Posting Towards Gomorrah - Page 261

Spanky · 10-26-2006, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That's not my premise here. Read again.

What the hell has happened to this board? What is with all the civility? This place used to be fun. Nasty insults flying left and right, tons of sarcastic biting comments, condescending posts etc. Now it is like a tea party at Buckinham Palace. As the Board's moderator I hold you personally responsible.

Hank Chinaski · 10-26-2006, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That's not my premise here. Read again.

okay. I don't answer hypotheticals, and don't think Bush lied.

Spanky · 10-26-2006, 11:12 AM

I know someone answered this before but I have already forgot the answer so I will ask it again (I couldn't find it searching and Google doesn't answer).

You had the Kingdom of Judah which split apart in 930 BCE. The ten northern tribes formed the Kingdom of Israel with its capital at Samaria, and the two southern tribes formed the Kingdom of Judah with its capital at Jerusalem. The Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrians and people were carried of into exile and oblivioin (hence the lost tribes of Israel).

All Jews now are descendents of the two tribes of Judah. So why is the modern jewish state in Palestine called Israel and not Judah.

Hank Chinaski · 10-26-2006, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I know someone answered this before but I have already forgot the answer so I will ask it again (I couldn't find it searching and Google doesn't answer).

You had the Kingdom of Judah which split apart in 930 BCE. The ten northern tribes formed the Kingdom of Israel with its capital at Samaria, and the two southern tribes formed the Kingdom of Judah with its capital at Jerusalem. The Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrians and people were carried of into exile and oblivioin (hence the lost tribes of Israel).

All Jews now are descendents of the two tribes of Judah. So why is the modern jewish state in Palestine called Israel and not Judah.

ummm. don't know- but Jew timmy, "the lost tribes" aren't completely.

there are Ethiopian immigrants in Israel and they are old school. they throw garbage out the windows of their high rise apartments for some reason.

Shape Shifter · 10-26-2006, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I got that. But your issue seems to be that when Fox refers to the "hope" of stem-cell research, you think he is implying that there soon will be a cure. And yet when Bush said the sixteen words, you don't seem to think he was implying that Iraq had WMD.

I don't think you really have a problem with the Fox ad -- I think you're just being oppositional for the fun of it. So I'm not sure why I bothered.

The British government has learned that stem-cell research may provide hope to Michael J. Fox.

Replaced_Texan · 10-26-2006, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Devil's advocate here. You're a markets guy.

Why shouldn't this research be purely funded by the markets? Its not as if the Fed has banned the research - only government funding.

I'm rather surprised you of all people think this should be on the governments (ie. all taxpayers') dime

Right now it is funded purely by the markets. But it's a fucking pain in the ass if you're also doing research that is federally funded. I may end up advising that we build a whole building or at least the wing of a building for this type of research. Time and effort reporting is hard enough as it is without having to worry that all of your federal funding is going to be pulled if someone fucks up in and uses a federally funded pippette on the wrong project.

Hank Chinaski · 10-26-2006, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Right now it is funded purely by the markets. But it's a fucking pain in the ass if you're also doing research that is federally funded. I may end up advising that we build a whole building or at least the wing of a building for this type of research. Time and effort reporting is hard enough as it is without having to worry that all of your federal funding is going to be pulled if someone fucks up in and uses a federally funded pippette on the wrong project.

since GGG can't answer the question of his big client base, I'll assume he was, once again, full of shit.

How is ownership of the technology handled for Federal funded projects? isn't there some dedication to the public? why would private investors be involved?

bilmore · 10-26-2006, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
If the Embryo is not in a womb who cares what is done with it?

This is right in line with a discussion I had with my thirteen-year-old a few days ago. I told him that a consensus seems to have developed that viability is a sort of cut-off for abortion, and a kid who can't make the extra three steps to the dishwasher and, instead, puts his dirty dishes in the sink certainly can't be considered to be "viable."

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 10-26-2006, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
since GGG can't answer the question of his big client base, I'll assume he was, once again, full of shit.

How is ownership of the technology handled for Federal funded projects? isn't there some dedication to the public? why would private investors be involved?

Psst. Read again. When you demonstrate a basic understanding of what I've posted, I'll be happy to help you get to the next level. Since you're a patent lawyer, I assume you have some passing familiarity with Bayh- Dole. Maybe you even understand a little about NIH funding and where it goes.

Replaced_Texan · 10-26-2006, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
since GGG can't answer the question of his big client base, I'll assume he was, once again, full of shit.

How is ownership of the technology handled for Federal funded projects? isn't there some dedication to the public? why would private investors be involved?

I don't generally work in sponsored research, though my understanding is that the contract or grant usually deliniates the IP ownership issues. Most institutions have some sort of tech management office that will attempt to retain the IP rights within the institution as much as possible, though it may depend on the grant or contract with the sponsor.

Here's the NIH Grants and Funding website that may explain it a little better, at least on the federal side, though it's not only NIH that federally sponors research. A lot, especially in the last five years, of medical research has been funded by the DoD under the very large "bioterrorism" umbrella. And then there are all the non-government sponsors (generally pharmaceutical companies, though biotech also is getting into the sponsored research game lately).

My understanding, though again, I'm not an expert in it, is that most projects are funded by a single source, though it's possible that there will be parallel projects going on in the same laboratory with different sponsors (hence the pain in the ass time and effort reporting).

A lot of embryonic stem cell research funding is philanthropic in nature. I assume that the terms of the gift in those circumstances will dictate who owns the IP. And I think it wouldn't really be a gift as far as the IRS is concered if the donor retains IP rights.

bilmore · 10-26-2006, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So you think the Dems shouldn't have run the ad on this issue by the most familiar spokesperson on the issue . . .

Nope, didn't say that. I'm simply saying that the tendency to present this to the public as "opposition to this is killing people today" is not true, and may be giving people false hope. I haven't seen the MJF ad myself, so I'm not even saying that's what this specific ad does - more a comment on arguments I've seen and heard.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 10-26-2006, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Nope, didn't say that. I'm simply saying that the tendency to present this to the public as "opposition to this is killing people today" is not true, and may be giving people false hope. I haven't seen the MJF ad myself, so I'm not even saying that's what this specific ad does - more a comment on arguments I've seen and heard.

I, too, haven't seen the ad and can't tell you the extent to which he personalizes it or not, but even if he did, it strikes me that there is a long life expectancy with Parkinson's (my G'mother lived with it for 15 years, though the last few were very sad), and it's entirely possible that he could be helped by genetic therapy 10 years from now.

What are your views on the Limbaugh response? I'm really not sure why you chose to get upset about a Michael J. Fox ad you hadn't seen rather than the Limbaugh tirade.

bilmore · 10-26-2006, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I just find it amazing that folks like Bilmore are criticizing Michael J. Fox . . .

It's ironic that you've told a couple of people recently to go back and re-read something.

Gattigap · 10-26-2006, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Nope, didn't say that. I'm simply saying that the tendency to present this to the public as "opposition to this is killing people today" is not true, and may be giving people false hope. I haven't seen the MJF ad myself, so I'm not even saying that's what this specific ad does - more a comment on arguments I've seen and heard.

Well, as someone who hasn't seen the ad either, my perspective on the issue is colored more by folks (I think Laura Bush was one, back in the day) who chastised people for giving "false hope" as buttressing their argument that you shouldn't support stem cell research in the first place.

If people present support for stem cell research as providing a cure tomorrow, shame on them, but that's hardly a reason to reject doing the research.

Spanky · 10-26-2006, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
This is right in line with a discussion I had with my thirteen-year-old a few days ago. I told him that a consensus seems to have developed that viability is a sort of cut-off for abortion, and a kid who can't make the extra three steps to the dishwasher and, instead, puts his dirty dishes in the sink certainly can't be considered to be "viable."

That sounds about right.