starbug1

What are the ethics involved in The Truman Show? What do you think is the probability of something like this happening? I can remember being touched by the movie when I was younger, but now I am disgusted. I think the idea is an ourtrage. Any thoughts?

I had thought that to reach a certain length, the 'creators' of light sabers incorporated two laser-type beams in the handle. With two "lasers" tilted slightly towards each other, the beams would meet at the specific height and serve as a barrier to the deadly, fluorescent saber, shooting out of the handles core.

Here's one take on 'superintelligence.' I thought this was very interesting. It is prove of man's limited senses, and I thought it might help with the meaning of life hypothesis. I wrote it all out because it's easier to grasp this way. This adequately compares man's relation with everyone elses perceptions; that is, man's existence in space/time. Chaos works in here somewhere, too.

How disatrous would it be if one were to inject liquid nitrogen intravenously into his blood stream, hypothetically speaking?

Done. Cell is on the way! Thanks for the link.

I know that liquid helium is much colder than liquid nitrogen, but how much more dangerous is liquid helium is it makes contact with skin?

OHHHHHHHHH! Now I get it!

Many theories have been proposed on this whole absolute zero problem. Chances are slim for us ever doing it, which is an open path for more speculation. I've heard of reactions taking place that would seem straight out of a sf story. Magnetic reactions, crazy side affects of relativity, anything that breaks the laws of physics, dynamics, whatever, is probable to happen during absolute zero. This is why it can't happen, theoretically, but I think it can be reached. Not on earth, not by humans, but it can be done.

Tests like that aren't very accurate. However, they do test sight and sound response just like any normal video game, but for real life situations reaction time would vary invariably. For one, you usually aren't prepared (lawnmowers) or the sound and realism of the test is much more demanding, getting one's heart up, therefore making reaction time quicker. Those click or press games are a rough estimate, and they could go both ways, depending on who you are. Ultimately, they are just as conflicting as any articles you might find.

Is this a question of relativity, or semantics?

I think I have an answer. If we were to contact any extraterrestrial life, or they us, the life would be more intelligent than the octopus and the ape and the dolphin, strictly speaking, as something able to use communication devices and travel is a little out of the ability of an octopus. Communication with extraterrestrial life can be assumed to be more intelligent and therefore on some possible pattern or benchmark for reference, and not just noises made from the vocal chords, but even putting thoughts in our head, or using something like morse code, like was shown in the movie Contact, that is, using maths. Sending television signals back is the best proposition I have seen to the problem of extra. communication. Research Carl Sagan's ideas if you would like to know about this. He was one of the biggest proponents for SETI. I really think that the more primitive an animal, the more complex the communication system. For some crazy reason, I believe extraterrestrial life forms would be much simpler to decipher, much easier than our own cousins, the animals. My reasoning is surrounding evolution. We can always go forward, but never backward. Understanding something with more intellect, insight, or mental capacity may be more within our reach; that is, assuming extraterrestrial life is on a similar evolutionary path as humans, not necessarily human-like, as those aliens depicted in Hollywood films, but not animal-like. Because then we'd be back to square one. Or maybe I'm crazy. This kind of evolution is still possible, if humans don't destroy themselves or the earth in the process. It's even possible that such intelligence could arise from something unexpected like the octopus or dolphin before we do, but I think it is unlikely.

Despite having no energy at 0 K, there still would (theoretically) be reactions taking place. So I think there is a purpose.

This is something I thought of as well. But I was wondering about specific examples that might show this. mabye less rare cases. This is one of the problems this parasitism-predation presents. But if it's not energy they are obtaining, then it's possible it may be something else. This moot question was shown in my bio textbook, and I didn't think there could be much reality to it. But, after all, the other forms of symbiosis switch back and forth also. Commensalism can be turned into parasitism, and mutualism can sometimes be commensalim. So the symbiotic relationships are ambiguous.

I was reading about symbiosis and I wondered about parasitism. Couldn't this also be a form of predation? A parasite acts the predator in a way because sometimes it ends in the death of the host, or, possibly in this case, prey. So, under what circumstances can parasitism be considered predation and what are some good examples to back this?

...but there's still a chance.

If you're in a relationship with a girl and she doesn't approve of porn, downright hates it, I think this has a bigger impact on the individual than cultural beliefs. This builds up tension. So with instances like this I think it is appropriate to relieve tension (maybe if you're girlfriend is 'not very active'), and maybe even violence. Regardless, you can't get rid of porn, it will always be widespread and commonplace. Concerning pornography and the effects it has on the mind. eh. I'd say by the time you are a teenager you've seen enough, heard enough not to be damaged by it. (However, there are cases of overobsession for those who don't have self-control). But if you are exposed to it too young...well, I'd say that's how and why some kids grow up disturbed...or sex perverts. This is an unavoidable trait of masculinity. Our hormones make it so. Along these lines, we go through puberty to become more involved with the opposite sex. It can be argued that a lot, if not most, of our subsequent actions are directly involved with these feelings. To put it simply, it is a form of manlihood, something, like sex, that just has to be experienced. Also, there is the power, dominance factor, which is only a different way to say manlihood. Porn for women, on the other hand, despite the posts here of women saying they look at porn, if something much less common. I can honestly say that I count on my fingers the women I know who will admit to watching porn. I think this, in effect, is on account of the 'women society.' I am under the belief that women, or at least sects of girls in school, have reputations that cannot be blemished. This, and a less aggressive (by nature) sex drive, and a later puberty is why women don't do it as much. I'm taking a stab in the dark, but for the majority of women maybe they have an innate sense of what I'll call 'porno taboo.' Who the hell knows.

I'm not refuting that the realm of disverse alien life is beyond our comprehension; it probably is. But, when I was thinking about the componenents needed to trigger life, as it were, aren't the ingredients relatively similar? Meaning, a planet has to be within strict bounds and everything has to be just right (temp, atmosphere) to even start life. So wouldn't that mean an alien race would have to start from what we started from? Of course, this doesn't mean evolution works the same way, so we may not come out looking the same, but speaking of origins only. And as ecoli mentioned, in Mission to Mars, even with remarkably homogeneous DNA, we, the descendents of Martians, evolve into something completely different in terms of appearance, and less sophisticated as well. So, with what we can comprehend, I think that as far as humans have evolved, if we were to encounter aliens, they wouldn't be completely unimaginable or incomprehensible. Science fiction writers, for one, have expanded greatly on this area as well as media and Hollywood. They may not be right, but just because of these things, we have at least a little experience in the matter.

Is it at all possible to retrieve intact dinosaur DNA from a mosquito, rather than just a degenerate 10%? And what are the rules on DNA preservation and decay?

That is, if we had a big enough computer with the memory capacity to do so.

I was under the assumption that spheres cannot be compacted beyond the dimentions of an atom, except maybe in a neutron star. And why is it you can pack an infinite number of spheres? Not exactly sure what you mean.

but does genetic information have to be stored in a helix, whether it is two-, three-, or four-stranded? Or does it even have to be composed of nucleic acids?

could you explain this a little further?

I have read another theory that in some areas overpopulation was a factor in the push to go on land. And even after land animals developed there was a emerging migration of them moving back to the sea, which formed completely different species from the original ancestors that came from the sea.

When two different geographies, or continents, have similar environments, the animals are adapted to parallel evolution, converging similar phenotypes. I checked it out, and the most common example is marsupials and placentals. A placental mole looks very similar to a marsupial mole, but only phenotypically. Otherwise, they are completely different.

I have read about instances where some people, even grown adults, can remember being weaned on their mother's milk. I don't know about you, but this memory would altogether be more disturbing that birth itself. So, I'm asking, if there is no reason to remember birth, why is it a rare number of people that remember? How have they slipped past this barrier?