Endy0816

Not sure it would work like you are imagining. Even if compatible, the new DNA will direct things going forward. We do have cells that can replicate indefinitely already. Basically the risk of one becoming Cancer requires their numbers to be limited. You'll want to look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomerase It's the primary way these various cells manage immortality of a sort.

Evolution/Abiogenesis isn't about it happening by chance or accident. What doesn't reproduce or replicate dies out. You end up something that is really really good at it. You can obviously duplicate the spaghetti code the process spat out. Why nobody really finds it ironic here. I'll find it cooler once they do it from scratch, but we're getting there. There are issues with making a genome smaller(JCVI-syn3.0). Additional length provides a degree of redundancy and a repository for the future evolution. Main issue with the 'designer idea" is that there are many cases where things could be better done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design#Fatal_flaws You could make a point that the bad design is deliberate or stems from ineptitude, but that doesn't exactly inspire me to worship this being.

Main thought is that without stability they definitely won't get anywhere. A number of diseases are also easily thwarted via good governance. During the Irish Potatoe Famine there were also international relief efforts. http://irishamerica.com/2009/08/international-relief-efforts-during-the-famine/ Quite a number of Irish Immigrants to the US during that as well.

That's subjective, not objective. IQ tests are dubious at best. For no reason I can tell you're trying to link this already dubious concept to birth date. Understandably people are responding negatively here.

This help any? http://www.math.ubc.ca/~cass/courses/m309-03a/m309-projects/lo/Corrections.html

https://nerdist.com/heres-why-the-fbi-cant-hack-an-iphone/ Knew I remembered something to that effect. Been awhile and they got in anyways so...

They have before. https://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of-circuits/ You'd have to give them alot of time and be ready for a ton of failures. In some cases the definition of 'success' can also differ between man and machine.

May want to look at a simple phone app(IP webcam). Does depend on what all you are looking for. Sensors can be off the shelf, if they can be placed so they can be read via the camera.

That is a really good book. One of the more realistic takes on how technology might have developed for another species. Cant recall the details now, but I was actually looking for East of Eden and picked that up by mistake. Thought the Dinosaurs were a bit odd, even for Steinbeck.

Saw this the other day. One explanation was that internal noise is caused as the brain is trying to dampen the loud sound it expects to follow. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor_tympani_muscle Hear it myself, pretty cool.

Neutralized it. Some votes are seemingly random, who knows though. Anyways yeah, I'll ask. See what kind of response I get.

Looked into it some more. Didn't fully consider how Dewey Decimal wasn't public domain :/ Apparently there are more classification levels but the full system is only made accessible to subscribers. The first and last bit I should be able to get right at least. Middle I think I'll have to reuse an existing number or make an educated guess.

What do you mean by probabilistic?

Wondering if actual correction might be possible via camera feeds. Number of variables but seems feasible.

Just curious, where does that number come from?

You've got this situation going on for an aperture. If you start out with a million photons coming off of the object; only a fraction of them will be at an angle such that they'll pass through the aperture. The more photons you allow in(larger aperture) the brighter your image but you also start seeing overlap(less clarity). FOV remains the same because to photons even a tiny hole is like a train tunnel to a sparrow. Plenty of room to fly on through.

More like those particular scenarios have become themselves less common. Two of about nine incidents were something we'd trained for. Not less training, but diversified training would have been useful IMO. Been awhile. There's still some negative aspects but there have also been steady quality of life improvements. They are only showing the crew areas. Probably out of concern for the sister ship. They'd have some kind of air tanks onboard as well. Don't know if it was that though. Any updates otherwise?

Have one coming, but plan to change the title and want the number to be correct. Might have to hit up a library.

Yeah, I figured out the general class (first three numbers). They typically have additional numbers after them though. Trying to make a fake book and want it to look like it is an old library book.

Trying to find out if there is any specific organizational scheme used for the numbers after the first three in the Dewey Decimal System.

You would need to do some work in advance for the cells to be sensitive. Some of these things are also not going to travel through you very well. ie. I am sure we'll do a full overhaul someday though. Lot of potential bennefits.

To the left of the aperture you'll see an image of my ceiling lights. Most of the light does not come from right in front of the aperture. This does not represent a problem for the light since it comes in at angle. An aperture is not a one-way street, light can pass through either way. Looking through the apperature the other way, you again see the lights. Now for any laser with minimal spread you merely need to shoot it through the apperature. In that case you'll be able to to see it just fine. Omnidirectional light != Laser light I think FOV is basically 180, but really light can travel every which way.

Assuming you meant "turn" instead of "run", I believe that this method requires a mutant or modified species. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optogenetics ...and yeah, took a bit of rereading to figure out what you meant.

Light can enter at an angle. A pinhole camera is an easy way to see this.

I would say no. Muscle mass is based on need. Something better would be the changing size of the brain or perhaps the evolution that occured in response to increased population size and density.