Genecks

The general idea I have is that if individuals are killed, their money is released back into the economy. If Tiger Woods and Oprah Winfrey are such persons with massively accumulated wealth, then they would be prime targets. As I have said before, the idea is to release the money back into the economy rather than have certain individual accumulate massive amounts and not allow it to flow back into the economy. I've talked to this idea before, and some people comment that one reason the U.S. government prints money is because some individuals accumulate the wealth, never spend it, and thus the U.S. government believes it can attempt to bring money back into the economy as long as those people never do spend their money.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0XXmVts1y0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0XXmVts1y0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QkBT0uke4o&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QkBT0uke4o&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Yes, I agree, Mr. Skeptic. There are the people who have money in the bank vs. money tied to assets. I suspect people who are millionaires yet have all their money tied to assets are not millionaires in the sense that they would be able to liquidize everything in a heartbeat and put $1M USD into the bank. However, I do suspect there are people whom are easily millionaires if not billionaires without the majority of their money tied into assets, thus it would be these people who would be targeted. And in reference to such people, if they were killed, then I suspect the money would be released back into the economy. The only problem would be if the person had a Will, thus giving the money right to someone else, and it would be almost impossible to stop the rich if there was a fool-proof perpetual redirection of the money from one person to the next. I don't think people have thirty people in line, though, in a Will, in order to make sure the government nor the republic ever get the money. I don't think confiscation would work, on an individual level, as that would mean I'd have to become U.S. President or a high-ranking military commander (like Apis, which I would more than likely be quickly shut down unless the plan was effective). As such, I think the republic would have it easier if they could make a hitlist, as the Black Hand Society did, and then carry it out.

I think teleportation would be possibly, sure. It would just be finding a way to isolate the environment of the subject and transport that isolated environment to another area. It looks like there would have the be an environmental displacement, though, which makes this whole teleportation thing quite interesting (it calls for the law of equal exchange).

I sometimes wonder if killing the rich is the answer. Sure, people shouldn't support murder because it's illegal, unethical, immoral, against religion, etc... But would it work to help solve economic problems? Would killing certain individuals work to solve economic issues? I like to think back to before World War I and the Black Hand Society. You had a bunch of young people with a hitlist. And this killing the people on the hitlist was suppose to make their living vicinity a better place. For the Black Hand Society, it ended up causing, if I remember correctly, rival countries to feud and create war amongst them. So, it backfired in a sense. The Black Hand Society was, nonetheless, against anti-imperialism. In a lot of places in the world, there are "stupid rich" people. I would like to consider these people similar to monopolists. And if you kill the monopolists, you free a lot of money back into the republic. I'll equate it to AT&T. AT&T was considered a monopoly, but when it was broken apart, a lot of money went back into the economy and other businesses were allowed to start; and other telecommunication industries sprung up. The general idea is that money was freed into the economy. If the rich were killed, let's say that magical "1%" that controls America, would that fix the economy? Then again, that's like... ~300,000 people at most, right? That would be quite the number to declar war against, especially with a secret organization. Even if the number were 60,000, it'd be a large task, and I suspect a national guard and the marines would be called out to deal with the issue. But would it solve the issue? Would killing the "stupid rich" solve the issues? Wouldn't the money at least be returned to the U.S. government, thus resolving the U.S. government of varying amounts of debt? And if so, why wouldn't the U.S. government bother killing off these people? I mean, it would make sense if it was the governing body. I'm not sure if other nations would oppose, though.

Well, at best, the other commenter said this: I don't quite understand how it would have been defective, though.

I like putting a date on certain terms. One that I have recent come across was "membrane blebbing." I get the idea, but I've never really heard the term. I've known of lysis, necrosis, and apoptosis. But then I come across this term called "blebbing." How recent is this term? Anyone get a rough idea? I'm looking at the sources in Wikipedia, and it seems from a quick look that the term came around in the late 1990s.

Welcome to SFN? Just grab a book, start reading, and if you got a question, make a thread. It's always nice to contribute back, too.

1. Interlibrary loans (ask librarians how it works) 2. Using craigslist 3. Using half.com / ebay / book auction websites 4. Digital reprography (legal if conducting research)

I would have chose the Bio-Hazard, but I chose the supernova. I don't consider mathematics a science...

As I think about Protopterus aethiopicus, I think that maybe while undergoing its evolution and possible genome size increases through that evolution... that maybe it picked up characteristics of making proteins that other species in the world don't. Perhaps it has certain anatomical and physiological characteristics that other animals do not, and those aspects may be locked up in its genome (perhaps unexpressed). Are these things a possibility? Am I giving the the Protopterus aethiopicus too much credit for having such a large genome while still being able to live?

So, let's say I have this: pUC18 vector: http://www.lgcstandards-atcc.org/attachments/1477.jpg What does it matter that the polylinker is in there? Isn't there the probability that the cut sites will already be present in other sections of the plasmid? Or this kind of vector such a standard that the enzyme restriction sites won't be found anywhere else but in the polylinker, thus creating a confined place to put the insertion?

I tried looking into this, but I could not figure out what this comment was talking about. In some ways it seems self-evident, but I don't know what the discussion is about. It seemed to have received a lot of approval ratings from other youtube members. -

I'm looking at the action of the Sau3A enzyme. What exactly is it cutting? 5'--- What does that third hyphen represent? Picture attached.

I'm not sure it's a global scale. I remember reading some complaints a while back on sciencemadness (http://sciencemadness.org) that a few of the chemists were annoyed that many asians (Chinese, I believe was the complaint) were leading the realm of chemistry. I can't remember the statement, but I believe one chemist stated that a journal...The Journal of Chemistry...(maybe?) is now The Journal of Chinese Chemistry. For the past few years, I've been trying to inquire about how Asia's science industry has changed, because it has a lot of manpower and that can translate to a lot of cheap science labor with enough specialists standing around. I've often wondered if the Chinese industrialists would decide to either overtake scientific research and destroy America's scientific research structure in the process... or else if the Chinese citizens would get trained under the progressing Chinese research system and quickly attempt to leave for America in an attempt to get rich quick. I think both things are occurring at once, which may unfold to be a more serious problem a decade or more from now. Well, a problem for people who don't want a flooded market where scientists are paid a very low wage. From the research I did on Chinese wages, scientists are maybe paid twice as much (at most, I think) as a person who works at a fast food restaurant (in China). The SED reports seem to be saying these people are Asian citizens. I will say that of the graduate students I've met whom are Asian, they seem to have an Asian accent. So, I'm pretty sure they are not American-born. Maybe they've found a way to get citizenship, and thus the foreign, Asian scientists are being represented as American citizens before doctoral graduation.

For those whom don't know what the SED reports are, here is a link. Basically, the SED reports discuss various statistics and general backgrounds of persons who earned their doctorates in the USA. Nonetheless, an interesting read if any foreigners would like to take a look. I'm reading the 2008 one, and I came across something I found unusual. I found that unusual, but I didn't find it unexpected. I believe it was a year or two ago when I started reading the SED reports and analyzing them. I came across discussion of how Asians supposedly are the second largest ethnic group with parents whom have bachelor degrees already, next to "multi-racial"... whatever that means.. I'm not sure what to interpret from these data. From reading the SED reports this year, I've been thinking that perhaps universities are starting to import science researchers. What is your take on it? Is it that America is importing scientists, giving them visas, and then the new citizens mark that they are citizens when the SED questionnaire comes around?

Hey, all. I've recently taken an interest into the varying ecological disasters in the rain forest. As such, are there any diseases similar to Dutch Elm Disease that are destroying African rain forest trees?

New animal species or new species of organism in general?

Imagine I'm making a pedigree In (I) [] = daddy (born 1978) () = mommy (born 1983) In (II) [] = son (first born child) () = daughter (second child) I..[]--() ......|... ......|... II.[]--() Or does it not matter which parent was born first? I..()--[] ......|... ......|... II.[]--()

Any particular reason you called it a worm? Agreed. I truly think it would be awesome if we could change the developmental biology of species, such as these sea slugs (mollusks) and turn them into Bulbasaurs.

Personally, I don't care if Mars does or does not have life. Mars does not seem to have intelligible life on it. As such, even if it had microbes, I doubt we're going to learn anything interesting from them. Unless there are some microbes that are recycling nuclear materials and renewing them (or other awesome/extreme futurist things), then I figure there is little to learn from them. It's not being xenophobic; it's that their utility is low, and they should not be cared about. If there are microbes, go grab them, study them, and if it's shown that they truly are not radically different than Earth microbes, then I suspect the need to keep them safe is extremely low. I figure there is life on other planets. Whether or not it matters that there is life on other planets is a different story. They may or may not be intelligible. Cosmologists try to figure out the age of the universe; biologists try to figure out how long complex evolution took; geologists try to figure out how long the Earth has been around... and from synthesizing concepts from those realms, I've gnereated the the argument/belief that if Earth could do it, then some other solar system is capable of it; and that's good enough for me. The trick is finding which solar system. But, for it to have life means some serious things. And that will include some serious biznis. First off, it will make the genesis-believers and creationists annoyed. Second off, it shows that life is indeed existent on more planets than Earth, thus giving rise to the belief that we should undergo space exploration for new worlds. Also, it may lead to clues as to what kind of planets to look for. But I couldn't really care. I've often been curious to what kind of NASA policies exist in case we did indeed find those microbes on Mars.

Funny. I actually know someone working on that. I think I understand why she's doing research on the visual nervous system. Something about how light travels differently in each area, thus one eye might receive light slower/faster than the other. Well, in that work, Popper says testable or falsifiable. If something were testable and falsifiable, then I would see a different case for the ordeal.

How about bacteria as biofuel and food? With the creation of Mycoplasma laboratorium, I don't doubt that we could get bacteria to do both. Bacteria have lower surface area than eukaryotic organisms, as such, I suspect prokaryotes could better be modeled to complete both tasks. Consumption and excretion of resources should be faster with prokaryotes than eukaryotes. Earlier in my school semester, I bounced ideas of a geneticist whom works with Streptococcus pneumonia about various eukaryote vs. prokaryote usages. I've come to consider that prokaryotes win the game. Given enough time and knowledge, I suspect I could quickly make rice wine. An old-fashioned way of making sake (kuchikami no sake) involved a person chewing up the rice and then spitting it into a container. Keep in mind that the human mouth is filled with many bacteria. Thus, the fermentation process was being undertaken by the bacteria in the mouth, not something, such as yeast. Much research was done on algae during the Aquatic Species Program. However, I believe research with bacteria is going to be where the direction heads. In terms of algae, there is a supplement called "Spiru-tein" that is often sold at health food places: It contains spirulina. All I would have left to do is find a way to get bacteria to excrete nutritional drinks, have a vat of it all, and then be able to live extremely frugal. If I could also get bacteria to start producing flour/wheat/etc.. I would be set. There would have to be a large influence on quality control, though, because bacteria have the bad habit of mutating. Eukarotic organisms, on average, do not mutate as much as prokaryotic organisms With the spirulina, you get a single-celled organism combined with aminos, vitamins, and minerals. Everything the body needs. -- http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bacteria-transformed-into-biofuel-refineries

Yes, but if it's falsifiable, then that means it's not true. Because something that is true cannot be false. Thus, the scientific theory that is falsifiable undergoes the logical mishap of already being false rather than true. The work I read was this: "Science: Conjectures and Refutations" by Karl Popper

I got into this argument with a philosophy professor. Basically, I read some Karl Popper, ok, and what I got from him is that theories cannot be true. They will eventually be over-ridden. Thus, I claimed that despite how much a person wants to think a theory is "right," it's ultimately going to be wrong. So, whenever you do put forth a theory, you have to recognize that's it's already wrong, because it's going to be over-ridden in the future by a newer theory, of course, which will be over-ridden and so on and so on.... What do you think?