• 1

    posted a message on New exotic pet.

    Yeah... I'd say about 65% of mauling cases were caused by male animals reaching sexual maturity...

    Oh, and thanks for the side note, i had no idea. Do you think there could be a way around that problem, such as teaching it to be diurnal (Yeah, it's possible) or sleeping in a less exposed position?

    I don't think there is a full proof way around this issue. The problem is that It can walk in on you sleeping and could potentially see you as prey, that's when you are potentially going to get mauled. Don't forget that these animals hunt prey by attacking the underbelly or neck. Exposing yourself in such a helpless way can trigger that hunter killer instinct. Even python's in Florida that people keep as pets have been known to escape and attack people in their sleep, even though they cannot ingest a person, they mistake you for vulnerable prey.
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 2

    posted a message on If you had 5 wishes what are they?
    Quote from Eggman111»

    1. Be able to command anything and have people obey it without any question and do it instantly even if they aren't in my country/state/town.

    2. Be immortal and never be able to die in any way

    3. World peace (No wars, animal cruelty, racism, dictatorships, people obey the law all the time)

    4. All illness and sickness no longer exists and people that have it are instantly free

    5 My crushes to suddenly be part of my family and have my existing family members not even care

    Or just do infinite wishes (I will wish for all these, plus more)

    Just wanted to point out that your third wish is for there to be no dictators, yet your first point is clearly wishing to become said dictator... =o
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 1

    posted a message on What is your opinion on GMOs?
    Yes, a natural disaster will surely occur which will drive our brown-haired population extinct. I love how you provided an example so that statement actually makes sense.

    Your argument is based on the idea that humans have technology. Genetics do not work based on what technology we have. The fact is that you have no way to know what the future will bring, nor do we necessarily know which features that we posses will help us survive. This should be obvious given the fact that the appearance of human's varies greatly throughout the entire world.

    I don't think they can. I also don't care as to whether or not you are offended at me pointing out the way you changed my wording. Mistake or not, you did it. Argue with what somebody says, not what you think they said.

    disease is something that you get, a disorder is something you inherit. In essence they both mean that something is not quite right with a person. Using the word offended was merely an error on my part when I wrote this. The more appropriate word I should have used was "Rude". Also I never realized that making a simple error on a single word was such a big crime, especially given the fact that your post was technically incomplete if you wish to argue over the minor differences between disease and disorder.

    I understand that. Luckily for us, curing down syndrome will not send us down a terrible evolutionary direction. So luckily for me, my point still stands.

    Already stated that I agree with curing debilitating diseases with no proven benefit in my previous post.

    You're reasoning as to why cross breeds are infertile is purely incorrect, completely made up and not even worth mentioning again
    Also, you're really nitpicking at this, aren't you? No thanks, I think if my child was born with cystic fibrosis, I'd have it gone before checking if it has a positive secondary effect. Are you truly convinced that not eliminating diseases proven to be harmful is the best way? Would you keep your child's down syndrome just in case? Because that's what you're suggesting the world does. Just in case.

    The goal of any species is to produce genetically fit offspring of it's own kind. The simple fact is that mating with another species is completely counterproductive to this goal for a variety of reason, and genetics has biological barriers in place to prevent this from occurring. I don't know how much more I can dumb this down for you.

    Of for the love of... YES. And I guarentee you we will not be eliminating any 'diseases' which are actually beneficial to us, because those diseases would have probably been naturally selected for. Just like in Africa.

    You have no way to know this. Unless it has been around long enough that we have already determined the effects, there is simply no way to know every impact that a new genetic disease/disorder may bring. It may just be outright debilitating and need to be eliminated, or it could have some unforeseen effect that can be harmful or beneficial. Even the sickle cell anemia benefit was not known about at first.

    Good job, I was only asking. To continue asking, how far? I'd like to know if I'm talking to an actual scientist here, which I doubt.

    I don't know what you are trying to figure out here, especially since I stated in my previous post that I still had studies ahead of me. So I would think it's obvious that I am still a student. To be honest your lack of understanding on the topic really shows, given the fact that you cannot seem to understand breeding barriers, nor comprehend the possible effects of altering any gene.

    You do care because you're debating the matter with me. Do you need to waste your time writing this out? You did change my wording, that is your fault and I can interpret it however I please. This is the debating equivalent of you shooting somebody and me getting mad at you. If you then tell me that person was about to blow up a nuke to destroy the whole world, I'll be fine with what you did. But you can't then say "So why did you even get mad in the first place? I'm offended!"

    This is a very immature response. The fact is that a misunderstanding and error had occurred and instead of simply correcting my error you chose to make an unsubstantiated claim that makes it sound like I was out to get you. Also, using silly examples does not justify your needless hostility towards my original post. Learn how to post in a civilized manner instead of needlessly starting an argument.

    Anyway, I won't be responding to this thread anymore. I do not come to post here with the goal of needlessly arguing over something as simple as a single word, and I won't be responding to your immature postings any longer.

    Basically this. We're obviously only going to change obvious faults when we're able to identify them, not your technically-a-mutation blue eyes. I was obviously talking about actually harmful genetic diseases, not every single genetic mutation. We would know if we were curing something that could be beneficial, like sickle cell anaemia in parts of Africa.

    One of the main issues with your argument, Killing, which I neglected to mention before is that mutations we would want to actually avoid curing are not there for a reason because they have not been naturally selected for, they just popped up again. It would only be there 'for a reason' if it was dominant. There is most likely no secret benefit of cystic fibrosis (mainly because sufferers die very young anyway).

    This is one of the few posts where I agree with you.

    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 2

    posted a message on What is your opinion on GMOs?

    There are many benefits to using GMO's. Take crops for example. You can genetically modify a crop such as corn to taste better, to grow bigger, faster, withstand harsh weather conditions, and to produce nutrients necessary for human health. One major benefit is that you can also genetically modify them to be resistant to certain pests that would otherwise destroy the crop. Also, crops and even bacteria can be genetically modified to produce important substances that some people need, such as insulin for people who have a genetic defect that prevents them from producing it naturally.

    Unfortunately some of these great benefits come with some serious risks for the environment and human health. If we look back at my corn example, a genetically modified corn made to resist a pest such as a fly (I'm making a random pest up.) could result in an important food source for the fly being unavailable. This would result in a huge population decrease in the fly population, which then affects whatever animal may eat the fly, such as a bird. So therefore being careless in doing GMO's can have some serious repercussions in the animal food chain. in regards to human health, it has been suggested that some of the genes from GMO's can transfer over into the human cells and result in diseases such as cancer in human's. However there is currently no concrete evidence to support this idea as far as I am aware.

    Another important hazard in regards to genetically modified crops is that if a large portion of farmers began to breed specific crops that have certain genes for whatever issue, then this would seriously impact the biodiversity of the crop in question. Because of this, it would make a large portion of the crop vulnerable to a bacteria or virus that attacks a weakness in the crop. Therefore the entire crop can possibly be wiped out, resulting in serious economic issues and even a food shortage depending on the scale of the damage and the crop in question.

    Quote from pefan

    well it already some what happens in the wild such as the polar bear/grizzly bear, and we have done it in fish such as splake (brook trout/lake trout) and tiger trout (brown trout/brook trout) the only down side of these two species is for the fact they can not breed. but look at the glowing cats that are mixed with jelly fish. <!-- Attachments -->
    <!-- Edited By --> <!-- Notes -->
    Private Mod Note ():

    <!-- Revisions -->
    Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
    <!-- Signature -->

    I think he is talking about actually taking DNA from one organism and putting it into another, but by my top arguments, I trust that he realizes this is actually quite common.

    In regards to your paragraph, the animal breeding you describe is simply breeding a hybrid of the two species. There is no actual genetic modification going on here. Also what you don't realize is that the inability for your hybrids to breed is actually a good thing and I will explain why.

    Take your polar bear/ grizzly bear example (Which is actually a fantastic example to use for this =p). People seem to get the impression that the combination of the two is a great thing because then it gets the benefits of both species, but that is very untrue. The problem is that as a separate species, the grizzly bear is adapted to surviving in the wilds south of the arctic, while the polar bear is adapted to survive in the Arctic. Once these two species breed, the hybrid in question will naturally be weaker because it will not be as well adapted to survive in either the forest region or the Arctic. So therefore this new species will be unable to compete with either the grizzly or polar bear and will therefore die off. In fact this is the exact reason the fish you mentioned cannot naturally breed because nature has determined that the hybrid is inferior and will be unable to compete, so the biology puts up a barrier that prevents viable breeding.

    Hope this clears some things up on the topic. =-)

    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 1

    posted a message on Official MCX360 Twitter Update Thread | September 30th

    4J studios has just released a new picture on their twitter feed that confirms bunnies, lapis for enchanting, packed ice I believe, and dozens of blocks which I cannot identify myself. Also the bunny looks like the killer bunny due to the horizontal red eyes and pure white fur. However the killer bunny does not spawn naturally, not even in the PC edition of Minecraft. So could this possibly be a console exclusive?





    Posted in: MCX360: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on "natural" space danger

    Sorry, but I cannot support this suggestion. What you are suggesting would just be griefing without a player, similar to when lightning strikes your roof and the fire spread is on.

    I do like the idea in principle, but I would only support it if it does no damage to the impact site. So basically if it lands on your roof, it will just be a large chunk of rock sitting up there that you can quickly mine. Perhaps toss in some kind of rare material that you can only get from asteroids?

    In general though, this idea is not for survival. Minecraft is primarily a game about creating and building, not going out to do your various tasks and returning to find an asteroid has damaged your house.

    Posted in: MCX360: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on Name Tags
    Quote from Tamorr»
    Actually Villager trading,... Librarian. Hopefully they did add that. That is assuming you have a Librarian Villager. Expensive though, at least according to the wiki. And it is only found in Dungeon chests unfortunately otherwise.

    thanks for the info. 20-22 emeralds on a tier six trade is definitely expensive. Good think I built a villager farm that supports the maximum number of villagers in the world. Should be very helpful in gathering emeralds to reach that. XD
    Posted in: MCX360: Recent & Upcoming Updates
  • 1

    posted a message on New console just for minecraft
    It's an interesting idea I will say. The only problems that may arise from this would be the cost.
    Posted in: MCX360: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on Official MCX360 Twitter Update Thread | September 30th
    Quote from Tamorr»
    3 eggs for horses? Well I can think of one possible way or thing it could be if not some other new mobs being pulled forward.

    Could be that donkey mule and horses have their own egg. Just a guess but seems right.

    Otherwise could be possible something brought forward...

    Quite a few things confirmed and many more possibilities that could be in.:)

    It makes sense for the donkey, horse, and mule to each have their own egg I guess. The good thing about this update is that they also have the advantage of hindsight. Basically this is like a second chance to do over the PC update, except they have the knowledge and experience in order to make it better the second time around than the first. So there is a possibility that they took player feedback from the original PC updates into consideration while doing this update.

    Also it has been around April or march since TU 14 released. Which means they have been working on this next update for about eight month roughly. So given the total time this has taken, its quite possible we may see extra content added that was not there the first time, and possibly some content pulled forward from PC 1.7( or whatever its called...), given the fact that they seem to always pull stuff forward.

    Finally 4J has never mentioned the future of the 360 version after this update releases. So its probably best to assume that we will still be receiving updates like normal every few months after this next one, unless they tell us otherwise afterwards.
    Posted in: MCX360: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on New update Questions I have.
    @ GregNelson

    good description of what takes place regarding the mobs and biome issues. Don't forget that the villagers also updated from generic to having professions in older saves with the last update, so that's proof right there that the mob mechanics will update accordingly. I also had the exact same issue with ocelots when the biome shift occurred on an old map I had been playing.
    Posted in: MCX360: Discussion
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.