Fair enough, but when the recession ends hopefully the government can stop borrowing moneyELITE-UK wrote:
Its shrinking because everyone is trying to clear bills rather than spend in a recession. Guaranteed it will go up again when things get easierRaga86 wrote:
The total debt is shrinking though...
Search
Search results: 32 found, showing up to 50
The total debt is shrinking though...
I know FEOS, I was referring to this:
Spark wrote:
I hope so, because at current viruses are incurable.
Not totally true, vaccines work on some virus and there are anti-viral drugs out that works fairly well. HAART treatment vs HIV is an example of this, making it possible to live with the HIV. However I agree, we have no "kill all baddies, instantly" drug like antibiotics were before resistance came into the picture.
No, I like to pay for my game and then play the same game with the same stuff as everybody else.
I searched around a bit and came across some very interesting articles... To cite the introduction to "Examining the self-enhancement bias: professional truck drivers’ perceptions of speed, safety, skill and consideration" by D. Walton
"When the public are asked to choose factors that can make roads unsafe, they consistently identify as the main factor, ‘poor driving skills and attitudes’, and as the secondary contributing factor, ‘speeding’ (LTSA, 1997a). Human factors are estimated to contribute to 80±95% of accidents (Lewin, 1982) and ‘travelling too fast for the conditions’ is the leading factor in motor vehicle fatalities (LTSA, 1997a). Despite this public awareness, people overestimate the number of accidents that occur on the road (Slovic, Fischho€ & Lichtenstein, 1982). Paradoxically, drivers overestimate their skill and safety compared to others (Svenson, 1981), and regard the average person as more likely to be involved in an accident (Guerin, 1994; Matthews & Moran, 1986). Theparadox, to make the point clear, is that the public on the one hand, think ‘the roads are dangerous’;and on the other, think themselves safer, more skillful and less likely to have an accident than others."
And then, although old, I find this very funny... From "ARE WE ALL LESS RISKY AND MORE SKILLFUL THAN OUR FELLOW DRIVERS?" by Ola Svensson.
"Results
The distributions of the judgments are shown in table 1 for the two groups and the two questions respectively. The table shows that most of the Ss in the group viewed themselves as safer and more skillful drivers than the rest of the group. The medians for the distributions of safety judgments in table 1 fall in the interval 8 l-90% for the US group and between 7 1 and 80% for the Swedish group. This indicates that half of the Ss believe themselves to be among the safest 20 (US) or 30 (Sweden) percent of the drivers in the two groups respectively. In the US group 88% and in the Swedish group 77% believed themselves to be safer than the median driver.
The medians for the distributions of skill judgments fall in the interval 61-70% for the US group and between 51-60% for the Swedish group. Of the US sample 46.3% regard themselves among the most skillful 20%. The corresponding number in the Swedish group was only 15.5%. In the US sample 93% believed themselves to be more skillful drivers than the median driver and 69% of the Swedish drivers shared this belief in relation to their comparison group.
In summary, there was a strong tendency to believe oneself as safer and more skillful than the average driver. In addition, there seemed to be a stronger tendency to believe oneself as safer than and more skillful than the average person."
As I said, a bit old but still worth to notice IMO...
"When the public are asked to choose factors that can make roads unsafe, they consistently identify as the main factor, ‘poor driving skills and attitudes’, and as the secondary contributing factor, ‘speeding’ (LTSA, 1997a). Human factors are estimated to contribute to 80±95% of accidents (Lewin, 1982) and ‘travelling too fast for the conditions’ is the leading factor in motor vehicle fatalities (LTSA, 1997a). Despite this public awareness, people overestimate the number of accidents that occur on the road (Slovic, Fischho€ & Lichtenstein, 1982). Paradoxically, drivers overestimate their skill and safety compared to others (Svenson, 1981), and regard the average person as more likely to be involved in an accident (Guerin, 1994; Matthews & Moran, 1986). Theparadox, to make the point clear, is that the public on the one hand, think ‘the roads are dangerous’;and on the other, think themselves safer, more skillful and less likely to have an accident than others."
And then, although old, I find this very funny... From "ARE WE ALL LESS RISKY AND MORE SKILLFUL THAN OUR FELLOW DRIVERS?" by Ola Svensson.
"Results
The distributions of the judgments are shown in table 1 for the two groups and the two questions respectively. The table shows that most of the Ss in the group viewed themselves as safer and more skillful drivers than the rest of the group. The medians for the distributions of safety judgments in table 1 fall in the interval 8 l-90% for the US group and between 7 1 and 80% for the Swedish group. This indicates that half of the Ss believe themselves to be among the safest 20 (US) or 30 (Sweden) percent of the drivers in the two groups respectively. In the US group 88% and in the Swedish group 77% believed themselves to be safer than the median driver.
The medians for the distributions of skill judgments fall in the interval 61-70% for the US group and between 51-60% for the Swedish group. Of the US sample 46.3% regard themselves among the most skillful 20%. The corresponding number in the Swedish group was only 15.5%. In the US sample 93% believed themselves to be more skillful drivers than the median driver and 69% of the Swedish drivers shared this belief in relation to their comparison group.
In summary, there was a strong tendency to believe oneself as safer and more skillful than the average driver. In addition, there seemed to be a stronger tendency to believe oneself as safer than and more skillful than the average person."
As I said, a bit old but still worth to notice IMO...
While driving in urban areas, speeding is reckless. While driving on motorways where there are barriers between the opposing traffic and yourself, I dont see a problem more than "one should not break the law".
Take a look at this, small changes in speed have drastic outcomes when it comes to pedestrian fatalities.
http://sggoodri.home.mindspring.com/sid … dKills.htm
His source: (the discussion part is the most interesting one, found at page 50)
http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/pedspeed/PEDSPEED.PDF
This of course also applies to any car crash, keeping the speed limits limit damage done and accidents can be avoided etc. So based on this, speeding in urban areas is reckless.
Take a look at this, small changes in speed have drastic outcomes when it comes to pedestrian fatalities.
http://sggoodri.home.mindspring.com/sid … dKills.htm
His source: (the discussion part is the most interesting one, found at page 50)
http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/pedspeed/PEDSPEED.PDF
This of course also applies to any car crash, keeping the speed limits limit damage done and accidents can be avoided etc. So based on this, speeding in urban areas is reckless.
If the infected ones die after 4 hrs that would be less dangerous than a virus that kills after weeks. This prevents the virus from spreading although it would be troublesome if it was airborne...
Pardon me but can I have a link to an example of this?Stingray24 wrote:
*buzzer* Scientists are finding in their research what current evolutionary theory fails to explain, not "some people".
Playing Diablo 2 when people in the chat tell me to watch the TV. I remember making fun of the people in the chat cos I didnt not for a second believe it was true until I saw the images on every news channel...
The Olympics should have never gone to China in the first place. Pressure should have been put on the delegates and politicians back then instead of asking athletes now not to go.
However anything that makes China upset is usually a good thing for everybody else...
However anything that makes China upset is usually a good thing for everybody else...
I think then Musilms get a higher standard of living their reproduction rate will drop drastically.
Most of the Muslims I know of don't care about Islam more than random Swede cares about Christianity, which is very little to none.
Most of the Muslims I know of don't care about Islam more than random Swede cares about Christianity, which is very little to none.
Wouldn't care tbh. If they built a minaret and decided to shout for prayer 5 in the morning I wouldn't be happy about it though. If they kept to themselves like the Christian do here, save the bells in the clock tower that ring sometimes, I wouldn't mind at all.
Compared to China and Russia America seems like a very nice place to be TBH. My vote goes to China with Russia as a close second.
Since I'm not muslim and live in a Western country I would of course join the "West".
Was just arguing why cloning shouldn't replace sexual reproduction as the way we reproduce ourselves.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Yeah, I understand all that, but then when it comes to cloning who's really talking about creating 'clone armies' and the like?Raga86 wrote:
Yep maybe sexual reproduction is more "risky" than cloning but only in the short run....
The really great thing about cloning is you don't have to produce a whole living being - you can just reproduce certain tissues and/or organs.
I'm all for cloning of organs and so on to be able to replace broken parts of our body. I see no problems in this at all, its just very beneficial for mankind.
Yep maybe sexual reproduction is more "risky" than cloning but only in the short run.
As you said, with cloning you take one persons DNA and implant it into a new cell. With sexual reproduction you use two persons DNA and form a new cell. And as you said, many sperm and egg combinations will never make it and there will be lots of failures. This is however also the greatest strength of sexual reproduction, to create diversity.
Bacteria and other organisms use clonal expansion to reproduce. This makes them very efficient at reproducing in enviroments that allow reproduction. However when someone, for example a fungi, invents something, antibiotics, that kills one bacteria it will kill them all. Bacteria survive because of their huge number and their mutation frequency in their genome. The mutation frequency and their numbers allows for that one lucky bacteria to have the right mutation and survive and begin to build up their numbers again. Until the next antibiotics is created by a mutated fungi and the circle goes on... Without the diversity in the bacterial genome all bacteria could be eradicated by one super potent antibiotic.
Humans however cannot have a high mutation frequency because we are a much more advanced species than a bacteria. We also cannot produce any huge numbers compared to bacteria, 6 billion might sound a lot but compared to the numbers of bacteria that really is nothing. So we have other ways to create diversity in our genome. And the two main processes to create diversity lies within the sexual reproduction. One being that it takes two persons with different genomes to create a new zygote and the other is how the gametes are made.
The thing with two persons and their different DNA mixing together and this results in greater diversity than if only one persons DNA was used is quite easy to understand.
The second thing about how the gamets are made is a bit more delicate. Read here. I know its wiki and that I said it was a bad source and if you want a better source I can find one for you but what it says here is well written and correct from what I can see....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis
Look at the Pachytene part.
"The pachytene stage, also known as pachynema, from Greek words meaning "thick threads,"[1] contains the following chromosomal crossover. Nonsister chromatids of homologous chromosomes randomly exchange segments of genetic information over regions of homology. (Sex chromosomes, however, are not identical, and only exchange information over a small region of homology.)"
This means that you can get genetic variety here as well that was not in either of the parents but unique to the new zygote. This system however can fail and one is of the reasons why sexual reproduction fails more often than cloning. Nonetheless the benefits from this are tremendous. It's thanks to our genetic diversity that we can counter most illnesses present today. If it wasn't because of this diversity the human species could be totally eradicated during the black death caused by Yersinia pestis in the 14th century.
The species who prevails is the one with the greatest diversity in the species genome and to continually change this. Cloning makes us less diverse and this can, in the short run be a positive thing. In the long run when we have to counter pandemics and antigenic shifts in example the influenza I think its better to be as diverse as possible.
Good post about telomeres btw Havok!
As you said, with cloning you take one persons DNA and implant it into a new cell. With sexual reproduction you use two persons DNA and form a new cell. And as you said, many sperm and egg combinations will never make it and there will be lots of failures. This is however also the greatest strength of sexual reproduction, to create diversity.
Bacteria and other organisms use clonal expansion to reproduce. This makes them very efficient at reproducing in enviroments that allow reproduction. However when someone, for example a fungi, invents something, antibiotics, that kills one bacteria it will kill them all. Bacteria survive because of their huge number and their mutation frequency in their genome. The mutation frequency and their numbers allows for that one lucky bacteria to have the right mutation and survive and begin to build up their numbers again. Until the next antibiotics is created by a mutated fungi and the circle goes on... Without the diversity in the bacterial genome all bacteria could be eradicated by one super potent antibiotic.
Humans however cannot have a high mutation frequency because we are a much more advanced species than a bacteria. We also cannot produce any huge numbers compared to bacteria, 6 billion might sound a lot but compared to the numbers of bacteria that really is nothing. So we have other ways to create diversity in our genome. And the two main processes to create diversity lies within the sexual reproduction. One being that it takes two persons with different genomes to create a new zygote and the other is how the gametes are made.
The thing with two persons and their different DNA mixing together and this results in greater diversity than if only one persons DNA was used is quite easy to understand.
The second thing about how the gamets are made is a bit more delicate. Read here. I know its wiki and that I said it was a bad source and if you want a better source I can find one for you but what it says here is well written and correct from what I can see....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis
Look at the Pachytene part.
"The pachytene stage, also known as pachynema, from Greek words meaning "thick threads,"[1] contains the following chromosomal crossover. Nonsister chromatids of homologous chromosomes randomly exchange segments of genetic information over regions of homology. (Sex chromosomes, however, are not identical, and only exchange information over a small region of homology.)"
This means that you can get genetic variety here as well that was not in either of the parents but unique to the new zygote. This system however can fail and one is of the reasons why sexual reproduction fails more often than cloning. Nonetheless the benefits from this are tremendous. It's thanks to our genetic diversity that we can counter most illnesses present today. If it wasn't because of this diversity the human species could be totally eradicated during the black death caused by Yersinia pestis in the 14th century.
The species who prevails is the one with the greatest diversity in the species genome and to continually change this. Cloning makes us less diverse and this can, in the short run be a positive thing. In the long run when we have to counter pandemics and antigenic shifts in example the influenza I think its better to be as diverse as possible.
Good post about telomeres btw Havok!
Well I wouldn't say we are clones of our parents, we a 'random' mix of our parents DNA. Due to this randomness sequences that are repressed in our parents might be expressed the child. This can then either produce more beneficial or negative results, all random.
This mixing wont happen when you clone. As well as one shouldn't overestimate the power of the genes, one shouldn't underestimate it either.
Test tube babies are still done 'the old fashioned way' of a sperm fertilizing an egg and all the processes that take place naturally take place here as well, only in vitro.
So I would say that there are huge differances in cloning and normal sexual reproduction regarding the DNA.
This mixing wont happen when you clone. As well as one shouldn't overestimate the power of the genes, one shouldn't underestimate it either.
Test tube babies are still done 'the old fashioned way' of a sperm fertilizing an egg and all the processes that take place naturally take place here as well, only in vitro.
So I would say that there are huge differances in cloning and normal sexual reproduction regarding the DNA.
Oh yeah Wiki is the place to go...
Take a look at the review of "Somatic cell nuclear transfer: Past, present and future perspectives" by K.H.S. Campbell. Table 1. If i interpret it correctly is says that only 3,8% of all studies using in vitro cloning come out with no abnormalities. Thats a pretty low number. I could be wrong in the interpretation though...
Mind to address my other points as well Scorpion? And as I said, not all evidence point in the direction of the abnormal aging, only some. And dolly wasnt my main point either ^
Take a look at the review of "Somatic cell nuclear transfer: Past, present and future perspectives" by K.H.S. Campbell. Table 1. If i interpret it correctly is says that only 3,8% of all studies using in vitro cloning come out with no abnormalities. Thats a pretty low number. I could be wrong in the interpretation though...
Mind to address my other points as well Scorpion? And as I said, not all evidence point in the direction of the abnormal aging, only some. And dolly wasnt my main point either ^
Those who say we can beat HIV via cloning, please tell me how. Cloning wont help at all vs a virus that can mutate so fast that the genetic variation of the HIV virus in ONE infected person after 10 years is just as large as the genetic variation for one influenza strain in the world..
Since all humans detect virus and other pathogens in a similar but still different manner (MHC/HLA variation for those who know a bit more...) is very very stupid to narrow the genetic variation in the human just because of this. Less genetic variation = higher risk of getting WTFPWNT by a single super pathogen. To become "immune" to most diseases a species need more genetic variation, not less.
Further, if we clone a human this clone should of course have the very same value as a non cloned person. The clone have a unique personality just like everybody else. Since the clone should have the same rights as a 'normal' person I don't think its right to clone on the sheer basis that we don't know what will happen in 30 years ahead.
Everybody knows Dolly and I think most people also know that she died at the age of six, normal life span of a sheep is 12 years old. She also suffered early on from arthritis, a sickness often connected with age. Not all evidence point at the fact that Dolly was born with the genetic material of a 6 year old sheep but the events sure raise the question.
A human life cannot be experimented on, if we cannot guarantee the person a 'normal' life then we shouldn't clone.
Since all humans detect virus and other pathogens in a similar but still different manner (MHC/HLA variation for those who know a bit more...) is very very stupid to narrow the genetic variation in the human just because of this. Less genetic variation = higher risk of getting WTFPWNT by a single super pathogen. To become "immune" to most diseases a species need more genetic variation, not less.
Further, if we clone a human this clone should of course have the very same value as a non cloned person. The clone have a unique personality just like everybody else. Since the clone should have the same rights as a 'normal' person I don't think its right to clone on the sheer basis that we don't know what will happen in 30 years ahead.
Everybody knows Dolly and I think most people also know that she died at the age of six, normal life span of a sheep is 12 years old. She also suffered early on from arthritis, a sickness often connected with age. Not all evidence point at the fact that Dolly was born with the genetic material of a 6 year old sheep but the events sure raise the question.
A human life cannot be experimented on, if we cannot guarantee the person a 'normal' life then we shouldn't clone.
I would say that Sweden is a pretty secular country. The church and the state are completely separated. The church appoint their own leaders by internal voting systems and the state cannot interfere with this alot... Would say that most Scandinavian countries work this way it works out fine. The religious interest here is also declining...
Where I live we have women only gym and a mixed gym. If unisex gyms get the women to train I dont see a problem with it.
Very powerful speech.
I'm amazed that he could hold himself together so well. Shame that someone like that has to go sooner when he probably could have done so much more if he was allowed to live a "normal" lifespan.
I'm amazed that he could hold himself together so well. Shame that someone like that has to go sooner when he probably could have done so much more if he was allowed to live a "normal" lifespan.
I think it should be compulsory for all convicted criminals that got jail time.
As some people already pointed out DNA evidence is a powerful tool in investigations but also easy to fool. To take samples from every single person in a country just to bust the few that convict crimes is an unnecessary cost and a potential risk for the personal integrity.
As some people already pointed out DNA evidence is a powerful tool in investigations but also easy to fool. To take samples from every single person in a country just to bust the few that convict crimes is an unnecessary cost and a potential risk for the personal integrity.
Zeqtr and Sarge will own all on Kubra! GO ZEQTR! <3
If you need another reserve just tell Zeqtr and I'll come and help you guys.
If you need another reserve just tell Zeqtr and I'll come and help you guys.
Nice play with facts I guess. Fun to watch and it gets you to think a bit but I wonder how much BS that is in there...
What a pointless move. If people really care about child stories like that... well too bad for them.
rdx-fx: I'm not going to argue about the fact that the nukes "saved lifes" on a short time. However the fallout affected people decades after the bombs and no one can really be sure about how many people that got affected by it.
However I still a "visual experience" would have a greater impact than a seismic reading. If it failed tho you would have put military personnel at a unnecessary risk and so forth..
However I still a "visual experience" would have a greater impact than a seismic reading. If it failed tho you would have put military personnel at a unnecessary risk and so forth..
I hope there will never be a situation again when they are "needed". Nukes are only good for the MAD balance between the major powers in the world.
About the US nuking Japan in WW2 thing, I've always wondered why the US couldn't show their might like for example detonate the nuke outside Tokyo above the water. Then send a telegram saying "If you don't lay down arms there will be one of those in every military base and city in Japan, so do it now"
About the US nuking Japan in WW2 thing, I've always wondered why the US couldn't show their might like for example detonate the nuke outside Tokyo above the water. Then send a telegram saying "If you don't lay down arms there will be one of those in every military base and city in Japan, so do it now"
Turquoise got a good point IMO. We cant patent genetic code that you didn't invent yourself on the basis that "you found it first". It would be like patenting the pancreas just because you found it first...
However if you modify the genes then it definitely should be allowed, just like a modified pancreas can be patented. Methods of obtaining these changes should also be patentable.
Here in Sweden the academia plays a huge part in the "basic" science. Finding out how things works by doing loads of repetitive experiments that no company would want to do because the outcome is often just "knowledge" and if you cannot make a useful application of this knowledge then its useless to a company. This knowledge is very important since the really big breakthroughs comes from one person outside reading about different types of science that at the first glance has no connection at all but this person/persons find it. Without the basic knowledge these connections would never been possible.
However if you modify the genes then it definitely should be allowed, just like a modified pancreas can be patented. Methods of obtaining these changes should also be patentable.
Here in Sweden the academia plays a huge part in the "basic" science. Finding out how things works by doing loads of repetitive experiments that no company would want to do because the outcome is often just "knowledge" and if you cannot make a useful application of this knowledge then its useless to a company. This knowledge is very important since the really big breakthroughs comes from one person outside reading about different types of science that at the first glance has no connection at all but this person/persons find it. Without the basic knowledge these connections would never been possible.
Tankshell to head. Quick and you wont be able to feel a thing afterwards since there will be nothing left.
Or CO induced hypoxia while asleep.
I think its very hard to get away from panic and fear that one would feel before any "known" execution.
Or CO induced hypoxia while asleep.
I think its very hard to get away from panic and fear that one would feel before any "known" execution.
For those of you that wanna see a good solo pilot in action go watch "DuckandCover" by Redux... And yes he MGs troops as well in that vid...
My believes are that you should try your gunner before you tell him to bail, most of the times they at least do decent.
My believes are that you should try your gunner before you tell him to bail, most of the times they at least do decent.