Sayonara

Because there is a difference between transplanting a population, and transplanting a civilisation. A BIG difference.

Fixed, in two ways.

Seriously, what are you talking about? The dialogue in the films, the actors, the crew, the cast list, the scripts, all the production material, the toys, the comics, the books, and everything else to do with Star Wars since 1981 has referred to the character as Boba Fett, never as Jango.

It's the "before episode 2" bit that makes me wonder. Oh, as well as everyone else - in the films and on Earth - calling him Boba.

When you flame people you can fully expect them to "cry flame". What he has been denying are your incessant strawman attacks. You are entitled to any opinion you can dream up, and you are free to counter any argument that is presented here. However, one way or the other you will not be behaving in this bullying and personally offensive fashion on SFN any more. I hope that's crystal clear.

http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_frames.asp There you go.

This all sounds very familiar.

Why would you do that?

Yes, briefly. It's not something you see coming up very often though. If there is a requirement that works against it, I've not heard of it. But I'd certainly be interested.

Conservation of energy doesn't give two hoots if my time machine is over there by the window, or parked outside on the drive. If "where" my time machine is located does not matter in terms of conservation, why should "when"? As long as the object being displaced exists for the same total period that it would have done without displacement, I don't see a requirement for a contiguous presence in spacetime.

Do not put words in my mouth. I could not give a flying weasel - it's not pertinent to my issue with the way you respond to people you disagree with. You should be ashamed of yourself, having to be told how to behave in public. You have read the pseudoscience forum?

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean; we may have crossed purposes. I'm talking about the population dynamics. That would be a cunning way to go (assuming, of course, it was being used in a strategy that made sense). One obvious problem is that DNA recovered in such a fashion is going to be very difficult to get viable clones from, and we have enough problems doing it with freshly squeezed DNA. Yes, it almost certainly can be. However it will in nearly all cases be counter-productive in both the long run and the wider ecological system. An example of a stumbling block: in what way is it better to introduce genetic representation into a species with no idea of how it will affect the distribution or disposition of the next generation, than it is to allow the current genetic representation to run its course?

Then does it not follow that under such conditions, conservation laws will only restrict the manner in which time travel is employed, and not prevent it completely?

Not really. For any given scenario there is going to be a trade-off range, rather than a trade-off point. You're dealing with dynamic systems that have either a sliding or oscillating point of equilibrium. For most species of the type we look to saving, the best you could hope for in terms of genetic diversity within a species would be cloning out individuals between isolated populations. Which creates a whole new set of problems. I think you have interpreted my response as an argument against using cloning to save "a species". In certain cases this could be made to work, and it is not what I was attempting to argue against. What I am saying is that as a conservation tool, cloning is a backwards strategy.

Boba could be emasculated in a speeder accident.

If time travel in that fashion is possible, do you not think that perhaps the temporal location of matter is as relevant to conservation as its spatial location?

I called it no such thing. Not one bit. The word you used was "polite". Despite commonly appearing alongside them, it has nothing to do with courtesy or respect.

Except that it can only be a paradox on paper, because if the conditions are right for that paradox to exist in real terms then by definition it can never be initiated.

I rather think that he does. The posts in which he does just that appear to be ample evidence. Yes. Unless you think you can give me a good reason why not? Go on, try me. I've just suspended Cadmus, which puts you at the top of the trouble list. The sad part is that you actually can do a lot better.

I seem to be about the only person on the planet who did, unless everyone else is just really underwhelmed by the forward planning it suggests.

I don't think those traits were unique to the European nations.

Seen it before. It's a lot less funny the second time (even the "other hand Ani" bit).

Firstly, I would dispute that that is necessarily "wrong". You are basing that on preconceived notions without explaining why they are relevant. Secondly, a cloned human is not going to be a convincing replacement for the original, so it's a rather moot point.

It was the name of the deceased Jedi who ordered the clone army.