50. 'Earth - Final Conflict'
49. 'The Wild Wild West'
48. '3rd Rock From The Sun'
47. 'Buck Rogers in the 25th Century'
46. 'That Was Then'
45. 'The Greatest American Hero'
44. 'Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman'
43. 'Nowhere Man'
42. 'Science Fiction Theatre'
41. 'Futurama'
40. 'The Thunderbirds'
39. 'The Man from U.N.C.L.E.'
38. 'Batman'
37. 'Space 1999'
36. 'The Bionic Woman'
35. 'Battlestar Galactica' (Original)
34. 'The Avengers'
33. 'Lost In Space'
32. 'My Favorite Martian'
31. 'Alien Nation'
30. 'Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea'
29. 'The Six Million Dollar Man'
28. 'Adventures of Superman'
27. 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer'
26. 'Stargate Atlantis'
25. 'The Jetsons'
24. 'Wonder Woman'
23. 'Tales from the Crypt'
22. 'Andromeda'
21. 'Quantum Leap'
20. 'The Hitchhiker'
19. 'Dark Angel'
18. 'V'
17. 'Firefly'
16. 'Flash Gordon'
15. 'Logan's Run'
14. 'Star Trek Voyager'
13. 'The Outer Limits'
12. 'Xena: Warrior Princess'
11. 'Lost'
10. 'Sliders'
9. 'Mystery Science Theater 3000'
8. 'Dr. Who'
7. 'The Twilight Zone'
6. 'Stargate SG-1'
5. 'Babylon 5'
4. 'The X-Files'
3. 'Star Trek: The Next Generation'
2. 'Battlestar Galactica' (New)
1. 'Star Trek' (Original)
See homosexuals in the US for example who do not have the right to marry or serve in the military.
Absoloute nonsense. There are plenty of homosexuals in the military. Anyone who has ever been in knows that. What they are not allowed to do is openly proclaim their sexuality. There's no bar to actually serving.
Also aren't we simply detecting more storms than we could in the early part of the 20th century? Nowadays if a hurricane develops off of the Canary Islands and heads north in the the central Atlantic without making landfall it would be detected via satellites and would be named and catagorized. In 1920 such a storm might go unnoticed, and even it if were noticed by ship reports, it might not get catagorized since it didn't make landfall. The Cat 5 Galveston hurricane of 1900 wasn't even recognized as a hurricane by the weather office in Galveston until it hit shore with 150 mph winds.
To me, its hypocritical to support the right of that nation-state to currently exist to make up for the fact that the Romans obliterated it nearly 2,000 years ago.
That's not the reason for the existance of Israel nor is it the reason the U.S. supports Israel. Try again.
So imagine you're a peaceful Iraqi guy minding his own business, who's family was just wiped out by a US cruise missile. Now do you understand? Violence begats violence. The only way to survive is to break the cycle. Be the better person.
So imagine you're a peaceful Japanese guy minding his own business, who's family was just wiped out by a US Army Air Force firebombing in 1944.
It worked before. Why are the Japanese and Germans so passive and peaceful today when they were so consumed by militarism 60 years ago? The answer is that their society was so totally destroyed that they had to change. There was no longer any way to sympathise with Nazism or Shintoism. Would "being the better person" have forced change on those societies? Are you cool with having a viable Nazi movement remaining in Germany? I'm not. The choice to bomb them until they submitted was the correct one. Turning the other cheek would not have worked.
I'll tell you what we do:
We give them what they want! We get the fuck out of Saudi Arabia!
Dude! Nice rant, but it ignores one salient fact. We ARE out of Saudi Arabia. The United States withdrew all U.S. military forces from Saudi Arabia in 2002.
Because private industry did such a great job of evacuating the city of New Orleans before hurricane Katrina.
It did. Did you miss that 95% of the city evacuated before the hurricane hit using private means (airplanes, buses, trains, and automobiles)? Only the poorest 5% were left behind and even they could have been taken out had the city contracted a private company to do it (or even asked someone to donate free transportation -- which it didn't even bother to do).
Who says that killing humanity off so that squid/birds/insects/dolphins can evolve to dig up our fossils and make bad movies about us isn't in everyone's best interest [but ours]?
But then those damned squid/birds/insects/dolphins will end up polluting the planet som much with their technology using fossil fuels from our decomposed bodies that they will die off from excessive pollution too! What then? By the time it happens for the third time, the sun will and expand into a red giant and we won't have to worry anymore.
So you would value pure knowledge (like the idea that the earth's orbit around the sun is an ellipse rather than a circle) higher than practical knowledge (like the discovery that germs cause disease rather than possession by evil spirits)? Do I understand you properly?
"Men of learning" in the middle ages spent years debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Lots and lots of mental masturbation went into this sort of exploration of knowledge. Later on in the Rennaissance, other more practical men studied the effects of static electricity (to give just one example) which developed into the discovery of electromagnetism. From that we got electricity and the modern world, long lives, transportation, communications, and elimination of widespead disease. I'm glad the pursuit of knowledge veered toward the practical rather than the spiritual. We're better off for it.
The announcement of the discovery of single-celled life on Mars will barely affect anyone on earth. Two hours after the announcement, Fox and CNN will be back talking about Natalee Holloway. Nothing will change.
It wouldnt be the most important discovery in 100 years, more like the greatest discovery in all of human existance.
I think it would not even be a minor discovery. Major discoveries are things like the discovery of circulation in the body, or that germs cause disease, or that you can drill into the earth and pump out petroleum, or that you can create and control fire, or the existance of electromagnetism, or that gunpowder can be created from simple chemicals, those kind of things -- things that have a profound influence on history and the lives of billions of people. Things that allow people to live more comfortably, or to live longer, or have a better life.
What will the discovery of single-celled life on Mars accomplish to improve the human condition? Frankly I can't think of anything. People keep tossing out examples of mental masturbation like "it will change the way we think of ourselves and our place in the universe" but really, what improvements in our way of life will come of a discovery like this? I can't think of one. On the other hand imagine if someone were to discover how to manipulate gravity locally, or create fusion-power in a coffee-can sized container, or to reverse the effects of aging, or figure out teleportation, or a way to desalinate ocean water inexpensively, or any number of things that will improve life for the vast majority of people on the planet.
But other nations have no such proscriptions against federal funds (China, Philippines, EU, etc.) and are bypassing us as a result.
Your politics is showing. Do you seriously believe that the amount of money that the government of the Philippines devotes to embryonic stem cell research exceeds the amount of money allocated to researchers in the United States by private corporations and foundations?
Private enterprise cannot solve every problem.
Government programs cannot solve every problem either.
Executive Orders are simply orders handed out by the Executive (the President) to the workers subordinate to him in the Executive Branch. They don't apply to anyone else -- just to people who work in any Executive Agency. It's just a way by which the President can issue orders directly to the broad spectrum of workers in the Executive Branch by bypassing multiple layers of management.
I imagine many couples would WANT their extra embryos to be used to advance life-saving techniques, rather than being flushed down the drain.
So what's preventing someone from using those embryos "to advance life-saving techniques"? Nothing is. A researcher just can't use federal funding to do it. There's plenty of private funding out there.
What if embryos are about to be destroyed? Can the cells be harvested from those?
Should we harvest corneas, bone marrow, kidneys, liver, pancreas, lungs, heart, and any other transplantable organs from death-row prisoners just prior to their execution?
Oops, thanks for the apology. That is the way I read it. I replied above before reading this. You are indeed correct that that method of argument is used to appempt to disprove global warming. But that's not what I was trying to imply. Cheers!
I'm not denying anything. Just the opposite. You did notice the bold print right? My nit-pick (clearly labelled as such) was simply in the misuse of the scientic method. You can't use a single data point to make a generalized broad statement. I would have been happy with a statement something like "permafrost all over the globe is melting" which would have supported the conclusion, rather than the single-pointed "permafrost in Siberia is melting."
What's wrong with that? It would be a fair fight. Didn't you see "War of the Worlds" man? Bacteria can put up a pretty good counter-attack. They might even win.
I guess that's why permafrost in Siberia is melting; because the temperature is staying the same and there's no such thing as global warming.
Just to be nit-picky: without disputing that global warming is happening, there is a flaw in your reasoning. Melting permafrost in Siberia by itself is not proof of global warming -- it is proof of local warming in Siberia. To prove global warming you need multiple data points around the globe. Is the permafrost in Alaska melting? In Canada? In Greenland? In Norway? In European Russia? In Patagonia? In the South Georgia Islands? In the Antarctic Peninsula?
Slashdot Mirror
50. 'Earth - Final Conflict'
49. 'The Wild Wild West'
48. '3rd Rock From The Sun'
47. 'Buck Rogers in the 25th Century'
46. 'That Was Then'
45. 'The Greatest American Hero'
44. 'Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman'
43. 'Nowhere Man'
42. 'Science Fiction Theatre'
41. 'Futurama'
40. 'The Thunderbirds'
39. 'The Man from U.N.C.L.E.'
38. 'Batman'
37. 'Space 1999'
36. 'The Bionic Woman'
35. 'Battlestar Galactica' (Original)
34. 'The Avengers'
33. 'Lost In Space'
32. 'My Favorite Martian'
31. 'Alien Nation'
30. 'Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea'
29. 'The Six Million Dollar Man'
28. 'Adventures of Superman'
27. 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer'
26. 'Stargate Atlantis'
25. 'The Jetsons'
24. 'Wonder Woman'
23. 'Tales from the Crypt'
22. 'Andromeda'
21. 'Quantum Leap'
20. 'The Hitchhiker'
19. 'Dark Angel'
18. 'V'
17. 'Firefly'
16. 'Flash Gordon'
15. 'Logan's Run'
14. 'Star Trek Voyager'
13. 'The Outer Limits'
12. 'Xena: Warrior Princess'
11. 'Lost'
10. 'Sliders'
9. 'Mystery Science Theater 3000'
8. 'Dr. Who'
7. 'The Twilight Zone'
6. 'Stargate SG-1'
5. 'Babylon 5'
4. 'The X-Files'
3. 'Star Trek: The Next Generation'
2. 'Battlestar Galactica' (New)
1. 'Star Trek' (Original)
Seriously. Where is "The Invaders"?
Absoloute nonsense. There are plenty of homosexuals in the military. Anyone who has ever been in knows that. What they are not allowed to do is openly proclaim their sexuality. There's no bar to actually serving.
Also aren't we simply detecting more storms than we could in the early part of the 20th century? Nowadays if a hurricane develops off of the Canary Islands and heads north in the the central Atlantic without making landfall it would be detected via satellites and would be named and catagorized. In 1920 such a storm might go unnoticed, and even it if were noticed by ship reports, it might not get catagorized since it didn't make landfall. The Cat 5 Galveston hurricane of 1900 wasn't even recognized as a hurricane by the weather office in Galveston until it hit shore with 150 mph winds.
That's not the reason for the existance of Israel nor is it the reason the U.S. supports Israel. Try again.
So imagine you're a peaceful Japanese guy minding his own business, who's family was just wiped out by a US Army Air Force firebombing in 1944.
It worked before. Why are the Japanese and Germans so passive and peaceful today when they were so consumed by militarism 60 years ago? The answer is that their society was so totally destroyed that they had to change. There was no longer any way to sympathise with Nazism or Shintoism. Would "being the better person" have forced change on those societies? Are you cool with having a viable Nazi movement remaining in Germany? I'm not. The choice to bomb them until they submitted was the correct one. Turning the other cheek would not have worked.
Dude! Nice rant, but it ignores one salient fact. We ARE out of Saudi Arabia. The United States withdrew all U.S. military forces from Saudi Arabia in 2002.
Clinton was President in 1999, therefore those were love bombs. They weren't evil. They were happy little bombs.
It did. Did you miss that 95% of the city evacuated before the hurricane hit using private means (airplanes, buses, trains, and automobiles)? Only the poorest 5% were left behind and even they could have been taken out had the city contracted a private company to do it (or even asked someone to donate free transportation -- which it didn't even bother to do).
But then those damned squid/birds/insects/dolphins will end up polluting the planet som much with their technology using fossil fuels from our decomposed bodies that they will die off from excessive pollution too! What then? By the time it happens for the third time, the sun will and expand into a red giant and we won't have to worry anymore.
The chimp? Asking for someone to save you and calling them "a chimp" at the same time is hardly wise you know.
"Men of learning" in the middle ages spent years debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Lots and lots of mental masturbation went into this sort of exploration of knowledge. Later on in the Rennaissance, other more practical men studied the effects of static electricity (to give just one example) which developed into the discovery of electromagnetism. From that we got electricity and the modern world, long lives, transportation, communications, and elimination of widespead disease. I'm glad the pursuit of knowledge veered toward the practical rather than the spiritual. We're better off for it.
The announcement of the discovery of single-celled life on Mars will barely affect anyone on earth. Two hours after the announcement, Fox and CNN will be back talking about Natalee Holloway. Nothing will change.
I think it would not even be a minor discovery. Major discoveries are things like the discovery of circulation in the body, or that germs cause disease, or that you can drill into the earth and pump out petroleum, or that you can create and control fire, or the existance of electromagnetism, or that gunpowder can be created from simple chemicals, those kind of things -- things that have a profound influence on history and the lives of billions of people. Things that allow people to live more comfortably, or to live longer, or have a better life.
What will the discovery of single-celled life on Mars accomplish to improve the human condition? Frankly I can't think of anything. People keep tossing out examples of mental masturbation like "it will change the way we think of ourselves and our place in the universe" but really, what improvements in our way of life will come of a discovery like this? I can't think of one. On the other hand imagine if someone were to discover how to manipulate gravity locally, or create fusion-power in a coffee-can sized container, or to reverse the effects of aging, or figure out teleportation, or a way to desalinate ocean water inexpensively, or any number of things that will improve life for the vast majority of people on the planet.
Your politics is showing. Do you seriously believe that the amount of money that the government of the Philippines devotes to embryonic stem cell research exceeds the amount of money allocated to researchers in the United States by private corporations and foundations?
Private enterprise cannot solve every problem.
Government programs cannot solve every problem either.
Executive Orders are simply orders handed out by the Executive (the President) to the workers subordinate to him in the Executive Branch. They don't apply to anyone else -- just to people who work in any Executive Agency. It's just a way by which the President can issue orders directly to the broad spectrum of workers in the Executive Branch by bypassing multiple layers of management.
So what's preventing someone from using those embryos "to advance life-saving techniques"? Nothing is. A researcher just can't use federal funding to do it. There's plenty of private funding out there.
Should we harvest corneas, bone marrow, kidneys, liver, pancreas, lungs, heart, and any other transplantable organs from death-row prisoners just prior to their execution?
Nuff said.
Her name is Elena. Here's a picture of the Krikalev family. Sergei, Elena and daughter Olga. http://www.space.com/images/h_krikalev_family_03.j pg
Oops, thanks for the apology. That is the way I read it. I replied above before reading this. You are indeed correct that that method of argument is used to appempt to disprove global warming. But that's not what I was trying to imply. Cheers!
That is all.
The point of the whole endeavor is to increase both temperature and pressure over the long run and not keep it at current levels.
What's wrong with that? It would be a fair fight. Didn't you see "War of the Worlds" man? Bacteria can put up a pretty good counter-attack. They might even win.
Just to be nit-picky: without disputing that global warming is happening, there is a flaw in your reasoning. Melting permafrost in Siberia by itself is not proof of global warming -- it is proof of local warming in Siberia. To prove global warming you need multiple data points around the globe. Is the permafrost in Alaska melting? In Canada? In Greenland? In Norway? In European Russia? In Patagonia? In the South Georgia Islands? In the Antarctic Peninsula?
Marijuana does grow in remarkably hostile places.