Look at that list of supposed benefits in parent post: It was also shown to relieve pain and swelling, relax muscles, relieve arthritis, improve blood supply and slow the growth of bacteria. It relieves the pain of sprains and even of broken bones.
That is completely utterly absurd. The only was you could possibly imagine that such a useful substance would NOT be in widespread use is if the medical establishment is either completely retarded or some kind of vast conspiracy.
Most/.'ers would look down on an idiot who got some trojan on their machine by downloading a file from some random website because it promised to "maek your machine run 200% better!!!". Same thing.
DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide) is derived from lignin, the binding substance of trees. The Crown Zellerbach Corporation, a mammoth lumber company, holds a number of patents on DMSO for use as an industrial solvent or liniment for treating pain in horses. Crown Zellerbach licenses DMSO exclusively to Research Industries of Salt Lake City for marketing as a drug called Rimso-50. Topically-applied DMSO has the unusual ability to act as a "chemical hypodermic needle" which is to say that it is rapidly absorbed through the skin and can take with it other substances that ordinarily would not cross the skin's barrier. Topically-applied DMSO produces a garlic-like taste in the mouth and a breath odor. Topical use can cause a rash, blistering, itching, hives, and skin thickening. Intravenous use can cause kidney damage and other adverse side effects.
DMSO was approved by the FDA in 1978 for only one purpose, the treatment of a rare bladder disorder, interstitial cystitis. However, scandal surrounded the FDA's approval of DMSO and some still believe that a cloud hangs over it. Stanley Jacob, MD, served as an supposedly unbiased medical monitor of DMSO between 1974 and 1979, but for three of those years (1974, 1978, and 1979), he was on the Research Industries board of directors. In addition to getting consulting and director's fees, Jacob is said to have bought 50,000 shares of the company's stocks. The medical officer charged with reviewing data from clinical trials of DMSO, K.C. Pani, accepted $36,500 in gratuities from Dr. Jacob during the time. A detailed account of the dubious FDA approval of DMSO is provided by Howard Rosenberg in "The DMSO Affair." [1 ]
DMSO became a darling among the promoters of quackery after CBS-TV's 60 Minutes portrayed the substance as a medical breakthrough [2]. Some arthritis sufferers testified that DMSO had provided relief. The Arthritis Foundation says that DMSO can act as a liniment with a counter-irritating effect temporarily relieving pain, but it does not reduce inflammation as do truly effective arthritis remedies (Arthritis Foundation, undated). A detailed Public Information Memo was issued to the Chapter Executive Directors of the Arthritis Foundation on November 13, 1981, following the publication of a popular trade book.
Mildred Miller, owner/administrator of the Degenerative Disease Medical Center in Las Vegas, Nevada, promoted DMSO for a variety of disorders including arthritis, mental illness, emphysema, and cancer. Miller wrote a book touting DMSO entitled A Little Dab Will Do Ya! (Quality Advertising, 1981). Miller also published Preventive Health News, a tabloid-sized newsletter in which she promoted DMSO and carried on a harangue against the establishment (Miller published another book with the disrespectful title Up Yours FDA). Miller was eventually convicted of Medicare fraud and went to prison [2]. The American Cancer Society issued a statement advising against the use of DMSO for cancer [3].
During its heyday, black market DMSO could be purchased in health food stores, military surplus stores, hardware stores, at swap meet booths, or even from vendors working out of the trunks of their cars parked along highways. Very often black market DMSO is industrial grade, not medical grade. A problem with industrial grade DMSO is that companies bottling the substance as an industrial solvent use the same equipment to bottle other substances. Residual toxic materials can contaminate industrial grade DMSO and may be taken into the body by DMSO's action as a "chemical hypodermic."
Because of DMSO's dangers and legal status, the FDA has had a running battle with DMSO distributors. In 1980, the agency discussed the controversy surrounding the drug in the FDA Consumer [4]. In 1982, the agency reported on actions taken against companies distributing DMSO in the Pacific Northwest [5]. A book touting DMSO, The Persecuted Drug: The Story of DMSO, by Pat McGrady became the
Java:JVM != .NET:C#
on
Java 1.5 vs C#
·
· Score: 2, Informative
as a california resident, let me just say you are crazy with all those blizzards! theres ICE on the ROAD in the middle of the day! it's unnatural! FROZEN WATER FALLING FROM THE SKY! THE END OF THE WORLD IS HERE!
The government isn't and should never be in the business of making money, competing with private industry. To kill a company is simple happens all the time: for example, when they can't make payroll.
If you read the link you put there, he has given a bunch of money to RESEARCH towards a malaria vaccine. Just to point out wiping out Malaria would be HUGE HUGE, every anthro professor I've had who did work in S America had it. So just ya, Gates has wiped out Malaria as much as Reeve has wiped out paralysis.
just want to point out that having to re-encrypt the whole thing for each customer would take alot of resources. more likely (for this type of scheme, not saying they did this), everything is encrypted with the same key, then that key is encrypted differently for each download
Ok, so we live in a multi-cultural society, yet it seems everybody in this country assumes that: *every religion has a goal to convert/recruit people (like Christianity) *every religion locks horns/disagrees/is not compatable with science (like Christianity)
Highly popular movies with "classical" style music: Gone With the Wind Jurassic Park Indiana Jones Back to the Future everything from Pixar Lord of the Rings Star Wars Matrix Austin Powers
etc. etc... listing movies like this is like shooting fish in a barrel and really pointless
The reason "classical" style music is the default choice?
Because "classical" music has so much history, that the kind of music used in movies is its own field. It is called "incidental music". Different characters are assigned different themes (think "the fellowship" theme in lord of the rings, or "the imperial march" in star wars).
When you know what to listen for/pay attention you can really start to enjoy a movie on a different level, noticing how the musical score accentuates the emotions in some scenes.
Anyway, so against music timed to the split second to what is going on in the movie, with melodies/themes that parallel the plot of the movie, we have the choice of using "popular" music.
Although there are some cases where it is appropriate to the movie, in general when a movie is using any music which wasn't specifically composed (or at least adapted) to that movie, it is conspicuosly noticable. If you dont believe me, try to imagine any "popular" song playing in a movie at the same time as the characters are having a conversation. It is distracting.
I put another post in this thread that explains better, but basically the question is, do we really understand what is going on with current theories? The immense value of string theory would be not necessarily that it makes a bunch of new predictions directly, but that it would explain what is actually happening at the smallest scales of space and time in a much more coherent way than QM. This is the really really hard problem of science; because you can always make observations to test if your theory is false, but there is no real sure way to tell if your theory is really "explaining" things sufficiently. What represents a real explanation of a phenomenon is subjective. This leads to major conflicts over whether or not to move to a new theory that explains things fundamentally in a new way. There isn't really a way to compare the two theories on observations well. Science must bootstrap itself up from these types of theories. For example, the concept of the atom in chemistry was adopted because it seemed to explain things more sufficiently -- in fact it flew in the face of observation, because although the theory predicted that elemental atoms were composed into molecules with fixed integer ratios between these atoms, the observed ratios were all non integer. To explain this the kluge of isotopes of different types of molecules with different ratios being in all substances was added.
When someone really is trying to understand science and asking hard questions (but without an axe to grind either way), the first question is what makes scientific "fact" better than something just made up. This is the question you answered. Theories must be falsifiable.
The second question though is much harder. Basically, how can you be sure your theory really "explains" things sufficiently (whatever that means). Even though Kepler's Laws are observationally sound, still somehow they dont really explain what is happening with planetary motion the way universal gravitation does.
So, the second question is the hard one. Just because QM makes testable, correct predictions, does it really "explain" what is going on?
This is the value of string theory. Before we could have universal gravitation, we needed the fuzzy non-observational concept of potential energy. Perhaps before we can really explain physics on the smallest scales of space and time, we need a fuzzy non-observational string theory.
Just kind of wondering, do you consider thought to be fundamental to the point of working on all scales?
The way I would resolve that kind of issue would be to think of thought as basically a chemical process which doesn't arise until time scales so large that the difference between time being a flip-book and time being continuos are irrelevent. (I.e. for thoughts that take significant fractions of a second, time being cut into sub-femto-second slices or being truly continuos doesn't make much of a difference.)
Say for example it is possible to make a true AI out of a Turing machine. This is a bit of a leap, but would you accept this? If that were possible, then somewhere deep in the guts of those thoughts, operations would be happening in discrete chunks. So, for that thinking entity there is no meaningful possibility of time less than the period of the clock running its hardware. Of course, stuff is still happening, the hardware is moving from state to state, but the way that is happening could be discontinuos and it wouldn't make any difference to the AI.
Perhaps this raises the question, would it be possible for a thinking entity to operate at such high speed that it would percieve time differently? Or would you consider that the experience of time is so fundamental that it must operate the same no matter how fast one thinks?
Er... not a comment on the categories but fusion isn't self sustaining. Pressure from gravity sustains the fusion. If fusion overcomes gravity the star is blown apart (supernova).
Actually stars aren't that clear. What kind of fusion? Brown darf's are the muddy end of the stellar side, they have enough mass to fuse lithium and deuterium, but not enough for hydrogen fusion, so they don't shine at all.
Similar to planets, the deliniation is fuzzy because the most visible stars are all way way bigger than this, and is not until relatively recently that we have been able to see brown dwarfs.
Food for thought: graviatationally, Jupiter is the sun's binary partner.
page on brown dwarfs: http://www.wordiq.com/cgi-bin/knowledge/l ookup.cgi ?title=Brown_dwarf
"I haven't heard any real info on what to do with a decomissioned plant yet other than just 'leave it lay'."
Well, now you have.
Scientific American article on decomissioning plants: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=s a006&colI D=1&articleID=000B76FF-B366-1E41-89E0809EC588E EDF The unsolved problem of how to decommission nuclear power plants looms. The Maine Yankee reactor is a case study in the technical, environmental and economic complexities
Slashdot Mirror
Look at that list of supposed benefits in parent post:
/.'ers would look down on an idiot who got some trojan on their machine by downloading a file from some random website because it promised to "maek your machine run 200% better!!!". Same thing.
It was also shown to relieve pain and swelling, relax muscles, relieve arthritis, improve blood supply and slow the growth of bacteria. It relieves the pain of sprains and even of broken bones.
That is completely utterly absurd. The only was you could possibly imagine that such a useful substance would NOT be in widespread use is if the medical establishment is either completely retarded or some kind of vast conspiracy.
Most
A bit of googling turned up the following:
DMSO
William T. Jarvis, Ph.D.
DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide) is derived from lignin, the binding substance of trees. The Crown Zellerbach Corporation, a mammoth lumber company, holds a number of patents on DMSO for use as an industrial solvent or liniment for treating pain in horses. Crown Zellerbach licenses DMSO exclusively to Research Industries of Salt Lake City for marketing as a drug called Rimso-50. Topically-applied DMSO has the unusual ability to act as a "chemical hypodermic needle" which is to say that it is rapidly absorbed through the skin and can take with it other substances that ordinarily would not cross the skin's barrier. Topically-applied DMSO produces a garlic-like taste in the mouth and a breath odor. Topical use can cause a rash, blistering, itching, hives, and skin thickening. Intravenous use can cause kidney damage and other adverse side effects.
DMSO was approved by the FDA in 1978 for only one purpose, the treatment of a rare bladder disorder, interstitial cystitis. However, scandal surrounded the FDA's approval of DMSO and some still believe that a cloud hangs over it. Stanley Jacob, MD, served as an supposedly unbiased medical monitor of DMSO between 1974 and 1979, but for three of those years (1974, 1978, and 1979), he was on the Research Industries board of directors. In addition to getting consulting and director's fees, Jacob is said to have bought 50,000 shares of the company's stocks. The medical officer charged with reviewing data from clinical trials of DMSO, K.C. Pani, accepted $36,500 in gratuities from Dr. Jacob during the time. A detailed account of the dubious FDA approval of DMSO is provided by Howard Rosenberg in "The DMSO Affair." [1 ]
DMSO became a darling among the promoters of quackery after CBS-TV's 60 Minutes portrayed the substance as a medical breakthrough [2]. Some arthritis sufferers testified that DMSO had provided relief. The Arthritis Foundation says that DMSO can act as a liniment with a counter-irritating effect temporarily relieving pain, but it does not reduce inflammation as do truly effective arthritis remedies (Arthritis Foundation, undated). A detailed Public Information Memo was issued to the Chapter Executive Directors of the Arthritis Foundation on November 13, 1981, following the publication of a popular trade book.
Mildred Miller, owner/administrator of the Degenerative Disease Medical Center in Las Vegas, Nevada, promoted DMSO for a variety of disorders including arthritis, mental illness, emphysema, and cancer. Miller wrote a book touting DMSO entitled A Little Dab Will Do Ya! (Quality Advertising, 1981). Miller also published Preventive Health News, a tabloid-sized newsletter in which she promoted DMSO and carried on a harangue against the establishment (Miller published another book with the disrespectful title Up Yours FDA). Miller was eventually convicted of Medicare fraud and went to prison [2]. The American Cancer Society issued a statement advising against the use of DMSO for cancer [3].
During its heyday, black market DMSO could be purchased in health food stores, military surplus stores, hardware stores, at swap meet booths, or even from vendors working out of the trunks of their cars parked along highways. Very often black market DMSO is industrial grade, not medical grade. A problem with industrial grade DMSO is that companies bottling the substance as an industrial solvent use the same equipment to bottle other substances. Residual toxic materials can contaminate industrial grade DMSO and may be taken into the body by DMSO's action as a "chemical hypodermic."
Because of DMSO's dangers and legal status, the FDA has had a running battle with DMSO distributors. In 1980, the agency discussed the controversy surrounding the drug in the FDA Consumer [4]. In 1982, the agency reported on actions taken against companies distributing DMSO in the Pacific Northwest [5]. A book touting DMSO, The Persecuted Drug: The Story of DMSO, by Pat McGrady became the
C# is just one option for .NET eh?
Hmm... if only there were some other languages that could be compiled to JVM bytecode.
as a california resident, let me just say you are crazy with all those blizzards!
theres ICE on the ROAD in the middle of the day! it's unnatural!
FROZEN WATER FALLING FROM THE SKY! THE END OF THE WORLD IS HERE!
The government isn't and should never be in the business of making money, competing with private industry. To kill a company is simple happens all the time: for example, when they can't make payroll.
If you read the link you put there, he has given a bunch of money to RESEARCH towards a malaria vaccine.
Just to point out wiping out Malaria would be HUGE HUGE, every anthro professor I've had who did work in S America had it.
So just ya, Gates has wiped out Malaria as much as Reeve has wiped out paralysis.
just want to point out that having to re-encrypt the whole thing for each customer would take alot of resources.
more likely (for this type of scheme, not saying they did this), everything is encrypted with the same key, then that key is encrypted differently for each download
Ok, so we live in a multi-cultural society, yet it seems everybody in this country assumes that:
*every religion has a goal to convert/recruit people (like Christianity)
*every religion locks horns/disagrees/is not compatable with science (like Christianity)
religion != jesus
I'm kind of curious to see what its like, if you wouldn't mind dropping an invite. doublereedkurt at aol.com
Highly popular movies with "classical" style music:
Gone With the Wind
Jurassic Park
Indiana Jones
Back to the Future
everything from Pixar
Lord of the Rings
Star Wars
Matrix
Austin Powers
etc. etc... listing movies like this is like shooting fish in a barrel and really pointless
The reason "classical" style music is the default choice?
Because "classical" music has so much history, that the kind of music used in movies is its own field. It is called "incidental music". Different characters are assigned different themes (think "the fellowship" theme in lord of the rings, or "the imperial march" in star wars).
When you know what to listen for/pay attention you can really start to enjoy a movie on a different level, noticing how the musical score accentuates the emotions in some scenes.
Anyway, so against music timed to the split second to what is going on in the movie, with melodies/themes that parallel the plot of the movie, we have the choice of using "popular" music.
Although there are some cases where it is appropriate to the movie, in general when a movie is using any music which wasn't specifically composed (or at least adapted) to that movie, it is conspicuosly noticable. If you dont believe me, try to imagine any "popular" song playing in a movie at the same time as the characters are having a conversation. It is distracting.
I stand corrected.
tides are caused by equal parts lunar and solar gravity
Hmmm.. ya gotta love it:
movie 1: Oscorp CEO trying dangerous science experiment drives himself crazy with gas
movie 2: scientist drives himself crazy with arms trying dangerous science experiment
movie 3: son of Oscorp CEO has gone crazy from stress
brilliant!
The G's are at the base of the drop when you start to go back up.
nobodies asking you to believe anything
Oh ya, on the topic of the experience of time, think about deja-vu. Sometimes we experience time to be not quite in synch.
I put another post in this thread that explains better, but basically the question is, do we really understand what is going on with current theories? The immense value of string theory would be not necessarily that it makes a bunch of new predictions directly, but that it would explain what is actually happening at the smallest scales of space and time in a much more coherent way than QM.
This is the really really hard problem of science; because you can always make observations to test if your theory is false, but there is no real sure way to tell if your theory is really "explaining" things sufficiently. What represents a real explanation of a phenomenon is subjective. This leads to major conflicts over whether or not to move to a new theory that explains things fundamentally in a new way. There isn't really a way to compare the two theories on observations well. Science must bootstrap itself up from these types of theories. For example, the concept of the atom in chemistry was adopted because it seemed to explain things more sufficiently -- in fact it flew in the face of observation, because although the theory predicted that elemental atoms were composed into molecules with fixed integer ratios between these atoms, the observed ratios were all non integer. To explain this the kluge of isotopes of different types of molecules with different ratios being in all substances was added.
When someone really is trying to understand science and asking hard questions (but without an axe to grind either way), the first question is what makes scientific "fact" better than something just made up. This is the question you answered. Theories must be falsifiable.
The second question though is much harder. Basically, how can you be sure your theory really "explains" things sufficiently (whatever that means). Even though Kepler's Laws are observationally sound, still somehow they dont really explain what is happening with planetary motion the way universal gravitation does.
So, the second question is the hard one. Just because QM makes testable, correct predictions, does it really "explain" what is going on?
This is the value of string theory. Before we could have universal gravitation, we needed the fuzzy non-observational concept of potential energy. Perhaps before we can really explain physics on the smallest scales of space and time, we need a fuzzy non-observational string theory.
Just kind of wondering, do you consider thought to be fundamental to the point of working on all scales?
The way I would resolve that kind of issue would be to think of thought as basically a chemical process which doesn't arise until time scales so large that the difference between time being a flip-book and time being continuos are irrelevent. (I.e. for thoughts that take significant fractions of a second, time being cut into sub-femto-second slices or being truly continuos doesn't make much of a difference.)
Say for example it is possible to make a true AI out of a Turing machine. This is a bit of a leap, but would you accept this? If that were possible, then somewhere deep in the guts of those thoughts, operations would be happening in discrete chunks. So, for that thinking entity there is no meaningful possibility of time less than the period of the clock running its hardware. Of course, stuff is still happening, the hardware is moving from state to state, but the way that is happening could be discontinuos and it wouldn't make any difference to the AI.
Perhaps this raises the question, would it be possible for a thinking entity to operate at such high speed that it would percieve time differently? Or would you consider that the experience of time is so fundamental that it must operate the same no matter how fast one thinks?
Er... not a comment on the categories but fusion isn't self sustaining. Pressure from gravity sustains the fusion. If fusion overcomes gravity the star is blown apart (supernova).
Actually stars aren't that clear. What kind of fusion? Brown darf's are the muddy end of the stellar side, they have enough mass to fuse lithium and deuterium, but not enough for hydrogen fusion, so they don't shine at all.
l ookup.cgi ?title=Brown_dwarf
Similar to planets, the deliniation is fuzzy because the most visible stars are all way way bigger than this, and is not until relatively recently that we have been able to see brown dwarfs.
Food for thought: graviatationally, Jupiter is the sun's binary partner.
page on brown dwarfs:
http://www.wordiq.com/cgi-bin/knowledge/
Ah yes, the misattribution of logical fallacies due to too many names is a textbook example of the Happy Kumquat Paradox.
Something kind of similar:h tml
http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/lfs/aboutKAO.
The main limitation versus ground telescope is that the telescope must be very well isolated from the vibrations of the aircraft.
mod the ineffeciencies of the power transmission
"I haven't heard any real info on what to do with a decomissioned plant yet other than just 'leave it lay'."
s a006&colI D=1&articleID=000B76FF-B366-1E41-89E0809EC588E EDF
Well, now you have.
Scientific American article on decomissioning plants:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=
The unsolved problem of how to decommission nuclear power plants looms. The Maine Yankee reactor is a case study in the technical, environmental and economic complexities