Ginger_Warrior

It only works temporarily, since the RNA contained in the virus doesn't establish itself on a fixed point on the chromosome, and this causes problems. The RNA may be placed in the middle of a gene, which would disrupt production of the protein from that gene. If that protein is needed for a vital biological process, then something can go seriously wrong. For example, say the RNA strand is placed in the middle of a gene that produces a protein need for cell replication (mitosis). The protein isn't produced, since protein synthesis is dependent on the specific order of nucleotide bases, so the process takes a different path to its normal one. This leads to cell division becoming uncontrolled, in other words, cancer. Of course, that's hypothetical, but it can still happen and shouldn't really be considered a treatment really. It's a technology that's still "in the works", so to speak. There is another technology, where strands of RNA are contained in lipid 'capsules', which are then sprayed into the mouth. The lipid can fuse with a cell membrane, allowing the RNA access to the cell's cytoplasm. tRNA then attaches to this mRNA strand to produce the protein. The problem with this, however, is that the mRNA never becomes part of the cell's genetic structure and therefore is lost when cell replication occurs. Also, because it's sprayed, most of it just stays in the mouth, instead of where it needs to go (which for a diabetic would be the pancreas). :? There's no definite way to change the genetic make-up of our body's cells. Not yet anyway.

My name is a misspelling of a popular Irish surname: IRELAND 103.54 UNITED KINGDOM 14.96 NEW ZEALAND 2.15 UNITED STATES 1.38 CANADA 1.38 My forename is eight most popular for my surname too. I always thought I'd be the only one with my name.

OK, well if we're going argue like that, men don't carry babies, men don't have the right to decide whether a foetus lives. That's life. See how futile the argument "that's life" is?

OK, so the mother has to go through the pain (and I mean intense physical pain; men seem to think giving birth is a walk in the park - my mother almost died having me) so that you can have 'your' child. I wasn't aware the child's life was possessed by anyone except the child. Since the child does not biologically have a life of its own in the first five months of pregnancy, surely the only person who can actually take responsibility over its life is the person that 'life' is dependent upon - namely, the mother through its umbilical cord. Throughout the whole of the pregnancy, you will do nothing to aid the foetus' development except make her pregnant in the first place. Therefore, it is the mother's right to decide. The dangerous nature of childbirth only strengthens that argument.

Don't be overly concerned about your appearance. Just make sure you look presentable. A tailor-made suit isn't going to score any higher points than a smart shirt, some shoes and black trousers will. They are looking for you and they will likely be looking for confidence if you're working in a coffee store. To make sure you convey this, shake their hands, and ask them how they are doing. They say the first 5 seconds of an interview are the most important - they set the tone for the rest of it. Get off to a good start, appear amiable and the rest should follow. They'll also be likely looking for evidence of a genuinely helpful nature. Make sure you're ready to provide that evidence, or talk about a time where you have been helpful towards another person. Perhaps talk about other jobs which necessitated a helpful nature. Know your statement off-by-heart too. They'll have it in front of them (you probably won't be able to see it) during in the interview and it's perfectly within their right to quiz you about anything on it. Perhaps they'll ask you to prove you're bilingual., or to give evidence of a time where you did give maximum effort to get a job done, as you've claimed. Even if you're not confident, work on a mask to imply somehow you are. List all the possible questions they might ask, and practise answering textbook answers to them in front of a mirror. In the interview though, take a good five seconds thinking over each answer. That's not a sign of indecision - it's the sign of a well-thought out person who doesn't act impulsively. Also, try to keep a smile. Shows a positive attitude. That's really all my advice. Good luck! : Remember: The summer holidays just ended. All the students are going back to education. Leaves loads of vacancies. That's why they'll accept almost anything willing to work for them right now. :P

A fish can feel pain. Hence it tries to escape when it's being eaten alive...

I'm saying adoption isn't a desirable alternative. If not concerning money, then for the actual child. Knowing your parents didn't want is hardly an ideal life itself. And again, you're assuming there is one definition of "life". Clearly, mine and yours are different. Yours is spiritual. But I regard life as starting when the baby has the ability to 'feel'. This is around 24 weeks into development. It's not just a case of a women not wanting to have a baby - to break it down into such simple analogy is puerile. It's a case of it being dangerous.

Gravity is not an energy itself. There is gravitational potential energy (which is really where my knowledge of Physics ends, apart the make-up of atoms, thankfully) which is 'gained' the greater the altitude you are at. I have more gravitational potential energy sitting upstairs than I would downstairs. I have 'gained' this energy by converting chemical energy in my body to provide kinetic energy which in turn overcomes the force of gravity, enabling me to walk up the stairs. You 'gain' gravitiational potential energy in this process. I put 'gain' in apostrophies since energy isn't created, only converted from one form to the next. In this case: Chemical energy (stored in food) -> kinetic energy -> Gravitational potential energy. | V Heat energy from respiration (waste) That's what I was taught anyway.

Sex-, race- and to a certain extent, disability-selective abortion is not something that should be condoned. An abortion should only be taken if the baby would have a detrimental effect on the two parents concerned. Not wanting a baby should qualify for that, although contraception should always be the first option, if only to prevent the transmittance of STIs. However, to suggest all people who engage in sexual activities will use contraception is idealism in the face of stark reality. Hence why abortion is needed in case it's not used, or else fails. Quite clearly, having an abortion because the baby is white or black and you don't like it is not a valid reason for such an (admittedly) unethical procedure. However, a woman still has the right to decide whether or not she wants to give birth to a baby and cope with 9 months of pregnancy, especially while it remains such a painful and dangerous procedure. Simply throwing a baby into adoption isn't desirable, and requires state funding to provide services.

Basically, everything which possesses a mass has the ability to attract objects around it. You are exerting a 'pulling' force on the computer screen in front of you right now, since you have mass, but obviously, this force is so tiny, it fails to overcome the resistance 'pushing' the screen in the other direction, hence the screen doesn't move. This pulling force is gravity. The Earth's gravity is much stronger than our own, and this is why we stay on terra firma. This is because an object's gravity is relative to the size of its mass. The Earth has a greater mass (note: that's not the same as simply being 'bigger') than you as a human, so its gravitational potential is far superior to your own, hence why you are more attracted to it than it is to you.

Once again, rather infuriatingly you are not reading what other people are saying. Whether or not you say the baby has life is beside the point. It is the principal that a woman should be allowed to decide for herself whether or not she is to go through a procedure which still remains potentially lethal and dangerous to this day. You do not have the right to tell someone else that having an abortion (which still remains a legal right) amounts to infanticide, and from that, outlaw it in total ignorance to the danger the mother-to-be faces. Second to that, there is a certain irony in the fact you would happily outlaw abortion, yet Palin would make no attempt to provide decent sex-ed in schools to prevent young women getting pregnant in the first place.

You cannot inflict pain onto something which cannot feel pain - a foetus below 24 weeks cannot feel pain. It's not enforcing anything on anyone, since women still have a choice to have an abortion and are certainly not advised by doctors to have one. On the other hand, we could let the baby be born into a family that doesn't want it, or else cannot provide for it, and see its existence is worth living enough to fit in with your religious principles, jack. And as for the comment about everything religious people do is a task from God - absolute rubbish. There are a whole load of Christian sects which don't feel that way. As for the fourth point, mmmcannibalism, I believe there's a mistake there. It should read as follows:

Hillary may have been bad in the eyes of most Americans. Although it's something I personally feel is vital to my own country, compulsory national insurance isn't exactly a vote winner in America. But this woman... well let's list it: [*:110li1lw]She forces her views onto others [*:110li1lw]She denies other women the right to choose an abortion [*:110li1lw]She bases an engrossing amount of her opinions on her religious beliefs, even if those concerned don't even follow the religion [*:110li1lw]She believes global warming is man-made (by that logic, God clearly hates Alaska anyway) [*:110li1lw]She has only two years of executive experience in a state where hardly anyone lives with a tiny economy in comparison to whole of America [*:110li1lw]She seems to think having a baby with Downs' Syndrome is somehow a plus for VP [*:110li1lw]She seems to believe the war in Iraq is some theological conflict against (presumably) Islam [*:110li1lw]She can't even keep her own kids on the straight path she's chosen for them (Oh no, that's right, she's getting married to the guy she's going out with... at 17. Yeah that's the founding of a great relationship right there... No kiddies, don't wait for a secure relationship before having sex, just get married asap and then do as it you please.) What on Earth is the appeal in this woman? This is what we've learned from just a week - there's still two months left to go! Is Hillary, or even Obama, really that much worse than Palin in the eyes of your average Republican?

What's your point? I not only went into HYT chat, I modded it for a whole year. The chat was an ugly ducking in a family of swans, as far as RuneScape's concerned. You can't trade charms, you can't summon pouches at any level other than you'd be able to make them yourself anyway. Instead, if anything, it just creates competition at Slayer hotspots for charms which leads to a rise in hostility. [hide=]Actually, I knew I shouldn't have bothered honestly giving my opinion here. I am actually beginning to understand how qeltar felt when he was posting about the G.E. in a fairly anti-Jagex tone. There may as well be some unwritten rule in a sticky on this board somewhere which says "only pro-RuneScape comments allowed". I guess it really was like going to Saudi Arabia and telling them Islam is a false religion. I've suggested RuneScape has a weak community, and been treat with nothing but disdain. I've suggested RuneScape is bad for your health, and got lots of angry comments. I might just keep to OT from now on... I can't help it if reality doesn't agree with you -.-[/hide]

It's a subjective opinion. However, I will say this much. It's pretty much only you guys saying the RS community is strong. When you have as many flamers in-game as you do, when you have people cheating, when you have thousands of people threatening to leave the community altogether because of an update Jagex did about 9 months ago, when people would rather process their trades through a machine than actually meet face to face with one another; I'm sorry, but it baffles me how you can honestly sit here and say the community as a whole (not just Tip.It) is strong. Maybe Edgeville w99's community is strong. I don't really know. But let's try Lumbridge w7 and see if you can honestly say the same thing.

If you're going to argue with science, at least understand it. A growth of deaths in the bird population would lead to a rise in the prey's population (the moths). Logic doesn't follow your conclusion. It is an example of evolution. You might not agree that evolution exists, or that if it does, it's God's plan, but that is an example of evolution. The white pepper moth could previously camouflage against the bark of a tree. The Industrial Revolution comes along, and makes the bark darker, so the moth no longer camouflages. This leads to the population of the moth declining due to a rise in predation. Somewhere along the line, a moth has by chance made a genetic mutation which develops a protein that causes its wings to be darker so it does camouflage. This moth is more easily able to camouflage and is therefore not predated as much as the white moth, which cannot cope with the change in its circumstances. Through natural selection, the black peppered moth survives and passes on its alleles to the next generation, while the white moth does not survive and does not reproduce to pass on its alleles. The frequency of black peppered moths increases. What exactly is hard to understand there? Unless one of the blue-eyed population has a recessive (unexpressed) brown allele, there is no chance this population could be anything other than blue eyed unless there was a mutation. Also, watch your language. A person does not 'evolve' like a Pokémon - the genetic code mutates. They are different terms

You can make MK Dsmash and do a tornado at the same time? You must be the best player since, like... ever. I am also well aware of the dangers of dair'ing with TL, hence I don't do it all that often; in fact, almost never unless I'm making a re-entry after being launched or KOing someone to the top of the screen. I was also talking in the context of a Basic Brawl. Of course I'd never pull out a bomb in a 1v1 where all the focus is on me. Common sense would tell you that. I stand as far away as possible and SHDB + boomerang to keep him away. If he gets close, dodge (using a forward roll, where possible), hit him with a Dsmash or a normal attack, and while he's in the air, run like a madman. Perhaps most importantly is the skill of keeping up projectiles while remaining unpredictable. TL's versatility allows that. His lack of projectiles is a weakness. I remember comments about Ike being unbeatable, and he's easily beaten now. No character in this game is unbeatable - not while metagames are in the process of constant evolution.

I always try to keep a bomb drawn whenever I'm facing a MK at mid/close range combat, waiting for a tornado. If it's long-range, I can usually do a quick double jump and dair. Costs me a few % of damage, but it deals more to MK and knocks him out of rhythm. Other than that, I really don't have a clue how to deal with it. :?

I'm sorry, but its your own fault if you see Runescapes community this way. The community for the past 5 years or so has remained exactly the same. Theres always been whiners, flamers, and rude folks, nothing about that has changed. Its not the community that has changed, its you. You might do well to ask before you leap when getting into a debate. I've not even played for four years, so I can't see how it could possibly be my fault, especially when there are others who agree with me. i stopped reading that link when i read this "But RuneScape is child-oriented, with some players as young as five online" i'd like to see where they got that fact, and if they can back it up. kids 5 years old shouldn't be online at all, let alone on runescape. rs has changed, although i still enjoy it. you take it as you can, the community won't make me leave as long as i enjoy the game itself. Good for you. You can believe what you want - it really doesn't matter since it's totally irrelevant. Two things: A) That doesn't change the article's point - flamers still exist in vast numbers in RuneScape; B) It's not just young children who are affected by flamers. Also, if you want proof that RuneScape is child-orientated, and that under-13s play the game, you needn't have looked further than Tip.It itself: http://www.tip.it/runescape/?poll_id=22 A grand total of just 18% of RSers are over the age of 18, according to that poll.

I'm sorry, but its your own fault if you see Runescapes community this way. The community for the past 5 years or so has remained exactly the same. Theres always been whiners, flamers, and rude folks, nothing about that has changed. Its not the community that has changed, its you. You might do well to ask before you leap when getting into a debate. I've not even played for four years, so I can't see how it could possibly be my fault, especially when there are others who agree with me. It's not good enough to simply say, "flamers and whiners exist in all games so... meh". You have to look at how many there are, how bad they are what their impact is on the gamers who play around them. I'm sorry, but whenever I played Castle Wars, supposedly a friendly game where there are no real stakes and no items are lost, the amount of flaming was ridiculous. You kill someone, and half the time you get "[insert weapon here] noob". An ancient kills you by freezing you and running off, and then they rub it in in the most insulting way possible after they've killed you. The level of flaming in this game is awful - places like Tip.It are very much an exception. The fact is, it has changed. As RuneScape has populated, it's become full of more people who flame others in a way they wouldn't do in real life because on the Internet, they're hidden behind a faceless screen. I prefer to call such people cowards, you may call them what you like. Either way, they're bad for a healthy community. RuneScape is rife with people who are willing to cheat their way through the game, or break the rules in order to gain a real life advantages. In May 2007, Jagex had to ban 8,000 accounts a week for bots alone! That's almost one account a minute! Is that the sign of a community that complies with a common set of rules? The RuneScape community is weak. You don't even trade face-to-face with each other anymore, and you're forced to pay a certain price for goods. It ceased to be a pleasant retreat for me when they abolished PKing and all the obnoxious people that were tied up in the Wilderness started to leak into every other aspect of RuneScape life.

PM a mod... although to be perfectly honest I don't understand the rationale behind removing posts from a topic and then storing them in some hidden place anyway. :?

What politician hasn't done coke? Practically all our top politicians have admitted it in this country and no one really batted an eye lid. In fact, some people took it as a positive they were being so honest, and it acted as a message to youngsters, "If you're gonna do it (which we don't advise, but we can't stop you), do it small amounts first and make sure you're at least safe doing it". Taking coke once or twice doesn't compare with months of sustained misbehaviour. What's more is that they expected a person who is the most vehement anti-abortionist you could ever meet would honestly attract Hillary's disillusioned supporters. EDIT: Once again, Palin horrendously links politics with religion. This time, she's claiming the war in Iraq is a "task from God". 9H-btXPfhGs&feature=bzb302

The old ways of veterans hanging out in Edgeville world 99 have long been over. I won't go into detail, but there has to be a strong sense of community in a game before a subcommunity (as the Tip.It community is) can develop properly in the game. RuneScape used to have that strong community, like four years ago. It doesn't now. It's full of whiney teenagers who use the anonymity of the Internet to abuse people. It's full of spammers, arrogant and obnoxious people. It's full of scammers, and people who generally attempt to cheat their way through. And what's more, the game is run by a company that refuses to recognise any of those problems in its community. The game has turned from a friendly, pleasant retreat from everyday life, into an fast-paced race for the next 99 cape, with the losers in this race receiving nothing but flames, insults and general grief. It's no way for a community to be.

Might she be talking about feelings and emotions because the two of you are close? OK, it might be a sign that she trusts you in a deeper context than 'just friends', but it might also be that you're a trustworthy person in her eyes so she feels she can confide in you. Only one way you're gonna find out - ask her who she likes. Not referring to yourself specifically, but generally. If she gets funny about answering, I think we'll all know who. ;)

Alaska is the largest state in the union. It may be in terms of area but it's pretty small when you look at it in terms of population and if you exclude the energy industry it has a very small economy. Running a mainly rural state with a low population density is no preparation for national governance. The peps in Alaska are Spread out and that's alot of land to govern... And? She's going to be governing people, not land. Can we put this experience thing in some sort of context please? Alaska is the least densest state in America by a long shot. There's only 1.2 people per sq/m. It simply doesn't compare with the task of governing a large and dynamic economy, leading 300 million people, and then also dealing with some foreign affairs on the side