Their position is different, sure; their click-bait headlines and pseudoscience wargarbling tackle different topics, too.
Slashdot is a place where you can get a headline claiming something, run a user-submitted rebuttal 2 hours later, and chug along fine... except for certain topics, where the rebuttal sits in Slashdot's pipeline for 90 seconds, then gets marked as spam.
I thought we were running articles about how the F35-A carries shit for weapons, turns like an aircraft carrier, can't dogfight, and cost hundreds of billions of dollars every year for decades only to turn out a worthless piece of shit after the trillions settled. Did Slashdot get bought recently?
So what happens to all the compensation they get for Mass Effect when the creators have no recourse for people copying the work, and thus everyone can readily wait for someone to actually buy the work (because why not?), share it with everyone else, and not pay anything? What happens when some bored hacker then alters the work to evade all copy protection and value-add, providing an open online service so you can run multiplayer on third-party services or LAN parties with your friends, eliminating the third-party revenue streams?
The labor that went in produced an intangible; you went back to talking about the tangible object containing the intangible to describe why the intangible is not a real thing.
Again: stealing a car would be as significant as copying a movie if production of a car took 3 seconds of human time in total from start to finish, including all mining, all forming, and all transit. Solid objects have no intrinsic value. GOLD has no intrinsic value.
It seems to me that you're a bit confused about trickle-down economics vs. businesses providing jobs. Taxing the rich less doesn't create jobs, but well-running businesses do.
People have an ideal in which businesses should make jobs, and in which raising wages means the business opens its money accounts and pays more money. They say that we should make the businesses pay. They don't connect wages to prices; they imagine that the money comes down from the business, not out of revenue. That's supply-side economics: the supply (businesses) provides the income (somehow), and money trickles down.
Demand-side economics suggests that consumers have a limited amount of income in a time frame. That income is incidental: maybe rich people are investing like crazy and the money is trickling down right now (see: 1999 dot-com boom); maybe the Fed has created more money and the banks are loaning even more into existence (fractional reserve); in any case, there is so much money out there to be spent. When money is spent, it isn't spendable again in that time frame (across a year, you get paid from spending that happened; across that year, a total amount of spending will happen--that dollar might move from hand to hand to hand, but if it does so 26 times, that's $26 of income, not a penny more, available in one year's time frame). That spending supports the wages of the worker, and thus creates jobs.
When you consider demand-side economics, you realize that businesses compete for income. They compete for that available demand; one business's success comes from either economic growth (more available demand) or from another business's loss, and the available jobs are allocated. Businesses produce jobs in the same way refineries produce iron: mined ore isn't going to smelt itself, and you're not going to smelt more iron than the available ore can produce. You can't just open up a new refinery and magically have more iron come out unless the mines are also delivering more ore.
I think we're probably better off with tax-supported government safety nets that allow businesses to be closer to laissez-faire.
My Universal Social Security plan addresses this by avoiding (minimum) wage raises in favor of passing out additional money. At the low-wage level (unemployment, minimum wage, poverty households), you get income without your employer paying extra for having you versus not having you (i.e. having any other method of doing your job, such as a machine). At higher wage levels, your tax burden is effectively decreased by the same level. Given the choice between reducing employment and waiting until a later date in hopes of getting a better ROI for reducing employment, there's less pressure to reduce employment now (less money flowing out into employee's hands versus replacing them with newer technical solutions); because of differences in risk methodology between businesses, this spreads employment reduction (some businesses will make the change earlier, some later, and some will have long, incremental roll-outs), thus reducing the amount of consequential unemployment at any given time.
The total displacement is about $1 trillion dollars less than current social safety nets, and is more effective for HUD, unemployment, and retirement; that means most of the money taken to support it goes right back to the taxpayers who paid it in, immediately, thus reducing their effective tax rate. An upper-middle-class family receiving an extra $4,000 of spendable income per year in this plan is actually paying for lower-class families; they're just paying *less*.
Fast Fourier transform, dominant-frequency analysis, and so forth.
Imagine detecting sounds approaching, human voice, and other such things, and filtering them in or out. The sound of approaching vehicles gets let through.
the Mojave's mean winter temperature is 50 degrees Fahrenheit. At this temperature, the maximum possible humidity is 7.6 grams of water per kilogram of air. Its summer mean temperature is 90 degrees Fahrenheit, with a maximum humidity of almost 30 grams of water per kilogram of air. So winter 30 percent humidity is 2.28 grams of water per kilogram of air, while summer 10 percent humidity translates to 3 grams of water per kilogram of air.
In a port town, 90F weather might get you 78% humidity before or after a rain. That's 24g/kg, where 10% humidity in the Mojave desert is 3g/kg. At 50% humidity, that's more like 15g.
High humidity at those temperatures translates to 2.4% of the air as water; low humidity of the desert is 0.3%. It's only 8 times more here in heavily-saturated conditions, or 5 times as much in normal conditions.
To compensate, you'd need little more than a ground-sourced pump and a fan. You'd pump water with propylene glycol (preservative) down a 4-meter-deep hole to exchange with the cold ground. You want between a 21 and 26 degree (farenheit) temperature differential for optimum dehumidification. Mind you, the temperature that deep is around 50F (10C) constant, everywhere; this cooling strategy won't work when the air temperature is below 71F.
Of course I'm a polymath, too. Not as much as I'd like (re: ADHD; working on that, currently decided to light myself up with 100mg of Phenotropil and yeah, as I decided years ago, that's too much. Minor jaw-clenching, i.e. too much stimulant).
Tai Chi and Meditation are familiar, and have become less-interesting to me. Meditation is fine, but doesn't do what I want; learning to draw would be a boon, but requires more investment than meditation of many forms. I may take up a boxing-type sport (solitary, if possible) as a moving meditation. This requires repairing an issue where I just don't do things I've decided to do--something I alternately explain as poor executive function (i.e. I need to stop whining and just do it) and some kind of mental disease (e.g. schizophrenia has, as a symptom, lack of motivation, which distresses patients because they *want* to do something but they *can't* because they can't self-activate). I should see a psychiatrist for guidance.
I'm not subject to suicide for the same reason I tolerate psychosis rather well: my mind is stable to a fault, so much so that I automatically eradicate controlling emotions. Even drug treatments which restore social behavior in SPD and schizophrenic patients have only caused temporary confusion as I realize I'm feeling some sort of normal social emotion, followed by that emotion immediately dying out as my mind routes around it. The routing around is likely a subconscious response to the disruption suddenly being social would cause (dating and just having friends would completely destroy my life and eradicate any chance of enabling the results for which I seek treatment; I'm actually quite happy with social withdrawal).
I tend to acknowledge this as a serious defect. Social withdrawal is fine; but I slowly erase any ability to enjoy life by the same mechanism. Baseline introversion allows both simultaneously, so I *should* be able to repair this, either by mindset or medication--it may be impossible without one or both.
Despite all of this, I get how other people work, to a certain degree--mostly as mechanical beings. My understanding of human emotion and behavior is crude, but functional.
That's the specialist argument: someone further down the line gets to deal with this complicated stuff. It's a valid argument; and the specialists still need to improve their skillset when the complicated stuff becomes more-complicated, with the trade-off that they can engage in their specialty more-effectively.
No dude, it's a hallucinogenic drug used recreationally. It's going through research and some phama cos are trying to make a more-effective derivative (e.g. better anti-addictive properties, less hallucination). The drug has approximately zero toxicity (extreme overdose is safe), no addictive potential, and little penetration into the recreational use market, and is thus not worth scheduling; if it were scheduled, it'd have to be Schedule-1 (no medical use), and then getting it FDA approved requires shitloads of money, while research requires enormous permits. The FDA doesn't bother because enforcement would be futile and the potential harm to society is essentially nil (from a more complete perspective: the potential harm of scheduling and enforcement is higher than the potential harm of uncontrolled recreational use at this time).
If it were approved for any use, it would be prescribable off-label, as you say; this carries a lot of risk (if it doesn't work, the doctor can be hit for malpractice; a robust basis of medical literature showing current-practice recognition of safety and potential effectiveness is the best defense here, so yeah, good luck not getting your dick sued off).
Again: it shows potential. It's not used in the field and isn't well-studied for this purpose. My point was more to highlight some serious problems with lack of access to potential treatment--notably the lack of research into anti-addictives, the impact on addiction clinics (theoretical or real), and the loss of an important resource if self-medicating (seriously, having experienced medical professionals guide your spirit-journey back to sobriety or whatever is incredibly-valuable; smoking up on something that *might* help you get rid of your meth-cocaine-heroin addiction without medical counsel gives you nowhere to turn if it doesn't immediately, perfectly solve your problems).
I don't spend a lot of time with doctors, but I get why they're useful and important, even when you have figured out all the answers yourself. Thousands of hours of googling can't compete with asking someone who deals with this stuff every day and has a million friends who *also* deal with this stuff every day.
The Marxist comment was more for emphasis than technical accuracy. Marx did suggest, at a point, that reducing employment by making things more-efficient was bad; this wasn't really the thrust of Marx's philosophies, and is often criticized as being wildly out-of-context by broadly-read economists if you bring it up. Still, we have a lot of left-wing capitalists criticizing trickle-down economics as Republican-conservative bullshit (because of tax cuts for the rich) while simultaneously arguing that businesses should pay more wages and hire more people to create jobs (as if the money trickles down from rich people pockets and business magic infinite money, rather than from revenues pried out of consumer pockets).
not outlawing layoffs completely but by putting in some "friction" that make layoffs somewhat less attractive to businesses and which mitigate some of the social costs, such as by requiring several months' notice and/or several months' severance pay for large-scale layoffs or requiring companies that lay people off to provide them job-retraining or pay into an outside fund that will cover job-retraining costs.
This is not necessarily a bad approach. Strong social support structures (e.g. Universal Social Security) help to spread out layoffs from technical progress (e.g. the machines become cheaper than humans, but if we wait it out for X years they'll be even cheaper, so we're better-positioned if we hold off or do a multi-year roll-out); and hard approaches to force that spread are less-probabilistic and more-direct. Hard approaches also create economic drag, slowing growth and thus leaving us slightly-poorer; they have the advantage of not failing if someone invents a revolutionary new technology that cuts out 80% of the cost of 50% of the labor, thus immediately creating 50%-80% unemployment anyway.
Most people are interested in a humanitarian ideal of job security, where the big evil company isn't allowed to fire 17,000 workers and must find something for them to do. That's ludicrous.
Use Fexofenadine then. Talk to your doctor BEFORE using Fexofenadine. Don't take Loratadine ever again. Tell your doctor Loratadine does that, and tell him it needs to be written into your medical history.
Loratadine works way better than Fexofenadine, and is counter-indicated only when a patient has a Loratadine sensitivity. Drug sensitivity is dangerous as hell; look up Monty Oum to see how that can work out. I historically have *no* drug sensitivities, and any sensitivities that the doctors discover will likely kill me or simply go away after a short period (I have extreme drug resistance, although there are people with stronger tolerances; in my case, my renal system appears to be fantastic, so much so that I have trouble getting drunk because my kidneys have learned to remove ethanol before my liver can process it--and renal elimination is *damn* fast. This is why time-release drugs are now popular, such as every modern ADHD treatment and many 10mg Loratadine pills).
It's also more-complex than OpenGL, although DirectX 12 is more-complex than DirectX 10. Direct-manipulation of atoms is more-complex than current processor fab tech, too, and can give certain results modern fab tech can't. Assembly is more-complex than C#, and can allow tight, highly-optimized code that C# can't approach; C# can make large, complex programs.
Maybe Vulkan will get some higher-level APIs, or run alongside OpenGL, or something. Who knows? An integrated solution allowing leverage of low-complexity and high-complexity operations in tandem would provide an optimal solution.
Hypomania is kind-of-sort-of awesome. Not really, but it feels that way, like cocaine or a small dose of meth might.
Full mania involves a facial rictus like the Joker, being unable to stop grinning, giggling at everything. You drive fast, you make bad decisions, you don't care. Everything is awesome, all things are awesome. The inside of your skull burns, and it's awesome; you can feel your neurons screaming, and you want to shoot yourself in the head with a shotgun to make it stop, because it's so awesome, too much awesome, it burns so much and it's awesome like a vicious nuclear fire inside your skull.
Even a hypomanic episode can completely cancel any urge to sleep. You wake up the next day still feeling awesome, but also tired; your eyes burn, your head hurts, your body creaks and cracks around you, and you drag yourself, nauseated and battered by sleep deprivation, out of bed because you just can't stay still. It's bad but it's cool because you feel kind of great and kind of shitty at the same time. You might spend days or even several months without more than a few hours sleep each night; you start feeling high all the time, like you're smoking opium constantly, but the sedation is just extreme sleep deprivation. You can't think straight and can't get anything done, and you feel useless, but also pretty awesome, actually.
Unless you're stable against suicide, mania is a good time to kill yourself, since it's both terrible and uninhibited: it's a shitty way to go through life, and you feel a lot more confident about going on and offing yourself. Most bipolar suicides occur during a manic episode.
I keep reddish bulbs for the bedroom, but 5000K everywhere else. For one thing, I can't differentiate color under soft white; everything has a yellow hue and life in sepia pisses me off.
Wakefullness agents are suspected to operate now by central stimulation of H1 receptors. A few years ago, their mechanism-of-action was considered voodoo.
I tend to use non-central antihistamines daily because of a mold sensitivity I developed in an apartment (one day I just broke out in hives all over and couldn't sleep for days!). If I don't take 10mg Loratadine for 3 days, I start itching again; nowadays, after 4 years of continuous treatment, it seems to fade on its own less than an hour after onset.
I'm trying to put myself off Loratadine for an extended drug elimination period to reverse the anticholinergic effects. I suspect continuous elevated serum levels (it's supposed to reach steady state after 5 days) have had minor cognitive effects. I've taken a *lot* of choline citrate (Alpha-GPC might have its own merits, although some of its unique positive benefits over choline citrate are subject to tolerance after a few weeks) because it's cheap and supplementation can't hurt; removing the anticholinergic can't hurt either, though, so long as I don't have a severe reaction.
Loratadine doesn't even (readily) cross the blood-brain barrier. You can kill yourself with Benadryl.
There is no "unless". If Congress looks at the FCC, determines what they're doing is in line with the best judgment of the FCC given their specialized expertise and their mission, and takes no action, then Congress has determined that the FCC is doing what the FCC is supposed to do. They don't need to pass a new law stating that the FCC's current actions are all fine by Congress and require no remediation at this time.
Transparent solar panels over your window would generate marginal amounts of electricity for large cost (the panels are still expensive). They'd only generate energy from light that doesn't pass, so they'd necessarily reduce the light entering your home; the darker they are, the higher their generation capacity.
Imagine you have a choice between a 28mpg car and a 28.2mpg car. The 28mpg car costs $19,000; you can get the model with 0.2mpg more, but it costs $118,000. Which do you buy?
The Solar Impulse 2 is analogous to a go-kart. It's an extremely-light plane carrying one passenger at low speeds using a ridiculously-wide wingspan. You may as well claim on-board wind power is viable for air transit by pointing out that you can fly a kite.
This only makes sense out of context. The conspiracy theory is that a revolutionary, workable solution gets bought and shelved, to continue reliance on traditional fuels. If it is so revolutionary, why not bring it back?
From an economic standpoint, a workable solution may require an insane amount of cost (labor). For example: a few centuries back, a certain amount of human labor (which requires wages) could produce 400 tonnes of iron from ore; the hot-blast furnace allowed you to use the same amount of labor to produce 86,400 tonnes of ore. How expensive do you think a car engine would have been before and after the invention of the hot-blast furnace?
From a business standpoint, there's risk. Something might cost a lot to set up (e.g. a processor fabrication facility), and then run with relatively-low costs. In competitive markets with low demand and high-cost output, this risk is paralyzing: only a protected monopoly can survive, as the competition will repeatedly collapse all contenders before they turn any profit; nobody is putting up the money for a guaranteed loss. With high start-up costs and low-cost output, you still risk it in that initial competitive market; this is more viable because the dust will eventually settle and investors who hedge their bets will recover their costs in the long run (see: 1999 dot-com boom).
People don't understand technical progress, and hence freak out about lay-offs and such. It's why we have so many Marxists complaining that the Government should force businesses to provide jobs and disallow lay-offs, failing to understand that the consumer has to pay higher prices to provide the income covering that wage, thus reducing consumer buying power (making everyone poorer). It's also why people immediately think any technology is viable: "expensive" to them is a fancy word for "businesses charge a lot of money", and they don't imagine there's a technical reason something might cost a lot.
Well-known examples include medicinal use of marijuana in the United States from the mid-20th century until 10 or 20 years ago (I think it's still technically not FDA-approved but the feds are looking the other way in states that have laws that allow for its use)
The FDA is insane. I read their page on importing drugs. They say they can't recommend it at this time, and that the border agent at customs will use his discretion, and won't let packages in with more than a 3-month supply, and might decide to not allow it. They also state that enforcement against individuals is not part of the FDA's regulation plan; they'll go after distributors who try to bulk-import shitloads of foreign drugs. The whole several-page explanation ends with a statement that WHEN YOU RECEIVE YOUR PACKAGE you will need a valid prescription for possession to be legal in your state.
Drugs *rarely* get held at customs. People order Modvigil or Modalert ($180 for a 90-day supply of 200mg pills, vs $2,640 for generic Modafinil here) and never get their package held; it happens so rarely that both suppliers proactively post as policy that packages confiscated by customs are refunded in full or immediately replaced for free. Mind you, a few people have had the pills tested (they contain Modafinil and only Modafinil), but the titration test (how much Modafinil?) is expensive and so we don't know if they're really 200mg, if they're consistent batch-to-batch, how much the dose varies from pill-to-pill in each batch, etc; ensuring this falls within a certain standard is part of maintaining FDA approval.
So, FDA position on importing prescription medication: "We're not allowed to tell you you can *wink* *nudge* *secret handshake*".
and ibogaine as a treatment for opiate addictions.
Salvinorin A (from Salvia Divinorum) shows promise here, too, and is completely legal in most states. It's not FDA-approved for this use, which presents problems: while you can legally self-medicate to clear an addiction if you think the research suggests that'll work, it's *illegal* to prescribe the drug for said use in addiction clinics. That means you don't get the benefit of the medical community determining if this works or not; if it does work, you don't get the benefit of the medical community developing and sharing a great pile of knowledge on how well it works and what complications it may cause; and, as a patient, you don't get the benefit of supervision by an experienced professional who can maximize success and respond to any complications arising from said treatment. FDA approval isn't just for sorting voodoo from legitimate treatment; it opens up access to competent treatment options.
Addiction is a terrifying disease (I assume; I'm immune), and lack of access to anti-addictives under the supervision of an addiction specialist is a major shortcoming of our global capacity to treat it.
Slashdot Mirror
Their position is different, sure; their click-bait headlines and pseudoscience wargarbling tackle different topics, too.
Slashdot is a place where you can get a headline claiming something, run a user-submitted rebuttal 2 hours later, and chug along fine... except for certain topics, where the rebuttal sits in Slashdot's pipeline for 90 seconds, then gets marked as spam.
Why not 9? Then you'd have a nine inch nail.
I thought we were running articles about how the F35-A carries shit for weapons, turns like an aircraft carrier, can't dogfight, and cost hundreds of billions of dollars every year for decades only to turn out a worthless piece of shit after the trillions settled. Did Slashdot get bought recently?
The part that got me was they lumped pornography in with child pornography.
So what happens to all the compensation they get for Mass Effect when the creators have no recourse for people copying the work, and thus everyone can readily wait for someone to actually buy the work (because why not?), share it with everyone else, and not pay anything? What happens when some bored hacker then alters the work to evade all copy protection and value-add, providing an open online service so you can run multiplayer on third-party services or LAN parties with your friends, eliminating the third-party revenue streams?
The labor that went in produced an intangible; you went back to talking about the tangible object containing the intangible to describe why the intangible is not a real thing.
Again: stealing a car would be as significant as copying a movie if production of a car took 3 seconds of human time in total from start to finish, including all mining, all forming, and all transit. Solid objects have no intrinsic value. GOLD has no intrinsic value.
It seems to me that you're a bit confused about trickle-down economics vs. businesses providing jobs. Taxing the rich less doesn't create jobs, but well-running businesses do.
People have an ideal in which businesses should make jobs, and in which raising wages means the business opens its money accounts and pays more money. They say that we should make the businesses pay. They don't connect wages to prices; they imagine that the money comes down from the business, not out of revenue. That's supply-side economics: the supply (businesses) provides the income (somehow), and money trickles down.
Demand-side economics suggests that consumers have a limited amount of income in a time frame. That income is incidental: maybe rich people are investing like crazy and the money is trickling down right now (see: 1999 dot-com boom); maybe the Fed has created more money and the banks are loaning even more into existence (fractional reserve); in any case, there is so much money out there to be spent. When money is spent, it isn't spendable again in that time frame (across a year, you get paid from spending that happened; across that year, a total amount of spending will happen--that dollar might move from hand to hand to hand, but if it does so 26 times, that's $26 of income, not a penny more, available in one year's time frame). That spending supports the wages of the worker, and thus creates jobs.
When you consider demand-side economics, you realize that businesses compete for income. They compete for that available demand; one business's success comes from either economic growth (more available demand) or from another business's loss, and the available jobs are allocated. Businesses produce jobs in the same way refineries produce iron: mined ore isn't going to smelt itself, and you're not going to smelt more iron than the available ore can produce. You can't just open up a new refinery and magically have more iron come out unless the mines are also delivering more ore.
I think we're probably better off with tax-supported government safety nets that allow businesses to be closer to laissez-faire.
My Universal Social Security plan addresses this by avoiding (minimum) wage raises in favor of passing out additional money. At the low-wage level (unemployment, minimum wage, poverty households), you get income without your employer paying extra for having you versus not having you (i.e. having any other method of doing your job, such as a machine). At higher wage levels, your tax burden is effectively decreased by the same level. Given the choice between reducing employment and waiting until a later date in hopes of getting a better ROI for reducing employment, there's less pressure to reduce employment now (less money flowing out into employee's hands versus replacing them with newer technical solutions); because of differences in risk methodology between businesses, this spreads employment reduction (some businesses will make the change earlier, some later, and some will have long, incremental roll-outs), thus reducing the amount of consequential unemployment at any given time.
The total displacement is about $1 trillion dollars less than current social safety nets, and is more effective for HUD, unemployment, and retirement; that means most of the money taken to support it goes right back to the taxpayers who paid it in, immediately, thus reducing their effective tax rate. An upper-middle-class family receiving an extra $4,000 of spendable income per year in this plan is actually paying for lower-class families; they're just paying *less*.
Fast Fourier transform, dominant-frequency analysis, and so forth.
Imagine detecting sounds approaching, human voice, and other such things, and filtering them in or out. The sound of approaching vehicles gets let through.
the Mojave's mean winter temperature is 50 degrees Fahrenheit. At this temperature, the maximum possible humidity is 7.6 grams of water per kilogram of air. Its summer mean temperature is 90 degrees Fahrenheit, with a maximum humidity of almost 30 grams of water per kilogram of air. So winter 30 percent humidity is 2.28 grams of water per kilogram of air, while summer 10 percent humidity translates to 3 grams of water per kilogram of air.
In a port town, 90F weather might get you 78% humidity before or after a rain. That's 24g/kg, where 10% humidity in the Mojave desert is 3g/kg. At 50% humidity, that's more like 15g.
High humidity at those temperatures translates to 2.4% of the air as water; low humidity of the desert is 0.3%. It's only 8 times more here in heavily-saturated conditions, or 5 times as much in normal conditions.
To compensate, you'd need little more than a ground-sourced pump and a fan. You'd pump water with propylene glycol (preservative) down a 4-meter-deep hole to exchange with the cold ground. You want between a 21 and 26 degree (farenheit) temperature differential for optimum dehumidification. Mind you, the temperature that deep is around 50F (10C) constant, everywhere; this cooling strategy won't work when the air temperature is below 71F.
Of course I'm a polymath, too. Not as much as I'd like (re: ADHD; working on that, currently decided to light myself up with 100mg of Phenotropil and yeah, as I decided years ago, that's too much. Minor jaw-clenching, i.e. too much stimulant).
Tai Chi and Meditation are familiar, and have become less-interesting to me. Meditation is fine, but doesn't do what I want; learning to draw would be a boon, but requires more investment than meditation of many forms. I may take up a boxing-type sport (solitary, if possible) as a moving meditation. This requires repairing an issue where I just don't do things I've decided to do--something I alternately explain as poor executive function (i.e. I need to stop whining and just do it) and some kind of mental disease (e.g. schizophrenia has, as a symptom, lack of motivation, which distresses patients because they *want* to do something but they *can't* because they can't self-activate). I should see a psychiatrist for guidance.
I'm not subject to suicide for the same reason I tolerate psychosis rather well: my mind is stable to a fault, so much so that I automatically eradicate controlling emotions. Even drug treatments which restore social behavior in SPD and schizophrenic patients have only caused temporary confusion as I realize I'm feeling some sort of normal social emotion, followed by that emotion immediately dying out as my mind routes around it. The routing around is likely a subconscious response to the disruption suddenly being social would cause (dating and just having friends would completely destroy my life and eradicate any chance of enabling the results for which I seek treatment; I'm actually quite happy with social withdrawal).
I tend to acknowledge this as a serious defect. Social withdrawal is fine; but I slowly erase any ability to enjoy life by the same mechanism. Baseline introversion allows both simultaneously, so I *should* be able to repair this, either by mindset or medication--it may be impossible without one or both.
Despite all of this, I get how other people work, to a certain degree--mostly as mechanical beings. My understanding of human emotion and behavior is crude, but functional.
That's the specialist argument: someone further down the line gets to deal with this complicated stuff. It's a valid argument; and the specialists still need to improve their skillset when the complicated stuff becomes more-complicated, with the trade-off that they can engage in their specialty more-effectively.
No dude, it's a hallucinogenic drug used recreationally. It's going through research and some phama cos are trying to make a more-effective derivative (e.g. better anti-addictive properties, less hallucination). The drug has approximately zero toxicity (extreme overdose is safe), no addictive potential, and little penetration into the recreational use market, and is thus not worth scheduling; if it were scheduled, it'd have to be Schedule-1 (no medical use), and then getting it FDA approved requires shitloads of money, while research requires enormous permits. The FDA doesn't bother because enforcement would be futile and the potential harm to society is essentially nil (from a more complete perspective: the potential harm of scheduling and enforcement is higher than the potential harm of uncontrolled recreational use at this time).
If it were approved for any use, it would be prescribable off-label, as you say; this carries a lot of risk (if it doesn't work, the doctor can be hit for malpractice; a robust basis of medical literature showing current-practice recognition of safety and potential effectiveness is the best defense here, so yeah, good luck not getting your dick sued off).
Again: it shows potential. It's not used in the field and isn't well-studied for this purpose. My point was more to highlight some serious problems with lack of access to potential treatment--notably the lack of research into anti-addictives, the impact on addiction clinics (theoretical or real), and the loss of an important resource if self-medicating (seriously, having experienced medical professionals guide your spirit-journey back to sobriety or whatever is incredibly-valuable; smoking up on something that *might* help you get rid of your meth-cocaine-heroin addiction without medical counsel gives you nowhere to turn if it doesn't immediately, perfectly solve your problems).
I don't spend a lot of time with doctors, but I get why they're useful and important, even when you have figured out all the answers yourself. Thousands of hours of googling can't compete with asking someone who deals with this stuff every day and has a million friends who *also* deal with this stuff every day.
The Marxist comment was more for emphasis than technical accuracy. Marx did suggest, at a point, that reducing employment by making things more-efficient was bad; this wasn't really the thrust of Marx's philosophies, and is often criticized as being wildly out-of-context by broadly-read economists if you bring it up. Still, we have a lot of left-wing capitalists criticizing trickle-down economics as Republican-conservative bullshit (because of tax cuts for the rich) while simultaneously arguing that businesses should pay more wages and hire more people to create jobs (as if the money trickles down from rich people pockets and business magic infinite money, rather than from revenues pried out of consumer pockets).
not outlawing layoffs completely but by putting in some "friction" that make layoffs somewhat less attractive to businesses and which mitigate some of the social costs, such as by requiring several months' notice and/or several months' severance pay for large-scale layoffs or requiring companies that lay people off to provide them job-retraining or pay into an outside fund that will cover job-retraining costs.
This is not necessarily a bad approach. Strong social support structures (e.g. Universal Social Security) help to spread out layoffs from technical progress (e.g. the machines become cheaper than humans, but if we wait it out for X years they'll be even cheaper, so we're better-positioned if we hold off or do a multi-year roll-out); and hard approaches to force that spread are less-probabilistic and more-direct. Hard approaches also create economic drag, slowing growth and thus leaving us slightly-poorer; they have the advantage of not failing if someone invents a revolutionary new technology that cuts out 80% of the cost of 50% of the labor, thus immediately creating 50%-80% unemployment anyway.
Most people are interested in a humanitarian ideal of job security, where the big evil company isn't allowed to fire 17,000 workers and must find something for them to do. That's ludicrous.
Use Fexofenadine then. Talk to your doctor BEFORE using Fexofenadine. Don't take Loratadine ever again. Tell your doctor Loratadine does that, and tell him it needs to be written into your medical history.
Loratadine works way better than Fexofenadine, and is counter-indicated only when a patient has a Loratadine sensitivity. Drug sensitivity is dangerous as hell; look up Monty Oum to see how that can work out. I historically have *no* drug sensitivities, and any sensitivities that the doctors discover will likely kill me or simply go away after a short period (I have extreme drug resistance, although there are people with stronger tolerances; in my case, my renal system appears to be fantastic, so much so that I have trouble getting drunk because my kidneys have learned to remove ethanol before my liver can process it--and renal elimination is *damn* fast. This is why time-release drugs are now popular, such as every modern ADHD treatment and many 10mg Loratadine pills).
It's also more-complex than OpenGL, although DirectX 12 is more-complex than DirectX 10. Direct-manipulation of atoms is more-complex than current processor fab tech, too, and can give certain results modern fab tech can't. Assembly is more-complex than C#, and can allow tight, highly-optimized code that C# can't approach; C# can make large, complex programs.
Maybe Vulkan will get some higher-level APIs, or run alongside OpenGL, or something. Who knows? An integrated solution allowing leverage of low-complexity and high-complexity operations in tandem would provide an optimal solution.
Hypomania is kind-of-sort-of awesome. Not really, but it feels that way, like cocaine or a small dose of meth might.
Full mania involves a facial rictus like the Joker, being unable to stop grinning, giggling at everything. You drive fast, you make bad decisions, you don't care. Everything is awesome, all things are awesome. The inside of your skull burns, and it's awesome; you can feel your neurons screaming, and you want to shoot yourself in the head with a shotgun to make it stop, because it's so awesome, too much awesome, it burns so much and it's awesome like a vicious nuclear fire inside your skull.
Even a hypomanic episode can completely cancel any urge to sleep. You wake up the next day still feeling awesome, but also tired; your eyes burn, your head hurts, your body creaks and cracks around you, and you drag yourself, nauseated and battered by sleep deprivation, out of bed because you just can't stay still. It's bad but it's cool because you feel kind of great and kind of shitty at the same time. You might spend days or even several months without more than a few hours sleep each night; you start feeling high all the time, like you're smoking opium constantly, but the sedation is just extreme sleep deprivation. You can't think straight and can't get anything done, and you feel useless, but also pretty awesome, actually.
Unless you're stable against suicide, mania is a good time to kill yourself, since it's both terrible and uninhibited: it's a shitty way to go through life, and you feel a lot more confident about going on and offing yourself. Most bipolar suicides occur during a manic episode.
If it's a high-frequency blue, it could remove ultraviolets and the top-end of visible blue light without impacting most blue light you see.
I keep reddish bulbs for the bedroom, but 5000K everywhere else. For one thing, I can't differentiate color under soft white; everything has a yellow hue and life in sepia pisses me off.
Wakefullness agents are suspected to operate now by central stimulation of H1 receptors. A few years ago, their mechanism-of-action was considered voodoo.
I tend to use non-central antihistamines daily because of a mold sensitivity I developed in an apartment (one day I just broke out in hives all over and couldn't sleep for days!). If I don't take 10mg Loratadine for 3 days, I start itching again; nowadays, after 4 years of continuous treatment, it seems to fade on its own less than an hour after onset.
I'm trying to put myself off Loratadine for an extended drug elimination period to reverse the anticholinergic effects. I suspect continuous elevated serum levels (it's supposed to reach steady state after 5 days) have had minor cognitive effects. I've taken a *lot* of choline citrate (Alpha-GPC might have its own merits, although some of its unique positive benefits over choline citrate are subject to tolerance after a few weeks) because it's cheap and supplementation can't hurt; removing the anticholinergic can't hurt either, though, so long as I don't have a severe reaction.
Loratadine doesn't even (readily) cross the blood-brain barrier. You can kill yourself with Benadryl.
There is no "unless". If Congress looks at the FCC, determines what they're doing is in line with the best judgment of the FCC given their specialized expertise and their mission, and takes no action, then Congress has determined that the FCC is doing what the FCC is supposed to do. They don't need to pass a new law stating that the FCC's current actions are all fine by Congress and require no remediation at this time.
Transparent solar panels over your window would generate marginal amounts of electricity for large cost (the panels are still expensive). They'd only generate energy from light that doesn't pass, so they'd necessarily reduce the light entering your home; the darker they are, the higher their generation capacity.
Imagine you have a choice between a 28mpg car and a 28.2mpg car. The 28mpg car costs $19,000; you can get the model with 0.2mpg more, but it costs $118,000. Which do you buy?
"Flamebait" and "Troll" are alternately used as "-1 Dumbass" when someone posts a candidate for stupidest question of the year.
The Solar Impulse 2 is analogous to a go-kart. It's an extremely-light plane carrying one passenger at low speeds using a ridiculously-wide wingspan. You may as well claim on-board wind power is viable for air transit by pointing out that you can fly a kite.
This only makes sense out of context. The conspiracy theory is that a revolutionary, workable solution gets bought and shelved, to continue reliance on traditional fuels. If it is so revolutionary, why not bring it back?
From an economic standpoint, a workable solution may require an insane amount of cost (labor). For example: a few centuries back, a certain amount of human labor (which requires wages) could produce 400 tonnes of iron from ore; the hot-blast furnace allowed you to use the same amount of labor to produce 86,400 tonnes of ore. How expensive do you think a car engine would have been before and after the invention of the hot-blast furnace?
From a business standpoint, there's risk. Something might cost a lot to set up (e.g. a processor fabrication facility), and then run with relatively-low costs. In competitive markets with low demand and high-cost output, this risk is paralyzing: only a protected monopoly can survive, as the competition will repeatedly collapse all contenders before they turn any profit; nobody is putting up the money for a guaranteed loss. With high start-up costs and low-cost output, you still risk it in that initial competitive market; this is more viable because the dust will eventually settle and investors who hedge their bets will recover their costs in the long run (see: 1999 dot-com boom).
People don't understand technical progress, and hence freak out about lay-offs and such. It's why we have so many Marxists complaining that the Government should force businesses to provide jobs and disallow lay-offs, failing to understand that the consumer has to pay higher prices to provide the income covering that wage, thus reducing consumer buying power (making everyone poorer). It's also why people immediately think any technology is viable: "expensive" to them is a fancy word for "businesses charge a lot of money", and they don't imagine there's a technical reason something might cost a lot.
Well-known examples include medicinal use of marijuana in the United States from the mid-20th century until 10 or 20 years ago (I think it's still technically not FDA-approved but the feds are looking the other way in states that have laws that allow for its use)
The FDA is insane. I read their page on importing drugs. They say they can't recommend it at this time, and that the border agent at customs will use his discretion, and won't let packages in with more than a 3-month supply, and might decide to not allow it. They also state that enforcement against individuals is not part of the FDA's regulation plan; they'll go after distributors who try to bulk-import shitloads of foreign drugs. The whole several-page explanation ends with a statement that WHEN YOU RECEIVE YOUR PACKAGE you will need a valid prescription for possession to be legal in your state.
Drugs *rarely* get held at customs. People order Modvigil or Modalert ($180 for a 90-day supply of 200mg pills, vs $2,640 for generic Modafinil here) and never get their package held; it happens so rarely that both suppliers proactively post as policy that packages confiscated by customs are refunded in full or immediately replaced for free. Mind you, a few people have had the pills tested (they contain Modafinil and only Modafinil), but the titration test (how much Modafinil?) is expensive and so we don't know if they're really 200mg, if they're consistent batch-to-batch, how much the dose varies from pill-to-pill in each batch, etc; ensuring this falls within a certain standard is part of maintaining FDA approval.
So, FDA position on importing prescription medication: "We're not allowed to tell you you can *wink* *nudge* *secret handshake*".
and ibogaine as a treatment for opiate addictions.
Salvinorin A (from Salvia Divinorum) shows promise here, too, and is completely legal in most states. It's not FDA-approved for this use, which presents problems: while you can legally self-medicate to clear an addiction if you think the research suggests that'll work, it's *illegal* to prescribe the drug for said use in addiction clinics. That means you don't get the benefit of the medical community determining if this works or not; if it does work, you don't get the benefit of the medical community developing and sharing a great pile of knowledge on how well it works and what complications it may cause; and, as a patient, you don't get the benefit of supervision by an experienced professional who can maximize success and respond to any complications arising from said treatment. FDA approval isn't just for sorting voodoo from legitimate treatment; it opens up access to competent treatment options.
Addiction is a terrifying disease (I assume; I'm immune), and lack of access to anti-addictives under the supervision of an addiction specialist is a major shortcoming of our global capacity to treat it.
Air contains a lot of water vapor.