A human/animal hybrid cell has NO potential to become a viable embryo so you cant even use that questionable logic to argue that you're denying it any future.
From TFA:
Last minute amendments to the laws, proposed by the Australian Democrats, increase from 10 to 15 years the prison sentence for flouting safeguards designed to prevent abuse of embryonic cloning.
Another amendment stops the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) from granting licences for human-animal hybrid embryos.
All you have to determine is some point at which everyone agrees it IS NOT yet a person.
Good luck with that.
What's wrong with experimentation on stem cells from other sources such as chord blood or adult stem cells? Why must we clone human embryonic tissue (read: humans) in order to create something we can achieve through other means that won't piss anyone off? Adult and chord blood stem cells is the point at which everyone agrees it IS NOT yet a person. Why don't we put our resources there? Why force embryonic stem cell research down everyone's throat when there are other even more viable options?
Huzzah! Great to see our government making the right decisions.
And for those that are against this, obviously you are: a) Very religious, or b) Have never had a family member or close friend die (or their life has become so awful they want to die) from conditions that this research will most certainly benefit.
I'll take the unlisted option: c) Ethics
What's wrong with experimentation on stem cells from other sources such as chord blood or adult stem cells? Why must we clone human tissue (read: humans) in order to create something we can achieve through other means that won't piss anyone off?
You think a single cell is a human being? Don't be ridiculous.
OK, when does it become human? Two cells? 100? Birth? When it finds a job and pays its own way? When does it become human? I bet if you perform a DNA test on it, it will show up as 100% human.
How far do you bend the rules on human experimentation?
This kind of research is essential for the improvement of the human race, and all of this religious BS preventing it from happening makes me sick.
It's not religion, it's ethics. Look at the medical "experiments" the Nazi's performed without regard to either.
Today we are cloning embryos for scientific research. Why not clone zygotes? How about cloning babies? Why not use the retarded for research? How about the unemployed and homeless? Where do you draw the line? Why should I let your lack of ethics dictate how I feel about the subject?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that global warming is not happening. I'm saying that I don't know. If I did know, there wouldn't be a damn thing I could do about it and certainly nothing at all that I should do.
You see, about 10,000 years ago, the world was very cold. Today, we call it the "ICE AGE" (Austin Powers Finger-Quotes here). It was much colder during this "ICE AGE" than it is today. However, sometime between now and then, the earth warmed up and the "ICE AGE" ended. So if we lived 10,000 years ago, would we be freaking out about global warming? Would we be assuming that we were the cause? Absolutely. Would we be correct? NO, just like we are probably not correct today. The earth warms, the earth cools all on its own with no help from us. It's called weather. There's not a damn thing we can do to change it on purpose, so it's highly unlikely that we are doing it on accident. Changing weather patterns are 100% natural and normal. However, we should freak out if the weather stops changing. Now THAT would be unusual.
There was a song we used to sing at camp many years ago: Spring would be a dreary season, were there nothing else but Spring would be a dreary season, were there nothing else but Spring would be a dreary...
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that global warming is not happening. I'm saying that I don't know. If I did know, there wouldn't be a damn thing I could do about it and certainly nothing at all that I should do.
You see, about 10,000 years ago, the world was very cold. Today, we call it the "ICE AGE" (Austin Powers Finger-Quotes here). It was much colder during this "ICE AGE" than it is today. However, sometime between now and then, the earth warmed up and the "ICE AGE" ended. So if we lived 10,000 years ago, would we be freaking out about global warming? Would we be assuming that we were the cause? Absolutely. Would we be correct? NO, just like we are probably not correct today. The earth warms, the earth cools all on its own with no help from us. It's called weather. There's not a damn thing we can do to change it on purpose, so it's highly unlikely that we are doing it on accident. Changing weather patterns are 100% natural and normal. However, we should at freak out if the weather stops changing. Now THAT would be unusual.
Spring would be a dreary season, were there nothing else but spring.
At the time of what? 1990s or 2002? The paragraph is ambiguous at best. And if they were so close, where is the recent evidence of such a program?
Well, since the first gulf war started in 1991, when they say the 90's, odds are 90% that they are talking about after the first gulf war. And since we invaded in 2003, there really couldn't be any docs much more recent than 2002 unless Saddam was doing nuclear research from his spider hole or cell. the GP post claimed that if I had read the article, I would have read that these docs were created before the first gulf war. Well, I read the article from which I quoted the 1990's or 2002 bit. So, in order for these docs to have been created before GulfWar1, they would have to have been created in 1990 to jive with the article, and I'm sure that the NYT would have pointed that out, the conservative bastion rag they are.
If you were following the story you would know that these documents are from Saddams pursuit of nuclear weapons prior to the 1991 gulf war.
You mean this from the story?
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.
a) Posession of those documents is not proof of an ongoing weapons development program. b) Possession of those documents is not proof of the technological capability of executing the instructions in those documents. c) Possession of those documents is not proof of having the materials to execute said instructions, even if you have the capability.
True, but the Iraqi creation of the docs is proof of all of the above.
The documents are fake. They have to be because we all know that Bush was lying when he said that the Iraqis were trying to develop WMD's. Just ask anyone in the media. Otherwise, we'd all be hearing reports of how Bush wasn't lying and was correct to go into Iraq because the media, especially the NYT, has no such media bias.
So if a country's leaders are assholes, then the US has the right to butcher its people????
Where do you come up with this garbage? After all the wars listed by GP, we have yet to fill up a single mass grave of civilians. We have, however, found many filled by the country's previous asshole leaders. No one seems to give a shit about that!
So, to edit your statement to make it true: So if a country's leaders are assholes, then the US has the duty to prevent the butcher its people????
I had a chance to play with one of these bad boys at my last job as a QA engineer. With the tools I had available (games and basic Windows tools), I was not able to get the processor above 40% utilization. Any slow down was due to HDD access rather than the processor. So while I was able to play Ghost Recon at full res and run a virus scan while I ripped an audio CD, the only drop in game play came when the game had to access the HDD. There was no real performance boost over the Core2 Duo. So what we need is a much faster way access files to see any real performance gains. I'm holding out for affordable solid state HDD's.
I would argue that Jimmy Carter was one of our BEST Presidents.
WOW! I wouldn't! I remember the late 70's and they sucked! Inflation, energy crisis, high unemployment, extremely high interest rates (mortgage rates that looked like credit card rates of today), and of course, the "Iran Hostage Crisis" (and Iran in general).
Then, after leaving office, he won't go away. Compare Carter, as a former Prez to Clinton, Reagan, Bush 41, and Ford. Carter won't shut up. He is the only one who constantly criticizes the presidency and even the US itself. I didn't see Bush41 hammering Clinton. I didn't see Ford hammering Carter. Hell, even Clinton refrains from getting too deep into it. You need a certain level of class to be a good X-President, and Jimmah ain't go it! He should stick to building houses because his diplomacy skills suck. It doesn't take a diplomatic genius to simply grant every point to the opposition while getting nothing but empty promises in return.
You are correct, sanctions do not work, they never do. As far as NKorea goes, diplomacy does not work either, the Clinton admin tried it and it didn't work. What does that leave us? I'm afraid that military may be the only option left in NK. Unfortunately, it seems as if they are begging for it.
Sure, your predecessor managed to get extraordinary access to North Korea's nuclear facilities, even installing video cameras in some.
Uh, yeah, which they promptly shut down as soon as we upheld our part. Fact is, the former administration got screwed by NK who did not uphold any of our agreements. Now this is not the fault of the previous admin, they get an A for effort, but it would be a completely boneheaded move if our current admin were to trust NK again.
Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice... you get the idea.
You seem to be against embryonic stem cell research because adult stem cell research is more advanced, but it's only more advanced because you've been blocking embryonic stem cell research.
Your ignorance proves my point. You have bought into the spin you keep hearing over and over. Here are the facts:
First of all, there is no law against embryonic stem cell research in the US, so it is not being blocked as you say. All the current Prez did was fund research for existing stem cell lines from embryos and other sources (adult and chord blood stem cells). Now here is the key point so pay attention. Before this point, there was NO federal funding for stem cell research at all, embryonic or otherwise. Bush opened funding for certain types of research, which made some scientist realize they were not getting some of the pie. This upset them and gave the Bush-haters something to spin. You have people like Michael J. Fox, Christopher Reeves and even Nancy Reagan acting like Bush took money AWAY from stem cell research when all he did was fund other areas of it, when in fact, Bush is first US Prez to fund any type of stem cell research at all!
I guess an analogy would be if the Prez released federal money to research Solar power, where there was none before, but not wind because windmills kill birds. The Wind power people get all pissed off and say the Prez is responsible for ruining the environment because he blocked Wind power reseach, even though private organizations can research Wind, just as they always have.
Okay. My point was, the rest of the world is zipping merrily ahead while the US sits and debates politics and/or religion, and turns good science into another chess piece. Better sort it out quick or you'll be left too far behind to catch up!
I think you and many others here are missing the point.
First of all, there is no law against embryonic stem cell research in the US. All the current Prez did was fund research for existing stem cell lines from embryos and other sources (adult and chord blood stem cells). Now here is the key point so pay attention. Before this point, there was NO federal funding for stem cell research at all, embryonic or otherwise. Bush opened funding for certain types of research, which made some scientist realize they were not getting some of the pie. This upset them and gave the Bush-haters something to spin. You have people like Michael J. Fox, Christopher Reeves and even Nancy Reagan acting like Bush took money AWAY from stem cell research when all he did was fund other areas of it, when in fact, Bush is first US Prez to fund any type of stem cell research at all!
I guess an analogy would be if the Prez released federal money to research Solar power, where there was none before, but not wind because windmills kill birds. The Wind power people get all pissed off and say the Prez is responsible for ruining the environment because he refuses to release funds for Wind power reseach.
And yet, who actually does go around wiping out other countries?
Not Iraq. You mean, not anymore!
Not North Korea. Only because we stop them
That "moral relativism" term you keep using... it's pretty clear you have no earthly idea what it means.
Maybe you should look up the history Appeasement. Specifically look up the Korean war and the quality of life now of the South vs North Koreans, how many neighboring countries Iraq has invaded under Saddam Hussein (here's a hint: all of them), successes of the UN since 1980, and the effects of the European appeasement policies of the 1930's.
Now, seeing that the US fed its citizens before building the world's largest military, have not invaded Mexico or Canada in well over 100 years, and spend more on the UN and charitable organizations that any country on earth (combined?), yeah, I think we have that moral relativism thing down pretty well.
Then all the foreign sites don't listen too well. Let me quote the a Whitehouse spokesperson (shamelessly stolen from TheInquirer):
This policy emphasises that the United States is committed to peaceful uses of space by all nations and that space systems enjoy the right of free passage.
Protection of space assets does not imply some sort of forceful action.
However, I don't find it surprising that the foreign press has a problem with a US policy. You don't have to look far. How many Canadian politicians and press members were saying derogitory things about the Prez before he even took office?
I think the MPAA doesn't care about Usenet is because the Usenet that is provied "free" by ISP's sux in a major way. Anyone with Earthlink or TimeWarner can confirm that even with PAR2 files, there is simply not enough left of just about any rar to reassemble the archive. Too many pieces just disappear.
I guess GigaNews still isn't big enough to attract the attention of the MPAA. I hope GigaNews wouldn't give up the user's data without a fight anyway.
Also, one person posts on usenet and there are many free "anonymous" posting servers out there. Several people download. Getting the uploaders is more important to the RI/MP-AA than the leachers/lurkers. With bittorrent, nearly eveyone who downloads also uploads so all users are just as guilty.
Finally, the IP addresses of the users are easier to find via torrent than they are via usenet.
Slashdot Mirror
From TFA:
Am I reading the wrong article?
All you have to determine is some point at which everyone agrees it IS NOT yet a person.
Good luck with that.
What's wrong with experimentation on stem cells from other sources such as chord blood or adult stem cells? Why must we clone human embryonic tissue (read: humans) in order to create something we can achieve through other means that won't piss anyone off? Adult and chord blood stem cells is the point at which everyone agrees it IS NOT yet a person. Why don't we put our resources there? Why force embryonic stem cell research down everyone's throat when there are other even more viable options?
Huzzah! Great to see our government making the right decisions.
And for those that are against this, obviously you are:
a) Very religious, or
b) Have never had a family member or close friend die (or their life has become so awful they want to die) from conditions that this research will most certainly benefit.
I'll take the unlisted option: c) Ethics
What's wrong with experimentation on stem cells from other sources such as chord blood or adult stem cells? Why must we clone human tissue (read: humans) in order to create something we can achieve through other means that won't piss anyone off?
You think a single cell is a human being? Don't be ridiculous.
OK, when does it become human? Two cells? 100? Birth? When it finds a job and pays its own way? When does it become human? I bet if you perform a DNA test on it, it will show up as 100% human.
How far do you bend the rules on human experimentation?
This kind of research is essential for the improvement of the human race, and all of this religious BS preventing it from happening makes me sick.
It's not religion, it's ethics. Look at the medical "experiments" the Nazi's performed without regard to either.
Today we are cloning embryos for scientific research. Why not clone zygotes? How about cloning babies? Why not use the retarded for research? How about the unemployed and homeless? Where do you draw the line? Why should I let your lack of ethics dictate how I feel about the subject?
Stolen from myself:
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that global warming is not happening. I'm saying that I don't know. If I did know, there wouldn't be a damn thing I could do about it and certainly nothing at all that I should do.
You see, about 10,000 years ago, the world was very cold. Today, we call it the "ICE AGE" (Austin Powers Finger-Quotes here). It was much colder during this "ICE AGE" than it is today. However, sometime between now and then, the earth warmed up and the "ICE AGE" ended. So if we lived 10,000 years ago, would we be freaking out about global warming? Would we be assuming that we were the cause? Absolutely. Would we be correct? NO, just like we are probably not correct today. The earth warms, the earth cools all on its own with no help from us. It's called weather. There's not a damn thing we can do to change it on purpose, so it's highly unlikely that we are doing it on accident. Changing weather patterns are 100% natural and normal. However, we should freak out if the weather stops changing. Now THAT would be unusual.
There was a song we used to sing at camp many years ago:
Spring would be a dreary season, were there nothing else but Spring would be a dreary season, were there nothing else but Spring would be a dreary...
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that global warming is not happening. I'm saying that I don't know. If I did know, there wouldn't be a damn thing I could do about it and certainly nothing at all that I should do.
You see, about 10,000 years ago, the world was very cold. Today, we call it the "ICE AGE" (Austin Powers Finger-Quotes here). It was much colder during this "ICE AGE" than it is today. However, sometime between now and then, the earth warmed up and the "ICE AGE" ended. So if we lived 10,000 years ago, would we be freaking out about global warming? Would we be assuming that we were the cause? Absolutely. Would we be correct? NO, just like we are probably not correct today. The earth warms, the earth cools all on its own with no help from us. It's called weather. There's not a damn thing we can do to change it on purpose, so it's highly unlikely that we are doing it on accident. Changing weather patterns are 100% natural and normal. However, we should at freak out if the weather stops changing. Now THAT would be unusual.
Spring would be a dreary season, were there nothing else but spring.
At the time of what? 1990s or 2002? The paragraph is ambiguous at best. And if they were so close, where is the recent evidence of such a program?
Well, since the first gulf war started in 1991, when they say the 90's, odds are 90% that they are talking about after the first gulf war.
And since we invaded in 2003, there really couldn't be any docs much more recent than 2002 unless Saddam was doing nuclear research from his spider hole or cell. the GP post claimed that if I had read the article, I would have read that these docs were created before the first gulf war. Well, I read the article from which I quoted the 1990's or 2002 bit. So, in order for these docs to have been created before GulfWar1, they would have to have been created in 1990 to jive with the article, and I'm sure that the NYT would have pointed that out, the conservative bastion rag they are.
It was the NYT being vague, not me.
You mean this from the story?
And my name is not Jesus.
a) Posession of those documents is not proof of an ongoing weapons development program.
b) Possession of those documents is not proof of the technological capability of executing the instructions in those documents.
c) Possession of those documents is not proof of having the materials to execute said instructions, even if you have the capability.
True, but the Iraqi creation of the docs is proof of all of the above.
The documents are fake. They have to be because we all know that Bush was lying when he said that the Iraqis were trying to develop WMD's. Just ask anyone in the media. Otherwise, we'd all be hearing reports of how Bush wasn't lying and was correct to go into Iraq because the media, especially the NYT, has no such media bias.
So if a country's leaders are assholes, then the US has the right to butcher its people????
Where do you come up with this garbage? After all the wars listed by GP, we have yet to fill up a single mass grave of civilians. We have, however, found many filled by the country's previous asshole leaders. No one seems to give a shit about that!
So, to edit your statement to make it true:
So if a country's leaders are assholes, then the US has the duty to prevent the butcher its people????
I had a chance to play with one of these bad boys at my last job as a QA engineer. With the tools I had available (games and basic Windows tools), I was not able to get the processor above 40% utilization. Any slow down was due to HDD access rather than the processor. So while I was able to play Ghost Recon at full res and run a virus scan while I ripped an audio CD, the only drop in game play came when the game had to access the HDD. There was no real performance boost over the Core2 Duo. So what we need is a much faster way access files to see any real performance gains. I'm holding out for affordable solid state HDD's.
A South Korea and Japan that glows in the dark that starts a war against a nuclear armed N.Korea.
I would argue that Jimmy Carter was one of our BEST Presidents.
WOW! I wouldn't! I remember the late 70's and they sucked! Inflation, energy crisis, high unemployment, extremely high interest rates (mortgage rates that looked like credit card rates of today), and of course, the "Iran Hostage Crisis" (and Iran in general).
Then, after leaving office, he won't go away. Compare Carter, as a former Prez to Clinton, Reagan, Bush 41, and Ford. Carter won't shut up. He is the only one who constantly criticizes the presidency and even the US itself. I didn't see Bush41 hammering Clinton. I didn't see Ford hammering Carter. Hell, even Clinton refrains from getting too deep into it. You need a certain level of class to be a good X-President, and Jimmah ain't go it! He should stick to building houses because his diplomacy skills suck. It doesn't take a diplomatic genius to simply grant every point to the opposition while getting nothing but empty promises in return.
You are correct, sanctions do not work, they never do. As far as NKorea goes, diplomacy does not work either, the Clinton admin tried it and it didn't work. What does that leave us? I'm afraid that military may be the only option left in NK. Unfortunately, it seems as if they are begging for it.
Sure, your predecessor managed to get extraordinary access to North Korea's nuclear facilities, even installing video cameras in some.
Uh, yeah, which they promptly shut down as soon as we upheld our part. Fact is, the former administration got screwed by NK who did not uphold any of our agreements. Now this is not the fault of the previous admin, they get an A for effort, but it would be a completely boneheaded move if our current admin were to trust NK again.
Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice... you get the idea.
While Ubuntu is relatively polished and most of the stuff "just works", the default baby-shit-brown color scheme is hideous.
So, while I would agree that Linux needs some beautification, I don't trust anyone at Ubuntu to do it!
You seem to be against embryonic stem cell research because adult stem cell research is more advanced, but it's only more advanced because you've been blocking embryonic stem cell research.
Your ignorance proves my point. You have bought into the spin you keep hearing over and over. Here are the facts:
First of all, there is no law against embryonic stem cell research in the US, so it is not being blocked as you say. All the current Prez did was fund research for existing stem cell lines from embryos and other sources (adult and chord blood stem cells). Now here is the key point so pay attention. Before this point, there was NO federal funding for stem cell research at all, embryonic or otherwise. Bush opened funding for certain types of research, which made some scientist realize they were not getting some of the pie. This upset them and gave the Bush-haters something to spin. You have people like Michael J. Fox, Christopher Reeves and even Nancy Reagan acting like Bush took money AWAY from stem cell research when all he did was fund other areas of it, when in fact, Bush is first US Prez to fund any type of stem cell research at all!
I guess an analogy would be if the Prez released federal money to research Solar power, where there was none before, but not wind because windmills kill birds. The Wind power people get all pissed off and say the Prez is responsible for ruining the environment because he blocked Wind power reseach, even though private organizations can research Wind, just as they always have.
Okay. My point was, the rest of the world is zipping merrily ahead while the US sits and debates politics and/or religion, and turns good science into another chess piece. Better sort it out quick or you'll be left too far behind to catch up!
I think you and many others here are missing the point.
First of all, there is no law against embryonic stem cell research in the US. All the current Prez did was fund research for existing stem cell lines from embryos and other sources (adult and chord blood stem cells). Now here is the key point so pay attention. Before this point, there was NO federal funding for stem cell research at all, embryonic or otherwise. Bush opened funding for certain types of research, which made some scientist realize they were not getting some of the pie. This upset them and gave the Bush-haters something to spin. You have people like Michael J. Fox, Christopher Reeves and even Nancy Reagan acting like Bush took money AWAY from stem cell research when all he did was fund other areas of it, when in fact, Bush is first US Prez to fund any type of stem cell research at all!
I guess an analogy would be if the Prez released federal money to research Solar power, where there was none before, but not wind because windmills kill birds. The Wind power people get all pissed off and say the Prez is responsible for ruining the environment because he refuses to release funds for Wind power reseach.
I'm not addicted. I can quit at any time!
And yet, who actually does go around wiping out other countries?
Not Iraq.
You mean, not anymore!
Not North Korea.
Only because we stop them
That "moral relativism" term you keep using... it's pretty clear you have no earthly idea what it means.
Maybe you should look up the history Appeasement. Specifically look up the Korean war and the quality of life now of the South vs North Koreans, how many neighboring countries Iraq has invaded under Saddam Hussein (here's a hint: all of them), successes of the UN since 1980, and the effects of the European appeasement policies of the 1930's.
Now, seeing that the US fed its citizens before building the world's largest military, have not invaded Mexico or Canada in well over 100 years, and spend more on the UN and charitable organizations that any country on earth (combined?), yeah, I think we have that moral relativism thing down pretty well.
However, I don't find it surprising that the foreign press has a problem with a US policy. You don't have to look far. How many Canadian politicians and press members were saying derogitory things about the Prez before he even took office?
I think the MPAA doesn't care about Usenet is because the Usenet that is provied "free" by ISP's sux in a major way. Anyone with Earthlink or TimeWarner can confirm that even with PAR2 files, there is simply not enough left of just about any rar to reassemble the archive. Too many pieces just disappear.
I guess GigaNews still isn't big enough to attract the attention of the MPAA. I hope GigaNews wouldn't give up the user's data without a fight anyway.
Also, one person posts on usenet and there are many free "anonymous" posting servers out there. Several people download. Getting the uploaders is more important to the RI/MP-AA than the leachers/lurkers. With bittorrent, nearly eveyone who downloads also uploads so all users are just as guilty.
Finally, the IP addresses of the users are easier to find via torrent than they are via usenet.
Most likely, someone flagged it because it's essentially a political lie.
Where? I saw it and saw satire and comedy, but nothing outright dishonest. If you disagree with it, does that make it a lie?
There are lot of people who are more disturbed by slander than nudity.
And these are the same people screaming for tolerence and free speech.