There are a bit over 70 treatments using adult or cord blood stem cells (list here) with embryonic cells being used in zero treatments. The plasticity of embryonic stem cells is a disadvantage it seems due to the tendency towards tumor formation.
I'm not sure whether they would. If that's your only objection, aren't you making the perfect the enemy of the good?
We're talking about schools that have had rape in the stairwells and gangs dominating the playground (the original offer was made pre-Giuliani). These are incredibly incompetent and actively damaging institutions with graduation and literacy/numeracy ratings that are in the cellar and have been there for a long time.
The fact is that there are plenty of non-christians in Catholic schools, always have been. Were we to roll back to a 1940s conception of appropriate state/church interrelation, the Republic would not fall and a lot of kids would likely have improved outcomes. The AFT and the NEA have stood in the way of others with a proven track record taking a crack at doing a better job for generations. How can they look themselves in the mirror when they see the results, I don't know. Perhaps you could explain it?
If I were to treat teachers like the resource they're supposed to be, I'd end up firing the worst, promoting the best, and encouraging the entry of a large number of new entrants to provide superior teaching.
I have 3 kids, 2 of which are old enough to go to school. I have already (1st grade) tripped across one teacher that is atrocious and only later found out that she's been an ongoing problem for lots of other families. This teacher should be fired because she objectively damages children. She will not be because it's too hard to do it.
My local school does not say "if you give us these resources, we can provide this level of service". Were they to do so, I would support them until they blew their metrics at which point it's time for a new team to come in. But that's not how union based public schools work. It would be how a "teachers as a resource" system would work.
Some organizations manage to pull this sort of collaborative environment off and those that do have demonstrated a competitive advantage dating back decades. I think that any honest union advocacy has to acknowledge that dysfunction in the workplace is the start of all unions. Said dysfunction in the schools, I believe, will always negatively affect the children no matter what amelioration the unions achieve (and often unions will make things worse for workplace dysfunction).
School reform that is child and education centric should always go after the dysfunction. It should be identified, attacked, and cured. If it takes a wholesale replacement of the school board and the entire school district administration, a 100% management turnover, so be it. I want kids to have the best learning environment. A long-term dysfunctional work environment will never give them that.
Anything less than curing the underlying dysfunction is bullshit.
The problem isn't whether it's beyond one teacher or another. The problem is that once you get out of the public school system, you can find innovative solutions to these problems that the public schools have long resisted adopting. That's stupid, but it's historical and current reality.
The payoff for a good teacher to buck the union system is steeply negative. The chances of you being able to continue to teach in peace are rather small.
The cherry picking is simply not true and the Archdiocese of NY has had an open offer for many years to take over the worst of the worst of the NY public school system and let them take a crack at it with the same budgets and the same student body. Funny enough, the AFT has always been against that.
The best teachers love and teach no matter what the system. This is a tiny minority of all teachers and will ever remain so. Sorting for quality among and improving the performance of the teachers who do not do it as a vocation is the road to improvement. Happiness != union membership.
You seem to equate union membership with increased happiness. This is only true in a fundamentally dysfunctional workplace where management and labor do not form real partnerships with rich communication. Unions are a 2nd rate response to this. The best solution is to fix the dysfunction that made the unions necessary in the first place.
Actually there are people who donate more to help people out than they pay in taxes. The bottom half of the income distribution in the US pays almost no taxes. Some of them do, however, give to charities.
The parent post was talking about individual americans and you're talking about a family of four which, last time I checked, has on average >1 wage earner in it.
Just remember this reaction the next time some politician starts talking about how rich we are and that surely we can give away x, y, or z. We're not that rich. Nobody's that rich as a country.
National sovereignty still being the rule of things, you would not sue the country per se but rather you would have the mother of all class action lawsuits where identified deep pockets polluters would be named as defendants with plaintiffs being those affected by the pollution, individual and business alike.
Here's a case that might shed light on how things will work out after conviction. When OJ Simpson was sued by Ron Goldman for the wrongful death of his son, Goldman pursued Simpson and continues to pursue him for any money Simpson makes to satisfy the huge judgment. Goldman is Simpson's Javert and likely will be the rest of Simpson's life.
Like the Ron Goldman/OJ Simpson result, we wouldn't be able to invade to directly impose our post-judgment will but we would be able to seize the PRC's exports created by guilty defendants at the docks as they enter the US, for instance, in satisfaction of the judgment. Dirty factories making export goods would become impossible. Suit would be filed in the West, likely in the 9th Circuit as far as the PRC is concerned as most of the seizures would be happening in ports covered by that appeals court. No doubt similar strategic jurisdiction hunting would happen in other countries.
Long before things got to the point of exports for free, investors would bail out of polluting manufacturing facilities and polluting factories would become uneconomic.
Now it would be true that facilities that have owners who serve only the domestic market would not be affected by this method. But in an increasingly globalized world we're talking about a shrinking segment.
1. Factory output goes overseas = affected 2. Factory domestic but company exports other stuff = affected 3. Factory owners have international assets = affected 4. Factory owners have no international assets but would like to eventually sell to others = affected 5. Factory owners want to raise international capital = affected 6. Factory owners have no international assets, no exports, don't ever want to raise capital outside the country, and dont' ever want to sell to foreign owners = not affected.
Possibility 6 is so remote and getting 1-5 is so much better than present that I'd consider this a tremendous improvement over the status quo where multinationals simply export pollution to the PRC et al.
Accepting "random unguided chance" in the face of strong scientific evidence to the contrary is an act of faith. I'm maintaining that the true scientific attitude is not one that assumes intelligence or randomness but rather accepting that we don't know and not speculating too far ahead of the facts while claiming such speculations are scientific.
Actually, it's not profiting by clean air but having a tort (legal cause of action in civil court) if your pollution strays downwind and you can't come to agreement with those affected. The mechanism is not carrot, but stick.
The inefficiencies are all in government payments to farmers to grow less. We can add food any year we please by simply stopping the payments and putting more acreage into production.
The chances of poachers slaughtering all of South Africa's elephants first is significantly lower than slaughtering all of Zimbabwe's elephants. The local tribesmen maximize their revenue when hired by poachers in Zimbabwe and when they fight poachers in South Africa. To nobody's surprise except those ignorant of human nature, both groups of locals try to maximize revenues within the system as it exists for them.
Yes, there may be cases where the logic of privatization of commons does not hold but we've done it in so many areas already with superior results to public stewardship that privatization should get the benefit of the doubt. The elephant example is just one of many such cases.
To say that we are not special is unscientific without a statistically significant sample of the universe to compare to. Ditto for saying that we are special. The Copernicus theorem is convenient for progress in research but not especially scientific.
And for all you know, these "special conditions" are statistically improbable for a universe 13 trillion years old. Somewhere between the two probabilities, it's time to start putting away faith in random unguided chance.
So, what's the actual probability?
We all collectively haven't a fucking clue which is why definitive statements of the "God is dead" variety have always been unscientific.
Actually, one of the big mysteries currently confronting climate scientists that are not in the tank for AGW is where is the missing heat. There's supposed to be a lot more heat out in the ocean according to all the models and it's simply not there when people actually go out and measure it.
There was a difference between the cruelty of the (Orthodox Christian) Czar and the (atheistic) Soviets. The Soviets were worse. The available data is that religion is a positive restraining force against savagery, just not a perfect one.
Well, yes. I oppose agri-subsidies, especially now that bumper crops can be diverted out of the food chain to supply fuel. The free market doesn't get subsidized. That's corporatism, technically economic fascism.
Actually, you don't have to have one entity own air. Negative effects straying across property lines are well developed in property law. The point is to make dirtying things up painful for trivial reasons but possible when the benefits are large enough.
The PRC finds it profitable to pollute California's air. It's flat out illegal according to PRC law but there's no real enforcement. So how's that government accountability working for you?
Slashdot Mirror
There are a bit over 70 treatments using adult or cord blood stem cells (list here) with embryonic cells being used in zero treatments. The plasticity of embryonic stem cells is a disadvantage it seems due to the tendency towards tumor formation.
I'm not sure whether they would. If that's your only objection, aren't you making the perfect the enemy of the good?
We're talking about schools that have had rape in the stairwells and gangs dominating the playground (the original offer was made pre-Giuliani). These are incredibly incompetent and actively damaging institutions with graduation and literacy/numeracy ratings that are in the cellar and have been there for a long time.
The fact is that there are plenty of non-christians in Catholic schools, always have been. Were we to roll back to a 1940s conception of appropriate state/church interrelation, the Republic would not fall and a lot of kids would likely have improved outcomes. The AFT and the NEA have stood in the way of others with a proven track record taking a crack at doing a better job for generations. How can they look themselves in the mirror when they see the results, I don't know. Perhaps you could explain it?
If I were to treat teachers like the resource they're supposed to be, I'd end up firing the worst, promoting the best, and encouraging the entry of a large number of new entrants to provide superior teaching.
I have 3 kids, 2 of which are old enough to go to school. I have already (1st grade) tripped across one teacher that is atrocious and only later found out that she's been an ongoing problem for lots of other families. This teacher should be fired because she objectively damages children. She will not be because it's too hard to do it.
My local school does not say "if you give us these resources, we can provide this level of service". Were they to do so, I would support them until they blew their metrics at which point it's time for a new team to come in. But that's not how union based public schools work. It would be how a "teachers as a resource" system would work.
Some organizations manage to pull this sort of collaborative environment off and those that do have demonstrated a competitive advantage dating back decades. I think that any honest union advocacy has to acknowledge that dysfunction in the workplace is the start of all unions. Said dysfunction in the schools, I believe, will always negatively affect the children no matter what amelioration the unions achieve (and often unions will make things worse for workplace dysfunction).
School reform that is child and education centric should always go after the dysfunction. It should be identified, attacked, and cured. If it takes a wholesale replacement of the school board and the entire school district administration, a 100% management turnover, so be it. I want kids to have the best learning environment. A long-term dysfunctional work environment will never give them that.
Anything less than curing the underlying dysfunction is bullshit.
The problem isn't whether it's beyond one teacher or another. The problem is that once you get out of the public school system, you can find innovative solutions to these problems that the public schools have long resisted adopting. That's stupid, but it's historical and current reality.
The payoff for a good teacher to buck the union system is steeply negative. The chances of you being able to continue to teach in peace are rather small.
The cherry picking is simply not true and the Archdiocese of NY has had an open offer for many years to take over the worst of the worst of the NY public school system and let them take a crack at it with the same budgets and the same student body. Funny enough, the AFT has always been against that.
The best teachers love and teach no matter what the system. This is a tiny minority of all teachers and will ever remain so. Sorting for quality among and improving the performance of the teachers who do not do it as a vocation is the road to improvement. Happiness != union membership.
You seem to equate union membership with increased happiness. This is only true in a fundamentally dysfunctional workplace where management and labor do not form real partnerships with rich communication. Unions are a 2nd rate response to this. The best solution is to fix the dysfunction that made the unions necessary in the first place.
Actually there are people who donate more to help people out than they pay in taxes. The bottom half of the income distribution in the US pays almost no taxes. Some of them do, however, give to charities.
The parent post was talking about individual americans and you're talking about a family of four which, last time I checked, has on average >1 wage earner in it.
Just remember this reaction the next time some politician starts talking about how rich we are and that surely we can give away x, y, or z. We're not that rich. Nobody's that rich as a country.
I read that as tobacco fries.
Mmmm...
tobacco fries....
National sovereignty still being the rule of things, you would not sue the country per se but rather you would have the mother of all class action lawsuits where identified deep pockets polluters would be named as defendants with plaintiffs being those affected by the pollution, individual and business alike.
Here's a case that might shed light on how things will work out after conviction. When OJ Simpson was sued by Ron Goldman for the wrongful death of his son, Goldman pursued Simpson and continues to pursue him for any money Simpson makes to satisfy the huge judgment. Goldman is Simpson's Javert and likely will be the rest of Simpson's life.
Like the Ron Goldman/OJ Simpson result, we wouldn't be able to invade to directly impose our post-judgment will but we would be able to seize the PRC's exports created by guilty defendants at the docks as they enter the US, for instance, in satisfaction of the judgment. Dirty factories making export goods would become impossible. Suit would be filed in the West, likely in the 9th Circuit as far as the PRC is concerned as most of the seizures would be happening in ports covered by that appeals court. No doubt similar strategic jurisdiction hunting would happen in other countries.
Long before things got to the point of exports for free, investors would bail out of polluting manufacturing facilities and polluting factories would become uneconomic.
Now it would be true that facilities that have owners who serve only the domestic market would not be affected by this method. But in an increasingly globalized world we're talking about a shrinking segment.
1. Factory output goes overseas = affected
2. Factory domestic but company exports other stuff = affected
3. Factory owners have international assets = affected
4. Factory owners have no international assets but would like to eventually sell to others = affected
5. Factory owners want to raise international capital = affected
6. Factory owners have no international assets, no exports, don't ever want to raise capital outside the country, and dont' ever want to sell to foreign owners = not affected.
Possibility 6 is so remote and getting 1-5 is so much better than present that I'd consider this a tremendous improvement over the status quo where multinationals simply export pollution to the PRC et al.
Accepting "random unguided chance" in the face of strong scientific evidence to the contrary is an act of faith. I'm maintaining that the true scientific attitude is not one that assumes intelligence or randomness but rather accepting that we don't know and not speculating too far ahead of the facts while claiming such speculations are scientific.
Actually, it's not profiting by clean air but having a tort (legal cause of action in civil court) if your pollution strays downwind and you can't come to agreement with those affected. The mechanism is not carrot, but stick.
The inefficiencies are all in government payments to farmers to grow less. We can add food any year we please by simply stopping the payments and putting more acreage into production.
The chances of poachers slaughtering all of South Africa's elephants first is significantly lower than slaughtering all of Zimbabwe's elephants. The local tribesmen maximize their revenue when hired by poachers in Zimbabwe and when they fight poachers in South Africa. To nobody's surprise except those ignorant of human nature, both groups of locals try to maximize revenues within the system as it exists for them.
Yes, there may be cases where the logic of privatization of commons does not hold but we've done it in so many areas already with superior results to public stewardship that privatization should get the benefit of the doubt. The elephant example is just one of many such cases.
To say that we are not special is unscientific without a statistically significant sample of the universe to compare to. Ditto for saying that we are special. The Copernicus theorem is convenient for progress in research but not especially scientific.
And for all you know, these "special conditions" are statistically improbable for a universe 13 trillion years old. Somewhere between the two probabilities, it's time to start putting away faith in random unguided chance.
So, what's the actual probability?
We all collectively haven't a fucking clue which is why definitive statements of the "God is dead" variety have always been unscientific.
Actually, one of the big mysteries currently confronting climate scientists that are not in the tank for AGW is where is the missing heat. There's supposed to be a lot more heat out in the ocean according to all the models and it's simply not there when people actually go out and measure it.
There was a difference between the cruelty of the (Orthodox Christian) Czar and the (atheistic) Soviets. The Soviets were worse. The available data is that religion is a positive restraining force against savagery, just not a perfect one.
Sorry, the average temps since 1998 are slightly lower. Check HADCRUT.
Well, yes. I oppose agri-subsidies, especially now that bumper crops can be diverted out of the food chain to supply fuel. The free market doesn't get subsidized. That's corporatism, technically economic fascism.
Actually, you don't have to have one entity own air. Negative effects straying across property lines are well developed in property law. The point is to make dirtying things up painful for trivial reasons but possible when the benefits are large enough.
The PRC finds it profitable to pollute California's air. It's flat out illegal according to PRC law but there's no real enforcement. So how's that government accountability working for you?