Genecks

One thing leads to another. Typically it's a conscious thought that creates a neurophysiological, biochemical reaction. Somewhere afterwards, tropomyosin is activated, and that eventually activated the actin within the muscle. After some other stuff, the muscles tighten. Getting into the nitty gritty of that stuff can be difficult, and that's why a person has to develop spatial reasoning and a good imagination. Otherwise, it's a bunch of word memorization along with sequence memorization. I sometimes think to myself that the human brain is becoming like a computer when it thinks about how each action and reaction occurs in the body. You mean galvanizing it, right?

I'm thinking we ought to move this thread to the education board.

Could it be used to extract pollution? I've always wondered if people could create a type of self-sustaining robot that could fly into the atmosphere, extract pollution, and dispose of the pollution. I assume the weight of the robot would come into concern. However, I'm sure having a ton of the light-weight, pollution-extracting robots could do some good. Imagine toy helicopters in the sky disposing of polution.

I had a discussion a long time ago with people about this. Supposedly, bacon and other foods cooked in a pan can be carcinogenic. They can be carcinogenic because of the char. However, I don't have enough evidence or visual information to believe that claim.

Nah. I'm done with the red-herring posting. It shouldn't be too difficult to switch majors. However, as described above, it really is the passion that helps someone become strong-willed and determined.

True. But a person will excel if he or she gives up a lot of things. Undergraduate years are doable, but they are not excelable if a person messes around with friends and love life; that's why there are school clubs. I really suggest people let go of worldly things and prepare for the future instead of wasting time in the now. Think of all that time a person could have earned a college degree while in high school. The person could have graduated high school by putting lots of emphasis out there. There are problems, however: people want to live life. However, I'm thinking once people get in their twenties, they understand that people typically still suck and things keep repeating themselves. The best thing to do is go full force, stop wasting time, and get done with education as soon as possible. Don't think too much about the future; don't think too much about the past; prepare for the future by living in the now. If people can grasp the concept I live my life by, they will excel. One last thing: If you hate school, then learn faster. It's a joke I've made. If someone says to me, "I hate school," I will say, "learn faster. It's like pulling off a band-aid.

I put all my time and effort into studying, researching, and applying things. It really depends on how far the person wants to go up the ladder.

If you study while eating, going to the bathroom, walking around, listening to music, doing laundry, etc., then you ought to be able to excel in science. Yeah, any person at just about any age can start learning science. There is some memorization involved.

Nothing is random. Computers has physical boundaries and ties. In other words, their physical components, environment, programming, along with the laws of physics, determine the numbers they generate. Maybe that's not what you are looking for.

I was told by some people that I should learn a statistical package: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statistical_packages Anyone know why I should? Which one is the best?

Illinois resident here. College was cancelled. A few cars were caught in the snow. I awoke today thinking, "Man... how deep is that?" I typically don't see snow that deep. I was surprised when I learned lots of stuff was cancelled. I did my social duty and shoveled a little bit. It all seemed futile after a while. However, I'm still studying and typing up papers.

How about some kind of alteration? ...Book, Journal, and Magazine discussion..

I've always believed that uniforms are too strict of rule. I've always been for an ideal type of clothing wear. In other words, students have a choice of what they can wear. However, if some students decide to start grouping together and wearing blue and the others wear red, well that's gotta go: Crips and Bloods. My version of a set attire would be the following: 1. Blue jeans, black jeans, khakis, dress pants, or school uniform. Exception: Those having pictures taken or giving presentations. I'm taking out skirts because guys will look up the skirts of girls who walk up stairs. 2. Shirts of a plain color or color value: black, blue, red, etc. NO logos, words, etc. ONLY color. No white shirts except in summer. 3. Plaid and blue jean overshirts are allows. However, there are no logos, words, etc. Only blue jean or plaid is shown. No torn up, pieced together types of denims are allowed. It doesn't seem as strict, and students have a variety of choices. However, if some students start creating ingroups, then they will be forced to wear school uniforms. Doing this pretty much keeps things plain. People can't say, "I have Old Navy" or some other junk. It destroys the idea of students being walking billboards. Goths will be forced to look like Johnny Cash. Jocks will probably wear blue jeans and a color shirt. Preppy girls will probably wear khakis and pink shirts. The gang recruitment typically happens outside of the school yet on the grounds. I'm pretty sure if peers start seeing someone wear gang colors, the peers might not be too found of that person. It actually brings a person out into public if he or she is daring enough to do such a thing. For what I understand, some gang members might simply wear blue jeans, a black shirt, and a plaid overshirt. It looks pretty basic, so you don't really have anything to worry about. It doesn't really show colors anyone. I've never been recruited by a gang members inside of school. No one has ever attempted to recruit me inside or near school. I've known people who have been inside of gangs, and that stuff typically happens outside of school. Drugs are sold in school, but gangs typically keep their recruitment outside of school. Gangs don't like the idea of competition in such a small place. It's typically independent students that sell stuff. Is making everyone look the same a good thing? I guess not. If people start seeing each other as similar, they will like each other more. At least that's what social psychology says. Therefore, students who look like each other can manipulate and control each other more often. Peer pressure will be greater and easier to use. I think a lot of educators don't know what they are doing. It's better to have people hate each other than be manipulated by each other.

I would like the front page back. It gave people knowledge as to what some hot topics this site could provide.

I read through the current social psychology book I have. I emailed a professor and learned that a psychology book is dated about every four years. If a person wishes to obtain a new psychology book, he or she can talk to a librarian and get a book through interlibrary loan, which is a system that allows a person to borrow books from another library through his or her library.

I wouldn't happen to be saying "bulls417 degree" would I? Heh. What is a B.S.? I don't know. Wiki says differently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Science Another thing I really want to know is what is the difference between getting a bachelor's degree in science vs. getting a bachelor's in a specialized topic. Do people get a BSc in order to branch out into different scientific topics?

If I remember correctly the Bachelor's of Science degree can help a person say, "I understand science a little bit" in a modest sort of way. But I was wondering if a person land a job as a secondary school teacher with it, primarily high school. What can a bachelor's of science degree do for a person? I'm primarily talking about America, but other countries would be of interest to me.

It's all probability, dude. What are you looking for? Statistics?

Would you rather this forum be like biology-online.org, Bettina? Sometimes there are neat and productive things that occur. Most of the time, however, that site is plagued with homework questions.

Hmm.. I might have answered my own question a little bit. I decided to do some research on EBSCO. I found some information in a journal: I believe part of my hypothesis was correct. Although I forgot to add the whole, Acetyl-CoA part of the Kreb's cycle, I believe this article pretty much touched on the biological parts of the "Atkin's Diet." Perhaps I'm not clear on the above and below section, but I still don't understand what is happening to the adipose. What part of the biological system is removing fat? How is it removing fat? For the amount of reseach I've done, I've found that ketogenic diets are very similar to the Atkin's diet. Therefore, this bit of information might be of interest to any of you:

I've been wondering something: How does limiting the amount of carbohydrates in the human body change the metabolism, chemistry, and other physical processes of the human body? For what I understand, the body breaks down sugars and eventually turns them into ATP. However, I've been wondering, if the body doesn't have as much sugar, how does it create ATP? If it doesn't use sugar to create ATP, doesn't it use fat or protein to create ATP? Are other biochemical structures activated in order to render fat or protein to be transformed into ATP? I'm trying to understand why the Atkin's nutritional approach, or "Atkin's Diet," works for some people. Why does it work? What makes it work? Many studies in the past seems to have done trials, and they simply recorded weight loss over a brief period of time: about a year. But this is just a bunch of speculative research if you ask me. Some people have said the only thing lost was water weight. I find that hard to believe in a lot of ways, but I do know the human body is mostly composed of water. Yet I can't dismiss the fact that many people claim to have lost weight. I don't seen how the fat tissue can remain around after a year, and the only thing lost was water. I want to know the hardcore chemical and biological processes that occur during the diet: What about eating few carbs, moderate amounts of protein, and moderate amounts of fiber make a person lose weight? What biological processes occur, change, and/or stop? I'm thinking if we could compare these processes to other forms of diet, we could understand more about the human metabolism and weight loss. However, I haven't seen any studies done on biological processes that pertain to Atkin's and metabolism. My hypothesis is that if sugar doesn't remain constant or increase in the body, then the body uses fat or protein to make ATP and conduct metabolic processes. Thus, the burning or transforming of fat to create ATP occurs. Therefore, weight loss occurs. The body is compensating for a loss of sugar, and it is using fat in replacement. The body is maintaining equilibrium, but it seems nobody has found the answer as to why this is happening. The theories I've seen so far is that researchs believe people are losing "water weight." I'm thinking that's false. Also, they don't offer enough evidence to support their claim. Besides that, the body still has to use something instead of sugar for metabolic processes.

I had a lot of lucid dreams while on anti-psychotics earlier this year. I'd like to think of them as lucid because I chose actions. I chose the action to fight back. Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but in my dreams, I sometimes think these would be the actions if I were daring enough. Not to say that I'm a coward, but in the situation, I would do those things. This is why I question the idea of awareness within lucid dreaming. I figure that I understand that it’s a dream, yet I somehow consider it a parallel dimension, a nanoscopic dimension. It's within this dimension that I must make moves and act accordingly. However, one still has to use psychology to question if the actions were caused by outside influence. In other words, were using determinist ideology to say why I acted a certain way in a certain situation. It's somewhat funny, though. People who say they have control in their lucid dreams ought to be soft determinists. They don't have free-will. Well, maybe they do; or perhaps it seems like they do. Heh. Yet again, perhaps knowledge of the workings of lucid dreaming could remain in the unconscious. Thus, this can allow a person to transfer his or her awareness to the dream-state. In other words, the person takes control of the dream because the unconscious knows of possible actions it can take. I think the first dream I had, while on medicine, was about paladins/angels. They were bringing my spirit out from my body and bringing me to a new realm. And just about every dream after was a nightmare. Primarily they were dreams about supernatural beings, more supernatural than I, that I couldn't kill. Don't worry, they couldn't kill me; I kept dodging them. But they sure did a good fight until I woke up. I stopped taking the medicine many, many months ago. Don't you just love my alliterating rhetoric? Is that right? I try to avoid supernatural beings these days. Wish ignored and not suppressed by the unconscious? I agree about Freud's ideas being shot down. But I like his view on the id, ego, and superego. Last dream that I had was about a supernatural being that I could not kill. Well, I primarily couldn't kill it because I couldn't see it. I had to use plasma to kill it. It killed everyone and everything around me. The being was a neat little sucker. It stuck to walls and leaped on people, slashing them apart. I had used a plasma globe to make it stop being invisible. Then again, maybe it has to do with that plasma tech we were talking about here. Maybe it has to do with the light sabers in super smash brothers. Maybe it has to do with that gun that sticks to walls and shoots people that I saw on television, or else a top 10 games of 2006 things. I think the dream before that I was bit by a vampress with striped stockings. That was a great dream. Where's my journal entry... However, I dislike the idea of being a vampire. I mean, I'd have to figure out the genetic code and do tons of reseach for that race. So annoying... Transhumanism might be futile at that point. What'd that be? Transvampirism? Heh. Interestingly, I knew about the social code of that group of vampires in that dream. I was taking residence with them for a while. I guess the idea is that if a vampress bites me, then we are married by "blood." Mind you that I don't really research vampries that much. I don't even read the books by the humans. I'm not one of those pseudo-goth/dark/vampire people. By the way, I didn't say vampires are supernatural. Then again, I remember another dream. About thirty possessed people were trying to kill me in this three-story house. I didn't get what was going on. The only thing I knew was that they wanted my body, and they wanted the part I had for my vehicle. They figured either it was the part or me. I figured I'm keeping both. I rocked the boat and started killing people left and right. I threw them out of the third-story window, and that pretty much immobilized them. I didn't feel remorse. Oddly, though, I thought, "Should I really throw them out?" I thought, "Eh, who cares?" I didn't finish that dream. The dream pretty much reached its most dramatic point to where I was at the edge of the window, fighting and throwing off people. Well, I was simply observing that from an out-of-body point of view. However, I woke up thinking, "That was a kick-*** dream! I am totally psyched!"

I was discussing cadavers with some scientists a while back on a different forum. I asked them how it could be possible for me to find animals and disect them, perhaps mice I suggested. Many of them thought of me as creepy and immoral. Yet I was primarily interested in disecting humans. I think I would have to hold a Ph.D, however, to actually obtain a human cadaver. Eh. I have many mice in my kitchen stove. Perhaps I could capture one, disect it, open its skull, and examine its brain. I wonder if a typical 9-volt can be used to galvanize motor function. Maybe such a thing would create more voltage; therefore, I would have to link the batteries in a series. Hmm...

I can think of many other things I can do with $600 USD. Hmm, let me name a few: 1. Buy clothes and some new shoes. $150 USD - Money left: $450 2. Buy a reprographic copy stand. $150 USD. - Money left: $300 3. Talk to a pretty lady and buy her dinner. $300 USD. - Money left: $0. Might I remind you that we had a great dinner.