I just read an article about this, don't know how close it is to this one, but it was stated that the converted stem cells retain the DNA of the doner. The significance of this is that any organ or body part derived from that stem cell could be safely transplanted into that person without fear of rejection. Nifty.
If you look at the video, the door is a pain in the ass. It doesn't work right half the time, there's an uncomfortable delay, and considering the amount of moving parts... more chances of it sucking even more once one of those parts breaks entirely.
It's cool, but even if it cost cheaper than a regular door, no way in hell would i get it.
I'm afraid to even imagine a society where NASA exclusively produced cars and plublic transit.
Hey, I have a great idea. How about the government gives me $4 billion and in exchange I won't send anything into outer space.
Ok, I am being a bit sarcastic, but the point I am trying to get across is that Hindsight is 20/20. We all know that Government/NASA are inneficient, so let private companies take over.
The reason that an ISP becomes liable for everything once it sensors something is because once it blocks content A,B,C it automatically says that content D-Z is 'acceptable'. And if the government finds that content F is somehow illegal, the ISP becomes liable for not filtering that as well.
From the point of view of ISP, there is no incentive for them to take on the burden of policing the internet.
(Aside from that, I want to note that I do not believe in any censorship, period, regardless of the source of censorship).
If ISPs sensor information then they become liable for all information that they transfer.
If ISPs police information they go beyond their designated duty; Toyota has no obligation to file greivances against Toyota drivers that speed and DUI.
I hope I'm interpretting the blurb right, karma.
To my knowledge, HIV mutates just like any other virus, maybe faster - maybe not. I think that the problem is not so much as the speed of mutation, but rather on how the HIV virus works.
The HIV cells hide in other cells while they reproduce. Consequently, during that time they are undetectable by anti-bodies or T-Cells that are 'patrolling'. The reason people are able to survive longer with HIV now is because scientists are getting good at giving medication that will help people to attack the viruses while they are trying to find a new host cell. Essentially, this allows a person with HIV to keep their virus count low, without actually eliminating it from their system.
*Please note, that the level and accuracy of the details I provided are based on my subjective understanding, and should not be taken is fact.
How about something along the lines of what Stephen Hawkings uses? He only has one operational finger, I believe. Although, it might be out of her price range?
As long as the user's viewing information is kept private and solely used for advertising & the user knows of the policies regarding monitoring what they watch, I see no problems with it.
However, since there is a lot of regulation in the States (v-chip, ratings, standards, and artifical monopolies), cable users may find themselves screwed; either get monitored or don't get cable... and I'm sure the Patriot Act would get its grip on TV too, now if you watch Cops & the hitlery channel, you can be suspected as being a terrorist.
I'd be much more interested to see a test of the quality of results. Considering that most of the results that I end up activating are on the first page, quantity of results is less relevant to me in determining a good search engine.
That's only because some of us are forced to use IE at work. At least I am, it's absurd. I balance myself out, visiting the same sites with both IE & Firefox
It annoys me that people whimsically violate contractual terms which they have prior agreed to.
If I sign a contract that says I will work for Sony for free, then I lose the ability to claim that my compensation is unnacceptable, that I'm being enslaved, etc. Which is what these artists and that guy that left microsoft to work at google are doing.
"Ok, here's the thing. Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should."
Ok, just because You think something is unreasonable, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
"illegitimate reasons include gratuitously drawing the attention of thousands of people to information that reasonably should be considered private, whether it happens to be publically available or not."
Reasonably considered private? Your, or anyone else's, opinion on what is 'reasonable' is irrelevant. Some people think it's reasonable to hold video game manufacturers responsible for murders and car thefts. Using the word 'reasonable' to justify an argument is an act of futility.
"The chances are most of you wouldn't know any of this if CNET hadn't published it because you'd never have bothered to find it out."
So what your saying is, it's ok for me to find that information from one source (google). But it's not ok for me to find that information from another source (CNET)? Give me a break.
"The fact some people do not subscribe to the notion of there being a reasonable expectation of privacy does not mean that people should just blast out personal facts about others willy nilly, solicited or unsolicited."
Correct, no obligation exists to publish it. But likewise, the fact that some people do not subscribe to your definition of 'reasonable' doesn't mean that content ought to be censored either.
Indeed. People have a tendency to confuse correlation with causation. Which is precisely why these types of frivolous law suits exist.
And it also sickens me that it has become a trend not to take responsibility for your own actions. Like blaming obesity on McDonalds.
Now I want to file a law suit. Umm, let's see...for mental anguish caused as a result of being subjected to stupidity.
Intellectual property is something I have pondered on for a long time and have not come to a definitive conclusion.
This case specifically brings up a very interesting paradigm:
Two people with their own intellectual prowess create the same idea. Yet, the person that manages to get to the patent office first gets the patent. Which means that, in this case, ownership has nothing to do with the original creation of intellectual property.
Slashdot Mirror
I just read an article about this, don't know how close it is to this one, but it was stated that the converted stem cells retain the DNA of the doner. The significance of this is that any organ or body part derived from that stem cell could be safely transplanted into that person without fear of rejection. Nifty.
It's cool, but even if it cost cheaper than a regular door, no way in hell would i get it.
It all makes sense now! Thanks, Tom!
Because if screening teachers & policemen for psychopaths has taught us anything, it's that it obviously doesn't work.
And secondly, are we to assume that if you are a psychopath you cannot do your job?
I'm afraid to even imagine a society where NASA exclusively produced cars and plublic transit.
Hey, I have a great idea. How about the government gives me $4 billion and in exchange I won't send anything into outer space.
Ok, I am being a bit sarcastic, but the point I am trying to get across is that Hindsight is 20/20. We all know that Government/NASA are inneficient, so let private companies take over.
From the point of view of ISP, there is no incentive for them to take on the burden of policing the internet.
(Aside from that, I want to note that I do not believe in any censorship, period, regardless of the source of censorship).
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Try turning off the pr0n. you're welcome.
If ISPs sensor information then they become liable for all information that they transfer. If ISPs police information they go beyond their designated duty; Toyota has no obligation to file greivances against Toyota drivers that speed and DUI. I hope I'm interpretting the blurb right, karma.
The HIV cells hide in other cells while they reproduce. Consequently, during that time they are undetectable by anti-bodies or T-Cells that are 'patrolling'. The reason people are able to survive longer with HIV now is because scientists are getting good at giving medication that will help people to attack the viruses while they are trying to find a new host cell. Essentially, this allows a person with HIV to keep their virus count low, without actually eliminating it from their system. *Please note, that the level and accuracy of the details I provided are based on my subjective understanding, and should not be taken is fact.
How about something along the lines of what Stephen Hawkings uses? He only has one operational finger, I believe. Although, it might be out of her price range?
"Blandine Alexander, 33, said one woman standing in front of her was so desperate to retain her place in line that she urinated on herself. Pics?
^LOL. 60% Funny. 40% Insightful.
However, since there is a lot of regulation in the States (v-chip, ratings, standards, and artifical monopolies), cable users may find themselves screwed; either get monitored or don't get cable... and I'm sure the Patriot Act would get its grip on TV too, now if you watch Cops & the hitlery channel, you can be suspected as being a terrorist.
I'd be much more interested to see a test of the quality of results. Considering that most of the results that I end up activating are on the first page, quantity of results is less relevant to me in determining a good search engine.
That's only because some of us are forced to use IE at work. At least I am, it's absurd. I balance myself out, visiting the same sites with both IE & Firefox
This Balt Key-Rite passes the 'keep it simple, stupid' test. Seems just what the guy is looking for.
Agreed. Still, I'd rather be a child of an ignorant parent than a child of government(1984-style).
It would be interesting to see if that is what the article is referring to.
If I sign a contract that says I will work for Sony for free, then I lose the ability to claim that my compensation is unnacceptable, that I'm being enslaved, etc. Which is what these artists and that guy that left microsoft to work at google are doing.
Ok, just because You think something is unreasonable, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
"illegitimate reasons include gratuitously drawing the attention of thousands of people to information that reasonably should be considered private, whether it happens to be publically available or not."
Reasonably considered private? Your, or anyone else's, opinion on what is 'reasonable' is irrelevant. Some people think it's reasonable to hold video game manufacturers responsible for murders and car thefts. Using the word 'reasonable' to justify an argument is an act of futility.
"The chances are most of you wouldn't know any of this if CNET hadn't published it because you'd never have bothered to find it out."
So what your saying is, it's ok for me to find that information from one source (google). But it's not ok for me to find that information from another source (CNET)? Give me a break.
"The fact some people do not subscribe to the notion of there being a reasonable expectation of privacy does not mean that people should just blast out personal facts about others willy nilly, solicited or unsolicited."
Correct, no obligation exists to publish it. But likewise, the fact that some people do not subscribe to your definition of 'reasonable' doesn't mean that content ought to be censored either.
And it also sickens me that it has become a trend not to take responsibility for your own actions. Like blaming obesity on McDonalds.
Now I want to file a law suit. Umm, let's see...for mental anguish caused as a result of being subjected to stupidity.
Now how about some benchmarks.
It's not surprising that someone would spend more time getting a required text, if it means that they can avoid paying $120 for it.
Two people with their own intellectual prowess create the same idea. Yet, the person that manages to get to the patent office first gets the patent. Which means that, in this case, ownership has nothing to do with the original creation of intellectual property.