...[A]s the body is damaged by everyday wear, aging, improper diet, contact with substances known to damage the body, such as tobacco or toxic chemicals, etc., the body begins to heal itself with cells, to some extent, made up of [stem] cells. Under normal conditions, when the healing is complete, the immune system "turns off" the [stem] cells and stops what would otherwise be an overgrowth of these cells -- a condition we would label cancer -- by the use of pancreatic enzymes.
One of these days, the stem cell theory and the enzyme theory are going to run into each other.
Yes, it is an oversimplification, but the tissue -- which does contains stem cells -- that starts out as cancer is trying to do its normal bodily repair functions, and after it has done its job, the body turns this repair job off with enzymes. But if the body is stressed out, not working right, or impaired for some reason, and one of the two functions - the repairing process or the stopping it part -- malfunction, you get cancer.
Because what is going on is supposed to be going on, just way out of whack, the body's immune system doesn't see cancer as a threat and can't stop it. However, what will stop it is exactly what is supposed to stop it, enzymes.
I have studied this for many years and I'm convinced that the people attacking cancer from the stem cell side or the enzyme side (or both) are the ones that are going to "cure" cancer. In fact, there are some people that have already had extremely good results with enzymes, but it is a true battle to make even small changes in main-stream cancer treatments.
And what was Beard's Trophoblastic Thesis Of Cancer?
The trophoblast thesis championed by John Beard maintains that, as the body is damaged by everyday wear, aging, improper diet, contact with substances known to damage the body, such as tobacco or toxic chemicals, etc., the body begins to heal itself with cells, to some extent, made up of trophoblast cells. Under normal conditions, when the healing is complete, the immune system "turns off" the trophoblast cells and stops what would otherwise be an overgrowth of these cells -- a condition we would label cancer -- by the use of pancreatic enzymes.
This lead some to say that cancer, rather than being an invasion of mutated cells, was more correctly an "over-healing" situation in the body (admittedly, that is an oversimplification). But there are many that think this is one reason why cancer so easily evades the immune system, which would under normal conditions kill off anything foreign to the body fairly quickly...
Radical researchers are onto a controversial idea for stopping cancer: go after stem cells
Peter Dirks uses a talented pair of hands to cut cancer out of the brains of sick children. But no matter how brilliantly he performs, he rarely is able to stop cancer's return; sometimes the tumors come roaring back just months after he excises all visible signs of disease.
This inevitability--of children dying in the face of his best attempts to heal them--got to him. "It broke my heart that we couldn't do more for them," says Dirks, a surgeon-scientist at the University of Toronto-affiliated Hospital for Sick Children. So in desperation he set out six years ago to pursue a radical new theory of what truly fuels cancer's growth, one that might unlock new therapies and explain why today's treatments often provide only fleeting help.
His concept was so fringy that government agencies repeatedly rejected his grant proposals. Parents of several of his patients kept the research going by donating $100,000 to his efforts; one of the couples even took up a collection at their child's funeral. But this fall Dirks reported a breakthrough that could dramatically alter our understanding of how cancer grows. His revelation, which could take a decade or more to take hold, is the latest in a string of findings that may one day uncloak the key triggers of many different kinds of cancer.
Scientists have long assumed that all of the dozens of kinds of cells inside a tumor are created equal--and are equally deadly, capable of spreading elsewhere in the body to create a totally new tumor. So they focus on chemotherapy that kills as many cancer cells as possible.
Dirks and a handful of other mavericks argue that this indiscriminate approach is wrongheaded. They believe a single type of cell may be cancer's main growth engine:mutant stem cells that, though barely present, spawn other cells that then spark growth. "This has profound implications," says researcher Thomas Look of Boston's Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. "The major cells you see under a microscope may not be the ones you need to kill in order to cure the disease." He adds that the theory "is definitely still very controversial" in some quarters.
Figure out a way to isolate these mutant cells and target only them, Dirks says, and maybe cancer can be stopped outright--and the kids he treats might stop dying so soon after he operates.
These mutant stem cells already have been found in breast cancer, two types of leukemia and multiple myeloma. This fall Dirks and six scientists at the University of Toronto proved the existence of the cells in human brain tumors, pinpointing a small group of cells believed to be the driver of the tumors' growth. "In every brain tumor we have looked at, in both adults and kids, we are able to find these cells," Dirks says.
When the researchers implanted just a couple hundred of these cells into mice, they developed huge tumors and often died within weeks. Other brain cancer cells, by contrast, were incapable of forming new tumors, no matter how many were injected into the mice, Dirks wrote last month in the journal Nature. The more stem cells present, the more virulently the tumor grows:They account for 1 in 4 cells in a glioblastoma tumor, the deadliest type of brain cancer, but only 1 in 500 cells in slower-growing forms of brain cancer, Dirks found.
Some researchers predict that stem cells eventually will be found in most major types of cancer. "It will completely change the search for new treatments and the way we think about the disease," says Irving Weissman, a renowned stem cell expert at Stanford University, who says several big drug firms have taken an interest in the latest findings.
I think we should give credit where credit is due:
The Trophoblast Thesis Of Cancer
"In 1902, John Beard, a professor of embryology at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, authored a paper published in the British medical journal Lancet in which he stated there were no differences between cancer cells and certain pre-embryonic cells that were normal to the early stages of pregnancy,"
Note that we know in mice that blastomeres, put in the right environment, will multiply, organize and create trophoblastic cells (Many of the more promising lines of stem cells have been derived from blastocysts).
It is pretty uncanny that Beard nailed it pretty darn close in 1902, and he probably concluded that it was trophobastic cells because they couldn't get any deeper than that at the time.
There is a project to help solve this problem. It is called the Universal Virtual Computer (UVC), and it aims to offer: The UVC concept consists of the UVC itself, a logical data scheme with type description, the UVC program (format decoder) and the logical data viewer.
With the UVC it is possible to read files without adapting them and without the original hardware or software. JPEG images can now be viewed independent of changes in technology. Afterwards, the method was extended for GIF images as well. The UVC project took place between September 2003 and April 2004.
If you search google, there is a lot of information on this project...and it seems I heard about it on Slashdot.
False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them.
Of course, to give credit, that came from:
10 Big Myths about copyright explained http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyth s.html
Does something go into public domain just because
it is posted somewhere for free (example: Usenet):
False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain
anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*).
Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I
grant this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very much like
them.
See Also: Out of Germany, but even someone like D-Link couldn't shake the GPL:
"The GPL
Violations Project, based in Germany, have won (subject to appeal)
a court case against D-Link, who had allegedly
distributed parts of the Linux kernel in a product in a way which
contravened the GPL. D-Link had claimed that the GPL was not 'legally binding'
but have now agreed to cease and desist, and refrain from distributing the
infringing product, a network attached storage device. Expenses, including legal
expenses, were received by the plaintiffs; they did not request any damages,
consistent with their policy.
They have previously won a number of out of court settlements against other
companies. Slashdot has previously
mentioned the GPL Violations Project."
TXU is supposed to deploy broadband over its power lines to 70 percent of its system. Why not just figure out a way to use this to see where the power went out. Put some devices at specific points that can be pinged, or make it a routed network and use traceroute to see how many routers it goes through. When the stuff that is supposed to be working, isn't, that is where the problem is.
The plus side is, they can fire a bunch of meter readers, have the above troubleshooting added...and they can sell the service and make the customers pay for it all!
If you know a person is good, vote for him regardless of which party he or she is in. If you don't know, vote Libertarian. If there is no Libertarian, don't vote (or vote for another third party on the ballot with which you agree, if there is one).
The country goes the same direction no matter which party is in control. As it is sometimes said, both parties are running a train toward a cliff, it is just that one party wants to go off the cliff a litter faster than the other party. I don't want to go off the cliff fast or slow, so I'm not going to vote for either one of them (unless there is someone really good running, like a Ron Paul Republican).
However, a vote for a third party, such as the Libertarians, sends a much more powerful message than not voting.
Maybe I'm getting sick from natural causes and this food is just a factor in it. Maybe this food is killing me." Would you still have that blasé approach after someone told you that there was poison in it?
Point taken. Now let me ask this. Suppose throughout recorded history, there was records of dramatic shifts in the toxicity of a certain food. And this certain food suddenly started making people sick again. Would it make it automatically true if someone told you that this food shifted from edible to toxic again because of something man did to alter its growing conditions? What if there were other very reputable people who researched the food and found that the change was simply a phase the food item went through, and that man had nothing to do with its sudden toxicity. Now say, in this hypothetical case, there was evidence that the food was toxic at a point in history when it is quite obvious that man had nothing to do with its growing conditions. Would it automatically make the person a fool to point this out?
I'm NOT saying this is the case, but there are certainly cases in our history where those in charge of doing the "telling" were wrong.
The USA sweated this year through its hottest summer in 70 years, with temperatures not seen since the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, according to a government report.
From June 1 to Aug. 31, as summer is defined by the National Climatic Data Center, the continental USA had an average temperature of 74.5 degrees, based on readings from hundreds of weather stations nationwide. It was the second-hottest summer temperature the government has recorded since it started keeping track in 1895. The only one warmer -- by about two-tenths of a degree -- was in 1936.
Ok, seriously, what made it so hot back in 1936? Was it just a natural occurrence, or was it man made way back then?
Ok, so...there have been past dramatic climate changes on the earth that have happend and were certainly not caused by humans.
I think an open minded person would have to say there are only two or three ways to go here. It is getting hotter, as it has done in the past, and people aren't causing it. It is getting hotter and people are the cause of it. It is getting hotter and it partly a normal cycle of the earth, and people do play some part in it, as well.
Given that the earth has had dramatic climate changes well before people could have possibly had anything to do with it...why is that anyone who believes this could be the case here must be some type of moronic fool?
I don't know about patenting "look and feel," but Lotus knocked out some 123 clones using "Look and Feel" and copyright law. In fact, the 123 clone I learned on in college was one of the first to bite the dust in a "look and feel" lawsuit. I still have a copy of that program somewhere, probably. It looks like, though, later on, this got reversed. From Wikipedia:
Lotus 1-2-3 inspired imitators, the first of which was Mosaic Software's "The Twin", written in the fall of 1985, followed by VP-Planner, which was backed by Adam Osborne. Copyright law had first been understood to only cover the source code of a program. After the success of lawsuits which claimed that the very "look and feel" of a program were protected, Lotus sought to ban any program which had a compatible command and menu structure. Program commands had not been considered to be protected before, but the commands of 1-2-3 were embedded in the words of the menu displayed on the screen. 1-2-3 won its case against Mosaic Software. However when they sued Borland over its Quattro Pro spreadsheet, the courts ruled that it was not a copyright violation to merely have a compatible command menu or language. In 1995, the First Circuit found that command menus are an uncopyrightable "method of operation" under section 102(b) of the Copyright Act. The 1-2-3 menu structure (example, slash File Erase) was itself an advanced version of single letter menus introduced in Visicalc. Letter accelerators are still present in DOS and Windows and some web applications today, and are still often absent in Apple and Unix based applications.
And what was Beard's Trophoblastic Thesis Of Cancer?
The trophoblast thesis championed by John Beard maintains that, as the body is damaged by everyday wear, aging, improper diet, contact with substances known to damage the body, such as tobacco or toxic chemicals, etc., the body begins to heal itself with cells, to some extent, made up of trophoblast cells. Under normal conditions, when the healing is complete, the immune system "turns off" the trophoblast cells and stops what would otherwise be an overgrowth of these cells -- a condition we would label cancer -- by the use of pancreatic enzymes.
This lead some to say that cancer, rather than being an invasion of mutated cells, was more correctly an "over-healing" situation in the body (admittedly, that is an oversimplification). But there are many that think this is one reason why cancer so easily evades the immune system, which would under normal conditions kill off anything foreign to the body fairly quickly...
Radical researchers are onto a controversial idea for stopping cancer: go after stem cells
Peter Dirks uses a talented pair of hands to cut cancer out of the brains of sick children. But no matter how brilliantly he performs, he rarely is able to stop cancer's return; sometimes the tumors come roaring back just months after he excises all visible signs of disease.
This inevitability--of children dying in the face of his best attempts to heal them--got to him. "It broke my heart that we couldn't do more for them," says Dirks, a surgeon-scientist at the University of Toronto-affiliated Hospital for Sick Children. So in desperation he set out six years ago to pursue a radical new theory of what truly fuels cancer's growth, one that might unlock new therapies and explain why today's treatments often provide only fleeting help.
His concept was so fringy that government agencies repeatedly rejected his grant proposals. Parents of several of his patients kept the research going by donating $100,000 to his efforts; one of the couples even took up a collection at their child's funeral. But this fall Dirks reported a breakthrough that could dramatically alter our understanding of how cancer grows. His revelation, which could take a decade or more to take hold, is the latest in a string of findings that may one day uncloak the key triggers of many different kinds of cancer.
Scientists have long assumed that all of the dozens of kinds of cells inside a tumor are created equal--and are equally deadly, capable of spreading elsewhere in the body to create a totally new tumor. So they focus on chemotherapy that kills as many cancer cells as possible.
Dirks and a handful of other mavericks argue that this indiscriminate approach is wrongheaded. They believe a single type of cell may be cancer's main growth engine:mutant stem cells that, though barely present, spawn other cells that then spark growth. "This has profound implications," says researcher Thomas Look of Boston's Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. "The major cells you see under a microscope may not be the ones you need to kill in order to cure the disease." He adds that the theory "is definitely still very controversial" in some quarters.
Figure out a way to isolate these mutant cells and target only them, Dirks says, and maybe cancer can be stopped outright--and the kids he treats might stop dying so soon after he operates.
These mutant stem cells already have been found in breast cancer, two types of leukemia and multiple myeloma. This fall Dirks and six scientists at the University of Toronto proved the existence of the cells in human brain tumors, pinpointing a small group of cells believed to be the driver of the tumors' growth. "In every brain tumor we have looked at, in both adults and kids, we are able to find these cells," Dirks says.
When the researchers implanted just a couple hundred of these cells into mice, they developed huge tumors and often died within weeks. Other brain cancer cells, by contrast, were incapable of forming new tumors, no matter how many were injected into the mice, Dirks wrote last month in the journal Nature. The more stem cells present, the more virulently the tumor grows:They account for 1 in 4 cells in a glioblastoma tumor, the deadliest type of brain cancer, but only 1 in 500 cells in slower-growing forms of brain cancer, Dirks found.
Some researchers predict that stem cells eventually will be found in most major types of cancer. "It will completely change the search for new treatments and the way we think about the disease," says Irving Weissman, a renowned stem cell expert at Stanford University, who says several big drug firms have taken an interest in the latest findings.
I think we should give credit where credit is due:
The Trophoblast Thesis Of Cancer
"In 1902, John Beard, a professor of embryology at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, authored a paper published in the British medical journal Lancet in which he stated there were no differences between cancer cells and certain pre-embryonic cells that were normal to the early stages of pregnancy,"
Note that we know in mice that blastomeres, put in the right environment, will multiply, organize and create trophoblastic cells (Many of the more promising lines of stem cells have been derived from blastocysts).
It is pretty uncanny that Beard nailed it pretty darn close in 1902, and he probably concluded that it was trophobastic cells because they couldn't get any deeper than that at the time.
I agree. We get all bent out of shape about cameras on every corner in England, as we sit here and put cameras on every corner in the US.
We are at the same point England was many years ago. Let me tell you, once there is a camera on every corner here in the US, they will never go away. If we are going to stop it, now is the time.
I live in East Texas. Cameras are here, but not in great mass. Guess what Tyler and Kilgore, Texas are getting, their first red light cameras (but hey, the tickets are only half the price of a ticket given to you by a real officer...for now). I saw it on the news two nights ago.
If we don't rise up as a nation and bitch slap some politicians, we will follow right in England's foot steps.
What we need to do is all get together and say to our leaders, the cameras go, or you go.
How about, instead of treating everyone like a potential criminal, you just treat the criminals like criminals?
For instance, there is already a law against violent acts, in England and the US. If someone gets drunk and does something violent, they could easily be punished under existing laws (and note you just punish them, not everybody. Imagine that).
And I don't know about England, but in the US, it is quite possible to keep someone out of clubs. It is a little thing called probation, and if you break it, they throw you back in jail. And believe me, they take probation violations very seriously, or at least I know the US does.
This is like one of those things where they make a law to be really tough on child murderers, only it is already against the law to murder a child!?!?! (What the hell, were we being easy on them before?).
So in other words, this law serves one of two purposes:
1) Someone wanted to make themselves look good, so they spend time trying to get stupid laws passed...and sometimes succeed.
2) This is yet another law designed to make sure that everyone is a potential criminal, passing so many laws that at any given time, everyone is going to be breaking some law or another. So when they get ready to round everybody up, you have a legal excuse to, because after all, they are criminals.
Let me say that if I could go into a store right now and buy a reasonably priced copy of OX X that would run on a plain PC, I would be running OS X at the moment (Yes, I understand that running on *any* hardware would make OS X less stable, but I would be willing to take the risk...and huge amounts of people would rather pay more for Apple's hardware and stability, and I wish Apple could see that and make us both happy).
But since that isn't going to happen, I'm really considering going to Ubuntu because I think MS is just going insane with Vista.
As the above mention, he doesn't think Ubuntu is too far behind OS X.
I would be interested in hearing others thoughts on this?
Actually, as was pointed out already, the article clearly says merit patch, not badge. According to a person active in the Boy Scouts in the next cubical to me, there is a big difference. This also seems to be general to LA, and not the entire US, too.
It is a little creepy that anyone could know that your grandma just had a medical emergency, but that doesn't mean that the information should be bottled up.
I don't think the issue is that my grandmother's medical emergency should be bottled up. I think the issue is, does my grandmother's medical emergency need to be put up on a web site...in real time.
Yeah, while a terrorist might use the web site, if they didn't have it, I think a terrorist could manage to find, oh, I don't know...a scanner. Maybe they have encryption there, but in Texas, huge amounts of radio traffic is in the clear. And the reason they do that is because we have a large number of volunteer fire departments and a lot of them use radios they bought with money from their own pockets (and radios with encryption are really expensive). So if the scramble the calls, a fair amount of people that need to hear the information wouldn't be able to.
Slashdot Mirror
One of these days, the stem cell theory and the enzyme theory are going to run into each other.
Yes, it is an oversimplification, but the tissue -- which does contains stem cells -- that starts out as cancer is trying to do its normal bodily repair functions, and after it has done its job, the body turns this repair job off with enzymes. But if the body is stressed out, not working right, or impaired for some reason, and one of the two functions - the repairing process or the stopping it part -- malfunction, you get cancer.
Because what is going on is supposed to be going on, just way out of whack, the body's immune system doesn't see cancer as a threat and can't stop it. However, what will stop it is exactly what is supposed to stop it, enzymes.
I have studied this for many years and I'm convinced that the people attacking cancer from the stem cell side or the enzyme side (or both) are the ones that are going to "cure" cancer. In fact, there are some people that have already had extremely good results with enzymes, but it is a true battle to make even small changes in main-stream cancer treatments.
Transporter_ii
And what was Beard's Trophoblastic Thesis Of Cancer?
This lead some to say that cancer, rather than being an invasion of mutated cells, was more correctly an "over-healing" situation in the body (admittedly, that is an oversimplification). But there are many that think this is one reason why cancer so easily evades the immune system, which would under normal conditions kill off anything foreign to the body fairly quickly...
Transporter_ii
[Again, keep in mind that to isolate stem cells, scientists "peel away" the trophoblast.]
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/1227/070.ht ml [forbes.com]
Cancer Killer
Radical researchers are onto a controversial idea for stopping cancer: go after stem cells
Peter Dirks uses a talented pair of hands to cut cancer out of the brains of sick children. But no matter how brilliantly he performs, he rarely is able to stop cancer's return; sometimes the tumors come roaring back just months after he excises all visible signs of disease.
This inevitability--of children dying in the face of his best attempts to heal them--got to him. "It broke my heart that we couldn't do more for them," says Dirks, a surgeon-scientist at the University of Toronto-affiliated Hospital for Sick Children. So in desperation he set out six years ago to pursue a radical new theory of what truly fuels cancer's growth, one that might unlock new therapies and explain why today's treatments often provide only fleeting help.
His concept was so fringy that government agencies repeatedly rejected his grant proposals. Parents of several of his patients kept the research going by donating $100,000 to his efforts; one of the couples even took up a collection at their child's funeral. But this fall Dirks reported a breakthrough that could dramatically alter our understanding of how cancer grows. His revelation, which could take a decade or more to take hold, is the latest in a string of findings that may one day uncloak the key triggers of many different kinds of cancer.
Scientists have long assumed that all of the dozens of kinds of cells inside a tumor are created equal--and are equally deadly, capable of spreading elsewhere in the body to create a totally new tumor. So they focus on chemotherapy that kills as many cancer cells as possible.
Dirks and a handful of other mavericks argue that this indiscriminate approach is wrongheaded. They believe a single type of cell may be cancer's main growth engine:mutant stem cells that, though barely present, spawn other cells that then spark growth. "This has profound implications," says researcher Thomas Look of Boston's Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. "The major cells you see under a microscope may not be the ones you need to kill in order to cure the disease." He adds that the theory "is definitely still very controversial" in some quarters.
Figure out a way to isolate these mutant cells and target only them, Dirks says, and maybe cancer can be stopped outright--and the kids he treats might stop dying so soon after he operates.
These mutant stem cells already have been found in breast cancer, two types of leukemia and multiple myeloma. This fall Dirks and six scientists at the University of Toronto proved the existence of the cells in human brain tumors, pinpointing a small group of cells believed to be the driver of the tumors' growth. "In every brain tumor we have looked at, in both adults and kids, we are able to find these cells," Dirks says.
When the researchers implanted just a couple hundred of these cells into mice, they developed huge tumors and often died within weeks. Other brain cancer cells, by contrast, were incapable of forming new tumors, no matter how many were injected into the mice, Dirks wrote last month in the journal Nature. The more stem cells present, the more virulently the tumor grows:They account for 1 in 4 cells in a glioblastoma tumor, the deadliest type of brain cancer, but only 1 in 500 cells in slower-growing forms of brain cancer, Dirks found.
Some researchers predict that stem cells eventually will be found in most major types of cancer. "It will completely change the search for new treatments and the way we think about the disease," says Irving Weissman, a renowned stem cell expert at Stanford University, who says several big drug firms have taken an interest in the latest findings.
Stem cells are the primitive
I think we should give credit where credit is due:
Note that we know in mice that blastomeres, put in the right environment, will multiply, organize and create trophoblastic cells (Many of the more promising lines of stem cells have been derived from blastocysts).
It is pretty uncanny that Beard nailed it pretty darn close in 1902, and he probably concluded that it was trophobastic cells because they couldn't get any deeper than that at the time.
transporter_ii
There is a project to help solve this problem. It is called the Universal Virtual Computer (UVC), and it aims to offer: The UVC concept consists of the UVC itself, a logical data scheme with type description, the UVC program (format decoder) and the logical data viewer.
http://www.kb.nl/hrd/dd/dd_onderzoek/uvc_voor_imag es-en.html
If you search google, there is a lot of information on this project...and it seems I heard about it on Slashdot.
Transporter_iiOf course, to give credit, that came from:
h s.html
10 Big Myths about copyright explained
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyt
Does something go into public domain just because it is posted somewhere for free (example: Usenet):
."
False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them.
See Also: Out of Germany, but even someone like D-Link couldn't shake the GPL:
"The GPL Violations Project , based in Germany, have won (subject to appeal) a court case against D-Link, who had allegedly distributed parts of the Linux kernel in a product in a way which contravened the GPL. D-Link had claimed that the GPL was not 'legally binding' but have now agreed to cease and desist, and refrain from distributing the infringing product, a network attached storage device. Expenses, including legal expenses, were received by the plaintiffs; they did not request any damages, consistent with their policy . They have previously won a number of out of court settlements against other companies. Slashdot has previously mentioned the GPL Violations Project
TXU is supposed to deploy broadband over its power lines to 70 percent of its system. Why not just figure out a way to use this to see where the power went out. Put some devices at specific points that can be pinged, or make it a routed network and use traceroute to see how many routers it goes through. When the stuff that is supposed to be working, isn't, that is where the problem is.
The plus side is, they can fire a bunch of meter readers, have the above troubleshooting added...and they can sell the service and make the customers pay for it all!
Transporter_ii
If you know a person is good, vote for him regardless of which party he or she is in. If you don't know, vote Libertarian. If there is no Libertarian, don't vote (or vote for another third party on the ballot with which you agree, if there is one).
The country goes the same direction no matter which party is in control. As it is sometimes said, both parties are running a train toward a cliff, it is just that one party wants to go off the cliff a litter faster than the other party. I don't want to go off the cliff fast or slow, so I'm not going to vote for either one of them (unless there is someone really good running, like a Ron Paul Republican).
However, a vote for a third party, such as the Libertarians, sends a much more powerful message than not voting.
Transporter_ii
Point taken. Now let me ask this. Suppose throughout recorded history, there was records of dramatic shifts in the toxicity of a certain food. And this certain food suddenly started making people sick again. Would it make it automatically true if someone told you that this food shifted from edible to toxic again because of something man did to alter its growing conditions? What if there were other very reputable people who researched the food and found that the change was simply a phase the food item went through, and that man had nothing to do with its sudden toxicity. Now say, in this hypothetical case, there was evidence that the food was toxic at a point in history when it is quite obvious that man had nothing to do with its growing conditions. Would it automatically make the person a fool to point this out?
I'm NOT saying this is the case, but there are certainly cases in our history where those in charge of doing the "telling" were wrong.
Ok, seriously, what made it so hot back in 1936? Was it just a natural occurrence, or was it man made way back then?
Transporter_ii
And even if there is, it's not caused by humans!
Ok, so...there have been past dramatic climate changes on the earth that have happend and were certainly not caused by humans.
I think an open minded person would have to say there are only two or three ways to go here. It is getting hotter, as it has done in the past, and people aren't causing it. It is getting hotter and people are the cause of it. It is getting hotter and it partly a normal cycle of the earth, and people do play some part in it, as well.
Given that the earth has had dramatic climate changes well before people could have possibly had anything to do with it...why is that anyone who believes this could be the case here must be some type of moronic fool?
Transporter_ii
I don't know about patenting "look and feel," but Lotus knocked out some 123 clones using "Look and Feel" and copyright law. In fact, the 123 clone I learned on in college was one of the first to bite the dust in a "look and feel" lawsuit. I still have a copy of that program somewhere, probably. It looks like, though, later on, this got reversed. From Wikipedia:
transporter_ii
Why would the majority of Windows users go out and manually download a web browser?
Oh I don't know. Maybe the millions of people who went and downloaded Firefox did it to...be more secure?
But seriously, every time I have to go and get rid of a virus off of a Windows machine, I tell the user to download firefox. Most of them do.
Transporter_ii
And what was Beard's Trophoblastic Thesis Of Cancer?
This lead some to say that cancer, rather than being an invasion of mutated cells, was more correctly an "over-healing" situation in the body (admittedly, that is an oversimplification). But there are many that think this is one reason why cancer so easily evades the immune system, which would under normal conditions kill off anything foreign to the body fairly quickly...
Transporter_ii[Again, keep in mind that to isolate stem cells, scientists "peel away" the trophoblast.]
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/1227/070.ht ml
Cancer Killer
Radical researchers are onto a controversial idea for stopping cancer: go after stem cells
Peter Dirks uses a talented pair of hands to cut cancer out of the brains of sick children. But no matter how brilliantly he performs, he rarely is able to stop cancer's return; sometimes the tumors come roaring back just months after he excises all visible signs of disease.
This inevitability--of children dying in the face of his best attempts to heal them--got to him. "It broke my heart that we couldn't do more for them," says Dirks, a surgeon-scientist at the University of Toronto-affiliated Hospital for Sick Children. So in desperation he set out six years ago to pursue a radical new theory of what truly fuels cancer's growth, one that might unlock new therapies and explain why today's treatments often provide only fleeting help.
His concept was so fringy that government agencies repeatedly rejected his grant proposals. Parents of several of his patients kept the research going by donating $100,000 to his efforts; one of the couples even took up a collection at their child's funeral. But this fall Dirks reported a breakthrough that could dramatically alter our understanding of how cancer grows. His revelation, which could take a decade or more to take hold, is the latest in a string of findings that may one day uncloak the key triggers of many different kinds of cancer.
Scientists have long assumed that all of the dozens of kinds of cells inside a tumor are created equal--and are equally deadly, capable of spreading elsewhere in the body to create a totally new tumor. So they focus on chemotherapy that kills as many cancer cells as possible.
Dirks and a handful of other mavericks argue that this indiscriminate approach is wrongheaded. They believe a single type of cell may be cancer's main growth engine:mutant stem cells that, though barely present, spawn other cells that then spark growth. "This has profound implications," says researcher Thomas Look of Boston's Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. "The major cells you see under a microscope may not be the ones you need to kill in order to cure the disease." He adds that the theory "is definitely still very controversial" in some quarters.
Figure out a way to isolate these mutant cells and target only them, Dirks says, and maybe cancer can be stopped outright--and the kids he treats might stop dying so soon after he operates.
These mutant stem cells already have been found in breast cancer, two types of leukemia and multiple myeloma. This fall Dirks and six scientists at the University of Toronto proved the existence of the cells in human brain tumors, pinpointing a small group of cells believed to be the driver of the tumors' growth. "In every brain tumor we have looked at, in both adults and kids, we are able to find these cells," Dirks says.
When the researchers implanted just a couple hundred of these cells into mice, they developed huge tumors and often died within weeks. Other brain cancer cells, by contrast, were incapable of forming new tumors, no matter how many were injected into the mice, Dirks wrote last month in the journal Nature. The more stem cells present, the more virulently the tumor grows:They account for 1 in 4 cells in a glioblastoma tumor, the deadliest type of brain cancer, but only 1 in 500 cells in slower-growing forms of brain cancer, Dirks found.
Some researchers predict that stem cells eventually will be found in most major types of cancer. "It will completely change the search for new treatments and the way we think about the disease," says Irving Weissman, a renowned stem cell expert at Stanford University, who says several big drug firms have taken an interest in the latest findings.
Stem cells are the primitive master cells
I think we should give credit where credit is due:
Note that we know in mice that blastomeres, put in the right environment, will multiply, organize and create trophoblastic cells (Many of the more promising lines of stem cells have been derived from blastocysts).
It is pretty uncanny that Beard nailed it pretty darn close in 1902, and he probably concluded that it was trophobastic cells because they couldn't get any deeper than that at the time.
transporter_iiI agree. We get all bent out of shape about cameras on every corner in England, as we sit here and put cameras on every corner in the US.
We are at the same point England was many years ago. Let me tell you, once there is a camera on every corner here in the US, they will never go away. If we are going to stop it, now is the time.
I live in East Texas. Cameras are here, but not in great mass. Guess what Tyler and Kilgore, Texas are getting, their first red light cameras (but hey, the tickets are only half the price of a ticket given to you by a real officer...for now). I saw it on the news two nights ago.
If we don't rise up as a nation and bitch slap some politicians, we will follow right in England's foot steps.
What we need to do is all get together and say to our leaders, the cameras go, or you go.
Transporter_ii
How about, instead of treating everyone like a potential criminal, you just treat the criminals like criminals?
For instance, there is already a law against violent acts, in England and the US. If someone gets drunk and does something violent, they could easily be punished under existing laws (and note you just punish them, not everybody. Imagine that).
And I don't know about England, but in the US, it is quite possible to keep someone out of clubs. It is a little thing called probation, and if you break it, they throw you back in jail. And believe me, they take probation violations very seriously, or at least I know the US does.
This is like one of those things where they make a law to be really tough on child murderers, only it is already against the law to murder a child!?!?! (What the hell, were we being easy on them before?).
So in other words, this law serves one of two purposes:
1) Someone wanted to make themselves look good, so they spend time trying to get stupid laws passed...and sometimes succeed.
2) This is yet another law designed to make sure that everyone is a potential criminal, passing so many laws that at any given time, everyone is going to be breaking some law or another. So when they get ready to round everybody up, you have a legal excuse to, because after all, they are criminals.
Transporter_ii
Probably more relevent to the /. crowd would be this article from someone that switched to Ubuntu from OS X and then went back to OS X:
http://digg.com/apple/Mac_OS_X_vs_Ubuntu
Let me say that if I could go into a store right now and buy a reasonably priced copy of OX X that would run on a plain PC, I would be running OS X at the moment (Yes, I understand that running on *any* hardware would make OS X less stable, but I would be willing to take the risk...and huge amounts of people would rather pay more for Apple's hardware and stability, and I wish Apple could see that and make us both happy).
But since that isn't going to happen, I'm really considering going to Ubuntu because I think MS is just going insane with Vista.
As the above mention, he doesn't think Ubuntu is too far behind OS X.
I would be interested in hearing others thoughts on this?
Transporter_ii
Actually, as was pointed out already, the article clearly says merit patch, not badge. According to a person active in the Boy Scouts in the next cubical to me, there is a big difference. This also seems to be general to LA, and not the entire US, too.
Transporter_ii
There is a lot of information here from the EFF on site blocking by censorware:
http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Censorware/
Also some related links from ACLU and other groups.
Transporter_ii
I'm against that idea.
Transporter_ii
I don't think the issue is that my grandmother's medical emergency should be bottled up. I think the issue is, does my grandmother's medical emergency need to be put up on a web site...in real time.
Transporter_ii
Yeah, while a terrorist might use the web site, if they didn't have it, I think a terrorist could manage to find, oh, I don't know...a scanner. Maybe they have encryption there, but in Texas, huge amounts of radio traffic is in the clear. And the reason they do that is because we have a large number of volunteer fire departments and a lot of them use radios they bought with money from their own pockets (and radios with encryption are really expensive). So if the scramble the calls, a fair amount of people that need to hear the information wouldn't be able to.
Transporter_ii