Genecks

So, something I've been doing lately is reviewing driver safety. I got my license in 2008, and I have reviewed driver safety the past few months. I think I'm a much better driver than in 2008, but I've been reviewing skills to prevent myself from ever getting into an accident. One of the mathematical models that I came across lately in driver safety is the Solomon curve. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_curve It's a mathematical model describing the relationship between speed between drivers and the probability of getting into an accident. What I don't understand about the curve, and perhaps some mathematician here could do research and give me insight, because I haven't been able to find the answer, is whether or not the speed that is most likely to reduce the possibility of an accident is a speed that is obtained from trying to match the speed of cars in all lanes (including lanes with vehicles going on the opposite direction). As an U.S.A. driver, if I'm staying out of the "slow," turn lane (the right lane), then I'm going to be in the left lane. One of the things I've been wondering is if I should attempt to match the speed of the vehicle in the lanes going the direction I'm going or if I ought to match the speed of the vehicles in all lanes (including opposite lanes). I think the most interesting thing I got out of this is that breaking the law is worthwhile in an attempt to go as fast as the vehicles around you in order to survive (at least, from an probabilistic view). It would be great if vehicles went darn near close to the speed limit; but it does not appear reasonable to do such when taking the solomon curve into consideration and vehicles are deviated from the speed limit.

After ~14 billion years of "evolution," I think we're pretty magical. Historically, for what I've known about spontaneous combustion, there has been some external ignition that caused an individual to combust. If there was spontaneous combustion in a person, then I could only assume it was some kind of gas build up with an electrical discharge to set it off; combined with the wick effect, the person would burn up. A lot of this reminds me about how we don't really understand how reality works and yet all of the air molecules in the room could go to one corner of the room in an instant, thus suffocating a person. Although, I've never heard, read, nor seen that in nature, it's alleged to be some kind of random possibility of an indeterministic universe. My theory, if SHC truly occurs, is that there is a gas (possibly intestinal) that is being set off by electrical discharge. If humans are burning up from the inside, I'm thinking gas and electrical discharge. But then, I don't think there have ever been reports of mice in science labs undergoing spontaneous combustion. If it's some evolutionary aspect, how come there aren't reports of other animals undergoing spontaneous combustion? Is God smiting people? In relation to the water issue, there is blood; and one might think that the amount of blood in the circulatory system would put out a fire as it attempts to surface. There is water in the body. Rather than a person undergoing SHC, if there were gas and ignition in the body, I instead see immediate or soon death caused by internal organ damage: I wouldn't perceive actual fire reaching the surface of the skin. Again, there is a serious lack of evidence in relation to this event. Also, the lack of animal models makes me question the validity of SHC as a possibility. Generally, if something happens in a human (and it doesn't have to do with psychology or some "state of mind"), then we ought to be able to make an animal model.

It is an April fool's joke. lol.

What? You don't like random?

Late last night on March 31st, 2014, the super-scientist, Mary Jackson, daughter of Frank Jackson and cousin of Washu Hakubi, discovered the Theory of Everything. Frank Jackson had locked Mary Jackson in a black-and-white room since her conception, whereby she could not come out of the room until she knew everything about color. Mary was given unlimited access to equipment and funds, which was supported by the Obama administration. Upon leaving, Mary Jackson left the room in the Frank Jackson residence in U.S.A., North America, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy only to become one with the universe. When Mary was asked what she learned about color and if she experienced anything about color after having left the black-and-white room, Mary Jackson replied that she learned everything and experienced nothing new about color, because she already knew everything about color already. When asked to mathematically describe the Theory of Everything, Mary Jackson gave this formula: Physicists immediately speculated that the answer was 8.4. However, that answer was incorrect. The correct answer, as Mary Jackson pointed out was 42. More to this can be found here.

I would be cross-posting for this. However, maybe some SFN members would be interested. http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/does-science-presume-freewill-65724.html OH! ALSO!! By the way, if you know the answer, please share. To answer your question, my answer is the following: I don't know. If I knew I had free-will, that I could prove it to myself, that dancing around in a silly way would cause rain (throwing ethics aside and taking what comes from a potentially negative action, karma/dharma or what-have-you), then I doubt I would be posting here. Most of my background is philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience. As of late, I've beens studying conceptual aspects of physics without going into the mathematical depth of quantum physics. However, whether free-will exists or not can be re-phrased in this way: "Is there anything about my personhood that is independent of the universe that can voluntarily cause an object in the physical universe to become dependent on the aspect of my personhood that is independent of the universe?" The question may be better formulated as such: "Is there a personhood that is independent of the universe that can voluntarily cause an object in the physical universe to become dependent on that personhood that is independent of the universe?" That would not necessarily mean that you have free-will. It's simply targeting whether anyone or a "person," if but some part of the person ("personhood") could have free-will. Solipsism is an annoying thing. Many people will go into the realm of dualism in an attempt to say yes. However, a physicalist may argue no. And from that point, you may get into the philosophy of mind. My question on that philosophy board is the following: Isn't a scientist already a dualist when it comes to the concept of testability and falsification (or something like that)?

I've been watching videos about quantum foam, multiverses, and string theory. One of the things that gets me is that if universes can come together and combine, and if there are infinite universes, then why am I not seeing obscure things each day that break the laws of physics and seem out of the ordinary, such as people walking around with antenna on their heads? Then I start to question if infinite multiverses are combining and leaving at an instantaneous rate, then the universe we currently reside in is the most stable configuration that can occur. Has there been any speculation in relation to the quantum foam theory or multiverse theory as to why this universe appears stable rather than random and continuously breaking the laws of physics? I'm under the impression that there is a filtering effect in place. It appears that virtual particles may be able to enter this universe but only for a brief time due to the conditions for which they enter are not absolute. As such, it reminds me of a membrane, for which only objects of particular molecular weights can pass through.

In relation to your last statement, how do you know that is true? Is it possible that particles would move faster than the speed of light w/ Higgs field? Because if moving fast in the universe means manipulation of one or more Higgs fields, I think we've got all of our space exploration issues down. It looks like all of this is in Japanese: http://www.stmopen.net/wormhole-solution-of-higgs-field/ I cannot read that paper, as my knowledge of the Japanese language is not well learned.

I'm reading and learning about the Higgs boson at the moment. So, I'm just throwing out a question: Does the Higgs field cause light to have its constant ("speed of light")? I'm speculating from what I've heard and read of the Higgs boson. It seems like the bosons are the sands of time. However, I'm more focusing this thread on the speed of light. Because if what I heard is true, then the Higgs field does not affect the speed of light. However, I consider there may be more at play in that the Higgs field gives light its speed, thus the Higgs field acts as a constraint on the speed of light. Thus, I question if there was a way that the Higgs field could be repelled or modified, then things could move through the field to go the speed of light or perhaps faster than the speed of light (as we currently know the speed). Perhaps a Higgs field could be made to make things go the speed of light? search terms: higg's field, higg's boson, higgs field, higgs boson

Last year around this time, I believe I came across an individual who has a talent for writing. The individual displayed an exceptional ability for rhetoric and argumentation. However, the person lacks the ability to think abstractly. The person also was held back in school a couple of years. Also, I believe the individual lacked the ability to develop and keep memorized episodic memories. Nonetheless, the individual has amazing rhetorical skills. Is this kind of a variant of hyperlexia? It seems obscure in that the person is not too bright in other areas, but the individuals appear as though she would make quite a great English major. I think the individual has abstract thinking ability in terms of writing.

Thanks. I sent off the email.

If anyone recalls the neuroscientist who killed people while he was dressed as a joker, this thread is about that. I'm looking for the defense attorney's email address or contact info. I'm having a hard time locating it. I have information that may be valuable to that case. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I have studied law and neuroscience for some time. I believe he was insane. I also believe I know what happened. In general, he had a source-monitoring error. Large amounts of emotional distress, his dysphoric mania, caused him to lose large amounts of information about his identity and personality. As he lost knowledge and information due to the large amount of emotional distress, he later developed a false memory. The false memory caused him to misattribute sources of knowledge, which eventually brought on a new identity and personality. Now, the thing is, there needs to be an explanation as to why he underwent large amounts of emotional distress and dysphoric mania. He may have forgotten it, but I believe he has knowledge of it. The large amounts of emotional distress caused him to forget the textual information that he had for so long encountered: He was a high GPA individual. He had became emotionally detached from that information, which also involved his identity: He was a scholar. As his dysphoric mania (or emotional bout) caused him to quickly become detached from his scholarly ways, he had a brain drain. In that brain drain, he lost part of his identity: That he was a scholar. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Eagan_Holmes

I know, right? Google isn't perfect.

Robotics? Sounds like some computer programmer would eventually make viruses for those robots. I remember discussing this same topic with my mother. One of the first things that comes to mind is the unabomber. Yeah, technology can be a problem more than a savior. However, there is going to be the need to fuel those robots. There is also going to be a need to fix and keep up those robots: Who cleans the cleaning robot? So, there should be many more energy jobs in the future. Makes sense to me. People who work at a company need to eat. So, they buy food. And that gives them energy to work. Robots that work at a company need energy. So, someone supplies them energy. And that gives the person money to eat. It's a cycle, if you think about it. Of course, then comes in the real issue of how many energy jobs there are. How many will be able to get an energy job, and so on. With this pattern of robots doing the work, being efficient, etc.. there should be a serious decrease in the cost to buy the products that the robots are making. I spent a fair amount of time with a woman getting her Ph.D in economics. Her and I talked about economics, and her belief was that things in America will be going toward personal services. In a lot of ways, if a robot can't do it, then it will be the job of a human.

I'm in the U.S.A.. Well, I had been up over 24 hours, but I did it. I'm trying to get back into my competitive groove and do things. It also gives a little bit of cash. It's somewhat painful, but it's not agonizing, bloody murder painful. It's more like some prick (asshole/jerk) with a short fingernail keeps pressing his finger and fingernail into the underneath of your arm for a good hour or two, as that pain transforms into a numbing pain that is annoying but tolerable. It took about 4 to 4.5 hours. Not bad for some extra cash. It's too bad these plasma centers are not more abundant in U.S. cities. What interested me, however, was that the plasma was going to Research Triangle Park. I guess that place does have a fair amount of biotech jobs. Also, the scenery of the bedding area reminded me of The Matrix. A little eery, but at least people are conscious and willing. I found it a little hard to focus and read while that 1.5 hours passed on the bed, as my plasma was being filtered out. There is that alternation between making a fist and relaxing. Otherwise, it's a decent way to study and make some cash on the side. Anyone else ever do this stuff?

I was also past my 24-hour mark while writing that. Maybe I'll reply and clarify at a later time. No rest for the wicked. Peace.

No one? Really? My best guess is that it refers to some kind of environmental protocol or sticking to some kind of way of making chemicals... But I don't know. I could call and ask, yeah, yeah I could. heh.

I could care less that there are females on this website unless they live near me and I can commute to them. I guess that could be said about anyone, though, especially if someone has something cool that he/she is working on. If you feel that someone is wrongfully hitting on you on this site and flirting has gone TOO FAR, I'd suggest just reporting the issue. But yeah, there are differences in gender count when it comes to STEM. In reference to what CharonY said, I do not recall that many women being on this website. I have only referred one female to this website. I was here around 2005 (no earlier than 2004) with the name Cyberman, but then I got banned a few times and whatnot. But this account was signed up in 2006. I surely don't remember there being that many obvious females. And, in a lot of ways, this website is kind of general. There are a lot of other websites that specialize in certain topics. And I feel whenever those topics get too specialized, people shut out others in order to stay competitive... Gender as an issue? Meh. ydoaps as a moderator/staff/etc? I'm not sure about that still, but whatever. Actually, now that I think of it, there was ONE gender issue that was starting to PISS ME OFF. I mentioned it like a year or two ago. It had to do with me observing a lot more females doing biology research than males at the university I was at. It seemed like three females for each male (if there was even a male). Yeah, I really, really felt there were a lot more females in the research labs. I felt as though there was some discrimination against males, yet the biology research was dominated by male professors. I couldn't tell if that was just normal or if there was some kind of bias in choosing females to be in the labs. I had a fair knowledge of statistics and was a very active thinker, and I felt that there was a female bias wherever I looked. However, I did not collect ample evidence to support the conclusion that there was a bias toward having many more female undergrad research biologists than males. If I had been in nursing, I'd been aware I was dealing with a pink collar profession. But it wasn't nursing. For the research I did after undergrad, yeah, there was still a VERY SERIOUS bias (I felt). The first lab I worked in after completing undergrad, there were like 5 females and about three males. The neighboring lab had four females and two males. Of course, no better if it was male biased. But the point is that it surely didn't appear equal or close to. Seemed like more labs than not had a preference for female lab researchers. I think CharonY and I had talked about this some time ago. I don't know where the thread is, but it's a topic I generated probably in the last three years.

You're discussing a lot of philosophy. There exist other places on the Internet to discuss philosophy. I have studied philosophy, and I could quarrel with you on what the right stance to take is in relation to various philosophical aspects. However, I would generally attempt to argue from a scientific standpoint in relation to philosophical issues that you bring up. You may want to study the "philosophy of mind." Google it. Then again, you may have already left.

When I think classification, I think structure. Because the word "function" is already listed, then I assume that the word "classification" directly relates to structure. And there are different kinds of protein structures. Protein primary structure Protein secondary structure Protein tertiary structure Structural biology Protein quaternary structure:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_quaternary_structure other links to check out: https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+classify+proteins&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a http://public.csusm.edu/jayasinghe/BiomolTutorials/ProteinClassification/ProteinClassification.html http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CEwQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.britannica.com%2FEBchecked%2Ftopic%2F479680%2Fprotein%2F72547%2FClassification-of-proteins&ei=67JXUrvmOoThyQGOh4HgDw&usg=AFQjCNEbej_QY90sf2vZfrjYwWfjrl-S4g&sig2=g-JS2uNgMV33SkQnlUWpTg "protein". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013. Web. 11 Oct. 2013 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/479680/protein/72547/Classification-of-proteins>. ---> I would then believe that you need to classify proteins by their function. Hmm.... Yes, myosin is a contractile protein in a sense... but in a more reductive sense, it's chemical capability is as an enzyme. The contractile part is more than likely related to some axiological spin of desired function rather than function by nature. In normal conditions, it's able to be a contracting protein, because it's an enzyme. Reductively, then, it would be classified as an ATPase. Myson can contract (contractile protein) because it's an enzyme (ATPase) because it is catalytic (catalytic protein) because ... Do you understand where I am going with this path of thinking, original poster? There are different levels of classification due to function. As such, there can be more than one classification for a protein with more than one chemical function. However, classification is reduced to the protein's chemical function. Choose a level of classification and be consistent. I believe there can be a specific classification and a general classification with this path of thinking. As such, choose a level of thinking. Yeah, yeah, I'm rusty. Anyone can feel free to chime in. I would think a binary classification scheme would be: enzymatic vs. non-enzymatic. That classification scheme would allow a general classification scheme. From there, you can more specifically classify proteins under those. As such, proteins NOT KNOWN to have enzymatic properties would be classified as non-enzymatic until the "specific substrate" or a substrate is identified that it can function on as an enzyme.

What does "C and I" mean? source: http://www.vikingchemical.com/marketindustrial.php

25-years is way too long. She should have been given professor status by then, I would think. If anything, I'm surprised she was not given tenure. Yes, the economics of academia bother me. I do not think people understand enough about it to really grasp the direction that academic institutions are heading. What bothers me is the spooky possibility that science will once again become a career path of the rich. That only those who are of considerable wealth can live such a life of leisure studying and professing knowledge of a particular academic field. That truly bothers me. It would lead to a slow-down of science and knowledge. It would lead to a decrease in education. I don't know the entire history of the lady, but I'm surprised she did not jump ship in her 70s. She was definitely devoted to her field, which is admirable. I'm sure there is a background as to why she was being an adjunct that long. Her trade was the French language, from what I've read. I do not doubt that there exist various individuals who could also do that trade. And academia is turning into a business. I believe the business model is understandable. However, having not given tenure and a pay raise to her after 15 years marks some serious political garbage for the places she had worked. The concept of seniority, by the length of time an individual has been working at a business, must have severely been lost on her. If anything is to be appreciated with seniority, then the concept of raising the pay grade and eventually laying the person of... only to hire the person back at a lower pay grade, would be more acceptable than what appears to happen to Margaret Mary Vojtko. Sure, it's a business tactic; but it at least gives respect and due wages to an individual who has show commitment and growth in a company. The layoff and re-hire tactic, however, would simply be a business tactic to get in new if not better talent at a lower wage. The amount of time she worked and the wages she was paid for that length of time is unacceptable: She should have earned more. There is a lot missing to all of this, however. For instance, she was working as an adjunct at age 60? Seems like it would have been time to change to a career with a lot more money, if she was still interested in working. And with the pay she was getting, I'm surprised she didn't get a loan or use whatever pull she had in life to do better than an adjunct. At her age, doing what she did seems kind of like a retirement job, which may have caused the university/college to discriminate against her and not give higher pay: ageism. My general view of research and progress has led me to believe in the past couple of years that individuals are better off playing the market to make more money than they would in academia. From there, research would become a side-job. I don't agree with volunteerism unless the pay-off and connections made are great. Research eventually moves more and more to a business model, thus taking the government money out of the hands of academic institutions. Internships and volunteer work would have to be held at corporations and businesses doing the research. Academic institutions are becoming more concerned with collecting capital. The trick is taking that away from them. If they become too rich, they'll just keep all the money to themselves like the super rich and be frugal in every other aspect in life. Unfortunately, if that keeps up, no one will really want to work for them. Power in numbers, however. And you get enough people who care about science and academia, and they'll make their own business and weed out the big institutions. Somebody has to be rich; and somebody has to be poor. Unless people are really willing to take on the concept of being equals, things really will not change. However, for this exceptional story, I do not understand why the woman chose such a path of poverty to pursue academia. It's as though the French language is dying?

Right. Intelligence is a subjective matter. If you're interested in altering intelligence, you would have to quantify what you want to change in relation to some other measured quantity. I think, however, I've mentioned that intelligence relates to AMPA receptors. It seems to be a feature of "learning." There are a lot of nitty-gritty aspects of cognition and intelligence that have biological "correlates." So, it's a subjective issue that can be mathematically quantified, thus making it an objective matter. So, intelligence can be objectified. It's one of those exchanges between "psychology" and science, whereby what is subjectively observed then becomes quantified into a mathematical measure. So, when talking about intelligence, consider what aspect/aspects of behavior is/are being measured (mathematically quantified) and how it/they is/are being measured. To answer your question, as I believe you have a novice education, I would say differentiating levels of neural regeneration, AMPA receptors, LTP, mitochondrial count, etc. etc. You may want to further study neural plasticity. Long-term potentiation has historically held a large involvement in intelligence. Maybe follow up some Wikilinks on various pages to get a broad view of the issue.

Because my knowledge is rusty; because the load involved DNA. Thank you for chiming in.

I'm trying to follow your logic. It appears that you have developed a Southern Blot. You have four lanes. Each lane is discussed, as you have previously mentioned. I'm stuck at this next part. Let me see if I understand. Someone has added the DNA for Cauliflower beta-actin into the Chicken DNA. I am not sure how the methodology went about this. Was this a cell that had DNA of chicken and cauliflower in it? Was the second lane from an extract of a Chicken DNA, which then had the primers that are later translated and transcribed in cauliflower cells in order to make cauliflower beta-actin, separately loaded with the Chicken DNA, thus causing the second lane to have a mixture of Chicken DNA and cauliflower beta-actin primers? Another thing not mentioned is the molecular weight of various things you expect to see. If the cauliflower primers bound to the chicken DNA, then yes, you're going to see a more amplified spot higher up on the molecular marker spot. If when cutting the hybrid chicken/cauliflower DNA with Hae III, it will then cut a the ends with the chicken and cauliflower DNA, then yes, you're going to get a higher molecular weight. I'm not sure if I'm seeing things right here, though. Perhaps another member can chime in.