Leaderboard

The plot revolves around a group of highly trained professionals who break into homes of elderly folks and aggressively cough into their faces for a few minutes. In a heartwarming twist one of their presumptuous victims confuses the terrorist with their grandchild to whom she had lost contact. After a furious intermezzo consisting of baking and copious amount tea the terrorist realizes that deep inside he is just longing for the love of a family. Meanwhile the grandparent realizes that the nightly visitor in stealth suit is indeed not her grandchild (the climbing hook on the balcony being a crucial hint- as well as a flashback highlight that the real grandchild had a fear of heights). But she enjoys the moment too much to care.Tragically, this human moment is also what ultimately resulted in successful infection. The terrorist becomes guilt-ridden when it becomes clear that the lonely grandma is not long for this world and he tries to reach her a last time to say his farewells. Meanwhile, his terrorist buddies consider him a traitor and try to stop him resulting in a highly choreographed fight scene involving lots of offensive coughing and running noses in slow-mo (the filmmakers did not consult experts as per usual and did not realize that this is not part of the symptoms). Finally, he survives all these ordeals and reaches the grandma, who turns out to be a special CDC/Homeland security agent in disguise (Jason Stratham) who have been delaying a rollout of coronavirus testing in favour of sting operations to catch corona-terrorists. PS: can anyone tell that I really, really do not want to read those student reports?

I suggest we stop the bickering and petty downvoting and return to the topic.

I don't think it matters whether you say 'virus' meaning singular or plural but you can say 'viruses' for plural. Never seen 'virii' A single specimen of a virus is called a 'virion'

This short TEDx talk should be watched by anyone with even a passing interest in the UFO phenomena.The speaker puts quite well what I have been trying to say for years... Science should be interested in UFOs and should be trying to study them by doing more than there is no evidence as though evidence should fall from the sky. I am in CA right now hence the chance in IP address...

It's an interesting video. Surprised to hear that science doesn't study UFO's. Can't really get my head around that to be honest. How can you not want to know what UFO's are. Especially Scientists. But it's kind of exciting if you think about it, imagine what we could learn if science really made a effort to study them. Even if they weren't aliens it would still be fascinating to find out what they are.

Well, if you wanted to actually kill someone with the coronavirus you'd have to try to sneak into homes for the elderly to be efficient. Assuming you get in contact with 100 folks above 80 you may have caused somewhere between 8-14 fatalities. You could contribute to overall spread, but if it is already spreading as it is now, it is unclear whether it would amount to more. But to do so, you will have to spend significant time with each person as casual contact seems to inefficient. So in other words you may have made the situation worse, but it is unclear how much you contributed. That, is typically just the opposite of what most lone wolf types have in mind. Part of their motivation is some distorted desire for notoriety and striking fear into folks. A "regular" mass shooting or other attack is likely to be more satisfying to them. On top, this is only likely going to work during an ongoing outbreak as there is a decent likelihood for vaccines eventually and/or most folks will develop immunity (due to infection). So all they are doing is accelerating things perhaps a little bit. Perhaps worse than any of that, poor public health responses are likely to create more fatalities than any level of deliberate act of terrorism is going to achieve. Think about that for a minute. Let's say hypothetically that testing for the virus is going to cost more than you can afford and you have the choice between going to work or lose the job, what do yo do? You cannot self-quarantine since you live paycheck to paycheck and have no food stocked up because of that. How many are in that situation compared to say ten deliberate spreaders? Now combine that with a slow roll out of tests even if they are affordable.

I believe there is a strong correlation of exempted countries and location of Trump properties.

I doubt to convince anyone. I myself have serious doubts especially early in the morning. It depends all on Mordred's (and Migl & Eise & Swanson't) explanations. If Time is really "nothing" but "a rate assigned to change in event", then I am totally wrong. I am indeed assigning too much on wording. But then I remember that time can be "dealed" (interchanged, rotated) with space. In this case, I must convince myself that the substance of time, if there exist such a thing (that Mordred said is not) must be very close to space, if not exactly the same. You cannot transform banana's into grandmother clocks (as somebody once said). Once you have swallowed that time must be close to space, the next extraordinary thing to understand is that in regard to space, time is extremely opaque. You cannot observe objects distributed in time as you wish: the time depends on the distance. An object as it was one year ago you can observe directly ONLY when it is one Light-Year away. You cannot observe directly an object as it was one year ago when the object is located a few kilometers away. And objects as they are in the future you cannot observe no matter the distance. Here one explanation would be to say that distance is exactly the same as time. That was my idea some time ago. But it fails into explaining other properties of time (like for example the sensation of time passing by) Then I came to this speculation: that time is pretty much like space, simply one step above. To say it simply, the 3D space dimensions are a section of the 4D spacetime. One observer in 3D can only observe things happening inside its own section. And there are unlimited such sections "sliding" in the 4th dimension. And not a single section "sliding in time". Because if it was only one single section, then the 4th dimension would "collapse" into 3D (which might be the case now that I am thinking of it). If I am correct, then: _There are objects behind us in Time, and forward (in the future), forming parallel universes only for observers that belong to them. _Any observer in each of the universe is able to send & receive information from his own observable universe only. He cannot have a direct contact with the next parallel universe, because of of the ISY/YSM symmetry. _Our Observable Universe is only a tiny part of the Whole Universe. _By some magic the missing mass & energy from our O.U. is lying in those parallel universes.

And just like that, he gets his travel bans. Expect him to pursue funding for the new Corona Wall.

That's good you saw that for yourself. So your 'signal' is actual a binary T or F in digital space. Yes in this non physical space you can have perfect rectangular, pulse and square waves. But I did not think we were talking about such spaces. And my UJT oscillator does not need a signal to drive it. It is self oscillating. The appearance of Gibbs depends upon the number of terms in Fourier series. It appears as finite damped ringing (overshoot and undershoot) for a finite number of terms. For infinite terms it appears as an infinite vertical line. The Fourier series for a square wave is special because something special happens with it. The whole of the rest of linear algebra is based upon the space of piecewise continuous funtions. This provides inherited properties, existence and uniqueness theorems we forget and take for granted. The most important of these is one which guarantees that whenever we add two or more continuous functions from the space we will get another continuous function from that space. But when we add the trigonometric functions to model a square wave we step ouside the space and the normal conditions for Fourier series. This condition states "There should be a finite number of discontinuites in the waveform being modelled" But a square wave has an infinite number of discontinuities.

Depends on the kind of scattering. Mie scattering has a forward bias. Rayleigh scattering does not (though it has a wavelength dependence) But isotropic scatter is a reasonable approximation for this discussion. OK, well, let's say you had a 1 W laser at 620 nm - that's 2 eV per photon. You would be emitting a little over 3 x 10^18 photons per second. Even if you had a billion people watching, that's the capacity to deliver 3 billion photons per second to every observer. We get far fewer photons into the eye when we observe If the number of photons falls below what the eye can detect, you don't see anything. Dim stars and/or ones far away can't be seen with the naked eye. You need to use a telescope, which has more light-gathering ability, in order to do so. And if you take a picture, which integrates the light gathering over time, you can see objects you can't see in real-time. edit: I now see Strange gave a similar example already.

Tim, I didn't read EVERYTHING here, but I think we need to take some facts into account, your thought experiment has certain assumptions that (if true) do make for some very weird interactions. Let's only think of the light as discrete photons and don't add in wave-duality. Photons go in straight lines. Only photons that reach our eyes can be seen. Photons won't randomly turn, but when they go through something such as air (many particles), some photons will interact with the air and bounce in other directions. That means, if there are no particles in between point A and point B, the photons keep going straight and if the laser isn't pointing into your eye, you won't see it. I am adding some numbers that I think I saw in the thread, their accuracy isn't relevant (a few zero's extra or more won't change much). Let's say our beam of photons is 1019 photons/second. That is 1016 every millisecond or 1/1000th of a second. The air is constantly moving, and there are many particles in the air for the light to scatter onto, so it's not too hard to imagine it scattering in 360 degrees. Even if only 1% of the light scatters over said distance, that is 1012 every 1/1000th of a second. These photons ARE detracting from the amount of photons in the beam. But the amount is so minimal that for us observes it seems like there is no difference (when talking about air, and distances that aren't too far). When you shine light through thick fog, the light that 'comes out' on the other side, is less strong than without the fog right? The same happens in air, but so little of the total light is scattered that it may not seem like any has scattered. If I shine a laser through 100 meters of vacuum, or through 100 meters of air and measure how many photons reach the other end per second, then the laser through air will have lost some photons to scattering. The scattering itself is independent of whether there are observes (people, we aren't talking about observers in the sense of the observer effect. Each gas particle that the photon beam interacts with, would be considered an 'observer' in the quantum sense, but I don't think this is relevant) I hope I use the terminology correctly for quantum observers in relation to the air particles, if other members could correct me on this, that would be great! Now the thing that you say about these 'holes' that will form where no photons will go (as more and more scatter), is (I think, but I could be wrong) true, however since the scattering is random, and people don't see 1 static picture but observe over time, those gaps will sometimes be filled (and other gaps will form). Additionally, over small distances such as the scales of our planet, those 'gaps/holes' where for brief moments there are no photons, will be so small (much smaller than our eyes), so that it doesn't really matter on these scales. But with a finite amount of photons, and great enough distances, eventually only 1 photon would reach you. It is just that in the thought experiment you have constructed, the distances are way too small for the amounts of photons that there are. Hope this helps and hopefully I didn't say anything wrong/incorrect -Dagl

I think I understand but don;t think I can help.. From 2nd link, you should see two layers - an upper chloroform layer and an aqueous lower layer - assume precipitated material in the middle. With lysis/chloroform addition, you certainly should have seen both layers. Suppose it's possible that excessive mixing might have effected an emulsion but hard to see that as stable. Suggest you call the Qiagen folks for help.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations ! Moderator Note Note that the rules of this section of the forum require you to support your claims with, for example, evidence or a mathematical model. If you are unable to do that in your next post, this thread will be closed.

Don't think an umbrella would help much... And the 'snow' would hurt like hell.

+1 because you are clearly stating your opinion...as opinion If someone doesn't like it they should argue against it. Neg repping it has no positive purpose. It doesn't, cannot, even indicate why on a post of this nature.

I tried to fix the formatting for you (manly so I could read it!)

! Moderator Note The rules of the Speculations forum require you to support your claims with evidence. If you do not provide support for this (plainly nonsensical) claim in the next post this thread will be closed.

I'm somebody who has done his undergrad in the east and has come to the west for grad. I'm questioning the choices made since as far as I can tell some are hard for me to understand for what I envisioned to be better and more established educational systems. I have also gotten mixed messages on how independent one should or should not be. I can and would prefer to be more independent. However, that does not seem possible within the current framework. In fact it makes it feel like a sisyphian task. I'm expected to be more independent but restrictions are placed such that I can't be. Maybe its more an issue with where I am currently specifically rather than the kind of system within this region in general. If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen. It's probably personal. A lot of students within the department have similar complaints about difficulty in things getting done. I don't think all of them have a poor balance but personally I do believe there are many.

I think any job in any field can be stressful. I imagine there are plenty of nuclear engineers who are stressed.

Gently pointing out that this is what I was talking about. You're about to start a second page of this thread, and you're talking about everything EXCEPT your supportive evidence. I wasn't trying to dismiss you or ridicule you. I was predicting your behavior based on evidence I've observed.

My posts are the ones with the Bugs Bunny avatar. Oh for God's sake grow up.

If you don't mind, refresh my memory. I have no idea at this point which comments you are referring to. Not from you. You made one useful comment for which I upvoted you. You haven't done anything I personally have found useful since then.

LOL! I was the first one to engage with you in conversation. You then proceeded to ignore my last comment regarding the OP. You are being a bit over sensitive if you quit posting here because of "the arrogance and disinclination to reason" by those who contributed. I re-read the thread and you received nothing but thoughtful and well reasoned responses. What were you expecting? A pat on the head and a "you poor thing"?

So you'd like me to show you a little more empathy?

I am under no obligation to explain myself when I give someone a negative or positive rep. However... Negative rep for his attitude that someone spending their time at night chillin' or on entertainment due to high stress levels at work is not acceptable. That it is instead probably a "personal" problem, and that if they "can't handle the heat they should stay out of the kitchen". It is my experience that trying to induce such an individual through reason to adopt some level of empathy for those who are having difficulties and are not as well balanced as him is a waste of time. Thus I'm more inclined to show my displeasure with such a person simply by clicking on that little down arrow and moving on.

(for evidence.) There are several ways to prove that our earth is actually a star. one way is to do "free fall" experiment on the moon. No... i mean star like sun but much smaller. True for now until physicists have found star smaller than our earth due to physicists believe that hydrogen fusion can not be happening on star like that. anyway... i really mean "deadly". Done. read from the top. If i wanted to ask questions i would not come here... i would go on the right topic and ask...

living on a deadly star. All of the giant planets are also stars.