silverfox

Oh, that would make sense Siduhe - a similar landmass to the US excluding Alaska etc

Here's something taken from Reuters was that was printed in today's Guardian and Telegraph. I cannot fathom why it was necessary to use the word 'contiguous' (next in order of landmass to Australia?) "...Australia is one of the world's most ideal places for solar projects. It has the highest average solar radiation per square metre of any continent in the world, according to government, and a population the size of New Delhi spread over an area the size of the contiguous United States..." (Australia's largest solar farm opens amid renewable target debate http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/10/australia-solar-farm-renewable-target)

I was wondering when someone would mention AP. Things must be bad at The Guardian if they are just lifting others' material without the subs checking for mistakes.

Spot the mistake "...After a nearly three-hour descent to 120,000 feet, Baumgartner will take a bunny-style hop from a pressurized capsule into a near-vacuum..." Jeri Clausing - Skydiver's supersonic jump on weather hold http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10475167

SPURTLE spur?tle noun \ˈspər-təl\ Definition of SPURTLE (chiefly Scottish): a wooden stick for stirring porridge Origin of SPURTLE origin unknown First Known Use: 1756 Cited On BBC website in article about World Porridge Making Championships http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-19854182

Okay, I watched his closing speech at the Conference. He's not an idiot and I suspect quite a well-intentioned guy. My problem with him is he is totally out of touch with the political mood of the country - alternative voting, constitutional reform, gay marriage etc. It's okay to make a stirring speech to close conference but everyone knows he's toast. I was bemused by his talk about the liberals being the party of education and that less able pupils would get ?500 extra tuition. No mention of course that most students now need to get into at least ?45,000 debt (plus interest) to go to university. He'll be fine in some EU obscurity job with a pension of more than ?100,000 a year. Don't be fooled by the likes of Clegg and the EU gravy train. Never done a decent day's work in his life.

Will whoever has parked a 1950s type police phone box outside my house please remove it or I'll call the council

"...I would even go so far as to say that "monsters" can be created within ourselves through our responses to the world, or by our mishappen perceptions or unfair judgements of others..." True Saffron, it is part of the human condition that we will wrestle with ethical and moral dilemmas especially as science and technology advance. If you think about it, the reason for the three-parent work around is that we have classified the two parents as 'defective' and that they would be irresponsible to risk bearing 'defective' children. Hence the third-person work around in the absence of a cure.

Interesting version of the story. So Medusa, "was the loveliest of mortal women, and was turned into a hideous snake-locked monster" To mix up some more images and quotes it would seem terrible beauties can be born when the Gods (scientists) start tinkering with mortals.

Medusa was a monster, a Gorgon, generally described as having the face of a hideous human female with living venomous snakes in place of hair. Gazing directly upon her would turn onlookers to stone. A good example of genetic engineering gone wrong?

Annette Curtain Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Call Carter > > Oh,no.... > > On second thoughts, he only shoots the Clay ones I'm Ren?, Ren's distant French cousin (twice removed). Carter has specified he is an engineer, therefore not qualified to keep the pigeon population under control. So why do you suggest we call for Carter? Can you clarify what you meant by call Carter ...he only shoots clay ones. Are you suggesting he's trigger happy? Please keep in mind any possible libelous or offensive claims or I'll Section 127 vous

I didn't say it should be banned. In fact I think it's unstoppable. It will happen because we can now do it. Like the invention of gun powder or nuclear fission, it can be used for good or ill. At the moment the issue is being presented as curative. However, the genie is out of the bottle and 'designer' babies are just around the corner. What will homo sapiens look like in a few centuries? What traits will we 'breed' out of mankind and which characteristics will we deem to be desirable? Who decides?

"...People 'create' babies every day - choosing partners on their health, wealth, good looks or smell. They are fabricated and totally artificial, based on the selective pressures of popular fashion, anticipated skills or just whatever we can get as a passport to the next generation..." People, and animals, do of course choose partners or mates on such a basis in the hope, note the word hope, that certain traits and abilities will be passed on to their offspring. However, nature is an unreliable matchmaker and as you have pointed out, individuals are composites of countless antecedent generations. It is a gamble, to a large extent, which traits and characteristics will actually be passed on to the child. The child then, far from being artificial as you state above, is very much real and natural. Genetic engineering however allows children to be fabricated and unnatural and it is here that the perceived desirable traits and characteristics can be selected with the potential danger that such desirable traits can be the stuff of whimsies and fleeting fashion. More worryingly, they could be the preference of social engineering, with one class destined for a life of servitude in call centres and a ruling oligarchy enjoying the lion's share of life's riches. No different from what exists now you may say with the exception that in the future it can be planned and purchased if you can afford it. Why leave it to the fickle hand of nature?

"I'm sure in your tremulous and poorly informed worldview such a thing is terrifying silverfox..." Hi Huguenot. I try to raise these issues as broadly as possible and my opening post does that. Unfortunately you miss the bigger picture as usual. This isn't just about the ability of science to correct defects by involving a third person, as desirable as that may be. Rather, this is about genetically altering people, which has both good and bad implications. My good looks, charm and superior intelligence have been derived naturally. As sure as eggs are eggs, people will be queuing round the block to order blue-eyed, blond haired, athletic, intelligent types like myself. The future evolution of the human race will be borne in test tubes and available only to the rich.

That'll make things interesting when it comes to mothers' day. Also, why stop there? Why not introduce a bit of bat gene so cyclists can use echo location so as not to pull out in front of drivers without hand signals? Or a bit of jelly fish gene so we can all glow in the dark?

"...I am Spanish. I am a translater for a large Law firm. Do you think all Spanish should only speak like Manuel from Fawlty Towers? Is that not racist? Please rethink your reply..." Is translater with an e a valid word (US English?) Also shouldn't that be "Do you think all SPANIARDS (or Spanish people) should only speak like Manuel from Fawlty Towers?" Just asking, seeing as you translate for a large law firm

I find transparent ones work best

Count me out

How much? I don't get out of bed for less than ?300 a day

Given the taboo about cannibalism I can't really see this catching on in the near future but in a post-apocalyptic world it may be a necessity. It would certainly introduce a new dimension to the ritualisation of death. Instead of the coffin being lowered into the ground or disappearing behind a curtain, the body is skilfully prepared by retrained butchers and put into a large pot or cauldron along with a pile of seasonal veg. It also throws up a few questions. Would vegans' cadavers be too scrawny? Would those brought up on microwave meals and MacDonalds be regarded as the equivalent of geese force fed for foie Gras and thus shunned by some? Also, would you need to carry a card in your wallet/purse similar to donor cards stating you wish to be eaten when you die?

Now where did I put that huge book on Tax law? Should be an easy bedtime read after this lot

Posted by Mick Mac Today, 01:10PM ... Changing a name is cancelling the previous booking for person A and making a new booking for person B... I love philosophy. So, let's get this straight in my head. On day X I book four airline seats (two outward and two return) and pay for them. On day Y I need to change the identity of my companion but this does not alter the fact I have already reserved and paid for four seats. Airline states what I have actually done is unbooked one outward and one return flight (seats now vacant) so I need to rebook those seats at the current higher price. I wonder what Wittgenstein would have made about it all? *********************** Loz, thanks for that. You may be correct. However, the reality was there was nothing to upgrade to. The plane was as cramped as any old cattle class service. If there was any more leg room for example it would have been no more than a millimetre. And how the couple sitting across from me in my upgraded seat thought they could get away with trying to fit a bag about the size of a double mattress into the overhead locker I'll never know.

Thanks for that. I presume 'First through the gate' (1 x ?0.00) means no seat is allocated to you and you join a rugby-scrum type race to get a seat. However, the prices for Flexi do appear straight forward although why it costs more to fly back from Malaga than to fly to Malaga is unclear (local taxes).

If I understand this correctly it's interesting to see yesterday's (Mon 10 Sep) London Southend to Malaga flight is still loading according to your crib.

antantant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is it 10 years ago? Don't we all know this by > now? No wonder O'Leary gets away with it - he's obviously got you sussed