Despite the looseness with which the Romans originally used the term, it seems well established that the groups of people who came to be regarded as the "Celts" did have some cultural traits in common: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts
Perhaps it is more accurate to say there were Celtic "cultures" rather than a single culture. Regardless, I don't think the etymology of the word itself is determinative.
I don't think anyone claims that Lojban phonology will help people guess the meaning of its root words. Even if you guess that {klama} means "travel", you probably can't guess that it means precisely (x1 travels to destination x2 from origin x3 via route x4 using conveyance x5). As a native English speaker who's been learning Lojban casually for a few weeks, I find the phonological resemblances helpful mostly as mnemonics - {prenu} is easier to remember for sounding a little like "person", {nitcu} like "need", et cetera. (And remembering the place structures does get easier, there is a fairly consistent rationale to how they are chosen.)
No, but the author of the article claimed that you can see "bits of different languages in them", which you can't. Neither morphemes nor phonemes are preserved, only letters. The method for creating these words make it probable that there will be at least one letter in the lojban word in common with the word in the six original languages, but there seems to be no guarantee that the letter or letters in common are from the actual root of the word, which are the important letters of the word.
Therefore, the way the root words in Lojban are constructed does not make the learning of words easier for the largest number of people, it just makes it really difficult for everyone.
Take your example of "klama". I can see that it shares "l" and "a" with "travel", but how do you construct a mnemonic for remembering it? It shares no morphemes and no phonemes with "travel", and there's no phonological resemblance either, so there's nothing to help you learn it if you are an English speaker, you just have to memorize it as-is.
I'm sure there are many other features of Lojban that are interesting, and I'm sure that compound words in Lojban are pretty easy to learn and construct, but the text I quoted from the article about root words shows a complete lack of understanding of how human languages work and grow and evolve.
It's not instantly clear from e.g. http://www.lojban.org/publications/etymology/etysample.txt what the algorithm was for the computerized part of the process of gismu construction, although I doubt it was as naive as you seem to be implying. In any event, the humans involved also played with the gloss words they were feeding it to try and find good compromises. {klama} does not in fact take the "l" and "a" from "travel" - it comes from (in Lojban's phonetic spelling) the English "kam" (come), the Hindi "ana" and the Chinese "lai".
At worst, learning Lojban vocabulary is no worse than learning any foreign language, and at best it's somewhat easier (which has been my experience) - I certainly don't see how its phonology "just makes it really difficult for everyone".
Compare it with Esperanto: At best it's really easy because the word you want to learn shares a lot of morphemes with some European language that you know, and at worst there's no similarity to any language you know. If you are Chinese it sucks all the way, but if you are Portuguese or Polish or English you can sort of guess what unknown words in Esperanto means, you can guess, you can wing it. It's biased towards European languages that way, and that is something the article about Lojban pointed out that they wanted to explicitly avoid when creating it.
But the result of their statistical average method is that everyone has to look up and memorize every single root word when learning Lojban. It might be easy to memorize them because of the simple spelling and that you know they're all five letters long, and that there might be letters in common with the word in your native language, but you have to do it for each of them.
Noone can look at a Lojban word and guess what it means, regardless of your language background. You have no chance at guessing it correctly, you can't wing it, you can't speak pidgin Lojban, you either know the root word for something, or you don't, and if you don't you have to look it up. If the root words had shared morphemes with other languages, then it would have been easier for some people and harder for others, but since it doesn't share with anyone, it's hard for everyone.
If the human brain functions more or less according to classical physics, with causality running forwards in time, then "one's nature" is just a very complicated function of the local state of the universe - the previous state of one's brain (including the encoding of the consciousness function itself) plus incoming sensory data.
More than once you've probably made a decision, at least in part, by psychoanalyzing yourself (and maybe psychoanalyzing the way that you're psychoanalyzing yourself) - so imagine being able to psychoanalyze yourself in real time, with (near-)perfect accuracy. (There might be information-theoretic problems with trying to simulate your whole brain inside of itself at speed.)
If one is the kind of person who has given serious thought to one's motivations in life (which must include coming to the realization that they are, in a certain fundamental sense, arbitrary) then I don't know that they would necessarily change all that much under these conditions.
Submission title is somewhat misleading. Nobody appears to be claiming that e.g. a chimp engineered with the human version of FOXP2 (the single gene under discussion) would have human-style language capacity commensurate with its intelligence - just that FOXP2 is a contributing factor.
There's a fundamental difference between BlackBerry and iPhone here, though: You don't have to use BlackBerry AppWorld if you don't want to, you can make your application available directly from your own website. Furthermore, AppWorld only takes a 20% cut: I think getting another 10% of the gross revenue (over what the App Store charges) should be worth a flat $20 administration fee to you.
The dailygalaxy article makes it sound like this phenomenon is completely baffling to scientists - my first thought as I read it was "vitalism", they seemed to be saying that the sequence recognition just happens by magic. In fact, though, the original paper discusses at least two possible mechanisms.
Experiment showing that irregardless of sea-urchin embryo part grown, it still developed into a full sea-urchin. Hans Driersch thought this evidence of some kind of vitalism in nature.
I think "Factor" is a good name for a programming language, it's memorable and it conjures up appropriate mental images. That the word has both of these qualities ensures that it will be used for many other things, and this will be true of most good names. Instead of worrying about the googlability of "Factor", can't we count on people to at least search for "Factor programming language"? And if Google isn't already returning good enough results for that now, I think I'd rather wait a little while for search technology to catch up than compromise on the names of my programming languages.
