All Activity
This stream autoupdates
 Past hour

If that's the official position of scienceforums.net then I suppose that is that, then, isn't it. As you hold no corporate interests or responsibility in that sense, it may not be in your interest to provide your users with peace of mind or the option to opt out of being associated with your site. I can think of many reasons as to why somebody might no longer want their email address attached to one of their old accounts. The reason as to "why" someone wishes to leave seems redundant from a userfriendliness perspective. Also, if it is possible then "why not?" also comes to mind. Too much effort, I guess? Just seems bizarre that people can never leave.

Maybe usernames could be manually changed by an Admin to “ALUMNINoLongerActive” or some similar. That would allow posts to remain and thread continuity to persist. Perhaps profile info could be wiped clean, email removed, login deactivated But why? It’s. A. Private. Site. It’s not a government database. Not a corporate interest. No commercial activity has occurred. No PII collected. You agreed to the T&Cs upon registering. If you weren’t comfortable with those, you shouldn’t have clicked Agree and proceeded.

"If Jesus Christ gets down off the cross and told me Trump is with Russia, I would tell him, 'Hold on a second. I need to check with the President if it's true.'" [Trump voter Mark Lee to CNN / Alisyn Camerota]

Surely it would be an option to allow users to delete their accounts without deleting their posts and answers. I'm sure other websites manage this; it just means said user's profile is no longer viewable and their email isn't plugged into the website and linked to the account.
 Today

Do you think humans will ever make it illegal to inflect pain on other lifeforms (e.g. insects, bats ,rats etc.) as we head into the future?
Sensei replied to mad_scientist's topic in Ethics
In the future, this problem (the most likely) won't exist, because the all other lifeforms will be eaten by hungry humans, on overpopulated Earth... Japan already have density of population like the Earth will have with 50 billions of people living at the same time. They right now have to import significant percentage of food from other countries. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2008/02/26/reference/japanneedsimportstokeepitselffed/#.WhN5FHndiHs "The Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Ministry said in August that Japan’s food selfsufficiency in 2006 was 39 percent on a calorie basis and 68 percent in terms of the value of agricultural output." Right now, they can do that just because they are wealthy and other poorer countries have higher production than internal demand. But when the all other countries will have similar density of population, wealthy countries will be sucking in the production from poor countries, and hundred of millions (rather billions of people more realistically) from poorer countries will be seeking alternative sources of food, basically eat everything what they can find, including other humans in the extremities.. ps. I have nothing against Japan. They're just currently existing example of overpopulated country already. But in the case of collapse of global trading (as a result of f.e. nuclear war or other global disaster) they'll have problems the first.. 
Which font is it? What happens in a new file if you try and use that font?

No problem. You are only acting responsibly by asking questions about something something that could possibly have been hazardous.. We don't know until we ask.

Okay man I downloaded this. And now FBI is probably after me LOL okay man thanks just taking safety precautions for my dog.

Why is life after death really not possible?
StringJunky replied to seriously disabled's topic in Biology
Most likely because they are not the right configuration and of sufficient complexity. 
Why is life after death really not possible?
Endercreeper01 replied to seriously disabled's topic in Biology
If we look at mathematical systems besides the brain, they are not conscious. Why should the brain be different if the brain is all there is to consciousness? There has to be a reason that the brain is conscious and other mathematical systems aren't.  Yesterday

Why is life after death really not possible?
StringJunky replied to seriously disabled's topic in Biology
Of course it is.There's no other real world option. 
The LC50 (lethal concentration that will kill 50%) for a rat is 47,702mg/m2 for 4 hours. I don't think you've got anything to worry about. http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927133

Why is life after death really not possible?
Endercreeper01 replied to seriously disabled's topic in Biology
I'm not making a statement about whether consciousness can exist in a mathematical system or if a mathematical system can experience consciousness, I am saying that the system itself is not what "is" conscious and what "is" perceiving. 
Aleman569 started following I NEED HELP RIGHT NOW! PLEASE.

Thanks. What effects do you think it has on a small dog with the room that has the spill closed and kept away from him?

Why is life after death really not possible?
Strange replied to seriously disabled's topic in Biology
Then it is perfectly logical to say that a calculator cannot do arithmetic because they are composed to atoms which cannot do arithmetic. You clearly have no idea what the word "logic" means. You seem to think it means "agrees with my religious beliefs". 
I don't think so. Anyway, I'm glad we agree on something Yes, it would certainly be very interesting. But let's not forget that we got to this point because of the concept of wave and particle. And Quantum Mechanics which aims at superseding both concepts and uniting them in "waveparticle". But even before that, we were discussing how to render the phenomenon of polarization using the theory of light as a particle, instead of as a wave, and how difficult that was.

Why is life after death really not possible?
Endercreeper01 replied to seriously disabled's topic in Biology
It is perfectly logical to reason that that a mathematical system is not something which subjectively experiences, because mathematical systems are comprised of algorithms which process information but aren't composed of anything subjectively experiencing. 
Why is life after death really not possible?
Strange replied to seriously disabled's topic in Biology
Nope. Try again. Maybe using logic or evidence. 
Why is life after death really not possible?
Endercreeper01 replied to seriously disabled's topic in Biology
If we define consciousness as something which is able to experience subjective experience, then by that definition, a mathematical system cannot be conscious in and of itself, because there is nothing "perceiving" or "experiencing" which is a fundamental component of the algorithm, but simply information processed in a mechanical, algorithmic fashion to produce an output. So the algorithm itself cannot be conscious as it does not "experience", but that does not prevent the introduction of something which "experiences" what the algorithm experiences. 
Looking at the Spacetime Uncertainty Relation as an Approach to Unify Gravity
Dubbelosix replied to Dubbelosix's topic in Speculations
Minimum Distance in Relativity and the NonCommutation of the Phase Space First... a blow by blow account of what led up to the proposal of the curve equation: Anandan proposes an equation [math]E = \frac{k}{G} (\Delta \Gamma)^2[/math] and I offer also true [math]E = \frac{c^4}{G} \int \Delta \Gamma^2\ dV = \frac{c^4}{G} \int \frac{1}{R^2} \frac{d\phi}{dR}(R^2 \frac{d\phi}{dR})\ dV[/math] That was after correcting the constant of proportionality, and after I derived a following inequality by making use of the Wigner function  The MandelstamTamm inequality for instance I have shown can be written in the following way, with [math]c = 8 \pi G = 1[/math] (as usual), we can construct the relationship: (changing notation only slightly) [math]<\psi(0)\psi(t)>^2 \geq \cos^2(\frac{[<\Gamma^2>  <\psi\Gamma^2\psi> ]\Delta t}{\hbar}) = \cos^2(\frac{[<H>  <\psiH\psi> ]\Delta t}{\hbar}) = \cos^2(\frac{\Delta H \Delta t}{\hbar})[/math] This linking of geometry to the energy of the system can be understood through a curve equation I derived using the same principles [math]\frac{ds}{dt} \equiv \sqrt{<\dot{\psi}\dot{\psi}>}\ = W(q,p) \sqrt{<\psi\Gamma^4\psi>} \geq \frac{1}{\hbar} \sqrt{<\psiH^2\psi>}[/math] By understanding that the curve equation when squared provides solutions to the timedependent Schrodinger equation (in the following way) ~ [math]\frac{1}{ i \hbar}H\psi>\ = \dot{\psi}>[/math] Then you can construct a more serious equation that may be seen as a gravitational analogue to the Schrodinger equation when the covariant derivative acts on the tensor components and I calculate it as: [math]\nabla_n\dot{\psi}>\ = \frac{c^4}{8 \pi G} \int \int\ W(q,p)^2\ (\frac{d}{dx^n}\Gamma^{ij} + \Gamma^{i}_{n\rho} \Gamma^{\rho j} + \Gamma^{j}_{n \rho}\Gamma^{\rho}_{i})\psi>\ dqdp \geq \int\ \frac{1}{\hbar}(\frac{d}{dx^n}T^{ij} + \Gamma^{i}_{n\rho} T^{\rho j} + \Gamma^{j}_{n \rho}T^{\rho}_{i})dV\psi>[/math] Also keep in mind, when you take the bra solution [math]<\dot{\psi} \nabla[/math] and it;s product with its conjugate above, you could understand the product as producing an object like [math]<\dot{\psi}[\nabla,\nabla]\dot{\psi}>[/math] which shows the noncommutation between covariant derivatives  the wave functions, in its most simplest form can be understood as [math]\psi>\ = e^{iHt}q>[/math] [math]<\psi =\ <q e^{iHt}[/math] When we take the product of the bra and ket solutions, we get an analogous identity found in General relativity  we simply take the tangent vector [math]\frac{dx^{\mu}}{d\tau}[/math] and allow the covariant derivative to act on this (and further set it to zero) and defines the minimum curve, or better yet, as a geodesic for a minimum distance, [math]\nabla_n\frac{dx^{\mu}}{d\tau} \equiv\ min\ \sqrt{<\dot{\psi}[\nabla,\nabla]\dot{\psi}>}[/math] We know how the covariant derivative acts on the curve from the following equation [math]T_{nm}(y) = \nabla_n V_m = \frac{\partial V_m}{\partial y^{n}} + \Gamma_{nm} V_{r}(x)[/math] The interesting thing about setting this to zero and using this as the definition of the minimum distance is that noncommutation between the covariant derivatives in a phase space is generally not zero [math][\nabla_i \nabla_j] \ne 0[/math]! The Von Neumann algebra insists that deviation from the classical vacuum relies on the noncommutative properties of the quantum phase space. The covariant derivative also acts on rank 2 tensors in the following way The covariant derivative acting on our connection must obey a rank 2 tensor, [math]\nabla_n\Gamma^{ij} = \frac{d}{dx^n}\Gamma^{ij} + \Gamma^{i}_{n\rho} \Gamma^{\rho j} + \Gamma^{j}_{n \rho}\Gamma^{\rho}_{i}[/math] It also follows then the stress energy tensor responds in much the same way [math]\nabla_nT^{ij} = \frac{d}{dx^n}T^{ij} + \Gamma^{i}_{n\rho} T^{\rho j} + \Gamma^{j}_{n \rho}T^{\rho}_{i}[/math] which were the primary tools we used to construct our form of the nonlinear Schrodinger equation. Also, it has also been established that the square of the curve can be seen as related to the kinetic energy: [math]K_BT = (\frac{dx^{\mu}}{d\tau} \cdot \frac{dx^{\mu}}{d\tau}) \equiv\ <\dot{\psi}\dot{\psi}>[/math] Where again, this is a massless form (m = 1) for a constant mass. This linking of temperature to geometry could be lucrative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maupertuis'_principle 
Another woman has come forward. She says AF fully cupped her ass cheek while having a picture of the two of them taken by her husband at the fair. This would've happened after he was already a senator back in 2010 and she posted about it at the time on her FB page: https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policyandpolitics/2017/11/16/16665830/alfrankensexualassaultallegations

I agree. That is the exact opposite of what you said earlier. Errr...

Nope! Trump and his people where talking about in person.

Why is life after death really not possible?
Strange replied to seriously disabled's topic in Biology
I can refute it with exactly the same amount of logic and evidence that you use: you are wrong. OK? No it isn't. It is just your personal religious belief.