DrDNA

Am I the only one that is delighted that he said what he said on Al-Arabiya, but sort of wishes that he would have made his FIRST televised interview on a US-focused medium? The reason's I might be feeling that way include, 1. It gives all the bigots more fodder about his middle name and "his hidden Muslim agenda". The emails are flying as we type folks. I definitely don't think we want to hear any more of that garbage between now and 2012 and especially leading up to 2012. 2. I honestly have to admit that it made the conspiracy theorist in me's ears perk up and look for a hidden agenda if only for just a moment. So, why didn't he just do Al-Arabiya second? Is it simply because he views issues in the middle east as more pressing than our domestic issues? I.e., Is world destruction (starting from the middle east) more imminent than domestic destruction? It may be but I'm not convinced one way or the other.

Hmmm.... Actually, all the hippies that I know ARE old. And Amanita muscaria (aka the legendary "Soma") IS VERY hallucinogenic. It has a longer ethnopharmacological history than perhaps any other hallucinogen; except maybe ergot. Many or most of Amanita muscaria’s closely related cousins are EXTREMELY poisonous. However, if you do some research, there is a chance that you will focus your attention and efforts on something besides Amanita muscaria to blame for your pet poisonings. In any event, what you claim you are attempting to do is not "simple" especially if you indeed have no idea what active compound(s) you are looking for. You will need access to full blown chemistry department and then the paths to your goal probably include, but are not limited to: 1. Collect a WHOLE bunch of the material. 2. Dry and grind to a consistent powder 3. Figure out if what you want to isolate is organic solvent or water soluble. 4. Soxlet extraction (kind of like making coffee but more efficient) 5. Extensive extractions (eg, Chloroform/water; methylene chloride/water; hexane/water; etc....). Monitor with TLC 6. Liquid Chromatography. Monitor with TLC, NMR and/or Mass Spec. (GC if the compounds are volatile, known and characterized) 7. Analytical HPLC, then Preparative HPLC. Monitor by NMR and/or Mass Spec. and/or GC if the compounds are volatile, known and characterized. etc, etc.......... 8. Then you have to figure out what the isolates actually do. Are you planning on testing these on animals? Conclusion: The SAFEST, MOST PRECISE AND EASIEST method by a long shot is to go where others have gone before you. Amanita muscaria and it's relatives have been EXTENSIVELY studied and many or all of their active compounds have been isolated and characterized. Therefore, you just need to read, not experiment, to find out what might be killing mushroom-eating dogs in your area. If that is indeed what you really want to do.

Gamma Irradiation works well for produce.

I didn't realize that this was a torture vs nuclear advocacy thread or that I would be asked to choose one over the other. I'm an advocate of neither. As I stated previously, the use of nuclear armaments was, in my opinion, one of humanity's darkest hours. Possessing the ability to exterminate ones' own species and possibly all life on ones' own planet is an extremely shameful and pitiful state to be in. Furthermore, as you suggest, it very well may be hypocritical to permit nuclear weapons to exist yet disallow torture, and our morals may be twisted. So I might agree with you on that point, with at least one caveat: In an attempt to be completely objective, I must admit that the threat of nuclear retaliation and/or annihilation seems to work (so far at least); on the other hand, as many previous posts have documented, torture seems to have not been so successful. Again, plenty of people have presented evidence and testimony that support the position that torture may not achieve the desired objective(s). In contrast, the pro-torture camp's primary evidence seems to be along the lines of "well if it didn't work, everybody wouldn't be doing it". You must admit, that's an awfully weak, nearly inconsequential, argument. Still waiting in anticipation for the documented evidence in support of the effectiveness of torture.......... Since I'm either to dumb to know better, a curmudgeon or maybe because I have an urge to humor both you and myself (or all 3), I'll go ahead and step on your torture vs nukes landmine: So, IF one were to step back from the situation and address your Torture vs Nuclear Weapons comparison from a purely legal standpoint: -The conventions, treaties and US military laws that ban torture are listed in my previous posts. -What convention(s) have we been a party to, what treaty(s) have we signed, and/or what US law(s) prevent us from possessing and/or using nuclear weapons? It very well may be hypocritical. However, at least we admit the truth to ourselves and the rest of the world about our position(s) on nuclear weapons.

"Yes"

"I don't believe in god for the same reason that I don't believe in the tooth fairy or unicorns." does not bear a resemblance to "Ur stoopid fer bleeving dat!" ??? Furthermore, unlike comparing a person's or a group of persons' belief(s) in a higher power(s), faith, or religion to the "tooth fairy", asking a logical question is not necessarily a criticism, was not intended as such, and should not interpreted as such. If you'd care to explain to me how comparing one's religion to the tooth fairy is not a criticism, either here or off line, I'd certainly be receptive. It (my question) was not meant to be a criticism of your or anyone else's views and should not be interpreted as such. It was a simple question, posed directly towards your statement, containing a reference to the statement in question, and a request for clarification. Is my directly questioning your statement some sort of heresy?

Do you know what the boiling point of DMSO is? Also, do you know what happens when you mix a toxic substance or drug with DMSO and apply it too skin?

Maybe it's just my own narrow-mindedness, but I'm not so sure which parts of the thread you are referring to iNow. Is it this part: For that matter, I'm not sure how this post can even exist; for example, how the question in the OP can even be asked, without violating the policy against "criticism of another's views" or the spirit of that which was iterated in #2 and #18 . I'm confused

OK. I agree with your position. But in order to avoid being "hypocritical"and in order to be completely honest with ourselves and everyone else in the world, we should officially state that we are going to torture people as we deem it necessary to serve our needs and meet our objectives. Of course we will also need to withdraw from the treaties and conventions that we have signed and change our own military laws to reflect this official policy. Then, we can let the torturers do what they are paid to do; torture the deserving bastards. The rest of us can merrily go about our way, confident in the knowledge that we are safe from terrorists and other evil people. And we can be proud that we are doing everything that is necessary to honor and protect freedom, democracy, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. After it is brought out into the open and formally sanctioned, MTV could even make a reality show out of it, 'The Real World, Gitmo'; a portion of the proceeds of which could be used to pay down our debt for the 'War on Terror'.

Faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/

...........

Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged As a matter of fact, several years ago, I had an intruder in my home in the middle of the night. Thankfully, I was able to grab my child (3 yr old) and escape to a neighbor's house, where we called 911. The police were there in minutes and hauled him away. I had an easy opportunity to kill the scum bag. All I had to do was squeeze the trigger. Furthermore, I would have been completely justified in killing him. But I chose option number one, which is ALWAYS the best defense when it is possible.....my feet. BTW: When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.

You are "totally cool with nuking whole civilizations"?? I have always felt that was one of [our] (as a species...as a country's) darkest hours. I was not thinking of that one specifically when I wrote: awful, ugly, terrible things have "worked at some point in human history" to achieve a goal or goals, but I think that you have brought up a very good one. However, If we just consider the numbers and the nature of the parties involved (normal citizens, women, children, etc) it is actually a much better example of what I meant by awful, ugly, terrible things, than torture....at least the torture of individuals who are believed to have partaken in some heinous act(s) against society.

But we all are aware of the fact a lot of awful, ugly, terrible things have "worked at some point in human history" to achieve a goal or goals. Those 'ends did not justify the means' either.

Try the bucket! What have you got to lose? Buckets are cheap. And even if it does'nt work, everyone can use an extra bucket.

When I was much younger, we used to go to the top of hills with various ranges of slopes and heights, get inside old tires, and then role down the hills to 'achieve motion'. As we grew taller, the older ones among us had to use larger and heavier, old semi Truck tires to fit inside. These larger truck tires, with greater 'm', were only for the most brave and the most stupid among us; because they achieved significantly greater values of 'F' quickly. The effect of increasing 'm' on 'F' was quite dramatic in many cases, but we had no idea how to quantify 'F' nor vector 'a'. However, we could often approximate the value of 'm" by lifting the tires and comparing them to other objects that we already knew the approximate 'm' of, such as each other. It was an exciting method to achieve 'motion' and an insightful way to study, not only how 'm' effected 'F', but also how variations in values of vector 'a' effected 'F'. On numerous occasions, one of us would hit a tree, or a ditch. As you might have already surmised, the rather abrupt decrease in 'a' (ie, it went to zero quickly) would injure one of us, but usually not critically; few bones were broken, but we often received slight concussions. It was a fun way to achieve 'motion'.... and crudely study F= ma.

Well, there's your problem "Pulling a gun" should trigger exactly two responses 1. pointing the gun and 2. firing gun in rapid succession. If [you've] got time to wave it around and try to scare somebody with it, [you] certainly have time to run away; which would save everybody, especially [yourself], a lot of misery. Facts: -The police absolutely can not (and in many cases will not) protect you. There isn't enough of them (and there never will be) and they are busy writing tickets and responding to dogs barking anyway. -YOU and only you can protect yourself and your family. -In states where the law has changed to "shall- issue", the violent crime rate has dropped significantly http://www.womenandguns.com/wfn/lott.html ""Somewhere around 0.8 to 2.0 million violent crimes are deterred each year because of gun ownership and use by civilians. In addition, another 1.5 to 2.5 million crimes are stopped by armed civilians. There may be some overlap in these two categories because of the ways in which the data are collected, but there are almost certainly some two to four million fewer completed crimes each year as the result of civilian gun ownership."" http://saf.org/LawReviews/SouthwickJr1.htm When "the lion lies down with the lamb", I'll happily throw mine in the river. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Not me! 1. I don't go get the gun. It is on nightstand next to me. 2. I shoot the SOB immediately and repeatedly before he can get to the kids' room(s). 3. The gunfire will wake up the wife and she can call 911 while I keep my eye and gun on the perp in case he ain't dead enough. 4. I kick and stomp on his body to make sure he won't be getting up anytime in my, my wife's or my kids' lifetime 5. The police arrive and then and only then do I go wander around What do you think he's going to be doing while you are fumbling for the phone in the dark, and trying to dial, waking your wife, going to get your gun, and sneaking around the house and/or retreating?

It is sad to recall, but I often have wondered what would have happened at Columbine if just a couple of teachers were packing Glocks........ The same goes for Univ West Va. Furthermore what kind of moron would try rob or rape the cashier at a Quickie Mart at 3 AM if they know there was a 75% or greater chance that they would get their head blown off. Same goes for robbing banks in grocery stores (the latest criminal fad in my area). Guns are the greatest 'safety devices' ever invented.

ROFL For a second, I thought that you were surrendering.... Then, I realized what you were actually replying to. Very slick. LOL

I love the smell of DNA in the morning. Both! My Faith is unwavering. However, I'm getting more confused by the minute; primarily because............... Yes. The very short version is: nucleotide polymers do not equal self-replication does not equal genetic code After reading this, it became obvious to me that you probably do not understand the difference between 'spontaneous polymerization' and 'self replication'; or even 'replication'. I can synthesize any number of compounds in the lab that will spontaneously polymerize; even some with nucleobases attached to them and/or sugar backbones. You mentioned Phosphoramidate DNA which is a good example. Credit: Borrowed from one of Jack Szostak's presentations. HOWEVER, these things, after they have 'spontaneously polymerized', do NOT necessarily "self replicate" or undergo the process of self replication. Taking that further, no one has yet been able to figure how to make a "self replicating" or a "life-mimicking molecule" (if you want to call it that) that can assemble itself from simpler components than two halves of itself. Are you are familiar with Gerald Joyce's or Rebek's work on self replicating molecules?

I'm not in the mode you refer to at all. So your assumption is wrong also. Of course I'm not saying that simple confinement, or anything remotely resembling that is torture and I'm not saying that we should slap a label on everything. What I am saying is that the definitions I quoted were, I believe, intended to stand up to, for example the 'reasonable and prudent man' test which is used in US jurisprudence. I'm no lawyer by any means. But by that well accepted legal standard, the US, unfortunately, has failed. I myself am a Jeffersonian Libertarian (but not an anarchist). Live and let live. On that we agree. Numbers, "we don't need any stinkin' numbers"? That's an interesting position. I'd still like to see them (numbers or data), and I certainly would expect you to have them, to back up your position. It has been my experience that you are generally less visceral (more factual and logical) on most matters, Para. Para, I strongly disagree with you on this particular point. Seriously, why don't [you] need or even want numbers to support your position? Ever? You don't really expect me to swallow that do you? I like a good argument, better than most, but I ain't goin there....except to say that: Only 2 things are 100% certain: - the fact that noting is absolutely certain, -that you and I are going to die; hopefully, later, rather than sooner So, I pass on that one.... Even IF we ignore the testimony from people that been tortured or been affiliated with torture (much of which has been presented here by others) for a moment and, even though no one has presented anything even remotely resembling real data or testimony to support of the use of torture to obtain strategic information, I'm simply saying that: 1. Torture is a. defined in the Geneva Conv, b. in The UN Conv, c. by US Military Law. This can be taken as is and/or easily interpreted by the 'reasonable and prudent man' test. 2. Torture is clearly illegal by the above laws and conventions that we are a party to. 3. We are a nation founded on the basis and principle of law; laws that were intended to support, among other things, a. freedom (but not for example freedom to torture), b. human rights and c. human dignity. 4. A whole lot of people died and/or suffered so that we could have and maintain # 3 above. 5. Torture flushes 3 and 4 down the toilet, which is not acceptable to me and lot of other people.

Correct! Somebody got shot plus we have the death of the gun owner (by firing squad?). Very very child proof and safe indeed. Guns are completely safe. People are dangerous. Fact: The BEST child proof mechanism currently available is familiarity and EDUCATION. Most accidents involving children and firearms involve children that were not taught proper firearm safety and/or never had any experience with an actual firearm....ie, the parents kept it locked in a "secret" place, that wasn't so secret or accidentally left it out. Many had "played" with toy guns, but had never actually touched a real gun. I'll look for the data and post when I get a chance. Case in point: I got my first 22 bolt action rifle when I was five (same goes for my son) and my first 22 pistol when I was nine, along with intensive firearm safety training that started as soon as my hands were big enough to hold a firearm. I can guarantee you that the 50 -60 firearms that were in our house (of 5 family members) at any given time were ENTIRELY safe. They were safe because: -They were ALWAYS loaded (whether there was an actual bullet in the chamber, cylinder or magazine or not) -Everyone that entered our house was familiar with gun safety, how to properly handle and use firearms (or they were not allowed to enter our house) -From the time we could crawl, we knew when and when not to point a firearm at anything or anybody (ie, never point it at any thing that we didn't seriously intend to kill or put a hole in-if it was a target) -Plus, we weren't allowed to "play" with "toy" guns Another case in point: Just a couple of weeks ago a jewelry store owner in my town shot two armed, would be burglars, trying to rob him and his wife in his store. The TV, radio and newspaper all reported that there were 2 shooting victims at a jewelry store. They said absolutely nothing about how the guy saved his wife's life and his own life. This "guns are dangerous" nonsense is one sick lie.

The squirrel thought it was hilarious.

Obviously you have never shot a shotgun at a squirrel that your extremely drunk buddy used as a crutch in a muddy field the night before.

I looked at the landscape in Google Earth and Google Maps very closely, at several magnifications. I see a large light area, roughly the shape of 1/3 of the outer edge of a several mile wide disc; as similarly described by the Captn It looks, to me at least, like some hills or it could, much less likely in my opinion, be a valley. I tried to get elevations but was not successful. JusD, do you have any elevation info??