I'm pretty sure the sporting world stole that term from my ex. And in case anyone's wondering, "Better luck next time!" is not always the correct response.
It is now possible to use all the major organs (heart, kidneys, lungs, liver and pancreas) in transplantation and so one donor is able to help many other people. If the death happened in hospital, staff may ask for permission to use organs for transplantation. Many people find such an approach difficult in the early stages of bereavement but organs have to be removed very soon after death.
Other organs such as corneas and heart valves can be removed anything up to 72 hours after death.
Are you trying to argue that preventing a class-based society is a bad thing?
He might not, but I will, although I don't know about "class-based," if you mean like a caste system. The idea of society without classes is called communism. It's not bad in theory, but in practice it removes most positive incentive for people to work hard and causes society to flounder and ultimately collapse on itself. Even communism had classes; they just operated behind closed doors. Classes are unavoidable. What we want to do is make the least common denominator acceptable to the point where it's not inhumane, but there's still opportunity and incentive to achieve more, and keep the highest classes from abusing their power.
You could say the same thing about any tax. If you want to live in a society without taxes, try Afghanistan or Sudan...
He never said there should be no taxes. If you're going to use that sort of argument, then here's one: Why should any wishes be respected after death? If someone doesn't need their money, then they don't need their body.. let's mandate organ donation. We'd all be better off, right? Oh, that's right.. you never said wishes shouldn't be honored.
Look, tax is basically payment to the government for your portion of burden on society. Of course, it's usually the opposite in practice, but that's the principle. When someone dies, they have been removed from society entirely, and are no longer receiving any benefit from government, so government has even less rationale for taking their money. Once a person has earned money and paid taxes on those earnings, it should be his decision what to do with the remainder -- period -- and government should have no further say in the matter.
The question of whether a charity should accept money from donors with questionable business ethics has been long debated and never resolved.
Well, I guess the defense for the question of ethics would be that there's no such thing as a perfect person or business (or charity). By disqualifying funds on ethical grounds, one makes the implicit assertion that the money should remain with the prospective donor (assuming all charities declined the funds), which is clearly less ethical. Some may argue that the money should be used to make restitution, however that's an act of justice, and justice is the role of government, not charity. Further, for every Criminal A who steals from Group A and donates to Charity A, who helps Group B, there's a Criminal B who steals from Group B and donates to Charity B who helps Group A, which is de facto restitution. Things tend to balance out in the long term. Some people will inevitably get shafted, but it's not a perfect world, and perfection is not a rational goal.
There is also a related argument that accepting tainted money is allowing the ends to justify the means. However I think the scope of the term "means" necessarily ends with the charities' own actions. As long as a charity itself is not extorting funds, or otherwise encouraging or practicing unethical fundraising, then their hands are clean.
At any rate, I'm fairly anti-Microsoft, but I still applaud the Gates' philanthropy, regardless of its impetus. The motivation for good deeds does not lessen their effects. Charitable organizations have the power to act when government cannot, does not, or should not, and they fill a critical role in society.
Actually, the cheapest I found for a 50pk was $1.45 ea. with free shipping, which is still sort of pricey, but a not-insignificant 27.5% below $2. I found name brands around $1.80, which is still 10% less than $2.
Also you don't have to buy them on spindles to get them at or below $2/ea:
No, the NSF was founded because after WWII, the government realized how important engineering was to winning wars.
Don't get me wrong, the NSF is a good thing, but..
A) The government is not a benevolent organization, and bureaucrats are subject to being captured by private interests.
B) All research has always cost an enormous amount of time and money; it's just that we don't remember it, and we discount it as "simple" because much of it has gone from undiscovered to the realm of general knowledge. 100 years ago nobody knew what lift was. Today pretty much anyone with a highschool diploma does (or should). We still stand on the shoulders of giants, we just take it for granted because we didn't do the hard work to get there.
C) Private funding is the primary source of money for medical research, not the NSF.
D) It's not a zero-sum game, and sciences are interrelated. Dollars that aren't being spent directly on stem cell research are still being spent, and breakthroughs in other areas, including other areas of biotech, may be just as beneficial or moreso.
E) Results are not directly proportional to money spent on research.
Would it be better if the NSF's hands weren't tied in regards to stemcell research? Of course, but it's not the end of the world. The research will go on regardless of who funds it or how much funding there is. To focus in on stem cells as if they're the end all and be all of medical science is neither warranted nor prudent.
Most scientific research depends on federal funding.
Yeah.. people have short memories. Back before there was federal funding, there was absolutely no scientific research going on. Oh sure, people would postulate and theorize, but nobody ever followed up because there was no money! As Archimedes' famous quote goes, "Give me federal funding, and I can develop a lever long enough to move the world!" Nobody believed him, of course, but it's still hotly debated whether or not federal funding would have made such a venture possible.
Fortunately, once the NSF was founded in 1950, we could research bouyancy and develop things like boats, which gave rise to the steam engine and, recently, the internal combustion engine. This allowed us to create enormous steel chariots, known as SUVs, which allowed us to travel at will, instead of standing in one place and hoping a wild horse wandered near enough for us to jump on. Once the roof was invented in 1953, and the candle in 1957, research could be conducted at any time of day and in any weather -- amazing!
So for all you nay sayers, just remember that without federal funding we'd still be living in buildings without roofs, driving cars with our feet, and eating with our hands. Hell, if it wasn't for the NSF and their anti-dinosaur technology, we'd probably all be dead by now.
Yeah, well, 20% of voters isn't exactly earth shattering; even Bush's approval rating is higher than that.
At any rate, names carry a lot of weight. I was arguing this very point with one of the founders of the PPoA, and he argued that gays recently adopted the term "queer," so this is no different. What he failed to recognize was that they first adopted the term gay, and so successfully that the word's original meaning is now all but archaic. Additionally, they have advocacy groups such as GLAD (also happy) and the Rainbow Coalition (and who doesn't like rainbows?!?).
But the party is just picking up speed and gaining popularity, and a name change at this point would just cause confusion. Perhaps it would be appropriate to revisit the idea in a few years... at which time I would suggest "The Patriot Party." If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists!
They can choose the Cable company... or they can get dial-up access.
Or they could just cancel.
If people actually threatened to cancel en masse, we wouldn't hear another word about a tiered internet.
Don't get me wrong, I hope the government takes appropriate action, but we're not completely at the mercy of gov't and ISPs unless we allow ourselves to be. The most effective way for people to get their point across is to threaten to cancel, especially if their provider is Bell South, Verizon, or one of the other vocal proponents of tiered access. Even if you're bluffing, it's a powerful bluff if enough people do it.
The second most effective way (unfortunately) is for people to contact their Congressmen and Senators and let them know what your position is, and how it will affect your vote. And it doesn't hurt that this is an election year.
No, but it provides an incentive for people not to get caught, and the best way not to get caught is by doing your best to avoid breaking the law in the first place.
(Note, I'm not the OP; just think it's a good idea [that will never, ever happen].)
Slashdot Mirror
Only p-branes don't get physics jokes.
Or this.
I joke, I joke...
(But blink once if you're interested, and I'll meet you behind the dorm in an hour).
...from this state-of-the-art research facility for the really really small.
Moreover, the proper term for us is dwarves.
I'm pretty sure the sporting world stole that term from my ex. And in case anyone's wondering, "Better luck next time!" is not always the correct response.
That's incorrect.
% 22after+death%22
It is now possible to use all the major organs (heart, kidneys, lungs, liver and pancreas) in transplantation and so one donor is able to help many other people. If the death happened in hospital, staff may ask for permission to use organs for transplantation. Many people find such an approach difficult in the early stages of bereavement but organs have to be removed very soon after death.
Other organs such as corneas and heart valves can be removed anything up to 72 hours after death.
http://www.ifishoulddie.co.uk/organ_donation.htm
http://www.google.com/search?q=organ+donor+hours+
Are you trying to argue that preventing a class-based society is a bad thing?
He might not, but I will, although I don't know about "class-based," if you mean like a caste system. The idea of society without classes is called communism. It's not bad in theory, but in practice it removes most positive incentive for people to work hard and causes society to flounder and ultimately collapse on itself. Even communism had classes; they just operated behind closed doors. Classes are unavoidable. What we want to do is make the least common denominator acceptable to the point where it's not inhumane, but there's still opportunity and incentive to achieve more, and keep the highest classes from abusing their power.
He's only 23, give him some time.
You could say the same thing about any tax. If you want to live in a society without taxes, try Afghanistan or Sudan...
He never said there should be no taxes. If you're going to use that sort of argument, then here's one: Why should any wishes be respected after death? If someone doesn't need their money, then they don't need their body.. let's mandate organ donation. We'd all be better off, right? Oh, that's right.. you never said wishes shouldn't be honored.
Look, tax is basically payment to the government for your portion of burden on society. Of course, it's usually the opposite in practice, but that's the principle. When someone dies, they have been removed from society entirely, and are no longer receiving any benefit from government, so government has even less rationale for taking their money. Once a person has earned money and paid taxes on those earnings, it should be his decision what to do with the remainder -- period -- and government should have no further say in the matter.
The question of whether a charity should accept money from donors with questionable business ethics has been long debated and never resolved.
Well, I guess the defense for the question of ethics would be that there's no such thing as a perfect person or business (or charity). By disqualifying funds on ethical grounds, one makes the implicit assertion that the money should remain with the prospective donor (assuming all charities declined the funds), which is clearly less ethical. Some may argue that the money should be used to make restitution, however that's an act of justice, and justice is the role of government, not charity. Further, for every Criminal A who steals from Group A and donates to Charity A, who helps Group B, there's a Criminal B who steals from Group B and donates to Charity B who helps Group A, which is de facto restitution. Things tend to balance out in the long term. Some people will inevitably get shafted, but it's not a perfect world, and perfection is not a rational goal.
There is also a related argument that accepting tainted money is allowing the ends to justify the means. However I think the scope of the term "means" necessarily ends with the charities' own actions. As long as a charity itself is not extorting funds, or otherwise encouraging or practicing unethical fundraising, then their hands are clean.
At any rate, I'm fairly anti-Microsoft, but I still applaud the Gates' philanthropy, regardless of its impetus. The motivation for good deeds does not lessen their effects. Charitable organizations have the power to act when government cannot, does not, or should not, and they fill a critical role in society.
Actually, the cheapest I found for a 50pk was $1.45 ea. with free shipping, which is still sort of pricey, but a not-insignificant 27.5% below $2. I found name brands around $1.80, which is still 10% less than $2.
u al-layer-dvd-dl-r-media.html
Also you don't have to buy them on spindles to get them at or below $2/ea:
http://meritline.stores.yahoo.net/single-sample-d
recordingstore.com
No, the NSF was founded because after WWII, the government realized how important engineering was to winning wars.
Don't get me wrong, the NSF is a good thing, but..
A) The government is not a benevolent organization, and bureaucrats are subject to being captured by private interests.
B) All research has always cost an enormous amount of time and money; it's just that we don't remember it, and we discount it as "simple" because much of it has gone from undiscovered to the realm of general knowledge. 100 years ago nobody knew what lift was. Today pretty much anyone with a highschool diploma does (or should). We still stand on the shoulders of giants, we just take it for granted because we didn't do the hard work to get there.
C) Private funding is the primary source of money for medical research, not the NSF.
D) It's not a zero-sum game, and sciences are interrelated. Dollars that aren't being spent directly on stem cell research are still being spent, and breakthroughs in other areas, including other areas of biotech, may be just as beneficial or moreso.
E) Results are not directly proportional to money spent on research.
Would it be better if the NSF's hands weren't tied in regards to stemcell research? Of course, but it's not the end of the world. The research will go on regardless of who funds it or how much funding there is. To focus in on stem cells as if they're the end all and be all of medical science is neither warranted nor prudent.
Most scientific research depends on federal funding.
Yeah.. people have short memories. Back before there was federal funding, there was absolutely no scientific research going on. Oh sure, people would postulate and theorize, but nobody ever followed up because there was no money! As Archimedes' famous quote goes, "Give me federal funding, and I can develop a lever long enough to move the world!" Nobody believed him, of course, but it's still hotly debated whether or not federal funding would have made such a venture possible.
Fortunately, once the NSF was founded in 1950, we could research bouyancy and develop things like boats, which gave rise to the steam engine and, recently, the internal combustion engine. This allowed us to create enormous steel chariots, known as SUVs, which allowed us to travel at will, instead of standing in one place and hoping a wild horse wandered near enough for us to jump on. Once the roof was invented in 1953, and the candle in 1957, research could be conducted at any time of day and in any weather -- amazing!
So for all you nay sayers, just remember that without federal funding we'd still be living in buildings without roofs, driving cars with our feet, and eating with our hands. Hell, if it wasn't for the NSF and their anti-dinosaur technology, we'd probably all be dead by now.
But he never said you couldn't throw protestors at the eggs did he? Eh? Eh?????
Hey, I'm an insensitive clod and I resent you throwing that term around as some sort of insult, you rat.
Oh nevermind, I don't care.. I'm an insensitive clod.
Yeah, well, 20% of voters isn't exactly earth shattering; even Bush's approval rating is higher than that.
At any rate, names carry a lot of weight. I was arguing this very point with one of the founders of the PPoA, and he argued that gays recently adopted the term "queer," so this is no different. What he failed to recognize was that they first adopted the term gay, and so successfully that the word's original meaning is now all but archaic. Additionally, they have advocacy groups such as GLAD (also happy) and the Rainbow Coalition (and who doesn't like rainbows?!?).
But the party is just picking up speed and gaining popularity, and a name change at this point would just cause confusion. Perhaps it would be appropriate to revisit the idea in a few years... at which time I would suggest "The Patriot Party." If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists!
you now can get paid for an action, such as a sale or lead referral.
I'm in. How much for the names and addresses of my soon-to-be-former friends?
Yep. That's Public Choice Theory in a nutshell.
And let that be a lesson to everyone to make sure you've checked the Post Anonymously box before you click submit.
That's just because Mike Cox is so small.
rd rr
Strangely, the entire team is now missing. Big oil had no comment.
Depends on your definition of appropriate, of course, which is why I encouraged direct communication with ISPs rather than relying on an intermediary.
They can choose the Cable company... or they can get dial-up access.
Or they could just cancel.
If people actually threatened to cancel en masse, we wouldn't hear another word about a tiered internet.
Don't get me wrong, I hope the government takes appropriate action, but we're not completely at the mercy of gov't and ISPs unless we allow ourselves to be. The most effective way for people to get their point across is to threaten to cancel, especially if their provider is Bell South, Verizon, or one of the other vocal proponents of tiered access. Even if you're bluffing, it's a powerful bluff if enough people do it.
The second most effective way (unfortunately) is for people to contact their Congressmen and Senators and let them know what your position is, and how it will affect your vote. And it doesn't hurt that this is an election year.
If a $200 fine wasn't enough incentive to run in the first place, I don't think a $100 reward would be.
No, but it provides an incentive for people not to get caught, and the best way not to get caught is by doing your best to avoid breaking the law in the first place.
(Note, I'm not the OP; just think it's a good idea [that will never, ever happen].)