They're more than welcome to visit! We're a two hour drive from the international airport. Exercise to the reader which airport that is!
I live a two hour driver from the international airport, you insensitive clod! What am I supposed to do with all these foreign kids who are now showing up at my door asking to look at my candy bars? And how did they know I like Milky Way?
I got a trip planned to a friend's farm out in the country to see if I can start getting some decent stars!
Yes, because all the decent stars are living out in the country on your friend's farm. The crappy stars like Sanjaya and Janice "I'm an old hag but I still call myself a celebrity" Dickinson are living in Costa Rico, and the mediocre stars are still in Hollywood trying to work.
Re the OP: I'd say that at least half the people in the world can't see the Milky Way. When it's night, say 2AM, it'd dark on only half the planet. The other half is sunlit, and you can't see the Milky way in sunlight. I can't see the Milky Way because when it's NIGHT I'm ASLEEP and I can't see any stars when I'm asleep.
I'm in Oregon and it is not happening for me. I set resolv.conf on home system to point to a system I run outside Comlast and ran dig, saw connection rejected by iptables on the outside server for port 53 from home address.
When I see such hyperbole being used in an argument, I assume the author knows he's lost and is just blowing smoke to try to cover up the fact.
Um, no you don't.
Yes, I do. People who make ridiculous claims about things tend not to know what they are talking about. I have touched something that touched something... and there has never been any question about federal funding for what our University is doing.
If you want to argue that one lab being de-funded because another lab is doing the research, well, that's a different argument. I work at a University, however, and I know how the money flows. A lot of money is skimmed off the top of every research grant (called "overhead") which pays for infrastructure (lights, computers, etc), and so it is a valid argument that federal money headed to researcher A (who is doing innocuous research) winds up paying for researcher B (who is doing the embryonic stem cell research). Money that does make it to the researcher may go to buying instrumentation that is used by others. (Thank GOD for that mix, because it helps cover slack times and continue valuable programs during gaps in funding.)
It's not much different than those who argue that private organizations funded for public assistance (a church running a soup kitchen for the homeless, e.g.) are using government money to support religion. (Some of the money builds a kitchen at the church, which the church uses for church functions, thus saving the cost to the church of building a kitchen. The church benefits.)
This strikes me as very sloppy thinking. And it's offensive to Jews (I asked one).
Of COURSE it's offensive to Jews. It's offensive to anyone when you claim they are less than human. That's the POINT. People who valued the ends used offensive definitions to justify the means. Someone who wanted to study human physiology to save the lives of people he valued defined people he did not value as "non human" so he could get where he wanted. If you don't see the parallel, well, I don't think I can explain it better.
Your argument is basically "well we called Jews non-humans and that was wrong, so we'd better not label microscopic clumps of cells as being non-human."
No, my argument is "we have in the past made decisions about what is 'non-human' and have changed our mind, so we'd better not be THAT QUICK to dismiss discussions about the possibility of changing our mind again."
That says nothing about "right" or "wrong", but it says a lot about thinking about courses of action that we might regret in the future.
A side-argument is that the people who are arguing for open access have a vested interest in the issue. Michael J Fox, certainly, but even a run of the mill researcher is being paid to do this. Now, most scientists find it offensive if you claim their objectivity is clouded by who pays the bills, but those scientists who are paid by big companies and dispute anthropogenic global warming theories face that kind of slander every day, even though the ones painting them as sellouts get paid for their pro opinions, too.
I just hope someday "we" don't realize that there is some difference between "a clump of cells" and "a fertilized embryo" that makes using them for scientific research unethical. Some people already think there is, and it is pretty offensive to THEM for others to dismiss their opinions as nonsense. You can't touch this subject without being offensive.
So, given that we may change our minds in the future about the ethics of the matter, what is the problem with avoiding that question by simply not continuing to do something that doesn't need to be done?
The fact, however, remains, that embryonic stemcell research was NOT prohibited by Bush, funding was NOT cut, and Barry hasn't made the blind man see or the crippled rat crawl.
Deficit spending means we will bill today's children tomorrow,
Not deficit spending. If the Fair Tax gets enacted, the little bastards WILL be paying taxes on every penny of their allowance that they spend, at the same rate as every other person in the US. At something like 37%.
She didn't write that book about her covert employment;
If she didn't write about her covert activities, there would be no reason for the CIA to redact anything. If it ain't a secret, it ain't a secret. Her employment at CIA wasn't a secret.
That you see Begala or Olbermann as instrumental in any of this is just bizarre, but I guess that's how it is with loony conspiracy theories.
It is hardly a "loony conspiracy theory" to admit that the liberal media had a field day covering this alleged Bush plot to out Plame. In fact, it's the opposite: the loony conspiracy theorists are the ones crying about how Bush and Cheney and the CIA all conspired to get her killed for being an agent.
Look, this only became an issue because the CIA asked the Justice Dept to investigate a breach of classified information, not because Olbermann whined about it.
This only became an "issue" because the liberal media plastered it all over the airwaves and newspaper headlines. It was a simple request to investigate an alleged act prior to that; after the request the "alleged" bit was forgotten and the media tried and convicted the popular targets. They overlooked the real leak; he was a journalist and thus exempt from contempt.
What Bush did which was new, was to threaten to withdraw all federal funding for a research institution if anyone there touches something that touched something that was in a lab where something might have touched an unsanctioned embryonic stem cell.
When I see such hyperbole being used in an argument, I assume the author knows he's lost and is just blowing smoke to try to cover up the fact.
So you feel that we can ethically use what we obtained unethically.
No, I feel that the issue becomes grayer when you are one level away from the actual unethical behaviour, instead of performing the behaviour directly to profit or benefit from it. We already have embryonic stem cell lines -- there is nothing we can do to undo whatever damage was done in getting them. That does not mean that we are free to continue harvest new lines. It's like the fact that slaves built many buildings when slavery was legal, and we aren't going to tear them all down because of how they were built. We just won't make slaves build any more of them.
The ideas of what is ethical change over time. The realization that some things we thought were ethical might result in unethical acts does mean we might want to stop what is, by itself, ethical. The desire to seek new cell lines using existing fertilized embryos can easily result in the production of those embryos for the sole purpose of harvesting them.
and then cut out this nonsense of banning what natural phenomena science is allowed to look at
At what point in time did in-vitro fertilization become "a natural phenomen[on]"? In-vivo, yes. For fish, yes. For humans, I can't recall any point in time when the woman expressed her eggs naturally and then reimplanted them.
As soon as I hear German names in these discussions, I usually head for the door.
Well, it's a similar situation on a larger scale. It's often called "reductio ad absurdum", when you take an argument to a larger scale to study the issues more closely. Do we abandon the information that Mengele obtained in his studies? Gray area. Do we continue his studies because he was getting useful information and since he was already doing it we would be just continuing something already being done?
The reason his name came up is because of a statement made by another poster about "do we watch humans die just to protect non-human life", or words very similar to that. I just mapped the "non-human life" from "embryo" to "Jew", because at the time it was being done, they weren't considered valid human life. Those who call for harvesting embryonic stem cells call the embryos "non-human".
You don't think that's being a bit unfair? This guy's an archaeologist who knows the value of historical sites. They give us a ton of insight into where we've been and thus where we're going.
The most value of a HISTORICAL site is for pre-historic (i.e., before recorded history), and of some value for poorly recorded history. E.g., sites like Stonehenge where there aren't any records of "we put this stone here, and then stopped for lunch of boiled cabbage and rabbit, using our crude stone tools...". Or sites like native american burial grounds where we have oral histories that contain allegorical content and maybe the site has some cultural significance.
The first bootprint on the moon was well documented, the means of getting there was well documented, the reasons for getting there were well documented, the kind of society that existed at the time was well documented.
There is zero chance that someone in 2700 AD is going to feel that the landing site is a religious area, or get ANY clue about the culture in 1960 AD just by looking at a bootprint in the lunar dust.
Of course, that doesn't mean we should destroy sites like that just because we can, just that creating some "Historical District" that prevents any future use of those areas is silly. Just like it's silly when applied to cities that didn't exist before 1800.
Well if you threaten to cut federal funding to any university or hospital that does research on embryonic stem cells, surprise surprise, there are going to be more breakthroughs from other cell types.
You're one of those who claims funding is cut if the amount of funding doesn't get increased as much as you want, aren't you?
Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research goes on, there are just limits on the use of new cell lines. It's an ethics thing. We already have some embryonic lines to work with, we don't need to continue what some people feel are highly unethical actions to get more, but the ones we have can be used and duplicated forever.
It's like, do we use the information that Mengele developed, or do we use the same techniques to get more information? After all, you don't want to be seen as someone who would watch humans die just so that some non-humans don't have to, would you?
I'm pretty sure the fact that that trial was able to restore locomotion after a spinal cord injury would be a breakthrough.
A breakthrough for paraplegic rats.
Using embryonic stem cells that have ALWAYS been approved for research and federal funding.
I know you want to make this look like Barry got into office and suddenly the lame started walking and the blind can see, but Barry had nothing to do with either the vision repair using adult stem cells or the approval of the TESTS to see if embryonic cells can restore nerve tissue in humans.
It's completely false that Plame didn't care if people knew --
And that's why the local Border's is remaindering a book, written by Plame, describing her covert employment. I guess she wants to keep it a big dark secret. The best way to keep a secret is to write a book... She didn't care at the time, she doesn't care now. For $1 you can learn her version of her life history. Of course, the fact that her husband was a political hack doesn't color her views at all.
...as you should know from news reports at the time, she was actually engaged in covert operations involving WMD and Iran,
She was working in Langley, driving to work every day, living in the suburbs. You don't drive into the CIA offices on a daily basis if you care about anyone knowing where you work.
It wasn't "blown up" by anyone with "hatred for the administration." Are you kidding me? Who do you mean, Patrick Fitzgerald? or the CIA?
I mean every liberal who hated George Bush and would do anything to spread that fear and hate, while trying to pretend that Bush was the one who was spreading fear and hate. The CIA didn't out her, and the CIA didn't spread the information when she was. It was people like Begala(1) and Stephanopolous(2) and CNN and MSNBC (with their completely unbiased "reporters" like Olberman) who picked up the info and spread it so widely that you couldn't miss it if you tried, all the while crying about how the information was being spread around.
(1) Begala, who once claimed that Rush Limbaugh had told his audience to flood the whitehouse switchboard (he didn't), and as proof of this said that "the instructions were given at 9AM, the switchboard was clogged by 9:10AM." What he forgot is that Rush isn't on until NOON whitehouse time, so apparently his instructions were sent telepathically three hours before his radio program started.
(2) Stephie, who ABC news labels as a "news analyst" or "reporter", while labeling similar people from the Republican party as "political commentators". Liberal reporters can never be "political commentators", conservatives can never be anything but.
On another note, I wonder if you felt the same way about the leak of a covert agent's identity during the Bush Administration?
Sure. The person(s) responsible should face consequences.
Were you hoping to see Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, or Dick Cheney in a noose?
No, because they weren't the ones responsible. It was Novak, if I recall correctly, who leaked the information. Some news reporter. And it wasn't as if Plame herself was big on keeping it a secret. It wasn't a secret that she worked for the CIA. If she didn't care if people knew, then I don't think there's much brouhaha to be had over people knowing.
It was a molehill that was blown up by those whose hatred for the administration got in the way of their better judgement. I suspect that almost nobody would know, or care, that Plame was a CIA op had the "leak" not been used to try to bludgeon political opponents. By spreading the information that they claimed was tip-top-ultra secret, the anti-Bush people created a bigger leak and should have some responsibility for it.
It should never matter HOW the licensed spectrum is modulated so long as other licensees aren't affected.
The FCC does, indeed, limit what "modulations" are permitted, as part of the licensing process.
Even so, the issue is not licensing, but patent royalties. IF you were able to build your own radios for your own personal use, you could avoid patent issues. As soon as you try selling your service, you need to pay attention to patents and pay the royalties.
That's also assuming that what you build for yourself uses parts that have no inherent patent entanglements and hidden royalty costs, which is a pretty bad assumption.
So, getting back to the original "money-grubbing for-profit" patent royalty complaint, there's two points to be made. First is that receiving broadcast TV is optional, so you aren't forced to pay anything. Second is that you can avoid patent fees the same way that you are trying to avoid them by building your own equipment for 3g -- by building your own TV receiver. You need pay no royalties on equipment you build for your own personal use.
What's really sad is people who use the phrase "just a theory" to disparage the conclusions of a consensus of actual scientists using the actual scientific method to reach those conclusions.
What's even sadder is when someone tries claiming a "consensus of actual scientists" when there is significant disagreement of "actual scientists", and then tries using that to squelch all discussion of the science as "obstructionist" or "pet peeve" or "anti-intellectual". It's not new. I see it on a nearly daily basis. "Scientists" who try to shout down the skeptics, hoping to coerce them into going away.
Scientific method?
Yes, you have correlations between some direct measurements, and some indirect measurements where you assume a causal link between what you measure and what you claim it measures, but experiments designed to test the hypothesis? No. That's why I suggested that people look up the words "causality" and "correlation" and learn the difference.
You think you have experimental evidence? Ok, on which planet similar to earth have you varied the levels of CO2 and measured the temperatures? Where you've accounted for and limited variability due to every other possible cause? Name one. Provide the error bars of your measurements.
Oh, you have models. Models. Computer programs that predict temperatures for centuries, but change on a monthly basis as to what that temperature will be, and are modified until they are "successful" at showing the hockey stick. That's the criterion for success. (I was the happy recipient of an NCAR bit of SPAM announcing an improvement in the model -- the hockey stick bent up even more sharply and things were going to be much worse than the previous model said. That was their "success".) I work with modelers. There's enough fudge used in models to make them "work" to supply New York City's sweet tooth for ten decades.
And "hindcasting" previous data? If a model can start with data for the last decade and come up with the same numbers for the last decade, it MUST be right for the year 2074. Right.
For Christ's sake, all I did was use the word "theory" in the lay sense of "not a proven fact, a hypothesis" in response to someone trying to spout sci-religious dogma and you'd think the entire world was collapsing. Get over it. Anthropogenic bases for climate change are a theory. There ARE "actual scientists" who disagree. I know some of them personally, and I know why they don't speak out more -- they tend to lose their jobs when they do. (That's called "academic freedom".) Pretending that it's "anti-intellectual" to try to debate the question is preposterous.
However, that's no reason to continue the behaviors that caused the warming. Any steps we can take will slow the warming and contribute to an eventual slow reversal.
Taking low-cost steps that reduce energy use is quite practical. Demanding that the US cut energy use by 80% is not.
and gestures that look like a drop in the sand to us are necessary to eventually reverse the tide.
I wonder, when the tide "reverses" because of the Maunder Minimum, will those who cried wolf admit they cried wolf, or will they use the reversal as proof that they were right? And do those who talk about "reversing tides" recognize the name Xerxes?
it is going to legalize regulated internet gambling.
As someone who remembers the phrase "the internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it", I have to ask, exactly what IS "regulated internet gambling", how does one tell it apart from "unregulated", and exactly how do you stop the "unregulated" from taking place?
Half the north-american continent covered with ice. THOSE were the days. No having to refill the ice-cube trays, you wanted a scotch on the rocks you stuck your fist out the door and picked up the "rocks".
It's rather disingenuous to demand things "as it once was" without remembering that "as it once was" isn't how it always was, even before we got here.
It was that scene more than any, perhaps, that made me realize that this Kirk was nothing but a uniformed Zack Morris (Mark-Paul Gosselar) from "Saved By The Bell."
I was seriously disappointed. The music intruded into the action too often (when Spock is choking Kirk, for example), and the lens-flares were just distracting, especially in bridge scenes.
A seventeen year old is stuck on "Delta Vega" with an alien, a planetoid so close to Vulcan that Spock can watch Vulcan be destroyed, which makes it impossible that Scotty would have missed it -- and all he can talk about is "did you bring me sandwiches"?
A "supernova" that moved so slowly that Spock could have time out plan and outfit a rescue ship, but moved so quickly that Romulans could do nothing about getting themselves off planet?
So now we have an entirely new "Star Trek" universe for someone to make money off of.
People don't tend to scream at the top of their lungs in an airplane,...
They talk louder because they judge how well they are being heard by how well they hear themselves. Over the constant drone of jet engines, people have to talk louder to hear themselves. Thus, they assume they need to be that loud so the microphone just an inch away from their face can hear them.
plus it is pressurized to reduce the need to scream further.
"Pressurized" is a relative term. Standard cabin air pressure is around 8000 feet altitude. Less than sea level. The pressure is lower than normal, even though the cabin is "pressurized".
If everyone has small chatter it actually creates a bit of a whitenoise effect = sleep.
I don't know what airplanes you fly on, but on the ones here on earth, lots of people chatting isn't "white noise" by any stretch of the imagination. The people ahead/behind you are always louder and prevent any realistic averaging. HA HA HA YOU DIDN'T...
Slashdot Mirror
I live a two hour driver from the international airport, you insensitive clod! What am I supposed to do with all these foreign kids who are now showing up at my door asking to look at my candy bars? And how did they know I like Milky Way?
Get off my lawn, you damn kids!
Yes, because all the decent stars are living out in the country on your friend's farm. The crappy stars like Sanjaya and Janice "I'm an old hag but I still call myself a celebrity" Dickinson are living in Costa Rico, and the mediocre stars are still in Hollywood trying to work.
Re the OP: I'd say that at least half the people in the world can't see the Milky Way. When it's night, say 2AM, it'd dark on only half the planet. The other half is sunlit, and you can't see the Milky way in sunlight. I can't see the Milky Way because when it's NIGHT I'm ASLEEP and I can't see any stars when I'm asleep.
I'm in Oregon and it is not happening for me. I set resolv.conf on home system to point to a system I run outside Comlast and ran dig, saw connection rejected by iptables on the outside server for port 53 from home address.
Um, no you don't.
Yes, I do. People who make ridiculous claims about things tend not to know what they are talking about. I have touched something that touched something ... and there has never been any question about federal funding for what our University is doing.
If you want to argue that one lab being de-funded because another lab is doing the research, well, that's a different argument. I work at a University, however, and I know how the money flows. A lot of money is skimmed off the top of every research grant (called "overhead") which pays for infrastructure (lights, computers, etc), and so it is a valid argument that federal money headed to researcher A (who is doing innocuous research) winds up paying for researcher B (who is doing the embryonic stem cell research). Money that does make it to the researcher may go to buying instrumentation that is used by others. (Thank GOD for that mix, because it helps cover slack times and continue valuable programs during gaps in funding.)
It's not much different than those who argue that private organizations funded for public assistance (a church running a soup kitchen for the homeless, e.g.) are using government money to support religion. (Some of the money builds a kitchen at the church, which the church uses for church functions, thus saving the cost to the church of building a kitchen. The church benefits.)
This strikes me as very sloppy thinking. And it's offensive to Jews (I asked one).
Of COURSE it's offensive to Jews. It's offensive to anyone when you claim they are less than human. That's the POINT. People who valued the ends used offensive definitions to justify the means. Someone who wanted to study human physiology to save the lives of people he valued defined people he did not value as "non human" so he could get where he wanted. If you don't see the parallel, well, I don't think I can explain it better.
Your argument is basically "well we called Jews non-humans and that was wrong, so we'd better not label microscopic clumps of cells as being non-human."
No, my argument is "we have in the past made decisions about what is 'non-human' and have changed our mind, so we'd better not be THAT QUICK to dismiss discussions about the possibility of changing our mind again." That says nothing about "right" or "wrong", but it says a lot about thinking about courses of action that we might regret in the future.
A side-argument is that the people who are arguing for open access have a vested interest in the issue. Michael J Fox, certainly, but even a run of the mill researcher is being paid to do this. Now, most scientists find it offensive if you claim their objectivity is clouded by who pays the bills, but those scientists who are paid by big companies and dispute anthropogenic global warming theories face that kind of slander every day, even though the ones painting them as sellouts get paid for their pro opinions, too.
I just hope someday "we" don't realize that there is some difference between "a clump of cells" and "a fertilized embryo" that makes using them for scientific research unethical. Some people already think there is, and it is pretty offensive to THEM for others to dismiss their opinions as nonsense. You can't touch this subject without being offensive.
So, given that we may change our minds in the future about the ethics of the matter, what is the problem with avoiding that question by simply not continuing to do something that doesn't need to be done?
The fact, however, remains, that embryonic stemcell research was NOT prohibited by Bush, funding was NOT cut, and Barry hasn't made the blind man see or the crippled rat crawl.
Deficit spending means we will bill today's children tomorrow,
Not deficit spending. If the Fair Tax gets enacted, the little bastards WILL be paying taxes on every penny of their allowance that they spend, at the same rate as every other person in the US. At something like 37%.
That's fair. Right.
If she didn't write about her covert activities, there would be no reason for the CIA to redact anything. If it ain't a secret, it ain't a secret. Her employment at CIA wasn't a secret.
That you see Begala or Olbermann as instrumental in any of this is just bizarre, but I guess that's how it is with loony conspiracy theories.
It is hardly a "loony conspiracy theory" to admit that the liberal media had a field day covering this alleged Bush plot to out Plame. In fact, it's the opposite: the loony conspiracy theorists are the ones crying about how Bush and Cheney and the CIA all conspired to get her killed for being an agent.
Look, this only became an issue because the CIA asked the Justice Dept to investigate a breach of classified information, not because Olbermann whined about it.
This only became an "issue" because the liberal media plastered it all over the airwaves and newspaper headlines. It was a simple request to investigate an alleged act prior to that; after the request the "alleged" bit was forgotten and the media tried and convicted the popular targets. They overlooked the real leak; he was a journalist and thus exempt from contempt.
When I see such hyperbole being used in an argument, I assume the author knows he's lost and is just blowing smoke to try to cover up the fact.
So you feel that we can ethically use what we obtained unethically.
No, I feel that the issue becomes grayer when you are one level away from the actual unethical behaviour, instead of performing the behaviour directly to profit or benefit from it. We already have embryonic stem cell lines -- there is nothing we can do to undo whatever damage was done in getting them. That does not mean that we are free to continue harvest new lines. It's like the fact that slaves built many buildings when slavery was legal, and we aren't going to tear them all down because of how they were built. We just won't make slaves build any more of them.
The ideas of what is ethical change over time. The realization that some things we thought were ethical might result in unethical acts does mean we might want to stop what is, by itself, ethical. The desire to seek new cell lines using existing fertilized embryos can easily result in the production of those embryos for the sole purpose of harvesting them.
and then cut out this nonsense of banning what natural phenomena science is allowed to look at
At what point in time did in-vitro fertilization become "a natural phenomen[on]"? In-vivo, yes. For fish, yes. For humans, I can't recall any point in time when the woman expressed her eggs naturally and then reimplanted them.
As soon as I hear German names in these discussions, I usually head for the door.
Well, it's a similar situation on a larger scale. It's often called "reductio ad absurdum", when you take an argument to a larger scale to study the issues more closely. Do we abandon the information that Mengele obtained in his studies? Gray area. Do we continue his studies because he was getting useful information and since he was already doing it we would be just continuing something already being done?
The reason his name came up is because of a statement made by another poster about "do we watch humans die just to protect non-human life", or words very similar to that. I just mapped the "non-human life" from "embryo" to "Jew", because at the time it was being done, they weren't considered valid human life. Those who call for harvesting embryonic stem cells call the embryos "non-human".
The most value of a HISTORICAL site is for pre-historic (i.e., before recorded history), and of some value for poorly recorded history. E.g., sites like Stonehenge where there aren't any records of "we put this stone here, and then stopped for lunch of boiled cabbage and rabbit, using our crude stone tools...". Or sites like native american burial grounds where we have oral histories that contain allegorical content and maybe the site has some cultural significance.
The first bootprint on the moon was well documented, the means of getting there was well documented, the reasons for getting there were well documented, the kind of society that existed at the time was well documented.
There is zero chance that someone in 2700 AD is going to feel that the landing site is a religious area, or get ANY clue about the culture in 1960 AD just by looking at a bootprint in the lunar dust.
Of course, that doesn't mean we should destroy sites like that just because we can, just that creating some "Historical District" that prevents any future use of those areas is silly. Just like it's silly when applied to cities that didn't exist before 1800.
You're one of those who claims funding is cut if the amount of funding doesn't get increased as much as you want, aren't you?
Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research goes on, there are just limits on the use of new cell lines. It's an ethics thing. We already have some embryonic lines to work with, we don't need to continue what some people feel are highly unethical actions to get more, but the ones we have can be used and duplicated forever.
It's like, do we use the information that Mengele developed, or do we use the same techniques to get more information? After all, you don't want to be seen as someone who would watch humans die just so that some non-humans don't have to, would you?
A breakthrough for paraplegic rats.
Using embryonic stem cells that have ALWAYS been approved for research and federal funding.
I know you want to make this look like Barry got into office and suddenly the lame started walking and the blind can see, but Barry had nothing to do with either the vision repair using adult stem cells or the approval of the TESTS to see if embryonic cells can restore nerve tissue in humans.
And that's why the local Border's is remaindering a book, written by Plame, describing her covert employment. I guess she wants to keep it a big dark secret. The best way to keep a secret is to write a book... She didn't care at the time, she doesn't care now. For $1 you can learn her version of her life history. Of course, the fact that her husband was a political hack doesn't color her views at all.
She was working in Langley, driving to work every day, living in the suburbs. You don't drive into the CIA offices on a daily basis if you care about anyone knowing where you work.
It wasn't "blown up" by anyone with "hatred for the administration." Are you kidding me? Who do you mean, Patrick Fitzgerald? or the CIA?
I mean every liberal who hated George Bush and would do anything to spread that fear and hate, while trying to pretend that Bush was the one who was spreading fear and hate. The CIA didn't out her, and the CIA didn't spread the information when she was. It was people like Begala(1) and Stephanopolous(2) and CNN and MSNBC (with their completely unbiased "reporters" like Olberman) who picked up the info and spread it so widely that you couldn't miss it if you tried, all the while crying about how the information was being spread around.
(1) Begala, who once claimed that Rush Limbaugh had told his audience to flood the whitehouse switchboard (he didn't), and as proof of this said that "the instructions were given at 9AM, the switchboard was clogged by 9:10AM." What he forgot is that Rush isn't on until NOON whitehouse time, so apparently his instructions were sent telepathically three hours before his radio program started.
(2) Stephie, who ABC news labels as a "news analyst" or "reporter", while labeling similar people from the Republican party as "political commentators". Liberal reporters can never be "political commentators", conservatives can never be anything but.
Yeah, the 1947 steel pennies are worth something, but you'd just have to throw away all the Canadian nickels.
Sure. The person(s) responsible should face consequences.
Were you hoping to see Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, or Dick Cheney in a noose?
No, because they weren't the ones responsible. It was Novak, if I recall correctly, who leaked the information. Some news reporter. And it wasn't as if Plame herself was big on keeping it a secret. It wasn't a secret that she worked for the CIA. If she didn't care if people knew, then I don't think there's much brouhaha to be had over people knowing.
It was a molehill that was blown up by those whose hatred for the administration got in the way of their better judgement. I suspect that almost nobody would know, or care, that Plame was a CIA op had the "leak" not been used to try to bludgeon political opponents. By spreading the information that they claimed was tip-top-ultra secret, the anti-Bush people created a bigger leak and should have some responsibility for it.
The FCC does, indeed, limit what "modulations" are permitted, as part of the licensing process.
Even so, the issue is not licensing, but patent royalties. IF you were able to build your own radios for your own personal use, you could avoid patent issues. As soon as you try selling your service, you need to pay attention to patents and pay the royalties.
That's also assuming that what you build for yourself uses parts that have no inherent patent entanglements and hidden royalty costs, which is a pretty bad assumption.
So, getting back to the original "money-grubbing for-profit" patent royalty complaint, there's two points to be made. First is that receiving broadcast TV is optional, so you aren't forced to pay anything. Second is that you can avoid patent fees the same way that you are trying to avoid them by building your own equipment for 3g -- by building your own TV receiver. You need pay no royalties on equipment you build for your own personal use.
How is watching over-the-air TV anything BUT optional?
OTH, how do you use 3g technology without paying some "money grubbing for-profit" enterprise?
It wins big in more than one category.
I'm sure there are some I'm forgetting.
Don't you mean "Windows For Warcraft"?
What's even sadder is when someone tries claiming a "consensus of actual scientists" when there is significant disagreement of "actual scientists", and then tries using that to squelch all discussion of the science as "obstructionist" or "pet peeve" or "anti-intellectual". It's not new. I see it on a nearly daily basis. "Scientists" who try to shout down the skeptics, hoping to coerce them into going away.
Scientific method? Yes, you have correlations between some direct measurements, and some indirect measurements where you assume a causal link between what you measure and what you claim it measures, but experiments designed to test the hypothesis? No. That's why I suggested that people look up the words "causality" and "correlation" and learn the difference.
You think you have experimental evidence? Ok, on which planet similar to earth have you varied the levels of CO2 and measured the temperatures? Where you've accounted for and limited variability due to every other possible cause? Name one. Provide the error bars of your measurements.
Oh, you have models. Models. Computer programs that predict temperatures for centuries, but change on a monthly basis as to what that temperature will be, and are modified until they are "successful" at showing the hockey stick. That's the criterion for success. (I was the happy recipient of an NCAR bit of SPAM announcing an improvement in the model -- the hockey stick bent up even more sharply and things were going to be much worse than the previous model said. That was their "success".) I work with modelers. There's enough fudge used in models to make them "work" to supply New York City's sweet tooth for ten decades.
And "hindcasting" previous data? If a model can start with data for the last decade and come up with the same numbers for the last decade, it MUST be right for the year 2074. Right.
For Christ's sake, all I did was use the word "theory" in the lay sense of "not a proven fact, a hypothesis" in response to someone trying to spout sci-religious dogma and you'd think the entire world was collapsing. Get over it. Anthropogenic bases for climate change are a theory. There ARE "actual scientists" who disagree. I know some of them personally, and I know why they don't speak out more -- they tend to lose their jobs when they do. (That's called "academic freedom".) Pretending that it's "anti-intellectual" to try to debate the question is preposterous.
You're right, it's a hypothesis. My bad. The important point is that it isn't a fact.
No, it isn't. It's a theory. You can debate how well supported the theory is, but to claim it is a fact is a sign of religion seeping into science.
You might look up the difference between "causality" and "correlation".
and it's generally accepted that this warming will continue until 2100.
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
However, that's no reason to continue the behaviors that caused the warming. Any steps we can take will slow the warming and contribute to an eventual slow reversal.
Taking low-cost steps that reduce energy use is quite practical. Demanding that the US cut energy use by 80% is not.
and gestures that look like a drop in the sand to us are necessary to eventually reverse the tide.
I wonder, when the tide "reverses" because of the Maunder Minimum, will those who cried wolf admit they cried wolf, or will they use the reversal as proof that they were right? And do those who talk about "reversing tides" recognize the name Xerxes?
As someone who remembers the phrase "the internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it", I have to ask, exactly what IS "regulated internet gambling", how does one tell it apart from "unregulated", and exactly how do you stop the "unregulated" from taking place?
Half the north-american continent covered with ice. THOSE were the days. No having to refill the ice-cube trays, you wanted a scotch on the rocks you stuck your fist out the door and picked up the "rocks".
It's rather disingenuous to demand things "as it once was" without remembering that "as it once was" isn't how it always was, even before we got here.
Now get off my damn lawn...
It was that scene more than any, perhaps, that made me realize that this Kirk was nothing but a uniformed Zack Morris (Mark-Paul Gosselar) from "Saved By The Bell."
I was seriously disappointed. The music intruded into the action too often (when Spock is choking Kirk, for example), and the lens-flares were just distracting, especially in bridge scenes.
A seventeen year old is stuck on "Delta Vega" with an alien, a planetoid so close to Vulcan that Spock can watch Vulcan be destroyed, which makes it impossible that Scotty would have missed it -- and all he can talk about is "did you bring me sandwiches"?
A "supernova" that moved so slowly that Spock could have time out plan and outfit a rescue ship, but moved so quickly that Romulans could do nothing about getting themselves off planet?
So now we have an entirely new "Star Trek" universe for someone to make money off of.
And funding his nuclear weapons program.
They talk louder because they judge how well they are being heard by how well they hear themselves. Over the constant drone of jet engines, people have to talk louder to hear themselves. Thus, they assume they need to be that loud so the microphone just an inch away from their face can hear them.
plus it is pressurized to reduce the need to scream further.
"Pressurized" is a relative term. Standard cabin air pressure is around 8000 feet altitude. Less than sea level. The pressure is lower than normal, even though the cabin is "pressurized".
If everyone has small chatter it actually creates a bit of a whitenoise effect = sleep.
I don't know what airplanes you fly on, but on the ones here on earth, lots of people chatting isn't "white noise" by any stretch of the imagination. The people ahead/behind you are always louder and prevent any realistic averaging. HA HA HA YOU DIDN'T...