Cap'n Refsmmat

That's certainly an option. For example, the person could encrypt their name and the hash with their private key, so when you decrypt it you see their name and can verify it was them.

What's archaic about XMPP? Encryption is used in Wave through TLS, I believe.

How do you verify the hash is signed by the right person? When you decrypt it with a person's public key, you get a random string of characters (the hash). To verify the signature, you have to see that the hash you decrypted matches the hash of the message contents. The trouble is that if you decrypt with the wrong public key (as in the case when someone is being impersonated), you have no way of telling if the decrypted hash is valid until you've downloaded the entire message.

I'm curious how many porn producers will be able to afford the expensive computing power required for this sort of CGI. Could be big business if it works.

Only if God is human, and I'm sure there are quite a few people who disagree with that proposition. But please, as iNow says, I'd prefer to keep this topic away from God and more towards humans. Religious discussions never seem to end well here.

I think you need to remember that your words exist to achieve a goal, such as convincing someone or making a point, and sometimes your tone works against that goal. Your post was highly unlikely to achieve its goal because its tone was far more likely to irritate pywakit than to improve his attitude, and we know how things go when posters get personal. Please. I made my post with the intention of keeping this thread on track. Let's not ruin that.

I would make a suggestion, but I doubt it would be appropriate for this forum.

You could just delete the entire thread as spam. vB won't ban anyone but the first poster.

I recall reading an article about software that superimposed any non-body objects (guns, stuff in pockets, etc.) detected in scans onto a generic human body model so the person doing the scanning wouldn't even have to see people naked -- they'd just see guns hidden on the corresponding part of the generic model. I wonder what happened to that work.

Right, I've added recounting unread PMs to my to-do list for later today. This system is surprisingly fragile.

Could you ditch this attitude, please? This forum is intended to be for discussion, where people learn new and interesting things, not showing off that you're right and other people are wrong.

iNow, your own attitude is very off-putting to someone who is just trying to post his own ideas. You may have the best of intentions when you make your posts, but you must realize that the attitude you give off with them has unintended negative effects. Please try to be nicer. pywakit, seeing as this thread was split off from another and it's now basically "yours", go for it.

I'd rather point to Michael Shermer's excellent book The Science of Good and Evil. Check a local library -- it's worth it.

One wonders how much the "naked scanners" (the devices that see through clothing to detect hidden objects) would even help. All one needs to devise is some body covering that blocks the radiation like skin does. Not too hard. (Leather?) Then hide whatever you'd like under that covering. The only way you'd stop anyone from causing trouble during flights is by strapping them down or tranquilizing them. Although then Houdini would be able to hijack whatever planes he wished, without the passengers able to retaliate.

What does this even mean? Could you clarify?

Any estimate will, of course, neglect to include the cost of the cover-my-ass money spent: doctors requesting scans and tests they know are pointless just to protect themselves from malpractice claims or complaints later. How much might those extra tests cost us?

Ah. I think I know what caused that. I'll be more careful next time.

Notification as in "the annoying pop-up" or "the box in the upper right-hand corner of the page"? I need to figure out where that notification gets its data, I guess.

How about now? I'll need to find a way of fixing the unread PM count in the user table AND removing the invalid inbox entries in the PM table whenever I delete spam PMs from the PM text table.

Very well. Allow me to respond. The references you have cited in general do not support this. They support the alternate conclusion that psychiatric treatments do more harm then good when overused or given to patients who do not need them. There are many scientists who believe, for example, that antidepressants are overused and should be reserved for certain severe cases only. As I have pointed out, we can demonstrate brain differences in people with disorders. True, but this means we merely need to determine which patients best benefit from treatments, rather than stopping all psychiatric treatments. I'm afraid I don't quite understand you -- perhaps there's a language barrier here. Could you try to explain what you mean? Ah! I might then cite the Helsinki Psychotherapy Study: http://www.ktl.fi/tto/hps/pdf/effectiveness.pdf A quote: (emphasis mine) So psychotherapy isn't a home-run treatment either.

The biggest problem I can see with tying a chain between the Earth and the Moon is that the Moon revolves around the Earth at a different rate than the Earth rotates, so the chain would end up being wound around Earth and dragging the moon closer. That is, if you could build a fantastically strong chain big enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_of_depression There are brain differences between people of "normal" minds and people with disorders. But just as doctors in the early 1800s looked at patients and said "I see there are differences in their bodies, but I don't know what they all mean", psychiatrists and neurologists now have not entirely untangled the web of evidence. You will find that this paper suggests that antipsychotics are overused, not that they are utterly ineffective. The author suggests that antipsychotic medications should be used but then an attempt made to wean the patient off, in the hopes that their recovery will continue without the need of potent medications. So again, the problem rests on whether the mind is a result of chemicals that we can treat or a result of something else that we cannot.

ArjanD: Allow me to try to reword your objections to psychiatry. This, from what I gather, is your argument: Psychiatric treatments often have negative side-effects. We do not fully understand what causes many psychiatric disorders. Many psychiatric treatments are only slightly effective, or sometimes completely ineffective. Thus, psychiatry should be ended. Now, let's suppose for a moment I go back in time to the early 1800s and look at medical doctors then: Medical treatments often had huge negative side-effects, such as death. Doctors did not understand what caused most diseases. Many treatments (bloodletting, various elixirs and medications, etc.) were only slightly effective, or sometimes completely ineffective. Thus, the medical profession should have ended. That doesn't seem to be a wise choice. I think the crux of your argument rests not in showing that psychiatry isn't as good as it could be, but in these two statements:

Ah, okay. Done. vB should have no recollection of that PM anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_disorder#Melatonin_activity There are biological and brain differences in many people with psychiatric problems. The trouble is that the brain and neurological systems are so incredibly complicated that you can't just point and say "That's it!" Says who? Yes, but in what report or document did the WHO say it? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This article does not say what you think it says. Let's look at a quote: What does this tell us? If antidepressants still have a (small) effect when placebos don't, they're doing something. They are not just placebos themselves. However, I will concede that antidepressant pills are likely prescribed far more often than they should be. Doctors seem to prescribe them at the drop of a hat. Now, a broader point to be made, which is important: you bring up many studies which suggest that current psychiatric treatments are not the best. This is true. We have no magic pill that can cure depression or schizophrenia instantly. But: psychiatry is not standing still. Scientists do not sit on their hands going "well, the evidence says it doesn't work. Better cover it up!" No, scientists say, "the evidence says the treatments don't work. Awesome. This means we can get a heap of [acr=National Institutes of Health]NIH[/acr] grant money to research new treatments! Let's start filling out an application."