Sayonara

I would have thought the title alone would have put him off.

When the problem is pathological.

Those are all very good points.

This thread is about the biological mechanisms which determine pigmentation in human offspring. ALL human offspring. Please refrain from attributing spurious motives to the discussion.

I think this might be a case of coming up with a post to fit the thread title.

I suspect he means to say that they "continue themselves" through the mere existence of their daughter cells.

Okay, so maybe it goes from "a number equal to or higher than 369" down to zero.

How good are you at distinguishing different hues and putting them in order? http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?PageID=77 Scoring is from 100 to 0. Zero is a perfect score. I got a 3 on an uncalibrated budget LCD tv, which was quite pleasing

You had every chance to put forward your ideas in a readable state, and to reply to questions or criticisms in a direct and rational manner. You chose to respond with gibberish. There is a difference between simply replying to a thread and actually responding to the discussion. If you are going to go, just go. Nobody here is interested in reading your own forum eulogy and I sincerely doubt anybody will be following you or your ideas to another site, unless it is out of morbid fascination. PS - the word is "woe".

I would assume he is talking about the light energy absorbed per unit mass, volume, or coverage area. It would be nice to have some more specific technical details though, wouldn't it?

The article doesn't say they are 500 times more efficient; it says that they absorb 500 times more light than commercially-available cells. That is not the same thing.

Yes, it is. As is your resistance to the concept of testing ideas. Thread closed for the final time.

Right... so do you see how repeatedly claiming that the "proof" is in there does not make it look like you are investigating possible experimental methods?

We don't "have to" believe anything. If you have discovered some effect or entity hitherto unknown to science, you need to determine a means of demonstrating its existence and causation in a verifiable and repeatable fashion. Otherwise the claim is worthless.

It really isn't.

No, that is not how it works. You don't seem to have much of a grasp of how scientific advances are progressed. Regardless of whether you are serious or this is some kind of satire, you are making yourself look very silly.

It doesn't qualify as either.

I presume you mean kook, unless voodoo chile has promised to lay on the voodoo chiles tonight? /me digs out his chile spoon.

This thread, it has to be said, is a hotbed of optimism if nothing else.

Oh no, not HIM. I still have nightmares about what happened last time he got near a big physics experiment.

Stop being so paranoid. There are no consumer-grade printers capable of producing a convincing forgery anyway, never mind ones that contact the CIA every time someone prints a novelty dollar.

I think everything has been said about the options available: be in such a position that you already have an access protocol, or don't try.

Why don't you scan in a note and try to print it?

Or to put it another way, today you will either die or not die, whilst talking.

Not in dispute from me. That is a false requirement. MSG - along with the millions of compounds which you might claim can occur naturally in food by ion pair formation - does not form spontaneously in food products. It is produced by a very specific kind of fermentation, mediated by bacteria which are normally only found in soil and on human skin.