Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Endy0816

  1. HTML5 + CSS3 allows you to encode Rule110 (demonstrated by Eli Fox-Epstein). Technically HTML5 + CSS3 is Turing complete... Now that is silly.

    Other silly things include:

    ELF metadata headers are turing complete

    x86 MOV instruction is turing complete

    The Intel MMU fault handling is turing complete


    List of silly things goes on and on



    You lost me at ELF redface.gif


    That Rule 110 demo was pretty awesome though:





    I want to try making a game like this one:




    Moveable character on a game pad using only CSS blink.png

  2. I thought iNow's response was good. You really have to take your answers as you get them online.



    Drugs that block cholecystokinin, will have some impact on the effect. Effectively blocking an increased sensitivity to pain.


    Also acts as a hunger suppressant. Might be a clue there.


    ie. "Don't look for food if in potential danger."


    More to it than that though. How evolution got from hunger to pain sensitivity is beyond me.



    I just don't see Big Pharma as being interested in funding the research. Nor do I see private grants being awarded to study something so variable and potentially injurious.


    "Let's give them sugar pills and tell them they'll feel better."


    is easier to swallow than the reverse. I'm sure in time the research will be done, just hasn't happened yet.



    They still make additions to evolutionary theory. Improved understanding of epigenetic mechanisms being one example.


    You view something as dogma and it will be dogma.





  3. I just don't hear any concrete action being taken(budget, requesting debt reduction, payment plans, etc).


    Best I've seen in terms of free resources offered:




    It is perfectly normal to end up in a hole, nothing in the world that says you must stay in one.



    There's plenty of wealth concentration shenanigans going on, but at the same time there's people merely putting their money/credit to work for them. Still work and has its own set of rewards.

  4. Allows you to simulate memory with only a styling language(CSS).


    Clicking the image will cause the text to show up. Dragging the image will cause text to remain. Works in Firefox and somewhat in Chrome.




    Typically more appropriate JavaScript is used instead, so kind of novel. There are similar tricks out there, this is just the first time I've seen this particular method put to use.




    In Firefox if you drag an image, the active state remains until you click elsewhere.


    If you drag in Chrome, it will only last until you move the mouse again.

  5. While possible, it's important to note that there is not necessarily a direct evolutionary value for every individual trait that has evolved. Some traits and characteristics are merely side effects or unintended consequences of OTHER traits and characteristics that were selected for, and I suspect that might apply here.



    I mainly just don't see what the other trait(s) might be. Somewhat relates back to the existence of it's nicer twin, the placebo effect.


    If you've got some ideas I'd love to hear. Seems a fairly important area of evolution that has been overlooked. Most of the focus is on drug trials and how the effects can impact results. Placebos outscoring actual medicine blink.png

  6. I really haven't seen much out there in terms of actual research as to the "why" it exists.


    I suspect evolution just found it to be of value at some point. Cause a physiological change based on perception, positive or negative.


    You see me react badly to an unknown plant and your brain is likely to treat it as poisonous regardless. It could just be me that had an allergic reaction, but with limited knowledge it is more advantageous to err on the side of caution.


    Quite a few cases in history where we've managed to determine beneficial practices without knowledge of the underlying causes.

  7. There's obviously a way of being intelligent in a way where you don't come across as being a know it all, so to speak. From my experience it's generally the unintelligent people who are overconfident and arrogant in their approach and with their opinions; usually enabled by their ignorance. And the people who know their stuff are usually the ones with more humility and who keep quiet.


    Yeah, this is my thinking as well.


    Match the group you are with. Generally some mix of recognizing what others are good at, while downplaying your own skills.


    Both to reasonable limits of course. Don't be afraid to shine, just be willing to share the spotlight.

  8. Most people attribute this to "muscle memory" but this is nonsense. My learning stopped when I figured out how to do it very early on. The fact is each successful attempt was not identical. My position and the initial position of the hand and arm varied somewhat. "Muscle memory" could not account for this apparently learned behavior. Just as an amputee who suffers the worst possible pain "in" his missing limb is not remembering old pain. It's far more likely that the ganglia in the human body are each conscious and each capable of learning.



    Proprioception is pretty well understood...


    Entirely possible to fool the system and "replace" the phantom limb. All based on your perception.






    If your theory was correct, your visual perception wouldn't matter.

  9. Best mention I could readily find:



    The SGLT proteins use the energy from this downhill sodium gradient created by the ATPase pump to transport glucose across the apical membrane against an uphill glucose gradient. Therefore, these co-transporters are an example of secondary active transport. (The GLUT uniporters then transport the glucose across the basolateral membrane, into the peritubular capillaries.) Both SGLT1 and SGLT2 are known as symporters, since both sodium and glucose are transported in the same direction across the membrane.



    As I understand the above the higher sodium concentration is enough to get the glucose through.


    Also Osmos is more commonly referred to as Osmosis. Equalization across a membrane.

  10. If there is evidence out there, then no faith is required anyway...


    Exactly my point.



    And Jesus being XX means that he would be a she. Are you sure you don't mean XXY?


    Turning water into wine is perfectly allowed within the known laws of physics. The process which Prof. Frank J. Tipler proposes for the miracles of Jesus Christ uses baryon annihilation (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved), and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling caused via the Principle of Least Action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. Tipler also proposes that the virgin birth of Jesus by Mary could be possible via Jesus being a special type of XX male who obtained all of his genetic material from Mary (i.e., an instance of parthenogenesis). Tipler concludes that the Star of Bethlehem was either a Type Ic hypernova located in the Andromeda Galaxy, or a Type Ia supernova located in a globular cluster of our own Milky Way Galaxy.


    Thankfully, I didn't come up with that bit of craziness. Why it is used as an example.


    Parthenogenesis is at the far end of theoretically possible, but wouldn't have any reason to think it would result in someone with male characteristics.


    Only other real world thing would be if Mary was a chimera with a former male sibling's cells. In that case Jesus would be normal in terms of his genetics, if not the circumstances of his conception.

  11. I'm really not saying miracles are real.


    I'm saying there is some evidence out there. Not the best quality of evidence nor delivered by the most reputable research, but still evidence to consider. I'm sure most people have seen the assorted documentaries and whatnot.


    You venture too far down that path though and you are left talking about the Omega Point theory, baryon-lepton conservation and Jesus being a XX male.


    My personal plan is to wait until I die and then ask. God and/or an Afterlife may not exist, but one can still make plans based on a potential.


    Anyways in that vein this is reaching my limit for religious debate. Gets too circular after a very short while.

  12. I have that sinking feeling I'm being drawn in. Obviously we need more cranks here to enliven our days...



    Faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof


    By straightforward reasoning if there is sufficient proof there can be no faith.


    Most generic definition anyways. Other definitions are in the form of trust or belief in religious doctrine. Equally valid but still a bit on the pointless side if your knowledge level is sufficient.



    I figure I'll just ask(or not) about the assorted miracles after death. Most efficient strategy. Only in the case of physical immortality will I devote time to investigating them.

  13. Not really how I interpret it but okay.


    Whether these events happened exactly as described is less of an issue to me than whether at some point they happened even if to a lesser degree.


    Honestly, Occam's razor suggests it was just massive poetic license and misunderstood events. Don't need much in the way of science to explain in that case.



    Believing something with out evidence or facts is nothing but gullibility...



    Which we also define as faith. If you can explain everything, you can no longer have faith in anything.


    Really doesn't matter what you believe, but you should at least have the option to make up your own mind on the subject.

  14. Would you care to cite some of that evidence for those things i have put in bold print?







    Red Sea was something to the effect of an earthquake causing a tidal wave to form. As the wave moved up the Red Sea the water drained out before it. Moses was able to cross, Pharaoh pursuing was caught directly in its path.



    Not the best quality evidence but reasonably plausible or I wouldn't have mentioned it.




    How do you lose a degree of freedom when discovering that a miracle can occur and be repeatable through scientific observation? Also, isn't it mostly in human nature to be curious about the world around you? To want to know all there is to know? Being able to explain away phenomena seems essential to the human condition.



    You would end up with only facts though. Freedom to believe or disbelieve is dependent on having something you can't explain.

  15. Division of the loaves and fishes? Pillars of salt?


    You could debate whether they were speaking literally or not, but you could make that same point about any of the assorted miracles in the Bible.


    Some of the geological and medical miracles maybe. Some of those explanations make "Goddidit" start to look reasonable, but I'll allow the possibility.


    I just think it violates some essential human element attempting to explain everything away. If you can explain every miracle you deny yourself a degree of freedom. I figure I'll find out(or not) in due time. My own random thoughts on the matter, feel free to believe what you will.

  16. On the flip side scientists are developing a method to turn female bone marrow into sperm. It will only be a matter of time until we have a whole generation of little messiahs running around.



    I honestly don't doubt that some recorded events had a real world cause. A fair bit of evidence for that. Sodom and Gomorrah, Red Sea, Flood, etc.


    My issue comes when people attempt to explain all miracles away in the same fashion. If they were all caused by natural phenomenon then they need to be repeatable. If they are repeatable, they aren't miracles.


    Leave God some kind of gaps.

  17. Main issue is that this isn't a Scientific Journal or even one of the less than Scientific Journals out there. The next Einstein could publish here and would have a rough time of claiming credit, let alone a Nobel prize.



    Most of what you write is also vague. You don't get points in science for vagueness.


    The guy who says:


    "Hypocortisine in a 5 mg dose along with a 30 mg dose of Thetrazine, will cure Trewq Cancer in 9-10 days."


    will get the credit.



    Besides that as has been mentioned your "cure" would kill the person and then some. There are real world novel treatments out there that are safer by far. That's what is going to get the research.


  18. the Lorentz equation does give a more accurate time



    This is absolutely correct. As you are now on record for stating this we can stop debating the matter.


    Galilean transforms stopped being used because they didn't accurately describe reality. That's it. No grand conspiracy, they just didn't work at the observed speeds.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.