Isn't it neat how people condemn the person given the card instead of the EDUCATOR who gave the card to him?
Instead? LOL. I blame both, but I only know the name of one of them, which also happens to be the only one in a position of national power and celebrity at the time.
And sorry, it's a real WTF that either of them couldn't spell.
In court? The truth that Libbie lied "got out". Since there was no proof that he knew who leaked Plame's name, it obviously didn't come out.
I'm obviously talking about the truth that the lie was intended to cover. Yes there's no proof he knew who leaked, just as there's no proof Al Capon was a mobster. And indeed, maybe Al was truly just a tax cheat.
The point is -- when the only facts you have are the sworn statements of those involved, and those involved are known to be lying, believing that the version of "truth" these known liars converge upon is actually the truth is ridiculously naive.
[They] cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson.
Yeah, we just had high-level administration officials lying to investigators and the court to cover up the truth. What truth? We don't know. Therefore this group of powerful liars could not possibly have been engaged in conspiracy.
That's logic.
Why not jump on Armitage for wasting vast government resources by not coming forward?
Indeed, why not? For all we know the reason it took so long is because that's how long it took for them to get their story straight in a way that didn't leave anyone (but Libby) swinging in the wind.
I'm so tired of this myth of Dan Quayle not being able to spell potato.
Uh... that's the exact version of events I'm familiar with, and the conclusion is the same: Man doesn't know how to spell potato. Would he have spelled it correctly in the absence of a card with the word misspelled on it? Maybe. But when given a card with an obvious misspelling, he "decided to trust" the card.
But honestly, I'll cut Mr. Quayle some slack. He wasn't that stupid, and he wasn't in that great a position of power. Yes, how standards have dropped since the Bush Sr. years. =D
Yeah, yeah, and Al Capone wasn't really a mobster, he merely failed to disclose certain things on his tax returns that may or may not have had anything to do with crime, we can't really say.
What part of "Libbie was convicted of perjury," as in convicted of lying to conceal the truth, makes you think the truth got out?
The "Undisclosed Location" where we hide the Vice President in times of national emergency when we fear for their safety and the line of succession to lead the nation...
is underneath the "Disclosed Location" where the Vice Presidents lived since the 70s??
That'd be like Batman hiding his Secret Bat Lair underneath Wayne Manor, if Batman had already fully disclosed that Batman is Bruce Wayne.
I mean I guess it's one of those "They'd never think to look for him there!" just-crazy-enough-to-work kinds of plans... Or is it just-crazy-enough-to-fail-hilariously?
Yeah I don't know about overall endurance, but note that those herds of wildebeast don't move very fast. One of our advantages is that we have a nice efficient jogging gait, while prey animals like wildebeast or deer don't. They can walk for a very long ways, or they can gallop a short ways. Part of our trick was to jog after the animal at a pace in between its own gaits, so it'd run away then get tired and walk, then we'd get close, then it'd have to run again, and this helped tire the animal out more rapidly as we pursued it at a constant rate. And really it's not so much about energy efficiency as it is about heat dissipation. It's heat exhaustion that ultimately would doom these animals.
Wolves also have a jogging gait and will sometimes pursue prey in the same way. More support for the idea that they would fit in very well with humans and that this helped along the domestication process.
There seems to be almost no living thing (an isn't deadly toxic) that humans won't eat.
And even then we might go to great lengths to remove the toxins either by preparation, or even by breeding versions that aren't toxic. See almonds.
I think it's actually the aliens out there that would have to worry about us eating them, we've already tried everything edible on this planet.
And we only figured out what was edible by trying everything else.
Seriously, you have to wonder. There was a person out there who said "Okay, so Grunk may have died eating one of these nuts... but maybe if I boiled it really good first!" Someone (maybe the same person) must have said "I wonder if I can eat this rock", followed by "Okay that didn't work out, but what about limestone instead of granite?"
I think the only thing I can do in response to this news is go back and read some Old Man Murray articles that make fun of Mr. Broussard. Maybe the Cro-team interview. Yeah that's a good one.
You don't think there's any ethical considerations in involving or not involving a parent in the decision to reproduce. You don't think I have the right to be involved in the decision to create my own offspring, or to raise that offspring.
Great. That's your opinion. In my opinion you have an ill-formed sense of ethics that is actually selfishness wearing a shoddy disguise. Thank God you aren't a medical researcher. HAND.
The word "whether" is intended to create a conditional.
My point was that it's my species that I'm ultimately worried about. And we should be concerned. Yes we are capable of controlling our environment (this is not unique, though we certainly have the most extreme forms of it), but fundamentally a human can only survive in a very limited range of environments, and creating that environment today is based on a giant interlocking pyramid of technology and industry. It could be up-ended very easily. Would we go extinct? Eh, depends, maybe maybe not. 6 billion people doesn't mean much. Most of them would be dead from starvation before too long. On the other hand, there's speculation that at one point homo sapiens went through a population bottleneck of less than 1000 individuals, yet obviously survived. On the other other hand one unfortunate extra Act of God and 1000 people can die in the blink of an eye.
And even that wouldn't change the fact that billions and billions of people would be dead. So, yeah.
Because I would want to take responsibility for my own genetic offspring, would not want someone to be able to create a child of mine without my knowledge and thus ability to take responsibility, and by the same token would like to be able to choose whether this occurs.
Two people who assume it's all about avoiding child care responsibilities/payments. WTF. Selfishness isn't ethics!
Then the best thing we can do is to stop meddling with our economies by trying to pass cap and trade (and other socialist, big govt. style) legislation, and freeing up our industry to devise ways to get us off this rock if and when the need to do so arises.
Oh yeah, cus that's totally what industry would devote their time to, not continuing to ignore and externalize all costs and consequences of their anti-environmental actions to maximize their personal gain.
And surely the best possible option is that "if and when the need arises" (which of course won't be decades after the real need arose) we'll all abandon the planet. God blees free enterprise, am I right?
Currently, every single solution proposed by the high priesthood of the Unified Church of Climate Change (formerly the Church of Global Warming) has been essentially Socialism, Communism, and Fascism (not necessarily in that order). Which will (of course) utterly cripple our industry and our ability to adapt to change.
Of course! Since there's never been a non-crippled Socialist economy, including ours, how could anyone think otherwise? But yeah, if a company was not allowed to externalize the costs of their pollution, that's Communism... or Socialism... Fascism? Pastafarianism?
Top heavy centrally controlled monolithic organizations (AKA: Socialism, Communism, Fascism) are slow to change. Decentralized open organizations (AKA: Federalist Capitalism) are rapid adapters. GNU and OSS have taught us this. Why the GW acolytes haven't gotten this yet is beyond me.
Linux is top heavy and centrally controlled. Linus is a Benevolent Dictator. Just thought I'd point that out.
Don't confuse the use of power with getting power. Power can be obtained by the support of powerful people. Think drug lobby and a medical system that treats symptoms instead of cures.
Okay, now explain how opening up all future stem cell lines with informed consent standards that are very similar to the old ones, but excluding those old ones, helps the drug lobby. If the motivation you ascribe was true, and stem cell research was a risk to the drug lobby, then Obama would have tried to prevent all future stem cell lines, not opened the floodgates to creating new ones. The restrictions on old lines would have been something concrete, not something they can get around by calling the former donors and getting a new form signed.
I thought it was pretty obvious as I already stated it. I guess your one of the people who are still buffaloed into thinking Obama was something special. He isn't, it's the same crap, the names have changed and who is leveraging who has changed but it's all the same BS.
You babbled some nonsense about Stalin and governments seeking more power and control even though they already had this power and more. Explain how this is the same BS, just don't declare it to be the same and act like that means anything.
See, the problem is that if I completely buy into that "Obama is the same BS" (instead of my default 50%), then this still doesn't make sense and you aren't making any either. You've posited a motivation. You have not explained how these specific actions fit those ascribed motivations, and in many ways it contradicts your posited motivation.
You sound like one of those people who was so upset on Nov. 3rd 2008 that you lost your ability to distinguish.
Sure, though that's really a variant of my first option since the most important part of it was that NIH did intend for those old lines to be made available. They might say this is a reasonable way to do this. If the alternative theory, that NIH is trying to prevent these lines from being used, were true then they would close this 'loophole' too and ensure the old lines couldn't be used.
It is just a draft. Why not write your congressman or appropriate entity and ask them to look into it.
I'm sure the researchers who are affected, such as those quoted in the article, are going to be using the formal feedback process to make their concerns, which they obviously know in much more detail than I, known. I'm not sure but do believe that NIH will take those considerations into account and change the guidelines to grandfather in the old lines, because the alternative makes no sense.
So maybe the people in charge are just incompetent? Wasn't anyone considered that as a possibility?
That was my first option -- they wanted to make the lines available, but screwed it up. Not because of some weird plan to crush stem cell research, but because they worded the draft proposal wrong.
Those species go the same place the other 99.9% of species currently are (extinct). I don't think the planet is going to cry if that increases to 99.9000001%
I don't really care whether or not the planet is crying. I care about whether we are crying because we realize we're the next species that's going to go extinct.
You can easily change it, because it's "just" a draft. Yet you can still hold people to it because it's "the latest draft of what will be the policy". I see & hear about it a _lot_ at work.
Sounds like your workplace is a lot looser about its bureaucracy than the government.
Slashdot Mirror
Option 4: They know that pounds are a unit of mass, in addition to weight, and are thus actually smarter than the pedants on slashdot.
HA HA JUST KIDDING HOW COULD THAT BE?!
And just to complete the metaphorical picture: "Red riding hood" = menses.
Isn't it neat how people condemn the person given the card instead of the EDUCATOR who gave the card to him?
Instead? LOL. I blame both, but I only know the name of one of them, which also happens to be the only one in a position of national power and celebrity at the time.
And sorry, it's a real WTF that either of them couldn't spell.
Given a choice between two (more or less) identical Democrats
Ah yes. And thus does our progress towards completely losing our ability to distinguish continue apace.
In court? The truth that Libbie lied "got out". Since there was no proof that he knew who leaked Plame's name, it obviously didn't come out.
I'm obviously talking about the truth that the lie was intended to cover. Yes there's no proof he knew who leaked, just as there's no proof Al Capon was a mobster. And indeed, maybe Al was truly just a tax cheat.
The point is -- when the only facts you have are the sworn statements of those involved, and those involved are known to be lying, believing that the version of "truth" these known liars converge upon is actually the truth is ridiculously naive.
[They] cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson.
Yeah, we just had high-level administration officials lying to investigators and the court to cover up the truth. What truth? We don't know. Therefore this group of powerful liars could not possibly have been engaged in conspiracy.
That's logic.
Why not jump on Armitage for wasting vast government resources by not coming forward?
Indeed, why not? For all we know the reason it took so long is because that's how long it took for them to get their story straight in a way that didn't leave anyone (but Libby) swinging in the wind.
I'm so tired of this myth of Dan Quayle not being able to spell potato.
Uh... that's the exact version of events I'm familiar with, and the conclusion is the same: Man doesn't know how to spell potato. Would he have spelled it correctly in the absence of a card with the word misspelled on it? Maybe. But when given a card with an obvious misspelling, he "decided to trust" the card.
But honestly, I'll cut Mr. Quayle some slack. He wasn't that stupid, and he wasn't in that great a position of power. Yes, how standards have dropped since the Bush Sr. years. =D
Yeah, yeah, and Al Capone wasn't really a mobster, he merely failed to disclose certain things on his tax returns that may or may not have had anything to do with crime, we can't really say.
What part of "Libbie was convicted of perjury," as in convicted of lying to conceal the truth, makes you think the truth got out?
So let me get this straight...
The "Undisclosed Location" where we hide the Vice President in times of national emergency when we fear for their safety and the line of succession to lead the nation...
is underneath the "Disclosed Location" where the Vice Presidents lived since the 70s??
That'd be like Batman hiding his Secret Bat Lair underneath Wayne Manor, if Batman had already fully disclosed that Batman is Bruce Wayne.
I mean I guess it's one of those "They'd never think to look for him there!" just-crazy-enough-to-work kinds of plans... Or is it just-crazy-enough-to-fail-hilariously?
So keep a diary, keep it where she finds it and write things she already knows or things that comfort her.
"Dear Diary,
Just another normal day, going to school, doing my homework, thinking about how great Mom is, and not having incestuous relations with my cousin."
Yeah I don't know about overall endurance, but note that those herds of wildebeast don't move very fast. One of our advantages is that we have a nice efficient jogging gait, while prey animals like wildebeast or deer don't. They can walk for a very long ways, or they can gallop a short ways. Part of our trick was to jog after the animal at a pace in between its own gaits, so it'd run away then get tired and walk, then we'd get close, then it'd have to run again, and this helped tire the animal out more rapidly as we pursued it at a constant rate. And really it's not so much about energy efficiency as it is about heat dissipation. It's heat exhaustion that ultimately would doom these animals.
Wolves also have a jogging gait and will sometimes pursue prey in the same way. More support for the idea that they would fit in very well with humans and that this helped along the domestication process.
There seems to be almost no living thing (an isn't deadly toxic) that humans won't eat.
And even then we might go to great lengths to remove the toxins either by preparation, or even by breeding versions that aren't toxic. See almonds.
I think it's actually the aliens out there that would have to worry about us eating them, we've already tried everything edible on this planet.
And we only figured out what was edible by trying everything else.
Seriously, you have to wonder. There was a person out there who said "Okay, so Grunk may have died eating one of these nuts... but maybe if I boiled it really good first!" Someone (maybe the same person) must have said "I wonder if I can eat this rock", followed by "Okay that didn't work out, but what about limestone instead of granite?"
I've never claimed to know how to count.
Another word would be "hacked-up demo".
"This is the most blatant case of false advertising since The Neverending Story."
I think the only thing I can do in response to this news is go back and read some Old Man Murray articles that make fun of Mr. Broussard. Maybe the Cro-team interview. Yeah that's a good one.
You don't think there's any ethical considerations in involving or not involving a parent in the decision to reproduce. You don't think I have the right to be involved in the decision to create my own offspring, or to raise that offspring.
Great. That's your opinion. In my opinion you have an ill-formed sense of ethics that is actually selfishness wearing a shoddy disguise. Thank God you aren't a medical researcher. HAND.
The word "whether" is intended to create a conditional.
My point was that it's my species that I'm ultimately worried about. And we should be concerned. Yes we are capable of controlling our environment (this is not unique, though we certainly have the most extreme forms of it), but fundamentally a human can only survive in a very limited range of environments, and creating that environment today is based on a giant interlocking pyramid of technology and industry. It could be up-ended very easily. Would we go extinct? Eh, depends, maybe maybe not. 6 billion people doesn't mean much. Most of them would be dead from starvation before too long. On the other hand, there's speculation that at one point homo sapiens went through a population bottleneck of less than 1000 individuals, yet obviously survived. On the other other hand one unfortunate extra Act of God and 1000 people can die in the blink of an eye.
And even that wouldn't change the fact that billions and billions of people would be dead. So, yeah.
Because I would want to take responsibility for my own genetic offspring, would not want someone to be able to create a child of mine without my knowledge and thus ability to take responsibility, and by the same token would like to be able to choose whether this occurs.
Two people who assume it's all about avoiding child care responsibilities/payments. WTF. Selfishness isn't ethics!
Then the best thing we can do is to stop meddling with our economies by trying to pass cap and trade (and other socialist, big govt. style) legislation, and freeing up our industry to devise ways to get us off this rock if and when the need to do so arises.
Oh yeah, cus that's totally what industry would devote their time to, not continuing to ignore and externalize all costs and consequences of their anti-environmental actions to maximize their personal gain.
And surely the best possible option is that "if and when the need arises" (which of course won't be decades after the real need arose) we'll all abandon the planet. God blees free enterprise, am I right?
Currently, every single solution proposed by the high priesthood of the Unified Church of Climate Change (formerly the Church of Global Warming) has been essentially Socialism, Communism, and Fascism (not necessarily in that order). Which will (of course) utterly cripple our industry and our ability to adapt to change.
Of course! Since there's never been a non-crippled Socialist economy, including ours, how could anyone think otherwise? But yeah, if a company was not allowed to externalize the costs of their pollution, that's Communism... or Socialism... Fascism? Pastafarianism?
Top heavy centrally controlled monolithic organizations (AKA: Socialism, Communism, Fascism) are slow to change. Decentralized open organizations (AKA: Federalist Capitalism) are rapid adapters. GNU and OSS have taught us this. Why the GW acolytes haven't gotten this yet is beyond me.
Linux is top heavy and centrally controlled. Linus is a Benevolent Dictator. Just thought I'd point that out.
Don't confuse the use of power with getting power. Power can be obtained by the support of powerful people. Think drug lobby and a medical system that treats symptoms instead of cures.
Okay, now explain how opening up all future stem cell lines with informed consent standards that are very similar to the old ones, but excluding those old ones, helps the drug lobby. If the motivation you ascribe was true, and stem cell research was a risk to the drug lobby, then Obama would have tried to prevent all future stem cell lines, not opened the floodgates to creating new ones. The restrictions on old lines would have been something concrete, not something they can get around by calling the former donors and getting a new form signed.
I thought it was pretty obvious as I already stated it. I guess your one of the people who are still buffaloed into thinking Obama was something special. He isn't, it's the same crap, the names have changed and who is leveraging who has changed but it's all the same BS.
You babbled some nonsense about Stalin and governments seeking more power and control even though they already had this power and more. Explain how this is the same BS, just don't declare it to be the same and act like that means anything.
See, the problem is that if I completely buy into that "Obama is the same BS" (instead of my default 50%), then this still doesn't make sense and you aren't making any either. You've posited a motivation. You have not explained how these specific actions fit those ascribed motivations, and in many ways it contradicts your posited motivation.
You sound like one of those people who was so upset on Nov. 3rd 2008 that you lost your ability to distinguish.
Sure, though that's really a variant of my first option since the most important part of it was that NIH did intend for those old lines to be made available. They might say this is a reasonable way to do this. If the alternative theory, that NIH is trying to prevent these lines from being used, were true then they would close this 'loophole' too and ensure the old lines couldn't be used.
It is just a draft. Why not write your congressman or appropriate entity and ask them to look into it.
I'm sure the researchers who are affected, such as those quoted in the article, are going to be using the formal feedback process to make their concerns, which they obviously know in much more detail than I, known. I'm not sure but do believe that NIH will take those considerations into account and change the guidelines to grandfather in the old lines, because the alternative makes no sense.
So maybe the people in charge are just incompetent? Wasn't anyone considered that as a possibility?
That was my first option -- they wanted to make the lines available, but screwed it up. Not because of some weird plan to crush stem cell research, but because they worded the draft proposal wrong.
Those species go the same place the other 99.9% of species currently are (extinct). I don't think the planet is going to cry if that increases to 99.9000001%
I don't really care whether or not the planet is crying. I care about whether we are crying because we realize we're the next species that's going to go extinct.
You can easily change it, because it's "just" a draft. Yet you can still hold people to it because it's "the latest draft of what will be the policy". I see & hear about it a _lot_ at work.
Sounds like your workplace is a lot looser about its bureaucracy than the government.