x
Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#4164 - anonexplains (02/18/2015) [-]
This board is shit.
#4162 - huchkizz (02/18/2015) [-]
This movie is really pissing me off
User avatar #4163 to #4162 - tarfyki (02/18/2015) [-]
is that that time travel movie?
User avatar #4165 to #4163 - huchkizz (02/18/2015) [-]
No, it's from I, Frankenstein from last year.

Apparently it only takes "15.000 joules of current" to resurrect a couple of dozen people.
User avatar #4174 to #4165 - nimba (02/19/2015) [-]
Frankenstein never used electricity to reanimate shit, it's a misconception of a reference to a spark of ingenuity.
User avatar #4166 to #4165 - tarfyki (02/18/2015) [-]
well, i don't really know much about restarting human hearts, and i have never seen that movie or even know what its about so i'm not really any help in this situation
User avatar #4167 to #4166 - huchkizz (02/18/2015) [-]
My biggest problem is that they use the measurement of joule when speaking of current.
That, and you need a fuckton of joule to really do anything atall.
User avatar #4168 to #4167 - tarfyki (02/18/2015) [-]
yeah, i didn't think they used joules for that. Don't they use amps? Like ranging from 50-350 increasing each time or something like that?
User avatar #4170 to #4168 - huchkizz (02/18/2015) [-]
The correct unit of current is indeed amps, yes. (Or ampere depending on where you're from)

What I've read, current isn't even the factor that matters.
Standard defibrillators deliver a shock of ~1000 volts. It says nothing about the current.
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defibrillation
User avatar #4171 to #4170 - tarfyki (02/18/2015) [-]
Either way, It'd be nice if "scientific" movies actually did research on what they are trying to do rather than just pull shit out of their ass like they always do
#4211 to #4171 - anonexplains (02/23/2015) [-]
lol, you didn't catch 'the neutrinos have mutated' from 2014, have you?
User avatar #4212 to #4211 - tarfyki (02/23/2015) [-]
was it a movie or event? Either way, no i didn't
#4147 - tsoper (02/18/2015) [-]
Can we implement the human brain into robots?

I mean we have robotic arms that are able to be controlled by the nerves at the shoulder. A similar thing should be possible for the entire body, correct?

We would be able to live forever this way, or at least until the brain starts deteriorating, which if we manage to get more advance, we can maintain it by constant repairing it.

Speaking of which, do you believe we can ever accomplish artificial intelligence at the same level or smarter than humans? Scientifically its possible because our brain works similar to a computer. The nerves send electrical impulses like how circuits send electricity to make the computer function.

Yes, the computer may be 100x slower, but given the fact it will by far outsmart us in numerous areas like knowledge (since it can shuffle through millions of databases off google), i think it may find a way to make itself faster and better. Or possibly a way to replicate the human mind and make a brain with metalic material instead of cells, or maybe even cells and start growing new cells to replace the old ones.

This is not fiction folks, it can be done because our brains are proof that its already been done.
Imagine a day when you can clone and grow a brain by itself. Or merge 2 human brains together. Or reconstruct a brain of someone that recently died to preserve all their memories and knowledge, almost as a way to reincarnate them but as a different person.
User avatar #4175 to #4147 - nimba (02/19/2015) [-]
Here's a philosphical point; it may already have happened
User avatar #4195 to #4175 - tsoper (02/19/2015) [-]
elaborate.
User avatar #4200 to #4195 - nimba (02/20/2015) [-]
It's essentially cartesian, there is no way that we could test whether or not this universe we experience is a computer simulation with AI representing us. Like the matrix but our 'real' body never existed.
There's also this:
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/12/physicists-universe-simulation-test-university-of-washington-matrix_n_2282745.html
#4201 to #4200 - tsoper (02/21/2015) [-]
Oh yea, I thought about that more than once.    
   
The thing is, I believe it would be statistically impossible for that to even occur, and it still raises the question if they are computer generated as well. It's more likely that every atom within this boundless Universe is actually produced by a paradox that would inverse on itself endlessly.   
   
The big bang happened, but it happened a billion times before. Technically speaking, a linear time doesnt exist because there was no starting point or ending point, it's all in a huge circle that goes around. We could be collapsing on ourselves as we are expanding, going into a little point and back out again.
Oh yea, I thought about that more than once.

The thing is, I believe it would be statistically impossible for that to even occur, and it still raises the question if they are computer generated as well. It's more likely that every atom within this boundless Universe is actually produced by a paradox that would inverse on itself endlessly.

The big bang happened, but it happened a billion times before. Technically speaking, a linear time doesnt exist because there was no starting point or ending point, it's all in a huge circle that goes around. We could be collapsing on ourselves as we are expanding, going into a little point and back out again.
User avatar #4153 to #4147 - sugoi (02/18/2015) [-]
Not yet with our technology.
Sure it might be possible later on, heck I think it's pretty likely it'll happen later on but right now we just don't have enough shit figured out.
User avatar #4137 - beatmasterz (02/17/2015) [-]
Do quantum laws apply to normal scale? Why/why not?
#4145 to #4137 - anonexplains (02/18/2015) [-]
> The "normal scale", or classical mechanics which govern our normal scale of things, can be seen as the emergent properties of quantum mechanics. So they apply in a sense that the normal scale is dependent on QM, but the laws that govern QM do not apply at the macroscopic level.
There are a number of ways to explain why not but i'll give you an example.
> Using a light source (photons) and the double-slit experiment, you see photons behave as both a wave and a particle. Enlarge the size of the experiment to where you are throwing baseballs at two slits in a wall. Obviously, the baseballs going through the slit in a wall do not behave the same as the particles of light in the double-slit experiment, but why? Well, size is a key issue, but more specifically, the many particles in the baseballs are "entangled" and the quantum state of the particles cannot be described independently, so you deal with the system as a whole.
0
#4146 to #4145 - lolpandas has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #4138 to #4137 - nimba (02/17/2015) [-]
Not an expert but I believe they do, it's just at normal scales Newtonian physics are an easier estimation. Einsteinian physics are closer to the truth, but Newtonian is kept around because it's nicer to work with at mundane scales.
User avatar #4142 to #4138 - beatmasterz (02/17/2015) [-]
I have no idea what all that means.
User avatar #4134 - beatmasterz (02/17/2015) [-]
If causality is true, doesn't that mean the future is already predetermined?
User avatar #4135 to #4134 - sugoi (02/17/2015) [-]
Not really because the cause for the events in the future hasn't happened yet and the causes can change.
User avatar #4136 to #4135 - beatmasterz (02/17/2015) [-]
The causes could theoretically be calculated and the outcome as well.
User avatar #4144 to #4136 - sugoi (02/18/2015) [-]
You could theoretically consume your own asshole and live forever, doesn't really mean much when you can't achieve it in reality now does it?

And not really considering all the random variable you're not taking into consideration, every time someone rolls a dice in a game of DnD, every time someone buys a lottery ticket with random numbers, how could you calculate this and the outcomes?
User avatar #4148 to #4144 - beatmasterz (02/18/2015) [-]
Rolling dices and flipping coins depends on the way you throw it, wind resistance all that shit. Could theoretically be predicted.
User avatar #4149 to #4148 - sugoi (02/18/2015) [-]
Great you've got dices and flipping coins theoretically figured out.
What about randomly generated lotto tickets?
User avatar #4150 to #4149 - beatmasterz (02/18/2015) [-]
Generated with computers that can't be random.
User avatar #4151 to #4150 - sugoi (02/18/2015) [-]
Why would they have non-randomized numbers for a lotto?
Why would they want everyone to win?
Why would you even suggest this when you're supposed to prove that you can calculate and predict a random event?
User avatar #4152 to #4151 - beatmasterz (02/18/2015) [-]
They're not random as in they use complex formulas to determine a number. The rest of your questions are strawmen.
User avatar #4154 to #4152 - sugoi (02/18/2015) [-]
Do you even know what straw man is?
I haven't set you up as an imaginary target and portrayed you as an idiot ranting to make you an easier target, I'm asking simple questions. Granted the first two were rhetorical and more questions as to why what you saw would even occur.

You're the one trying to state as a fact that randomly generated lotto numbers are not random. All I want you to do is to tell me how you would predict a random event while using lotto numbers as an example. You say they use complex fomulas to generate these numbers but are you aware there is a hardware random number generator that theoretically and you just love that word is completely random and unpredictable?
User avatar #4155 to #4154 - beatmasterz (02/18/2015) [-]
People in the gaming world often ask if the results that random number generators (RNGs) produce really random? There are those who question how do these RNGs work. But if you go down and dirty with the details of generating and programming an RNG our average player will have to take a crash course in programming. But not everyone has time to study the really dark details of RNGs. At best we can ask if RNGs are really reliable and honest.

There are actually three types of RNGs that we'll usually stumble upon. The first one is the truly random RNG, next is the quasi-random RNG, and finally we have the pseudo-random RNG.

Truly random RNGs really produce unpredictable sequences in which we will not find any patterns at all. The only drawback to these truly random RNGs is the fact that they just can't be used in every day life. Truly random results can only be generated using a phenomenon that naturally occurs in nature. An example of this is the decay of isotopes which can be recorded and fed to a computer and thus producing a truly random RNG.

When one initially studies how to make an RNG, a wannabe programmer will initially use textbook algorithms to produce an RNG. What this simply means is taking the simplest set of logical instructions that can be given to a computer and then produce a quasi-random RNG. The problem with quasi-random RNGs is that they tend to show a pattern in the results.

Let's say you measure the results of a quasi-random RNG when it mimics dice rolls. At first it would seem to produce random results. But that will usually fall in the short term, but by measuring the results in the long run you will then see patterns arise in the sequence of dice rolls the RNG produces. This isn't totally reliable if you're going to use it to produce games like backgammon, blackjack, or roulette since people can find a way to guess the results made by the RNG.

What we have today is a compromise between these two RNG models and have come up with what is called a pseudo-RNG. These are by far the most widespread model used today. Statistics show that the results made by this type of RNG is statistically independent. Tests also show that they are produce uniformly distributed results. Thus we now have RNGs that can be used day to day.

Today's RNGs are subjected to statistical tests to check if they produce results that are up to standard. That includes a certain percentage of the results should let players win. The percentage of wins varies from state to state (e.g. required 75% to 90% winnings).

In the end it is all a matter of trust knowing that random number generators are subjected to routine testing and that they are certified to comply with standards set by the law.
User avatar #4156 to #4155 - sugoi (02/18/2015) [-]
GJ copy pasting but that doesn't answer my question, in fact it just supports my argument.
There are still random elements in reality that can not be predicted (the True random RNGs) and therefore you cannot calculate the cause therefore no effect therefore the future is not predetermined.
User avatar #4157 to #4156 - beatmasterz (02/18/2015) [-]
Guess that's a matter of opinion. I think radioactive decay isn't random, you think it is. It's not like we can prove it with the current technology.
User avatar #4158 to #4157 - sugoi (02/18/2015) [-]
The place you copy pasted from says it is random and you have no evidence to prove it isn't random. Are you seriously not believing it just because it proves you wrong? Scientists around the world can't figure it out to the point where they are using the decay or radioactive isotopes for RNGs and you still think they can be predicted?

You have nothing to prove it is predictable except "a matter of opinion" which isn't worth much considering it brings literally nothing to the table, unless you have some sort of evidence to prove it isn't random then you've got nothing.

But hey at least you can fall back on the "it's not like we can prove it with the current technology" yeah sure man just fall back on the maybe we'll find evidence it's not random in the future so let's just pretend that's the case now.

User avatar #4159 to #4158 - beatmasterz (02/18/2015) [-]
I used the RNG article solely to prove you wrong on the lottery thing by showing you how RNG works. Scientists can't figure out a bunch of things yet, doesn't mean they don't exist. Higgs Boson was a theory too a few years ago which couldn't be proven, and now it has.

So yes it is a matter of debate because our technology hasn't reached that fat (yet). Just like it's a matter of debate whether god exists, what happened before the big bang etcetera.
User avatar #4160 to #4159 - sugoi (02/18/2015) [-]
Yes because copy pasting information instead of I don't know paraphrasing and leaving a link to the source is how you get your point across.

As of right now I am correct and you are wrong, until you prove otherwise this will remain the case, this is how the world works. We work with what we got until we got something better to work with, right now it's pretty clear there are random events in the world that are completely unpredictable and until you prove otherwise they will remain completely unpredictable.

I'm not saying that the possibility of them being predictable is zero, simply that arguments are won with proof and evidence and so far you've only provided evidence in my favor showing that there are what people consider True RNGs in existence and these "people" are chumps talking shit on the internet like you and me, these people are scientists who have spent years of their lives studying this kinda thing.

Point being until you can prove otherwise then randomness exists, not all causes can be calculate therefore not all events can be predicted and thus the future is not predetermined.

Don't mistake this for me being smug or refusing to be wrong, I'd gladly admit the future is predetermined if only you'd provide some kinda substantial evidence for it. So far your argument is just "we can't prove it's NOT the X so therefore it must be the X!" You state your first statement #4134 as fact yet that's all you have for evidence and that simply isn't enough.
User avatar #4161 to #4160 - beatmasterz (02/18/2015) [-]
I wasn't even trying to argue with you because I lack sufficient knowledge about the subject. And yes if this was an official debate you'd be right but it isn't and I'm just saying what I'm thinking. It's more convenient for science to assume true RNG exists because we lack the technology to prove otherwise.
User avatar #4139 to #4136 - nimba (02/17/2015) [-]
It's mechanistic determinism and it argues that free will is an illusion. But you then have to factor that you may change your behaviour in relation to that and second guess yourself. Now whether that second guessing is also determined mechanistically is speculation. We can't know whether something was destined or not because we don't have access to a universe where the other option was taken.
User avatar #4143 to #4139 - beatmasterz (02/17/2015) [-]
Guess that's true. And with scientific goggles we probably don't have free will.
User avatar #4128 - luigipimp (02/16/2015) [-]
doesnt showering take away all the pheromones?
User avatar #4132 to #4128 - sugoi (02/17/2015) [-]
And then they come back.
User avatar #4133 to #4132 - luigipimp (02/17/2015) [-]
i think even though i reduced my time in the shower by 30 mins to like 10 i might still be washing away a lot. idk how but im not getting enough
User avatar #4114 - spartusee (02/15/2015) [-]
I was wondering if I could get some help with this math problem, I can't even put it into words.

You need to login to view this link
0
#4115 to #4114 - malimrav has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #4116 to #4115 - malimrav (02/15/2015) [-]
Also, what part you don't understand I don't really know what I should be explaining.
User avatar #4117 to #4116 - malimrav (02/15/2015) [-]
My bad, sin(30) is 1/2. So final solution is 3/2
User avatar #4118 to #4117 - spartusee (02/15/2015) [-]
I don't understand how to add tangent and sign. I know how to convert radians to degrees.
User avatar #4119 to #4118 - malimrav (02/15/2015) [-]
You just calculate their value and add that.
tan(pi/4) = tan(45) = 1
sin(30) = sin(pi/6) = 1/2

final solution is 1 + 1/2 = 3/2
User avatar #4120 to #4119 - spartusee (02/15/2015) [-]
Okay so you take the opposite of the value given, I mean if it gives radians you turn it into degrees and vice versa, and then you calculate it and add them?
This is a big help by the way.
User avatar #4122 to #4120 - malimrav (02/15/2015) [-]
Well it's not necessary to do radian to degree or degree to radian conversions, I just wrote them out so you can see that they have the same value. If you do a lot of math you just know those values. Try to draw a circle and see where those values would be by definitions of sin and tan. I always do that in my head if I can't remember exact values.
User avatar #4121 to #4120 - spartusee (02/15/2015) [-]
Ok I think I got it, thanks.
User avatar #4111 - luigipimp (02/14/2015) [-]
why does my right heal hurt all the time now, it cracks like when you crack your knuckles when i move it a certain way and i tried dr schols
User avatar #4108 - phoenixforger (02/12/2015) [-]
If I were to start trying to learn basic robotics, where might I start? I'm not really looking for kits or lego machines, but building mechanical robots from the ground up. Book, website, and video recommendations would be greatly appreciated.
User avatar #4109 to #4108 - lolpandas (02/13/2015) [-]
ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/

MIT open courseware is a great source and they have the text and video lectures on a bunch of stuff. Basics of programming and circuits is a good place to start.
User avatar #4106 - weaponexplain (02/12/2015) [-]
I've had 4 exams and 3 lab reports so far this week. Sleep is for the week.
User avatar #4110 to #4106 - skoldpaddacommala (02/13/2015) [-]
yes, sleep for a week.
User avatar #4096 - magicpotato (02/12/2015) [-]
Anyone else an advocate for breeding control? like you must pass a child care test before you can have a kid or it is seized by the state and re issued to another family. Day-care providers have to go through college to tend to children so why don't irresponsible parents have to do so? also i believe that humanity is overpopulating the world, so one kid per family, with severe punishments per extra kid. i am willing to hear any rational minded people willing to discuss this with me. not argue, discuss politely like the gentlemen that we are.
User avatar #4101 to #4096 - sugoi (02/12/2015) [-]
Oh my god that wrong on so many levels. But let's look through your points.

-Must pass a child care test or child is seized by the state.
You are taking a "guilty until proven innocent" stance on parenting which is pretty dumb in itself, however the bigger problem lies in the psychological damage you're going to afflict these children. You are literally making generations of adopted children and everyone in the world knows that is a bad thing.

Plus you say you will just "issue to another family" but you are simply assuming that there will be more people who passed the test than those that who not, when this system is put in place there is be a large difference in favour of "not passed" or rather "not done" the test, are you just going to kidnap children?

-Day-care providers have to go through college why not parents?
Because parents aren't caring for a large volume of children, generally they care for 1 or 2 not 15 at the same time. Not to mention parents have their own parents to ask for help, Day-care providers have no backup, if they have no idea what to do there is no one to ask for help but google which is what a parent with no experience would do anyway.

-I believe humanity is overpopulating the world.
This is an assumption on your part that you are trying to play off as fact. It's true our population is growing but there is no indication we are overpopulating the world, there is so much land out there that are still completely uninhabited, there is still room for expansion.

-One kid per family with sever punishments per extra kid
You know who already did this? China. You know what's happening now? A severe population decline.
www.indexmundi.com/china/age_structure.html

This graph is supposed to look like a pyramid, very wide at the bottom and thin at the top. Right now it's a weird bi-convex shape which means there will be a very large amount of retired old people living off a pension while the government isn't getting enough money from people working.

You're just going to fuck-up the economy.

And I want you to realize that for the sake of objectivity I've left out moral arguments like say human rights abuse.
User avatar #4112 to #4101 - magicpotato (02/14/2015) [-]
thanks for your input, im actually writing a paper for a scholarship, i don't believe that shit, i was just too lazy to come up with arguments on my own.
User avatar #4113 to #4112 - sugoi (02/15/2015) [-]
oooh that's sneaky +1 for you.
User avatar #4099 to #4096 - lolpandas (02/12/2015) [-]
I think it's an extreme solution that circumvents the issues.

• Prying into the reproductive habits of a married couple is an issue all on its own, but a testing system would hardly be perfect in my opinion. It would prove someone is good at studying and taking a test, which would hardly qualify someone to be a good parent. If you pushed it further and made it an in depth screening process which could include things like income, occupation, intelligence, genetics, psych eval. etc, it would greatly improve the system but you would then have a whole bunch of different issues that you would be challenged with. I also don't think you can prove someone is going to be a bad parent so it would be unjust to force. A safer bet would be greatly improved child safety services that routinely inspect the child's situation, but then parents would probably object to having their parenting methods evaluated routinely.
• I think if we follow the trend that we have been seeing in developed nations, overpopulation won't be an issue, but I like to remain optimistic in that. Better off families don't seem to want many kids while families in poverty cling onto that survival instinct to reproduce for the benefit of the family. Also, it's been observed that the societies with longer life expectancy's reproduce at a lower rate. As society advances and we get other nations caught up, birthrates should slow down. I also advocate easy access of birth control because when given the choice, most unwanted pregnancies wouldn't occur meaning more resources to go around and less pissed off impoverished people with too many kids.
User avatar #4095 - emppilaf (02/12/2015) [-]
Tell me something sciency!!!
User avatar #4107 to #4095 - tarfyki (02/12/2015) [-]
A whale's penis is called a "dork"
User avatar #4104 to #4095 - gmarrox (02/12/2015) [-]
If you took every electron it took for you to post this comment and convert each one into a single woman, you still wouldn't be getting laid.
User avatar #4105 to #4104 - emppilaf (02/12/2015) [-]
Best reply out of all the replies..
#4103 to #4095 - anonexplains (02/12/2015) [-]
5.3% of the air you are breathing right now is literally shit
User avatar #4102 to #4095 - sugoi (02/12/2015) [-]
If you take some shit dirt dirt with shit in it , pour in some water, and filter it, the filtered water can then be evaporated to produce saltpeter crystals.

"cooking" logs in a relatively air-tight less oxygen is good but no oxygen means no fire location can create charcoal.

Sulphur can be found around volcanoes, it is yellow and smell a a bit like farts. When lit on fire it turns into a liquid state and changes colour into a blood red.

Mixing these 3 ingredients at the ration of 100:18:16 (Saltpeter:Charcoal:Sulphur) produces gunpowder.
#4089 - anonexplains (02/11/2015) [-]
✡ Believe in God in 5 Minutes (Scientific Proof)
User avatar #4091 to #4089 - tarfyki (02/11/2015) [-]
Not proving or disproving this, but just a few points.

1. This goes off the assumption that time is linear
2. Doesn't bring up the theory of a cyclical existence (a universe much like this one ended, causing this one to begin)
3.This is taking a scientific version of a "god" rather than a religious one making it only technically correct rather than indisputable
#4090 to #4089 - anonexplains (02/11/2015) [-]
prove or disprove
User avatar #4083 - whyheloitisijimble (02/10/2015) [-]
wow
#4082 - lulzformalaysiaair (02/10/2015) [-]
www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/page/5/

Ohh yeah this site speaks the truth guys.
User avatar #4084 to #4082 - mrpeep (02/10/2015) [-]
Woo.
#4081 - anonexplains (02/10/2015) [-]
Life is a concept that we invented. On the most fundamental level, all matter that exists is an arrangement of atoms and their constituent particles. These arrangements fall onto an immense spectrum of complexity, from a single hydrogen atom to something as intricate as a brain. In trying to define life, we have drawn a line at an arbitrary level of complexity and declared that everything above that border is alive and everything below it is not. In truth, this division does not exist outside the mind. There is no threshold at which a collection of atoms suddenly becomes alive, no categorical distinction between the living and inanimate, no Frankensteinian spark. You do not exist.
User avatar #4140 to #4081 - nimba (02/17/2015) [-]
somebody recently learned MRS GREN in school and the problem of virus classification...
#4075 - kingalaric (02/09/2015) [-]
**kingalaric used "*roll picture*"**
**kingalaric rolled image**

Hello science community of funny junk. I have a proposition that may resolve the whole vaccine controversy.
Now, regardless of what studies have been said to show on the effect of the mercury in vaccines have on the human body, people seem to mistrust the vaccines because of the mercury. Although many people disagree with this, I can understand that the parents are probably very worried that their child might be harmed due to the vaccine. So they refuse to take the vaccine but also put their child at a potential risk for disease. So could we not feasibly compile a list of vaccines which do not contain the ingredients that people worry about, thus we can make a list of trusted alternatives that people can use. This will ensure their children's safety, and ensure their happiness. Both sides are happy.
User avatar #4092 to #4075 - lolpandas (02/11/2015) [-]
It's pretty damn ridiculous that there are still anti-vax people but that side of the argument should not be humored. So no, I don't think we should find a middle ground for them. I was recently in a class wide debate/discussion about this and although it was in a bio class, a good quarter of them still believed in some kind of anti-vax stuff, including:
You weaken your natural immune system.
The vaccine will "mutate" and get you sick.
Diseases, by nature, mutate so it's pointless since you'll get sick anyway.
The vaccine itself makes you sick.
muh freedom
thimerosal, etc.
It was weird to see when every argument got shot down, people still insisted on the dangers. They could not back up any argument except with "I read that" or "I knew a guy who knew a guy" stuff, most of them incoherently blabbed on about something or another but could not complete a valid (or even slightly comprehensible) argument. What I'm trying to say is that even if we did a pre-vaccination allergy test for thimerosal, it would be pointless. There are already alternatives w/o the preservative (I think some pediatric doses). I'm not going state every reason why people would still be against childhood-vaccination and argue the point, but it really comes down to people's ignorance.

On your second point about MMR and the related side effects:
Any foreign substance can illicit a reaction. By nature, you have to have some kind of response to a vaccine if you are to create memory B and T cells. There will always be a small % of uncertainty that cannot be avoided. Even if they aren't allergic to thimerosal, they could still experience a negative reaction that is dependent of their own health. If you were to strip any vaccine down to the very essential piece required to build an immunity and build a perfect method of vaccination that would not illicit any negative response, you would still get that very small % that would become sick because of their own body.
I'd love to see us get to the point were we could screen for every variable before taking any kind of medicine but we aren't at that point yet and everyone has to suck it up and take their vaccines so we can maintain our herd immunity.
User avatar #4094 to #4092 - kingalaric (02/11/2015) [-]
The hydrolized gelatin, to make things clear. Is a substance that can be taken by mouth to improve skin and join health. But some people experience the adverse effects similar to the ones described that were caused by the vaccines. So to gain the trust of the people, we ought to get rid of the metals. To gain the highest possible safety, we ought to get rid of hydrolyzed gelatin. Sure, people may still react negatively, but it will be a lot more trusted if we were to do that. I am no scientist, and if I was I would definitely conduct experiments right away. But from what I have read, I think that the best course of action would be an ultimate compromise.
User avatar #4093 to #4092 - kingalaric (02/11/2015) [-]
I actually did my research to see what people worried about and I have found an ingredient which is in even thimerosal and alluminum free vaccines. It is called hydrolyzed gelatin. This has been known to cause nerve damage in some people, often resulting in paralysis. My middle ground solutions is to find alternative vaccines that anti vaxxers can trust. So far the best one I can find is the MMR II vaccine which has no mercury or alluminum in it like the anti vaxxers fear. But it does have hydrolyzed gelatin which I think is probably more worrying than the mercury. If we can make an effort to change the ingredients in order to earn more public trust, then we solved the issue right there. Forcing a vaccine onto someone will only result in more conflict and conspiracy theorists. If the scientists are ultimately out for public well being then they shouldn't actually have a problem with that idea.
User avatar #4097 to #4093 - lolpandas (02/12/2015) [-]
I 100% agree with increasing research into safer alternatives, however it's easier said than done. The NIH and WHO have funneled a ridiculous amount of money already into vaccine research and the stuff out there being pushed is the stuff that works. Are there better things out there with lower risks? For some things yes. Will your insurance cover it? Probably not. The best way to go about it is to educate the public and so far that has gone well, but a growing trend of not vaccinating kids is permitting outbreaks like the one at Disney. We are going to witness many more like it, which is unfortunate because it's so easily avoidable.

On a diffident note, how safe do you think you would have to make this alternative? I have trouble believing we could ever get everyone to take any kind of medication if given the choice.
User avatar #4098 to #4097 - kingalaric (02/12/2015) [-]
I think if the vaccine was safe enough to not cause potential harm such as paralysis and nerve damage (which has been proven to happen to some patients) or potential autism like the claims that people are making, at least 95% would take it like is what required. I know that it can't be 100% safe, and I know it would be expensive. Nonetheless, if the health care industry cares as much as it claims to, then money should not be an issue. Would it not?
User avatar #4100 to #4098 - lolpandas (02/12/2015) [-]
Money is absolutely an issue. It shouldn't be when concerning our health and it's absolutely disgusting to see the current state of the pharmaceutical industry but it's difficult to get around. The whole business runs around a lot of money. You've got companies trying to make money to keep afloat, expand, advance, then make more money; you've got people spending absurd amounts of money on a degree that will hopefully give them a comfortable life; people gambling all this money on research sinkholes and companies that don't want to invest because research could turn out one way or the other. The list goes on; and then there's the average person, making an average income that needs their medicine like everyone else, but a lot of money was involved in making that medicine. I'm happy it's not entirely that way and we've made great strides in research regardless but the health care industry follows the money like everyone else. It's improving along the way, at least I'd like to think so.
User avatar #4085 to #4075 - skoldpaddacommala (02/10/2015) [-]
www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228#t1
From what I see, there is an alternative for just about everything.
User avatar #4086 to #4085 - kingalaric (02/10/2015) [-]
This can help so much to the solution.
User avatar #4087 to #4086 - skoldpaddacommala (02/10/2015) [-]
Now if we can just teach people to read...
User avatar #4088 to #4087 - kingalaric (02/10/2015) [-]
MMR 2 has no thimerosal, so this can be promising. The side effects due to allergies is what is worrying people though. In some cases, albeit rare ones according to rxlist, people suffer from things such as paralysis. So what I think the scientists and doctors should do, is look into is find people who are allergic to the vaccine, and administer some sort of alternative that they won't have such a reaction to.
www.rxlist.com/m-m-r-ii-side-effects-drug-center.htm

So in reality, parents do have some reason to be concerned, so we should look into finding a way to get around this.
#4076 to #4075 - anonexplains (02/09/2015) [-]
These people do not care about what's in the vaccines, because they don't understand chemistry. They care that somebody else is telling them what's best for them, and they won't have that.
If you were to do this, you might only convince the dumbest of the current generation, before a new generation of tin-foilers jumps up that finds new excuses and conspiracies to blame on 'the governmen't and 'the big pharma'
#4073 - randomnameone ONLINE (02/09/2015) [-]
teacher gave us this and asked us for the corresponding truth table, the output expression and also what single gate gives the same final input thanks in advance
User avatar #4074 to #4073 - kebabs (02/09/2015) [-]
0,0-->0
0,1-->1
1,0-->1
1,1-->0
XOR gate gives the same shit
#4072 - anonexplains (02/09/2015) [-]
I get really pissed off when people say quantum physics is unpredictable therefore random
How the hell can something be random, but the collection of that something not be?
#4077 to #4072 - anonexplains (02/09/2015) [-]
it's called 'the average'...
User avatar #4068 - luigipimp (02/07/2015) [-]
if the universe is infinitely big, can another big bang happen somewhere else?
User avatar #4123 to #4068 - gmarrox (02/16/2015) [-]
The universe both is and isn't infinite. The observable universe is finite and we have rough estimates as to its size. The unobservable universe (the space outside of or disconnected from our universe) is possibly infinite, but another big bang in a separate point in this space would more likely represent an entirely new universe altogether.
User avatar #4125 to #4123 - luigipimp (02/16/2015) [-]
another big bang away of all the galaxies spiralling from the point of where our big bang happened
User avatar #4126 to #4125 - gmarrox (02/16/2015) [-]
Well the idea is that our universe will expand until it collapses back in on itself into what scientists call the "Big Crunch" (dumb name imho) and then that will become the next Big Bang.
User avatar #4127 to #4126 - luigipimp (02/16/2015) [-]
maybe thats how we can get parallel universe by having more than one big bang happen in the empty spaces of the same universe. i hope you guys understand my wording lol
#4069 to #4068 - zanntaggerung (02/08/2015) [-]
It might not be infinitely large, just so big compared to us (and growing larger still) that we can consider it that way. And it's hard to imagine another "big bang" can happen when the original big bang came from all the matter in the universe condensed to a singularity. If the universe stops expanding and collapses back to a singularity, maybe we'll get another.
User avatar #4071 to #4069 - compared (02/08/2015) [-]
Thanks for using a comparison, hope you are well.
User avatar #4070 to #4069 - luigipimp (02/08/2015) [-]
infinite big i mean it keeps going past all the galaxies and just isnt anything there into infinity
 Friends (0)