You must not watch much sci-fi. :-)
[Reply]

Yeah the dude has off the chart smarts. He has went down a kind of off the beaten path lately. Smart guys do that occasionally.
[Reply]

Thank the FSM for that. The world needs millions more of those types.
[Reply]

Maybe, but you can make that same argument for any tech advance.

If we can hands free type on a computer using our brains, it doesn't seem to big a leap in imagination that if we can already get information out of the brain, we can put info in.
[Reply]

Yep, Agreed, essential to propel scientific research forward.
[Reply]

I agree that the world needs a few crazy smart people to challenge the status quo, but scientific progress at any and all costs probably isn't a good idea.
[Reply]

You could take fertilised eggs / embryos with a device to bring them to term at the other end. Or just DNA strands
[Reply]

Has anyone, anywhere on earth ever suggested that? If so then please link
[Reply]

So do these digitized and downloaded brains have rights? Can they vote? Can they hook up their brain to an apache helicopter and mow people down? Can I reach over and turn them off if they are bothering me? Can they decide that our meat bag bodies are inferior and wipe the rest of us out? Can they have a billion copies of themselves downloaded into separate robot bodies and be everywhere at once? Can they be hacked? Would we really be improving the human race or ensuring its destruction?

No, really, sounds like a great idea.
[Reply]

Who said there is no moral or ethical line?

Are you interested in science? Some of your posts are making we wonder why you are posting in here?
[Reply]

I'm a pretty big fan of science. I'm just not sure I'm comfortable with the ethics of some of the people practicing it. And I'm not sure it's a great idea to go messing about with trying to "improve" the species artificially.
[Reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation
[Reply]

So what is your definition of "improving"?
Eye glasses and hearing aids are artificially improving the species.
[Reply]

So no mind/nerve controlled prosthetics for people missing a limb?

No RF communication device for people with ALS?

No hearing aids?

I can keep going.

You might not see the value in this now and that's totally cool. I don't foresee this type of thing becoming a reality in our lifetimes. Others will get to decide whether or not they want grandpa running kids off the lawn in his new cyborg body.
[Reply]

(CNN) -- Our galactic neighborhood just got a lot bigger. NASA on Wednesday announced the discovery of 715 new planets, by far the biggest batch of planets ever unveiled at once.

By way of comparison, about 1,000 planets total had been identified in our galaxy before Wednesday.

Four of those planets are in what NASA calls the "habitable zone," meaning they have the makeup to potentially support life.

The planets, which orbit 305 different stars, were discovered by the Kepler space telescope and were verified using a new technique that scientists expect to make new planetary discoveries more frequent and more detailed.

"We've been able to open the bottleneck to access the mother lode and deliver to you more than 20 times as many planets as has ever been found and announced at once," said Jack Lissauer, a planetary scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center in California.

Launched in March 2009, the Kepler space observatory was the first NASA mission to find planets similar to Earth that are in, or near, habitable zones -- defined as planets that are the right distance from a star for a moderate temperature that might sustain liquid water.

Tuesday's planets all were verified using data from the first two years of Kepler's voyage, meaning there may be many more to come.

"Kepler has really been a game-changer for our understanding of the incredible diversity of planets and planetary systems in our galaxy," said Douglas Hudgins, a scientist with NASA's astrophysics division.

The new technique is called "verification by multiplicity," and relies in part on the logic of probability. Instead of searching blindly, the team focused on stars that the technique suggests are likely to have more than one planet in their orbit.

NASA says 95% of the planets discovered by Kepler are smaller than Neptune, which is four times as big as Earth.

One of them is about twice the size of Earth and orbits a star half the size of Earth's sun in a 30-day cycle.

The other three planets in habitable zones also are all roughly twice the size of Earth. Scientists said the multiplicity technique is biased toward first discovering planets close to their star and that, when further data comes in, they expect to find a higher percentage of new planets that could potentially have a life-supporting climate like Earth's.

"The more we explore the more we find familiar traces of ourselves amongst the stars that remind us of home," said Jason Rowe, a research scientist at the SETI Institute in Mountain View, California, and co-leader of the research team.
[Reply]