MolotovCocktail

I thought I would put this topic in this section given that it involves a great deal of neurology. Its something I've been thinking about actually while listening to electronica (e.g. techno, ambiance, etc. NOT to be confused with hip-pop crap...) , and that is just how much of an influence does music have on the human brain. Also, did we evolve knowing what music is? There is really a lot of stuff to cover with this subject, but I'll get to the main points. For one, music has been known to influence emotional states, and in some cases even induce them. Also, we humans just seem to naturally be attracted to certain frequencies and sounds. For example, when I hear certain harmonic frequencies such as that from an instrument, we identify it as beats, while other noises like stuff falling on the ground is just noise. Another thing to consider is its effect on the development of the brain itself (e.g. developing certain skills such as pattern recognition and even its use as a psychological treatment). Here are some quotes from an article about it: "Then there are endless anecdotes about athletes using music to enhance their performance. Pitcher Trevor Hoffman of the San Diego Padres, for example, listens to AC/DC to get psyched up in a game. Tramo ran to "Brown Sugar" by the Rolling Stones when he won a gold medal in the 100-yard dash in high school...... Tramo believes that music and dancing preceded language. Archaeologists have discovered flutes made from animal bones by Neanderthals living in Eastern Europe more than 50,000 years ago. No human culture is known that does not have music." (Cromie, William J. "Music on the Brain." Harvard Gazette. 22 Mar. 2001. Havard University. 1 June 2007 <http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/03.22/04-music.html>.) And here is a bunch of links to contemporary research regarding music and the brain: http://brainmusic.org/EducationalActivitiesFolder/EducationalActivities.html So, what are your thoughts, research, etc....

Opiates tend to relax a person. But while they do relax a person, it is not quite the same as an anti-depressant. Anti-depressants will usually ease the symptoms of depression, such as extreme sadness, by introducing chemicals, or regulating them, that act as neurotransmitters. Opiates don't necessarily relieve negative emotional states, all they really do is relax the person and dull the senses. A little similar to alcohol. Here is more information on opiates: link: http://www.drugtext.org/sub/opiat1.html

I suggest he looks at this site Link: http://www.wmrc.uiuc.edu/main_sections/tech_assist/biodiesel_process.cfm

"I'm a nerd and proud of it" Not terribly creative, but it gets by. <edit> Ok, I admit it, its kinda lame. But none of yours are any better.

`Deleted`

Opiates are basically pain killers, such as Morphine. Anti-depressants, such as Prozac, help regulate neurotransmitters in the brain (such as Serotonin, the so-called "happy" chemical).

Ummm... Mars has its own gravity, so I don't know why you would want artificial gravity.

well, look at that, it might be a conspiracy?

Well, looks like we know where all the idiots come from............... I'm afraid its a little too late for that >. May I suggest the "you just got owned" website? or better yet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfaPRZcj_iU

Whats even more ironic is that in the effort to spread "democracy", we set up dictatorships in various countries, many in Latin American and Southeast Asia. Saddam Hussein was installed by the US in order to stop "the spread of communism".

Sorry, misunderstanding on my part. So, pretty much, what you are saying is that the fertility rates are educated guesses at best (which basically means we have no idea how populations rates will be in the future). Which means that there could be an event in the future in which fertility rates could spike up. Yikes! This is very true.

omg, didn't you pay any attention to what he said in the past 4 posts. Well, if you actually paid any attention to the last post, you would have caught this: These, SkepticLance, were all the averages of many calculations assuming different scenarios. There is no guarantee that the peak will be 9 billion by 2050 because these calculations are based on the average fertility rate per year. That means that every year or so they have to revise their calculations in order to make up for this.

I don't think this type of thread should be in here. this is a science forum after all and its about poetry

Is it going to be like a blog or a forum? I'm thinking that you would get the most out of it if it was in the style of a discussion or something like that. Also, I have a suggestion for the name of your website: Yellow-Sci. The name is influenced by "Yellow-Journalism", a term used in the 19th century to describe how irresponsible the media and newpapers were (though today is not much different).

I have one of those super-ultralight racing bikes. I take it for a spin a couple of times a week on the road. I also have a mountain bike that I use for the White Mountains (In New Hampshire if nobody knows what they are) since I live about 40 miles away from them.

Well, which type of government are you referring to? Not all a run by a group of people...

actually, wait, here is a quote that describes just how bad the situation is in America: And here's even more sources, from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/28/comedy.politics/ Scary!

Lol! looks like some people know how to use sensationalism to horde in lots of money! The media in the US has been so sensationalized that it is causing people to not care about what is going on anymore (e.g. You don't hear too much news about NASA nowadays, other than shuttle launches or anything regarding aliens. Also, they hardly, if ever, talk about Darfur). That is detrimental because if nobody cares then they are not being informed about the truth of the matter, and thus they remain ignorant. This applies to more things than science; in fact, a study has shown that you are more likely to be better informed by watching Jon Stewart!

The meat used in Taco Bell has less nutritional value than dog food.

My opinion: 1. Thallium 2. Bromine 3. Sulfuric Acid 4. Chrome 5. Cyanide 6. Carbon Monoxide 7. Anhydrous Ammonia 8. Mustard Gas 9. Chlorine Gas 10. Sewage

Here is mine...

Take a look at this map here that was taken from the Mars Global Surveyor: This map shows that Mars still has somewhat of a magnetic field that is generated by the crust. The crust is magnetized, and in some places the field is stronger than others. It is nothing like Earth's magnetic field, but I'm thinking that the areas that have one would be much safer to establish colonies, or land in for that matter, because the magnetic field would block out some harmful radiation. Of course, there is still the issue of solar wind blowing the atmosphere right off, but we could probably pump much more gases into the atmosphere much more quickly than it can be blown off.

I did not think that people that blissfully ignorant and delusional actually existed. I guess this is proof that an all-powerful, all-merciful god does not exist:-p. I'm also thinking that religion gives people a sense of security, so they may also be more resistant to science simply because science doesn't guarantee anything. Also, religion provides a convenient way to place blame on things whenever something goes wrong (e.g. Satan).

Yeah, but data on global warming comes from core ice samples, and ice samples have gases that have been trapped for thousands of years, and gases that have been trapped fairly recently. By comparing ice samples and current climate we can figure out whether or not humans have had an impact on recent climate change.

According to the UN Charter its members, including the US, is obliged to help police the world, doesn't it? Of course, I can hardly consider the Iraq War policing, but that is besides the point.