ON TOP of your fines to the city/county/court etc., you get caught in.
How exactly did that work out? Most probably, "We need money for some program, lets figure out a way to screw someone out of 1000.00 and see if we can get away with it."
I say, there is a big difference between protecting the public, and using them as a source of revenue. Especially when the public already pays taxes that is supposed to pay for this stuff. But it looks like they are getting it from all sides, and it never seems to be enough.
I once saved an article, I think from the NY Times, about gangs moving onto the Internet. They could not, however, gather any useful information from these "barely computer literate" gang members because they used CODE WORDS in place of what they really meant. Now imagine, no heavy encryption, no PGP, just plain text from teenage punks...and they couldn't get anything useful because they used CODE words.
Intercepting terrorists messages isn't their goal. If they can't stop LA gangbangers from using the Net to communicate, they sure can't stop hard core terrorists, who are surely smart enough to use more than just code words.
What they really want to keep tabs on is the 99.9% of the Net who aren't terrorists and aren't using encryption and simple code words.
When I first started getting these e-mails and faxes, I thought the scam was that they got your bank routing information and transferred money out of your account. I never could see how someone just having your account number could let them withdraw money from your account.
What really baffles me now, seeing that that wasn't the scam at all, is that someone willing to hop on a plane and fly to Nigeria, obviously has a little money. I mean, if someone asked me to fly to Nigeria, I couldn't go even if I wanted to. So someone who does go, obviously has a little money to burn. I can't imagine someone who has the brains to make that kind of money is dumb enough to fall for this. What kind of people actually are dumber than dirt and have a large amount of money? Did they win it at the state lotto? Did they win it in Vegas? Did they steal it to begin with? Did they inherit it from a relative who did have some brains? I just don't get it...but I highly doubt anyone who falls for this actually worked to get their money.
Usurper_ii
Re:$8 Billion went missing in Iraq & UStaxpaye
on
Retail Fraud on the Rise
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It seems like our entire economy is based top to bottom on how much you can screw somebody. An electrician's car breaks down, the mechanic screws him for just as much money as he thinks he can get away with, but that's ok because the electrician will screw you for just as much money as he can possibly suck out of you. And then all three of you get sick and go to a freaking doctor...who screws all three of you and your insurance company, if any of the bunch is lucky enough to have insurance. And then out of this pool of crap, we elect people to office, who promptly start screwing the public for as much money as they think they can possibly get away with without winding up swinging from a rope.
I finally broke down and watched most of Fahrenheit 9/11 tonight (ironically, ripped to my hard drive, off of a rented DVD), and I must say that my blood was boiling half-way through it.
I swear I sometimes wonder how the US has made it as long as it has. It is hard to believe we can remain competitive in the world economy, when so much of our money didn't come from any actual service or product, but rather comes from screwing people. I hope people enjoy it while they can, because one of these days the bubble is going to burst.
It reminds me of the excellent movie, the Devils Advocate. Only in our economy, the devil just isn't a lawyer, he is a doctor, a mechanic, the retail stores, the RIAA/MPAA, the politicians, the insurance companies, the salesmen, the retail stores, the manufacturers, the customers etc. etc., and each and every one of them is setting out to drown us in a sea of their dishonesty.
Though it was overturned at the Supreme Court, Larry Flynt was told that his parody was not libel by the court, yet he had to pay 200,000 dollars in damagement.
Imagine a court in the United States of America telling someone that they produced a legal parody ad...and then making them pay 200,000.00 in "damages." Yeah, as noted above he took it all the way to the top and got it overturned, but how much money did he have to spend to do so?
Though not specifically an example of the federal government abridging Constitutionally protected free speech, if they look the other way and let the courts abridge the free speech, then it is just as bad. Case in point. Look at advertisements for Paladin press these days. They have none of the cool books they used to advertise.
Paladin stood by the fundamental principle of the First Amendment -- that all books, no matter how unsavory the subject matter, are protected.
I once changed the system clock on a computer by accident. It managed to lock me out of a critical app, heavy on the DRM, and caused me to have to spend 30 minutes to an hour online with the key-gods to get me back into the app. I can think of other problems caused by a date change, as well, especially in a corporate environment.
If the goal here is stress relief...messing with the clock may not be the right direction to head in!
I think it is more like, people don't mind paying a fair price for something of quality. If the original Napster hadn't been shut down, iTunes would have all of 25 or 30 customers. On the original Napster, you could find every song, no matter how obscure, and easily download it. Yes, things replaced Napster, but there was a lot of time, failed downloads, and poor quality involved in the replacements. While you can still get free songs, heck for.99 cents, you can just go and get it from iTunes and know it is going to be good quality. So maybe you are partly right, but I think it is more a combination of lawsuits and iTunes just plain making it easier...and let's face it, people are lazy.
To drive around looking for connections to open wireless access points is called wardriving. In Canada, people who are caught doing this can be arrested for stealing bandwidth. The legality of this practice in the U.S., however, is a bit hazy, and there are many mitigating factors. One is that several organizations deliberately leave access points unencrypted so that people can use them as necessary. Also, many computers with built-in wireless simply grab the first signal they detect. Then there's the trespassing issue: The wardriver isn't trespassing on the router, the router is trespassing on the wardriver's airspace.
Free Access
This issue was brought home to me recently when one of my laptops told me it was ready to install new Windows XP upgrades, even though the laptop was not on a network and my wireless access point was off-line. I discovered that a neighbor's wireless router, named "default," had provided the access. Using my Toshiba's View Wireless Connections option, I saw five nearby networks that I could grab, three of which were unencrypted. Obviously there's plenty of free access around for harried travelers. It seems to me that being able to download your e-mail at an open connection is a good thing.
Look into the legality of this, though, and you hear vague comments like "The FBI doesn't know how legal it is" or "It may be illegal, because you're using someone else's connection or you're spying on their network." This issue will create ridiculous legal problems, which is bad news for both consumers and law enforcement, unless a sensible, national policy can be developed.
Personal and Corporate Responsibility
Let me jump in and propose a simple, logical public policy. Law enforcement doesn't need to get involved whenever some guy in a doughnut shop poaches a nearby Wi-Fi connection to check his e-mail, thinking he's on the shop's network. This shouldn't be a crime, even if he's intentionally poaching. We must put the burden of responsibility on the broadcaster, not the end user. It has to be made clear that people sending open connections all over town should be responsible for them.
Here's what I propose: Once a wireless signal leaves private property, it becomes public domain. If the person transmitting the signal wants it protected, then encryption is up to him or her. If someone beams an Internet connection into my home and I happen to lock onto the signal, he is trespassing on me, not the other way around. Public policy must reflect this logic. Keep it out of my house if you don't want me using it. Keep it out of my car. Keep it away from me in public places.
The Public Interest
This policy makes sense because it lets anyone who wants to provide open access do so without hassle or fear. Groups in San Francisco and Seattle are openly promoting free 802.11 connectivity. Many coffee shops, restaurants, and community groups now provide free wireless access, and directories of these hot spots are easy to find online.
This ubiquity of access is to be encouraged as in the public interest. But it can't happen if the law doesn't make the person transmitting the 802.11 signal responsible, instead of blaming any roaming users who are simply grabbing open connections. If this means that a corporate network is wide open to hackers, because the company doesn't bother encrypting the signal it broadcasts all over town, then so be it.
We must not follow the Canadian model that views using unprotected 802.11 connections as bandwidth theft. My computer grabs wireless signals impinging on my house more often than it grabs my own 802.11 connection. It just does. Agencies shouldn't be required to sort this out; it would be a law enforcement nightmare. In fact, it's
"In many [western] countries, peoples' diet changed substantially in the second half of the twentieth century, generally with increases in consumption of meat, dairy products, vegetable oils, fruit juice, and alcoholic beverages, and decreases in consumption of starchy staple foods such as bread, potatoes, rice, and maize flour. Other aspects of lifestyle also changed, notably, large reductions in physical activity and large increases in the prevalence of obesity."[18]
"It was noted in the 1970s that people in many western countries had diets high in animal products, fat, and sugar, and high rates of cancers of the colorectum, breast, prostate, endometrium, and lung; by contrast, individuals in developing countries usually had diets that were based on one or two starchy staple foods, with low intakes of animal products, fat, and sugar, and low rates of these cancers."[18]
"These observations suggest that the diets [or lifestyle] of different populations might partly determine their rates of cancer, and the basis for this hypothesis was strengthened by results of studies showing that people who migrate from one country to another generally acquire the cancer rates of the new host country, suggesting that environmental [or lifestyle factors] rather than genetic factors are the key determinants of the international variation in cancer rates."[18]
See also:
Scientists estimate that most cancers are associated with factors related to how we live, called lifestyle factors. Evidence reviewed by the American Cancer Society suggests that about one-third of the 550,000 cancer deaths that occur in the United States each year is due to dietary factors (for example, excess calories, high fat, and low fibre). Another third is due to cigarette smoking. Other lifestyle factors which increase the risk for cancer include drinking heavily, lack of regular physical exercise, promiscuous sexual behavior,
And not only does the extra vitamin D help prevent cancer, but just not putting a chemical-laden substance on your body also helps prevent cancer. While I'm sure there are some safe, quality sun screens you can get at the health food store, most of what people are pouring all over them and their kids contain harsh chemicals:
The main chemical used in sun lotions to filter out ultraviolet light may be TOXIC, particularly when exposed to sunshine.
Octyl methoxycinnamate (OMC), which is present in 90 per cent of sunscreen brands, was found to kill mouse cells even at low doses in a study by Norwegian scientists.
It is not certain that the effects on mice are repeated in human beings, although the findings reported in New Scientist magazine suggest that human cells could be damaged if a sunscreen containing OMC penetrates the outer layer of dead skin and comes into contact with living tissue.
Terje Christensen, a biophysicist from the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, near Oslo, said her research showed that sunscreens should be treated with caution, and used only when it was impractical to stay indoors or to shield the skin from the sun with clothes.
The chemical is used as a filter for the more harmful UVB light. In Dr Christensen's study, mouse tissue grown in culture was treated with a solution of OMC at five parts per million - a much lower concentration than in sunscreens. Half the cells treated with OMC died, compared with fewer than 10 per cent in a control experiment.
When researchers shone a lamp for two hours to simulate midday sunshine, more cells died. Dr Christensen suggested that the reaction between OMC and sunlight created an effect that was twice as toxic as the chemical alone.
The Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association, which represents sunscreen manufacturers in Britain, said that OMC "has been thoroughly tested for safety" and was approved by regulatory authorities in Europe and the US.
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
We ALL need sunshine to stay healthy. It is one of the essential ingredients for staying healthy. It is not the perniciously evil item that traditional medicine suggests that it is.
That does not mean that we should all go out and get sunburned. That should be avoided as it is likely to lead to an increase in skin cancer. However, prudent exposure to the sun, integrating the listening to your body concept, will not.
Adding sun screens is NOT a good way to limit your sun exposure. Staying out of the sun early on in the season and limiting your exposure until your system adjusts by increasing melanin pigmentation in your skin is.
Additionally, consuming many whole vegetables will increase antioxidant levels in the body which will also provide protection against any sun induced radiation damage.
So the bottom line is to avoid the sun screens. They are not necessary and will actually increase your risk of disease.
This cliche has achieved near universal acceptance because of sheer repetition; it has been repeated so often that people assume it must be true. However, only by some tortured application of Orwellian "Newspeak" can the UN be referred to as a "peace" organization.
During the summer of 1945, Ambassador J. Reuben Clark, Jr., one of America's foremost scholars in the field of international law, prepared an analysis of the UN Charter. His learned appraisal and cogent remarks fly in the face of popular platitudes and conventional "wisdom" concerning the "revered" document. Ambassador Clark's examination led him to conclude that the Charter "is a war document not a peace document," and that it "is built to prepare for war, not to promote peace." The Ambassador noted:
[T]here is no provision in the Charter itself that contemplates ending war. It is true the Charter provides for force to bring peace, but such use of force is itself war.33
Moreover, said Ambassador Clark,
Not only does the Charter Organization not prevent future wars, but it makes practically certain that we shall have future wars, and as to such wars it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose the side on which we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting.34
The Ambassador's predictions were soon borne out -- first in Korea and then in Vietnam, the first two wars America fought with UN involvement and the only two which the United States has ever failed to win.35
Dr. J. B. Matthews, former chief investigator for the House Committee on Un-American Activities and one of America's outstanding scholars on Marxist-Leninist theory and practice, was but one of many leading Americans who exposed the UN-as-peace-dove myth. Dr. Matthews was not one to mince words. "I challenge the illusion that the UN is an instrument of peace," he said. "It could not be less of a cruel hoax if it had been organized in Hell for the sole purpose of aiding and abetting the destruction of the United States."36 Senator William Langer (R-ND), one of only two senators with enough courage and foresight to vote against the UN Charter, said "I feel from the bottom of my heart that the adoption of the Charter... will mean perpetuating war."37
The UN's monstrous war against the people of Katanga should forever lay to rest any reference to the UN as a peace organization. The UN and its supporters may persist in the charade of calling the UN's warmaking powers "peacemaking" or "peacekeeping," but no sensible person of goodwill should give the slightest credence to such patently deceitful abuse of language.
The UN is the world's best hope for peace? Yeah...
on
U.S. Won't Let Go of DNS
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The UN is the world's last best hope for peace.
This cliche has achieved near universal acceptance because of sheer repetition; it has been repeated so often that people assume it must be true. However, only by some tortured application of Orwellian "Newspeak" can the UN be referred to as a "peace" organization.
During the summer of 1945, Ambassador J. Reuben Clark, Jr., one of America's foremost scholars in the field of international law, prepared an analysis of the UN Charter. His learned appraisal and cogent remarks fly in the face of popular platitudes and conventional "wisdom" concerning the "revered" document. Ambassador Clark's examination led him to conclude that the Charter "is a war document not a peace document," and that it "is built to prepare for war, not to promote peace." The Ambassador noted:
[T]here is no provision in the Charter itself that contemplates ending war. It is true the Charter provides for force to bring peace, but such use of force is itself war.33
Moreover, said Ambassador Clark,
Not only does the Charter Organization not prevent future wars, but it makes practically certain that we shall have future wars, and as to such wars it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose the side on which we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting.34
The Ambassador's predictions were soon borne out -- first in Korea and then in Vietnam, the first two wars America fought with UN involvement and the only two which the United States has ever failed to win.35
Dr. J. B. Matthews, former chief investigator for the House Committee on Un-American Activities and one of America's outstanding scholars on Marxist-Leninist theory and practice, was but one of many leading Americans who exposed the UN-as-peace-dove myth. Dr. Matthews was not one to mince words. "I challenge the illusion that the UN is an instrument of peace," he said. "It could not be less of a cruel hoax if it had been organized in Hell for the sole purpose of aiding and abetting the destruction of the United States."36 Senator William Langer (R-ND), one of only two senators with enough courage and foresight to vote against the UN Charter, said "I feel from the bottom of my heart that the adoption of the Charter... will mean perpetuating war."37
The UN's monstrous war against the people of Katanga should forever lay to rest any reference to the UN as a peace organization. The UN and its supporters may persist in the charade of calling the UN's warmaking powers "peacemaking" or "peacekeeping," but no sensible person of goodwill should give the slightest credence to such patently deceitful abuse of language.
Just like what is happening in the music industry
on
P2P and TV
·
· Score: 1
With MP3s eating the big guys, a lot of little people will figure out how to make a good living out of the music industry, instead of a few select people getting filthy freaking rich. So what it confuses the tabloids because they can't figure out who is a "star?" In the end, music will be better off, and I could give a rats ass if we don't have any more Madonnas or Michael Jacksons. I work hard for my money and I could care less if a hand full of suits and lawyers are pissed because their game is up.
As the fat cats die off, I think music will become more localized. And what's wrong with that? I would much rather see a lot of local bands across the country make 30 grand a year giving away MP3s as promotions for their concerts...than Michael Jackson becoming so filthy rich he can build elaborate theme parks to use as nothing more than foreplay for his slightly twisted version of Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. And be fair, nobody should have to ride that one.
Do some research on the relationship between cancer and stem cells. Very interesting stuff. Here is some information from Forbes Magazine:
Do stem cells cause cancer? Asks the cover of the latest (Dec. 27) issue of Forbes Magazine,
Dirks and a handful of other mavericks argue that this indiscriminate approach is wrongheaded. They believe a single type of cell may be cancer's main growth engine:mutant stem cells that, though barely present, spawn other cells that then spark growth. "This has profound implications," says researcher Thomas Look of Boston's Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. "The major cells you see under a microscope may not be the ones you need to kill in order to cure the disease." He adds that the theory "is definitely still very controversial" in some quarters.
Figure out a way to isolate these mutant cells and target only them, Dirks says, and maybe cancer can be stopped outright--and the kids he treats might stop dying so soon after he operates.
These mutant stem cells already have been found in breast cancer, two types of leukemia and multiple myeloma. This fall Dirks and six scientists at the University of Toronto proved the existence of the cells in human brain tumors, pinpointing a small group of cells believed to be the driver of the tumors' growth. "In every brain tumor we have looked at, in both adults and kids, we are able to find these cells," Dirks says.
-=-=-=-=-=
From the web:
In 1902, Beard had called attention to the role of "totipotent germ cells" in the development of cancer. In embryology, the word "totipotent" means that a cell is capable of giving rise to all types of differentiated cells found in that organism. This anticipated the contemporary attention to totipotent stem cells, although human embryonic stem cells (ESC) were not isolated until 1998 (16). Human ESCs are described as totipotent and in fact they release hCG (17,18). The relationship between Beard's totipotent germ cells and contemporary totipotent stem cells deserves further study.
-=-=-=-=-= Also from the web:
This is significant because to isolate the stem cells, scientists peel away the trophoblast
Slashdot Mirror
What if people had these two round things in their head that could "organically" transfer images to a self-contained "super computer" located somewhere above their arms and shoulders. And what if, instead of taking pictures of the magazines with phones, these horrid people read all the good magazine articles and then put the magazine back on the stand, unpurchased!
And what if some book stores facilitated this copyright theft by putting big comfy chairs and couches all about the establishment?
If you think prohibition and the drug war were/are bad, wait until the copyright war swings into full gear. The jack-booted DEA agents kicking in the wrong door by mistake is bad enough, but the copyright police aren't going to have that problem...because virtually EVERYONE violates copyright law in some form or fashion.
Usurper_ii
it looks like the remanufactures could come up with an alternative printer/cartidge, selling them at much more reasonable prices, and still make a nice profit. Do the other manufactures have a Microsoft-type thing going that keeps other people out of the market, or are their products so good that it makes it too high an entry barrior into the market.
I know a lot of these manufactures make most of their money selling the cartidges...but I actually way the cost of refills into my printer purchases, and if I saw a reasonably priced printer with a reasonable cartridge replacement/refill policy, that is the one I would spend my hard earned money on.
Usurper_ii
When you are shooting at buses, ambulances, helicopters, police, etc., that's NOT survival mode. That is more correctly, "Road Warrior" mode.
Figuring out a way purify and drink the water that flooded your house, that's survival mode. Figuring out a way to cook that coon that was up on your roof, that's survival mode. Shooting at the looters trying to steal what's left of your grandmothers silver, that's survival mode.
Trying to steal a large plasma screen TV in the middle of that, that's just being a very low-life criminal.
Usurper_ii
Stalin believed that Darwinian evolution was just a bouguoise concept. He believed in Lamarckian evolution and directed his agricultural ministry to ignore studies that supported Darwinain evolution. Their agricultural industry suffered and people went hungry in the process.
That statement makes no sense whatsoever. So a nation has to believe in evolution to feed its people? For lack of better terminology at the time, that's stupid.
Stalin was a communist murderer. Communism, on a national level, is never voluntary. Stalin purposely withheld food to kill off people who didn't want to "join the group." The amount of people Hitler killed was a drop in the bucket compared to the number of people Stalin killed.
Usurper_ii
I agree and this is the exact same reasoning that led me to the certifications I have now. As far as cost, I guess it all depends on your priorities. While spending a couple of hundred bucks on a piece of paper may sound bad, when compared to taking college courses, it isn't unreasonable.
3 98
Back in my younger days, I accumulated a CD collection of between four - five hundred CDs (not to mention all the concerts I went to). True, a lot of used and discounted CDs, but still a fair amount of money invested. I have made up my mind that if I managed to waste all the money I wasted on music over the years, I can spend a couple of hundred bucks once or twice a year and not feel guilty about it. So what I have been doing is setting goals for things I want to learn, learning it, and getting a certificate to prove that I learned it.
Jay Banks
FCC GROL
NARTE certified Technician (Jr) (www.narte.org)
Brainbench certified Telecommunications Specialist
Brainbench certified Network Support Specialist
HAM Tech License (KE5FAL)
(Next: Network+, which isn't as easy as it used to be.)
see: http://www.brainbench.com/transcript.jsp?pid=5584
I have heard all of my life of oil companies buying the rights to stuff like this to keep it off the market. I wonder if an "open source" type of atmosphere for inventions like this will help them actually see light of day? It is interesting to see things big money can't control.
It seems to me that if we had a choice between a car that never needed refueling and a car that used substance X, which just happened to be sold at the place that used to sell gas, the powers that be would push the latter, just because there needs to be these stores on the corner that sell something to make cars go. That's the way it has always been done, right?
Maybe someone will come up with MP3s for auto fuel and upset the way things are done. That's what needs to be done because the corps are only going to push technologies that have reoccurring revenue that benefits the system they thrive on.
Usurper_ii
True, but if you are limited to line of sight, and, due to the geographical location, you can only get three customers off of an access point, it isn't financially viable to offer service. You have a lot of expenses involved with this. The backend, tower rent, back hauls, routing equipment, it all adds up quick. The only way it is going to be profitable is to sign up more people off of that expensive access point. And you can't do that with line of sight technology, unless, as noted, you just happen to end up in a fantastic location (e.g. you live on a mountain slope with few trees, put the access points at the top of the mountain, and sign up 100 customers who all just happen to be line of sight down below).
I have a friend who used to work with me. He left and formed his own wireless Net company using 900 Mhz, which is the best option for commercial near-line-of-sight equipment there is on the market right now in the unlicensed spectrum. Last week he had an access point, two backhauls, and some routing equipment hit by lightening. He lost approx. 4000.00 worth of equipment. Luckily, he said, he only had three customers going off of that access point. 4000.00 to get 3 customers? True he hasn't been going that long, and maybe could get more, but what he is experiencing is what I have seen as well...with the limited coverage area of line of sight technology, you can't build a customer base big enough to pay for the equipment (with a few exceptions, of course). It looks like 900 Mhz is working about two miles through light tree coverage (and by light, I mean two or three rows of trees between the access point and the SM. Throw a hill or a building in the way, and you can forget about it).
I'm not going to sit here and say that nobody is making money on wireless Internet. What I am going to say is that the people that are making the REAL money out of it is the companies selling all the equipment that half-ass works in the real world. And buddy, Motorola has made a mint off of its expensive Canopy equipment.
Usurper_ii
As I mentioned in an above post, unless the houses are in a great location, you would have to have a large number of access points to reach these SMs mounted on posts.
Even with 900 Mhz, you still have line of sight issues unless you are very close to the access point. Putting the SM on a telephone post helps the problem, but it does not solve the problem because in many cases the trees are still higher than the pole. The only real-world solution is more access points, that would have to mounted very high, and in ***great locations***.
These access points are what 1000.00? 1500.00? And you still have to feed these with either some type of backhaul equipment or backend Internet connection. Motorola backhaul equipment is more expensive than the access points. And how many customers would you have to sign up to pay for business DSL, ISDN or T1 at feed a large number Access points geographically spread out?
I think the Motorola over power lines thing looks good, but it is actually a lot of smoke and mirrors.
Usurper_ii
The wireless future will belong to the first company to have a large coverage radius that does not have to be line of sight.
I work at a company that does Canopy wireless broadband and it works great, IF you can see the tower.
The problem with putting a canopy unit on an electric pole and feeding it in through the power lines, is that you would have to put an access point every two blocks to have the needed line of sight to feed the SM, which in turn pumps it into the house (unless your town happens to be in a desert or West Texas).
Those Canopy Access points are very expensive. Those canopy SMs are very expensive. Even using 900 MHz, which does better through trees, the sheer volume of Canopy access points needed to cover any fair amount of territory is going to be too cost prohibitive.
While it isn't perfect either, the closest thing to a cost effective wireless internet plan would be MESHing 802.11 using custom built equipment.
See: http://www.locustworld.com/
I went and checked out a guy who had a small town MESHed with 802.11 using Locustworld.com software and access points he built himself for around 500.00 or less. He had almost 100 customers working nice, some even through moderate tree coverage. I will say that what he was doing worked better than our Canopy setup...which has tens of thousands of dollars tied up in equipment. And the advantage to this is, if the customers are close enough, you don't have to have a subscriber module at the customer's house that cost 400.00 a piece.
I say the only people making money with Motorola Canopy are the few WISPs in fantastic locations...and Motorola!
Usurper_ii
On the other hand, there are plenty of instances where the government gets money and it shouldn't. For instance, some guy is speeding and hits my car. Police give him several tickets for failing to obey speed, control car, wear seatbelt, etc. Who does the guy pay his tickets to? The State. Now my car was damaged, but the State figured out a way to make money out of it. How does that work out?
Some guy breaks into a house and gets caught. He does some time, for which the tax payers pay his room and board, and then he gets out on probation. Who does this guy have to pay every month as part of his probation? Not the person whose house he broke into, but...the State.
In Texas, they now have a law that if you get a DWI, you have to pay 1000.00 (1st offense, it's 1000.00 a year for X amount of years for 2nd offenses) to the state of Texas, ON TOP of your fines to the city/county/court etc., you get caught in.
How exactly did that work out? Most probably, "We need money for some program, lets figure out a way to screw someone out of 1000.00 and see if we can get away with it."
I say, there is a big difference between protecting the public, and using them as a source of revenue. Especially when the public already pays taxes that is supposed to pay for this stuff. But it looks like they are getting it from all sides, and it never seems to be enough.
Usurper_ii
I once saved an article, I think from the NY Times, about gangs moving onto the Internet. They could not, however, gather any useful information from these "barely computer literate" gang members because they used CODE WORDS in place of what they really meant. Now imagine, no heavy encryption, no PGP, just plain text from teenage punks...and they couldn't get anything useful because they used CODE words.
Intercepting terrorists messages isn't their goal. If they can't stop LA gangbangers from using the Net to communicate, they sure can't stop hard core terrorists, who are surely smart enough to use more than just code words.
What they really want to keep tabs on is the 99.9% of the Net who aren't terrorists and aren't using encryption and simple code words.
Man, I wished I could find that article!
Usurper_ii
When I first started getting these e-mails and faxes, I thought the scam was that they got your bank routing information and transferred money out of your account. I never could see how someone just having your account number could let them withdraw money from your account.
What really baffles me now, seeing that that wasn't the scam at all, is that someone willing to hop on a plane and fly to Nigeria, obviously has a little money. I mean, if someone asked me to fly to Nigeria, I couldn't go even if I wanted to. So someone who does go, obviously has a little money to burn. I can't imagine someone who has the brains to make that kind of money is dumb enough to fall for this. What kind of people actually are dumber than dirt and have a large amount of money? Did they win it at the state lotto? Did they win it in Vegas? Did they steal it to begin with? Did they inherit it from a relative who did have some brains? I just don't get it...but I highly doubt anyone who falls for this actually worked to get their money.
Usurper_ii
It seems like our entire economy is based top to bottom on how much you can screw somebody. An electrician's car breaks down, the mechanic screws him for just as much money as he thinks he can get away with, but that's ok because the electrician will screw you for just as much money as he can possibly suck out of you. And then all three of you get sick and go to a freaking doctor...who screws all three of you and your insurance company, if any of the bunch is lucky enough to have insurance. And then out of this pool of crap, we elect people to office, who promptly start screwing the public for as much money as they think they can possibly get away with without winding up swinging from a rope.
I finally broke down and watched most of Fahrenheit 9/11 tonight (ironically, ripped to my hard drive, off of a rented DVD), and I must say that my blood was boiling half-way through it.
I swear I sometimes wonder how the US has made it as long as it has. It is hard to believe we can remain competitive in the world economy, when so much of our money didn't come from any actual service or product, but rather comes from screwing people. I hope people enjoy it while they can, because one of these days the bubble is going to burst.
It reminds me of the excellent movie, the Devils Advocate. Only in our economy, the devil just isn't a lawyer, he is a doctor, a mechanic, the retail stores, the RIAA/MPAA, the politicians, the insurance companies, the salesmen, the retail stores, the manufacturers, the customers etc. etc., and each and every one of them is setting out to drown us in a sea of their dishonesty.
Usurper_ii
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._F alwell
Though it was overturned at the Supreme Court, Larry Flynt was told that his parody was not libel by the court, yet he had to pay 200,000 dollars in damagement.
Imagine a court in the United States of America telling someone that they produced a legal parody ad...and then making them pay 200,000.00 in "damages." Yeah, as noted above he took it all the way to the top and got it overturned, but how much money did he have to spend to do so?
Usurper_ii
But it turns out that they were wrong...
see: http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/FirstAmend.htm
usurper_ii
I once changed the system clock on a computer by accident. It managed to lock me out of a critical app, heavy on the DRM, and caused me to have to spend 30 minutes to an hour online with the key-gods to get me back into the app. I can think of other problems caused by a date change, as well, especially in a corporate environment.
If the goal here is stress relief...messing with the clock may not be the right direction to head in!
Usurper_ii
A picture is worth a 1000 words
...and a few chuckles
I think it is more like, people don't mind paying a fair price for something of quality. If the original Napster hadn't been shut down, iTunes would have all of 25 or 30 customers. On the original Napster, you could find every song, no matter how obscure, and easily download it. Yes, things replaced Napster, but there was a lot of time, failed downloads, and poor quality involved in the replacements. While you can still get free songs, heck for .99 cents, you can just go and get it from iTunes and know it is going to be good quality. So maybe you are partly right, but I think it is more a combination of lawsuits and iTunes just plain making it easier...and let's face it, people are lazy.
Usurper_ii
Your post reminded me of a good Dvorak commentary that came out about a year or so ago. -- Usurper_ii
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1565274,00.as p
By John C. Dvorak
To drive around looking for connections to open wireless access points is called wardriving. In Canada, people who are caught doing this can be arrested for stealing bandwidth. The legality of this practice in the U.S., however, is a bit hazy, and there are many mitigating factors. One is that several organizations deliberately leave access points unencrypted so that people can use them as necessary. Also, many computers with built-in wireless simply grab the first signal they detect. Then there's the trespassing issue: The wardriver isn't trespassing on the router, the router is trespassing on the wardriver's airspace.
Free Access
This issue was brought home to me recently when one of my laptops told me it was ready to install new Windows XP upgrades, even though the laptop was not on a network and my wireless access point was off-line. I discovered that a neighbor's wireless router, named "default," had provided the access. Using my Toshiba's View Wireless Connections option, I saw five nearby networks that I could grab, three of which were unencrypted. Obviously there's plenty of free access around for harried travelers. It seems to me that being able to download your e-mail at an open connection is a good thing.
Look into the legality of this, though, and you hear vague comments like "The FBI doesn't know how legal it is" or "It may be illegal, because you're using someone else's connection or you're spying on their network." This issue will create ridiculous legal problems, which is bad news for both consumers and law enforcement, unless a sensible, national policy can be developed.
Personal and Corporate Responsibility
Let me jump in and propose a simple, logical public policy. Law enforcement doesn't need to get involved whenever some guy in a doughnut shop poaches a nearby Wi-Fi connection to check his e-mail, thinking he's on the shop's network. This shouldn't be a crime, even if he's intentionally poaching. We must put the burden of responsibility on the broadcaster, not the end user. It has to be made clear that people sending open connections all over town should be responsible for them.
Here's what I propose: Once a wireless signal leaves private property, it becomes public domain. If the person transmitting the signal wants it protected, then encryption is up to him or her. If someone beams an Internet connection into my home and I happen to lock onto the signal, he is trespassing on me, not the other way around. Public policy must reflect this logic. Keep it out of my house if you don't want me using it. Keep it out of my car. Keep it away from me in public places.
The Public Interest
This policy makes sense because it lets anyone who wants to provide open access do so without hassle or fear. Groups in San Francisco and Seattle are openly promoting free 802.11 connectivity. Many coffee shops, restaurants, and community groups now provide free wireless access, and directories of these hot spots are easy to find online.
This ubiquity of access is to be encouraged as in the public interest. But it can't happen if the law doesn't make the person transmitting the 802.11 signal responsible, instead of blaming any roaming users who are simply grabbing open connections. If this means that a corporate network is wide open to hackers, because the company doesn't bother encrypting the signal it broadcasts all over town, then so be it.
We must not follow the Canadian model that views using unprotected 802.11 connections as bandwidth theft. My computer grabs wireless signals impinging on my house more often than it grabs my own 802.11 connection. It just does. Agencies shouldn't be required to sort this out; it would be a law enforcement nightmare. In fact, it's
"In many [western] countries, peoples' diet changed substantially in the second half of the twentieth century, generally with increases in consumption of meat, dairy products, vegetable oils, fruit juice, and alcoholic beverages, and decreases in consumption of starchy staple foods such as bread, potatoes, rice, and maize flour. Other aspects of lifestyle also changed, notably, large reductions in physical activity and large increases in the prevalence of obesity."[18]
"It was noted in the 1970s that people in many western countries had diets high in animal products, fat, and sugar, and high rates of cancers of the colorectum, breast, prostate, endometrium, and lung; by contrast, individuals in developing countries usually had diets that were based on one or two starchy staple foods, with low intakes of animal products, fat, and sugar, and low rates of these cancers."[18]
"These observations suggest that the diets [or lifestyle] of different populations might partly determine their rates of cancer, and the basis for this hypothesis was strengthened by results of studies showing that people who migrate from one country to another generally acquire the cancer rates of the new host country, suggesting that environmental [or lifestyle factors] rather than genetic factors are the key determinants of the international variation in cancer rates."[18]
See also:
Scientists estimate that most cancers are associated with factors related to how we live, called lifestyle factors. Evidence reviewed by the American Cancer Society suggests that about one-third of the 550,000 cancer deaths that occur in the United States each year is due to dietary factors (for example, excess calories, high fat, and low fibre). Another third is due to cigarette smoking. Other lifestyle factors which increase the risk for cancer include drinking heavily, lack of regular physical exercise, promiscuous sexual behavior,
And not only does the extra vitamin D help prevent cancer, but just not putting a chemical-laden substance on your body also helps prevent cancer. While I'm sure there are some safe, quality sun screens you can get at the health food store, most of what people are pouring all over them and their kids contain harsh chemicals:
http://www.mercola.com/2000/oct/15/sunscreen.htm
The main chemical used in sun lotions to filter out ultraviolet light may be TOXIC, particularly when exposed to sunshine.
Octyl methoxycinnamate (OMC), which is present in 90 per cent of sunscreen brands, was found to kill mouse cells even at low doses in a study by Norwegian scientists.
It is not certain that the effects on mice are repeated in human beings, although the findings reported in New Scientist magazine suggest that human cells could be damaged if a sunscreen containing OMC penetrates the outer layer of dead skin and comes into contact with living tissue.
Terje Christensen, a biophysicist from the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, near Oslo, said her research showed that sunscreens should be treated with caution, and used only when it was impractical to stay indoors or to shield the skin from the sun with clothes.
The chemical is used as a filter for the more harmful UVB light. In Dr Christensen's study, mouse tissue grown in culture was treated with a solution of OMC at five parts per million - a much lower concentration than in sunscreens. Half the cells treated with OMC died, compared with fewer than 10 per cent in a control experiment.
When researchers shone a lamp for two hours to simulate midday sunshine, more cells died. Dr Christensen suggested that the reaction between OMC and sunlight created an effect that was twice as toxic as the chemical alone.
The Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association, which represents sunscreen manufacturers in Britain, said that OMC "has been thoroughly tested for safety" and was approved by regulatory authorities in Europe and the US.
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
We ALL need sunshine to stay healthy. It is one of the essential ingredients for staying healthy. It is not the perniciously evil item that traditional medicine suggests that it is.
That does not mean that we should all go out and get sunburned. That should be avoided as it is likely to lead to an increase in skin cancer. However, prudent exposure to the sun, integrating the listening to your body concept, will not.
Adding sun screens is NOT a good way to limit your sun exposure. Staying out of the sun early on in the season and limiting your exposure until your system adjusts by increasing melanin pigmentation in your skin is.
Additionally, consuming many whole vegetables will increase antioxidant levels in the body which will also provide protection against any sun induced radiation damage.
So the bottom line is to avoid the sun screens. They are not necessary and will actually increase your risk of disease.
Related Articles:
Absorbing Titanium from Sunscreens
Sunscreens Don't Prevent Melanoma
Remember Katanga:t ml
... will mean perpetuating war."37
http://www.neusysinc.com/columnarchive/colm0036.h
-=-=-=-=-=
The UN is the world's last best hope for peace?
This cliche has achieved near universal acceptance because of sheer repetition; it has been repeated so often that people assume it must be true. However, only by some tortured application of Orwellian "Newspeak" can the UN be referred to as a "peace" organization.
During the summer of 1945, Ambassador J. Reuben Clark, Jr., one of America's foremost scholars in the field of international law, prepared an analysis of the UN Charter. His learned appraisal and cogent remarks fly in the face of popular platitudes and conventional "wisdom" concerning the "revered" document. Ambassador Clark's examination led him to conclude that the Charter "is a war document not a peace document," and that it "is built to prepare for war, not to promote peace." The Ambassador noted:
[T]here is no provision in the Charter itself that contemplates ending war. It is true the Charter provides for force to bring peace, but such use of force is itself war.33
Moreover, said Ambassador Clark,
Not only does the Charter Organization not prevent future wars, but it makes practically certain that we shall have future wars, and as to such wars it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose the side on which we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting.34
The Ambassador's predictions were soon borne out -- first in Korea and then in Vietnam, the first two wars America fought with UN involvement and the only two which the United States has ever failed to win.35
Dr. J. B. Matthews, former chief investigator for the House Committee on Un-American Activities and one of America's outstanding scholars on Marxist-Leninist theory and practice, was but one of many leading Americans who exposed the UN-as-peace-dove myth. Dr. Matthews was not one to mince words. "I challenge the illusion that the UN is an instrument of peace," he said. "It could not be less of a cruel hoax if it had been organized in Hell for the sole purpose of aiding and abetting the destruction of the United States."36 Senator William Langer (R-ND), one of only two senators with enough courage and foresight to vote against the UN Charter, said "I feel from the bottom of my heart that the adoption of the Charter
The UN's monstrous war against the people of Katanga should forever lay to rest any reference to the UN as a peace organization. The UN and its supporters may persist in the charade of calling the UN's warmaking powers "peacemaking" or "peacekeeping," but no sensible person of goodwill should give the slightest credence to such patently deceitful abuse of language.
The UN is the world's last best hope for peace.
... will mean perpetuating war."37
This cliche has achieved near universal acceptance because of sheer repetition; it has been repeated so often that people assume it must be true. However, only by some tortured application of Orwellian "Newspeak" can the UN be referred to as a "peace" organization.
During the summer of 1945, Ambassador J. Reuben Clark, Jr., one of America's foremost scholars in the field of international law, prepared an analysis of the UN Charter. His learned appraisal and cogent remarks fly in the face of popular platitudes and conventional "wisdom" concerning the "revered" document. Ambassador Clark's examination led him to conclude that the Charter "is a war document not a peace document," and that it "is built to prepare for war, not to promote peace." The Ambassador noted:
[T]here is no provision in the Charter itself that contemplates ending war. It is true the Charter provides for force to bring peace, but such use of force is itself war.33
Moreover, said Ambassador Clark,
Not only does the Charter Organization not prevent future wars, but it makes practically certain that we shall have future wars, and as to such wars it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose the side on which we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting.34
The Ambassador's predictions were soon borne out -- first in Korea and then in Vietnam, the first two wars America fought with UN involvement and the only two which the United States has ever failed to win.35
Dr. J. B. Matthews, former chief investigator for the House Committee on Un-American Activities and one of America's outstanding scholars on Marxist-Leninist theory and practice, was but one of many leading Americans who exposed the UN-as-peace-dove myth. Dr. Matthews was not one to mince words. "I challenge the illusion that the UN is an instrument of peace," he said. "It could not be less of a cruel hoax if it had been organized in Hell for the sole purpose of aiding and abetting the destruction of the United States."36 Senator William Langer (R-ND), one of only two senators with enough courage and foresight to vote against the UN Charter, said "I feel from the bottom of my heart that the adoption of the Charter
The UN's monstrous war against the people of Katanga should forever lay to rest any reference to the UN as a peace organization. The UN and its supporters may persist in the charade of calling the UN's warmaking powers "peacemaking" or "peacekeeping," but no sensible person of goodwill should give the slightest credence to such patently deceitful abuse of language.
With MP3s eating the big guys, a lot of little people will figure out how to make a good living out of the music industry, instead of a few select people getting filthy freaking rich. So what it confuses the tabloids because they can't figure out who is a "star?" In the end, music will be better off, and I could give a rats ass if we don't have any more Madonnas or Michael Jacksons. I work hard for my money and I could care less if a hand full of suits and lawyers are pissed because their game is up.
As the fat cats die off, I think music will become more localized. And what's wrong with that? I would much rather see a lot of local bands across the country make 30 grand a year giving away MP3s as promotions for their concerts...than Michael Jackson becoming so filthy rich he can build elaborate theme parks to use as nothing more than foreplay for his slightly twisted version of Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. And be fair, nobody should have to ride that one.
Usurper_ii
Do some research on the relationship between cancer and stem cells. Very interesting stuff. Here is some information from Forbes Magazine:
Do stem cells cause cancer? Asks the cover of the latest (Dec. 27) issue of Forbes Magazine,
Dirks and a handful of other mavericks argue that this indiscriminate approach is wrongheaded. They believe a single type of cell may be cancer's main growth engine:mutant stem cells that, though barely present, spawn other cells that then spark growth. "This has profound implications," says researcher Thomas Look of Boston's Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. "The major cells you see under a microscope may not be the ones you need to kill in order to cure the disease." He adds that the theory "is definitely still very controversial" in some quarters.
Figure out a way to isolate these mutant cells and target only them, Dirks says, and maybe cancer can be stopped outright--and the kids he treats might stop dying so soon after he operates.
These mutant stem cells already have been found in breast cancer, two types of leukemia and multiple myeloma. This fall Dirks and six scientists at the University of Toronto proved the existence of the cells in human brain tumors, pinpointing a small group of cells believed to be the driver of the tumors' growth. "In every brain tumor we have looked at, in both adults and kids, we are able to find these cells," Dirks says.
-=-=-=-=-=
From the web:
In 1902, Beard had called attention to the role of "totipotent germ cells" in the development of cancer. In embryology, the word "totipotent" means that a cell is capable of giving rise to all types of differentiated cells found in that organism. This anticipated the contemporary attention to totipotent stem cells, although human embryonic stem cells (ESC) were not isolated until 1998 (16). Human ESCs are described as totipotent and in fact they release hCG (17,18). The relationship between Beard's totipotent germ cells and contemporary totipotent stem cells deserves further study.
-=-=-=-=-=
Also from the web:
This is significant because to isolate the stem cells, scientists peel away the trophoblast