Also, it's much easier to copy something than it is to make something completely from scratch. To think that we could engineer a lifeform so perfect that it would take over and consume the entire earth is a bit arrogant. It's much more likely that we'd engineer a bacteria that would fail in its purpose within a few generations of the bacteria; not because we failed, but because natural life on earth is better-adapted and more fit to survive.
What's the problem here? The "inserting a genome" probably involves putting it in via a needle. Imagine that you could inject one of your cells with some random genome to turn it into a goat cell. You've got a fully-functional immune system that recognizes things like this and attacks them. Say one of your cells turns into a goat cell, your immune system would then detect that the cell is foreign and attack it. A similar thing happens in your body all the time; cells spontaneously mutate or become "out of line," and your body attacks it (cancer is the failing of this mechanism, and is quite rare considering this). The switch in this story is much less worse than cancer, as the cells are obviously foreign. It might be possible to make it like a cancer and self-replicating, but this would be very intentional and difficult; it would be easier to just use conventional weapons, if that was your intent.
This just in, local burglar sues alarm company for being caught. In more recent events, an impaired driver caused a major accident yesterday, killing two unnamed people. Not much is known about the details, though the driver has mentioned a lawsuit to sue the automobile company for making the car involved the accident.
The two made-up examples are ridiculous, just like what this person is trying to do.
If the helicopter was spinning in an opposing direction at 1 revolution in 17 seconds (which it appears to be doing), this would mean a change in 0.059 revolutions per second. If the rotor was spinning at 6 revolutions per second, we're talking about a 0.9% variance.
Anyway, watch the video particularly right at the end. Keep an eye on one blade and its position relative to the helicopter tail (the "back" two are a good idea). At one point, the tail bisects the space between the back two blades. The setup changes and then one blade is almost parallel to the tail. At the very end the helicopter rotates while the blades do not, returning the setup to the "bisecting" position.
Like I said, doesn't mean it's real, but the issues that have been pointed out are more subjective than objective.
A helicopter's blades likely spin on the order of 5 rotations per second. A typical (consumer grade) video camera shoots on the order of 30 frames per second, and a high-speed camera even more. The only problem that would be encountered is motion blur. So long as your shutter speed is fast enough, you could capture a rotor "not spinning." As for the blade moving, it does appear to move slightly (more accurately, that it doesn't appear to be fixed).
If you were lucky, a person could "dial in" the camera to the right rotor speed. If the rotor speed did not change significantly (which is possible), then it would be easy (only problem would be with motion blur). Like what was posted, each frame could catch the rotor move by 1/5 of a rotation between frames. If 1/5 of a rotation is 1/30 of a second, then that means the blade is spinning at 6 revolutions per second. This quick calculation shows that this situation is not unreasonable.
Anyway, if you weren't lucky but were instead really clever, you be able to synchronize the "shutter" timing to be matched with something from the helicopter. Maybe you could use the "beat" sound of the blade. If it were possible, note that the beat sound would probably be out-of-phase of the actual rotor position (due to sound travel time), but this would make little difference as a change in phase would make the blades move to a different apparent position.
If you were unlucky and more bored than clever, since this is a fairly short video you could hand-pick frames from a high-speed camera to give the proper speed and little-to-no rotor movement. You could find the period of the rotor blade rotation and make a generalization.. e.g. "about 221 frames between regions of interest." It would be time-consuming, but hardly a week-long effort.
I'm not saying it's real, but it can't just be discarded as "impossible" or "FAKE" without being more thorough. Basically, saying it is impossible is saying that "I don't know how it would be done, so it can't be done"; that is just being arrogant. All I am saying is that there are ways that it *could* be done, so your premise is not conclusive.
"Spanking is abuse. Just like when many of you spankers grow old, and your children hit and punch you."
Oh, and sending a kid to his/her room is not abuse? *All* punishment can be considered some form/level of abuse (it's part of the nature of punishment). Some people just think emotional/psychological abuse is "more acceptable" than a spank, but it's all the same.
In either case, a person can take physical OR non-physical punishment to some excess. Maybe when the kid is bad, you can tie them up and leave them in an unlit basement. This situation is not physically damaging, but rather quite emotionally damaging. Kids really don't really understand the "big picture" until they've already become the person that they are going to be. A quick spank is an easy way to connect "certain action = spank = pain = bad," rather than "certain action = sit in corner = not bad or good."
In more recent events, an impaired driver caused a major accident yesterday, killing two unnamed people. Not much is known about the details, though the driver has mentioned a lawsuit to sue the automobile company for making the car involved the accident.
The two made-up examples are ridiculous, just like what this person is trying to do.
If the helicopter was spinning in an opposing direction at 1 revolution in 17 seconds (which it appears to be doing), this would mean a change in 0.059 revolutions per second. If the rotor was spinning at 6 revolutions per second, we're talking about a 0.9% variance.
Anyway, watch the video particularly right at the end. Keep an eye on one blade and its position relative to the helicopter tail (the "back" two are a good idea). At one point, the tail bisects the space between the back two blades. The setup changes and then one blade is almost parallel to the tail. At the very end the helicopter rotates while the blades do not, returning the setup to the "bisecting" position.
Like I said, doesn't mean it's real, but the issues that have been pointed out are more subjective than objective.
If you were lucky, a person could "dial in" the camera to the right rotor speed. If the rotor speed did not change significantly (which is possible), then it would be easy (only problem would be with motion blur). Like what was posted, each frame could catch the rotor move by 1/5 of a rotation between frames. If 1/5 of a rotation is 1/30 of a second, then that means the blade is spinning at 6 revolutions per second. This quick calculation shows that this situation is not unreasonable.
Anyway, if you weren't lucky but were instead really clever, you be able to synchronize the "shutter" timing to be matched with something from the helicopter. Maybe you could use the "beat" sound of the blade. If it were possible, note that the beat sound would probably be out-of-phase of the actual rotor position (due to sound travel time), but this would make little difference as a change in phase would make the blades move to a different apparent position.
If you were unlucky and more bored than clever, since this is a fairly short video you could hand-pick frames from a high-speed camera to give the proper speed and little-to-no rotor movement. You could find the period of the rotor blade rotation and make a generalization.. e.g. "about 221 frames between regions of interest." It would be time-consuming, but hardly a week-long effort.
I'm not saying it's real, but it can't just be discarded as "impossible" or "FAKE" without being more thorough. Basically, saying it is impossible is saying that "I don't know how it would be done, so it can't be done"; that is just being arrogant. All I am saying is that there are ways that it *could* be done, so your premise is not conclusive.
Oh, and sending a kid to his/her room is not abuse? *All* punishment can be considered some form/level of abuse (it's part of the nature of punishment). Some people just think emotional/psychological abuse is "more acceptable" than a spank, but it's all the same.
In either case, a person can take physical OR non-physical punishment to some excess. Maybe when the kid is bad, you can tie them up and leave them in an unlit basement. This situation is not physically damaging, but rather quite emotionally damaging. Kids really don't really understand the "big picture" until they've already become the person that they are going to be. A quick spank is an easy way to connect "certain action = spank = pain = bad," rather than "certain action = sit in corner = not bad or good."
P.S. #3 really don't get the purpose behind this post; it is not a lecture in physics -- it is a BATCH OF COOKIES