Area54

1 hour ago, Saiyan300Warrior said:

Yeah I know being creative takes different forms but just don't want to focus on those kind of "kid like" stuff. Want it to be more like Nikola Tesla stuff...

What do you understand to be Tesla's means of invention? How did you arrive at this understanding?

2 minutes ago, Saiyan300Warrior said:

Do you think there is any novel ideas out there to patent that apply scientific principles opposed to simply being creative?

I don't understand the question. To apply scientific principles to develop a solution to a problem that can then be patented surely requires being creative. What does "simply being creative" mean?

34 minutes ago, ahmet said:

This should be incorrect or cannot be generalised.

You may think it should be incorrect, but the evidence clearly shows otherwise.

"It cannot be generalised". That is precisely what is noted in the link I provided.

36 minutes ago, ahmet said:

I also remember that that author was stating that he had an experiment on himself/herself and could remain awake 7 I days,which is definitely not equal to 80 hours.

I chose the 80 hours as an example. I'm sorry that was not clear. My point was a simple one. You apparently doubted the possibility that drugs might induce hallucinations. I noted that drugs were not necessary. Simply go without sleep for an extended period. Now, apparently, you have doubts about that also.

39 minutes ago, ahmet said:

I would point out that I do not ask any medical advice or clinical methods to try on anyone.

I would point out that I do not offer any medical advice or clinical methods, other than - "don't deliberately deprive yourself of sleep".

1 hour ago, ahmet said:

well, I am not asking here medical advice or any type of clinical applications to try on aynone.

I just ask the questions I wonder. but I feel myself a bit surprised now. 

Drugs are not necessary. Try remaining awake for 80 hours and I shall be surprised if you do not hallucinate. See this, for example.

Warning: remaining awake for 80 hours can be (seriously) damaging to your health.

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That's not a very nice thing to say...

I don't think he was aiming for nice.

3 hours ago, Saiyan300Warrior said:

What is the atomic structure that separates life from say a rock which we think is lifeless. 

For the life that we know, DNA.

20 hours ago, MigL said:

There are certain rules that make it less of a 'crap-shoot', but you can definitely go to certain parts of my city, and speaking proper English, you will not be understood, or, at best, misinterpreted.

I understand that many married people can experience this at home.

31 minutes ago, Trurl said:

My question to you is why does your science rely only what we know presently.

I don't understand you. Science does not rely upon what we know presently. As Zapatos has noted we rely upon the findings of science and their application in technology because they are proven, at least to a greater extent than untried and untested ideas. However, Science - the scientific method - continually revisits data and hypotheses and theories, probing and questioning them, doubting the current findings. Building on them and advancing our knowledge, certainly, but relying to them only to the extent that they are continually tested.

35 minutes ago, Trurl said:

Man relying only on his own knowledge is foolish.

Whose knowledge should he rely on then? God's? If so, which God? There are several thousands to choose from. Now I readily concede that Christianity, for example, may offer some sound knowledge in regard to moral issues (though I shake my head in sadness and oftimes disgust at some of the misinterpretations made by some denominations), but the Bible offers very little of value on aerodynamics, chemical processing, or solid state circuitry.

39 minutes ago, Trurl said:

If the science is limited by us it will never give answers.

Again, I don't understand what you mean by this. Science is limited to the extent that its methodology has an area of application and using it ouside that area will not provide answers. So?

41 minutes ago, Trurl said:

Technology does not always improve the world. Science still needs righteousness.

If you mean that inventions are ethically neutral and it requires human judgement to decide whether it is good to employ them at all, and if so, how they should be employed, then I suspect everyone here would agree. So?

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

A single one-time payment of $1200 went to all Americans making less than $75K per year way back 6 months ago in April.

They also boosted unemployment checks to those who qualified by $600 per week. That expired more than 2-months ago on July 31. 

There were also funds for hospitals and forgiveness on loans for small businesses on the condition they didn’t layoff any workers. There was bailout funding for the hospitality and retail industries and also airlines, but that all went away last week on September 30 (that’s when it was announced that nearly 40,000 airline employees were being furloughed and laid off). 

It was recognized long ago the initial package helped, but was not enough and couldn’t keep up with the need. To that end, a second stimulus bill was passed by the Democratic House of Representatives in May, but the Republican controlled Senate couldn't get their act together or arrive at an agreement. They never even brought it up for a vote. 

Last week, the Democratic House passed another version, this one scaled down by over a trillion dollars to appeal to more Republicans in the Senate. The GOP Senate still couldn’t get their act together, don’t have the votes to pass it, and so cancelled their session entirely and went home without passing it (tho magically can use zoom to vote on a hypocritical SCOTUS nominee).

Then yesterday, recognizing it wouldn’t pass, Trump came out and said he was pulling support entirely until after the election... a bit like learning your girlfriend is about to break up with you and choosing instead to break up with her first so you don’t look like a loser. 

Meanwhile, millions of kids are struggling to find food, adults are unable to pay rent, and tens of thousands of businesses are failing and going under and closing their doors permanently. 

And all those people losing their jobs are also losing their healthcare coverage... deep in the thick of a global pandemic... so can’t even see a doctor or get tested if they get sick unless they’re wealthy enough to pay for it out of pocket. 

USA! USA! USA!! 🇺🇸 

On the plus side, Johann Sebastian Bach wrote some great music. (It's my way of saying 'we'll always have Paris'.)

On 10/6/2020 at 1:11 PM, dimreepr said:

Earth seems perfectly suited to life, we live here. 😉

Perhaps the other planets don't have Donald Trump.

Now as to the report. I found some of the assumptions rather flaky. Perhaps this is down to the inadequacies of popular rendings and would be properly addressed in the original research. With that caveat consider these issues - extracts from the article are in italics:

• "Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, but the researchers argue that the sweet spot for life is a planet that is between 5 billion to 8 billion years old." This runs counter to the probable extinction of all life on Earth, due to increases of solar output, in from 1 to 2 billion years time, right in the middle of the researchers sweet spot.
• "A slightly overall warmer temperature, a mean surface temperature of about 5 degrees Celsius (or about 8 degrees Fahrenheit) greater than Earth, together with the additional moisture, would be also better for life." This ignores the obvious point that temperatures vary over the lifetime of a planet, both because of gradual increases in stellar output, but also changes in atmosphere, ocean and land.
• "A planet that is 10% larger than the Earth should have more habitable land." A significant determinant of the continental mass is likely the outcome of the posited moon-creating impact. The researchers appear to have ignored that.

50 minutes ago, Randyjohnson said:

Trump but he does not deserve to have Covid-19.

Perhaps not. Probably, as you say nobody deserves Covid-19. Unfortunately viruses don't have a moral compass. And, if anyone does deserve to be afflicted by the virus then it is anyone who flagrantly dismisses how serious it is, fails to follow the simple guidelines for minimising risk, promotes "cures" that place lives at risk and mocks those who do take precautions. I hope Trump makes a full recovery, but I will continue to resent and condemn the selfish, ignorant approach he has taken to this calamity.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

The topic is "Consequences of Trump's Covid Condition." How is your statement related to that topic?

As the initiator of this thread I would note that at least the contributions of @Charles 3781 , in their  deflection from the topic, disregard of sound medical advice, defence of the indefensible, and promotion of dangerous and deadly solutions, mirrors what we can continue to expect from Trump. So in that sense he provides an ongoing reminder of the thread's protagonist.

53 minutes ago, The Atom said:

The fact that it is available for free does matter. That means it is not copyright. 

You are completely wrong. For example I have scores of research papers on my computer downloaded free and legally from the internet. I am free to use these for personal study, but I cannot use any of the text without providing full details of the source and even then I would be limited as to how many words I could use. I am not trying to get at you Atom, I am trying to help you avoid problems in future. It is highly unlikely that the holders of the copyright for the material you have posted would take legal action against you, but they could. That puts you at risk, it puts the forum at risk and it is simply discourteous.

17 hours ago, The Atom said:

I put some of the article text information because I did not know how to share the link. It is available for free, so it is not plagiarism copyright.

It is irrelevant that the information is free. Failing to make clear that the words are not your own is both an infringment of copyright and an example of plagiarism. Your good intent does not cancel out these points.

31 minutes ago, joigus said:

Forceful mutilation, mind programming to instill fear, hate, guilt, immediate obedience without question to unchecked-by-objective-observers religious authorities, who in many cases are only answerable to their own religious authorities. Arranged marriages for underage girls, obligation to kill others and die if necessary to protect or advance your own religion, persecution of other faiths --in some cases--. Social isolation or even imprisonment or severe physical punishment if you don't abide by the rules. Keeping children from being aware of similar circumstances in other religions, so that they more easily assume their condition as "natural" or inevitable. There are possibly hundreds more reasons. None of us comes out looking pretty here, no matter what our culture is.

All of this carefully installed in children's minds year after year.

As I said, psychological abuse beyond any doubt.

The above is in defence of your statement, "Don't forget most religion is psychological abuse."

I don't see even a smidgeon of evidence or argument to justify the the most in your statement.

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I don't think I'd classify the actions of my parents and teachers when it came to religion as "psychological abuse". More like "loving care".

Likewise. I acquired many of my moral values from my religious upbringing. I have discarded the theistic belief, but still find reflection in a quite church, reading a Bible passage, or listening to the Hallelujah Chorus evoke positive feelings that are completely untouched by any taint of psychological abuse. I recgonise that not all others are so fortunate. Joigus seems to wish to use a "one size fits all" version of religion and chooses the most damaging of possible images.

1 hour ago, The Atom said:

Well, I am not sure. I feel half dead because most of my muscles are stiff and I have a collection of pus between my skin and first layer of muscle everywhere. Tetanus has one of the most powerful exo-toxins. It binds to receptors like Corona binds to receptors. If it finds that it cannot bind, it lyses any cell that it cannot bind to! That means it can destroy a cell with Corona! 

Do remember that the medical scientists, Logistics Medical Personnel of the military, and other medical professionals have not been interested in preparing for NBC warfare. So, when I write that an outbreak such as the current one is unnecessarily involving people who do not want to be involved, it means that it does not have to be a community effort. Maybe now, and for the future, the military and other medical scientists will do the necessary NBC warfare work to be prepared for any attack or accidental attack. Here is something I mean about being prepared. Do a search for freezer Dutch scientist corona and the article should show as one of the results: In 1998, when Dutch scientist Berend Bosch decided to make the study of coronaviruses his life’s work, the level of attention they drew among medical researchers was such that the doctorate. program he joined was in a veterinary science department. Coronaviruses that could cause severe infections were circulating among animals, but the types people could contract rarely caused anything worse than the common cold. “For human health, it was not that important,” said Bosch.

This started to change as he finished his doctorate at Utrecht University. In 2002 and 2003, SRAS, a disease caused by a coronavirus that had jumped from bats to humans, caused widespread panic and killed approximately eight hundred people. Bosch began to work on potential therapies for this. For a few months, he and his colleagues felt the eyes of the scientific world on them – he was invited to speak about the pathogen at several conferences – but, once the epidemic was under control, interest waned. Life in the laboratory was at low pressure; on weekends, he liked to rent a boat and go sailing.

In 2012, however, there was a new wave of attention when MERS, another disease caused by coronavirus, has killed nearly nine hundred people, mostly in the Arabian Peninsula. theMERS The epidemic was an important lesson for Bosch and other scientists: coronaviruses capable of jumping species were not something unique in a century, as some had assumed. Already, they had turned out to be a thing twice in ten years. Bosch, now at the faculty of Utrecht, has sought to identify antibodies that have shown promise in the fight against the disease. Antibodies are Y-shaped proteins that certain white blood cells make in response to a foreign substance, an antigen, and are a critical part of how our bodies fight infection. They mobilize against viruses by binding to a part of the viral particle, or virion. Certain antibodies act as return beacons, invoking attacks by other components of the body’s immune system. Others directly neutralize the virus, preventing it from invading cells.

All coronaviruses are wrapped in protein andMERS, SRASand a common cold-like coronavirus share parts of these proteins. A largely reactive antibody, Bosch thought, could “perhaps help us against the next pandemic.” He started with mice that had been genetically engineered to respond to antigens with human-like antibodies, and gave the mice a protein that appears on human-infecting coronaviruses. A few weeks later, his team extracted the antibody-producing cells from the mice and isolated the antibodies that bind to the virus. From this collection of antibodies, Bosch and his colleagues identified fifty-one SRAS, and several who were “largely reactive” against several coronaviruses. “They were of no immediate use,” he said, but “I don’t like to throw things out.” The Bosch team was playing the long game: they put their samples in the freezer and waited.

You need to make it clear which words are yours and which are lifted from the New Yorker article. Otherwise you will be suspected of plagiarism.

Also, you might wish to make clear in what way - if any - the article supports your view. (It wouldn't do any harm to clarify what your view is too; to this reader it comes across as gibberish.)

13 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Lots of big pickup trucks with american and confederate flags flying from the bed of their trucks here too... 

It occurs to me that a simplistic interpretation of the state of the USA today is that the American Civil War never really finished properly. One hopes that in this context "simplistic" equates to "silly and irrelevant and wrong".

1 hour ago, MigL said:

That's the problem with Religions ( aside from political commentary ) and reminds me of an Emo Philips joke

<snip>

( reading it back to myself, it does seem much funnier in an Emo Philips voice )

Here you go -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3fAcxcxoZ8

There is 2:55 of lead in that is worth watching of itself.

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

The Dems should be rubbing his nose in that fact.

But that would require a breach of social distancing.

4 minutes ago, Jack Jectivus said:

The point of this work isn't very clear apparently

This is something that we can, perhaps, all agree on. As I suggested earlier you need to revisit your presentation from the ground up. Or, alternatively, consider growing dahlias. If you opt for the latter, post photos.

There were too many non sequitur's in your argument for me to take the time to follow it to the end. You may wish to revisit the presentation with a closer attention to logic.

13 hours ago, MSC said:

You sit down at the chess table, you lay your pieces on the board, you start by setting up the black pieces. Then, you switch seats and set up the white. For some reason, you've always felt it was unfair that white always gets to move first. How can that be a rule? Why is it a rule? Nevermind. The games about to start. White moves first. It's a French open. Nothing too serious. It's always better to play black defensively anyway. You watch and react to the flow of the game until finally, on the 27th move, checkmate. You look over at your opponent, no one there. You look down at the board, white won. Black king wasn't able to get out of the castle before it was too late.

Who won the game? Who was black and who was white? Who lost?

Your outline scenario is, seemingly, inadequately clothed. @OldChemE and @md65536 have offered plausible explanations. I note that your outline is consistent with the following account:

You set up both sets of pieces, but the play was conducted by two players known only as white and black. White won.

Other satisfactory explanations are possible. You can reject the above explanation only on the basis of nice interpretations of your lexicology and grammar that you have (deliberately?) made ambiguous.

Who won the game? Who was black and who was white? Who lost? . . . . . Who cares?

13 hours ago, MSC said:

No, I will not tell you what MSC stands for.

I'll tell you what Area54 stands for if you promise never to tell me what MSC stands for.

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Hate to sound conspiratorial, but there’s also always a chance this is a bullshit ploy to change the topic. This is going to absorb media coverage over everything else for at least a few weeks. 

I'm generally anti-conspiracy theory, but my first reaction when I heard of Trump's positive test was "That's an effective way of avoiding another Presidential debate".

In the more likely scenario where he shrugs it off with minor syptoms, if he were to use the " I told you this thing was no worse than flu" he'll get very little sympathy from those who have lost family or friends.

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

The RNC would have to choose a replacement candidate, but it's already too late to change ballots (also since voting has already begun in many states). The decision would be left to the electors of the electoral college in states where Trump won to pass those votes to the replacement chosen by the RNC or pass them to someone else. Nothing legally prevents them from deciding for themselves who to push votes to, but they would likely align behind the RNC choice.

Of course! I forgot the electoral college need not be a simple rubber stamp.

16 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

iNow posted this from an expert on these matters: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/02/were-final-stages-presidential-election-what-happens-if-candidate-withdraws-or-dies/

Very useful. Thank you both.

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

I'm also not at all comfortable with the level of schadenfreude I'm feeling. 

Intellectually I recognise that such would be a proper position, but if ever there was a case for an exception this could be it.

Given the news of Trump's "Covid Catch":

• What do you suppose would be the likely impact upon the election result?
• If the condition were to prove fatal for him before the election how would that be handled? Can the Republicans select another candidate? Would Pence automatically step-up? How would ballot papers be handled?
• Same questions post-election if he won the election.
• Any other thoughts?