briancox2 writes: "... if a government were to make a decision that a current business model was the correct one, and begin passing laws that cement that business model in place forever, then that government does not have the best interest of the entire economy at heart. Instead a true Capitalist system encourages any and all business models to exist. And a government that wishes to promote the ideals of Capitalism does not lend itself to any industry as its personal strong-arm to prevent competitive threats. Instead, such a government would stick to its original purpose of promoting freedoms of its people."
dtjohnson writes: A study published in Nature today
establishes conclusively that living humans carry between 1 and 4
percent of their genes
in common with Neanderthals. Previous studies failed to show
intermixing between us and neanderthals. The new, much more
rigorous study, was done by sequencing DNA from 3 neanderthal
individuals who perished 40,000 years ago and comparing it with DNA
from humans in Africa, France, Papua New Guinea, and China.
The researchers concluded that humans living today carry between 1 and
4 percent of Neanderthal genes and the intermixing must have happened
during a 50,000
year window when neanderthals and humans were living side-by-side
in the Middle East. So, the next time you see a
neanderthal image, keep in mind that it might be your Uncle Fester.
ectotherm writes: A study compared the genetic material collected from the bones of three Neanderthals with that from five modern humans, and found that there is a relationship between Neanderthals and modern people outside Africa. In fact, between 1 percent and 4 percent of genes in people from Europe and Asia trace back to Neanderthals.
PeteV writes: "There is an interesting article on the BBC website based around research carried out by Dr Kieron O'Hara of Southampton Univeristy. He points out (under british law) that an individuals right to privacy is being eroded by the behaviour of those who have no qualms about broadcasting every intimate detail of their life online (via social networking sites) because the privacy law is predicated in part upon the concept of a "reasonable expectation of privacy" . I think his request "for people to be more aware of the impact on society of what they publish online" is likely to fall on deaf ears, but in effect what he is saying is that the changing habits of the world-wide community of social networkers is likely to have an effect upon english law and how it is interpreted. Given that the significant bulk of social networkers are american, this might be interpreted as "american behaviour" may cause changes in the interpretation of english law (which is not to say english people dont also post their intimate details on Facebook)."