Mr Skeptic

Are you referring to us? We're the only ones with the potential to do that, as far as I know, though it would not surprise me if some bug could occasionally gather DNA from some other creature. I started a thread on improving our own genes, and I'd be happy to get your input.

Ah, thank you. The type 1A supernovae (standard candles) are indeed the ones I was thinking of. So that's why they are always the same brightness; they're right at the limit to become a black hole. Is a supernova in general just a stellar explosion? --- Would the multiple orgasm supernovas be more useful for seeding heavy matter than other types, perhaps due to exploding sooner, or releasing more matter?

Well you got to be careful whether the whole world is against you or you're against the whole world In any case, as swansont said, a little plasma is still plasma. Kind of like being only a little pregnant is still pregnant.

Because morality is a critical factor in how we live our life and how we choose our laws, it may be useful to get a scientist's opinion on it. Indeed, there are few things more important than how you decide what ought and ought not be done. Also, if you've changed your mind on where you get your morality, it may be interesting to hear about. If you act against your morals, it would also be interesting to know why you might do that. --- Oops! Somehow the last part of the poll question got eaten. It should have said: Where do you get your morality from? That is, how do you decide what ought to be done?

I thought that supernovae ware caused when the core of the star collapsed into a black hole, releasing a shockwave that blasted the remainder of the star appart. That can only happen once though, so I must be missing something here.

I'd say a flame contains only a little bit of plasma.

I've heard of an atom that will decay if it is completely ionized but not otherwise. I don't remember which though. I'd assume that if you can summon some truly awesome fields, you could change a particle's decay rate. Kind of like a neutron star. I don't think it would be practical though.

To SkepticLance: Yes, you are correct that caloric restriction is unproven in humans. I'd add that it is fairly worthless since you will have less "life" by any measure other than years. The reason I mentioned it is because it seems to be able to extend the maximum lifespan rather than the average lifespan as many other anti-aging ideas do. I would think that the people who are too poor to eat properly are likely to also be suffering from increased vitamin/mineral deficiencies, increased exposure to pathogens, and decreased immune function (from the starving aspect), so I wouldn't expect them to live very long. I'll take a few guesses why caloric restriction might increase lifespan: Triggering genes for waiting out famines rather than other stuff like reproducing. Reduced blood sugar would reduce linking of glucose with proteins (that is a big problem with diabetics) Reduced metabolism would reduce production of free radicals at mitochrondria. The reason I am so excited about anti-aging is that I think we might be able to figure it out before I die of old age.

While warping time and various other of their attributes would be fun, I would rather stick with doable improvements. Do you know any way we might genetically improve our race? --- Also, I should mention that I would rather leave out Artificial Selection as it is a bit negative (deleting rather than creating) and would also have way too many ethical implications. --- Also, I'm just looking for opinions, so don't be shy if you're not an expert.

It's very similar to an incredibly loud sound source -- a compression followed by a rarefaction.

Because I can't prove it.

If it is so simple, why don't you answer it yourself?

Impredicative statements that do not lead to a contradiction are perfectly valid. Since it is unlikely that all impredicative statements lead to a contradiction, I would say that it is likely that some impredicative statements are valid. The axiom of reducibility is perfectly valid if it does not lead to a contradiction. You ask hard questions. Some yes or no questions remain unsolved for thousands of years, and some are unsolvable.

By your system of morality, it would also be morally right to sell laws to the highest bidder. Then we could buy laws outlawing homosexuality, bestiality, and incest (since the people who find these repugnant will outnumber those that do not). Hence, it is likely that incest would be illegal with the capitalist system of morality.

Mathematicians are never "right" and "wrong" in the same sense as scientists. Mathematicians do not need to conform to the real world, only to the logical world. They may take as axioms whatever they wish, so long as they are not contradictory. Hence, to show that a set of axioms is wrong, you must show that they lead to a contradiction -- not that they don't conform to the real world.

Probably a very slow metabolism. It is unclear why metabolism affects aging, but if you keep yourself at the verge of starvation, you can live about 50% longer.

With determination you can do some truly incredible things -- hence Edison's motto, "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration." (or something like that). However, determination will not give you magical powers.

Lots of geeks would be less lonely?

That's because the US patent office believes the laws of thermodynamics. And so do we. Wake me up when they start selling electricity.

Lots of people think that mass and weight are the same. Very few people in the US measure mass in the proper English unit for mass (slugs), instead using the unit of force (pounds) as if it were pounds. I bet most of them wouldn't even have heard of the slug. Not too many outside the US measure force as with the unit of force (Newtons) either, instead using the unit of mass (kilogram) as if it were weight. So the result is a lot of people everywhere confuse mass and weight.

The motor will act as a generator, converting some of its kinetic energy into electricity. In any case, the end result is mostly heat and a tiny bit of EM energy.

I too would like an approximately human-level AI. That could be the single most significant invention ever, though for good or ill I cannot tell. It could put our very existence into question. Also: Flying cars (not that I care much, but they have been promised ) Self-replicating robots Fusion power Nuclear powered rockets (eg nuclear lightbulb, orion, daedalus, anything better than the chemical rockets) A proper protein simulator countless nanotechnology, genetic engineering, and bionics items a cheap, efficient solar panel a process for converting cellulose and lignin into liquid fuels quantum computers chemical computers ... the list could go on and on. Perhaps we could narrow it down somewhat to probable, specific inventions?

Does that mean that those who have taken a vow of chastity are unhealthy? Also, choosing a name like Trojan is pretty stupid for an advocacy campaign.

What's funny is that we can use an evolutionary algorithm to design very complicated things where all we have to provide is the fitness algorithm. Frequently, the results work very well but make no sense. Anyhow, it kind of flies in the face of the "information cannot be created" camp.

No surprise there.