The article didn't just study if gamers were more likely to agressively drive. They also used individuals who were not games and had them play either a race car game or a control game. Those playing the race car game had more risky behavior in a more formal driving simulator than those who played the control game.
Granted not a perfect study, but there is some causation.
The study did show some causation. They used subjects that were both video game players and non video game players. They had them either play a racing game or non racing game. Those who played the racing game showed more agressive behavior (in a formal driving simulator) regardless of their video gaming history.
I understand that no ones RTFA so let me sumarize, but the article discusses how to purchase a legitimate ticket with a legitimate seat on the flight without using your real identity or purchasing a legtimate seat and using a printout of a similar ticket to get past security.
*Please* tell me you understand the difference between unilateral invasion and coalition of more than 20 countries. You can't be *that* brainwashed either can you? Granted the U.S. went in under horrible intelligence (if you can call it that), lies (by everyone), and probably alternative motives (Iran, not oil) but the U.S. obviously didn't go in alone.
Your argument is very good as to why America has an immigration problem with Mexico and not a terrorism problem. I think a lot of Nations/States/Cultures do dislike America for sticking their nose into places it doesn't belong BUT there are some cultures like 'Extreme Islamic Fundamentalists' that DO hate America for its culture.
The second question is then, why aren't other Countries being attacked. Well, they are. The UK, Australia, Spain, Israel, and several other Countries have been attacked. Even France, if you take into account the Religious leanings of a lot of the people rioting last year. You could make the point that it is because some of them are following the US policies, but not all.
The other reason why America is under attack (or threat) more than others is because America is seen as the head of the snake to its enemies. Take out America and you take out your biggest enemy and the biggest world power. I believe if that happens, then you will see more attacks in other Countries.
But what I fear most people forget. Yes America does put its nose into other peoples business but it tends to be very generous as well. Just look at all the Aid given during the sunami or Aids funding in Afica, or general Aid to the world. It dwarfs all other Countries.
Does anyone really want America to just 'pull out' of the world theater. I think if it did, there would be a lot more suffering world wide that what we currently see.
"It's called jury nullification. Do it. Encourage your friends to do it. Stop skipping out on jury duty and do your job. Refuse to convict people of breaking unjust laws."
Wow, what a bad idea. If you do not agree with the law you should let the judge know ahead of time when he ASKS if you have any predisposed beliefs on the subject. That way you can be dismissed from the jury because you cannot properly fulfill your duty.
When on a jury, your job is not to decide whether or not you approve of a law but to enforce it as it is legally written. If you want to change law, become a legistator, propose new laws, and see that they are passed into law.
You bring up a really interesting point that it is still in the stage of BASIC SCIENCE.
If it is so basic that private funding groups are not sure of its therapeutic value why do we hear so often that this research will cure just about everything. I have heard that this research would have cured Christopher Reeves and many others and president Bush just wants people to suffer.
Shouldn't we hear a little less rhetoric from both sides if we don't know anything about it.
The US has developed many major medical treatments and medicines, fostered many scientific diciplines, and willing given much of it to the rest of the world at relatively low costs if not for free. They have done this while always having an overriding belief in a greater power of some sort. I don't see how you believe they will all of a sudden start dragging the rest of the world down.
In this situation he is catering to his base that elected him. He may or may not believe that it is murder but since he stated he would vote against funding it (in a successful attempt to gain more votes) he felt obligated to do so.
If we took your argument one step further he would also have to declare abortion to be genocide and step in and stop all abortions.
Did you put embryonic stem cell into quotes? Because when I did that it decreased the number to 1433. Without the quotes it takes every article with embryonic, stem, and cell...
But besides from that did you read any of the articles. Some of them have nothing to do with actual research on stem cells.
In general, I don't think stating the number of results is really a good judge of exactly how much federal money is spent on a specific type of research.
How exactly does that work? If the coasts have higher rates of passports (one would assume that means they travel more) and they tend to be blue states, wouldn't that suggest most travelers including the large, obnoxious ones are more likely be liberal?
It's true that some *salaried* government workers work only 35 or 37.5 hours. Their salaries reflect that; they are paid for 35 or 37.5 hours, not 40.
Sometimes it is even worse. I am a city employee (firefighter) salaried at a 40 hr week but have to work a 46.7 hr week. Granted I am supposed to have 6.7 hours of sleep at work but that never happens because we are one of the busiest stations.
"What's the point of opening more schools if people have to cheat to get accepted? That's the wrong answer; the reason there's a test isn't to find the best people, it's to find the qualified people. Some people just don't deserve better schooling."
Because if there are so few schools that the only way to get accepted is to have a passing score of 95% or better, it is no longer about qualified or not.
Although I don't agree with their cheating to get accepted, I do think opening more schools would decrease the problem and maybe even make a little money in the process.
It is not like other countries (especially the U.S.) where if you have a pulse you can get accepted because there are so many schools.
Air Brake George Westinghouse 1868 Air Conditioning Willis Carrier 1911 Aircraft Autopilot Elmer A. Sperry 1910 Barbed Wire Joseph E. Glidden 1873 Fountain Pen Lewis E. Waterman 1884 Frozen Food Clarence Birdseye 1924 Gyrocompass Elmer Sperry 1905 Liquid Fueled Rocket Robert Goddard 1926 Measles Vaccine John Enders and Thomas Peebles 1953 Microwave Oven Percy Spencer 1947 Motion Pictures Thomas A. Edison 1893 Prozac Bryan B. Malloy of Scotland and Klaus K. Schmiegel 1972 Sewing Machine Elias Howe 1846 Spruce Based Chewing Gum John Curtis 1848 Teflon DuPont 1943 Xerography Chester Carlson 1938 Zipper W.L. Judson 1891 Vacuum clearer invented, 1889 Wright brothers make first successful airplane flight, 1903 Roll film invented, 1889 Adding machine invented, 1885 Bell invents telephone, 1876 Color television begins, 1953
In Houston TX about a year ago a Doctor (St Joseph's Hospital) was killed when he tried to catch a elevator when the doors were closing. He became stuck in the doors and the elevator started going up. It ended up severing a good part of his head off.
This was a modern designed elevator. Accidents can happen, although rare, it is something to consider.
I fail to see what law congress is making or what religion it is prohibiting the free exercise of...
Whether or not I agree with Thomas Jefferson's personal view points about what he believes is a different story. The man also had slaves (granted it was accepted at that time) but thank God that wasn't in the constitution either.
Just because it was his personal view point, doesn't mean it should be in the constitution. I think it was with good reason that the constitution was not created by the viewpoints of just one person.
That would be true if WiFi was constitutionally protected. In general most people care more about your free speech than your ability to download warez.
To a degree you are correct. But fortunately in the US, even the poor are able to get several of the above mentioned medical problems covered. Many Counties offer low income insurance to those who otherwise cannot affort insurance, sometimes at no cost.
I have seen this as I have worked in the ER and the OR. I have seen knee replacements performed on people who will never pay for it and never could. I have seen people receive X-rays and MRI's even though they have no insurance and will never pay the bill.
I am not saying that this shouldn't be available, just that our system does provide the necessary safety nets for those who cannot afford insurance. Unfortunately many people don't spend enough time to find out what options are actually available to them and rather just cry about not having the same insurance benefits that everyone else has.
Heck, quite often those who complain the most about the cost of insurance and their medical treatment in hospitals sometimes are the ones abusing the system the most. I have seen people call 911 only because they need a ride to the hospital to get their prescriptions filled. People taking up hospital beds for the most minor of medical problems that most responsible people treat at home.
In my county, only approximately 30% of patients who enter a hospital by ambulance will actually pay the bill. The rest are written off. Money doesn't always determine access to care.
The government does that all the time, I can't write an article in the paper saying your a nazi baby killer without the possibility of being sued for it.
That being said, another poster answered my question with a little more thought and now I believe it may be a bigger deal than I originally thought.
I don't see what the big deal is. It wasn't the "bush administration" or the FBI forcing them to take it down. The justice department believed that the information was covered under a sealed order by the court and went to the court to uphold that. Then then came to an agreement to what could be posted. Whats the big deal.
Kernel of truth is right. In All the articles you link to all talk about liquivent. In none of the studies do people breath liquids. In all of the studies then and now people breath air, the liquid in dripped down an endotracheal tube, and is used as an oxygen storage reserve.
I guess I needed to make my point more clear earlier. People don't breath liquid. You may have some injected into your lungs that will store oxygen that you breath through air, but the systems do not have you breathing straight liquid. And I would think that it would be nearly impossible to breath straight liquid without intubation because you would have so many contaminates in the liquid that you would be guaranteed to get an infection. And even while being intubated the sustem would be difficult because you would have to keep high oxygen levels in the fluid.
"Or you could just try checking google and find out that it is correct and that humans can breath liquid."
I google for aliens landing on earth, humans not landing on the moon, and humans being able to levitate. All must be true based on some of the results.
It's not as easy as cough, cough, cough to clear the liquid. It is especially hard if your lungs are complete filled with liquid. In cases where liquid (Decalin) is introduced in the lungs it is in small proportions because you still need to oxygenate the liquid and the lungs, and the easiest way to do that is to allow normal respiration.
With any liquid being introduced into the lungs there are not just temporary hazards, there are very real and persistent hazards, hense the incidences of secondary drowning is so great.
I would venture a guess that the rodent they did use did die shortly there after. Once the oxygen was used up from the liquid source it probably suffocated to death. I wouldn't be suprised if they had to use more than one rodent in the movie. But I don't know for sure, I don't have the movie and haven't seen the special features to know the details.
Decalin which they talk about in the article is not used to completely fill the lungs. Only small amounts are used so when a person inhales both air and Decalin are in the lungs. When ther person exhales the air is evacuated and only Decalin is left allowing for more oxygen exchange. They don't fully submerge or completely fill the lungs with fluid.
Slashdot Mirror
Say it with me: RTFA.
The article didn't just study if gamers were more likely to agressively drive. They also used individuals who were not games and had them play either a race car game or a control game. Those playing the race car game had more risky behavior in a more formal driving simulator than those who played the control game.
Granted not a perfect study, but there is some causation.
The study did show some causation. They used subjects that were both video game players and non video game players. They had them either play a racing game or non racing game. Those who played the racing game showed more agressive behavior (in a formal driving simulator) regardless of their video gaming history.
I understand that no ones RTFA so let me sumarize, but the article discusses how to purchase a legitimate ticket with a legitimate seat on the flight without using your real identity or purchasing a legtimate seat and using a printout of a similar ticket to get past security.
*Please* tell me you understand the difference between unilateral invasion and coalition of more than 20 countries. You can't be *that* brainwashed either can you? Granted the U.S. went in under horrible intelligence (if you can call it that), lies (by everyone), and probably alternative motives (Iran, not oil) but the U.S. obviously didn't go in alone.
Your argument is very good as to why America has an immigration problem with Mexico and not a terrorism problem. I think a lot of Nations/States/Cultures do dislike America for sticking their nose into places it doesn't belong BUT there are some cultures like 'Extreme Islamic Fundamentalists' that DO hate America for its culture.
The second question is then, why aren't other Countries being attacked. Well, they are. The UK, Australia, Spain, Israel, and several other Countries have been attacked. Even France, if you take into account the Religious leanings of a lot of the people rioting last year. You could make the point that it is because some of them are following the US policies, but not all.
The other reason why America is under attack (or threat) more than others is because America is seen as the head of the snake to its enemies. Take out America and you take out your biggest enemy and the biggest world power. I believe if that happens, then you will see more attacks in other Countries.
But what I fear most people forget. Yes America does put its nose into other peoples business but it tends to be very generous as well. Just look at all the Aid given during the sunami or Aids funding in Afica, or general Aid to the world. It dwarfs all other Countries.
Does anyone really want America to just 'pull out' of the world theater. I think if it did, there would be a lot more suffering world wide that what we currently see.
"It's called jury nullification. Do it. Encourage your friends to do it. Stop skipping out on jury duty and do your job. Refuse to convict people of breaking unjust laws."
Wow, what a bad idea. If you do not agree with the law you should let the judge know ahead of time when he ASKS if you have any predisposed beliefs on the subject. That way you can be dismissed from the jury because you cannot properly fulfill your duty.
When on a jury, your job is not to decide whether or not you approve of a law but to enforce it as it is legally written. If you want to change law, become a legistator, propose new laws, and see that they are passed into law.
You bring up a really interesting point that it is still in the stage of BASIC SCIENCE.
If it is so basic that private funding groups are not sure of its therapeutic value why do we hear so often that this research will cure just about everything. I have heard that this research would have cured Christopher Reeves and many others and president Bush just wants people to suffer.
Shouldn't we hear a little less rhetoric from both sides if we don't know anything about it.
They were still people of faith, were they not?
The US has developed many major medical treatments and medicines, fostered many scientific diciplines, and willing given much of it to the rest of the world at relatively low costs if not for free. They have done this while always having an overriding belief in a greater power of some sort. I don't see how you believe they will all of a sudden start dragging the rest of the world down.
In this situation he is catering to his base that elected him. He may or may not believe that it is murder but since he stated he would vote against funding it (in a successful attempt to gain more votes) he felt obligated to do so.
If we took your argument one step further he would also have to declare abortion to be genocide and step in and stop all abortions.
Did you put embryonic stem cell into quotes? Because when I did that it decreased the number to 1433. Without the quotes it takes every article with embryonic, stem, and cell...
But besides from that did you read any of the articles. Some of them have nothing to do with actual research on stem cells.
In general, I don't think stating the number of results is really a good judge of exactly how much federal money is spent on a specific type of research.
How exactly does that work? If the coasts have higher rates of passports (one would assume that means they travel more) and they tend to be blue states, wouldn't that suggest most travelers including the large, obnoxious ones are more likely be liberal?
It's true that some *salaried* government workers work only 35 or 37.5 hours. Their salaries reflect that; they are paid for 35 or 37.5 hours, not 40.
Sometimes it is even worse. I am a city employee (firefighter) salaried at a 40 hr week but have to work a 46.7 hr week. Granted I am supposed to have 6.7 hours of sleep at work but that never happens because we are one of the busiest stations.
"What's the point of opening more schools if people have to cheat to get accepted? That's the wrong answer; the reason there's a test isn't to find the best people, it's to find the qualified people. Some people just don't deserve better schooling."
Because if there are so few schools that the only way to get accepted is to have a passing score of 95% or better, it is no longer about qualified or not.
Although I don't agree with their cheating to get accepted, I do think opening more schools would decrease the problem and maybe even make a little money in the process.
It is not like other countries (especially the U.S.) where if you have a pulse you can get accepted because there are so many schools.
Air Brake George Westinghouse 1868
b iography/Edison/chap50.html
Air Conditioning Willis Carrier 1911
Aircraft Autopilot Elmer A. Sperry 1910
Barbed Wire Joseph E. Glidden 1873
Fountain Pen Lewis E. Waterman 1884
Frozen Food Clarence Birdseye 1924
Gyrocompass Elmer Sperry 1905
Liquid Fueled Rocket Robert Goddard 1926
Measles Vaccine John Enders and Thomas Peebles 1953
Microwave Oven Percy Spencer 1947
Motion Pictures Thomas A. Edison 1893
Prozac Bryan B. Malloy of Scotland and Klaus K. Schmiegel 1972
Sewing Machine Elias Howe 1846
Spruce Based Chewing Gum John Curtis 1848
Teflon DuPont 1943
Xerography Chester Carlson 1938
Zipper W.L. Judson 1891
Vacuum clearer invented, 1889
Wright brothers make first successful airplane flight, 1903
Roll film invented, 1889
Adding machine invented, 1885
Bell invents telephone, 1876
Color television begins, 1953
You can find many short lists. This one is a little out of the time frame but I'll add it anyways.
http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/hst/
In Houston TX about a year ago a Doctor (St Joseph's Hospital) was killed when he tried to catch a elevator when the doors were closing. He became stuck in the doors and the elevator started going up. It ended up severing a good part of his head off.
This was a modern designed elevator. Accidents can happen, although rare, it is something to consider.
I fail to see what law congress is making or what religion it is prohibiting the free exercise of...
Whether or not I agree with Thomas Jefferson's personal view points about what he believes is a different story. The man also had slaves (granted it was accepted at that time) but thank God that wasn't in the constitution either.
Just because it was his personal view point, doesn't mean it should be in the constitution. I think it was with good reason that the constitution was not created by the viewpoints of just one person.
That would be true if WiFi was constitutionally protected. In general most people care more about your free speech than your ability to download warez.
To a degree you are correct. But fortunately in the US, even the poor are able to get several of the above mentioned medical problems covered. Many Counties offer low income insurance to those who otherwise cannot affort insurance, sometimes at no cost.
I have seen this as I have worked in the ER and the OR. I have seen knee replacements performed on people who will never pay for it and never could. I have seen people receive X-rays and MRI's even though they have no insurance and will never pay the bill.
I am not saying that this shouldn't be available, just that our system does provide the necessary safety nets for those who cannot afford insurance. Unfortunately many people don't spend enough time to find out what options are actually available to them and rather just cry about not having the same insurance benefits that everyone else has.
Heck, quite often those who complain the most about the cost of insurance and their medical treatment in hospitals sometimes are the ones abusing the system the most. I have seen people call 911 only because they need a ride to the hospital to get their prescriptions filled. People taking up hospital beds for the most minor of medical problems that most responsible people treat at home.
In my county, only approximately 30% of patients who enter a hospital by ambulance will actually pay the bill. The rest are written off. Money doesn't always determine access to care.
The government does that all the time, I can't write an article in the paper saying your a nazi baby killer without the possibility of being sued for it.
That being said, another poster answered my question with a little more thought and now I believe it may be a bigger deal than I originally thought.
Although this comment is scored zero is answers my original question, much better than the other response.
Thanks.
I don't see what the big deal is. It wasn't the "bush administration" or the FBI forcing them to take it down. The justice department believed that the information was covered under a sealed order by the court and went to the court to uphold that. Then then came to an agreement to what could be posted. Whats the big deal.
Kernel of truth is right. In All the articles you link to all talk about liquivent. In none of the studies do people breath liquids. In all of the studies then and now people breath air, the liquid in dripped down an endotracheal tube, and is used as an oxygen storage reserve.
I guess I needed to make my point more clear earlier. People don't breath liquid. You may have some injected into your lungs that will store oxygen that you breath through air, but the systems do not have you breathing straight liquid. And I would think that it would be nearly impossible to breath straight liquid without intubation because you would have so many contaminates in the liquid that you would be guaranteed to get an infection. And even while being intubated the sustem would be difficult because you would have to keep high oxygen levels in the fluid.
"Or you could just try checking google and find out that it is correct and that humans can breath liquid."
I google for aliens landing on earth, humans not landing on the moon, and humans being able to levitate. All must be true based on some of the results.
It's not as easy as cough, cough, cough to clear the liquid. It is especially hard if your lungs are complete filled with liquid. In cases where liquid (Decalin) is introduced in the lungs it is in small proportions because you still need to oxygenate the liquid and the lungs, and the easiest way to do that is to allow normal respiration.
With any liquid being introduced into the lungs there are not just temporary hazards, there are very real and persistent hazards, hense the incidences of secondary drowning is so great.
I would venture a guess that the rodent they did use did die shortly there after. Once the oxygen was used up from the liquid source it probably suffocated to death. I wouldn't be suprised if they had to use more than one rodent in the movie. But I don't know for sure, I don't have the movie and haven't seen the special features to know the details.
Decalin which they talk about in the article is not used to completely fill the lungs. Only small amounts are used so when a person inhales both air and Decalin are in the lungs. When ther person exhales the air is evacuated and only Decalin is left allowing for more oxygen exchange. They don't fully submerge or completely fill the lungs with fluid.