Biochemistry Papers

Finshaggy · Mar 31, 2016

ttystikk · Mar 31, 2016

First Pinworm rises from the dead, and now- ???

UncleBuck · Mar 31, 2016

The videocassette recorder, VCR, or video recorder is an electromechanical device that records analog audio and analog video frombroadcast television or other source on a removable, magnetic tape videocassette, and can play back the recording. Use of a VCR to record a television program to play back at a more convenient time is commonly referred to as timeshifting. VCRs can also play back prerecorded tapes. In the 1980s and 1990s, until the VCR was superseded by the DVD player and PVR, prerecorded videotapes were widely available for purchase and rental, and blank tapes were sold to make recordings.

Most domestic VCRs are equipped with a television broadcast receiver (tuner) for TV reception, and a programmable clock (timer) for unattended recording of a television channel from a start time to an end time specified by the user. These features began as simple mechanical counter-based single-event timers, but were later replaced by more flexible multiple-event digital clock timers. In later models the multiple timer events could be programmed through a menu interface displayed on the playback TV screen ("on-screen display" or OSD). This feature allowed several programs to be recorded at different times without further user intervention, and became a major selling point.

Early machines and formats[edit]
The history of the videocassette recorder follows the history of videotape recording in general. Ampex introduced the Quadruplex videotape professional broadcast standard format with its Ampex VRX-1000 in 1956. It became the world's first commercially successful videotape recorder using two-inch (5.1 cm) wide tape.[1] Due to its high price US$50,000, the Ampex VRX-1000 could be afforded only by the television networks and the largest individual stations.[2][3][4]

In 1959 Toshiba announced a new method of recording known as helical scan,[5] first implemented in reel-to-reel videotape recorders(VTRs), and later used with cassette tapes.

In 1963 Philips introduced their EL3400 1" helical scan recorder, aimed at the business and domestic user, and Sony marketed the 2" PV-100, their first reel-to-reel VTR, intended for business, medical, airline, and educational use.[6]

First home video recorders[edit]
The Telcan, produced by the UK Nottingham Electronic Valve Company in 1963, was the first home video recorder. It could be bought as a unit or in kit form for £60, equivalent to approximately £1,100 (over US$1,600) in 2014 currency. However, there were several drawbacks: it was expensive, not easy to assemble, and could only record 20 minutes at a time. It recorded in black-and-white, the only format available in the UK at the time.[7][8][9]

The half-inch tape Sony model CV-2000, first marketed in 1965, was their first VTR intended for home use.[10] Ampex and RCA followed in 1965 with their own reel-to-reelmonochrome VTRs priced under US$1,000 for the home consumer market.

The EIAJ format was a standard half-inch format used by various manufacturers. EIAJ-1 was an open-reel format. EIAJ-2 used a cartridge that contained a supply reel; the take-up reel was part of the recorder, and the tape had to be fully rewound before removing the cartridge, a slow procedure.

The development of the videocassette followed the replacement by cassette of other open reel systems in consumer items: the Stereo-Pak 4-track audio cartridge in 1962, thecompact audio cassette and Instamatic film cartridge in 1963, the 8-track cartridge in 1965, and the Super 8 home movie cartridge in 1966.[citation needed]

In 1967 videocassettes of movies became available for home use.[11]

Finshaggy · Mar 31, 2016

Also, I read over the Controlled Substances Act and the Analog Act, and there is something most people skip over. Everyone uses alternatives to things that say "not for human consumption". But the Analog Act, which makes Analogs of Schedule 1 or 2 substances the same as actual Schedule 1 or 2 Substances in the eyes of the court. But what escapes most people's notice is that it says nothing about the other Schedules, so for example, Diazepam and Xanax are Schedule 4, so any Analog of them is completely legal.

Diabolical666 · Mar 31, 2016

Is this all the stuff you learned while you were in the clink?

ttystikk · Mar 31, 2016

Diabolical666 said:
Is this all the stuff you learned while you were in the clink?

Some folks go to college, others need more institutional assistance...

dangledo · Mar 31, 2016

Finshaggy · Mar 31, 2016

Oppression of Hindus by the United States
http://www.scribd.com/doc/271997415/Hindu-Brief#scribd
http://www.scribd.com/doc/270436023/Somic-Shilpa-Shastras
The drug laws (the Controlled Substances Act) are in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution, similar to how it violates this same Clause in Native American and Santo Diame cases. It is also possible the act violate the 21st Amendment, which legalized not alcohol or fermented drinks, but all intoxicating liquors, and by the definition of intoxicating liquor, Bhang is an intoxicating liquor (The Controlled Substances Act was written when it was found that the Marijuana Tax act violated the Fifth Amendment and was overturned, the Controlled Substances Act may need to be overturned due to 21st Amendment violations). There are very few Supreme Court cases involving the 21st Amendment, and no one has ever brought up to the Supreme Court the point that the 21st Amendment legalizes intoxicating liquors. The 21st Amendment was ratified in 1933 The drug laws at that time were based on the Harrison Narcotics Tax act, which did not make narcotics illegal but taxed them and limited importation from foreign countries. Around this time most every drug could be bought at a Drug store, and much of the time it would be in syrup form and mixed with Soda. This is where Coca-Cola comes from, which was originally made with the Coca leaf.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Forty_Barrels_&_Twenty_Kegs_of_Coca-Cola
+
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._O_Centro_Espirita_Beneficente_Uniao_do_Vegetal
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. _ (2014)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
"It held that the Greens’ businesses are “persons” under RFRA, and that the corporations had established a likelihood of success on their RFRA claim because the contraceptive mandate substantially burdened their exercise of religion and HHS had not demonstrated a compelling interest in enforcing the mandate against them; in the alternative, the court held that HHS had not proved that the mandate was the “least restrictive means” of furthering a compelling governmental interest.
In order to ensure broad protection for religious liberty, RFRA provides that “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” §2000bb–1(a).2 If the Government substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion, under the Act that person is entitled to an exemption from the rule unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” §2000bb–1(b)
Following our decision in City of Boerne, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 114 Stat. 803, 42 U. S. C. §2000cc et seq. That statute, enacted under Congress’s Commerce and Spending Clause powers, imposes the same general test as RFRA but on a more limited category of governmental actions. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 715–716 (2005). And, what is most relevant for present purposes, RLUIPA amended RFRA’s definition of the “exercise of religion.” See §2000bb–2(4) (importing RLUIPA definition).
Before RLUIPA, RFRA’s definition made reference to the First Amendment. See §2000bb– 2(4) (1994 ed.) (defining “exercise of religion” as “the exercise of religion under the First Amendment”). In RLUIPA, in an obvious effort to effect a complete separation from First Amendment case law, Congress deleted the reference to the First Amendment and defined the “exercise of religion” to include “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A). And Congress mandated that this concept “be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution.” §2000cc– 3(g)."

Diabolical666 · Mar 31, 2016

ttystikk said:
Some folks go to college, others need more institutional assistance...

con college

Indagrow · Mar 31, 2016

So you where a Hindu before you got caught... Not just after the fact to get out of your shitty little misdemeanor?

Hold on let me copy and paste a bunch of crap so we can get on the same level here

:dunce:

Finshaggy · Mar 31, 2016

Indagrow said:
So you where a Hindu before you got caught... Not just after the fact to get out of your shitty little misdemeanor?

Hold on let me copy and paste a bunch of crap so we can get on the same level here

I have been a Hindu since I was 14. And a Hindu Minister since 2009.

6ohMax · Mar 31, 2016

ttystikk · Mar 31, 2016

Diabolical666 said:
con college

...whose graduates now rival in numbers the more traditional variety.

This is not the country I learned about in social studies class.

Finshaggy · Apr 1, 2016

Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States143 U.S. 457 (1892)

It is a familiar rule that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute because not within its spirit nor within the intention of its makers. This has been often asserted, and the reports are full of cases illustrating its application. This is not the substitution of the will of the judge for that of the legislator, for frequently words of general meaning are used in a statute, words broad enough to include an act in question, and yet a consideration of the whole legislation, or of the circumstances surrounding its enactment, or of the absurd results which follow from giving such broad meaning to the words, makes it unreasonable to believe that the legislator intended to include the particular act. As said in Plowden 205:

"From which cases it appears that the sages of the law heretofore have construed statutes quite contrary to the letter in some appearance, and those statutes which comprehend all things in the letter they have expounded to extend to but some things, and those which generally prohibit all people from doing such an act they have interpreted to permit some people to do it, and those which include every person in the letter they have adjudged to reach to some persons only, which expositions have always been founded upon the intent of the legislature, which they have collected sometimes by considering the cause and necessity of making the act, sometimes by comparing one part of the act with another, and sometimes by foreign circumstances."

Finshaggy · Apr 1, 2016

Finshaggy · Apr 1, 2016

And you know how most people think that smoking Marijuana makes you stupid or kills braincells? The opposite is actually true, Marijuana causes the creation of new brain cells, called Neurogenesis:
https://www.jci.org/articles/view/25509

Finshaggy · Apr 1, 2016

So basically, everyone that doesn't smoke weed is clinically a little less qualified to think.

Indagrow · Apr 1, 2016

Finshaggy said:
So basically, everyone that doesn't smoke weed is clinically a little less qualified to think.

It's impressive that's what you derived from your posted 'findings'.

Unrelated but how's the breeding process going for you? Where you able to stabilize anything

Finshaggy · Apr 1, 2016

The Shilpa Shastra (The Science of Arts and Crafts)
https://jambudveep.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/principles-of-silpashastra.pdf

The Somic Shilpa Shastras (The Science of the Art and Craft of Soma)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/270436023/Somic-Shilpa-Shastras

Finshaggy · Apr 3, 2016

Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN)
http://www.nato.int/docu/cep/cep-cbrn-response-e.pdf
http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/NAVMC 3500.78.pdf
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/chns_cbrne_standards_final_24_aug_11.pdf
http://www.ecbc.army.mil/cr/docs/a9rba4d.pdf

Edgewood Arsenal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgewood_Arsenal_human_experiments
https://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=60851

Biochemistry Papers

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member