You found out about the Sept 11 attacks here and nowhere else? Wow.
I've already thought about changing the settings; give me some credit! I would miss legit articles between politics and tech versus just politics. 9/11 is different in that it actually involved technology to a degree. But that's something that definitely would affect everyone's life. Putting this on/. is kind of stretching it.
I've seen a lot of political news on Slashdot. Why is that? I come here for tech news. There are millions of other news sites where I can read about elections, resignations, etc. What's more, I can read dozens of other sites that loft allegations, spread rumors and conspiracy theories, etc.
This isn't Moveon.org, it's slashdot.
...will they still make these claims if Democrats WIN the elections?
It always seems if Republicans win then there's voter fraud, but if Democrats win it's a fair election. I guess if you can't win on ideads or smear tactics, blame the voting process. Honestly, what else is left?
What's worse is that this actually makes the Demo's chances worse for winning. If a lot of Democrats think the election is going to be stolen, it will keep them at home.
Silly question, but rather than tackle a problem we don't really know if it exists or not, maybe it might be cheaper to actally prove or disprove it? Since the science seems to be out on this one, maybe we should actually prove it's true before spending time and money "fixing" this "problem"? It's akin to solving the problem of the monsters under the bed before knowing if there actually are monsters under the bed.
If solar flares and/or volcanoes are largely responsible for global warming, what could we do to fix it?
The fact that the mainstream media aren't accurate is obvious. But do they have to compare them to the Daily Show? Jon Stewart isn't all that he's cracked up to be. He's like a guy at a party who THINKS he's funnier than he really is. I guess I'll have to crack open that copy of "The Faculty" where his character gets stabbed in the eye.
Let's hope someone with real comic talent can replace him someday.
Thanks to the gov't of California for absolving me of responsibility! It's my CAR that's polluting, not me for driving it! Thanks for suing Ford, et al instead of making me, the driver, the guilty party! Time to fill up and drive 500 miles tonight in celebration!
Religious groups could then produce the "files" to correspond to their own needs...
Not to single out this particular comment, but notice how it's 'religous' groups that are opposed to sex and violence. All throughout this debate it's been framed that way. As though standards of decency and taste only apply to religious people.
Are we really that divided? When I was a kid I knew church goers and non church people that didn't want to see what passes so casually on TV now, let alone movies. Yet today it seems that the debate is betweeen what religious people want versus the non church goers. Standards of decency hang in the balance, I guess.
Think about it -- you could see ads for McDonald's or Coke in World of Warcraft. Maybe they could make them relevant to the context -- "Eat a Big Mac for your ORC sized appetite".
Thanks for that last comment. You've just proven my point. Your arguments stem 100% from opposing religious people (the "religious right" you refer to) and all of your opposition is directed at them.
The California Taxpayers Association came out and opposed Prop 71, as have a number of groups that oppose it for fiscal reasons. Even proponents of embrionic stem cell research have said it's a bad idea. Not exactly who'd I'd call "the religious right".
As far as cloning goes, even Bill Clinton has spoken against it. He's not what I'd call "the religious right". You'd have to be pretty out of touch to think only religious people oppose cloning. In fact, there was a religious cult from France that claimed to have the first human cloned baby about 2 years ago.
So it looks like there's more to cloning and embrionic stem cell research than just "Bible thumpers" versus science. Thanks for your thoughts on the issue.
Like I said, maybe they are different, but in the case of embryonic stem cells the lion's share of the dilemma is based on religion, and religous obsession with the sanctity of life at conception, not ethics.
Couldn't the same be said of cloning? The ethics side of embrionic stem cell research is rooted in more than just the conception issue. Look at the big picture.
Of course, you don't know why that is. Maybe its because embryonic research has been completely hamstrung...
If that's the case then why hasn't that happened around the world? If your argument is true, that religious groups have been keeping down ESCR then why hasn't that stopped the results from pouring in around the world where so called religious groups don't have that kind of political power? Think of China as an example.
..by all the groups, mostly religious, who have sought to obstruct it.
Again, labelling most groups opposing this research as religious. My point to you was to get you to examine this.
For example in the U.S., for Federally funded institutions, they are forced to work with now relatively ancient stem cell lines that are old and polluted.bDid it ever occur to you they might be having poor results because of the "ethical" constraints that have been placed on their research.
Yes, it has. Has it ever occurred to you that such a stigma doesn't exist outside the US, yet the results still aren't there? You continue to only exam results in the US. What about Europe? The stem cell lines there are brand new. What's keeping them?
Uh because I don't. The only thing I oppose is the level and extent to which people with a particular religious viewpoint are seeking to inflict their views on the rest of us.
Again, you're labelling this as a religious issue. I've taken this directly from your quotes. As far as imposing views on people, that happens all the time in politics. Environmental law is rife with examples of this.
My main objection is to a vocal minority who uses heavy handed tactics, blackmail, boycotts and threats, to get their way over the will of the rest of us.
Like the opponents of Prop 187?
Unfortunately the vocal minority is obsessed with things like this so they often shout louder and shout down people who want to see embryonic research continue.
"Obsessed". Interesting choice of words. Are you thinking of religious people?
"That fact is there are numerous reasons to oppose Prop 71 as both an ethical and taxpayer issue"
Those weren't the issues you raised in your original post so its kind of late to change the subject. You were opposed to embryonic stem cell research on "ethical ground" and because it was supposedly yielding no useful results.
Actually, I've talked about the tax issue from the original post! From the original post:
It's sad the $3 billion of tax payer funds won't go to adult stem cell research, where the results have been forthcoming....Of course, most of those studies are funded already. Maybe it's because venture capitalists don't want to throw good money at bad research. Sadly, the CA taxpayer does.
Since you see this issue in simple terms ('obsessed' religious people vs progress), you fail to see the complexities of the whole issue. That's why you want to simplify what I said so you can try to come up with a plausible argument. You've done well but you need to step back a little.
So you are saying "results have been forthcoming" with adult stem cell research but somehow imply they aren't also forthcoming for embryonic stem cell research. Well I'm pretty sure embryonic stem cells have just as much potential if not more.
The theory is there, yes. My point is that results have proven otherwise so far. And this is true internationally. This is a point no one has refuted yet.
You suggest the controversy over embryonic research isn't just "religious" but then you tag embryonic research with an "ethical delimma". Well maybe "religious controversy" and "ethical delimna" aren't exactly same thing but they sure are close and I think the way you are using them they ARE the same thing.
I disagree. An ethical dilemma exists without it being religious. Religious and non-religious doctors alike agree performing surgery on healthy patients is unethical, even if it might be scientifically advantageous. With your logic, only religious doctors would agree with this while atheists wouldn't.
Why don't you just say what you are tap dancing around. I suspect you oppose embryonic research on religious grounds so you are trying to do what all the religious types who oppose embryonic research do and try to con everyone in to thinking adult stem cell research is just hands down better in every regard when it really isn't, and anyone pursuing embryonic research is crazy.
First of all, it's not a con that adult stem cell research has better results. It's true. There have been posts here on/. about it. Second, I'll admit that if you admit you're a religous bigot. Why don't you just admit you hate religious people? Come on man, stop "tap dancing" around. (See, I can resort to labels, too.)
The bottomline is a large number of government and private companies wont touch embryonic stem cell research with a 10 foot pool simply because they know they will get targeted by religious groups and that targeting will be especially harmful to politicians who want to getreelected and executives who need to raise capital, turn a profit and answer to shareholders.
Ah, those wacky religious types are at it again! That fact is there are numerous reasons to oppose Prop 71 as both an ethical and taxpayer issue (you've avoided those arguments altogether). But since you have a prejudice against religious people, you've simplified the argument down to saying "It's just them Bible thumpers causing the problem.
It was voter APPROVED. IT is the will of the people in California to put money into stem cell research.
So was Prop 187. And that's just one.
This in no way takes away rights the way prop 187 tried to do.
That's debatable. But I guess you're for a judge overruling the voters then if you disapprove of the proposition?
haha, sorry but most of the world ahs no problem with this, and does fund it.
Really? Can you name some huge discoveries as a result?
Venter Capitilist don't want to throw good money in venture that can't make a 100 fold return in a year.
VENTURE capitalists throw money at research if it looks promisiing. If embrionic stemcell research is that darn promising, wouldn't they make 10,000 time their investment if it would work?
If it is taxpayer funded, then the research is open and available to all. Most importantly, it is available for public scrutiny.
Private funding can do this as well, and it does. Prop 71 foreces the taxpayers to do it.
I wouldn't mark your post as troll or flamebait, just ignorant.
Just because the private sector doesn't want to invest in it doesn't mean that its not promising.
I think it's pretty revealing. What's more -- this kind of research isn't being done on a mass scale outside the United States. WHere are the embrionic stem cell discoveries from Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, etc?
This is probably going to be labeled "flamebait", or "trolling", but this is an honest opinion.
The judge will hopefully rule in favor of stalling this. Prop 71 uses taxpayer funds and this will never go away. Even though it's s'posed to expire in 10 years, it will keep getting renewed and we CA taxpayers get to foot the bill. More CA spent on research that may go nowhere. The fact that embrionic stem cell research isn't largely funded elsewhere in the world should be a big hint that the controversy isn't just religious. The private sector doesn't want to invest in this. That should speak volumes about even the scientific community's faith (pardon the pun) in embrionic stem cell research.
As far as CA judges go, they CONSTANTLY overturn voter approved initiatives. Prop 187, passed in 1994, forbids funding for just about anything for illegal immigrants. But a judge overturned it, and this is just one of many bills passed by whopping margins that a judge has said "no way" to.
It's sad the $3 billion of tax payer funds won't go to adult stem cell research, where the results have been forthcoming. There's been/. posts of adult stem research reviving all types of nerve cells, and there's no ethical delimma involved.
Of course, most of those studies are funded already. Maybe it's because venture capitalists don't want to throw good money at bad research. Sadly, the CA taxpayer does.
..if it were true as listed. There are tens of thousands of stores that sell second hand used electronics (my father in law owns one of them) but it looks like such stuff won't be banned outright. It will keep a lot of "recycle shops" as they're called, though, from selling electronics, unless there's a workaround.
In Japan, though, there usually is. Laws like this get passed then there's typically a loophole that makes the law meaningless. My guess is that it will be easy to certify said electronics as safe, such as a license you get for maybe 300 yen or something.
I've never been much for the Family Guy. I will give it another shot so I can be more in tune with my fellow/. brothren. But I've always found Stewie annoying and the dog character a really lame idea.
I'm sure someone is going to consider this flamebait but it's just my honest opinion
I think this character is the most annoying TV personality since Fran Drescher. The baby genius that's into death thing was funny for about 10 seconds.
Sorry, I'm just not into Family Guy. The Simpsons it's not. (Please be gentle!)
Google won't turn over search results to the US Gov't to help fight terrorism but they'll bow to the Chinese gov't and censor people. How cowardly. To stand up against the US gov't when you're protected by tons of ACLU type lawyers isn't brave at all. What would take real cajones would be to flip the bird to the Chinese governtment. Of course, we all know what happens when you oppose a Communist government.....
Slashdot Mirror
You found out about the Sept 11 attacks here and nowhere else? Wow.
/. is kind of stretching it.
I've already thought about changing the settings; give me some credit! I would miss legit articles between politics and tech versus just politics. 9/11 is different in that it actually involved technology to a degree. But that's something that definitely would affect everyone's life. Putting this on
I've seen a lot of political news on Slashdot. Why is that? I come here for tech news. There are millions of other news sites where I can read about elections, resignations, etc. What's more, I can read dozens of other sites that loft allegations, spread rumors and conspiracy theories, etc. This isn't Moveon.org, it's slashdot.
He says he's kind of conservative but isn't informed enough to vote. If you know what a conservative is, how can you say you're that uninformed?
I'd say get informed and vote! Since you're somewhat conservative you're half way there!
...will they still make these claims if Democrats WIN the elections?
It always seems if Republicans win then there's voter fraud, but if Democrats win it's a fair election. I guess if you can't win on ideads or smear tactics, blame the voting process. Honestly, what else is left?
What's worse is that this actually makes the Demo's chances worse for winning. If a lot of Democrats think the election is going to be stolen, it will keep them at home.
Hey, whatever works.
Silly question, but rather than tackle a problem we don't really know if it exists or not, maybe it might be cheaper to actally prove or disprove it? Since the science seems to be out on this one, maybe we should actually prove it's true before spending time and money "fixing" this "problem"? It's akin to solving the problem of the monsters under the bed before knowing if there actually are monsters under the bed.
If solar flares and/or volcanoes are largely responsible for global warming, what could we do to fix it?
A few months back Wired already had this as a prediction.
The fact that the mainstream media aren't accurate is obvious. But do they have to compare them to the Daily Show? Jon Stewart isn't all that he's cracked up to be. He's like a guy at a party who THINKS he's funnier than he really is. I guess I'll have to crack open that copy of "The Faculty" where his character gets stabbed in the eye.
Let's hope someone with real comic talent can replace him someday.
Thanks to the gov't of California for absolving me of responsibility! It's my CAR that's polluting, not me for driving it! Thanks for suing Ford, et al instead of making me, the driver, the guilty party! Time to fill up and drive 500 miles tonight in celebration!
Not to single out this particular comment, but notice how it's 'religous' groups that are opposed to sex and violence. All throughout this debate it's been framed that way. As though standards of decency and taste only apply to religious people.
Are we really that divided? When I was a kid I knew church goers and non church people that didn't want to see what passes so casually on TV now, let alone movies. Yet today it seems that the debate is betweeen what religious people want versus the non church goers. Standards of decency hang in the balance, I guess.
I actually submitted this article on Friday...I guess my write in sucked.
Think about it -- you could see ads for McDonald's or Coke in World of Warcraft. Maybe they could make them relevant to the context -- "Eat a Big Mac for your ORC sized appetite".
The California Taxpayers Association came out and opposed Prop 71, as have a number of groups that oppose it for fiscal reasons. Even proponents of embrionic stem cell research have said it's a bad idea. Not exactly who'd I'd call "the religious right".
As far as cloning goes, even Bill Clinton has spoken against it. He's not what I'd call "the religious right". You'd have to be pretty out of touch to think only religious people oppose cloning. In fact, there was a religious cult from France that claimed to have the first human cloned baby about 2 years ago.
So it looks like there's more to cloning and embrionic stem cell research than just "Bible thumpers" versus science. Thanks for your thoughts on the issue.
Couldn't the same be said of cloning? The ethics side of embrionic stem cell research is rooted in more than just the conception issue. Look at the big picture.
Of course, you don't know why that is. Maybe its because embryonic research has been completely hamstrung...
If that's the case then why hasn't that happened around the world? If your argument is true, that religious groups have been keeping down ESCR then why hasn't that stopped the results from pouring in around the world where so called religious groups don't have that kind of political power? Think of China as an example.
Again, labelling most groups opposing this research as religious. My point to you was to get you to examine this.
For example in the U.S., for Federally funded institutions, they are forced to work with now relatively ancient stem cell lines that are old and polluted.bDid it ever occur to you they might be having poor results because of the "ethical" constraints that have been placed on their research.
Yes, it has. Has it ever occurred to you that such a stigma doesn't exist outside the US, yet the results still aren't there? You continue to only exam results in the US. What about Europe? The stem cell lines there are brand new. What's keeping them?
Uh because I don't. The only thing I oppose is the level and extent to which people with a particular religious viewpoint are seeking to inflict their views on the rest of us.
Again, you're labelling this as a religious issue. I've taken this directly from your quotes. As far as imposing views on people, that happens all the time in politics. Environmental law is rife with examples of this.
My main objection is to a vocal minority who uses heavy handed tactics, blackmail, boycotts and threats, to get their way over the will of the rest of us.
Like the opponents of Prop 187?
Unfortunately the vocal minority is obsessed with things like this so they often shout louder and shout down people who want to see embryonic research continue.
"Obsessed". Interesting choice of words. Are you thinking of religious people?
"That fact is there are numerous reasons to oppose Prop 71 as both an ethical and taxpayer issue"
Those weren't the issues you raised in your original post so its kind of late to change the subject. You were opposed to embryonic stem cell research on "ethical ground" and because it was supposedly yielding no useful results.
Actually, I've talked about the tax issue from the original post! From the original post:
It's sad the $3 billion of tax payer funds won't go to adult stem cell research, where the results have been forthcoming....Of course, most of those studies are funded already. Maybe it's because venture capitalists don't want to throw good money at bad research. Sadly, the CA taxpayer does.
Since you see this issue in simple terms ('obsessed' religious people vs progress), you fail to see the complexities of the whole issue. That's why you want to simplify what I said so you can try to come up with a plausible argument. You've done well but you need to step back a little.
The theory is there, yes. My point is that results have proven otherwise so far. And this is true internationally. This is a point no one has refuted yet.
You suggest the controversy over embryonic research isn't just "religious" but then you tag embryonic research with an "ethical delimma". Well maybe "religious controversy" and "ethical delimna" aren't exactly same thing but they sure are close and I think the way you are using them they ARE the same thing.
I disagree. An ethical dilemma exists without it being religious. Religious and non-religious doctors alike agree performing surgery on healthy patients is unethical, even if it might be scientifically advantageous. With your logic, only religious doctors would agree with this while atheists wouldn't.
Why don't you just say what you are tap dancing around. I suspect you oppose embryonic research on religious grounds so you are trying to do what all the religious types who oppose embryonic research do and try to con everyone in to thinking adult stem cell research is just hands down better in every regard when it really isn't, and anyone pursuing embryonic research is crazy.
First of all, it's not a con that adult stem cell research has better results. It's true. There have been posts here on
The bottomline is a large number of government and private companies wont touch embryonic stem cell research with a 10 foot pool simply because they know they will get targeted by religious groups and that targeting will be especially harmful to politicians who want to getreelected and executives who need to raise capital, turn a profit and answer to shareholders.
Ah, those wacky religious types are at it again! That fact is there are numerous reasons to oppose Prop 71 as both an ethical and taxpayer issue (you've avoided those arguments altogether). But since you have a prejudice against religious people, you've simplified the argument down to saying "It's just them Bible thumpers causing the problem.
Thanks for your thoughts.
So was Prop 187. And that's just one.
This in no way takes away rights the way prop 187 tried to do.
That's debatable. But I guess you're for a judge overruling the voters then if you disapprove of the proposition?
haha, sorry but most of the world ahs no problem with this, and does fund it.
Really? Can you name some huge discoveries as a result?
Venter Capitilist don't want to throw good money in venture that can't make a 100 fold return in a year.
VENTURE capitalists throw money at research if it looks promisiing. If embrionic stemcell research is that darn promising, wouldn't they make 10,000 time their investment if it would work?
If it is taxpayer funded, then the research is open and available to all. Most importantly, it is available for public scrutiny.
Private funding can do this as well, and it does. Prop 71 foreces the taxpayers to do it.
I wouldn't mark your post as troll or flamebait, just ignorant.
This from a guy who can't spell venture.
I think it's pretty revealing. What's more -- this kind of research isn't being done on a mass scale outside the United States. WHere are the embrionic stem cell discoveries from Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, etc?
Seems like a promise that won't be kept.
The judge will hopefully rule in favor of stalling this. Prop 71 uses taxpayer funds and this will never go away. Even though it's s'posed to expire in 10 years, it will keep getting renewed and we CA taxpayers get to foot the bill. More CA spent on research that may go nowhere. The fact that embrionic stem cell research isn't largely funded elsewhere in the world should be a big hint that the controversy isn't just religious. The private sector doesn't want to invest in this. That should speak volumes about even the scientific community's faith (pardon the pun) in embrionic stem cell research.
As far as CA judges go, they CONSTANTLY overturn voter approved initiatives. Prop 187, passed in 1994, forbids funding for just about anything for illegal immigrants. But a judge overturned it, and this is just one of many bills passed by whopping margins that a judge has said "no way" to.
It's sad the $3 billion of tax payer funds won't go to adult stem cell research, where the results have been forthcoming. There's been
Of course, most of those studies are funded already. Maybe it's because venture capitalists don't want to throw good money at bad research. Sadly, the CA taxpayer does.
Yeah...given Kerry's recent rhetoric, he'd get maybe 7% of the vote this time. I'm all for it!
Japan's fiscal year starts on April 1. I guess it's like a big joke on the taxpayers..
..if it were true as listed. There are tens of thousands of stores that sell second hand used electronics (my father in law owns one of them) but it looks like such stuff won't be banned outright. It will keep a lot of "recycle shops" as they're called, though, from selling electronics, unless there's a workaround.
In Japan, though, there usually is. Laws like this get passed then there's typically a loophole that makes the law meaningless. My guess is that it will be easy to certify said electronics as safe, such as a license you get for maybe 300 yen or something.
I didn't see 'human rights' or 'free speech' listed as one of their goals...
What, you're not into STDs?
True, the Simpsons has been a little off lately.
/. brothren. But I've always found Stewie annoying and the dog character a really lame idea.
I've never been much for the Family Guy. I will give it another shot so I can be more in tune with my fellow
But in all fairness, I can give it another shot.
I think this character is the most annoying TV personality since Fran Drescher. The baby genius that's into death thing was funny for about 10 seconds.
Sorry, I'm just not into Family Guy. The Simpsons it's not. (Please be gentle!)
Google won't turn over search results to the US Gov't to help fight terrorism but they'll bow to the Chinese gov't and censor people. How cowardly. To stand up against the US gov't when you're protected by tons of ACLU type lawyers isn't brave at all. What would take real cajones would be to flip the bird to the Chinese governtment. Of course, we all know what happens when you oppose a Communist government.....