DrmDoc

Details matter, you're quite correct. Indeed, it was two out of 32 cases rather than millions. Although it's a rare occurrence, the higher incident of this condition among women suggests some immunity among males over females. If only for the edification of the small percentage of affected individuals, I continue to believe this suggested immunity merits further study.

Perhaps I should have said that no American who truly believes in the spirit upon which this nation was found, would deny hopeful immigrants the opportunities and successes our ancestors enjoyed.

"If nothing's faster than light, how did the dark get there first?"--Yeah, it's probably an old joke, but it gave me a chuckle today.

As I understand Sensei, the millions of people who voted for Trump endorsed his ideology whether or not that was their intent. Although you, Sensei, and I may not view immigration as quite the problem Trump portrays, he obviously perceives it as an issue that requires urgent solving. Despite this invalid perception, I believe as Sensei that there are indeed better and less costly solutions than building a stupid wall. No true American wants to deny entry to people seeking the success our ancestors sought and enjoyed after their arrival--to the chagrin of Native Americans--to these shores, but there are solutions addressing foreign desires to immigrate here that doesn't cost over a trillion dollars, which some have estimated as the cost of Trump's idiotic edits and efforts to secure our borders.

That is, of course, your opinion; however, as the SciShow video link above discusses, hypnosis has been the subject of scientific investigation. If you've selected the link and viewed the video, then you must be aware that their is some evidence in science that hypnosis may be more than just a parlor trick. Although I also do not personally consider hypnosis a science, its reported psychological and physiological effects do merit scientific investigation in my opinion.

The error was mine in referencing the article, strep is indeed bacteria. Given the pictures of the patient with his family in this article, his sex and identity was likely revealed with his permission. Although this patient's identity is irrelevant to you, this was a Washington Post article and his identity was plausibly revealed as a way to personalizing this story for a general audience rather than professionals. Indeed, the article didn't make a clear statement on rates of occurrence between men and women; however, Dr. Steensma's comments, if not hyperbole, regarding this patient being "only the second case that has ever been reported of strep traveling from a male patient's throat to his stomach" ​from a million such cases reported yearly suggests to me a rarity of this particular occurrence among men. I'm not aware of any statistical differences between men and women on this specific illness, but it's not unlikely that such statistics are kept. If there are differences, I believe it merits further investigation.

Indeed, as I am now informed by your reference, jet-injectors have been around since the 1980's. Apparently, the only the distinction between the injectors described in your reference and those in the BBC report is that this new injector uses computerized functions that, if I understand correctly, adjust for the viscosity of the inoculant--which seems closer to the StarTrek vision of the device.

How does a father go to the hospital for stomach pain, then leave without both his hands and feet? According to this Washington Post article, strep throat is how. The virus reportedly traveled from the patient's throat to his stomach where it multiplied, spread to other organs, and caused multiple organ failures. The patient's physician, Dr. Elizabeth Steensma, says "'It's estimated that there are over 1 million cases per year, and this is only the second case that has ever been reported of strep traveling from a male patient's throat to his stomach'”.​ I wonder why women are more susceptible than men? It was a fascinating story and compelling caveat for men to be more attentive to their perceived minor illnesses.

We've entered the age of the hypo-spray, which is one of several devices predicted by the writers of the StarTrek series. According to this BBC report, a medical device company (Portal Instruments) will be marketing a device that delivers subcutaneous injectables without puncturing the skin. Available in 2018, the device injects a stream of inoculants in the form of steam about half the width of a human hair. Enjoy!

Here is a PBS Space Time video that describes the nature of time crystals in more details and in simpler terms--yet the science remains significantly beyond my comprehension. Nevertheless, enjoy!

It's a fascinating potential but I'm beginning to think that this finding requires further evaluation. The problem I have with a lot of brain research is that much of what researchers believe is based on cause and effect. For example, damage to the claustrum causes a loss of awareness or conscious response; therefore, consciousness must emerge from the claustrum. That idea is imprecise because it was rendered without consideration of how our brain evolved. Suggesting that some aspect of brain structure does this or that doesn't tell why or how it arrive at that function. I think this is crucial because having this insight informs the accuracy of findings or perspective. From my perspective, the claustrum is a conduit for the collective and integrated information exchanges between major cortical and subcortical structures (e.g., cortex and thalamus). If my perspective is valid, severing the claustrum link between these structures disables the communication network that produces consciousness rather that the claustrum itself being the structure from which consciousness emerges. It's a subtle distinction based on a perspective that the functionality of recent brain structures (e.g., cortex and claustrum) serve and rely on the function of structures earlier in our brain's evolution (e.g., thalamus).

Good point. It's my understanding that steel smelts at about 1370 C and the article says temperature in the ship's coal compartment were likely burning as high as 1000 C, The article suggests temperatures in that compartment may have been sufficiently high to weaken the steel thus rendering the Titanic's hull vulnerable to ruptures caused by the iceberg collision. It's my understanding that confirmation of this possibility was recently uncovered through the shipyard photos experts examined.

What interesting fact or trivia did you learn today? For example, today I learned that a shamrock and four-leaf clover are not the same. It seems that shamrock describes a three-leaf clover and, as folklore has it, was used by St.Patrick as a religious totem. The four-leaf clover, which is not associated with St.Patrick, owes it's reputation for luck to its rarity. So, do you have something interesting to share?

This may be old news but, according to this Independent article, experts have determined that the Titanic may have sank because of an enormous coal fire that rage for more than a week in the ship's bowls before its eventual sinking April 15, 1912. That determination was based on photos taken before the Titanic's departure from the Belfast shipyard where it was built. It's alleged that an order by company officials, to not reveal the fire, cost the lives of some 1,500 passengers on that fateful day in April.

According to this DNews video, researchers at the Allen Institute for Brain Science have found evidence possibly supporting Francis Crick's view that a cluster of neurons called the claustrum are the structures in the brain that make "subjective consciousness" possible. For the moment, I am withholding my opinion until I have read their paper or have received a more thorough review of their findings. Enjoy!

During my search for Strombolite references many, interestingly, came back "Did you mean Stromatolite?" Good thing is now I know more about Strombolites than I did before this discussion. So, thank you.

Indeed, the key is getting the wealthy to this understanding that paying taxes is, in parts, an investment in government's social efforts that support and promote a stable economy for their self-interests and welfare as well.

If I may, your link does indeed lead to a paper discussing how inner speech may facilitate our awareness of mind-wandering. However, it does not appear to support your original assertion that "Mind wandering is the independent introspection of the subconscious system by our sensory neurons." There was no mention of sensory neurons in the abstract and I'm always immediately suspicious of any assertion that references subconscious any sort of system relative to brain structure and function. As I have previously explained many times elsewhere in this forum, our brain does not have or produce subconscious systems because subconscious is not a state of mentation that brain function produces. As I explained, our brain produces just two measureable states of activity: Conscious and Unconscious. Unfortunately, many of us perceive and reference subconscious and unconscious as synonymous terms, which they are not. Unconscious references a state of brain function and activity while subconscious references an influence that either affect brain function or is produced by brain function. This distinction is analogous to person and package. In this analogy, as I previously commented, unconscious references the person while subconscious references the package that person may either receive or deliver.

It's government that provides and sustains an environment where an investor may succeed or fail. I don't think that government should be held liable for losses because those losses are reciprocated through government's role as the provider of general services to a stable and relatively secure business environment and nation. I agree with this basic investment view of such contribution but it's a hard sell to a class of individuals who generally view greed as good and who have little concern for interests beyond their own.

I can't say that I agree with not considering the government a partner. A true partner is indeed entitled to a share of the wealth a company generates. Considering the government as a true partner entitles it to a share of the profits without consideration of its personal expenses (size of government) or consideration of what it does with its share. As I see it, the problem with a view of government as being too big and wasteful is that those who hold that view perceive the government as a dependent rather than a partner. As a dependent, government services are perceived as valueless and contributes nothing to income and growth of profits, which simply isn't true. The government actually does provide services through infrastructure and law enforcement that promote a stable environment for building wealth. Appealing to the wealthy's sense of social responsibility would not be as productive because the wealthy perceives such obligations as just another dependent that doesn't contribute to income or wealth building. In cases of social obligation, the government is a more credible conduit for those services via funds provided through reasonable taxation on the wealthy.

Yes, a progressive increase that tops out at 50%. I don't think the government can be more than a 50% partner for it's contribution to the success of wealthy earners.

Although not a peer reviewed reference, I recall this comment in the Fossil Forum and, if I understand correctly, the respondent discusses finding "a variety of fossils such as Ammonites and other anomalies" in split Strombolite rock. I also referenced Spurrite as you have informed. From my understanding of this Spurrite reference, this rock is formed "as mafic magma intrudes into carbonate rock" that can comprise limestone containing remains of marine organisms, which suggests to me the potential for Strombolite rocks contain marine fossils. In addition, I found these images that appear to show marine fossils comprised of Strombolite. Whether this rock contains fossils is, perhaps, not very clear but, in my opinion, there seems to be some evidence of that potential..

I think a 50% tax rate would be fair at a reasonable margin that, admittedly, may be difficult to fairly determine.

I did some checking and I think you're right. All relevant citations I've reviewed referenced Strombolites as the rock in which Cambrian and Precambrian fossils were found.

Although I am not a wealthy man, I think there's something inherently unfair about having such a high tax rate on wealthy earners. At 91%, the government is suggesting that it's contribution to your financial success is worth 91%. The government is essentially saying that it is entitled to a majority share of your profits because the stable and secure environment it provides for your business to thrive makes it your controlling partner and, as such, should receive a 91% year-end bonus for the decisions, risks, and costs you shouldered alone. In consideration of the environment our government provides, I would consider no more than 50% to be a fair tax rate. I agree that the super wealthy should be made to pay more--but not to extremes exceeding an equal partnership.