> Nostril-based i-PBMT devices are available, using either lasers or light emitting diodes (LEDs).
From https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a...

If they stick a laser up your nose and shoot the light at your internal blood vessels, it might have some tangible physical effects. It's not just putting you in a room with red lighting.

But how does that work? It just feels that there is no logical causal mechanism through which red-light photons can affect brain inflamation.

> The treatment they are studying is called photobiomodulation therapy, or itPBM (intranasal transcranial PBM), also known as red-light therapy.

From google:

> Nostril-based i-PBMT devices are available, using either lasers or light emitting diodes (LEDs), and can be applied either alone or in combination to transcranial devices (the latter applied directly to the scalp)

OK, so that means they are shooting light up your nostrils. Perhaps they might fry some bacteria that way, who knows. At first I thought red-light therapy just meant sitting in a room with red right to calm you (which would be placebo), but if they shoot the light in your internal tissues it might have actual explainable physical effects.

Yes, I think it's better than trusting everything to someone else's server. This gives you the option to sync using your own hardware. I wonder if you need static IPs though.

Would the lethal radiation kill life in the deep ocean? It would need to kill ALL of life on that planet to make the planet inhospitable to life. Otherwise life would just adapt to it as yet another selection pressure.

I bought some Bitcoins from a friend who's mining with cash - the only way to really do it anonymously. It was around $50 bucks. Unlike other people I decided that I'll only be spending them, and only for things I care about, not spending them for the sake of spending them.

So far the only things I've really managed is to send a few (small) donations, and buy Reddit gold. As far as I'm aware, the rest of the people who dabble in Bitcoin are exchanging them for money - which means they are speculating. If you're not speculating, it's really difficult to find ways to spend your Bitcoins.

I've decided I will buy more Bitcoins as soon as I've spent the ones I have. So far I've managed to spend $20 in the last 3-4 months, so I'll probably manage to spend all of them until the year is out.

So far the only thing I can use Bitcoin for was sending various donations, and even there they usually have a PayPal option.

If I had been there:

[Hesitantly raises hand] "Um, Mr. Grand Ayatollah, do you have any opinions on electricity and running water, too?"

He is violating Apple Patent #032185: A method or system for sitting directly on a surface such that one leg is crossing the other in a diagonal fashion.

And his knees better not be rounded when he's sitting like that.

I remember some ransomware called Cryptolocker demanded payment in Bitcoins.

This is an old fallacy, that only food has "real value". Things have different values to different people, or even to the same people in different situations.

Examples: A bottle of water is worth more in the desert than near the river. Same bottle of water, different value. Why? Because different situation. A good steel knife is worth more than a gold bar if you are stranded on a lonely island for 10 years like Robinson Crusoe, but not if you are in the center of New York.

If you are in physical proximity where you can just hand over cash, then use cash. Bitcoin is a way to send "cash" to someone who is NOT in the same room.

When you send cash, the guy who receives it doesn't ask you to write down your name and address, date of the transaction, and mail it to the government. Bitcoin tries to bring that to remote transactions.

I assume they're not transmitting it in plain-text?

I would prefer to have a 17'' laptop and a 7'' tablet than a 12'' detachable that's too big and heavy to hold in one hand, while still too small to use comfortably on a desk for work. Though I'd probably connect a 22'' external screen to the laptop, too.

Has there been any research that has proven that there are no "unfair" differences, or is it just assumed? What is the current stance of the scientific community - is it "We don't know" or is it "We are certain there are no differences in intelligence and behavior caused by genetics"?

Being the same species doesn't mean there can't be substantial genetic differences - it just means that you will produce viable offspring.

If that's so, then why not switch to Firefox or Chrome? Wasn't the whole reason to use IE that some sites will not render properly/refuse to work otherwise?