Actually you did not determine anything. However, I have determined
that you have a mental inability to analyse the root cause of conflict.
Therefore I imagine you must have problems with conflict resolution..
preferring to side with parties who share your own biases or prejudices.
For individuals like yourself, everything is white and black. And unfortunately,
there are many voters with that manner of thinking in the united states.
I'm curious, were you a former supporter of the Bush administration? Did you
support the invasion of Iraq?
By your reasoning, everyone who is asked to respect the founding fathers
is asked to respect terrorists. Which in turn means it's ok to be a "good"
terrorist, so long as you can continue to sprout the legacy of manifest destiny.
That should explain why the rest of the civilized world (and half of the american
population) sees american foreign policy as that of a terrorist state. It's origins
can be found in your way of thinking. In your view, everything's ok, so long as you
can call other people terrorists (but turn a blind eye to your own government's casual
maiming, killing, human rights abuses of innocent civilians in Iraq-- which is many
fold the innocent lives lost in 911).
PCRM is working for the public interest (health-wise).
The famous Henry Heimlich is a member, the revered late Dr. Spock became convinced
that vegan diets for children were the way to go, as well. PCRM shares
the same views and has done work in conjunction with respected medical
organizations.
You mislead the masses by suggesting it is a puppet organization because by
making such a biased suggestion, you are saying that the opinions of Heimlich,
Spock and others are somehow trumped by the fact that PETA shares their views
and may have established connections. If PCRM, a public health advocacy group is
getting money from another organization that effectively promotes healthy
lifestyles (of which there are countless studies that show non-meat diets
extend average lifespans by years, and can reduce environmental footprints by
incredible factors), then so be it. It's for the public good.
Now, compare this to the fact that the organization that the poster quoted is
a REAL puppet organization for the likes of Cattle Associations, McDonald's, Pop
drink companies and other similar companies who have their own financial interests
in mind...to the absolute detriment of the population...which in turn has led to
the obesity crisis in North America. It's for the corporate good.
Who is the good guy here? Or do you wish to continue with your diversion?
Adaptation algorithm = boon for Spy agencies
on
A New Kind of OS
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
In recent news, it was found that the Pentagon is looking for ways
to gather meaningful data from social networking sites.
Adaptive OSes would be one step better since breaking into your
specific "morphing" would reveal more intimate data about
the way you think, the importance you place on specific topics based
on the way you prioritize your email message accesses,etc. To some degree
this is possible by cross referencing cookie data between big corporate
sites who just love one another. But adaptation potentially makes it
much easier.
I'll bet that people will be clamoring to include morphing (if it ever exists)
in web 2.0 type applications. I don't really understand this excitement. Your
data is only as secure as the trust you place on the system admins of your
site. No contract ever really guarantees they won't give into law enforcement
agencies who want to know what color underwear you like.
But I do understand why they commit violence in the same way I understand why the founding Fathers of America committed terrorist acts. If you don't understand, that's fine. But it does indicate that you are biased (if not ignorant) since there are many millions of logical and civilized people who DO understand the reasons why they do it (even if they don't agree with the methods yet agree with the message that animal testing is wrong).
If there isn't a broad enough effort to understand, then there cannot be
social consensus of the sound notion that animal testing is wrong, and therefore
we should not be surprised if similar desperate measures take place again.
I realize that American foreign policy has done its best to divide the world into good guys and bad guys for you. Without taking sides, I think it's fair to say that one person's terrorist is another person's terrorist killer. Speaking of killing, no one has been killed as far as I see, except for thousands of animals behind closed doors by the researcher in question. That is the only thing we can be sure of.
Finally, I had a friend who'd dad did similar brain research on animals in a university lab. The kinds of inhumane testing she described would upset a majority of the population had they known or seen what was going on.
I support science, and technology to an incredible degree. However,
there are such things as male egos; partnerships with greedy
corporations that want to cut corners or kill what THEY deem to be dead ends;
lack of ethical considerations; and conservative, close-minded thinking
in the way science is taught in class rooms and administered in many
universities. Most of the important advances in technology have come from the work of a few
people tinkering with interesting things in nature----not spoon fed,
well paid PhD/graduate students, or other classes of researchers.
Also, it's very much like there is an invisible land mass of research areas.
They are separated by boundaries dictated by corporations, NDA's, patents,
copyrights, etc. If the population cannot get access to such data,
there is no gaining of knowledge; it is only useable to one or more
powerful entities who would have the inhabitants of similar research regions
compete with each other instead of share their list of dead ends and
knowledge gained. This is not the way to the future!
Add to that the fact that it is common for research papers to be altered
in favor of one party or another who has some financial stake.
None of that is science or an efficient means of practicing science. And
the problem is not with the perpetrators, but that the non-open system in
place is conducive to such abuses (ultimately for the benefit of the few).
I posit again that animal research is unecessary because the number of animals
you kill is not a sign that you are doing anything beneficial for the human
animal model----even if it makes the old boys club running your institution
naively think you're doing something useful.
Obviously we can't shut down something as pervasive as the oil-dependant
infrastructure overnight. However, that should not stop us from mounting major, manhattan-
style research projects. Politicians are finally coming out and stating
what they have been afraid to say for the passed few decades: that we need to
finance cutting edge energy research in a very big way.
Why was the President of the United States allowed to ruin the American economy
over the thirst for foreign oil when all of that lost (and growing) war money could
have been used to remove oil dependence through major research initiative, both
in new forms of energy production as well as in cost effective delivery systems
for upcoming technolgies? Never mind the now grossly understated lack of progress in
rebuilding the nuclear war zone which is now New Orleans, which might also have been
caused by global warming... getting us back full circle to the oil problem.
So your argument that the economy would suffer is meaningless
since, in the example above, it has already suffered a great deal (and then some
as the Global warming crisis continues). For all our technolgical prowess, we are
notoriously lethargic in advancing through invention. The rate of practical progress
was likely higher in the late 1800s/early 1900s than now.
All that to say that our slow progress toward solutions---be it alternatives to animal
research, oil, etc, is entirely arbitrary and will have to be accelerated in some cases
because we will have no choice. When that day comes, the population will be exposed to
a solutions methodology that we cannot afford to forget: one of cooperation and sharing of
the full body of knowledge. And that methodology, I believe, will play a part in getting
rid of non human animal testing.
Likewise, by not using animals in research, we could be "closing the door" on the next Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein simply because he couldn't see and we didn't do some tests on a monkey without thinking about how much good a person of this sort of ingenuity could bring to the world if he only had a pair of working eyes.
There are many other avenues to ensuring that the next Stephen Hawking (by golly the next
1000 Stephen Hawkings!!) will live. A massive portion of the world's population still lives in poverty and
is famished. Providing them with basic food and clean water will do much more
to ensure survival of those future geniuses than stopping animal testing. Also, for example, Negroponte's
Laptop program will help to bring out those vanguards of the future.. simply because
those children are more desperate and truly understand the nature of suffering than we in the west
will ever.
All of that to say that animal testing has absolutely nothing to do with making more eggheads.
I agree, leave it to MIT to keep it out of the hands of men with small penises, and
in dire need of extension or hardening technology.
I think this technology, and similar future software will be incredibly instrumental
in building that futuristic world we like to depict in Sci-Fi shows; everything from
doors that seal completely, to intelligent materials that can be reused or reconfigured
over and over again for many purposes.
Maybe even materials that are more lossless when it comes to recycling....
millions of diabetes sufferers worldwide are alive because of some animal testing. Find me some fucking statistic disproving that tidbit.
That's like saying:
People can get around because of greenhouse-gas-causing oil! Find me some fucking statistic disproving that tidbit.
Who cares about the historical use of oil to get around. We know that pollution from oil kills the elderly, and lots of other very very bad things. I don't need to prove a point about history.. I assume that's already known to you.
My point is that there are likely other more effective models, methodologies, technologies that can be used in medical research.
We don't need more future animal research (since it's clearly never resulted in a real cure for any ailment).
I don't have an opinion on stem cell research, but clearly with recent news, scientist already have a number of leads that will not require aborting fetuses. Bush is an idiot, but he was instrumental in proving that things can be done differently if one has no other choice. Science is supposed to be about innovation, not stagnating with the same old ideas----even in the face of little success. Science right now, is feeding on itself. A lot of the money that goes into research is wasted.. going in to researcher pockets. The cost of everything is going up, and you have competing private labs that don't seem to really get anywhere.. or they are taking their sweet old time (i.e. expect half a century before we see anything of substance).
If you really believe your loved one deserves a cure, force the labs to work together, abolish patents, copyrights, NDAs, etc. so that scienctists really are working for the people, eliminating already visited dead ends, using/developing advanced information processing of gobs and gobs of medical data, diverting our ubergeeks away from unpaid overtime on game consoles and instead to worthwile medically relevant computational/hardware challenges, etc. etc.
Animal testing is just a red herring for the sustainable financing of research labs/equipment that are likely going to be used for more important ailments, like limp (yet purportedly erect) penises.
Yeah, you can always contribute your money, oh I don't know, to your kid's (if you have any)
education, soup kitchens, women's shelters, hurricane relief, etc. . You know, selfless sort of stuff.
Keep in mind that billions upon billions have been wasted. Yet, they are still able to work
with unsuspecting Moms, kids, seniors etc, (taking advantage of the fact that they have lost
loved ones to some ailment) to make from-the-heart emotional pleas for money through ads. These
ads tend to have messages indicating that "it will help" to make the cure possible "soon".
And they tend to have a grassroots flare about them that makes it even more attractive to prospective
donors (that "we" are going to bring about the cure).
But the only thing it cures is Researcher John Doe's craving for a better High Definition TV.
I consider your response above stupid. And you are an animal. And you
argue that meat eaters should be able to eat "stupid animals". Are you
suggesting that human carnivores should feel free to eat YOU ?
I'm for it if it reduces non-human animal cruelty and stupidity at the
same time.
Believe it or not, the number of vegetarians on the planet probably number
in the high hundreds of millions. kudos to them for helping to protect
the planet (whether by religion or conscious) from stupid folks who
don't care about resource depletion
I don't think people who eat meat are cruel. Because I know that if the
vast majority of them saw the source of their food (some species
with real fear in them) before they were killed, they would switch (to
pseudo-quote former Cattle Rancher Howard Lyman).
By the way, I've never taken any medicines (not because I didn't want to), but because
I've never had to. I don't know if that's because I'm vegan or not, but you must be
one sick puppy to seem to be dependent on medicines so badly. Sick puppy eh, that might
explain why you really need them to be tested on puppies first.
quoting Wikipedia on political issues? Bwa Ha ha, no wonder you're lost. I won't even go into why
that's dumb. Go ask your elementary/high-school teacher.
Your second source, is funded by powerful corporations who don't want social scruples
(boycott experts) getting in the way of their profits. Similar to the group that went on Drudge
and stated that Michael Moore had Halliburton stocks. Wonder why that story
went away? Because it was bullcrap!;-)
I can understand your swearing: when you feel like you can't build a logical
argument, swearing makes dumber people think you're smart.
I'm sorry for your mother, but to use your mother to minimize the
utility of this research to other Diabetese sufferers is somewhat low
(and sympathy-seeking).
I sure hope that type 1/3 people don't go about reading research papers without
consulting the appropriate experts (like you assume they might do).
I am opposed to violence. But you gotta expect it when oppression takes place
of any kind. I doubt that direct action animal rights activists are criminally
insane (for the most part)---at least no more than the founding fathers of the
U.S.A. (especially when these activists have not killed anyone!). So any argument
presented against these types of individuals is hypocritical and as gooey as oatmeal.
Yes well all animals should be respected. That is the only way we can be
the most moral animal. And yes, I do care a lot about humans when I
know that many of their ailments are heavily mitigated by cruelty free
diets. Instead, a lot of humans hand their money over to little kids (who are
shamelessly fooled into thinking they are doing the right thing) collecting
for medical charities. For all the minimal good animal research has done,
that money is effectively being pushed up into some researcher's
wallet.
Get the facts here:
http://www.pcrm.org/
I agree, if anyone is to respect the founding fathers, then I am free to respect animal rights
activists whose philosophy of no-cruelty to animals probably will do us better practically
than this doctor's research will have ever done.
In fact, animal medical research has hardly done anything for us give the decades of
experiments and tens of thousands of researchers wasting your charity drive money.
See this article on fighting Diabetes as an example:
http://www.pcrm.org/news/release060727.html
For more info: http://www.pcrm.org/
Thank you for mentioning Diabetes to prove my point: did you know that
a major study released recently showed that Diabetes
can be combatted greatly by eating a vegan diet (completely animal/cruelty free diet) ? http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?ne wsid=49091 .
Clearly you have friends stuck in an animal lab somewhere working really hard
to push pills in an effort to up the bottom line.
All you're doing is pressing propaganda for your industry which seems to have
endless drives to get money from the public...to no avail! Over and over again.
One would imagine that decades of animal testing, and tens of thousands of
white-coated "professionals" would have achieved at least one cure or healing method for
one major ailment by now. It certainly has helped the wallets of pharmaceuticals,
researchers, etc. but that is not what we're looking for.
But no, now you're going to make a silly argument that there's a specific path
to a cure that only eggheads like you can fill. Give me a break. Going to university
doesn't make you an expert. It helps you work for powerful companies that will pay
you big bucks to endlessly make the shareholders think you are making strides when you're just buying
nicer cars, stereos, and having more luxurious vacations. This is the case for the
vast majority of those of us who have worked for large corporations in practically ANY
field.
Information technology is and will be the way to real cures...with perhaps some
advances in biology which will allow us to use/generate human tissue.
If animal labs had glass walls, public opinion would have stopped our dear doctor from
continuing his research anyway.
Did your mom wash out your mouth yet?
really it's not possible to do direct action easily these
days. That was the stuff of 80s TV films/shows. I am not suprised at all
that they go to these lengths.
In any animal rights movement you'll get people who will be sufficiently
enraged at the caging, maming, abusing, skinning, and psychological trauma
induced on animals----enough to take matters into their own hands.
Anyway, the Researcher made the right decision in my opinion. Real breakthroughs
will come out of advances in: stats, number crunching, gathering of massive
amounts of data from said stats, etc. Animal models just don't work (remember
those UK dudes with the sudden onset of elephant man after taking drugs that worked
mighty fine on animals?
We need less elephant men and more elephants
The conservatives are heavily aligned with warmongering, and talk of
collateral damage like they're renovation oopsies. Sounds to me like
conservatives are more terrorist in their scope than a couple of
folks with placards who have not killed anyone as of yet. In fact
conservative fundamentalists are the ones who kill abortion doctors
and cheer them on.
Here here. This topic is attracting a lot of elitist eggheads who are interested in taking
on "that mediocre laptop project". Maybe they should get back to playing on their game consoles.
This topic is not for children. Ahem, I mean children pretending to be adults.
It's meant for real, impoverished children who will get a lot more stimulation/education
from these laptops than western, whining kids playing yet another fancy game to get over
their obese boredome.
If you don't have something constructive to say or do, then clam up and get back
to daydreaming about getting a hot girlfriend in place of your sex toy.
Hmmm, I know how: all of the thousands (if not 10s of thousands) of 3rd world hackers-to-be who just hate "developed world" privileged hackers who like picking on the kid who's living on $43/year might just get mad and learn how to break into Mr. Privileged hacker's computer and invent their own nasty worms, viruses and other critters. Education always emerges from a challenge.
We really don't know the health impact of having our homes and offices densely packed with wireless transmitters/receivers. I suspect that many geeks probably have an orgasmic feeling when they say "look Ma, no hands". I won't comment on the Freudian implications.
But if Ma developes a tumor one day, it's all too easy to rule out wireless technologies since the latest industry-sponsored study (or researcher too scared to be blunt, so s/he perpetually concludes that "more research is needed") will indicate that they are safe.
Even while we sleep, the wireless companies are devising new candy to aggressively inundate us with wireless tech so that even if it were found to be unsafe in the longterm, as Bush would say, it would collapse the economy to look for better alternatives or turn back.
Ok, so you don't mind keeping your network open, and taking up resources,so long as you can laugh at the idea that someone (who you never see) might be seeing the internet upside down (and will have a laugh themselves).
You're probably making their day. How nice of you.
Here's his response:
All of his discussion about the Casimir Effect not being a recyclable effect is true. Below is where he goes off the track. The vacuum ZPE is not a "heat reservoir." The subtleties are clearly spelled out in our paper (Cole & Puthoff). [trelayne: Once again for your convenience: http://www.earthtech.org/publications/JBIS_55_137- 144.pdf ]
> "It is impossible to produce work in
> the surroundings using a cyclic process connected to a single heat
> reservoir," and that is exactly what such a device does if the device
> itself does not change its state and it is only in contact externally
> with the vacuum of free space.
As usual, the fault is in the assumption. His assumption is that the vacuum is a fixed state, cannot decay, etc.. (1) Some years ago even Scientific American magazine had a nice article on decay of the vacuum. (2) Standard GR points out that in an expanding universe vacuum energy density remains constant (that's why it is Lorentz-invariant), but vacuum energy increases with expansion.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually you did not determine anything. However, I have determined that you have a mental inability to analyse the root cause of conflict. Therefore I imagine you must have problems with conflict resolution.. preferring to side with parties who share your own biases or prejudices.
For individuals like yourself, everything is white and black. And unfortunately, there are many voters with that manner of thinking in the united states.
I'm curious, were you a former supporter of the Bush administration? Did you support the invasion of Iraq?
By your reasoning, everyone who is asked to respect the founding fathers is asked to respect terrorists. Which in turn means it's ok to be a "good" terrorist, so long as you can continue to sprout the legacy of manifest destiny.
That should explain why the rest of the civilized world (and half of the american population) sees american foreign policy as that of a terrorist state. It's origins can be found in your way of thinking. In your view, everything's ok, so long as you can call other people terrorists (but turn a blind eye to your own government's casual maiming, killing, human rights abuses of innocent civilians in Iraq-- which is many fold the innocent lives lost in 911).
PCRM is working for the public interest (health-wise). The famous Henry Heimlich is a member, the revered late Dr. Spock became convinced that vegan diets for children were the way to go, as well. PCRM shares the same views and has done work in conjunction with respected medical organizations.
...which in turn has led to
the obesity crisis in North America. It's for the corporate good.
You mislead the masses by suggesting it is a puppet organization because by making such a biased suggestion, you are saying that the opinions of Heimlich, Spock and others are somehow trumped by the fact that PETA shares their views and may have established connections. If PCRM, a public health advocacy group is getting money from another organization that effectively promotes healthy lifestyles (of which there are countless studies that show non-meat diets extend average lifespans by years, and can reduce environmental footprints by incredible factors), then so be it. It's for the public good.
Now, compare this to the fact that the organization that the poster quoted is a REAL puppet organization for the likes of Cattle Associations, McDonald's, Pop drink companies and other similar companies who have their own financial interests in mind...to the absolute detriment of the population
Who is the good guy here? Or do you wish to continue with your diversion?
In recent news, it was found that the Pentagon is looking for ways to gather meaningful data from social networking sites.
Adaptive OSes would be one step better since breaking into your specific "morphing" would reveal more intimate data about the way you think, the importance you place on specific topics based on the way you prioritize your email message accesses,etc. To some degree this is possible by cross referencing cookie data between big corporate sites who just love one another. But adaptation potentially makes it much easier.
I'll bet that people will be clamoring to include morphing (if it ever exists) in web 2.0 type applications. I don't really understand this excitement. Your data is only as secure as the trust you place on the system admins of your site. No contract ever really guarantees they won't give into law enforcement agencies who want to know what color underwear you like.
Nope.
But I do understand why they commit violence in the same way I understand why the founding Fathers of America committed terrorist acts. If you don't understand, that's fine. But it does indicate that you are biased (if not ignorant) since there are many millions of logical and civilized people who DO understand the reasons why they do it (even if they don't agree with the methods yet agree with the message that animal testing is wrong).
If there isn't a broad enough effort to understand, then there cannot be social consensus of the sound notion that animal testing is wrong, and therefore we should not be surprised if similar desperate measures take place again.
I realize that American foreign policy has done its best to divide the world into good guys and bad guys for you. Without taking sides, I think it's fair to say that one person's terrorist is another person's terrorist killer. Speaking of killing, no one has been killed as far as I see, except for thousands of animals behind closed doors by the researcher in question. That is the only thing we can be sure of.
Finally, I had a friend who'd dad did similar brain research on animals in a university lab. The kinds of inhumane testing she described would upset a majority of the population had they known or seen what was going on.
I support science, and technology to an incredible degree. However, there are such things as male egos; partnerships with greedy corporations that want to cut corners or kill what THEY deem to be dead ends; lack of ethical considerations; and conservative, close-minded thinking in the way science is taught in class rooms and administered in many universities. Most of the important advances in technology have come from the work of a few people tinkering with interesting things in nature----not spoon fed, well paid PhD/graduate students, or other classes of researchers.
Also, it's very much like there is an invisible land mass of research areas. They are separated by boundaries dictated by corporations, NDA's, patents, copyrights, etc. If the population cannot get access to such data, there is no gaining of knowledge; it is only useable to one or more powerful entities who would have the inhabitants of similar research regions compete with each other instead of share their list of dead ends and knowledge gained. This is not the way to the future!
Add to that the fact that it is common for research papers to be altered in favor of one party or another who has some financial stake.
None of that is science or an efficient means of practicing science. And the problem is not with the perpetrators, but that the non-open system in place is conducive to such abuses (ultimately for the benefit of the few).
I posit again that animal research is unecessary because the number of animals you kill is not a sign that you are doing anything beneficial for the human animal model----even if it makes the old boys club running your institution naively think you're doing something useful.
Obviously we can't shut down something as pervasive as the oil-dependant infrastructure overnight. However, that should not stop us from mounting major, manhattan- style research projects. Politicians are finally coming out and stating what they have been afraid to say for the passed few decades: that we need to finance cutting edge energy research in a very big way.
Why was the President of the United States allowed to ruin the American economy over the thirst for foreign oil when all of that lost (and growing) war money could have been used to remove oil dependence through major research initiative, both in new forms of energy production as well as in cost effective delivery systems for upcoming technolgies? Never mind the now grossly understated lack of progress in rebuilding the nuclear war zone which is now New Orleans, which might also have been caused by global warming... getting us back full circle to the oil problem.
So your argument that the economy would suffer is meaningless since, in the example above, it has already suffered a great deal (and then some as the Global warming crisis continues). For all our technolgical prowess, we are notoriously lethargic in advancing through invention. The rate of practical progress was likely higher in the late 1800s/early 1900s than now.
All that to say that our slow progress toward solutions---be it alternatives to animal research, oil, etc, is entirely arbitrary and will have to be accelerated in some cases because we will have no choice. When that day comes, the population will be exposed to a solutions methodology that we cannot afford to forget: one of cooperation and sharing of the full body of knowledge. And that methodology, I believe, will play a part in getting rid of non human animal testing.
Likewise, by not using animals in research, we could be "closing the door" on the next Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein simply because he couldn't see and we didn't do some tests on a monkey without thinking about how much good a person of this sort of ingenuity could bring to the world if he only had a pair of working eyes.
There are many other avenues to ensuring that the next Stephen Hawking (by golly the next 1000 Stephen Hawkings!!) will live. A massive portion of the world's population still lives in poverty and is famished. Providing them with basic food and clean water will do much more to ensure survival of those future geniuses than stopping animal testing. Also, for example, Negroponte's Laptop program will help to bring out those vanguards of the future.. simply because those children are more desperate and truly understand the nature of suffering than we in the west will ever.
All of that to say that animal testing has absolutely nothing to do with making more eggheads.
I agree, leave it to MIT to keep it out of the hands of men with small penises, and in dire need of extension or hardening technology.
I think this technology, and similar future software will be incredibly instrumental in building that futuristic world we like to depict in Sci-Fi shows; everything from doors that seal completely, to intelligent materials that can be reused or reconfigured over and over again for many purposes.
Maybe even materials that are more lossless when it comes to recycling....
You said:
millions of diabetes sufferers worldwide are alive because of some animal testing. Find me some fucking statistic disproving that tidbit.
That's like saying:
People can get around because of greenhouse-gas-causing oil! Find me some fucking statistic disproving that tidbit.
Who cares about the historical use of oil to get around. We know that pollution from oil kills the elderly, and lots of other very very bad things. I don't need to prove a point about history.. I assume that's already known to you.
My point is that there are likely other more effective models, methodologies, technologies that can be used in medical research. We don't need more future animal research (since it's clearly never resulted in a real cure for any ailment).
I don't have an opinion on stem cell research, but clearly with recent news, scientist already have a number of leads that will not require aborting fetuses. Bush is an idiot, but he was instrumental in proving that things can be done differently if one has no other choice. Science is supposed to be about innovation, not stagnating with the same old ideas----even in the face of little success. Science right now, is feeding on itself. A lot of the money that goes into research is wasted.. going in to researcher pockets. The cost of everything is going up, and you have competing private labs that don't seem to really get anywhere.. or they are taking their sweet old time (i.e. expect half a century before we see anything of substance).
If you really believe your loved one deserves a cure, force the labs to work together, abolish patents, copyrights, NDAs, etc. so that scienctists really are working for the people, eliminating already visited dead ends, using/developing advanced information processing of gobs and gobs of medical data, diverting our ubergeeks away from unpaid overtime on game consoles and instead to worthwile medically relevant computational/hardware challenges, etc. etc.
Animal testing is just a red herring for the sustainable financing of research labs/equipment that are likely going to be used for more important ailments, like limp (yet purportedly erect) penises.
Yeah, you can always contribute your money, oh I don't know, to your kid's (if you have any) education, soup kitchens, women's shelters, hurricane relief, etc. . You know, selfless sort of stuff.
Keep in mind that billions upon billions have been wasted. Yet, they are still able to work with unsuspecting Moms, kids, seniors etc, (taking advantage of the fact that they have lost loved ones to some ailment) to make from-the-heart emotional pleas for money through ads. These ads tend to have messages indicating that "it will help" to make the cure possible "soon". And they tend to have a grassroots flare about them that makes it even more attractive to prospective donors (that "we" are going to bring about the cure).
But the only thing it cures is Researcher John Doe's craving for a better High Definition TV.
Hi He-man,
I consider your response above stupid. And you are an animal. And you argue that meat eaters should be able to eat "stupid animals". Are you suggesting that human carnivores should feel free to eat YOU ? I'm for it if it reduces non-human animal cruelty and stupidity at the same time.
Believe it or not, the number of vegetarians on the planet probably number in the high hundreds of millions. kudos to them for helping to protect the planet (whether by religion or conscious) from stupid folks who don't care about resource depletion
I don't think people who eat meat are cruel. Because I know that if the vast majority of them saw the source of their food (some species with real fear in them) before they were killed, they would switch (to pseudo-quote former Cattle Rancher Howard Lyman).
By the way, I've never taken any medicines (not because I didn't want to), but because I've never had to. I don't know if that's because I'm vegan or not, but you must be one sick puppy to seem to be dependent on medicines so badly. Sick puppy eh, that might explain why you really need them to be tested on puppies first.
Dear Tumor-infested rodent,
- in-sheeps-clothing.html
;-)
quoting Wikipedia on political issues? Bwa Ha ha, no wonder you're lost. I won't even go into why that's dumb. Go ask your elementary/high-school teacher.
On your second source, look here, Tool:
http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com/2005/04/lobbyists
Your second source, is funded by powerful corporations who don't want social scruples (boycott experts) getting in the way of their profits. Similar to the group that went on Drudge and stated that Michael Moore had Halliburton stocks. Wonder why that story went away? Because it was bullcrap!
I can understand your swearing: when you feel like you can't build a logical argument, swearing makes dumber people think you're smart. I'm sorry for your mother, but to use your mother to minimize the utility of this research to other Diabetese sufferers is somewhat low (and sympathy-seeking). I sure hope that type 1/3 people don't go about reading research papers without consulting the appropriate experts (like you assume they might do). I am opposed to violence. But you gotta expect it when oppression takes place of any kind. I doubt that direct action animal rights activists are criminally insane (for the most part)---at least no more than the founding fathers of the U.S.A. (especially when these activists have not killed anyone!). So any argument presented against these types of individuals is hypocritical and as gooey as oatmeal.
Yes well all animals should be respected. That is the only way we can be the most moral animal. And yes, I do care a lot about humans when I know that many of their ailments are heavily mitigated by cruelty free diets. Instead, a lot of humans hand their money over to little kids (who are shamelessly fooled into thinking they are doing the right thing) collecting for medical charities. For all the minimal good animal research has done, that money is effectively being pushed up into some researcher's wallet. Get the facts here: http://www.pcrm.org/
I agree, if anyone is to respect the founding fathers, then I am free to respect animal rights activists whose philosophy of no-cruelty to animals probably will do us better practically than this doctor's research will have ever done. In fact, animal medical research has hardly done anything for us give the decades of experiments and tens of thousands of researchers wasting your charity drive money. See this article on fighting Diabetes as an example: http://www.pcrm.org/news/release060727.html
For more info: http://www.pcrm.org/ Thank you for mentioning Diabetes to prove my point: did you know that a major study released recently showed that Diabetes can be combatted greatly by eating a vegan diet (completely animal/cruelty free diet) ? http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?ne wsid=49091 .
Clearly you have friends stuck in an animal lab somewhere working really hard
to push pills in an effort to up the bottom line.
All you're doing is pressing propaganda for your industry which seems to have
endless drives to get money from the public...to no avail! Over and over again.
One would imagine that decades of animal testing, and tens of thousands of
white-coated "professionals" would have achieved at least one cure or healing method for
one major ailment by now. It certainly has helped the wallets of pharmaceuticals,
researchers, etc. but that is not what we're looking for.
But no, now you're going to make a silly argument that there's a specific path
to a cure that only eggheads like you can fill. Give me a break. Going to university
doesn't make you an expert. It helps you work for powerful companies that will pay
you big bucks to endlessly make the shareholders think you are making strides when you're just buying
nicer cars, stereos, and having more luxurious vacations. This is the case for the
vast majority of those of us who have worked for large corporations in practically ANY
field.
Information technology is and will be the way to real cures...with perhaps some
advances in biology which will allow us to use/generate human tissue.
If animal labs had glass walls, public opinion would have stopped our dear doctor from
continuing his research anyway.
Did your mom wash out your mouth yet? really it's not possible to do direct action easily these days. That was the stuff of 80s TV films/shows. I am not suprised at all that they go to these lengths. In any animal rights movement you'll get people who will be sufficiently enraged at the caging, maming, abusing, skinning, and psychological trauma induced on animals----enough to take matters into their own hands. Anyway, the Researcher made the right decision in my opinion. Real breakthroughs will come out of advances in: stats, number crunching, gathering of massive amounts of data from said stats, etc. Animal models just don't work (remember those UK dudes with the sudden onset of elephant man after taking drugs that worked mighty fine on animals? We need less elephant men and more elephants
The conservatives are heavily aligned with warmongering, and talk of collateral damage like they're renovation oopsies. Sounds to me like conservatives are more terrorist in their scope than a couple of folks with placards who have not killed anyone as of yet. In fact conservative fundamentalists are the ones who kill abortion doctors and cheer them on.
Here here. This topic is attracting a lot of elitist eggheads who are interested in taking on "that mediocre laptop project". Maybe they should get back to playing on their game consoles. This topic is not for children. Ahem, I mean children pretending to be adults. It's meant for real, impoverished children who will get a lot more stimulation/education from these laptops than western, whining kids playing yet another fancy game to get over their obese boredome. If you don't have something constructive to say or do, then clam up and get back to daydreaming about getting a hot girlfriend in place of your sex toy.
Hmmm, I know how: all of the thousands (if not 10s of thousands) of 3rd world hackers-to-be who just hate
"developed world" privileged hackers who like picking on the kid who's living on $43/year
might just get mad and learn how to break into Mr. Privileged hacker's computer and invent
their own nasty worms, viruses and other critters. Education always emerges from a challenge.
We really don't know the health impact of having our homes and offices densely
packed with wireless transmitters/receivers. I suspect that many geeks probably have
an orgasmic feeling when they say "look Ma, no hands". I won't comment on the Freudian implications.
But if Ma developes a tumor one day, it's all too easy to rule out wireless technologies
since the latest industry-sponsored study (or researcher too scared to be blunt, so s/he perpetually concludes that "more research is needed") will indicate that they are safe.
Even while we sleep, the wireless companies are devising new candy to aggressively inundate us with wireless tech so that even if it were found to be unsafe in the longterm, as Bush would say, it would collapse the economy to look for better alternatives or turn back.
thanks!
Ok, so you don't mind keeping your network open,
and taking up resources,so long as you can
laugh at the idea that someone (who you never see)
might be seeing the internet upside down (and
will have a laugh themselves).
You're probably making their day. How nice of you.
Sorry the link was incorrect. It should be: http://www.calphysics.org/articles/CP93.pdf
Here's his response: All of his discussion about the Casimir Effect not being a recyclable effect is true. Below is where he goes off the track. The vacuum ZPE is not a "heat reservoir." The subtleties are clearly spelled out in our paper (Cole & Puthoff). [ trelayne: Once again for your convenience: http://www.earthtech.org/publications/JBIS_55_137- 144.pdf ]
> "It is impossible to produce work in
> the surroundings using a cyclic process connected to a single heat
> reservoir," and that is exactly what such a device does if the device
> itself does not change its state and it is only in contact externally
> with the vacuum of free space.
As usual, the fault is in the assumption. His assumption is that the vacuum is a fixed state, cannot decay, etc.. (1) Some years ago even Scientific American magazine had a nice article on decay of the vacuum. (2) Standard GR points out that in an expanding universe vacuum energy density remains constant (that's why it is Lorentz-invariant), but vacuum energy increases with expansion.