Hey I did something for you: Check out this thread...

http://www.videosift.com/video/Countdown-Palins-Anti-Science-Mindlessness

Oh totally... it is an awesome experiment.

It is all that the theorists I know talk about. If we ever get Ligo up and going we will never get them to shut up.

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
What do you and your friends in the Fizix community think about the LHC? Should I be as excited as I am?

also: for us geeks, I did an experiment at work today:
http://blog.videosift.com/Doc_M/So-you-thought-your-hands-were-clean

http://www.videosift.com/video/How-to-create-a-1000000000-industry
My last comment is a winner.

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.

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

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 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

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
I'll edit it to read "most mammals" to please you. I have yet to find a person who would have rather been aborted than live. On second thought, don't elk still breast-feed? Herd yes, mom yes? Educate me. Kindly point out the mammal(s) that don't breast feed or don't require any motherhood after birth.

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

He does matter. Not that he'll get elected, but the more we vote third party, the more we can ensure more choices in future elections. If this year third parties received 20% of the votes, then people will notice and maybe in four years the percentage will rise to 25%... or a third of the votes?

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
^That makes two of us voting for Barr.

Fo shizzle. Barr is my man it seems. Here's for protest votes. Dah! I wish we mattered.

http://gay.videosift.com/talk/you-win#comment-509919
No worries, mate.

As I see it, the premiss of this film is against illegal adoptions. NOT legal ones. Legal is fine, but the risks of illegal are not worth contemplating.

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
I don't get it. Is the point of this video to discourage adoption of foreign, needing children??! or to consider it a regular crime?! That is a lie. There are MANY NATIONS with children that need adoption. MANY. I've personally known several women who've chosen to adopt foreign children as their own. And these children have lived fantastic lives.

If this women (as in this script writer) wanted an adopted child, there are millions to chose from legally. The premise of this film is bullshit.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/help

make sure you delete all cookies and temporary files too

That sucks, I hope you get the videos working -

download latest flash
disable all scripts/plugins
(adblock could screw it up)

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
Am I the only person in the world who cannot view the videos from this site?? It is annoying as heck and I can't figure it out. I've tried IE, Firefox, and Google's monstrosityOfABrouser and no dice. HLP PLZ!

..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.

you olympic OUCH! ARGGGH! work for me - just now.
thought you should know

http://parody.videosift.com/talk/Roast-IX-Who-the-fk-is-this-guy