Genecks

Consider that Earth is a pale blue dot in the eyes of an observer from a distance. Could said observer whom is technologically advanced use optical technology to trace physical items over a long range and test for certain geometric shapes that may be intelligible, including shapes with dynamic features (aka: moving objects with wheels)? Surely, if there is an object with wheels, I can assume another species of intelligence from a far-away land would recognize us as somewhat intelligible.

Yes, but you might always come across some thugs who want to attack you and take the suitcase, even though you don't get caught... A scene from the movie "Falling Down": <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pMxjgrUE90&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=2pMxjgrUE90&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

It depends on the program, but often, yes, you have to take two college semesters of physics. Also, your highest math level can determine what math classes you must take in the university. It can also determine what choice in physics classes you may take.

If I couldn't get caught, and there was no way of being caught (such as money serial numbers, it's fake money, etc..), I'd take the money. I got enough guns and drugs for all I care. Maybe I would take the entire suitcase. I could probably get away with that. Maybe they ditched the suitcase in hopes that someone would indeed take the entire suitcase, which would have been the best way to have disposed of the items and all of its contents. To get away with taking all of the money would mean being able to take the time to take out the money and put it in my coat. And that takes a decent amount of time. You have to organize things, spend time making sure it's flat, etc... It'd probably be easier to grab the suitcase and walk away. I'd do the risky thing and take the suitcase. I'd see if I could melt down the gun. If the gun were super classy, similar to the caster gun from outlaw star, I'd probably keep it. That's a super rare gun. And I'd take the weed and dispose of it in a public bathroom at a later time. I'm sure that throwing away the suitcase before garbage day means someone would grab it before it went to the garbagemen. Leave a note on it saying, "Free suitcase to good home." Classy. Another option is buying a similar suitcase and keeping the receipt, thus explaining why you have that particular type of suitcase. It'd be problematic, because I suspect there would be traces of marijuana and gun residue in it. I think people can get away with crimes if they are smart about it. Shows like Law & Order were created to scare the general public into not committing crimes.

Where is Bat-Man when you need him? These foreign lands seem very interesting. I think I will apply to graduate school in them. I'll be able to work on my fighting skills and martial arts a lot more often. You're a scientist. Just confuse them with a physics problem or something. Anyway, I often believe cities fudge the numbers of a variety of things, which include crime. Crime tends to increase with unemployment, too, so this could be a contemporary issue. If anything you seem to be a well-educated person of decent social status, so I suggest you leave if things get that bad. Maybe one week out of the year isn't so bad. But every other week? I'd get prepared to leave. If someone threw a milkshake at me every week, and I wasn't working in a restaurant, I'd get p.o.'d. Maybe try not to look like a victim? That seems to help some people. Are you dressed like a poindexter? A total nerd? Or avoid certain areas during certain times. If someone physically attacks you each week or tries to physically steal something from you each week, I'd see that as greater reason to leave. People can be serious jerks, especially if they have nothing to lose. However, people don't want to lose their lives, because they have an inborn fear and will lack the ability to do something that which make them lose their lives. In a fist fight, people can get killed. Most won't kill the other person, though. So, unless people start attacking you, I suspect the best thing to do is avoid the groups of jerks. Maybe walk through a neighborhood that has an older community.

What qualifies something as living? Should we as scientists consider something as living? Is this a term that has psychological attachment? If so, should we abandon it? I will set forth the idea that everything is dead. Nothing can be defined as living; and nothing should be defined as living. Atoms and molecules are not living.

Given that the universe has a self-defense mechanism, I suspect the "pure of heart" don't want to hurt the universe nor destroy it. In a way, subjectivity rules automobile production. Some people choose cards for utility, others for aesthetics and credo. It's really curious if we can really question reality on reductionist grounds. If the universe came from nothing, its existence totally denies thermodynamics. It's seems like some kind of Buddhist reductionism, to which we take everything around us, and at their ultimate reductionist level, they exist as nothing. Reality becomes if not subjective but unreal and totally illogical. We can only hope that what we've established as probable and true as continual and repeatable. I think if the universe can exist from nothing, then we can surely create something from nothing and disobey thermodynamics. I think most philosophers counter such a claim by saying "nothing does not exist." As such, to consider that nothing was before something is illogical. Sure, it's illogical, but isn't existence illogical? We can try to use science to achieve scientific realism. I believe in a functionalist approach. Use what you have until it becomes obsolete. Afterward, upgrade.

Yes, it's a worthwhile endeavor, which I think not many people agree upon. However, I'd like to think that it's impractical if not impossible to achieve. I have the belief that the universe is more intricate and that which allows it to exist would attempt to protect itself from being fully understood: a type of intelligence and a self-defense mechanism, if you will. Given such a mechanism, perhaps only the "pure of heart" could know why. The Tao is not the Tao, yet it is the Tao; the Tao cannot be explained, yet we try. An interesting thought: Maybe we should investigate what we know and why we are allowed to know it. I have often considered that the ability to understand the universe is limited by a physical constraint, and to fully understand it, a person would have to "jack into" the universe by becoming "one" with it.

Also, the reason I'm suggesting we keep the logo is because it really is a symbol of this website. I think a serious issue with using "SFN" has to do with the fact that there is an organization called "SFN," which is the Society for Neuroscience. Then again, I believe that society uses a lower-case "f," so there really shouldn't be too many problems. If the issue hasn't been looked at by the mods/admins, it might be worth an investigation.

In general, I think we should keep the logo (if only to keep the general idea of it, which it would appear toastywombel has touched upon). Also, since I make this request every so often but scurry away, I'd really like a different colored layout. Instead of the blues, maybe some blacks?

Hmm, I just had a weird thought... Implant some wetwear into a human... Allow it to have AI. Allow the electromechanical features to change upon AI alterations (the AI understands the host needs to survive). See if the AI takes over the host's brain, actions, and mind. The parasite becomes the dominant member of the body. Hmm... Anyway, if Motoko Kusanagi existed, I'd date her before the hat reached the ground. Personhood? Blah. I suspect I would be satisfied with dating her. I would think she'd have enough programming to make her seem really close to a human if not exactly the same. Sure, I'll call her a person if she wants. Actually, I've had this idea running around my head: Evolution of silicon based organisms. Given the chance, perhaps they would become what we call electronic, robotic, and the such. Such a possibility is almost unreal, yet feasible. As such, I could consider any AI system that can continue to learn, adapt, and know how to express emotion similar to a human. The emphasis is on it learning. I suspect it would need some form of sociobiology programming in order to find ways to relate to a human society. In other words, not running a mile and taking the bus instead... some form of civility basis. I think an interesting aspect of Ghost in the Shell is that the owners actually switch out bodies from younger versions to older versions. Thus, allowing them to "grow old." I'm also curious about what kind of neural darwinism can occur within a person to allow evolution of brain material without destroying the person. Perhaps, given the person an ability to be immortal, the person's brain changes to become more electronic. Of course, the DNA isn't wired to have Silicon, I think. I believe some algae can have silicon in their bodies. Possibly by studying the various evolutionary mechanics behind those and emphasizing them within neural tissue evolution along with a feasible continuance of mental processes, then a person could be allowed a basis for neural darwinism into a more sophisticated robot-like, computer-like state with a refined computer-like brain. Carbon offers itself as quite an insulator and resistor. Given the ability to use other materials in the brain and the nervous system, I suspect that the wiring and transmission of data would be much faster.

As such, would the person suing over libel have to reside in the UK? I suspect unless I'm talking trash about someone in the UK (I have no one in mind), a person in the U.S. doesn't have the ability to sue me, because that person would continue to work under U.S. jurisdiction, right? So, that ordeal with that one person 'supposedly' acting like a University of Idaho (right state?) professor couldn't have caused SFN to be sued for libel, because the issue and persons (assuming the supposed impostor resides in the U.S.) are in the U.S.? As such, no information would have been released? Had the defendant resided in the UK, then the information would have to be given up? Also, would there have been a loophole for a defendant residing in the U.S. to use the UK legal system to release user information? I'm suspecting that admins and mods will take a good look at something to determine whether or not it is is libel and worthy of release, right? It seems like any UK SFN member could sue anyone, claim libel, and get our IPs. I doubt without a serious legal case they could get Internet Service Providers to release names of those using the IP and service.

Seems like you'd be working in a lab again, but possibly doing biomathematics. I'm not too sure how that will turn out. Then again, we have yet to see the height of biohacking. Maybe you could combine your knowledge of mathematics and biology to artificially generate a protein that is enabled to flip glyoclipids to the cytosolic face of a cell's membrane: a new flippase protein, which became easier to make because of mathematical modeling. Or, what I'd like to see, is emphasis on mathematical employment in X-Ray crystallography in order to make figuring of the dimensional shapes of proteins easier.

How about some wiki articles, too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_anarchism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

Could we at least keep the ethics and philosophy boards this time? Please at least keep those.

Sure. Looking around is always an important part, as is having previous work experience under a supervisor (you know, like in a fast food restaurant or something).

Does this mean we can continue discussing things, such as guns, energetic chemistry, hacking, Linux, and so on? Will having a server in another country ever present blockades in discussing certain subjects?

I'm looking over a biochemistry book of mine. I believe two semester of biochemistry will surely help teach you various functions of the cell and the chemistry behind its structures. Go find some course books, browse through them, and see what you like.

Mathematicians are also often hired by science industries. Their job is to take the physical world and reduce observed phenomena into mathematical formulas. So, that's another opportunity. However, of the people I've known to work in such, they were either chemists, engineers, or physicists.... Actually, now that I remember, there was a statistician working at an engineering firm. I believe he made more than $60,000 a year. So, if you were to get a B.S. in mathematics, perhaps you would start applying to industrial complexes.

I think the prospects as a math teacher are still good.

Ok, so to go faster than light, an object would need to be encapsulated by a medium that allows it to go faster than light and travel through/within said medium? Hmm. As such, scientists currently consider the best medium to be a vacuum? Alright. But isn't a vacuum hypothetical? I think I see why scientists say it's impractical for something to go faster than the speed of light. But I don't think it's impractical to not enable an object to go the same speed as light. I think I'm starting to see why a lot of people have been arguing about in the past few decades.

Alright, so I've been experimenting with melatonin and alcohol. I've recently decided to do something interesting. I decided to mix the two. What I did was I bought a generic brand of melatonin tablets from a health food store: GNC Melatonin 1 Dietary Supplement 1 mg per tablet About 5 tablets consumed before rest. Now, some people say that melatonin has a time-release pattern. Do you know what else does? Alcohol. I've combined this with alcohol: Jim Bean (generic 750 mL bottle) About 7 shots consumed before rest. Matter of fact, that's one of the reasons alcohol sucks when attempting to use it as a sleep-aid. It acts as a form of time-release coffee. As such, I got smart and tried to do something in the past two weeks. I decided to mix melatonin tablets and alcohol. Results? Actually, I've had some interesting results. The combined effects seems to quickly put me to sleep. I haven't woken up in the middle of the night, as I do if only drinking alcohol. And it would appear that the melatonin is acting as a suppressor: It's preventing the alcohol from screwing with a REM cycle. I will admit that I feel a little fuzzy after waking up. Kind of like I'm having a hangover. Nonetheless, it would appear that I'm not really tired. As such, I'm here asking others if they would be interested in trying out this experiment. I think I've come across something, and other people would need to try it. I would suggest perhaps drinking an a day, such as Saturday. Or the night before a non-work day. I'm curious as to whether or not some people will experience these effects. One necessary part of this experiment is that you're of legal drinking age. Another is that you have experienced the middle-of-the-night awakening that alcohol can induce. If you know that alcohol is extremely toxic to your health or another's health (maybe you're pregnant or have a heart of the bacteria in your gut), then I suggest not doing the experiment.

From the explosion theory, would this mean there should be tons of microscopic diamonds all around HIroshima, Japan?

Did ajb just become a resident expert?

I really think the issue is inspired competition in academia. I went from a community college to the university I'm at now. We didn't compete for grades. I like that system. If I failed, I failed because of not putting in my effort. Supposedly that system goes away in graduate school. Matter of fact, I'm living in dorms that have graduate students living in it. The cafeteria is better, the facilities are cleaner, etc.. It's as if there are considered the university's prized possession. Silly bouts of discrimination. Not only is there class discrimination, but I would say the exams that inquire into knowledge are not fully knowledge based: they seem to test reading comprehension. It's the opposite of trying to teach a child a complex concept. The exams are ridiculously riddled with extremely ambiguous questions, as if they were only created to throw off non-English speakers. I'm not talking about the "take a hard look at what the question is asking" kind of deal. That's from my recent microbiology exam (I'm taking it again at a uni, because I figured it'd be a breeze at a uni since I took it at a community.). It would appear that professors at this university rely on sophistry and trickery in order to make sure their students fit to a bell curve. It's not about testing knowledge; it's about seeing who can hopefully best assume what the heck the shady, ambiguous, tricky, undeterminable question is trying to ask. As if the competition were not bad enough, I have to deal with people who want to test my reading comprehension rather than my knowledge of the material. Yeah, I don't agree with that. I would have taken an English class if I wanted someone to test my reading comprehension. Silly. Modern American education is seriously slanted toward screwing with people. I can't tell if it's economy based or if educators can't help prime people to do well. I know I reach into an either-or fallacy; but things seem that way. I'm not sure what the higher-ups do with their own staff if they are willing to mess with their undergraduates this way. It makes me wonder if people seriously do not know how to teach or if there is some sadistic part of them that wants everyone to suffer. I've often considered that professors want people to suffer, because they need to make sure people fail. So, I compare the act of professors taking up positions to make others suffer very similar to a sociopath hurting small animals. Unless the professor makes a sincere effort to prime people to do their best, it would appear that person needs people to suffer. It really looks like this Amy Bishop was a factor of modern academia and the economy. She wanted to succeed and was driven to do whatever it took. Of course, it was probably the higher ups whom forced her to take such a persona. There are always the higher ups expecting more and more from people. She seemed to have been a driven person, as can be seen with her going to Harvard and continuing an intellectual career in neuroscience. And if I were to claim her murders as care ethic, I would see them as her attempt to stop the cycle of suffering not just for herself but for others. She is smart; she knew that she was going to be caught after doing what she did. I sincerely believe that a communistic world would sort all of this out. Murder is definitely not the best answer. It has been used throughout history and worked; but I would hope there be something more society can do. Inspiring competition and effort based on competition is ugly and should be stopped. Her actions really make me wonder why she didn't just walk away. She has a Ph.D from Harvard. She has/had great ideas. Sure, she may not have had further opportunities to build upon her ideas were she fired, but she could have led many more people to partake of the activities she wanted to undertake. If she disliked something about society or modern education, she could have stuck around to change it. I think that's covered in Plato's Republic? If we are going to have people in high positions, may we hope they want the best for those whom they rule over. It would appear this was more of an inside issue rather than student vs. student. I've studied the NIU and Vtech murders to a degree. From my best analysis, the NIU one was by a sociologist whom seems to have wanted to free people from suffering: I suspect he theorized that the system of academia and modern society does not allow for love, as such life is not worth living. Or perhaps in a summary, "love is a battlefield." The Vtech murder was some weird mystical stuff. It's as if he was speaking against "the system." His package was the most interesting, especially with labeling it to a person named "A. Ishmael." He speaks of Jesus and whatnot. It's as if he's trying to notify society of something like some rising of an anti-christ. This guy was definitely off his rocker more than other people. I think the first person he killed was a student pursuing the study of neuroscience. It's interesting, though. Vtech was an undergraduate. NIU was a graduate student. Alabama was a Ph.D holder. This surely says there is a problem on every level. I'm not sure that education was like this hundreds of years ago. It would appear there was much more community. Maybe there is some generational issue around and perhaps professors are somewhat sociopathic. Some people say the as people age, they enact how they were treated growing up. With the fact there were many mentally and physically abusive school systems in the past, it could be of the few ways the current educating generation has a mentality for. In other words, since the past generation dealt with mental cruelty and a lack of emotion and care from educators when growing up, then they eventually became educators with the same persona. It's somewhat like how people say that children whom have abusive fathers will grow up to be abusive fathers themselves. One could hope to use enough free will to not become like that. And then there is still the vietnam-era generation lingering around. A good amount of them dislike anything that has to do with communist thought. I suspect a good amount of them are reaching retirement age, though. I suspect it will take about another 30 years until some of the mentality of how education is handled will pan out.