Genecks

People typically don't understand themselves. Otherwise, people aren't thinking things through. Also, people try to create a fake ethos in social situations. I will have to admit the liberal views have changed. I see some people as social deconstructionists rather than liberals.

After reading about and being told some information about a weightloss drug called "alli," a question was posed to me. I'm not too sure how to answer it, so I'm thinking some of you might be able to tackle it: The amount of fat calories a person can consume is different for people. How many grams of fat can one Alli pill stop from being absorbed? One person can eat 4 grams of fat at one meal and have 1 gram (25%) of fat blocked from digestion. Can another person can eat 12 grams of fat at one meal and have 25% (3 grams) not absorbed? If so, how does one Alli pill know how much fat to block? To block 1 gram of fat, or 3 grams of fat?

Isn't it spelled "salaam"? I would only think ignorant Muslims would discriminate against "people of the book," a term created by Muslims, because people of the book were so helpful to the Muslims long ago.

I keep seeing AT&T in the media and some buildings. Last I remember, they tried creating a monopoly in the 1990s. What do you think its current agenda is?

Networks seem to be switching around in the past few years. Seems like Fox is regaining control. MSNBC is getting repopularized. Yeah, seems like things are returning... like AT&T.... ;

Well, I'm sure this is the duty of science. It's done to make sure we're closer to the truth about something. I'm not referring to the ad-hoc tweaking a Freudian would have done. However, was I wrong to say it's ok to tweak and improve upon a hypothesis? I'm pretty sure I wasn't, but I do understand your comment about people or a person later trying to disprove that hypothesis to test it's validity and strength. If I throw a lemur, it won't fly. By using such a hypothesis, you imply various dependent and independent variables. What you ought to do is explicity express those variables.

So, I accidentally left my flash drive in my pants, which I put in the washing machine. I haven't tried to plug in the flash drive, but I've read there are some things I could do. One thing is simply put the flash drive in a gallon of distilled water for a couple of days; afterwards, let it dry out for a few more days. I'm not too sure what to do, but I need that data.

Hmm, downloading from a cable would be better. I think people don't upload that much data these days. Hmm, I wonder what the possibility of using a server and a cable cord would be... Is cable internet on par with the speed of transfer from a TV network to the TV?

Too many theories of neural structure. I'm annoyed by them. I need to see lots and lots of evidence to start believing in any single one. I suppose the release of code is to advertise and lure people into the theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis BTW, it's not good to say you're a major of a certain type of science when you don't know its fundamentals. Really, really bad to say. It's looked down upon as a person goes up the ladder. There have been times when I forgot the fundamentals--but I usually pick them back up quite quickly. Recently someone brought up a neuroscience question here, I misinterpreted the question, so I didn't really answer. Funny enough, it was a fundamental question. I felt stupid. However, were I in a work, school, or meeting environment, not being able to correctly interpret, respond, know the answer is not good.

Any possibility you can get a short video of it? I really like what you've done, YT. Hmm, I wonder what the possibility of getting many more smaller LEDs for resolution would be. Hmm, it'd be crazy to make laser lights shoot out and project to a larger wall. I wonder if that's economically feasible.

A background in physics, mechanics, metal working, and engineering is a must. Perhaps design skills would be in order. 2008, though, huh? I can see it with your budget, but I don't know your educational background. What background do you have? I think if you could find some local roboticists and mechanics, they might be able to give you some pointers. Perhaps you could walk into an engineering place, if you have one, and see if someone can throw out ideas for local resources. A knowledge of metallurgy an metalworking is good, because you can dumpster dive and build stuff from a junkyard. I don't know your background, though. I mean, sometimes people can get $12 USD just pulling power supplies out of certain things.

I wouldn't doubt someone has tried that, bascule. However, I don't think it's too feasible. You've got to have the bridge, and its action, and so many other things. Tuning the strings. Switching to a different note...

Couldn't tell you, spooky. This looks reference-specific, meaning the teacher wants you to memorize and know that specific amount of data. I suggest finding a classmate to help you. Other than that, I'm thinking industrialization? Probably wrong, though. Also, that question is weird. Modernity giving rise to modernity? It's as if it's self-supporting. I see a closed-system, so why would anything else help it. Seems illogical... hmm, weird.

This topic is very interesting and contemporary. It coincides with my current topic. Also, it's totally not cool to ask people to do your homework about half-life. Anyone who has a grasp of atomic science knows that it's powerful stuff, and it's very much worth learning, especially when you're walking around a place that was recently nuked.

Yes, this is a very good basis. Also, if your results go against your original thinking, be ready to explain why. Otherwise, create views as to why something happened. It's not about being right or wrong. It's the idea of deconstructionism. You take an idea in order to find truth. You eventually find out why your hypothesis is wrong and keep tweaking it and improving it. The hope is to come out with an eventual theory. It's more of a process of elimination until you find the truth. In some academic scenarios, you have to act like you don't know the answer. You can form the hypothesis into a positive one if you know the answer, but you've still got to explain why something happened the way it did. Another point to bring out its dependent in independent variables. This is one of those threads I seriously wish the philosophy board was still open for. There are various ways of creating hypotheses. Look into them.

I'd invade them and the Jews. Afterwards, I'd take the land and not let either of them in. If they tried, they would both die. Afterwards, I think I would simply keep the land and plant some cherry blossoms. Yeah, those a pretty. Yeah, I think those would be nice. I wouldn't let anyone on, though. However, I have admired the planting techniques of the Jews in various dry lands. I would be the ruler of a bunch of land. And that would be all. I assume both nations would be highly annoyed with me, but oh well.

Bite my shiny, metal ass

Are we talking about Au 79? I'm talking about obtaining the gold I could bring to a pawn shop. Perhaps I could buy a sandwich with the money from that gold.

Those who publish in certain journals are corrupt, as I've recently learned from librarians. I can't remember the name, but it's a specific British (I think) company that grips and manipulates certain people in order to give them tenure and allow them to publish with certain journals. In result, it hurts various educational institutions. W2Go for excelling research and development. It's true, though, that certain people and processes tend to prick the balloon of ongoing scientific success.

So, if I can create and manipulate a supernova, then I can make gold? Ok, so what of the supernova makes the gold? Does anyone have a proof showing that a supernova can make gold? Has the process been observed in the universe by previous or contemporary scientists? Or is this some form of speculation? I've often read that most stuff comes from hydrogen, which goes through various processes in order to become different elements. I'm not too sure about the factuality of that, though. So, all I (as an alchemist) would need is a particle accelerator to make gold?

True, but many organizations have developed with specific interests. Sadly, I feel these organizations can't do anything without money. Not in the sense that workers want money--I'm sure they do--but the equipment for specific interests is expensive (2 million dollars for a nice machine, anyone?). Oh, pah. I'm sure many scientists would love to have original research and create/discover something new, but they thing is sometimes people can't. That's why some people get their Master's and run. Whether or not this opens many doors is another thing. I suppose in time, people will start working for organizations with those previously mentions special interests. Matter of fact, many American scientists leave America to do work elsewhere. From what I've learned from various persons with a Ph.D, it doesn't do too much good. I don't think a Ph.D makes a good scientist. I do think learning and progressing science with newfound knowledge makes a good scientist.

Besides you both being kidiots, I think Hawking's views may be a little off. I mean, I'm thinking about Transformers: Cybertron. In that cartoon, the Autobots thought a blackhole would consume and destroy the universe. But Hawking radiation says otherwise... So, I'm really unsure about both the cartoon and Hawking. Other than that, I don't think a "Theory of Everything" can actually be created. Nah, if someone with a knowledge of physics can eventually bend astrophysics and rebuild the "machine" that processes and changes the universe, then I suppose that ToE would have to change, too. Unless the ToE can be completely independent of all dependent variables. I'd like to see that. Wouldn't that be a type of logic? Yes, no, and maybe? * Sure, one can be created. I don't doubt that. * Can one maintain it's position? No, if you can bend everything to your will, thus making the theory invalid: If you have a theory for everything, then you have a theory to make the the theory of everything invalid. It's a paradox. * Maybe, well I'm guessing this is the exception idea to the two, previous presented propositions. I try not to be a pessimist. I try to be a philosopher with views of functionalism and realism.

I don't see that as evolution. I know it's an argument, but still. Microevolution, ey? Nothing already there has really changed. Something has been multiplied. Something else has been taken away. But I don't think any new genes have occurred.

Yes, it's time to bring up discussion on something alchemists have tried to do for many millennia. So, how did gold get here in the Universe and on Earth? What's your big idea?