Popcorn Sutton

If we are going to coin a name for a new branch of physics and I have any say in it, I'd like it to be called linear continuum physics and wait for it

I only intend to say, possible alternative.

Ok, I havent gotten around to experimenting on it yet but it's on my bucket list.

If I have any say in what goes in our tanks as a replacement, I would choose hydrogenated water. The method is simple. Take hydrogen, use the carbonation method to mix it with water, find the right amount to make it combustible like gas, and use it as a replacement. No fiddling with the engine is necessary. That is one way at least. The point is that we have options. But this one is clean and effective.

That is ad hominem. All I intended to do was draw attention towards a way we can solve this whole housing issue because I am a victim of it. I'd like to see it solved soon. If we need to extend the duration of loans to reduce the cost of living, then why not try? I have yet to see a friend of mine move out of their parents house. I did it once and could not afford it Thank you btw ewmon, I'm looking into these mini homes

Whoa hold on pwagen, I'm grateful for what I get, but I could use a little more.

My last point was about renting, but I would never take a loan for renting. It just seems that it really is asking too much to get a break and be able to live on my own. I'm working on getting a job that will help pay for my independence, but in the meantime, I'm stuck with a $50 bill, a $75 bill, and a $180 bill for schooling, with gas coming in at about $100 a month, and an income that barely reaches $950 a month. I've been living like this for a while and there are alot of other people living like this as well (in my area at least). A mini home sounds appealing. To address swansont's post. Theyre not forbidden legally, but theres no way someone will actually take that offer.

Absolutely. But I also hinted at the use of copper. You could see where that was going right?

Negotiating for a loan on a house that only asks for $300/mo. I'm willing to pay that for a while. Negotiating a pay wage that will allow us to live on our own. It seems that money is going towards things that aren't very important. You guys want us to get a college education, don't ask us to pay for it, and stop trying to get rich off of it. That goes for alot of things. It disturbs me when people try to get rich off of other peoples product. In these days, you have to prove youre making 3 times the rent for a poor location that is asking for $525/mo. I can't do that

I've seen these recent studies, it's great to hear. I'm happy to have helped.

Touche Mr Cuthber, however, as has been discussed here(http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73146-id-just-like-to-let-you-guys-know/), some of us have concluded that these diagnoses are not based on science (at least, not entirely). Also, if you have seen "Shutter Island" or been through this kind of thing, you will know that once you are diagnosed with a mental disorder, there is nothing you can say to change their mind about it (or anyones mind really), because that is the "crazy" talking. As for the self promoting post by Krash, I still live with my parents, of course I want to promote myself, and that is what I am doing, just not doing it here.

I still think that my diagnosis is arguable, and yes my state of mind is not always "normal", but regardless, I am getting help. If we could avoid this topic I would appreciate it. Send a PM if you want to talk.

I have seen it happen in families where the son is actually being bulliedby the parents and even the grandparents. These people are so off the wall that the way they act indirectly hurts other people because the son cannot meet his needs so he consistently asks others to help. This pisses off a lot of people because now those people, who are not family and only friends, are not only giving away leisures to the victim, but the victim is also asking for food, shelter, drinks to keep him hydrated, and to top it all off, the person (who I consider the victim in this case) is also stealing from the people that do care for him so he can sell or take what he gets for later. He goes home and Mom wonders where he has been. They get into a fight and Mom says "You should just kill yourself, you'd be doing us all a big favor." This, in my opinion, is murder. The son goes off and cuts his arms all up. This is not the only bad behavior happening in that house either, I've gone over there once and he asked Grandpa if I could come in, Grandpa looked at me, said "No", and closed the door. There has also been other times where his mom calls me up bitching over the phone to bring him home because he needs to come home. It got so bad that I told his mom that I wasn't going to contact him anymore on her behalf and that I wasn't going to make it known when she had made an effort to contact him. I've heard too many stories of abuse in that household and I don't doubt that it has been going on for years. He's told me stories of when he was a kid and almost got kidnapped, ran home, told his step mom what had happened where she decided that she was going to call him a liar and have dad beat him. I've witnessed what this family does to him first hand and he is really a kind and gentle, intelligent, loving person. However, he is extremely unlucky to be born into that environment because I know that if I were him, I probably would have grown to be the same way. Part of me is remorseful for saying those things to his mother, andafterwards she proceeded to abuse me and tell me what a loser I am, that I am a joke, and whatever else she said, only because I know that it caused another fight between her and her son, but I couldn't help myself and I would probably do the same thing again if I had the chance. This family is so dysfunctional in my opinion, their son, who is otherwise a perfectly good person, cannot meet his needs, and mooches off of others whenever possible (and often, it is necessary). Put some food in your fridge and tell your kids that you love them, is thattoo much to ask? Life will be much much better for both of you. I do not believe that attempts to rescue the victim will always worsenthe problem, especially if the victim is treated for his mental health individually and confidentially. However, if someone attempts to rescue the victim, but does not give them an option to leave the place that they live in, and also gets involved with the parents, then yes it can make the problem worse (as if the problem is not bad enough, it may just be the case that it stays the same).

If you guys do use my solution, make sure your not appending everything to spam, that would be bad. Disregard the above comment.

I was just wondering if I am a good programmer. I don't have anything to base my skills off of.

Not necessarily, say that you write a 50,000 word essay and want to be considered as a candidate. In your essay you have "I would prefer to make marijuana illegal" or "We should illegalize drugs altogether." You will gain significance points when someone says "legalize drugs" because it matches to a sequence embedded within what you wrote, but because you don't feel that way, and other people are more likely to elaborate on the legalization of drugs, such as an essayist writing "I think we should legalize drugs," you will not have the significance points that other people will have wrt the entire sequence. Say that when someone does write a lengthy essay about a lot of things that concern our nation as a whole, and among those things is a portion of the essay concerned with phrases such as "It would be a good idea to legalize drugs" and they elaborate further. They are more likely to score more significance points for the entire sequence if other people feel the same way. It's not parroting, it's actually how the sequences are stored in the candidates brain/mind. So if the candidate has a lot of significance points, then that candidate is much more likely to connect with the people. However, if there aren't many people who connect with the candidate, then the candidate will not have the significance points necessary to achieve a position of power. Say that the candidate writes some elaborate sentence that is along the lines of this, "the people may feel that it is necessary and sufficient for the state and/or country as a whole to legalize the distribution of drugs such as marijuana, however, would probably not want to legalize other substances like heroin for the sake of addiction, and by taking this stance, acknowledge that they want to protect their children from the harm that substances such as heroin may cause." This person may not have any single match to the entire sequence, but they may gain significance points for certain key phrases within the sequence such as "legalize the distribution of drugs" and "protect their children". This candidate will probably not be selected because the way they write is obscure, but they will gain significance points for the matches contained within the sequences that they do write. The program will also be spam proof, meaning that for any sequence that you do write, you cannot gain significance points for having the exact same sequence distributed throughout the essay. But, you will gain significance points for being able to put the same sequence in many different contexts. Even if you, as a candidate, do find all sorts of contexts in which you can put a phrase like "legalize marijuana" or "do not aid Syria" it would be better for you to take every stance possible so you can connect with most people. It's technically not rigging the system if you both want to "aid Syria" and "not aid Syria", in which case you can elaborate on why you feel that way for even more significance points. But, like I said, the system would be spam proof so you can't gain enough significance points for writing an essay like "legalize marijuana legalize marijuana legalize marijuana legalize marijuana legalize marijuana legalize marijuana legalize marijuana legalize marijuana" and selecting "I want to be a candidate". Also, if we do choose to add the test-quiz part by testing the candidates, and then quizzing the essayists, we can decide whether that test-quiz portion will provide us with the added security of not having a person who is not well suited in a position of power. What it really comes down to (with this system) is a test of cognitive capacity and intellect. That is how we would be basing the algorithmic electorial system to work because, as Economists point out, people in positions of power who are also very intelligent are more likely to sustain a better GDP (as was the case in Ireland for two decades in the 20th century). Long statement assertions would gain more significance points, but they would also match less so it evens out. I do not intend on changing the democratic system entirely with this approach. There will still be plenty of jobs out there for the state and country. So lets say that out of all the candidates, only 3,000 or so get a job. Out of those 3,000, we rank them in terms of significance points with the highest significance being elected as president, the 200 or so behind him/her get the congress positions, 300 get lobbyists, then the rest go to the states that they connect with most. This way, we can focus, as a state, on the issues that matter for that state and for that particular moment in time. We will get the big issues out of the way first, then whenever any other issues become significant, we will either reelect or allow those that are well adapted to the new necessities to get reelected. It will be one big nation led by problem solvers who are well adapted intellectually. This is arguable, I may have addressed it in this post already. I'm not trying to Ad Hoc anything here, just present a software based solution to our problems for consideration, hopefully we can discover something that is truly useful and may benefit us as a whole.

Hmm, I'm going to have to reread that post a few times. I'm not accustomed to the way you speak so forgive me. I did, however, catch sight of a point you made, and, with my bias towards this system, I will have to point this out. The words "clean" and "air" will score low of significance by themselves with only a rating of 3^3 for "air", and 5^5 for "clean", however, if it is put to the system as one unit, "clean air", the significance rating is much higher, meaning that the candidate who matches this sequence will score 9^9 significance points for matching this input. So if a candidate says something along the lines of "I think we should focus mainly on clean forms of energy, and in particular, clean air" and matches with someone who wrote that exact sequence in their essay, then the significance points for that candidate will be 76^76. They will score even more significance points depending on how well they elaborated and how much they connect with the people who write the essays. In theory, the test-quiz part of the election is unnecessary, all we really need to do is score the candidates based on their significance ratings, but we might want to use the test-quiz as well to see how much information was retained by the candidates and by the people, but that would be more like the voting system. The point with this post is to address one portion of your post to show how this essay method would work, if there is any part of it that seems biased or any noticeable way of detecting a critical fail by this system, then I am open to hear about it and I will gladly change my stance wrt this system, however, given the technology we have, and what I know is within my power to do, I have to suggest a system like this because I think that the benefit will outweigh the detriment. If you look at GDP across the last 60+ years, you'll notice that our current system is failing, and it GDP growth has been negative for some time, which should be a concern to a lot of us and could result in another civil war (I think we can avoid this, hopefully). Proposing this system as an alternative could save us from disasters such as a civil war. We are either tipping toward tyranny, or we are inevitably going toward a scientocracy (with or without this particular system). Tyranny would be a result of saving the people in power, which is probably going to be a natural reaction on their part so they don't get killed (can you blame them though? They are in power, that means that they can and will defend themselves). But in order to save ourselves, and I think the people in these positions will notice, we need to adjust to the times and consider what is best for the whole even if it does cost a few people their jobs (which were never promised to be permanent to begin with). I hope we can avoid falling into tyranny again, that would be a shame, and I think that people know by this point that Tyranny is not the way to go, so in order to avoid this inevitability, the people in positions of power will realize what is happening, and they will probably show sympathy if they are rational, and I think that they will understand that it is a Tyranny (by now it very well may be) and accept that the system needs to change, and do so without causing harm upon innocent people. We are, after all, victims to cause and effect, and there is no one we can really blame on scientific grounds. It's just that our system turned out to not be well adapted to unanticipated change. Scientocracy, however, will be able to adapt effectively whenever necessary and significant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqJfFrkzf8I

Is that the method you guys are currently using? I'd need to do some research for implementing python into html, but I need to figure that out anyway. I could also learn java or some other programming language, that is also on my to do list. But I do natural language processing, so it would be a simple program that runs on all posts before they get posted. I wish I could help but I would need to research a bit first. Unless you guys want a peek at what I can do and see if you can find a way to implement it. I didn't work too hard on this for the moment, but I think you guys might be able to see the gist of what needs to be done here. It's written in Python 2.7 >>> spam = ['michael kors'] >>> for u in spam: poi = u npoi = '' while len(poi + npoi) != 0: while poi in spam: poi = poi + npoi[0] npoi = npoi[1:] while poi not in spam: spam.append(poi) npoi = poi[1:] poi = poi[0] (The above part will need some work, not much.) >>> while 0 == 0: poi = raw_input('Inspect Post:') npoi = '' while len(poi + npoi) != 0: while poi not in spam: npoi = poi[1:] poi = poi[0] while poi in spam: poi = poi + npoi[0] npoi = npoi[1:] print poi, '-spam' (This part will also need some work.) The algorithm I intend on using was originally implemented for sound detection, but theres no reason that it wouldn't work for spam as well. It would probably take less than a second to run.

I understand that we have some very intelligent people here on these forums, and thats what I like about them. But on a side note, I did develop a degree of schizophrenia after having become one of the top posters on the linguistics forums. I have no doubt that my ideas have been integrated, and I made my name public, but I havent received one known reference, and either I am sadly mistaken and suffer from an arbitrary mental disorder that has no relevance to the ideas people share that could be my own (which wouls be upsetting to say the least) or I have good reason for my paranoia. I have felt unsafe at times, like I was being followed and watched. But that could just be delusions.

I live with my parents to say the least. I also live in the united states. I have reasons for my paranoia, although they may not be clearly justifiable. I wouldn't want to go into details anyway.

I might be somewhere on the planet. You?

You can never be too safe right? I trust my instincts, but at the same time, I want independence. Oh the dilemma

I think that people would like a scientocracy much more. We don't have control right now and it's very clear. On top of that, I don't think we can get control unless we make some big decisions about taking freedom away which is probably not an option. I don't think we have much of a war on religion anymore, it seems like we're kind of beating a dead horse on that front, but I just saw a disturbing video that I do intend on posting that would seem to favor this method of electing a leader (one essay, one test, one quiz, we can decide at which point we need a new leader). That is, if we decide to have a leader, which I personally would want, but not to the extent of tyranny. Maybe we can make it so anyone can write the essay anytime and whenever the results are statistically significant, then changes take place.

They put the word "that" right after the word "the". That is statistically insignificant. I guess you guys probably use something like that? They might be scanning the forums, but I doubt it. I don't know how to implement the program for early detection though, but I can create a program like that to detect it at least. Say, if several sequences have never been used on these forums, then flag it. It happens often in the spam.