But, it was "massively overhyped" by people like YOU, who then go back and complain when it doesn't live up to your OWN hype. The makers of this thing released no such specs. Tech-junkies like you invented them out of your own fantasies.
---Killing Nazis is fine for teenagers, but should probably be avoided for anyone younger than 10.---
Are you kidding? The only reason Nazis were invented in the first place was so that we would have computer game villians that could be killed without bothering _anyone's- moral conscience.
The only reason 10 year olds shouldn't buy Wolfenstein 3d is that the Nazis in it speak English for some twisted reason. THAT'LL warp their little minds...
I dunno, i got a little tired of the whole "morphing" effect a long time ago, and unless they can do better (like doing morphing SLOWLY, over characters moving in realtime), I think that's all we'll see.
Yeah, I was surprised too: Sci Fi has done better compositing before, and I thought they'd at least do as good a job as they normally can. But they got the lighting wrong on the "real" parts, for one thing, which made the backgrounds seem jarring, as if it was being illuminated by a different source.
The stair climbing wheelchair was another invention: the IBOT. It's already in federal testing. Unfortunately, it's going to run you a MUCH heftier penny than Segway, but it is at least competative with other motorized wheelchairs.
And if they DID want to lug the scooter, it's actually not a problem: the scooter has a drag mode that makes it easy to have it tag along behind you, even up stairs.
Re:Innovation? Yes. Better than a scooter? No.
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1
This scooter runs on the same idea of balance control as the IPOD, Kamen's wheelchair. And frankly, it ISN'T just marketing: it's pretty neat. The balance software is actually BETTER than any human, because it can respond much faster. Hopefully one of the things they'll demo soon is the Segway sans-driver. While it's moving, they'll throw things at it, but it'll compensate instantly and remain upright and moving as normal. Gyroscopes are cool.
Re:Why can't anyone see the implications of this?
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Kamen is a famous Microsfot hater: as per this article on cnn, so it's not coicidence that this is in the article. He uses Intel chips in some of his inventions because they are cheaper, but laments that they are so poorly designed and wasteful.
Re:Why can't anyone see the implications of this?
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1
The price may stay up there for a year or two, but if it catches on, it's highly susceptible to economies of scale.
But I remember that the real hope that Kamen had for this was in "linking" several ITs together. The neat thing about this is that the more you link, the more efficient they become. With the right infastructure, cities could build passively or actively operated linklanes (think cable cars: you hook into a cable that is powered to travel at AT least the speed of a single IT, but each additional IT makes it go a little faster) that that would not only increase ITs speed, but save its users tons of money in charge bills, as well as save power in general.
Whatever you think about IT, you've got to admit that Kamen is a neat guy, with some neat medical inventions that really have made a difference in people's lives. And one of the most recent of these is a motorized wheelchair (that is, in a way, much like IT, as far as gyroscopes) that does some incredible things that no other motorized wheelchairs can: like safely stand up (you have NO idea how emotionally moving this is for people that cannot walk: to actually be able to look people straight in the eye), move around while standing up without risking falling over, handle just about any terrain, and walk up and down stairs and curbs (the axles turn into "feet" by locking, then rotating around each other). And of course, portable dialysis, which improved people's quality of life immensely.
Re:What it'll do for me
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1
I can't normally walk at 12mph for long periods of time, and I don't see how that makes me "lazy." Why is it that whenever a time/energy saving device comes out, naysayers always argue that it's lazy? That makes no sense. People can use the extra time money and energy they save with a device like this to be lazy if they want. But there's no reason they have to or will. Efficiency gains are good things, remember?
Re:What it'll do for me
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1
---Most "Greens" would probably be reasonable enough to see the problem on a whole.---
When you said this, I had high hopes. But it turned out that by "whole" you meant "whole of my concerns, and none of the concerns tha environmentalists usually totally ignore."
---The earth is capable of sustaining only so much pollution. What that level is is debatable... lets just assume, on a long term, we are at/near/close/exceeding that limit. We cannot pollute at this level indefinitely. We will choke and kill everything (including ourselves) off the planet. This is a reasonable assumption.---
And here's the problem: this is NOT a reaonable assumption. The "earth" could handle any state of things. To measure a level of pollution, you first need to define some sense of value: like the lives of people and animals, etc. But once you actually do this, you'll realize that there is no constant "level of pollution" that is bad. It varies widely depending on the particular value you place on various things. Pollution has costs, but it also has benefits. And we should stop polluting at the point where the cost of one more unit of pollution outweighs the benefits of it. End of story.
The legitimate environmental arguement is that there is a defficient market for polluting: that it is an unpriced externality that needs to either be taxed or sold. And I agree with this position. But this is not the position you take.
Re:What is important in technology?
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1
---for short trips it will do nothing more than decrease the amount of exercise people already get. And hey, Americans can really afford that!---
Americans can get whatever amount of exercise they want. In any case, no one HAS to use this machine if they value exercise over travel time. It never ceases to amaze me how many people think that the voluntary consumption of a good could be a bad thing.
---If you're going to wear protective gear why not use an electric scooter?---
More cost-efficient and less pollution. Also, safer.
----- people lacking mobility will be unable to use it anyway since it requires the ability to stand while travelling.---
People lacking mobility already have a Kamen brand vehicle that not only allows the crippled to "stand" at normal height, but even to walk up stairs. The good this man has done for medical science and engineering is beyond question (unless you wish Dick Cheny dead so much that you would be willing to lose the life of anyone requiring a stint).
---There's no atmosphere, so as long as the sun isn't shining directly on the optics, you're OK---
Yep: one of the real benefits of being farther out in space: minimal to no scattering of light.
---If you used a typical slitted dome, you could do observations away from the sun even in the daylight.---
Good point! Though there still is the control issue: what would be the cheapest and best way to send signals back to earth, considering that half the point is our sheilding the scope from interference in the first place?
Hunh? The scope on the moon gets sun more often than once every 28 days... though I suppose it depends on exactly where you put it. But it would have to be fairly close to the near side, because you'd need to have some way of sending the information back to earth: and signals dont travel well through the moon.
---Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.---
"Some guy says that Bigfoot exists, and this Polaroid sheweth his blurry leg."
---You have a reason to belive in God, you are just ignoring that reason---
That you would lie about me, tell ME what I do or do not believe or have reasons for (when you have no idea who I am or what goes on in my mind), reflects poorly on your character. Especially when it's done merely to try and score a rhetorical point. Being dishonest about me is not a good way to convince me or anyone that yours is a position of truthfulness.
---My definition was incorrect, but so is yours. A-theism means no belief, but if you have no belief, why are you proclaiming your belief in nothing?---
I don't happen to believe in the god you claim exists. You do. We need some word with which to distinguish ourselves. That word is "atheism." Atheism is not a "belief in nothing." ("Nihilism" is, I think, the belief in nothing, and I am not a nihilist) Atheism simply tells you that I lack a PARTICULAR belief: the god belief. I have plenty of other beliefs, they just don't have anything to do with the subject of gods.
---If you show forth your non-beleif, it is in fact a belief, just a belief in nothing.---
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. I am also not a racecar driver. If I point out that I am not, does that then make me a racecar driver? No. No more than me noting that I am bald is the same as telling you my haircolor. Pointing out that I don't believe in god is not _stating_ a belief. It's just the opposite: it's noting that I do NOT have THAT belief (the belief in gods).
I'm sorry if you find these issues honestly confusing. But I fear that you are NOT simply confused: I fear that you want to deny this definition not because you don't understand it, but merely because you wish people to live in a world where they only have a choice between two unprovable faith beliefs. But that simply is not the case. I suspect this because I've heard your taunting retorts about "belief in nothing" and "why are you proclaiming your belief in nothing" before. Hopefully you are just repeating some common rhetoric that someone else taught you to unknowning say in these cases, in which case, you are not really to blame: they are. But, now you know.
---I belive that we should forgive one another as the word of God says, so I forgive you.---
---I'd actually think the Dark side of the moon could complicate observation. Since it is always facing away from the sun, it is in noticably worse shape than the light side. ---
This is a common astronomical misunderstanding. The far side of the moon is not "Dark" anymore than the side facing us is always "Light." The same side of the moon always faces the earth because it rotates in just the right way (it is "locked" to our orbit). But the sun hits it all over. Think about it. During an eclipse, when the moon blocks out the sun from our perspective, which side of the moon is having light shone on it?
Just so people know, because some are already getting it wrong, you should emphasize that the point of putting the scope on the far side of the moon is NOT because that side is "dark." It is NOT dark (is the side always facing us always "light"? Nope.). The point is, as you said, to partially screen it from interference coming from from Earth.
In fact, if we did put a scope on the far side of the moon, we'd probably need to build into it some way to block off it's lens and shield all it's sensitive components for when it was in direct sunlight. This would actually probably be the most expensive feature about such a scope: needing to close up for protection so often means a lot of wear and tear over thime.
---There is a concept that is not much mentioned (certainly not in the (typically liberal) media), it's called sanctity of life. The idea is that life is a holy thing or that life has value. This comes into play in each of these situations.---
It is MOST dishonest for you to frame the discussion this way. Asserting that your opponents have no morals, or place no value on life, is a cheap tactic of cheap rhetoric. And these "liberal media" tropes are getting very tiresome...
---- I won't debate what is and isn't a human, that's stupid---
In a certain sense, that IS stupid, because simply being an object that is genetically "human" shouldn't have any bearing on our moral judgements.
---This unnatural reproduction degrades life to the point that it can be thrown around. Ever wonder why we have kids are killing kids...---
Are you asserting that this is a cause effect relationship? Because where is your evidence? Yuo provide nothing more than unfounded angry implication. And I certainly don't see how helping women who otherwise couldn't have children is "degrading." I've certainly never met any lesbian mother who thought that having a child is "degrading."
---Suicide (assisted or otherwise) is one thing, total rejection of any dependence on God.---
Hunh? First of all, not everyone believes in God, so if you want this claim to be taken seriously, you'll have to a) prove a god exists and b) prove that killing yourself involves rejecting god. Because funny thing: I've never heard of a suicide note that reads "I am doing this to demonstrate that I totally reject any dependance on God."
---In conclusion, because life is not held as holy by secular humanists and secular humanists are the most vocal to serve themselves, all we here is this secular point of view, so that's all we know.---
And you finish up your tirade with a flatout lie. Almost every secular humanists I know loves life and values it very highly: not just their own lives, but everyone's lives. Even, in some cases, the lives of animals too. You aren't going to win any arguements by simply slandering your opponents in an effort to sound more sensible and moral yourself.
---You are an athiest... Therefore you belive that there is no God.---
This is a common mistake, and would be forgivable if I didn't think that most theists that know it's a mistake, but continue to use it anyway so as to make their position look more sensible.
"atheism" (a = without theism = god belief) only implies lack of belief in a god. This is NOT the same thing a "believing that there is no god." Non-belief is not a claim that requires a burden of proof. It simply says: "I don't have a belief in that claim." For instance, I am an atheist. I see no reason TO believe THAT there is a god. Therefore, being an honest person, I cannot honestly claim to believe that the claims about your god are true.
Now, some PEOPLE (not only atheists) claim that certain gods do not exist. These ARE claims that DO require a burden of proof. However, not all atheists make such claims, and some theists DO make such claims (both about the gods of others, and even, in the case of Paul Tillich, their own gods).
So it is very misleading to, when hearing someone doesn't believe in your claims (in this case, is an atheist to your theist claims), to accuse them of having to prove an inferential negative, or be omniscient.
---This is one of the hardest verses in the gospels to interpret. Various views exist for what generation means.---
One view is that Jesus believed that he really was the messiah, and the end really was coming within everyone's present lifetime. Only, Jesus was wrong. Or, at least, the person who wrote about him was wrong.
Paul makes it pretty clear in his writings that HE at least thinks that the end is nigh: he even tells people not to worry about certain otherwise important concerns because the end of the world and the ressurection of everyone's spirit body is so close.
---All of the above commentary was taken from Bible.org [bible.org].---
Then why didn't you just state your own opinions? I'm sure that Bible.org is capable of posting it's opinions here if it feels the need.
I was under the impression that many sheep ALREADY have vaginas of their own. But maybe I'm missing something, seeing as I've never actually seen a biological sheep in person (now, metaphorical sheep...).
Slashdot Mirror
---But it was so massively over-hyped---
But, it was "massively overhyped" by people like YOU, who then go back and complain when it doesn't live up to your OWN hype. The makers of this thing released no such specs. Tech-junkies like you invented them out of your own fantasies.
---Does it use a Sterling engine? No.---
As far as i'm concerned, this is a good thing.
---Killing Nazis is fine for teenagers, but should probably be avoided for anyone younger than 10.---
Are you kidding? The only reason Nazis were invented in the first place was so that we would have computer game villians that could be killed without bothering _anyone's- moral conscience.
The only reason 10 year olds shouldn't buy Wolfenstein 3d is that the Nazis in it speak English for some twisted reason. THAT'LL warp their little minds...
----I can't wait for Leto's transformation.----
I dunno, i got a little tired of the whole "morphing" effect a long time ago, and unless they can do better (like doing morphing SLOWLY, over characters moving in realtime), I think that's all we'll see.
Yeah, I was surprised too: Sci Fi has done better compositing before, and I thought they'd at least do as good a job as they normally can. But they got the lighting wrong on the "real" parts, for one thing, which made the backgrounds seem jarring, as if it was being illuminated by a different source.
The stair climbing wheelchair was another invention: the IBOT. It's already in federal testing. Unfortunately, it's going to run you a MUCH heftier penny than Segway, but it is at least competative with other motorized wheelchairs.
And if they DID want to lug the scooter, it's actually not a problem: the scooter has a drag mode that makes it easy to have it tag along behind you, even up stairs.
This scooter runs on the same idea of balance control as the IPOD, Kamen's wheelchair. And frankly, it ISN'T just marketing: it's pretty neat. The balance software is actually BETTER than any human, because it can respond much faster. Hopefully one of the things they'll demo soon is the Segway sans-driver. While it's moving, they'll throw things at it, but it'll compensate instantly and remain upright and moving as normal. Gyroscopes are cool.
Kamen is a famous Microsfot hater: as per this article on cnn, so it's not coicidence that this is in the article. He uses Intel chips in some of his inventions because they are cheaper, but laments that they are so poorly designed and wasteful.
The price may stay up there for a year or two, but if it catches on, it's highly susceptible to economies of scale.
But I remember that the real hope that Kamen had for this was in "linking" several ITs together. The neat thing about this is that the more you link, the more efficient they become. With the right infastructure, cities could build passively or actively operated linklanes (think cable cars: you hook into a cable that is powered to travel at AT least the speed of a single IT, but each additional IT makes it go a little faster) that that would not only increase ITs speed, but save its users tons of money in charge bills, as well as save power in general.
Whatever you think about IT, you've got to admit that Kamen is a neat guy, with some neat medical inventions that really have made a difference in people's lives. And one of the most recent of these is a motorized wheelchair (that is, in a way, much like IT, as far as gyroscopes) that does some incredible things that no other motorized wheelchairs can: like safely stand up (you have NO idea how emotionally moving this is for people that cannot walk: to actually be able to look people straight in the eye), move around while standing up without risking falling over, handle just about any terrain, and walk up and down stairs and curbs (the axles turn into "feet" by locking, then rotating around each other). And of course, portable dialysis, which improved people's quality of life immensely.
I can't normally walk at 12mph for long periods of time, and I don't see how that makes me "lazy." Why is it that whenever a time/energy saving device comes out, naysayers always argue that it's lazy? That makes no sense. People can use the extra time money and energy they save with a device like this to be lazy if they want. But there's no reason they have to or will. Efficiency gains are good things, remember?
---Most "Greens" would probably be reasonable enough to see the problem on a whole.---
When you said this, I had high hopes. But it turned out that by "whole" you meant "whole of my concerns, and none of the concerns tha environmentalists usually totally ignore."
---The earth is capable of sustaining only so much pollution. What that level is is debatable... lets just assume, on a long term, we are at/near/close/exceeding that limit. We cannot pollute at this level indefinitely. We will choke and kill everything (including ourselves) off the planet. This is a reasonable assumption.---
And here's the problem: this is NOT a reaonable assumption. The "earth" could handle any state of things. To measure a level of pollution, you first need to define some sense of value: like the lives of people and animals, etc. But once you actually do this, you'll realize that there is no constant "level of pollution" that is bad. It varies widely depending on the particular value you place on various things. Pollution has costs, but it also has benefits. And we should stop polluting at the point where the cost of one more unit of pollution outweighs the benefits of it. End of story.
The legitimate environmental arguement is that there is a defficient market for polluting: that it is an unpriced externality that needs to either be taxed or sold. And I agree with this position. But this is not the position you take.
---for short trips it will do nothing more than decrease the amount of exercise people already get. And hey, Americans can really afford that!---
Americans can get whatever amount of exercise they want. In any case, no one HAS to use this machine if they value exercise over travel time. It never ceases to amaze me how many people think that the voluntary consumption of a good could be a bad thing.
---If you're going to wear protective gear why not use an electric scooter?---
More cost-efficient and less pollution. Also, safer.
----- people lacking mobility will be unable to use it anyway since it requires the ability to stand while travelling.---
People lacking mobility already have a Kamen brand vehicle that not only allows the crippled to "stand" at normal height, but even to walk up stairs. The good this man has done for medical science and engineering is beyond question (unless you wish Dick Cheny dead so much that you would be willing to lose the life of anyone requiring a stint).
---There's no atmosphere, so as long as the sun isn't shining directly on the optics, you're OK---
Yep: one of the real benefits of being farther out in space: minimal to no scattering of light.
---If you used a typical slitted dome, you could do observations away from the sun even in the daylight.---
Good point! Though there still is the control issue: what would be the cheapest and best way to send signals back to earth, considering that half the point is our sheilding the scope from interference in the first place?
Hunh? The scope on the moon gets sun more often than once every 28 days... though I suppose it depends on exactly where you put it. But it would have to be fairly close to the near side, because you'd need to have some way of sending the information back to earth: and signals dont travel well through the moon.
Are you crazy? Singapore, for instance, is the ideal market for the thing like this, where driving cars is already extremely expensive.
---Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.---
"Some guy says that Bigfoot exists, and this Polaroid sheweth his blurry leg."
---You have a reason to belive in God, you are just ignoring that reason---
That you would lie about me, tell ME what I do or do not believe or have reasons for (when you have no idea who I am or what goes on in my mind), reflects poorly on your character. Especially when it's done merely to try and score a rhetorical point. Being dishonest about me is not a good way to convince me or anyone that yours is a position of truthfulness.
---My definition was incorrect, but so is yours. A-theism means no belief, but if you have no belief, why are you proclaiming your belief in nothing?---
I don't happen to believe in the god you claim exists. You do. We need some word with which to distinguish ourselves. That word is "atheism." Atheism is not a "belief in nothing." ("Nihilism" is, I think, the belief in nothing, and I am not a nihilist) Atheism simply tells you that I lack a PARTICULAR belief: the god belief. I have plenty of other beliefs, they just don't have anything to do with the subject of gods.
---If you show forth your non-beleif, it is in fact a belief, just a belief in nothing.---
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. I am also not a racecar driver. If I point out that I am not, does that then make me a racecar driver? No. No more than me noting that I am bald is the same as telling you my haircolor. Pointing out that I don't believe in god is not _stating_ a belief. It's just the opposite: it's noting that I do NOT have THAT belief (the belief in gods).
I'm sorry if you find these issues honestly confusing. But I fear that you are NOT simply confused: I fear that you want to deny this definition not because you don't understand it, but merely because you wish people to live in a world where they only have a choice between two unprovable faith beliefs. But that simply is not the case. I suspect this because I've heard your taunting retorts about "belief in nothing" and "why are you proclaiming your belief in nothing" before. Hopefully you are just repeating some common rhetoric that someone else taught you to unknowning say in these cases, in which case, you are not really to blame: they are. But, now you know.
---I belive that we should forgive one another as the word of God says, so I forgive you.---
For what, exactly? What did I do to you?
---I'd actually think the Dark side of the moon could complicate observation. Since it is always facing away from the sun, it is in noticably worse shape than the light side. ---
This is a common astronomical misunderstanding. The far side of the moon is not "Dark" anymore than the side facing us is always "Light." The same side of the moon always faces the earth because it rotates in just the right way (it is "locked" to our orbit). But the sun hits it all over. Think about it. During an eclipse, when the moon blocks out the sun from our perspective, which side of the moon is having light shone on it?
Just so people know, because some are already getting it wrong, you should emphasize that the point of putting the scope on the far side of the moon is NOT because that side is "dark." It is NOT dark (is the side always facing us always "light"? Nope.). The point is, as you said, to partially screen it from interference coming from from Earth.
In fact, if we did put a scope on the far side of the moon, we'd probably need to build into it some way to block off it's lens and shield all it's sensitive components for when it was in direct sunlight. This would actually probably be the most expensive feature about such a scope: needing to close up for protection so often means a lot of wear and tear over thime.
---There is a concept that is not much mentioned (certainly not in the (typically liberal) media), it's called sanctity of life. The idea is that life is a holy thing or that life has value. This comes into play in each of these situations.---
It is MOST dishonest for you to frame the discussion this way. Asserting that your opponents have no morals, or place no value on life, is a cheap tactic of cheap rhetoric. And these "liberal media" tropes are getting very tiresome...
---- I won't debate what is and isn't a human, that's stupid---
In a certain sense, that IS stupid, because simply being an object that is genetically "human" shouldn't have any bearing on our moral judgements.
---This unnatural reproduction degrades life to the point that it can be thrown around. Ever wonder why we have kids are killing kids...---
Are you asserting that this is a cause effect relationship? Because where is your evidence? Yuo provide nothing more than unfounded angry implication. And I certainly don't see how helping women who otherwise couldn't have children is "degrading." I've certainly never met any lesbian mother who thought that having a child is "degrading."
---Suicide (assisted or otherwise) is one thing, total rejection of any dependence on God.---
Hunh? First of all, not everyone believes in God, so if you want this claim to be taken seriously, you'll have to a) prove a god exists and b) prove that killing yourself involves rejecting god. Because funny thing: I've never heard of a suicide note that reads "I am doing this to demonstrate that I totally reject any dependance on God."
---In conclusion, because life is not held as holy by secular humanists and secular humanists are the most vocal to serve themselves, all we here is this secular point of view, so that's all we know.---
And you finish up your tirade with a flatout lie. Almost every secular humanists I know loves life and values it very highly: not just their own lives, but everyone's lives. Even, in some cases, the lives of animals too. You aren't going to win any arguements by simply slandering your opponents in an effort to sound more sensible and moral yourself.
---You are an athiest... Therefore you belive that there is no God.---
This is a common mistake, and would be forgivable if I didn't think that most theists that know it's a mistake, but continue to use it anyway so as to make their position look more sensible.
"atheism" (a = without theism = god belief) only implies lack of belief in a god. This is NOT the same thing a "believing that there is no god." Non-belief is not a claim that requires a burden of proof. It simply says: "I don't have a belief in that claim."
For instance, I am an atheist. I see no reason TO believe THAT there is a god. Therefore, being an honest person, I cannot honestly claim to believe that the claims about your god are true.
Now, some PEOPLE (not only atheists) claim that certain gods do not exist. These ARE claims that DO require a burden of proof. However, not all atheists make such claims, and some theists DO make such claims (both about the gods of others, and even, in the case of Paul Tillich, their own gods).
So it is very misleading to, when hearing someone doesn't believe in your claims (in this case, is an atheist to your theist claims), to accuse them of having to prove an inferential negative, or be omniscient.
Actually, there IS a religion somewhat like this. It's called Raelianism.
Coincidentally enough, they are the biggest promoter of cloning whole people. It's actually part of their religion.
They're from France too.
---This is one of the hardest verses in the gospels to interpret. Various views exist for what generation means.---
One view is that Jesus believed that he really was the messiah, and the end really was coming within everyone's present lifetime. Only, Jesus was wrong. Or, at least, the person who wrote about him was wrong.
Paul makes it pretty clear in his writings that HE at least thinks that the end is nigh: he even tells people not to worry about certain otherwise important concerns because the end of the world and the ressurection of everyone's spirit body is so close.
---All of the above commentary was taken from Bible.org [bible.org].---
Then why didn't you just state your own opinions? I'm sure that Bible.org is capable of posting it's opinions here if it feels the need.
Mod this one up, because it's quite right: cloning != transgenic animals. At least not directly. But cloning DOES = "scary buzzword of the day."
I was under the impression that many sheep ALREADY have vaginas of their own. But maybe I'm missing something, seeing as I've never actually seen a biological sheep in person (now, metaphorical sheep...).