Endy0816

[latex]\frac{-eL\lambda R}{2N_{A}}= f\mu ckm_{e}[/latex]

Maybe thinking of Binary Translation? Includes both static and dynamic binary translation. Ternary and reversible logic gates are what tends to come up most often when talking about quantum computing. Most systems have some sort of trade-off, though I think reversible logic gates have a lot of promise.

AFAICT = As far as I can tell I mean in general why compare an electron to a muon instead of the tau? Fuller came up with or popularized a number of novel concepts, many in widespread use today, but he was still fairly eccentric. If his writings give you additional insight, all the better, but most will be approaching a given problem from a different direction.

Why would you compare the two? Fuller's Synergistics isn't widely accepted, which will likely be a stumbling block here...

I look for references, the quality of the publisher and the credentials of the author. This: http://www.nature.com/ja/journal/v58/n1/abs/ja20051a.html is a good example. On peer reviews, they are generally done at the publisher level. There may or may not be an actual "review" written out somewhere. Certainly though any good publisher will have one done prior to publishing the paper.

Subjective as to what constitutes a "defect". Either way though still a case of using your intelligence to directly counter the evolutionary mechanism. Don't want to get too deep into designer genetics. Everyday technology is much more real world impacting. Not going to make genes disappear overnight, but neither will you be limited by them.

I think you've chanced upon the Information Paradox. There are thoughts that if Hawking radiation does exist, then the informational content is preserved in some other fashion. Very open ended subject at the moment.

Makes sense. Hadn't looked at them from that angle before though. Mainly concerned about them leading to the death of healthy cells under low oxygen conditions. Would save a number of lives if we could alter their code. Just need to be free to do so without concern for causing cancer ourselves or giving cancer an edge.

That, generalized treatment at the DNA/RNA level, and overhauling Mitochondria. Calorie restriction is one method we could use today. Can cause significant health and wellness issues though.

Probably the group size is relatively small. Knowledge/Acceptance of one's own death and possessing information they feel is necessary to share. On a number of occasions death bed confessions are met with skepticism. Either being seen as senile ramblings or attention seeking. Reprisal,against friends,and family. Not uncommon,to this day...

I think it would be more than 3 years anyways. There are a number of longevity techniques we can't use presently, because they stand a good chance of causing cancer themselves.

That's okay though since black people were savages a few hundred years before that... That is where that sort of logic takes you. Nowhere good.

The physics book would be testable in a way the religious books are not. Really the answer to the original question. You can test everything and work through the logic to arrive at your own conclusion.

The parties have changed since then. Almost the opposite today with the democrats being seen as more supportive of minority rights. Your own attitude is prejudicial. Can't hold anyone or anything responsible for the past indefinitely. If people can change then so can the groups composed of them.

One cell hooked up with chloroplasts, another with mitochondria. From them we got the tree and the finch.

There's actually good evidence they used an internal ramp instead. Basically avoiding the issues associated with a long external ramp. Backed up by an actual density study and the partially unsealed "notch".

We mainly just need a steady state for societal integrity reasons. I don't think anyone can deny that humanity hasn't had some kind of impact on the environment. The planet is pretty adaptable, human societies are not. More than a few have vanished due purely to environmental reasons. Much of what nature throws at us isn't preventable. In contrast controlling emissions is relatively easy. Generally we don't lose research once it is completed. Not like a number of the more transient boondoggles out there. In a number of areas we actually have greater efficiencies as a result. Waste to Resource, along with processing improvements. Getting late local time, take my random thoughts as you will.

I find it offers decent protection without bogging down my system. Choosing an AV product is fairly subjective. I've generally found that the top ones are about the same in terms of protection and the rest just comes down to personal preference. Here's a site with more objective comparisons: http://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home-user/windows-xp/marapr-2013/

I like the free version of Avast myself. The company uses free users to alert them to coming threats so it is a fair trade.

Gene Therapy is a real thing. Mainly uses retroviruses which have their own issues, but they work well enough.

Here is the manufacturer safety information: http://www.clontech.com/xxclt_ibcGetAttachment.jsp?cItemId=42386&minisite=10020&secItmId=15021 CharonY's assessment of the situation is exactly right though.

Genetic Engineering is the obvious counterexample. Either of yourself or your offspring. Everyday technology is even more powerful though, quietly working to remove one selective pressure at a time. In some finite time it will remove them all, at the end probably migrating from genetic coding altogether. My guess would be homo transcendentalis, would consider themselves as evolving in terms of what their society, technology, and personal feelings dictate. Impossible to know for sure, but they will probably consider themselves as alive as we do.

You really need to report it to a supervisor. Your lab or facility should have some kind of procedures in place. Without knowing the different variables there is no way to determine your risk.

Your genes contain the template for your brain, but your brain can come up with methods to get around the limitations of your genes. Ultimately the genetic code will become mostly irrelevant.

Cancer is more the end result of a number of mutations occurring within your own cells. To some degree each cancer type and even individual cells are different. If even one is missed or has evolved some means of evading the cancer can start up again. We've only just started finding focused techniques to attack cancer. Previously it was all broad methods that killed as many good cells as bad, and were not 100% effective at removing all traces of the malfunctioning cells. HIV/AIDS is somewhat similar, though in this case a virus is hijacking one of our own immune responses to spread. Anything that can react via evolution is going to be a long uphill battle for human medicine techniques.