ChezGiven

Not really, teachers make around $50k a year Yeah, teachers get paid badly. I know what my job pays in the US and i know what i'm paid in the EU. 90k is not a great place to be when it comes to health insurance, education etc. Its not poverty by any means of course but its not great.

90k is a shit salary in the US.

That he had a shit match against Carragher? I think there was a decent penalty shout in the first half, he had a few chances to score, the overhead kick being the most memorable AND he was playing against a top class (world class?) defender. If thats considered a bad game when playing against an experienced defender from the top of the premiership then you and your Leeds mates are deluded. I know the accusations leveled against Beckford and was watching him with them in mind and was impressed by his play. Just look at the state of Carragher 10 mins after the match on TV, either he has an alcohol problem or he was sweating buckets due to the amount of running around he did stopping Beckford.

I watched the match with a Leeds fan and we both reckon thats drivel.

The smile on his face suggests an imminent rusty trombone.

SIXTY!!!! I would cum in my pants for 30% at the minute. aye we are running at 25% perm and 10 - 17% temp. I hope neither of you are under the impression that i might be needing your services to find a job btw? Nae offence and all that.

Bollocks at a guess. Could you imagine the financial rewards for the company that came up with a universal cancer cure? That episode of South Park where they get AIDS explained it best. Everything changed about 5 years ago. Now huge amounts of money is being pumped into cancer research and the cure may come in the next few decades. The figure could be as high as $100bn a year now but i'd have to check. The idea that docs/researchers have is that if you bring a new treatment along every year or two that adds 6-12 months of survival (which has been happening for the last few years) then after 10-20 years of these advances, it wont be the cancer that kills you since you will fight that long enough for something else to kill you. This is essentially a cure. The issue is in the fact that cancers seem to re-appear months after the tumour sites are clear. In last July's (2008) Journal of Clinical Oncology they devoted a whole issue to the role of stem cells in cancer. If you remove the tumour but the cancer returns, then the cause of the cancer must be in the stem cells. On the basis of the time between when it was understood what role specific cell processes played and when the treatments were seen in clinical practice, i would give it at least 20/30 years before stem cells are targeted by drugs. Even then, it might not be a cure. Interesting. I spent 8 years doing cancer research but that was 8 years ago now, during which time of course one hell of a lot can change. Surely not all cancers, or even most, are caused by faulty stem cells though? I can understand it from the point of view of haematological malignancy, but for the solid tumours (e.g. the carcinomas, which kill most people), I thought the cancers usually started further down the cellular differentiation chain, at the front line so to speak. It was assumed when I studied that cancer that relapsed after months or even years was down to metastases that survived the surgery/chemo/radiotherapy. And of course, because a relapsed cell is resistant to treatment, it's untreatable, so it tends to kill you. Like I said though I'm out of date regarding all this. As far as throwing money at cancer rearch, I think it's time rather than money that will be the limiting factor. Seems to me that it could be a classic case of diminishing returns (lesson one on my HE course this week ). NJS, we are programmed to die so that evolution can take it's course but cancer is not necessarily a part of that process. Ironically though, I believe unlocking the genetic cure for cancer will have an interesting side effect - immortality. This has fuck all to do with nanobots etc like in the other article, it's straight forward genetic manipulation, possibly through drug delivery. I'd give it 30 years, but that's a guess. If you want to look it up, it was the July edition of JCO last year. The theory has been around for a while ( http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/con.../interview/688/ ) but i'm not a cellular biologist so cant really get into the details. Its all about genetic mutation in organ cells, so since the DNA sequence is laid out in the stem cell, then thats where the cancer must come from. Things have moved on in the last few years but i've only been studying it for 2 so am no expert in any sense of the word. You still up for a beer pre / post QPR match btw?

They've been trying to rubbish KK's rep since he left with bollocks stories. Is this one any different? I just dont get the scenarios at play. If KK wins and the club does go into administration, then this is not a bollocks story. If KK wins, doesnt go into administration, then its a lie. Neither of these outcomes are in way influenced by a story about administration, so it serves no upfront purpose for the club. If KK loses, then who gives a shit. I just dont get the angle. Yes, it is more negative press for KK but to what end? It's not like they've behaved in a logical manner in the past is it? Check HF's blog for the barefaced lies. I assume they hope a promotion charge or whatever will take people's minds off it until the next thing. Maybe they think they are going to win the case and that this will be seen negatively by the fans as kicking KK once again, so they can say 'if he had won it could have put is into admin' thus softening people's perceptions. It could just be paranoia over what happens with the fans in the case that they beat KK. Fucking odd if it is.

They've been trying to rubbish KK's rep since he left with bollocks stories. Is this one any different? I just dont get the scenarios at play. If KK wins and the club does go into administration, then this is not a bollocks story. If KK wins, doesnt go into administration, then its a lie. Neither of these outcomes are in way influenced by a story about administration, so it serves no upfront purpose for the club. If KK loses, then who gives a shit. I just dont get the angle. Yes, it is more negative press for KK but to what end?

I dont see what anyone would gain from these stories about administration? If the club loses the case and goes into administration then the stories are just true. If they lose and dont go into administration (the story is a lie) how does that benefit the club once they've lost? Mischievous bollocks imo.

Craig, Hova is right about that point from a legal point of view because of limited liability.

Bollocks at a guess. Could you imagine the financial rewards for the company that came up with a universal cancer cure? That episode of South Park where they get AIDS explained it best. Everything changed about 5 years ago. Now huge amounts of money is being pumped into cancer research and the cure may come in the next few decades. The figure could be as high as $100bn a year now but i'd have to check. The idea that docs/researchers have is that if you bring a new treatment along every year or two that adds 6-12 months of survival (which has been happening for the last few years) then after 10-20 years of these advances, it wont be the cancer that kills you since you will fight that long enough for something else to kill you. This is essentially a cure. The issue is in the fact that cancers seem to re-appear months after the tumour sites are clear. In last July's (2008) Journal of Clinical Oncology they devoted a whole issue to the role of stem cells in cancer. If you remove the tumour but the cancer returns, then the cause of the cancer must be in the stem cells. On the basis of the time between when it was understood what role specific cell processes played and when the treatments were seen in clinical practice, i would give it at least 20/30 years before stem cells are targeted by drugs. Even then, it might not be a cure.

Might be a bit longer before we cure cancer. This is a very simplified map of the process you are trying to control by sticking a pill into someone's mouth.

Yeah, I thought that. THe figures were so close, that it could have gone either way. After all, they weren't all exposed to exactly the same environment, some will have been in environments where contracting the disease was more probable. On top of that, how many will have taken the risk of catching the disease because they were 'on the vaccine'? Trial participants are 'blind' to which treatment they are getting.

Randomisation of trial participants and careful selection criteria means you account for this. The result will be significant at the 5% level, meaning that there is a greater than 95% chance that the difference is due to the allocation of active substance rather than placebo. The level of significance determines the probability that the result is down to chance.

The agency who posted me in my last job were paid 60% of my first year's salary. I got negotiation assistance, follow up calls once i started and a christmas card off him

Tbh, if they came in fishnet, i might be tempted.

Do you have to tuck your cock in between your legs when wear them?

"A new life awaits you in the Off-World colonies. The chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure."

Cheers mate, the dusters are under the sink with the rest of the cleaning products. Just do the shirts that are next to the ironing board too.

You think I could get away with reporting what bloggers write? I guess most reporters these days just type up what they're told from either side and call it a balanced view. I couldn't do worse. You understand the angles, think thats the basic skill you need. Well, apart from the writing bit obviously. Think you'd be good at it.

Must be like waking up on Mars. Madness.

Which other cities would you like to change colour and which city would you choose?

HF, you should be a journalist.