So did I! LMAO

IIRC, most of it consists of Rosie wearing the fake Ray Milland head on his shoulder, fleeing from the police on a motorcycle. At least a dozen police cars are smashed up.

But seriously, folks, if the head comes with a brain, I can suggest a few deserving candidates--mostly politicians and journalists. Won't mention any names since we don't want to get too political on this board....

Well ya know what they say Beth.

Two heads are better than one.

Just ask any man. `)

What about the Steve Martin flick?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAtvOn254MQ

Hate to be a rumor-monger but ya think BKP is on the waiting list????

I don't think I would want to survive that operation.

would that be a head transplant or would it actually be a body transplant ?

Where he said:

"I've had the same axe for thirty years, although I've replaced the head twice and the handle three times."

Or was it george washington? I can't remember.

Carol Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n/t


That ain't no Shiz sister.

Really skeptical about this. If joining the spinal cord were possible then it should be possible to reconnect an accidentally severed spinal cord by some technique that involves recutting the ends cleanly, if that is all it takes. We are years away from spinal repair.

If this is feasible, we could get a few extra decades of genius out of professor Hawking, which would be cool.

So I barely got the letters c-r-e typed in after New Scientist, and it prompted me with "credible."

Here were a few links...

http://www.quora.com/Is-New-Scientist-credible

"The (banned site) community doesn't think so."

One source: "By any fair measure they're very credible. I work in media relations for a science institution and in my experience if you compare them against other science media outlets who are trying to be both entertaining and accurate, their reporters are some of the best.

"You do have to take into account that it's a magazine and not a scientific journal, but if you don't find their writing credible, then you have a very high bar for credibility."

Damn right I do. That's why I managed to avoid baptism as a youngster... From an Anonymous:

"Among professors I've known, New Scientist is 'semi respectable'. NS is easily influenced by hype, they've made some grating errors (a list of which would be a fun Quora question in itself)"

I elected not to register to read Quora because what I saw left its credibility in doubt with me.

Some others:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-new-scientist-credible.478718/

"I would not trust anything I read in New Scientist. I have seen them get major things wrong too many times.

"I don't think of "the vast majority of the articles are credible" type reasoning as being valid because you don't know whether you're looking at one of the credible articles or one of the nonsense articles. I guess if you really have the patience to fact check every single thing you read there it can be worth it. I am not that patient, I will prefer to follow news sources where acting as the publication's factchecker is not necessary."

Q: "Okay. What are some example articles that New Scientist got wrong?"

A: "Naming an issue on evolution "Darwin was Wrong" issue was a incredibly bad call, giving creationists just what they where hunting for. The issue did not of course support creationsm and topics were among other things horizontal gene transfer, which Darwin never discussed, making the selection of title purely a sensationalistic ploy.

Biologist P. Z. Myers discusses it in detail here (link)

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-scientist-sheds-its-last-once-of.html

Sorry, but I'm not buying this one either. Unfortunately, bunk sells... De-bunking doesn't...

In the nearly 20 years I've been on-line, I've decided British tabloids are on par with the Deseret News in the credibility department.

Well Abe did say

"If I'm a two-face liar as you said, you think I'd be wearin this one?"

I feel sorry for anyone that would get stuck with my (physical) spine, or my face. I can't imagine the therapy bill. I think that there are more important things for the medical and research community to focus on.

There are so many things that they haven't found cures for. So many things they haven't put much money or effort into finding cures for.

Before they hook me up with someone else's body, i'd like to know they could fix all the genetic illnesses that come with that body. Same goes for the mind. I'd rather not have a mind that has so many problems it would just as soon kill the body it's attached to.

Matrix?

What matrix?

I've always wanted to get a head in life.

I read about this elsewhere, although they may have been quoting new scientist. First thing I thought of was: who is donating the body for the transplanted head?

Then I started thinking about that terrible 'B' movie where the hero, an artist, got a transplanted arm from a criminal and the arm started killing people and the hero could not control it!Funny film for the wrong reasons.

The whole head transplant thing smacks of the Borg Queen (yes, I've watched star trek). It is just too ghoulish to comprehend although I can understand why the ridiculously rich might want to have a 'procedure' like this. 2 years is only an estimate at most and I suppose the guy is looking for more investment so that is why he publicised his work.

All I can image now is rows upon rows of heads in jars awaiting transplant just like the head jars in Futurama.

I agree with the earlier poster that instead of doing this research, they should be doing more about treating spinal injury more successfully.

Just like with man's dream to go to the moon, the Lord will never let this happen.

This is the only transplant operation where you'd definitely want to be the donor!