Caught in a landslide, no esc.... oh nevermind>> ^lucky760:

>> ^Asmordean:
>> ^lucky760:
Is this real life?

Or is it just fantasy?

Bzzzt. Wrong. An acceptable response would have been "Is this really happening?"

>> ^NicoleBee:

Alt tabbing is king for me, and I've never gotten to the point where I enjoy using tabbed browsers.


Properly behaving Windows programs, including Firefox, let you Ctrl-Tab through tabs. Windows' own control panel applets and such allow this too. For example, hit Ctrl-Alt-Esc to bring up the Task Manager and then hit Ctrl-Tab a few times. Ctrl-PgUp/PgDn also works.

>> ^darkrowan:

Love the Bond-esc music playing in the background.
[edit] watched the rest of the vid, now realize it's a Bond remix. Well played, but I don't think Q would have made an obvious weapon more lethal.


*music

Love the Bond-esc music playing in the background.

[edit] watched the rest of the vid, now realize it's a Bond remix. Well played, but I don't think Q would have made an obvious weapon more lethal.

HD download



http://www.program-glitch-esc.net/

I'll see what I can do, but last I checked, there are very few decent browsers available for linux. Opera might be worth a shot, but I don't know if any of the third party browsers can do flash. We'll see.

Btw, you might want to try Iron instead of chrome (based on chrome, but with googles data sniffing ripped out): http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php

I have no idea how up-to-date it is though; I have no first hand experience with either of these.

In reply to this comment by Zonbie:
Hey there, I have a netbook (N270) too but I use chrome (its faster than firefox) - I think I know what you mean - it could be a broken ad banner - chrome lets you see what tab and what plugin (Flash for example) is doing, from its memory usage to the cup usage, so you can then see - like in my case once, a tab that was accessing a page with 90% cpu - i just killed that tab

Anyway, I guess my ramble is to say try Chrome - and if you get a problem in Chrome press shift-esc to bring up Chrome Taskmanager

Give it a shot Keep firefox installed obviously - but try chrome.


Edit : Bollocks - Didnt see the Linux bit - aw boo. but do try another browser.

Hey there, I have a netbook (N270) too but I use chrome (its faster than firefox) - I think I know what you mean - it could be a broken ad banner - chrome lets you see what tab and what plugin (Flash for example) is doing, from its memory usage to the cpu usage, so you can then see - like in my case once, a tab that was accessing a page with 90% cpu - i just killed that tab

Anyway, I guess my ramble is to say try Chrome - and if you get a problem in Chrome press shift-esc to bring up Chrome Taskmanager

Give it a shot Keep firefox installed obviously - but try chrome.


Edit : Bollocks - Didnt see the Linux bit - aw boo. but do try another browser.

and sweden: http://www.videosift.com/video/swedens-ESC-contribution-2009-disco-opera

Holy crap.. I remember back when the ESC used to be good and have good songs.. Oh, wait, no I don't.

That makes me sad. I feel that anything ESC-related should go into *terrible by default.

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.

ESC to close popup doesn't work once vid has started playing (ffox3,windows)

CTRL+SHIFT+ESC is another useful command.

Fear-mongering is an unnecessarily harsh word to use. It was exaggeration in order to make the point that what I said was legal, yet reprehensible.

You have yet to hear an explaination that makes sense to you because you are not trying to empathize with those whose beliefs differ from your own. Some cultures think cannibalism is AOK. Most don't.

You argue that science should be exploring both ESCs and adult-derived research. That's fine if you have no moral or ethical problem with both. The arguement over whether we should be using ESCs is not scientific debate. It is an ethical debate. Every university has a bio-ethics committee to consider what science is ethical what science is unethical. Just like improper use of animals is always considered, here we need to consider what we think about ESCs and embryo cloning and destruction.

Basically if you have no moral objection and no religious or philosophical aversion to it, you will never "hear any substantial reason why this research should not be allowed."