It's also a tricky issue of exactly what looks like a child and what doesn't. In college, I knew a girl who used to get the child give-aways at Chicago Cubs games. She was 22 at the time, but she just happened to look really young. Additionally there are rare (but not that uncommon) diseases which preclude boys and/or girls from going through puberty (or making them appear as though they have not). It would seem to be highly discriminatory to prevent these people from doing what other people do simply based on their appearance.
The long and short of this is that just because someone looks young, they don't have to actually be young. And especially in drawn images (i.e., without a story), that person could be the rare individual with a genetic disease. The laws are extremely flimsy when it comes to these distinctions. I believe (best recollection) that the law states that something is child pornography if it portrays someone acting as a child, even if no actual children are involved in the pornography itself.
I do love the people that miss the point entirely. No one argues that the earth is getting warmer. What the point originally trying to made here is that species go extinct, whether or not we have anything to do with it. Giant reptiles were an evolutionary dead end, and eventually, they all went away. Who are we to say that amphibians also don't represent some kind of evolutionary cul-de-sac?
The larger point of "should we care?" is a somewhat different point. These small creatures fill some niche in the ecosystem certainly, but beyond that it is sentimental foolishness to assume that because something is alive while human beings are on the planet makes it somehow precious. Something will fill the roll in the ecosystem, and the planet will move on.
Finally, the comparison to Chernobyl is just kind of a jerk move. It's kind of like saying that Jews died in the holocaust because they were sensitive to Hitler. Or that people in the world trade tower were sensitive to falling from great heights. Kind of a jerk move.
As cool as this is, we've succesfully landed rovers on mars (and the moon, though not a robotic system), as well as landing non-motile craft on other planets. All used relatively simple delivery systems, and frankly, worked pretty well. The Apollo system (at 40 years old) landed softly enough not to smash human beings, which can be a lot more sensitive than robots. Maybe this type of technology will have a use in the future (though it's not like it's a super-high-tech idea).
All of that being said, GOD DAMN that's cool!
Say what you will, but when its done right, Shatner singing is actually pretty damn awesome. If you doubt me, listen to the first track off his album 'Has Been' It's entitled 'Common People'. Absolutely rules. Although to be fair, he never actually sings, per se.
Actually, the effect of fluoride is not real well known. It's believed to replace the phosphate ions in the main mineral of bone, which is hydroxyapatite. The result is a mineral which forms a slightly tighter crystaline matrix. This results in a greater resistance toward all forms of damage. And since the fluoride ions replace the mineral toward the edge of the teeth, its far enough away from the blood supply to be released into the general circulation.
First, about the phantom limb. A phantom limb is the sensation post amputation that the limb is really there. This is due to the fact that there are nerves which have been completely obliterated at their end points and have atrophied. Because these neurons tell the brain where the limb is, there is a position of the limb which is associated with the neurons not firing at all. The brain can become confused as it tries to sort out that the missing postural sensors are telling them something completely different than the other senses. The long and short of it is, with the prosthetic limb in place, its just another cue that the actual limb isn't there. Maybe the brain figures it out, and maybe it doesn't.
Just a quick reply to the original post. The bionic arm isn't really bionic. Its completely outside the body. Electromusculogram (EMG) electrodes on the skin are used to interpret what the user wants to do. They're not really using the same pathways to generate the response as a normal person would. Those pathways are (for the most part), completely gone anyway. As I understand it, the prosthetic hand their working on actually attempts to latch on to some of those atrophying pathways, and use them to move the device. Ironically, this should actually keep them from atrophying any more.
I don't think that you'd want to put that hand in the fire.
But in any event, I'd bet even money that the sensors don't encode things like pain, only the sensation of touch. Pain is such a subjective phrase anyway. What activates one person's pain neurons won't affect another.
Slashdot Mirror
It's also a tricky issue of exactly what looks like a child and what doesn't. In college, I knew a girl who used to get the child give-aways at Chicago Cubs games. She was 22 at the time, but she just happened to look really young. Additionally there are rare (but not that uncommon) diseases which preclude boys and/or girls from going through puberty (or making them appear as though they have not). It would seem to be highly discriminatory to prevent these people from doing what other people do simply based on their appearance. The long and short of this is that just because someone looks young, they don't have to actually be young. And especially in drawn images (i.e., without a story), that person could be the rare individual with a genetic disease. The laws are extremely flimsy when it comes to these distinctions. I believe (best recollection) that the law states that something is child pornography if it portrays someone acting as a child, even if no actual children are involved in the pornography itself.
I do love the people that miss the point entirely. No one argues that the earth is getting warmer. What the point originally trying to made here is that species go extinct, whether or not we have anything to do with it. Giant reptiles were an evolutionary dead end, and eventually, they all went away. Who are we to say that amphibians also don't represent some kind of evolutionary cul-de-sac? The larger point of "should we care?" is a somewhat different point. These small creatures fill some niche in the ecosystem certainly, but beyond that it is sentimental foolishness to assume that because something is alive while human beings are on the planet makes it somehow precious. Something will fill the roll in the ecosystem, and the planet will move on. Finally, the comparison to Chernobyl is just kind of a jerk move. It's kind of like saying that Jews died in the holocaust because they were sensitive to Hitler. Or that people in the world trade tower were sensitive to falling from great heights. Kind of a jerk move.
As cool as this is, we've succesfully landed rovers on mars (and the moon, though not a robotic system), as well as landing non-motile craft on other planets. All used relatively simple delivery systems, and frankly, worked pretty well. The Apollo system (at 40 years old) landed softly enough not to smash human beings, which can be a lot more sensitive than robots. Maybe this type of technology will have a use in the future (though it's not like it's a super-high-tech idea). All of that being said, GOD DAMN that's cool!
So how did you post that?
Say what you will, but when its done right, Shatner singing is actually pretty damn awesome. If you doubt me, listen to the first track off his album 'Has Been' It's entitled 'Common People'. Absolutely rules. Although to be fair, he never actually sings, per se.
Actually, the effect of fluoride is not real well known. It's believed to replace the phosphate ions in the main mineral of bone, which is hydroxyapatite. The result is a mineral which forms a slightly tighter crystaline matrix. This results in a greater resistance toward all forms of damage. And since the fluoride ions replace the mineral toward the edge of the teeth, its far enough away from the blood supply to be released into the general circulation.
First, about the phantom limb. A phantom limb is the sensation post amputation that the limb is really there. This is due to the fact that there are nerves which have been completely obliterated at their end points and have atrophied. Because these neurons tell the brain where the limb is, there is a position of the limb which is associated with the neurons not firing at all. The brain can become confused as it tries to sort out that the missing postural sensors are telling them something completely different than the other senses. The long and short of it is, with the prosthetic limb in place, its just another cue that the actual limb isn't there. Maybe the brain figures it out, and maybe it doesn't. Just a quick reply to the original post. The bionic arm isn't really bionic. Its completely outside the body. Electromusculogram (EMG) electrodes on the skin are used to interpret what the user wants to do. They're not really using the same pathways to generate the response as a normal person would. Those pathways are (for the most part), completely gone anyway. As I understand it, the prosthetic hand their working on actually attempts to latch on to some of those atrophying pathways, and use them to move the device. Ironically, this should actually keep them from atrophying any more.
I don't think that you'd want to put that hand in the fire. But in any event, I'd bet even money that the sensors don't encode things like pain, only the sensation of touch. Pain is such a subjective phrase anyway. What activates one person's pain neurons won't affect another.