Of course, the doctor/senator forgot to mention the entire ban using federal money on embryonic stem cells
Uh, right. Because science can only occur if the US gov't is funding it?
Look, I think the debate on ESC is stupid. I'm a conservative, Christian, but also a scientist and a medical student. I don't understand the so-called moral concerns against ESC, but I also don't understand the so-called scientific concerns as well. Adult stem cells have shown far more versatile than originally thought, having an unexpectedly strong ability to differentiate into multiple cell types. If ESC is so slam-dunk better than ASC, then surely someone can point to a study that shows this? Instead, the best I've seen is editorial complaint from scientists, who would be averse to any sort of limitation on any sort of federal funding.
Care to provide any proof for your baseless assertion? Exactly what do you call dropping a 500-pound bomb on a house with a family sleeping inside? An "oopsie"?
Why sure. Israel has been dropping pamphlets into neighborhoods before they drop bombs, warning civilians to leave the area because an air raid is about to commence.
This is precisely the kind of apologism that emboldens the Israeli government to carry out it's genocidal policies, and it's no accident either that so many people are brainwashed to think this way. The Israel/US axis has an intellectual stranglehold on the press in the US. You can read a lot more reality coming from the Israeli press. Israel absolutely targets civilian targets, much like the US military has done in Fallujah and elsewhere.
Wonderful. Can you cite which page in Protocols of the Elders of Zion you read that from?
Yes, Israel has the right to defend itself as any other country would, BUT i call attacking the civilian population, the utilities and other civilian infrastructure the right response for a extremist movement kiddnapping two (2) people.
This tripe is moderated +4, Insightful? You've got to be kidding me.
This is not the first-- and if Hezbollah carries out it's promises, not the last time Hezbollah will kidnap an Israeli citizen and hold it for ransom. The last time, in 2000, Hezbollah kidnapped 5 Israelis and held them in exchange for 450 prisoners.
Lebanon sat by and did nothing in that time to curb the spread, influence and armament of Hezbollah. Hezbollah knowingly and willingly invaded Israeli territory AFTER Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon-- the original stated goal of Hezbollah, btw. They promised and delivered on more violence against Israeli targets-- including Israeli civilian targets. Doesn't the rain of missiles from Lebanon-based Hezbollah terrorists on Israeli cities indicate just how futile the Lebanese government has been in curbing their terrorist activities?
Also bear in mind that the rest of the world excluding USA has condemmed the strikes, but USA can't even think that it's pet nation, the israel, would do anything wrong.
The US, Britain, Germany, and France has repeatedly asserted that Israel has a right to self defense. And tell me, what choice does Israel have? They aren't intentionally targeting civilian targets, but Hezbollah has chosen to use Lebanese non-combatants as human shields. The UN is useless-- I'm sure Israel will not soon forget the UN "peacekeepers" abandonning Israel in 1967. Diplomacy will not work if your opponent wants to see you dead above all other options.
Let's see: 4 years of college, 4 years of med school, 3 years of med residency --- I get 11 years of training, as opposed to 9 years for most other professionals (4 years, college, 5 years to PhD).
You're counting wrong. 5 years to PhD is an average (and I suspect that's on the low end; in my school the avg length to PhD in EE was 5 years after a 1-2 yr master's). Don't forget that most PhD fields require you to do 2-3 years of postdoctoral training. And there are 6-year combined BS/MD programs, if you're really sure of what you want to do before you start college.
As for the rest, if you want to go ahead thinking that the job of an auto mechanic with that of a physician/surgeon is the same... I don't think any amount of rational counterargument is going to convince you.
Don't forget the AMA, which tells medical schools how many doctors they're allowed to graduate every year.
The AMA is an association of licensed physicians in the United States; it is more akin to a union and lobby group. It has no power to tell medical schools how to do anything (which lies with the American Association of Medical Colleges, the AAMC); it has no power to set the lengths of residencies (which lies with the licensing boards for each particular specialty). But keep on ranting; you're batting.000 here...
Boeing with military contracts, Airbus with direct subsidy
Boeing did not have a substantial military division until it merged with McDonnell-Douglas in the mid-90's. It's two most successful lines- the 737NG and the 777-- were therefore not funded with military contracts. Airbus, on the other hand, has had launch subsidies since it's very beginning, continuing onto today where it is asking for launch aid for the A350. Besides, EADS is a military contractor as well-- shouldn't that count as military subsidies?
Besides, it's a stretch to call military contracts "subsidies." Military contract rules are strict and absolutely forbid any cross-funding or cross-technology transfer between military and civilian projects.
You could also pt to AA191 as an engineering defect. Severing of hydraulic lines should not cause slats to retract. Although the precipitating cause was AA's neglectful maintenance procedures, Douglas should have designed the wing surfaces to not fail with loss of hydraulics.
Oh, you just don't get it. There is no known cause for this crash. All that is known is that just prior to the crash, someone's cell phone went off.
It's been CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN that cell phones cause EMI which can interfere with other electronics. It's been CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN that cell phones cause EMI which can interfere with cockpit instrumentation. It hasn't been conclusively proven, and I never claimed otherwise, that this caused the Crossair plane to go down. But, why take the chance?
In January 2000, a Crossair commuter jet crashed shortly after takeoff. The cause was never determined, but it was discovered that a passenger received an SMS text message on his cell phone immediately prior to the pilots losing control of the plane. Coincidence? Perhaps, but are you telling me that you're so unbelievably arrogant that you dismiss this (and the lives of the 10 people that died in this crash) as well as other studies and anecdotal evidence that indicates cell phones and other portable electronic devices can and do cause occasional glitches in navigational instrumentation.... purely based on your limited experience with a GPS unit?
There are reasons why cell phones are banned in all hospitals. EMI can be unpredictable. It's best to err on the side of caution when your life and the lives of 400 other passengers are on the line.
Not that it's relevant, but MIT certainly does research AIDS cures.
[MIT's] Whitehead [Institute] is recognized worldwide for pathfinding programs in cancer and HIV research, structural biology, genetics, infectious disease research developmental biology, and transgenic science. Link
BSBSBS... the only substantive mention about Clinton administration warnings came from Sandy Berger and Condoleeza Rice. Berger in a TIME Magazine article was so adamant that this was such an important topic to him, that he left in the middle of the meeting when terrorism and Bin Laden was being discussed.
Get your chronology right. 1992-2000: Dems argue (and win the argument) that war record is not a criteria by which you judge presidential qualification.
My charade? Uh... you're the one that started this entire crapfest....
I try for the most part to stay out of political arguments. And I know I'm risking my karma here, but the absolute stupidity of this post, along with the fact that moderators gave it a +5, "Insightful," really makes me question the level of intelligence on/.
The entire issue of war service in the '00 and '04 election is absolutely comical. In '92 and '96, draft dodging William Jefferson Clinton defeated (in large part thanks to Ross Perot) a decorated WWII aviator who was shot down over the Pacific, and a decorated WWII veteran who was permanently crippled during his war service. John Kerry's military record, while commendable, does not come close to these gentlemen... his "wounds" amounted to little more than superficial cuts. But all of a sudden, the Democrats who declared war service to be irrelevant in '92 and '96 want Vietnam service to be relevant in '00 and '04?
Furthermore, all of this nonsense about Clinton/Clarke's plan to stop Al Qaeda... fact of the matter is, Clinton did pathetically little about Bin Laden until late 2000. Even though bin Laden was a suspect in the 1993 WTC bombings, the primary suspect in the 1998 bombings of US embassies in two African nations, and even though Sudan offered to turn over Bin Laden to US authories in the middle of Clinton's tenure as President. All of sudden, on the word of former Clinton staffmembers, there was this grand plan that Bush failed to implement that would have stopped the terrorist threat, even though Mohammad Atta and his cronies were already in the US and likely would have been able to carry the 9/11 attacks anyways? NONSENSE.
But keep up with your charade that all of the US problems are Bush's fault. And let ill-informed moderators waste their points on such drivel...
For starters, they don't even get basic facts right, e.g. they report Airbus was "owned by Dutch and British companies", when in fact it is owned by EADS (80% share, French/German) + BAE (20%, British).
Airbus was a joint venture of Britain's BAE Systems and EADS-- combined, they are the world's largest defense contractor. Whiners who complain about Boeing and Lockmart's defense contracts as subsidies should well remember that. Besides, before Boeing bought McDonnell-Douglas in the mid 90s, they were a distant second player in the defense market.
The first flight of the PROTOTYPE Concorde was in 1969. After test flights, modifications were made to the design. The rollout of the first PRODUCTION version of the Concorde was January 31, 1975. This, incidentally, was the aircraft that crashed in 2000.
Thus, your assertion that there was a 6+ year delay due to US certification issues is warrantless. THIS IS FACT.
Furthermore, once the US did certify Concorde flights in 1976 and 77, why did the airlines then order the aircraft? Because it was too expensive to operate, and used far too much fuel at a time when fuel was scarce due to the Arab oil embargo.
Although Concorde was a technical marvel, the U.S. did everything it could to scuttle the project, for example, its flight certificate was delayed by the FAA until it was sure the project was busted.
What? The Concorde operated for nearly 30 years. How did the US "bust" the project?
As convenient as it would be to blame the US for all of the world's problems, the commercial failure of the Concorde had very little to do with US lawmakers. The oil crisis of the 1970s, combined with the superior operating economics of larger, slower jets like the 747, led to the realization that supersonic flight at the time was not viable.
Big friggin' whoop. The JFK Airtrain is fully automated and runs via linear induction motors. The 42nd St. Shuttle experimented with automated trains all the way back in 1962... 24 years before your precious Vancouver train.
I, for one, welcome our northern neighbors' ignorant statement and incorrect feeling of superiority, eh?
I doubt the difference in resources was only 50%. If you combine their higher Engineer Eval. with the difference in funding levels, it would imply the high schoolers did far more with less. If you have the resources to spare, brute force solutions will ususally do the actual job better than elegant hacks. However, engineering is also about trade-offs and working within your limitations. This kids demonstrated they had this capacity, even though they technically "don't belong here".
See, that's simply an indictment of the flawed criteria of the competition, and not of the engineering abilities of the MIT students vs the high schoolers. (OK, I admit it, I'm an MIT alum).
I mean, suppose you have a task where you need to pump water from one place to another. If you have the resources, the simplest thing to do would be to buy a water pump. Sure, you could design and build one yourself, and you'd probably get props for that. But that doesn't mean that your design is better or that the engineering is superior.
UPN is in roughly 60% of markets and often broadcasts sports prempting enterprise.
Sci-Fi channel is AFAIK basic service channel on all cable/satilite stations.
I'd say at best they have near identical numbers, or frankly I think Sci-Fi has a much larger audience so if Enterprise is getting numbers close to Sci-Fi considering all that I am impressed.
This is pure, unadultered idiocy. No one comparing broadcast TV and cable will think that a cable channel has better market penetration. Seriously, this is why Neilsen has different rankings from broadcast and cable channels. I don't know if your 60% of markets thing is true, but that likely means a much higher percentage of households available (since UPN is likely available in all large television markets). Let's face it; Enterprise failed.. it failed on Wednesday nights, it failed on Friday nights. Let it die.
Another thing you have to add to the equation is the difference between copyright protection and patent protection. For the record labels, they have copyright protection to the life of the artist + 75 years (and rising). For patents, you have 17 years, including the time your therapeutic compound is in trials and not out on the market.
The analogy between the music industry and the pharmaceutical industry is bogus for exactly those points. Plus, the risk in pharma is far, far higher than for music. It takes one bad drug to threaten the survivability of a multi-billion dollar company (eg Vioxx/Merck). What's the huge risk for the record labels?
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, right. Because science can only occur if the US gov't is funding it?
Look, I think the debate on ESC is stupid. I'm a conservative, Christian, but also a scientist and a medical student. I don't understand the so-called moral concerns against ESC, but I also don't understand the so-called scientific concerns as well. Adult stem cells have shown far more versatile than originally thought, having an unexpectedly strong ability to differentiate into multiple cell types. If ESC is so slam-dunk better than ASC, then surely someone can point to a study that shows this? Instead, the best I've seen is editorial complaint from scientists, who would be averse to any sort of limitation on any sort of federal funding.
Why sure. Israel has been dropping pamphlets into neighborhoods before they drop bombs, warning civilians to leave the area because an air raid is about to commence.
This is precisely the kind of apologism that emboldens the Israeli government to carry out it's genocidal policies, and it's no accident either that so many people are brainwashed to think this way. The Israel/US axis has an intellectual stranglehold on the press in the US. You can read a lot more reality coming from the Israeli press. Israel absolutely targets civilian targets, much like the US military has done in Fallujah and elsewhere.
Wonderful. Can you cite which page in Protocols of the Elders of Zion you read that from?
This tripe is moderated +4, Insightful? You've got to be kidding me.
This is not the first-- and if Hezbollah carries out it's promises, not the last time Hezbollah will kidnap an Israeli citizen and hold it for ransom. The last time, in 2000, Hezbollah kidnapped 5 Israelis and held them in exchange for 450 prisoners.
Lebanon sat by and did nothing in that time to curb the spread, influence and armament of Hezbollah. Hezbollah knowingly and willingly invaded Israeli territory AFTER Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon-- the original stated goal of Hezbollah, btw. They promised and delivered on more violence against Israeli targets-- including Israeli civilian targets. Doesn't the rain of missiles from Lebanon-based Hezbollah terrorists on Israeli cities indicate just how futile the Lebanese government has been in curbing their terrorist activities?
Also bear in mind that the rest of the world excluding USA has condemmed the strikes, but USA can't even think that it's pet nation, the israel, would do anything wrong.
The US, Britain, Germany, and France has repeatedly asserted that Israel has a right to self defense. And tell me, what choice does Israel have? They aren't intentionally targeting civilian targets, but Hezbollah has chosen to use Lebanese non-combatants as human shields. The UN is useless-- I'm sure Israel will not soon forget the UN "peacekeepers" abandonning Israel in 1967. Diplomacy will not work if your opponent wants to see you dead above all other options.
You're counting wrong. 5 years to PhD is an average (and I suspect that's on the low end; in my school the avg length to PhD in EE was 5 years after a 1-2 yr master's). Don't forget that most PhD fields require you to do 2-3 years of postdoctoral training. And there are 6-year combined BS/MD programs, if you're really sure of what you want to do before you start college.
As for the rest, if you want to go ahead thinking that the job of an auto mechanic with that of a physician/surgeon is the same... I don't think any amount of rational counterargument is going to convince you.
The AMA is an association of licensed physicians in the United States; it is more akin to a union and lobby group. It has no power to tell medical schools how to do anything (which lies with the American Association of Medical Colleges, the AAMC); it has no power to set the lengths of residencies (which lies with the licensing boards for each particular specialty). But keep on ranting; you're batting .000 here...
Boeing did not have a substantial military division until it merged with McDonnell-Douglas in the mid-90's. It's two most successful lines- the 737NG and the 777-- were therefore not funded with military contracts. Airbus, on the other hand, has had launch subsidies since it's very beginning, continuing onto today where it is asking for launch aid for the A350. Besides, EADS is a military contractor as well-- shouldn't that count as military subsidies?
Besides, it's a stretch to call military contracts "subsidies." Military contract rules are strict and absolutely forbid any cross-funding or cross-technology transfer between military and civilian projects.
AFAIK Airbus has not repaid it's original funding commitment for the A300/A310 series (upon which the A330-A340 fuselage is based).
Hubble servicing project (tentatively STS-125) scheduled for 2008, as per Wikipedia.
But don't let that get in the way of your ignorant, uninformed, nonsensical political rant.
You could also pt to AA191 as an engineering defect. Severing of hydraulic lines should not cause slats to retract. Although the precipitating cause was AA's neglectful maintenance procedures, Douglas should have designed the wing surfaces to not fail with loss of hydraulics.
It's been CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN that cell phones cause EMI which can interfere with other electronics. It's been CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN that cell phones cause EMI which can interfere with cockpit instrumentation. It hasn't been conclusively proven, and I never claimed otherwise, that this caused the Crossair plane to go down. But, why take the chance?
There are reasons why cell phones are banned in all hospitals. EMI can be unpredictable. It's best to err on the side of caution when your life and the lives of 400 other passengers are on the line.
Not that it's relevant, but MIT certainly does research AIDS cures.
[MIT's] Whitehead [Institute] is recognized worldwide for pathfinding programs in cancer and HIV research, structural biology, genetics, infectious disease research developmental biology, and transgenic science. Link
BSBSBS... the only substantive mention about Clinton administration warnings came from Sandy Berger and Condoleeza Rice. Berger in a TIME Magazine article was so adamant that this was such an important topic to him, that he left in the middle of the meeting when terrorism and Bin Laden was being discussed. Get your chronology right. 1992-2000: Dems argue (and win the argument) that war record is not a criteria by which you judge presidential qualification. My charade? Uh... you're the one that started this entire crapfest....
I try for the most part to stay out of political arguments. And I know I'm risking my karma here, but the absolute stupidity of this post, along with the fact that moderators gave it a +5, "Insightful," really makes me question the level of intelligence on /.
The entire issue of war service in the '00 and '04 election is absolutely comical. In '92 and '96, draft dodging William Jefferson Clinton defeated (in large part thanks to Ross Perot) a decorated WWII aviator who was shot down over the Pacific, and a decorated WWII veteran who was permanently crippled during his war service. John Kerry's military record, while commendable, does not come close to these gentlemen... his "wounds" amounted to little more than superficial cuts. But all of a sudden, the Democrats who declared war service to be irrelevant in '92 and '96 want Vietnam service to be relevant in '00 and '04?
Furthermore, all of this nonsense about Clinton/Clarke's plan to stop Al Qaeda... fact of the matter is, Clinton did pathetically little about Bin Laden until late 2000. Even though bin Laden was a suspect in the 1993 WTC bombings, the primary suspect in the 1998 bombings of US embassies in two African nations, and even though Sudan offered to turn over Bin Laden to US authories in the middle of Clinton's tenure as President. All of sudden, on the word of former Clinton staffmembers, there was this grand plan that Bush failed to implement that would have stopped the terrorist threat, even though Mohammad Atta and his cronies were already in the US and likely would have been able to carry the 9/11 attacks anyways? NONSENSE.
But keep up with your charade that all of the US problems are Bush's fault. And let ill-informed moderators waste their points on such drivel...
Actually, that part of the article is spot on. EADS is multinational but incorporated in the Netherlands.
Lessee... eInk & Mindstorms are 2 pretty useful things that come out of the top of my head from the Media Lab...
Airbus was a joint venture of Britain's BAE Systems and EADS-- combined, they are the world's largest defense contractor. Whiners who complain about Boeing and Lockmart's defense contracts as subsidies should well remember that. Besides, before Boeing bought McDonnell-Douglas in the mid 90s, they were a distant second player in the defense market.
Thus, your assertion that there was a 6+ year delay due to US certification issues is warrantless. THIS IS FACT.
Furthermore, once the US did certify Concorde flights in 1976 and 77, why did the airlines then order the aircraft? Because it was too expensive to operate, and used far too much fuel at a time when fuel was scarce due to the Arab oil embargo.
What? The Concorde operated for nearly 30 years. How did the US "bust" the project?
As convenient as it would be to blame the US for all of the world's problems, the commercial failure of the Concorde had very little to do with US lawmakers. The oil crisis of the 1970s, combined with the superior operating economics of larger, slower jets like the 747, led to the realization that supersonic flight at the time was not viable.
The shuttle is still required to do the heavy lifting for completion of the ISS. Otherwise, the space station will be only about halfway complete.
I, for one, welcome our northern neighbors' ignorant statement and incorrect feeling of superiority, eh?
See, that's simply an indictment of the flawed criteria of the competition, and not of the engineering abilities of the MIT students vs the high schoolers. (OK, I admit it, I'm an MIT alum).
I mean, suppose you have a task where you need to pump water from one place to another. If you have the resources, the simplest thing to do would be to buy a water pump. Sure, you could design and build one yourself, and you'd probably get props for that. But that doesn't mean that your design is better or that the engineering is superior.
So the real story is, MIT beat the high school kids by 50% in the only objective scoring category of the competition. Why is this news?
This is pure, unadultered idiocy. No one comparing broadcast TV and cable will think that a cable channel has better market penetration. Seriously, this is why Neilsen has different rankings from broadcast and cable channels. I don't know if your 60% of markets thing is true, but that likely means a much higher percentage of households available (since UPN is likely available in all large television markets). Let's face it; Enterprise failed.. it failed on Wednesday nights, it failed on Friday nights. Let it die.
Another thing you have to add to the equation is the difference between copyright protection and patent protection. For the record labels, they have copyright protection to the life of the artist + 75 years (and rising). For patents, you have 17 years, including the time your therapeutic compound is in trials and not out on the market.
The analogy between the music industry and the pharmaceutical industry is bogus for exactly those points. Plus, the risk in pharma is far, far higher than for music. It takes one bad drug to threaten the survivability of a multi-billion dollar company (eg Vioxx/Merck). What's the huge risk for the record labels?