Finally some good news. After treating successfully a whole bunch of diseases, the eggheads decided to apply their gray cells to the most cruel one.
For the first time, researchers at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City and the University of Durham have generated new hair follicles that grow human hair.Here are some pretty sordid details:
The technique involved harvesting cells from the base of a human hair follicle, called the dermal papillae. These cells were cloned in the laboratory and then implanted into human skin grafted to the back of a mouse.I assume then that the second stage of the process will involve separating the mouse from its skin and grafting the skin to
Well, the sooner a kit for a DIY hair recovery is ready, the better. I shall take 6 mice, thank you very much. Gray is fine. Blue is acceptable, too...
12 comments:
Then you'll be "quiet as a mouse"?
The numbers game is really beside the point. Was it Stalin who said one death was an event, multiple deaths only statistics?
I guess it will become inevitable.
If, in fact, what you are arguing for is abolition of drones' use, I will have to disagree. At the moment this is the least damaging way to get rid of jihadis. Imagine sending in troops as an alternative...
Drone aren't going away, and I wouldn't want them to, but they're too easy for pols to use and too likely to result in innocent deaths. No guarantee that boots would do better but it's always better for a pol to have skin in the game than to feel free to throw a missile at the problem (Slick Willy) or order in a drone (Obutthead). War shouldn't be too easy or we'll have too much of it.
But I find bald men sexy.
The problem is that the only alternative to drones that exists in areas where they are used is a full scale military invasion, that of necessity will result in many more deaths of bystanders, not to mention the related expenses and political implications. Drones are a lesser evil, so to say.
Ach, Katie, but bald men don't find themselves sexy, I'm afraid...
Maybe. But that's why we pay special operators the big bucks. The Seals that were air-lifted to where Bin-Laden was did not constitute a "full-scale military invasion" but they did the job.
That true, but how many times you can repeat that op, without killing Seals? Not to mention the financing of each one.
War is risky. You can't sanitize it. Using drones kills innocent civilians. That's not an acceptable alternative, except in a tyranny.
That's an interesting point of view, I fully understand where you are coming from. However, here is the dilemma: on one hand you have an enemy that uses all the advantages of so called asymmetric warfare to his advantage. Meaning sneaking into your cities and killing innocent civilian population with impunity and then going back and hiding among his own brethren, who, while being civilian indeed, provide all means of support and shelter to that enemy.
This kind of enemy is never going to present himself on the battlefield, uniformed and gathered for a fight. Just the opposite, he would always hide between civilians, using to his best advantage our moral scruples. The question is then: what do you do? Allow the enemy to act unfettered?
To remind you, even the restrains of Geneva Convention allow attacking the enemy even in the midst of civilian population, when it's necessary to wage war on such. The only proviso it puts on you is to make sure the civilian losses are kept to a possible minimum.
Well, anyhow, it's an interesting point, isn't it?
Post a Comment