I think so but I'm not certain.

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
Does that WORK NOW?! Do dupes contribute to the original post's votes?! How the hell did I not hear of this; that is freakin awesome.

In reply to this comment by MrFisk:
I wanted the original to have my votes. I discarded it.

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Stephen-King-It

This video is a dupe (for the most part) and was VERY briefly in Sift-talk to discuss it. Kindly kill it for us unless you want to defend it as otherwise. Thanks.

Does that WORK NOW?! Do dupes contribute to the original post's votes?! How the hell did I not hear of this; that is freakin awesome.

In reply to this comment by MrFisk:
I wanted the original to have my votes. I discarded it.

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Stephen-King-It

This video is a dupe (for the most part) and was VERY briefly in Sift-talk to discuss it. Kindly kill it for us unless you want to defend it as otherwise. Thanks.

You're sweet. Thank you.

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
Wow. I'm sorry to hear that. You have my thoughts and prayers.

In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
Normally, I am a lucid dreamer, but lately, I've been having nightmares that I can't control and can only wake myself up from. And if I go back to sleep, I'm right back in the nightmare. I think it's stress, my cousin died, my rabbit died and I had a miscarriage, all in the space of two days. Eh, thanks subconscious for making my sleeping life hell, too.

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
Practice lucid dreaming. I'm a very vivid dreamer and I used to have absolutely terrifying nightmares. Now, I'm able to end them because I recognize they are dreams while I'm dreaming them. It wakes me up, but it ends the nightmare. It takes time to master it, but it's worth it. Read up; practice up. Lucid dreaming can be fun too.

Wow. I'm sorry to hear that. You have my thoughts and prayers.

In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
Normally, I am a lucid dreamer, but lately, I've been having nightmares that I can't control and can only wake myself up from. And if I go back to sleep, I'm right back in the nightmare. I think it's stress, my cousin died, my rabbit died and I had a miscarriage, all in the space of two days. Eh, thanks subconscious for making my sleeping life hell, too.

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
Practice lucid dreaming. I'm a very vivid dreamer and I used to have absolutely terrifying nightmares. Now, I'm able to end them because I recognize they are dreams while I'm dreaming them. It wakes me up, but it ends the nightmare. It takes time to master it, but it's worth it. Read up; practice up. Lucid dreaming can be fun too.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'fruit flies, autism, research, unc' to 'fruit flies, autism, research, unc, science, lie, docm, rbar, wasted, life' - edited by MycroftHomlz

Thank you. Very nice. I've heard little from Barr that I don't like. FFS, why can't he be the Republican candidate?! RAWR!

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I thought you may be interested in this: http://www.videosift.com/video/Libertarian-Candidate-Bob-Barr-on-Lou-Dobbs-09112008

I was only referring to an extreme example to make a point. Naturally, they are not comparable in extremity. As much as people say you can't legislate morality. They do it all the time. I personally have beliefs that prevent me from supporting ESC line development by the methods that are now unsupported by the gov't. When I said generating life for it to be destroyed, I was referring to the generation of viable embryos in vitro in order to use them purely for research. That rubs me the wrong way. I don't know if the research should be outlawed, but I don't want my taxes paying for it. I think the promise of adult-derived lines is where we should be concentrating on our efforts. That eliminates all controversy entirely. The papers I've read on the topic show great promise. Forgive my exaggeration. I couldn't think of many other gross abuses of humanity in scientific research.

Personally, I'd rather the embryos were never made (to be ultimately incinerated) in the first place. Once they are however, I have few qualms with their use.
In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
Wow, closest to a Godwin's Law response I've had on the sift... not that your example was inappropriate.

Wow, closest to a Godwin's Law response I've had on the sift... not that your example was inappropriate.

I tried in vain to avoid this response from you by noting that there are "usual methods employed to protect populations or otherwise limit research", and that making the proclamation from on-high that scientists can not produce new cell lines completely ignores the tradition of having groups of researchers, historians, lawmakers, etc. come together to determine where the lines should be drawn. If you're early in your research career I'm sure you had to sit through an ethics course (or at least some seminars) that described in detail who protected populations are, why they are protected and when and how these laws were adopted. The stem cell laws are the equivalent of suddenly declaring giving the middle finger to someone a misdemeanor... an effort to legislate morality independent of human impact.

Creating human life in order to destroy it? What are you even talking about? Because I'm talking about adding chemicals to a dish of donated cells that would otherwise be literally incinerated.

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
I don't really understand the belief that science should have no constrictions. If it should not, then the research done on the Jews in WWII would be acceptable which of course it is not. This is of course an extreme example, but symbolically applicable to our discussion nonetheless. There is a line to be drawn, I just draw it shorter than many scientists. Tools available to humanity are not always right to use. I don't like the idea of creating human life in order to destroy it. That disturbs me and I can't see the worth when we are inches from reversing the epigenetic changes that occur when cells differentiate. Just as high gas prices drive a demand for alternate energy sources, saying no to ESCs can drive the research of adult derived stem cell technology.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
MY understanding is that two things ruffle feathers:

1)no cell lines derived from extra sperm-plus-egg after in vitro fertilization ("no you may not use this for experiments, its precious... now off to the incinerator with it"),

and

2)arbitrary limits on what scientists can do based on a moral feeling, determined independent of the usual methods employed to protect populations or otherwise limit research, and which lead to a somewhat illogical end; telling scientists its not moral to add chemicals to human stem cells moments after they've added them to a dish of any other animal's stem cells can seem odd... they're both a couple of dishes with cells in them... neither is going to ever bark or say hi.

And slippery-sloping it, as some do, to saying things like "if we let them do this they'll have cyborgs modeled with Arnold's stem cells" is bogus, precisely because according to them scientists can do the same thing by reversing adult cells into pluripotency. Anyhow, placing restrictions on a tool like the use of a human cell line for moral reasons is strange to me,... and I'm more curious how far the pendulum will swing when it swings back the other direction.



In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
You can probably guess by now that I am not an abortions supporter for most reasons, so naturally, I don't support production of new embryonic stem cell lines by that method. I think that the advances of adult-derived stem cells are FAR more valuable than any other research of its type. I have friends who study embryonic lines and those who study adult derived lines. I have to confess that that the adult derived lines seem to produce more results and more promising futures than the embryonic lines ironically.

I support a ban on embryonic stem cell line generation simply because there is a significant chance that it is wrong. We don't need them. We have shown that we don't need them. Let's work on something we know to be worth what is spent. I feel similarly about animals; use them only when absolutely needed, and though that is often, use them minimally.
And BTW, Net, 3.2 million is nothing. Talk to me in billions. My lab alone (of thousands) is budgeted a million a year, though lately we haven't been spending that much.

I don't really understand the belief that science should have no constrictions. If it should not, then the research done on the Jews in WWII would be acceptable which of course it is not. This is of course an extreme example, but symbolically applicable to our discussion nonetheless. There is a line to be drawn, I just draw it shorter than many scientists. Tools available to humanity are not always right to use. I don't like the idea of creating human life in order to destroy it. That disturbs me and I can't see the worth when we are inches from reversing the epigenetic changes that occur when cells differentiate. Just as high gas prices drive a demand for alternate energy sources, saying no to ESCs can drive the research of adult derived stem cell technology.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
MY understanding is that two things ruffle feathers:

1)no cell lines derived from extra sperm-plus-egg after in vitro fertilization ("no you may not use this for experiments, its precious... now off to the incinerator with it"),

and

2)arbitrary limits on what scientists can do based on a moral feeling, determined independent of the usual methods employed to protect populations or otherwise limit research, and which lead to a somewhat illogical end; telling scientists its not moral to add chemicals to human stem cells moments after they've added them to a dish of any other animal's stem cells can seem odd... they're both a couple of dishes with cells in them... neither is going to ever bark or say hi.

And slippery-sloping it, as some do, to saying things like "if we let them do this they'll have cyborgs modeled with Arnold's stem cells" is bogus, precisely because according to them scientists can do the same thing by reversing adult cells into pluripotency. Anyhow, placing restrictions on a tool like the use of a human cell line for moral reasons is strange to me,... and I'm more curious how far the pendulum will swing when it swings back the other direction.



In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
You can probably guess by now that I am not an abortions supporter for most reasons, so naturally, I don't support production of new embryonic stem cell lines by that method. I think that the advances of adult-derived stem cells are FAR more valuable than any other research of its type. I have friends who study embryonic lines and those who study adult derived lines. I have to confess that that the adult derived lines seem to produce more results and more promising futures than the embryonic lines ironically.

I support a ban on embryonic stem cell line generation simply because there is a significant chance that it is wrong. We don't need them. We have shown that we don't need them. Let's work on something we know to be worth what is spent. I feel similarly about animals; use them only when absolutely needed, and though that is often, use them minimally.
And BTW, Net, 3.2 million is nothing. Talk to me in billions. My lab alone (of thousands) is budgeted a million a year, though lately we haven't been spending that much.

Sorry, should have been more clear with the first half of the sentence; I'm on the case to disprove your claim, but a 3 minute search only revealed one oddity, that the males of a species of bat nurse young... in other words you're claim is safe, ... FOR NOW! (lights dim, thunder/lightning in the background) MUAHAHAhahah...!

... but seriously, it does seem that mammals are pretty boring and uniform with their raising of the next generation, versus reptiles/birds/fish.

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
Read the rest of the post my fiend.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
... I feel sometimes like rules are meant to be broken, but all I could find with a quick search was this; http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v367/n6465/abs/367691a0.html

oooo, I'll have to get back to you in a bit on that. I don't even remember the stuff I liked back then (college) and I wasn't the one spinning that stuff, I was a trance guy. Our HH guy is MIA right now. I'll think a bit. Or you can just raid some of the Anabolic Frolic mixes (the later ones) from Hullabaloo mixes and such. Hullabaloo was always hysterical, and fun.

In reply to this comment by Eklek:
..I kind of like the track and goofy (especially the way they walk) video:) I haven't been following happy hardcore much lately, do you have any recommendations?

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
Wow, as Happy Hardcore goes, this suuuucks. It didn't begin to not suck until 2000 or maybe 99.

Have always wondered what it would be like to be in a similar field of endeavor-task-oriented, a single goal in mind, working day and night focused diligently on one project, one set of repeated actions.....the distractions and cares of the world non-existent while pushing forward into uncharted territory...surrounded by others with tasks similar to mine, all of us dedicated to reaching new horizons in our chosen disciplines.......But insects don't live that long, and DocM's here so folks like me can chase poontang and gamble.

Don't let the lack of action on yer moment here in the spotlight get ya down Doc, there are others here on the sift as uni-dimensional as yerself....It's hard to roast a cabbage y', gotta add so much flavor to it-like being on a desert island....("Will I eat fish and coconut, or fish and seaweed today???)

Speakin' a fish-glad to know you got yerself' a couple of fellas that you hang out with regularly that share similar interests and diversions...
Rob Roys and Starbucks eh??? Was it that girl you stalk that inspired you to be so......cosmopolitan???

" Sadly, you just can't do biology without animals."....Spoken like a true Onanist. If you took an ultraviolet light over to DocM's pad and dropped some good LSD, his bedroom would look like the stage backdrop at a Jefferson Airplane concert....

when he first got here, his first published post renewed my faith in cartoons being able to explain the obvious-I learned most of what I know from animated explanations of simple phenomenon as well-Now that we are clear on exactly what happened on 9-11...thanks for clearing that up for everyone.....

Yer a great sport DocM, man may the rest of your roast be good for you as well...Afterwards, you might ask Rosy Palm if it was good for her and her five sisters, too....

cookie 4 docM-

I was gonna tell DocM to sheck the Chronicles of Amber, too.....but he wants worlds dissimilar to ours....hmmmm....How about the Riverworld Series, Phillip Jose Farmer?? Incidentally, Irishman....this would be a good sci-fiction follow-up, to yer McKenna excursion......(LSD chewing gum, on yer first night in Riverworld.....!)