1veedo

Precipitation

Psychology goes back many many centuries. You'd be surprised how old it actually is. Most of modern psychology is based on ideas from humanistic psychology and cognitive psychology (which itself is rooted on behaviorism). Beyond that some ideas in psychology can be traced back to structuralism and functionalism, but definitely not Freudian psychology. There are some ideas that are still around today, some of which are even valid, but Freud's only important contribution to psychology was actually psychiatry, even though psychiatry today is based more on research in psychology instead of psychoanalysis. You cant possibly be suggesting that our understanding of schizophrenia, for example, can be traced back to Freud, can you? The vast majority of psychology has nothing to do with psychological disorders in the first place. Most people seem to associate psychology with abnormal brain functioning but most of psychology is actually involved with normal brain functioning.

You missed the question entirely. You're answering "can we [as in individual people] learn everything" which is of course no, nobody can know everything. The question is asking whether or not science can explain everything which doesn't necessarily imply being able to learn everything, via science, yourself, just the ability to look up whatever your heart desires, via science, when curious.

Marijuana is actually safer then alcohol. The reason marijuana is still outlawed is because lobbyists from the alcohol industry dont want it taking business away. The difference foodchain between drugs like meth/cocaine/crack/heroin/[lsd] and alcohol/marijuana is that the former are a little more "powerful" in regard to increasing dopamine receptor activity. Meth is actually in a class all of it's own. It has a 99% addiction rate after only one use. A lot of its sideeffects come from all the corrosive chemicals that once introduced do a lot of damage to the brain (when produced illicitly). There's a little patch of 200 cells that connect your cortex to the hypothalamus which can be destroyed after 6 months of moderate alcohol use. You only have to try meth once to completely destroy that chain of cells which is why it's so addicting (you cant control the urge to try it again). Marijuana and alcohol can cause some of the psychosis-similar sideeffects over longterm use. Marijuana though may only cause this risk under high doses. According to the article bellow, higher intake of THC can cause hallucination, so that answers my question from above. The article also indicates a predisposition to psychosis in order for marijuana to trigger it while not actually on the drug. There's a condition known as cannabis psychosis in the DSM where certain individuals can trigger psychosis through cannabis. Cécile Henquet etal. (2004). "Prospective cohort study of cannabis use, predisposition for psychosis, and psychotic symptoms in young people" British Medical Journal You're right though that most people don't get psychotic symptoms with marijuana. And the only long-term effects associated with marijuana is impairment of learning and memory, not including the effects of actually smoking it, which happen to be much less severe then smoking btw. When analyzing the risks for depression you have to specify whether you're talking about the chemical properties of a drug or the actual use of it. So if you're asking about medical purposes, can psychedelic drugs, on a chemical level, cause depression, the answer is that it depends on the drug. Meth causes depression. Marijuana actually cures it. But using both marijuana or meth can increase your risk for depression because of the social consequences associated with drug use.

Yes, Freud is a crackpot. He was however the first person to actually consider that "crazy people" might have something wrong with them that is inherently curable. PS. I also happen to be "college age" and have taken basic college psychology courses. Maybe there's a bit of a correlation with being educated on the subject and understanding that Freud's ideas have mostly been shown to be incorrect. He's a popular figure in the general population, not in academy. /thread

Marijuana can make you hallucinate just in case you were wondering. It's not a hallucinogen but some users (not all) experience hallucinations (not sure why/how you accomplish this though). But what most drugs [that make you high] have in common is increased dopamine. All drugs that make you high share a common set of side-effects called like dopomatic-typical responses or something. Increased dopamine can cause schizotypy characteristics. That's why pictures of "your brain on crack" look suspiciously like a schizophrenic brain (atrophied, holes, etc). Individual drugs of course have more side-effects then just the basic side-effects caused by increase dopamine receptor activity but they all have at the very least these sorts of side-effects similar to psychosis. edit -- source in case you want it: Myers, David G. (2006) Psychology, 8ed.

Marijuana may actually treat depression; it has been considered for medical purposes, although in most of the world this is illegal. Any connection between marijuana and depression is usually correlation study where depressed people are more likely to do drugs and thus marijuana, not necessarily the other way around. There are however risks to using marijuana because it can cause people to be more secluded and socially withdrawn (smoking pot instead of going out etc). So although marijuana has chemical properties that cures depression, using it may actually worsen symptoms. If it were used medically (eg w/ the particular "active ingredients" so to speak that treat depression) it could actually be very effective. The science though isn't clear yet especially sense it's illegal to actually study the drug in the Untied States and Britain. It's surprising how much research is out there though. Makes you wonder what the government thinks because it's obvious some of these scientists have broke the law. I always thought it was funny because there's this product called "black hole" apatite stimulant for bodybuilders which was derived directly from marijuana. I've never used marijuana but I know people who do and they say it makes you hungry... http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/clabs/black.html Right there is undeniable proof that Controlled Labs is breaking the law and what does the government do? Nothing! Kind of like how people post about smoking pot on their myspace pages. Why they don't just bust all the people who publicly admit to smoking it, I don't know. Btw all of this info found here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official&hs=XGd&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=marijuana+depression&spell=1 It's amazing how google knows just about everything

Boy aren't we smart. You can install it to a thumbdrive genius Run the server on your computer and carry around the client on a thumbdrive. Use iptables/rinetd/your router to forward ports (eg to port 80 or 443).

Some .rm files run but I had to download real player to get a couple files on my computer to play. On gentoo I never had to do that. The rm files in question would play the audio but never the video so there is at least partial support.

Yeah Rhythmbox is pretty nice too. You can get codecs from the Ubuntu guide. You probably already know about this but just in case you dont: http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Ubuntu:Feisty#How_to_install_Multimedia_Codecs Most video players use the same codecs that mplayer uses. The only exception is real media which you cant even install from the repository -- you have to download realplayer. Btw Klaynos I know you're a debian guy but that doesn't make us much different. We just like our debian painted brown The latest Ubuntu has all the ["standard"] repositories enabled by default. They should have been doing this for a long time but they wanted to be biased towards gnu and other free software. Everyone just enabled them anyway because they contain a lot of packages that people want.

Yeah, I'm using ubuntu right now. I just switched from using crosscompiled gentoo LiveCDs for about a year (my personal projects, I have about 5) and it's amazing how everything works automatically instead of you having to make everything work yourself. Making liveCDs of Ubuntu is even easier -- just copy the CD it came on, modify the filesystem, and make the new ISO (while at the same time you can delete a bunch of the extra stuff you dont need). Btw you'll learn to love the command line. it does so much more and is so much easier to use then cmd in Windows (which is practically useless). If you program you'll find it a million times easier on Linux too. I don't see how people can develop on Windows, I guess none of them realize how cumbersome it is (of course then again I don't see how people can use VB either). Microsoft is actually doing away with VB if that's any indication of how horrible it is. But yeah it's very user friendly. Have you tried amarok for your music? About the only problem people have with Linux is finding the right apps to use. VLC and Xine are two really good movie players as well. I don't have much experience with Mplayer but it seems to be the most popular because it's a "traditional" app. The only reason I like VLC more then mplayer is because it can play slowmotion and speed up the video. If you have a graphics card you might want to check out beryl. it has lots of neat effects for your desktop that will make all of your Windows Vista friends jealous.

Just remember that it was Snail who made posts 9 and 11, not me . Just get her a beer (or something to the same effect) and tell her how enticing and irresistible it was. "It just looked so delicious setting there I had to try one." Oh and it is pretty ****ed up that your roommates wont admit to it. She knows they did it so you should get them to apologize with you.

I like this idea especially because it was the truth in the first place. "It just looked so good they were irresistible." You're talking about a girl though btw and they're pretty flaky/moody/whimsical (like the dominoes pizza commercial in the hot tub) so she'll eventually get over it. In my experience no matter how mad women get they always come around. If it's a matter of "trust" maybe tell her that if she makes something else it'll stay in the fridge next time and nobody will eat it.

What language is this? It looks so... funny. Like a mix between C++ and one of the kiddy languages. Yep. You caught me.

"How old are you?"

I need help how do I create a program that calculates factorials?

Did you read a single thing Peak Oil Man posted or do you just enjoy repeating yourself over and over again?

Science journals are not discriminatory in this regard. If skeptics cant get their work published then it reflects more poorly on themselves then it does the publishers. Just because you think you're being discriminated against does not make your position correct. Sure, Darwin was ridiculed. The Wright brothers, even, were told they were crazy. But these are good stories cause people like them. What you don't hear about are all the people who's ideas were discriminated against and history has subsequently found them wrong! (see for instance Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer) "For every Galileo shown the instruments of torture for advocating a scientific truth, there are a thousand (or ten thousand) unknowns whose "truths" never pass muster with other scientists" Holding a minority position does not in any way make you correct. Besides, there are many minority positions that are published for serious consideration. Articles about modified Newtonian dynamics (whatever it's called) for instance can be found in all the major physics and science journals. MOND is arguing against relativity. Your skeptics are arguing against climate change, a science much less established then relativity, and they cant even get published. So having a minority position doesn't even guarantee that you'll find it hard to get published in the first place -- which means that the climate skeptic arguments must necessarily be that much more worse.

Many, actually. ... This paper was never published nor peer-reviewed. Now that I had the title' date=' a quick google search to page 2 reveals that this paper is actually part of the Oregon petition project against global warming that was started a long time ago (and which has shown up on these forums many times so I'm assuming you know what I'm talking about). http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/skeptics.htm It was supposedly published by the NAS but they issued a statement latter, It's just dressed up to look like a science paper, that's all. Btw I do not doubt that there is actual peer-review available from the "skeptics" but the point is that it doesn't get anywhere. Technically speaking now that this particular article is in circulation it has actually received a small amount of peer-review, it was just never formally sent through the process (and thus doesn't actually constitute peer-review). Most journals have "inside" peer-review that articles go through before they're actually published so the vast majority of these "skeptic papers" would not make it through the first step (this particular article went around the system in this regard). It's this same process that people were yelling "conspiracy" toward the IPCC for because it was peer-reviewed first by several thousand scientists before actually being published. This is actually what's supposed to happen though because it saves people time from having to read bad articles.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?um=1&tab=ws&client=firefox-a&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official&q=%22The+environmental+effects+of+increased+carbon+dioxide.%22http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+environmental+effects+of+increased+carbon+dioxide.%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Hardly what I'd consider peer-reviewed. I cant find it in ebsco or jstor either. Just to keep things simple, lets try to find something important enough that at least google knows about it. This isn't necessarily to "shoot down" your paper, I'd just like to be able to read some of the peer-review that these papers generate (and I am genuinely interested here to play nice). Btw vol 13 was published in 1999 anyway so it'd be a little outdated by now in this field. http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v13/n1/ Link to SkepticLances report: http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/13/c013p149.pdf Just so everyone is clear, this paper is not what he's trying to make it out to be. All it does is say that the warming of the 20th century produced few negative side-effects, which is actually true, and is not contradictory of the consensus. It then goes on to say speculatively that future warming may not be a bad thing either. Global warming does increase global farming output. What this paper does not do, however, is prove that global warming is nessisarily a good thing in the long run. Contemporary research (Climate Change 2007: The Scientific Basis) points out possible negative side-effects of global warming that contradict this paper. Furthermore, ecosystem analysis have found many negative environmental side-effects after 1970 caused by global warming which directly contradict a central premise of SkepticLance's paper (working group 2)

For the guys who haven't yet seen it... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573 I'm about to post this in each individual thread that brings the swindle up. This video is like a power point by a university professor outlining some of the errors in the video.

You're joking, right?

Just so everyone is perfectly clear we are talking about anthropogenic global warming here (if it wasn't already obvious). Btw I think we need more options (eg some common claims like the sun is causing global warming, volcanoes put out more CO2 then humans, or an option for "I read it on a website").

You could look at other (gnu or open source) tbs and see how they do it. Eg wesnoth.

...Which is ad hominem and has nothing to do with the validity of the article in question.