Really, because of the maker or creator of a possible picture, we choose to make such a thing "Intelligent Design".

And not a painting, that is.

And not some fool proof method or design which by means of possibly resisting water could be that of a product coming from possible extraterrestrials.

If, or by means of defining possible equations when it comes to given things, are scientists supposed to be placing or setting limits when it comes to given possibilities?

We definitely know about infinity.

We should know about such things like the Avogadro constant, or the equation E=mc2, not only because it offers or proves limitations, but also because it offers possibilities when it comes to the properties of nature?

Pour the bottle, if you will.

Define possible infinity and you also could define possible limits when it comes to such things.

When perhaps saying "such things" it becomes a possible addendum of sorts.

One thing for another, at least for the mouse being used and the keyboard as well.

You probably should know.

Neither Isaac, Jacob, or perhaps someone else is the one who is supposed to tidy up my flat, or make my room comfortable for living, as well as doing a couple of other things.

Enough said.

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

Possibly a page in editing here, or some other error.

Getting back at it.

The fact is that if I chose to challenge God, I possibly could be doing this here, but not necessarily by means of using a drake or kite, pretending to be Benjamin Franklin.

The fact is that for possible further development when it comes to a couple of things, we typically base our knowledge on already gained or obtained facts, regardless of whether or not these could be having any scientific value or not.

Therefore, be brave, pick up the kite and run into the wind, picking up either steam or possibly knowledge.

Make it your day, at least with the kites and next have a guess about what science is supposed to be all about.

Definitely not so when it comes to numbers at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk8CxK0SJu4

Fact or fiction?

Slipped my mind.

Possibly those paradoxes.

Should perhaps tell.

The concept of science could at times be about "Your world versus my world", either or at least when it comes to a possible perception, or state of mind if you will.

So it goes and the video should at least be watched.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk8CxK0SJu4

I already mentioned that this is a good one.

Hmm. Good stuff here.

More later.

Edit: Appreciated.

Is it not the fact that science, or perhaps carrying out it, sets no laws or borders at all or alone?

Getting such words like wormholes, time travel and words being heard or mentioned in your ear, what supposedly could be happening next?

Yes, yes, yes.

When possibly approaching the subject of God, it could be as as result of or because of a certain or given problem, possibly a physical one,

Make it time travel, including that of traveling through time, or even your great grandfather, if you will.

Or even paradoxes.

It is still supposed to be science and for such things like wormholes in spaces, there should be similar or corresponding laws or equations for such a purpose and not for or being meant for something else.

Yes, those tunnels being meant for a scientific purpose?

Slip my mind. Why post a couple of stupid or imaginary things when we know that the Space Shuttle Fleet is being grounded?

More from the video next.

...

And the same thing once again.

From the otherwise good video being mentioned.

Don't tell or perhaps "throw" science in my face.

Never.

Isaac Newton probably was not able to stand on the carpet and next have it pulled from his feet.

Look below for the link.

Sigh!

Quantum foam...

Getting back at it.

Edit: What is a possibility?

Giggle.

I will have a summary later on.

Or the drizzle or droplets possibly making up a YouTube video and next being heard or audible.

Right now I do not have it.

"Tears in the rain"?

Any suggestions welcome.

Prick, or ...

Again, the mentioed videos.

Yes, tick, or perhaps lay back and relax.

At least when listening in.

Is this supposed to be science, or is it it supposed to be any such?

Even the drums are not perfect all the times.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000878106707

My or only a suggestion here.

OK?

Or perhaps sticking with Genesis instead?

The problem is perhaps of dealing or "sticking" with the scienfitic issue, part or aspect when it comes to all of this.

Meaning Seti@home as a concept for a

Or perhaps think I am dumb while you are not.

Sigh!

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000878106707

Anyone better?

Perhaps a difference of opinion could be that of "difference of content" and not necessarily that of being, or perhaps opinion.

Here, being is perhaps not the best thing being said, though.

For a couple of other things I say or choose another way of wording.

Like factors, if you will.

You never are supposed where they should go.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000878106707

Slightly unfair perhaps, or if wou will, or and at least perhaps but at at least did not divide.

Giving it a try.

Ever heard about "Men in Black"?

...

Oh, strip off and still or next be an astronomer.

Well, sorts of.

Checking it out.

Anyway, seeing is believing.

Trust my numbers for the lack of anything else.

Too late to edit, including that of perhaps read and write.

Me or you perhaps, but is flying the kite any better than the possible results, if any, better wished for?

Looking for a table of sorts.

Important, I do not have it in front of me either.

Makes me do or make a kind of guesswork, of sorts, including the possible 13 digits score with a posssible 12 digit fit (or chi square) which needs added.

For some reason nature chooses to make white and blue out of things, rather than pink and scarlet.

Ever happened to hear the story about the mad scientist?

So it perhaps could go with a couple of people we otherwise could think of or believe could be scientists.

Anyway, could put it up.

But the problem, or rather fact is not that this is not about "Kiss me", but rather something else.

For the lack of perhaps understanding the Bethlehem star, or the similar, most people, including scientists, probably gives more time at heckling other possible scientists, in the hope that "Heck I belived, or perhaps understood",
but perhaps or not certainly when it comes to you.

...

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000878106707

Looking around, including possible "Dirty Harry" of sorts, at least I am thinking about this right now.

For now making any difference between the A and the C when it comes to possible melodies.

Or it rather is, could or should be such a thing by means of of a current interpretation of nature alone-

Possibly a different question being asked. Same question or response being aked or returned back telling me that I am an idiot.

So it goes.

Cam you?

If possibly so, I may not and this is my answer.

So it goes.

I am perhaps left to die.

What is the chance of any survival?

Geese, or luck - strikethrough of course.

Of course, meant as an endorsement of given facts since it could be either You or Me.

Any better?

Left to die.

Sigh!

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwQTVdbudIs[/url]

Probably or possibly only one way of life which makes such a thing being a game.

Please ask.

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

End comments if you take the time.

And not a couple of other silly words.

Giving a box of eggsalad a try here at 7 AM in the morning.

Adding a bit of salt, despite being enough coming throug the potato chip.

I have the Manager run at boot-up, but right now not running anything because of the mentioned problem with the computer.

Yet another abrupt shutdown right now and I lost a couple of factorization task, of which one is a well known one still lacking its factors.

But adding a P150 to my list, the answer to the big question is becoming a bit closer.

Same goes here as well, if I am not wrong.

Reading the Messages tab in the Manager, it reads "... about one method we use to figure out whether claimed ETI signals are legit".

Next the link to wired.com

That is in fact a quite good way of saying it.

We use the alphabet for speaking a language for communication and for reading purposes it becomes text.

Also music could be a way of communicating between people, but you may recall the somewhat strange question for a musician about whether he thought he was a good communicator.

If there ever was an answer to that question, I did not catch it, however.

The same goes with numbers as well, but possibly when it comes to their actual interpretation, there could perhaps be differences around.

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

Being able to understand each other when there happens to be a language barrier could be a big obstacle at times.

A possible alien knocking on my door and saying "hello" in person could be something else and this is not supposed to happen either.

If the definition of a narrowband signal is at least by means of its power and strength, we are probably back at the WOW signal for such a thing.

Next we are having the gaussian score as the possible best alternative or solution when it comes to at least detecting a possible intelligent signal.

Then it again becomes the intended meaning of it and whether or not a written note, or perhaps a spoken word should be of any meaning at all.

On the classic Seti web pages, http://seticlassic.ssl.berkeley.edu/
there is a comprehensive list of promising Gaussian candidates under the link Signal candidates.

Again, I do not think anyone are able at saying this much better, but this list probably is telling us that we most likely are not alone in space.

Definitely some things are science, while other things could be either entertainment, or possible speculation, including those secrets which are being kept behind close doors, or in vaults.

You may perhaps have had the time watching a couple of YouTube videos when using the computer for surfing.

When also including pictures of alien abductions, there could be room to believe that I am in fact looking at the real thing and that a possible intelligence coming our way from the Pleiades or the like could be a real fact.

Possible extraterrestrial craft being manned by human like entities could be a possibility, but if you happen to look at the Kardashev scale, we could be left to believe that even such entities are only Type I when it comes to their possible capabilities.

Look at possible earlier contents for a couple of views about the way intelligence possibly could be measured and how much simpler it is to be dealing with things that are known to be for real and therefore physical.

When using the word "real" here, this is because I want to specifically point at levels of technology, as well as that of knowledge and insight for this.

A couple of technological products in my possession could be hiding innovations inside which could be close to being marvels.

Especially this should go with the Samsung mobile phone, which for now is lacking a SIM card and therefore can not be used.

The Microsoft computer could possibly be set up with BOINC Manager and left to be run wirelessly. The network connection is built into the computer, but the speed is not the same as here.

Right now a little more about the Kardashev scale.

So if you rather choose to be using YouTube once again, it could perhaps become a possible acknowledgment that we are not alone in space, only because of these Gaussian candidate scores, as well as possibly a couple of others.

The four or five largest users here when it comes to total credit is having a such exceeding some 800 million.

That becomes a lot of tasks and workunits being returned since the original inception of the Seti program in 1999.

We either think or should believe that this is Radio Seti, because this search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence is by means of the detection of radio waves for further analysis when it comes to possible signs of intelligence.

Such a thing could also be carried out in a lab as well, using a microscope in order to detect bacteria and viruses.

Another way could be that of perhaps thinking that something could be spinning in the head, or that strange sounds could be heard.

Make science of it if you will, but nature is having many facets, of which not all are being readily understood or comprehended.

I guess it still is a more valid subject to detect and perhaps listen, rather than believe in those stories of alien abductions, or even alien autopsies.

Even when it comes to this, the Military aspect is not being mentioned.

At times we are supposed to either believe, or perhaps listen at stories related to the recovery of crashed alien saucers, or craft, which next are becoming reversed engineered in order to gain knowledge about their functionality.

Even the best or most sophisticated computer is a technological product and therefore a creation by humans.

But also we should know the fact that a Chess Computer recently beat Word Chess Champion Garry Kasparov during a game of this.

Here the computer won because it had been learnt, but not necessarily trained.

I know a bit of Chess myself, but not all of it and it is a long time since the last game of Chess.

If the possible outcome is either that of winning, or perhaps losing, it could still become a draw.

Here there are a couple of options as well.

Should you go on the attack, or should you perhaps go on the defence?

If Little Green Men, or even aliens or extraterrestrial beings could behind the wheels of those alien craft and next paying us a visit at times, we probably should be able to know.

Any signals perhaps being detected or heard could be that of perhaps telling that we are now either coming, or perhaps going, but if so, could such a message be meant for us, or rather someone else?

Possibly still an open question left unanswered.

Scientists could be left to becoming possible victims of hype or criticism at times for their values, ideas, or observations.

Once again we should be reminded of the way we are supposed to be told that all of this is true, namely the declaration of the fact that we are not alone in space.

If such a declaration should exist, or at least its formulation, I would be happy to know.

It could be found somewhere, but right now I do not know of any such document or declaration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWskU074478

I probably will be broke soon, at least when it comes to the RAC.

Starting adding my factor list to the Factor Database, some factors are already known, while others became added.

Starting with a P10, right now has added everything I have up to and including the P130 factors.

Reminds me that the small factor by its list should also be added as well.

With a couple of problems, I earlier had a brush of cold when the current partition did not want to boot.

I ran the boot-up recovery or diagnosis option and also selected the System Restore option this time.

This apparently has blown away a couple of things when it comes to software installations, but except for the possible total failure, I most likely should be quite well off.

Also an update from nVidia which I chose to install after first booting through safe mode and next only choosing to have the System Services running.

Launching msconfig from the DOS prompt is still an easy way of getting access to a couple of things, but since a couple of things did not come with Windows 7 at the start, I use previously gained experience from Windows XP
when these tools become available with Windows Ultimate.

I guess it should read msconfig.exe for the above file.

Starting up Windows only with the System Services gave me no web access.

Therefore it took some 20 minutes to determine why a given process had not been launched which was necessary.

Therefore things have definitely become quite complex and I probably should know since I happened to try this out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWskU074478

I also watched this today.

It is a better one and possibly one of a total of three in a series.

The nVidia GeForce Experience, which is an application coming with the Control Panel for the same, offers a couple of links or similar access to videos which could be played either directly, or by means of YouTube.

An initial look around and there is a video showing a meeting between the Pope and a high ranking Orthodox priest, or the similar.

No pun intended, but the Pope chose to sit down in the chair first without first saying please, or using his hand for a gesture.

This could either be just a practical thing, or possibly the fact that the discussion will be continuing and the same goes with the dinner.

Nothing more, but for now I do not find that clip again.

One thing on my mind when watching the above video which was linked is that of perhaps reaching a common ground when it comes to possible interests.

Alligators and similar reptiles are not that much interesting to all.

The same goes with possible numbers, even though some could represent prime numbers or factors, while other could be that of a possible Seti@home score.

Our daily lives, including those of possible problems, could at times be explained or perhaps met by means of kind of a scientific approach.

Not necessarily about stomach problems either, but if we ever chose to be talking about "a lot of galaxies", this subject is already having its own thread in Science (non-Seti).

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

Not a very good example here, but probably what I was thinking about.

If the world happens to be changing all the time, we probably know why this is happening and next we probably are looking at a couple of things in order for a possible explanation.

Every 4 years we are having a leap year, except for the even centennial years like 1700, 1800 and 1900, which are not divisible by 400 (and not 4).

Such a thing is not a coincidence at all, but rather a given fact.

Therefore being possible able to determine whether or not a given concept being related to science is a subset or part of another, could be of possible advantage or benefit.

Here I am speaking about possible different contexts by its possible meaning when it relates to another given thing.

One example.

The Heissenberg Uncertainty Principle probably is not part of the Standard Model of Physics.

The same probably goes with both Special and General Theory as being given by Albert Einstein.

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

Same goes here.

This is not the same as the Uncertainty Principle either and in any case, or matter, where does this principle fit into the Standard Model of Physics?

One way of perhaps understanding nature is that of perhaps believing in a possible God as being the creator of everything.

Perhaps one way of dealing with possible truths is that of renunciation or a similar denial when it comes to a couple of things, either because it does not fit the larger picture, or in fact is not correct.

When Jesus was being crucified and left to slowly die, he may possibly have made such a renunciation or denial, according to the books.

Charles Darwin, in a similar way is speaking of "fitness for a given purpose".

Next, are we supposed to perhaps asking what such a fitness could be all about?

If possible renunciation or denial could be having a possible theological meaning, the same would most likely not be the same when it comes to the way science is supposed to be carried out.

At times validity of numbers could become a question, or if not so, a similar thing when it goes to individual users.

The possible user returning some 1000 individual tasks all in error should be thought of or viewed as a silly or dumb user.

Next should be the same when it comes to possible computing capabilities.

For one thing a possible result could be thrown out because it becomes marked as invalid, or some other error became the result.

We probably are unable to make any similar flaws when it comes to a possible scientific knowledge, or perhaps the way we are supposed to be told a couple of things.

If a dealer of cards in a game of poker for some reason "flips", the cards most likely are still being dealt, but what about the rest of it?

History probably may not be rewritten or undone.

Did perhaps George Washington become the first President of the United States because the rules had already been written for such a thing?

Or did it rather happen because of rather such a thing like a Coincidence, or some random event which most likey is not related to that of Evolution at all.

"Don't tell me the rules of the game".

Possible words or the like by Harrison Ford.

Even such things like Moral, Justice and Law is having its possible drawbacks.

Are you able to make possible "absolutes" of a couple of things, only because you could make similar "Laws", or rather Equations of such a thing?

What about possible "Principles"?

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

Does such a thing give a possible better explanation?

Probably needs a little more here, but not by me here.

Definitely science is still dumb.

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

Edit: Methodology once again.

And of course you are not still supposed to believe in any God.

---

Meryl Streep.

Sigh!

The name of the actress finally came back to me and I am not familiar with that story at all.

Dynasty perhaps, featuring Jason Robards.

No.

Or perhaps the subject of "Left to die"?

Ideologies.

Or perhaps Armageddon, for the lack of any else or better.

Possible silly users, or the results being returned by their computers.

Most such things probably fits a given purpose, like "Men in Black" and for that reason we are supposed to believe what science is all about and not necessarily a game of Poker alone.

Place a single bullet in a pistol and next turn it against your head and you most likely would stand one chance only.

Namely that of death and next perhaps guess why it it is so, or happens to be true.

Probability, as a subject, could be a possible continuation, or extension of that of Logic, which is dealing with matters being true versus those not being so, meaning false.

Logic and semantics are not the same thing, but if given or defined as being individual, or separate contexts, they make up one part of a whole.

This thing which could be the whole part, is most likely not particle physics alone, or even matters related to religion and faith, for which there is probably no given answer to.

A possible answer of the meaning of God by means of its existence possibly only could be interpreted by means of the subject of religion and faith alone.

Because of that, we are supposed to believe what the subject is all about as well.

For now we probably are left with the Standard Model of Physics, because a couple of things more likely are more easily understood or comprehended in this way, rather than a possible different way.

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

The fact is that most people hesitate or are reluctant of a possible God being a representative or open hand when it comes to that of carrying out science.

Our lives happen to be mostly "Flesh and blood" and if not so, perhaps rather "Men in Black".

Science is not supposed to be about possible "Ideologies" either, but at times we could be "striving" for a possible result, only to next know that it all became in vain.

Perhaps I should return back at the start when it comes to all of this.

So, when rewinding the mentioned YouTube clip.

The rules and equations of Albert Einstein does not tell about possible facts versus that of specualation, or vice versa.

When speaking about a possible Theory when it comes to a given thing, it next becomes possible speculation as well, because such a thing happens to be part of science.

If you happen to be an astronomer of sorts, but not necessarily for living, but rather of interest, you could be left at guessing or assuming that certain or given parts of science are not relevant, or perhaps is not meeting or having a general interest.

The equations of Einstein quite firmly states that time travel into the future is not a possibility.

Why next make a movie of the complete thing?

Read my lips.

One friendly contributor to the field of science, for which I right now do not have the name is speaking of "Evidence for the lack of it", of sorts.

To some scientists, Pluto is not a planet.

Where is the correct definition of this?

A term, name, or possible designation could be that of "Portal of Heavens".

What do you make of such a thing?

Is it perhaps the DNA in your blood, or perhaps cells, or could it rather be part of a given perception and next being on your mind?

Definitely science could be about possible "fallibles" at times, because you probably know where it could break, or possibly make.

If it for some reason should perhaps make rather than break, is it still supposed to be science?

Possible "fallibles" could in fact be that of "make and break" and if not so, are we next supposed to make religion of it, because such a thing could perhaps fit our purposes even better?

Edit:

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWskU074478

I am back at the Kardashev scale here when it comes to a couple of given things.

This scale is not about neither "Little Green Men", or perhaps a couple of things known to be flying around.

Should it perhaps be "Collective Evolution" as being defined by Facebook, or could it perhpas be something else?

Such things or tools like Logic, Methodology and the like only becomes tools for the useage or employment by scientists for a given purpose.

We may not even be speaking about such things as neither "Logic", or even "Fallibles" at times, because such a thing does not necessarily meet or fit a given purpose, or perhaps gives an answer at all.

Music at times is having its pearls when it comes to possible contents.

Science, on the other hand is supposed to be about the "Truth Method" and for such a thing we are supposed to be applying given Logic.

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

I guess we probably or most likely are back at the same question when it comes to a couple of things.

Namely that of silly users and that of running given tasks.

Perhaps I already made up my mind.

Yes, those "supposed" and "assumed" when it comes to possible wording.

Guess it becomes "infallibles".

Or perhaps I rather should be checking in with "Christian Science Monitor" instead.

My stuck hands is making things a misery.

Continuing the factor upload, the P118 and larger became on two separate lines or more because of the previous monitor.

Everything needs to be formatted into a single or continous line with the usual carriage return at the end.

Here is the small problem being noticed, at least when it comes to Notepad.

For readability, sentences or paragraphs here are separated with a blank line, but this in fact means entering carriage return two times.

I notice this when working on this and also make a guess that this is being worked on as well.

Things got much better, but probably there is still one or two things left before it gets perfect.

The little more sad note is that even though you could make a guess or speculate whether or not such things like Black Holes happen to exist in space, it could still become either desktop work, or perhaps philosophical thinking coming from the mind.

My best guess is that at least Albert Einstein was not an astronomer, so therefore we probably should better trust Dr. Eric Korpela when it comes to telling about a couple of things.

I remember from my childhood entering the cinema and next watching a movie which possibly could be having the title "Solaris", or the like.

I was definitely too young, but I recall a large male sitting in front of me, giving a big laugh at a couple of things.

Possibly this was the writer from the local newspaper.

So, if that is not the whole answer, I also recall the books standing in the shelf with my grandparents.

Here the planet Neptun was a completely white dish in a black and white picure.

Next you are supposed to believe in Mars as being the "red planet", only because of this appearance when being viewed in a telescope.

My guess is that it could be quite a bit of green as well, but does such a thing necessarily give an indication of possible life on the surface of the planet?

In fact we probably should know right now, because of the missions to Mars in recent years, including both little Sojourner, as well as Curiosity, which is almost a complete lab on its own.

Remember the famous words "We choose to go to the Moon, not because it is simple, but because it is hard".

The first part perhaps being repeated, or stated twice.

Next you are supposed to be doing such a thing before even a processor like the Zilog Z80 became introduced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zilog_Z80

Needs a link on its own in my opinion, because this was a processor that was ahead of its time.

Only beaten by the Intel 8088 and 8086, the latter came into my possession.

We are left to believe that societies are technology driven and that both knowledge and possible intelligence is coming along side by side with such innovations.

We next could be asking ourselves what could possibly happen if we chose to be doing one such a thing rather than the other.

Galileo Galilei was able to discover the four moons of Jupiter in 1610 using the newly invented telescope.

Was this because he was a scientist, or did this happen because he was either a scholar, or perhaps a theologist?

The Stone Age man probably could be giving a thought about his whereabouts when finished for the day and next relaxing at the fire.

The Vikings probably did not think about things in a similar way.

My guess is that even such a thing like Theology as being a subject gets slightly lost in a world of materialism and technology.

If it still is not about such things, we are left to science to perhaps explain a couple of things.

If for some reason life and death itself is having a possible meaning which could be different than something else, we most likely should be dealing with such a thing in a similar context.

For this you probably still do not need such things like "Portal of Conceptions", or the like, because such a thing most likely is not part of the science we are seeking to give an explanation for.