Not really. We, just like everything else, are waves in space that moves and deforms. We cant be "transported" (and not change) unless everything else (all of space) is transported at the same time.

Or look at it this way: you cant displace one part of space with a copy of another part of the same space and hope to keep space intact. Not even on Discworld.

Glass is a fluid and a liquid (liquids are a subset of fluids). All window glasses will, given enough time, flow. The rate dependent deformation of the glass is described by its viscoelastic properties. Many stained glasses and all lead based glasses behave more viscously than elastically when compared to their modern counterparts, and thus appear to flow more, when the reality is that they just flow faster.

And lava is in fact a type of soap.

You are welcome to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. ;-)

My dogs, and almost every dog I've ever known that doesn't have medical problems causing facial deformity or paralysis, DOES smile when happy. They also wag their tails. If you can't see emotion in a dog's face, I think you need serious therapy (or a new dog). It's clearly there to see.
You picked a cat (cats, who normally don't show much facial emotion) with a facial deformity to 'prove' your point that animals don't show emotion? OK, well, then lets look at Steven Hawking (or any severe facially paralyzed stroke victim)...he never shows emotion, so that proves that people don't smile either, right? That's how I read your argument.

And again....does this... :-) ...have a smile? But it's just a drawing and has no emotion to display...so how can it smile by your definition? It can smile because a smile is upturned mouth corners, and not necessarily an anthropomorphic display of emotion through facial muscles.
EDIT: Ascribing emotional content to a smile is how YOU INTERPRET the smile. The mouth shape IS the smile.

It may look to us like this gecko is HAPPY, but that's mostly because it's mouth is smiling. I think that's the argument you may want to be making instead of the 'animals don't smile' argument.

I'd guess that it would cause warping as the structure got bigger, they need the previous layers to cool rapidly to prevent deformation (although the previous layer needs to be hot enough to get a good water tight bond). Coming up with the right temp so that it forms a seamless flat surface would be difficult without causing running.

Not to be "that guy" (okay, what the hell, I love being "that guy") but aside from arty stuff, light shades, the aforementioned ashtrays and perhaps some really funky vases/glasses, this really seems to be limited by the method of extrusion and the refraction caused by having so many curved surfaces throughout the piece.

Also, this thing deforms each spring as it rotates. Some of this movement is turned in to heat, that is a netloss of energy that can be avoided with simple up-down traditional spring system that only generates heat when the body of the vehicle moves in relations with the tires... Not when you are just rolling on a smooth, flat surface.

Nice idea but can only work on small tires, further making the driving experience horrid. Larger tires, up to a point, gives you much less resistance, you can keep rolling forever on them. With this one, you peddle all the time.

That's some futuristic stuff!

I wonder if they could do the opposite, make super friction materials with a specific surface etch.

As a surface characteristic, I wonder how impervious it is to deformation, scratches, etc.

Congratulations! Your video, Deformed doggy gets new 3D printed legs, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 8 Badge!

Your video, Deformed doggy gets new 3D printed legs, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

My guess would be Inertia. Even in a vacuum objects have Inertia.

"Inertial mass is the mass of an object measured by its resistance to acceleration"

Deformable objects might deform slightly as they accelerate (feather).
However, their center of gravity is the same as a rigid object (bowling ball)

The idiot at 4:08 probably has severe back damage. Stuntmen doing that high a jump have expensive deforming seats that lay them down flat for impact.

"Surprise! I'm pregnant!"
"Oh... well, I'm sure that the white AND red wines you drank with lunch won't deform the baby..

..also, did you just hand me something you peed on? I'm glad we didn't open the box at lunch."

Guess they got down on National Night?
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Singapore-attempts-to-raise-birthrate-with-rap-song

Whoa. White phosphorus is no joke.
Burns through flesh, under water, leaves terrible, terrible burns.
Ugly and deforming injuries.

I'd scream like a little girl too.

The only "new" tech this actually presents is the procedural deformation and destruction. Otherwise everything displayed here is 5+ year old tech, regardless of what the narrator was paid to convince their intended audience.

Also: Tom Clancy is dead!

Also: Also: there is no Santa Claus!

Yeah y'know, after watching a few of these carbon-copy routines with this self-indulgent turd whose comedic moments he has to milk like a goat with deformed nipples, finding his tired, white-person-schtick, wholly un-funny.

Oh, and two solid thumbs down for his half-assed impression of Professor X.

Just what the ailing cathode-ray nipple-cube needs: More untalented, uncreative, shit comedy.

It's a really complicated issue, especially in countries/areas/societies where sex is taboo.

But I can't help but feel that while transgenders may not "fit in" anywhere, there are plenty of people out there who feel the same way who are "normal" (boy/girl relationships) in terms of their society/area but are socially inept, deformed, ugly, etc.

I think the biggest thing that transgenders will have to overcome is the ability to have a child. It's just too ingrained into people that you get married and have kids. It's so important that sterility could be cause for a divorce. You pretty much know what to expect in most circumstances, guy/guy, guy/girl, girl/girl and the options at hand for whatever decision you make. But if you THINK you're dating a guy or a girl........and then you find out otherwise, it's not really fair to expect someone not to be upset IMO. Ignoring the whole are they a boy or girl question. It's equivalent to a man whose had a vasectomy dating a woman who has made it clear that she wants kids, and him keeping quiet about it. Or a woman who has been told she's unlikely to be able to have kids dating a man who wants kids, and not passing along that information until he starts wondering what the problem is after they've agreed to try.


That's ignoring the question of "Does me liking this transgender person mean Im gay/straight/bi/etc?" I just think it's hard to ignore the pregnancy/children aspect of it, since it's biological and a major driving force in people's lives.