It cant, it's a complete fake claim that it can do it in airplane mode

They didn't want the reuse numbers to get out because their campaign was really about one important American family value: black people shouldn't be allowed near computers. They'll dirty the Internet up.

They dump it in international waters.

I'm using hundreds of studies ranging from 40 people to 50,000 people, using interview, observation, and experimentation methods.

I would bet that you've always found mathematics interesting. I used to find mathematics quite interesting, and so I learned mathematics at an incredibly rapid rate. I learned mathematics so well, in fact, that I theorized new mathematics before they were introduced. Once, in high school, I had a calculus teacher explain to us that there is no chain rule in integral calculus; having found the chain rule so useful and not believing that the rules of mathematics wouldn't bend to my will, I ignored the remainder of the 40-minute lecture in favor of developing a chain rule for integration. For the next three weeks, I was the only person in the class using the integration by parts method; then we reached that chapter in the book, and I was annoyed at my teacher for being such an idiot. It hadn't crossed my mind to blame myself for not reading forward before investing so much effort in breaking the rules.

I never had much trouble with math because I would examine all the behaviors of mathematics and relate them to each other. Rather than memorize formulas, I would learn how the different pieces interacted by examining how they were similar to other formulas. I broke them down into components, understood how the components worked, and then could later remember the rough outline and reconstruct the formulas from that. I could also approach novel problems with novel methods, avoiding a great deal of mathematical effort. I did all of this while my peers were drilling such dull things as the quadratic equation; by the time they had memorized by overlearning, I had memorized by making the material meaningful, creating a network of well-connected memories that were understandable and relatable.

You will undoubtedly notice that my form of learning mathematics was different than the standard form of reading, memorizing, and practicing. Whereas a normal student will spend hours with flash cards drilling the formula for a parabola or a hyperbola, I'd take the time to notice that a parabola, hyperbola, and ellipse are all different types of conic sections of the form of a two-dimensional plane intersecting with a projected cone formed by a line crossing an origin and rotating. Describing this behavior mathematically leads to the interesting problem of describing a unified conic section equation, which leads to the interesting problem of simplifying equations for each conic section as described within their two-dimensional plane, which leads to deep understanding of conic sections. Likewise, I quickly converted the law of cosines into a unified equation: c^2 = a^2 + b^2 - 2ab * cos(theta) is obviously the pythagorean theorem where cos(theta) = 0 (i.e. for a right triangle), and so only had to memorize -2ab*cos(theta), which is trivially described.

These are not feats of memory or mathematical genius. These are simple observations, creating meaning out of the chaos of arbitrary mathematical facts. I do not doubt that your understanding of mathematics was rich and complex all throughout your educational career; you probably took a more efficient approach, as I had, in completely understanding and dissecting the various mathematical concepts you were given, applying all of your prior mathematical education to every new piece of information. It obviously never occurred to your peers to approach the subject of math in this way; but do you believe that they would have not made greater progress than they had, were they to apply similar methods of thought?

Yes. Albert Einstein thought a lot about classical physics; Stephen Hawking thought a lot about theoretical quantum mechanics. If I had put the sort of deliberate study in that Stephen Hawking puts in, I could argue with him about the same shit. Likewise, if I save stated Super Metroid and put in the deliberate practice hours that oatsNgoats or Zoasty put in (Oats is using methods fully supported by modern leading cognitive theory), I could keep up with them in a race. It wouldn't even take that long; an hour a day for a few months.

Started earlier, had better resources, better methods, or really just care to learn while other kids frankly don't give a shit. You're not even stretching this; they're all the same, just they're employing their brains differently.

so I just moved iTunes to the windows laptop and will have to re-rip the material not bought on the iStore. my iPod mini's third battery is about gone, so I'm picking up a Shuffle on the way home from work.

you know, it's funny, shit dies. my Atwater Kent 20C works, but the newer stuff dies.

when the automated sorting system v.2 was installed, maybe 15 or 20 years ago, the USPS at that time said that they captured pictures of all mail. doubtless it was seen as a marvel of engineering that they did all that at one fell swoop, and a big boast. the initial automation system of the 70s/80s didn't.

I like the version that uses the archaic "reckon" instead of calculate.

Often the things that are brought up are extremes, and ridiculous; but, as we start to accept that they're ridiculous, people start to creep on them. 50 years ago, people would scream bloody murder about the government tapping phone lines--they even impeached the President! Now, they shrug and talk about protecting us from terrorists with all this state surveillance, because the government would never do anything bad with all that information.

Yep and it's worse for a media center than a Raspberry Pi 2.

More expensive, lower horsepower, goofy and limited. It's a failstick.

Your argument was effectively "it must do something bad! It's a stim! They make your heart asplode!", so I shot the specific. You've reduced it to, "Well it must hurt SOMEHOW," which is the same fallacy as the trade-off concept.

The trade-off concept is the familiar idea that you can't improve something by making it worse in every way. I usually address this by smashing a beverage vessel such that it no longer holds a beverage, and is perhaps laden with dangerous jagged edges, and deformed so as to take up more storage space. It is obviously possible to adjust something to be worse in every way, up to and including creatively destroying the object's entire useful purpose while making it a burden and a danger.

I did suggest that scientific studies were minimal, and that they gave a good risk outline with empirical evidence but did not give a complete and high-quality scientific image. The problems caused by amphetamines, methylphenedate, and caffeine are obvious, and stand out strikingly; we have enough empirical evidence to show that phenotropil carries none of the negative consequences of these drugs, and nothing notable on its own (upset stomach, for example, can happen--that can also happen with Rolaids, cough syrup, or Diet Coke). We've also seen no notable long-term consequences, despite there being obvious long-term public users--which gives a low but existent measure of confidence.

I am, in fact, quantifying within reason, using a number of data sources of varying quality. I do the same with prescription drugs believed to be safe; hell, I do the same with the belief that fat and salt are bad for you, and now science is reflecting what I've been actively considering for years: that the science behind the original claims was weak and, in some cases, totally invalid (saturated fat dietary concerns were based on cherry-picked data). I don't have 100% confidence in anything, but I do have enough confidence in various measures and observations to scale them against one another.

I was more referring to the fact that Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and I all share brains with the same functional facilities. You're not born with a genetic superbrain.

Phenotropil is specifically noted for its affect on neurotransmitters, without increasing heart rate or blood pressure. It is part of the racetemic group of compounds, which are the codifying compounds for nootropics; the pharmacological definition of a nootropic excludes things like gingko and vinpocetine (which are often claimed as nootropics), because it explicitly excludes anything that raises blood flow to the brain (blood pressure and heart rate increases would do this). It is specifically notable among nootropics for being a stimulant, and specifically notable among stimulants for not raising blood pressure or heart rate, as well as for not producing withdrawal or other forms of dependency.

If you want a cruder definition of "safe", I'll simply say that it's a shitton less bad than caffeine.

I was going to say "These people are idiots" but yeah. They take a car that's going to run for another 5 years; trade it for a car that's going to cost $100/mo less in maintenance, $50/mo less in fuel; and take a 5 year extension of their car payment.

a lot of the malware out there is "trusted" crap from "partners"

So now we will have Microsoft certified SAFE malware....