Genecks

Do what you enjoy because you enjoy doing it. Never do it solely because of money. You probably won't be happy if you do the majority of your work for money. I was told a long time ago by some chemists that if I'm in this game for money, I ought to have been a business major. I've been against the idea of materialism since childhood, so I don't work for money. I work because enjoy what I'm doing. I work because it gives me experience and makes me more skilled. That's the great thing about working for a trade, such as locksmithing, carpentry, etc.. You need to make a decision as you go higher: Are you doing this for money or because you enjoy it? Those will be the deciding factors. However, you'll want to make sure that you can actually keep living with the job you have chosen. Choosing a career that doesn't pay would not be a wise idea. You'll simply have to understand that you won't be making large sums of cash, and that you probably won't work and live in Hawaii or Japan. Here are the serious factors: 1. Can I get a job with this? 2. Do I like this? 3. Can I get health benefits? If it's one and two, that's great. If it's one, two, and three, grab it for what it's worth. Many people go into the military because of all three, but I'm not advocating the military. Yet some people simply work for small amounts of cash, and they love the ability to have health benefits. Health benefits seem to be a necessity these days. I personally thought about doing the Bachelor's of Science myself.

Ah, nevermind.

I'm typically biased toward most people. Yet I want you, the thread creator, to know something. No one can tell you who you are. You must learn who you are. And since I don't feel like telling you who you are, I'm going to give you weblinks: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_comparison_theory - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism Do you want advice? -> Keep going up the ladder.

Treadmills make too much noise. I wouldn't mind having a treadmill for a few of my classes. I could keep in shape each day that way. However, I am in support of online learning and in-school testing.

Martin, don't you have a bachelor's degree or something? I thought most moderators had one. If so, you ought the be able to figure out credibility by now. Regardless, perhaps you'll think about researching the researcher? http://www.wistar.upenn.edu/research_facilities/heberkatz/research.htm She looks like the kind of professor I would like to train under for a Ph.D. For further inquiry, you could email her. Just because a person has been talking about regeneration for a long time does not mean it is not legit: age fallacy. However, most scientists, from what I understand, don't like to say anything until they have enough evidence to support their claims. There was a large amount of that going on in 2005 with neuroscience; people kept their information until January of 2006. This might be the stuff you want: And there is also published information: There seem to be some other published information: You might be able to research these things through an electronic database. I would link to a few articles, but I'm thinking that's illegal. Well, I'm not sure exactly. For what I understand, as long as a person is doing research, he or she is allowed to copy resources; but the person must dispose or return the resources after research. I'm using EBSCO to look at some of these full-text .pdf articles. If any of you are interested, you might be able to visit a public library, college library, and/or university and ask a librarian to help you find these articles. One more thing: If I read this correctly, it looks like the articled referred to people who were trying to do the same experiment.

Something neat I recently learned is that sometimes a person's eyes will turn light blue if they have cataracts. This may have only been for black people. I've seen black people in my life with blue eyes; it seems quite astounding. I might have a picture in my genetics or biology books. I'm pretty sure the black people were not wearing contacts. I have the ability to tell when someone is wearing contacts. I asked my biology professor a long time ago if he knew anything about black people with blue eyes. I figured that the people were either colorblind or something. I think I remember tripping across something that said people with cataracts often develop blue eyes.

Not a doubt in my mind. Exactly. I really haven't been using Microsoft Word since I learned how to save drafts in GMail. Now that I can use Google Docs, I'm going to do formatting in Microsoft Works Word Processor, a program typically bundled for free with Windows operating systems. I typically use MS programs for footnotes, headers, bibliographies, margins, and saving files to a disk. The same things could be done with openoffice.org, but I simply use the freely bundled programs that come with Windows. However, some people might object to Google Docs not being great because of no grammar checker. Well, I didn't see one. But I do know that a person cannot rely on a program to check his or her grammar. I've often fought with Microsoft Office's opinion of my grammar. I've thought at times, "You're wrong. I'm right." Therefore, a person can't rely on grammar checkers; but they do sometimes seem to pick up little errors. I'm thinking about investing in Google. They might create a whole new world of "Internet programs."

Maybe I'm late on this, but I recently noticed Google let out it's project "Google Docs." I've been using GMail as a way to save my paper drafts for school. I even wrote an article on writingforums.com about using GMail to save drafts and final drafts. It seems that Google caught on to people using GMail for academic and general writing. The importance of this is that Google Mail automatically saves text that a person types. It saves every so often. Also, the saved file is on Google's server. If your computer crashes, it doesn't matter. The file is saved on Google's servers. That's the great part about it. The only downside is if Google's servers crashed; but a person could always back up the file before he or she walks away from the computer. However, it seems that Google did catch onto people's need for a virtual storage medium that can travel with them. Google created Google Docs specifically for this purpose. It allows a person to type of documents, check them for spelling errors, and save drafts. Yet the best part, in my opinion, is the ability to check revisions. In other words, it saves the draft about every thirty seconds, as long as a person stays consistent. You can check through the savepoints and see the revisions that have been done since then. With microsoft word, I would have to look through various saved files. However, Google Docs makes this take easy and simple. Another great feature is the ability to double space text. However, I believe a downside is the inability to create margins for the documents. I tried altering the HTML (you can alter the documents HTML), but the margins didn't take effect. I'm hoping I can find a way to have the Modern Language Association format. Altogether, I'm going to be using Google Docs whenever I type up a paper. I'm sick of losing disks, having my computer crash, etc. I wouldn't rely on it too much because there might be a time when a person can't save. However, I trust writing on Google Mail or Google Docs more than writing with a word processor program. Internet writing is the wave of the future.

You're going to want to be careful about that. Some people don't like icons, images, etc. that represent their religion. I remember walking into an Islamic building two weeks ago in Chicago. It seemed that they have a metal circle with only language on in it. It was like cursive writing created a maze within the circle. A circle composed of language. Sadly, I don't think I took a picture of that. Other than that, this forums does have a nice monochromatic blue scheme. It's easy on the eyes; the blue creates a calm atmosphere; and the white stimulates alertness. Supposedly, colors have an affect on the psychology of an individual. That's what I continue, perhaps, to like this forum. It has a very nice layout; I've always liked the layout. But I'm somewhat getting bored with the colors. I will agree, however, that people are right in saying this forum is eccentric. It allows for quick communication and interpretation. I guess I ought to learn CSS. I don't know how popular it is on the web these days. I'm somewhat of an old-school, html javaslinger. But I'll look into the Firefox thing The Tree spoke about.

Would it be possible to create a different forum look? Perhaps something black?

They help for understanding complex topics, but analogies can sometimes make simple topics more complex. It can back-fire from time to time. They seem to work very well in the hard sciences, but they seem to fail when it comes to the liberal arts. I assume this is correlated to spatial reasoning within people.

- http://www.englishforums.com/ - http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/silva.htm (Known as "The Forest of Rhetoric") - Writingforums.com Use the first website to improve grammar, spelling, and many other things. I recommend The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language for improving your grammar. The book can be expensive, but it can later be used as an authoritive reference guide. The book has over 1500 pages. I would buy one, but I keep checking it out from the library; therefore, I don't need to buy it. If you can read through that book, understand it, and practice what it preaches, then you'll have a good grasp on grammar. (p-p-g-g-g) Use the second website to browse through rhetorical figures and help your understanding of rhetoric. Rhetoric is simply style. It's the way style is used on an audience to obtain a particular effect. Also, as you become more of a rhetorician, you'll understand what that "p-p-g..." stuff was about. Use the third website to have people evaluate your usage of rhetoric and style. I'm more of a cryptic/macabre writer: That only took me about one minute to make.

I like genetic evidence to link evolutionary claims. Otherwise, I don't care to learn certain things in paleontology. I rarely buy into the bone-comparison ideology, and I think those without genetic evidence are speculating. Although that seems fun, I don't think it would get me anywhere far. However, I do understand the importance of it. I would say it is similar to a medical professional taking a course on ethics and religion: You don't need it, but you ought to take it; you can understand people around you and how to respond to their needs. I don't mind tracing things, but if there isn't enough evidence, then I really don't care to study the topic. I suppose a person could respond to a finding, adjust to it, and understand it along with further evolutions of it. Perhaps it offers critical thinking in cause-effect relationships, thus allowing a person to make deductions about findings; but I don't see much beyond that. I'm guessing it offers speculation and deduction, which are hard things to come by because a person must constantly find new things in science to speculate and deduce. Are you saying people should learn palaeontology to fend off the creationists? I don't see that as justification if that's what you're saying. I don't like wasting my time when studying science. The religious zealots can believe whatever they want to believe. I'm not going to bicker with them. Plus, I always have this feeling that if they stick to their religion, they will not allow themselves to be persuaded by you: It's against their beliefs to accept certain things from science.

I agree. There is only a correlation. It's not a theory, because it is a claim. And you seem to be arguing from authority. I thought the scholastic method died... Testimony doesn't seem like good evidence. I'd want to see some videos of biological interactions. Otherwise, describing the process with chemistry, biochemistry, and physics would help. Although not relevant to skin cancer, such a thing did happen in the 1980s.

I see many typographical errors. I believe the writer could have used semicolons in a more 1800's fashion, but the writer made the error of having run-on sentences. Also, there is the glitch with no period after the abbreviation for doctor. I'd say the writer needs to tune the skills really quick. Perhaps others need more lessons in English. (t-t-t-s-r-q-p-o-n-m-l) Rhetoric is fun!

Most religions simply want you to do good deeds with good actions and with good thoughts in mind. Simple as that. And don't give me that Platonic/cynic stuff that any action is a good action. I'm talking about things that help society and the well-being of a person. Anyway, I think you need to learn that the spoken word is more painful and powerful than the unspoken word. It is ok to find your own path in life, but scrutinizing others is not ok. Of course, refuting philosophical standpoints is a different story. But nonetheless, people simply need to acknowledge the drum other people hear. When you yell at the drum, the beat gets louder. I have a tendency to not talk about religions in a negative way. I simply talk about the philosophy, rituals, practices, etc. of religions. I don't say any of them is better, nor do I try to support one over the other. I stopped attending church a long time ago. Well, I go when I can or feel the need. Other than that, I'm simply too busy or should be busy. And I know people would not be pleased if I brought my college book into the church to read during a sermon. I'm think from a philosophical standpoint, people make an error when they call God omnibenevolant. So, God might send people to hell. Of course, God is infinitely complex because of mind limitations in the physical body with biological brain processing. We can't really know how God works. I've got a theory about this that I've been meaning to work out, but I'm pretty sure God doesn't want us to know God, itself. I call it "defense theory." If you knew God, and God knows everything, you'd be an omnigod. That doesn't work out so well for God. Anyway, final word: Keep your beliefs to yourself unless asked about them from a superior. You can discuss the beliefs of others. However, do not discriminate against another religion based on your beliefs. Instead, show educated and intelligent counterpoints that some people have to various religions without showing negativity or too much bias. And the error point is very loaded and would help create an argumentative thesis: I wouldn't say something like that. Contraditions in logic might be there, but errors would be up for debate. Of course, you'd have to clarify what you mean by "errors." Yet interpretation has mangled future texts. In all, I'd be careful about what I say to others. I think one of the most important things I learned this year is that language is a very powerful tool when combined with philosophy. Be careful what you say.

I agree, Glider. I'm trying to understand what DaveC426913 is talking about. The only way I see two children coming out as twins would be if the DNA from two sperm seperated, parted away, and one strand from each went into each egg. || || |....| ...o .|...|. ...o

I've gone through grade school, middle school, high school, and college. I've met many tutors, professors, teachers, and people through life who have taught me various things. I've also learned to teach myself through the years incase no one would be there to support me. Although I can support myself, there are things I don't understand. Things I haven't been introduced to knowing. Something that someone else would end up teaching me. A teacher is like a librarian: The person introduces students to resources so they can learn the subject material. A teacher teaches students life-long skills, and he or she provides students with solutions to probable future scenarios. If the teacher can't teach a student something, the teacher could show the student where to find more information. That's teaching. To tell you the truth, I'm against current teaching in institutions. I don't like the idea of having students evaluated, criticized, and a label slapped on them. The jigsaw classroom ideology left over from the 1970s probably made people think group work in classrooms was an all-around good thing. I'm sick of group work. I agree with Mokele that it holds people down. I recently dropped my English course because of that stupid B.S. I had an 88% in the English course and an 'A' in every other course. However, the group members in my English course were screwing me over, giving me all the work; and when midterm came, they didn't even understand what an enthymeme is. It's perhaps the most important part of an English paper because it includes the thesis. Gah! Once I learned I would still be in that group, with that idiocy, I dropped it. I was not going to do another 48-hour period of typing, proofreading, and correcting mistakes for three people. I can stay up for long periods of time; I can work for weeks on four hours of sleep; but I'm not going to do their work. I will do those things for my own work. Worst yet, the professor lied to me saying individuals were graded individually. We were graded as a group. A good teacher does not create group projects. However, if the class is suppose to be built upon group work, as in a chemistry or biology lab that lasts a full college semester, then yeah: Group work is suppose to be done. Now I'm working hardcore to bring the grades in my other classes up. Everything went down to a B grade. Don't think I'm angry about that. I'm more for the destruction of the educational system than the building of it. However, I do support teachers giving students life-long skills so students can excel at their own rate. In other words, if students can figure out that they can go to their college library, pick up a calculus book, even though they are in high school, they learned something new that day. I didn't learn where to obtain advanced books in school while I was growing up. If I knew how to obtain resources, I'd be more intelligent than I am now. I was always buying and finding resources until I learned about interlibrary loan and other types of library systems. I didn't have large amounts of money, but it seems other institutions offer these resources. A teacher teaches students not only theory, but how to excel in theory and find resources to go further. So many teachers complain about the funding they get for their schools. Heh. I believe that an intelligent persons knows all too well that money isn't everything. The teachers simply need to teach with more efficiency and accuracy. The problem isn't the money, the problem is the teachers. The teachers are lazy, they don't want to organize school activities, and they don't want to spend their money. It seems that communitarian effort does not exist to groups of teachers. No wonder American society keeps screwing each generation over. One last thing: That depends on your definition of "spoon feeding." No offense YT, but last time I checked, you didn't go to college. I don't know what kind of personal experience you have. I know you're a smart guy and dabble in various "things." And I can assume you went through grade school and high school, so I can understand where you might be coming from. However, spoon feeding has various levels when it comes to college. When it comes to objective things such as science, I can understand when spoon-feeding exists. Math is math: it is purely objective. English, however, is not the same. I had asked my English professor for help on an assignment while the class was around. She quickly used sophistry on me to avoid helping. She had given no example of what kind of outline she was looking for on our research papers. She simply said, "Be creative." I took her advice on being creative. I did well on that. However, there's something that upset me. When more people asked her for help, she said, "I don't want to help you guys because that would be spoon-feeding, and I don't want you stealing my style." AKA: She's paranoid that we'll steal her style. She could have simply said, "buy the MLA Research book and copy it's MLA layout." It would have worked because the whole format and ideology of the paper would be MLA. Of course, she never stated that throughout the whole semester. There were a lot of "fill-in-the-blanks" in that class. And I think she put way too many in the class. Fill-in-the-blanks are things the professor will never say because you're expected to journey out and find the answers on your own time. I know that's part of college education, but from where I live, our educational system sucks. People are not taught to be researchers and independent thinkers. I believe she assumed that people had the same educational background as her. However, that is not true. A good teacher doesn't assume that everyone has the same educational background. The teacher makes up for this and tries to make sure everyone is on the same level or above the expected level. This can be done by giving quizzes and so forth in the form of essays. Afterwards, the professor can evaluate the knowledge of the students and compensate for things the majority don't know. I'm not talking about 51% or something like that. I'm talking about things that 20-40%+ of the class doesn't understand. A teacher might acknowledge that students come and go, but it is the teachers job to be an excellent and caring teacher. I don't think teachers are willing to take out the effort to care. They'll use sophistry behind their beliefs, which typically seem like invalid arguments, because they are educated. And if you try to put words into their mouth, they'll refute your or some other junk like that. I've bickered with professors before. I've used social psychology on these people. It's unethical on my side, but I'm finding it common that professors don't care. I could say it's the inability for people to care in schools or think about consequences of actions that are creating a lot of problems. I also remember a time I took an earlier college course. The professor expected people to have second semester English knowledge. That knowledge is not a prerequisite for the course. No where in the college catalogue was it described that people would do argumentation. A high school student could innocently walk into the class and expect five-paragraph essays, exams, and pop-quizzes. However, it wasn't like that. The high school student would be walking into the lion's den. An argumentative paper was assigned. The professor wanted an argumentative paper. Not everyone knows how to create such a paper. Yet very few people did. That is unfair to the students. This kind of writing is taught in English 103 (second semester English) Therefore, a good teacher would not assign something like that without giving a discourse into argumentation. Or else the person would state in the schedule that argumentation is required for the course. I've seen various professors at my college do this. I'm not very happy about it. My most recent professor did it. I was very angry that another professor did this. I have argumentation experience, so I understand how the system works. But I looked around, and I noticed other students didn't have a clue. That is unfair. I do not agree with that. If this is some weed-out process, then it is an unethical weed-out process. Classes should have an ENG-103 class prerequisite before assigning such an assignment. I will say, however, that the last professor that requested it (my World Religion professor) did give a brief intro into the topic. I mean very brief. It takes more than one hour to understand argumentation. He gave an hour discussion. It takes time (about a month) to learn and practice argumentation. A professor can't simply assign such a paper without students already having knowledge of argumentation theory. A good teacher doesn't assign topics that only a select few in a class can do. In these cases, professors assigned things that are not typically taught in high school. That's unethical. People paid money to learn. They understand they are expected to work hard. But you can't expect them to learn the material of another course in an undergraduate course in one month when the assignment is due in one month. People are going to be pushed out of the system. If this is the weed-out process, that's sad. People who care about education are being pushed out because professors are assigning topics that only a select few understand. People are not able to further their education when they really care about it. I see that kind of suffering. I'm annoyed by it. These teachers are causing unnecessary or perhaps unethical sufferings to their students. However, I could be blind. High schools might now teach argumentation, but argumentation wasn't taught to me in high school. I graduated high school in 2005. I had my first argumentative paper in 2006. I hope to graduate in 2007 from college. Something is apparently wrong in college. A good teacher allows people to be at the same level, excel faster than others, become resourceful, and understand course material. I'm sure that if each student about the course material, then each student would make an 'A' grade. The only thing that would screw that up is the inability for the student to understand, the inability for the teacher to correctly teach, or some unknown external factor. 1. Teachers should not assign things students don't understand. Premise: Students will not be able to learn or do well on them. 2. If teachers assign things students don't understand, these assignment should be worth a low amount of points. Premise: Students will learn something out of it, probably fail, but still do the assignment. Also, I don't understand why failing is a good thing. All it offers is a crash for megalomaniacs and egotistic persons, but success is needed for society because of the social constructs people have created. Science is less of an illusion, so I assume failing at science means failing to understand science. And that's not good, because science helps people understand the physical nature of the world. Science is less of an illusion than other things. Many rhetors throughout history have said that people are simply copying techniques from other people. I'm sure pragmatists would support this kind of view. What works best, works best and should be used until the better thing that works better is found. I don't see a problem with people copying methods from others. Easten civilizations called it passing down knowledge. Americans call it competition and stealing one's style. I've been thinking of a new teaching technique. I call it the deduction technique: If you don't come to my office with certain information about what you're doing in this class, I'll automatically deduct ten points. Or else you need to fill out a survey and other forms with detailed responses. It seems irrational, but I'm sure it would get students to admit they aren't doing so hot at certain topics. A teacher could somewhat force a student into seeking guidance by filling out forms, telling the teacher what he or she needs in terms of guidance. I'm thinking this deduction technique could work. If you notice how teachers and parents have conferences in schools, this teacher-student conference might do some good. The student will be forced to communicate to the teachers. If the student comes, his or her grade stays the same. If not, ten points are deducted. Perhaps more points could be lost to make the student feel threatened. Of course, this goes into the realm of social psychology; but a student would visit the professor to keep the grade the same.

I don't see any evidence for the claims present by various persons. Although, I do admire the elipses presented by Bascule. Rhetors seem to understand the power of language.

I agree. It's not like Dalek is saying or if the things he or she contributes to the forum is going to help terrorists or something. I don't see the reason for having Dalek banned.

Buddhists don't worship Buddha; they take inspiration from Buddha. And.. I don't remember the act of praying to angels as a sin.

The common sense doctrine needs to be created in academia. Too many people are angry at this unknown, mysterious standard. People yammer about plagiarism, but can a person know anything beyond his or her own mind? These words I type. These things I say to you. I'm sure I learned grammar from some place. Should I cite that? Should I cite where I obtained the word "grammar"? I'm still in college, and I'll be getting my associate's degree soon. However, I'd like to say that no one has ever created a freakin' standard. Yet I've found some standards along my travel. I call it the common sense doctrine. The common sense doctrine is as follows: (1.) That which is taught in class is allowed to be used as your thought. Under these conditions: a. you speak from experience. ba. you do not paraphrase or quote a passage from the book. bb. you say something in your own words when it is an idea from the book; you don't not use the same or similar words expressed in the book. c. you are not directly quoting someone 2. That which has been taught to you in the past may be used as your thought. under these conditions: a. it's not a direct quote from some person in history b. it's a historical event that can be found in many text books. 3. That which society already knows. Under these conditions: a. You can walk outside your door, ask a commoner a question about society, and receive an answer that others give. This is what I call the consensus sense. b. That which is known because you are a human: - You must eat, drink, sleep, etc.

I'm curious as to how the fathers' DNA would have divided among the eggs.

This is a hypothetical situation, but since we're making a story, I'd say I have wood, dry material, and a zippo lighter. Also, I have a pot that can hold liquids and cook a nice upside-down pineapple cake. Of course, I'd probably line the pot with aluminum foil. I really don't know how much water is inside of blood. I could understand that the RBCs might already be depleted of water, because I'm inside of a desert. Yet I'm going to assume they aren't that drained; in other words, the animals are alive. What percentage of water would be left over after boiling 7 cups of blood?

I was thinking about a possible scenario and a possible answer to a problem. Yes, I know this seems quite disturbing, but I'm being serious. Imagine that you're in the desert. You haven't been able to find water, but you've found animals around. These animals are dying, yet you could kill them for food. However, you're running low on water. A thought crosses your mind, "Could I drain the blood into a pot and boil it for the water?" What do you think? Could such a thing be possible?