Mmm. Unlike European nations. Those bastions of freedom and liberty...
I'm amazed at the stupidity and arrogance of Europeans sometimes. Look, the US ins't perfect. We know this. It never has been. It's *always* been partisan with two parties. It's always had infighting. There has always been corruption.
What's layed down in the constitution and the talk of Freedom are the *ideals* toward which we try to strive. Nobody I know from the US ever claimed that we met those ideals on all accounts. Christ, we had *slavery* up until the mid 1800's! But it's better to have an ideal to strive towards than a reality IMHO. Always set your goals beyond your reach. This is why the equal rights advocates had the *constitution* to hold up while marching. This is how the government can be pulled back into check when necessary. It's own charter demands it. Your nation may set down "realistic" goals and you may acheive them. We'll try to do better than that.
Things wax and wane in the US. Throughout our history there have been power-grabs and loss of power. Rapid change and conservative movements. Think of a pendulum. Europeans seem to think that "conflict" is by nature a bad thing. We see it as necessary and the natural order of life. If you don't have conflict, how can you expect change for the better?
Not that you'll listen. I'll probably get some remark about how "Bush is the anti-christ" or some such, and that I'm really not as Free as Europeans (tried selling your Nazi memorabilia in France lately?). We're taking an active part in the world now too (since WWII). We've seen how Europe runs things and we believe it's our turn and we can do better. Or would you rather we just sit and wait until Europe tries to destroy itself or conquor the world yet again?
NB. I won't reply to any responses to this. Just thought I'd rant a bit. I'm just sick of haughty Europeans calling *me* arrogant...
You align yourself politically with the anti-Bushies, you take a position held by those generally incapable of understanding the ethical dilemma, you fail to clarify your ethical position, and other people are stupid for drawing the reasonable conclusion about you from the admittedly few facts that they have about you?
Okay, I was going to ignore you but this is just too retarded. Did you think that *maybe* if you don't have enough facts, you *should't* be drawing conclusions? Mmm? Perhaps? Dumbass.
It's too bad that the OP doesn't understand that umbilical cord blood stem cells are not embryonic stem cells, but rather adult stem cells. But you and he are obviously blinded by politics because you fail to see that the US government is funding this kind of research very heavily.
Wha-? I'm blinded by politics? I'll have you know that I'm typically a Bush supporter, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything he says and does. He's not Christ reborn or anything.
I have a mind and makemy own decisions thankyouverymuch. I disagree with much of the US policy against stem-cell research *for ethical reasons*. Though I can certainly understand the trepidation some may have towards it.
But you and he are obviously blinded by politics because you fail to see that the US government is funding this kind of research very heavily.
This is just the stupidest thing I've ever been accused of. I gave no reason for why I disagree with the President's policy on stem-cell research and yet you tell me I don't think ethics should be involved. Right....
Vicissidude writes "According to WorldNetDaily scientists in Korea report using umbilical cord blood stem cells to restore feeling and mobility to a spinal-cord injury patient. The research, published in the peer-reviewed journal Cytotherapy, centered on a woman who had been a paraplegic 19 years due to an accident. After an infusion of umbilical cord blood stem cells, stunning results were recorded: 'The patient could move her hips and feel her hip skin on day 15 after transplantation. On day 25 after transplantation her feet responded to stimulation.'"
Yeah, if only somebody could make it clear what type of stem cells they were! I mean, that's something you think could even get into the story summary!
I agree with the sentiment against Bush's policies on stem-cell research. But isn't the type of stem-cell used in this article (umbilical cord) actually "okay" to use under the US policy?
I presume the photos were mailed to the president's public address? Or were they standing at the end of the driveway shouting "take these photos" or trying to give them to secret service men?
I presume the latter given their behavior in other matters. I could be there with them offering a million dollars and I doubt it would be taken either. There are "official" ways to do such things. This was all about publicity. Protestors don't want change, they want camera time. Shouting at the president from the streets is as likely to change his mind as posting a rant as Anonymous Coward on slashdot is.
This is a bit off-topic, but from that link you provide:
We walked from Lafayette Park to the Guard House at the White House. My sister and I, and other Gold Star Families for Peace members, and some members of Military Families, asked to meet with the President. We again wanted to know: What is the Noble Cause? Our request was, of course, denied. They wouldn't even accept any letters or petitions or pictures of our dead.
WTF did they expect? Protestors are so friggin' self-righteous. "I went to the White House to give the president a quarter I found, and he wouldn't take it! Arrogant jerk!" Don't these people realize they have others who they elect to represent them in congress? Why don't they protest them? All politics are *local*. If you want change you start at city hall, not at the White House. But then there isn't as much press is there...
They were also warned *three friggin' times* to move before they were arrested. Sounds like a publicity stunt to me. It's not like they uttered "I hate the president" while passing a cop and were arrested for "insulting the state" or something. Why didn't they get a permit and then protest legally without being arrested? No headlines, that's why.
I'll agree with your "Insightful" question example. But by the very nature of a question I think that nearly *all* questions are "ill-informed." Thus claiming a question to be ill-informed is simply silly (which was my main point before, though that may not have been clear).
You make a good point, but one step at a time here. Get the file-format open, then deal with the archival quality of digital media.
Fact is, file formats can always be reverse engineered
Ahhh, but will it be *legal* to do so? That is part of the dilemma being faced lately, and part of the reason Massachusetts doesn't want file formats encumbered by patents and such.
I don't think you realize just how important this decision is. Do you know for how long government documents last? With more and more documents being done in a purely electronic form the state is thinking long term. Companies come and go, but Massachusetts has been around for over 200 years and will likely be around much longer.
As one gentleman in the meeting put it. The law books from the early 1800s in the Harvard library are still readable. So should any documents stored elecronically in 200 years.
They stated three things they wanted in a format (the things they used to define as open):
No single vendor controlling the format
A spec that is available to anybody who wants it (purchase in a store, download from site
No cost to implement the spec to anybody and no patents encombering the spec.
They were very smart IMHO. It's not trend-following. In fact they sort of appologize for not getting to this earlier (talking about how government tends to actually trail behind the private sector). Their reasoning is that they never want to need to worry in the future about being able to read old documents (MS can't make this guarantee - remember that state documents live for hundreds of years!). This was the big sticking point mostly. They also don't like one vendor controlling what they can do with their documents and didn't want to require the public to purchase expensive software to view these documents.
This is one of the few times I'm glad to be from Massachusetts. They had very well thought-out reasons behind this. The Microsoft representative couldn't even argue with them (though it sounds like he'd just gotten off a flight so he was probably pretty tired).
They stated that they don't require Open Office, just software that implements the OASIS spec. Microsoft is free to do so and then they will consider Office. It was the most complete spec that they found that offers all of the above points. I highly suggest listening to that recording. It's long, but not terribly boring (mostly techies in the room - few lawyers).
Basically they're very afraid of proprietary document formats (and rightly so). Especially when they consider archival purposes. 20 years from now do you want to find a copy of Word '98 to be able to read old state documents? Right now I can go to the basement of Harvard and read law books from the 1800's!
They're also concerned about requiring the public to purchase expensive software from a single vendor in order to view "public" documents. They state time and time again what their requirements for a doc format are, and that if Microsoft were to offer one they would consider it. MS, unsurprisingly, does not offer one...
It's not actually a budget thing (though lord knows MA needs to do something about it's spending). It's about "sovereignty" and the availability of documents long after archive and to the general public.
It's long, but they say time and time again they're only concerned with the document format and it's "openness." And they do a *great* job of shooting down Microsoft on this point.
Just one thing. When a state "attempts" to impose control, it's usually successful.
The PATRIOT act is in some ways benign, and in others it's pretty aweful. I'll give you that. It does not, however, make the US a fascist state. Otherwise everytime any government passed any laws giving it control you would declare it to be fascist. Unless, of course, it is for healthcare I presume. Then you'd probably wet yourself over it.
Which is why the 2nd amendment is so important. Yes, automatic weapons and all. The founders of this country were very intelligent. They know man is corruptable and never expected the US to last in one form forever. They placed their faith for the future of the US largely in the hands of the people and their well-regulated-militias.
But you also have to step back from the crap, the politics, and the bullshit every-now-and-then and realize things aren't really *that* bad. They may get there, I'm no idealist, but we are far from a dictatorship or a totalitarian government. And if/when we get there, hopefully the 2nd amendment is still around. In fact I believe that when that amendment starts coming under heavy-fire from politicians is the time to start worrying.
With all due respect, Americans are far different from Iraqis. We have a past of "freedom" and fighting for it. They have a past that is *very* different. We did it once before after all.
yes, yes. Handwaving, generalizing, etc. But who was the last great "iraqi" leader who spoke of freedom for all?
When Congress and the Senate were restrained, government was peaceful and small. Even up until 1913 government used only 8% of our wealth, and we as a country flourished. Money can not be a creator of evil, but government's monopoly over the use of force is.
I mostly agree here. The only problem is that people have become *seriously* lazy and expect the government to do almost everything for them. Laws passed requiring that I be told coffee is hot? Ask any WWII vet what they think of such crap. That generation has a *strong* sense of personal responsibility. Something that has been deteriorated by the masses and exploited by the powerful.
First of all I could just run for office to get free money for my 'campaign' then spend it all on whatever I want. I don't like tax money paying for politicians. Maybe this could be 'any politician is only allowed to accept money from donations until (s)he has collected X dollars. This would be similar but not be tax money...
However, what if I just have my wealthy benefactors pay for things *for* me? They pay directly for ads, posters, etc. I still get the benefits of their money but it wouldn't be "my" money. Nothing has changed in other words.
"We" outnumber "them" by a great amount. Tanks, nukes, etc. are pretty useless against citizens fighting for their homeland using guerilla tactics. Look at Iraq.
Slashdot Mirror
Mmm. Unlike European nations. Those bastions of freedom and liberty...
I'm amazed at the stupidity and arrogance of Europeans sometimes. Look, the US ins't perfect. We know this. It never has been. It's *always* been partisan with two parties. It's always had infighting. There has always been corruption.
What's layed down in the constitution and the talk of Freedom are the *ideals* toward which we try to strive. Nobody I know from the US ever claimed that we met those ideals on all accounts. Christ, we had *slavery* up until the mid 1800's! But it's better to have an ideal to strive towards than a reality IMHO. Always set your goals beyond your reach. This is why the equal rights advocates had the *constitution* to hold up while marching. This is how the government can be pulled back into check when necessary. It's own charter demands it. Your nation may set down "realistic" goals and you may acheive them. We'll try to do better than that.
Things wax and wane in the US. Throughout our history there have been power-grabs and loss of power. Rapid change and conservative movements. Think of a pendulum. Europeans seem to think that "conflict" is by nature a bad thing. We see it as necessary and the natural order of life. If you don't have conflict, how can you expect change for the better?
Not that you'll listen. I'll probably get some remark about how "Bush is the anti-christ" or some such, and that I'm really not as Free as Europeans (tried selling your Nazi memorabilia in France lately?). We're taking an active part in the world now too (since WWII). We've seen how Europe runs things and we believe it's our turn and we can do better. Or would you rather we just sit and wait until Europe tries to destroy itself or conquor the world yet again?
NB. I won't reply to any responses to this. Just thought I'd rant a bit. I'm just sick of haughty Europeans calling *me* arrogant...
You align yourself politically with the anti-Bushies, you take a position held by those generally incapable of understanding the ethical dilemma, you fail to clarify your ethical position, and other people are stupid for drawing the reasonable conclusion about you from the admittedly few facts that they have about you?
Okay, I was going to ignore you but this is just too retarded. Did you think that *maybe* if you don't have enough facts, you *should't* be drawing conclusions? Mmm? Perhaps? Dumbass.
It's too bad that the OP doesn't understand that umbilical cord blood stem cells are not embryonic stem cells, but rather adult stem cells. But you and he are obviously blinded by politics because you fail to see that the US government is funding this kind of research very heavily.
Wha-? I'm blinded by politics? I'll have you know that I'm typically a Bush supporter, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything he says and does. He's not Christ reborn or anything.
I have a mind and makemy own decisions thankyouverymuch. I disagree with much of the US policy against stem-cell research *for ethical reasons*. Though I can certainly understand the trepidation some may have towards it.
But you and he are obviously blinded by politics because you fail to see that the US government is funding this kind of research very heavily.
This is just the stupidest thing I've ever been accused of. I gave no reason for why I disagree with the President's policy on stem-cell research and yet you tell me I don't think ethics should be involved. Right....
Completely off-topic, mod as such.
"I hope there's a hell, and when these reporters get there, that Satan's waiting with cameras & microphones"
I have to know where this quote is from! I've delt with the press and can completely relate to the sentiment.
Vicissidude writes "According to WorldNetDaily scientists in Korea report using umbilical cord blood stem cells to restore feeling and mobility to a spinal-cord injury patient. The research, published in the peer-reviewed journal Cytotherapy, centered on a woman who had been a paraplegic 19 years due to an accident. After an infusion of umbilical cord blood stem cells, stunning results were recorded: 'The patient could move her hips and feel her hip skin on day 15 after transplantation. On day 25 after transplantation her feet responded to stimulation.'"
Yeah, if only somebody could make it clear what type of stem cells they were! I mean, that's something you think could even get into the story summary!
I agree with the sentiment against Bush's policies on stem-cell research. But isn't the type of stem-cell used in this article (umbilical cord) actually "okay" to use under the US policy?
I should be so hurt...
I presume the photos were mailed to the president's public address? Or were they standing at the end of the driveway shouting "take these photos" or trying to give them to secret service men?
I presume the latter given their behavior in other matters. I could be there with them offering a million dollars and I doubt it would be taken either. There are "official" ways to do such things. This was all about publicity. Protestors don't want change, they want camera time. Shouting at the president from the streets is as likely to change his mind as posting a rant as Anonymous Coward on slashdot is.
This is a bit off-topic, but from that link you provide:
We walked from Lafayette Park to the Guard House at the White House. My sister and I, and other Gold Star Families for Peace members, and some members of Military Families, asked to meet with the President. We again wanted to know: What is the Noble Cause? Our request was, of course, denied. They wouldn't even accept any letters or petitions or pictures of our dead.
WTF did they expect? Protestors are so friggin' self-righteous. "I went to the White House to give the president a quarter I found, and he wouldn't take it! Arrogant jerk!" Don't these people realize they have others who they elect to represent them in congress? Why don't they protest them? All politics are *local*. If you want change you start at city hall, not at the White House. But then there isn't as much press is there...
They were also warned *three friggin' times* to move before they were arrested. Sounds like a publicity stunt to me. It's not like they uttered "I hate the president" while passing a cop and were arrested for "insulting the state" or something. Why didn't they get a permit and then protest legally without being arrested? No headlines, that's why.
They *are* ill-tempered...
I'll agree with your "Insightful" question example. But by the very nature of a question I think that nearly *all* questions are "ill-informed." Thus claiming a question to be ill-informed is simply silly (which was my main point before, though that may not have been clear).
How can a "question" be either ill-informed or insightful?
You make a good point, but one step at a time here. Get the file-format open, then deal with the archival quality of digital media.
Fact is, file formats can always be reverse engineered
Ahhh, but will it be *legal* to do so? That is part of the dilemma being faced lately, and part of the reason Massachusetts doesn't want file formats encumbered by patents and such.
I don't think you realize just how important this decision is. Do you know for how long government documents last? With more and more documents being done in a purely electronic form the state is thinking long term. Companies come and go, but Massachusetts has been around for over 200 years and will likely be around much longer.
As one gentleman in the meeting put it. The law books from the early 1800s in the Harvard library are still readable. So should any documents stored elecronically in 200 years.
They were very smart IMHO. It's not trend-following. In fact they sort of appologize for not getting to this earlier (talking about how government tends to actually trail behind the private sector). Their reasoning is that they never want to need to worry in the future about being able to read old documents (MS can't make this guarantee - remember that state documents live for hundreds of years!). This was the big sticking point mostly. They also don't like one vendor controlling what they can do with their documents and didn't want to require the public to purchase expensive software to view these documents.
This is one of the few times I'm glad to be from Massachusetts. They had very well thought-out reasons behind this. The Microsoft representative couldn't even argue with them (though it sounds like he'd just gotten off a flight so he was probably pretty tired).
They stated that they don't require Open Office, just software that implements the OASIS spec. Microsoft is free to do so and then they will consider Office. It was the most complete spec that they found that offers all of the above points. I highly suggest listening to that recording. It's long, but not terribly boring (mostly techies in the room - few lawyers).
See my post here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=163269&cid=136 37741
i .pl?OpenFormatMeetingSept2005
There is a recording of the Mass Technology Leadership Council discussing their reasons here: http://www.softwaregarden.com/cgi-bin/oss-sig/wik
Basically they're very afraid of proprietary document formats (and rightly so). Especially when they consider archival purposes. 20 years from now do you want to find a copy of Word '98 to be able to read old state documents? Right now I can go to the basement of Harvard and read law books from the 1800's!
They're also concerned about requiring the public to purchase expensive software from a single vendor in order to view "public" documents. They state time and time again what their requirements for a doc format are, and that if Microsoft were to offer one they would consider it. MS, unsurprisingly, does not offer one...
It's not actually a budget thing (though lord knows MA needs to do something about it's spending). It's about "sovereignty" and the availability of documents long after archive and to the general public.
i .pl?OpenFormatMeetingSept2005
You can listen to a recent meeting of the Mass Technology Leadership Council here:
http://www.softwaregarden.com/cgi-bin/oss-sig/wik
It's long, but they say time and time again they're only concerned with the document format and it's "openness." And they do a *great* job of shooting down Microsoft on this point.
Just one thing. When a state "attempts" to impose control, it's usually successful.
The PATRIOT act is in some ways benign, and in others it's pretty aweful. I'll give you that. It does not, however, make the US a fascist state. Otherwise everytime any government passed any laws giving it control you would declare it to be fascist. Unless, of course, it is for healthcare I presume. Then you'd probably wet yourself over it.
Really? You can't tell the difference between a state-controlled life and what we have?
Sad. I'm not claiming the US gov't is perfect. I'm just saying the "commie worship" on slashdot seems to be blatently out of control lately.
"How dare the state control everything? I want my free healthcare!"
Care to tell me which criteria of fascism has happened here yet?
Which is why the 2nd amendment is so important. Yes, automatic weapons and all. The founders of this country were very intelligent. They know man is corruptable and never expected the US to last in one form forever. They placed their faith for the future of the US largely in the hands of the people and their well-regulated-militias.
But you also have to step back from the crap, the politics, and the bullshit every-now-and-then and realize things aren't really *that* bad. They may get there, I'm no idealist, but we are far from a dictatorship or a totalitarian government. And if/when we get there, hopefully the 2nd amendment is still around. In fact I believe that when that amendment starts coming under heavy-fire from politicians is the time to start worrying.
With all due respect, Americans are far different from Iraqis. We have a past of "freedom" and fighting for it. They have a past that is *very* different. We did it once before after all.
yes, yes. Handwaving, generalizing, etc. But who was the last great "iraqi" leader who spoke of freedom for all?
When Congress and the Senate were restrained, government was peaceful and small. Even up until 1913 government used only 8% of our wealth, and we as a country flourished. Money can not be a creator of evil, but government's monopoly over the use of force is.
I mostly agree here. The only problem is that people have become *seriously* lazy and expect the government to do almost everything for them. Laws passed requiring that I be told coffee is hot? Ask any WWII vet what they think of such crap. That generation has a *strong* sense of personal responsibility. Something that has been deteriorated by the masses and exploited by the powerful.
There's a few grey areas though...
First of all I could just run for office to get free money for my 'campaign' then spend it all on whatever I want. I don't like tax money paying for politicians. Maybe this could be 'any politician is only allowed to accept money from donations until (s)he has collected X dollars. This would be similar but not be tax money...
However, what if I just have my wealthy benefactors pay for things *for* me? They pay directly for ads, posters, etc. I still get the benefits of their money but it wouldn't be "my" money. Nothing has changed in other words.
"We" outnumber "them" by a great amount. Tanks, nukes, etc. are pretty useless against citizens fighting for their homeland using guerilla tactics. Look at Iraq.