backtop


Print 58 comment(s) - last by Asetha.. on Apr 23 at 1:37 AM


David Fluri  (Source: daylife.com)
The new suspension method allows stem cells to be collected in larger numbers instead of being scraped off of a surface

Researchers from the University of Toronto's Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering (IBBME) have created a new method for growing stem cells in larger quantities.

David Fluri, a postdoctoral researcher at IBBME, and Peter Zandstra, a professor at IBBME, have developed a new suspension method for growing stem cells, which allows for the collection of greater numbers of stem cells and increases the chance of obtaining viable cells in a cost-effective way.

Traditionally, stem cells are grown on surfaces that need to be scraped and are then differentiated from other kinds of cells to avoid cell death. However, this method doesn't produce enough viable stem cells from each culture, and the high cost to use this method doesn't match the results.

But now, Fluri and Zandstra have combined the stem cell creation process with a bioreactor, which provides stable environments for such processes. The cells were also grown in suspension, making the process more stable and safer for more viable cells.

By doing this, mouse cells were reprogrammed into pluripotent stem cells, which can become any kind of cell. They were then changed into cardiac cells.

Fluri and Zandstra hope that this new technique can be used to eventually treat heart disease. It is designed to work with large scale processes and provide the quantity needed for successful stem cell research and drug development.

"This is an enabling technology," said Zandstra. "It takes something we showed we could do before at low efficiency but not at such numbers that could be used in manufacturing."

Source: Eurekalert



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/9/2012 4:31:11 PM , Rating: -1
If it wasn't for Bush and the Republican Party for vetoing federal funds for Embryonic Stem Cell research.
Religion is a cancer on humanity that needs to be eradicated.




RE: This could have been the US
By KCjoker on 4/9/2012 5:42:45 PM , Rating: 3
You don't know what you're talking about, we have an endless supply of getting embryonic stem cells with zero controversy....they can be obtained from the umbilical cord yet dems would rather make it an issue then talk about factual solutions.


RE: This could have been the US
By microslice on 4/9/2012 5:54:31 PM , Rating: 2
Strange comment. One benefit of refusing to use embryonic stem cells is that it forced research in a different direction. Now we have stem cells without any controversy or potential moral implications (not sure I feel comfortable myself using fetuses for research purposes). But somehow it comes back to 'blame Bush'. Is that the excuse for everything with some people? Sheesh.


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/9/12, Rating: -1
RE: This could have been the US
By PReiger99 on 4/9/2012 6:16:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
One benefit of refusing to use embryonic stem cells is that it forced research in a different direction.

Science works best when it's not shackled by religion and politics.


RE: This could have been the US
By Reclaimer77 on 4/9/2012 8:23:24 PM , Rating: 4
Yay more liberal media tainting the minds of people and repeating a lie until it becomes fact.

Before Bush took office you know how much federal funding went to stem cells? Zero. That's right, none. Under Bush federal stem cell funding went from $0 to $24 million by 2004.

President Bush opened up stem cell research to federal funding for the first time in history. And yet today, everyone repeats that he "banned" stem cell research. It's unbelievable.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/20...


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/9/12, Rating: -1
RE: This could have been the US
By Reclaimer77 on 4/9/2012 8:43:25 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
A democratic president would authorize funding for all kinds of stem cells without banning the kind that would upset the idiot bible thumping republican base.


A Democratic President authorizes spending for everything under the sun, whether we have the money or not. Big shock there.

quote:
Also, nice article from that toilet paper called USA Today


Oh I'm sorry, I'm sure if I used a Conservative blog it would have been much better received on DT? lol. Now the USA Today I can't use?

How about you debate the facts, not rhetoric? How about you back up your claim that this breakthrough would have happened in the USA if not for Bush?

This has NOTHING to do with the bible or religion. Every article isn't an appropriate place for your bigoted hate speech.

In 2001 there WAS no "cold hard science" on stem cells. Because of Bush, there now is. THAT is the fact of the matter.


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/9/12, Rating: 0
RE: This could have been the US
By Reclaimer77 on 4/9/2012 9:13:37 PM , Rating: 3
You get dumber with every post. That three trillion was spread out over 12 years. Obama and the Democrats are spending that much EVERY YEAR. Every day this country spends 4 billion in deficit spending! Damn right Democrats are big spenders. That can't even be debated. We have the numbers, they are factual, game over.


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/9/2012 9:18:29 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, we have the numbers all right:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2...

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.


RE: This could have been the US
RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/10/2012 12:03:33 AM , Rating: 1
LOL @ your links from the stormtroopers' websites.


RE: This could have been the US
By Mint on 4/10/2012 8:14:37 AM , Rating: 1
Note that corduroygt's link is about SPENDING, while your links are about DEFICIT.

Now, how is it possible that both sets of numbers are true? Well, it's very easy for deficit to go up while spending goes down: just reduce tax revenue.

Maybe you tools should stop blindly listening to lies from conservative politicians and media and examine the data yourselves. If you did, you'd realize that Obama has increased spending far less than Republican presidents, and the deficit problem is entirely due to tax revenue reduction. That's why all the DT repubs point their finger at things like the DOE energy grants, which amount to 0.03% of the economy during Obama's tenure, because the reality is that there's barely been any spending increase since Obama took office. Raw numbers:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GCEC96...

From corduroy's link:
Clinton is the most austere, followed by Obama. The most spendthrift are (1) Nixon-Ford, (2) Reagan, and (3) Bush II.

Comparison of Obama and Reagan:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/real-g...
At this point in the Reagan recovery government spending had risen 11.6 percent; this time around it’s actually down by 2.6 percent. So if we had followed the Reagan track, spending would be almost 15 percent higher.


RE: This could have been the US
By Reclaimer77 on 4/10/2012 9:47:34 AM , Rating: 2
Mint what the hell are you talking about? There is simply nothing that backs your claim up that Republican Presidents spend more than Obama. Even at the height of the Iraq War, the federal budget wasn't this high.

Cords link was about spending per capita. Which, of course, doesn't even begin to tell the whole story about our economy and federal budget. Frankly it's cherry picking.

Obama proposed a budget that was so ridiculous (it would have added $12 trillion to the debt) that not even ONE DEMOCRATS would vote for it. It failed 97-0 in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Raw numbers? Obama is now responsible for $6.2 trillion in debt in less than one term; versus George Bush whom Obama demonized for being responsible for $4 trillion over EIGHT FULL YEARS.

You cannot explain all this away from "reduced tax revenues". And of course tax revenues are down, because of Obama's policies we have MILLIONS of people out of work. The economy is being shackled by unprecedented Government spending and public debt.

The Government doesn't have money. Whenever the size and budget of the Government increases, it does so by directly reducing the private sector. Until you and your leftist friends understand this very simple concept, you'll always be on the wrong side of these debates.


RE: This could have been the US
By NobleKain on 4/10/2012 12:42:06 PM , Rating: 2
You're a fool of the largest kind. Period.

Your statements basically advocate that morality should have no bearing on science. Therefore, you are saying you approve of the manner in which science was performed by the Nazi's on their Jewish captives (as well as countless non-jewish captives)? Those are some of the most egregious acts in humanity... and that was just the nazi's. We use many of their scientific discoveries today, and much for good causes... but was it OK for them to do what they did? (Before this argument digresses... yes, i know the Nazi's weren't alone in these awful acts, but theirs are the best documented)

Anyway, If you condone what they did, then shame on you... you're a horrible, self-centered, incredibly heartless human being. The ends don't justify the means.

If you DON'T condone their acts, then your own argument doesn't hold up... because the ONLY argument against what they did is based on morality. Regardless of where your morality stems from (the Bible, or simply self-awareness), it's still your own morality. Therefore, by that standard, Bush and congress at the time, had every right and plausible reason to base his decision on the moral compass that THEY live by, even if the principles of that compass are founded on their own religion.

You may disagree with their decision, but your arguments against respecting a viewpoint are strangely more close-minded than the viewpoints you criticize.


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/10/2012 12:57:04 PM , Rating: 2
I never said morality has no bearing on science. Basing their morality on 2000-year old toilet paper in a country where the government cannot establish a specific religion is wrong and another reason to hate Bush and his cronies.

Blocking federal funding that doesn't agree with his morals, with those morals being based on a POS book called the Bible is wrong simple as that.

Thank goodness Obama has more common sense and does even if he gets his morals from the Bible, he does not legislate based on it.


RE: This could have been the US
By NobleKain on 4/10/2012 1:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
Again, your fundamental rejections have ZERO logic or basis... simply your own close-minded perceptions on what's correct/incorrect. SO apparently YOU'RE the correct foundation for moral guidelines, because you understand it better than the rest of the population? Regardless of the truth behind the legitimacy of the Bible as a text... your objections to it are simply hot air since there's no PROPER argument.

See, I don't have to argue FOR the Bible... all I need to do is show you that your objections are purely bias, not formulated on sound reasoning. Thus, you're simply a fool.

If morality has a role in science, then ALL morality gets considered. The majority agreed at that point in time on the moral standard... and FYI: the Bible was never mentioned in their ruling.

Oh, and something else... the NIH had an adopted standard created by congress in 1996 (Clinton-era, not Bush) as part of the Tax-payer budget amendments... thus it effectively was law as long as it was part of the budget. Bush RELAXED that standard, not strengthened it. Furthermore, before you simply bash Republicans for it... since it's not actual LAW, simply a Budget amendment that must be upheld while active, it must be re-voted on EVERY YEAR.

That's right... EVERY YEAR, it has been re-adopted as part of the budget The Dickey-Wicker amendment to the budget of the National Institutes of Health has been renewed each year since 1996. One more time... EVERY YEAR - That means that CONGRESS, EVERY YEAR has re-adopted the budget rider. Have I stressed it enough for you yet? Does it make sense? WAIT FOR IT... WAIT FOR IT... ahh... now it hit home in your feeble little brain. Democrats have voted for it, even when they've held majority power... since 1996 .

Kinda kills your argument, doesn't it? That it's all Bush and the Republican's fault?

If you want to argue the merits of your own morality, that's fine. But your bigoted, biased opines on the Bible as a standard for morality is futile. It is tantamount to nothing more than just hate speech, and makes you sound ignorant.


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/10/2012 1:39:16 PM , Rating: 2
I don't need to be the correct person on morality to show that any morality based on the Bible is wrong, because the Bible itself is a worthless book full of errors and inaccuracies. Much better to base it on the declaration of human rights and apply it to beings with consciousness.


RE: This could have been the US
By NobleKain on 4/10/2012 2:12:52 PM , Rating: 2
Again, your definition of worthless is simply that... YOUR definition.

Also, I repeat: the Bible was never mentioned in the rider that congress added in 1996. So argue THAT.

Finally, where does the standard for the morality in the Dec of Human Rights come from? If it IS a standard founded on its very own, how does it apply/not apply to Stem Cell research? By your own statements (albeit contradictory at times) morality DOES play a role in science... so argue for a standard, and then apply it evenly across historical implementations.

Lets start with Stem Cell research juxtaposed with my previous example; the Nazi's research. Why were the Nazi's immoral? What makes what they did improper within the bounds of scientific morality? Use your standard, and I'll play that game with you.

Before you even begin though, let's have your start with a little education to help you formulate your arguments. I'll even give you the ammo I'll likely use against your arguments. Using the Univ. Dec of Human Rights (herein known as UDHR) I'll refer you to:

Articles 2, 12, 18, 19, 21, 26, and 29.

Go.

**I won't argue with you the worth of the Bible, nor it's 'inaccuracies'. Your 'evidence' is lacking (read: non-existent), but neither does it pertain to the scientific morality argument.


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/10/2012 3:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
The Nazi's were immoral because they did experiments on people against their will, it's as simple as that. They harmed human beings in the name of science. A fetus is not a human being before it shows some kind of consciousness.

Also, the way you quoted the Bible's "inaccuracies" tells me that you regard it highly. Any such person is automatically disqualified from being a rational and reasonable person.


RE: This could have been the US
By NobleKain on 4/10/2012 5:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
I have not defended the Bible, but your bias and close-mindedness is quite apparent. I quoted 'inaccuracies' because you have not qualified your arguments with ANY proof, so it's merely terminology, not fact. Additionally, I've given you every reasonable opportunity to prove your arguments, which so far the best you've come up with is "the Bible is worthless - because you say it is - so Bush and Republicans have screwed us because some of them believe in the Bible, and also don't think the Gov. should fund Embyonic Stem Cell Research."

In Summary, picking apart all your writing, here's what you've offered:
1) The UDHR should be used as the standard for Scientific morality (perhaps we can agree that this also implicitly applies to the political and legislative realms as well) I've very reasonably conceded to allow this to be the standard of choice for you to formulate your arguments.

2) The Bible is Worthless. Highly subjective, since as of yet, you've only made statements about it, but offered no evidence or factual proof beyond your own opinionated bigotry. Regardless, since I've already conceded to #1 above, the Bible's worth has very little purpose in the discussion at hand, and therefore can be excluded as a talking point altogether.

3) Bush and 'The Republicans' believe in the Bible. This is understood to be true of Bush, and some of the Republicans. However, there are plenty of Republicans that this is an unknown, and furthermore, there are plenty of known Democrats who believe in the Bible. Therefore, as a standard of measurement, this is very weak. Also, again, because of #1, we can render this point moot, as it has no merit in our discussion.

4) Bush and 'The Republicans' don't think the Government should fund Embryonic Stem Cell research. I've already rationally proven to you that it isn't simply Bush or the Republicans that believe this, since it has continued to be policy voted into the budget for 16+ years.

At what point have I not proven that I'm both reasonable and rational?

As for the very reasonable challenge I issued, and your response:

You gave no factual evidence to back up your fetus claim. Show me the "smoking gun" on when a fetus gains 'consciousness'.

If your standard for life is consciousness, then this is your standard:

con·scious·ness/'känCH?sn?s/
Noun:
1) The state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
2) The awareness or perception of something by a person.

I can think of a handful of reasons why this is not a legal or even scientific explanation for the life of a "human being", or when it is deemed OK/not OK to conduct destructive experiments on said human being, so try again.

If 'consciousness' was an improper word, give me the correct one. Before you hurt your brain too much, you should note that the SCIENTIFIC explanation for 'human life' actually begins at an embryo, but I'll leave you room to argue anyway, if you can in fact prove your point.

You can take for granted the fact that I'm telling you the truth about the scientific "life" - which a simple Google search will show that I am (as opposed to 'personhood' which is a created distinction for the purposes of debate).

Note that the standard of excellence which you put forth - the UDHR - does not make a distinction between human life vs. "personhood". Additionally, it grants the right to life (see Article 2) and the right to be viewed as a person in the eyes of the law (see Article 6).

You could argue, that the 'Everyone' term is therefore subjective, so if we boil the argument down, I guess we are arguing what 'Everyone' in the UDHR actually means.

The best we can look at is therefore the preamble.

quote:
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is...


Since embryo's are in fact 'human' genetically, and have 'life' scientifically, I would argue that the most rational conclusion is that they are members of the 'human family'. Thus, with the word 'human' as the adjective in the term 'Human Family', (as opposed to say 'canine family'), a very natural extension is to believe that 'human' in 'human rights' is a shared descriptor for the subject of the UDHR.

In short, the most natural, RATIONAL and REASONABLE conclusion, based on YOUR document, is the embryos - being a part of the human family - fall under the Human Rights described within the document, and are given both rights to Life AND Personhood in the eyes of the law, and all of the other protections contained within.

Still disagree? I relish and await your insight.


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/10/2012 7:03:00 PM , Rating: 2
Since you put so much effort into this, let me answer your points.

1) We agree on this.
2) The Bible's worth is relevant to this discussion because it is the basis of Bush's beliefs and decisions with regards to this legislation. Obama, who also believes in the same Bible, reversed the legislation, because he knows that the Bible is worthless when it comes to this issue. Also, I'll link to the first part of the famous debate where it was conclusively shown that the Catholic Church has been an overall negative influence in the world, you can click on the links on the right to watch the rest and learn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W_yoeFJpsU

3) Obama also believes in the Bible, but he does not execute based on it, which is the big distinction here.

4) Human family does not include fetuses, and you're just playing with words here. Here's Science saying that it's around the third trimester where a fetus exhibits all the characteristics of a human:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=w...


RE: This could have been the US
By NobleKain on 4/10/2012 8:35:38 PM , Rating: 2
2 & 3) I fail to see your reasoning. By your standards UDHR should represent our morality standard. THOSE standards were formed on a consensus, driven by a group of people who agreed on rules based on THEIR belief system. The consensus chose the agreeable terms, but those terms were breathed into life by people willing to put forth their beliefs (which derived from somewhere).

In other words, the rules you want to apply were BORN of a group of peoples individual beliefs, many of which were directly/indirectly formed from influences by religion.

Motivation has no bearing in this conversation. I'd argue that Bush formed his opinion based on the UDHR, and you can't prove me wrong, because his actions were in line with the UDHR. You BELIEVE he made his decisions based on the Bible, but you have no proof, and it is just as credible that he formed his opinion based on the UDHR, not the Bible, since the two widley hold to the same tenets. You can't definitively state where his motivation came from. As a result, the Bible has no bearing on the topic at hand, because it may/or may not have had any direct impact on policy making. Your own admission that Obama believes in the Bible, yet made a different decision further improves my point. If they both BELIEVE in the Bible, and yet form differing opinions, then the Bible is not playing the crucial role you're trying to advocate it did.

I've already given you articles from the UDHR which support Bush's decision, so again, the Bible's perceived role in the policy making of the respective presidents in this matter is insubstantial, since it could easily be argued that they both formed their opinions off of the UDHR.

4) Again, by YOUR definition, including the 'consciousness' definition, fully born babies, or adults with sever retardation are not human. That's not me mincing words... that is a direct link to your definition.

Additionally, fundamentally, the whole premise behind that pleasant science blog entry, is not widely held as scientific fact, since it isn't actually fact. The post repeats a white paper based around an assumption and hypothesis about MinC (minimal consciousness). FYI: EVEN in the white paper, it is referred to as both an assumption and hypothesis at different times (see pages 410 and 414 respectively). While it's a nice starting point, it is currently not FACTUAL, and therefore is not scientifically admissible as grounds for your argument in this scientific policy making discussion.

You can argue with me all day long, but the ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC definition for when LIFE begins is conception. This is not a question among scientists. The fact that it's actual a FACT is the whole reason behind the creation of the new term "Personhood" in the Pro-life/Abortion debate.

Being that the question of LIFE is not actually a question at all, it moves us to the next topic of where human rights should be applied... "Personhood" or Life. The standard we agreed to doesn't make the distinction.
Also "Personhood" HAS NO scientific definition, and thus is merely a term that is HIGHLY subject to the VALUE placed on LIFE.

Try again.


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/10/2012 11:27:30 PM , Rating: 2
1. UDHR has no religious basis and it's a consensus agreed upon by pretty much all the countries in the world as a moral standard on human rights.
2. Do you have any proof that Bush even READ the UDHR? I have proof that he's a religious nutjob: http://www.alternet.org/news/140221

Given what we know about Bush, it's infinitely more likely that he banned embryonic stem cell funding due to being an ignorant dumbfck prick, like all religious people.

3. I never disputed when life starts, which is a nice parallel you went off there to fill some paragraphs. We kill living beings for our benefit ALL THE TIME, where do you think that cheeseburger comes from?

What separates us from other animals is our brain and nervous system. The link I shows explicitly states when they form and it's not at conception. Another measure of "personhood" is looking at the earliest date when a baby can live on its own, which currently is 1 day less than 22 weeks.

Again, not at conception or birth, but 22 weeks later. Embryonic stem cells are obtained from blastocysts, which are just a clump of 50-100 cells, and only 5 days after pregnancy. The only arguments that a blastocyst is a person are religion based and therefore invalid.


RE: This could have been the US
By NobleKain on 4/11/2012 12:13:47 AM , Rating: 2
1) I don't dispute that the UDHR has no religious affiliation. I'm merely pointing out that the PEOPLE that decided on the articles of the UDHR formed their consensus based on shared beliefs. In other words, the UDHR did NOT form their moral beliefs, but rather their morality formed the UDHR. Their beliefs, naturally, were directly/indirectly created from religious influences. Even your own beliefs are influenced by religion, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

My purpose of pointing that out directly leads to your #2. The moral compass as defined by Christianity has a very nice/close parallel with the UDHR, even if they are completely unrelated from a theological point of view. This is not shocking given the impact that religion makes on everyone, even those that don't follow said religion. You have ZERO proof that Bush and Congress didn't make their decisions based on the UDHR, since his decisions meet the tenets of the UDHR and he effectively enforced said articles (knowingly or unknowingly). Since your standard IS the UDHR, it is not only foolish, but completely hypocritical for you to then criticize him for upholding the UDHR.

I don't have to prove where their decision stemmed from either. I merely have to show that YOU can't PROVE the contrary.

Also, whatever is "likely" about Bush is of zero concern, since "likely" is not "definitely" and therefore is supposition and conjecture, not FACT. As a science argument, you must discard this.

3) The UDHR doesn't protect animals (e.g. cows) Right to Life... it protects HUMAN Rights. And as such, when LIFE begins is essential to the argument... after all Article #2 of the UDHR EXPLICITLY counts Life as a right. It wasn't a parallel at all, but rather pointedly addressing articles from the UDHR. You can't use them for your Moral argument on one hand, and then discard the articles that don't serve your purposes on another. Either they are the standard or not. Which is it? Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways.

Also, "dependency" is not a valid argument, or else all living breathing 2 yr olds who are dependent on their parents for survival would not be considered human. Or any injured person connected to breathing machines would give up their Human Rights. This argument is a failure. Try again.

The link you showed me was based on an ADMITTED hypothesis (by the authors themselves!), not fact. If you actually read the white paper from which much of that links text was copied, you'd know this. Then again, you've already showed yourself to be a bigot and completely biased and close-minded. Perhaps it isn't terribly surprising that it appears you likely just read the headlines of media outlets that support your world view and then use them to give your view credibility, like a sheep.

Funny how much you sound like the "ignorant dumbfck prick" you accuse the 'religious' people of being.


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/11/2012 1:26:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, whatever is "likely" about Bush is of zero concern, since "likely" is not "definitely" and therefore is supposition and conjecture, not FACT. As a science argument, you must discard this.


1. Please tell me how my beliefs are influenced from religion, I'd love to hear about it.

2. Life isn't made up of ones and zeroes. Disregarding mathematics, even sciences do not deal in 100% certainties, only high likelihoods. Given that I presented very legit arguments on the kind of despicable person Bush is, my case as a far higher likelihood than yours, so I am right. Now if you ask Bush and get a different answer, I'll be happy to concede the point.

3. Dependency, including dependency with technological aid, is a valid argument, it's been used all around the world including the SCOTUS. Now if we someday get to a point where a human can be grown inside a machine that does the same thing as a mother's womb from a blastocyst, then it could be an argument.

4. How about telling me how do you regard the Bible (or any other "holy" book) in your own life. Something tells me you're stupid enough to believe in the crap that's in them. Please tell me what you think because it's directly going to affect if I bother responding to you or not. I do not like to waste my time with sub humans who believe that crap.


RE: This could have been the US
By NobleKain on 4/11/2012 2:18:57 PM , Rating: 2
1) Do you live in a bubble? You're saying you AREN'T influenced by the society you live in?

2) So you're saying that believing in science is an act of Faith, since it isn't FACTUAL, only likely? Well, then science sounds like religion to me. After all, a few hundred years ago, it was "likely" the world was flat. (Scientists all over the world just cringed when you said what you said)

Disregarding your 'faith', I'll use your own "likelihood' against you.

Bush is a professed christian, but Bush also was the LEADER of the Founding and Host nation of the United Nations which formed the UDHR. Furthermore, his actions directly uphold the articles contained within the UDHR. Finally, it was Congress, not Bush, that voted the Dickey-Wicker rider into the budget (Bush simply didn't veto it) and Congress is made up of people of all faiths and moral standards. So which is MORE LIKELY? That a bunch of people who may/may not believe in the Bible (but all of whom have sworn to uphold the UDHR), voted on something based on the Bible, NOT the UDHR?

3) Give me a SCOTUS case when 'dependency' has ever been used to decide if a Human Being loses their Human Rights. Give me a case.

4) Why does what I think about the Bible matter to this subject? I believe murder is wrong. Did I get that from the Bible, or did I get that from the UDHR? Both implicitly or explicitly agree with me. Perhaps I got the belief from Hinduism? Does it matter to the argument? Not at all.

I believe in the right to privacy. The Bible never really addresses the issue as far as I know, and yet I believe it. Did I get it from the UDHR, or perhaps the US Constitution? Does it matter? Does it have any bearing on what I think about the Bible, or vice versa? No.

The only tests that matters are ACTIONS held against the standard we're using (UDHR). That's the judgement that must be applied.


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/11/2012 5:08:36 PM , Rating: 2
1) I am smart enough to reject all the BS that's religion from my life, so I am not influenced by it at all.

2) No it's not an act of faith, since you can perform experiments and show real results. It's not a comparable leap of faith to go from 99.99% evidence to saying that it's 100% the case vs. 0% evidence (religion) to 100%. Therefore you are wrong.

UDHR was declared before Bush Jr was even born, just the fact that he got elected president in a country where people outside of a few states are 90% morons due to a crappy electoral college system does not mean anything.

3) Umm...really? How about Roe vs. Wade where viability is defined as the interim point at which the fetus becomes potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid.

4) It matters because belief in the Bible as anything more than a few philosophical guidelines, is the same as believing Batman/Superman exist. It indicated a level of mental development equal to one of a child.


RE: This could have been the US
By NobleKain on 4/11/2012 5:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am smart enough to reject all the BS that's religion from my life, so I am not influenced by it at all.


And yet you're foolish enough to believe your life isn't influenced by it. Hilarious.

quote:
UDHR was declared before Bush Jr was even born.


And...? How does that discount his living by it, especially given it was both his job and legal obligation to live by it?

The constitution was made before you were born. Do we not have to abide by it as well? The Likelihood is that the UDHR was drafted before you were born (or were a wee lad), and your that's your standard.

Furthermore, what about the fact that it was Congress, not Bush that placed the Rider? Nothing? have nothing to say?

quote:
Umm...really? How about Roe vs. Wade where viability is defined as the interim point at which the fetus becomes potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid


Give me another... one that involves YOUR standard (the UDHR), not the Constitution. Furthermore, give me one that says that viability = life, because Roe v Wade doesn't make that distinction.

quote:
It matters because belief in the Bible as anything more than a few philosophical guidelines, is the same as believing Batman/Superman exist


Prove it.


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/11/2012 6:27:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And yet you're foolish enough to believe your life isn't influenced by it. Hilarious.

Prove it. I am not influenced by religion in any aspect of my life. I do not follow any, and I reject all of them. Unless you're going to twist words around and argue that rejection is a form of influence, which is BS by the way, you have no case.

Here's what Bush did:

President Bush announced, on August 9, 2001 that federal funds, for the first time, would be made available for hESC research. However, the Bush Administration chose to limit taxpayer funding to then-existing hESC cell lines, thereby limiting federal funding to research in which "the life-and-death decision has already been made". The Bush Administration's guidelines differ from the Clinton Administration guidelines which did not distinguish between currently existing and not-yet-existing hESC. Both the Bush and Clinton guidelines agree that the federal government should not fund hESC research that directly destroys embryos.

quote:
Give me another...

I gave you one and beat you fair and square, no more moving goal posts, you idiot.

quote:
give me one that says that viability = life, because Roe v Wade doesn't make that distinction.

I never said viability = life, since even a single cell is life. However Roe vs. Wade argues that viability = human. Let that sink into that cancerous brain of yours.

quote:
Prove it.

Batman/Superman are fiction, so are the events in the bible and the supernatural powers of Jesus. They are all fiction.


RE: This could have been the US
By NobleKain on 4/11/2012 8:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Prove it. I am not influenced by religion in any aspect of my life. I do not follow any, and I reject all of them.


Do you believe in a God, or a supernatural force, or are you a "science guy" believing in evolution?

quote:
Here's what Bush did: [his administration announced something in 2001]...


So the Bush Administration pushed Congress to relax their standard, and you BLAME him?

quote:
I gave you one and beat you fair and square, no more moving goal posts, you idiot.
I believe, had you quoted me fully, that I asked you to give me another one that was made against YOUR standard (the UDHR), as opposed to the Constitution.

quote:
I never said viability = life, since even a single cell is life. However Roe vs. Wade argues that viability = human. Let that sink into that cancerous brain of yours.


Ah, but you see, Roe v. Wade DID say viability = life. At least, initially. Later, the Roe v Wade argument (in PlannedParenthood vs. Casey) was altered by stating part of the fundamental rights Roe protected was the right to DECIDE for ourselves the mysteries of life, and our own existence. This is important, because the FIRST distinction in Roe has been proven precisely FALSE. LIFE - HUMAN life, as a distinct and unique organism - has zero to do with viability, as has been SCIENTIFICALLY proven to begin at conception (and let us not forget that this whole conversation is about science, so this is important).

Casey fundamentally did NOT to apply a technical definition to what constitutes a Human, but rather placed a VALUE on Human life at various stages of it's life span, by letting the woman choose how she values that life. It determined that the VALUE of a woman's constitutional right to privacy trumped the VALUE of human life weighed by its viability and her morality.

(FYI: this is why it is still argued today, and ALLOWED to be argued.)

The PROBLEM with assigning VALUE is that it is highly subjective, and will be formed based upon an individuals own morality (and from which that morality stems).

At any rate the Roe argument does NOT apply here as a basis since it has the specific balance of the value of a Human Life against the Woman's Privacy (as it is directly impacted by that human life). In the case of hESC, the woman is removed from the equation. The value imposed upon the human being's life now has no other weight of measurement beyond its own significance.

The Government (as you've stated) should not be making philosophical or theological decisions. Since they can't juxtapose the value of the fetus's life against the value of the woman, their only recourse is to treat the life as it's own measurement, and as such, apply the Constitution (or in your case the UDHR) appropriately.

Anyway, the UDHR does not make a distinction between VALUE, or between Human Life and Human Being. Since that is your standard of choice, you must adhere to it or give me a proper example of where it DOES make the distinction.

quote:
... so are the events in the bible and the supernatural powers of Jesus. They are all fiction .


Again I say, prove it.


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/11/2012 11:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you believe in a God, or a supernatural force, or are you a "science guy" believing in evolution?

The probability of all organized religions in the world having ANYTHING to do with an actual god assuming such a god exists = 0.
The probability that god exists = 1/(infinity-1), which is the smallest positive real number.

Here's rest of the stuff that Bush did:
In April 2004, 206 out of 500 members of Congress signed a letter urging President Bush to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research beyond what Bush had already supported.

In May 2005, the House of Representatives voted 238-194 to loosen the limitations on federally funded embryonic stem-cell research — by allowing government-funded research on surplus frozen embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics to be used for stem cell research with the permission of donors — despite Bush's promise to veto the bill if passed. On July 29, 2005, Senate Majority Leader William H. Frist (R-TN), announced that he too favored loosening restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. On July 18, 2006, the Senate passed three different bills concerning stem cell research. The Senate passed the first bill (Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act), 63-37, which would have made it legal for the Federal government to spend Federal money on embryonic stem cell research that uses embryos left over from in vitro fertilization procedures. On July 19, 2006 President Bush vetoed this bill. The second bill makes it illegal to create, grow, and abort fetuses for research purposes. The third bill would encourage research that would isolate pluripotent, i.e., embryonic-like, stem cells without the destruction of human embryos.

In 2005 and 2007, Congressman Ron Paul introduced the Cures Can Be Found Act, with 10 cosponsors. With an income tax credit, the bill favors research upon non embryonic stem cells obtained from placentas, umbilical cord blood, amniotic fluid, humans after birth, or unborn human offspring who died of natural causes; the bill was referred to committee. Paul argued that hESC research is outside of federal jurisdiction either to ban or to subsidize.[43]

Bush vetoed another bill, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which would have amended the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research. The bill passed the Senate on April 11 by a vote of 63-34, then passed the House on June 7 by a vote of 247-176. President Bush vetoed the bill on July 19, 2007.

On March 9, 2009, President Obama removed the restriction on federal funding for newer stem cell lines.

As you can see, he may have started an initiative, but then he vetoed progress and stifled research. This is due to his religious beliefs, and he's a POS.

Let's come back to Roe vs. Wade. According to UDHR and also our constitution, the value of each one of our lives is equal. We also all have a right to privacy. Now since the ruling says that a woman's right to privacy is more important than the life of a fetus up to its viability, that clearly means that the fetus is not considered to be a human, otherwise its life wouldn't be less important than a woman's right to privacy, until it's viable. So the viability is being used to determine if it really is a human worthy of the protections of the constitution or not.

A blastocyst, which is a lot removed from a viable or close to viable human fetus, and has not even undergone cell differentiation, is surely not a human being according to our laws. However Bush's laws (aka the Bible) say otherwise and he vetoed expanding stem cell research.

About the Bible, proving things do not work that way. I do not have to prove that the Bible is a work of fiction, you have to prove that it isn't. You have to prove that Jesus is a real supernatural being and all the other crap he did in the Bible, not the other way around. Your stories about Jesus have just as much credibility as my stories about a dragon in my garage. Both are equally (un)likely.


RE: This could have been the US
By Asetha on 4/11/2012 12:53:42 AM , Rating: 2
Ah, the infamous and subjective personhood argument. You do know that not all fetuses develop at the same rate? So your 22 week rule is just a line in the sand that you drew based on some non-objective principles that YOU think matter more than others?

You are just a clump of a few trillion cells. I don't measure the value of a human based on how many cells they contain. Moral freaks like you do, though, and it shows your true colors.

Nice straw man about religion, as if it has anything to do with the biology of human reproduction.

Nice link. Prepare yourself for more:

"Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2. "Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)."

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

"Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote."

T.W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11.

"[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being."

Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte."

Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

"Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive male and female gametes during fertilization... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."

William J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998. pp. 1, 14.

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."

Clark Edward Corliss, Patten's Human Embryology: Elements of Clinical Development. New York: McGraw Hill, 1976. p. 30.

I could go on, but I hope by now you get the idea. You aren't arguing the science of human embryology, you are arguing about the attributed value of humans at a specific point in their development.


RE: This could have been the US
By Asetha on 4/11/2012 12:43:55 AM , Rating: 2
When does human life begin? Indisputably at conception. Peter Singer said this about it:

quote:
It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.


I'm not sure what you mean by 'human family', as it is entirely different than human species. Like produces like. A fetus is not some random species that magically and spontaneously becomes a homo sapiens, it is homo sapiens from conception. The only difference between a human zygote and you is a certain amount of time.


RE: This could have been the US
By Asetha on 4/11/2012 12:35:37 AM , Rating: 2
A human fetus is not a human?

What species is it, then?


RE: This could have been the US
By Asetha on 4/11/2012 12:38:36 AM , Rating: 2
"Also, the way you quoted the Bible's "inaccuracies" tells me that you regard it highly. Any such person is automatically disqualified from being a rational and reasonable person."

About as irrational as Newton and Galileo?


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/11/2012 1:15:49 AM , Rating: 1
1. A seed is not a plant, therefore a blastocyst is not a human, simple case really. The beginning of a human != human.

2. Religious beliefs have to be evaluated within the context of the period of one's existence. If Newton and Galileo lived today, they would easily reject all religious beliefs, and most likely even the concept of a God. Anyone who does not reject any and all organized religion in 2012 is a bone fide idiot and there is no disputing it. Only acceptable action is to have philosophical arguments about the existence of a creator, and not the Bible or any other religious texts, which are all equally horseshit.


RE: This could have been the US
By Asetha on 4/15/2012 1:11:54 AM , Rating: 2
1. It has it's own unique DNA, even when it is a single cell. There is zero difference between a single-celled human and yourself other than a certain amount of time. I find killing toddlers abhorrent, and for the exact same reason I find killing single-celled humans abhorrent. Human life is precious.

2. Pure speculation. You are claiming that Newton etc. didn't critically think about their faith positions, which they would likely find highly insulting. Then you devolve into ad-hominem attacks, a favorite logical fallacy of (though not exclusive to)the rabid atheist crowd. People who don't believe that the universe caused itself to exist before it did, and there are an infinite number of unmeasurable, unobservable and untestable other universes (which is, by definition, unscientific!) and life spawned itself, along with reason, and that natural selection explains all human behavior and thought (including the beliefs of those you disagree with, so why call them idiots?) are stupid and should be silenced.


RE: This could have been the US
By Asetha on 4/15/2012 1:13:01 AM , Rating: 2
Also, nice dodge. You conveniently ignored every single embryology text that states a blastocyst = an individual human.


RE: This could have been the US
By TeXWiller on 4/10/2012 6:50:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
not sure I feel comfortable myself using fetuses for research purposes
The alternative has been those fetuses thrown away as a category 1 bio waste. It's a similar situation to organ donations. If the consent would be obtained during the IVF procedure, the ethical issue should be quite manageable for the parents in the US.
Thanks to the political raining of the religious traditions we have this mess in some countries in Europe as well, Germany being a notable example. Luckily the German researchers can visit Israel to complete their research on embryonic stem cells. (I just had to go there..)


RE: This could have been the US
By Reclaimer77 on 4/9/2012 8:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
Ignorance is a cancer on humanity that needs to be eradicated.

Why don't you read up on Bush's stem cell policy before you post MSNBC leftist talking points that aren't fact checked? There was NO funding for stem cells before Bush took office. Bush didn't "ban" funding, he opened it up to federal funds! For the first time.

I guess in crazy liberal land putting restrictions on something might as well be a "ban" on it. Even if the end result is unprecedented funding.

In just a few years the US became the world leader in stem cell research with more lines available than anyone. Wtf are you talking about Cord?

All that hate is rotting your brain.


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/9/2012 8:31:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I guess in crazy liberal land putting restrictions on something might as well be a "ban" on it. Even if the end result is unprecedented funding.

You've got to explain this logic to me. How did banning embryonic stem cell research result in "unprecedented funding?" Are you implying that there would be LESS funding if he didn't ban Embryonic Stem Cells?

As I said, religion is a cancer on humanity that needs to be eradicated.


RE: This could have been the US
By Reclaimer77 on 4/9/12, Rating: -1
RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/9/2012 8:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
He BANNED federal funding for embryonic stem cells, while approving funding for other stem cells.

There would be more funding if ALL stem cells received federal funds without restricting embryonic ones. As I said, emerging technology at the time and Bush held it back because of religious reasons, just like his faith based initiatives that got federal funding it's as simple as that.

This country would be a better place if all religious conservatives ceased to exist. If I had a button that achieved this, I'd press it without hesitating for a second.


RE: This could have been the US
By Reclaimer77 on 4/9/2012 9:03:39 PM , Rating: 2
Cord you're being willfully stupid. Very few Presidents have spoken about their religious faith as often, as deeply or as eloquently as Obama. Are you kidding me?

We've gone over this again and again. If you hate "religious" people, which you clearly do, you also must hate Obama just as much as Bush.

Just crawl back under your bridge, troll.


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/9/2012 9:03:59 PM , Rating: 1
Don't change the subject, you religious POS.
Obama significantly expanded stem cell research after Bush's restrictive policies and research has exploded since then.

It was Bush's policy which limited stem cell research by prohibiting federal funds to go to EMBRYONIC stem cells.

So I take this as your concession that Bush needlessly limited science by banning embryonic stem cell research and Obama reversed it.

I don't hate "religious" people, I hate the "religious conservatives", which is just an euphemism for the pro-life, bible-thumping, creationist "Christian Taliban" that forms the republican party's voter base. They do not deserve to live.


RE: This could have been the US
By Reclaimer77 on 4/9/2012 9:21:29 PM , Rating: 1
Fuck you. I'm NOT religious. And this is over. I don't have to be a "religious POS" to take exception to your continued hate speech.

You sound like Hitler, seriously. That you feel you can judge who "deserves" to live? Please get help. You must be a miserable deranged person to have feelings like that.


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/9/2012 9:22:18 PM , Rating: 2
You surely defend the religious right/Fox News/Limbaugh crowd for a "non-religious" person.

It's also very ironic that you called me Hitler, while defending the party of social Darwinists (fascists).

In any case, the Christian Taliban should not be given any quarter and frankly the world would be better if they did not exist. I don't have the power to make it that way though.


RE: This could have been the US
By Reclaimer77 on 4/10/2012 9:28:01 AM , Rating: 2
Well you've lumped all Conservative Republicans into a convenient stereotype of religious wackos, so I guess I have no choice BUT to be put on the defensive. I also don't have to be "religious" to take offense to your insanity when it comes to them. Even if someone said "we should kill all Liberals" I would not be on board with that. It's called maturity and empathy, something you should look up. Just because I don't agree with someone's ideology or lifestyle, doesn't mean I should feel that it's okay if they were killed off or marginalized in some other fashion.

You're talking about having the power to make hundreds of millions of people "not exist" in a casual manner like someone would talk about going out to eat. And you question ME? Something is VERY wrong with you. It's not "ironic" that I called you Hitler. Replace Jews with "religious" people and there you have it. The mentality is exactly the same. You are talking about genocide.

Social Darwinists, "Christian Taliban"....what the hell are you even talking about? Do you listen to yourself? These are all in your head.


RE: This could have been the US
By Alexvrb on 4/10/2012 1:08:19 AM , Rating: 2
They do not deserve to live? Because they do not agree with your point of view? You're no better than they are. Your opinions don't matter any more. You're just a mortal too, and a foolish, hateful, one at that. Your very speech is like a mirror image of the kind you claim to abhor. You are at least as closed-minded and bigoted as your counterparts on the far other side of the spectrum, and equally blind to this fact as well.

I've got news for you. To use your own words: You're STILL just a "clump of cells", meatbag. With an attitude like yours, I wonder if it's not too late to abort you. You know, for science, nothing immoral about it.


RE: This could have been the US
By Asetha on 4/10/2012 4:16:34 AM , Rating: 2
'Religious conservatives' seem to be a euphemism for caricatures of people you invent in your head. Apparently you've never read Plantinga, Piper, Aquinas, Craig, Wilberforce etc.

They don't deserve to live huh? Well, start shooting them, then. It's not murder if you kill sub-humans, and sub-humans exist in some countries.

Such as Nazi Germany, you Gestapo swine.


RE: This could have been the US
By antistormtrooper on 4/10/2012 8:55:29 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know who they are, but a quick glance at Plantinga (ID supporter LOL) and Aquinas (based his stuff on the Bible, LOL) shows that I am not missing much. Arguments formulated in ields outside of Sciences and Mathematics do not have much pull, and ones based on religious texts are absolutely 100% worthless.

Humanity would be better off if they did not live. However, that doesn't mean I'd do anything about it.


RE: This could have been the US
By Asetha on 4/23/2012 1:34:06 AM , Rating: 2
Considering you are ignorant of both the authors and their works, I suggest you either a) stop talking about things you don't understand, or b) read their works?

Plantinga's naturalism argument goes something like this:

Natural selection selects based on survival, not anything else. This means you should have no reason to believe your own reasoning abilities. The example he uses is a man in the jungle faced with a tiger. The man may believe that tigers should be petted, and the best way of petting a tiger is to run away from it. The man survives and passes on his genes. Nature selected him not for his reasoning abilities but because he survived.

Basically naturalism and evolution are not coherent together.

But since you LOL at the man and not his arguments...I guess you win in your own mind? It's a great way of avoiding a difficult argument, I admit.

Nice support for murder, by the way. You don't look like a freak at all.


RE: This could have been the US
By Asetha on 4/23/2012 1:37:21 AM , Rating: 2
I just noticed you advocated they die but are unwilling to do anything about it.

Why? If you think we are better of without people like them, why not kill them yourself?

Could it be because you know murder is wrong? Who said it's wrong? Can you give me an objective reason why murder is wrong without resorting to an immaterial reason? You said that mathematics and science are all that basically matters. Therefore, if blue is better than green should people with green eyes be killed?

Your statement is nonsensical, I suggest you leave the thinking to those who can.


RE: This could have been the US
By wordsworm on 4/9/2012 9:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
I think Bush II was a moron. He's America's dumbest president in history. But of all the decisions he made, this was his best. The source of getting the stem cells should *never* be aborted fetuses for obvious reasons. People should never even have the temptation to make money from having abortions (not referring to the doctors who perform them, just the people who have them.)

I thought it was clear that he made a pretty good call on this one isolated issue. It seemed inevitable, to me, that eventually scientists would find another way to get stem cells, and they did.


RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/10/2012 12:14:02 AM , Rating: 2
What are these "obvious reasons?" First the problem you described could easily be rectified via only accepting one per person. Second, a fetus is just a clump of cells without a higher consciousness if aborted early enough, so there are no moral consequences there either.

He did not make a good call, Obama overturned his decision right away and THAT was the right call.


"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki