Genecks

I looked into that. Supposedly the government has been closing up a lot of research positions that officers have often undertaken, at least in reference to the Air Force. I could still apply, though. Other than that, I've thought about becoming a navy officer. I've been told they get maybe 4 hours of sleep a day. I think I could work off one REM cycle for a good while. I've done it before plenty of times for many days in a week. I find it entertaining after a while. I'd say 16 months. If I knew I wasn't dealing with a couple more weed out courses (which are occurring because I'm a transfer student), I could probably take 18 credit hours and get out a little earlier. I never knew that the 300-level and 400-level classes would be easier. I've come to understand that taking 18 credits while under the weed-out scheme is a bad idea in my position.

I'm not typically one to ask for life advice, but it seems like I've been put in quite a serious situation. I come from Rockford, Illinois, which has 19.7% unemployment as of February 2010. It's probably 20% right now. My city has the highest unemployment in Illinois. As of the moment, I'm residing in Chicago. For what I understand, however, the availability of jobs in Chicago is narrowing and closing up, too. I believe the areas in Illinois with the least unemployment are in the southerns area of Illinois and areas near the state capital, which is Springfield. In general, however, I'm in debt as the typical college student is. I recently undergone the belief that it would do me almost no good to move back home after getting my B.S. in Neuroscience. As I do have little job history, mostly because of the constant economic instability in Rockford for the past five years, I've come to the belief that I'm better off either homeless and traveling the U.S. for jobs, going to graduate school, or joining the military. Now, the second choice obviously looks a little nicer. However, as with my lack of job history, I doubt I would be let in. I don't want to lock myself up in the military for five years, because I want to move on with my education. I wouldn't mind working for two years and then going into graduate school; but it appears that I might not even be able to land and keep such a job anytime soon. I'm not interested in joining the military, because I don't agree with the war on my moral grounds. Maybe I'd work for the Navy, because I feel comfortable contributing in an indirect way as long as I don't have to actively shoot anyone. Also, I still cannot seem to land a volunteer research opportunity around my campus. To get access to some graduate schools that offer a graduate degree in neurobiology/neuroscience, I've been told I need at least a year of research experience. I'm in a situation I didn't see myself in five years ago. Not this bad, anyway. I didn't believe my hometown would ever get this bad. People have told me that a bachelors degree does some good for a person; but it doesn't do too much. As of late, I've considered getting a masters degree in teaching/education in order to give me the ability to apply across the U.S. for a teaching job. I've even wittingly considered applying for the HOPE scholarship, because supposedly they force you to work for five years as a teacher in the U.S.. That sounds like a nice thing these days. What do some of you think of my situation? I'm thinking directly after I get my bachelors degree, then I should probably leave Illinois and seek a low-paying job in a place with low unemployment. At least that would help me pay off the loans. I wouldn't mind being homeless, but I'd want to kill the loans.

... *reads and reads*. @ Phi for All That's why choices should be provided. I want forum skin choices. :3 What may be hard for you to read may be easier for me to read. We need various color schemes around here. Maybe some greens, some pinks, some yellows, some reds... More forum skin choices, pleeease.

I want a color scheme different from all the whites, light blues, and blues. I want some blacks, blues, and dark blues. In general, I want the color scheme to be gloomy and dark.

An old theory states that transmission has been electrical. I believe the modern theory states that transmission occurs via chemicals. You also have electrochemical gradients that pass a signal. Then again, there are physical properties, such as electronic properties, to neurotransmitters/ions that can make a person question both theories. You might want to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_potential If is a somewhat easy read if you ignore some of the mathematics, but do understand polarization, depolarization, and propagation of a signal. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_potential#Overview_for_a_typical_neuron You might want to look at some youtube videos about these topics, such as action potential and neurotransmission.

Sure. There are varying time frames that exist. These time frames involve the amount of neural degeneration, which I believe Mr. Skeptic has discussed. After so much neural degeneration, you could suspect that varying engramatic properties of the brain would be gone. You would have to work quick. To even create a virtual model might be good enough to keep a virtual existence of the person within the framework of reality. These are my physicalist opinions, however. Nonetheless, a person could state that our knowledge of neural networking is not good enough (or will never be good enough), thus we could never replicate the brain. If you're wondering how to accomplish this, I've heard/read arguments for usage of nanotechnology. Some people say to slice and dice the brain in order to extract the physical properties and information contained. As a person who likes security engineering, I like the idea of using some kind of nanotech to quickly obtain all the data about placement and activity of physical structures without destroying the brain. The more practical option, as can be seen with a security engineer who doesn't have time to play around, is to destroy a system in order to learn from it. That often works unless a small amount of destruction would render something impossible to learn from. I don't think we have the nanotechnology to do things a non-destructive way, so the destructive method is more than likely going to be chosen. p.s. I like questions that use question marks. It makes answering things a tad more specific. A way to respond to what you've stated is to attempt to dismantle/refute the hypothesis, but I don't think that's why you made this thread. Maybe... Theoretically, yes.

I was talking to a professor about the possibility of getting a human rod/cone cell to express green fluorescent protein (GFP). From what I understand from his discussion and mine, UV light is what helps GFP luminesce. But the luminescence wouldn't occur in a human, because UV light can't pass through the lens. I believe that was the idea. This discussion came about from me wondering if a person would be blinded from having a functional and activated GFP in the cells of the eye. A bee, however, may have problems with vision if GFP is expressed in those cone/rod cells. With that in mind, I'm under the assumption that the human eye has not evolved to interpret UV rays, because they haven't been passing through all this time. Maybe there are slight deviations within the entire 6 billion people on the planet, as such, maybe there are a few people out there whom can actually process UV information. I wouldn't know of such people, though. I think I see the logic in CharonY's response. I suspect there would have to be a way of exposing a primate or human to UV light and find a way to determine if the subject is experiencing some form of red sight.

That's just one way. Success revolves around you getting a job, despite if it's not doing what you want. But in terms of temporary success, if you can get a graduate degree and be paid while getting it, that's a good option. You need to think about options. And that's an option. Me? I'm into learning, cognition, and cellular biology and physiology. I want a program that revolves around those things. That's what I want. What kind of program and professors do you want to surround yourself with?

I understand what you are saying. It's a good idea to be well-rounded. Personally, I would have attempted multiple graduate degrees, as people tend to get paid in sciences when attempting to go for graduate degrees. Unless you've been getting free or very affordable education, that is something you might want to think about. Maybe you've got something there, though. It might be difficult for a mathematics major to move right into an engineering graduate program. I think in terms of programs, if you can get paid to do the program and the school gives you better funds/resources in order to conduct research for your graduate degree, then you'd want to choose that school.

Why did you bother to triple major? Why not have done at least a double major and then a focus in graduate school? I don't quite understand you've been attempting to achieve.

Possibly... I've held this theory that people watch TV and then want to enact what they see. As such, there are many medical shows and law shows on TV. That has often made me consider that people are going into these professions, because they've been somewhat brainwashed into it. And in order to create a rational reality for themselves, they've decided to say they want to become medical doctors, caring medical doctors. There are perks to that instead of becoming a researcher. But being a medical doctor rather than a medical doctor who does research... well, just being a medical doctor is a dead-end job if you ask me. I have a slight humor on what defining something as a dead-end job. But in general, I think that the medical doctors whom accept the lower wages will be doctors who care. Perhaps a study of what happened to the views of doctors in foreign countries during various reforms would help people understand what will happen in America if things change.

I think if there are changes in health care, then medical doctors are going to be paid less. I wonder what changes in the realm of academia and research a passed health care reform will have. I'm not sure. A moral issue is that Americans going to see some shifts in who gets to choose who dies and whatnot. There are problems with medicine for all, but then again, not everyone needs medicine all the time. Also, as an American, I'm sick of the majority of medical doctors I have to put up with. About each time I've come into a medical office sick, they want to test me for strept throat. GGGRRRR.. I've had strept throat so many times growing up, I would know if I'm infected or not. If I get the ability to visit another doctor and different clinic and have a second opinion, that would be awesome. The time before last I was seriously ill, I accidentally got someone else seriously ill. When that person was diagnosed, I was able to learn what I had wrong with me. The doctor at the time brushed me off as if very little was wrong with me. No, I was sick for months. What a joke some of these medical clinics are. Now that I have a better knowledge of biology, I could have diagnosed myself, sued these supposedly educated persons, and been pleased with the results. My illness was a simple textbook case that was overlooked and ignored. I was deeply insulted by this, and I feigned a deep hatred against medical doctors; as such, I often wonder how they are even employed and got as far as they did. Each time I come across medical doctors, they seem stupid to me. I do not claim to be more intelligent; but when I later become as intelligent as they are in some aspects, I cannot help but wonder what was wrong with their level of knowledge when trying to make a diagnosis. Were they idiots? Were they on drugs that day? There are good sides to this health care reform, and there are bad sides. In general, I think other countries have handled this situation quite well. Perhaps it is a sign that leaders of the American country believe that it's going to crumble, become inefficient, or could be under attack. I've often considered that without a health care system to protect Americans in general, a bioterrorist could come in and destroy and attack America. From that standpoint, Obama was justified in seeking better health care for the American people. There are good and bad sides. In general, it benefits more people than less people. This is probably a good thing. If things get that bad, a person could always leave America. I suspect I should brush up on my knowledge of world societal issues.

The quality of sight and resolution is better than that when viewed through the ocular, right, Peter Kemp? Not so pixelated in RGB?

I didn't say that the government should provide a job for me. I am saying that it should not act in preventing me from getting a job that allows me to gather resources to survive. Also, the hunting idea is limited if you consider that there is not enough hunting land for everyone. I would have to say the government has prevented people from getting jobs and allowing them to hunt. This can be from accidental intervention or neglect of the running system. As such, corruption is on part of the government's inefficiency. Fishing is still a good way to survive at the moment, though. Also, some places don't allow panhandling. In the primitive sense, yes.

I guess you're right, CharonY. Sorry about the misinformation, original poster.

I think the concept of human popsicles is impractical and there are better solutions. I won't mention them, because I don't want that being mainstream. But in general, we aren't completely made like frogs nor arctic frogs. The blood vessels would crack and shatter, etc.. etc.. I think neural decay would happen, perhaps a kind of "freezerburn." Not a feasible long-term (1+ month) solution.

I should have the right to live and fulfill the requirements necessary for me to live. If I can't get a job (low mortality rate job) to feed myself or go somewhere to get food, I would consider the governing system to be corrupt. I consider a lot of other stuff trivial. I do think people should have the right to information. But with the idea that they should be allowed to have the right information, rather than the government feeding people lies. I also think the Internet has seriously bridged culture gaps. It has. That fact is undeniable. I believe it is the Internet that has prevented people from starting another world war. Then again, the Internet has at times allowed me to gather information to justify my dislike of another country based on how its economics works. Some people may dislike China, because they learn how it can out-compete America in good from cheap labor, etc.. etc.. I like China's over-all socio-political scheme despite how it's been creating a problematic world, because the rest of the world doesn't want to conform to it. From past economic problems with India, however, I disliked how the country ran.

Anyone else find it curious that a law student is on SFN asking this kind of question in the first post?

In general, imagine that you have a ball and a cube. The cube is the regular shape of the good protein. The ball is the shape of the prion. The prion has the ability to change the cube into a ball. A cube's shape is energetically unstable, and it wants to shape into something more stable: In this case, the ball is the more stable shape. The prion touches the normal protein, and the normal protein turns into a ball. Yes, this issue can be perplexing. Please note that in this situation, a prion could be interpreted as an information-containing molecule, which is against the norm of what people consider to be biological information molecules.

Maybe this involves care ethic from society. A child will feel abandoned in society unless care is presented to him/her by the society. As such, a child without health care will endure suffering. That suffering could be seen as child neglect from society. Or perhaps it's trying to say a child so named will be regarded with the divine purpose of destroying the world's ecosystem, because he/she feels out of place in society. Probably not the latter. It might be something like that. Perhaps a good counter would be that if medical care were presented and free for all, then it would be easy to put children in mental hospitals. Given such a possibility, however, it could be seen by the child as society imprisoning it (perhaps worse than the neglect incurred from not giving children medical care).

Have many scientists thought about making a space gate? Something that looks like this: So, how about this... We mock the way a black hole works, control its suction and speed, and setup an artificial black hole that sucks up a ship, but lets it go, thus propelling it enough to reach a distance. (image source: http://www.exchange3d.com/cubecart/aircraft-spacecraft/space-gate-3d-model/prod_9526.html) Another idea I had was if we could combine two of those, have them link up, and then have them create a vacuum to make the object pass through the tunnel almost as fast as light.

This site uses google ads... *rolls eyes* Anyway, looks like the person's research turned out from what I've read. Then again, I can't read the entire results section.

My Master Thesis "Agricaltural and Enveronmental science" Why was that thread locked? For something like that, which was in the right place (I think), it got locked? Perhaps tag on explanations so other users don't have a "Wtf...?" moment?

I figured that someone might make such a statement. As said before, should we as scientists consider something as living?

To determine between who is selfish and who is caring. And individuals often want a caring person rather than a selfish person. Do you want to be around a considerably selfish person or a caring person? Wouldn't you consider a caring person an ethical person? Then again, the American political system and its social realm makes a person wonder about that.