Funny you should say that, which leads to the obvious question, why is sleep a universal human behavior? According to you, humans don't sleep, but even limited observation suggests otherwise.
No, it would seem just the opposite. Take time off to pass no judgments until you have been able to think things through by not distracting essential components of your "subconscious" brain by your "conscious" brain.
after that its the insertion of commercials every thirty seconds into every track, with electric shocks and jail time for those who attempt to turn off the device.
new laws that permit the RIAA to torture those who brake the DMCA. Simple water-boarding and asset seizures are not enough. Clearly, it must be televised live and involve the tearing of flesh. As we heat up the rhetoric about the Iranians, clearly the country is ready for this.
This sort of gives a pretty good look at the kind of governor Meg Whitman plans to be. Spend money to manufacture public opinion so tax cuts for the wealthy are the only agenda item of concern to the states. No wonder she is so eager to repeal child labor laws and raise eBay prices next year by 30%. She will have to cover her costs.
It isn't so much that republicans impeccable credentials as fiscally conservatives as it is that they have the luxury of spending extra money on bloggers and lobbyists that the passing the cost on to unsuspecting consumers and tea-party ideologues, who simply can't admit to themselves that they are enriching Glen Beck and Ruppert Murdoch at their own expense. When Beck and Murdoch dump them for the establishment choices next fall will anyone really be surprised. Most will actually be happy with that result as it feeds their conspiracy fantasies.
Lets bring back the Bush presidency of borrow and spend. America needs a refresher course.
if some are correct and developmental channeling that leads all cells from being "stem cells" to becoming differentiated can be reversed to some degree given the proper manipulations, then all cells have this "potential". Consequently, anything that leads to any kind of cell death is "taking a potential life". Just brushing your teeth would makes you guilty of murder by your version of morality. Granting cells "rights" because of their potential leads to all sorts of absurdities. If not, then it is my right to sue the government for not having you arrested for brushing your teeth. After all, you are killing diploid cells when you do so.
Funny you don't mention the 4,000,000 barrels of carcinogen-causing oil or millions of gallons of corexit that were recently dumped into the Gulf of Mexico. Where is the moral outrage about that and all the "as yet unborn" who will be affected for decades to come? Far more than have been generated in "rogue" stem cell labs?
How can you profess morality, when you are so willing to distort reality to make your "moral" point?
clearly it should be done as it saves lives and heal the sick and the dying.
Those folks who cry moral outrage are simply hypocritical, as they routinely ignore the tens of thousands of lives that are lost each year due to just their failure to demand greater enforcement of auto, food, workplace safety laws (not to mention foreign policy related to preemptive war) with a fervor equal to that surrounding their "moral defense" of "unborn" diploid cells. To argue otherwise, is to simply bear false witness and unwittingly accept eternal damnation for using a broken moral compass.
all cells were stem cells at some point in their development. Sadly, the law does not make the distinction, which is really only one of timing and consequences of intracellular development. The law makes it illegal to conduct research on cells that are diploid. Since all cells, except for unfertilized reproductive cells that are haploid, as written it effectively bans all government research that might lead to the death of a diploid cel. Ironically, the ruling can now be used to probably halt any military research, since during the course of such research a government researcher is almost certainly likely to cough, over exert themselves, urinate, defecate, eat (causing death of cells in the wall of the gut because of shear forces generated by food).
It won't be long before lawyers and politicians begin to apply this logic in earnest to challenge anything a government official does, as just talking can lead to the death of muscle cells in the vocal cords.
It would be a delicious irony if this judge's logic is allowed to stand and pro-choice democrats could force anti-abortion republicans to filibuster a proposed change of the law and then arrest them when they get hoarse for violating the very law that they will be trying to protect with their filibuster. For those seeking an end to the filibuster, this ruling is a godsend.
Human erythrocytes are probably a poor example, since they loose their nucleus during development making them neither diploid or haploid. The basis of this judge's ruling is that a diploid cell was created and hence a life was "taken" when a diploid cell is destroyed. Unfortunately, nearly all cells in the body are diploid, except for unfertilized reproductive cells, and consequently the ruling can, if taken to is logical extension, make it a crime to do anything that might constitute research leading to the destruction of diploid cells. Since nearly every human activity involves the death of diploid cells, if it is allowed to stand this ruling virtually bans all human activity by any federal employee.
Looks like time to round up politicians for their capitol crimes.
Its ironic, but because masturbation largely involves haploid cells, by the logic of this judge's ruling, it would be one of the few things you could do that would be legal, since it doesn't involve the death of diploid cells. However, should you engage in it too vigorously, you might wind up killing a few muscle cells in your arm and that would be a capitol crime under this law, since it resulted in the death of diploid cells. In fact, breathing or coughing could be also regarded as punishable,since both ultimately result in the death of diploid lung cells. It would probably be best to go ahead and arrest you now, before you kill again.
And just why do your moral concerns outweigh the rights of others to live longer, healthier lives? Why must die sooner and suffer medical problems to fit your vision of "morality"? Is that even a moral stance? Sounds immoral to me.
Ironically, Obama was just slightly modifying Bush's own policy regarding the latter stages of the disposition of these otherwise already discarded stem cells not the fundamental nature of the research. He really only changed the effective number of stem-lines to be made available for such research.
All the ruling really means is that the future of stem-cell related medicine will be conducted outside of the United States or by private companies, where the political stability of laws surrounding the economies of such research are not so readily influenced by political whims. Since the ability of US firms to borrow money is now greatly curtailed, foreign interests have successfully used religious extremism and US partisan politics to bar the US from participating in yet another branch of science. The attack on science in the US is alive and well and increasingly undermining America's long term economic security by unnecessarily encumbering its ability to provide leadership in science and technology, which must be maintained if the US is to dig itself out of the economic hole generated by George Bush and like-minded citizens.
From a legal perspective the ruling is particularly troubling since it interprets embryos to be equivalent to diploid cells. Since all cells are diploid, except for (unfertilized) reproductive cells, taken to its logical extension, this ruling can be used to ban all medical procedures that might result in cell death of any kind for whatever reason. That means outlawing everything from surgery, to radiation therapy, to most drug treatments, to brushing your teeth or to even getting an enema. The notion that someone should go to jail for brushing their teeth is absurd. Its bad enough that soon most US citizens will be unable to get health care because it is too expensive, but soon they will also need to travel abroad for treatments other than by republican witch doctors. I don't understand the mentality of those who don't want people to be healthy because it offends their religious beliefs.
The research is conducted on stem-cells, not embryos. To argue that stem-cells are embryos means that you and everyone else is guilty of killing babies ever time one of your stem-cells dies (ceases to be a stem-cell), which is probably once or twice a day or much more frequently, if you are an infant. If all human cells that are temporarily diploid are now to be legally treated as embryos, we might all as well step into our prison cells now and stay there for life as just brushing your teeth is now a capital crime.
By this judges reasoning everyone will be guilty of violating federal guidelines every time one of their stem-cells dies, probably a few times a day at least. Now the judge has provided Obama a legal basis to rounding up his political opponents. That should really "scare white people". Time arrest Ruppert Murdoch. One look at him and its obvious he has been shedding stem cells for quite some time.
These kinds of scanning do not use x-rays, rather monochromatic red light (primarily for eye-safety). They work by imaging the light by a red laser using a digital camera and transforming a 2D plane into a 3D object (surface) by reconstructing multiple views. The problem using these scanners is not that people would suffer harm from the beam, unless they looked directly into the laser, rather problems would come from artifacts produced by hair, clothing, etc that would mask the shape of the face and body, as well as artifacts that are generated because some artifacts are specular (produce reflections or glare). People would probably have to disrobe and be painted so that these artifacts could be minimized. It is one thing to image a bottle, golf club, or statue and another to image a moving person, who perhaps is sweating because of the trauma of being scanned. It would also require enormous databases and storage that can be rapidly searched for the "best match" against a list of "known" terrorists.
Basically for this to work, you would essentially need to be able to discriminate among terrorists and non-terrorists before you scanned them. Otherwise, you would have no way of determining if the scan you got is that of a terrorist or some poor sap, who "looks like one". Having had some experience with single-plane-structure light range devices, I have my doubts as to whether one could train such systems effectively based solely on scans captured surreptitiously or even in relatively controlled environments such as airports or doctor's offices, for a variety of fairly obvious reasons. Terrorists would probably blow themselves up before they willingly submitted being entered into a database and the number of false positives would probably render their use politically unpalatable, which is not to say that either our military should not look into the technology or that we will likely spend a huge amount of money proving that essentially the technology won't work. Most remember how star-wars laser beams were going to zap enemy ICBMs in the sky? They have proved not only incapable, except in the most manipulated of tests, but now theoretically probably impossible over any significant distance. Laser scanners are likely to fall into the "great hype" but impractical category, but of course that won't stop folks from trying to make some money on the taxpayer's dime.
I agree. Kids who can't cut it should be forced into the labor market after the 3rd grade. If we get rid of child labor laws we wouldn't need all those bad teachers and students would have an incentive to learn or else. Vote GOP and end child labor laws.
Why do I sometimes get the feeling that those so vehemently critical of teachers are showing a resentment for not having learned enough in school?
Why do we have substandard teachers? Maybe because America has become too poor to pay for better ones. You get what you pay for. At least they don't cost anywhere near health insurance, supporting CEO's in the life they have grown accustomed, or military contractors. Compared to them, bad teachers are a bargain, not to mention what a poor education does for FOX News audience ratings. After all who needs math teachers, when we have Karl Rove.
I agree. Teachers Unions should be demanding that software engineers who produce lousy educational testing software that proves ineffective at improving children's test scores should be either fired or have their salaries docked. Its time for EVERYONE be held responsible for the failure of our school systems. If 3rd graders can't make the cut they should be dropped from school and forced into the labor market. Its everyone for themselves now. Vote GOP and make it happen.
I agree vote GOP and bring an end to child labor laws that the Unions fought so hard to end. We wouldn't need all those teachers if the kids were in sweat shops were they belong.
Why does the concept of results based metrics in education only apply to teacher's salaries but not to those of school board administrators, politicians, parents and students?
Slashdot Mirror
"as humans by nature dont do brain downtime."
Funny you should say that, which leads to the obvious question, why is sleep a universal human behavior? According to you, humans don't sleep, but even limited observation suggests otherwise.
No, it would seem just the opposite. Take time off to pass no judgments until you have been able to think things through by not distracting essential components of your "subconscious" brain by your "conscious" brain.
Thats why its called the SCHOOL of hard knocks.
In denial eh?
after that its the insertion of commercials every thirty seconds into every track, with electric shocks and jail time for those who attempt to turn off the device.
new laws that permit the RIAA to torture those who brake the DMCA. Simple water-boarding and asset seizures are not enough. Clearly, it must be televised live and involve the tearing of flesh. As we heat up the rhetoric about the Iranians, clearly the country is ready for this.
This sort of gives a pretty good look at the kind of governor Meg Whitman plans to be. Spend money to manufacture public opinion so tax cuts for the wealthy are the only agenda item of concern to the states. No wonder she is so eager to repeal child labor laws and raise eBay prices next year by 30%. She will have to cover her costs.
It isn't so much that republicans impeccable credentials as fiscally conservatives as it is that they have the luxury of spending extra money on bloggers and lobbyists that the passing the cost on to unsuspecting consumers and tea-party ideologues, who simply can't admit to themselves that they are enriching Glen Beck and Ruppert Murdoch at their own expense. When Beck and Murdoch dump them for the establishment choices next fall will anyone really be surprised. Most will actually be happy with that result as it feeds their conspiracy fantasies.
Lets bring back the Bush presidency of borrow and spend. America needs a refresher course.
if some are correct and developmental channeling that leads all cells from being "stem cells" to becoming differentiated can be reversed to some degree given the proper manipulations, then all cells have this "potential". Consequently, anything that leads to any kind of cell death is "taking a potential life". Just brushing your teeth would makes you guilty of murder by your version of morality. Granting cells "rights" because of their potential leads to all sorts of absurdities. If not, then it is my right to sue the government for not having you arrested for brushing your teeth. After all, you are killing diploid cells when you do so.
Funny you don't mention the 4,000,000 barrels of carcinogen-causing oil or millions of gallons of corexit that were recently dumped into the Gulf of Mexico. Where is the moral outrage about that and all the "as yet unborn" who will be affected for decades to come? Far more than have been generated in "rogue" stem cell labs?
How can you profess morality, when you are so willing to distort reality to make your "moral" point?
clearly it should be done as it saves lives and heal the sick and the dying.
Those folks who cry moral outrage are simply hypocritical, as they routinely ignore the tens of thousands of lives that are lost each year due to just their failure to demand greater enforcement of auto, food, workplace safety laws (not to mention foreign policy related to preemptive war) with a fervor equal to that surrounding their "moral defense" of "unborn" diploid cells. To argue otherwise, is to simply bear false witness and unwittingly accept eternal damnation for using a broken moral compass.
all cells were stem cells at some point in their development. Sadly, the law does not make the distinction, which is really only one of timing and consequences of intracellular development. The law makes it illegal to conduct research on cells that are diploid. Since all cells, except for unfertilized reproductive cells that are haploid, as written it effectively bans all government research that might lead to the death of a diploid cel. Ironically, the ruling can now be used to probably halt any military research, since during the course of such research a government researcher is almost certainly likely to cough, over exert themselves, urinate, defecate, eat (causing death of cells in the wall of the gut because of shear forces generated by food).
It won't be long before lawyers and politicians begin to apply this logic in earnest to challenge anything a government official does, as just talking can lead to the death of muscle cells in the vocal cords.
It would be a delicious irony if this judge's logic is allowed to stand and pro-choice democrats could force anti-abortion republicans to filibuster a proposed change of the law and then arrest them when they get hoarse for violating the very law that they will be trying to protect with their filibuster. For those seeking an end to the filibuster, this ruling is a godsend.
and if your mother had had an abortion, other Americans wouldn't have to suffer your mind-numbing sense of morality.
Human erythrocytes are probably a poor example, since they loose their nucleus during development making them neither diploid or haploid. The basis of this judge's ruling is that a diploid cell was created and hence a life was "taken" when a diploid cell is destroyed. Unfortunately, nearly all cells in the body are diploid, except for unfertilized reproductive cells, and consequently the ruling can, if taken to is logical extension, make it a crime to do anything that might constitute research leading to the destruction of diploid cells. Since nearly every human activity involves the death of diploid cells, if it is allowed to stand this ruling virtually bans all human activity by any federal employee.
Looks like time to round up politicians for their capitol crimes.
Its ironic, but because masturbation largely involves haploid cells, by the logic of this judge's ruling, it would be one of the few things you could do that would be legal, since it doesn't involve the death of diploid cells. However, should you engage in it too vigorously, you might wind up killing a few muscle cells in your arm and that would be a capitol crime under this law, since it resulted in the death of diploid cells. In fact, breathing or coughing could be also regarded as punishable,since both ultimately result in the death of diploid lung cells. It would probably be best to go ahead and arrest you now, before you kill again.
And just why do your moral concerns outweigh the rights of others to live longer, healthier lives? Why must die sooner and suffer medical problems to fit your vision of "morality"? Is that even a moral stance? Sounds immoral to me.
Ironically, Obama was just slightly modifying Bush's own policy regarding the latter stages of the disposition of these otherwise already discarded stem cells not the fundamental nature of the research. He really only changed the effective number of stem-lines to be made available for such research.
All the ruling really means is that the future of stem-cell related medicine will be conducted outside of the United States or by private companies, where the political stability of laws surrounding the economies of such research are not so readily influenced by political whims. Since the ability of US firms to borrow money is now greatly curtailed, foreign interests have successfully used religious extremism and US partisan politics to bar the US from participating in yet another branch of science. The attack on science in the US is alive and well and increasingly undermining America's long term economic security by unnecessarily encumbering its ability to provide leadership in science and technology, which must be maintained if the US is to dig itself out of the economic hole generated by George Bush and like-minded citizens.
From a legal perspective the ruling is particularly troubling since it interprets embryos to be equivalent to diploid cells. Since all cells are diploid, except for (unfertilized) reproductive cells, taken to its logical extension, this ruling can be used to ban all medical procedures that might result in cell death of any kind for whatever reason. That means outlawing everything from surgery, to radiation therapy, to most drug treatments, to brushing your teeth or to even getting an enema. The notion that someone should go to jail for brushing their teeth is absurd. Its bad enough that soon most US citizens will be unable to get health care because it is too expensive, but soon they will also need to travel abroad for treatments other than by republican witch doctors. I don't understand the mentality of those who don't want people to be healthy because it offends their religious beliefs.
The research is conducted on stem-cells, not embryos. To argue that stem-cells are embryos means that you and everyone else is guilty of killing babies ever time one of your stem-cells dies (ceases to be a stem-cell), which is probably once or twice a day or much more frequently, if you are an infant. If all human cells that are temporarily diploid are now to be legally treated as embryos, we might all as well step into our prison cells now and stay there for life as just brushing your teeth is now a capital crime.
By this judges reasoning everyone will be guilty of violating federal guidelines every time one of their stem-cells dies, probably a few times a day at least. Now the judge has provided Obama a legal basis to rounding up his political opponents. That should really "scare white people". Time arrest Ruppert Murdoch. One look at him and its obvious he has been shedding stem cells for quite some time.
These kinds of scanning do not use x-rays, rather monochromatic red light (primarily for eye-safety). They work by imaging the light by a red laser using a digital camera and transforming a 2D plane into a 3D object (surface) by reconstructing multiple views. The problem using these scanners is not that people would suffer harm from the beam, unless they looked directly into the laser, rather problems would come from artifacts produced by hair, clothing, etc that would mask the shape of the face and body, as well as artifacts that are generated because some artifacts are specular (produce reflections or glare). People would probably have to disrobe and be painted so that these artifacts could be minimized. It is one thing to image a bottle, golf club, or statue and another to image a moving person, who perhaps is sweating because of the trauma of being scanned. It would also require enormous databases and storage that can be rapidly searched for the "best match" against a list of "known" terrorists.
Basically for this to work, you would essentially need to be able to discriminate among terrorists and non-terrorists before you scanned them. Otherwise, you would have no way of determining if the scan you got is that of a terrorist or some poor sap, who "looks like one". Having had some experience with single-plane-structure light range devices, I have my doubts as to whether one could train such systems effectively based solely on scans captured surreptitiously or even in relatively controlled environments such as airports or doctor's offices, for a variety of fairly obvious reasons. Terrorists would probably blow themselves up before they willingly submitted being entered into a database and the number of false positives would probably render their use politically unpalatable, which is not to say that either our military should not look into the technology or that we will likely spend a huge amount of money proving that essentially the technology won't work. Most remember how star-wars laser beams were going to zap enemy ICBMs in the sky? They have proved not only incapable, except in the most manipulated of tests, but now theoretically probably impossible over any significant distance. Laser scanners are likely to fall into the "great hype" but impractical category, but of course that won't stop folks from trying to make some money on the taxpayer's dime.
I agree. Kids who can't cut it should be forced into the labor market after the 3rd grade. If we get rid of child labor laws we wouldn't need all those bad teachers and students would have an incentive to learn or else. Vote GOP and end child labor laws.
Why do I sometimes get the feeling that those so vehemently critical of teachers are showing a resentment for not having learned enough in school?
Why do we have substandard teachers? Maybe because America has become too poor to pay for better ones. You get what you pay for. At least they don't cost anywhere near health insurance, supporting CEO's in the life they have grown accustomed, or military contractors. Compared to them, bad teachers are a bargain, not to mention what a poor education does for FOX News audience ratings. After all who needs math teachers, when we have Karl Rove.
I agree. Teachers Unions should be demanding that software engineers who produce lousy educational testing software that proves ineffective at improving children's test scores should be either fired or have their salaries docked. Its time for EVERYONE be held responsible for the failure of our school systems. If 3rd graders can't make the cut they should be dropped from school and forced into the labor market. Its everyone for themselves now. Vote GOP and make it happen.
I agree vote GOP and bring an end to child labor laws that the Unions fought so hard to end. We wouldn't need all those teachers if the kids were in sweat shops were they belong.
Why does the concept of results based metrics in education only apply to teacher's salaries but not to those of school board administrators, politicians, parents and students?