the more people learn about embryonic stem cell research, the more they like it.
That depends on what they're learning. Last I heard--and admittedly this was a few years ago--despite all the research that had been done, and all the endless talk about how much "promise" embryonic stem cell research holds, it has never actually produced a single viable treatment, and even if it did, it would carry with it a lot of the same baggage as donor transplants do. (Rejection and the necessity for immunosuppression, etc.)
Meanwhile, adult stem cell research--essentially cloning the patient's own tissue--not only uses the patient's own DNA and carries zero risk of rejection, but has also been shown to actually produce real results, where embryonic stem cell research never has.
I'm not one given to conspiracy theories, but stuff like this just makes me wonder. Adult stem cell technology has been proven to work. Embryonic stem cell technology has been (all but) proven not to work. And yet you always hear people in the media talking about embryonic stem cell research, and you almost never hear them talk about adult stem cell research. It might almost make you think that it's not about the research at all, but a campaign to alter the public's perception of the inherent value of the life in an embryo.
But who would be so cynical as to do something like that?
Ms McKerracher said changing the law would allow historians access to soldiers' diaries from World War I, for example.
That line makes me a little bit uncomfortable.
If the soldier left behind a diary that was never published, and it's still around, it's quite reasonable to suppose that only one copy exists and it's in the possession of the soldier's heirs or next of kin. How exactly does Ms. McKerracher expect for that to work? Will the historians have a right to force the current owner to produce a copy?
For all our talk of how copyright infringement is not theft, that does feel uncomfortably like theft to me.
I can't help but wonder if they're related to Harold Hill, the infamous musical con man, whose story is related in the 1962 Warner movie The Music Man? It seems appropriate enough, seeing as how they're trying to pull a major music con here...
Sounds like the same racket the cable companies have been pulling for decades. Advertising originated as a way to pay for broadcast TV, because it was broadcast for free and the viewers weren't paying for it.
Then along came a model where viewers did pay for it... but did the ads go away? We should be so lucky!
Barnes was awarded $50,000 in damages for which the court determined that Zaccari was personally liable, sending a message to public college administrators that there can be real, personal costs for abuses.
Sounds like a good start. When we start applying the same standard to CEOs and Board of Directors members, then I'll be truly impressed.
Separately, the court notes that even if Dart is correct that those ads are not protected by the First Amendment, that's up to a court to decide, not Dart on his own. That's called due process.
I can follow (and agree with) most of this, but that line throws me for a bit of a loop. Doesn't United States v. Williams, specifically cited in here by the court, mean that a court already has decided, and these guys consider it a valid precedent?
As a reminder, why the hell should people have to pay up to $200 extra for what the cable company is contractually obliged to supply?
Because, as AC pointed out, they aren't obligated to supply it for free, and given the rental rates they tend to charge, buying your own router will almost certainly pay for itself pretty quickly. Given that, why would anyone not want to buy their own?
The tale is told of a group of miners during the California gold rush who used mechanical equipment to separate gold nuggets from dirt and pebbles. Problem is, the machinery kept getting clogged by this obnoxious blue-grey dust.
A guy arrived on the scene who had some knowledge of the situation, and he offered to work for them to keep the machinery clean for a very reasonable fee. He'd even get rid of the clogging dust for them so they didn't have to dispose of it. The prospectors thought this was a great idea!
Well, in the end, the prospectors never found all that much gold, but the cleaner ended up getting rich. He knew one thing that the prospectors didn't: that nuisance dust was composed almost entirely of pure silver, and they were giving a massive amount of it away to him for free!
I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, so I have no idea what he's been saying about the Clinton Foundation, but you really ought to read the book Clinton Cash. If you can read that and not think it's a humungo mega-scandal then you seriously need to get your scandal detector recalibrated.