mooeypoo

Generally I don't have a problem with Fox News, seeing as I'm usually not as naive as to think any of the networks are even close to being unbiased. However, I have a very big problem with the fact that Fox News anchors and staff are actively organizing demonstrations, and that the network actively promotes them (without promoting demonstrations of the other side). The "Actively Organize" is my problem - that transforms them from an organization that reports information (with the usual biases, sure) to an activist organization against the current administration. Whether that's what a news organization is supposed to do or not aside, at the very least this makes it totally unsurprising that the Obama administration refuses to cooperate with an organization that actively operates against them without even attempting to present itself as unbiased.

Obviously, you did not get mine.

Maybe, but we differ on what is considered "logical basis". Case in point: You can definitely have flowers without dirt. It's called hydroponics. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The difference is that song writing doesn't require rigorous methodology, and further, you rarely see bad song writers claim the songs that exist in the world are all wrong, crappy or should be done differently. Science is about explaining reality, and if you don't have the tools to do that, you will likely fail in your explanation. It's one thing to claim you have intuition as for a new theory - but when people who *do* have the tools and methodology to measure the theory against reality explain where that theory is lacking, it's usually wise to be humble and modest, and check if, perhaps, the missing bit is on your part rather than the rest of the scientific community. Intuition can lead you towards an answer, but not necessarily a RIGHT answer, and even if it does, the only way to differentiate between the right intuition and the wrong intuition are the proper methodologies of the scientific method. There's no way to go around this.

The above sentence alone serves as a contradiction to its meaning.

There's also another issue here -- psychiatric care doesn't involve drugs alone. I have a feeling that a lot of he 'overmedicated' argument comes out of the misconception that the mentally ill are treated with medication alone. It might be that some doctors treat the symptoms instead of the underlying cause, but I know that at least where I come from (Israel, which works by the more european POV on that matter) the treatment involves psychotherapy along with drugs and other methods (such as changes to diets or exercise, and more). Overall, the view of the psychiatric treatment should (as far as I've read and understood) include more than the drugs themselves. As iNow pointed out, the drugs are usually treating the symptoms, and those are usually given to allow for further treatment. The problem emerges when professionals don't continue with these extra steps and rely on medications alone to treat the illness -- something that might result in overmedication, or medicating someone for too long of a time. I'll give a simple example from something I know up-close - Anxiety. I know it's not entirely a mental illness, but the method of dealing with it by professionals can be indicative of this debate. My ex had severe anxiety problems which were solved, initially, by drugs (don't ask me which, I have no clue), and the problem was initially solved but then repeated itself after a few months. The conclusion she reached was that the drugs were bad, and the doctor replaced them. It was solved for a little bit, and then it recurred. Now, she's taking some lighter drugs while also going to a psychologist for therapy, and finally, it seems to be working much better than it used to. The drugs aren't the "solution" anymore, they're just a way to help reduce the effects so she can start learning how to better deal with her anxiety. Another example is myself - I've had tendencies to get anxiety attacks all my life, usually "simple" headaches. I don't want drugs, I don't think I need them and I don't consider myself mentally ill (other than the obvious "omg I'm totally nuts!" fun but the way I dealt with my anxiety is by relaxation techniques that didn't involve drugs, namely a physical method of meditation. A few weeks ago, however, my "symptoms" changed to include heavy breathing - which totally ruined my chances to relax through meditation (in which breathing is 90% of the relaxation technique). I went to my family doctor and after he did a full check-up and announced me perfectly healthy physically, I got calm enough to continue with my relaxation techniques and solve whatever it was that got me stressed out to begin with. Here again, the symptom was dealt with as to allow me to clear out the problem. The entire issue of overmedicating people leads to this broader subject of whether or not psychotherapy and psychiatry is - in general - a good practice. I think that route is filled with fallacious thinking; the fact many doctors resort to treating the symptoms on the expense of treating the underlying condition doesn't mean the practice in general is a bad solution, it just means that the other methods this practice includes - many of them have nothing to do with drugs - should be put to use more often. Watch out from this easy route of extremizing the subject; there's lots to discuss in it that may show why (or why not) many mentally ill patients are over-medicated without resorting to the extreme of saying the entire mental health institution is obsolete..

Wow, that's a toughy. If your argument is that most patients you deal with are overmedicated then you are the one with the data about it, and I am not sure you can have a lot of information about that online. Maybe a better claim could be that many (most?) patients of mental health professionals end up being overmedicated. To get that claim, though, you can argue that the drugs that are given are suitable for certain conditions, and professionals - weather out of laziness or lack of time or belief in drugs, or whatever it may be - give those drugs too quickly to patients that might be doing well without them. I am not too familiar with mental health but I have heard the claims that patients are often overmedicated. You should probably be careful of the extreme of that claim too, seeing as there are a few groups out there that don't believe in any form of mental health treatments and use drugs as a way to demonstrate (in an extreme, often unrealistic way) why the entire mental health profession is bad. I used to have a few articles about this, I'm going to try and look them up again but I hope that helped a little even in terms of the direction you can take this...

No one said it's a fact, it was said that it fits the mathematical model, and reality will either show the math needs refining, or the math is right. That's not the same as accepting something as fact.

If you're interested in the "applied" version of mathematics, you might want to read up (or take some courses in) various subjects in physics. In general, physics is a mathematical subject - the models and predictions are made through mathematical models. A lot of the applications of physics are represented through mathematical models. I always think that physics gives meaning to mathematics, but I guess mathematicians might argue that point.

In ancient Egypt

How many times I and others have requested references, though?

Can you please start putting up references? We're a science forum, not a "trust me, I checked" forum. Please. Here's the reference for this one: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7762

No, it isn't. It's located in the thorax, which is next to the head. This misconception is commonly made mostly because both thorax and "head" are covered by a single piece of exoskeleton. Now, please people -- this is a thread for facts, and facts are meaningless if they're not corroborated, specially when it's really fun to read more on their context. Please supply the source of your fact.

Dr. Syntax, we're having an adult conversation about something that seems to bother you. If you keep being a child about it and start cursing, we'll end up making another decision for the best of this forum, which will probably come against your wishes. If and when that happens, make sure you don't blame iNow for that one, eh? Please be civil.

Please watch the attitude. You are discussing forum rules here with the staff and members, something we don't do often not because we're "afraid to open it up" but because people usually tend to read and follow the rules. The purpose of those rules aren't to get this forum to be strict or police-state, they actually make sense, and they exist to make sure that all participants can enjoy a mutually beneficial conversations. You seem to be very comfortable cheering the staff when we act in your favour and blame the staff when we act against you. If you spend that much energy looking at why your discussion(s!) about primal therapy were closed (after quite a few posts, mind you, with quite a few participants), maybe this entire feud could ahve been averted. There's really no personal agenda here against anyone. All parties involved are expected to debate in a civil manner, and when they're not, the staff steps in. Stop making everything personal, dr.syntax. Your threads are closed when they deserve a closure, just like iNow's posts are handled when he deserves them to be handled by the staff. You are not the one that controls or decides what the staff should or shouldn't do, just like iNow isn't controlling what the staff should or shouldn't do. Everyone should be civil, participate in scientific debates and we will all be able to actually enjoy them. ~moo

Dr Syntax, two other threads about this were closed - which means you are resurrecting a closed thread, which is a nono. On top of that, you are not supplying any new evidence or reference to this already-discussed issue. Dr Syntax, any new thread you open about primal therapy that has no *NEW INFORMATION* will be deleted outright. Only open a new thread about this if you are absolutely certain you have some *new* information to provide. Posting the same link again will not suffice. Not by a long shot. Start following our rules, please. This thread is closed pending moderation review. ~moo

You're assuming that there's such a thing called "life energy", while there's no proof (or real reason to, really) for this energy. Further, you're assuming that this "life energy" is of the same type of other physical energies, which is yet another problematic claim.

Did you click on the "Post" button too soon? This sentence seems like it's missing an ending. And a point.

Guys, please stop taking the law into your own hands. We are a community, not a prisonhouse; if you think a post is against the rules, report it, and let us deal with it. If you think a discussion is not going the way you want it to go, stop participating in it. Ganging up on a member doesn't help matters at all, whether you think it's justified or not. Please let us handle things. ~moo

Walsh, You've been told countless times that this forum does not encourage or deals with the creation or experimentation of dangerous substances. Specifically, if you wish to mix acid and bleach and risk your life and the lives of others, you are STRONGLY encouraged against it. All other readers, occasional or otherwise, are STRONGLY encouraged to not meddle with dangerous substances that may well severely hurt themselves and others. Walsh, please read our HazMat policy and do *NOT* open another thread requesting information about dangerous gases. This thread is closed.

Moved to Homework Help so you can get the help you need. Welcome to the forum!

You're right, calculating the perimeter of the ellipse is a pain - which is why that's not what I did. I divided the "half ellipse" into triangles. CD is the common 'leg' of 2 triangles trapped inside the half ellipse. Then, trig relationships can show you how to get CD in terms of theta. I'm at work at the moment, but when I get back home and with a few spare moments I will try to put up an image.

Yes, I think I did, and I continued the method we started. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Can you write the full formula? I thought I remembered soemthing like that and didn't find it the other day, I'm just curious. Thanks ~moo

This is unacceptable behavior. It's one thing debating your theories (again), it's quite another being rude to others. Watch the attitude, please.

Mooey was trying to get *YOU* to do the work instead of solving it for you, at 11pm at night after a whole day of school and work. The method works, bob, if you just sit down and follow it through.

We have no problem with creationists coming over, we have a problem with creationists claiming their claims are scientific, when they refuse to follow the scientific method and insist on belittling science and overusing logical fallacies. See, we're a science forum, and we have rules of conduct. The fact creationists keep showing they're unable to follow the scientific method (and obey our rules) doesn't mean we will prevent ALL creationists from proving themselves unique in that aspect. ~moo