https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OeZQrex1J4

Great video. Getting back at this one.

What is the difference between creation and evolution?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone

What if the subject of chemistry rather was about the method of truth?

In my opinion, this article could have been better, because it is dealing with a quite important subject.

By the way, is not science supposed to be about laughter and ridicule at times as well?

The fact is that I at times find it easy to in a way ridicule the subject of religion and faith.

Is the good, by means of the presence or notion of God any better to be able to explain the difference between things supposed to be good, or those things who are supposed to be bad?

We think of such things either prematurely, or because we rather take them for granted.

One of God's commandments is that "You shall not lie".

Is such a fact because of a given Methodology, or rather a given Logic for such a fact?

Is religion alone supposed to be able or make you perhaps biased when it comes to a couple of subjects, or do you rather take such things for granted based on the method or methodology given?

See you later.

But is a red dwarf star like Proxima Centauri really a place to live?

Could such a star have any planets around containing intelligent life?

If we are supposed to be looking at the so-called "habitable zone" around a star, we first need to look at the star itself.

The sad thing about alpha Centauri is its far south latitude in the celestial sky, 60 degrees 50 arc minutes, in fact.

This would be a dream place to visit, even though there may not be any planets there.

Any fish or the like living in a thought or possible ocean or sea on any planets would be able to feel the heat and luminosity of any of the two stars during both day and night.

Even if trees should exist, with perhaps owls sitting in them,

Again, free fantasy, if you will.

But are you next able to tell me whether the laws or equations we happen to know when it comes to physics could tell about possible other options when it comes to the possibility of intelligent life?

Some people do think that we are being visited by other intelligent beings from space.

Because of such a fact, or at least assumption, do you next take technology for granted when it comes to being an issue?

Both a plane and particularly a helicopter are technological innovations.

They still rely on propulsion in order to move around and the cockpit therefore is equipped with these tools for doing such things.

Compare with your own ability of standing up-right and not falling to the ground.

It is about your sensory capabilities when it comes to balance and if you happen to be aboard a submarine vessel, you depend on a gyroscope in order to both navigate and which way you are located when it comes to position in the water.

The subject of creation again.

We perhaps are not able to tell whether creation is supposed to be for the good or bad, because scientists should definitely know or be aware of the forces of nature which makes everything working or going around.

So, if for some reason a small child falls into the cages where lions are residing or living, the likelihood is that the child will be mauled to death immediately.

Either this is for the sake of food, or it could also or well be about viciousness or even meanness.

If rather the cage should be containing a gorilla, the child could possible escape, but like the lion or lions, the gorilla would most likely be euthanized or put to death.

Such are the rules of nature. Regardless of it being a gorilla or a lion, we think such an animal would kill, either for food and not necessarily even being curious.

Forget about possible thinking, but rather possible intentions instead.

Such are the laws of nature and in some cases we may think such things related to the rules of law as well, as seen from the way of making a possible separation between right and wrong.

Charles Darwin was speaking of or using the term "Survival of the fittest" before coming up with his work dealing with the subject of evolution, which in fact was also about the origin of the same or such species.

The Galapagos Islands are home to birds and also Sea Turtles.

These animals are perhaps not mammals, but by means of being reptiles, they probably feed on such things like sea plants, fish and other small species living in the sea.

If for some reason these animals were cannibals instead, even Darwin as being an atheist would be able to see that the world is sometimes a mean or evil place, because of the competition which makes one animal or species able to survive, at least when it comes to food or nutrition, while another may not be able to do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

Changing subject a little, because this was the thing that came to my mind.

The second link becomes a search suggestion when keying in only the first part, which was the intended one.

I have always thought of philosophy as a possible science related to immaterial values, or possibly thoughts.

Is it possible to make any valuable science on the subject of Philosophy alone when we know that most things around us are rather based on material values or principles?

Matter or energy is supposedly synonymous or equal with together because of the equation E=mc2.

The usual wording when you end up your life is that "From soil you came, to the soil you go".

Never anything before your life and supposedly nothing happening thereafter either.

Both evolution and creation could be viewed in a context of material values.

When we happen to speak about possible "Existence", such a thing could be related to the mentioned material values based on what we think are around us.

If the wording of the sentence or phrase rather becomes "Existence of God", we are again back to the subject of the possible immaterial.

Is either Philosophy, or possible Religion able to define possible "immaterial" values in the same way as we could be able to define similar material values?

Any comments or suggestions welcome.

I gave it yet another thought this evening while having the dinner and also looking at some numbers.

The opposite of anything being of a numerical value is either 0, or nothing, or possibly the notion of meaningless or maybe even nonsense.

Mathematicians are able to define the notion of infinity (∞), but the opposite is in fact 0.

In the field of Logic, 0 also means false.

If I put forward or asked the question "God does exist", what would the answer to the question be?

True, or maybe false.

If Logic and Philosophy happened to be the same, that is fine, but does it give any final answer to the question?

Also there are other related subjects in the same area which could be dealing with the same issues, including those related to axioms and that of methodology.

I am noticing this at 03:30 AM in the morning.

Checking the task list on the server, I am having 23 pending tasks in the task list.

But this is not visible directly from the account page.

Although each task does not affect total credit very much here, with a possibility of having a large number of pending tasks, there could be a difference between credit given and actual credit when adding the pending tasks.

But I also know that the tasks are located somewhere else than the account pages, of course, therefore the likely reason for this.

Now I am off for today.

Or just have rather than having.

I was able to read the news about Proxima Centauri having a dwarf planet by checking in with Yahoo! before leaving the computer for the night.

The same thing was also being mentioned here.

If for some reason I missed the point or news, my bad, but still is probably not a Venus or Earth when it comes to habitability or even size.

Or should I say possible habitabilities?

Looks to me as being too hard to swallow.

I will get back at Venus later on.

Commencing two of my Seti@home task and it again is the green spiral cursor spinning and nothing happening when using Notepad.

Not very fun to watch.

Waking up here and for some reason old history comes to my mind.

Namely that of the Egyptian pyramids, the Mayan and Inca civilizations and next the rainforests of South-America and the primitive tribes living in these forests.

Please do not forget the fact that humans were living on both plants and meat before making discoveries related to agriculture, soil and harvesting.

The presence of water has always been a prerequisite for these things being a possibility.

Probably the last unknown tribes of the rain forests of South-America are now gone, including most of the forests.

These people probably were able to find medicines and cures in the plants that were around them.

Next they were able to possibly vorship their gods because of the heaven that was above them in the nightly sky.

Erich von Däniken, who by the way is not my favorite scientist or personality, have made important research into the subject of ancient aliens and possible Gods being present in the sky.

Rather than make the same thought or associations as the native Indians of the rain forest, or even the Egyptians who created the pyramids, people belonging to the rainforests of South-America could also have been having a possible belief in possible Gods and deities.

Not because of the food they were eating, or the poisons they chose to digest from the plants and trees, but perhaps rather for some other reason.

These people definitely knew from experience that some of these things were poison or lethal and could therefore not be inhaled or digested.

Other things rather became drugs for possible pleasure.

Why should such people be dealing with possible superstition or maybe have other beliefs in possible Gods or deities?

Are such things found or present in the possible dreams they could have when sleeping, or the poison they extracted from the plants and trees they came across?

If such people were having possible deities, it could have been because they were thinking of the overnatural or supernatural as giving a possible explanation for the world they were living in.

Or it could have been the fact that they were able to watch the stars in the sky during the night.

Except for stars and planets, there is also the northern and southern lights and also something called "Gegenschein".

Apparently there are no gorillas, chimpanzees, large apes or monkeys being found in the rain forests of South America, but legend tells about possible other species instead.

Because of a lack of telling their experiences, any contact with what could possibly have been alien species or entities therefore would go untold or undocumented.

You may be able to find shapes and figures of something resembling modern helicopters in the hieroglyphs of the old or ancient Egyptians.

But my guess is that people were not devoted or that keen to such things like myths or superstition, because they were already a developed civilization and did not have to think that way.

Or, perhaps it could be put the following way.

Regardless of a thing being for the good or the bad, by means of being a possible poison, a substance for relaxation or pleasure, or even a fluid or some other nutrition meant for the lasting of your body, we may think of those numbers as being a part of nature because we are using them in order to understand and comprehend a couple of other things.

Intel Corporation, together with the software manufacturer Microsoft Corporation, have come up with a hardware and software solution which is though of as being relevant and valid when it comes to dealing with possible numbers.

Not forgetting IBM Corporation and other related businesses either, but this is not the main point right now.

If we for some reason were supposed to be looking for possible "Gods" in the sky for the possible lack of anything else, would a possible proprietary development of any software be any worse or better when it comes to comparing such a thing with a hardware or software platform that is already found or known to be working?

Meaning, if I should be doing some work or business thought of as being of value, should I trust some of the tools in my possession or hands better than some other things that I could also be having, only because they could be better suited for a given purpose?

Did we not earlier have a discussion about who was supposed to be owning the web by means of its platform and whether or not such a thing is supposed to be for the bad or even better?

Everyone here knows that we are supposed to be running the Seti@home client for the purpose of possibly being able to detect an intelligent signal coming from another civilization.

If such a thing should ever happen, does it matter whether or not the inhabitants of such a civilization is living on either water or poison in order to survive, or they could be having their own thoughts when it comes to possible Gods and deities being behind the creation of everything?

Or are we perhaps again back to the technological issue or aspect of it all and think that such a thing is supposed to be able to solve all our problems?

What else is needed to say?

Or perhaps continuing with is a better word instead.

What is the difference between a fractional and an irrational number?

1,5625 to me is the same as saying 15625, or 5*5*5*5*5*5.

0,000064 in a similar way is the same as saying 64, or 8*8 (2*2*2*2*2*2).

If I multiply 1,5625 with 0,000064 I get 0,0001 as the answer.

So therefore I probably could get to 1000 doing it the opposite way, but apparently not so.

If I next choose to divide 1,5625 with 0,000064 I get 0,00004096.

In a similar way I probably would get 24414,0625 as the answer doing the opposite way once more.

What is more important is that one part of your life is work, while another part is sleep and relaxation.

If you are busy working, you are also supposed to be more productive.

If I for example happened to be a musician instead and chose to be joining Seti@home, how about a similar way of being able to measure possible productivity versus that of possible achievement and results?

Yes, sorry again. My bad.

But part of possible UFO research, including ufology, could be that of possible "Dreamland", or the fact that "I saw, but you did not believe".

You may perhaps recall the movie "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", which because of its complexity needed the final sequence of the movie be included in a follow-up of the first movie in order to be completed or finalized.

The question becomes next, where is the "Little Green Men" in all of this?

Should we perhaps believe that E.T. could be more readibly understood or comprehended when it comes to its approach to children when being either a movie or a subject, or is it more likely that colored orbs or the similar could be a more reasonable explanation?

Everyone knows that the stars shining in the sky are self-luminous objects like our own sun and that the sky is black because there is no other illumination.

Believe it or not, the dark sky could be because there are no bright objects lighting it up.

Because of that, we are not supposed to believe in the sky as being a painting where the stars and other objects are being superimposed on a black background.

Except for standing still or sitting in a chair, you most likely would be walking a certain distance every day.

If part of your day is walking at the shop for your food, you travel a particular distance one way in order to get there and next you walk the same way back home.

In a similar way, you could start walking from your house and if patient enough could be able to return back home the opposite way.

Before developing Parkinson's decease, my father chose quite a bit of each day playing the piano.

Such an instrument is not necessarily equipped or coming with a tangent, but if such a thing is being included, next your hands are needed in order to hit the white and black tangents in order to play a given melody.

But if you ever could ask my father what possibly could be in between each of the tangents, the answer would probably be a big question mark in his face, or some other visible pondering.

The mentioned movie about comes with a small tone including or encompassing some five different tones.

This becomes a small musical melody for which next is being audibly transmitted to a possible extraterrestrial visitor in order to possibly have a reply back.

Yes, in fact it ended up with a couple of broken windows because rather the trumpet was being played rather than the violin in response.

In a similar way, what if I happened to make a guess, or perhaps even dream of the possibility of habitable planets orbiting other stars in our neighborhood?

What about perhaps alpha Centauri?

Should we bother about a star like Proxima Centauri, which even at a distance of only 4,27 light years is only 11 magnitude visually?

Or if not alpha Centauri, what about Zeta Reticulii instead, where a pair of stars forms a visual double in the sky and are probably physically related as well?

For now we probably are still left with our imagination regardless of this being about playing the piano, or even watching the movies.

Again, as mentioned earlier, our choice of possible belief in the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence for now relies in the fact that the Universe does in fact exist and should therefore be taken for granted.

Next, why not listen in to the music and relax from a busy day?

You could still be working of sorts, but it probably would not show up until the next day you start working.

If you for some reason happened to be a psychic and able to sense the overnatural, including possible ghosts, you could still end up believing in possible aliens, even though there is no mentioning of neither the piano or the violin.

Oops!

Noted down.

At least when I read through it later on.

Came across this audio analyzer software which I downloaded and thought of purchasing as well.

http://www.nch.com.au/wavepad/

http://www.nch.com.au/wavepad/fft.html

WavePad FFT Sound Analyzer

By the way, it does not accept my country, so I have to fool the registration a bit for this to be working.

The complete link is a little bit long, but these two should work.

I will go for the shopping right now and try installing the demo software using the purchase code when I return back.

Unfortunately the better things for this lies on the other 3 TB disc which for now lies on the shelf.

The first partition became unbootable and I have not been looking at it using the current disc being in use.

Back later.

The pages became slow at loading right now.

Checking in later if needed.

I am noticing this.

Perhaps Seti@home v 7 should no longer be an option in the preferences?

Not keeping tab with everything right now, but some of the tasks are having a quite long running time.

Checking the tasks in my task list, I still have a couple of tasks left.

These are .vlar tasks which only returns spikes, pulses and possible triplets.

But except for a couple of blank lines in SMV, there apparently are no gaussian scores in my results as of late.

I need to scroll up one and a half page from the bottom in order to find the most recent one such.

Is this because of the preferences as being set on the account on the server, or is this because the server only sends out tasks with no gaussian search at the moment?

I have not tried, but if I deselected the option for CPU, I only would receive CUDA/OCL tasks which may not be having any graphics, but could be run much faster and possibly make for a climb or higher rise of the credit, including RAC.

Whether or not there is any difference when it comes to the credit being given, at least there should be possible to run more tasks over a given time, even though only one graphics card is present.

So, when editing this post before posting, I apparently use the word OCL.

But this is probably not the correct word to use and rather should be used with tasks meant for the graphics card run by means of PrimeGrid instead.

Instead, I rather should be using cuda32, cuda42 and cuda50 when it comes to this.

Also, to be precise, I was thinking about the running of the tasks themselves right now and not possible "job assignment factors".

Possible triplets could still be found as well, but if receiving only CUDA tasks, the gaussian search should be carried out for at least the "shorties" and also the VHAR (Very High Angle range) tasks (needs checking).

Anyway, I will finish the tasks in the task list first and perhaps give it a try next time.

Again, as mentioned, I do not keep track of things as much as I did earlier on.

Therefore I am left with what the server is able to provide me through the BOINC interface and nothing else or more.

Apparently fixed, thanks.

Read it through?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-says-foreign-hackers-penetrated-000000175.html

If I rather say it that way, it becomes kind of proofreading, which it is not.

Should or should not? That is the big question.

I have still to go for the milk and beer.

Perhaps I already have done so.

Also I have put away my glasses and choose to be writing this freehand.

I came across the article above.

Next pressed the back button and again forward and got some other content.

Copying the link before returning to the main page of Yahoo! and next pasting it into the address bar returned me back to the correct place.

As a regular PC or computer user it sometimes becomes a question about when or not to hack.

In fact I had forgotten the whole thing because this is not what I am doing right now.

But the fact is that some of these things were familiar issues when using Windows XP on my previous Intel i960 computer.

Using the ftp command (or perhaps the ping or something else, like tracert) on a given port gave a warning message about illegal access when using such a command on my own computer.

I have never specifically hacked another computer or server, although it could be a chance that a random test was being carried out for curiosity, mostly without success.

This because in my opinion you are never alone or on your own on the web or net when using a general purpose web browser or similar software.

There are certain tools being used for network monitoring and the one I came across and briefly tried out was not good at all.

One thing for sure is that the people who probably know my surfing habits as well as a couple of other things are those who I choose to be running their monitoring software in regards of or for the protection of viruses and certain types of spyware.

Or perhaps I rather should be saying hacking rather than spyware?

Supposedly there should be a difference.

In my opinion there should be made a difference between web servers and those servers who may still be connected to the web but not be having a web interface on their own.

Such types of servers could be having or storing databases, as well as other information, like software applications for common use.

It is a general norm, even in the hacking industry or environment that you should not be hacking a government resource, because this is illegal and could result in a criminal prosecution.

As a silly example, reading through here a couple of days ago and I tried to access a .vlar file residing in one of the fans on the download server.

Looking for the correct word.

Here the result was nil or nothing, because as mentioned, the file had been deleted or removed from the fan or folder and therefore not accessible.

Perhaps using ftp rather than http would mean no difference either.

As a general rule of thumb, my assumption would be to first protect yourself based on what you have, next on the software which you are able to trust.

If there are still people who knows what you are doing, but you do not want them to know, they are next thieves and their only business is that of stealing my things.

One thing for sure is that of hacking for the sole purpose of gaining access to private or restricted information.

Another is that of placing a tool which next damages or destroys important content.

Certain types of viruses probably are having such a capability, but because of current monitoring, as well as regular updates of the virus definitions, such malware is typically not in the wild and is usually being contained.

Ding, ding, ding!

I think YouTube is doing a couple of things quite well.

Getting back at it.

Edit: A couple of opened tabs in the browser.

Rewinded one of the tabs.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRjm-NsOWI0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlTclHo9L9Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2lhf1_xLJU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8x3qgYnntY


Guess it is only a Monday.

The world of entertainment and fun...

Watch YouTube for such a thing.

Right now I happen to recall a scene from the movie Poltergeist (please correct me), where a young, light-haired girl is sitting in front of the television and is thinking that someone is coming out in order to catch or grab her.

Your taste or rather mine perhaps?

Does a biologist know more about dinosaurs or plants than a paleontologist or a botanist (dealing with plants)?

Lost the word.

An athlete or gymnast could be striving for the perfect gymnastics exercise or performance, while a chemist could be turning the glasses in order to get the desired result.

Or you could be late up in the morning and perhaps looking for someone to shout at while still having the time at enjoying the sunset.

As usual results are always welcome and in order to do such a thing, such results should adhere to a given quality as well.

But if Robert Oppenheimer was being directed by William Groves, who was a military man, during the Manhattan Project, science perhaps becomes in the hand of those people who are chosen or selected to decide, or make those important decisions.

So, if possible R&D is being carried out by those military men, such a thing like the "Scientific Method" may not always be of most importance or significance, but rather that of results and accomplishments.

I will have some more if I get the time.

...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjGYSGbAEUM

Old video, but the pretty woman apparently got lost in the rest.

Supposedly it is Art Bell and not Art Garfunkel.

Anyway, is our intellectual capability perhaps more than using our hands?

You already know that mentioning a couple of alternatives does not always go well either.

If we for some reason are seeking answers to the unknown, we do so based on what we already know and next compare with those things we do not know.

Is possible biased science any better than possible deterministic science?

Is everything related to science about research and possible development, or could it be about discoveries as well?

One possible way of carrying out research is that of discarding one method or result for another, meaning that a scientist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjGYSGbAEUM

At or about 06:14 and following in the clip or presentation.

"Oh my gosh!" "What the heck is that?".

Is he saying or using the word "paranoid"?

That is what I initially got when playing back the video in another tab.

Needs a rewind or playback, but for now I do not catch it again.

Here is a thing catching my interest.

Read the finishing sentence below.

In recent times I had insects in my house and also there became a sitting problem of sorts where the chair is a bit too hard and I got a soar throat, or rather stomach as a result.

Still with me tonight and I was not able to get the plastic box containing the salvea cream (Nivea, as opposed to NVidia or Nvidia), which is something totally different.

Probably no plant extracts and at least no fish products here, but this ointment has something in it which makes a couple of things slightly better given a little time.

Not a prescribed medicine or cure however. But for now I was asked to check in with another store for this product.

This could be an inflammation of sorts, but for now I do not think it may be cancer, because this is not common or commonly found on the male side of my family.

In fact, I use both paper as well as cleaning the seat and floor before exiting or leaving the toilet.

I try to make a separation between the food I am eating an the insects and possible inflammation, which both could be separate factors and perhaps not completely avoidable.

Because of that, I next use soap and water and also flush the face using water following that.

Also the shower handle could be used at the front and back lower body as well.

In fact the water gets almost halfway to the elbows and my shirt gets wet as well.

Always the 1-2 grams when using the finger, or fingernails, but when compared with kilograms of food passing by during the week, probably somewhat better.

I forgot bying the coffee, but either it, or perhaps the cake got stuck below the fingernails, making the wash in the bathroom a bit murky.

Perhaps you were able to watch the (hidden) recordings of the Lunde earlier on, which in fact is a bird.

In fact, a very faithful such one, but it is not the national bird here.

In fact it was found hacking or picking on the cover hiding the quite sophisticated camera located behind.

Using the IrfanView graphics or imagining software, a couple of details were visible even when conditions were dark, but there also happened to be times when the male or female partner returned back from the sea for food to be delivered to the infant or sibling.

These birds are not concerned about shouting commands.

Rather they are concerned with that of raising their children or siblings.

You definitely are not able to hold such a bird in your hands and next say hello.

In fact, the sibling chose to walk two inches and next throw away its waste.

Probably makes for a lot of smell, but at least you would not be sitting on it.

As a matter of fact, neither Isaac Newton nor Albert Einstein probably never did a similar thing when alive.

Did anyone of them perhaps question the Scientific Method?

Apparently blew a sentence below.

I still think I have more in my sleeves both when it comes to possible Rafaels, Gabriels, or even Laras, but that is another story.

Getting back at it.

So this.

Needs editing, by the way, before finishing.

You probably know, but there was a lamp falling to the floor in my living room the other day because of slightly impatient relatives paying me a visit.

I still miss that lamp, because it was a treasure of sorts with both its sockets as well as the rest of it.

So, by checking out some YouTube contents, I came across the name Janecke Jarlum.

She is a Swedish/Norwegian and apparently an artist or music performer of sorts.

Being perhaps a blondie or blondine when it comes to the hair, she is not that pretty at all.

Another photo with her hair being black in color is slighty better.

Is possible stupidity or naivity only being associated or related with your visual appearance, or does your black or blondish hair make such a thing even more clearer or evident?

Oh, compare the hair colors or possible shapes for that of Albert Einstein versus that of Stephen Hawking.

Any difference perhaps?

Does your visual appearance or hair color in any way reflect or affect your personality, including that of possible intelligence and that related to such a mind, anything or rather more than something or anything else?

Which words to best choose?

For now such things end up being drafts here when it comes to writing or posting.

Anyway, think of Stephen Hawking as being a possible genius.

He is not supposed to be throwing away the Scientific Method as a whole, but still he could be able to tell us that there are certain conditions or elements being observed or found which may not be interpreted as being pure coincidence as being taught or interpreted by mathematics, but rather that such things are the result of productions, or phenomena, if you will, that are not readily explained using simple formula or equations for perhaps explaining such things.

These apparently are his own words and because of his eminent skills when it comes to thinking and deduction, we most likely are left to assume that we (currently) are left being on our own.

Needs checking.

Therefore you are left to question the observational facts (alone) and not the Scientific Method in a similar way.

...