Comment Re: marriage is about children? (Score 1) 764
And should we deny marriage to a woman who is postmenopausal, or has had a hysterectomy?
You do the cast to a character pointer in your original malloc statement.
As for your complaint that the article doesn't say whether she can see now or not, this was a huge step forward. Look at what was involved:
The surgery was only a month ago. Let's observe the patient over the next year to see what else develops.
It's a first step. Were you one of those ones who complained "Big deal, so they launched someone into orbit. Call me when they get to the moon."
The procedure was done last month. We don't know what will happen over the next year. Obviously they're going to take subjects who are pretty much blind to begin with, because why possibly sacrifice partial vision for no vision.
As research evolves, we learn what works and doesn't (slashdot BETA, anyone?). But the fact that she IS fine is a big thing - it shows that the tissue is not dying, is not being rejected.
You might want to read this, particularly the part starting at "Transplantation aimed at photoreceptor cell replacement".
If your eyes were OK for the first 50 years, and then you went blind due to retinal disease, what do you care if the replacement "only" lasts another 50 years?
Combine that with this:
Scientists have long been aware of Müller cells (which exist in great abundance in the eye) and have generally assumed that they were responsible for keeping retinal tissue protected and clear of debris. In recent years, however, researchers have reported that these cells sometimes exhibit progenitor cell behavior and re-enter the cell cycle (dividing and differentiating into other type of cells). Progenitor cells are similar to stem cells but are more mature and are more limited in the number of cells types they can become.
... and we might be able to get somewhere.
As for the re-mapping, don't sell the optic nerve and brain short. People can go for years without even noticing the cumulative damage to their eyes.
I hate to have to quote your own post to you, but:
I don't know anyone who has done time. At least not more than a day or two in a city jail.
So you DO know someone who has done time.
I took issue with that claim. Specifically and semantically, as you were misapplying "doing time" as a synecdoche for all jail-based incarceration. Your claim here is invalid.
Too bad your argument won't work with law enforcement the next time you try to cross a border.
Border Agent:: "Have you ever been arrested or convicted of a criminal offence?"
You: "No."
Border Agent: "Well, it says here that you were arrested and held overnight in connection with blah blah blah. Lying to us is a federal offence. Is there anything else you're not telling us?"
Also, falsely arresting someone gives rise to civil recourse, even if it was "only a day or two."
It's binary - either someone was detained or they weren't. It's like being pregnant. Trying to argue otherwise is like trying to say "well, it might have been rape, but it wasn't rape rape."
Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.
