If you have issues with cloning then you probably should have issues with identical twins.
I would have issues with identical twins if they were industrially produced (and to be eaten no less) and posed a thread to non-cloned reproduction.
At only 500 per year, of even 100 times that, I don't think there is a problem. Remember that they still need to gestated in a pig. One boar and several sows can do that without all the drama.
When a legitimate whistle blower becomes a world wide hunted "criminal" and you don't notice, that's a problem. When the FBI and the CIA start enforcing movie company copyrights with trans-boarder raids, and you don't notice, that's a problem. When the CIA has presidential airplanes from foreign countries detained and searched in third countries, and you think its normal, that's a serious problem.
I don't even understand this story. The smoking gun has already been found, reported, and Jon Stewart did a whole send-up of it last week.
That's not a tradition we can afford to continue in Washington.
Well, lets wait till the proof is in before we assume it wasn't an action taken by some over-zealous underling, instead of Christie himself.
After all, the same people rushing to condemn Christie gleefully accept the same excuse from Obama, when he claims he didn't know, and wasn't told.
What I want to know, is why any state's DOT would take orders like that EVEN if they thought it came from the Governor himself. Most rational state governments do not allow the Governor to micro-manage road and lane closures, for non-emergency reasons, and when there is a real emergency need, the DOT is usually well ahead of the elected officials.
Why does New Jersey allow a governor to make that call?
They are overpriced, I'll give you that. But it's not hard to make up the cost in energy savings and have it pay for itself.
Imagine how quickly you would make up the cost in energy saving with a $20 programmable thermostat. Hell it would even PAY you back $100 per hour for reading the manual, or at least the directions printed behind the flip-down door. Then the UI would not be a problem. You'd even know about the vacation button.
Well there are a lot of big players that have patents for purely defensive reasons. They can say, no, we didn't copy your crap, we have our own patent. The troll is automatically put on notice that they not only have to fight big-corp but also the US Patent office. It stops a lot of trolls dead in their tracks.
A lot of the time, big players who hold a boat load of patents don't go looking for trouble, because it will cost them more to look, and enforce patents they they will make in revenue. Worst case, is they might write you a letter asking for a small license fee, engineered to be something you can easily pay, if for no other reason to enforce their patent and also earn a small income from it.
But if you step on their core business with some of their IP, you got to know they will want to talk serious money.
This is not the same as a troll, since they are actively using their patents.
Come on for pete sake, turning on the heat when its cold is the job of a thermostat. They've been doing it since the 30s, and became programmable since the late 70s. Don't act so impressed that your thermostat actually worked.
You've paid in excess of 15 times what you needed to pay for program-ability, only to have it be totally dependent on the internet!
Yeah, but it was merely his perception. Forester didn't do any reliable or exhaustive research on this issue. The drivers were as likely responding to the cyclists riding style as anything else. The study is dated, because the majority of cyclist wear helmets these days.
Drivers can tell when you are a competent cyclist, just by the way you handle the bike on the road. If you weave an wander, they will give you wide berth. If you hold a straight line, take the whole lane when necessary and move left when safe, signal your turns, they are likely to pass you a little closer because they know you won't be doing something stupid.
Then there are stupid drivers who have no clue, and nothing you do will get them to pay attention.
Right so we should let them all farm, then when the prices tank and they lose the farms to banks and nothing is grown the following year anyway... we win? GTFO. You think people will farm for loss? When prices collapse you remove all incentive to farm, that's right ALL OF IT.
Farmers aren't a bunch of hicks with sunburnt necks any more son.
They follow the futures markets and know what is left unsold from last year, and have a very good idea of what the price of corn will be before they even order their seed. They also understand crop insurance and the insurance quote tells them what the best analysts in the world think of the future price of soy beans.
Government paying people to not farm has not helped in this regard, because if anything the Government is farm more clueless about what crops are needed and what crops are over planted, and they, like all government programs aren't nimble enough to react to the market.
A bank committing fraud to lie about the risk of the loan when re-selling it, causing a global economic meltdown was the problem. It wasn't until after the meltdown when the foreclosures spiked
I'm not arguing that the banks were acting honestly when they bundled these failing subprime loans with just enough performing loans to pass them off as a valuable investment. Its clear their intent was fraud.
However, your assertion that banks were not forced by the CRA to issue sub-prime loans is simply false. The government backed the loans, (removing the risk), and heavily leaned on banks that chose not to get involved. They even prosecuted several bank chains for civil rights violations and discrimination because they would not lend to people with no possible way to pay the loans back.
Of course they made it look like a race issue when they brought the charges. History teaches a different lesson. And those who won't learn from it are bound to repeat it.
But that's just a start, and far from the most damning evidence. Like I said, the real truth can not be told, especially on the heavily liberal invested Wikipedia, because the revision army arrives immediately.
The federal government has stated that the CRA had nothing to do with the sub-prime mortgage collapse. That should be all the evidence you need to assure yourself that the CRA was the principal factor.
None of the reasons you post support your suggestion that helmet use does not reduce severe brain injuries or actually increase it. They are ludicrous at best.
In 30 years on a bike, I've never ever seen someone say, oh, I have this helmet, lets see if I can skid right under that semi and out the other side. People who take ridiculous risks will take them without helmets just as often as with.
The research only supports one assertion about increased injuries caused by helmets, and that is a marginal increase in neck injuries from the helmet catching on the roadway surface as you go sliding along. However, even this research recognizes this increase in neck injuries is a trade off compared to abraded to the bone head road-rash that would otherwise occur in the identical crash.
That being said, when broadsided by a semi, a helmet won't help you. And its probably pointless to require them by law.
Processing food does not make it cheap or cheaper. It always adds cost.
Processed food is not less healthy. Butchers process food. Bakers process food. The people who make your salad process food. People who put oranges in boxes for shipment process food.
Restrictions I mentioned had to do with qualification for the SNAP (food stamps) program, not the level of benefits received. Lets not mix apples and oranges.
The U.S. has had a food stamp program for a very long time, it wasn't till the economic collapse 6 years ago that it doubled in size. Welcome to the world of outsourcing and increased robotics.
Welcome to yet another follow on effect of forcing banks to lend money to homeowners who could not in fact afford to pay it back.
It had nothing to do with robotics. The economic collapse was triggered by Jimmie Carter, and percolated through several subsequent administrations, which lead to banks trying desperately to get rid of non-performing loans. The bundled them up and sold them as asserts when they knew damn well they were worthless.
When the house of cards suddenly came crashing down, people got thrown out of work, and vast numbers had to resort to food stamps.
When the history of this period is finally written, (not possible with some of the key players still running the government) this mess will be traced to the worst form of government edicts and meddling in the banking sector, and then bailing those banks out of the mess they created using tax payer money.
Everyone loves to hate on the banks. But they were forced into these stupid loans.
plenty of other countries manage to feed their people without needing to resort to a program like that
Really? Name one modern country that both
1) does not have starvation level poverty and
2) has no government support programs
The names may change, but there are similar programs in other countries. Many are less visible, because they just crank it into other welfare programs, where is disappears. Its still there, and when paying out money, you don't know if the money was used for crack or crackers..
Agreed, the spread of the program is pretty huge. (It actually averages 14%).
But again, this may be simply because the program has been expanded beyond its target population lately. The largest growth has been under the current administration, which also happened to coincide with a major 5 year recession which threw millions out of work.
Its hard to know if these levels will be maintained as people go back to work. Once eligibility requirements are loosened, they seldom are tightened. So IF (just sayin) this administration loosened the requirements, then food stamp levels will remain high.
However, if the recession caused more families to full under existing requirements, then you would expect a decline in participation. We may just be looking at a huge, but temporary bump. If so, the program is working a intended, and people need to understand this, and maybe spend two minutes thinking about how proud of their country they would be if there were wide-spread starvation.
The department of Agriculture, which runs the Food Stamp Program, is tasked by law to make sure there is enough food for everyone and that everyone gets fed. Food stamps were born by order of the Supreme Court, not Congress.
I'm pretty sure you won't find much support for having DOA nannies standing at every dinner table to make sure everyone on food stamps eats their collard greens. I'm positive you would accomplish nothing with this approach.
There is no way you can supply food support while at the same time make sure that no budget shifting takes place. They money that might have gone for what people get for free on food stamps will be directed to other foods. Or what-ever. Food stamps were not intended to fix stupid. Just Hungry. You ALREADY can't buy beer on food stamps, stop trying to micromanage the program you apparently know nothing about.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have issues with cloning then you probably should have issues with identical twins.
I would have issues with identical twins if they were industrially produced (and to be eaten no less) and posed a thread to non-cloned reproduction.
At only 500 per year, of even 100 times that, I don't think there is a problem. Remember that they still need to gestated in a pig.
One boar and several sows can do that without all the drama.
We already have enough police officers. We don't need a clone factory.
That's what you think. Robocop 2014 is being released next month.
and now they are at it... why not implement some chicken DNA as well. Have bacon and egg`s in one go.
Wait, wouldn't that open the floodgates of hell and lead to Avian Flu and Swine Flu combining into the Death and Breakfast Flu?
Oh the humanity!
When a legitimate whistle blower becomes a world wide hunted "criminal" and you don't notice, that's a problem.
When the FBI and the CIA start enforcing movie company copyrights with trans-boarder raids, and you don't notice, that's a problem.
When the CIA has presidential airplanes from foreign countries detained and searched in third countries, and you think its normal, that's a serious problem.
Those are called "Laps"
Either way it is something Christie has never done.
Christie probably hasn't seen his lap (or anything in it) since the 6th grade.
---Ok, mean spirited, but I couldn't resist.
I don't even understand this story. The smoking gun has already been found, reported, and Jon Stewart did a whole send-up of it last week.
That's not a tradition we can afford to continue in Washington.
Well, lets wait till the proof is in before we assume it wasn't an action taken by some over-zealous underling, instead of Christie himself.
After all, the same people rushing to condemn Christie gleefully accept the same excuse from Obama, when he claims he didn't know, and wasn't told.
What I want to know, is why any state's DOT would take orders like that EVEN if they thought it came from the Governor himself.
Most rational state governments do not allow the Governor to micro-manage road and lane closures, for non-emergency reasons, and when there is a real emergency need, the DOT is usually well ahead of the elected officials.
Why does New Jersey allow a governor to make that call?
They are overpriced, I'll give you that. But it's not hard to make up the cost in energy savings and have it pay for itself.
Imagine how quickly you would make up the cost in energy saving with a $20 programmable thermostat. Hell it would even PAY you back $100 per hour for reading the manual, or at least the directions printed behind the flip-down door. Then the UI would not be
a problem. You'd even know about the vacation button.
Well there are a lot of big players that have patents for purely defensive reasons. They can say, no, we didn't copy your crap, we have our own patent. The troll is automatically put on notice that they not only have to fight big-corp but also the US Patent office. It stops a lot of trolls dead in their tracks.
A lot of the time, big players who hold a boat load of patents don't go looking for trouble, because it will cost them more to look, and enforce patents they they will make in revenue. Worst case, is they might write you a letter asking for a small license fee, engineered to be something you can easily pay, if for no other reason to enforce their patent and also earn a small income from it.
But if you step on their core business with some of their IP, you got to know they will want to talk serious money.
This is not the same as a troll, since they are actively using their patents.
Nor would the under $20 fully programmable, been around since dirt, standard as the day is long, conventional wall thermostat.
Come on for pete sake, turning on the heat when its cold is the job of a thermostat. They've been doing it since the 30s, and became programmable since the late 70s. Don't act so impressed that your thermostat actually worked.
You've paid in excess of 15 times what you needed to pay for program-ability, only to have it be totally dependent on the internet!
There's one born every minute.
Point proven.
Yes, other countries have poverty, but no, other countries don't have people working full time who still qualify for income subsidy.
That is simply not true. Please provide research that shows there are no such people in any countries.
Yeah, but it was merely his perception. Forester didn't do any reliable or exhaustive research on this issue. The drivers were as likely responding to the cyclists riding style as anything else. The study is dated, because the majority of cyclist wear helmets these days.
Drivers can tell when you are a competent cyclist, just by the way you handle the bike on the road. If you weave an wander, they will give you wide berth. If you hold a straight line, take the whole lane when necessary and move left when safe, signal your turns, they are likely to pass you a little closer because they know you won't be doing something stupid.
Then there are stupid drivers who have no clue, and nothing you do will get them to pay attention.
Right so we should let them all farm, then when the prices tank and they lose the farms to banks and nothing is grown the following year anyway... we win? GTFO. You think people will farm for loss? When prices collapse you remove all incentive to farm, that's right ALL OF IT.
Farmers aren't a bunch of hicks with sunburnt necks any more son.
They follow the futures markets and know what is left unsold from last year, and have a very good idea of what the price of corn will be before they even order their seed. They also understand crop insurance and the insurance quote tells them what the best analysts in the world think of the future price of soy beans.
Government paying people to not farm has not helped in this regard, because if anything the Government is farm more clueless about what crops are needed and what crops are over planted, and they, like all government programs aren't nimble enough to react to the market.
Its not 1946 and more. Farmers are not idiots.
A bank committing fraud to lie about the risk of the loan when re-selling it, causing a global economic meltdown was the problem. It wasn't until after the meltdown when the foreclosures spiked
I'm not arguing that the banks were acting honestly when they bundled these failing subprime loans with just enough performing loans to pass them off as a valuable investment. Its clear their intent was fraud.
However, your assertion that banks were not forced by the CRA to issue sub-prime loans is simply false. The government backed the loans, (removing the risk), and heavily leaned on banks that chose not to get involved. They even prosecuted several bank chains for civil rights violations and discrimination because they would not lend to people with no possible way to pay the loans back.
Of course they made it look like a race issue when they brought the charges. History teaches a different lesson. And those who won't learn from it are bound to repeat it.
Banks were not forced to lend to people who could not pay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
Start your re-education there.
But that's just a start, and far from the most damning evidence. Like I said, the real truth can not be told, especially on the heavily liberal invested Wikipedia, because the revision army arrives immediately.
The federal government has stated that the CRA had nothing to do with the sub-prime mortgage collapse. That should be all the evidence you need to assure yourself that the CRA was the principal factor.
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125.html
None of the reasons you post support your suggestion that helmet use does not reduce severe brain injuries or actually increase it. They are ludicrous at best.
In 30 years on a bike, I've never ever seen someone say, oh, I have this helmet, lets see if I can skid right under that semi and out the other side. People who take ridiculous risks will take them without helmets just as often as with.
The research only supports one assertion about increased injuries caused by helmets, and that is a marginal increase in neck injuries from the helmet catching on the roadway surface as you go sliding along. However, even this research recognizes this increase in neck injuries is a trade off compared to abraded to the bone head road-rash that would otherwise occur in the identical crash.
That being said, when broadsided by a semi, a helmet won't help you. And its probably pointless to require them by law.
Processing food does not make it cheap or cheaper. It always adds cost.
Processed food is not less healthy. Butchers process food. Bakers process food. The people who make your salad process food. People who put oranges in boxes for shipment process food.
Food stamps do not subsidize specific types of food. They don't require a died of Cheetos and soda.
You can buy all sorts of produce, fruit, veggies, meats cheeses, bread, and, well, just about any food you find in the grocery store..
Restrictions I mentioned had to do with qualification for the SNAP (food stamps) program, not the level of benefits received. Lets not mix apples and oranges.
Soil conservation has nothing to do with the programs that pay farmers to keep farms out of production.
Its price supports, plain and simple.
The U.S. has had a food stamp program for a very long time, it wasn't till the economic collapse 6 years ago that it doubled in size. Welcome to the world of outsourcing and increased robotics.
Welcome to yet another follow on effect of forcing banks to lend money to homeowners who could not in fact afford to pay it back.
It had nothing to do with robotics. The economic collapse was triggered by Jimmie Carter, and percolated through several subsequent administrations, which lead to banks trying desperately to get rid of non-performing loans. The bundled them up and sold them as asserts when they knew damn well they were worthless.
When the house of cards suddenly came crashing down, people got thrown out of work, and vast numbers had to resort to food stamps.
When the history of this period is finally written, (not possible with some of the key players still running the government) this mess will be traced to the worst form of government edicts and meddling in the banking sector, and then bailing those banks out of the mess they created using tax payer money.
Everyone loves to hate on the banks. But they were forced into these stupid loans.
plenty of other countries manage to feed their people without needing to resort to a program like that
Really? Name one modern country that both
1) does not have starvation level poverty and
2) has no government support programs
The names may change, but there are similar programs in other countries. Many are less visible, because they just crank it into other welfare programs, where is disappears. Its still there, and when paying out money, you don't know if the money was used for crack or crackers..
Agreed, the spread of the program is pretty huge. (It actually averages 14%).
But again, this may be simply because the program has been expanded beyond its target population lately. The largest growth has been under the current administration, which also happened to coincide with a major 5 year recession which threw millions out of work.
The most dramatic upturn occurred beginning 2008, with a rapid doubling over prior levels..
Its hard to know if these levels will be maintained as people go back to work. Once eligibility requirements are loosened, they seldom are tightened. So IF (just sayin) this administration loosened the requirements, then food stamp levels will remain high.
However, if the recession caused more families to full under existing requirements, then you would expect a decline in participation. We may just be looking at a huge, but temporary bump. If so, the program is working a intended, and people need to understand this, and maybe spend two minutes thinking about how proud of their country they would be if there were wide-spread starvation.
There are some interesting figures here: http://www.statisticbrain.com/food-stamp-statistics/
Go spin your vegetarian religion somewhere else.
Take out the choice
The department of Agriculture, which runs the Food Stamp Program, is tasked by law to make sure there is enough food for everyone and that everyone gets fed. Food stamps were born by order of the Supreme Court, not Congress.
I'm pretty sure you won't find much support for having DOA nannies standing at every dinner table to make sure everyone on food stamps eats their collard greens. I'm positive you would accomplish nothing with this approach.
There is no way you can supply food support while at the same time make sure that no budget shifting takes place. They money that might have gone for what people get for free on food stamps will be directed to other foods. Or what-ever. Food stamps were not intended to fix stupid. Just Hungry. You ALREADY can't buy beer on food stamps, stop trying to micromanage the program you apparently know nothing about.