Gypsy Cake

I've thought about this before. I find it hard to understand how people can have tattoos so I don't know I'd cope. I definitely think you'd feel different if you needed it but it actually makes me feel slightly ill imagining someone else's organ inside me. And the psychological effects of a face-transplant would be incomprehensible.

Interesting. How does the termination period compare to other nations such as the UK and US? How does it affect you? Do you deal directly with cloning?

To Bettina, Our government chooses to do everything diplomatically, we have the SAS but I guess that we choose not to use them. I don't really have any real problem with Tony Blair; it is necessary for our government to maintain a good relationship with your country, any smart politician would do the same but lets be honest Tony Blair doesn't have any major influence in the US whereas over here we do often have to stand by your side in matters of war. For the same reason you mentioned...we're pretty weak comparatively

I feel that if a person isn't willing to give their organs for free then they should not give them. We musn't encourage selling of body parts. There would actually be people willing to sell an eye or a lung I don't doubt if it were possible. We live in a reality where birth and death are natural. If your to die from kidney failure, liver cancer whatever really then that's that. I am registered on the organ donar list and i gave blood for the first time this month, but we can't take advantage of people who are in the horrifying position that they have to sell their body to make money. It's bordering prositution. {If this comment offends anyone I will immediately remove it.}

I agree with genietic research and most research. At the end of the day as long as we're careful about applying our knowledge there's no reason why we shouldn't. But anyway, I would like to mention two points: One, that if we were to introduce ways of creating "better" human beings then we may also introduce further discrimnation into society. Parents would pressured to make their baby smarter and fitter etc. And afterall why wouldn't you? You would be putting your child at a disadvantage if you weren't to. This may seem a disirable example of evolution to many, I'm more of a conservative and believe we should let nature take its course when it comes to evolution. Although I thought Foodchain made a good point: Back to point two, by allowing artificial selection we will lose the originality and amazing variety in our species. We may lose some of the most famous geniuses of all time, even if we do also lose some of the most infamous as well. (A Clockwork Orange--free will is more important than 'perfection')

As far as Iran and war goes, they do seem to be asking for it.Whether we entered there territory or not. No peace-seeking nation would simply abduct foreigners for straying into their territory. I don't however feel we should resort to invading due to our complete inability to do so successfully; namely Iraq. Though it's about time the UN did something about Iran and its antics. Btw, It's good to see americans caring about our guys.

Oh that's disappointing. I thought perhaps it was unlikely that the sudden increase in global temperature and human greenhouse emissions were just coincidence. PS. I've started using the Google spell checker as suggested.

Fair comment hypertilly, But lets think would we fancy attaching a spider's web to a body that orbits us. It could result in a slight entanglement.

I realise there is apparently a "scientific consensus" on global warming but there is some contrary opinion. I watched a programme on channel 4 (UK) that showed how a lot of evidence used to account for global is misinterpretted. An example would be that increase in CO2 does not lead a temperature increase but in fact the other way round. The programme claimed that as the Earth heats up CO2 (which had been absorped by the oceans) is released; this was backed up by graphs. There were many examples of this and some interesting stuff on solar spots. It was of course very biased and therefore, as a non-expert, very hard to disagree with. Though I did spot some flaws. Did anyone else see this or know that it was produced by a load of crack-pots? And if not, then should we be suggesting there is scientific consensus?

Hi Foodchain, I dont think that the moon would stay equidistant from the earth's surface and therefore the line would have to be extensible to avoid disturbing the orbits, in this sense(there is of course the friction afore mentioned)

A kestrel eating a Lemon in Denmark.

Kk. Sorry. I'm new to this game.

Simply, Humans define it. Just as we define everything. It is the space between 2 points. We standardise the units etc...to make communication easier. You cant draw distance though, just as you cant draw mass.. you can only measure these things because they have to be specified.

Of course there is conservation of energy. But that doesn't mean none exists; just that there is a constant amount in an enclosed system. __ Anyways, Money does exist because money is the word used for anything that exchanged. It is a human invention and therefore it does not have to be tangible to be siad to "exist".

I understand the paradox of killing your grandfather or whatever; if you do that then the "new" version of the past does not allow you to exist. {I'm going to struggle to put all this clearly} However, 1) Is it possible to think that once something has happened it is then independent of the past? 2) If we don't think about a "timeline" and that the past, present, future are all sort of occuring simultaneously then surely they're sorta running parallel and then couldn't affect one another. plus (referring to original comment), 3) I dont think the idea of parallel universes is that bad an idea. It provides a lot of opportunity to explain evolution, coincidence etc.

I'm British. Most of my country do not only hold your sentiments but also that we've simply followed the US lead on this. I wouldn't want to say whether we should or shouldn't have gone in but I strongly believe that now we have we must stick it out. Our politcians prematuely entered Iraq and Tony Blair especially didn't gain enough support from the general public. But there you go. If we leave now then we leave the country in a more volatile and terrorist threat than when we went in. And therefore to maintain our integrity amoungst the international community we must complete our goals.

Gun crime is a problem. It always seems a distant phenomenon but that doesn't mean it's not our problem. I think if it's up to anyone to sort out then it's up to us because it's hard for the people in the situation to see the altercation. Although I'm not sure if armed police is a good idea; I think there's a slight misunderstanding as to what it may entail. The policemen you see in airports carry big guns; this would not necessarily be the case on the streets. The guns would probably be handguns and inconspicuous. I do however feel that the use of armed police may simply increase the acceptance of guns in the affected communities and therefore have an undesired affect.

∞ is a stubborn constant. It's impossible to change it or get rid of; except by multiplying by 1/∞. ∞-1=∞ ANS+5=∞ ANS^2=(∞+5)^2=∞^2+10∞+25=∞ grrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!! ∞ x 1/∞=1 ahhhh. relief from the incesent infinties. But of course ∞ isn't the only troublesome constant. I put forward the obstinate zero. Very similar, though not quite so uncooperative. It's interesting how the two extremes cause such problems amoungst scientists/philosophers/mathematicians... ∞/0=∞ 0/∞=0

HI, I'm from the UK. I wondered if anyone had any tips for getting into Cambridge to do Natural Sciences (Physical). Good subjects to read into? Specific colleges? Cheers.

Hi I'm GypsyCake. I'm only 17 and I'm looking to broaden my scientific horizons. WOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! Glad to get that off my chest.