you linked me to "schizophrenia.com"...which is sort of like linking me to "antivaxer.com" to as evidence vaccinations cause autism
you even admit it yourself: "Some of those links include actual cites from scientific studies, by the way"
how do you know that? how do you know those links cite scientific studies? did you see it yourself?
so you looked at these articles, saw that they had actual research cited, but you chose **NOT** to copy/paste that information, instead, you chose to copy/paste information that *lacks* that information
if you were trying to be honest in this discussion you would not have linked to those ridiculously questionable sources, and instead found the actual research (if it even exists)
nih info...from the nih.gov page, we can see one of the fallacies of diagnosing disorders with symptoms of "hallucinations" and "strange speech"
religious families...**of course** when the dad is a Pentacostal preacher the likelihood of his kids "hearing demons" skyrockets....***that is not genetic....it is ideological***...it is learned behavior, but even the best studies do not control for this
i want to see how many of these cases are from religious families who believe that a deity speaks to them
just saying that...just saying "God talks to me"...is essentially enough to get you diagnosed as schizophrenic according to the DSM!
if your family members do ***anything*** you are more likely to do it, practically...that is not a genetic link at all
A 28-year-old woman died of water intoxication after taking part in a radio station's water drinking contest to win a Nintendo Wii video game system, the coroner's office said.
Because it's not news that schizophrenia is at least partially hereditary, they've known that for decades
if it is such common knowledge, you should easily be able to point me to some sort of proof
lets see it...show me proof
also, after you paste a link to support your claim, I'd like for you to addess this as well: you're taking a complex situation, over-simplifying it, then telling me all the ways it becomes complex but just using your own rhetoric
in one sense, i agree, everyone knows that your genes determine characteristics...but people like you ignore that it is **common knowledge** that many factors influence "who we are"...environment...personal choices,...just as salient, if not more, than genetics
no...but this study is from the University of Washington St. Louis wants to say it is...they analyzed data and this is what they conclude, from full text:
Schizophrenia is a group of heritable disorders caused by a moderate number of separate genotypic networks associated with several distinct clinical syndromes
That's what they say..."group of heritable disorders"...it reminds me of when I studied Mendell in HS science and fruit flies and hemophilia.
It sounds fish as hell to me...psychology is great but it's so often wrong. ex: one year the DSM lists 'homosexuality' as an actual disorder...next year...not a disorder! magic!
again...i actually love psychology...but it's just full of random theories from the 19th century that are floating around...so many disorders to describe very similar and overlapping symptoms...symptoms very often open to interpretation...
I wanted to see if this passed the basic "correlation is causation" test...because this is just spreadsheets here these guys are looking at...they are re-analyzing data.
From the full text:
The 4,196 cases and 3,827 controls in the MGS study were combined to identify SNP sets. We had data of good quality on 696,788 SNPs on these cases and controls, and **from these we preselected 2,891 SNPs that had at least a loose association (p values,1.031022) with a global phenotype of schizophrenia (see the data supplement)**.
Emphasis added. Honestly that's enough for me to want to see it for myself, the actual data on a computer screen, before I give this any credence.
Obviously mental disorders exist. Just like anything it is related to our genetics and our environment and our choices...I would need to see alot of evidence before I believe TFA's assertions to the heritability.
Examine this list of behavior (copied from wikipedia which quotes the DSM):
According to the revised fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), to be diagnosed with schizophrenia, three diagnostic criteria must be met:[10]
Characteristic symptoms: Two or more of the following, each present for much of the time during a one-month period (or less, if symptoms remitted with treatment).
- Delusions - Hallucinations - Disorganized speech, which is a manifestation of formal thought disorder - Grossly disorganized behavior (e.g. dressing inappropriately, crying frequently) or catatonic behavior - Negative symptoms: Blunted affect (lack or decline in emotional response), alogia (lack or decline in speech), or avolition (lack or decline in motivation) If the delusions are judged to be bizarre, or hallucinations consist of hearing one voice participating in a running commentary of the patient's actions or of hearing two or more voices conversing with each other, only that symptom is required above. The speech disorganization criterion is only met if it is severe enough to substantially impair communication. - Social or occupational dysfunction: For a significant portion of the time since the onset of the disturbance, one or more major areas of functioning such as work, interpersonal relations, or self-care, are markedly below the level achieved prior to the onset. - Significant duration: Continuous signs of the disturbance persist for at least six months. This six-month period must include at least one month of symptoms (or less, if symptoms remitted with treatment).
I want to say that if you talk to a "good" psychiatrist or psychologist they will be able to explain how *they* personally in practice diagnose these different disorders and it may make sense. Furthermore, I'm convince psychology is a great area for scientific investigation.
All that said, as I look at that list of behaviors, then I look at the data as presented, I can only conclude that "schizophrenia" is *probably* an obsolete distinction and this data is being erroneously interpreted.
when I say "this ends the debate"...I'm referring to the debate about "global warming " or "climate change" and whether it exists
the *only* logical question is "how much pollution is too harmful?"
defining "too harmful" is certainly up for debate...that's a productive direction...we get together and use science to see what levels of pollution from our modern society are managable
now, specifically "carbon"...a person can acknowledge that carbon pollution contributes to global warming and not support a policy like "cap and trade"...and we can have a debate and draw a final conclusion on this issue.
we can know scientificially whether too much carbon emissions harms the environment...it's testable with science...and the results are in my friend...
**some** matter is harmful to systems and the life those systems support
"too much of a good thing is bad for you"...that's a helpful maxim for you to undestand the fallacy of your logic
"pollution" by the very definition of the word is an AFFECT that has crossed the barrier to become "harmful"
if it's not harmful to the environment, it's not pollution...
this really ends the debate...people can verify the definition of pollution...you cannot escape the fact that human processes produce matter harmful to the environment...after that fact the rest follows logically right up to the EPA's mission
someone downmodded my comment and it is not supportable...i offered an informative take on the issue...maybe you disagree, maybe you think pollution is not harmful...but i'm not trolling, flamebaiting, or off-topic
i'm on topic and provided a link that is relevant...whoever downmodded me is a stinker
that is not R&D research...testing a 1mm difference...it's not a salient gradient
your analysis is wildly inconsistent...look at yourself:
for innovation the article points out they tried smells, projectors and all sorts, how is that not innovating?
then you say the opposite
Innovation in R&D isn't about changing shit wildly for the sake of it, there has to be a product that people love at the end of it else it's pointless
in order for you analysis to be correct, "smells and projectors" would have to be technology that "people love"...it's not...people are not clamoring for smells from their controller at all...
you're just as twisted as the M$ designers in the article...you say innovation isn't wild randomness, then use M$'s own wild randomness as an example of why they are good innovators
just stop...your time and talents are best used elsewhere as its clear you have no understanding of desinging for the human user
IIRC, back in the 80s, we used to see satellite pics of Antarctica and the effects of ozone depletion
there was a *huge* evironmentalist movement to ban CFC's from aerosol cans...and of course the conservative/big biz backlash saying that "there is no ozone hole" or "it's a natural cycle" or [insert anti-science argument]....**just like the global warming debate**
i can't help but think this might be a factor in the new ice...and a useful guide as to how to handle our current problems with idiot conservatives/big biz types who irrationally deny that pollution harms the environment
that's the final analysis of the situation **pollution is harmful & should be regulated**
technology will always just be a tool for a human teacher
the notion that these would be cost effective is absolutely ridiculous...maybe one day but not now
every dollar spent on these is wasted...they are not intrisically value added...like seeing a moving w/ 3D glasses on vs the regular film
sure there are probably a million "innovative" ideas for things like a virtual walk through of [insert historical thing you think is important]
if Occulus wants to donate them, great...but if they have lobbyists going around selling school districts on actually **using tax dollars to buy these for schools**...that's ridiculous in this era of infinite "budget cuts"
funny how the same people who tout how much corporations pay in taxes are the *same* ideological types who say that it's a crime *not* to take advantage of any kind of tax loophole a corporation can find
No one has to worry about China claiming asteroids.
It really is about being there...it's so ridiculously expansive in all senses of the word...space I mean...
as far as asteroids go, a more likely yet still far flung scenario is China partners with some ridiculous Brittish 'tech innovator' guy (who is backed by oligarch money) to mine an asteroid
they bring an asteroid to earth, screw up and it hits us and destroys civilization
that's more likely than anything China related threatening the US
most kickstarters that I've seen get big money, like the iPod dock & blender/boombox/coolerwere recursive projects...the 'thank you' gift is the product that the company you're supporting is trying to make
it's silly...but i'm glad kickstarter and the like exist...they should just adapt their message & rules just a bit to make this weird moebius strip of commerce and charity unnecessary
as far as gaming, if people want to donate money to an idea, screenshot, and prayer then I think they should be able to...
fyi, that ipod dock kickstarter i linked to above is an insane roller coaster & exhibit A of how kickstarter can be good and bad...the guy ended up barely breaking even after a new ipod design came out right during his production and he had to do several recalls...it was a disaster...
IMHO the Elevation Dock is an example of...something...i'm not hating but it's obvious most of these kickstarter millionaires have no clue what they are doing & spend more time on pictures and the video than product design at times...but that's my jealousy. If people want to throw money away for questionable 'innovations' then that's their choice...the system exists, not all kickstarter products will be crap
I'm from one of those midwestern post-industrial wasteland towns...during jr high and high school i watched a town that employed 20,000+ GM workers to one that employed 1,000 then zero.
Ford and General Motors business managers & production planners **did not give a damn** about any notions of doing anything like this, ever
You would have been laughed out of the meeting room if you were honestly suggesting what Tesla is doing.
Slashdot Mirror
you linked me to "schizophrenia.com"...which is sort of like linking me to "antivaxer.com" to as evidence vaccinations cause autism
you even admit it yourself: "Some of those links include actual cites from scientific studies, by the way"
how do you know that? how do you know those links cite scientific studies? did you see it yourself?
so you looked at these articles, saw that they had actual research cited, but you chose **NOT** to copy/paste that information, instead, you chose to copy/paste information that *lacks* that information
if you were trying to be honest in this discussion you would not have linked to those ridiculously questionable sources, and instead found the actual research (if it even exists)
nih info...from the nih.gov page, we can see one of the fallacies of diagnosing disorders with symptoms of "hallucinations" and "strange speech"
religious families...**of course** when the dad is a Pentacostal preacher the likelihood of his kids "hearing demons" skyrockets....***that is not genetic....it is ideological***...it is learned behavior, but even the best studies do not control for this
i want to see how many of these cases are from religious families who believe that a deity speaks to them
just saying that...just saying "God talks to me"...is essentially enough to get you diagnosed as schizophrenic according to the DSM!
if your family members do ***anything*** you are more likely to do it, practically...that is not a genetic link at all
understand this: just posting some *random* link is not discussion
you need to say *specifically* how and why the information contained in your link supports your contentions or you're just trolling
also, for some like to 'junkscience.com' you need to explain why you believe it to be a reputable source
anyone can google "ozone layer conspiracy" and post the first link they find...it means absolutely **NOTHING** to this discussion
water is necessary for human life
yet, humans can **poison** themselves by drinking too much water: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wo...
water = necessary for life
too much water = deadly poison
ok...compare "schizophrenia" as you are trying to explain it to something like hemophilia
some disorder that is not based on perception of behavior
so...hemophilia...the English royal family famously inbred so much that hemophilia became a problem genetically
is hemophilia "heritable" or is it "caused" by genetics...show me in comparison to hemophilia how schizophrenia is "heritable" and "genetic"
if it is such common knowledge, you should easily be able to point me to some sort of proof
lets see it...show me proof
also, after you paste a link to support your claim, I'd like for you to addess this as well: you're taking a complex situation, over-simplifying it, then telling me all the ways it becomes complex but just using your own rhetoric
in one sense, i agree, everyone knows that your genes determine characteristics...but people like you ignore that it is **common knowledge** that many factors influence "who we are"...environment...personal choices,...just as salient, if not more, than genetics
those quotations are from page 2 and 3 of the full text of the study respectively
oh man...so is crazy genetic?
no...but this study is from the University of Washington St. Louis wants to say it is...they analyzed data and this is what they conclude, from full text:
That's what they say..."group of heritable disorders"...it reminds me of when I studied Mendell in HS science and fruit flies and hemophilia.
It sounds fish as hell to me...psychology is great but it's so often wrong. ex: one year the DSM lists 'homosexuality' as an actual disorder...next year...not a disorder! magic!
again...i actually love psychology...but it's just full of random theories from the 19th century that are floating around...so many disorders to describe very similar and overlapping symptoms...symptoms very often open to interpretation...
I wanted to see if this passed the basic "correlation is causation" test...because this is just spreadsheets here these guys are looking at...they are re-analyzing data.
From the full text:
Emphasis added. Honestly that's enough for me to want to see it for myself, the actual data on a computer screen, before I give this any credence.
Obviously mental disorders exist. Just like anything it is related to our genetics and our environment and our choices...I would need to see alot of evidence before I believe TFA's assertions to the heritability.
Examine this list of behavior (copied from wikipedia which quotes the DSM):
According to the revised fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), to be diagnosed with schizophrenia, three diagnostic criteria must be met:[10]
Characteristic symptoms: Two or more of the following, each present for much of the time during a one-month period (or less, if symptoms remitted with treatment).
- Delusions
- Hallucinations
- Disorganized speech, which is a manifestation of formal thought disorder
- Grossly disorganized behavior (e.g. dressing inappropriately, crying frequently) or catatonic behavior
- Negative symptoms: Blunted affect (lack or decline in emotional response), alogia (lack or decline in speech), or avolition (lack or decline in motivation)
If the delusions are judged to be bizarre, or hallucinations consist of hearing one voice participating in a running commentary of the patient's actions or of hearing two or more voices conversing with each other, only that symptom is required above. The speech disorganization criterion is only met if it is severe enough to substantially impair communication.
- Social or occupational dysfunction: For a significant portion of the time since the onset of the disturbance, one or more major areas of functioning such as work, interpersonal relations, or self-care, are markedly below the level achieved prior to the onset.
- Significant duration: Continuous signs of the disturbance persist for at least six months. This six-month period must include at least one month of symptoms (or less, if symptoms remitted with treatment).
I want to say that if you talk to a "good" psychiatrist or psychologist they will be able to explain how *they* personally in practice diagnose these different disorders and it may make sense. Furthermore, I'm convince psychology is a great area for scientific investigation.
All that said, as I look at that list of behaviors, then I look at the data as presented, I can only conclude that "schizophrenia" is *probably* an obsolete distinction and this data is being erroneously interpreted.
when I say "this ends the debate"...I'm referring to the debate about "global warming " or "climate change" and whether it exists
the *only* logical question is "how much pollution is too harmful?"
defining "too harmful" is certainly up for debate...that's a productive direction...we get together and use science to see what levels of pollution from our modern society are managable
now, specifically "carbon"...a person can acknowledge that carbon pollution contributes to global warming and not support a policy like "cap and trade"...and we can have a debate and draw a final conclusion on this issue.
we can know scientificially whether too much carbon emissions harms the environment...it's testable with science...and the results are in my friend...
ahem...all **matter** AFFECTS its environment...
**some** matter is harmful to systems and the life those systems support
"too much of a good thing is bad for you"...that's a helpful maxim for you to undestand the fallacy of your logic
"pollution" by the very definition of the word is an AFFECT that has crossed the barrier to become "harmful"
if it's not harmful to the environment, it's not pollution...
this really ends the debate...people can verify the definition of pollution...you cannot escape the fact that human processes produce matter harmful to the environment...after that fact the rest follows logically right up to the EPA's mission
this directly contradicts the academic literature...for you to make this claim you need to link to some kind of evidence
also, the fact that you say "To assume is wasn't a natural cycle is ridiculous" shows you are misrepresenting your opposition...
pollution harms the environment...you cannot contradict that fact
objecting to this downmod...
someone downmodded my comment and it is not supportable...i offered an informative take on the issue...maybe you disagree, maybe you think pollution is not harmful...but i'm not trolling, flamebaiting, or off-topic
i'm on topic and provided a link that is relevant...whoever downmodded me is a stinker
that is not R&D research...testing a 1mm difference...it's not a salient gradient
your analysis is wildly inconsistent...look at yourself:
then you say the opposite
in order for you analysis to be correct, "smells and projectors" would have to be technology that "people love"...it's not...people are not clamoring for smells from their controller at all...
you're just as twisted as the M$ designers in the article...you say innovation isn't wild randomness, then use M$'s own wild randomness as an example of why they are good innovators
just stop...your time and talents are best used elsewhere as its clear you have no understanding of desinging for the human user
IIRC, back in the 80s, we used to see satellite pics of Antarctica and the effects of ozone depletion
there was a *huge* evironmentalist movement to ban CFC's from aerosol cans...and of course the conservative/big biz backlash saying that "there is no ozone hole" or "it's a natural cycle" or [insert anti-science argument]....**just like the global warming debate**
well...the laws passed and the ozone layer recovered...
i can't help but think this might be a factor in the new ice...and a useful guide as to how to handle our current problems with idiot conservatives/big biz types who irrationally deny that pollution harms the environment
that's the final analysis of the situation **pollution is harmful & should be regulated**
how do 'they' get a MAC address?
past the router nothing is sent except the IP address...the MAC is only for machines on one router gateway
technology will always just be a tool for a human teacher
the notion that these would be cost effective is absolutely ridiculous...maybe one day but not now
every dollar spent on these is wasted...they are not intrisically value added...like seeing a moving w/ 3D glasses on vs the regular film
sure there are probably a million "innovative" ideas for things like a virtual walk through of [insert historical thing you think is important]
if Occulus wants to donate them, great...but if they have lobbyists going around selling school districts on actually **using tax dollars to buy these for schools**...that's ridiculous in this era of infinite "budget cuts"
buried in the details in the description is a nice **official** nugget of knowledge:
any router jockey knows this is possible...but the fact that they seem to have an API and it all set up...that is interesting news
so...they can search all of Gnutella live for who is sharing CP...think about what that means...
shouldn't Apple be drop testing these?
i'm sure Apple does it's own testing, but if suppliers regularly have to do stuff like this it really makes me wonder what factors they test for
reminds me of this story about xbox one controller R&D
in the middle of the article, you see the actual R&D testing of the new controller designs, all in grey
now, for anyone who has ever played video games, **especially gamers**...the idea of designing a new controller is **awesome**
it's the kind thing that inspires a kid to go into game design...
now, look at the ***factors*** they are testing...look at what changes they are thinking of making
1mm
that's it
they're testing a difference of 1 millimeter....full testing battery....complex A/B testing with gamers, focus groups, the whole gamut!
for an experimental variable of 1 millimeter difference from the old to new design
a real experiment would test, oh, say a design similar to the N64's controller vs the current design...or a new button layout
my point is, we can see from TFA that "innovative tech R&D" is not very innovative...for many companies
you can pretend I said anything that makes your point!
no!
never said that!
***comparatively less than M$***
which we all know, M$ products are awful and require constant re-training and bug fixes
funny how the same people who tout how much corporations pay in taxes are the *same* ideological types who say that it's a crime *not* to take advantage of any kind of tax loophole a corporation can find
No one has to worry about China claiming asteroids.
It really is about being there...it's so ridiculously expansive in all senses of the word...space I mean...
as far as asteroids go, a more likely yet still far flung scenario is China partners with some ridiculous Brittish 'tech innovator' guy (who is backed by oligarch money) to mine an asteroid
they bring an asteroid to earth, screw up and it hits us and destroys civilization
that's more likely than anything China related threatening the US
headline should read "...at least 6 million Euros"
they get their number from the license fees **only**
think about the savings from tech support & maintenance...
then think about how much could've been saved the the US government had done this 10 years ago
then think about how much of our tax dollars have gone to M$ or their subsidiaries just since 2000
most kickstarters that I've seen get big money, like the iPod dock & blender/boombox/coolerwere recursive projects...the 'thank you' gift is the product that the company you're supporting is trying to make
it's silly...but i'm glad kickstarter and the like exist...they should just adapt their message & rules just a bit to make this weird moebius strip of commerce and charity unnecessary
as far as gaming, if people want to donate money to an idea, screenshot, and prayer then I think they should be able to...
fyi, that ipod dock kickstarter i linked to above is an insane roller coaster & exhibit A of how kickstarter can be good and bad...the guy ended up barely breaking even after a new ipod design came out right during his production and he had to do several recalls...it was a disaster...
IMHO the Elevation Dock is an example of...something...i'm not hating but it's obvious most of these kickstarter millionaires have no clue what they are doing & spend more time on pictures and the video than product design at times...but that's my jealousy. If people want to throw money away for questionable 'innovations' then that's their choice...the system exists, not all kickstarter products will be crap
I'm from one of those midwestern post-industrial wasteland towns...during jr high and high school i watched a town that employed 20,000+ GM workers to one that employed 1,000 then zero.
Ford and General Motors business managers & production planners **did not give a damn** about any notions of doing anything like this, ever
You would have been laughed out of the meeting room if you were honestly suggesting what Tesla is doing.
this is what i was getting at when I said "you don't freeze a wave, you freeze the ocean"
I didn't explain it as precisely but this is how I would have stated it if i was smarterer
i guess this is just another example of me hating pop-science headlines...this stuff is cool enough just for what it is!
n/t