Out of boredom, two scientists from the New Contagious Diseases Research Centre devised themselves a new game. One day, as a result of the suspension of a research project dealing with a dynamically mutating vaccine following the pattern of the eyesocket flu bacillus, they had absolutely nothing to do until the end of the day, because the boss didn't order them to wash test-tubes. They decided to play a game of hockey under the microscope. For a puck they used one of the millions of experimental bacillus, and one-arm pincettes, which as it happened also resembled hockey sticks, served as sticks. The bacillus was not happy with it at all. It wanted to rest after an exhausting task involving vaccine discouragement, and these whitecoats here planned to put it to work yet again. And this time the work was much more labor-intensive and even more exhausting than before, but the condition and health of the tired bacillus not as good as in the times of youth, about two hours ago. The scientists got excited. On a microscope slide they etched a hockey rink with laser, agreed on the rules, connected the microscope's camera to the big screen display and played until the morning. They had to change pucks several times, but that was fine, they had millions of them in stock. The next day they didn't have anything to do either and they continued to play. They even invited other colleagues and the popularity of the game was so huge they could afford to play it in a championship system. Soon, the games were joined by the guys from the car-repair garage next door. They were tough opponents and even tougher fans - they took from the lab and carried away with them several flasks and some equipment, as it turned out - to set up their own game station in pit number 5. Question: At the end of the story, the car repairmen: === The answer to the above question is
Played their own game at their own workstation
--
President Donald Trump often likes to point out how different he is from his White House predecessors in terms of style and substance. But it is unlikely any past president would envy the legal challenges facing Trump, from the Russia investigation to Stormy Daniels to the scrutiny law enforcement is giving his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen. On Tuesday it was a night of pomp and glamor at the White House as President Donald Trump and Mrs. Trump welcomed French President Macron and his wife for a state dinner. The two presidents got along famously during their White House meetings. The only damper on the day came when both men were in the Oval Office and a reporter asked Trump about the legal difficulties facing his longtime personal attorney, Michael Cohen. "Mr. President, what about Michael Cohen? Are you considering a pardon for Michael Cohen?" asked ABC correspondent Jonathan Karl. After a pause, the president responded. "Stupid question," he said dismissively. Cohen is under scrutiny for a payment to an adult film star. Stormy Daniels says it was hush money to keep her quiet about a brief affair she had with Trump in 2006, a claim the president has denied. Trump has frequently complained about the recent FBI raids on Cohen's home and office and the ongoing Russia probe led by special counsel Robert Mueller. Earlier this month Trump spoke up during a meeting with military officials at the White House. "Here we are talking about Syria, we are talking about a lot of serious things with the greatest fighting force ever, and I have this witch hunt constantly going on for over 12 months now." Several legal analysts have said the increased scrutiny of Trump's long relationship with Cohen could become a serious problem for the president. "There has been no suggestions that Cohen has nothing that he could say, which suggests that they know that Cohen actually does possess information that could be damaging to Trump or the Trump organization more generally as a legal matter," said George Washington University Law... Question: Why was the president in the oval office? === The answer to the above question is
A post dinner meeting with the press and macron
--
Cooking food is something we have done since the first caveman threw a mammoth steak on the fire. While it is true that cooking does cause chemical changes in food and a loss of some nutrients, it is a clear case of being alert and not alarmed. Every time we cook food, there is some degree of nutrient loss. Exposing food to heat, oxygen or light alters the nutrients found in food. It is not all bad news though because cooking food also has its advantages. Cooking food can increase its digestibility, meaning you will get more nutrients out of it. And even though there may be less of some nutrients from cooking, it is swings and roundabouts as the availability of certain phytonutrients increases. And of course, let’s not forget that heating food kills some of the nasty microbes that can cause food poisoning. The principle behind a raw food diet is that cooking food destroys the natural enzymes and nutrients that would otherwise give us optimal health and control body weight. A raw food diet is almost entirely plant-based and includes fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, grains, vegetable oils and juices in their natural uncooked state. Now on the pro side for a raw food diet, it means if you are currently eating a lot of processed food, then switching to raw food will be a clear nutritional win. So that gets a big tick. Unquestionably, there are many benefits to eating plenty of fruits and vegetables. These foods are high in nutrients and fibre and low in kilojoules. But is raw superior to cooked? A review of 28 research studies found eaters of both cooked and raw vegetables had a lower risk of cancer compared to people who did not eat many vegetables in the first place. Where the science gets murky is the claim that raw food is better because cooking destroys the enzymes found in plants. It is 100 percent correct that cooking will do this. But so too does digestion. Few enzymes survive their trip through the hydrochloric acid spa bath in the stomach. And those plant enzymes are essential only to the plants. The... Question: Which foods are high in nutrients and fibre? === The answer to the above question is
fruits and vegetables
--
Those of you who are regular readers of Beauty Best Friend will know that I suffer from a very sensitive, itchy scalp and I am constantly on the hunt for haircare products that are natural and non-irritating but that also treat my hair well and leave it feeling soft, shiny and clean. So far my experience has generally shown me that natural, SLS-free shampoos and conditioners do not irritate the scalp as much as their chemical filled cousins, but that they do not always clean the hair as well and can leave it looking and feeling greasy, sad and lifeless. One of the first SLS-free shampoo and conditioners that I tried, back in 2013, was Mild Shampoo and Gentle Conditioner from Naked. The relief that I got from my itchy scalp was almost instant, but I did find that it didn’t remove grease and oil from my hair too well, and I had to wash my hair a lot more often. Since then I’ve tried lots of different SLS-free haircare products, all of which have had their benefits and downfalls. For the past month I have been using Rescue Intensive Care Shampoo & Conditioner from Naked, aimed at frizzy, dry and damaged hair. As I had found such relief from my itchy scalp when using Naked products previously I wanted to try out another variant to see if it cleaned my hair any better. Prior to using the Rescue duo I had been having a really hard time with my scalp, but after just the first use of these natural products the itching had subsided about by 75%. Both the shampoo and conditioner have a lovely rich almond scent which stays on the hair after it is dry. The conditioner is a thick, rich cream and it feels like it is giving dry hair a real treat. Unfortunately these Naked products still don’t clean my hair as well as some other products, and I still feel that my hair can look greasy and lank the day after I’ve washed it. I have tried the ‘reverse poo’ method which helps a bit – this means conditioning your hair first, then shampooing it second – but my hair can get very tangled after the shampooing stage. Question: The writer's search for the right shampoo probably has lasted: === The answer to the above question is

for years
--