Slashdot Mirror
Gene Found In Black Death Survivors Stops HIV
WindozeSux writes "According to research done by Dr. Stephen O'Brien, a mutated gene known as delta 32 found in Black Death survivor descendants, stops HIV in its tracks. In order to be immune both parents have to have the delta 32 gene. From the Article: 'In 1996, research showed that delta 32 prevents HIV from entering human cells and infecting the body. O'Brien thought this principle could be applied to the plague bacteria, which affects the body in a similar manner. To determine whether the Eyam plague survivors may have carried delta 32, O'Brien tested the DNA of their modern-day descendents...'"
Yeah, seriously........only sex here is solo sex.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
NOT!!
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
I'd like to mod you funny, but i feel like I must say some serious things that most people know already. I coulda married a hot girl who liked video games, but I tried to sell her on the idea of a 'committed relationship' without marriage. Ok, so there was a joke of my own there: most people don't know anything about my life. Anyway I didn't get into this 'committed relationship' because she found someone else who was willing to put a ring on her finger. The lesson here is that for some there isn't as much trust in a committed relationship as in a marriage. Make sure when you want to get into a relationship with a woman to make sure she's down with a lifetime relationship without official marriage if that's what you're trying. Most women understand the concept of marriage which is basically the same thing. Nowadays, I'm really into marriage, because I now know God exists, and there is a lot of spirituality involved when marrying someone. I would no longer enter into a lifetime relationship with a woman without marrying her.
Finally I believe no one should have sex with someone they don't plan on marrying. For one simple reason: The child you may have deserves a stable household with two parents. I don't care how much fun you get from lusting over someone, the kid should come first. You should love someone before you marry them because you need to be able to live with them the rest of your life. There is a lot of 'playa' attitude rocking the world, and media trying to sell you sex, or even deroggatory remarks made of virgins as apparent on any 'slashdot crowd' remarks. Some people think of sex as something that is hard to achieve so if you can get it, you should take it. And because these people like to push their views on others from their own insecurities about the world, sometimes people fall for them and accept their views as truth. Don't be fooled by false views of the world. It seem be fun to lust, but you know the truth is to love. Again its very simple: If you have sex, you may have a child(even with preventive means). Every child is deserving of a loving home with two parents. The best way to attempt a lifelong relationship with someone is through marriage.
God spoke to me.
There's no possible way to refute the statement in the form you have it in quotes, since it has NULL semantic content. A contention that some group theoretically could do something they are physically, mentally, organizationally or financially capable of is always true, and always totally uninformative. It transmits zero information to the listener unless that listener is ignorant of the organization's capabilities. Switzerland could declare war on the US this afternoon. The US could devote 70% of its GDP to a revitalized space program starting next budget meeting. As analyzed, my best guess would be you have made the statement: "religious fundamentalists can vote", which I suspect the flamebate moderator also already knew. The fact that you chose to offer a statement with no semantic value to most beings over 10 years old is inferred by most readers to mean you saw some other value, i.e. a rhetorical one, but yes, that's their inference, and you may have not meant to imply anything. Only if you had a purpose in including that statement did you make a value judgement.
Now if you'd said "are likely to", we could further quantify the issue, in which case, I would say that "There are possible conditions for doing the research and development needed to produce a vaccine or other treatment based on this gene that would cause most fundamentalists to either approve or disapprove of the resulting methods, but fundamentalists being roughly (by an order of magnetude at least) as diverse as any other large group, there is unlikely to be 100% support or rejection whatever you propose."
Who is John Cabal?