Unity+

 

 

When you look at the synthetic ascorbic acid you will see just concentric circles but in the natural you will see “Life Force” or lines dissiminating from the center.

Another thing I would wonder is what do they mean by 'orange juice' and 'popular orange drink'? Does it mean pulp and non-pulp? Vague terms, I must say.

Well it clearly can't be a microscopic picture of a cell or a molecule... so is it a picture of the substance dripped onto a piece of chromatic plate? Maybe it has spread from the centre showing components? If so then, as you would expect, there is more in the plant extract than in the purer synthesised stuff.... lol - could it then be argued that the synthetic stuff is actually in a purer form than the natural one. lol - that will go down well.

 

Although I am just guessing here. Maybe it is worth asking the OP what the pictures are actually off?

 

 

 

PS - Unity beat me to the reply and has actually looked the pics up... are we sure it isn't a chromatograph though?

After some more research, it is a chromatogram it is being claimed.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/wholefood-vs-synthetic-supplements-what-does-all-mean-dale-rutherford

EDIT: I think both are synonymous, but I wouldn't be sure.

In another forum I frequent, a member posted the following image as an argument regarding the difference between synthetic and naturally sourced vitamin C. It's obviously rubbish, but I'm really struggling to tell what the pictures are actually of. I posted in this section as it looks very vaguely biology-ish...I really am at a loss.

 

image.jpeg

While doing some investigation, it turns out it's what it is... nothing.

I did a google image search of this image and it resulted in a similar picture with a similar intent, which most likely means it is connected to the source.

Now, I then found the page that had this image, which was http://alaskahealth.info/clinical-nutrition/(link for purpose of evidence).

They made reference to what they called Nutrition Response Testing. I then investigated that and came up with the following page: http://www.unsinc.info/nutrition-response-testing.html

To consider the credibility of the source, I went to the homepage, and the following excerpt was there:

 

 

Become known as a healer

In this website you will find the keys to bring true wellness to your community and become known as a true healer. You will find out about Nutrition Response Testing^®, which is the culmination of decades of work by Freddie Ulan, DC, CCN. Designed for chiropractors, it works equally well in conjunction with any valid healing methodology. For training opportunities, see our Calendar of Events.

The origin of Nutrition Response Testing

When a serious illness in 1991 threatened to end his life, Dr. Ulan tried every treatment modality available at that time to get well.

No system he tried could arrest his decline. The relief from adjustments was increasingly short-lived. Months of trial and error with supplements were not an option. His survival literally depended on how quickly he could discover the body’s priorities and how quickly and precisely he could handle them.

The phrase "true healer" caught my eye of quackery, and I looked up anything related to this and came up with the following page: https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/cra.html

Conclusion: As far as I am aware, it isn't showing anything but what is to present a conclusion about pseudoscience. Even the pages that use it don't explain what it is even showing. As far as I am aware, it's merely imagery akin to the placebo effect.

Maybe I'm wrong. Someone else can chime in if need be.

*) it can be in the middle of running application. .NET Framework C#/C++ have special events that are send to controls and windows after user changed something in system.

The difference between this and context-oriented programming is in the .NET libraries, most likely, these determinations are spread across the code to account for the changes being made to the environment. In a context-oriented paradigm, this is not a necessity in the fact that the code being used adapts to the environment.

This is the answer according to my understanding, you can read the paper Context-oriented Programming by Robert Hirschfeld and the others for more details. To learn more, find best online programming courses here: https://hackr.io/

 

Context-Oriented Programming is a programming paradigm that support the dynamic software adaptation with repsect to the execution context. Here, context is defined in a quite broad and open way: it is any computationally accessible information. However, most of the time the context is considered as the information sensed from environment by sensors (location, temperature ...) or internal changes of the system (energy consumption, bandwidth...).

One of the main concepts in COP is behavioral variations which express partial definitions of the basic behavior of the systems (and thus they can replace or modify (a portion of) the behavior of application logic). We can see them ass chunks of code which will be activated at runtime in order to reflect the context changes.

Behavioral variations are often crosscutting concerns which scatter over the code base (to some extend, this concept is similar to aspects in aspect-oriented programming - AOP). COP copes with this by providing layer for grouping related behavioural variations and thus "modularize" them, which make the development and maintain phases easier. Two main strategies for modularization are: layer -in -class and class-in-layer.

 

From layer-in-class view point, COP modularisation is different from AOP one because AOP aim at modularize textually crosscutting concerns in a form of aspects while in COP the layer-in-class notion denotes that it could scatter layer-specific definitions in the classes to which they belong.

Okay, but what languages have applied this concept?

So, I came across a paper that talked about something called context-oriented programming. My understanding of it is the program adapts based on the environment in which it is being run in, including hardware environment and other factors that can involve sensors.

http://www.jot.fm/issues/issue_2008_03/article4/

While I feel that I have interpreted the article correctly, I feel I am missing something about it. Also, does anyone know if any languages have applied this paradigm besides what is specified in the article? I want to know about this stuff to determine if I want to apply some independent research for this kind of thing.

Neither new, nor interesting

Not new? Maybe

Not interesting? I would beg to differ

 

You must be kidding us...

 

You have no idea how to make HTTP,

and you want to make HTTPS.. ?!

 

All your work, disagree with this...

 

HTTPS don't listen on port 80 like in posts #3, #5, #12...

 

You have no bloody idea, nor willingness to know about either HTTP, nor HTTPS...

Otherwise you would be very busy reading all day long, for months, protocol specifications...

 

Forms don't use HTTPS (HTTP-Secure protocol!).

 

You must made yet another mistake,

sending message through POST,

is not equivalent to HTTPS (secure HTTP)...

Could you refrain from making hostile posts? It would be better if the learner was able to learn about the concepts instead of being deterred from actually learning the material...

Hmm now how do I get the request url so I can implement a filesystem?

Can you specify what you mean by this?

Currently trying to learn some C in my spare time. I wanted to try creating a https server with winsock. I am not sure if it is possible in pure C I found a tutorial on how to create a telnet server in C http://www.binarytides.com/winsock-socket-programming-tutorial/ which was helpful but doesn't work over http or https

It essentially is possible. For it to work, you would run the server on port 80 and, for testing purposes, would send the "client"(in this case, the browser) whatever you want to send it. In this case, you could open an html file in C and send that info to the client, where the browser will display it.

/*
    Live Server on port 8888
*/
#include<io.h>
#include<stdio.h>
#include<winsock2.h>
 
#pragma comment(lib,"ws2_32.lib") //Winsock Library
 
int main(int argc , char *argv[])
{
    WSADATA wsa;
    SOCKET s , new_socket;
    struct sockaddr_in server , client;
    int c;
    char *message;
 
    printf("\nInitialising Winsock...");
    if (WSAStartup(MAKEWORD(2,2),&wsa) != 0)
    {
        printf("Failed. Error Code : %d",WSAGetLastError());
        return 1;
    }
     
    printf("Initialised.\n");
     
    //Create a socket
    if((s = socket(AF_INET , SOCK_STREAM , 0 )) == INVALID_SOCKET)
    {
        printf("Could not create socket : %d" , WSAGetLastError());
    }
 
    printf("Socket created.\n");
     
    //Prepare the sockaddr_in structure
    server.sin_family = AF_INET;
    server.sin_addr.s_addr = INADDR_ANY;
    server.sin_port = htons( 80 );
     
    //Bind
    if( bind(s ,(struct sockaddr *)&server , sizeof(server)) == SOCKET_ERROR)
    {
        printf("Bind failed with error code : %d" , WSAGetLastError());
        exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
    }
     
    puts("Bind done");
 
    //Listen to incoming connections
    listen(s , 3);
     
    //Accept and incoming connection
    puts("Waiting for incoming connections...");
     
    c = sizeof(struct sockaddr_in);
     
    while( (new_socket = accept(s , (struct sockaddr *)&client, &c)) != INVALID_SOCKET )
    {
        puts("Connection accepted");
         
        //Reply to the client
        message = "Hello Client , I have received your connection. But I have to go now, bye\n";
        send(new_socket , message , strlen(message) , 0);
    }
     
    if (new_socket == INVALID_SOCKET)
    {
        printf("accept failed with error code : %d" , WSAGetLastError());
        return 1;
    }
 
    closesocket(s);
    WSACleanup();
     
    return 0;
}

However, you also can specify the port in the url and keep the same port used in the example.

Primes are a subset of the set of natural numbers. (As studiot pointed out, 'field' has a specific meaning in mathematics beyond your apparent colloquial use.) There is no end to investigations into primes & their relations to natural numbers such as prime gaps, ending digits of primes [in whatever base], twin primes, etc. Pick your poison and drink deeply.

If you are going to use a term in the Mathematics section, be expected to use terminology correctly. Otherwise, it's just random jargon use.

So for you, what could be there relationship?

If we knew that, the investigation into prime numbers wouldn't be such a huge problem.

What is the logic behind having O(1) for the first coded problem?

 

I had a conversation a while ago with someone who regularly viewed pornography, who was of an age that the internet has always been an integral part of their lives. It transpired that what they viewed, in the various styles and approaches in them were things to emulate themselves and had bodies to aspire to which were outside the norm; like supermodels, only often surgically enhanced. The overall theme I got from them was that what they saw depicted was what sex should be like in real life; seen as sex education videos, I suppose. I’m sure this perception is replicated amongst young people the world over.

What will be the longterm effect on how such individuals, and the emerging society in general they grow up in be, relative to those who matured before the internet?

I'm not asking about ones personal ethics on porn, or ethics per se, although it's effects on ethics at the societal or individual level might be relevant.

 

I think, in the long-term, most people who have never had sex before and watch pornography, especially with the stuff that's out now, do tend to try to emulate what is seen(because we learn from seeing etc.) If any, the expectations people could grow out of this view of porn is that sex needs to be rough or there are expectations for the size of the tools used in the process. While it could affect how people view relationships, I don't see really the effects it has on how a person has sex. Sooner or later they will realize that porn isn't a good emulation of actual sex and will grow out of that notion, as most notions are grown out of.

I am wondering if one can make some comparison with people who were young adults in the 60's -- thinking about the open attitudes towards sex.

I don't think disappointment will be an issue. The pleasure arising from the activity would far outlast any that comes from it.

 

 

It has long been trumpeted that climate change will spur mass extinctions of flora and fauna, due to both the effects of climate change and the inability of evolution (which only takes place over many generations) to keep pace. And now, scientists have confirmed that climate change has drawn its first blood.

A team from Australia has reported that a species of rat from the Land Down Under is the first mammal known to be wiped out by human-caused climate change.

The Bramble Cay melomys, a small brown rat, is unique to Bramble Cay, a hump of coral between Australia and Papua New Guinea. The report released by the team indicates that a thorough survey of the island using small animal traps, camera traps, and daytime searches from August and September 2014 failed to turn up any of the animals. And it hasn’t gone any better since.

http://futurism.com/the-australian-rat-just-became-the-first-mammal-to-go-extinct-because-of-climate-change/

This is warning of what is to come if we don't change our ways.

I am not sure I should be saying this on a public forum, but... I failed mathematics at high school.

 

And I know I am not the only one who did not do so well at school in mathematics who has now gone on to contribute to mathematics. High school is not like mathematics research and creativity is needed rather than just being able to recall the methods quickly. You need to understand why they work and be able to modify the methods.

 

In short, don't give up quite yet.

 

*******************

Maybe this could be split off into a new thread?

I failed Algebra in elementary and high school. I'm currently in a Computer Science program(which requires major knowledge of mathematics), with a 3.5 GPA. As ajb said, don't give up. You have talent. Sometimes different teaching styles are required.

I think you may mean "fly in the face."

 

"Spit in the face" is rather hostile language.

 

Also, I'm going to go dig around for some numbers and see if I can figure out what the actual results are based on various stats. I find that when I look for articles, they're usually looking to push a narrative, one way or the other, so I'm going to see if I can get us a better organized list of raw numbers we can look at and discuss. I'm going out to dinner tonight, so I'm not sure what time I'll be done with it, but I'll try to post something before I go to bed at least.

Yes, a publication can have bias, but if multiple studies from various publications says one thing, then the likelihood of bias is decreased. If you only one present one study against a multitude, claiming that the group of articles are all bias to one agenda is somewhat irrational.

Most sexual selection between species consists of the female being choosy, to find the perfect mate to offer her offspring the best chances in life for survival and to reproduce.

 

However, in humans and other species the male also embarks into the parental offering resources, support increasing the child's chances to develop successfully.

 

So, my question is that due to most males carrying out a parental role, does this mean that males have evolved certain instincts to also become choosy looking for certain aspects and characteristics found in other females?

I think all species evolved to have sexual attraction to mates that have the best features, or fit enough features, for going about reproduction. It goes both ways rather than females being the only "choosy" ones. Males may have less(or more, it depends on the individual) specification as to the strictness of such features, but both sides have their requirements.

It seems to me that you are debating something for the sake of having a debate.

That's called promoting discourse for the evolution of ideas.

 

Like this rather silly and ignorant question. I would be repeating myself, so figure it out for yourself.

Thank you for your enlightenment.

I hate to burst your bubble, but there exist perfectly plausible scientific explanations for the "origin" of the universe that are far more rational than god-did-it. The urge to opt for the latter, i.e. a supernatural creator, actually complicates matters as is evident from the endless scientific and philosophical debates surrounding this topic from the watchmaker analogy, the cosmological argument, intelligent design to various others. I trust that science will eventually resolve it once and for all, hence the reason why I regard such a notion to be short-sighted. I am already satisfied that there are sufficient grounds upon which to dismiss the far-fetched idea of a supernatural creator, which is why I (personally) perceive it as superstitious.

I hate to burst your bubble, but that doesn't relate to the point I made at all. There are multiple possibilities, even scientifically, for the origins of the Universe that remain and until the uncertainty of which one is true that uncertainty remains.

However, that point remains separate from the fact that the quote states that the existence of a creator contradicts science rather than stating the argument you present.

The problem with that has just been illustrated in the way you reacted to my quotes. I attempted to pick highlights from Wright's essay in order to create some sort of summarised narrative, but by doing so I exposed the argument to being nit-picked out of context.

I fail to see how they are nit-picked out of context until you actually address how it is made out of context.

For that matter, it gave us nonmodern religion. Whenever we look at a “primitive” religion, we are looking at a religion that has been evolving culturally for a long time. Though observed hunter-gatherer religions give clues about what the average religion was like 12,000 years ago, before the invention of agriculture, none of them much resembles religion in its literally primitive phase, the time (whenever that was) when religious beliefs and practices emerged. Rather, what are called “primitive” religions are bodies of belief and practice that have been evolving—culturally—over tens or even hundreds of millennia. Generation after generation, human minds have been accepting some beliefs, rejecting others, shaping and reshaping religion along the way.

So to explain the existence of “primitive” religion—or for that matter any other kind of religion—we have to first understand what kinds of beliefs and practices the human mind is amenable to. What kinds of information does the mind naturally filter out, and what kinds naturally penetrate it? Before religion appeared and started evolving by cultural evolution, how had genetic evolution shaped the environment in which it would evolve—that is, the human brain?

At the end of this quote, it seems that it is speculative rather than set in stone.

So to explain the existence of “primitive” religion—or for that matter any other kind of religion—we have to first understand what kinds of beliefs and practices the human mind is amenable to. What kinds of information does the mind naturally filter out, and what kinds naturally penetrate it? Before religion appeared and started evolving by cultural evolution, how had genetic evolution shaped the environment in which it would evolve—that is, the human brain?

Is there a continuation on this point or is there an end to it?

 

 

Our beliefs in fallacies came about as an unintended by-product of evolution (a spandrel)...that is the argument. And many believers do believe in fallacies, don't they? They believe that that they will be protected or cured by supernatural intervention, they believe in an internal life for their souls and you can easily see why they want to believe that. That is survival instinct at its best...only in reality there is no proof that something like that can, or will happen...it is just a belief, a hope. So, do you see how our species invented ways to avoid accurate perception in order to "stay alive"? And it is fallacious because it assumes that humanity here on planet earth is somehow unique or different to the rest of our vast eco system (admittedly not all religions assume this) whereas evolution has taught us that we are not.

Therefore, our perception of reality, even science, can be a fallacy?

 

 

I WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE REST OF THIS RESPONSE SEPARATELY AS THE REPLY-FUNCTION HAS SEEMINGLY CEASE TO OPERATE IN A NORMAL FASHION. LET ME RATHER POST THIS BEFORE IT GETS LOST. TO BE CONTINUED.

Until then, I would like to see what work you are referring to of De Waal.

 

 

Fortunately, for some of us, we can thank the age of enlightenment and science for our ability to be able to think more critically about certain matters...or let me be more scientific in saying that the dynamic interactions between our ever-changing genes and our ever-changing environments have brought us to a better insight (and will continue to do so). You erred in your assumption that the collective of everything that we have learned through the ages and that we know today would remain constant and unfiltered. Scientific facts and theories, for example, are hardly fallacies.

The original idea resulted in the assumption that the belief in fallacies was best for survival, but a changing environment would result in fallacies no longer being necessary? How would a changing environment result in the belief in fallacies no longer being for our benefit?

The age of enlightenment did bring about intellectualism, but it also brought about political upheaval. However, this does not suggest that the view of fallacy, hypothetically present before, ever changed if such a case was true.

 

 

You keep on drumming up the idea of a "creator" so by your logic there must be a supernatural start and a supernatural end, right? Science is, however, unmoved by assumptions such as "creation", "start" and/or "end", but allow me to throw in the idea of nature being its own designer, creator, sustainer and/or destroyer..?

I'm merely challenging your points that you present. My beliefs are not relevant in this matter.

Science is unmoved by assumptions of philosophy, but it is moved by the assumptions of mathematical axioms.

 

On the basis of multiple emails - many of which were rude and abusive by highly credentialed people who should have better manners given their senior position, the article will be withdrawn.

For those having nothing better to do but find personal fault with myself they can follow the above links and lose their breakfast, lunch and dinner elsewhere.

Just because that odious man Donald Trump has set the bar so low for public discourse it does not follow that we all need to emulate him in our own discourse with others.

My apologies to those grossly offended by the occasional publication error. Also if the comments thread below is lost it can happen sometimes due to the way Facebook manages comment threads when articles are substantially updated.

The article is now withdrawn.

I think this wraps up the debate lol

Humans are prone to corruption. The system we implement can only ever be as good as we are.

 

End of the day, we will forever exist in a hybrid economy. The question is nothing more than how hard we push to protect the masses versus his hard we push to protect the individual; how collectively we agree that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

Though one thing to consider is the existence of religion when going about the implementation of an economic system. I remember doing research and stumbling upon a Buddhist community that relied heavily on communist ideology that was able to thrive because of the common belief system instilled within that community.

"Science seems to work rather well. So any concept of God or any religious tenets that directly contradict science as buttressed by experimental evidence is clearly indistinguishable from superstition. Superstition is, essentially by definition, wrong."

Just because it is not explainable about science does not mean it contradicts science.

 

Personally I find the notion - that, because there are some things that still have to be scientifically concluded, it justifies a belief in a supernatural creator/god - irrational and myopic. I have already addressed this so called god-of-gaps in my posts #85 as well as in the part that you quoted above. There have been countless debates on this subject, both in the fields of science and philosophy, but to me it is unambiguously clear. It does substantiate my original point of departure though, which was that our species acquired a belief in the supernatural as an unintended by-product of evolution. As such the before-mentioned (absurd) reaction to the so-called mysterious is akin to an "instinctive" reaction to anything unknown.

Thank you for presenting an opinion.

 

 

He presented a perfectly good case that he conveyed in a reasonably short essay, which is why I never considered it necessary to quote him. In it he concluded among other things the following:

Whether it is short or not, it must be quotes for your argument. You can't use that excuse in a debate.

 

"we can trace religion to specific parts of human nature that are emphatically in the genes. It’s just that those parts of human nature seem to have evolved for some reason other than to sustain religion."

"that doesn’t mean religion is an adaptation, even though religion may involve love, awe, joy, and fear and thus involve the genes underlying these things."

What peer-reviewed mass of articles show that religion can be traced to genes?

 

 

"A spandrel is an incidental by-product of the organic “design” process, whereas an adaptation is a direct product. Religion seems to be a spandrel."

It seems that he implies that religion is merely there as something that came with rather than something useful for the evolution of humanity. I would disagree on his point of it being a by-product.

I remember a paper about the Panopticon and read a book about it in regards to surveillance, and it seems to relate to the argument that religion is merely a way to stabilize society. While I agree this is true that a religion would be associated with a creator, this does not mean the creator itself is a result of this religion/Panopticon rather it being separate, but the creator of such a system.

 

 

"Before religion appeared and started evolving by cultural evolution, how had genetic evolution shaped the environment in which it would evolve—that is, the human brain? To put the question another way: What kinds of beliefs was the human mind “designed” by natural selection to harbor? For starters, not true ones."

We evolved to believe in fallacies? Seems a bit far-fetched to me. It seems to be a target rather than an analysis of what the goal was when such evolution came about.

 

 

"...in situations where accurate perception and judgment impede survival and reproduction, you would expect natural selection to militate against accuracy."

I do not see how accurate perception would lead to loss of life. The only case this would be the result is sacrifice, but even that requires accuracy/analysis of the situation at hand.

 

 

"That’s a somewhat speculative (and, yes, hard-to-test!) claim."

Case and point.

At this point, his argument defeats itself at this particular point. It is merely speculation and cannot be proven because if the mind is to believe in fallacy as a result of natural selection, what we know could, as a result, be based on fallacies as well.

 

 

Creator and god(s) are not necessarily one and the same and there are quite a few variations on the theme. Refer to the Wikipedia article "Creator deity" here.

The creator of matter and the creator of the Universe is a god by definition. Being a creator of a Universe should also mean the power to destroy as well. The only argument is what type of creator it is.

Science has repeatedly concluded that there is no reason- or need to insert (de novo) creation and therefore an external or supernatural creator in order to explain the existence of our universe.

While we do have many stable and evidence-rich theories about the beginnings of the Universe, there yet remains mystery. That mystery keeps alive the belief in a creator in many. I would argue, however, that the discussion of God should be left in philosophy rather than science since the existence of what is not tangible has no place in science.

 

 

I have...earlier in the thread in posts #64 & #84.

All I see are links to pages that address the topic, but don't address your arguments or back them up directly. You will have to quote the sources so that we understand what evidence you have presented for scholarly sources instead of just blatantly accepting articles that you link.

 

 

The subject under discussion actually deals with God, but refer to my first comment. Your second sentence should then be equally applicable to the subject of this thread in reference to the (proven?) existence of any god (or creator).

I usually associated "proving God" to be a general subject of a Supreme being, but I may be wrong. Addressing the thread title, I think it's quite irrational. It shouldn't even be up for discussion, whether it being proving or disproving.

 

Please explain

You state that scientists shouldn't waste their time on fiction and/or superstition. This is true, but I am assuming you imply the existence of a creator. It is a semantic argument and implies that the creation of a creator is fiction and/or superstition. I would agree scientists shouldn't spend their time trying to prove/disprove the existence of one, but the reasoning is somewhat demeaning in such an investigation of something that should be explored, whether or not you consider it a topic for science.

Pointing out that the the number is false, in context of this conversation (Clinton 3 million more popular votes) is moot less one is attempting to imply Sanders is significantly closer. Surely saying Clinton have received 2 or 1 million more votes, in context, makes the same point. Saying we don't know allows a tie or Sanders advantage to exist.

It isn't a moot point, actually. In politics, it is never a moot point because if numbers are misleading, then you would question the credibility of the media source, which is not a moot point. It is a big point.

 

And he will not even be on a vote ballot...

Do you have any reason or evidence to provide that this will be the case?