|
|
Post by The Doctor on Oct 28, 2017 21:45:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Oct 29, 2017 20:09:38 GMT
The Deep Ones are returning...
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Nov 10, 2017 17:41:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Nov 11, 2017 22:43:20 GMT
So basically Cthulhu is going to surface in the Firth of Forth soon...
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Nov 12, 2017 18:23:14 GMT
Right, we need to find ourselves a large tugboat-shaped self-propelled sleeping pill...
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Nov 16, 2017 12:56:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on Nov 27, 2017 12:57:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 9, 2017 21:31:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Dec 9, 2017 22:06:53 GMT
I seem to remember in a similar case it turned out that legally the photos are the property of the monkey rather than the photographer, as the photographer did not take them |
|
|
|
Post by legios on Dec 9, 2017 22:54:49 GMT
'Fraid not. That was what PETA asserted in their suit following the initial wikimedia/photographer arguement. Sadly, the situation is less entertaining than that... The court in the US found that although the monkey had taken the picture in question in the sense of having pushed the button, it was not competent to be held as the creator of the work on a legal sense. The court's determination was that no copyright existed in the photograph as the protection of copyright did not extend to non-human creatures. In essence, that the monkey had created the photograph, but that the photograph was not a copyrightable work in this instance. The photographer who set up the equipment to entice the monkeys into pressing the relevant button disputes this (and some legal thinkers suggest that by creating the circumstances which allowed and caused the photograph to be taken he may have a case that he should be considered the creator), but I'm not aware that it has gone to a legal appeal on this latter point.
Short version:
The photograph exists. The monkey cannot hold copyright on the photograph because US copyright law has been deemed to only recognise humans as being eligible to hold a copyright. Currently therefore the photograph has no "creator" in the sense intended by copyright law. It is an open question as to whether the wildlfe photographer who set up the camera to allow the monkeys to operate the mechanism can legally claim creators rights.
(Personally I'd be quite happy to see monkeys allowed to claim creators rights. US sitcom writers can have them, so why the heck not monkeys?"
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Feb 13, 2018 18:45:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Feb 13, 2018 21:18:23 GMT
"an additional set of chromosones"... sounds alarmingly like the whole "recoverable second set of DNA from an absorbed twin" stuff from Orphan Black! Except that the crayfish can reproduce without needing a lab to actually joggle the dna into growing a new individual... No-one tell the Conspiracy - we'll be hip deep in physically identical Crayfish with distinctive personalities before we can blink.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by Pinwig on Feb 13, 2018 21:40:36 GMT
The beginning of the Macra.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Feb 13, 2018 23:00:12 GMT
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MACRA!
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Mar 2, 2018 10:17:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Mar 2, 2018 12:42:16 GMT
Found by spotting their poo!!!
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Mar 2, 2018 15:38:01 GMT
There is something kind of wonderful in the oddness of Penguin's doing enough guano that it can be spotted from space. Take that puny humans - we don't need construction gear to make a mark on the planet.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on Mar 10, 2018 8:44:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Apr 14, 2018 16:33:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Apr 27, 2018 16:36:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on May 9, 2018 7:23:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on May 9, 2018 8:29:07 GMT
The spider was not trained. It did not jump on demand. There was only one spider. Hardly conclusive.
They modeled a dead spider and claimed it matched data from a live one. They modeled the spider as a uniform blob. Spiders are not uniform blobs.
They concluded there was no hydraulic system involved in the jumping. By looking at a dead spider which by default has no hydraulic pressure as it is dead.
I've asked the authors to see their CT data. The spider looks not only dead but lopsidedly squashed at the back.
They have a nice idea but don't seem to have carried it out very carefully, fully or robustly. I am struggling to see how this paper got through peer review in its current form, let alone into a Nature journal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on May 9, 2018 8:30:59 GMT
And of course the journal has zero mechanism for raising these concerns.
|
|
|
|
Post by browny87 on May 9, 2018 20:55:24 GMT
what is ralphs opinion on a trained spider? could he lead an army of them forward?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on May 9, 2018 21:58:13 GMT
I will have no truck with spider armies!
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on May 29, 2018 23:52:06 GMT
Ralph will be reduced to a gibbering wreck in the Giant Tarantula Wars that will happen in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Jun 14, 2018 11:26:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on Jun 28, 2018 8:35:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pinwig on Jun 28, 2018 20:01:30 GMT
So you're using spiders to test a hypothesis that could then be used on other animals? It sounds fascinating - what does measuring the cardiac function of spiders tell us? and more importantly, did you offer them a cup of tea when they came round afterwards?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on Jun 28, 2018 22:14:53 GMT
They got crickets and water.
Measuring cardiac function is the first step towards testing to see what sort of cardiac disease they might get and why. And also testing to see if at a genetic level the hearts are as evolutionary convergent with vertebrates as they are physiologically.
|
|
