Phi for All

I don't know if anyone's mentioned it or not, but this may be more of a lawyer thing than a memory thing. In a police/FBI investigation, it may be considered more suspicious if someone accurately remembers some things and answers questions freely about them but for some reason fails to recollect other things with the same detail (which would actually be quite normal). Or a good prosecutor might be able to cast doubt by pointing out that she remembers one classification but not another. By answering (technically) correctly that you don't recall all the details on any question about the past, you establish that you're human & fallable, and that broad questions will get similar replies. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been told by lawyers that the ONLY response to a police officer who pulls you over and asks "Do you know how fast you were going?" is "No sir/ma'am, I don't know." It's the only answer that doesn't incriminate you, admit your guilt, lie, or give the officer any other reason to automatically ticket you, or suspect you of something worse. Investigators are looking to trip you up, and there's no quicker way to paint yourself in a corner than to answer a broad question with a specific answer. Look what happens when scientists make that mistake with popsci reporters.

Strange manner?! Maybe if she was standing still and not talking. I don't care if this treatment was done to Trump, Mussolini, or Mother Theresa. It's the height of intellectual dishonesty to make any kind of judgement along these lines without hearing what was being said for context. I can't believe thinking people wouldn't require such a fundamental piece of evidence.

Democrats controlled Congress under Nixon, and they found evidence of prosecutable misdeeds. A Republican-controlled Congress has been after Hillary for far longer, and for multiple investigations, and haven't found anything similar. Besides implying that the FBI are morons, aren't you also suggesting that our current Republican-controlled Congress couldn't find their ass with both hands?

I'll be voting for Hillary mainly because Bernie Sanders influenced her enough to change her stance on minimum wage and trade deals. For me, the stuff in the OP is just witchhunt craziness, on a par with what the Republicans did to Obama with the birther movement. For Republicans to object to Clinton on the basis of her honesty is the height of hypocrisy, imo. My problems with Clinton would seem to make her a good choice for disgruntled Republicans. She will continue to overpush capitalism as our savior, which I think is a big mistake. I think we need to establish better parameters for when it makes sense to use socialism and even communism in our approach to governing society. Our ideological mixture is too heavily weighted towards capitalism, and we're seeing now how stupid it is for some things to be approached on a for-profit basis (glad to see we're starting to rethink private prisons! Yay!). Clinton will be further right of Obama on military matters, and I dislike the thought of the drone program in her hands (of the Dem/Rep/Lib/Green candidates, I think the two major party candidates would abuse it most - Cinton would be my 3rd choice to control the drones). I'd love to see a campaign to explain why social programs need to be more accepted as part of society instead of tossed off as some kind of charity, but I don't see that on the horizon either. I don't think she'll be reversing any of her husband's tragic telecommunications legislation that lets corporations own news outlets that can influence buyers for their other businesses and private agendas. I doubt she'll bring back federal authority to social programs that Bill gave to the states. I'm not sure what kind of bipartisan corporate shenanigans are going on in banking, with talks of a "new" Glass-Steagal Act, but I dislike how both sides cater to the banks. Neither major candidate will be good for those who think the banks have too much power. It seems bizarre that anyone could believe Hillary Clinton, with all the scrutiny she's endured, isn't worthy of being president for any of the reasons listed in the OP. It's obviously part of the GOP strategy to keep her constantly under investigation, even multiple investigations for the same incidents, even though the investigations never find anything prosecutable. I think admitting a woman is capable of leading the country is a harder pill to swallow for many Republicans than admitting a black man has done an outstanding job as president with what he was given to work with, and the obstructionists he had to work around. I think Clinton's presidency (two terms) will be a lot like Obama's, and the Dems will probably continue to slide right, hoping to pick up all the leaves falling from the GOP crazy tree.

I stay away from sugars if I'm eating high cholesterol foods. LDL receptors don't signal for removal of cholesterol from the blood in the presence of too much sugars, so your cells produce their own besides what's in the blood. I don't know about the fat correlation. I still don't like the single number score they use now. LDL to HDL is a ratio, and I was always told it should be 3:1 or less. There are meds, of course. I hope they've improved, because I used to hear about how the high cholesterol meds raised your blood pressure, and the high blood pressure meds raised your cholesterol levels. Could be just old people bitching though. I've never taken either yet.

... the other Kentucky bourbon.

It's one thing to prevent or slow down the aging process (whatever that means), and another to repair damage done to nerve tissue, or regenerate skin rather than repair through fibrosis. If we had the latter, would it make the former unnecessary? If we could repair tissue damage, wouldn't that include damage from normal aging?

I asked a few questions about your intent. Are you saying I need to read this book to find the answers?

Please stop that. Nobody is saying the only problem is spelling. Here is one grammatical problem in the abstract: This sentence appears to say that it's obvious that this project won't help with the problem even if it's made better. The journal might use this sentence to make the determination that your work will not offer a firm advance in general understanding, and is therefore not appropriate for them to publish.

And in many other cultures, it wasn't. What's your point? Are you trying to show the attraction is universal? Is that what you're after when you ask if men "generally" prefer fairer skin?

Some folks say "Waste not, want not", but I say "You shouldn't use stuff for no good reason because later you might need it and you won't have it and you'll have to go next door and ask to borrow some from Mrs Popodopolis and she'll shake her head but loan you some anyway". That's what I say. No I don't. Because that would be dumb. I don't listen to folks who tell me this is Hell. Faustus believed Mephistopheles when he claimed, "Why this is Hell, nor am I out of it". Look what happened to him.

To me, the abstract seems to say that modern oncology isn't taking advantage of something in their radiotherapy protocols that involves Euclidean space, something that would provide better results in some area through some form of analysis that's very unclear. There are far too many references that aren't adequately explained (the "project" has two methods, but they aren't detailed at all?).

As long as you view it as a test, and not a quit-for-a-bit-and-go-back, you should be OK. It's kind of weird though. It's great that you're excited, but I've never heard of anyone wanting a warm-up to stop anything. Most smokers would be smoking them like they weren't going to be available in a few days. I know I got sloshed the day before I quit drinking. I usually have dessert the day before I go on a diet, too. This is hardly mardy behavior. You're really looking forward to this. Awesome.

I'm not big on broadcasting my weaknesses, but I think one should ask themselves if they'd be willing to make a general announcement, to make a big deal out of being brave & smart. If you aren't, it might not be the right time to quit. You have to watch out for back doors you may have unconsciously left ajar.

If you do this right, smoking simply won't be an option for you anymore. It won't be a door that gets locked, it will be a door that's torn out and bricked over, so opening it up again isn't even a possibility. If the only difference in your going-to-bed routine is the last cig, I think you'll be fine. If you think you're going to lie awake wishing for that last smoke, you can come up with about a thousand reasons why you're better off. You should fall asleep smiling.

Are you re-budgeting the money saved? That's a great way to maintain, being able to point to some new monthly service or treat you get because you quit. I was going to say that planning how to spend that money might be a good just-before-sleep activity, but maybe not. Running numbers in your head might be bad. Do you distract yourself by smoking just before you nod off? That's really dangerous. I'd be afraid I'd drowse off while it's still lit. Or do you smoke your last one, then lay down? In this case, how do you distract yourself? Or is it easier to let your mind wander with a hint of a nicotine buzz going on? Perhaps you should lie down and imagine all the good things that will be happening now that you aren't a poisoner any more.

There's the real changer there. We were already smart, but when we all started discussing things globally, and people from all over started sharing knowledge, it skyrocketed. We keep getting smarter, our children need more and more time to develop those immense brains, and our ideas can't seem to be produced fast enough so they don't get outstripped by newer ideas.

The first transplant would mostly likely be the whole head, no? Still need to regenerate nerve tissue, but you get to keep your face, eyes, etc, and probably a few other bits in the throat. You'll even look like EdEarl. But better. Stronger. Wiser. The question is, how quickly will you go back to eating bacon?

Strange said, if you give him a short section of your paper, he would edit it for you. Then he said that he usually gets paid to do this. That means he does this for a living, but in your case he would NOT expect to be paid.

You want to transfer your brain into a cloned younger body, in the present. That's more of a youth-wasted-on-the-young solution. I suppose the if-I-knew-then solution relies on sending your present brain back in time into your own younger body. It rewrites history. It's not at all the same as continuing forward with a fresh body. We might be pretty close to growing a new clone for you. EdEarl 2.0 with Kung Fu Grip! But putting you inside it still poses a problem. If we can figure out how to regenerate nerve tissue, that might be the WOW that changes the next 70 years.

This is the heart of that particular rant. It's the "youth is wasted on the young" argument. If you knew then what you know now.... That part will never change, I don't think.

Describing a situation in the negative is NOT being unfriendly. You have trouble communicating in English, and it's likely the journal you're in contact with is having a hard time understanding you. They can't publish anything you've written if it can't be understood. This means a standard rejection is the most likely outcome. I'm describing this situation negatively, but reasonably, and I hope it still sounds friendly as well.

Seriously, that's all you got? This sounds more like preaching than science. What are you trying to do, boost your post count?

Actually, a small percentage are outright evil and selfish, and a small percentage are saintly and compassionate. Most human beings on this planet today are somewhere in between.

That's what MY dad said about the phone. "Trailing that cord all over the kitchen! Why don't you put that contraption down and go visit whoever it is face-to-face? But walk over there! Gas is up to 75 cents a gallon! Damn OPEC!" A lot has happened. Change, maybe not so much.