Just be pragmatic, there are lots of medical conditions that can cause women to be unable to conceive or unable to carry a child to term. Infertility is already treated for to attempt to counteract these conditions but there are still conditions that are not effective.
This kind of procedure can be used to allow women that suffer from these kinds of conditions to have children. It can allow women that work in risky occupations to have healthy children. It could even allow women that have health issues unrelated to reproductive trouble to have healthy children free from conditions that are passed on during pregnancy through the placental barrier.
The idea of being able to tube an embryo to grow it to a baby is a good one.
If you want it and can afford to buy it, it's stupid not to buy it.
I don't know about you, but to quote writer Theodore Sturgeon, "...you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true." I learned this lesson as a child when I spent my allowance money that I'd saved up on stupid crap that I was convinced I wanted, only to find out that the thing I wanted either wasn't what it was made out to be or that my desire was not really my own. Now I was stuck with thing that I did not really want and no money.
I want a real smithing anvil and some tools. I could spend the thousands of dollars for the setup, but it'll probably get used only intermittently, as that kind of metalworking does not make for a casual hobby. I do not buy it because while I can afford it, I can also keep my money for when I find something that I really do want to have, or when I stumble across a genuinely good deal for something I can then pounce on it.
What exactly are you saving for? If you die at 89 year old tomorrow with $10 million in the bank, what good was that $10 million to you?
This is a straw-man. You presuppose conditions that are not only of your own devising, but are highly unlikely and exceedingly rare. Most don't even live to 89, and most that do aren't sitting on that kind of a pile of cash, or if they are it's because they're still earning through their investments and are living the way that they want to, they're not denying themselves.
Most people that make a point of planning their long-term finances do so with an eye toward maintaining a comfortable standard of living throughout their lives, including during retirement. They do not want to lose quality of life when they no longer have an income. This means hitting peak savings at retirement age, where the money plus any further interest or growth will last for the remaining years in roughly the same amount as when one was working.
Saving for the future does not mean having to live like a pauper unless one has a job that pays incredibly poorly, but it does mean having discipline to avoid squandering one's money frivolously.
I would love for a "personal digital assistant" to have Majel Barrett's voice or John Forsythe's voice. Hell, if nothing else we could continue to produce TV programs or movies where their voices are important.
Some would argue that the US Government is bound by the Constitution, wherever the US Government acts, and thus agents of the US Government are either subject to prosecution by the US courts whenever they violate the Constitution wherever they may be in the world, or else they are not acting on behalf of the US Government and are therefore bound by local law and subject to local prosecution.
After all, we already have rules of war that our military is supposed to follow when deployed overseas, and there have been plenty of cases when military personnel have been prosecuted for violating those rules. Why should civilian government actors be any different?
The military-industrial complex is a lot like Congress. Everyone agrees there's a problem, but no one is willing to acknowledge that their personal bit of it has a problem or that they bear any responsibility for it, and many think that despite the problem, their little piece is good.
That's because when it comes down to it, everyone wants their own agenda, and simply makes claims about what they are to pander to who will enable them to make their agenda happen. This is why you have to look at the records of actions that people have taken in the past when evaluating the words that they say to you now. This is why it's probably a good idea for Federal office holders to have previous government experience, so that one can see how they've decided on matters in the past, as that will be the best indicator of how they'll decide in the future.
At home the solution is to buy a computer monitor, not a TV, and to track down one of those old early HDTV standalone tuners. Not the DTV converter boxes, but the high def output models that were required for early HD tube TVs that lacked ATSC tuners.
Or, at home, similar to above, to use a video projector as your TV and again, to get a separate tuner for it.
I just pictured Assange-as-Frankenstein as in Gene Wilder's character during the, "Puttin' on the Ritz," scene in Young Frankenstein, trying to distract both the monster and the audience as the presentation/act starts going down in flames...
In my experience and of what I have observed with others, those who talk with their bosses or otherwise keep them informed about what they do at work often have more opportunity for advancement at work. Two people can do the exact same thing, but the one that talks about the process and the milestones and keeps the boss informed of these will get recognition, the other one will not.
You can call that shitty management if you want, but you are responsible for protecting your own interest, and arguably you are responsible for helping foster good communication with your employer. Besides, employees complain about the exact opposite, when the boss continually sticks his nose into the employee's business. At a minimum this means having to explain one's self on the boss's schedule to the detriment of the employee's productivity, and at worst it means a horrible micromanager of a boss that increases the stress level with the employees and harms productivity.
I would much rather work where the boss trusts me to make my reports, than to work where the boss interrupts my train of thought to extract reports on his schedule.
Plants make fruit so birds and deer will eat it, spreading the seeds to far-off places. Cooperation emerges.
By a long and complex series of accidents plants make fruit. By a long and complex series of accidents intertwined with the previous, birds and deer eat fruit and spread seeds to far-off places.
The mistake is assuming that there's some intelligence behind it, that there's some reason. That's the whole point, there is no reason, there is no design behind it. The only point at which design or intent comes to pass is when a brain attempts to reason its own circumstances and starts making personal choices where those limited opportunities for choice exist.
So what I'm curious about is if the extra activity is productive, or if it's just the firing of synapses without purpose.
As an analogy, consider electrical short-circuits in a ball of unshielded wires with various currents applied, versus a properly laid-out circuit. Depending on how the various short-circuits in the ball line up one might see patterns, but those patterns do not accomplish anything. One might even see heat and light that are absent on the properly laid-out circuit, and one might see more power draw, but again, that might not mean anything advantageous is occurring.
Last time I looked at the subject, oxygen supply and the ability to exchange oxygen between blood vessels and the brain was the limiting factor, more than any other factor. I'm curious if there are any other factors since found.
Good luck with this policy. At best a few sailors or marines will be busted each year for their stupidity, but the vast majority of incidents will never see any enforcement.
I've never been in the armed services but I was under the impression that one of the most important rules for those in authority was do not give orders that one knows will not be followed. Issuing orders that won't be followed helps destroy one's own authority.
I generally expect CEOs to bring something of value to offset their ignorance and narcissism. Most people that head companies that do not bring such end up as little more than small-businessmen, through admittedly the occasional puppet-CEO that's really little more than the Board's strawman-writ-live have been known to exist.
I had problems with BBSing and later with Warcraft II.
When I was grounded from the family 486 I would dig out the Compaq Portable that I had in my bedroom, and use the 2400 baud modem to dial out to BBSes and to the public library so that I could get on Usenet, usually after everyone else went to bed. My parents knew I had the computer but didn't know that the old four prong telephone jack in my bedroom was actually live. Took a couple of years to get caught; I'd gotten careless and started using it earlier and earlier in the evening.
It's funny really. I used that 8088-clone with 128K RAM for essentially the same function as I use modern equipment for, which is reading and posting on other computer systems. We really haven't come as far as people would like to pretend.
Most of us just don't want to pay $40 to get across town when $14 would do the job just as well. Uber's primary selling point was that it was far cheaper than a cab.
Since Uber has been running at-a-loss on venture capital money, the days of that $14 ride across town will probably not last.
If a car is purchased as a business expense, the write-off for durable goods like vehicles is amortized over several years. Someone writing-off their car purchase cannot deduct the cost from their taxes all at once, so if they want newer vehicles constantly they're going to have to bear the financial burden for those choices.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably like mutton. Given that it's sheep and all.
Just be pragmatic, there are lots of medical conditions that can cause women to be unable to conceive or unable to carry a child to term. Infertility is already treated for to attempt to counteract these conditions but there are still conditions that are not effective.
This kind of procedure can be used to allow women that suffer from these kinds of conditions to have children. It can allow women that work in risky occupations to have healthy children. It could even allow women that have health issues unrelated to reproductive trouble to have healthy children free from conditions that are passed on during pregnancy through the placental barrier.
The idea of being able to tube an embryo to grow it to a baby is a good one.
If you want it and can afford to buy it, it's stupid not to buy it.
I don't know about you, but to quote writer Theodore Sturgeon, "...you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true." I learned this lesson as a child when I spent my allowance money that I'd saved up on stupid crap that I was convinced I wanted, only to find out that the thing I wanted either wasn't what it was made out to be or that my desire was not really my own. Now I was stuck with thing that I did not really want and no money.
I want a real smithing anvil and some tools. I could spend the thousands of dollars for the setup, but it'll probably get used only intermittently, as that kind of metalworking does not make for a casual hobby. I do not buy it because while I can afford it, I can also keep my money for when I find something that I really do want to have, or when I stumble across a genuinely good deal for something I can then pounce on it.
Be judicious with your means. Don't squander it.
What exactly are you saving for? If you die at 89 year old tomorrow with $10 million in the bank, what good was that $10 million to you?
This is a straw-man. You presuppose conditions that are not only of your own devising, but are highly unlikely and exceedingly rare. Most don't even live to 89, and most that do aren't sitting on that kind of a pile of cash, or if they are it's because they're still earning through their investments and are living the way that they want to, they're not denying themselves.
Most people that make a point of planning their long-term finances do so with an eye toward maintaining a comfortable standard of living throughout their lives, including during retirement. They do not want to lose quality of life when they no longer have an income. This means hitting peak savings at retirement age, where the money plus any further interest or growth will last for the remaining years in roughly the same amount as when one was working.
Saving for the future does not mean having to live like a pauper unless one has a job that pays incredibly poorly, but it does mean having discipline to avoid squandering one's money frivolously.
I DON'T KNOW!
I would love for a "personal digital assistant" to have Majel Barrett's voice or John Forsythe's voice. Hell, if nothing else we could continue to produce TV programs or movies where their voices are important.
Funny, it appears that decent life-expectancy and quality of life seems to go a long way toward fighting birthrate.
Perhaps if people don't expect their children to die young they don't feel a need to have so many of them.
Third base.
Doctor Who?
Some would argue that the US Government is bound by the Constitution, wherever the US Government acts, and thus agents of the US Government are either subject to prosecution by the US courts whenever they violate the Constitution wherever they may be in the world, or else they are not acting on behalf of the US Government and are therefore bound by local law and subject to local prosecution.
After all, we already have rules of war that our military is supposed to follow when deployed overseas, and there have been plenty of cases when military personnel have been prosecuted for violating those rules. Why should civilian government actors be any different?
The military-industrial complex is a lot like Congress. Everyone agrees there's a problem, but no one is willing to acknowledge that their personal bit of it has a problem or that they bear any responsibility for it, and many think that despite the problem, their little piece is good.
That's because when it comes down to it, everyone wants their own agenda, and simply makes claims about what they are to pander to who will enable them to make their agenda happen. This is why you have to look at the records of actions that people have taken in the past when evaluating the words that they say to you now. This is why it's probably a good idea for Federal office holders to have previous government experience, so that one can see how they've decided on matters in the past, as that will be the best indicator of how they'll decide in the future.
At home the solution is to buy a computer monitor, not a TV, and to track down one of those old early HDTV standalone tuners. Not the DTV converter boxes, but the high def output models that were required for early HD tube TVs that lacked ATSC tuners.
Or, at home, similar to above, to use a video projector as your TV and again, to get a separate tuner for it.
I just pictured Assange-as-Frankenstein as in Gene Wilder's character during the, "Puttin' on the Ritz," scene in Young Frankenstein, trying to distract both the monster and the audience as the presentation/act starts going down in flames...
In my experience and of what I have observed with others, those who talk with their bosses or otherwise keep them informed about what they do at work often have more opportunity for advancement at work. Two people can do the exact same thing, but the one that talks about the process and the milestones and keeps the boss informed of these will get recognition, the other one will not.
You can call that shitty management if you want, but you are responsible for protecting your own interest, and arguably you are responsible for helping foster good communication with your employer. Besides, employees complain about the exact opposite, when the boss continually sticks his nose into the employee's business. At a minimum this means having to explain one's self on the boss's schedule to the detriment of the employee's productivity, and at worst it means a horrible micromanager of a boss that increases the stress level with the employees and harms productivity.
I would much rather work where the boss trusts me to make my reports, than to work where the boss interrupts my train of thought to extract reports on his schedule.
Plants make fruit so birds and deer will eat it, spreading the seeds to far-off places. Cooperation emerges.
By a long and complex series of accidents plants make fruit. By a long and complex series of accidents intertwined with the previous, birds and deer eat fruit and spread seeds to far-off places.
The mistake is assuming that there's some intelligence behind it, that there's some reason. That's the whole point, there is no reason, there is no design behind it. The only point at which design or intent comes to pass is when a brain attempts to reason its own circumstances and starts making personal choices where those limited opportunities for choice exist.
So what I'm curious about is if the extra activity is productive, or if it's just the firing of synapses without purpose.
As an analogy, consider electrical short-circuits in a ball of unshielded wires with various currents applied, versus a properly laid-out circuit. Depending on how the various short-circuits in the ball line up one might see patterns, but those patterns do not accomplish anything. One might even see heat and light that are absent on the properly laid-out circuit, and one might see more power draw, but again, that might not mean anything advantageous is occurring.
Last time I looked at the subject, oxygen supply and the ability to exchange oxygen between blood vessels and the brain was the limiting factor, more than any other factor. I'm curious if there are any other factors since found.
You could put them on the pubic mound. Unfortunately tall blonde women may end up with, "Lucky You" instead of whatever serial number was called for.
And this'll hit the trucking industry like a bomb!
Good luck with this policy. At best a few sailors or marines will be busted each year for their stupidity, but the vast majority of incidents will never see any enforcement.
I've never been in the armed services but I was under the impression that one of the most important rules for those in authority was do not give orders that one knows will not be followed. Issuing orders that won't be followed helps destroy one's own authority.
I generally expect CEOs to bring something of value to offset their ignorance and narcissism. Most people that head companies that do not bring such end up as little more than small-businessmen, through admittedly the occasional puppet-CEO that's really little more than the Board's strawman-writ-live have been known to exist.
I had problems with BBSing and later with Warcraft II.
When I was grounded from the family 486 I would dig out the Compaq Portable that I had in my bedroom, and use the 2400 baud modem to dial out to BBSes and to the public library so that I could get on Usenet, usually after everyone else went to bed. My parents knew I had the computer but didn't know that the old four prong telephone jack in my bedroom was actually live. Took a couple of years to get caught; I'd gotten careless and started using it earlier and earlier in the evening.
It's funny really. I used that 8088-clone with 128K RAM for essentially the same function as I use modern equipment for, which is reading and posting on other computer systems. We really haven't come as far as people would like to pretend.
Or they just realized that you are a poor candidate and aren't bothering to respond to you.
Most of us just don't want to pay $40 to get across town when $14 would do the job just as well. Uber's primary selling point was that it was far cheaper than a cab.
Since Uber has been running at-a-loss on venture capital money, the days of that $14 ride across town will probably not last.
If a car is purchased as a business expense, the write-off for durable goods like vehicles is amortized over several years. Someone writing-off their car purchase cannot deduct the cost from their taxes all at once, so if they want newer vehicles constantly they're going to have to bear the financial burden for those choices.