Please sign up or log in for the best forum experience!

    Pages: 1

avatar! Jun 19, 2016

With a bit of embellishment:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … -wrap.html

"Although the video claims it is 'the first time in history,' this is not the first time the technique has been demonstrated...In a chapter in a US biology textbook from 1993, Dr Cynthia Fisher explained how to use the technique among groups of students...'What is shown [in the video] is feasible although the success rate may be low,' "

Curious how many times they tried this before they had a success?

Idolores Sep 12, 2016

Avatar, why in God's name isn't the fukushima porn looter in this thread instead? ?

avatar! Sep 12, 2016

Idolores wrote:

Avatar, why in God's name isn't the fukushima porn looter in this thread instead? ?

You have to ask vert, I only deal in failures tongue

avatar! Sep 28, 2016

vert1 wrote:

Fertility doctors say the world's first baby has been born using DNA from three parents in a technique hailed as "revolutionary".

The controversial "three-parent" technique allows people with rare genetic mutations to have healthy babies.

http://news.sky.com/story/worlds-first- … s-10595543

How, is this a "success"? It allows more people to have babies... yeah, great. That's EXACTLY what this planets needs is more humans. I mean, we're a meager 7.4 billion now. In a few decades we'll topple 10 billion, but hey, that's great. Because we're *only* three times the sustainable human population now. I think we can do better. We should try to get that number up as high as possible before we run out of food and fresh water and civilization collapses forever. Of course by that time we will have destroyed most of life on Earth. Yup, successful humans.

Razakin Sep 28, 2016

avatar! wrote:

How, is this a "success"? It allows more people to have babies... yeah, great. That's EXACTLY what this planets needs is more humans. I mean, we're a meager 7.4 billion now. In a few decades we'll topple 10 billion, but hey, that's great. Because we're *only* three times the sustainable human population now. I think we can do better. We should try to get that number up as high as possible before we run out of food and fresh water and civilization collapses forever. Of course by that time we will have destroyed most of life on Earth. Yup, successful humans.

This might be bit snarky, but I kinda would like people who say that we have too many humans on planet doing something to it, starting with themselves and leaving it just to that, if ya get what I mean.

But honestly, I do feel it's not the amount of humans on this planet, but out lifestyle and how we eat etc., we probably should start eating better protein-based food than just meat all the time, insects and bugs, alongside those beef burgers. I'd assume just a slight change on everybody's diet would do wonders already. Would be interesting to see differences between food cultures (ie. european, american, asian etc.) and how much they each strain the world's resources.

Of course, we should also start changing how we live and think if we need that 50 inch flat plasma TV to watch stuff. Or that huge McMansion for just 3 people, never understood why people want huge houses. I would prefer compact but designed in a way that allows it to be spaceous.

And heck, start packaging things properly, bought a card game last week, and it did come with a way too big of a box for it, when honestly less than double of the size of the box would have been more than ok.

Also, I wonder how fertility rates are around the big countries, in Finland it seems that it's just going down year by year.

But yeah, I'd assume even by slight changes in our lifestyles, the population wouldn't matter so much, Till we crack the secrets of cloning, and everyone will have 2-4 clones. And clone wars can began.

Jousto Sep 28, 2016

avatar! wrote:

How, is this a "success"? It allows more people to have babies... yeah, great. That's EXACTLY what this planets needs is more humans. I mean, we're a meager 7.4 billion now. In a few decades we'll topple 10 billion, but hey, that's great. Because we're *only* three times the sustainable human population now. I think we can do better. We should try to get that number up as high as possible before we run out of food and fresh water and civilization collapses forever. Of course by that time we will have destroyed most of life on Earth. Yup, successful humans.

I don't see this as a problem. Population grows (rather) uncontrollably in the developing countries, where gene technology has little to no impact on reproduction since it's very expensive and requires special resources unavailable in these countries (know-how, equipment etc.). In the developed coutries, on the other hand, much of the population growth comes from immigration. The western lifestyle doesn't exactly promote reproduction, especially in the more wealthy and educated areas, which can easily cause the economy to collapse in the absense of growth. From that point of view, such genetic treatments are highly beneficial and enhance the quality of life for people who might not be able to have children of their own.

Make no mistake, I'm not pro population growth by any means. There are some 6.5 billion of us too many already, but the problem doesn't really lie in the developed countries, other than not being able to raise the poor countries to a more sustainable level in terms of education, economy, health, and agriculture, to name a few. We have the power to change things in the developing countries, and we should do more.

To return to the breakthrough topic, I think it's quite amazing. Then again, it's not like people with genetic diseases couldn't have healthy babies unless the gene is dominant. And even then there's a possibility of inversion, replacement, or other events in the dna reproduction. I was a bit surprised, too, that this hadn't been achieved already. "Faulty" alleles have been known for many genes for quite some time, and only now could the disease-causing ones be replaced with "healthy" ones? Sure, way more complicated than it sounds, but still. Interesting nevertheless.

avatar! Sep 28, 2016 (edited Sep 28, 2016)

For those of you that don't think population growth is a real problem because...[insert reason(s)], I strongly suggest you read up from the people that study this for a living.

https://www.populationinstitute.org/res … onmatters/

"virtually all of the major problems that confront the world today relate in some critical way to population growth"

vert1 Oct 15, 2016

Make broccoli taste like CHOCOLATE: Incredible device tricks taste buds into thinking bland food is delicious
Taste Buddy emits thermal and electric signals that stimulate taste buds
In its current form it consists of a 2 cm wide tab that sits on the tongue
While the early prototype is restricted to imitating sweet or salty tastes, future versions have the potential to completely alter our diet.

source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … cious.html

avatar! Oct 16, 2016

vert1 wrote:

The 'making weather' project is a levitating cloud which floats an inch off a metal base. It has an inbuilt Bluetooth speaker and LED lights to create virtual 'thunderstorms' in time to the music.

source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … torms.html

You do realize it's not a real cloud? Sure, it's cool looking, and a nice gizmo for those that are rich (their original "smart cloud is over $3000:
http://www.houzz.com/photos/36771836/Sm … lectronics )
but I fail to see how this is a "success"?

vert1 Oct 16, 2016 (edited Oct 16, 2016)

Yes, magnets are not new. I'm referring to what is being done with them now is new in the case of having them float a speaker system shaped like a cloud that simulates lightning to the beat of music. Reading this article has pointed to the first floating bluetooth speaker being released in 2014.

avatar! Oct 16, 2016

vert1 wrote:

Yes, magnets are not new. I'm referring to what is being done with them now is new in the case of having them float a speaker system shaped like a cloud that simulates lightning to the beat of music. Reading this article has pointed to the first floating bluetooth speaker being released in 2014.

Again, WHY is having a floating bluetooth speaker a "success for mankind"??? hmm
Seriously. Seems more like a gimmick to make money from people that already have too much money.

vert1 Jan 5, 2017 (edited Jan 5, 2017)

I’m not even a huge fan of Hatsune Miku, and I think that background looks amazing. The way she moves so fluidly, and then that self-aware stare she gives at the end. It’s like she’s living inside of your computer.

source: Japanese Twitter responded quite enthusiastically:

▼ “Isn’t this amazing?”

taken from:http://en.rocketnews24.com/2017/01/06/h … ackground/

A Gigantic 81-foot Evangelion statue goes up in Shanghai
source: http://en.rocketnews24.com/2017/01/05/g … -shanghai/

Board footer

Forums powered by FluxBB