Seriously, how is this flamebait? Maybe 'gayling' isn't a terribly PC term for what I am talking about, but the OP coined it, not me. I'm not sure how postulating that an experiment that would answer a much studied question (i.e. the influences of nature/nurture on homosexuality) would be interesting counts as flaimebait....
Two gay people of the same sex can not currently have children that are decended from both of them, are you suggesting that they can?
If you are meaning that gay men have children with gay women, then maybe they do, but it's possible that gay men and gay women are gay through different causes.
So no, there isn't enough data. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many studies being done on the subject.
Presumably the person/animal the OP was referring to is called a gayling because it's parents were gay. If you RTFA, you'll see that it suggests that gay couples could have offspring using a technique similar to the one performed with the mice.
I'm not trying to be offensive to anyone -- I'm just saying that such a procedure has the potential to clear up the whole nature/nurture debate in the case of homosexuality.
Why? You may belive that there is some fundamental difference between humans and other animals, but myself and many others do not. That doesn't make us uncivilised.
On the other hand, I don't think we as a species need any additional vectors for reproducing -- we seem to do well enough as it is...
No, I don't agree. And what does it have to do with making human-animal hybrids? And what would be wrong with that, anyway? I'd do that -- well, I don't have the knowledge to be able to, but I certainly wouldn't protest if someone else did it. Surely you can see the advantage of having a human head/brain and the body of a horse?
It does go on to propose that invitro fertilisation could be used, wiht a female only used for incubation. Presumably it's not outside the realms of possiblity for an incubator capable of this being created in the future, so the whole process may not need a female.
I agree that is the correct question to be asking, but I don't think the answer is clear cut yet. I'm not a 'climate change denier' either. I certainly think that it is prudent to cut emmisions as much as possible in the mean time, as indications are that our emmisions are at least partly to blame for observed changes in the climate.
I think anyone who states climate predictions with certain terms like 'no' or 'yes' is jumping the gun. There are papers out there that indicate that by pumping GHGs into the atmosphere, we are holding back an impending ice-age. They are in the minority, and I certainly wouldn't like to stake my reputation on them, but they are science, and they aren't all based on doctored data like some 'climate denier' papers are. The fact is, the answer to your question really comes down to the assumptions you make in creating your model. Wwe have to validate more of these assumptions before it can be definitively answered.
A scientific theory has nothing to do with religion. Ever seen a church of the second law of thermodynamics? Someone worshiping the god of relativity? No. Just because somehting isn't "Proven" doesn't mean that the only reason to believe in it is 'faith' -- we can use evidence to base our beliefs on.
If you don't want your government spending money on education, i.e. science, you are a very backwards person.
Well said. And they harp on about how every other country should be 'free and democratic' like them, while they live in a country with some laws that seem downright oppessive compared to many other countries. And if they were really keen on democracy, they'd be using something more like the westminster system (i.e. a real democracy).
That's fine if you want a large laptop. But if you want a small one (like 13", which for me is just the right size), it's getting harder and harder to find one with a screen more than 768 pixels high.
More room, yes. But with a 16:9 screen, you have room in the horizontal direction to burn, but none in the vertical direction. I have my windows 7 bar on the left on my 1360x768 13" laptop, and while it does take up more pixels, it takes up far less useful area. Of course, it only works if you don't mind only having icons for your running programs (no text). Not ideal but I'm getting used to it.
Agreed. All these articles should be talking about the Goldilocks zone supporting life AS WE KNOW IT, not life in general. Seeing as we only have a sample size of one, we have absolutely no idea what conditions are needed for life.
I think you're partially right -- The evolution of resilient life forms is driven by change. However, if the change was not present, resiliency become redundant.
3. have never been demonstrated to function in "jet pack-ish fashion"
Except for all those times that it HAS been demonstrated to function in a "jet pack-ish fashion"..... Videos are available on their website.
the martin approach doesn't work (yet?).
I think a few companies like Bell, Robinson, Eurocopter, Kaman, Sikorsky etc. would disagree. Rotary wing aircraft are quite common, and work well. This jetpack is just a small helicopter using ducted fans -- there is nothing particularly special about it. Again, it's just the control system that is innovative in that their aim is to allow a layman to fly it. If you want to argue that that aspect isn't possible, that's fine, maybe it wont be. But by arguing that the machine cannot fly to a reasonable height for a reasonable distance, you're essentially saying that helicopters don't work.
As for an emotional investment in the 'coolfactor' -- I don't think so. I don't actually think it has a 'coolfactor', it's a stupid machine that Martin has wasted a lot of time and money on, which he will likely never get back.... That doesn't change the fact that it works.
OK, maybe I need to reiterate my statement that I know engineers working on the project, and have seem it fly with my own eyes. It could match the specs that you're talking about YEARS ago, but it didn't even have the ballistic parachute at that stage, so no one was stupid enough to actually TRY it just to make morons like you believe them. A large part of an engineers job (a professional engineer, not a fitter/turner...) is to determine the performance of something before a such a time that it can actually be demonstrated safely.
The fact is, that the part of the machine that determines these specs you are so hung up on is fairly conventional -- there is no aspect of it that you or anyone else couldn't prove to be incapable of achieving the stated specs if that were the case. It's just a small helicopter with two ducted fans instead of blades. Really a very basic machine. What makes it different is the CONTROL system, which enables people who are not expert helicopter pilots to safely fly the thing. This HAS been demonstrated -- they had a journalist flying it around a field after a couple hours instruction.
A healthy dose of skepticism is a great thing, but you're just being a bonehead.
I hope you are intentionally pretending to be thick....
In case you aren't, the reason you can't see videos of people flying it at 8000 feet is that it has not completed all safety requirements yet, as I said in my first post. They don't hire expendable test pilots to fly the thing, they are professional engineers that don't really want to risk their lives any more than needed.
The machine itself is obviously capable of performing to those specifications -- it would be trivial to show otherwise on paper for what is at the heart a relatively simple device (it's the control systems that are the hard bit, and flying at four feet is just as difficult in this regard as flying at 8000 feet). All the technical specs are on the site -- thrust, fuel capacity, fuel consumption -- why don't you work it out for yourself?
It exists, and it works very well. I know a few of the engineers/test pilots working on it. They even had a journalist flying it some six months ago or so. They're in the final stages of safety testing before it goes into production as I understand.
Well, TFA is an amusing read, but it's hardly news.... It's not like we don't all know this is going on all around us. I guess it's a high quality article for Idle, but it'd be a pretty low quality news story...
Yes, I've always seen the benefit. Do you not see the benefit of the said device having the ability to accept other input devices? All it requires is a couple of USB plugs, it wouldn't hurt the portability of the device at all. When you don't want/need a mouse or keyboard, leave them behind!
Slashdot Mirror
And that's why a system of government based on a written constitution is a bad idea....
Seriously, how is this flamebait? Maybe 'gayling' isn't a terribly PC term for what I am talking about, but the OP coined it, not me. I'm not sure how postulating that an experiment that would answer a much studied question (i.e. the influences of nature/nurture on homosexuality) would be interesting counts as flaimebait....
Two gay people of the same sex can not currently have children that are decended from both of them, are you suggesting that they can?
If you are meaning that gay men have children with gay women, then maybe they do, but it's possible that gay men and gay women are gay through different causes.
So no, there isn't enough data. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many studies being done on the subject.
Presumably the person/animal the OP was referring to is called a gayling because it's parents were gay. If you RTFA, you'll see that it suggests that gay couples could have offspring using a technique similar to the one performed with the mice.
I'm not trying to be offensive to anyone -- I'm just saying that such a procedure has the potential to clear up the whole nature/nurture debate in the case of homosexuality.
Why? You may belive that there is some fundamental difference between humans and other animals, but myself and many others do not. That doesn't make us uncivilised.
On the other hand, I don't think we as a species need any additional vectors for reproducing -- we seem to do well enough as it is...
No, I don't agree. And what does it have to do with making human-animal hybrids? And what would be wrong with that, anyway? I'd do that -- well, I don't have the knowledge to be able to, but I certainly wouldn't protest if someone else did it. Surely you can see the advantage of having a human head/brain and the body of a horse?
It does go on to propose that invitro fertilisation could be used, wiht a female only used for incubation. Presumably it's not outside the realms of possiblity for an incubator capable of this being created in the future, so the whole process may not need a female.
Well, someone has to back those trailers....
Would a gayling be gay itself? Potentially quite an interesting experiment.
"We can rebuild them -- We have the technology" ---????
I agree that is the correct question to be asking, but I don't think the answer is clear cut yet. I'm not a 'climate change denier' either. I certainly think that it is prudent to cut emmisions as much as possible in the mean time, as indications are that our emmisions are at least partly to blame for observed changes in the climate.
I think anyone who states climate predictions with certain terms like 'no' or 'yes' is jumping the gun. There are papers out there that indicate that by pumping GHGs into the atmosphere, we are holding back an impending ice-age. They are in the minority, and I certainly wouldn't like to stake my reputation on them, but they are science, and they aren't all based on doctored data like some 'climate denier' papers are. The fact is, the answer to your question really comes down to the assumptions you make in creating your model. Wwe have to validate more of these assumptions before it can be definitively answered.
A scientific theory has nothing to do with religion. Ever seen a church of the second law of thermodynamics? Someone worshiping the god of relativity? No. Just because somehting isn't "Proven" doesn't mean that the only reason to believe in it is 'faith' -- we can use evidence to base our beliefs on. If you don't want your government spending money on education, i.e. science, you are a very backwards person.
Well said. And they harp on about how every other country should be 'free and democratic' like them, while they live in a country with some laws that seem downright oppessive compared to many other countries. And if they were really keen on democracy, they'd be using something more like the westminster system (i.e. a real democracy).
You really have to pay for it though. The more affordable thinkpads, like my 13", still have 1366x768 screens.
That's fine if you want a large laptop. But if you want a small one (like 13", which for me is just the right size), it's getting harder and harder to find one with a screen more than 768 pixels high.
More room, yes. But with a 16:9 screen, you have room in the horizontal direction to burn, but none in the vertical direction. I have my windows 7 bar on the left on my 1360x768 13" laptop, and while it does take up more pixels, it takes up far less useful area. Of course, it only works if you don't mind only having icons for your running programs (no text). Not ideal but I'm getting used to it.
Agreed. All these articles should be talking about the Goldilocks zone supporting life AS WE KNOW IT, not life in general. Seeing as we only have a sample size of one, we have absolutely no idea what conditions are needed for life.
I think you're partially right -- The evolution of resilient life forms is driven by change. However, if the change was not present, resiliency become redundant.
3. have never been demonstrated to function in "jet pack-ish fashion"
Except for all those times that it HAS been demonstrated to function in a "jet pack-ish fashion"..... Videos are available on their website.
the martin approach doesn't work (yet?).
I think a few companies like Bell, Robinson, Eurocopter, Kaman, Sikorsky etc. would disagree. Rotary wing aircraft are quite common, and work well. This jetpack is just a small helicopter using ducted fans -- there is nothing particularly special about it. Again, it's just the control system that is innovative in that their aim is to allow a layman to fly it. If you want to argue that that aspect isn't possible, that's fine, maybe it wont be. But by arguing that the machine cannot fly to a reasonable height for a reasonable distance, you're essentially saying that helicopters don't work.
As for an emotional investment in the 'coolfactor' -- I don't think so. I don't actually think it has a 'coolfactor', it's a stupid machine that Martin has wasted a lot of time and money on, which he will likely never get back.... That doesn't change the fact that it works.
OK, maybe I need to reiterate my statement that I know engineers working on the project, and have seem it fly with my own eyes. It could match the specs that you're talking about YEARS ago, but it didn't even have the ballistic parachute at that stage, so no one was stupid enough to actually TRY it just to make morons like you believe them. A large part of an engineers job (a professional engineer, not a fitter/turner...) is to determine the performance of something before a such a time that it can actually be demonstrated safely.
The fact is, that the part of the machine that determines these specs you are so hung up on is fairly conventional -- there is no aspect of it that you or anyone else couldn't prove to be incapable of achieving the stated specs if that were the case. It's just a small helicopter with two ducted fans instead of blades. Really a very basic machine. What makes it different is the CONTROL system, which enables people who are not expert helicopter pilots to safely fly the thing. This HAS been demonstrated -- they had a journalist flying it around a field after a couple hours instruction.
A healthy dose of skepticism is a great thing, but you're just being a bonehead.
how many do we ever actually purchase?
Some. Is that not enough to make it newsworthy?
I hope you are intentionally pretending to be thick....
In case you aren't, the reason you can't see videos of people flying it at 8000 feet is that it has not completed all safety requirements yet, as I said in my first post. They don't hire expendable test pilots to fly the thing, they are professional engineers that don't really want to risk their lives any more than needed.
The machine itself is obviously capable of performing to those specifications -- it would be trivial to show otherwise on paper for what is at the heart a relatively simple device (it's the control systems that are the hard bit, and flying at four feet is just as difficult in this regard as flying at 8000 feet). All the technical specs are on the site -- thrust, fuel capacity, fuel consumption -- why don't you work it out for yourself?
It exists, and it works very well. I know a few of the engineers/test pilots working on it. They even had a journalist flying it some six months ago or so. They're in the final stages of safety testing before it goes into production as I understand.
Well, TFA is an amusing read, but it's hardly news.... It's not like we don't all know this is going on all around us. I guess it's a high quality article for Idle, but it'd be a pretty low quality news story...
Yes, I've always seen the benefit. Do you not see the benefit of the said device having the ability to accept other input devices? All it requires is a couple of USB plugs, it wouldn't hurt the portability of the device at all. When you don't want/need a mouse or keyboard, leave them behind!