As a comment from a person who has actually bought one as a gimmick, I can tell you that it wouldn't fool the blind. It is simply NOT a copy of the real thing. They are typically Android phones, or some pen-based phone OS, with an external design that looks like an iPhone. As soon as you use it however, it's really very clear what it is.

The only good thing I can say about them is that they come with a TV app.. ;) You can watch TV on them, there's typically an extendible antenna. (Yes, analog free to air TV still exists in Asia).

Sorry to burst bubbles, but there is nothing innovative about them. They're cheap cheap phones with a TV, and a case looking like an iPhone. And this makes journalists think that there is a story.

Same for the allegedly fake Apple store: Newsflash: Apple products are legally sold in non-Apple stores all over the world. This is simply a legal reseller of actual Apple products who went the extra mile of decorating his store in an Apple style. Oh the horror. :rolleyes:

LOL! Having their genes is EXACTLY the same as 'being them', to whatever percentage is in your genes. It may just mean there were more 'moderns' and less Neanderthals.

How different did they really look, and how significant was that difference when counted across thousands of years, and looking at some of the current differences between peoples from various parts of the world, all within the same species.

Could it be a combination of all of the above? Especially to prehistoric man (using the term man loosely) there will have been many different habitats, some of which led to competing for resources, others to 'teaming up' and/or interbreeding.

It turns into one big soup to the point where all that's left is 'modern' man with a small bit of genetic baggage brought into the mix.

I don't think current sense of 'good vs evil' or 'aggressive/conquering' vs 'peaceful and innocent' really applies. Both groups may have included tribes that were one or the other for some amount of time.

This is not an event were talking about, but an incredibly long process.

Questions I have left: I recall that Australian aboriginals (and pacific islanders perhaps) originated from an earlier migration out of Africa. Do these peoples have the Neanderthal genes or not? And if they do, at which point did they acquire them.. Note that you can acquire genes without mating with an actual full blooded Neanderthal.

"work" I would consider 'Things (the desktop (nautilus)) not freezing on me, wifi not shutting down, the laptop not to overheat, and get out of the way so that I can work.

Currently, it really doesn't anymore and I've been using Ubuntu since Hoary (April 2005!) Here we are 6 years later and it really doesn't work anymore.

Agreed; Ubuntu simply doesn't run for me anymore. Not Unity, and also when going back to 'classic' and completely turning off all fancy graphic effects then I'm still experiencing freezes (Nautilus), and overheating to the point that my laptop doesn't even fully charge. (Something is eating up CPU..)

And this is on a bog standard Lenovo Thinkpad biz notebook. (With built in NVidia gfx, which I suspect has a lot to do with it.)

> Simulating the immediate reaction can only work if it's as consistent.
> Namely that X + parent == pain, instead of just that X == pain.. If you
> implement (X,Y,Z,A,J,K) + parent == pain, but X..K by themselves don't,
> then eventually they learn that it's really parent that equals pain.

Well... Possibly. But given that the alternative is letting things like playing with electrical wiring or running on to the road unpunished and without consequence, I think you owe it to yourself and to your kid to do the best you can and make sure there's a punitive response that's as immediate as possible, even when you know you can't do it 100% of the time.

And, having a painful/punitive result 75% out of a 100 times is still MUCH better than allowing it to go on.

Keep in mind that even when they are too young to understand the reasons for punishment, it WILL eventually register that certain actions are very bad. But that's okay, the reasoning why it's bad can slot in later with the much more basic pavlov-like result that they experienced when they were two years old.

You KNOW this is happening when you see them play with friends, and your kid is lecturing her friend on why it's bad to run on to the road! (Mine is 3 years and a couple months).

> I haven't decided which approach I'm going to take just yet..
> I only have another couple months. :(

Trust me, correcting your kid's mistakes is built into you as well. All parents who love and care about their kids WILL take immediate punitive action when their kid does something dangerous. I personally found that it doesn't matter much if this punishment comes in the way of a smack or some yelling/lecturing as they seem equally effective. (Possibly lecturing is more effective only because I don't smack very hard and then still feel guilty for smacking the kid, so for me personally I give a more consistent message overall if I stick to the yelling/lecturing. :) )

The one thing that of course won't work is any kind of punishment that's applied far into the future or otherwise not immediate.

> They should only do research that would yield unexpected results.

LOL.. (My way of modding your post 'funny')

Perfect oxymoron there. ;)

> You explain the same things over and over, but hitting is almost never the > solution, especially when I'm trying to teach him not to be rough with his > baby brother. I would agree there's not much benefit in hitting over a very stern lecture. However I don't think that any smack is child abuse, and it will do the job of getting attention. > That, and you shouldn't take them to _fancy_ restaurants until they're much older. Meh, if they're truly fancy restaurants then they will have enough staff left over to entertain kids and clean up after them. Guess not many of those in the USA or Europe. :)

I have a 3.5 year old and I reason with her. Not because I actually expect her to completely follow the reasoning, but if anything the stern lecturing has an obvious punitive effect, plus she may learn some of the words and concepts used.

And I know she understands some of it because the next time she does the exact same #$O(*#$(*&(&#$O@# thing it's obvious she knows she's breaking rules. ;)

Similar to dogs really; you could give a dog a stern lecture and it recognizes it as punishment, without anyone really expecting the dog to understand the words or reasoning.

Some considerations:

1. A regular human (homo sapiens sapiens) has never been cloned. (At least not in a scientific study) This means that when you clone a Neanderthal, you'll never know if the things you are observing are traits of being a Neanderthal, or traits of your cloning process. You simply HAVE TO also clone a homo sapiens sapiens to get any scientific value out of it, and likely several of both. Then you need to treat the cloned homo sapiens sapiens in the same way as the neanderthal to obtain scientific information. This may be a hurdle.

2. Legal status and human rights have been mentioned a couple times. "Do we allow it to.." type of questions have also been mentioned. However the former can make the latter irrelevant. IF you give the Neanderthal equal rights as humans, then all issues of 'do we allow him to ...' go out the window. He/she'll be an equal citizen, you don't get to tell him/her shit on what to do and what not to do!

3. Also the question of 'do we make just one of them or more' goes out the window if he/she has equal rights. If a human scientist had the right to clone a Neanderthal, so will the neanderthal have that right to clone another one, or to get a scientist to clone another one for him/her. (Assuming sufficient intellectual capability)

If he/she's anything like us then he/she will not just want the right to reproduce, he/she will feel it's his/her DUTY to reproduce!!! Consider if humans became extinct and the next intelligent life form on this planet cloned me. I'd feel a strong sense of duty to make sure I reproduce and re-establish humanity. 'Reproduce' ; that's what life forms do anything for to achieve, and not just humans.