Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:"appear"... "virtually"? (Score 2, Interesting) 175

by 31415926535897 (#33764178) Attached to: Non-Embryonic Stem Cells Developed From Skin Cells

I think you're right about the former, but why does that matter now? Here we are with an alternative that's better in an absolute sense (even if not in a time relative sense) than embryonic stem cells. So why not go with that and continue to improve the technology? Do we need to go back to destroying embryos to develop an inferior product?

Also, I'm not wholly convinced that it is just a matter of state-of-the-art improvement where embryonic stem cell research had left off. I think the restriction certainly catapulted this type of research, but there are still over a dozen lines of embryonic stem cells (which can still be infinitely reproduced) that were being worked on, but they did not get to this point.

Comment: Re:Perspective from a Juror on this Case (Score 3, Insightful) 982

by 31415926535897 (#32017452) Attached to: Terry Childs Found Guilty

I think this is the saddest thing I might have ever read:

This case should have never come to be. Management in the city's IT organization was terrible. There were no adopted security policies or procedures in place. This was a situation that management allowed to develop until it came to this unfortunate point. They did everything wrong that they possibly could have to create this situation. However, the city was not on trial, but Terry Childs was. And when we went into that jury room, we had very explicit instructions on what laws we were to apply and what definitions we were to follow in applying those laws.

Another poster already mentioned Jury Nullification; how can you, as a human being, convict another human being after saying you believe all of that?

And of course, the city can't be put on trial for it's portion in this, can it? Nobody from the city is going to go to jail (and the city itself won't be legally "incarcerated") no matter how wrong it was. But because of your strict interpretation of the law, and some "common sense" interpretation about who an authorized user was (even though it wasn't legally specified), he has to go to jail and have his life ruined.

What you did was reprehensible.

Comment: Re:Stupid System (Score 1) 173

by 31415926535897 (#31597236) Attached to: Tridgell Recommends Reading Software Patents

In criminal defense, you can use multiple strategies to try to show innocence, even if those arguments are not mutually exclusive:

For example, if you were trying to defend yourself against a murder charge, I believe you can argue the following:
1. I wasn't even there
2. Even if I was there, I wasn't the actual person to killed him
3. Even if I did kill him, it was an accident

If any one of those holds, you're a free man, but logically you can't argue all three (from a non-legal perspective). In the court room, however, you're free to make these arguments (of course you have to weigh this against the intelligence of the jury, but we've all heard who comprises a jury).

I keep hearing things that seem to exclude this option from a civil suit. Why is that? What can't you argue:

1. We are not infringing (~P)
2. Even if we were infringing, there is prior art, so your patent is invalid (Q)

And in this case, ~P ^ Q is not even a logical contradiction.

You've got to love the law.

Comment: Re:Thanks for the TRUTH (Score 0) 2044

by 31415926535897 (#31541296) Attached to: Health Care Reform

The "truth" is, the same people that want anything the Obama Administration does to fail are the same people that created the Third Largest Government Agency.

How has that worked out? And where was their outrage over its creation and its current status of operation?

Try sending a letter or small package through the USPS, UPS and FedEx and let me know which one was more cost effective.
Now try building a straw man and knocking him down.

The USPS sends packages cheaper because they're subsidized by the taxpayer. They have lost $BILLIONS per year for the last few years. Of course you can mail stuff for less when you're allowed to have the Federal government bail you out. UPS and FedEx don't have that luxury. Their prices reflect reality.

Comment: Re:Ill placed worries (Score 1) 425

by 31415926535897 (#31191580) Attached to: New Plan Lets Top HS Students Graduate 2 Years Early

Many high schools already have policies that will let students graduate in 3 years. If there was such a push to get students graduated and in college early, why don't more parents and students take advantage of this?

When I was in high school, you needed 21 credits to graduate. You could earn up to 7 credits per year (one for each class) by not taking any study halls. It didn't take a genius to recognize that you could be out of there in 3 years if you wanted. I know of one person who took advantage of that because she had such a miserable time (socially) in school. But most of us enjoyed our full 4 years because pretty much everyone realizes that high school isn't all about (or even very much about?) the academics.

Oh, and I lived in an area that was full of "rich assholes" -- Wheaton, IL (check out the average wealth of families in this town and in the surrounding DuPage County). But again, no push to get the kids graduated early.

One more thing...the car wrecks have very little to do with age. It all has to do with driving experience. In areas where the driving age was moved to 18 (politicians did this because of exactly what you mentioned), the 18 and 19 year old drivers were just as bad as 16-17 year olds in other places. I think that teenagers today are socially immature because we keep them that way and don't give them an opportunity to live and grow. 2,000 years ago you were on your own when you turned 12, and those people found a way to survive, and I'll bet the maturity of an 18 year old back then would far surpass the average maturity of today's 30 year old--because they had to learn how to live and survive.

Comment: Re:No flash support (Score 1) 1713

by 31415926535897 (#30924532) Attached to: Apple's "iPad" Out In the Open

No one really bitches about not having it on the phone, except the people who scream 'I'm not buying because it doesn't do flash!!'

So let me get this straight: No one is complaining about this, except for the people who are?

Thanks for the insight man. You have any ideas on how to solve this whole "economy" thing?

I have an idea along those lines. Let the economy work for everybody, except those it doesn't work for.

"There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do not wave in a vacuum." --Arthur C. Clarke

Working...