Slashdot Mirror

And then there was the experiment where a couple dozen professionals who had been stuck on various problems for months were given LSD to determine it's effects on creative problem solving. (You can read about the experiment here: http://www.themorningnews.org/...) but here's a quote:

"But here’s the clincher. After their 5HT2A neural receptors simmered down, they remained firm: LSD absolutely had helped them solve their complex, seemingly intractable problems. And the establishment agreed. The 26 men unleashed a slew of widely embraced innovations shortly after their LSD experiences, including a mathematical theorem for NOR gate circuits, a conceptual model of a photon, a linear electron accelerator beam-steering device, a new design for the vibratory microtome, a technical improvement of the magnetic tape recorder, blueprints for a private residency and an arts-and-crafts shopping plaza, and a space probe experiment designed to measure solar properties."

I'm in favor of continued scientific investigation of LSD, but glancing through the linked article, there is no mention of a control group. Without performing the exact same procedure except substituting a placebo for the LSD there is no way of knowing whether the LSD actually helped and if so, how much.

People always make jokes like this about LSD, and granted a lot of "revelations" and "brilliant ideas" turn out to just be drug-induced delusions, but you really can learn a lot about yourself and other things from LSD. A lot of the things you learn are deeply personal and wouldn't be meaningful to anyone else. Some are things you already "knew", but get integrated better from the experience. And a lot of people have profound spiritual experiences, which, truth aside, provide their lives with meaning.

And then there was the experiment where a couple dozen professionals who had been stuck on various problems for months were given LSD to determine it's effects on creative problem solving. (You can read about the experiment here: http://www.themorningnews.org/...) but here's a quote:

"But here’s the clincher. After their 5HT2A neural receptors simmered down, they remained firm: LSD absolutely had helped them solve their complex, seemingly intractable problems. And the establishment agreed. The 26 men unleashed a slew of widely embraced innovations shortly after their LSD experiences, including a mathematical theorem for NOR gate circuits, a conceptual model of a photon, a linear electron accelerator beam-steering device, a new design for the vibratory microtome, a technical improvement of the magnetic tape recorder, blueprints for a private residency and an arts-and-crafts shopping plaza, and a space probe experiment designed to measure solar properties."

Yeah, LSD is a lot of fun to use recreationaly, and it's easy to mock "the semi-coherent ramblings of some guys on LSD," but LSD has a lot of potential to offer our society if only we'd take it seriously.

EmbeddedJanitor wrote: Many cars can easily beat a Prius hybrid on fuel economy, but not high performance cars. To get good fuel economy probably needs a mindshift away from SUVs and Hummers towards smaller 1300cc or smaller cars.

I'd encourage more people to go out and actually drive a Prius. I'll be picking up mine on Monday. I should mention that it has a 1500cc engine.

When I was a lot younger, a friend of mine, during an oil crisis, purchased a Datsun B210. It got good (in the high 30 MPG range) gas mileage for a car that used a regular carburator and didn't really stretch technology all that much. Datsun reduced the weight of the car and size of the engine and made an automatic transmission that shifted in a specific way to keep the engine RPM low. This car took forever to reach highway speeds and I believe it was more dangerous because of that. It didn't do very well on the market once its performance was known.

According to Consumer Reports (who rates mileage better than the EPA), the Toyota Prius gets around 44 miles per gallon, which is a lot more than the old B210 and it gets up to highway speed faster than a pretty peppy Honda Civic. And it does this in a manner that achieves great mileage.

I think that, if one installed additional batteries and caused the Prius to work off them more (perhaps by plugging it in at home) and changed how its continuously variable transmission works, one could achieve mileage in that car that is very close to 100 MPG, but you would sacrifice the car's performance. You would also have to limit its maximum speed as well, because the faster a car goes, the more energy is required to push it through the air, with the average car's maximum efficiency at about 60 MPH, assuming its contour presents a low drag coefficient. This was the thinking around the 55 MPH national speed limit in the US.

In the meantime, the Prius boasts considerable torque at almost all speeds. I am concerned that I won't be able to easily get out of snow with it, because it's anti-skid system will shut off power to a wheel that spins. This may prevent one from rocking one's way out of a snowdrift.

I have almost always thought of cars as transportation. My brother-in-law just purchased himself a Dodge Charger "chick magnet." I respectfully disagree with his choice and I feel that he may regret his purchase once gasoline in my area hits $3.00 per gallon this summer. Of course Europeans, who pay some $5 to $6 per gallon may snicker at us and wish for the return of the days of $3.00 per gallon gasoline.

claiming things like breakage sounds a lot more like the anus defence in terms of "getting off" with the artists' money.

Subverting legal agreements seems to be too acceptable to these types.

I know you're joking, but check out this article from The Morning News under the lawyers section. Lawyers often work very hard to give the IMPRESSION of simplicity.

Keep in mind that there have been hoax blogs before. Did they really find the camera card? Do you believe every blog is true?

Links to the old reviews captured at mlcsmith and another set of old reviews and finally a trial test at the toy factory

My take on copyrights is:

1. That I believed that Congress was mandated not to establish kingdoms, monarchies, or any other set up where one person, group, or organization could control things for long periods of time unless it was a government run entity. 275 years is a long time. I know I will be dead, my sons dead, their sons dead, and so on for up to fifteen generations.

2. That each generation (ie: 20 years) is supposed to be given the chance to build upon the work of the previous generation without having to worry about owing the previous generation anything (like royalties). See the rules about The Patent Office for more information. Current copyright rules have destroyed this balance.

3. I am in favor of:
3a. Copyrights.
3b. Of the author being paid for their works.
3c. Of extending copyrights to the life of the author so long as the author is being paid for his/her work.
3d. Of the author being able to lease his copyrights.

4. I am not in favor of copyrights being bought or sold but that is just because I believe it muddies the water over how long a copyright should last. The person or entity who buys the copyright wants to make as much money as they can on what they paid out money for. As such, they have a vested interest in extending the copyright.

5. I am also in favor of having a group of small businesses get together,reviewing, and rewriting the copyright laws from the standpoint of those who are most affected by the changes in the DMCA. It would be interesting to have non-multibillion dollar companies present their views on what Congress did.

As as side note: I have heard (and someone please correct me if I am wrong) that one of the reasons for the extension was because people were living longer. My rebuttal to this is that whomever said this was not lying but they were not speaking the truth either. That is because the length of time people are living to be is still the same but the number of people living to that age is increasing. So the number is only increasing because there are more people living in the world and not because they are living a greater number of years.

To back the above up I refer people to Plato's "The Republic". In the section on when should men and women be allowed to procreate, Socrates replies that men between the ages of 25 and 55 may have children and women between 20 and 40. Now, ask yourself - if men lived to be 55 (and older) centuries before Christ came along, how can someone say we are living longer in terms of years?

Take a look behind the scenes of this campaign....