starbug1

Is it a matter of the uncertainty principle that we can never reach absolute zero, or is it a matter of we just haven't figured out how?

How do we come about running supersonic?

I understand what you mean when our developments of contraceptives, gene therapy, and other fertility advancements have become an accepted form of technology. However, Do you not see that the two points you bring up here are unreliable and very much an undersighted opinion of what should be accepted. Similar features--when it comes to your own kids, do you think people are going to say, oh, as long as he or she looks like us. You mentioned family was the cornerstone to civilization, when what this is doing is an outright offbalance and slow decline of the meaning you and I and others accept. People are more emotional and involved than that. There are more than principles at stake here. Let's face it, humans, or families, more specifically, average families, are usually better than ignorant when it comes to their own offspring. And I won't even go into the gene pool problems this causes. ...we'll see... There will be a lOOONG time of natural evolution in the human species before we see such a change occuring. I am for studying eugenics and am positive when it comes to the possible outcomes, but when an opinion like this is so brash and vague, I can't help but shoot it down with criticism. You must realize--you might already--that humans in our current societies are unable, as a whole, to yet be swayed in their opinions, which, I might add, are sometimes unbelievably stupid and narrowminded, and are "primitive," more or less, in their ways of acceptance. The human race is an unworkable substance. Cultures, wars, religions, e.g. This is too one-sided. What's ethical? What are the problems?... Outright disagreement is not what I'm alluding to. I want to know why you really think these things. Fact is, not everyone is compassionate; we don't encourage these people to procreate, it just happens. Like bad genes. They are still here, and why? It's because these people with unfortunate genes and birthrights are not in any way a minority and they prosper and reproduce. Ruling out such genes is what this whole topic is about. And to tell the truth, such families, a fraction of them, should not start families (a lot of them shouldn't be families to start), but they do it anyway, and it can't be stopped because it's not "ethical." The term "family" has been spit on, coming into the 21st century. There is a certain deterioration of what's right, and lack of thought about why? and consequences. Would you not agree that divorce, child abuse, alcoholism, as well as the lack of seriousness in religion (in some cases) is at a rise. If you say no, do some googling, the numbers are a disgrace:mad: But it is my belief that compassion takes no part in such a radical propogation of this theory, like the one you take. What we do to help the diseased is in betterment for the 'now,' for profession and "monetary incentive," and for "our immediate future." In this, yes, we are compassionate. Yet how, I wonder, does this play into ruling out bad genes to excel artificial selection? You seem to take a strong stand on propeling these ideas of bettering civilization; however, you move to conservative ideals when you talk about hunger and helping the weak. This is more a stand on world peace, I would think. Your idea, to start, ultimately rules out these groups with unfortunate genetics. Reducing reproduction in some areas of the world is a possiblilty for furthering your points on making better humans from better traits. Facing the pros and cons, and debating them to their realistic and believable and moral values is what's hard, that's the short end of the stick. What are some of your choices (or characterists) for those on either side?

Isaac Asimov is the only author to publish a book in every category of the Dewey Decimal system except philosophy.

You are absolutely right here, selective breeding takes away from our right to choose a mate, but only if you do mate is this ever a problem. And the problem is that most people do. Raising a family is, in most cases, another stage of life. The fact remains that other people still reproduce as well, namely the kinds of people who would be counter balancing the world's population of genetically superior with genetically inferior individuals. This is why there is an equlibrium of traits, so to speak. Let's face it, there are a lot of people breeding whose line of genes should STOP there. But what can you do about it? It was already addressed, if my memory serves me right, that some people feel that couples should have to take a test before they have a child or become parents for that matter. If it wasn't, then I'm stating it here. This, of course, wouldn't rule out teen pregnancy and orphaned children, but it would help some other problems, such as divorce, child abuse, etc. And this is where Martin's theory comes in. That people can: I understand that this system applys to couple's wanting to rule out a genetic mutation, potentially harmful to offspring, though wouldn't serve effective to people without any defects. Now to the point I want to make. Someone could always choose a preferred mate, which wouldn't necessarily offset selective breeding. Donated sperm can always be tried as a starter for selective breeding. This also creates test tube babies that may be without mothers. But then appropriate parents can be given, though if not, it does seem to look an awful lot like "Brave New World." This isn't so bad as you would think, yet there are those who think this looks like nazi behavior, which even studying is something to look down upon. The study wouldn't even get by, let alone putting it into practice. It's clear, then, that if we don't want another quasi-Hitler regime form of purging the undesirables and creating a genetically superior race, then there really isn't much choice for who you mate with. It's your RIGHT to choose, and you are free to mate with whom you please. That's what scares me. And we go nowhere because of it. We have the means to excel evolution and produce exceptional breeds of humans, and yet we haven't done so successfully. Here are the reasons why I believe we can't do this (and some of these may have already been addressed one way or another.): 1. a conflict of religions beliefs/cultures 2. no area/population large enough could agree on such a proposal. And while the government can't legally, I assume, create a hereditary program using eugenics, there would be little restrictions as far as laws and higher supervision go. 3. World, or national, relations are never so obliging or in good terms for this to work. It might even create another war from the conflict. 4. Take the example of the Spartans. The ideal characterist in play produces so small a number advantages and even might eradicate other, vital traits, and the number of people that yield the traits are so small, that it may prove to be impossible, or a very long time before any progress can be seen, and to a vast scale, hopefully without too many problems. There may be more points to mention, but the main point is that, although we have the means, the technology, we, as a race, cannot go about it eye to eye. And it is my hope that sometime in the near future, humans can get past this, even though this is unlikely, because I think a lot of prospering can come from most aspects of eugenics, even if it seems too complicated and problematic.

I think I've seen a graph similar in sonar. I might be wrong, but I wanted to know if this is even practical. It doesn't seem like any definate plot, but more like a pattern. Maybe if you knew where you got the equation you could better understand its meaning/uses.

A search engine might be your first bet. You'd get more clear informative information faster if you just google it. 'S what I always do. ...Of course, you could always wait until someone posts and gives you some links...

Nothing will shut the "Idiots" up. There will always be new proof, and there will always be those who deny answers....You can't change that.. good link, though...

Does anyone remember Seinfeld?!!! I have always been able to relate life to something depicted in Seinfeld...and this is no different. There is an episode where Jerry is using the restroom and the owner of the restaurant he is in comes out of the stall and leaves. Jerry looks around in disgust/disbelief. As a result of this, Jerry won't eat anyfood the chef has prepared...proceed many hilarious scenes... I mentioned this to show the effect it has on the public. Although the chef did not wash his hands in the restroom, there was always the possiblity of washing them in the kitchen. Even though this is so, it makes people very queasy...I think we're better off not knowing, because this sort of event will happen no matter where you go. *this may also be why people just run their hands under the facet--to reassure everyone else; it works, of course, and it also makes you look like you have more hygiene than you really do...kind of dishonest, but at least it prevents you from getting any funny looks from the people when you don't wash.*

After watching the NOVA video on the Big Bang, I thought more about the theory that there are several Big Bangs between different universes. This works in to parallel universes, and if there are more universes and myriad big bangs, how could you not believe there was time before the "Big Bang" that we know of. Basically everything was answered to a certain degree in the Elegent Universe video(s). If you haven't watched them yet, they are very interesting, if not educational. I think I'm going to read "The Elegant Universe" now, that did it for me.

I missed it!!!! Do you know if there will be a re-run???? Please, oh please!!

I have the same feeling about sharp objects, but the biggest problem I have is to lower my chin and cover my neck with my hand when I see someones neck getting slit on tv. I've never been able to break the habit. Maybe this is some form of protecting our weak spots. After seeing pointy objects we have to make sure all our bases are covered...I don't know...I could never explain it...

How 'bout Terry Brooks' "Shannara" series. I found those to be one of the best fantasy series. Or Ray Bradbury -- "the greatest living science-fiction writer" What beats "The Martian Chronicles" or "The Illustrated Man"??!?!? C'mon, possibly the greatest writer in sci-fi/tech/doctoral literature--Dr. Michael Crichton... You know...Jurassic Park, Congo, Timeline, Sphere, do I have to list any more...

wouldn't that also be more dangerous...? eek face

Well, Kyrisch, Matt C has the basic answer for the "rain" problem. But because rain, and weather in general, are so unpredictable, there would be no mathematical equation (not that I know of.) to show the rate of the "wetness factor." Now, standing miserable in the rain is another problem altogether. A tree, like Matt C suggested, is not always ideal because the raindrops coming from the trees are usually bigger (if the tree has leaves. If the tree does not have leaves, well, then it wouldn't be very helpful, would it?) Of course there are also the "variables of wind, temperature (of the air and rain), and, let's call it "types of rain" There is also the fact that you are standing in an area most likely to get your feet wet, if not by the ground, then because the rain tends to "splatter" so to speak. It has been proven that you pick up water (rain) faster when walking or running, but put to practical use I've found that myself and others tend to become "less miserable" when walking running, or doing some sort of active body movement. Although you may be getting more wet, you are activating body heat, which usually makes a cold wet day more bearable. That's if, and only if, you don't have to wait long! Basically, there is no set equation for "normal conditions" because there are no "normal conditions" in rain patterns. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if there were a mathematical equation for a "controlled experiment of rain" using equal rain (water) distribution and wind conditions that are controlled or nonexitent. ...so pack your raincoats and galoshes because weather can be unpredictable?

I'm guessing no one has read it. I can't honestly think it was a joke, if that's the problem. What's the problem, no fans?

Out of the people I've seen and observed I would say that a libido in both sexes is strong. Men tend to 'show off' this sexual aggressiveness, while women tend to keep a more tongue in cheek libido. Women may be more conservative, and, like Mokele said, more picky. I've heard most women talk of relationships, while most men talk of sex in general. But there are women who would appear this way as well--overly aggressive. On the whole, it's nature for men to be more aggresive, women will be, but only selectively. And that is why a sex-drive is more evident in men. This genetic payoff works into the equation as well.

I'm wanting some feedback on the book "Communion" by Whitley Strieber. I would really like to discuss this book and the strange realness to it. I don't know anybody else who has read it, and I am hoping this thread will find some who have. Opinions? Comments? Links?

We'll never be able to figure this out by science. Where's your faith!?!? You have to be divine and spiritualy connected before even thinking about walking on water. Even then you wouldn't want to because you wouldn't feel the need to prove yourself. Only when the times calls for it, as in light of a miracle, can you prove your gift. Jesus was one cool dude! Too bad he never wrote a book on his gifts!

I believe that some people can't comprehend what life is really about. On the other hand, I also believe some people are so obsessed with death they are afraid of virtually everything. i.e. phobias, and lots of them. And further still, exceptance. This diversity creates equilibrium in population. I, too, think that we have some inhibiting function that takes us away from the real question, "what is life?" One can think about it for an hour, a day, or a week, and then conclude that it was a good brain teaser, but I want I vacation. Without fun and periods "laid back" brain time (this doesn't mean to stop thinking altogether) one would go crazy (and some have.) I can relate this "something in our brain" to the book Battlefield Earth, by L. Ron Hubbard. The Psychlos are implanted with a nerve/synapse relay inside their brains. This is done at birth, so none of them realize it. The whole gist is to engage certain dramatic brain signals according to language response. If one speaks of anything threatening to the Psychlos, such as Psychlo math or weapons, the switch kicks on and sends the victim into a coma. Other reactions include suicide and violence. Probably not the case with us humans, but interesting to think about. What if?

Oculomotor macropsia

We agree on something at least. I'm saying that natural selection is the process in which the stronger--more intelligent, cabable, what have you--survive. I believe it has been stated as "survival of the fittest." And we are more determined in a way because we haven't fallen behind in our superiority in a sense. The more determined of a species to survive is because it is a fight of populations. All of us (animals) can't live. Therefore, determination and brought us to the top. But yes, evolution selects determination in a species. All species living are proof of that. Determinism is similar to intelligence level a. because humans invented that philosophy and b. because we understand this premise. Instinctual drive is always present in every species; however, as far as I know, humans can choose to ignore them or even stregthen them. This ties in with that whole suicidal bomber example. Believe me, I know what you are saying, but your replies completely circumvent mine. The same thing you think I am doing. You have reason, I have reason but... BINGO! opinions. You have opinions. I am trying to back up evident of "Why we like living," with proven evidence of our determinism and determination. I have my opinions too, but for some reason you think they are more valid than facts. I'll clear two things up: One, determination is strong in both humans and animals. Determinism is avoidable in humans; we have free-will, humans don't always have determinism. Animals know nothing other than determinism, and so they accept it without any passion (partly because they are not as complex as humans.) Two, that humans have, on many occasions, shown non-animalian survival traits is proof of a more capable determination. We have hope, we can rely on religion, we can rely on others, we can think, we can problem solve, we can exert our right not to survive, we can drive ourselves to survive by any means possible. Now, you may argue that an animal would have the same traits if he were able, and because they don't doesn't mean they have any less determination to live. That's just it. Because we have evolved into something more capable, more efficient, more complex, this also heightens our determination, and our awareness of determinism as well as many other things. Can we state it simply that humans and animals both love to live and are determined to keep it that way? Though that humans are above animals in many aspects means that we are more aware, more knowledgable about our choices in life, and ultimately death? That humans can think for ourselves, giving us the right to try harder, or less, or not at all? Show me this in an animal. (Keeping in mind that some of these traits have been shown in primates) I'll admit, I did typo here. Determinism was supposed to be determination. We've proved that wrong! and I'm sorry if I offended you and called you blind to logic. And no, my mother did not tell me to apologize.

The think about geniuses is that those who aren't geniuses can never grasp what it would really be like. Ok, maybe you can give me the facts and quote me a thing or two, but that doesn't mean you really know. Of course, Einstein wrote down all of his work, but it really is fascinating to know the potential of the human mind. Either that or Einstein stole the E=mc2 idea from the patent office.

oxygenuk, Everything in that magazine is fake, bogus, a hoax! I was sucked in once. I was intrigued when I first picked up a copy of Weekly Worly News, and it just so happens that this one was somewhat believable. I say somewhat. The only good in them is to have something to laugh at with your friends.