Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:I for one (Score 1) 435

by HBoar (#34499124) Attached to: Scientists Create Mice From 2 Fathers
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....

Comment: Re:I for one (Score 1) 435

by HBoar (#34499100) Attached to: Scientists Create Mice From 2 Fathers

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.

Comment: Re:I for one (Score 1) 435

by HBoar (#34498958) Attached to: Scientists Create Mice From 2 Fathers

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.

Comment: Re:Monstrous fetuses will prevent it (Score 1) 435

by HBoar (#34498834) Attached to: Scientists Create Mice From 2 Fathers

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...

Comment: Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from (Score 1) 435

by HBoar (#34498770) Attached to: Scientists Create Mice From 2 Fathers
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?

Comment: Re:Asking the right question (Score 1) 747

by HBoar (#34498190) Attached to: Doubling of CO2 Not So Tragic After All?

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.

Comment: Re:Hell, no (Score 1) 648

by HBoar (#34435060) Attached to: Kentucky Announces Creationism Theme Park
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.

Comment: Re:The Invasion of the Chineeese Terror! (Score 1) 247

by HBoar (#34251170) Attached to: For 18 Minutes, 15% of the Internet Routed Through China
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).

All great ideas are controversial, or have been at one time.