JillSwift

Perpetual motion is impossible.

If the first mutation was not harmful, or carried a benefit of its own, it would not have been "selected out". So, I want to take this bunch of sand I have and keep the smaller particles and reject the larger. So, I run it through a fine wire mesh. The mesh selects for the smaller particles of sand, and rejects the larger. The wire mesh is intelligent, by your argument.

You're ignoring that a person is aware that they are considering another's point of view. It does not blur the boundaries of "I" and "Other" to consider an external point of view. In short, no matter how well one can "put one's self in another's shoes", you never become that other person - subjectively or objectively - unless you're having an episode of some sort of schizoid reality dysphoria or separation. Where it's true that we are a part of a universe without any separation from it, and in that the objective demarcation between "I" and "Other" is not as clear cut as we'd like to think, we still have our clear, if subjective, demarcations that we follow as a matter of the way our brains function. "I" am never "Other", unless things go wrong.

Tar; There is a significant difference between "as/of self" and "for self". You are suggesting that a person who loves loses identity boundaries to some extent. This is not so, except perhaps in isolated cases. We know full well the ones we love are people other than ourselves. Possessing anything also does not infer the loss of identity boundary. In fact, thanks to the typical human dualistic view of ourselves, when we say "our brain" we are considering the brain a separate entity from ourselves even when we know better. This isn't anything other than a limitation of language, and there is no evidence what so over of self-other boundary loss. The definition I provided recognizes "for self" - the emotions driving this interest in placing another person's needs and wants above their own can easily be, and are most likely, self-rewarding.

I don't see any control groups. I think this "study" is a victim of some serious confirmation bias.

As Insane_Alien said: No, not really. And again, it's one thing to have residual capacitor charge, and quite another to read it. RAM simply isn't a security problem like it was back when it was made of heavier capacitance material - and it hasn't been in ages.

Well, that's one major difference between engineering and science, hmm? No data, no leg to stand on.

I believe what is happening there isn't trying to make sure one's values meet the bible, but making sure the bible meet's ones values - specifically removing "liberal bias" from the bible.

No, but if you write-lock it, that won't make any difference. Nothing other than the boot software would ever be written to the disk, all else would be stored in RAM. I see now you're after "no trace" style security. I'm not sure using DRAM will give you any more security than SRAM would, in that case. Both have readable residual charges after power is removed. However, getting to those charges is wildly unlikely. Memory clears itself on re-application of power for the sake of maximal speed.

I'd have to disagree on the "as self" part, Tar. No one mistakes someone they love for themselves. Try this definition on for size: Love is an emotionally driven state where the one who loves considers the needs and wants of another (the beloved) to be - to some degree from little to overwhelmingly so - more important than their own needs and wants.

Lest they discover through the new knowledge of ancient languages that their view of their holy fiction has a different meaning than they currently hold to be true. The particular form of conservatism that is conservapedia is the no changes allowed version.

Green, you're not going to find what you're looking for. Storage is the cornerstone of computing, so what ever this special need is you have won't be filled by normal manufacturers. The closest thing I can think of to get you where you appear to be headed is a laptop or notebook with a small SSD in place of a hard drive on which your OS will live, configured to be read-only.

Jill would like to take a moment to say that Jill was never irritated by the rule that disallowed her from posting in Politics. Jill understands how rules come about I just couldn't find information on what constituted the criteria for posting. Now that information is out in a nice, concise form. I think it all worked out rather well ==

Ha! ==

I believe there is also a time limit of 24 hours - so no matter what the poor poster would live with that wee smack in the face for a day before you could mitigate it. Just think of the psychological damage!

They're talking about urea. ((NH2)2CO) It can be broken down by electrical current, and it will release hydrogen gas - a significant amount of energy in that hydrogen than was expended in releasing it.

It'd be nice to at least be able to "take it back". Especially given the potential to have given some rep 'cause you got angry.

Antibodies (immunoglobulins) are able to be very specific in the antigens they go after. It's a feature that allows for antibodies to be made that can isolate and destroy bacteria and other invading fauna without damaging the host, just in this case having gone terribly wrong, going after antigens unique to red marrow. Sorry. I just found it informative.

By destroying the marrow. Here's a paper on the disease: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120728124/abstract (Free download of the PDF).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqsX7xQWRoU

Could you take a step back from your microphone? The feedback whine is getting to be a bit much.

Sounds like a fallacy of the excluded middle. Again.

Oh, easily solved with stickers: "Danger: Do not lick the nuclear waste material."

I love awareness limit examples. They can be very humbling, though I believe that I have a greater ability to track more.. um... ooh! Shiny!

*whap* Dang I didn't duck in time.