Rupert Murdoch has changed the face of media more than any other person in recent history.
He is the world's preeminent media magnate.
I find it disturbing that people keep spewing the same crap about him not being able to change.
Why is it that Macmillan publishers aren't seen as dinosaurs, yet Murdoch - following their lead - is?
Isn't he trying to "change" Amazon's model?
Just remember the current status quo is that online news is free of charge - he is trying to "change" that and he will probably succeed.
Too many people are jealous that he controls so much and when anything that makes the news with him contravening their views, they suggest that it will be his downfall.
I'm not saying I'm happy with it. I'm not saying it's good for anyone.
Maybe it's because we experience events in real time and recall all events almost instantly.
So when you are 10 years old you only recall a very small amount of life. Recollection is instant and seems to encompass a huge amount of experiences (which is true since you are new to life).
But when you are 50 years old you recall all 50 years almost instantly and it seems as though it has happened so quickly (it has - you just remembered 50 years in the same small amount of time where you used to recall only 10).
This is quite different to what the article suggests since they talk of the density of the experience rather than the speed of recollection versus amount of life experienced.
"You believe otherwise, that everything is grey. You believe you can never know anything for sure. So how do you know that you exist?"
I never wrote or suggested I believe everything is grey. I never wrote or suggested that you can never know anything for sure. Stop trying to put words into my mouth. And to answer your question - I don't need to know whether I exist or not past the fact that I'm here typing on a keyboard - it's real enough for me to know I exist.
Stop taking my statements out of context as well - it shows only bad things about your character.
"quit hiding behind that lame excuse for willfull ignorance. You know full well what I'm referring to - it's not like the statement was made in a social vacuum."
You're being a complete wanker. I seriously don't know who you are referring to yet you say I do. Your statement that I "know full well" is a dumb assumption that is erroneous. You are stereotyping all religions and you should be ashamed of it. Instead you try to shift focus onto me with a blatant lie (that I know what or who you are referring).
On top of this you still fail to answer a significant amount of my questions (throughout this thread). Why? I think it is because you can't.
You can write whatever you like from this point onwards - you're just embarrassing yourself. You don't look good at this stage and my advice is to keep quiet. Don't worry I won't reply.
"Yes, because being outside the physics of this universe means that there is no possibility of interaction. If there were the possibility of interaction, then god would NOT be outside the laws of this universe." Interesting - but that reiterates what you already wrote. I can't see how you know whether the possibility of a one way interaction is possible or not.
"As for prayer - controlled studies showed that there was no difference..." there are studies where it does make a difference - both positively and negatively. This Cochrane review will point you to some http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000368.html the overall result is neutral.
"...the latest battle-front between religion and the masses - gays, lesbians, and transsexuals." Between what particular religions and the masses do you refer to? Unless you can elaborate you are stereotyping.
"Are you going to stand up and condemn......... is your belief hollow, of no practical effect?" My belief? I haven't said or hinted at what my beliefs are. Just because I argue against your sweeping statements doesn't mean squat. I do profess to not knowing everything and that my knowledge is and always will be limited and tainted. How about you?
"And you missed the point that a lot of people..." Yes, my apologies I must've missed it - although I can't see it being discussed anywhere above.
"Most things are not black and white." - thank you for elaborating on your view - it really was pretty improbable that there were no grey areas whatsoever in your universe.
I don't like all of your logic. If god is outside the physics of this universe that we are able to observe, is he actually restricted from interacting with it? why and how? Does it really equate to non-existence in this universe? how and why? Finally is prayer useless - maybe for the end result of direct intervention as you suggest it is useless - but you forget about the people doing the praying - maybe it helps them!
You missed my point (rendering most of what you said bunk). "Same as I can talk about the existence of a vacuum. Or infinity. Or zero. Or darkness. Or silence." - is my point exactly - missed by you and consequentially argued back by you. You wrote there was "no such thing as god" - and I was pointing out that no matter how you argue it there is such a thing since the idea transcends the reality (whether that be that there is a god or not). And you tried to argue it back to me. I hope you're getting this.
So I'll skip to where your next relevant point is about grey areas. My point about I.Q. and grey areas is that even very smart people don't see everything in black and white. So I want to know how you manage to beat the rest of us and see stuff so clearly - you avoided this question by writing around it. Please let me know how everything is black and white for you. Feel free to admit your error and write that most things are black and white (as opposed to all - you did write that there is "no grey in my universe" - no grey = none whatsoever).
As an atheist you aren't in direct alignment with all other atheists (but you are what I would call a true atheist). My argument was only directed at fyngyrz and anyone else in his position - you aren't and weren't included. Their position is different than yours.
"No possibility of the existence of god" (and "no such thing as god" in general) - tall words. Is there such thing as a Cheshire cat? Some would say no, but yes there is, he's a character in a book. Ideas have substance too. "No such thing as god" you say - how is it that you can even mention the concept then? Why bother talking about something that to you doesn't exist? You write "No grey in my universe" - wow! How do you do it? I know some pretty smart people (with toweringly high I.Q.s) and even they have grey areas. Seriously - I really want to know.
You don't believe, but you don't "not" believe either - this is very important since if you just say "I don't believe" then you only have one half of the story and it is an implicit denial of the proposition you are refuting. Saying you don't believe and that you also don't not believe gives the grey area position that you seek (it does not refute or affirm the proposition you don't have a position on).
Religion can be manadated by the state in a democracy. Get used to it. You have no protection from this - that is the problem with majority rule. You can even vote for a democracy to become a socialist government and if you're in the dissenting minority you just have to live with it (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Revolution).
You have things imposed upon you by law every second of your life - I don't see you complaining about all of these other laws.
His hypothesis may not agree with this one study but I bet there are others it does agree with.
Sylvanus makes a good point overall.
Perhaps the study should have used games where people are the target - not zombies or combine. Player vs. player where your sole goal is to kill your human opponent - then look to see the results.
I'm 100% positive that in a few years time when games are so realistic that you cannot tell the difference between a games graphics and that which may have been filmed that this whole situation will change. Games with graphic violence will get banned wholesale - people will just be too freaked out by them since they will appear 100% real.
Yes they have. A pity I'm not talking about individual measurements. I'm talking about change over time of what "is". At one point in time scientists would have vigorously defended a different number than 13 billion, even though today's data would show that they were wrong. So what "is" (or was), "wasn't". Do you get it yet? I wrote it very clearly and even clarified it to you after your first comment.
"Acceptable"? What the hell does that mean?
No point in answering this since you never understood my first point. But to clear things up, acceptable was in reference to the differences between measurements over time. They are clearly unacceptable. I had a quick look at recent estimates - from 5 to 20 billion years. That people get such varying estimates - the last 400% the size of the first is really, really, unacceptable. You are quite free to be happy with it if you want.
The scientists who were actually working in that field of physics were convinced rather quickly.
I just wrote that to a degree. The smart ones were easy to convince. The others were not.
And frankly, who cares about the others? What a biologist or even, say, a condensed matter physicists knows about, say, cosmology isn't appreciably better than a layman.
Most of the science world! People are not so insular and stupid that they don't understand matters from other fields. Do you have a problem where you can't? Keep in mind, special relativity, et al, are taught in high school now, so in regards to the Einstein example, this is especially valid.
Um, yes, it's all there in print: read the journal articles published in response to Einstein's theory. There was not massive resistance in the literature to, say, SR. This is unlike other theories that genuinely were strongly resisted by the the core researchers in that field (e.g., continental drift).
Great, so Continental drift is a better example for my analogy. Thanks.
You don't have an analogy, you have an assertion about how science progresses, which is the typical layman's stereotype of daring rebels being derided or ignored by the conservative mainstream.
Yes, I do have an analogy. Saying it isn't one doesn't make it not one. I am the conservative mainstream. I am being more conservative than you. You seem to be missing this. To clarify this further, the first statement is an assertion, and the second one, which is an analogy of the first, is also an assertion (since it asserts the same meaning as its analogy). There is no point trying to obfuscate this. You are wrong and anyone can read this and see it.
Replacing Einstein and Newton with "foobar" and "barfoo" merely rephrases your assertion; it does not lend actual credence to it
Again, rephrasing what I wrote. You are exactly right, it rephrases my analogous assertion - you understood this well. Yes, it doesn't add credence nor does it take away credence from my point. Again, nice rephrasing. Yes, you illustrated my point that changing the names to nonsense doesn't detract (nor add to) from my analogy at all. Thanks for that.
Care to give an actual scientific argument why it is "ridiculous"? One that doesn't boil down to, "It seems like a small number to me, therefore I refuse to believe it"?
No I don't care to but I will. Firstly though, I didn't say the new figure was ridiculous. Reread what I wrote. I wrote that the difference between old and new estimates was so great that it made me unhappy. I'm happy with the new 13.37 billion number. What you don't get is that I'm not happy that the number has changed dramatically from previous estimates so much. I'm unhappy in this fashion because it means that the previous methodology/measurements/intellect of researcher of the previous estimates wasn't sufficient to give us an accurate number then. You keep missing this p
I have seen estimates in the 10 to 15 billion range over the last decade. Tell me, what sort of error margin is that? Quite obviously it is not any sort of acceptable error margin.
I got my history from a 500 page biography. My readings point to it not being a peaches and cream reception, far from it. I'm not talking about convincing the smart scientists. I'm talking about convincing the rest of the scientific community. Which wasn't that easy at first.
Get in the way of history? History other than your own is written by other people, so unless you were there, you can't vouch for the authenticity of the situation any more than I can. But the point of the example was that it was analogous to the previous point. Your opinion of history does not change the analogy. I could replace the name Einstein with "foobar" and Newton with "barfoo" and it still illustrates the point.
"fantasies about the reactionary scientific orthodoxy." I have no fantasies about science. But you, with your ridiculous margin of error, may.
b.t.w. "reactionary scientific orthodoxy." Doesn't make any sense applied to me. I approve of real science. Science that isn't bull made up by the researcher because they don't what they are doing. Statistically, 50% of the scientific community are in this boat. The other half isn't usually that much better. Or do you know something I don't about human fallibility?
I find it funny that the universe is now a new age.
This differs from the old age figures that were spouted from people saying "it is" as well.
So "it probably is" this age.
Our observations lead us to believe it is this age.
"It is", is relative, and changes over time, so please be a little less flippant in the use of those words.
Case in hand, Albert Einstein received a cold reception to his theories. Scientists knew Isaac Newton's explanations to be "true". I'm sure they said "it is like this". Einstein said, "it is like this" too. Of course Einstein was right and most of the scientific community the world over had to admit that their perception of what "is", "wasn't". But they sure did stick to their guns to start with.
Science is humans constructing explanations to what we observe, such that we may pass on those observations, their possible explanations, and make useful predictions from both.
A friend of mine summed up science in a saying "I call it as I see it".
So for anyone confused about the Big Bang and God I'll explain (God being a concept - not the Christian God, not the Greek Gods, not any God - just the concept).
The Big Bang is a the collective answer from lots of people all over the world to the question "how did the universe come into being?".
It is not the answer to the question "does God exist?".
Stop confusing the two questions and their possible answers.
Stop blindly supporting other people's dumb arguments.
Start asking a few more questions and looking for real answers and you'll find there are a lot less answers than you thought.
Stop pretending science answers philosophical questions. By definition it can't, so stop trying. It can only explain what we observe - so stop trying to force it to explain away what we can't observe.
Just because we can't observe something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Our minds created the concept of science. We can within our minds imagine concepts that are greater than ourselves. If we can imagine it, then we our bound by the possibility of its existence.
Stop trying to settle the differences in the Old Testament with stupid explanations. They don't fly either. Our observations do show a different story than what the Old Testament shows. Get over it. Stop trying to reconcile them - they will never mesh. Instead spend more time making valid arguments why your particular religion is good for people (which, b.t.w., is God's commandment in the New Testament).
I want to see the vaporhack.
Unless he can show me it, I can't bring myself to believe that he has achieved it.
I might as well say, "I cracked 128bit RSA encryption last night, in three clicks".
My point being, unsubstantiated claims should not be taken that seriously.
Anyone else interested in seeing this vaporhack?
How is statistical analysis patentable? I was under the impression that most patent systems excluded the possibility of patenting a mathematical method - which is exactly what statistical analysis is. You could probably extend that to all computer programming.
Embryonic stem cell research is but chaff in the wind that is the decoding and interpretation of the human genome.
This is understandable since not all scientists have enough brains to conduct research of that caliber (or did we all evolve with equal intelligence?).
Good luck with your short term and probably relatively fruitless careers.
Slashdot Mirror
It couldn't be further from the truth.
Rupert Murdoch has changed the face of media more than any other person in recent history.
He is the world's preeminent media magnate.
I find it disturbing that people keep spewing the same crap about him not being able to change.
Why is it that Macmillan publishers aren't seen as dinosaurs, yet Murdoch - following their lead - is?
Isn't he trying to "change" Amazon's model?
Just remember the current status quo is that online news is free of charge - he is trying to "change" that and he will probably succeed.
Too many people are jealous that he controls so much and when anything that makes the news with him contravening their views, they suggest that it will be his downfall.
I'm not saying I'm happy with it. I'm not saying it's good for anyone.
Maybe it's because we experience events in real time and recall all events almost instantly.
So when you are 10 years old you only recall a very small amount of life. Recollection is instant and seems to encompass a huge amount of experiences (which is true since you are new to life).
But when you are 50 years old you recall all 50 years almost instantly and it seems as though it has happened so quickly (it has - you just remembered 50 years in the same small amount of time where you used to recall only 10).
This is quite different to what the article suggests since they talk of the density of the experience rather than the speed of recollection versus amount of life experienced.
You're show of ignorance is fantastic.
"You believe otherwise, that everything is grey. You believe you can never know anything for sure. So how do you know that you exist?"
I never wrote or suggested I believe everything is grey. I never wrote or suggested that you can never know anything for sure. Stop trying to put words into my mouth. And to answer your question - I don't need to know whether I exist or not past the fact that I'm here typing on a keyboard - it's real enough for me to know I exist.
Stop taking my statements out of context as well - it shows only bad things about your character.
"quit hiding behind that lame excuse for willfull ignorance. You know full well what I'm referring to - it's not like the statement was made in a social vacuum."
You're being a complete wanker. I seriously don't know who you are referring to yet you say I do. Your statement that I "know full well" is a dumb assumption that is erroneous. You are stereotyping all religions and you should be ashamed of it. Instead you try to shift focus onto me with a blatant lie (that I know what or who you are referring).
On top of this you still fail to answer a significant amount of my questions (throughout this thread). Why? I think it is because you can't.
You can write whatever you like from this point onwards - you're just embarrassing yourself. You don't look good at this stage and my advice is to keep quiet. Don't worry I won't reply.
You bore me.
"Yes, because being outside the physics of this universe means that there is no possibility of interaction. If there were the possibility of interaction, then god would NOT be outside the laws of this universe." Interesting - but that reiterates what you already wrote. I can't see how you know whether the possibility of a one way interaction is possible or not.
"As for prayer - controlled studies showed that there was no difference..." there are studies where it does make a difference - both positively and negatively. This Cochrane review will point you to some http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000368.html the overall result is neutral.
"...the latest battle-front between religion and the masses - gays, lesbians, and transsexuals." Between what particular religions and the masses do you refer to? Unless you can elaborate you are stereotyping.
"Are you going to stand up and condemn ......... is your belief hollow, of no practical effect?" My belief? I haven't said or hinted at what my beliefs are. Just because I argue against your sweeping statements doesn't mean squat. I do profess to not knowing everything and that my knowledge is and always will be limited and tainted. How about you?
"And you missed the point that a lot of people..." Yes, my apologies I must've missed it - although I can't see it being discussed anywhere above. "Most things are not black and white." - thank you for elaborating on your view - it really was pretty improbable that there were no grey areas whatsoever in your universe. I don't like all of your logic. If god is outside the physics of this universe that we are able to observe, is he actually restricted from interacting with it? why and how? Does it really equate to non-existence in this universe? how and why? Finally is prayer useless - maybe for the end result of direct intervention as you suggest it is useless - but you forget about the people doing the praying - maybe it helps them!
You missed my point (rendering most of what you said bunk). "Same as I can talk about the existence of a vacuum. Or infinity. Or zero. Or darkness. Or silence." - is my point exactly - missed by you and consequentially argued back by you. You wrote there was "no such thing as god" - and I was pointing out that no matter how you argue it there is such a thing since the idea transcends the reality (whether that be that there is a god or not). And you tried to argue it back to me. I hope you're getting this. So I'll skip to where your next relevant point is about grey areas. My point about I.Q. and grey areas is that even very smart people don't see everything in black and white. So I want to know how you manage to beat the rest of us and see stuff so clearly - you avoided this question by writing around it. Please let me know how everything is black and white for you. Feel free to admit your error and write that most things are black and white (as opposed to all - you did write that there is "no grey in my universe" - no grey = none whatsoever).
As an atheist you aren't in direct alignment with all other atheists (but you are what I would call a true atheist). My argument was only directed at fyngyrz and anyone else in his position - you aren't and weren't included. Their position is different than yours. "No possibility of the existence of god" (and "no such thing as god" in general) - tall words. Is there such thing as a Cheshire cat? Some would say no, but yes there is, he's a character in a book. Ideas have substance too. "No such thing as god" you say - how is it that you can even mention the concept then? Why bother talking about something that to you doesn't exist? You write "No grey in my universe" - wow! How do you do it? I know some pretty smart people (with toweringly high I.Q.s) and even they have grey areas. Seriously - I really want to know.
You don't believe, but you don't "not" believe either - this is very important since if you just say "I don't believe" then you only have one half of the story and it is an implicit denial of the proposition you are refuting. Saying you don't believe and that you also don't not believe gives the grey area position that you seek (it does not refute or affirm the proposition you don't have a position on). Religion can be manadated by the state in a democracy. Get used to it. You have no protection from this - that is the problem with majority rule. You can even vote for a democracy to become a socialist government and if you're in the dissenting minority you just have to live with it (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Revolution). You have things imposed upon you by law every second of your life - I don't see you complaining about all of these other laws.
His hypothesis may not agree with this one study but I bet there are others it does agree with. Sylvanus makes a good point overall. Perhaps the study should have used games where people are the target - not zombies or combine. Player vs. player where your sole goal is to kill your human opponent - then look to see the results. I'm 100% positive that in a few years time when games are so realistic that you cannot tell the difference between a games graphics and that which may have been filmed that this whole situation will change. Games with graphic violence will get banned wholesale - people will just be too freaked out by them since they will appear 100% real.
Individual estimates have been in that range
Yes they have. A pity I'm not talking about individual measurements. I'm talking about change over time of what "is". At one point in time scientists would have vigorously defended a different number than 13 billion, even though today's data would show that they were wrong. So what "is" (or was), "wasn't". Do you get it yet? I wrote it very clearly and even clarified it to you after your first comment.
"Acceptable"? What the hell does that mean?
No point in answering this since you never understood my first point. But to clear things up, acceptable was in reference to the differences between measurements over time. They are clearly unacceptable. I had a quick look at recent estimates - from 5 to 20 billion years. That people get such varying estimates - the last 400% the size of the first is really, really, unacceptable. You are quite free to be happy with it if you want.
The scientists who were actually working in that field of physics were convinced rather quickly.
I just wrote that to a degree. The smart ones were easy to convince. The others were not.
And frankly, who cares about the others? What a biologist or even, say, a condensed matter physicists knows about, say, cosmology isn't appreciably better than a layman.
Most of the science world! People are not so insular and stupid that they don't understand matters from other fields. Do you have a problem where you can't? Keep in mind, special relativity, et al, are taught in high school now, so in regards to the Einstein example, this is especially valid.
Um, yes, it's all there in print: read the journal articles published in response to Einstein's theory. There was not massive resistance in the literature to, say, SR. This is unlike other theories that genuinely were strongly resisted by the the core researchers in that field (e.g., continental drift).
Great, so Continental drift is a better example for my analogy. Thanks.
You don't have an analogy, you have an assertion about how science progresses, which is the typical layman's stereotype of daring rebels being derided or ignored by the conservative mainstream.
Yes, I do have an analogy. Saying it isn't one doesn't make it not one. I am the conservative mainstream. I am being more conservative than you. You seem to be missing this. To clarify this further, the first statement is an assertion, and the second one, which is an analogy of the first, is also an assertion (since it asserts the same meaning as its analogy). There is no point trying to obfuscate this. You are wrong and anyone can read this and see it.
Replacing Einstein and Newton with "foobar" and "barfoo" merely rephrases your assertion; it does not lend actual credence to it
Again, rephrasing what I wrote. You are exactly right, it rephrases my analogous assertion - you understood this well. Yes, it doesn't add credence nor does it take away credence from my point. Again, nice rephrasing. Yes, you illustrated my point that changing the names to nonsense doesn't detract (nor add to) from my analogy at all. Thanks for that.
Care to give an actual scientific argument why it is "ridiculous"? One that doesn't boil down to, "It seems like a small number to me, therefore I refuse to believe it"?
No I don't care to but I will. Firstly though, I didn't say the new figure was ridiculous. Reread what I wrote. I wrote that the difference between old and new estimates was so great that it made me unhappy. I'm happy with the new 13.37 billion number. What you don't get is that I'm not happy that the number has changed dramatically from previous estimates so much. I'm unhappy in this fashion because it means that the previous methodology/measurements/intellect of researcher of the previous estimates wasn't sufficient to give us an accurate number then. You keep missing this p
I have seen estimates in the 10 to 15 billion range over the last decade. Tell me, what sort of error margin is that? Quite obviously it is not any sort of acceptable error margin.
I got my history from a 500 page biography. My readings point to it not being a peaches and cream reception, far from it. I'm not talking about convincing the smart scientists. I'm talking about convincing the rest of the scientific community. Which wasn't that easy at first.
Get in the way of history? History other than your own is written by other people, so unless you were there, you can't vouch for the authenticity of the situation any more than I can. But the point of the example was that it was analogous to the previous point. Your opinion of history does not change the analogy. I could replace the name Einstein with "foobar" and Newton with "barfoo" and it still illustrates the point.
"fantasies about the reactionary scientific orthodoxy." I have no fantasies about science. But you, with your ridiculous margin of error, may.
b.t.w. "reactionary scientific orthodoxy." Doesn't make any sense applied to me. I approve of real science. Science that isn't bull made up by the researcher because they don't what they are doing. Statistically, 50% of the scientific community are in this boat. The other half isn't usually that much better. Or do you know something I don't about human fallibility?
I find it funny that the universe is now a new age.
This differs from the old age figures that were spouted from people saying "it is" as well.
So "it probably is" this age.
Our observations lead us to believe it is this age.
"It is", is relative, and changes over time, so please be a little less flippant in the use of those words.
Case in hand, Albert Einstein received a cold reception to his theories. Scientists knew Isaac Newton's explanations to be "true". I'm sure they said "it is like this". Einstein said, "it is like this" too. Of course Einstein was right and most of the scientific community the world over had to admit that their perception of what "is", "wasn't". But they sure did stick to their guns to start with.
Science is humans constructing explanations to what we observe, such that we may pass on those observations, their possible explanations, and make useful predictions from both.
A friend of mine summed up science in a saying "I call it as I see it".
So for anyone confused about the Big Bang and God I'll explain (God being a concept - not the Christian God, not the Greek Gods, not any God - just the concept).
The Big Bang is a the collective answer from lots of people all over the world to the question "how did the universe come into being?".
It is not the answer to the question "does God exist?".
Stop confusing the two questions and their possible answers.
Stop blindly supporting other people's dumb arguments.
Start asking a few more questions and looking for real answers and you'll find there are a lot less answers than you thought.
Stop pretending science answers philosophical questions. By definition it can't, so stop trying. It can only explain what we observe - so stop trying to force it to explain away what we can't observe.
Just because we can't observe something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Our minds created the concept of science. We can within our minds imagine concepts that are greater than ourselves. If we can imagine it, then we our bound by the possibility of its existence.
Stop trying to settle the differences in the Old Testament with stupid explanations. They don't fly either. Our observations do show a different story than what the Old Testament shows. Get over it. Stop trying to reconcile them - they will never mesh. Instead spend more time making valid arguments why your particular religion is good for people (which, b.t.w., is God's commandment in the New Testament).
Regards,
Harley.
I want to see the vaporhack. Unless he can show me it, I can't bring myself to believe that he has achieved it. I might as well say, "I cracked 128bit RSA encryption last night, in three clicks". My point being, unsubstantiated claims should not be taken that seriously. Anyone else interested in seeing this vaporhack?
How is statistical analysis patentable? I was under the impression that most patent systems excluded the possibility of patenting a mathematical method - which is exactly what statistical analysis is. You could probably extend that to all computer programming.
Embryonic stem cell research is but chaff in the wind that is the decoding and interpretation of the human genome.
This is understandable since not all scientists have enough brains to conduct research of that caliber (or did we all evolve with equal intelligence?).
Good luck with your short term and probably relatively fruitless careers.