Sure she was hurt, but $400,000 for being out of commission for 8 days?
You think third degree burns requiring skin grafts take only 8 days to heal? I bet we could find enough people around here to scrape together $400,000 if you allow us to pour scalding hot coffee into your lap and cause third degree burns to your genitals. Still interested? I didn't think so.
I know a guy who had a heart attack. They rushed him to the hospital and while there he got a staph infection.
How can you blame the doctor for this? The hospital and its procedures are usually to blame for these kinds of infections. If you've ever had any experience in a hospital, you'll know that outside of surgery, you see the doctor for a total of about 2 minutes during your entire stay, whereas the nurses, orderlies and residents disturbing you can drive you bonkers. Although its possible to be infected during surgery, I think its more likely to be infected by bacteria entering after surgery from the skin through the operative site. The instrumentation used during surgery is thoroughly sterilized and any hospital caught violating this procedure would be shut down by JCAHO immediately.
Also, us patients are as much to blame for the virulent staph infections. Staphylococcus Aureus is an extremely common bacteria, is frequently present on the surface of the skin, and is responsible for many common skin ailments such as boils, sties, abscesses and folliculitis (infected hair follical). What causes such a problem in hospitals is that the strains found there frequently don't respond to the standard round of antibiotics, and thus become extremely dangerous to high-risk patients (like heart-attack victims). The reason for these antibiotic-resistant strains? Primarily improper use of antibiotics. There are some basic simple rules about antibiotic usage that a huge section of society can't seem to follow:
Follow all directions given by the doctor and pharmacy exactly (that includes dosage schedules).
Take ALL of the antibiotics prescribed, even if you feel better
Never save leftover antibiotics for later use
Never take anyone elses prescription
These are not difficult rules to follow, but you'd be surpised at how many people refuse to do so. My own (extended) family members insist on taking antibiotics just until they feel better, and then saving the remainder for "next time." Time and again, I've explained that if they don't completely erradicate the bacteria, these antibiotics won't be very effective the next time. They just dismiss what I say as coming from a young "know it all." These same family members also tell us to go get antibiotics when one of our children has a cold. I've also tried to patiently explain that antibiotics do nothing to get rid of a virus, and that it doesn't make sense to treat for a potential secondary infection unless the patient has a history of such. They don't believe me.
So, back to the guy who got the staph infection. Sue the hospital and not the doctor. Although keep in mind that it is just as likely he carried his own infection in with him, and that the infection only became serious due to his weakened condition.
I also hope that the doctors all lose their license and live a life of abject poverty and suffering.
It's also possible that doctors will just stop practicing medicine because of people with a chip on their shoulder like yours. How is that going to make you feel when you need a doctor and can't find one anywhere? Do you enjoy paying such high rates for medical insurance in part because of escalating malpractice costs?
You want to blame somebody for what happened? Fine. But unless you know EXACTLY where the infection came from and how, you have to consider it just as likely that this guy already had the infection when he came into the hospital, and it got much worse because his body could no longer fight it off.
[grammer nazi] For the LAST time, Microsoft IS, sheesh..[/grammer nazi]
You do know that in the UK, the names of companies are frequently paired with the plural form of verbs, right? It might sound funny to those of us in North America, but imagine how much funnier a couple sentences like this sound:
Microsoft
is spreading FUD again. And, they are ignoring the terms of the Antitrust settlement.
To me, this "feels" perfectly normal, but it probably sounds to my friends in the UK like I can't make up my mind. Is Microsoft an "it" or a "they?"
Thanks for the info. I'm seeing now how you are managing. I would like to point out one thing, though. Your neighbors who are living on what you make and require government health care are therefore actually NOT able to live off of the income they receive. Instead, I'm one of the people helping them (I live in PA, too). Also, the University insurance that you are using is most likely subsidized by student tuition or public funding.
The real question is: Could you live off of that income without any public (or semi-public) funding? I actually don't think you could -- at least not in Pittsburgh. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't bring this up to give you a hard time or anything. As a student, it makes sense that you would use the public funding now with the expectation that after graduation you would be contributing to that public funding. You even implied such in your response. However, for those you are not students, this may represent a problem. Obviously, there are many who are not in a position to improve their income. They are doing the best they can at the moment. But for those who are capable of living without requiring government subsidies, and just can't be bothered to do so, it's a problem. It places unnecessary burdens on the rest of the people. This, of course, doesn't mean that you need to be earning six figures or anything like that. But chances are really good that if you are living below the poverty line and are not a student, you are being subsidized by other taxpayers.
On a good note, all of the planning you have to go through right now can be a tremendously rewarding experience. Even when you have a higher income, you'll probably tend to be more frugal and a good saver. This is something that probably everyone should go through -- starting with our Senators and Representatives.
I can pay off all my bills even living under the poverty line, and I'm much happier now than I was when I had more bills-- and a LOT more money.
I really have to ask: If you are living on wages below the poverty line, what can you afford to live in? I don't know of anyone who can manage to live on less than $10,000 a year and still manage to afford food, housing, clothing and transportation unless they team up with others in the same situation. Is this what you're doing? Also, what do you do for health care?
"The court of public opinion" does not ware a black robe with "Judge" embroidered on it.
No, the "court of public opinion" instead wears a green robe with dollar signs embroidered on it.
The Judge, if he / she is worth 10 cents of what it cost to go to law school, will consider the facts, not "the court of public opinion."
Absolutely true, but the damage to be done by public opinion is not in the courts, but rather in the IT spending budgets. A shutdown of spending on Linux due to misperception of the facts is nearly as deadly as SCO winning their suit against IBM.
Or maybe we could just execute them? But, oh wait, we already know that the death penalty isn't a crime deterrent. What makes you think that threatening to take away their license would work?
There are things that many people fear more than death. In fact, there are things so bad that people beg for death. Permanent license revocation and similar measures, although probably not feared more than death, could place enough burden on an individual that they act as a pretty good deterrant. On the other hand, they could also turn somebody into a hardcore criminal looking for a position on "Death Row."
I believe tougher penalties will improve the situation, but still won't eliminate the problem. Probably the best idea is not something that completely destroys the rest of a person's life, but a long trip to a prison where hard labor is still performed might be better -- none of these "country clubs with bars."
Besides, there is a serious logical problem with allowing a person who has been drinking to decide when he is ready to drive again.
Agreed.
Of course, an alternative to this law would be to require that all alcohol-serving establishments have a Breathalyzer easily accessible to its patrons.
I think this might help some, but many would just elect not to use it. What might work much better is a mandatory breathalyzer test prior to exit for all persons sitting at a table where alcohol was served. If the establishment is a bar, everybody gets tested. Unfortunately, this idea will probably draw similar criticism to the auto-breathalyzer.
I still disagree, most especially from the ethical perspective (I actually suspect you agree with me on the ethical perspective, but your first post appeared to be making the opposite point).
I'm haven't completely made up my mind yet. I probably agree with you, but I'm still waiting for this to filter through my value system. I'm also looking at what others have to say to see what viewpoints I may have missed.... such as your argument below....
It was an embryo - I don't think you will contest that. Its process of maturation was aborted. Ergo it was an aborted embryo. I agree that its long term viability was in question, but I don't think the ethics of killing something should have much to do with the fact that it was going to die anyway (isn't everything?).
I hadn't considered it this way. Thanks for providing another perspective.
I think inserting ethical ambiguity there is a big mistake. They are the same.
After reading your argument above, I agree with you.
well i dont have to be sensetive to racists and bigots, why should i be sensitive to someone who is equally ignorant? its like saying oh well because of these peoples religion, they are allowed kill women who have exposed faces. I dont think we should support those kinds of people at all. I would say that being 'sensitive' to something is just another way of saying that you support it, at least on some level.
Are you aware that the tone of your argument ranks you right up there with the bigots and racists? Don't take this as an insult. I'm just pointing it out to you. Regarding religious beliefs, just because their belief system isn't the same as yours doesn't mean they are ignorant. You may find that some people who have different beliefs than you share your knowledge on many topics and still disagree with you. Regarding the killing of women, I don't think that's really a fair comparison. Now, if a group of people is going around killing researchers because they disagree with the ethics of the researchers, the comparison becomes fair.
I would say that being 'sensitive' to something is just another way of saying that you support it, at least on some level.
No. Being sensitive means that you've listened to other viewpoints and are aware of how others feel. It doesn't mean you agree, but it may impact how you deal with dissenters. Not being sensitive to the feelings and beliefs of others is, oddly enough, a form of bigotry in itself.
are you saying that there is some group out there who specifically says that humans shouldnt use anything that comes out of a woman, or a man, for any purpose other than what... natural sex?
Are you aware that some of the more strict Catholic orders do not allow any form of contraception? Based on this, I wouldn't be too surprised to see people opposed to any use of the reproductive system for anything besides natural sex and reproduction.
they already harvest eggs and sperm for use in other people. how is this different?
There are already groups of people who are against this.
It's been found though that the nucleus can be taken out at the beginning of this cycle resulting in an interesting phenomenon where the cloned cell then gets extra telomeres and is potentially superior to the original.
Yeah, I just got done reading an article on that, but I couldn't glean any information speculating on why this is the case. Maybe one of the chemicals used to start cell division was telomerase? Any ideas?
From fat tissue? At last, jobs will go back to Americans!
Thanks for the laugh. I'm having a stressful day and I needed it. The only problem is that the whole advantage of cultivating from fat tissue is that you can generate your own stem cells. If you use somebody else's stem cells, you have to deal with the rejection problem. So, unfortunately, it's not likely I'll have a new career donating fat. Although, I have plenty to spare at the moment. I'd be happy to donate it for research.
How is this an alternative to using aborted fetuses and embryos for harvesting stem cells? This _is_ an aborted embryo (albeit in vitro, but the adults from in vitro embryos seem perfectly normal).
It's not quite the same thing, although some of the same arguments are valid. In this case, there was no "conception" that took place, not even in vitro. In vitro fertilization involves the introduction of sperm to egg outside of the woman's body. However, for this project, they took an egg, removed the nucleus, and replaced it with the genetic material of skin cells (presumably from an adult, but that wasn't clear). Although this could presumably grown into a functional human, I think there would be longevity problems because the amino acid sequences that control cell division (Telomeres) would be greatly shortened and cell arrest would take place much sooner.
Regarding the destruction of an egg cell, a woman's body does this every month, and a woman starts off with over 100,000 eggs, of which obviously almost all are destroyed at some point.
Good point. The difference is that the cells destroyed monthly would be considered "natural" whereas the cloning process is "unnatural". For many, this is probably unimportant, but there are some who possess religious or philosophical beliefs that would greatly oppose this. It's something we have to at least be sensitive to, even if we don't agree with their viewpoint.
That's an interesting point regarding the fat cells - I hadn't heard anything about using them for cloning. Thanks for the info!
Glad I could provide some information. If you're interested, here's an article about it.
If they had implanted the egg into a uterus instead of extracting the stem cells it would have developed into a more or less normal human.
Yes, but unless they have also conquered the problem with Telomeres, the resulting human would at best have a greatly shortened lifespan, and may have all sorts of other problems.
I have mixed feelings on this one. The method they have used provides a viable alternative to using aborted fetuses and embryos for harvesting stem cells and at the same time looks like an answer to the problem of rejection. Aside from the "we shouldn't clone" argument, I think the only other complaint is the use (and destruction) of the egg cell. While this may seem trivial to many, there are some people who will still be very upset by it.
Does anybody know whatever happened with the research on harvesting real adult stem cells from fat tissue? I would think this would solve both the rejection AND Telomeres problems, as presumably these cells would have lain dormant and not used up their life cycle like other cells in the body.
'Don't approve of these practices'?! What practices?
I wasn't referring to the outsourcing of jobs here. I was referring to hiring what amounts to slave labor (where the EMPLOYEE ends up owing the COMPANY money at the end of the week, due to the cost of boarding). I can't find the link at the moment, but there was an article last year concerning WalMart and exactly this kind of business relationship with a company in China. It's this practice that I have a real problem with. My reactions are less severe when the employees are paid and treated in a manner that preserves their human dignity. But this point probably isn't really relevant to our discussion.
I agree we need to be eased into it. This can be done by slowly removing ALL tariffs and barriers currently in place.
While we obviously disagree on the consequences of today's outsourcing movement, this is one point we definitely agree on. All of the long-term benefits that you listed for the outsourcing movement are sound and of course very good. However, it's my opinion that these goals will never be achieved by what we are seeing today. Instead, I feel that there will be a backlash from the consumers (either intentional or due to lack of any money to spend) in countries where corporations are using these tactics which will utlimately cause not only the companies promoting outsourcing to fold, but also companies who have not done so. The whole thing may collapse long before any returns can be seen. If this happens, there is a strong chance that protectionism will be revisited as the new "scheme-of-the-day." Instead, I'm an advocate for a much slower movement in this direction that will more slowly equalize economies and therefore not put such a strain on any one country. I realize, of course, that all of this is all just opinion -- nobody really knows for sure what will happen.
Um, no. Did you read the article you linked? The SAP applications do not work with MySQL as the database, but MySQL AB, the producer of the MySQL database system, is working on another database system called MaxDB which is derived from SAPDB, which was an Adabas-derived DBMS from SAP, open-sourced under the GPL some years ago.
I think the goal is for SAP to work with MySQL AB to integrate some of the more robust features normally found in DBMSs into the mySQL product. I guess that in the meantime they are choosing to offer MaxDB, which probably allows SAP to stop supporting SAPDB and focus their energy on their core products, while still offering a no-cost database solution to their customers.
Then who will you work for? Have you thought this through?
Yes. Have you? If they outsource all of their non-management jobs, nobody here will be working for them, now will they? When they reach that point, they are just occupying space.
We all like to think of corporations as great big evil entities that feed from the trough of the poor and middle class, but this is simply not true.
Uh, yes it is. As long as the stockholders (primarily wealthy individuals), who are so far removed from they workings of a company that they don't have to care how it achieves its results, are getting their returns, corporations will continue to push the boundaries of ethics and morality. We've seen time and time again that these large corporations try to throw their weight around and only correct themselves when the public (their customers) starts getting loud.
Corporations are owned by thousands and thousands of individuals; doctors, teachers, PROGRAMMERS, truck drivers, etc. as shareholders.
Please tell me you don't really think this is true. While I'm sure everyone can cite instances of these types of people holding shares in corporations, they certainly don't "own" the companies they invest in. Most of these people (with the possible exception of doctors) simply cannot afford to buy more than a small piece of the pie. And huge masses in America don't even have a 401K to invest in stocks and mutual funds. Most corporations are largely owned by only a handful of exceedingly wealthy individuals (or other corporations). In many cases, these wealthy individuals are the same ones that made the executive decision to destroy American jobs at some other company.
By taxing the corporation you are preventing them from competing in the global marketplace
As though most of them were "competing" already? Have you taken a look at the trade deficit recently? Do you honestly think that those companies that are "competing" now by outsourcing are going to be able to do so when all of the foreign-based employees they hired take what they have learned and establish a company in their own country that provides the same goods or services?
Taxing is not the way to go.
Agreed, but when you can't trust companies to make the right long-term decisions, you either have to counter it with laws or taxes. Pick the lesser of two evils.
This is a global marketplace.
No, it isn't. It'll be a true global marketplace when I can purchase goods and services from a Chinese or Indian company at the same cost residents of China or India would bear, and when companies in India allow the same outsourcing that goes on here. How many times have you seen that happen?
We all love getting $4 T shirts from Wal-Mart
Not me. I've never approved of these practices.
Unless trade is truly going to be free, jobs have to be protected in some manner. At the very least, companies need to pay the social security costs for jobs that are sent overseas. Because if they don't, there are going to be a BUNCH of unemployed people and no money to pay for them. You really need to think this through. Look at Germany. They have an average unemployment rate in excess of 10%. They have already determined that in less than two decades, the social money collected in taxes will not be able to support the retired and unemployed population. What do you think is going to happen then? Either taxes on individuals or companies are going to increase, or there are going to be a lot of homeless people dying in the streets. Shortly thereafter, there will be a revolution. It happened in Russia. It happened in France. Are you daft enough to think that history doesn't repeat itself?
If you want a free and global economy, you need to ease into it. If you just suddenly take away jobs from people in one country, trouble will break out long before the global economy stabilizes itself. The end result will most likely be the protectionism you so fear.
In all liklihood the judge would declare a mistrial.
If that was the primary concern, you can always render a "not-guilty" verdict without providing any reason for doing so. That way, you are indicating that the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof. That leaves the judge mentally grasping for what piece of information he or she may have missed during the trial.
Just for the record, although IANAL, I'm aware that in criminal cases, a verdit of "not guilty" generally cannot be modified. It's usually a "guilty" verdict that gets disregarded by the judge. If there are some real lawyers out there who can confirm or dispute this, I'd greatly appreciate it. Or maybe even better, a paralegal. PJ, where are you?:-)
Personally, I'd like all corporat tax breaks be removed from any company that outsouces. If it makes them so much money, it shouldn't be a problem, right?
I agree with this 100%. If a company is saving that much money by making the citizens of its country poorer, they can darn well chip in to help put food on the table of the people they rendered "unemployed." If they don't like it, they can just pack their executive managers up and MOVE to the countries they sent their jobs to.
No true jury of his peers would convict him, since chances are they're sick of spam too!:)
I know this was partly tongue-in-cheek, but you're probably right on the sentiment of the jury. However, most jurists are not aware that they can render a vote of "not guilty" even if it is proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the defendant has broken the law. And of course, no judge today would ever let them in on that little secret, either. If you're interested, you should read about Jury Nullification.
Does Linux have a double-click install for 99% of its apps?
The method for installing new software is distribution-dependent. Lindows has 1-click installation. Since starting on Linux (with Slackware), I've seen pretty much everything, including tarballs that need to be compiled and installed by hand, self-extracting archives with built-in installer, and package-based installers. Most of the package-based systems have a graphical installation tool that allows you to browse a catalog of packages and select the applications you want to install. The rest of the work, including dependency checking, is done for you. To me, this is at least as easy as double-clicking an install icon because I can be sure that any dependencies that must also be installed will get the most up to date version available.
On one of my machines, which is running Gentoo, I perform my installations from the command line, but that's as easy as pie. To install Mozilla, I simply type 'emerge mozilla' and it calculates all the dependencies and installs everything needed. And it even gives me the option of installing a pre-compiled (binary) package or compiling from source (which I usually choose because this machine is slow and needs every bit of optimization it can get).
...I think that SPF:Sender will make great strides towards combatting spam...
Here's my favorite quote with respect to SPF:Sender:
All these proposals can run into problems because there are legitimate cases when mail sent by one domain claims to be from another. For example, online greeting-card services will send messages with the return address of the person sending the card, even though the message does not go through the sender's e-mail account.
What's funny about this is that the greeting-card services are NOTORIOUS for selling email addresses as spam-phish in the first place. Hence the reason why I never read email greeting cards anymore.
It's good to see that there is recent news. However, since the project has been reduced to provide only a lightweight VM and is thus only capable of running instances of Linux on Linux, it is far less usefull. Don't get me wrong -- there's still some value in being able to run multiple instances of Linux on the same box. However, I think many were hoping that Plex86 would offer a no-cost gateway to switching from Windows to Linux. For anybody out there who has only one or two pieces of software that keep them on Windows, a free and fully functional virtualization layer would have been very well received. VMWARE is an awesome piece of software, but people who are looking to switch to a FREE OS like Linux are going to balk at having to pay $300 for the transition period.
Slashdot Mirror
You think third degree burns requiring skin grafts take only 8 days to heal? I bet we could find enough people around here to scrape together $400,000 if you allow us to pour scalding hot coffee into your lap and cause third degree burns to your genitals. Still interested? I didn't think so.
How can you blame the doctor for this? The hospital and its procedures are usually to blame for these kinds of infections. If you've ever had any experience in a hospital, you'll know that outside of surgery, you see the doctor for a total of about 2 minutes during your entire stay, whereas the nurses, orderlies and residents disturbing you can drive you bonkers. Although its possible to be infected during surgery, I think its more likely to be infected by bacteria entering after surgery from the skin through the operative site. The instrumentation used during surgery is thoroughly sterilized and any hospital caught violating this procedure would be shut down by JCAHO immediately.
Also, us patients are as much to blame for the virulent staph infections. Staphylococcus Aureus is an extremely common bacteria, is frequently present on the surface of the skin, and is responsible for many common skin ailments such as boils, sties, abscesses and folliculitis (infected hair follical). What causes such a problem in hospitals is that the strains found there frequently don't respond to the standard round of antibiotics, and thus become extremely dangerous to high-risk patients (like heart-attack victims). The reason for these antibiotic-resistant strains? Primarily improper use of antibiotics. There are some basic simple rules about antibiotic usage that a huge section of society can't seem to follow:
- Follow all directions given by the doctor and pharmacy exactly (that includes dosage schedules).
- Take ALL of the antibiotics prescribed, even if you feel better
- Never save leftover antibiotics for later use
- Never take anyone elses prescription
These are not difficult rules to follow, but you'd be surpised at how many people refuse to do so. My own (extended) family members insist on taking antibiotics just until they feel better, and then saving the remainder for "next time." Time and again, I've explained that if they don't completely erradicate the bacteria, these antibiotics won't be very effective the next time. They just dismiss what I say as coming from a young "know it all." These same family members also tell us to go get antibiotics when one of our children has a cold. I've also tried to patiently explain that antibiotics do nothing to get rid of a virus, and that it doesn't make sense to treat for a potential secondary infection unless the patient has a history of such. They don't believe me.So, back to the guy who got the staph infection. Sue the hospital and not the doctor. Although keep in mind that it is just as likely he carried his own infection in with him, and that the infection only became serious due to his weakened condition.
I also hope that the doctors all lose their license and live a life of abject poverty and suffering.
It's also possible that doctors will just stop practicing medicine because of people with a chip on their shoulder like yours. How is that going to make you feel when you need a doctor and can't find one anywhere? Do you enjoy paying such high rates for medical insurance in part because of escalating malpractice costs?
You want to blame somebody for what happened? Fine. But unless you know EXACTLY where the infection came from and how, you have to consider it just as likely that this guy already had the infection when he came into the hospital, and it got much worse because his body could no longer fight it off.
You do know that in the UK, the names of companies are frequently paired with the plural form of verbs, right? It might sound funny to those of us in North America, but imagine how much funnier a couple sentences like this sound:
To me, this "feels" perfectly normal, but it probably sounds to my friends in the UK like I can't make up my mind. Is Microsoft an "it" or a "they?"The real question is: Could you live off of that income without any public (or semi-public) funding? I actually don't think you could -- at least not in Pittsburgh. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't bring this up to give you a hard time or anything. As a student, it makes sense that you would use the public funding now with the expectation that after graduation you would be contributing to that public funding. You even implied such in your response. However, for those you are not students, this may represent a problem. Obviously, there are many who are not in a position to improve their income. They are doing the best they can at the moment. But for those who are capable of living without requiring government subsidies, and just can't be bothered to do so, it's a problem. It places unnecessary burdens on the rest of the people. This, of course, doesn't mean that you need to be earning six figures or anything like that. But chances are really good that if you are living below the poverty line and are not a student, you are being subsidized by other taxpayers.
On a good note, all of the planning you have to go through right now can be a tremendously rewarding experience. Even when you have a higher income, you'll probably tend to be more frugal and a good saver. This is something that probably everyone should go through -- starting with our Senators and Representatives.
I really have to ask: If you are living on wages below the poverty line, what can you afford to live in? I don't know of anyone who can manage to live on less than $10,000 a year and still manage to afford food, housing, clothing and transportation unless they team up with others in the same situation. Is this what you're doing? Also, what do you do for health care?
No, the "court of public opinion" instead wears a green robe with dollar signs embroidered on it.
The Judge, if he / she is worth 10 cents of what it cost to go to law school, will consider the facts, not "the court of public opinion."
Absolutely true, but the damage to be done by public opinion is not in the courts, but rather in the IT spending budgets. A shutdown of spending on Linux due to misperception of the facts is nearly as deadly as SCO winning their suit against IBM.
Wait, does this mean that I'm one of the four?? Wow, what a small world! :-)
There are things that many people fear more than death. In fact, there are things so bad that people beg for death. Permanent license revocation and similar measures, although probably not feared more than death, could place enough burden on an individual that they act as a pretty good deterrant. On the other hand, they could also turn somebody into a hardcore criminal looking for a position on "Death Row."
I believe tougher penalties will improve the situation, but still won't eliminate the problem. Probably the best idea is not something that completely destroys the rest of a person's life, but a long trip to a prison where hard labor is still performed might be better -- none of these "country clubs with bars."
Besides, there is a serious logical problem with allowing a person who has been drinking to decide when he is ready to drive again.
Agreed.
Of course, an alternative to this law would be to require that all alcohol-serving establishments have a Breathalyzer easily accessible to its patrons.
I think this might help some, but many would just elect not to use it. What might work much better is a mandatory breathalyzer test prior to exit for all persons sitting at a table where alcohol was served. If the establishment is a bar, everybody gets tested. Unfortunately, this idea will probably draw similar criticism to the auto-breathalyzer.
I'm haven't completely made up my mind yet. I probably agree with you, but I'm still waiting for this to filter through my value system. I'm also looking at what others have to say to see what viewpoints I may have missed.... such as your argument below....
It was an embryo - I don't think you will contest that. Its process of maturation was aborted. Ergo it was an aborted embryo. I agree that its long term viability was in question, but I don't think the ethics of killing something should have much to do with the fact that it was going to die anyway (isn't everything?).
I hadn't considered it this way. Thanks for providing another perspective.
I think inserting ethical ambiguity there is a big mistake. They are the same.
After reading your argument above, I agree with you.
Are you aware that the tone of your argument ranks you right up there with the bigots and racists? Don't take this as an insult. I'm just pointing it out to you. Regarding religious beliefs, just because their belief system isn't the same as yours doesn't mean they are ignorant. You may find that some people who have different beliefs than you share your knowledge on many topics and still disagree with you. Regarding the killing of women, I don't think that's really a fair comparison. Now, if a group of people is going around killing researchers because they disagree with the ethics of the researchers, the comparison becomes fair.
I would say that being 'sensitive' to something is just another way of saying that you support it, at least on some level.
No. Being sensitive means that you've listened to other viewpoints and are aware of how others feel. It doesn't mean you agree, but it may impact how you deal with dissenters. Not being sensitive to the feelings and beliefs of others is, oddly enough, a form of bigotry in itself.
are you saying that there is some group out there who specifically says that humans shouldnt use anything that comes out of a woman, or a man, for any purpose other than what... natural sex?
Are you aware that some of the more strict Catholic orders do not allow any form of contraception? Based on this, I wouldn't be too surprised to see people opposed to any use of the reproductive system for anything besides natural sex and reproduction.
they already harvest eggs and sperm for use in other people. how is this different?
There are already groups of people who are against this.
Yeah, I just got done reading an article on that, but I couldn't glean any information speculating on why this is the case. Maybe one of the chemicals used to start cell division was telomerase? Any ideas?
Thanks for the laugh. I'm having a stressful day and I needed it. The only problem is that the whole advantage of cultivating from fat tissue is that you can generate your own stem cells. If you use somebody else's stem cells, you have to deal with the rejection problem. So, unfortunately, it's not likely I'll have a new career donating fat. Although, I have plenty to spare at the moment. I'd be happy to donate it for research.
It's not quite the same thing, although some of the same arguments are valid. In this case, there was no "conception" that took place, not even in vitro. In vitro fertilization involves the introduction of sperm to egg outside of the woman's body. However, for this project, they took an egg, removed the nucleus, and replaced it with the genetic material of skin cells (presumably from an adult, but that wasn't clear). Although this could presumably grown into a functional human, I think there would be longevity problems because the amino acid sequences that control cell division (Telomeres) would be greatly shortened and cell arrest would take place much sooner.
Regarding the destruction of an egg cell, a woman's body does this every month, and a woman starts off with over 100,000 eggs, of which obviously almost all are destroyed at some point.
Good point. The difference is that the cells destroyed monthly would be considered "natural" whereas the cloning process is "unnatural". For many, this is probably unimportant, but there are some who possess religious or philosophical beliefs that would greatly oppose this. It's something we have to at least be sensitive to, even if we don't agree with their viewpoint.
That's an interesting point regarding the fat cells - I hadn't heard anything about using them for cloning. Thanks for the info!
Glad I could provide some information. If you're interested, here's an article about it.
Yes, but unless they have also conquered the problem with Telomeres, the resulting human would at best have a greatly shortened lifespan, and may have all sorts of other problems.
I have mixed feelings on this one. The method they have used provides a viable alternative to using aborted fetuses and embryos for harvesting stem cells and at the same time looks like an answer to the problem of rejection. Aside from the "we shouldn't clone" argument, I think the only other complaint is the use (and destruction) of the egg cell. While this may seem trivial to many, there are some people who will still be very upset by it.
Does anybody know whatever happened with the research on harvesting real adult stem cells from fat tissue? I would think this would solve both the rejection AND Telomeres problems, as presumably these cells would have lain dormant and not used up their life cycle like other cells in the body.
I wasn't referring to the outsourcing of jobs here. I was referring to hiring what amounts to slave labor (where the EMPLOYEE ends up owing the COMPANY money at the end of the week, due to the cost of boarding). I can't find the link at the moment, but there was an article last year concerning WalMart and exactly this kind of business relationship with a company in China. It's this practice that I have a real problem with. My reactions are less severe when the employees are paid and treated in a manner that preserves their human dignity. But this point probably isn't really relevant to our discussion.
I agree we need to be eased into it. This can be done by slowly removing ALL tariffs and barriers currently in place.
While we obviously disagree on the consequences of today's outsourcing movement, this is one point we definitely agree on. All of the long-term benefits that you listed for the outsourcing movement are sound and of course very good. However, it's my opinion that these goals will never be achieved by what we are seeing today. Instead, I feel that there will be a backlash from the consumers (either intentional or due to lack of any money to spend) in countries where corporations are using these tactics which will utlimately cause not only the companies promoting outsourcing to fold, but also companies who have not done so. The whole thing may collapse long before any returns can be seen. If this happens, there is a strong chance that protectionism will be revisited as the new "scheme-of-the-day." Instead, I'm an advocate for a much slower movement in this direction that will more slowly equalize economies and therefore not put such a strain on any one country. I realize, of course, that all of this is all just opinion -- nobody really knows for sure what will happen.
I think the goal is for SAP to work with MySQL AB to integrate some of the more robust features normally found in DBMSs into the mySQL product. I guess that in the meantime they are choosing to offer MaxDB, which probably allows SAP to stop supporting SAPDB and focus their energy on their core products, while still offering a no-cost database solution to their customers.
Yes. Have you? If they outsource all of their non-management jobs, nobody here will be working for them, now will they? When they reach that point, they are just occupying space.
Uh, yes it is. As long as the stockholders (primarily wealthy individuals), who are so far removed from they workings of a company that they don't have to care how it achieves its results, are getting their returns, corporations will continue to push the boundaries of ethics and morality. We've seen time and time again that these large corporations try to throw their weight around and only correct themselves when the public (their customers) starts getting loud.
Corporations are owned by thousands and thousands of individuals; doctors, teachers, PROGRAMMERS, truck drivers, etc. as shareholders.
Please tell me you don't really think this is true. While I'm sure everyone can cite instances of these types of people holding shares in corporations, they certainly don't "own" the companies they invest in. Most of these people (with the possible exception of doctors) simply cannot afford to buy more than a small piece of the pie. And huge masses in America don't even have a 401K to invest in stocks and mutual funds. Most corporations are largely owned by only a handful of exceedingly wealthy individuals (or other corporations). In many cases, these wealthy individuals are the same ones that made the executive decision to destroy American jobs at some other company.
By taxing the corporation you are preventing them from competing in the global marketplace
As though most of them were "competing" already? Have you taken a look at the trade deficit recently? Do you honestly think that those companies that are "competing" now by outsourcing are going to be able to do so when all of the foreign-based employees they hired take what they have learned and establish a company in their own country that provides the same goods or services?
Taxing is not the way to go.
Agreed, but when you can't trust companies to make the right long-term decisions, you either have to counter it with laws or taxes. Pick the lesser of two evils.
This is a global marketplace.
No, it isn't. It'll be a true global marketplace when I can purchase goods and services from a Chinese or Indian company at the same cost residents of China or India would bear, and when companies in India allow the same outsourcing that goes on here. How many times have you seen that happen?
We all love getting $4 T shirts from Wal-Mart
Not me. I've never approved of these practices.
Unless trade is truly going to be free, jobs have to be protected in some manner. At the very least, companies need to pay the social security costs for jobs that are sent overseas. Because if they don't, there are going to be a BUNCH of unemployed people and no money to pay for them. You really need to think this through. Look at Germany. They have an average unemployment rate in excess of 10%. They have already determined that in less than two decades, the social money collected in taxes will not be able to support the retired and unemployed population. What do you think is going to happen then? Either taxes on individuals or companies are going to increase, or there are going to be a lot of homeless people dying in the streets. Shortly thereafter, there will be a revolution. It happened in Russia. It happened in France. Are you daft enough to think that history doesn't repeat itself?
If you want a free and global economy, you need to ease into it. If you just suddenly take away jobs from people in one country, trouble will break out long before the global economy stabilizes itself. The end result will most likely be the protectionism you so fear.
If that was the primary concern, you can always render a "not-guilty" verdict without providing any reason for doing so. That way, you are indicating that the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof. That leaves the judge mentally grasping for what piece of information he or she may have missed during the trial.
Just for the record, although IANAL, I'm aware that in criminal cases, a verdit of "not guilty" generally cannot be modified. It's usually a "guilty" verdict that gets disregarded by the judge. If there are some real lawyers out there who can confirm or dispute this, I'd greatly appreciate it. Or maybe even better, a paralegal. PJ, where are you? :-)
I agree with this 100%. If a company is saving that much money by making the citizens of its country poorer, they can darn well chip in to help put food on the table of the people they rendered "unemployed." If they don't like it, they can just pack their executive managers up and MOVE to the countries they sent their jobs to.
I know this was partly tongue-in-cheek, but you're probably right on the sentiment of the jury. However, most jurists are not aware that they can render a vote of "not guilty" even if it is proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the defendant has broken the law. And of course, no judge today would ever let them in on that little secret, either. If you're interested, you should read about Jury Nullification.
The method for installing new software is distribution-dependent. Lindows has 1-click installation. Since starting on Linux (with Slackware), I've seen pretty much everything, including tarballs that need to be compiled and installed by hand, self-extracting archives with built-in installer, and package-based installers. Most of the package-based systems have a graphical installation tool that allows you to browse a catalog of packages and select the applications you want to install. The rest of the work, including dependency checking, is done for you. To me, this is at least as easy as double-clicking an install icon because I can be sure that any dependencies that must also be installed will get the most up to date version available.
On one of my machines, which is running Gentoo, I perform my installations from the command line, but that's as easy as pie. To install Mozilla, I simply type 'emerge mozilla' and it calculates all the dependencies and installs everything needed. And it even gives me the option of installing a pre-compiled (binary) package or compiling from source (which I usually choose because this machine is slow and needs every bit of optimization it can get).
I think your other choice is to offer SMTP service on some port besides 25. I've seen this done by some web hosts.
Here's my favorite quote with respect to SPF:Sender:
What's funny about this is that the greeting-card services are NOTORIOUS for selling email addresses as spam-phish in the first place. Hence the reason why I never read email greeting cards anymore.
It's good to see that there is recent news. However, since the project has been reduced to provide only a lightweight VM and is thus only capable of running instances of Linux on Linux, it is far less usefull. Don't get me wrong -- there's still some value in being able to run multiple instances of Linux on the same box. However, I think many were hoping that Plex86 would offer a no-cost gateway to switching from Windows to Linux. For anybody out there who has only one or two pieces of software that keep them on Windows, a free and fully functional virtualization layer would have been very well received. VMWARE is an awesome piece of software, but people who are looking to switch to a FREE OS like Linux are going to balk at having to pay $300 for the transition period.