hehe, you think people haven't, for decades now, been buying shit with the intention of using it for n days and then returning it? You think there hasn't been a court case finding on it? It's well established law. If you buy something with the intention of returning it, you're not acting in good faith. It's simple fraud.
What's funny is that there is actually people who think like that. Apparently if we just sit around and wait, things will get better. I call this the dark side of the "invisible hand" of the market.. because it is invisible, people forget how it comes about. In order to get improvement in technology you need a market for that technology. And, typically, you need some loss-leader to create the market in the first place. Government funding serves this purpose well.
I think a better question to ask is what the proponents of that public spending project did to convince Congress it was worth the money, or how they got Congress to keep paying the money long after it should have been canceled, and asking if you would like the proponents of your public spending project to do the same. If not, then why sit around wondering how it is that your rivals get more funding?
The last time Congress asked NASA how much it would cost to go to Mars they came up with a proposal that involved building giant ships in LEO to travel 2.5 years to Mars, stay there a month, and come back. The price tag was trillions. When asked why they should pay so much, NASA basically said "I dunno, it was your idea" and that was that. Lately, though, they've been talking about much more sensible things. 6 months there, 500 days on the ground, 6 months back. The purpose of the mission being to do all the nifty science those little robots have been doing, only at 1000x the scale. Not to mention doing some biological search that isn't retarded.. finding life in the most desolate places on Earth is hard and robots can't do it, and when we send robots to Mars to look for life we ignore any results that say they have found it (all the instruments on Viking said they had found life).
Ya, I don't disagree with your sentiment. However, what Bush blocked was specifically the immediate and direct clinical trials of therapeutic stem cells. The trial that was supposed to start before the ban has already been started now that the ban has been lifted. If it is a success we will be able to directly measure the people who died as a result of the ban.
Understand this, any institution that took federal funding for any research was banned from doing stem cell research.. so basically what you're saying is that they should have started a completely new lab, separated themselves from the rest of their scientific community, to do underfunded research. Well obviously they're just whiners.
It's pretty obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Bush didn't just ban federal funding for stem cell research.. he also vetoed a bunch of bills that were approved by Congress to enhance and invigorate national research on therapeutic stem cell research.
And the MJF foundation did exactly that. Thing is, about 12 months after the ban there was no-one in the US willing to do the research. They saw the writing on the wall and declined to martyr themselves.
During the 6 years that this has been banned how much research into life saving treatments has been delayed? How many living, breathing, people have been denied these treatments? How many more will die over the next 10 years that could have been saved?
And all to placate the extreme pro-life fringe, who count fertilized embryos (that would be destroyed anyway) as sacred, and the ignorant who continually refer to "aborted fetuses" whenever the subject comes up.
Are you sure you're not a lawyer? Cause you just said a lot of words that enforced his argument and provided nothing more than what an educated person could have gotten by reading the legislation first hand.
The fact that she didn't get the full $150k per song is the only mystery here.
What's hard to understand dickhead? If something is illegal it is a violation of the criminal code. If something is unlawful it is a violation of either the criminal or civil codes. English language, learn it.
so, what you're saying is that it is perfectly valid to substitute "improper" for "illegal", or "forbidden" or any of the other 19 synonyms on that page. That it would be silly to talk about the difference between any of these words as clearly there is none. I don't think synonymous means what you think it means.
in-orbit assembly and propellant depots is exactly the problem. It's science fiction. The 90 day study was based on it and came with a price tag of trillions.
Slashdot Mirror
umm.. Chrysler is one of the biggest car companies in the world.
Just how relevant are they these days?
hehe, you think people haven't, for decades now, been buying shit with the intention of using it for n days and then returning it? You think there hasn't been a court case finding on it? It's well established law. If you buy something with the intention of returning it, you're not acting in good faith. It's simple fraud.
Sorry, but the article specifically said the immortal "it's only $99!!!"
I too enjoyed the part where he advocated defrauding AT&T. I sure hope they give him a call.
What's funny is that there is actually people who think like that. Apparently if we just sit around and wait, things will get better. I call this the dark side of the "invisible hand" of the market.. because it is invisible, people forget how it comes about. In order to get improvement in technology you need a market for that technology. And, typically, you need some loss-leader to create the market in the first place. Government funding serves this purpose well.
Typically they sequence every base at least 30 times.
Illumina will sequence your genome for $48,000.
http://scienceblogs.com/geneticfuture/2009/06/illumina_launches_personal_gen.php
Details.
I can download many gigs in a week, too. I don't need millions of dollars worth of supercomputer to process it.
Here's a suggestion: stop using python to do data crunching. Shocking I know.
I think a better question to ask is what the proponents of that public spending project did to convince Congress it was worth the money, or how they got Congress to keep paying the money long after it should have been canceled, and asking if you would like the proponents of your public spending project to do the same. If not, then why sit around wondering how it is that your rivals get more funding?
The last time Congress asked NASA how much it would cost to go to Mars they came up with a proposal that involved building giant ships in LEO to travel 2.5 years to Mars, stay there a month, and come back. The price tag was trillions. When asked why they should pay so much, NASA basically said "I dunno, it was your idea" and that was that. Lately, though, they've been talking about much more sensible things. 6 months there, 500 days on the ground, 6 months back. The purpose of the mission being to do all the nifty science those little robots have been doing, only at 1000x the scale. Not to mention doing some biological search that isn't retarded.. finding life in the most desolate places on Earth is hard and robots can't do it, and when we send robots to Mars to look for life we ignore any results that say they have found it (all the instruments on Viking said they had found life).
Ya, I don't disagree with your sentiment. However, what Bush blocked was specifically the immediate and direct clinical trials of therapeutic stem cells. The trial that was supposed to start before the ban has already been started now that the ban has been lifted. If it is a success we will be able to directly measure the people who died as a result of the ban.
If you would like me to direct you to some recommended reading, Wikipedia is always a good starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_Cell_Research_Enhancement_Act
But you seem to just want to pretend you know what you're on about, and make obviously ignorant arguments, rather than actually learn anything.
No, the problem is that the cake is a lie.
You once again managed to demonstrate that you have no idea what you're talking about, better than I ever could, so I'll just stop talking to you now.
Understand this, any institution that took federal funding for any research was banned from doing stem cell research.. so basically what you're saying is that they should have started a completely new lab, separated themselves from the rest of their scientific community, to do underfunded research. Well obviously they're just whiners.
It's pretty obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Bush didn't just ban federal funding for stem cell research.. he also vetoed a bunch of bills that were approved by Congress to enhance and invigorate national research on therapeutic stem cell research.
And the MJF foundation did exactly that. Thing is, about 12 months after the ban there was no-one in the US willing to do the research. They saw the writing on the wall and declined to martyr themselves.
During the 6 years that this has been banned how much research into life saving treatments has been delayed? How many living, breathing, people have been denied these treatments? How many more will die over the next 10 years that could have been saved?
And all to placate the extreme pro-life fringe, who count fertilized embryos (that would be destroyed anyway) as sacred, and the ignorant who continually refer to "aborted fetuses" whenever the subject comes up.
For shame.
Are you sure you're not a lawyer? Cause you just said a lot of words that enforced his argument and provided nothing more than what an educated person could have gotten by reading the legislation first hand.
The fact that she didn't get the full $150k per song is the only mystery here.
What's hard to understand dickhead? If something is illegal it is a violation of the criminal code. If something is unlawful it is a violation of either the criminal or civil codes. English language, learn it.
No crime has been committed. Where the fuck do you live? Saudi Arabia?
so, what you're saying is that it is perfectly valid to substitute "improper" for "illegal", or "forbidden" or any of the other 19 synonyms on that page. That it would be silly to talk about the difference between any of these words as clearly there is none. I don't think synonymous means what you think it means.
What's hilarious is that you seem to be misusing "illegal" yourself. Hint: it doesn't mean the same thing as "unlawful".
in-orbit assembly and propellant depots is exactly the problem. It's science fiction. The 90 day study was based on it and came with a price tag of trillions.