but generally I will not see a movie on the opening Friday because the level of stupid in the audience is too high.
You may have hit on something: I wonder if it would be possible to capitalize on this. Make it so that the nuances of seeing a movie with a group of boisterous strangers would improve the experience? I recall the funniest moment of Scary Movie being the scene where the girl who keeps talking on the cell phone is killed, precisely because there was someone who had recieved and answered about three calls loudly before this scene. (incidentally, she turned off her phone after the whole theatre stared at her with wicked grins during this sequence.)
Then again, I guess this would just lead up to this.
I doubt the article itself was meant as a troll, but it is pretty obvious that it comes from someone in the trolling community. Who else would be so interested in breaking captchas? Maybe spammers, but then again the trolls probably appreciate spamming as it lowers the signal to noise ratio. Or maybe they view each other as competition...
I recall hearing in my anthropology classes that child mortality was indeed much higher among primitive peoples. In fact, the child mortality rates were what brought the average age down to 30ish. Once you made it to a certain age (about 50-10 I believe) you were just about as likely to make it to 60-70 years old. As of very recently we are extending the upper edge of the life span a little bit, but it's the child mortality rates that really affects the average lifespan. And some new diseases appear to be popping up, but I think a lot of that is people who would have died and no cause of death found.
Although take this for what it's worth... I've been out of college for a few years, haven't really seen the statistics in even longer, and didn't bother to look them up.
The best way I can think of describing the phenomenon is that light is actually travelling infinitely fast, although someone with a better physics background please correct me if I there are any major flaws in my model (Oh, and here I am merely referring to the particle model of light... wave theory would need completely different math to work out.)
Okay, we start with the photon at rest (ignoring for now that a photon doesn't actually exist when it is at rest, only when it is moving.) At rest the photon has zero mass. So you apply a force to it, and so then it accelerates according to F=MA. But what is A if M=0? A calculator will just give you a divide by zero error. To get close, we have to deal with limits, and so as the mass of the particle being moved approaches (I.E. gets really really really close to zero. 0.000000000000000000001 for starters, whatever.) the acceleration approaches infinite. So this particle starts moving with infinite acceleration, which means that after any length of time of this acceleration, it would reach infinite velocity.
However physics isn't quite so simple as to allow something to go infinitely fast. As things start getting really really fast, they start breaking down the laws of physics as Descartes knew them. So, depending on your frame of reference, different things happen. If you are standing still with the photon moving towards you, it now has a mass according to the theory of relativity. Now this mass means that the force applied is no longer imparting infinite acceleration, and so it will reach a certain velocity while traveliing towards you. For a given transmission/travel medium that velocity happens to be constant no matter how much energy is imparted into the photon, and that constant velocity is the speed of light. It takes roughly eight minutes (I could be wrong on the number, but It's about the right order of magnitude) for us to percieve a photon travelling from the sun to the earth. What happens to the different amounts of energy? Essentially the photon that strikes you will have more mass if more energy is applied in the acceleration phase.
So this is all fine and good, but what about the electron? What is the journey from the sun to the earth like? As it is accelerates to relativistic speeds (which takes almost no time) it does not percieve its own mass as changing. Instead the space between the sun and earth collapses untill there is no distance to travel between them, so the amount of time required to travel between the two is zero, although eight minutes have passed on earth between the time the particle left the sun and the arrival on earth.
Now, what does this mean for the question about what would happen if you turned on a flashlight at the speed of light? Well, that question is moot. It would take infinite energy to be able to accelerate ANY object with a rest mass to the speed of light (which I have hopefully just shown to be infinite speed from the viewpoint of the accelerating object.) I don't think we'll ever be able to find a technology that can impart infinite energy.
Now, none of this takes into account all sort of other things, like quantum physics where the photon sort of hops around or turns into odd little things, the fact that light isn't purely a particle, and that it also has a wave component and depending on the experiment you do, it is either a particle OR a wave, so it sort of can be one or another, or maybe it's something completely different that we can sort of model as a particle or a wave in certain instances. Oh yeah, and I have almost no grasp on string theory.
I've worked out the basic equations on this a couple times, but A)it would take me a long to to derive them again and B)plain text is a horrible way to display them anyways. It takes a lot of playing around with the basic energy equations as energy is the one thing that isn't lost, so F=MA, E=MV^2, and transposing them with V=AT, the impulse equation, etc and breaking alot of these down into their basi
No... information still can't be sent faster than the speed of light. Simply an artifact of the sums of several waves of out of phase light travelling in the same direction. Another poster already mentioned this pages which has a little flash diagram which explains the phenomenon. Do the shift click thing to see what happens when the group wavefront reaches the front of the primary wavefronts... it simply fizzles out.
That's the improbability drive vs. the infinite improbability drive. And woah... track 19, CD1 of the first fit of the CD version of the Hitchiker's Guide radio show came on my randomized playlist (basically my whole music library plus a couple other audio files on random:) "The Infinite Improbability Drive." What's the probability of that coming up at that time?
And apparantly, it's the "finite improbability generator" that moves the hostess' undergarments one foot to the left or creates the infinite improbability drive by feeding the improbability of creating the infinite improbability generator into the finite impropability generator and putting on a fresh cup of really hot tea.
Oh don't worry... the current politicians also know how important freedom of speach is in maintaining an effective democracy. Why else would they be so against it?
Traditionally, that's kinda of what they did with genetic engineering, build a million different skyscrapers and engineer in something to tell them whether the skyscraper stoof up... usually an odd DNA sequence that a flourscent marker die binds to.
I appreciate that they are putting thought into this, but the article didn't actually go into any of the METHODS used for actually splicing the DNA sequence. All the ones that I know about are basically A)splice it into a retrovirus, infect the host with a virus and hope the retrovirus recombines in the right place or B)coat a nonreactive particle with the desired DNA and literally fire it into the cell, hoping that the DNA recombines with the host in the right way.
Now, it is possible that they have somehow devised a way to say "I want this chunk of DNA to go into this segment of this chromosone" but I really doubt that our tech is there yet. And then knowing whether the copy of DNA will actually transcribe in the intended way is a completely different thing. With amino acid encoding sequences between some organims (pretty rare, and it's generally the Archaea that have anything actually different in terms of this, but it does happen,) various extra-nuclear editing process, transcription factors which determine when and how much RNA to transcribe, helper proteins which fold the protein into the desired shape and then move it along the cytoskeleton to the proper place... and then of course not knowing if this new protein will have any negative interactions with the host cell, it's not at all like building a skyscraper. I'm assuming they still try thousands upon thousands of trials, and then simply clone off the one that happens to work, hopefully getting to the point of breeding with standard techniques (But that's just to get the seed, you generally only want F1 crosses as your product to ensure that what you put in stays in.)
They're really not creating life from nothing, that's just pure propoganda. From the actual meat of the article I couldn't find anything that they're doing different from traditional genetic engineering. Maybe they can now write up what they want the DNA strand to look like after they're done, but they can't create an ad-hoc strand, it's still just splicing in genes from other organisms, and then injecting that into an already living cell. No new life; this is simply an alteration of existing organisms.
The tagline says 'Synthetic biologists' build with one genetic molecule at a time. To me this says that they're engineering genes themselves basepair by basepair, but that's really not what's going on. This is just the same genetic engineering that's been going on for a long time, maybe just throwing genes from multiple organisms into one, which really isn't that big of a deal. I doubt they even have a revolutionary back end which improves the process. The whole thing just reeks of A)poor sensationalist journalism or B) corporate advertising.
Customers not wearing shirts or shoes is a health code violation in many areas.
But honestly it seems that they don't really try to kick the card counters out, they just conspicuously don't comp them. And they flag them for observation in case they are using some mechanical means or collaborating with other players to beat the table.
FTA, the card counting and wildly varying bets isn't what they nail people on. They flag the customers for further observation based on it. And it's also used to weed out people who are varying bets not based on gambling strategy but in order to milk comps out of the casino. And in security like this, you have to take the red queen hypothesis of immune system evolution: you have to keep running faster and faster just to keep up. Wow, that was convoluted logic that somehow came back to the topic: start with gambling, go to security, from security to immune systems, from immune systems to the Red Queen, herself a playing card.
They have a little door over the display when it's not being viewed. This will probably be closed 99.99 percent of the time: when you go by graveyards how often do you actually see living people in there, besides actual funeral parties?
The one I've really heard (except maybe from some really pretentious source) is webcomics. And honestly, that's one of the more reasonable neoligms for something web-based that I've seen. I mean, if they're in a book they're comic books. If they are in a short, slightly wide strip in the newspaper, they're comic strips. Comic web doesn't sound right, unless you're maybe talking about a group of comics which all link to each other. Web comic simply flows better, and is a shortened version of web based comic which I used to see every now and then back in the dark ages (dark ages being netscape 3.x/4.x, dialup connection or MAYBE ISDN, etc.)
I'd say that Strong Bad Emails of Homestar Runner fame is about as close as I've seen any comic come to user participation. I mean, answering fan letters in a comical manner is nothing new. It's just that the execution is... well... maybe the only good use of flash i've ever seen?
Although I've never really thought of Homestar Runner as comics before... I basically considered them to be cartoon shorts. But I guess I can see where you are coming from... not so much in the presentation as in the framing devices and interactions between the characters. It somehow feels like it has the sensibilities of a comic book or variety show of the 1950's or something, not that I'd really know what they were like then, but still...
But yeah, it takes good use of the new technologies, and presents it in a way that can be captivating for more than a month like most web based comics (Penny Arcade excepted.)
But then you get into K selection versus R selection. K selection meaning that you devote more care and resources into making a small number of offspring who individually have a greater chance of then reproducing. R-selection is keep on pumping out kids and hope a couple survive to reproduction.
Due to long amount of time untill sexual maturity, in addition to many cultural influences, in the long run a K selected mating process has a better chance of producing offspring that survive to a reproductive age. Especially if you also want those kids to be socially and economically succesfull.
I'm not saying that there aren't exceptions, and that at certain times R selection does not hold an advantage (plagues, times of war, large natural disasters) but in the long run in times of general stability and few predators, K selection wins out.
Treating employees like they are not people is a great way to have any venture fail. Machines do not call in sick (although I guess they can break down.) Machines do not have interpersonal squabbles which greatly reduce productivity. Machines in general do not need time to learn their job. Machines do not have families which are a higher priority than the job. Machines will not attempt to steal from the company. Machines are not able to come up with solutions to problems that they have not encountered before. Customers can easilly get frustrated when they have to deal with machines.
Don't get me wrong, there are some people who do work as though they are machines. I wouldn't want a company that's full of them.
That's probably because most games don't really have a narrative that translates well into actors doing their thing on screen. What makes games (card, board, video, etc) feel so much more entertaining is that everything that happens to the character/cards/little plastics pieces on the board is happening to you, the gamer. Oh, and the realization that watching other people playing video games just isn't interesting.
And it can be difficult to make a movie into a video game. Actually, I think it's more that movie studios underestimate the actual time and work that go into making one, so whenever they release a crossover game, it's kinda half-done. Except Lucas Arts... a couple of the Star Wars games were pretty fun, even though to me most of them had really clunky interfaces/controls that just took a long time to get used to.
Okay, I'll give you point 1). But 2) is definately wrong. veal is the meat of young calves. Maybe you're thinking of steer, which is a castrated bull which is then raised to maturity before it is slaughtered. Otherwise... I just don't know what you could have been thinking of.
However, to swing the conversation back on topic. Couldn't this synthetically grown meat actually be a better tasting product than real meat simply because of the veal issue? The most valued veal is from animals whose movement is restricted, and doesn't get a chance to work out its muscles. This artificial meat would not walk around, and so may develop texture and marbling patterns more closely related to veal than to ground chuck. Although I imagine you wouldn't be able to mass produce veal steaks this way, I'm sure than ground veel(tm) wouldn't be a big deal.
Sort of true. My dad grew up on a farm, and his next door neighbors didn't need to have their cow re-inseminated for over seven years. Granted, they were only able to get about one or two glasses of milk a day. Enough for the farmer and his wife. However to maintain high production levels, the cow would indeed have to be reinseminated.
Or maybe my dad was just outslicking the city slicker.
But what if meat vats somehow (I really doubt it, but what if) made tastier, cheaper, healthier meat than killing an animal? It probably wouldn't completely eliminate eating meat, but in terms of day to day consumption it would severely reduce the need to kill animals to get dinner.
Whatever... I'd be all for synthetically grown meat. I appreciate the concept of vegitarianism and respect the people who can pull it off, but my body really doesn't seem to like it. Everytime I tried to go vegetarian (or even almost vegetarian) I had the following results: The first half week to a week, I feel great. After that depression, fatigue, crankiness, headaches, constant hunger and weight gain come storming in. I've tried so many different ways to get around it, but a vegetarian diet for some reason does not work with my body. I think that I'm just highly sensitive to carbohydrates and therefore get really drastic insulin swings when on an all plant diet (I'm not saying that I don't eat my veggies and stuff, just that if the protein/fat isn't there in a level that can only be provided by animal products, my body stops functioning properly.)
So cruelty free (or at least cruelty minimizing) meat as the main nutritional source would be a-okay with me. I mean, it's not that much more unnatural than say, hydroponic tomatoes.
Slashdot Mirror
but generally I will not see a movie on the opening Friday because the level of stupid in the audience is too high.
You may have hit on something: I wonder if it would be possible to capitalize on this. Make it so that the nuances of seeing a movie with a group of boisterous strangers would improve the experience? I recall the funniest moment of Scary Movie being the scene where the girl who keeps talking on the cell phone is killed, precisely because there was someone who had recieved and answered about three calls loudly before this scene. (incidentally, she turned off her phone after the whole theatre stared at her with wicked grins during this sequence.)
Then again, I guess this would just lead up to this.
I doubt the article itself was meant as a troll, but it is pretty obvious that it comes from someone in the trolling community. Who else would be so interested in breaking captchas? Maybe spammers, but then again the trolls probably appreciate spamming as it lowers the signal to noise ratio. Or maybe they view each other as competition...
I recall hearing in my anthropology classes that child mortality was indeed much higher among primitive peoples. In fact, the child mortality rates were what brought the average age down to 30ish. Once you made it to a certain age (about 50-10 I believe) you were just about as likely to make it to 60-70 years old. As of very recently we are extending the upper edge of the life span a little bit, but it's the child mortality rates that really affects the average lifespan. And some new diseases appear to be popping up, but I think a lot of that is people who would have died and no cause of death found.
Although take this for what it's worth... I've been out of college for a few years, haven't really seen the statistics in even longer, and didn't bother to look them up.
The best way I can think of describing the phenomenon is that light is actually travelling infinitely fast, although someone with a better physics background please correct me if I there are any major flaws in my model (Oh, and here I am merely referring to the particle model of light... wave theory would need completely different math to work out.)
Okay, we start with the photon at rest (ignoring for now that a photon doesn't actually exist when it is at rest, only when it is moving.) At rest the photon has zero mass. So you apply a force to it, and so then it accelerates according to F=MA. But what is A if M=0? A calculator will just give you a divide by zero error. To get close, we have to deal with limits, and so as the mass of the particle being moved approaches (I.E. gets really really really close to zero. 0.000000000000000000001 for starters, whatever.) the acceleration approaches infinite. So this particle starts moving with infinite acceleration, which means that after any length of time of this acceleration, it would reach infinite velocity.
However physics isn't quite so simple as to allow something to go infinitely fast. As things start getting really really fast, they start breaking down the laws of physics as Descartes knew them. So, depending on your frame of reference, different things happen. If you are standing still with the photon moving towards you, it now has a mass according to the theory of relativity. Now this mass means that the force applied is no longer imparting infinite acceleration, and so it will reach a certain velocity while traveliing towards you. For a given transmission/travel medium that velocity happens to be constant no matter how much energy is imparted into the photon, and that constant velocity is the speed of light. It takes roughly eight minutes (I could be wrong on the number, but It's about the right order of magnitude) for us to percieve a photon travelling from the sun to the earth. What happens to the different amounts of energy? Essentially the photon that strikes you will have more mass if more energy is applied in the acceleration phase.
So this is all fine and good, but what about the electron? What is the journey from the sun to the earth like? As it is accelerates to relativistic speeds (which takes almost no time) it does not percieve its own mass as changing. Instead the space between the sun and earth collapses untill there is no distance to travel between them, so the amount of time required to travel between the two is zero, although eight minutes have passed on earth between the time the particle left the sun and the arrival on earth.
Now, what does this mean for the question about what would happen if you turned on a flashlight at the speed of light? Well, that question is moot. It would take infinite energy to be able to accelerate ANY object with a rest mass to the speed of light (which I have hopefully just shown to be infinite speed from the viewpoint of the accelerating object.) I don't think we'll ever be able to find a technology that can impart infinite energy.
Now, none of this takes into account all sort of other things, like quantum physics where the photon sort of hops around or turns into odd little things, the fact that light isn't purely a particle, and that it also has a wave component and depending on the experiment you do, it is either a particle OR a wave, so it sort of can be one or another, or maybe it's something completely different that we can sort of model as a particle or a wave in certain instances. Oh yeah, and I have almost no grasp on string theory.
I've worked out the basic equations on this a couple times, but A)it would take me a long to to derive them again and B)plain text is a horrible way to display them anyways. It takes a lot of playing around with the basic energy equations as energy is the one thing that isn't lost, so F=MA, E=MV^2, and transposing them with V=AT, the impulse equation, etc and breaking alot of these down into their basi
No... information still can't be sent faster than the speed of light. Simply an artifact of the sums of several waves of out of phase light travelling in the same direction. Another poster already mentioned this pages which has a little flash diagram which explains the phenomenon. Do the shift click thing to see what happens when the group wavefront reaches the front of the primary wavefronts... it simply fizzles out.
That's the improbability drive vs. the infinite improbability drive. And woah... track 19, CD1 of the first fit of the CD version of the Hitchiker's Guide radio show came on my randomized playlist (basically my whole music library plus a couple other audio files on random:) "The Infinite Improbability Drive." What's the probability of that coming up at that time?
And apparantly, it's the "finite improbability generator" that moves the hostess' undergarments one foot to the left or creates the infinite improbability drive by feeding the improbability of creating the infinite improbability generator into the finite impropability generator and putting on a fresh cup of really hot tea.
Ahh... now THAT's kinda what I wanted to see in the article.
Oh don't worry... the current politicians also know how important freedom of speach is in maintaining an effective democracy. Why else would they be so against it?
Traditionally, that's kinda of what they did with genetic engineering, build a million different skyscrapers and engineer in something to tell them whether the skyscraper stoof up... usually an odd DNA sequence that a flourscent marker die binds to.
I appreciate that they are putting thought into this, but the article didn't actually go into any of the METHODS used for actually splicing the DNA sequence. All the ones that I know about are basically A)splice it into a retrovirus, infect the host with a virus and hope the retrovirus recombines in the right place or B)coat a nonreactive particle with the desired DNA and literally fire it into the cell, hoping that the DNA recombines with the host in the right way.
Now, it is possible that they have somehow devised a way to say "I want this chunk of DNA to go into this segment of this chromosone" but I really doubt that our tech is there yet. And then knowing whether the copy of DNA will actually transcribe in the intended way is a completely different thing. With amino acid encoding sequences between some organims (pretty rare, and it's generally the Archaea that have anything actually different in terms of this, but it does happen,) various extra-nuclear editing process, transcription factors which determine when and how much RNA to transcribe, helper proteins which fold the protein into the desired shape and then move it along the cytoskeleton to the proper place... and then of course not knowing if this new protein will have any negative interactions with the host cell, it's not at all like building a skyscraper. I'm assuming they still try thousands upon thousands of trials, and then simply clone off the one that happens to work, hopefully getting to the point of breeding with standard techniques (But that's just to get the seed, you generally only want F1 crosses as your product to ensure that what you put in stays in.)
They're really not creating life from nothing, that's just pure propoganda. From the actual meat of the article I couldn't find anything that they're doing different from traditional genetic engineering. Maybe they can now write up what they want the DNA strand to look like after they're done, but they can't create an ad-hoc strand, it's still just splicing in genes from other organisms, and then injecting that into an already living cell. No new life; this is simply an alteration of existing organisms.
The tagline says 'Synthetic biologists' build with one genetic molecule at a time. To me this says that they're engineering genes themselves basepair by basepair, but that's really not what's going on. This is just the same genetic engineering that's been going on for a long time, maybe just throwing genes from multiple organisms into one, which really isn't that big of a deal. I doubt they even have a revolutionary back end which improves the process. The whole thing just reeks of A)poor sensationalist journalism or B) corporate advertising.
Customers not wearing shirts or shoes is a health code violation in many areas.
But honestly it seems that they don't really try to kick the card counters out, they just conspicuously don't comp them. And they flag them for observation in case they are using some mechanical means or collaborating with other players to beat the table.
FTA, the card counting and wildly varying bets isn't what they nail people on. They flag the customers for further observation based on it. And it's also used to weed out people who are varying bets not based on gambling strategy but in order to milk comps out of the casino. And in security like this, you have to take the red queen hypothesis of immune system evolution: you have to keep running faster and faster just to keep up. Wow, that was convoluted logic that somehow came back to the topic: start with gambling, go to security, from security to immune systems, from immune systems to the Red Queen, herself a playing card.
They have a little door over the display when it's not being viewed. This will probably be closed 99.99 percent of the time: when you go by graveyards how often do you actually see living people in there, besides actual funeral parties?
The one I've really heard (except maybe from some really pretentious source) is webcomics. And honestly, that's one of the more reasonable neoligms for something web-based that I've seen. I mean, if they're in a book they're comic books. If they are in a short, slightly wide strip in the newspaper, they're comic strips. Comic web doesn't sound right, unless you're maybe talking about a group of comics which all link to each other. Web comic simply flows better, and is a shortened version of web based comic which I used to see every now and then back in the dark ages (dark ages being netscape 3.x/4.x, dialup connection or MAYBE ISDN, etc.)
I don't really think I'd call him a wanker. I believe the appropriate term here would be "hack."
And I don't mean that in a good way.
I'd say that Strong Bad Emails of Homestar Runner fame is about as close as I've seen any comic come to user participation. I mean, answering fan letters in a comical manner is nothing new. It's just that the execution is... well... maybe the only good use of flash i've ever seen?
Although I've never really thought of Homestar Runner as comics before... I basically considered them to be cartoon shorts. But I guess I can see where you are coming from... not so much in the presentation as in the framing devices and interactions between the characters. It somehow feels like it has the sensibilities of a comic book or variety show of the 1950's or something, not that I'd really know what they were like then, but still...
But yeah, it takes good use of the new technologies, and presents it in a way that can be captivating for more than a month like most web based comics (Penny Arcade excepted.)
But then you get into K selection versus R selection. K selection meaning that you devote more care and resources into making a small number of offspring who individually have a greater chance of then reproducing. R-selection is keep on pumping out kids and hope a couple survive to reproduction.
Due to long amount of time untill sexual maturity, in addition to many cultural influences, in the long run a K selected mating process has a better chance of producing offspring that survive to a reproductive age. Especially if you also want those kids to be socially and economically succesfull.
I'm not saying that there aren't exceptions, and that at certain times R selection does not hold an advantage (plagues, times of war, large natural disasters) but in the long run in times of general stability and few predators, K selection wins out.
Wow, that's a mod with a sense of humor.
AC posts:Who modded that reply Informative? Funny, yes, Informative, no. Sheesh!
Mod's moderate as informative. Pure genius.
Treating employees like they are not people is a great way to have any venture fail. Machines do not call in sick (although I guess they can break down.) Machines do not have interpersonal squabbles which greatly reduce productivity. Machines in general do not need time to learn their job. Machines do not have families which are a higher priority than the job. Machines will not attempt to steal from the company. Machines are not able to come up with solutions to problems that they have not encountered before. Customers can easilly get frustrated when they have to deal with machines.
Don't get me wrong, there are some people who do work as though they are machines. I wouldn't want a company that's full of them.
People sleep better at night not knowing how sausages or law are made. -Paraphrased from Bismark.
That's probably because most games don't really have a narrative that translates well into actors doing their thing on screen. What makes games (card, board, video, etc) feel so much more entertaining is that everything that happens to the character/cards/little plastics pieces on the board is happening to you, the gamer. Oh, and the realization that watching other people playing video games just isn't interesting.
And it can be difficult to make a movie into a video game. Actually, I think it's more that movie studios underestimate the actual time and work that go into making one, so whenever they release a crossover game, it's kinda half-done. Except Lucas Arts... a couple of the Star Wars games were pretty fun, even though to me most of them had really clunky interfaces/controls that just took a long time to get used to.
Okay, I'll give you point 1). But 2) is definately wrong. veal is the meat of young calves. Maybe you're thinking of steer, which is a castrated bull which is then raised to maturity before it is slaughtered. Otherwise... I just don't know what you could have been thinking of.
However, to swing the conversation back on topic. Couldn't this synthetically grown meat actually be a better tasting product than real meat simply because of the veal issue? The most valued veal is from animals whose movement is restricted, and doesn't get a chance to work out its muscles. This artificial meat would not walk around, and so may develop texture and marbling patterns more closely related to veal than to ground chuck. Although I imagine you wouldn't be able to mass produce veal steaks this way, I'm sure than ground veel(tm) wouldn't be a big deal.
Sort of true. My dad grew up on a farm, and his next door neighbors didn't need to have their cow re-inseminated for over seven years. Granted, they were only able to get about one or two glasses of milk a day. Enough for the farmer and his wife. However to maintain high production levels, the cow would indeed have to be reinseminated.
Or maybe my dad was just outslicking the city slicker.
But what if meat vats somehow (I really doubt it, but what if) made tastier, cheaper, healthier meat than killing an animal? It probably wouldn't completely eliminate eating meat, but in terms of day to day consumption it would severely reduce the need to kill animals to get dinner.
Whatever... I'd be all for synthetically grown meat. I appreciate the concept of vegitarianism and respect the people who can pull it off, but my body really doesn't seem to like it. Everytime I tried to go vegetarian (or even almost vegetarian) I had the following results: The first half week to a week, I feel great. After that depression, fatigue, crankiness, headaches, constant hunger and weight gain come storming in. I've tried so many different ways to get around it, but a vegetarian diet for some reason does not work with my body. I think that I'm just highly sensitive to carbohydrates and therefore get really drastic insulin swings when on an all plant diet (I'm not saying that I don't eat my veggies and stuff, just that if the protein/fat isn't there in a level that can only be provided by animal products, my body stops functioning properly.)
So cruelty free (or at least cruelty minimizing) meat as the main nutritional source would be a-okay with me. I mean, it's not that much more unnatural than say, hydroponic tomatoes.