Search results

A female is still needed to carry the embryo to term. F-F fertilization of an egg we have figured out, "growing a baby in a vat", we have not. A uterus is still necessary, and likely will be for the foreseeable future. I'm talking about female-female fertilization, not these ridiculous jumps...

Who said ANYTHING about clones?? I'm talking about two human females. Using cells from Female A to fertilize an egg in Female B, producing offspring, Female C. this is not cloning. This has just as much genetic diversity as a natural couple, but avoids the need for a male. This has already...

So you all can insult and snark pretty well, but not one actual answer as to why, if the reproduction question is answered, there needs to be anything but females in human society. Why do we need males going forward? Provide a reason, maybe, not just a wise-ass comment. If two females can...

Completely unrelated.

Nice gender assumption.

Says the guy who brags about being a "thug". If the genetics of two different females can be combined easily and reliably to provide viable female only offspring, (needing of course one of the females to bring the baby to term) - give me one real sound rationale that males of the species need...

Funny. Have never run into a problem like this. But then again, I use a Mac......

Once science becomes sufficiently advanced, males will become obsolete. There is hope for humanity if this is the trajectory. Most of our attempts to eliminate ourselves have been testosterone-fueled destructive instincts. An eventual all female society may result in some common sense, an end to...

I have no idea who "DJT" is. Ars is becoming a Gen-xers nostalgia site. They can pursue that if they want, the result will be loss of relevance.

No seriously. Why not an article about how innovations in current display methods are looking to increase framerates, instead of "Here, look at this vacuum tube which hasn't been produced for 20 years do it's thing." What's next, an in depth look at how carburetors and pushrods work in a 1960s...

Old. Crusty. Dead technology. Who cares. Ars, stop writing to cater to the nostalgia of the olds. They don't welcome innovation, and moreover - they're dying off. EDIT: Oh here we go with downvotes from the over 40 crowd. Get over yourselves, it's not my problem that you can't keep up.

Or how about people just not own guns to begin with? I like how Ars fails to address the elephant in the room there.

People still use email?

Even the iPhone X now looks like it's got too much bezel. I'm guessing though this was by intent, so that the next iteration can incrementally have less bezel. It's genius, really.

Excuse me, no : the explanation for this is clear. It is well known that European academics value math and science much more than USAnians do ; and their students excel in it far better. We are seeing the results of lazy American disregard for the sciences at work here.

All of this is just more proof that we need to take every single analog system of any sort, remaining and tear them down, plow them into the dirt, and replace them with secure digital, IP-based systems. People here criticize me for being a 'kid' who doesn't like old technology. But what you...

And what's your point, that software defined radio receivers should be "banned" ?

So you admit that the only purpose of this article is to 'entertain' old people. Thank you, my point has been reinforced.

In five years I would be surprised if that number exceeded twenty percent.

And as I said, a tornado will take out speakers on poles as readily as it will wireless towers. Same goes for landline wooden poles and EAS broadcast towers. Tornadoes do not care; but data and wireless can alert people BEFORE the storm with much more information than a wailing sound can.