Phi for All

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.

I don't think what the families feel is the most relevant point here. If the patient is resuscitated but has no memories, and is essentially an infant, is it really even the same person? Memories aside, would personality be the same, and if not, would that person be entitled to the same life as before if they recovered fully? And now if you think about the families, how do you stem the resentment that's inevitable when different people walk out of the hospital in Ed and Mary's clothing?

As long as we can avoid the obvious pitfalls, which I'm not sure is possible. Because "life" isn't well defined, we have a lot of people who think they're initiating life when they have sex (procreate), rather than simply perpetuating a cycle that uses living sperm and living eggs to form a different living thing that might one day also perpetuate the same cycle of life. Those people don't see a seed as having life until it flowers. This definition of life has caused a great deal of problems, so I wonder if a better, encompassing definition of spirituality would avoid some of those pitfalls.

Except the way you define these things, the animal can't lose, so humans are automatically going to fail in your eyes. The way you define "offend" is probably unattainable by any animal we normally come in contact with (i.e., offense requires intention, but animals never intend to offend). Animals can't speak so they can't say anything, mean or nice. The way you define greedy and corrupt are standard to humans only. Why isn't a bear gorging on stored months of honey considered greedy? Why isn't it corrupt for a cowbird to lay its eggs in another bird's nest so it doesn't have to raise its own young? And you're really setting up confirmation bias with a phrase like "for no reason". You always assume animals have some natural reason for doing bad things to each other. It's OK for male lions to kill another male's children, because that's natural for them, right? And orcas can play with a seal until it drowns rather than just chomp on it after it's too tired to fight anymore, because... well, there must be a reason, right? This kind of thinking automatically favors any other animal over humans, for none of the right reasons.

Color is not helping us understand what you're asking.

Yes, but that's not what this thread is about. The rest of my post addressed that.

It's not that the journal is weak. The journal doesn't publish papers like yours. As an analogy, if you wrote an article about better ways to fly an airplane, you would have the most interest from a journal that published papers on flying. BUT, if you submitted your paper to a journal that published papers about better ways to build airplanes, they might send you a letter like the one you got from ecancermedicalscience. Does that make sense?

She didn't say there was no doubt about the technical quality. She said, "We do not doubt the technical quality", meaning that the quality is not what they are questioning; they rejected the paper based on another reason, that they are primarily interested in the methodologies used in the lab, NOT in answering biological questions themselves. This journal publishes papers on techniques that improve basic laboratory research and testing. They're saying the journal isn't the correct one for your paper.

The link in the OP leads me to: Page Not Found If the planet has water on both sides, there could be currents that bring hot water to the cold side and cold water to the hot side, keeping it from being either a cinder or an ice cube even though it's tidally locked. Red dwarfs have enough sunlight for photosynthesis, so life is possible. I remember reading an article recently on this, but it may have been about a super-Earth sized planet that started out farther away from its sun but gained enough sized that it worked its way into a close orbit that was tidally locked. This planet may not be big enough to be covered in water.

In the very beginning, there was pasta....

! Moderator Note Please repost the question here, so the members don't have to click a strange link or leave the site.

The fish in the lower center of the pic looks as if his eye is more on the bottom of his head, suggesting he's upside down.

I'm not sure it matters as much which type of sugar you're getting compared to how much you're getting. Small doses shouldn't trigger insulin massive insulin production, which is what you want to avoid. On the other hand, folks forget that the complex carbs in the pasta are turning to glucose over a longer period of time. Add too much refined sugar of any type on top of that and you overdose. Blood pressure rises. More fat and salt and water get stored. Cells start making their own cholesterol, ignoring what's already in the blood. So I would say to the OP that it probably matters more what you're eating with your pasta. The differences between white and brown don't seem significant.

So people would keep bringing it up for weeks after the convention.

The thread is about exposing whether there are rational reasons why you currently don't have a girlfriend. But the only reason that matters is your steadfast denial that it's even possible. An idea in science has to be possible, otherwise there's no point in discussing it. I don't see how we can help you in this. If you need reassurance that it IS possible, I'd rather do it in a thread with a more positive spin. But this one seems to have become about people offering help so you can pee all over their suggestions. It seems to depress you even more, and it certainly isn't fun for anyone trying to toss you a line so you don't drown. So I would say the scientific reason you don't have a girlfriend is because you don't do enough of the things that put you in contact with women to give you better odds at finding someone you click with, because you're convinced something is wrong with either you, or them, or the process, making the concept impossible. It's hard to get anything done with that perspective. Whether you're applying for a job, or driving a car for the first time, or trying to make friends with a woman you're attracted to, if you're convinced you can't do it it's FAR less likely you will. You don't start a journey (at any age) by nailing your feet to the floor.

I thought molasses added the color, as well as a few extra minerals. I still wouldn't say it's healthier for you though.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion forum. You should start a blog for posts like this.