While you sleep during church you can dream about it. Speaking of which do they allow water bottles in church these days, I remember having to wait until it was over to go to the water fountain.
out of curiosity, what do you mean by drastically improved? More behaved? Less weird? I mean as a disclaimer I'm not against using drugs to treat things, but I still don't get giving kids a mind altering thing in a situation where they get in trouble for not taking it. I mean maybe for all you know the kid is selling it and is improved since he/she has some more money and it makes them feel cool. I dunno how ot make this sound less antagonistic but it really is just an honest question. I mean im actually in school to develop these things right now but still can't figure out where to draw the line between use and overuse. No kids seems like a decent one though.
But ketchup has the side effect of making you thirsty, then you have to go and treat that with something to drink. Then you'll be drunk and need to eat more red potato men to stay satisfied, thus requiring more ketchup. Looks like its a scam like everything else.
"Truncated" should have been emphasized, as should the fact that its lower case (although I wouldn't know how to emphasize that). I'm looking at you AC.
while your argument might be ok. The fact that you chose to talk shit about a drug you obviously didnt have direct experience with calls your motives into question and thus your assumptions.
Anyway yea meth is a drug you can do once, then feel shitty the next day... but you can stop that by doing it again. If your educated enough to realize the path that puts you on, it is possible to choose differently.
i thought everyone knew not to give meth to girls (i doubt she just up and decided to try it one day, if she did she was already really into drug culture anyway so I don't know if you can just blame meth)
I had a linguistics class once taught by a guy from spain. One of the things I've retained was when he told us how in spain they talk about the Cure for drugs, Cure for poverty, etc. In the US we use the term War.
yea good point. There is alcohol tolerance but i dont think it has anywhere near the effect thc tolerance can have. Like i said above somewhere, alcohol happens to be a very convenient drug to test for if you're trying to figure out whether someone is thinking straight right at that moment. Which is a problem for legalization.
Well, since alcohol gets metabolized at a rate of about one beer per hour and doesnt get stored in body lipids or anything like that, we have an easy way to tell whether someone was under the influence when they were driving. Other drugs you can test for, but can't really tell when they were taken. So it's hard to prove the person was under the influence of something based on a chemical test (which, these days, is the gold standard for that sort of thing). It also happens to be that alcohol is a small molecule and so gets exhaled in measurable amounts so it's easy and cheap to test. I actually have no idea if that's the case for some larger more lipophilic compound like thc.
Of course, I guess you could blood test for a drug to metabolite ratio and compare that to some table showing how this progresses over time. And there is always the cops judgement of whether someone is functioning correctly or not, but the subjectivity of that makes it somewhat questionable evidence.
I guess my point is that discerning between drug use sometime in the past and just recently happens to be really easy for alcohol, and thats probably not the case for most drugs.
sounds like you got a good deal, or youre one of those rare high assholes. I probably spent 300 euros over there over the course of 5 days, I dunno what damage I caused. Some local hoodlums tried to steal our bikes though. And the da vinci museum is terrifying, the chilling park outside it is awesome though.
1) If we've been eating apples for so long and everyone does it all the time it would be hard to notice any negative long term effects from it. Really apples are a bad example but look at how red meat is portrayed nowadays, maybe apples are next, or something else (theres people who think wheat and milk are bad for you due to the above average stickiness of the protein in them causing it to coat your GI tract and stop absorption of vitamins and such). I'm not saying any of this is true but the idea that organic=good/anything synthetic=bad isn't necessarily true
2) Many of the "chemicals" added to foods are also found in other foods you eat (I gave sodium benzoate as an example, look it up). The thing is that were now consuming it in different amounts in along with different other chemicals that are present naturally in all the foods we eat. For the most part noone knows the effect of this and theres no way to do a real cost-benefit analysis on it. I mean fine stick to the tried and true diet, but its going take more work and resources to make that happen. Diet isnt the only thing important to your health.
All that said I like the idea of organic foods but just wanted to point out that its more complicated than "chemicals" were added so that makes it bad for you and I think people should look into it more in depth before judging.
yea I always thought itd be really enlightening for someone to figure out every chemical in a naturally grown apple and list them on a sticker stuck to the side of it. I'm not saying preservatives are all good or anything but at the same time who knows what that apple is doing to you long term. The only difference is that people have been consuming those things for longer without noticing or associating anything bad with doing it.
Its not that it doesn't make sense that an apple would be safer to eat, but disregarding something because it has sodium benzoate in it without knowing how prevalent that chemical is in all the "organic" things you eat first just strikes me as ignorant.
It's more like "Someone made of 99.999% the same stuff as me actually thinks that!?" Then you either try to figure it out by asking them questions or give them shit for it. Then go on with your life.
Well the argument against the fine tuning argument is that we're here so something happened. Maybe the "universe" has been around for long enough that it has been able to expand and collapse in on itself enough times to make a life supporting version of itself statistically likely to happen eventually... and here we are.
I guess "statistically likely" implies that whatever natural rules we observe about randomness and causation are fundamental for some reason though. So why is that?
Who knows? right now the best way to deal with it is either ignore it and do your best to be happy with your life or try to work together to figure out what rules govern the universe we live in now to the whatever extent possible. It just so happens that inventing and engineering cool things is a side effect of the second way of life and its not mutually exclusive with being happy.
Either way devoutly obeying what some other person says is true doesn't fit with what I (and I assume all people deep down)know is applicable to everyday life since I've never met an infallible person or even heard of a recent historical person who could be convincingly described that way.
Well I'm not saying its true, really I say the CIA thing to people as more a joke than anything. But why does it seem so unreasonable just because it works... I mean I'm probably falling into the same "nah thats too perfect" trap as you. I wouldn't call that more rational though.
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelig
While you sleep during church you can dream about it. Speaking of which do they allow water bottles in church these days, I remember having to wait until it was over to go to the water fountain.
Well what was the organization? Maybe it was just an organization of asshats.
out of curiosity, what do you mean by drastically improved? More behaved? Less weird? I mean as a disclaimer I'm not against using drugs to treat things, but I still don't get giving kids a mind altering thing in a situation where they get in trouble for not taking it. I mean maybe for all you know the kid is selling it and is improved since he/she has some more money and it makes them feel cool. I dunno how ot make this sound less antagonistic but it really is just an honest question. I mean im actually in school to develop these things right now but still can't figure out where to draw the line between use and overuse. No kids seems like a decent one though.
But ketchup has the side effect of making you thirsty, then you have to go and treat that with something to drink. Then you'll be drunk and need to eat more red potato men to stay satisfied, thus requiring more ketchup. Looks like its a scam like everything else.
"Truncated" should have been emphasized, as should the fact that its lower case (although I wouldn't know how to emphasize that). I'm looking at you AC.
He didn't just try to nitpick. He actually did it. Get it straight truncated e.
while your argument might be ok. The fact that you chose to talk shit about a drug you obviously didnt have direct experience with calls your motives into question and thus your assumptions.
Anyway yea meth is a drug you can do once, then feel shitty the next day... but you can stop that by doing it again. If your educated enough to realize the path that puts you on, it is possible to choose differently.
i thought everyone knew not to give meth to girls (i doubt she just up and decided to try it one day, if she did she was already really into drug culture anyway so I don't know if you can just blame meth)
I had a linguistics class once taught by a guy from spain. One of the things I've retained was when he told us how in spain they talk about the Cure for drugs, Cure for poverty, etc. In the US we use the term War.
We can only hope that when the satellite age comes, wearing giant umbrella hats will become the new fad
yea good point. There is alcohol tolerance but i dont think it has anywhere near the effect thc tolerance can have. Like i said above somewhere, alcohol happens to be a very convenient drug to test for if you're trying to figure out whether someone is thinking straight right at that moment. Which is a problem for legalization.
Well, since alcohol gets metabolized at a rate of about one beer per hour and doesnt get stored in body lipids or anything like that, we have an easy way to tell whether someone was under the influence when they were driving. Other drugs you can test for, but can't really tell when they were taken. So it's hard to prove the person was under the influence of something based on a chemical test (which, these days, is the gold standard for that sort of thing). It also happens to be that alcohol is a small molecule and so gets exhaled in measurable amounts so it's easy and cheap to test. I actually have no idea if that's the case for some larger more lipophilic compound like thc.
Of course, I guess you could blood test for a drug to metabolite ratio and compare that to some table showing how this progresses over time. And there is always the cops judgement of whether someone is functioning correctly or not, but the subjectivity of that makes it somewhat questionable evidence.
I guess my point is that discerning between drug use sometime in the past and just recently happens to be really easy for alcohol, and thats probably not the case for most drugs.
the number of legs each of them has
Like the people who write those MCAT practice books. Those people are so efficient at conveying the main idea and relevant information its creepy.
yea, well that sort of situation always comes down to who has the bigger bank, or bigger balls, but in the civilized world its the bank one.
sounds like you got a good deal, or youre one of those rare high assholes. I probably spent 300 euros over there over the course of 5 days, I dunno what damage I caused. Some local hoodlums tried to steal our bikes though. And the da vinci museum is terrifying, the chilling park outside it is awesome though.
i liked it
I think you missed my points.
1) If we've been eating apples for so long and everyone does it all the time it would be hard to notice any negative long term effects from it. Really apples are a bad example but look at how red meat is portrayed nowadays, maybe apples are next, or something else (theres people who think wheat and milk are bad for you due to the above average stickiness of the protein in them causing it to coat your GI tract and stop absorption of vitamins and such). I'm not saying any of this is true but the idea that organic=good/anything synthetic=bad isn't necessarily true
2) Many of the "chemicals" added to foods are also found in other foods you eat (I gave sodium benzoate as an example, look it up). The thing is that were now consuming it in different amounts in along with different other chemicals that are present naturally in all the foods we eat. For the most part noone knows the effect of this and theres no way to do a real cost-benefit analysis on it. I mean fine stick to the tried and true diet, but its going take more work and resources to make that happen. Diet isnt the only thing important to your health.
All that said I like the idea of organic foods but just wanted to point out that its more complicated than "chemicals" were added so that makes it bad for you and I think people should look into it more in depth before judging.
Reminds me of that xcdc about string theory I saw somewhere else. So what does that imply?
Number 6 is wrong, the rest are ok
yea I always thought itd be really enlightening for someone to figure out every chemical in a naturally grown apple and list them on a sticker stuck to the side of it. I'm not saying preservatives are all good or anything but at the same time who knows what that apple is doing to you long term. The only difference is that people have been consuming those things for longer without noticing or associating anything bad with doing it.
Its not that it doesn't make sense that an apple would be safer to eat, but disregarding something because it has sodium benzoate in it without knowing how prevalent that chemical is in all the "organic" things you eat first just strikes me as ignorant.
It's more like "Someone made of 99.999% the same stuff as me actually thinks that!?" Then you either try to figure it out by asking them questions or give them shit for it. Then go on with your life.
Well the argument against the fine tuning argument is that we're here so something happened. Maybe the "universe" has been around for long enough that it has been able to expand and collapse in on itself enough times to make a life supporting version of itself statistically likely to happen eventually... and here we are.
I guess "statistically likely" implies that whatever natural rules we observe about randomness and causation are fundamental for some reason though. So why is that?
Who knows? right now the best way to deal with it is either ignore it and do your best to be happy with your life or try to work together to figure out what rules govern the universe we live in now to the whatever extent possible. It just so happens that inventing and engineering cool things is a side effect of the second way of life and its not mutually exclusive with being happy.
Either way devoutly obeying what some other person says is true doesn't fit with what I (and I assume all people deep down)know is applicable to everyday life since I've never met an infallible person or even heard of a recent historical person who could be convincingly described that way.
I guess thats agnosticism
Well I'm not saying its true, really I say the CIA thing to people as more a joke than anything. But why does it seem so unreasonable just because it works... I mean I'm probably falling into the same "nah thats too perfect" trap as you. I wouldn't call that more rational though.