|
Post by The Mask on May 13, 2012 16:46:16 GMT -5
Creepy doppelgänger of actor Sylvester Stallone spotted in 16th century painting on Vatican. Wasn't there a painting that looked like Nicholas Cage also?
|
|
|
Post by artemis on May 14, 2012 2:42:08 GMT -5
It was a photograph, not a painting
|
|
|
Post by sherlok on May 14, 2012 20:48:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by artemis on May 15, 2012 2:50:20 GMT -5
Belonging to the "POLITICS" thread...
|
|
|
Post by fauxster on May 20, 2012 12:41:47 GMT -5
The Difference Between Inspiring and Creepy Human-Robot Technology By Torie Bosch | Posted Thursday, May 17, 2012, at 4:14 PM ET 39 Yesterday, we were wowed by the video of a paralyzed woman using her mind to direct a robotic arm in picking up a coffee thermos and bringing it to her mouth. Most observers (with the possible exception of Gizmodo’s Andrew Tarantola) praised the technology that made it possible for Cathy Hutchinson to sip coffee without another person’s help for the first time in almost 15 years. About the same time, another story began circulating online: that of a group called Russia 2045 that hopes to, among other things, download the human mind to a robot, which would essentially enable immortality sans biological body. Russia 2045’s timeline to create real-life avatars, as stated in the description of a YouTube video, is ambitious. About 2040-2050, the group estimates there will be “ odies made of nanorobots that can take any shape arise alongside hologram bodies.” But first, between 2015-2020, we’re promised “ robotic human copy controlled by thought via ‘brain-computer’ interface. It becomes as popular as a car.” That sounds not unlike what Hutchinson did as part of the BrainGate2 clinical trials.
Gizmodo called video released Tuesday (below) of one of Russia 2045’s recent androids “creepy.” Commenters on the Verge said things like, “I don’t like this” and “This is all bad news.”
Let’s leave aside the question of whether Russia 2045 will actually accomplish any of its stated goals. (I’m quite dubious.) What’s interesting is the telling difference in reactions to the videos of Hutchinson and of Russia 2045’s bot. Part of it, of course, has to do with the fact that there’s a humanoid robot in the Russian clip—the uncanny valley and all.
But it isn’t just the fake-looking man that is creeping out many; it’s the idea of an avatar, a la Surrogates, for daily use by able-bodied humans. (It’s also drawn some comparisons to the Japanese animated film Ghost in the Shell.) To use technology to bring a disabled person back to (or at least closer to) base line physical capability is wonderful. To use it as a substitute for a human body altogether is unnerving. But technology that originally helps the disabled will almost inevitably be used at some point to enhance the “normal.”
www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/05/17/russia_2045_s_human_avatar_vs_robot_arm_helping_paralyzed_woman_drink_coffee_video_.html
|
|
|
Post by artemis on May 26, 2012 7:38:48 GMT -5
2 more (recent) fakes...
|
|
|
Post by artemis on May 29, 2012 16:08:05 GMT -5
A make-up free more normally looking FATY...
|
|
|
Post by lucy on May 29, 2012 18:53:52 GMT -5
What? No blue hair? I must say her eyes don't have that glazed over clonish, or mind control look. Though the outfit looks like she tripped and fell at Willy Wonka's candy factory...
|
|
|
Post by lucy on May 29, 2012 18:58:27 GMT -5
Note: The post regarding the painting that looks like Sylvester Stallone...That's uncanny. It's as if he's a clone of that priest....
Is this something far from reality? Taking DNA of old royalty, or nobility, religious leaders, etc, and create modern versions of those people? Someone I had looked at paintings of European royalty, just to see what I could see and I saw one that resembled John Lennon...the long straight nosed version...not the "beakman" rendition.
I think if there was access to paintings of European dignitaries you may find some of our current "celebs"....makes you wonder where they DIG up some of those people they call "famous"....
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jun 3, 2012 6:36:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jun 12, 2012 6:13:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jun 19, 2012 5:57:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jun 23, 2012 4:04:26 GMT -5
A very, very revealing magazine cover...
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jun 27, 2012 4:47:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jun 29, 2012 5:09:08 GMT -5
"World's first GM babies born
The world's first geneticallymodified humans have been created, it was revealed last night.
The disclosure that 30 healthy babies were born after a series of experiments in the United States provoked another furious debate about ethics.
So far, two of the babies have been tested and have been found to contain genes from three 'parents'.
Fifteen of the children were born in the past three years as a result of one experimental programme at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in New Jersey.
The babies were born to women who had problems conceiving. Extra genes from a female donor were inserted into their eggs before they were fertilised in an attempt to enable them to conceive.
Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year- old children confirm that they have inherited DNA from three adults --two women and one man.
The fact that the children have inherited the extra genes and incorporated them into their 'germline' means that they will, in turn, be able to pass them on to their own offspring.
Altering the human germline - in effect tinkering with the very make-up of our species - is a technique shunned by the vast majority of the world's scientists.
Geneticists fear that one day this method could be used to create new races of humans with extra, desired characteristics such as strength or high intelligence.
Writing in the journal Human Reproduction, the researchers, led by fertility pioneer Professor Jacques Cohen, say that this 'is the first case of human germline genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children'.
Some experts severely criticised the experiments. Lord Winston, of the Hammersmith Hospital in West London, told the BBC yesterday: 'Regarding the treat-ment of the infertile, there is no evidence that this technique is worth doing . . . I am very surprised that it was even carried out at this stage. It would certainly not be allowed in Britain.'
John Smeaton, national director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said: 'One has tremendous sympathy for couples who suffer infertility problems. But this seems to be a further illustration of the fact that the whole process of in vitro fertilisation as a means of conceiving babies leads to babies being regarded as objects on a production line.
'It is a further and very worrying step down the wrong road for humanity.' Professor Cohen and his colleagues diagnosed that the women were infertile because they had defects in tiny structures in their egg cells, called mitochondria.
They took eggs from donors and, using a fine needle, sucked some of the internal material - containing 'healthy' mitochondria - and injected it into eggs from the women wanting to conceive.
Because mitochondria contain genes, the babies resulting from the treatment have inherited DNA from both women. These genes can now be passed down the germline along the maternal line.
A spokesman for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), which regulates 'assisted reproduction' technology in Britain, said that it would not license the technique here because it involved altering the germline.
Jacques Cohen is regarded as a brilliant but controversial scientist who has pushed the boundaries of assisted reproduction technologies.
He developed a technique which allows infertile men to have their own children, by injecting sperm DNA straight into the egg in the lab.
Prior to this, only infertile women were able to conceive using IVF. Last year, Professor Cohen said that his expertise would allow him to clone children --a prospect treated with horror by the mainstream scientific community.
'It would be an afternoon's work for one of my students,' he said, adding that he had been approached by 'at least three' individuals wishing to create a cloned child, but had turned down their requests."
|
|