DrmDoc

Mr. waitforufo has a habit of vanishing from discussions when asked to answer multiple questions, which is something he essentially confessed to me in a prior post. He's sort of a Kamikaze commenter, who frequently flames in and out of discussions. So, you may want to keep it short if you want a reply before Christmas.

I agree with SJ; if your friend was right, caffeine consumption in the form of highly potent energy drinks would virtually assure early incidents of graying among young people, but that hasn't happened. Cultures throughout Asia and other lands have provided caffeine through teas and coffee to their young for several centuries without creating populations that seem to gray unusually early. To-date, I've reviewed no credible evidence specifically suggesting the effects of caffeine on hair coloration. Unless your friend can provide studies that directly and empirically link caffeine consumption to lower melanin production or nutrient absorption, he's completely wrong.

As expected, you completely ignored my question and answered one of your own creation. Essentially, I asked when is it ever appropriate for members of a presidential campaign staff to have continual contact with Russian officials, intelligence or otherwise? I await what will probably be a spectacularly disingenuous response. Convenient; where was this particular sentiment during your discussions of Hillary's emails? C'mon, you don't really believe in that requirement, do you?

It certainly seems they had no need for servers or email. Why bother with silly emails when Russian intelligence was just a phone call away.

So...are you or someone close to you a hermaphrodite? I ask because your comments suggest you may have recently experienced some personal offense and because there doesn't seem to be a topic of ethics involved. Is there a point of ethics or ethics question?

In the entire political history of American presidential campaigning, when was it ever necessary, appropriate or electorally favored to have contact or rumors of contact with Russian intelligence? Feel free to take your usual month or two to answer or not at all--some of us here have come to expect nothing less from those espousing unsupportable positions.

Yet more evidence that America has elected a wolf to its highest office. It seems that Trump's campaign had closer ties to Russian influence than Trump attested. Trump's campaign surrogates had frequent contact with Russian intelligence no less. Where is the indignation of the Republican electorate over this flagrant fraternization with America's staunches opponent on the world stage. Ron Reagan is most certainly rolling in his grave. It seems American has elected Russia's version of the Manchurian Candidate.

I think your friend is on the wrong side of this argument. Hair color is produced by two types of melanin: eumelanin and pheomelanin. I've found no link between the production of melanin and the absorption of any particular nutrient other than vitamin B12 deficiency. I would refer your friend to this Wikipedia page for more details and links to further studies. It seems genetics is indeed a primary factor.

I haven't had a drop of caffeine in any form for a number of years and have an abundance of gray and graying hair; therefore, I doubt caffeine is the cause graying unless it has a cumulative effect from earlier use. What I've read, however, is that graying has a genetic factor that causes an accumulation of hydrogen peroxide (HP) in hair follicles, which produces oxidative stress leading to discoloration. As this NBC article reports, scientist have determined that younger people abundantly produce a catalase enzyme that reduces HP to water and oxygen. As we age, this enzyme's production decreases and we become increasingly gray. I am not aware of any report suggesting caffeine as a cause of catalase under production. I hope this helps.

The effect of penalties is to deter unlawful behaviors that inflict intentional harm. This change in Russia's domestic violence laws eases penalties for those who willfully inflict harm on vulnerable family members and individuals. Aren't changes that ease "the character of the sanction" meant to remedy unlawful behaviors a weakening of the boundaries deterring those behaviors? Whether physical harm or not is done, violence is unacceptable in a civilized society. Isn't this change effectively a sanctioning of some measure of unacceptable violence?

Although I don't recall ever reading or hearing such stories, science have found no evidence of a specific brain area or part dedicated to religious thoughts or spirituality. There have been research on the subject as this NatGeo article, Your Brain on God, explores. According to the research described in the article, there is no single "God spot"; however, a Canadian neuroscientist, Mario Beauregard, "discovered that memories of a spiritual connection with God were accompanied by increased activity in the caudate nucleus, a small region that plays a role in learning, memory and developing feelings of love. But they had five other neural hot spots, including the insula, which monitors body sensations and governs social emotions."

The brain does indeed produce consciousness but the process isn't that simple. The brain requires a sensory apparatus and sensory input to complete the process. By "conscious object" I presume you are referring to the brain as consciousness incarnate suggesting that it doesn't require any support or input to produce consciousness. If that is your opinion, I disagree. To produce consciousness, the brain requires a means by which it may acquire awareness of itself and its environment. In isolation from its physical sensory systems, the brain is incapable of seeing, feeling pain, or experiencing any sensation of life experience. Those sensations are how we are able to define ourselves and make distinctions about our environment. Through the physical sensory systems of the body the brain is made aware of its environment and its perceptual distinctions from that environment. A measure of intelligence could be how well we understand and use information from our sensory environment. How well we acquire, understand, retain, and use information are products of our brain's functional matrix. That matrix requires input and stimulation to maintain optimal production output and function. For example, we forget what we've learned when we infrequently access those memories because we tend to retain information that we engage frequently and information that significantly impact our survival needs and a subset of social experiences. Essentially, the brain is not in and of itself conscious without stimuli and a sensory structure to experience that stimuli.

Doh!

Superb example of the alt-fact effect. Is there no cure for gullibility?

There are sequences of exchanges between groups of neurons that do occur during the sensory perception, assessment and response process but not between single neurons firing one at a time. The clearest evidence of this is actually shown by how visual sensory information is transferred from the eye into brain structure. Visual sensory is received in the eye, as a collective of information, by a collective of rods and cones that collectively convert that information into a collective of neural impulses. Those collective impulses are forwarded via the optic nerve initially to the lateral geniculate nucleus of the thalamus where it is then collectively forwarded to the striate cortex of the occipital lobe where groups of neurons collectively receive and decipher the collective visual information those impulses convey. As you may now better understand, the sequence of visual sensory perception involves collective exchanges between singular groups of neural components rather than sequential exchanges between singular neurons. Rather than one at a time, neurons fire collectively, which is logically the most efficient way to perceive, process, and respond to collective sensory information.

Neurologically, the process of visual recognition is fairly fluid, which means it's not a stop and start process of recognition then memory association. All visual sensory, whether or not previously experienced, is primarily relayed to the visual cortex where it initiates a cascade of neural responses that provide recognition through prior associations. The process is like a particle shaped to follow a specific groove where it may travel to either a dedicated portal (prior experience, assessment, and memory) or create said portal (new experience, assessment, and memory). When the particle reaches or creates that portal, recognition is initiated. That recognition and its collective associations are then relayed to full consciousness and consolidated--with other attributes--as either a prior or new perception for a behavioral response. As to the physics of it all, I have no opinion.

If I may, bankruptcy is indeed a way to clear one's debts but also a way to protect one's assets and profits from creditors. In Trump's world, bankruptcy is a way to forcibly renegotiate vendor contracts and union obligations to reduce previously agreed upon expenses, which maximizes profits from poorly conceived business ventures.

I think the most valid point being made here is that Donald Trump didn't write that book himself. If you buy that book, you're buying someone else's approach to the "Art Of The Deal", not Trump's. Trump was merely a muse for the book's true author.

I think we are at the beginning of a cycle of greed and ruthlessness akin to that which began in the 80's under Reagan. It's unfortunate that Trump's methods could be viewed by people in other nations as a model for their success. I think they will be incredibly disappointed because Donald's achievements aren't what he says or what they seem.

Wow, Phi. Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.

My money's on incompetence.

In America's climate of bigotry and fear, Trump marketed himself very successfully. The art of success is about understanding your market, which involves understanding its needs and servicing those needs proficiently and economically. Trump catered to the basic, most intransient need of the America people, which is the need to feel secure. He inflamed their fears, then presented himself as the person most able to squelch the flames of those fears. You don't need Trump's book to achieve his level of success. More often, all you need are gullible supporters and consumers whose fears blind them to facts and reason. In business or ambition, knowing the marketplace's needs and providing the right product to satisfy those needs is where success begins.

He wasn't elected by a majority of the American people but rather by a quirk of America's electoral system. His success is deception; it's his remarkable ability to get others to believe as he does and believe what he says. Using other peoples money and labor without fair exchanges, using tax loopholes to avoid paying one's fair share, and repeatedly declaring bankruptcy aren't my idea of success. If you are interested in the art of deception, then you will likely find his book compelling.

How? I'm a bit of a skeptic, so I think critically...I wouldn't buy the book though. I don't need nor want Donald's advice nor do I support his ventures.

According to Berkley News, scientist have created a new form of matter (time crystals) that reportedly "repeat in time because they are kicked periodically, sort of like tapping Jell-O repeatedly to get it to jiggle". Also, here is a DNews video report discussing the methods scientists used to create this new matter. I don't understand the science, but it seems a very interesting article. Enjoy!