Genecks

Hello, fate sister. I am God. I am owed at least one million United States dollars. I declare war on planet Earth until I have such. I also expect interest on it. You are the fool. I do not forgive. Abolition of negligence does not allow such. Aka, bite the curb.

I've been having difficulty accessing a computer for long periods of time. So, I think what I meant about Jeremiah Johnson was that one might want to focus on survival skills, camping, preparedness, food readiness, etc..The movie was decent, but him helping the people in the civil war lead to some death, which was unfortunate. Basically, I was suggesting getting better at camping and survivalism. Otherwise, I think if aliens came here, just being mediative shouldn't cause much of an issue. Hopefully, they wouldn't shoot first. But about Bitcoin, it seems to keep moving forward. There are hotspots if you look at coinmap that don't seem to care about Bitcoin. I think that shows those kinds of people are using a fair amount of reptilian-complex thinking. Otherwise, where there is a fair amount of Bitcoin being spread, there is communistic thinking, sharing, etc.. I was in Chicago from 2009 to 2011, and again in 2012, and I didn't see shooting. I was at a place some time ago and someone said Chicago was having street violence, but it has tended to. I think my county has been locking me here. I'm not suggesting anyone rebuild Roguesci.org anytime soon, though. So, I think Bitcoin is what the legal system hoped it could be. For what I've read, the legal system came about due to alleged inefficiencies in marketplace economics. However, with Bitcoin, it surely appears to short the legal system and help expand the idea that "things just happen" rather than making a legal argument about culpability. By reptilian thinking, I mean they are highly adversarial rather consciously focusing on mediation. With the Federal Reserve, it's said "In God We Trust," which is an argument that the Federal Reserve makes. So, it seems that God is replacing the Federal Reserve with Bitcoin. Thus, the Federal Reserve has been negligent.

I'd suggest not street fighting. I think Bitcoin works toward mediation. I think entropy works toward mediation. If somehow fighting comes out of bitcoin, that seems just like the natural flow of events, entropy. Sure, fighting might seem like the quick, right fast idea. But if people can just be calm and talk through issues, then great. * Also, I'm not Washu Hakubi if that's been an issue. Maybe indirectly, but I don't call myself Washu Hakubi everyday, as far as I'm aware.

Ok, I'm looking at what appear to be the affects effects of Bitcoin. Now, there is the whole ~21 million Bitcoin possible to produce. But that's not just relative to Earth's money. That's kind of like it's auditing the entire universe, as if there can only be ~21 million Bitcoins in the universe. If there are aliens out there, they're more than likely going to feel the economic pressure of Bitcoin and come to Earth to check out what's going on (unless they're already hear here looking into things). * aside: It kind of has a "feel" to it that reminds me of when Q brought the Borg to Captain Picard (I never saw the full episode with such, but, yeah, kind of the idea). By auditing, I mean the SHA-2 protocol is looking over transactions. One of the things that Satoshi doesn't seem to talk about is how the SHA-2 protcol is mediating the financial dispute between things. It's adjudicating the financial transaction. It's fighting/courting/auditing for the transaction to occur. It's doing a lot of analysis. I'm tired. We can keep arguing about it, but I'll have to come back over a longer period of time to discuss the issue. The SHA-2 protocol is the third party (kind of like the federal reserve). Satoshi, in the paper, writes (has described) about a third-party issue but doesn't seem to mention SHA-2 as then being interpreted as a third party. I saw soon enough that you appeared to be using the Socratic method. By whirlpool, I mean vacuum. Again, look at the Fermi paradox issue I have mentioned in this post. It's like it's collapsing the universe toward Earth from an interpretation I have. Reverse dark energy is simply a term I was using as an expression of an idea. I think I've answered your question intelligibly enough unless we want to get into Agrippa's trilemma and and/or the Münchhausen trilemma. And so on.

I'm feeling beat up. No, not an advert. Also, "why" as a question comes off somewhat as schizoaffective. So, I could argue because you're schizoaffective, which you might feel bitter about. AKA determinism vs. block universe. I'm interested in it due my interpretation of its capabilities: Fermi paradox, computer simulation hypothesis, mathematical universe hypothesis, and whatever else. For the Fermi paradox, assuming the SHA-2 protocol is doing a lot of courting (aka auditing), then it's like a whirlpool effect is being created. It's like it's making a "reverse" dark matter energy(?) situation, thus pulling things toward Earth: Like a whirlpool effect. source: https://www.nasa.gov/missions/deepspace/f_dark-energy.html Theft argues free will. Are you arguing free will, Endy0816? You equivocate then to talking about "...how we naturally tend to misplace money." What comes to mind is the following: 1. "I didn't steal it. I borrowed it." 2. "I didn't steal it. I misappropriated it." etc... You have said X (shorting) is not Y (theft). Ok... But you've not operationally defined your Y-variable. You, endy, use the word "naturally." However, I think it was consider science relative to its former "natural science," then we're talking about the school of determinism rather than free will. By "natural science," I'm referring to naturalism (if I recall my associative learnings about the word "natural" and "nature"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy) Even from the school of determinism, you can't really have theft. Yes, this becomes a philosophy of law issue. No, I'm not discussing this on philosophyforums.com. I'm talking about this here on scienceforums.net. I'm also somewhat unappreciative of how Paul's (admin of philosophyforums.com if still the admin) website got hacked/attacked from a sleeper thingy. - sleeper (Wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeper_agent

I'm going to move around from the computer I'm using and maybe comeback in a week or more to this thread. Some things I'd like to clarify: 1. By trigonometric interpretation of reality, for a lack of a better term, I think the better term would have been mathematical universe hypothesis. 2. If Pi radians is equivalent to the maximum number of potential bitcoins produced, then I believe it's reasonable to argue that a multiple of Pi helps create variability in a price floor, whereas the Satoshi coin is currently the price floor with the Bitcoin project (if I understand correctly). 3. Pi would be 360-degrees. Max. number of bitcoins able to be produced would be ~21 millions (whatever it has been marked at, and that amount would be equivalent to 360-degrees, too, right? 3.a. That is relevant to a unit circle discussion

So, in relation to "pulling out a thesis," I'll give an interpretation of what I think Satoshi Nakamoto's thesis was: Bitcoin is good because it works toward preventing the double-spending problem. - I relate it to Karl Marx's thesis from the Communist Manifesto, "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." - I like to spin Karl Marx with my educational neuroscience background and say the following: Abolition of the schizoaffective disorder (Block universe theory argument). - I will spin it further even more because of some law knowledge I have: Abolition of negligence. (Also, I'm closing on the idea of giving out rep for pulling out a thesis). However, if you want to provide one, go for it. I'll spend some time looking at the arguments provided in this thread. From which, I'll work toward providing counter arguments. I'll tackle one right now: 1. The virus has to get there first. It's only possible if its occurs. However, the term "lose" is not something I care for. From a communist interpretation, an individual is shorting a good for someone. That's like me burning down the place you live (assuming you live in an apartment or house) to make it cheaper and more efficient for you to live without a house. Sure, you might at first be all like, "OMG, WTF ARE YOU DOING?!?!?!" But then when you lose your schizoaffective disorder you're all like, "Wait.... wait a moment... huhn.... it's become cheaper and more efficient for me to live without a house." AKA you might get better at being a Street Fighter or Jeremiah Johnson type. see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Destructors - Consider the burning of the house to be like the release of resources back to society. 2. Black market issue Well, I'll posit (block universe theory and problem of induction) that we already live in anarchy. So, well, "mobocrats" provide an illusion of order (provide a shizoaffective delusion). And that what you call a black market starts fades away (AKA increased legalization of things that were previously considered illegal). Although Silk Road was shut down, there has allegedly been an increase in the legalization of marijuana in the United States of America (from various sources I come across). In Illinois, simple possession of marijuana has become a fine rather than jail time. 1. I have not read anything about people saying there will be problems with building efficient hard drives for storage of the block chain. 2. Intel appears to be having an issue with making CPUs. (source: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600716/intel-chips-will-have-to-sacrifice-speed-gains-for-energy-savings/) another link: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601441/moores-law-is-dead-now-what/ 3. Network load distribution means more computers rather than one large supercomputer handling mining and transactions. 4. I don't perceive things as "loss" but instead "shorting," which is somewhat of an "illusion" itself. 5. I'll take a look into the chargeback issue. I don't think that ought to be a serious issue. See #4. 6. Again, #4, in relation to human factors, etc, inside jobs, etc, .... 7. Again, rather than stealing, shorting.

I didn't see any general discussion immediate bitcoin threads on SFN in the search the last time I looked, so I am making this thread. I'm outsourcing. If you don't know about bitcoin, you may want to start here: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf I have read and read about the bitcoin project, and it seems great. I took some accounting classes in high school, been paid a paycheck, had to experience what it's like to "know the value of a dollar," so I understand the principles of what is going on. What I like about Bitcoin is that on a more mature level, it's like it's auditing the value of a dollar so that you REALLY know what it means to earn that dollar, thus reducing "fraud" as Satoshi Nakamoto put in his paper. However, if we talk away the dimensionality of "fraud" and call it negligence/ignorance/etc. we may still be on the same page. I don't know what Satoshi's background was/is, but this system is extremely clever. I reason people have considered making such a system, but this thing can punch out data. If I'm slamming my fist on the table saying, "I wanna see results, and I want to see them today," the Bitcoin project does a great job of that. I think there are a lot of competing interests against the Bitcoin project. As such, from reading sources about Bitcoin throughout the Internet, it seems people are conflicting their views and not keeping descriptive about what's going on. There appears to be a level of sophistry, deceit, etc.. It seems like there is information warfare going on in relation to the Bitcoin project. In theory, it appears mostly sound. What Satoshi appears to have argued is that if you can get a fast enough computer to screw it all up, then like you might be able to break it. But as the project goes on, the level of difficulty increases. Otherwise, it keeps chugging away at being hardcore. It seems like a positive feedback loop. But, for what I understand, as Satoshi seems to mention, if you CAN break it, re-invest in it again for auditing to occur so that Bitcoin can keep doing what it's supposed to be doing. Seems like a win-win situation. From my perspective of the Satoshi "paper," if you could falsify Bitcoin, it just comes back stronger than before. So, of the things... 1. Bitcoin vs. Gold 2. The block size (Bitcoin vs. Gold) I read one source, and it was denying Bitcoin as a correlatory to gold, but another said that Bitcoin and gold were strongly negatively correlated. I suck on a Mac, so I'm having a hard time adjusting, so no, I'm not grabbing the sources at the moment. However, from the way I interpreted the data, it seems as though Bitcoin has been a force that pulled America out of the recession. http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-gold-prices-correlated/ https://tradeblock.com/blog/bitcoin-correlations-to-macro-environment-gold-and-yuan-standouts (The block size) Then there is this alleged block size issue. It seems like people are complaining that transactions are not going fast enough. However, I have read Satoshi Nakamoto's paper. If I understand correctly, the complaining is extremely petty. Due to how increased decentralization is occurring over time, the rate of decentralization should compensate for increased users and increased amounts of transactions. Otherwise, it appears that people are pushing fluff in order to decentralize and destroy the bitcoin project by alleging there is an issue when there really isn't an issue, as if but "attempting" to get the Bitcoin project to fork via sophistry. (one other thing) It seems to me that, wow, that Bitcoin might actually bring old school computers back from the dead. One argument appears to be that Bitcoin might fail due to a lack of CPU speed to keep increasing. However, it appears to me that with decentralization, the network will compensate... So, I think that means old-school tech, such as 1980s computers, might pop up to start processing transactions in a decentralized fashion. Where there is a lack of super-fast CPUs, then a large number of old-school CPUs will pop-up in a decentralized manner to compensate (network load dispersal). I guess that is like saying Earth will become Cybertron. There are interesting questions, though. Such as, well, where are the time traveler's? I guess if Bitcoin keeps continuing the way it does, it will expose individuals pushing illusion and deceit. (i'll be awesome) So, I'll be awesome and contrib some more. I watched the Bitcoin video The Rise and Rise of Bitcoin. http://bitcoindoc.com/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2821314/ The dude seems to have made a reptillian-complex "mistake," which was thinking he could capitalize on a communistic project. At least, I'll argue that for the moment. He was part of Bitcoin, "tried" to make some kaching in the process, and later on wanted to sell his box to "try" and reclaim money. When I saw that, I thought "Well, the market pushed him out of Bitcoin," but really ought to have been said was, "He became schizoaffective." Or something like that. Because what he ought to have done was setup his box and walk away until the market persuaded him to decentralize his box. Now, it could be argued that the market (perhaps even more arguable the influence of the Bitcoin project itself) persuaded him to decentralize his box by selling it off. However, well enough, with the decentralization idea, it may have been well enough for him to setup a box and walk away. I think he was schizoaffective in the sense that he "thought" he was going to turn a profit and "increase" his wealth. From my interpretation, it appears (in a sense) that the project does auditing for you so that you have an "increased" realization of the wealth you have. (aside) I probably learned about Bitcoin from totse or zoklet, but I'm not sure. I learned about it long ago, probably when it first started (was probably at UIChicago, thus too busy to deal with it). But looking at it again, it's really cool. (another thing) I only saw one serious problem with bitcoin. However, I think people should keep using Bitcoin UNTIL the market forces the new technology out. Because the whole aspect of auditing and decentralization is wayyy more important and Bitcoin is already doing an excellent job of that. So, it's like saying that my issue is petty and would be resolved in the far future, and even if Bitcoin is falsified on this issue, Bitcoin will continue to be used until whenever. It's this 0.0000008 (Satoshi coin) whatever level of increment. This numerical minimum operand (if you will) doesn't seem to be good. I would think Satoshi should have used some fraction of pi (a pi multiple) to be handed out from mining. Allegedly, the last amount of bitcoin to be mined is a Satoshi? Well, seems like it would be better if it was some universal variable, such as "pi." Thus a multiple of pi or something like that. Perhaps someone sees what I'm arguing. Thus rather than a Satoshi it would have been a fraction of pi. With that in mind, the unit circle could be taken into consideration, along with the sine wave/function and trigonometric interpretations of reality, thus reducing any serious issues. I'd love it if Satoshi "himself" could comment on that issue. I guess that's like saying there should have been a "pi halving." read more about pi here: http://www.jasonthalken.com/2015/05/is-pi-really-universal.html Regardless, the technology, I would think, for the decentralization and to manage such a pi system would be darn near similar to the Bitcoin system's decentralization methodology, making it kind of not so immediate of a concern. The concern appears to be the decentralization and increase of a system to deal with network load for a P2P system. The main concern is building the P2P system to help deal with the double-spending problem. I would much rather see Bitcoin continue to be used and my minimum numerical operand issue to be considered petty. I think well enough that Bitcoin could be translated ("currency exchanged") for a different monetary system soon enough after it does a lot of its auditing. Just like there is an alleged "meeting point" for how X amount Bitcoin matches Y amount United States Dollars, there ought to be something to match the pi operand view. Thus, a buy-sell point would be figured out without too much trouble. So, it wouldn't be too much of an issue to KEEP USING BITCOIN until enough people can work together on a more accurate system (assuming my pi view is more "accurate"). So, Bitcoin might be falsified on the "Satoshi standard," but the "Pi standard" might take over. So, the Satoshi standard would continue to be used until the Pi standard is adopted, and "gravity" or "market forces" would eventually let that happen. Again, the whole P2P system appears to be the most important aspect rather than a Satoshi or Pi standard: Getting the network built for trading of widgets seems more important at the moment than the auditing of the widgets themself. Both are important. However, for a P2P system, you want to focus on the decentralization which is correlated if but helps the auditing process. I mean, if there are ridiculous numbers of computers distributed out to handle the network load and a "better" system that is P2P comes along, all people really got to do is convert the cash and setup the new software. That appears to be something that would be MUCH easier than totally starting from a system with one computer in like Greenland doing a lot of the crunching and WAITING AND WAITING for the load and auditing system to be distributed throughout. Sand dollars to Gold to dollars/yen/AUS/etc.. to Bitcoin to "other P2P cash" KEEP USING BITCOIN. I'm like totally not going to program that pi stuff. lol, uhh no. *smh* no... A series of falsifications might create a "too big to fail" belief, but that would be wrong. The banks should not have been bailed out by the U.S. government, as I believed. That's like saying that each time someone builds a house of cards, slap it down. Because the next house of cards is going to be "better looking" and more "accurate." Regardless, the auditing that Bitcoin is doing is more than likely WAYYYYYYY more accurate than the Federal Reserve due to human error in the Federal Reserve, so I think people can be patient enough with Bitcoin and take the "loss" if and when a "better" system comes about. Again, it seems like it's more about "helping" or auditing for the realization of wealth rather than schizoaffectively "attempting" to get rich. Bitcoin is wayyy better than USD, for how I perceive things. So, Bitcoin is really cool and should continue to be used until enough people can "get together" on something more "accurate." There would be a "cost" to getting the P2P network setup, so people might bicker and argue about that and use an X amount Bitcoin (Satoshi standard) trades for Y amount Bitcoin (pi standard). Or Genecks standard. That'd be cool, too. POINTS IF ANYONE CAN PULL OUT SATOSHI'S THESIS FROM THE PAPER!! (I'll give out rep for decent attempts). understandably, you might argue that it's dependent on Satoshi. I'll consider what theses people argue was "his" thesis, though.

Why bother? There are a lot of neurobiology texts already. If you want me to look at this more seriously, I want you to compare and contrast your text with other sources. AKA Why should I care? For instance, I wrote a blog entry on IR spectra because whenever I started reading someone's view of what IR spectra is about and how to "learn" it, it hardcore sucked. It didn't take enough consideration of the audience member. Total noob, strapped for time, etc.. I reckon you're better off helping Wikipedia. Reading it, I like the analogies. But, I think you're wasting your time and talent. If I'm being managerial, I'd take you and tell you to go figure out what people are having a hard time learning in neurophysiology, collect that data, and find a way to enhance learning in those more difficult topics. I guess I'm telling you to abandon the project.

I've not seen secondary sources discussing such.

Meh?

The brunt of it all is in making flashcards and memorizing reactions mechanisms. For a beginner, you'll want to quickly (as this will be something you can do during break) learn how to name organic molecules. There is a naming system. That is something that is easy to do during break. Mechanisms is more than likely something you will be learning in lecture, as that may be professor-specific, whereby the instructor presents a certain view on how the mechanism occurs.

I hated OCHEM. It brought about me an extreme, deep dissatisfaction for modern education. Actually, a lot of stuff I learned after getting my degree has persuaded me to think that modern education (at least mostly as I experienced it) is very, VERY bad. I got no real good things to say about that there OCHEM. However, OCHEM... 1. Curved 2. Lot's of memorization 3. See my blog entry on IR Spectra 4. Hit them flashcards 5. #4 again, and again, and again, and they should be in your back pocket, and again.... *slams head on table over and over again -- not really, but you get it* I mean, curved, right? Why is it curved? Oh, duhhhh I dunnoooo, maybe it's because the instructor is a total #$@%ing ditz and doesn't understand what he or she is doing and let's some philosophical interpretation of statistics help him/her out. F'in sophist. I think I argued with iodine (above poster) about some of this stuff before. There are conflicting views on how OCHEM is handled. I found the second semester to be twice as difficult as the first (so I recall arguing once). Do more analyses on OCHEM forgetting with a forgetting curve to see how much has been "lost," and make the course way more relaxed. It's mindless the way I at least experienced it. The course seems to be jacked up because of the AMA and admissions restrictions. I think the barrier to entry is too high. "try" to simplify certain groups (or branches of chemicals) to -R when making mechanism flashcards (discovered this myself(). Simplifies tons of crap. http://blogs.scienceforums.net/genecks/2013/06/08/how-to-read-an-ir-spectrum/

Is there an age limit here on SFN? Otherwise, my ... lol ... quick answer is to tell your daughter to sign up for an account here. I could rattle on for a long time about a lot of stuff. No real need to purchase stuff. The theoretical foundations need to be setup first. If you don't really understand what a cell is, how proteins are made, or the (i assume it's still so) dogmatic view of how structure and function of biological entities relate, then you're kind of just memorizing stuff. Your daughter seems to be interested in structure/function, which is excellent for her age. Another thought is to throw her at Wikipedia and tell her to keep clicking links. That's pretty affordable. Right now, it appears she's interested in the immune system of prokaryotes ("germs"). She probably wants to find an efficient way to kill germs. lol.

Minimum wage would make sense if we didn't live in a static universe. Otherwise, the communist manifesto is pretty much on par. It wants the abolishment of all "private" property, thus getting people to lose their delusion that anything can really be independent.

I don't like the thread title. This is in relation to Hillary Clinton saying she wanted to raise the minimum wage and response to my economic views from what was said in the debate. Anyway, my view is like this: Let's imagine that federal minimum wage is $7.50 and hour and the price of a Little Debbie Zebra Cake that you can buy in a convenience store is $0.50 USD. This is the actual case, at least as I observe in Illinois. Let's futher assume that the price of a Little Debbie Zebra Cake is actually $0.50 anywhere you go in the nation. When you buy it at a store, it costs $0.50 to buy it. Now, let's imagine that the federal government works together to raise the minimum wage to $15.00. IF the United States of America is the setter of the international price floor of a standard minimum wage throughout the world, then the price of a Little Debbie Zebra Cake ought to cost to $1.00 USD. That would be a proportional adjustment. Any convenience store selling it still at $0.50 would be in the lag period, whereby they have yet to change the price of Zebra Cakes accordingly to the change in federal minimum wage. If the world governments had their stuff together, even if the U.S. were to change the federal minimum wage, ideally they too would up the price floor of their "minimum wage" a proportional amount. They ought to, anyway. It's not good financial sense not to. And if you don't know what a Little Debbie Zebra Cake is, you're missing out. I use Little Debbies as an economic indicator for myself. Zebra cakes used to cost about $0.25 in 2009 (last federal minimum wage change?) but now they're $0.50 and the federal minimum wage hasn't changed. Something has changed, and I'm determined to eventually figure it out. The Illinois wage is surely a dollar more than federal minimum wage: Illinois has $8.25 an hour. But I don't think that has been the biggest factor. And considering the Malthusian crisis that could happen to food, it appears that investment has off-set any troublesome food shortage issues.

If I have not encountered a time traveler that suits my needs in life at any point in time, then does that mean that time travelers do not exist?

If I were to argue that the theory of everything is consciousness, am I arguing psychologism, thus arguing against physicalism? When I keep reducing the parts to the whole, I see consciousness being the thing that explains "why" things are what they are. "Gravity works that way because that is how I observe it to be." Consciousness is a necessary condition for gravity to exist: Thus, at least one being has to be conscious to recognize gravity's existence. I've been thinking about this a lot, and a lot of signs point toward solipsism for some reason. At least one person has to be conscious for gravity to exist, but if a someone does not exist, that someone cannot say gravity exists. Thus, gravity does not exist to that person. Thus, the way gravity works does not exist to that person. If I'm not conscious, then I have no reason to believe gravity exists. However, the conundrum comes to be whether or not consciousness is reducible. As the ToE, I argue no.

Something I did not learn until after I was out of school and done with Martin Luther King Jr. reading was that Martin Luther King Jr. relied on people removing racism in order to create a more unified Christian America. Martin Luther King Jr. relied on religion to make his arguments rather than just saying it was the nice thing to do. I felt lied to by the public school system, as I was never told about the Christian excerpts from his works. Thus, I look back and see it as 1984-Orwellian brain washing. Sure, the school system managed to create a division between church and state, but just prevented me from knowing his work as Christian and instead sophisticatedly pushed it as non-religious (emphasis on sophist). I like the black lives matter thing a lot more, though, because they aren't pushing religion, at least Christian religion.

I've been a Hilary Clinton supported until I saw the presidential debate, whereby each candidate may as well have been wearing party colors. I've only got a few issues: 1. I agree with Donald Trump on his argument for keeping businesses in the U.S. and understand his view against what Hilary is doing. From my critical thinking stand point, if we argue that work gives meaning or a sense of fulfillment to a person's life, then I guess I will side with Trump. The downside of that, however, is that the pay will more than likely not be great. So, I assume that means that pay will decrease and cost of living will increase. With Hilary Clinton's view on this, she's going to cost the U.S. jobs.. How do I say that? Because if I was rich, I wouldn't live in the U.S.A.. There are too many laws, thus an elaborate schizoaffective network of free-will argumentists spouting crazy B.S. throughout positions of power. I would live in the U.S. if it made me money more money than elsewhere (but it'd have to be a lot more). I'd have companies in the U.S. if it made me more money than elsewhere. And that's just about getting rich. But if she wants to keep raising taxes on the rich to the point they want to leave the country because it's more profitable elsewhere, then that's not useful. There has to be an economic trade-off, and it appears that both candidates were not explaining the intricate aspects of how markets work. If the trade-off for Hilary Clinton is that Americans increase their wealth while not having jobs, thus the cost of living decreases yet you don't have to work as hard in life for the cost of living as you previously did, then I understand how some people would be accepting of that. If the trade-off for Donald Trump is an increase in the work demand yet you don't have to supply as much work for the cost of living you previously had, I understand how some people would be accepting of that. However, I like to believe people are best kept busy in life rather than moping around on the streets trying to figure out what they want to do next in life or trolling on the Internet, so I reason I'm going with Donald Trump. Otherwise, we'd have like an Animatrix situation eventually. If I could tell both parties something, it would be to use the words "supply" and "demand" a lot more often. 2. Donald Trump should work in an apologetic way to rescind his comments about just blowing people the f*** up. If he's going to be commander in chief, then he needs to work on that. Hilary Clinton already brought that point to light, perhaps she considers that in the off-chance that he wins, her comments to him about those issues would prevent unnecessary military conflicts or fighting. I don't think Donald Trump has realized that his language may have been interpreted with utmost seriousness rather than an expression of a gut feeling but in reality he's more than seek diplomacy first: Thus, he's failed to understand a socio-cultural language barrier issue that may exist amongst foreigners. 3. Hilary Clinton pi***d me off whe she talked about minimum wage, which is why I created this thread. I've studied economics and equilibrium dynamics. From a hard stance, no, there is nothing that can be changed. From a soft stance, raising the minimum wage is going to simply create a lag, whereby it will take price setters time to re-adjust their prices a proportional amount that minimum wage was increased. So, it's really a moot point that creates annoyances for price setters and a quick luxury for those able to take advantage of the lag time. Donald Trump didn't appear to say anything about minimum wage. The news media is ridiculously biased in the fact checking. When they say "Yes and No" as to whether or not something was true as to whether or not something Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump said, the media ought to provide a source. The station I watched, whichever it was, totally failed at that. It was an annoyance and one more reason I hate watching the news unless it's about politicians or members of the government going to jail or getting caught doing crime. I don't care about Hilary Clinton's emails. I don't care about Trump's tax returns. I care about what would happen if given an army and military secrets as President along with having the ability to write things into law and pardon. The interesting thing I got away from the presidential debate was how a candidate might use law to confirm or deny things. With digital hearsay law in consideration, a candidate could deny anything he or she says on the internet, thus removing themselves from civil liability if any liability or critical negative judgment, although circumstantial evidence might argue him or her to be a liar. Thus, Donald Trump in relation to the global warming issue could be denied, but if HE really did post on twitter, then he was the actor that "said" such comment, although tweeted rather than said would be a definitional argument of proper verb. Also, I came to realize that all of the reporters could lie, use the shield law, and claim the debate as hearsay. I guess that's best to say that if you want to know what a candidate thinks, look at the original sources that could be used in the court of law as evidence. Arguably, that's anything that happened in court. From that, we can grasp that both parties are sneaky and conniving. Thus, after it all, I came to realize the best thing that any American voter can do is write him/herself on the ballot. The idea of giving responsibility to someone else is instead directed onto oneself, and I think the government is scared of that and yet hopeful of it.

Why is the 4-dimensional entity of the universe not argued to be the beginning of the universe but instead t=0? Arguably, the 4-dimensional entity is our best understanding of what the universe is, if but our beginning understanding of it. Otherwise, I suggest that is has been argued that the universe is a three-dimensional object that exists along time.

More regenerative med stem-cell tech. copypasta link w/ image due to poor library computers with copy-paste protocol (my laptop was stolen/(not recovered)) Cool stuff. I don't think it's practical, though. Of issue is defining how, why, and where memories are stored. If there is balancing and compensation from the destruction of brain tissue, whereby plasticity occurs, thus preserving memory and/or allowing signal enhancement, thus potential "data recovery" of the memories, then it would appear to me the whole regen med stuff is pointless. You would want to focus on signal enhancement. Signal 2 Noise ratio I've increasing liked the idea of human trials, because I think working on animals without consent is extremely R-complex ("bad"). I do not like the idea of human trials without consent, however. If they're going to be creating brain tissue in these people, I don't think much will occur in relation to bringing back memories. Creating a new "hard drive" for people is a different story. Then you have the issue of consciousness. These people are considered brain-dead for a reason. Perhaps if they regain consciousness, the research will be useful in the contexts of legal, philosophical, and consciousness studies. Also, @#$$^#%@#$&%^#$@#^$&^#%$&^@$%$&^@&$*^@#$&^ Anupam Hospital, Rudrapur, India 9 May 2016 Science Editor: Sarah Knapton

You need to learn to write and learn some things about rhetoric. Otherwise, just socially network up, I guess. Hustle. But yeah, who knows. If you're beginning, you more than likely don't know what you really want to focus on. High school gpa is crap. undergrad gpa means more. Go see a counselor. The site is also not dead. I reason people are just busy. I got harassed today by assholes into doing stuff I don't see as financially worthwhile (it's their higher-ups, though, because I see some of these dudes as hard working). It's the turing problem with these dudes, etc.. I rather be working or at work learning something in reference to possibly making money. Furthermore, as A PLUS, I wanted to see if anyone cared about the article I put up. Here's a suggestion: Go take yourself and start spending time around colleges, universities, their libraries, professors, student groups, etc.. and go get involved with academic culture if that's what you want to do. Personally, academia doesn't pay enough, but I think it's way more enjoyable due to the level of enhanced education the people have. Otherwise, being around most people just makes me want to smoke.

Ok, I read it. Anyone who has a background in biology, I suggest you read it. Cutting edge stuff. edit So, here's why this is badass. I mean, imagine installing some wettech into your body that releases these bastards. If they're tumor-homing and can be made specific, you got a cancer-fighting system. And the length of time that these iNSCs stay and go to work is pretty cool. That makes them ideal for having a long-term cancer management system, which is something the pharma companies and pharma research labs have been "attempting" to do for a long time. They've just been suggesting poison, for what I recall, as a form of cancer management. However, this paper is saying, "No, we've got a sound biological method here.. possibly.." There haven't been human studies, but I could see tons of investment coming from the tobacco industry on this research. Totally write research proposals to the tobacco industry, and no one will give a crap about smoking anymore. Good luck getting cancer with smoking. Imagine getting this technology on your lungs and these kinds of stem cells pushing out, healing any potential cancer that comes along.. That would be mighty rad. So, in reference to my former community college instructor, "Well, I'm not too sure that's true anymore." I've covered my view that entropy on the brain will just break a person down eventually, but the amazing "intelligence" and research put into this work is astounding. My notes: 1. Specific for GBM (gliobastoma) 2. About TRAIL / TRAIL protein 3. The amount of time involved with the iNSCs being around is cool 4. Could this treat colon cancer? 5. What if the agarose gels were a fat medium? 6. What kind of structural changes are occurring in the nearby neuronal networks? 7. Lack of actual cancer mice: Page 5 "To test the in vivo efficacy..." 8. Treatment for breast cancer? 9. Could this be used as a cancer prevention technique? 10. How can all of this be related to stroke? 11. Do we have stroke left to solve? Also, as a personal question while giggling, I questioned: How many cancer research labs is this going to kill? It looks like this is a potential paradigm shift in relation to stem cell technology and cancer treatment: Pluriopotent cells vs. iNSCs. I may be rusty, but I think the technology is very bad ass.

I haven't read it yet, but it looks interesting: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-02-groundbreaking-discovery-skin-cells-cancer.html Feel free to discuss. So, the story goes.... back when I was taking a human biology at my community college, the instructor made a point that despite how long you live, cancer will get you. And, as I think we've discussed here on SFN, and as I think I've told people, brain cancer will get you if you think that somehow you can find a way to live a long time. But that article starts to say different. Your search: Author: Bagó, Juli R Title: Nature communications Article: Therapeutically engineered induced neural stem cells are tumour-homing and inhibit progression of glioblastoma Page: 10593 ISSN: 2041-1723 Date: 2016 Volume: 7 PMID: 26830441 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms10593