ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

Al to je novčana kaznica koju će svaki pravi đuvegija platiti s osmehom svestan da bi do pre izvesnog vremena samo zato što je u autobusu izdrkao gledajući privlačnu saputnicu išao u zatvor.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 15-01-2014, 14:19:45
Al to je novčana kaznica koju će svaki pravi đuvegija platiti s osmehom svestan da bi do pre izvesnog vremena samo zato što je u autobusu izdrkao gledajući privlačnu saputnicu išao u zatvor.

Pa to, nadamo se, i dalje stoji:

Quote from: Ghoul on 15-01-2014, 13:42:11
"For this to be a criminal offence it's required that the sexual molestation was directed towards one or more people,"

EDIT: tj. nema gledanja saputnica.

Da, ali moralo bi prvo da se dokaže na sudu da je on gledao baš u nju dok je onanisao. A kako to da se dokaže sem ako ga ona ne snimi telefonom? A ako ga ona snimi telefonom on nju može da tuži da ona njega molestuje narušavanjem njegove intime!!!! Gejm, set i meč!!!!!!

Cracked objašnjava koji su problemi moderne nauke:

http://www.cracked.com/article_20789_6-shocking-studies-that-prove-science-totally-broken.html

daklem  , evo , izvoli , reaguj :

Quote

Science Denialism Crosses Party Lines




New research finds Republicans are no more likely than Democrats to express skepticism of the scientific consensus on contentious issues.

•


When scientists reach conclusions that challenge our cherished beliefs, do we rethink our positions, or discount the science? In recent years, a number of prominent thinkers have been warning about the dangers of the latter, with conservative climate-change skeptics receiving the bulk of the criticism.

It turns out that emphasis may be misleading. Newly published research presents evidence that science denialism does indeed exist, but refutes the notion it is particularly prevalent among members of a specific political party.

Examining public attitudes toward three controversial issues—evolution, climate change, and stem-cell research—two Nevada political scientists report that "party identification is virtually irrelevant to skeptical attitudes towards science issues."

With the exception of evolution, which has been debated in the U.S. since the 1920s, science-related issues "do not lend themselves to simple characterization, or incorporation into more general belief systems or ideologies."

"Given the nature of elite-level discourse on evolution and climate change, this is a rather unexpected finding," the University of Nevada's Ted Jelen and Linda Lockett write in the journal SAGE Open.

Noting that previous research on this issue "has focused on attitudes towards science at a relatively high level of abstraction," Jelen and Lockett decided to focus on the aforementioned three issues, all of which involve "contested science."

Using data from the 2006 General Social Survey, which includes detailed demographic information, including political and religious affiliation, they looked at answers to three specific questions: Do you believe humans evolved from earlier animal species? Should stem-cell research be funded by the government? And, in your opinion, is there is genuine disagreement among scientists regarding "the existence and causes" of climate change?

Their first discovery was the lack of "any constituency of science policy skeptics." While sizable numbers of people declined to endorse the scientific consensus on one or two of the three issues, "very few respondents exhibit consistently skeptical attitudes."

What's more, those skeptical attitudes toward science did not follow any predictable or consistent political lines. "With the sole exception of the relationship between Democratic identification and support for stem-cell research," they write, "partisanship is not significantly related to any of the issues considered here."

(Indeed, even on that issue, one could argue that support for government funding is more of an ideological than strictly scientific issue. One can agree with scientists on the value of stem-cell research and feel it should be left to the private sector.)

The researchers did find a strong (and expected) connection between certain religion-related beliefs and behaviors (including affiliation with a Christian evangelical denomination) and skeptical attitudes toward evolution.

"The same (religious) variables are related, albeit somewhat less strongly, to attitudes towards stem-cell research," they write, "but are not significantly related to a belief that there exists a scientific consensus about climate change."

Jelen and Lockett conclude that with the exception of evolution, which has been debated in the U.S. since the 1920s, science-related issues "do not lend themselves to simple characterization, or incorporation into more general belief systems or ideologies."

While that's an encouraging thought, it does leave open the question of why so many influential legislators continue to vehemently insist climate change is a myth. Clearly their views are not driven by the opinions of rank-and-file party members.

Hmm. Could it be that mollifying donors who have a financial stake in climate-change denialism trumps representing their constituents?

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/politics-and-law/science-denialism-crosses-party-lines-73021/

Još jedan argument u prilog tvrdnji da u Americi u stvari postoji samo jedna politička stranka 

+ je to dokaz da je SD vrlo profitabilna industrija. 

Pravi trenutak za ovaj znameniti Asimovljev citat:

Quote"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"

a dobar je citat, samo nisam bas sigurna da je u korenu ove konkretno discipline samo neznanje. recimo da sam danas misljenja kako je teorija globalnog zagrevanja mogla biti daleeeko prihvacenija da nije sa sobom u paketu nosila i efikasan predlog o kontramerama, koje su imale svoju cenu, da tako kazem. nekako sam danas misljenja da ju je upravo ogromnost te cene najvecma dotukla.

Jasno, i u pravu si, ali ne izgubimo iz vida da Asimov u prvom delu citata ne pominje samo "ignorance" nego i antiintelektualizam u političkom i kulturnom životu. Što je u organskoj sponi sa ovim o čemu govoriš. Dakle, ta neka vrsta "prirodnog" otpora prema eliti na kojoj je izgrađen veliki deo ne samo američkog mita već i dobrog dela zapadnjačke savremene misli, od francuske građanske revolucije naovamo je posle eksploatisana da se izgrade zgodni ljudi od slame protiv kojih mase mogu onda da osećaju otpor. Pa tako kad klimatolog dođe i kaže "valja smanjiti udeo uglja i nafte u našoj industriji", ovaj koji živi od prodaje uglja i nafte relativno lako to spinuje u "njanjavi naučnici žele da vam oduzmu stečene životne udobnosti i da vas nateraju da vozite priuse umesto od boga sertifikovanih SUVova, a još sve to na osnovu neke bogus priče da se Zemlja zagreva jer mi ložimo ugalj, al ako se zagreva što je meni zimus bilo onako hladno i uostalom ko ih jebe ako je njima vrućina što ne kupe jači klima uređaj".

Mislim da si u pravu i da je činjenica da bi zaustavljanje i reverzija antropogenih efekata na klimu zahtevalo ozbiljne žrtve u industriji ne samo razvijenih zemalja i njima pripadajućih tržišta, već i zemalja čije se ekonomije tek poslednjih godina ubrzano razvijaju - i njima pripadajućih tržišta od kojih se neka preklapaju sa onim prvim - svakako zaslužna za to što živimo u atmosferi meksikan stendofa gde niko ne želi da trepne prvi. Naravno, zapad će dosta učiniti na smanjenju individualnog carbon footprinta, postojaće subvencije na izgradnju bolje izolovanih stambenih prostora, a projekti poput Tesla automobila će ostvariti solidan kulturni ako ne već i ekonomski impakt (dok istok u globalu ima značajno manji carbon footprint na individualnom nivou), ali moj je utisak još uvek da su to sve sitnice u odnosu na količinu greenhouse gasa koju izbacuju industrijska postrojenja od kojih, dakako, neka, iako pripadaju zapadu, uopšte nisu na zapadu. Što se istoka tiče, dovoljno je videti kako izgleda vazduh u Šangaju da shvatimo da Kini ne pada na pamet da sebi seče krila sad kad je na putu da u iznenađujuće kratkom roku pretekne SAD na lestvici vodećih privreda sveta.

Da se vratim na Asimovljev citat i da samo još jednom progunđam, kao mnogo puta tokom rasprava na ovom forumu: to što svako ima pravo da učestvuje u raspravi ne znači da ćemo svačije mišljenje tretirati sa istom ozbiljnošću i posvećenošću: neko naprosto zna više o određenoj temi i kadar je da to bolje obrazloži. Nekako osim u temama koje se tiču bazičnih pitanja funkcionisanja društva (referendum o ustavnom amandmanu kojim se, recimo ponovo uvodi smrtna kazna ili se ženama oduzima pravo glasa), mislim da je teška zabluda kako je poenta javnog diskursa da svako kaže šta misli pa da se onda nađe sredina jer to kontrira čitavoj ideji civilizacije koja počiva na specijalizacijama unutar zajednice.

E, sad, naravno, i nauka mora da zna da ne funkcioniše u vakuumu i da političari koji donose odluke vazda vagaju to kako će prosta pučina razumeti odluku, njene posledice i razloge za njeno donošenje, pa onda i nauka mora da održava tu prljavu vezu sa pukom, da radi na popularizaciji svojih tema i koncepata, da, iako je to ružna reč, možda i lobira za "naučnu istinu" ili makar "naučni metod" a tu onda dolazimo do nezgodnog akta balansiranja na ivici između populizma i hardcore privrženosti svetosti objektivne istine. Da budemo sasvim jasni, a i ovo smo više puta pretresali na forumu:

Nauka uglavnom ne operiše sa objektivnom istinom, već sa dokazivim verovatnoćama. Što je naravno težak kamen spoticanja za prost svet poput nas. Kad pričamo o klimatskim promenama, pričamo o percipiranim trendovima i klimatskim modelima i simulacijama koje uzimaju u obzir konačan broj parametara, sve to vezano za druge trendove u drugim oblastima života (poljoprivreda, teška industrija, turizam) i međuzavisnost te gomile promenljivih daje jednu sliku koja kad se opiše na određeni način zaista deluje kao da je vreme da učinimo nešto radikalno da bismo spasli planetu za svoju decu prošlo pre otprilike pet minuta. Ali običnom čoveku iz mase poput mene je to i dalje jako apstraktno i nejasno i da bi on reagovao (kupio prius, izolovao stan, bojkotovao robu proizvedenu u Kini, pisao pisma svom predstavniku u skupštini) mora mu se sve sažvakati u citantne saundbajtove i nedvosmislene projekcije (kačio sam onaj sjajan tekst iz Rolling Stonea gore na temi o klimatskm promenama), a to onda i drugoj strani daje municiju da operiše sa saundbajtovima i širenjem konfuzije pa ispada na kraju ono što novine već izvesno vreme pišu: Amerikanci (i svi mi po ekstrapolaciji) veruju u globalno zagrevanje nakon što ih tokom leta spiči duže od tri nedelje vrelog sušnog vremena. Videćemo da li će i kako nauka i njeni glasnogovornici uspeti da iskoriste ekstremnu zimu u USA ovog Januara kao dokaz o klimatskim promenama ili će neprijatelj da se zakači na najprostiju prvu loptu i kaže "Ha, kurac globalno zagrevanje, pa kad smo se SMRZLI kao ove zime? Nikad, eto kad!!! VIDITE DA SVE LAŽU!!!"


Ja se sad izvinjavam na ovom dugačkom i meandrirajućem postu. Spojler alrt: nemojte ga čitati.

cudo bozje, ali... I concur!   

nego, van tog mikroindividualnog nivoa, ima tu i jedna dimenzija problema o koju niko ne zeli ni da se spotakne, a kamoli je ozbiljno proucava, a to je da se tu ipak govori o fenomenu koji je i globalan i kumulativan ujedno. 
jedan od najkliskijih kamena spoticanja je razgovor o, jelte, kompenzaciji.
kako stvari sada stoje, implementacija bilo kojih ozbiljnijih mera (one neozbiljne ne bi imale ni efekta, ionako) ce najvise da pogodi zemlje u razvoju sa jedne strane, a a sa druge one privrede kao sto je i Kineska, dakle zemlje koje su na samom rubu da postanu svetske ekonomske sile. Ocekivati od tih zemalja da se postuju bilo kakvih dogovora koji ne uracunavaju i kompenzaciju, to u bilo kakvoj formi i nacinu, pa to je zesce naivna kalkulacija. a cak i najgeneralnija razmisljanja o toj formi i nacinu u velikoj meri ukljucuju i drustveni i politicki aspekt, ne samo privredni. otud su nerazvijene i ekonomski ranjive zemlje oprezne do granice paranoje, i verovatno smatraju da je najbolja opcija u uzdrzanosti, bar dok god je to moguce.

Tako je, mislim da smo i to sa kompenzacijom već negde na forumu pomenuli kao očigledan problem u svim daljim pregovaranjima o promeni smera planete.

S druge strane imamo lošu reputaciju nuklearne energije kao potencijalnog proizvođača opasnog zagađenja i kataklizmi a što, vezano za činjenicu da se odmah skače za vrat "sumnjivim" državama koje razvijaju nuklearnu tehnologiju, rezultira time da se energetske alternative fosilnom gorivu skoro i ne istražuju na nekom ozbiljnijem nivou (dakle, bezbedniji raktori, bolji načini odlaganja otpada, bla bla bla)  sem tamo gde to dopušta industrijski lobi baziran na fosilnim gorivima... Dakle, meksikan stendof se nastavlja.

Ako bi dovoljno veliki broj zemalja ograničilo trgovinu sa zagađivačima, ili makar opteretio tu trgovinu ekološkim dažbinama, onda bi ti zagađivači možda promenili svoj stav prema zagađivanju. A ako i ne bi samim tim što manje prodaju značilo bi da manje i proizvode, pa manje i zagađuju.

EDIT: Amerika i dalje mnogo zagađuje, pa bi to i njih pogodilo. Takođe, zagađenje ne zastareva, i oni koji su svoj bolji tehnološki položaj stekli zagađivanjem u prošlosti morali bi da vrate taj dug. Takođe, cenim da i patentni sistem treba radikalno unaprediti.

Ali upravo o tome pričamo: svi koriste fosilna goriva jer ona i dalje daju najbolji omjer između cene i količine upotrebljive energije, dakle praktično nema ko da izvede bojkot. U ovom trenutku čak i zemlje koje više skoro da nemaju industriju na svojoj teritoriji - poput Norveške - i dalje su neraskidivo vezane za fosilna goriva.

U onom pomenutom tekstu iz Rolin Stouna se i pominje neka vrsta intelektuanog bojkota koji bi predvodili pre svega univerziteti itd. a za primer se uzima način na koji je tretiran aparthejd režim u JAR, ali ovde su stvari ipak primetno drugačije, odnosno stvaran bojkot znači odricanje vrlo ozbiljnih elemenata svakodnevnog života.

Quote from: mac on 20-01-2014, 16:05:54
Ako bi dovoljno veliki broj zemalja ograničilo trgovinu sa zagađivačima, ili makar opteretio tu trgovinu ekološkim dažbinama, onda bi ti zagađivači možda promenili svoj stav prema zagađivanju. A ako i ne bi samim tim što manje prodaju značilo bi da manje i proizvode, pa manje i zagađuju.

Znaš, to je korektno (politički ) u teoriji, ali u praksi se nebrojeno puta dokazalo kao impotentna solucija, to još od fenomena prohibicije naovamo. Za istinska globalna rešenja zabrane ne funkcionišu, potreban je dogovor, i to održiv, a ne prinudan.


a to što kažeš "Takođe, zagađenje ne zastareva, i oni koji su svoj bolji tehnološki položaj stekli zagađivanjem u prošlosti morali bi da vrate taj dug"  je upravo srž problema, samo što se niko time ozbiljno ne bavi, ili bar ne oni koji bi morali, a to su naslednici industrijskih (i kolonijalnih) sila 18tog i 19tog veka. Bez obzira kako to izgledalo iz današnje perspektive, taj argument ipak ima određenu snagu i dandanas, i ukoliko rešavanje tog konkretno problema izostane, teško da će biti iskrenog konsenzusa po pitanju osnovne industrijske žrtve koja se mora podneti u cilju saniranja rešenih posledica.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xljA6zJn4I#t=195

Greje srce što Rona i danas prepoznaju kao ikonu. Ako Jevreji uopšte imaju ikone, hm, hm, hm...

Endtimes!!! Ekonomista koji se onomad zakitio Nobelovom nagradom veli da bi legalizacija prodaje (sopstvenih, prizjumabli) organa donela mnoge pozitivne efekte: povećanu ponudu organa ljudima kojima je potrebna transplantacija, kao i... er... ne, to je zapravo sve. Dakle, članak priznaje da je jasno da bi organe pre svega prodavala sirotinja ali onda i ukazuje da sirotinja najviše i ispašta zbog male ponude organa (kadaveričnih ili donacija od strane rodbine) pa da se to kao u nekom smislu niveliše...

Sve u semu, provokativan članak. Ne zaboravimo da u Americi praksa prodaje krvi postoji i legalno funkcioniše već decenijama, tako da ovo nije tako outlandish koncept kao što se čini na prvi pogled i sasvim je u skladu sa idejom da slobodno tržište rešava sve, kao i da, jelte, bogati imaju problem za koji se sirotima može platiti da ga reše. Ne znam što sam ovako ciničan od ranog jutra, sigurno od ovog humusa koga sam doručkovao. 


Cash for Kidneys: The Case for a Market for Organs

QuoteIn 2012, 95,000 American men, women and children were on the waiting list for new kidneys, the most commonly transplanted organ. Yet only about 16,500 kidney transplant operations were performed that year. Taking into account the number of people who die while waiting for a transplant, this implies an average wait of 4.5 years for a kidney transplant in the U.S.

The situation is far worse than it was just a decade ago, when nearly 54,000 people were on the waiting list, with an average wait of 2.9 years. For all the recent attention devoted to the health-care overhaul, the long and growing waiting times for tens of thousands of individuals who badly need organ transplants hasn't been addressed.
Finding a way to increase the supply of organs would reduce wait times and deaths, and it would greatly ease the suffering that many sick individuals now endure while they hope for a transplant. The most effective change, we believe, would be to provide compensation to people who give their organs—that is, we recommend establishing a market for organs.

Organ transplants are one of the extraordinary developments of modern science. They began in 1954 with a kidney transplant performed at Brigham & Women's hospital in Boston. But the practice only took off in the 1970s with the development of immunosuppressive drugs that could prevent the rejection of transplanted organs. Since then, the number of kidney and other organ transplants has grown rapidly, but not nearly as rapidly as the growth in the number of people with defective organs who need transplants. The result has been longer and longer delays to receive organs.
Many of those waiting for kidneys are on dialysis, and life expectancy while on dialysis isn't long. For example, people age 45 to 49 live, on average, eight additional years if they remain on dialysis, but they live an additional 23 years if they get a kidney transplant. That is why in 2012, almost 4,500 persons died while waiting for kidney transplants. Although some of those waiting would have died anyway, the great majority died because they were unable to replace their defective kidneys quickly enough.


The toll on those waiting for kidneys and on their families is enormous, from both greatly reduced life expectancy and the many hardships of being on dialysis. Most of those on dialysis cannot work, and the annual cost of dialysis averages about $80,000. The total cost over the average 4.5-year waiting period before receiving a kidney transplant is $350,000, which is much larger than the $150,000 cost of the transplant itself.
Individuals can live a normal life with only one kidney, so about 34% of all kidneys used in transplants come from live donors. The majority of transplant kidneys come from parents, children, siblings and other relatives of those who need transplants. The rest come from individuals who want to help those in need of transplants.
In recent years, kidney exchanges—in which pairs of living would-be donors and recipients who prove incompatible look for another pair or pairs of donors and recipients who would be compatible for transplants, cutting their wait time—have become more widespread. Although these exchanges have grown rapidly in the U.S. since 2005, they still account for only 9% of live donations and just 3% of all kidney donations, including after-death donations. The relatively minor role of exchanges in total donations isn't an accident, because exchanges are really a form of barter, and barter is always an inefficient way to arrange transactions.
Exhortations and other efforts to encourage more organ donations have failed to significantly close the large gap between supply and demand. For example, some countries use an implied consent approach, in which organs from cadavers are assumed to be available for transplant unless, before death, individuals indicate that they don't want their organs to be used. (The U.S. continues to use informed consent, requiring people to make an active declaration of their wish to donate.) In our own highly preliminary study of a few countries—Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Chile and Denmark—that have made the shift to implied consent from informed consent or vice versa, we found that the switch didn't lead to consistent changes in the number of transplant surgeries.


Other studies have found more positive effects from switching to implied consent, but none of the effects would be large enough to eliminate the sizable shortfall in the supply of organs in the U.S. That shortfall isn't just an American problem. It exists in most other countries as well, even when they use different methods to procure organs and have different cultures and traditions.
Paying donors for their organs would finally eliminate the supply-demand gap. In particular, sufficient payment to kidney donors would increase the supply of kidneys by a large percentage, without greatly increasing the total cost of a kidney transplant.


We have estimated how much individuals would need to be paid for kidneys to be willing to sell them for transplants. These estimates take account of the slight risk to donors from transplant surgery, the number of weeks of work lost during the surgery and recovery periods, and the small risk of reduction in the quality of life.
Our conclusion is that a very large number of both live and cadaveric kidney donations would be available by paying about $15,000 for each kidney. That estimate isn't exact, and the true cost could be as high as $25,000 or as low as $5,000—but even the high estimate wouldn't increase the total cost of kidney transplants by a large percentage.
Few countries have ever allowed the open purchase and sale of organs, but Iran permits the sale of kidneys by living donors. Scattered and incomplete evidence from Iran indicates that the price of kidneys there is about $4,000 and that waiting times to get kidneys have been largely eliminated. Since Iran's per capita income is one-quarter of that of the U.S., this evidence supports our $15,000 estimate. Other countries are also starting to think along these lines: Singapore and Australia have recently introduced limited payments to live donors that compensate mainly for time lost from work.

Since the number of kidneys available at a reasonable price would be far more than needed to close the gap between the demand and supply of kidneys, there would no longer be any significant waiting time to get a kidney transplant. The number of people on dialysis would decline dramatically, and deaths due to long waits for a transplant would essentially disappear.


Today, finding a compatible kidney isn't easy. There are four basic blood types, and tissue matching is complex and involves the combination of six proteins. Blood and tissue type determine the chance that a kidney will help a recipient in the long run. But the sale of organs would result in a large supply of most kidney types, and with large numbers of kidneys available, transplant surgeries could be arranged to suit the health of recipients (and donors) because surgeons would be confident that compatible kidneys would be available.
The system that we're proposing would include payment to individuals who agree that their organs can be used after they die. This is important because transplants for heart and lungs and most liver transplants only use organs from the deceased. Under a new system, individuals would sell their organs "forward" (that is, for future use), with payment going to their heirs after their organs are harvested. Relatives sometimes refuse to have organs used even when a deceased family member has explicitly requested it, and they would be more inclined to honor such wishes if they received substantial compensation for their assent.
The idea of paying organ donors has met with strong opposition from some (but not all) transplant surgeons and other doctors, as well as various academics, political leaders and others. Critics have claimed that paying for organs would be ineffective, that payment would be immoral because it involves the sale of body parts and that the main donors would be the desperate poor, who could come to regret their decision. In short, critics believe that monetary payments for organs would be repugnant.
But the claim that payments would be ineffective in eliminating the shortage of organs isn't consistent with what we know about the supply of other parts of the body for medical use. For example, the U.S. allows market-determined payments to surrogate mothers—and surrogacy takes time, involves great discomfort and is somewhat risky. Yet in the U.S., the average payment to a surrogate mother is only about $20,000.
Another illuminating example is the all-volunteer U.S. military. Critics once asserted that it wouldn't be possible to get enough capable volunteers by offering them only reasonable pay, especially in wartime. But the all-volunteer force has worked well in the U.S., even during wars, and the cost of these recruits hasn't been excessive.
Whether paying donors is immoral because it involves the sale of organs is a much more subjective matter, but we question this assertion, given the very serious problems with the present system. Any claim about the supposed immorality of organ sales should be weighed against the morality of preventing thousands of deaths each year and improving the quality of life of those waiting for organs. How can paying for organs to increase their supply be more immoral than the injustice of the present system?
Under the type of system we propose, safeguards could be created against impulsive behavior or exploitation. For example, to reduce the likelihood of rash donations, a period of three months or longer could be required before someone would be allowed to donate their kidneys or other organs. This would give donors a chance to re-evaluate their decisions, and they could change their minds at any time before the surgery. They could also receive guidance from counselors on the wisdom of these decisions.
Though the poor would be more likely to sell their kidneys and other organs, they also suffer more than others from the current scarcity. Today, the rich often don't wait as long as others for organs since some of them go to countries such as India, where they can arrange for transplants in the underground medical sector, and others (such as the late Steve Jobs ) manage to jump the queue by having residence in several states or other means. The sale of organs would make them more available to the poor, and Medicaid could help pay for the added cost of transplant surgery.
The altruistic giving of organs might decline with an open market, since the incentive to give organs to a relative, friend or anyone else would be weaker when organs are readily available to buy. On the other hand, the altruistic giving of money to those in need of organs could increase to help them pay for the cost of organ transplants.
Paying for organs would lead to more transplants—and thereby, perhaps, to a large increase in the overall medical costs of transplantation. But it would save the cost of dialysis for people waiting for kidney transplants and other costs to individuals waiting for other organs. More important, it would prevent thousands of deaths and improve the quality of life among those who now must wait years before getting the organs they need.
Initially, a market in the purchase and sale of organs would seem strange, and many might continue to consider that market "repugnant." Over time, however, the sale of organs would grow to be accepted, just as the voluntary military now has widespread support.
Eventually, the advantages of allowing payment for organs would become obvious. At that point, people will wonder why it took so long to adopt such an obvious and sensible solution to the shortage of organs for transplant.
Mr. Becker is a Nobel Prize-winning professor of economics at the University of Chicago and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Mr. Elias is an economics professor at the Universidad del CEMA in Argentina.

Skroman neki predlog.

It is a melancholy object to those, who walk through this great town, or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads and cabbin-doors crowded with beggars of the female sex, followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags, and importuning every passenger for an alms. These mothers instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are forced to employ all their time in stroling to beg sustenance for their helpless infants who, as they grow up, either turn thieves for want of work, or leave their dear native country, to fight for the Pretender in Spain, or sell themselves to the Barbadoes.
I think it is agreed by all parties, that this prodigious number of children in the arms, or on the backs, or at the heels of their mothers, and frequently of their fathers, is in the present deplorable state of the kingdom, a very great additional grievance; and therefore whoever could find out a fair, cheap and easy method of making these children sound and useful members of the common-wealth, would deserve so well of the publick, as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.
But my intention is very far from being confined to provide only for the children of professed beggars: it is of a much greater extent, and shall take in the whole number of infants at a certain age, who are born of parents in effect as little able to support them, as those who demand our charity in the streets.
As to my own part, having turned my thoughts for many years, upon this important subject, and maturely weighed the several schemes of our projectors, I have always found them grossly mistaken in their computation. It is true, a child just dropt from its dam, may be supported by her milk, for a solar year, with little other nourishment: at most not above the value of two shillings, which the mother may certainly get, or the value in scraps, by her lawful occupation of begging; and it is exactly at one year old that I propose to provide for them in such a manner, as, instead of being a charge upon their parents, or the parish, or wanting food and raiment for the rest of their lives, they shall, on the contrary, contribute to the feeding, and partly to the cloathing of many thousands.
There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children, alas! too frequent among us, sacrificing the poor innocent babes, I doubt, more to avoid the expence than the shame, which would move tears and pity in the most savage and inhuman breast.
The number of souls in this kingdom being usually reckoned one million and a half, of these I calculate there may be about two hundred thousand couple whose wives are breeders; from which number I subtract thirty thousand couple, who are able to maintain their own children, (although I apprehend there cannot be so many, under the present distresses of the kingdom) but this being granted, there will remain an hundred and seventy thousand breeders. I again subtract fifty thousand, for those women who miscarry, or whose children die by accident or disease within the year. There only remain an hundred and twenty thousand children of poor parents annually born. The question therefore is, How this number shall be reared, and provided for? which, as I have already said, under the present situation of affairs, is utterly impossible by all the methods hitherto proposed. For we can neither employ them in handicraft or agriculture; we neither build houses, (I mean in the country) nor cultivate land: they can very seldom pick up a livelihood by stealing till they arrive at six years old; except where they are of towardly parts, although I confess they learn the rudiments much earlier; during which time they can however be properly looked upon only as probationers: As I have been informed by a principal gentleman in the county of Cavan, who protested to me, that he never knew above one or two instances under the age of six, even in a part of the kingdom so renowned for the quickest proficiency in that art.
I am assured by our merchants, that a boy or a girl before twelve years old, is no saleable commodity, and even when they come to this age, they will not yield above three pounds, or three pounds and half a crown at most, on the exchange; which cannot turn to account either to the parents or kingdom, the charge of nutriments and rags having been at least four times that value.
I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection.
I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasie, or a ragoust.
I do therefore humbly offer it to publick consideration, that of the hundred and twenty thousand children, already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle, or swine, and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore, one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in sale to the persons of quality and fortune, through the kingdom, always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump, and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends, and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt, will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.

Da, manje-više, Swift je objasnio još u osamnaestom veku.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 21-01-2014, 10:40:32
Ekonomista koji se onomad zakitio Nobelovom nagradom veli da bi legalizacija prodaje (sopstvenih, prizjumabli) organa donela mnoge pozitivne efekte

Kao i sve ostalo: još jedan sirac sa gadno velikim rupama.

A zna se šta kaže stara kineska poslovica: nisu rupe ono što u tom siru smrdi!!!!!!!

We Are Rail Fans - TS2014

Čekao sam da krene neki brutalni dabstep i recimo skejteri koji voze po krovovima vozova u pokretu, ali ništa, samo topli glas Seana Beana i iskrena ljubav prema vozovima do kraja... Pa... dobro...

Ne razumem, kako ti topli glas Šona Bina nije bio dovoljan za sreću&radost???1

Star sam i namrgođen čovek. Meni bi više čučnulo ovao nešto:

Choose Life - Trainspotting (1/12) Movie CLIP (1996) HD

Pa ne, baš je Rentboy za mlade i napaljene, a Šonovi baršunasti tonovi iz Jorkšira su kao poručeni pripitomljenom sredovečnom gospodinu.

Pa, da, to je to stereotipiziranje kome pokušavam da uteknem sve ove decenije 

Quote from: Jevtropijevićka on 23-01-2014, 21:38:31
Ne razumem, kako ti topli glas Šona Bina nije bio dovoljan za sreću&radost???1

A još ga i ne ubiju do kraja reklame (spojler!) Verovatno se zato pojavljuje samo glasom, inače bi ga pregazio voz!

Dovoljno sam matora da se sećam Š.B.-a iz perioda dok je preživljavao do odjavne špice! S mapetima!!!
Приповедач - Суђена невеста

Lawrence Krauss vs Hamza Tzortzis - Islam vs Atheism Debate

Uzgred, Brian me je vremenom dobio sa novim Deadpoolom, ali ne treba zaboraviti da je on i brat metalac.

BRIAN POSEHN - "More Metal Than You" (Official Music Video)

Ova ko i ti koristi udaraljke...


Csardas

Uvek sam te ljude koji sviraju marimbe i vibrafone smatrao za prevarante, jer ne samo da su sjajni perkusionisti već i razumeju harmonije, znaju akorde itd. Ja sam ipak samo udarač.

Evo za Mehu , kratka edukacija

Funny commands in the bible by Ahmed Deedat.

Meni su kao djetetu na poklon kupovali one male igračke-gitare, pa ksilofone i melodike, verovatno da kikstartuju moj latentni muzički talenat ali pokazalo se da je on suviše latentan 

U Srbiji prestaje dobrovoljno davanje krvi

http://www.tvbest.rs/33408-u-srbiji-prestaje-dobrovoljno-davanje-krvi

Naslov je svakako prebombastičan jer naravno da davalaštvo ide dalje i davanje neće stati. Ali dobro je da se malo problematika pretrese...

Oh, novi album Anaal Nathrakh je upravo završen (bar tako tvrdi njihova fejsbuk stranica). Ako bude približno kao Vanitas, to će biti razlog za beskrajno radovanje. Ovako nešto:


http://youtu.be/Zgs0eYKL4Xc

Mishoggah Bleedsmith

Evo da reagujem tek sad pošto na poslu nemam zvučnike 

Dakle, časno je ovo, časno!!!!! Znao sam ja da je ovo dete časno još onomad kada smo obarali ruke oko Skota Pilgrima. I lepo su ljudi prepoznali epsku širinu ove pesme!!!!!!!!!!

Naravno, ja bih još zaoštrio aranžman, dodao više duplih kikova, te death metal vokale, ali dobro, ima vremena. 

Inače, da dodam, za nevokalni deo je zaslužan Šarki iz Seljačke bune. 

Pa, piše to sve na JuTjubu, nismo propustili da vidimo.  Valjan posao.

Rick Raemisch je izvršni direktor odseka za popravne institucije u Koloradu. Pošto mu je držanje ljudi u zatvoru posao, nedavno se podvrgao tretmanu samice... na dvadeset časova, da vidi kako je to. Veoma poučna kolumna u NY Timesu je izašla iz toga. TL;DR samica je varvarski način da se ljudi muče, treba je ukinuti:

My Night in Solitary

Quote

COLORADO SPRINGS — AT 6:45 p.m. on Jan. 23, I was delivered to a Colorado state penitentiary, where I was issued an inmate uniform and a mesh bag with my toiletries and bedding. My arms were handcuffed behind my back, my legs were shackled and I was deposited in Administrative Segregation — solitary confinement.
I hadn't committed a crime. Instead, as the new head of the state's corrections department, I wanted to learn more about what we call Ad Seg.
Most states now agree that solitary confinement is overused, and many — like New York, which just agreed to a powerful set of reforms this week — are beginning to act. When I was appointed, Gov. John Hickenlooper charged me with three goals: limiting or eliminating the use of solitary confinement for mentally ill inmates; addressing the needs of those who have been in solitary for long periods; and reducing the number of offenders released directly from solitary back into their communities. If I was going to accomplish these, I needed a better sense of what solitary confinement was like, and what it did to the prisoners who were housed there, sometimes for years.
My cell, No. 22, was on the second floor, at the end of what seemed like a very long walk. At the cell, the officers removed my shackles. The door closed and the feed tray door opened. I was told to put my hands through it so the cuffs could be removed. And then I was alone — classified as an R.F.P., or "Removed From Population."
In regular Ad Seg, inmates can have books or TVs. But in R.F.P. Ad Seg, no personal property is allowed. The room is about 7 by 13 feet. What little there is inside — bed, toilet, sink — is steel and screwed to the floor.
First thing you notice is that it's anything but quiet. You're immersed in a drone of garbled noise — other inmates' blaring TVs, distant conversations, shouted arguments. I couldn't make sense of any of it, and was left feeling twitchy and paranoid. I kept waiting for the lights to turn off, to signal the end of the day. But the lights did not shut off. I began to count the small holes carved in the walls. Tiny grooves made by inmates who'd chipped away at the cell as the cell chipped away at them.
For a sound mind, those are daunting circumstances. But every prison in America has become a dumping ground for the mentally ill, and often the "worst of the worst" — some of society's most unsound minds — are dumped in Ad Seg.
If an inmate acts up, we slam a steel door on him. Ad Seg allows a prison to run more efficiently for a period of time, but by placing a difficult offender in isolation you have not solved the problem — only delayed or more likely exacerbated it, not only for the prison, but ultimately for the public. Our job in corrections is to protect the community, not to release people who are worse than they were when they came in.
Terry Kupers, a psychiatrist and expert on confinement, described in a paper published last year the many psychological effects of solitary. Inmates reported nightmares, heart palpitations and "fear of impending nervous breakdowns." He pointed to research from the 1980s that found that a third of those studied had experienced "paranoia, aggressive fantasies, and impulse control problems ... In almost all instances the prisoners had not previously experienced any of these psychiatric reactions."
Too often, these prisoners are "maxed out," meaning they are released from solitary directly into society. In Colorado, in 2012, 140 people were released into the public from Ad Seg; last year, 70; so far in 2014, two. Continue reading the main story

 
The main light in my cellblock eventually turned off, and I fell into a fitful sleep, awakening every time a toilet flushed or an officer yanked on the doors to determine they were secure. Then there were the counts. According to the Ad Seg rules, within every 24-hour period there are five scheduled counts and at least two random ones. They are announced over the intercom and prisoners must stand with their feet visible to the officer as he looks through the door's small window. As executive director, I praise the dedication, but as someone trying to sleep and rest my mind — forget it. I learned later that a number of inmates make earplugs out of toilet paper. Continue reading the main story  Recent Comments     John Plotz 7 days ago  I can understand (though not necessarily approve) how solitary confinement protects guards and other inmates from a particularly violent...
    dcdriskill 7 days ago  Having visited the remains of the infamous Port Arthur prison in Tasmania where complete isolation and even sensory deprivation were among...
    OzarkOrc 7 days ago  Please quit worrying about the "Torture" aspect of solitary confinement.Our entire "Prison Industrial Complex" is a cruel hoax, doing very...
    When 6:15 a.m. and breakfast finally came, I brushed my teeth, washed my face, did two sets of push-ups, and made my bed. I looked out my small window, saw that it was still dark outside, and thought, now what?
I would spend a total of 20 hours in that cell. Which, compared with the typical stay, is practically a blink. On average, inmates who are sent to solitary in Colorado spend an average of 23 months there. Some spend 20 years.
Eventually, I broke a promise to myself and asked an officer what time it was. 11:10 a.m. I felt as if I'd been there for days. I sat with my mind. How long would it take before Ad Seg chipped that away? I don't know, but I'm confident that it would be a battle I would lose.
Inmates in Ad Seg have, of course, committed serious crimes. But I don't believe that justifies the use of solitary confinement. My predecessor, Tom Clements, who was as courageous a reformer as they come, felt the same way. Mr. Clements had already gone a long way to reining in the overuse of solitary confinement in Colorado. In little more than two years, he and his staff cut it by more than half: from 1,505 inmates (among the highest rates in the country) to 726. As of January, the number was down to 593. (We have also gotten the number of severely mentally ill inmates in Ad Seg down to the single digits.)
But Mr. Clements had barely begun his work when he was assassinated last March. In a tragic irony, he was murdered in his home by a gang member who had been recently released directly from Ad Seg. This former inmate murdered a pizza delivery person, allegedly for the purpose of wearing his uniform to lure Mr. Clements to open his front door. A few days later, the man was killed in a shootout with the Texas police after he had shot an officer during a traffic stop. Whatever solitary confinement did to that former inmate and murderer, it was not for the better.
When I finally left my cell at 3 p.m., I felt even more urgency for reform. If we can't eliminate solitary confinement, at least we can strive to greatly reduce its use. Knowing that 97 percent of inmates are ultimately returned to their communities, doing anything less would be both counterproductive and inhumane.
   Rick Raemisch is executive director of the Colorado Department of Corrections.  A version of this op-ed appears in print on February 21, 2014, on page A25 of the New York edition with the headline: My Night in Solitary. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe 
 
[/l][/l]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/83707960/?autoplay=true

Za Asiu se pričalo i da je dizajnirala skinove za Unreal Tournament. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avUwaPRarXc 

Koja je prva stvar ? ili jos bolje ako se setiš cele set liste

Iskucaću ujutro, nemam sad vremena. Ali prva je The Return of Darkness and Evil. Ima još Massacre, Sacrifice, naša Gloria Sathanas, verovatno Satan my Master, možda Rite of Darkness i Mayhemov Pure Fucking Armageddon na kraju. Ali preslušaću sutra ujutro redom pa ću da ti potvrdim.

Dakle:

1) The Return of Darkness and Evil

2) Massacre

3) Sacrifice

4) The Rite of Darkness

5) Equimenthorn    njega sam zaboravio

6) Gloria Sathanas

7) Pure Fucking Armageddon