https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrvgsk8eX24

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

Perhaps rather at BOINC for this, but I was thinking about the subject of aliens or extraterrestrials right now.

The Wikipedia is still not the same as YouTube.

Also a related article which I happened to come across in the Wikipedia, but need to get back at the link.

The page for this was quite good.

If a state of war for some reason is being created or issued, it may not necessarily mean a possible Armageddon, or a similar demise.

But if such a thing should ever happen, we could be there in order to watch the consequences of such a thing happening.

Is it not the fact that both Matter Creation, or that of a given Creation Myth could be something else than a given destiny or fate?

If you happen to be an atheist or agnostic, you could still celebrate Christmas because of the material values which are related or attributed to this holiday.

Why such a thing as aggression and evilness when we also are supposed to believe in such a thing as Creation, or at least Matter Creation?

Is our world of Unpredictability the work of God, or perhaps the Devil?

The matter of fact is that we are able to define such a thing as randomness, chaos and the like by means of given Laws and Equations for such a thing.

Perfect symmetry could be only one possibility of that of a given randomness and for such a thing there should be no Religion and Faith at all.

President George W. Bush, after the event making up 9/11 is speaking about a possible "Faceless coward".

If we for some reason was attacked by an alien civilization, we could perhaps blame such a thing for the events happening.

Could there be a possible difference between "demise" and "destiny" when it comes to wording?

Is it possible to make an interpretation of the given meaning of this word except for that of Religion and Faith?

Look at the school or education system of the United States.

Pupils are supposed to be wearing a uniform and next adhere to a given standard or norm.

It should also be a fact that those who chose to worship their religious belief more likely could be protestants rather than catholic.

When mentioning such a thing I possibly could be deviating from the subject once again, since I am still watching the video at the top.

I could be returning back at "The Day After" before signing off, but next the fact that he was able to keep his dress or uniform during the whole movie.

Compare with a movie like "Star Wars" which could be about a New Hope.

Is such a thing next the same as a given Creation?

Or perhaps "ha-ha-hah" for a given thing.

I happened to notice at least Josef Stalin in the clip and also Winston Churchill.

Is a given ideology a possible result or consequence of a given thing happening?

Fortunately a nuclear conflict has still to occur or ensue, but next the fact that nuclear weapons have been used both in war as well as for testing purposes.

Such a thing as the Universe ending up in oblivion could be a real fact some 10 or 15 billion years into the future, as well as stars heavier than the Sun ending up as either neutron stars or Black Holes.

If we still find it hard to grasp that we could not survive the next day because of events which could be happening, what is the possible end result if such a thing should in fact next happen?

Could such a thing as a given event be explained in relation with a similar consequence, or perhaps the result of such a thing possibly happening?

MAD (or M.A.D) for possibly Mutual Assisted Destruction, a little down the list, is such a given possibility.

Again it is supposed to be Christmas, but next in which way are you supposed to be measuring possible material values with or against something else?

Is it not the fact that we really should blame scientists for a couple of things, including events, rather than something else?

I once had the question, or possibly created the thread about scientists possibly being mad.

Perhaps the question either did not become answered, or in fact I was right in my assumption or initial thought.

The fact is that the Nazis were responsible for such a thing as the Holocaust and that Josef Stalin was a dictator among his own people.

Even such a thing as popcorn or Capitalism may not be able to hide this fact, but for the development of the atomic bomb, this was the result of Robert Oppenheimer, together with the
rest of the scientific community.

Still we are supposed to believe in both the arms race and the principle of Mutual Assisted Destruction for such a thing and not necessarily that of "Little Green Men".

One small detail being noticed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrvgsk8eX24

59:01 and following in the clip.

Quite dense here when it comes to actual contents, so I leave it for you to make up your mind.

The words here "The bomb is being dropped".

But next notice the officer turning his head in a different angle.

Guess he was looking in the wrong place.

Edit: Wearing glasses or even having popcorn for breakfast rather than dinner is probably no better excuse for a couple of things.

Both the movie "Independence day" as the famous speech by President Roosevelt after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor could be good examples of good versus bad and the history next becoming a fact of this.

Needs more checking, but definitely the world is not a perfect place.

Or perhaps tight.

You never know when it slips.

Should tell that I apparently lost track of it when it comes to the cycle of the day, but putting the showing handle in the rear part most likely makes for a 10 hour grace or
relaxation period than an 8 hour one.

Except for that I could be working overtime as well, but most likely noone would care or notice.

Back later.

The words by Chris S here is one reason I find it a bit hard to delve into a couple of subjects related to science.

If I do not fall asleep in the meantime, I could try finish it off with an edit.

Science is not only about the subject or subjects themselves, but also the scientists who are supposed to be doing the work.

Ordinary people, or really the man on the street could perhaps be believed at times, or the fact that he in fact saw something.

Next the fact that what else we could be making about a couple of things, including everything from not being able to believe, through the fact or possibility of being able to do so,
could be because of, or as a result of a given thinking among scientists themselves.

This is one reason that a given Consensus could be needed in order to be able to get to the desired result.

My guess is that if you happen to be a believer, you should also be able to do the same when it comes to the Method of Proof.

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

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

While initially only being able to get at the first article, next putting away the evening sweet after the shopping trip reminds me about the Wikipedia article about the Scientific Method,
which is the article that should be referenced here.

I possibly will have a bit more on this later, but you probably know that I am giving a bit of thought about the given way which should be followed in order to obtain a specific result.

Or perhaps I rather should say method, but next I was thinking about the way we choose to do things here at Seti@home.

Always one given thing for a specific purpose, regardless of what that could otherwise mean or imply.

This project also could be having a Political agenda as well and at least when being a scientist, both negative as well as positive consequences should also be considered.

Such things as atheist or agnostic thinking could be a good thing in order to carry out science, but does not tell about neither possible results, or even the method which should be used.

If you happen to be a programmer, or even a road or bridge builder, such a thing as stepwise refinement could be a nice thing to implement or use in order to improve on an already accomplished result.

But we also know that nature could be unpredictable and also could be based on such things as logic and given consequences, as well as possible events.

The Butterfly Effect could possibly be a small part of another larger given Theory, or perhaps doctrine or tenet.

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

For now there probably is still some discussion which subject relates or belong to another, but the fact is that neither Charles Darwin nor Edward Teller or his German born counterpart which needs a lookup for his name are the better one here
when it comes to be able to tell whether or not we are alone in space.

The latter person happens not to be my personal favorite either. Therefore I am unable to find the second name right now.

Getting back at it.

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

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

Remember the days of Aldus PageMaker.

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

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

In fact this became a software application, but has now been replaced by Microsoft Word or WordPerfect for Windows when it comes to the use of fonts.

Perhaps losing track of it, but still thinking about the subject of Creation Myth versus that of Matter Creation.

The latter subject should be of more interest both to atheists and possibly agnostics than that of a similar Creation Myth.

One major reason for this is that we may be able to use or employ a given Methodology for the latter subject.

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

For the latter thing or purpose we may also find such things as prototypes, modeling and that of CASE being used.

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

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-aided_software_engineering

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

The point I would like to make is that these things better should fit a given purpose by means of a given way, or rather its Methodology, as previously mentioned.

Compare this with the man on the street, who we either could believe, or perhaps not, because he is not a scientist at all.

You perhaps have heard about the Inqusition.

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

My guess is that the Church has improved and become better since the days of Giordano Bruno.

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

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

Again, interesting articles in the Wikipedia and I will return back for a closer read about Giordano Bruno later on, because he was the one that got hit in the face without deserving it.

Anyway, the question becomes next why so-called experimental physics (or perhaps rather chemistry) is still supposed to be following a given Methodology in order for possible result or success?

Remember the word "Empirical evidence" for this.

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

Are we still supposed to be back at a given Methodology when it comes to such a thing, or should we rather think about this in the same way as a possible "Creation Myth"?

Perhaps the truth is that we still should perhaps rely more on the computer than both the silly user, as well as the mentioned man on the street.

Edit: Mind control gets my attention right now. Getting back at it.

Hi, River Song, or perhaps Linda Latte.

Should tell that I happen to have my own thread here.

Since I happen to know that this is the Seti@home science message board, why not make a possible difference between the toilet of yours and the possible stench which might follow,
with that of possible sereneness, which at times could be associated with that of possible gods, angels and spirits?

Or perhaps rather the ugly world of devils, including that of the Devil, which could mean possible distrust.

If you already did not know it, the deck of cards in a game is some 13 in all and next including the Ace, as well as the Joker.

Edit: Late night add. Please do not take it too serious.

Look at such a thing as destruction, including that of terrorism, which is part of both the world and the politics which makes up this world.

Also this world could be one of battles and next also ideologies, where both Communism and Marxism (and also Leninism) could be on one side and next facism and nazism being found on the other side.

Next put or place both such ideologies side by side and you could be having a possible ideology for such a thing.

Always the mentioned word, or words being used.

I really should wish that I could be on the "upper deck", but right now I do not believe one such do exist.

One video I happened to come across on YouTube gave me a short glimpse of their sick room, or infirmary, but the zoom, or glimpse soon went back or out.

Forget ageing, if you will, because this in fact makes me feel ill, or sick.

Why not perhaps look at "2001 A space Odyssey"?

I happened to watch the original movie at the main cinema here in town and the man getting the movie ready in the play back machine also was kind enough to have the end sequence played back on the speakers mounted across the wall.

In fact, both the opening sequence of the movie, as well as its end or final part, is based on the same piece of music.

Anyway, is there perhaps a common or standard method (available) for that of perhaps dealing with those of cyclic models (including the Standard Model) ...
and those related or pertaining to ...

Lost the idea.

Trying to catch it, or getting back at it, we know that Jesus Christ like God never was able to tell us about the secrets of the Universe, because such a thing could be about possible Creation.

For such a thing we are having either Matter Creation, or that of a similar Creation Myth.

Neither such a thing as the creation of a star by means of accretion from dust and gas in space, or its similar destruction by eventually becoming a neutron star or possibly Black Hole is likely to tell the whole story or whole part of it.

The bad thing is that when mentioning the word "accretion", it could be in the context of accretion for or when it comes to that of a dying star.

Not what I was thinking about right now, or perhaps implying.

But is next that of an accretion disc the similar as that of an occurrence or instance when it comes to a similar star formation by means of a birth in a star cloud?

Should tell that right now I do not have the answer to this question, but NGC 2264 in Monoceros, including its possible variable S Monocetoris come to my mind.

Needs checking.

One of the pages belonging to livesciences.com gives mentioning of Armageddon versus possible "Deep Impact".

Either the page for the link became closed, or it should be in opposite order, a bit uncertain about the latter and needs checking.

But should next tell that I already gave a mentioning about this, but if so for the sake of science.

Radiation sickness, as a result of being or becoming exposed to possibly lethal doses of radiation, could be a real fact of life and one such experience, or note of fact, is that of a fishing boat, or vessel,
which came to close to a nuclear explosion being carried out.

Again, the name of the vessel could once have been with me, but for now being lost.

Why not forget the simple fact that for each told story having both pros and cons, there could be a simple or given explanation for a given fact, which often could be explained by means of science.

Or perhaps to be more precise or honest,

The fact is that the celestial sky could be filled with objects, including both galaxies and galaxy clusters.

Right now I do not know whether or not this is because of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, but a couple of years ago I happened to mention the Shapley supercluster of galaxies.

Apparently not a popular subject here and the whole thing was being moderated away.

Look at the empty spot for the cluster using sky-map,org and next compare with the vividly sharp images of the cluster as obtained by the Hubble Space Telescope.

Perhaps makes you think about a couple of things, because this is what I happen to do.

Always the idiot versus the genius and next such a thing goes when it comes to possible thinking, or perhaps imagination and not those of a given idiosyncracy or the like.

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

Needs a bit of editing before finished.

Edit: Becomes a needed break.

The remaining six beers needs placing in the fridge and I am looking for a cold one yet to catch.

Got one right now.

But also I was giving a thought about that of possible absolutes.

The fact is that we do not have a readily answer to everything, partly or mostly because of such absolutes.

In fact it becomes like prime numbers, or factors, in the subject of factoring, where each such number becomes part of a whole.

My guess, or perhaps impression, is that if it possibly could be made a separation or distinction between so-called traditional sciences and anything else which could possibly matter,
the remaining, or latter, could next become speculative science.

What about the possible thinking process here?

I already mentioned such a thing as possible ideologies.

Think of an alien craft, or perhaps UFO, if you will, as having or consisting of some three levels.

One (or the lowest) is for navigational purposes, including possible gravity amplifiers (some three in total).

This becomes their engine, or machine room, if you will.

The second level is their living room, including the sick room, or infirmary.

Another part of this level could be for possible navigation purposes, through space.

So, the final and perhaps most important question.

What is on the the upper deck?

Knock on wood. We are supposed to be some 0.84 on the Kardashev scale and not 1, 2, or even 3.

Make a difference between the idiot and the genius and because of that not forget the 0 as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism_(disambiguation)

I have not checked yet.

But my own interpretation of this word is that of a given, rational thinking when it comes to a given way of thinking, or perhaps the way,
process or procedure in which such a thing is supposed to be carried out.

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

Took a little while and perhaps better at BOINC.

Anyway, remember the weatherman at BBC who told us that it would not become a hurricane.

If or not so, where is the possible climate model?

Is Stochastic perhaps the same as possible sillyness or stupidess?

Or, perhaps, not forget the "upper deck" if you will, because such a thing is not about a given sillyness or sickness at all.

Back tomorrow.

You probably already know.

But it became a problem here related to heat in my room.

Meaning the computer room which rather was meant as being a sleeping room.

Sitting on the rear butt all day long and also suffering from the stomach problem, makes me turn up the heat in the room and it just gets too hot.

I do have a couple of other tabs open related to a given opinion about a couple of subjects, but not finished yet.

The rear fan in the computer is not turning around because the cable became twisted in between while running.

The Noctua processor fan could be adjusted by means of the BIOS, or perhaps the ASUS AI Suite II application.

A bit skeptical here, it probably could give a bit more, but then also compromising both sound level, as well as possible durability.

The nice thing with this computer is the power cables.

There are some hiccup sounds present at times which I blame on either the fan, or perhaps the power supply, but apparently no more is possible here.

Anyway, I notice that the BOINC web server apparently took a turn for the worse, so why not perhaps continue here in the small hours?

What was the original name of that thread?

Namely that of atheists versus possible religion.

Again, a couple of tabs open for given contents, but I happen to recall a thread here with the name of "Science and Technology in the news".

Right now I am not checking.

But the fact is that we happen to know, or presumably, the fact that if the Universe is having a possible Creator, we most likely could be making such a creator a divine one.

Next it becomes that of possible Religion and Faith, meaning the subject.

Again, the Ten Commandments as being given or delivered by God in the hands of Moses and also the fact that we are supposed to believe in both Laws and Equations, because they happen to be either approximations,
possible variables and at times constants for their respective things, or that of given entities.

An example of this is the constant c, which is the speed of light through vacuum, or possibly space.

In order to perhaps make this science and not necessarily science fiction, we are not supposed to be speaking about possible time travel into the future, because we know that such a thing is not possible.

In order to perhaps know what you are supposed to be dealing with, perhaps look up both science, as well as nature in the Wikipedia and the good articles for both these subjects.

Next try keying in "Little Green Men", or the similar and the possible answer could be that of ufology.

If I am not wrong, we as humans happen to be some 0.84 on the Kardashev scale.

Closing in on some 1 on this scale, we could be looking at possible energy production, as well as consumption, for such a thing.

Also that of technology innovation and development as well and I mentioned such things as data modeling and CASE analysis earlier on.

Factoring of numbers could be another important subject, because it could be shown that a given integer number (or really factor) could be hidden in another larger number,
which makes such a thing as scrambling possible.

This perhaps better at BOINC, but in fact we had a discussion about the WOW signal here in the past which made for more or less nothing back in return.

If the possible wording or slant for this could be "Curiosity killed the cat", this could perhaps be the interpretation of the whole given thing.

And not necessarily the Mars space probe Curiosity here either.

You know, neither such a thing as possible numbers, including their possible factorization, are always of interest to the Seti@home community.

Rather we are supposed to believe in such a thing as possible orbs, rods and critters and if not so, perhaps "Little Green Men" at times.

Stories like E.T. and Alien I next comes to my mind and except for ourselves, as well as plants, animals, bacteria and viruses making up this planet, the rest of it most likely becomes more or less science fiction.

The fact is that when we happen to be observing nature, we could be dealing with possible numbers at times, but not necessarily that of a similar divine creation.

This because the latter subject happens to be about the subject of Religion and Faith and not necessarily science at all.

Make science what you think it is, or perhaps is supposed to be, but the fact is that if you happen to look around, there could be possible alternatives available or around when it comes to dealing with a couple of things.

The subject of Probability next, or most likely could be that of possible dices and also the famous words by Einstein that "God is not playing with dices".

My words for it only.

The question becomes whether or not the subject of Probability could be the same as Logic all the time and also the fact that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle could be dealing with
possible approximations when it comes to a couple of things.

In the world of factoring, or factorization of numbers, we could at times be dealing with the subject of Convergence.

In order to perhaps reach for the Moon, or perhaps get at Saturn past Jupiter, the slingshot method is most likely needed for such a thing.

The sad fact or thing is that the possible smile of Mona Lisa does not necessarily tell about possible extraterrestrial intelligence.

But rather the fact that a given method being used or employed could give possible results back in return because such a method being used or employed should also reflect or harmonize with the effort being carried out.

If such a thing as Algorithms & Data Structures could be true, we definitely should believe in both the corresponding data as well as the Data Structures making it up, but next the possible Algorithms could be that of a given programming.

Really, such a thing as a possible alien specimen, by means of a female of sorts lying on a bench with the reproductive organs either hidden, or perhaps blacked out could perhaps be one part of a given story.

You never know for sure when nature chooses to weep its tears, except for the possible rain coming down, as well as possible ice ages, but still this is supposed to be about science.

In the world of machines and possible robots, we could at times be seeing such things as both madness, lack of a given sense, as well as a couple of other things, because rational thinking most likely could be about the subject of Logic and at times
this could in fact be not the case.

One way of possible survival is that of Hibernation.

Apparently no definitive proof yet, but there could be some indication that space travel could be carried out by more advanced or developed civilizations this way.

If you happen to be around for some time, you may perhaps remember a possible cry for help from another civilization.

Not in my numbers, should be told, but only a story I happened to come across.

The Pleiades is a star constellation located some 410 light years away.

All the stars in this cluster are young stars and one of these (Pleione) also happens to be a variable star.

The Hyades, also being located in the constellation Taurus, is an older star cluster and the star Aldebaran is not a member of this cluster.

For both of these star cluster, there could be an interest of detecting possible white dwarfs.

Next also possible red dwarfs as well.

If you happen to be an Apollo astronaut, you most likely could believe in such a thing as Star Wars as a possible example, or a given representation of a Type III civilization.

But the fact is that most likely such a civilization (if any) is not coming from neither a white or red dwarf, or even a star like the Sun.

Rather from somewhere else, because we happen to know that the Earth itself is some 4.8 billion years old and the Universe maybe some 13.8 or 13.9 billion years old.

Read about subjects like "Hippocrit", "Omen" and "Noname" (lost the word or words for the latter) and next make up your mind.

Is such a thing supposed to be any science at all?

The fact is that both Newton, Einstein, as well as many others ended up becoming good or eminent scientists, but apparently none of these were ever able to come up with a given answer to the question about
whether or not we happen to be alone in space.

If one of the Ten Commandments in the Bible could be "You shall not lie", the fact is next that space travel into the future could be impossible.

Also when considering such a fact by means of a scientific view, or perhaps approach.

Perhaps this should not be told or spoken of in the clear, but my guess is that even the Military could at times be depending on the knowledge of scientists.

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

I happened to be using the word "constraint", or perhaps "constraints" at BOINC, without next giving no explanation of this word.

Rather the word "term", or perhaps "concept" comes to my mind.

Again, possible "helter skelter" for a couple of given things and the fact that numbers are not supposed to be ridiculed most of the time, but rather the scientist, or perhaps even idiot,
which could be fumbling around, hoping for a possible answer back in return.

In fact, I could have hoped for a possible explanation of the smile of Mona Lisa by means of either the Scientific Method, or perhaps the Standard Model, but this may in fact not be the case or fact.

Possible Creation could be about a given Logic at times, but what next about a given stupidity?

Is this perhaps the same as the Ten Commandments of the Bible and where could we next see a possible difference between that of a given stupidity versus perhaps something else?

Perhaps that of a given naivity as well.

I previously mentioned that the article about the brain in the Wikipedia was lacking a couple of things, or possibly was having a couple of shortcomings.

The paperwork or paperbased version of Encyclopedia Britannica, in the hands or belongings of my parents, is having an article about Dreams in its extended section.

I happen to have two CD-ROM's for this work, but next needs attaching to the web and possibly the server and for now most of this has been replaced by the Wikipedia.

Needs checking back for the subject of dreams, but in the original work, the final conclusion was inconclusive.

So, ending this posting with a final note about that of the subject of ufology.

Make it perhaps flying dishes if you like, or perhaps the female lying on the desk with her sex organs, or perhaps genitiles visible, if perhaps not.

Most likely not your business, for that matter, or at least personal preference, but most likely so because of a given reason.

Not finished yet, but at least this is supposed to be science.

You perhaps already know, but a couple of things still gets my attention or perhaps notice after purchasing the 24 inch graphics monitor.

One thing for sure is that of word wrap of text when it comes to that of editing.

Choosing to edit an already posted text, the lines at times wraps in the edit box where it is not supposed to be doing so.

This means that at times there could be lines becoming too long in the text.

I am readily aware of this problem, but there could be times where there could be nothing much to be done.

So it goes, at least for now.

It got back at me right now, namely that of "When atheists laugh of Religion".

Yes, "dumbfundling" or the like, but should next add that at least I gave a try understanding such things as elementary particles and the like.

For much of this, a thanks goes to tullio here, who if I am not wrong, is closely associated or related to things going on at CERN.

Again, most likely not my business at all, but should perhaps the question be asked whether or not a given technology could lead to a possible change?

Meaning next a change for perhaps either the better, or perhaps even worse.

Look at the subject of Climate Prediction and we already know that a given ice world on its own never will lead or be followed by a given or possible change.

Always the external factor.

For such a thing define a possible Event.

In space or at least astronomical terminology, an event horizon could be the place in space where light does not escape from or because of the force of gravity.

Yes, sucks, but right now getting a bit old, or perhaps tired because of that given fact.

Oh, if Newton happened to be an eminent scientist, perhaps Einstein ended up becoming crooked and at least not being fond of Quantum Theory.

Getting back at it.

Any difference or perhaps meaning or opinion when it comes to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle versus that of Quantum Mechanics or Quantum Theory,

Also Quantum Gravity for such a thing as well, including possible "foam".

Needs checking.

The Egyptians were using "Hieroglyphs" in order for their possible communciation, as well as interpretation.

Also here I am lost for now and needs checking.

But the fact is that among such "Hieroglyphs", what could be thought of, or perhaps interpreted as possible UFO's in or among the signs, we could be back at Erich von Daniken for such a thing.

Not my favorite interest neither when it comes to person or subject, but at least could be about the subject of ufology.

Hmm, truths versus possible lies.

Are we not supposed to always believe in a given fact rather than something else.

For such a thing, next make the possible difference or separation between the possible genius and that of the stupid idiot.

For such a thing we could be having such a thing as possible "idiosyncracy".

If the story around could be that Jimmy Carter, as a former President of the United States, once could have seen a thing in the sky which appeared to be a UFO, we most likely should believe him.

Is this so, or perhaps the fact because Mr. Carter himself was perhaps such an idiot, or at least a naive person.

Where is science in all of this?

Do we not already know about a given thing as debunking or the like for the sake of perhaps not telling the whole truth?

Truth or maybe truths versus that of possible lies.

For such a thing we could have possible debunking and the like, but apparently most likely the truth in the end, rather than something else, or perhaps the opposite.

"Curiosity killed the cat" and I need getting back at this.

There could be times where science apparently meets a "dead end" when it comes to possible results and also times where there happens to be results, or possible accomplishments.

Really, or in fact, there could be a possible method (and not that of a given Methodology) of trial and failure around, when it comes to such a fact.

If perhaps trial and failure could be the common norm, why not trial and success at times?

Perhaps back at a given trial and what it is supposed to be.

Is it possible to measure, or perhaps value a given success and its possible rate versus that of a given failure for the same thing?

Think of scientists perhaps being crooked at times and not necessarily only because of their discoveries.

Such a thing as time travel into the future could be an impossibility, as already mentioned and next being more or less proven by means of science.

If you could be able to define the given principle, or perhaps notion when it comes to that of the subject of technology, you next or also should be able to do the same when it comes to
possible intelligence, or perhaps conscience.

We could perhaps believe in the chimpanzee being able to make squares out of rectangles, or possibly the same when it comes to whale song, but the fact is that we most likely do not know the whole story,
or perhaps the complete answer to this question.

If nature itself, except for possible Laws and Equations which could be making up such nature could be interpreted in a given way, or as such, perhaps or rather the better.

The old wording by Harrison Ford, namely "Don't tell me the odds" comes to my mind and we are once again back at the subject of Probability.

In or by means of the subject of Logic, we could perhaps be having the notion "either / or", or perhaps "neither / nor".

Such a thing could perhaps go when it comes to science as a whole as well, in that a given subject could be possibly ridiculed, or perhaps being debunked at times.

Take a double star in the sky like Zeta Reticulum (or Reticulii) as a given example.

Next, forget about such things as aliens and the like and rather look at possible technology being used by a Type I civilization.

"One step" perhaps and we are supposed to remember these words.

"We choose to be going to the Moon" and so on.

Catch my breath and you perhaps could get the rest of it when it comes to the whole story.

Make of both the surface of the Moon as well as that of Mars that of possible "serenity", if you will.

Next, the possible notion of God versus the Devil, because neither is about such a thing as Creation, but rather that of "Heaven and Hell".

Believe in the Ten Commandments of the Bible if you will, but next such a thing as possible Creation versus that of a given destruction or possible demise could also well be in the cards.

Lost the intended meaning above and need getting back at it.

More later.

Also doing a text search for a given word while choosing to edit, the search function also finds or get across text in the window which is part of the web-page.

Not good. It really should be searching for text only meant for posting and not something else.

Needs a fix.

Oh, yes.

I know. Sorry about that.

Too late to edit, but my guess is you catched the point.

Back tomorrow.

When Harry met Sally.

Or perhaps "Open-source software for volunteer computing".

Perhaps read my lips, or at least the original or intended words being meant as a message by the BOINC server.

Not Meg Ryan here if I am not wrong, but perhaps some other female perhaps willing or able to sell her soul.

Never mind.

Perhaps that of Science itself at times perhaps at times getting it wrong.

Looking up the subject and even Robert Oppenheimer, as one of the main scientists and also developer of the atomic, or nuclear bomb.

Is it not the fact that possible science could be "scrupelously" carried out at times, for the lack of anything else?

Heck, science is not supposed to be about Religion and Faith at all and we all know that.

Look at Robert Oppenheimer for such a thing, or perhaps case.

Radiation treatment, or possible therapy could be one given thing, but also that of a given Holocaust (not necessarily Auschwitz itself) .

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

Here in my opinion, Auschwitz alone as a given word should be enough and also a subject on its own.

Needs editing and I have to add the h in between before getting finished.

Not the main point here, but rather the fact that Robert Oppenheimer could have ended up becoming a victim of history.

Or perhaps science for such a thing.

Oh, what was the word?

"Infamy".

Needs checking.

Doing so, the Wikipedia gives me the translation "piece game".

Tit for tat, apparently.

Really, such a thing makes me feel a bit sad, because this is not what it is supposed to be all about, or perhaps be all about.

Why not rather say such a thing as "Hello" (Lionel Ritchie)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7Mi77iqMjA

Needed two separate lookups here for this.

Believe. believe in a possible Creator of sorts and it could end up becoming that or the subject of a possible divine for such a thing.

Next trample on the Church, including Cardinal Benedict for such a thing and you next are supposed to face the consequences for such an act.

Why always that of a given technology when it comes to a couple of things, rather than perhaps something else?

If so, is it next supposed to be about possible Religion and Faith, including the possible confessions for the sins you happen to make or carry out?

Perhaps the Devil rather than that of possible sins and their respective forgivness, because we happen to know that God is supposed to be about forgiveness of sins, rather than the similar acts or deeds or crime at times being carried out.

Needs possible editing above.

More later.

NSF.

This word, or perhaps the meaning of it, is the National Scientific Foundation.

Get me right perhaps, or rather get me wrong.

Perhaps think of possible science by (means of) the man in the street as possibly being wrong or perhaps even crooked.

In which way is a given method of result, including that of possible analysis subject to a possible ridicule or that of debunking?

My words for this only, but if I happened to be a scientist (which I am not), I rather or most likely could be able to tell a given fact for or rather than something else.

Hmm, perhaps something else is missing here.

Again, my words only.

Please define the word "crooked" for or to me when it comes to possible science (being carried out) and next such a thing would be fine.

Read the fine words, or perhaps lips and most likely you would not be able to merge, or perhaps incorporate such a thing as the Uncertainty Principle with that of
General Theory, or perhaps even Special Theory, because most likely these things would still be more or less different subjects.

Am I right, or perhaps wrong?

In the world of programming, including that of Unix as a given programming language, we do have the subject of the producer versus the consumer problem.

The author of this work is Andrew Tanenbaum (possible middle name here S, but needs checking).

Became a bit of pencil notes or strokes from my recall.

"I sold, you bought" is the common norm or term being used for this.

The little sad thing being noticed is the fact that "I saw, but next you could not believe".

Again, a given assumption, or perhaps thought, about possible Type I civilizations possibly being around and next you are not supposed to believe in.

Why not perhaps make such a thing a given science, rather than something else?

A possible "nickname" (for the lack of anything else) could in fact mean the silly or stupid idiot, or in fact it could end up being or becoming science.

Anyway, right now doing the night shift here at some 01:45 AM in the morning of Monday, local time.

I have not started up the Manager right now, or perhaps the client, if that could be a better word.

But should tell that here it now came much snow down and also became quite chilly.

I do not have an outside thermometer, but it could perhaps be some 10 degrees below freezing and a car standing outside the window of the computer room is having almost half a metre of snow on top of its roof.

Also could be mentioned that by means of the tabs now popping up, or being options for possible selections when using Chrome, I now am listening at the broadcast coming from www.space.com .

Here some interesting contents being available if your interest happens to be matching.

One thing being noticed was kind of a rambling, or perhaps a given lecture about a constellation in the sky with the name of Auriga.

Should really be familiar to most of you, because of the bright sky Capella, which is a close binary star, but only spectroscopically.

But next the way the name of the constellation is being spelled, or perhaps expressed.

Possibly "Paraphrase" could be a different word for this.

The woman, or female narrating the contents is making weight on the latter name in Auriga, including the letter "i".

Here I am not totally sure, but rather spelling it the same way as for example "celestial", could in fact suffice when it comes to me.

Do you perhaps do such a thing when it comes to the second "e" in this word?

If you happen to be an astrologer, rather than an astronomer, you could be familiar with the 12 constellations being part of the ecliptic, where the Moon and planets are typically located, next also could be having the name "Zodiac".

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

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

Therefore, if the Zodiac should be a word related to possible astrology, rather than astronomy, first of all I am not that familar with the subject of astrology itself.

I found the narration being a little to heavy here and could also be slightly more relaxed, although not necessarily slippery either.

How many constellations are totally being found in the celestial sky?

My guess, roughly 88 or so, but needs checking the fine list.

For now, I was rather thinking about the subject of the Zodiac in the context of a given astronomy, rather than a given astrology for such a thing, including those of horoscopes.

When next perhaps comparing that of astronomy and astrology, one could be tempted at making a similarity between that of a given science versus that of a given pseudoscience,
or perhaps even that of fusion versus cold fusion, as an example, which most likely could be proven true in the first case, but not the second.

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

The latter needs further checking.

This because I happen to switch among two different channels on my television set before returning back at the computer room.

One of the channels, but both national broadcasts, was showing a couple of people competing falling above chairs in a room, making it possibly funny.

Also some high-rised buldings visible in a follwoing scene, so probably an American production.

But rather the fact that I happened to give a couple of things a thought in the past and this was what I also was thinking about here.

Anyway, right now a little more about possible science versus a similar pseudoscience.

Should tell that being reminded about the end of the Death Star before the weekend made things a bit easier this time.

Thank you, my friend.

Next comparing that of fusion versus a similar cold fusion for such a thing.

Also noticing the fact that the words being initially keyed in are often the better ones.

When next possibly editing, it could end up losing its intended meaning.

Should also add that we also have a word like "guppi" for a couple of things and this is one of the things which could be happening here.

One of the main reasons for why this project, namely Seti@home is being carried out, or perhaps run, is in order to detect possible intelligence in nature, by means of a possible intelligent signal
coming from space.

Looking around for a precise explanantion of the word "intelligence", it could next be a bit hard and rather a given word like Central Intelligence could be found,
which is not the correct one.

By means of the Kardashev scale, a given level of intelligence could be measured by that of possible energy production versus that of energy consumption, meaning possible output.

A possible intelligent civilization could be detected around another star in the Milky Way by being able to detect a possible Dyson sphere around such a star.

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

Again, back to the possible similarity, or perhaps difference between that of astronomy and astrology.

Ufology could be a given subject and also those things which could be related to the possible physical versus that of the metaphysical.

For each one of these things, a given science could next be carried out and for each one of these, both different approaches, as well as explanations and could next be made.

The subject of ufology is not necessarily the same as that of neither Tarot cards, or that of astrology, but is perhaps believing in the existence of Dyson spheres in space perhaps a
better option or alternative in that of having a possible belief in either flying dishes, or perhaps "Little Green Men"?

Intelligence here on Earth could be possible represented or measured by means of a given Quotient, meaning that of having a I.Q.

A possible intelligence test being carried out could be a possible measure of a given intelligence on its own, including the given level for such an intelligence.

In contrast, we most likely still are left with the fact that a similar intelligence has still yet to be found outside of Earth, meaning space.

My guess is that there could be the fact that some people could believe that a given intelligence could be possibly found, or perhaps measured, by means of a given technology.

Other people could be left believing in either the spiritual, or possible metaphysical, where there could be also even more wordings or expressions for such a thing,
including that of a given pseudoscience, as mentioned.

At times, such a thing could be science, while at other times perhaps not.

Definitely neither Tarot cards, or even astrology, could at times be the same as possible Wormholes, or even that of a given apparition in the sky.

Needs a better wording above, because once again I am more or less blank when it comes to the subject.

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

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

The second link from the section "Supernatural".

This link for now, since I was thinking about possible events or phenomena in the sky here and really have not that much comparing with.

If there happens to be something which might go unexplained by means of science, is such a thing next perhaps possible pseudoscience?

Or are we once again back at a given Method in order to perhaps be able to explain such things and make it into a given context?

The possible apparition that I was thinking about right now could be showing white body, possibly slightly glowing, but next with something resembling arms stretching at angle towards the sky.

Remember the cross for the crucifixion of Jesus most likely a 90 degree angle, but here more likely some 45 degrees instead and also a different story.

Again, I was making a possible similarity between that of a possible Wormhole for such a thing, not necessarily that of a given spiritual interpretation of the whole meaning.

Both flying dishes, as well as the possible EBE (or Extraterrestrial Being) lying on the table could be given examples of a possible extraterrestrial presence, as well as such a thing as Wormholes and apparitions,
but who next are supposed to believe in such a thing?

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

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

Or perhaps rather Extraterrestrial Biological Entity above.

I have not read the article yet.

Why not rather such things as planets and stars instead, or maybe even the Command Ship of Darth Vader?

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

Finally, to next make a possible difference or separation between that of a given intelligence and that of a similar conscience, we could next be looking at the latter in order to perhaps explain or define
possible extraterrestrial intelligence.

Such things as both instincts and aggression could be part of the civilization of Earth, including its evolution.

But next what about such things as both Logic and deductive thinking, if we happen not to be dealing with the subject of that of Arithmetics and the like?

Is not such a thing as possible moral and deeds also a part of human society?

If we rather could be speaking or dealing with possible extraterrestrial intelligence, it could once again end up being about a possible conscience for such a thing.

But is it not the fact that the Bible could be speaking about both God as well as the Devil for a couple of things and if not a possible apparition in the sky, what next are we supposed to make of such a thing?

If not perhaps the Bible, we could be left with such stories about people having foreign tissue being removed from their bodies, or perhaps either having strange sounds in their ears, or possibly even strange dreams.

If the silly man for some reason could be able to tell that "I know what I saw", is such a thing a possible reason of perhaps believing in "Little Green Men".

Or could we still be back at the fact that nature at times could be having its own surprises in its sleeves and I next also told you a little more above.

More later.

I should have made it Extraterrestrial Biological Entity at first below.

But again, remember the cold outside and also the snow that came down here and I have to close the door in order to have the heater fan standing on the floor making the room comfortable.

Also it became a couple of good numbers from the other thing I choose to be doing here.

So, perhaps speaking about both Logic, as well as Arithmetic, I chose to briefly return back at both subjects, although perhaps that of Logic could be about the subject of Philosophy and next already discussed.

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

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

So, we are supposed to be having some five senses when it comes to a given perception.

This, because when mentioning apparitions earlier on, the word "Portal of Perceptions" became lost in my mind.

Again, my knowledge here is quite limited and therefore I happen to be open minded.

But next, why not perhaps give a thought about Erich von Däniken again and this time about the so-called Nazca lines in the Peruvian desert.

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

If for some reason you could be able at believing in such a thing as the Egyptian civilization, including that of the Pyramids of Giza and next believe that a couple of things could next be either believed,
or perhaps proven by means of the Scientific Method, or the similar, at least you could be able at getting at one given explanation for a given thing, but not necessarily the other.

Because of that you could still be ending up doing one given thing while you are supposed to be doing another and next could believe in a given method for the way of doing such a thing.

Not able to find the article using the English version of the Wikipedia, but rather the native version, the three educated men, having the names of Kaspar, Melchior and Balthasar, which in fact became something new.

Using the word "educated" here, because here I do not find the correct translation for the word.

In the same way as possible Religion itself, such a thing was likely not known before the birth of Jesus and therefore these three men were probably not spiritual men in any way.

But these three men came before both the Christmas star, as being portrayed, or perhaps depicted by the Bible and most likely was a supernova in the sky.

Again the old story perhaps about both atheists and agnostic most likely not believing in the story at all, but perhaps not the point.

Who happens to be using such words like "In the beginning", or the like?

Is it perhaps scientists, or is it rather theologists, or possibly scholars who choose to be using such a wording?

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

I possibly mentioned the old book unfortunately not in my possession, but once with my parents, which could have been written by an astronomer.

Is the subject of astronomy next perhaps the same as evolution and are you therefore supposed to be either an atheist, or agnostic, in order to appreciate the wonders of the sky?

Or is it possibly only because of the fact that you are supposed to be doing science when it comes to a couple of things?

If you could possibly could be able to prove such things as both neutron stars, as well as Black Holes, that is fine, but is it not the fact that we could still be left with possible speculation for a couple of
other things also being mentioned?

And also the fact that most likely we also discussed the way we should be dealing with such things as possible speculation and the like and the way in next to possibly proceed?

Make one thing for another and it could end up becoming a possible "tit for tat" when it comes to a given understanding, or perhaps meaning.

Take such a thing as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey as an example and also the knowledge that there are also big voids in space containing almost anything.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_(astronomy)

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

At least the latter link above is related to a Part of a series on Physical Cosmology, which seeks to give an understanding about the Universe, as well as its properties.

Next, perhaps the interesting question coming to my mind about that of both the Standard Model, as well as the Scientific Method and the way both of these could be related to that of the
Four Fundamental Forces of Nature, as being given.

Perhaps a quite important one, but I had not really given it a thought this way until now.

In order to be able to come up with a GUT (or Grand Unified Theory), you need to understand both the Universe, with the objects that are making it up, as well as also the Laws and Equations for its inner-working
and also the properties of the elementary particles which makes for both matter and energy and in such a way could be able to tell us about the Fundamental Forces of nature.

This, because as far as I am able to tell, the "Fundamental Forces of nature" when it comes to its word, is not only about the possible relationship between matter and energy as such, but perhaps even something more.

For now I do not have this in front of me and needs checking.

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

Keying in "Fundamental forces" using the Wikipedia and I am back with the word Interaction for this.

Should tell that things took a turn for the worse here today.

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

But came across this before finishing off yesterday.

This will be for a later time, but you probably know that we do not very much for certain or sure here.

This was also what I tried to point out yesterday as well.

Back later on when things have cooled down inside here and next feeling better.

Hi Sarah (who)

Should I perhaps add a question mark above for those of you possiby naive?

Yes, I know the endin above and also the possible idiot.

Read below for a further explanation-

Not working here as its should and next possibly could be told.

Hi Linda (before checking),

In fact big, or at least big trouble right now when it comrs to both editing and typing (of letters).

Unless so, or if it could otherwise matter, I was thinking about the selling of possible souls right now.

Make the spelling correct if you will, or perhaps wish, she is still suppsed to be a "hooker".

Not for the record this time either, but anyay.

Who is calling?