Cerebral Stasis

First of all, that case in which the blood was drained from the patient's body was to operate on a bloated vein in the patient's brain. In order to keep the vein from bursting during the operation, they cooled his body to a certain temperature at which his body functions slowed down (the brain can normally survive only a few minutes without blood before perminant damage occurs; when cooled as was done, it can last over an hour), and then they drained all the blood and performed the operation, returning the blood when it was complete (they did NOT pump him full of any saline solutions). Second, I can't help but wonder if this news.com.au thing is a hoax; look at their archive of other articles: Plus, there are no other major news websites covering this; just a bunch of obscure websites and forums basically ripping off or linking to this article; something this big definately would be all across the major news websites by now.

A good job of blending the abstract background with the foreground "render" in both color and texture. Furthermore, the text is nicely blended and well-positioned, with a good font choice, as well the interesting idea of having the text inverted, as if by a mirror.

Although it can look nice, pure abstract is overdone and overrated.You have done pretty well with blending the forefigured with their backrounds, save for a few (for example, the hair over the white part of the background in the third one down) where some rough pixels are visible from the cutting. Otherwise, the blur/smudge/fade effects are added pretty much perfectly to hide possible cutting errors without making it obvious.

I built mine about half a year or so ago, hoping to create a powerful gaming computer that was also silent (liquid cooling system) and pleanty of resources for my multiple uses. I bought all the parts off of Newegg and had it put together within a day. Since, I believe I have wiped the hard drive and reinstalled everyone only once, since I've been using a stricter system to avoid garbage and spyware buildup on my computer.

I'm against abortion unless there is really no point in brining a new child into the world (for example, if the mother is far too poor to support a child, and wouldn't be able to put it up for adoption), or if she would mess up her life by having the child and was impregnated by accident (if she was, for example, raped and because of that rape, wouldn't be able to get the education she had been working so hard for all her life because of her pregnancy, but this only applies if the girl in question had something imporant [such as said education] that would be disrupted if a child was born, and only if the girl was impregnated by an act outside of her own ability to prevent [unprotected sex and failed protection during sex excluded]).However, there has been quite a bit of progress in creating an aritficial womb. When a working artificial womb has been created, I believe that abortions should then be made illegal (assuming, of course, that the use of those artificial wombs wouldn't financially break the mother, or that the operation wouldn't kill her).

No, the story doesn't make much sense in conjunction with the question. It all depends on what one thinks "God" is. If one believes God to be, for example, a supreme being that is simply a living being with a highly developed brain/existance, then it may be possible to assume that at one point or another it had a mother. However, if one believes God to be a being of supreme and eternal energy (as impossible as that may be), they could easily believe that it has always been there (especially if one would consider God to simply be a name given to all energy in the universe in general, in which case, the energy has always existed, since energy can be neither created nor destroyed, so in that case, God would have existed forever).

If you mean if one would try to film the same digital canvas that they were projecting, you would get an infinate number of digital canvases in a mirror-like formation, but since there would be no defining lines, it would appear to just be a solid blank canvas.

I have to agree. I can't stand watching tiny videos (when I watch videos on my computer, I always have to have them either full-screen, or at least half-screen in order to stay interested). There may not be a limit to how small a music player can get (within reason), but there's certainly a limit when it comes to video. Any screen that shows a fullscreen video at less than two or three inches square is too small for me; any less and you can't really tell what's going on, especially when there are minor details or small bits of reading that are essential to catch in order to understand the plot.

I think your statement contradicts itself, unless I misunderstood your meaning.At a certain point, the televisions would be smaller than one pixel, at which point they would be rounded down to no pixels, at which point the infinate ring would be broken.

It would depend on how far away you had the camera, but assuming you had it so one could see the television as well as the screen, it would have an infinate mirror effect of a television within a television within a television, on and on.

That is an ingenious breathrough! I'm sure it will make things like texure work for 3D stuff much easier and more realistic. Hopefully it will also usher in a new age of art (so this new age crap goes out of date).

It's being debated if it's even possible, but assuming it is, it's true that it could be dangerous, so AI would need certain morals in order to survive in human society, and then humans would have to learn not to look down on them (if that's even possible; we haven't stopped doing that to eachother yet). I'm guessing that the first AI won't be in a robot like in most movies, but will instead be a gigantic quantum supercomputer with robots remotely attatched to it.

It's a good idea, but I'm pretty sure that the sheet of 90,000 lenses will make the camera in question be far too expensive for the average consumer, and thus would only be affordable for large businesses/agencies in which security is essential (for example, large banks, government installations, government surveillance aircraft, etc.). If anything, it will probably have many more potential opportunities for misuse than anything else.

The term "self-aware" is a bit overused in this case. The technologies in question wouldn't be sentient, intelligent artificial beings, but would instead be programed to determine what something will colide if they don't take action, and thus would trigger a defensive response. It's nothing exceptionally new or groundbreaking, and there is the problem of them thus not being able to communicate with objects that don't have wireless technologies (for example, obstacles, animals, older cars, etc.).

By "television providers" I assume you mean those who manufacture televisions, such as Sony. This technology isn't ready to be released on the public market, and only those with enough money will be able to afford it at first (meaning that, although it may be cheap, companies will sell them for big bucks to gain as much profit as possible before they begin to become a widely used thing, at which time prices will drop, such has been the case with all new technologies). I have read in a few articles that they should begin being used at least by 2007 or so.

Those small LEDs would hardly work as a flashlight, and although they may work to get someone to be noticed, it would be much cheaper and easier to use reflector clothing for traffic enforcers, versus blinking LEDs.I'm afraid this invention has little use besides that of fasion (which wouldn't exactly make it exclusive, either).

I doubt it would be worth dying in order to own an AI-style teddy bear, since it wouldn't be much good. One must admit, though; the teddy bear was the coolest character in the movie.I posted my previous message before watching the movies. Having watched them, I wonder how much of that was staged or set up to work just right, and how much was dynamic stuff that the robots really could do at the flip of a coin. For example, I wonder how intelligent the robots really sound in a normal conversation. In the case of the movie, they sounded pretty smart, and as if they actually understood, but it could be just a parlor trick (it takes a basic word and works off of that, like chatbot clients). Also, although I couldn't tell since it was in Japanese, I wonder how realistic their voices would be if they were speaking English (would the tone be like that of Stephen Hawking's device).

I'm assuming they finally decided to call it good enough. It's not like having the largest prime number that we know of written down is going to help us in any way.

It may become a popular thing in raves and in large studios with baring music, flashing lights, young people, and lots of drugs.I wonder how exactly one is supposed to be able to configure these belt/hat/etc. things. Furthermore, I'd think they'd be quite susceptable to damage (especially in the case of the hat, if it got rained on).

I have no idea how Google gets the money to do all this for free. The Gmail and now Gmail Drive webscripts would need gigantic servers/drives devoted just to that purpose, but what does Google get out of it? The only thing (as far as I've seen) that Google actually gets money from is some of their advertising programs and the stock market. Where are they raking in all the cash from?

Like I said, I wouldn't pay for Mona Lisa, since I know I wouldn't get any money from it, I don't need it, and I can get a low-quality version for my own pleasure more or less for free. I wouldn't have any need or use for the original (or even a detailed duplicate). I think I can say that about most artwork I have seen (some I may be tempted to actually pay money for, and yes I think that true artists deserve quite a bit of money for their paintings [and by "trust artist" I don't mean someone who makes new age abstracts, like "white canvas"], although once again I realise I wouldn't have any use for it and thus wouldn't offer to pay anything for it).

One could buy a dog for fifty bucks that would out-do this thing, would last a lot longer, and would be much more dynamic. However, there's a certain zing of technology and robots that makes people buy these kinds of things (the picture with the robot sitting in an airplane seat certainly looks impressive and intelligent, although I'm sure that the looks are a bit misleading). These are no A.I. Artificial Inelligence teddy bear equivalant; they're hardly suited to be a friend. Until a robot is able to truely interact and perhaps show compassion, I certainly won't be buying one.

*I* wouldn't pay a penny; I could just as easily print out a copy of it and hang it on my wall. Why pay millions of dollars for the original, when one can have a very cheap and quite effective duplicate? I know there's the originality and "OMG I got da original, LOLZ!" factor, but I think it's nothing but a big waste of money.

Okay, I have made two basic banners. The first is for light backgrounds: The second is for dark backgrounds: The size is now around 10Kb, so feel free to use it.

Although it may be as thin as paper, it certainly won't be a filmsy as paper (for example, plastic that is the thickness of paper is difficult to rip by accident). Depending on what it's made of, I'm sure it will be quite durable.