The GUIs are fine unless you need to run anything in parallel (e.g., mcmapply). Those almost never work in a GUI.
Link to Original Source
DNA isn't being manipulated. The nuclei are just swapped. Mitochondrial DNA is physically separate from the rest of your DNA. This is a very non-slippery slope.
Regarding parental rights, the women donating the egg sans-nucleus has no parental rights, which would seem reasonable. Of course that's up to the government, all parental rights in a society are governed by that society via its government. If a lab makes a mistake, then presumably the unfertilized eggs would be destroyed. If by that question you meant if there was a mixup in the lab, then presumably it'd be identical to any other IVF case where there's a mixup (apparently this has happened, though people don't usually end up finding that out until the kid is born).
In what world do you live where your cheapo home projector is the equivalent to that required in a drive-in?
"post-secondary" should read "post-translational"
I should really proof read
Kurzweil doesn't even know enough to understand what would actually be required to do what he's saying.
I do not want to join a fight about all this.
Then maybe you shouldn't have posted.
I am convinced, that the drug industry is doing a lot of evil things, and that most bodies like the FDA are actually ment to protect the interest of drug companies (e.g. drugs with same ingredients cannot be sold if they are from India, Canada, etc..) and not the end users'.
So you're a conspiracy theorist. Do you also believe that the government is covering up the evidence for alien abductions and the the UN is secretly plotting to take over the US? What about water fluoridation, is that a secret plot by the communists to implement mind control or steal our "precious bodily fluids?" All of those conspiracy theorist beliefs are equally absurd.
So I recommend making a search on your favourite torrent site or even youtube for "Are Vaccines safe"
Right, because when I want accurate and timely medical information the first thing that comes to my mind is "Hey, I'll see what a bunch of random non-experts on Youtube have to say." If you want to actually learn something useful, try searching on pubmed. You can also read the Cochrane Reviews on the subject if you want the predigested non-definitive summary (being a scientist and not a clinician, I prefer the original literature to the reviews, but of course I'm not busy seeing patients).
By the way they want to make H1N1 shots obligatory in Costa Rica - where I live - and there will be a huge resistance to it as everyone is scared of the shots' side effects, and the fact that it had very little - if any - testing.
Sheesh, the H1N1 vaccine is no different from every seasonal flu vaccine ever made, with the exception of this one likely being more accurately targeted (and thus having higher efficacy). We've been using these things for decades, and you can search pubmed to see studies looking at their safety and efficacy.
You can also make a search for flu shots and alcheimers, shots and tumors and find a scary amount of hype and facts....
You can also search for timecube to learn the true theory of everything. Try searching the actual literature and see what science finds. You do remember science right? Its the thing that gave us the internet, drastically increased our lifespans and largely eradicated previous scourges like polio and measles. Funny how useful that science thing has turned out to be...
About the only question of interest here, is "what took the Lancet so long?"
I can partly answer that. Papers are only ever retracted when there is near absolute proof of fraud (and there are usually lots of lawsuits surrounding them at the time). Essentially, everyone waits as long as possible to try and cover their butts legally. The GMC ruling gave the Lancet cover to fully retract the paper without getting slapped with a lawsuit (the absurdity of British laws surrounding libel and slander is evidenced by the whole Simon Singh kerfuffle). I agree that this is a wholly unsurprising occurrence. 10 or so of the coauthors already retracted the findings, which was the only way they could salvage their careers. I know Wakefield will never retract, but of course when you're a paid shill that's unsurprising.
It's what he thinks someone might possibly someday do (this all seems to be premised on something Geithner said as a brief aside). Must be a slow news day.
To give more examples, a lot of the transgenic mice used in disease research have human genes inserted into them. There are also many stable hybrid cell lines that are used daily in research (usually mouse/human hybrids). Bills like this are created by people who obviously have no clue what they're talking about.
My thoughts exactly. Having played in band I'm annoyed when I hear the "sizzle" sound that low-quality mp3s produce from cymbal sounds. But if I didn't have that frame of reference then I probably wouldn't care.
Businesses spend a lot on health care. By increasing the efficiency of the medical profession we should be able to decrease costs so businesses (and individuals to an increasingly greater extent) can allocate their resources to other matters (such as reinvestment). Granted, there are a number of assumptions in that, but that's at least on of the the reasons for putting this in the stimulus bill.