Genecks

Sodium polyacrylate, perhaps? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_polyacrylate Here is an article on the artificial substance: http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryhowtoguide/ht/fakesnow.htm Here is an article on the real stuff: http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/snow-maker1.htm

I'm guessing y'all like the gestapo tactics of the Bush administration? All of you want that patriot act to hang around? I sure don't! I think it is fascist! Bush did indeed cross the line and ignore the judicial branch. The idea of using a warrant to invade a person's privacy was thrown away. If Obama gets rid of it, I suspect I'll vote for him again, regardless of what armageddon come our way. TO CONTRIBUTE, however, to the thread I can say this: Obama wants to integrate the America public and technology. He wants to find a way to get responses from society in order to make change happen faster. Obama wanted a lot to happen in congress, and now that he's going to be president, he wants to find an efficient way to get things done.

Yes, go ahead and disarm my statement by stating the obvious while not allowing enthymatic understanding to occur. We'll get a lot done this way by calling me an idiot. I'm asking for the option for individual users to use a scheme. Make it an option in the user settings. A lot of other boards have such an option. And whatever to people disliking white text on black. Maybe people are scared of DOS. I would prefer the text to be white. The light blues to be grays or light blues. The regular blues to be blacks. I disagree about your views on readability. I think white text on a black background brings out the text. I think the lightness of the current forum colors makes a person more alert. I find it annoying, because it's like looking at a lightbulb for too long. Basically, I want SFN to look like a person from the gothic subculture.

What about their mitochondria count? If I remember correctly, there is a large count in their breasts. For humans to have wings and fly, I suspect they would flap with great force and speed and consume large amounts of food for the aerobic activity. Lung activity might be different, too. I think it's a little more details than adding wings and motor control. The metabolic activity of the human would have to changed. The legs are considered a primary form of motility. Human genetics would have to be changed so that a person's development allows the wings to be the primary form of motility. With that in mind, the way energy is used in the wings and travels through the body would radically change. Perhaps accomplishing these goals is possible. A lot of deaths would occur before finding the right molecular programming.

I don't understand that statement. I think the blue should be done away with. That way it can be less than a memory.

I think the forum needs a new color scheme, such as black and blue. It needs something with black. NOTE: I have made this suggestion for the past three years or more.

Probably a good idea to hide the banned thread. So we know what kind of people the beast has eaten. Then again, it acts as a way to clarify who was banned and why.

I'm not fully aware of foreign matters. But if you haven't done the following, I suggest you try: 1) I suggest you track down what universities you want to attend, record a list of phone numbers, and call their graduate departments. 2) Ask the people there what kind of degrees or pre-requisite knowledge is expected of people who wish to be admitted. I have met many people who were married and working while obtaining their post-graduate degrees. Sometimes people are paid to get their degrees, thus the need to work is lowered. At other times, tuition is paid by the college or department, thus helping the student once again. I would say people have the most problems when they are married, working, and raising children. The raising children bit tends to make most adults struggle. Good luck and plan ahead.

MD/Ph.D program. Such a thing allows a person to be a biomedical researcher. For what I understand, people who have both degrees are allowed to further htemselves in biomedical research by either doing medical work or actual research. With both degrees, a person has more power to cross the border of ethics or attempt to do so. Being that the interest is in application, then I suspect you'll want to be a researcher. Thus, you'll want a Ph.D in something such as molecular biology or genetics. A degree in genetics might work. I suggest you get a bachelor's degree and take courses in genetics. A Ph.D will allow you to do research in stem cell technology. If you combine the Ph.D with a M.D., then you can make more money. Many research institutions only want to hire people with both degrees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_research_scientist http://www.mdphds.org/guide/mdphd_mstp.php

Is there a world-wide established code of ethics that all biomedical workers and researchers need to keep? For instance, would it be illegal for me to grab mice from my attic, breed them, and then use them for experimentation? And if I did, would it be unethical if my experiment killed 100 mice in day? a week? an hour? What are the ethical standards for conducting scientific experiments?

Does randomness exist, or is the term "random" simply a way of saying, "we don't know how to determine it yet"? OR is free will classified with the state of being, which would be next to randomness; and I am saying randomness acts as an unseen aspect of the universe that is not allowed to be determined. That would be a true random. However, I would like to disregard many scientific literatures that state something is "random." I think that we haven't understood how to explain their physical action yet.

I consider a cure to be a magic bullet. It stops something dead in its tracks and prevents something from ever occuring again.

Each nation's government system is different. Would it be a good idea for the government to sponsor checkups? Well, if you suspect that half of the lives would be saved, then perhaps so. One would have to reference epidemiology and statistics of cancer patients. Perhaps the statistics of most importance would have to do with contributing memebers of society. How many important members of society have died from cancer and could have it prevented from regular checkups? I'd be a tyrant and consider medical staff and anyone in a medicine-related field to be important. I will assume that any decent person with insurance and a respectable job would have a decent health care plan. Thus, at such a point, to get a person to have a checkup, the government would have to force the person to have a checkup. But for things to be free for low-income persons it would cost the government a lot of money. Therefore, the government would expect that money back. And that money back is often obtained through taxes. Therefore, one would have to question the return and the cost of support. If people's lives are saved, how much return is created? In order to save people's lives, how much money is needed to support such a national cancer plan? This thread is becoming more political, though. So, I will stop here.

The irony of Illinois voters is that some voted like republicans when voting for Obama. In other words, some people voted in support of the state, figuring that he might have a hand in helping its current economic and governmental system.

I think the amount of people who voted for him is more impressive than his win.

Are you saying bacteria don't have oncogenes?

I think the military expense thing is true. I once read that the cost of ammo/guns for a year for one soldier is the same amount as a soldier's annual salary: about $14000 USD. Education... All of you have heard my argument. I blame it on the teachers. If they think they have enough skill to teach someone, then they ought to have enough skill to be creative and supply students in an excellent fashion. They don't. Maybe they should go back to school and do something else. If schools were setup correctly, people would be obeying T.A.s. The T.A.s would advance to their new career. And students would move onto the next grade, during which they meet a new teachers and T.A.. Of course, children will grow up with detachment issues. It's not like America will get any better with people doing dead-end jobs, though.

It has to do with age, living arrangements, and probability. As age increases, so does the chance of cancer. As you eat more sugar and don't brush your teeth, the chance of a cavity increases. The idea behind age and cancer is that throughout years, the cells divide and encounter environments that could cause mutations. But it is less likely for a mutation to occur than for a person to obtain a cavity; and that is where and why people visit dentists more than medical doctors.

The question is not so simple: What is a cure? What does a cure do? Why is it a cure? What do you think? Is there a difference between a treatment and a cure?

But, if I understand right, about 25% of Americans (or was it adults?) have a college degree or some college education? Census bureau stats ought to clear these stats up. *me = busy* So, that would mean 75% of American adults are undereducated. Therefore, yeah, it would be common to run into stupid/ignorant people on a daily basis. And how do you determine a degree as worthy? I find if it has serious philosophical roots, then it could be worthy. Otherwise, I don't think a masters degree in physical education is that worthy; sadly, they earn too much @#$!#@$ money! You mean having a kid? Hmm, "slave." I suspect I could use that word more often than "tool" para refer to people.

Would a highly intelligent and incredibly wise and perceptive person be at a mall? And if so, would that person be socializing? And if socializing, to what limit? People are stupid. It's a fact of life. Attribute it however you like. There are a large portion of people who don't understand the big picture. Otherwise, people don't want to see or even think about the big picture. Some people simply don't want to have social and personal responsibilities. Intelligence comes with power, and both can have responsibilities. At 37, I'm surprised you really have to discuss the stupidity of the human race. Humanity's stupidity is nothing new. It is disappointing, though. Throughout the years, I've come to believe in forms of socialism, dictatorship, communism, and more. It's based on the idea that many people can't take care of themselves. And a good amount of them, when taking care of themselves, often piddle their time and abilities in futile tasks and social constructions that advance humanity no where. I think I understand why older adults become republicans and so forth. Yes, democracy would be beautiful is people didn't act like self-destructive, irrational fools. What I'm trying to say is that if people acted intelligent and wise, they would be suffering. It could bring them suffering. And the true question is this: Is it ethical to desire others to be intelligent?

I read about that: link I also read about the recent (08/2008) suicide of the person accused of the bioterrorist actions on the U.S. senate building: link But besides these things, can anyone offer information to my thread?

Something that changed in the philosophy of science. Lots of things did. Pick a topic.

I created this thread with little detail on my part to see how it would turn out. Also, we're into the 21st century a little, so I thought it would be nice to talk about "what if we had the technology." If we did have flying cars, they would probably create a lot of pollution. Unless they were created to be green and safe. I mean, let's think about the past few decades. I don't know about any of you, but I never came across someone mentioning that flying cars, if made, should come with the idea of being environmentally friendly. That's one reason why I created this thread. I figured we had some decent scientists here, and it would be something to keep in mind. The provided posts have been interesting and information. And I appreciate foodchain's post the most. It was a good counter-argument. Yes, I know we don't have them yet. But if we did, then we'd be screwed if we didn't think about environmental concern, right? And yet, a lot of us still want flying cars. But should we still pursue that issue knowing that it could damage the environment? Should we, knowing that it could damage things more than now, give up on the idea of flying cars?

I think it's a novel idea. I mean, stress brings down the immune system. Thus, since the immune system is down, a person can get more sick. But it seems like a person might get sick from microorganisms that are natural to the surrounding. In other words, a person would get sick when he or she normally would not get sick. And perhaps the reason a person doesn't get sick in the first place is because the antibodies are already at a decent level but lower when stress is created. The idea here is finding a way to increase antibodies and immunities by being under stress. But the thing here is that a person is getting sick from surrounding microorganisms. And a person doesn't become sick from typical surrounding m.o.s unless he or she is already ill, has a decreased immunity, and blah. Since stress is already down, a person's immune system would have to fight off the sickness and then become stronger from doing that. I think something that could possibly come out of this is if after being constantly attacked while under stress that the immune system finds better ways to recover while under stress. Research would have to be conducted to prove something like this. Get some mice from Best Buy or Newegg. I think it would be better to have an optimal level of health and introduce bacteria and viruses in large amounts instead of being under stress.