badchad

Interesting, I just bought a laptop with 512MB RAM and it came with a little "Vista Compatible" sticker on it.

This may be a dumb question, but isn't it possible they'll release a Vista "Pro" version as well?

So now author's have to pay to get their work published? I'm not sure if thats a better alternative. Also, while I didn't put forth a lot of effort, the biomedcentral link was the only one offering "open acess". The rest of the direct links still required access. While I tend to agree in concept, the "public" has very little need to access articles. Think of the people reading scientific journals now: While there are certainly exceptions, the only people reading them are professional scientists. Professionals already have access. Also, consider that if you aren't a professional, much of the literature is "over your head". Obviously there are enthusiasts who certainly would benefit (e.g. a lot of SFN members) however, they represent a very small amount of people. EDIT: I just tried the pubmed wizard to. It simply linked me right back to pubmed, which again, required access. Am I doing something wrong?

I must admit, I didn't have a lot of time to pick through the references so I'll keep my comments brief. Unfortunately' date=' there seems little alternative. There are obvious exceptions, but many schizophrenics lack the resources and abilityto lead functional lives without extensive care. There are obvious problems with the drugs, but are side effects much worse than being institutionalized indefinetly? I would urge you to read the published report. There has been a relatively large backlash and criticism of the study since publication, pointing out methodological flaws. One that comes to mind: There was only one typical antipsychoitc used for the comparison. Then you have the usual issues of outcomes measures, dose etc. Go to pubmed and search with the key word CATIE and they will all pop up. There are valid arguments against, and supporting the results of the trial. All I'm saying is that those results are debateable and far from concrete.

If you're interested in hallucinogens, I highly recommend the following review as a starting point: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14761703&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum As far as "filters" are concerned, one would have to ask whether we are (for lack of a better term) "removing" or "lessening" a filter with a hallucinogen, or does the chemical itself exogenously stimulate our brains to "add" some sort of stimuli that isn't there?

At some point though, you would think the body would recognize excess fat as being detrimental, and it would compensate. Or as biggs implied, maybe this will happen over time as a selective pressure.

As swanson said, with all the educatoin and effort put into publishing a paper it is somewhat "elitist". Also, consider that peer-reviewd publications are NOT meant to be read by the general public. That is not their purpose; rather they are meant to convey information to other researchers in the area. If you were to "dumb down" a scholarly research paper so eeryone could read it, you would risk the loss of information.

It's depends on the "severity" of your schizophrenia. Your only other option may be institutionalization. You could try switching your medicatoin to Seroquel (quetiapine) or Abilify (aripiprazole) as they have a reputation for being "milder" antipsychotic drugs.

It would seem that the money is being spent in the wrong places (e.g. it may be better spent on preventive measures, rather than "cures"). Also, consider that emphasis is placed on having the most "cutting edge" technology which is more expensive. Add this to the capitalist attitude on healthcare and it's a recipe for high cost. For example, a single MRI machine could serve a relatively large area. However, since hospitals are in "competition" for your healthcare dollar you may have 3 hospitals in a 10 mile radius all having an MRI machine. It's redundancy and not needed. EDIT: I meant to address the "cost" issue with this post, rather than a "why" we are unhealthy.

^^^ Certainly some constructive input. Being awake for extended periods of time, and a degree of mental confusion are part of the experience and expected amongst those who are familiar with the drug. There is no objective evidence of "brain damage" being caused by the drug. While HPPD is a consequence of drug use, the occurence is rare. This is where one would consider how much "worse" the drug relative to other legal substances which cause drunk driving accidents, lung/ liver cancer, etc.

There are special formulations of "kids toothpaste" which I think have lower levels of flouride in them. I think if you look across the literature, you may find that the amount of toothpaste a child needs to swallow to cause harm is fairly high (maybe not). Skye is the concentration of flouride that causes problems 4mg/ml? (You mentioned the concentration of water, but then it would depend on the amount of water drank as well).

The cause is unknown. Most of the current research suggests that schizophrenia arises from a combination of genetic and environmental factors.

Not familiar with the field but my guess is: "a lot". If you want to do science research, you'll usually need a Ph.D. If you are happy with being a technician, a bachelor's will do. Again, I'm not sure what types of "clinical gene therapy are available, but clinical medicine will usually require an MD, unless this type of therapy is being performed on a nursing/physician's assistant level.

A lot of people discount psychology because it deals with a lot of subjective topics: consciousness, "thinking" etc. Nowadays however a lot of psychology research follows the scientific method. In addition a lot of psychologists perform experiments using objective data (e.g. quantitative changes in neurotransmitter levels etc.). Thus, IMO psychology is definetly a science.

Despite the majority opinion presented, there appear to be some real benefits of circumcision: Including decreased medical costs associated with “prevention of infant urinary tract infection, balanoposthitis, phimosis, HIV infection and penile cancer” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16469634&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum Prevention of urinary tract infection: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15890696&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum And decreased rates of HIV transmission (although other studies contradict these results) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12917962&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum There are likely to be faults and criticisms associated with these studies (as is the case with most published literature). More importantly, I’m sure someone is bound to post studies showing adverse effects of circumcision. I do agree that with medical treatment, informed consent is important. However, the controversy surrounding circumcision (and whether it is beneficial or detrimental to the individual and society raises the more important question of: “Is there ever an incidence where the benefit of a medical procedure to an individual and society trumps informed consent”? Using an extreme example: if circumcision reduced the mortality rate in kids under the age of three by 95%, would you still be against it? Or would you take the risk to achieve informed consent?

It depends on your definition of "simple". It can add up over a lifetime, and also reduce infection. You're correct, it may not be important for babies. I guess my point was that I would prefer to have the procedure done at a point in my lifetime when I wouldn't remember it.

Circumcision can improve male hygiene. And while it is purely a social contruct, it is my opinion that circumcised men are viewed as more *ahem* "visually pleasing" by women. I also recall that removing the foreskin reduces the sensitivity of the penis, which would result in "performance enhancement" during coitus. I am aware of emerging evidence suggesting the procedure can result in psychological problems later in life, however it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of men whom are circumcised turn out "just fine". Thus, based on hygienic and cosmetic factors alone, I'm all for it.

An answer completely "off the top of my head" form someone who has absolutely no knowledge of chemical engineering.... "why wouldn't chemical engineers be as important?" It would seem to me that there will always be a need for "new chemicals" as technology progresses. New technologies will arise, new ways of manufacuring things, and newer and better "things" will require more chemicals. I guess my short answer is: "yes".

Someone eluded to it earlier but if you look at the grand scheme of things, your undergraduate education will probably mean very little. It's more the work you do, and whom you do it with. To give a quick example: I'm currently a graduate student at a very "average" school. However, we have professors that have published in Science and Nature, and also a nobel laureate on our faculty. Everyone enters into a single "interdisciplinary" program. Thus, you could easily be accepted into an "average" non-ivy league school and be doing ground breaking work. Also consider your post-doctoral experience and what it actually is: You have a highly trained individual with a Ph.D willing to work for $30Kish a year. Few investigators would turn that opportunity down. Thus, even when I finish my my Ph.D at my very "average" school, I will probably have the option of going into a variety of labs (including what some consider "prestigious" ones). My point is that if you want a famous school, go for it. However, don't get hung up on it, or give up if you're not accepted.

the GRE is the Graduate Record Examination. It's a standardized test for graduate school applicants (like the SAT for undergrads). There are also specific GRE exams, like a GRE in biology.

The best way is to read articles from the journal plan on submitting to. Each one has a professional editing staff, they will make semantic changes in your wording although I would assume each journal has different policies on it. Another thing to realize is that almost all manuscripts are submitted in MS word format. The articles however, are published in pdf. format. Thus, I would assume there is significant formatting to get it that way (which is probably why scientists do science, and publishers do the publishing)

Perhaps he's published before? I'm not sure if he meant it in the literal sense. However, each journal has its own specific guidelines for how articles are formatted which you must follow. I didn't use a citation/bibliography program for my first paper. When I got the review back I had to go back and rearrange the periods and capital letters in EVERY citation in the references and within the text. Not fun. Endnote became my friend after that.

I'll make a weak attempt at this.... I'm somewhat knowledgeable about "regular" home theatre but know next to nothing about xbox and PC home theatre. On the back of the x-box you should have either an "optical" or "digital coaxial" output. I believe these are the only two outputs which are able to carry a 5.1 signal. Thus, you will need to connect either of these outputs (preferably the optical) to a deice which an interpret the 5.1 signal, and then pass it along to the speakers. In the case of home theatre, you simply connect the optical output from a DVD player to the optical input on a 5.1 receiver. In essence, whatever is powering the speakers, will need to be able to decode the 5.1 signal from the xbox. Probably not much help.......

Of course, when your crazy friend goes off his meds and pushes me in front of a subway; I'd consider him violating a basic human right: Life. In most functional societies there are rules, laws and norms that people must abide by or they are removed from said society. Taking your line of reasoning to an extreme example, I could run around killing people with the justification of: Well, I don't abide by your perception that killing is wrong. The best advice to your friend: stop resisting, laws and rules are in place for a reason.

Be prepared for a lot of school. I mentioned it in another thread but if you want to become a neuroscientist you'll need a Ph.D. So you're looking at 4 years of undergrad, about 5 of thesis work, plus about a 3 year post-doc. The time frame will be similar to become a surgeon (although I know muc less about this career choice). You're looking at about 4 years undergrad, 4 years medical school, then a long residency 4-8 years. Either way you look at it; it'll be tons of school. Just be prepared.