warri0r45

I'm 19. The average goes to 18.

The idea is to use farm products (like corn stalks) that are usually thrown away anyways. Fair enough. Either that or sewage or garbage like Lenin said.

I can't say I'm surprised. They've done some pretty incredible things with biotechnology. If they can make it work and their claim of being carbon negative is true, then great. If you think about it though, the bacteria will need food. On an industrial scale, that means you'll have to farm food for them. This isn't a carbon neutral process.

What course are you doing? It may be different for Sydney, I'm thinking about pursuing biochemistry, but I'm not sure of the course, what the course specifically involves etc etc. I'm just doing a regular bachelor of science degree. I'm assuming other universities have a similar title for it. In first year it was all broad, basic stuff, touching on life sciences (biology), physical sciences (chemistry and physics) and statistics. The back end of first year started to get a bit more specialised towards the major with organic chem, cell and molecular biology, etc. So far this year it's been more specific still; I've taken microbiology, a more specific cell and molecular biology unit, biochemistry proper and inorganic chemistry (the odd one out). By definition, what biochemistry seems to focus on is the chemistry of life, i.e. cell metabolism and biosynthesis, the properties of biopolymers like DNA, proteins, carbohydrates and their reactions, the nature of biological catalysts (enzymes), the thermodynamics and kinetics of biological reactions, redox chemistry of the cell, a touch of acid-base chemistry, etc. Molecular biology seems to be more focused on the molecular processes of the cell like the nature of DNA and its replication, the nature of a gene and it's expression via transcription into RNA and translation into protein (which really is the fundamental process of life along with DNA replication to my way of thinking). Other topics of interest are the function of proteins and other biopolymers, cell signaling, cell death and the cell cycle, etc. It generally focuses on any cellular process and the molecular reasons for such a process. In general there dont seem to be any really well defined boundaries for what topics form part of biochemistry or molecular biology. Id say that this is vindicated by the fact that my uni didnt offer a major in molecular biology such topics have so far been covered under a biochemistry major. So anyway, that's my experience with a biochemistry major in a bachelor of science degree. If you're not sure what the course involves, your first step is to know what uni you're going to, get onto their website and search for what courses they offer and what they involve. They're all more than willing to give you course info because it means potential money for them.

I'm pretty much exactly half way through my 3 year undergraduate course, majoring in biochemistry. I'll probably continue education after that with some postgrad course.

Interesting. I'm a critical person so here are my comments/doubts so far (limitations on technology notwithstanding): 1) These nanomachines would need to have surface molecules to recognize and latch on to the HIV virus. You could basically think of it as antibodies glued to the nanomachine. My concern here is how long it would take for the HIV virus to mutate and evade the nanomachines. From what I know, HIV is a characteristically fast evolver, hence why we find it tough to produce viable drugs to deal with it. As a result, youd simply need to manufacture more and more antibodies to glue to your nanomachine to deal with the virus. This kind of regaining old ground is characteristic of the problems we face all the time in developing drugs to deal with viral and even bacterial infection. But if we're literally talking very small mechanical arms or something as opposed to antibodies, they'd still need to be specific for the virus particle, otherwise they'd be latching onto anything they knock into. How do you control such a mechanical procedure? The only way I could possibly think of is through, as with the antibodies, chemical interactions. Again, I would question how long it would take for the chemical recognition sites on the viron to evolve and evade the nanomachine's machinery. I feel it would only be a matter of time. 2) Your nanomachines would need some mechanism by which to get into cells, otherwise theres a whole swathe of virus particles going untouched and replicating like wildfire. The only way I know of that allows very large molecules into cells is a process called endocytosis, where the cell membrane folds in to a concave parcel of extracellular fluid, grabbing the molecules of interest with it. Now, as far as my knowledge goes (more than willing to be corrected) theres no way that the nanomachines could burst from this intracellular membranous particle. As a result, their surface molecules, which are designed to recognize and eliminate the virus, have no contact to the virus particles within the cell. Edit: On the other hand, you could do as HIV itself does and encase the nanomachines in a lipid membrane. This would mean that they could fuse with the surface of the cell and the little parcel would then inject it's nanomachine into the cell to do its work. I'm thinking that this is the way to overcome this problem. The implication is that all nanomachines are packaged in membranous compartments and that dialysis removes the membrane-encased nanomachine-viron particle. 3) Dialysis basically works by allowing small molecules of the blood to seep through pores in a semi-permeable membrane into your dialysis solution, given that the dialysis solution contains less of what you're filtering out (hence the filtered molecules get out of the blood by the principle of diffusion). What you'd need to ensure is that the pore size in the membrane is big enough to allow an entire nanomachine-viron particle to get through. Now that's really small relatively speaking, but molecularly, that's huge. As a result, all the other molecules of the blood that are smaller would be filtered out too (glucose, proteins, enzymes, electrolytes, etc all essential) so you'd need to make sure the solution you're filtering into has the exact concentrations of all of these things. The equal concentrations mean there would be no concentration gradient to diffuse down and hence no pressure for these important molecules to be filtered out along with the nanomachine-viron particle. The plus here is that, providing you can get the nanomachines small enough, virtually all bacteria would be too big and hence are excluded from diffusing through the dialysis machine into the blood. Id be a bit worried if dialysis machines arent sterile anyway. The biggest problems to my way of thinking are 1) and 2). Or, if you could get my suggestion of enveloping the nanomachines to work, the only major problem I could see, and it is a huge problem, is 1).

I use a laptop all the time. It's not great for games, but I don't really play many games any more anyway. It goes pretty well for what I do with it (internet, music, uni work, etc) so I like it.

I'm going to be in the "no" camp for every one and a neutral opinion of pagans and satan worshippers.

Good to be back. Well done to all who worked on getting the forum back up and running. I liked the old style better though.

Camembert + crackers = =P~ I'll probably give anything a go except blue cheese. Never liked it.

Astra, thanks for the post. 2 questions - (1) These laws all came from god, correct? (2) How is the distinction made between civic, moral and ceremonial? For example, if one law is "homosexuals shall be put to death", then how is that law categorized or known to be intended as that particular class? You say there is some debate among classifying particular laws - how are we sure of the ones we know of? Edit: And taking (2) a little deeper, how do we know that a particular law is not intended by god as a moral law when we classify it otherwise? Thanks. :)

Yeah, it was pretty dismal. We need quick wickets tomorrow or we won't win. :(

Yeah, I have to agree with that [at least modern day]. The one thing I probably hate the most is how all the "open minded liberals" of the world are open to every religion... except Christianity. If you open liberal newspapers and magazines such as the New York Times, the Rolling Stone, or Time, you will probably hear Christianity being criticized, as if it is not even a faith but some ignorant cult. However, if anyone dared pass a comment about Islam, the ethics police would be on them in seconds. Nothing pisses me off more than that, and I'm not even Christian. Sure, Islam does get slandered, but it's mostly by 13 year old kids who think that all Muslims are terrorists and he war in Iraq is the best thing since sliced bread. No one in the "liberal intellectual ethics community" would ever slander Islam. It would result in an immediate firing and articles [complaints] by Muslim authors for the next six months about how their religion is always slandered and how much difficulty they have in life. It's like when Imus passed a racial comment, America couldn't shut up about it for weeks. Don't get me wrong; I'm strongly against prejudice comments, I just think it's extremely stupid how the ethics police operate. Yes, people should get in trouble, apologize publicly, and get fired. I don't think we need incessant complaining about it. I agree. It's no real excuse but it's probably due to Christianity being the dominant religion there. I just think people who criticise one faith ad nauseum and cover the rest with a golden blaket suffer from narrow mindedness. Or it could just be that criticising Christianity and crying 'discrimination' against criticising the rest is the new band wagon to jump on.

Probably something sleepwalk related. Never happened to me. As a matter of fact, I've never encountered anything weird or mysterious at night.

I want the 5 minutes of my life back spent trying to figure out what the hell you're talking about.

Woke up at around 8:30-ish. Cricket is on at 12:00. There's my day. :P

Well, a few things. Let's start with people trying to change the nature of science and it's conclusions, mostly by muddying the waters through misrepresentations, misconstructions or outright falsehoods and unsupported assertions.

Hey? Of course atheists can use logic, just like anyone else. I think you're confusing principles and rules implemented by man for formal logic to make sense of things and absolutes implemented by god. Not everyone may accept logic but that's no judge for the rest of us to use it. Either way, most people do accept logic. Why? Because, I suppose, we're all humans and basic common sense exists in all of us. We generally consider logic and what it tells us to be self-evident. Also, as Venomai said, what exactly do you mean by absolute? Many things in the world are absoloute. Atheists just don't believe in god-derived absolutes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ As for the whole Pascals Wager thing, despite any arguments against it, I just find that way of looking at things to be fake and for the wrong reasons. I don't think you should believe in a particular religion because of rewards, you should do so because you feel genuine about it. Again, as venomai stated, the same argument would apply to any belief system - FSM, pink unicorn, Islam, you get the picture. I could even argue that atheists, when they die, go to an eternal Paradise with everlasting happiness. If this is the case, everyone should be an atheist because doing so results in no loss but a potential eternal gain. See what I mean? Hence, Pascals wager, as applied to Christian theology, rests solely and completely on Christian convictions and theologies being popular, not in said convictions or theologies having any inherent truth.

Some people only see life as meaningful if it is dictated by absolutes. Others are content finding meaning for themselves in a manner that isn't absolute. Both views are driven by what we personally think is most meaningful to us, i.e. you would personally seem to see life as only having meaning with absolutes, whereas I personally see life as meaningful when that meaning is figured out for myself. If you want answers you're going to have to figure them out yourself. The most thought about philosophical concept of all time isn't something anyone can prove to you.

Ohk, I misinterpreted, sorry.

Happy birthday mate. :wink: Suffrage and drinking is 18 here in Aus, it's 16 for getting your learners licence too. I had my first legal beer beginning of last year (turning 19 in a few days actually, yay me :P ) and I voted for the first time just a few months ago. Voting is compulsory here. I suppose coming of age has it's ups and downs. More responsibility, harder work, yet you can legally do more fun stuff.

Please read through the last couple pages when you get the chance... Even neglecting the whole thread, let's really think about the idea Dark_Aura and others bring up about choosing sexual orientation. The implication of this is clearly that I should be able to choose to be attracted to guys. Well, for me, it's as clear as day that this is not a possibility. Try as I might, I'm only attracted to the opposite sex, trust me. :lol: I think people who tend to think that sexual orientation is a choice should ask themselves - "can I really make a choice of which sex I'm attracted to?" I think after asking this and given the answer "no" that the assertion that sexual orientation being partly biological in nature and not being a conscious choice can only be given credence. I also go to a Catholic school, by the way. Guess what? I've taken an objective World religion class here. Don't be surprised if you find one at your high school (or possibly even middle school), and if you do find one, please take it. I had a similar experience in highschool (Lutheran highschool). They had a mandatory 'Christian Studies' class, yet it was more centered to an objective look at world religion, ethics, the issue of suffering, and other issues. It was great. No preaching at all, mostly class discussion and no authoritative judgement. :)

Don't go quoting Leviticus on me if you're going to try and cite [modern] Christianity as a promoter of any kind of hate towards gays. The stance of Christianity is not one that promotes any form of 'gay bashing'; True Christians love and respect homosexuals and bisexuals as they would any other person. THAT is the stance of the Church. Unfortunately, there aren't many "true christians". They are gravely misguided from my experiences. (Eg. Westboro Baptist Church) Also heres a site that displays most of the wrongs in the bible: http://www.evilbible.com/ Didn't your Jesus say not to ignore any part of the bible either? Hey? Basically no Christians follow Leviticus rules (which I think is great). If you think people like Westboro are anywhere near the majority of Christians then you're sadly misguided. True Christians would accept and love the sinner but hate the sin and hence not 'gay bash' people.

John Dalton? Well I think atomic theory would have sprung up but perhaps at a later time. People thought of matter in a particulate nature centuries before Dalton. He just formulated Atomic theory which (the core of it, anyway) stands to this day. I'm aware a greek phlosopher thought of this it is just something intresting to think about. Democritus? Yeah, nothing would have changed. It was more like this: man1: I discovered atoms man2: You're right man3: some guy before suggested this thousands of years ago, but it had no influence on your present day discovery. man1: Yeah, but let's give him some credit. Something like that. Dalton formed the basic theory of matter including the nature of atoms, elements and compounds, the latter being in fixed ratios of elements . ** Did Democritus or any other early thinkers say anything about compounds? **Edit: He also devised the first concept of atomic mass, probably why an amu (atomic mass unit) is these days alternately called a Dalton.

Your parents aren't going to be annoyed unless they are total douchebags. They should (I'd hope) first try to help you and be concerned for your health. Why do people post on the internet when they hurt themselves? I'm really just totally stunned that you think you can get any more use posting here than going to a doctor or something.