2) http://www.i-sis.org.uk/stemcells2.php A snippet: "These latest results show that the ES cells need to be genetically modified and extensive manipulation in vitro before they can be transplanted safely. Direct transplant of ES cells are known to give rise to teratomas and uncontrollable cell proliferation. There is already evidence that ES cells are genetically unstable in long term culture, and are especially prone to chromosomal abnormalities."
Contrary to how I'm sure it sounds, I'm not yet categorically opposed to using embryonic stem cells for research. I'm for science- and this mice story is absolutely incredible.
But cut the unsupported, non-cited one liners. They bring nothing to the table.
Only the third post to the article, and you've already tried to take a potentially interesting discussion from the realm of science to that of trolling. Pat yourself on the back for me.
Thanks Bush for being such a dork that even Iran, China, and some African countries to be named later have more pull in the UN that us.....
I don't want to turn your post into political bickering. It's annoying and happens way too often on/. With that said, I just had to comment...
Hate Bush and even America all you want (I don't have a problem with that), but the idea that ANY country has more "pull" in the UN than the US is absurd. The UN is an ineffectual, defunct organisation that couldn't tie it's own shoes if the US wasn't around. Financial strength? None. Military Strength? None. Ability to enforce any of its own policies without the US? None.
You don't have to like the US at all. But without it, the UN is nothing. And personally, that's fine with me. Its time of usefulness (if there ever was one) is long past.
My guess is you're conservative because you'd rather save $5 today than avoid a possible global crisis. The narrow minded, poor planning, ethnocentric, pathetic administration is right up your alley.
Sorry, but that pre-judgmental, unsubstantiated, conversationally shallow, narrow-minded, and just dead wrong comment, meant to do no more than enflame a meaningless confrontation... warrrants no further reponse than this.
I totally agree on the value of having a fall back.
It was the fact that I didn't know it took so long to lose the atmosphere that had me skeptical. But you cleared that up nicely. Thank you. If we could create a new one in a significantly shorter period of time, and it really would take that long to lose it again, then I think there is defintely value in having a viable back-up earth, even if for a only few million years!
Yes, but to be objective, the rate of our development has skyrocketed in the relative blink of an eye of the recent past. Considering that, 100,000 years seems like plenty of time if we are talking in terms of being able to deal with yet un-materialized crises.
Who's the moron here? At least some people among us actually picked up on the fact that there was as least some intention of humor in his post. I, being a smoker, thought it was damn funny.
This post is definitely meant as more of a question than a statement, as I am pretty ignorant of geophysics and the like.
But could someone explain to me why scientists even consider the idea of trying to artificially create a new atmosphere around another planet, and why they think it could work?
The thing I am not understanding is that if Mars is thought/known to have had an atmosphere in the past, and doesn't anymore, clearly there are factors beyond our control that would just cause a new atmosphere to eventually disppear too, right?
The original atmosphere on Mars must have disappeared due to factors such as boiling away, not enough mass to create a strong enough gravitation field to retain it, or perhaps being blown away by solar wind because Mars does have a magnetic field like we do here to deflect it, etc. (By the way, I don't even know if these are real situations that could occur, I am just making them up as examples of things beyond our control that seem to me that logically could maybe have caused the previous atmosphere to disappear.)
So again, this is not a statement but an honest question from someone who doesn't get it- what is different about mars now than a hundred million years ago that makes scientists think it would work now?
My two cents: Well said. The comparison is quite unproductive.
And to make it three, it's just one more attempt by somebody to turn every single debate here into a political cheap-shot. (as is all too typical at/. in my opinion...)
I really hate to throw more fuel on this "us-versus-you guys" debate, but....
You mean no one told you about how our economy is doing WAY better than yours!
This comment is totally bunk. But according to the numbers, the size, producing power, and sheer stability of the U.S. economy is several times that of Cananda (in fact as far as producing power, greater than all of Europe put together). Across all the provinces of Canada, the employment rate is solidly above 7.0, in BC actually up at 8.2. (that's compared to 5.2 in Dec 2004 for the U.S).
Your personal income tax rates are through the roof (up there with us in fact, which says something), and what do you have to show for it? It certainly isn't helping your failing socialized health-care system you guys love to brag about (it's deep in financial problems, and for what? The quality of care is significantly lower than here in the U.S: Here.)
And finally...
WTF does politics have to with economy
It's funny that we are the inept ones here... go take an economics course, throw in some poli-sci for good measure, and come back when it finally dawns on you that ALL these issues are intimately connected to politics.
Maybe it's just me, but I think C is a excellent language for beginners. The year after I finished undergrad (about 3 years ago now, so not too long out) they started using Java as the first language you learn, and I personally think it's a terrible mistake. Now, I am in no way saying I'm some superb programmer, but I definitely think I know my stuff more that the students coming after me who began their base of knowledge with Java.
Don't get me wrong, it can be a tough one to start out with, especially if you've never programmed before. But the learning curve is steep, and in the end you come out with a much better understanding of very crucial stuff; data manipulation, memory, pointers, bits/bytes, and simply when the heck is going on internally with a program, because of everything C lets you muck with (and true, perhaps screw up). And so maybe it's just due to my personal experience, but learning Java after drove me nuts. I just felt like there was whole additional level of abstraction because of all the stuff that I feel java does/hides for you. Not to mention that I think Java came easier, having the more low-level (admittedly not super-low) understanding that C gives you.
Slashdot Mirror
Because they're much more usable than adult stem cells. Get over it.
h tm
r ogatory022601a.shtml
l (If you like canadian docs' opinions...)
Sorry, but a citation please? Because I've found a few to the contrary for you:
1) http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.
(with it's own reference list a mile long)
2) http://www.i-sis.org.uk/stemcells2.php
A snippet:
"These latest results show that the ES cells need to be genetically modified and extensive manipulation in vitro before they can be transplanted safely. Direct transplant of ES cells are known to give rise to teratomas and uncontrollable cell proliferation. There is already evidence that ES cells are genetically unstable in long term culture, and are especially prone to chromosomal abnormalities."
3) http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/inter
(An interview with the same scientist (for those lefties among you who love to hate the conservative rags):
4) http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/nov/03112001.htm
Contrary to how I'm sure it sounds, I'm not yet categorically opposed to using embryonic stem cells for research. I'm for science- and this mice story is absolutely incredible.
But cut the unsupported, non-cited one liners. They bring nothing to the table.
Somebody mod this one up.
Mod mod parent up even more
Only the third post to the article, and you've already tried to take a potentially interesting discussion from the realm of science to that of trolling. Pat yourself on the back for me.
Okay- troll.
Thanks Bush for being such a dork that even Iran, China, and some African countries to be named later have more pull in the UN that us.....
/. With that said, I just had to comment...
I don't want to turn your post into political bickering. It's annoying and happens way too often on
Hate Bush and even America all you want (I don't have a problem with that), but the idea that ANY country has more "pull" in the UN than the US is absurd. The UN is an ineffectual, defunct organisation that couldn't tie it's own shoes if the US wasn't around. Financial strength? None. Military Strength? None. Ability to enforce any of its own policies without the US? None.
You don't have to like the US at all. But without it, the UN is nothing. And personally, that's fine with me. Its time of usefulness (if there ever was one) is long past.
My guess is you're conservative because you'd rather save $5 today than avoid a possible global crisis. The narrow minded, poor planning, ethnocentric, pathetic administration is right up your alley.
Sorry, but that pre-judgmental, unsubstantiated, conversationally shallow, narrow-minded, and just dead wrong comment, meant to do no more than enflame a meaningless confrontation... warrrants no further reponse than this.
I totally agree on the value of having a fall back.
It was the fact that I didn't know it took so long to lose the atmosphere that had me skeptical. But you cleared that up nicely. Thank you. If we could create a new one in a significantly shorter period of time, and it really would take that long to lose it again, then I think there is defintely value in having a viable back-up earth, even if for a only few million years!
Yes, but to be objective, the rate of our development has skyrocketed in the relative blink of an eye of the recent past. Considering that, 100,000 years seems like plenty of time if we are talking in terms of being able to deal with yet un-materialized crises.
Who's the moron here? At least some people among us actually picked up on the fact that there was as least some intention of humor in his post. I, being a smoker, thought it was damn funny.
Ah, it seems that while I was writing my original post, someone was addressing that very issue above in the thread....
This post is definitely meant as more of a question than a statement, as I am pretty ignorant of geophysics and the like.
But could someone explain to me why scientists even consider the idea of trying to artificially create a new atmosphere around another planet, and why they think it could work?
The thing I am not understanding is that if Mars is thought/known to have had an atmosphere in the past, and doesn't anymore, clearly there are factors beyond our control that would just cause a new atmosphere to eventually disppear too, right?
The original atmosphere on Mars must have disappeared due to factors such as boiling away, not enough mass to create a strong enough gravitation field to retain it, or perhaps being blown away by solar wind because Mars does have a magnetic field like we do here to deflect it, etc. (By the way, I don't even know if these are real situations that could occur, I am just making them up as examples of things beyond our control that seem to me that logically could maybe have caused the previous atmosphere to disappear.)
So again, this is not a statement but an honest question from someone who doesn't get it- what is different about mars now than a hundred million years ago that makes scientists think it would work now?
My two cents: Well said. The comparison is quite unproductive.
/. in my opinion...)
And to make it three, it's just one more attempt by somebody to turn every single debate here into a political cheap-shot.
(as is all too typical at
Generally I agree, but as long as something posted there has credible sources itself, it being at Angelfire makes what it says no less true.
If you want, I can also teach a parrot to tell you two plus two equals four. It may be coming from a fucking parrot, but it's still true...
I really hate to throw more fuel on this "us-versus-you guys" debate, but....
You mean no one told you about how our economy is doing WAY better than yours!
This comment is totally bunk. But according to the numbers, the size, producing power, and sheer stability of the U.S. economy is several times that of Cananda (in fact as far as producing power, greater than all of Europe put together). Across all the provinces of Canada, the employment rate is solidly above 7.0, in BC actually up at 8.2. (that's compared to 5.2 in Dec 2004 for the U.S).
Your personal income tax rates are through the roof (up there with us in fact, which says something), and what do you have to show for it? It certainly isn't helping your failing socialized health-care system you guys love to brag about (it's deep in financial problems, and for what? The quality of care is significantly lower than here in the U.S: Here.)
And finally...
WTF does politics have to with economy
It's funny that we are the inept ones here... go take an economics course, throw in some poli-sci for good measure, and come back when it finally dawns on you that ALL these issues are intimately connected to politics.
Maybe it's just me, but I think C is a excellent language for beginners. The year after I finished undergrad (about 3 years ago now, so not too long out) they started using Java as the first language you learn, and I personally think it's a terrible mistake. Now, I am in no way saying I'm some superb programmer, but I definitely think I know my stuff more that the students coming after me who began their base of knowledge with Java.
Don't get me wrong, it can be a tough one to start out with, especially if you've never programmed before. But the learning curve is steep, and in the end you come out with a much better understanding of very crucial stuff; data manipulation, memory, pointers, bits/bytes, and simply when the heck is going on internally with a program, because of everything C lets you muck with (and true, perhaps screw up). And so maybe it's just due to my personal experience, but learning Java after drove me nuts. I just felt like there was whole additional level of abstraction because of all the stuff that I feel java does/hides for you. Not to mention that I think Java came easier, having the more low-level (admittedly not super-low) understanding that C gives you.
Anyway, I'll come down off my soapbox now...