Every amendment in the Constitution deals with what Congress shall or Congress shall not do. Like it or not, but flying is not a right and the Constitution does not apply to airlines. Every citizen if free to vote with their pocket books and take the bus, boat or rail.
her claim is, "Kazaa deceptively marketed its product as allowing 'free downloads'" not that they said there were free downloads, but there really weren't.
Maybe she thought they meant "Free, as in speech", not "Free, as in beer"! Does Kazaa specify?
And I think you are not a scientist or in any way familiar with genetic research, so you should probably go sit down somewhere with your ridiculous Bible and leave the logical people alone now. Sound good, champ?
That elitist attitude is why people don't like you and think that geeks are, well, geeks!
I'm tired of spending hours removing hidden spyware and addware from machines where someone unknowingly that crap while trying to install something else. For example, my uncle has to use a computer for work. His daughters would constantly download the app-of-the-week and every Christmas, I would spend 3-4 hours removing all that crap from his hard drive.
Yeah-yeah, I know it may be mentioned in the license agreement, but do you guys read every license agreement that comes across your screen? Besides, if Ford put a note in the glove box of every car that said, "Vehicle will send adds to your TV set at random intervals, even after vehicle is sold." would that save them from lawsuits? Would it make you guys feel better if the government put a label on all phones saying that they might be listening?
They're tainted with animal (mouse) enzymes that would make any research with them difficult, as a human body would immediately attack the mouse proteins. That's your answer to the next two questions too.
I was not aware of that when I asked the question. However, after a bit of research, it seems that new stem cells will suffer the same fate. Also, I think you are confusing research with application.
Did I see a different article or are we talking about aborted fetuses, not pre-embryonic tissue in a petri dish. Now tell me again how I'm the one that's trolling by invoking incorrect imagery?
And the imagery I had in mind was the trailer-trash Jerry Springer fan who will do anything for a quick buck, and even save on her birth control pills at the same time. Not the downtrodden women renting out their uteri. Still, I think you would have done better by asking "why aren't they doing it now?"
Your *personal religious beliefs* might dictate that a blastocyst and a newborn baby are one and the same, but *science* says otherwise.
Science also says that a 2 yr old and 4 yr old are different. What's your point? Does one deserve more protection than the other?
This stem cell debate being pushed by those "pro-choice" people who are looking for benefits to abortion. It serves their agenda to dehumanize unborn children. They call them "blastocysts, fetuses, genetic material, but never unborn children. All that aside, when it comes to stem cells, they have yet to give me an decent, honest answer to these questions: What's wrong with the stem cell lines we already have? Why the push to create endless stem cell lines when a stem cell will reproduce to more and more stem cells forever? Why are we wasting money, time and energy creating more stem cell lines when those resources could be spent on the actual research? What's wrong with adult stem cell research?
Wouldn't it serve these "suffering people" to stop arguing about creating new lines and instead use those resources on the research itself? After all, it's the research that has the potential to cure people, not the production of stem cells. How many stem cell lines does it take to cure Parkinson's? If you really cared about these people, you'd be screaming for more money for research, not lines.
> Why not pay little Betty $100 to get an abortion instead of the $1000 it would cost to get the "material" from a reputable source.
Err... because that would be illegal, just like any unregulated trafficing in illegal tissue. Same reason Betty won't sell you her kidney.
There's already laws to protect 'little Betty' from unethical harvesting, the only thing the ban is about is whether it's ethical at any level to use discarded blastocytes or embroyos (sp?), so fundamentally it's an issue of whether you consider the embroyo sentient. Trying to make it a free market issue is just silly and distracting (probably the latter is why you wrote what you did.)
Good point. However, saying that this will not create a market for aborted children (yes, I called them children), is equally silly. Maybe Betty won't see the benefits, but the clinics, the scientist, or whoever does the collection/harvesting will.
You are correct that this is an abortion issue. I consider a growing baby (call it whatever you want) an honest to goodness human being. Having a two month old at home changes your perspective. I have no reason to love my daughter. Honestly, all she does it eat, shit cry, and not occasionally enough, sleep. She can do little more than she could as a "blastocyst" (as I've heard it called). She barely discovered her hands, I'd hardly call her sentient. I love her because of the person she will become. I love her because of her potential.
I see this stem cell debate being pushed by those "pro-choice" people who are looking for benefits to abortion. It serves their agenda to have unborn children made into something other than humans. They call them "blastocysts, fetuses, genetic material, but never unborn children. All that aside, when it comes to stem cells, they have yet to give me an decent, honest answer to these questions: What's wrong with the stem cell lines we already have? Why the push to create endless stem cell lines when a stem cell will reproduce to more and more stem cells forever? Why are we wasting money, time and energy creating more stem cell lines when those resources could be spent on the actual research? What's wrong with adult stem cell research?
The only kind of stem cell research that is illegal in the US is embryonic stem cell research (stem cells harvested from aborted fetus's). Adult stem cell research has never been illegal and is the only form of stem cell research that has shown progress and led to huge advances in medical science. Embryonic stem cells simply tend to be rejected by the host body.
Not necessarily true. Embryonic stem cell research is allowed in the US, from unwanted, lab fertilized eggs. It is even federally funded, but only on the stem cell lines that existed in August of 2001 when the executive order was given. What is NOT FUNDED is the experimentation on, or creation of, new EMBRYONIC stem cell lines.
It's incredible how countries around the world are prepared to take bold steps to further science, while we are still mired in our ridiculous issues. (I'm sorry, but squashing a potential cure for a disease like Parkinson's, to protect an embryo that was going to be destroyed anyway, does not fall under my definition of "ethics") Leave it to the fundamentalists, and our country is going "down under"
You, who speaks so highly of ethics, have just told a boldfaced lie. You know as well as I do that the US government is funding embryonic stem cell research by an executive order by George W. Bush. This is the first funding of such research in US history. The US government is also funding "adult" stem cell research, which strangely enough has shown much more promise than embryonic stem cell research. What the executive order forbids is the harvesting and destruction of human embryos to create new and unnecessary stem cell lines. This is done to prevent a market for human embryos and cloning.
Please, stop lying and tell the truth. (If you didn't know this, please accept my apologies for calling you a liar. Please replace all reference to liar with ingoramous. You should really do some genuine research before posting or even forming an opinion based on sound bites and bumper stickers)
If a two-week-old pre-embryonic blastocyst ever beomes comparable to someone my age, I want to play chess with it. Until then, I want it to be available to any and all researchers who can get some use out of it before it gets trashed with all the other biohazard waste.
There are many Alzheimer's patients around the world that have the mental capacity as two-week-old pre-embryonic blastocyst and would probably do about as well against you in a game of chess. Do these people (I can't think of a term as cold as pre-embryonic blastocyst) have no rights?
Personally, I do not determine the rights of a person on their ability to play chess!
People can volunteer for experimentation right now.
Too abd this isn't about people, it's about a ball of about 128 cells.
Or do yo cry for all the 'people' that your body sheds every day?
I have volunteered myself. I have no problem with experiments on humans (read: people) as long as the person agrees to it. My problem is the potential for women to get pregnant so they can get an abortion and get paid by an equally unscrupulous scientist. Why not pay little Betty $100 to get an abortion instead of the $1000 it would cost to get the "material" from a reputable source. (prices and fees entirely fabricated, of course)
Thank God we are spending so much on *adult" stem cell research. Without it, there is a very high possibility that the same treatment from embryonic stem cells would have given her cancer (irony not meant to be humorous).
Hey, don't insult those WMs... I use them (actually FVWM2 but same thing).
I never said they looked bad, just that they were easy on the resources. Personally, I like having icons on my desktop, but that is just my preference. Eye candy is also important to me. I didn't spend $100 on my 5900 to run some non-bloated window manager!
They look only as bad as you want them to look.
(or as good). I think this is the key. They are whatever you want them to be! Linux is a pro-choice OS.
Untrue. It is quite common for users to have personal scripts and programs.
You are correct. Maybe I should have said "install the software (read: adware) that they downloaded last night that puts the pretty kittens all over their desktop and changes their screensaver" And I probably should have clarified that, in the rare even that these kids are writing their own apps at home, without root access, it won't matter what they run or install because they can't dick up the system, just their home directories.
you obviously haven't used Linux or a while. Well, that or the only thing you've seen is WM, Black Box something equally as easy on the resources. At home, I'm running Sabayon Linux with Gnome, XFCE and KDE, all enhanced with AIGLX. Quite frankly, my desktop blows away anything with the Windows label, including Vista, in performance and appearance, both while doing stuff (minimizing, closing, moving windows and so on), and while sitting still.
If you're looking for a beauty contest, Linux wins hands down as long as you are using something newer than Redhat 3!
Let's see what his 10 year old has to say about it when he wants to play the latest PC games, copy music to his iPod using iTMS, and/or run software his friends are running.
As an school admin, you should be asking yourself if you want them doing this stuff to YOUR school computers?
Slashdot Mirror
Dissent is what founded our country.
You are not correct. Revolution is what founded this country.
Every amendment in the Constitution deals with what Congress shall or Congress shall not do. Like it or not, but flying is not a right and the Constitution does not apply to airlines. Every citizen if free to vote with their pocket books and take the bus, boat or rail.
her claim is, "Kazaa deceptively marketed its product as allowing 'free downloads'" not that they said there were free downloads, but there really weren't.
Maybe she thought they meant "Free, as in speech", not "Free, as in beer"! Does Kazaa specify?
And I think you are not a scientist or in any way familiar with genetic research, so you should probably go sit down somewhere with your ridiculous Bible and leave the logical people alone now. Sound good, champ?
That elitist attitude is why people don't like you and think that geeks are, well, geeks!
I'm tired of spending hours removing hidden spyware and addware from machines where someone unknowingly that crap while trying to install something else. For example, my uncle has to use a computer for work. His daughters would constantly download the app-of-the-week and every Christmas, I would spend 3-4 hours removing all that crap from his hard drive.
Yeah-yeah, I know it may be mentioned in the license agreement, but do you guys read every license agreement that comes across your screen? Besides, if Ford put a note in the glove box of every car that said, "Vehicle will send adds to your TV set at random intervals, even after vehicle is sold." would that save them from lawsuits? Would it make you guys feel better if the government put a label on all phones saying that they might be listening?
It's neutral. It should have been called the Swission, Blondion, Alpion or something similar.
They're tainted with animal (mouse) enzymes that would make any research with them difficult, as a human body would immediately attack the mouse proteins. That's your answer to the next two questions too.
I was not aware of that when I asked the question. However, after a bit of research, it seems that new stem cells will suffer the same fate. Also, I think you are confusing research with application.
Did I see a different article or are we talking about aborted fetuses, not pre-embryonic tissue in a petri dish. Now tell me again how I'm the one that's trolling by invoking incorrect imagery?
And the imagery I had in mind was the trailer-trash Jerry Springer fan who will do anything for a quick buck, and even save on her birth control pills at the same time. Not the downtrodden women renting out their uteri. Still, I think you would have done better by asking "why aren't they doing it now?"
Your *personal religious beliefs* might dictate that a blastocyst and a newborn baby are one and the same, but *science* says otherwise.
Science also says that a 2 yr old and 4 yr old are different. What's your point? Does one deserve more protection than the other?
You're partially correct, my example sucked. Read my response to someone else who said the same thing you did, but in politer terms.
This stem cell debate being pushed by those "pro-choice" people who are looking for benefits to abortion. It serves their agenda to dehumanize unborn children. They call them "blastocysts, fetuses, genetic material, but never unborn children. All that aside, when it comes to stem cells, they have yet to give me an decent, honest answer to these questions:
What's wrong with the stem cell lines we already have?
Why the push to create endless stem cell lines when a stem cell will reproduce to more and more stem cells forever?
Why are we wasting money, time and energy creating more stem cell lines when those resources could be spent on the actual research?
What's wrong with adult stem cell research?
Wouldn't it serve these "suffering people" to stop arguing about creating new lines and instead use those resources on the research itself? After all, it's the research that has the potential to cure people, not the production of stem cells. How many stem cell lines does it take to cure Parkinson's? If you really cared about these people, you'd be screaming for more money for research, not lines.
> Why not pay little Betty $100 to get an abortion instead of the $1000 it would cost to get the "material" from a reputable source.
Err... because that would be illegal, just like any unregulated trafficing in illegal tissue. Same reason Betty won't sell you her kidney.
There's already laws to protect 'little Betty' from unethical harvesting, the only thing the ban is about is whether it's ethical at any level to use discarded blastocytes or embroyos (sp?), so fundamentally it's an issue of whether you consider the embroyo sentient. Trying to make it a free market issue is just silly and distracting (probably the latter is why you wrote what you did.)
Good point. However, saying that this will not create a market for aborted children (yes, I called them children), is equally silly. Maybe Betty won't see the benefits, but the clinics, the scientist, or whoever does the collection/harvesting will.
You are correct that this is an abortion issue. I consider a growing baby (call it whatever you want) an honest to goodness human being. Having a two month old at home changes your perspective. I have no reason to love my daughter. Honestly, all she does it eat, shit cry, and not occasionally enough, sleep. She can do little more than she could as a "blastocyst" (as I've heard it called). She barely discovered her hands, I'd hardly call her sentient. I love her because of the person she will become. I love her because of her potential.
I see this stem cell debate being pushed by those "pro-choice" people who are looking for benefits to abortion. It serves their agenda to have unborn children made into something other than humans. They call them "blastocysts, fetuses, genetic material, but never unborn children. All that aside, when it comes to stem cells, they have yet to give me an decent, honest answer to these questions:
What's wrong with the stem cell lines we already have?
Why the push to create endless stem cell lines when a stem cell will reproduce to more and more stem cells forever?
Why are we wasting money, time and energy creating more stem cell lines when those resources could be spent on the actual research?
What's wrong with adult stem cell research?
The only kind of stem cell research that is illegal in the US is embryonic stem cell research (stem cells harvested from aborted fetus's). Adult stem cell research has never been illegal and is the only form of stem cell research that has shown progress and led to huge advances in medical science. Embryonic stem cells simply tend to be rejected by the host body.
Not necessarily true. Embryonic stem cell research is allowed in the US, from unwanted, lab fertilized eggs. It is even federally funded, but only on the stem cell lines that existed in August of 2001 when the executive order was given. What is NOT FUNDED is the experimentation on, or creation of, new EMBRYONIC stem cell lines.
It's incredible how countries around the world are prepared to take bold steps to further science, while we are still mired in our ridiculous issues. (I'm sorry, but squashing a potential cure for a disease like Parkinson's, to protect an embryo that was going to be destroyed anyway, does not fall under my definition of "ethics") Leave it to the fundamentalists, and our country is going "down under"
You, who speaks so highly of ethics, have just told a boldfaced lie. You know as well as I do that the US government is funding embryonic stem cell research by an executive order by George W. Bush. This is the first funding of such research in US history. The US government is also funding "adult" stem cell research, which strangely enough has shown much more promise than embryonic stem cell research. What the executive order forbids is the harvesting and destruction of human embryos to create new and unnecessary stem cell lines. This is done to prevent a market for human embryos and cloning.
Please, stop lying and tell the truth. (If you didn't know this, please accept my apologies for calling you a liar. Please replace all reference to liar with ingoramous. You should really do some genuine research before posting or even forming an opinion based on sound bites and bumper stickers)
If a two-week-old pre-embryonic blastocyst ever beomes comparable to someone my age, I want to play chess with it. Until then, I want it to be available to any and all researchers who can get some use out of it before it gets trashed with all the other biohazard waste.
There are many Alzheimer's patients around the world that have the mental capacity as two-week-old pre-embryonic blastocyst and would probably do about as well against you in a game of chess. Do these people (I can't think of a term as cold as pre-embryonic blastocyst) have no rights?
Personally, I do not determine the rights of a person on their ability to play chess!
People can volunteer for experimentation right now.
Too abd this isn't about people, it's about a ball of about 128 cells.
Or do yo cry for all the 'people' that your body sheds every day?
I have volunteered myself. I have no problem with experiments on humans (read: people) as long as the person agrees to it. My problem is the potential for women to get pregnant so they can get an abortion and get paid by an equally unscrupulous scientist. Why not pay little Betty $100 to get an abortion instead of the $1000 it would cost to get the "material" from a reputable source. (prices and fees entirely fabricated, of course)
Be careful what you ask for. A lot of Republicans played football and a lot of Democrats were in the marching band. ;-)
And George Bush was a cheerleader! Cheney is armed, however.
Thank God we are spending so much on *adult" stem cell research. Without it, there is a very high possibility that the same treatment from embryonic stem cells would have given her cancer (irony not meant to be humorous).
I'm glad things worked out for your family.
believe it or not, some people find *not* doing this more unethical/immoral than doing this.
And some people believe that *not* killing infidels is more unethical/immoral than letting them live. Does that make them right?
That being said, I hope the bill has a rider in it that says a person cannot recieve compensation for donating the genetic material.
Excellent point. Granted, these are aborted babies that will be tossed anyway, but I'd hate to see a market for this "material" spring up.
Glad some country isn't taking Christian fundamentalist BS.
WOW! I smoke, drink, do drugs and download porn. I had no idea I was a fundamentalist!
What happens when they pass a law that allows for experimentation on people your age?
Thanx for the correction. I guess that's what I get for relying on a quick Google search to confirm the name.
Hey, don't insult those WMs... I use them (actually FVWM2 but same thing).
I never said they looked bad, just that they were easy on the resources. Personally, I like having icons on my desktop, but that is just my preference. Eye candy is also important to me. I didn't spend $100 on my 5900 to run some non-bloated window manager!
They look only as bad as you want them to look.
(or as good). I think this is the key. They are whatever you want them to be! Linux is a pro-choice OS.
...or install their own software.
Untrue. It is quite common for users to have personal scripts and programs.
You are correct. Maybe I should have said "install the software (read: adware) that they downloaded last night that puts the pretty kittens all over their desktop and changes their screensaver" And I probably should have clarified that, in the rare even that these kids are writing their own apps at home, without root access, it won't matter what they run or install because they can't dick up the system, just their home directories.
you obviously haven't used Linux or a while. Well, that or the only thing you've seen is WM, Black Box something equally as easy on the resources. At home, I'm running Sabayon Linux with Gnome, XFCE and KDE, all enhanced with AIGLX. Quite frankly, my desktop blows away anything with the Windows label, including Vista, in performance and appearance, both while doing stuff (minimizing, closing, moving windows and so on), and while sitting still.
If you're looking for a beauty contest, Linux wins hands down as long as you are using something newer than Redhat 3!
Let's see what his 10 year old has to say about it when he wants to play the latest PC games, copy music to his iPod using iTMS, and/or run software his friends are running.
As an school admin, you should be asking yourself if you want them doing this stuff to YOUR school computers?
Remove the hard drives, install DVD-ROMS and burn a bunch of Live CD's.
Granted, you won't be an expert overnight, but you won't screw anything up either! Or at least nothing that a reboot won't fix.