Harvard's tuition only is in the mid 30s now, though it sets the high standard for private institutions. What most people don't realize is that the tuition alone is not enough to put a student through college. Most students at Harvard will not have a job while they attend school there, and thus will be reliant upon loans to finance their living/board expenses. The tuition, plus room, board and student services fee for the current school year (2009-2010) is $48,868.
Cambridge is, in fact, a state-funded university with an extremely large endowment. From Wikipedia:
Comparisons between Cambridge's endowment and those of other top US universities are, however, inaccurate because being a state-funded public university, Cambridge receives a major portion of its income through education and research grants from the British Government. In 2006, it was reported that approximately one third of Cambridge's income comes from UK government funding for teaching and research, with another third coming from other research grants. Endowment income contributes around 6%
While Harvard is obviously an extreme example of cost, many students today are putting themselves through college by taking out loans (both government and private). They often have little financial support from their families and think that life will be all peaches and cream after they get their degree because they will obviously make enough to cover their costs.
University is not the only type of education that is taking monetary advantage of its students though. Some trade schools (notably the Culinary Institutes) are charging $30,000 for a "culinary arts" degree. I had a friend who went to one of these schools for 18 months to get his degree. However, after putting himself through school and working full-time at Trader Joes, he was shocked and amazed to find out that most jobs available to graduates of the program were less than what he was currently making as a grocery handler/stocker. How do you pay back a private $30,000 loan on $9-10/hour and have enough left over to provide for your own living expenses?
Unfortunately, since Danger/Microsoft now own the Sidekick, Bing is now the default GPS/location search program on my device. While I have changed my mobile internet options to search Google rather than Bing, Google does not have a free application that will identify stores and their locations effectively. Navigating to maps.google.com will not work on my device, even on the mobile version. Whether this was intentionally broken by MSFT or is just a failure of mobile internet remains to be seen.
Bing isn't ridiculously terrible, but I really hate Microsoft. I can't wait for my contract to end so that I can get a different phone (that isn't a Microsoft POS).
Customer: So I'm really getting sick of MyWife. Is there any way I can get rid of it by Valentine's day? I really don't want to pay for it. Valentine's is so expensive and all...
Microsoft: Well, if you make a special trip to us we can get rid of your MyWife for you. Otherwise you'll be chained to her until kingdom come. Just kidding! We'll patch things up right after Valentine's. We think that we need to let things run their course with your MyWife. After all, isn't that what marriage is for? To cost money and create misery?
Surely many natives would not have the money to pay for their vaccination, since vaccines are priced in order to recoup the losses for research and development of the vaccine. With smallpox (in the 20th century), the only people immunized for the disease were people that were nearby others infected with the disease. That method worked to wipe out smallpox. What would be the point in getting a vaccine to ebola and mass distributing it to every person in Africa? That wouldn't be very cost effective and in reality it would probably harm a hell of a lot more people than it would help. Why just throw money and resources at a problem when you have NO IDEA whether or not it will ever pay off?
If the vaccine is based on a surface protein of the virus, it could serve to trigger and rally the immune system of an infected person. If the vaccine is merely based on inert particles, it may not help. Of course the BEST alternative for someone infected with ebola would be the blood serum of another survivor.
An ebola vaccine would be of great help in containing outbreaks of the disease. When the first case of ebola pops up in whatever isolated town, the whole town could be vaccinated against the disease, thereby preventing the massive slaughter that the disease normally causes. Like you said, it also would be effective in preventing healthcare provider infection with the disease as well.
The ebola vaccine would be VERY useful, especially if ebola were to ever migrate into a moderately large city. Forced immunization of all the people that would be infected by it in the city would forestall an outbreak of the disease and help to contain it.
Stem cells are commonly harvested from fertilized embryos, long before they enter the fetal stage. The whole point and promise of stem cells are that their DNA has not differentiated any of its expression/repression of genes. We all know that your DNA is the same throughout your body, but what makes a difference is what genes are expressed in each cell. That is what leads to cell differentiation in the body and the main reason why stem cells are so powerful. These plain, all encompassing cells can be grown in certain controlled conditions in order to obtain whatever kind of cells your body needs, theoretically. The problem with using an old stem cell line is that with each separation, the DNA mutates a litle bit. A couple of base pairs are cut off of each end of the DNA strands with each cell division. This loss of base pairs from the end of each strand of DNA during the replication of DNA are what eventually lead to the aging of cells.
About the rejection of cells by the body, your body decides whether or not a cell is "natural" from the genes that are expressed by the cells as well as different proteins that come out from the surface of cells. At no point does a macrophage enter a cell and check every little bit of DNA to see if it "matches" or not. Why would they be able to do organ transplants if that were the case? With a larger number of stem cell lines to choose from, there may be a greater chance for cells to be similar to each other.
Keep in mind that there are many places to harvest stem cells, from many stages of human life. There are the embryonic stem cells, fetal stem cells, placental stem cells, childhood stem cells and adult stem cells to choose from. However, as the body ages, a smaller percent of cells in the body are actually stem cells. Now, say you harvest the stem cells of an adult seeking treatment for a medical condition and send them to a lab to grow. Do you have any idea of how much difficulty there would be in setting this up on a large enough scale to treat diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's? Do you know how long it would take to grow enough stem cells to be a viable treatment for a patient? Now, if you could establish cell lines with the thousands of frozen embryos are there frozen at fertility clinics around the world with no hope of ever becoming a child, you could create enough cell lines to be able to treat anyone. THAT is the power of the embryonic stem cell.
Except for the fact that with smoking, you actually manage to get something out of the useless money that you've just spent, that's true. Smokers manage to get a certain "hgh" from their smoking or a release from their symptoms of withdrawal. However, what use is a CD that won't play in your CD player? A cupholder? I've already got plenty of AOL install CDs for that purpose...
Since you can't return CDs if they're opened and you can't know if a CD is DRM protected until you open it, you (the consumer) is out all of the money that you spent on the CD. If buying CDs was a game of Russian Roulette as to whether they'll work or not, would you buy them? No wonder CD sales are declining. Disposable income is also declining, but that, of course, has nothing to do with the decline of CD sales, does it?
Slashdot Mirror
Cambridge is, in fact, a state-funded university with an extremely large endowment. From Wikipedia:
While Harvard is obviously an extreme example of cost, many students today are putting themselves through college by taking out loans (both government and private). They often have little financial support from their families and think that life will be all peaches and cream after they get their degree because they will obviously make enough to cover their costs.
University is not the only type of education that is taking monetary advantage of its students though. Some trade schools (notably the Culinary Institutes) are charging $30,000 for a "culinary arts" degree. I had a friend who went to one of these schools for 18 months to get his degree. However, after putting himself through school and working full-time at Trader Joes, he was shocked and amazed to find out that most jobs available to graduates of the program were less than what he was currently making as a grocery handler/stocker. How do you pay back a private $30,000 loan on $9-10/hour and have enough left over to provide for your own living expenses?
Unfortunately, since Danger/Microsoft now own the Sidekick, Bing is now the default GPS/location search program on my device. While I have changed my mobile internet options to search Google rather than Bing, Google does not have a free application that will identify stores and their locations effectively. Navigating to maps.google.com will not work on my device, even on the mobile version. Whether this was intentionally broken by MSFT or is just a failure of mobile internet remains to be seen.
Bing isn't ridiculously terrible, but I really hate Microsoft. I can't wait for my contract to end so that I can get a different phone (that isn't a Microsoft POS).
Customer: So I'm really getting sick of MyWife. Is there any way I can get rid of it by Valentine's day? I really don't want to pay for it. Valentine's is so expensive and all... Microsoft: Well, if you make a special trip to us we can get rid of your MyWife for you. Otherwise you'll be chained to her until kingdom come. Just kidding! We'll patch things up right after Valentine's. We think that we need to let things run their course with your MyWife. After all, isn't that what marriage is for? To cost money and create misery?
Surely many natives would not have the money to pay for their vaccination, since vaccines are priced in order to recoup the losses for research and development of the vaccine. With smallpox (in the 20th century), the only people immunized for the disease were people that were nearby others infected with the disease. That method worked to wipe out smallpox. What would be the point in getting a vaccine to ebola and mass distributing it to every person in Africa? That wouldn't be very cost effective and in reality it would probably harm a hell of a lot more people than it would help. Why just throw money and resources at a problem when you have NO IDEA whether or not it will ever pay off?
Actually, it depends on the type of vaccine...
If the vaccine is based on a surface protein of the virus, it could serve to trigger and rally the immune system of an infected person. If the vaccine is merely based on inert particles, it may not help. Of course the BEST alternative for someone infected with ebola would be the blood serum of another survivor.
An ebola vaccine would be of great help in containing outbreaks of the disease. When the first case of ebola pops up in whatever isolated town, the whole town could be vaccinated against the disease, thereby preventing the massive slaughter that the disease normally causes. Like you said, it also would be effective in preventing healthcare provider infection with the disease as well.
The ebola vaccine would be VERY useful, especially if ebola were to ever migrate into a moderately large city. Forced immunization of all the people that would be infected by it in the city would forestall an outbreak of the disease and help to contain it.
Stem cells are commonly harvested from fertilized embryos, long before they enter the fetal stage. The whole point and promise of stem cells are that their DNA has not differentiated any of its expression/repression of genes. We all know that your DNA is the same throughout your body, but what makes a difference is what genes are expressed in each cell. That is what leads to cell differentiation in the body and the main reason why stem cells are so powerful. These plain, all encompassing cells can be grown in certain controlled conditions in order to obtain whatever kind of cells your body needs, theoretically. The problem with using an old stem cell line is that with each separation, the DNA mutates a litle bit. A couple of base pairs are cut off of each end of the DNA strands with each cell division. This loss of base pairs from the end of each strand of DNA during the replication of DNA are what eventually lead to the aging of cells.
About the rejection of cells by the body, your body decides whether or not a cell is "natural" from the genes that are expressed by the cells as well as different proteins that come out from the surface of cells. At no point does a macrophage enter a cell and check every little bit of DNA to see if it "matches" or not. Why would they be able to do organ transplants if that were the case? With a larger number of stem cell lines to choose from, there may be a greater chance for cells to be similar to each other.
Keep in mind that there are many places to harvest stem cells, from many stages of human life. There are the embryonic stem cells, fetal stem cells, placental stem cells, childhood stem cells and adult stem cells to choose from. However, as the body ages, a smaller percent of cells in the body are actually stem cells. Now, say you harvest the stem cells of an adult seeking treatment for a medical condition and send them to a lab to grow. Do you have any idea of how much difficulty there would be in setting this up on a large enough scale to treat diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's? Do you know how long it would take to grow enough stem cells to be a viable treatment for a patient? Now, if you could establish cell lines with the thousands of frozen embryos are there frozen at fertility clinics around the world with no hope of ever becoming a child, you could create enough cell lines to be able to treat anyone. THAT is the power of the embryonic stem cell.
You could always go for the 1100kb image hosted on his personal website as well.
M en u%20Back%20copy.jpg
http://www.davidrfoley.com/flyer/images/RSNY%20
Let the fun begin.
Except for the fact that with smoking, you actually manage to get something out of the useless money that you've just spent, that's true. Smokers manage to get a certain "hgh" from their smoking or a release from their symptoms of withdrawal. However, what use is a CD that won't play in your CD player? A cupholder? I've already got plenty of AOL install CDs for that purpose... Since you can't return CDs if they're opened and you can't know if a CD is DRM protected until you open it, you (the consumer) is out all of the money that you spent on the CD. If buying CDs was a game of Russian Roulette as to whether they'll work or not, would you buy them? No wonder CD sales are declining. Disposable income is also declining, but that, of course, has nothing to do with the decline of CD sales, does it?