Quote from: mrjonathanr on January 21, 2013, 03:12:03 pmHe should talk to the Tory party, they've been at it for some time.I wouldn't be so sure.Quote Professor Church believes Neanderthals were highly intelligent, perhaps even more intelligent than humans.So. Would use Chrome or Firefox, rather than Internet Explorer?
He should talk to the Tory party, they've been at it for some time.
Professor Church believes Neanderthals were highly intelligent, perhaps even more intelligent than humans.
You never catch me outsource work to ChinaUS software writer pay China person do job for him. Trusty UK journalist not like that
Can't think of anything that can possibly go wrong here - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/palaeolithic-park-harvard-professor-seeks-adventurous-woman-to-give-birth-to-baby-neanderthal-8460273.htmlA Harvard professor is looking for an "adventurous" woman to give birth to a baby Neanderthal.QuoteAs well as the ethical concerns of creating a neo-Neanderthal, scientists believe the resultant baby could lack immunity to modern diseases, and may not survive.There are further concerns that the process might lead to deformities, and there are also obvious risks to the surrogate mother.Bioethicist Bernard Rollin of Colorado State University has voiced his uncertainty over how a Neanderthal would fit into the modern world.He said: “I don’t think it’s fair to put people... into a circumstance where they are going to be mocked and possibly feared.”And Philippa Taylor of the Christian Medical Fellowship said: “It is hard to know where to begin with the ethical and safety concerns.”
As well as the ethical concerns of creating a neo-Neanderthal, scientists believe the resultant baby could lack immunity to modern diseases, and may not survive.There are further concerns that the process might lead to deformities, and there are also obvious risks to the surrogate mother.Bioethicist Bernard Rollin of Colorado State University has voiced his uncertainty over how a Neanderthal would fit into the modern world.He said: “I don’t think it’s fair to put people... into a circumstance where they are going to be mocked and possibly feared.”And Philippa Taylor of the Christian Medical Fellowship said: “It is hard to know where to begin with the ethical and safety concerns.”
Quote from: Jaspersharpe on January 21, 2013, 03:28:28 pmQuote from: mrjonathanr on January 21, 2013, 03:12:03 pmHe should talk to the Tory party, they've been at it for some time.I wouldn't be so sure.Quote Professor Church believes Neanderthals were highly intelligent, perhaps even more intelligent than humans.So. Would use Chrome or Firefox, rather than Internet Explorer?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21141244"The fire raged for five days..."
Another non-story.As usual the "media" twist, chop and change what the scientist plans to do i.e. nothing.Quote from: aLICErOBERTSfANkLUB on January 21, 2013, 01:58:38 pmCan't think of anything that can possibly go wrong here - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/palaeolithic-park-harvard-professor-seeks-adventurous-woman-to-give-birth-to-baby-neanderthal-8460273.htmlA Harvard professor is looking for an "adventurous" woman to give birth to a baby Neanderthal.QuoteAs well as the ethical concerns of creating a neo-Neanderthal, scientists believe the resultant baby could lack immunity to modern diseases, and may not survive.There are further concerns that the process might lead to deformities, and there are also obvious risks to the surrogate mother.Bioethicist Bernard Rollin of Colorado State University has voiced his uncertainty over how a Neanderthal would fit into the modern world.He said: “I don’t think it’s fair to put people... into a circumstance where they are going to be mocked and possibly feared.”And Philippa Taylor of the Christian Medical Fellowship said: “It is hard to know where to begin with the ethical and safety concerns.”
I know the current narrative here is that Amazon is evil. However consider this just posted on slate.com:Amazon kept up its streak of being awesome this afternoon by announcing a 45 percent year-on-year decline in profits measuring Q4 2012 against Q4 2011. Not because sales went down, mind you. They're up. Revenue is up. The company's razor-thin profit margins just got even thinner, and in total the company lost $39 million in 2012.The company's shares are down a bit today, but the company's stock is taking a much less catastrophic plunge in already-meager profits than Apple, whose stock plunged simply because its Q4 profits increased at an unexpectedly slow rate. That's because Amazon, as best I can tell, is a charitable organization being run by elements of the investment community for the benefit of consumers. The shareholders put up the equity, and instead of owning a claim on a steady stream of fat profits, they get a claim on a mighty engine of consumer surplus. Amazon sells things to people at prices that seem impossible because it actually is impossible to make money that way. And the competitive pressure of needing to square off against Amazon cuts profit margins at other companies, thus benefiting people who don't even buy anything from Amazon.It's a truly remarkable American success story. But if you own a competing firm, you should be terrified. Competition is always scary, but competition against a juggernaut that seems to have permission from its shareholders to not turn any profits is really frightening.
Amazon kept up its streak of being awesome this afternoon by announcing a 45 percent year-on-year decline in profits measuring Q4 2012 against Q4 2011. Not because sales went down, mind you. They're up. Revenue is up. The company's razor-thin profit margins just got even thinner, and in total the company lost $39 million in 2012.Amazon doesn't pay much tax for the same reason the Guardian doesn't pay any. They very simply don't make very much money.Competition is always scary, but competition against a juggernaut that seems to have permission from its shareholders to not turn any profits is really frightening.Which is why the likes of John Lewis are keen to find anyway they can to stop them, they simply can't function on such small margins. Quite amusing the so many on the 'left' vilify Amazon as an evil corporation when the people who gain the most from them are actually their customers.
What we all already knew.Cats. Evil. Known fact. 100% true.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21236690
Dolphin freed from net by diver Wow!
