Anjin-san

Well, I don't think there's any approach he'd reject, so long as it doesn't interfere with whatever medical treatment he will be getting (was only diagnosed in the last week or so, and he's still undergoing further testing), so please, any ideas are welcome. Thanks!

Hi, everyone, A good friend was recently diagnosed with Multiple Myeloma. It's considered treatable, but incurable. If any with medical expertise could reply with suggestions, ideas, whatever, I'll link this thread to him. I know he would appreciate it, and so will I! He sent me this link, asking for my thoughts, but I have almost no knowledge in this area, so I don't think my opinion would be very valuable. Please review and comment. http://lowdosenaltrexone.org/ldn_and_cancer.htm Thanks in advance!

If the heating throughout the oven were smooth and even, with no hot or cold spots, it might be simple arithmetic, but it doesn't work that way. For a liquid in a single container, it might, but probably not for foods on a plate. Here's a nice video that explains the oven's principles - around 2:15 he shows a neat experiment that might clear it up a bit (it did for me): https://youtu.be/kp33ZprO0Ck (if this post shows up twice, it's because I tried to embed the video the first time, requiring moderator approval)

I would much rather focus on quality of life, which requires respect for the non-aggression principle, than quantity. "nathanm" summed it up nicely: See the earlier fiction of Larry Niven, for example. His future society achieved immortality through drug discoveries, and though organ transplants. The elites made more and more laws punishable by death - on the operating table, where organs were harvested to feed their own demand. Eventually, even jaywalking was a capital crime (if I recall correctly), and death was the only punishment. I would not, however, initiate force to prevent voluntarily-funded research.

I did a little poking around on the topic of "irreducible complexity," and found this page, the first of a series of questions and answers with Eugenie C. Scott on the DNA Learning Center website. I found it helpful. The rest of the questions are below under "Related content" - they're listed out of order, but numbered. Intelligent Design and Creationism as Science One thing I'd like to bring up from earlier in this thread, though, is the idea of "fully-formed species." Fully-formed by what standard? What are the criteria for an animal being "fully-formed?" If it's able to survive and reproduce in its environment, even if conditions are promoting further adaptations, sounds fully-formed to me, but I'm no biologist.

I don't think you were paying close attention, or quit partway through. This is a man in the early stages of doubt. He is rejecting conventional religious teachings, and is even starting to question the idea of a god, and is agonized enough about it to put his thoughts to music and in film. I hope he keeps asking questions, and we can see & hear where it takes him. Thanks very much to the OP for posting these!

I'd say the first 4 seconds sums up the statist position succinctly: https://youtu.be/wj0aH_PiAnI (sorry, don't know how to embed video here)

Well, crud... missed the asterisk to the tiny footnote that said no weekend service at my station... found out from a jogger, and the parking at the next station was so inaccessible, I missed the train there by about 2 minutes If you get this in time, how late do you all hang out? Next train is at 2:00, so I wouldn't get there until probably 4:00.

Thanks, Millie. I'll be coming in on a different line, so it looks like I'll be walking a couple blocks from Union Station to the Brown Line, and getting off at Belmont - not the most interactive of maps, though (imagine that from a gov't website). See you as close to 2:00 as the system allows!

Thanks, Millie. I joined the Meetup group, and just RSVPd. What El line do I take from downtown, and what's the best stop to get off at? I'm coming in from the 'burbs on the Metra. Thanks, looking forward to meeting everyone!

I was surprised by this one - in a scene where Richthofen asks a nurse about the health of an Allied pilot he shot down: Nurse: "Do you really care, or are you just curious?" Richthofen: "The latter." Nurse: "At least you're honest." Richthofen: "It's a start, isn't it? Can you be caring without being curious in the first place?" You can find philosophy in the strangest places, once you're open to it.

Around 36:00, "Al-qaeda has been decimated." Politicians choose words very carefully, and the original meaning of "decimate" is to kill 1 in 10. So, it's possible the truth was told plainly and openly.

You're asking more than i'm capable of, especially since it's been so long since I read it, but here's the gist: *Spoiler alert* The main character, the result of a centuries-long secret breeding program, has his latent future-seeing abilities greatly enhanced by an overdose of a drug already known to bring out prescience in others, to differing and lesser degrees. He uses these abilities to win a war which frees an oppressed planet's population, giving him an army of what become fanatics of a religion that grows up around him, due to his seemingly godlike powers. These fanatics, which he is powerless to control, then wage a jihad against the rest of the populated galaxy, spreading this religion, and thus rule by the priests of this religion, over the galaxy. His vision of the future also show the extinction of humanity if its current course remains unaltered. Feeling helpless to change it, or unwilling to embark upon the self-imprisoning and violent course to do so, he chooses to walk away from what he has begun. His son, however, has no such moral compunctions, and takes steps not only to acquire this godlike prescience, but near-immortality, at the cost of his own humanity and any real self-determination, locking himself and mankind on a course to prevent their extinction. He does what so many rulers throughout history have done: use his power to rule as a tyrant "for the greater good." We are led to view this as a true sacrifice on his part, however, having committed himself to millenia of boredom, knowing what's to come and powerless to change it except through the forced-stagnation that he inflicts on mankind. It's multiple volumes, which can hardly be condensed into a few paragraphs, but never did Herbert portray these characters as gods in the mythical sense, so we can't really deal with the issue of omnipotence. Well worth reading, in my opinion.

It's been a while since I read it, but I think Frank Herbert dealt with the boredom and helplessness of prescience quite nicely in his Dune series.

Calling someone a "creep," as a noun, is quite different from calling them "creepy." I've always thought of "creep" as being synonymous with "asshole." Someone who's "creepy," however, is one you get a very bad feeling from, and would never leave alone with children, or wouldn't want to be alone with as a woman. I think you were using "creep" correctly, which is a much less personal or damning word.